Considering that the same book promotes slavery and rape (Numbers 31), human trafficking (Exodus 21:7), killing people who don't share your religious beliefs (Exodus 35:2), it can hardly be considered any sort of ethical guide. We have much better systems today.
In meatspace, putting your name behind something can involve a risk (popularity, safety, legality, etc.) but doing so usually make the statement stronger than doing the same thing anonymously, without that risk. To quote Jack Beauregard, "If the risk is little, the reward is little."
Similarly in Slashdot he took a risk by putting his karma on the line to back up his statement. His pseudonym may not be linked to his physical identity, but it's still an identity that has value. Posting AC doesn't have that risk, and so it's less likely to be read or taken as seriously.
Same for me. I had an alternator die on my while going down a big hill in PA once. It caused the engine to stop and I lost power steering within a couple of seconds. Breaking at the bottom (traffic light) was all manual.
As a sibling indicated was likely the case, this was an automatic in overdrive.
My car has two trip counters, one of which gets reset every time I get gas, so it behaves as a backup to the gas gauge. If my gas gauge and trip counter don't agree then I know something's wrong. I've heard enough about gas gauges breaking that I like having two systems in place.
As for being broke, well, I guess there's nothing to do about that. But remember that a tow truck is probably going to cost 2 or 3 tanks worth of gas!
Marriage isn't something the government should even be involved with.
Saying that government shouldn't be involved with personal relationships is a reasonable position. However, as said elsewhere, specifically opposing gay marriage while giving this as the reason is intellectually dishonest. That's what you're doing.
How is marriage a "right"?
Legally, yes, that's what it is. Marriage is a right, but only for straight people. Gay people are not able to marry the person they are romantically in love with but a straight person can. This is the opposite of liberty.
There is no rational argument for specifically opposing gay marriage. Only arguments based on religion and homophobia.
There is no reasonable position that specifically opposes gay marriage. The opposition is completely based on mysticism and "ewww, yuck." I think it's insane gay marriage has to even be discussed at all, as it seems blatantly obvious to me.
My wife and I got married before a judge and the legal piece of paper we got for it says "marriage". All of the paperwork says this.
So no, you're completely wrong. It doesn't matter how hard you wish it to be true because isn't. Here, a marriage is a civil contract that might happen to be celebrated in a religious setting. That means, like always in the US, religion can't legally be used to justify taking away people's rights.
In my view, many of the same issues that plague children that grow up in single parent households, will also plague those that are raised by same-sex couples.
So based simply on your opinion, which is not founded by any sort of evidence, just your whim, you will deny someone their rights? That's nice.
Therefore, given that marriage is designed to encourage family life,
How about this: the purpose of marriage as a social contract is to provide for the care, feeding, and raising of children.
So you are opposed to a sterile couple getting married too? Or a couple that doesn't plan on having kids? Or maybe your definition is just plain wrong.
Does that mean that she went for a stable, committed, bisexual relationship? Is there even such a thing? Hardly.
How the hell would you know? It seems you don't even know what a stable, committed hetero relationship is like either.
Marriage is supposed to be about more than sex, it's supposed to be about children, and gay marriage isn't about that.
What about love? Or what about gay couples that adopt?
You really have no idea what you're talking about. You're just blinded by homophobia.
Then why do christians quote the old testament (Leviticus, specifically) when they are saying homosexuality is wrong? It's just cherry picking the parts they think sound good. I.e. bullshit.
I like having the ability to use a rope, even if I might use it to tie a noose around my neck. There is little reason to take away a very useful feature from many users just because a handful of thoughtless users shoot themselves in the foot.
Slashdot Mirror
Content blocked by your organization
Reason: This Websense category is filtered: Sex.
URL: http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2008/10/so-i-got-one-of-new-intel-ssds.html
WTF?!
Considering that the same book promotes slavery and rape (Numbers 31), human trafficking (Exodus 21:7), killing people who don't share your religious beliefs (Exodus 35:2), it can hardly be considered any sort of ethical guide. We have much better systems today.
I am not a number! I am a free man!
In meatspace, putting your name behind something can involve a risk (popularity, safety, legality, etc.) but doing so usually make the statement stronger than doing the same thing anonymously, without that risk. To quote Jack Beauregard, "If the risk is little, the reward is little."
Similarly in Slashdot he took a risk by putting his karma on the line to back up his statement. His pseudonym may not be linked to his physical identity, but it's still an identity that has value. Posting AC doesn't have that risk, and so it's less likely to be read or taken as seriously.
The phone won't be acting as a node, though. Cell towers wouldn't carry any extra traffic than normal.
and don't login to your banking
Online banking uses https, so it's safe to do over Tor (though pointless anyway). Just don't ignore any self-signed certificate warnings.
One is repository/domain hijacking
Just to clear this up, the packages are signed so you don't have to trust that a repository isn't serving malware.
I am not a number! I am a free man!
That's exactly like what happens in Ender's Game.
Same for me. I had an alternator die on my while going down a big hill in PA once. It caused the engine to stop and I lost power steering within a couple of seconds. Breaking at the bottom (traffic light) was all manual.
As a sibling indicated was likely the case, this was an automatic in overdrive.
My car has two trip counters, one of which gets reset every time I get gas, so it behaves as a backup to the gas gauge. If my gas gauge and trip counter don't agree then I know something's wrong. I've heard enough about gas gauges breaking that I like having two systems in place.
As for being broke, well, I guess there's nothing to do about that. But remember that a tow truck is probably going to cost 2 or 3 tanks worth of gas!
Star Trek TNG did the fake wood paneling too, all over the ship.
Thank you for being the perfect example of what the GP was talking about! :-)
Everything you put in your body contains at least some trace amounts of environmental contaminants.
Marriage isn't something the government should even be involved with.
Saying that government shouldn't be involved with personal relationships is a reasonable position. However, as said elsewhere, specifically opposing gay marriage while giving this as the reason is intellectually dishonest. That's what you're doing.
How is marriage a "right"?
Legally, yes, that's what it is. Marriage is a right, but only for straight people. Gay people are not able to marry the person they are romantically in love with but a straight person can. This is the opposite of liberty.
There is no rational argument for specifically opposing gay marriage. Only arguments based on religion and homophobia.
Exactly! You hit the nail on the head with that!
There is no reasonable position that specifically opposes gay marriage. The opposition is completely based on mysticism and "ewww, yuck." I think it's insane gay marriage has to even be discussed at all, as it seems blatantly obvious to me.
It's a shame. You started out rational, too.
You didn't even start out rationally. Just with obvious, closed-minded homophobia.
"Woman" also used to historically mean "property", too. As society advances, definitions change. Your argument holds no weight.
Because marriage is a religious ceremony.
My wife and I got married before a judge and the legal piece of paper we got for it says "marriage". All of the paperwork says this.
So no, you're completely wrong. It doesn't matter how hard you wish it to be true because isn't. Here, a marriage is a civil contract that might happen to be celebrated in a religious setting. That means, like always in the US, religion can't legally be used to justify taking away people's rights.
Just because you made up something doesn't make it true.
"The sky is purple. It CAN'T be called any other color! Period!"
From that angle, straight couples do right now, yes. Your point?
In my view, many of the same issues that plague children that grow up in single parent households, will also plague those that are raised by same-sex couples.
So based simply on your opinion, which is not founded by any sort of evidence, just your whim, you will deny someone their rights? That's nice.
Therefore, given that marriage is designed to encourage family life,
Wrong!
How about this: the purpose of marriage as a social contract is to provide for the care, feeding, and raising of children.
So you are opposed to a sterile couple getting married too? Or a couple that doesn't plan on having kids? Or maybe your definition is just plain wrong.
Does that mean that she went for a stable, committed, bisexual relationship? Is there even such a thing? Hardly.
How the hell would you know? It seems you don't even know what a stable, committed hetero relationship is like either.
Marriage is supposed to be about more than sex, it's supposed to be about children, and gay marriage isn't about that.
What about love? Or what about gay couples that adopt?
You really have no idea what you're talking about. You're just blinded by homophobia.
Then why do christians quote the old testament (Leviticus, specifically) when they are saying homosexuality is wrong? It's just cherry picking the parts they think sound good. I.e. bullshit.
I like having the ability to use a rope, even if I might use it to tie a noose around my neck. There is little reason to take away a very useful feature from many users just because a handful of thoughtless users shoot themselves in the foot.