Drugs are "guaranteed" to be bad for you? What are you talking about??? Very few drugs are addictive or physically damaging. Indeed, it's highly likely that a single meal at McDonald's is ridiculously worse for you, in terms of cholesterol or sheer chemicals, than smoking a joint. And people have been able to use opiates for most of their lives without significant physical problems (apart from physical addiction, which in itself, is not dangerous with respect to opiates).
You can't make sweeping generalizations about drugs with regards to issues like dangers. Comparing marijuana to crack cocaine is like comparing apples to water buffalo; certainly, there are some commonalities, but there are many more differences.
Additives try to be beneficial? Again, I don't see the logic in this. How is MSG beneficial to me, the consumer? All it does is allow Campbell's Soup to skimp out on the chicken in their broth and cut corners with regards to quality. Since I've gotten off MSG and other chemicals, I dropped 67 lbs without doing a lick of exercise or cutting calories (apparently, this is not uncommon, either), and I haven't felt better.
Certainly, heroin and cocaine can be used in a recreational manner. I personally have never played with cocaine as I'm not particularly interested in stimulants (I'm naturally an overstimulated person), but I have experimented fairly extensively with opiates (never heroin directly), and have not demonstrated any particular tendencies towards addiction in that domain.
Now I have tried a wide variety of drugs in recreational and spiritual settings, and the only ones that I have ever gotten addicted to are alcohol and tobacco. Because of this and the hardships that alcohol abuse instilled in my life, do I propose that alcohol should be illegalized? No - just because I was unable to be responsible with alcohol is no indication that others cannot drink in moderation or without negative consequences.
Drug use is a victimless crime. I'm all for drug awareness education and full legalization, and I see no reason why our bodies should be governed. You know when you get into certain classes of drugs that you may be treading dangerous territory, and you have to be willing to accept the consequences. Put the responsibility on the individual, not on the legal system.
Besides, personally, I would feel *much* safer ingesting cocaine and opiates (which have both been in use by humans for hundreds of years) than the bevvy of experimental, poorly-understood chemical additives that are being crammed in our food in ridiculous levels these days. At least, drugs have something to offer me, whereas preservatives, flavour enhancers, growth hormones, pesticides, etc... serve no purpose other than to fatten some corporation's bank accounts.
As another poster mentioned, 1 is not a prime element of the integers. Basically, in algebra, we have the concept of a unit, which is an element that has a multiplicative inverse (i.e. which can be multiplied by another element to give 1). Part of the definition of being a prime is that you cannot be a unit.
In the integers, it's easy to see that the only units are -1 and 1 (e.g. 5x = 1 has no integer solution, so 5 is not a unit). Because of this, 1 is not a prime element of the integers, and thus, not a prime number.
While you're correct, and 1 is not a prime, it's not because of the reasons that you've stated; part of the formal definition of a prime element in a ring is that it cannot be a unit (i.e. an element that has a multiplicative inverse in the ring - which basically means an element that can be multiplied by another element to give 1). The only units of the integers are {-1, 1}, and so they are not considered primes.
Unfortunately, it's not as easy as all that. Often, I've found that you'll have roughly 20 programs that offer similar functionality, but none of them are complete and they all do one or two different things well. Hence, it's nearly a requirement to keep duplicate purpose apps on your computer.
As a former Linux user, I waited and waited for Linux to make strides on the desktop, thinking that that next release of KDE would bring us ever closer. But now I realize that the overabundance of developer commitment, combined with the lack of standards, designers, and usability experts (my god... the KDE 3.x control panel is the most nightmarish thing I've ever seen) may result in this goal never being reached.
And while choice is a good thing, there's something to be said for standardization, especially if you want the support of commercial industry. Again, in Linux, you have 128190 GUIs, 23198139 CD players, 92182 window managers, etc... etc... With that level of fragmentation, I fear that Linux will never advance to the level that it could advance. When I hear of someone releasing yet another Linux distro, I cringe in horror.
Huh? What are you talking about??? If you'll check http://www.microsoft.com/mac, you'll clearly see that MS has released Office v. X, which is a Mac version of MS Office that is fully compatible with Office XP.
It is really sad that you are so blinded by a lifestyle choice that you will never understand this.
Actually, I'm pretty happy, so don't worry too much about me. Thanks all the same:D.
It has also been proven that in animals such as dogs, a dog humping another dog is a show of dominance and not a display of sexuality.
So, instead of acknowledging the thousands of species that do demonstrate homosexual tendencies, you pick one whose behaviour is not necessarily linked directly to homosexual urges, and suddenly, you've contradicted what I've said? Hardly.
Well there you go, primates have platonic relationships with the same sex
Ummm... go back and read what I said. They have homosexual relations. Specifically, the males of the species fuck each other up the ass. Do I need to make it clearer than this? It's hardly platonic.
If you are not ready to accept my beliefs against homosexuality, then how can you ask me to accept yours.
You don't have to accept my beliefs. And I will certainly not accept yours, which are intolerant. The point of the matter, sir, is that you aren't homosexual, so you can't possibly conclude with certainty that homosexuality is a, as you put it, "lifestyle choice". In fact, attempts to convert homosexuals to a heterosexual lifestyle have failed in nearly every case.
Monkeys throw feces at zoo visitors so I hope you don't mind if I throw shit at homosexuals since other animals do it.
Well, I certainly hope that you wouldn't be so discriminatory as to throw your feces at homosexuals. The heterosexuals might start feeling left out. The monkeys certainly aren't so exclusionary in their feces throwing behaviour.
The problem is that you are trying to force an issue into a society which others do not want forced into it.
Equality for blacks was an issue that was forced onto a society that did not want to be forced into such things. Would you argue that we should have continued things as they were, with black people being forced into slavery?
There is no biological mechanism for homosexuality
I'm certainly no expert on the matter, but my understanding of the subject is that there is quite a bit of evidence to believe that there *is* a biological mechanism for homosexuality.
As humans we supposedly have another level of sexuality which is not present in animals. It is called emotions and love and is probablyt he one thing which separates humans from animals
Huh? Many, *many* species demonstrate the capacity to love. Indeed, many birds mate for life. Have you ever seen a bird whose mate has been killed? If the grief that that bird experiences isn't a clear demonstration of love, I don't know what is.
The partner you choose is a voluntary choice and is a learned behaviour.
I disagree. Voluntary choice in some degree, yes, but obviously, there has to be an attraction, and attraction is not a voluntary choice. I'd also argue that it is not a learned behaviour; it's a question of biology.
Everwhere i turn, someone is trying to force the belief that homosexuality is proper upon me.
"Proper" is kind of an odd term to be using here, and I'm not sure it's correct. I wouldn't say homosexuality is "proper". All we're saying is that we're here and we're tired of living a heterosexual facade. We no longer want to live our lives afraid of the consequences, and we want to be able to celebrate our relationships just as heterosexuals do. We will not stand to be treated as lesser members of society simply because we choose same-sex partners.
Your movement has created people like me.
People like you, sir, existed well before the movement was created. In fact, if anything, we've dispelled a lot of the misinformation that existed down there, and certainly, the number of people like you has decreased significantly to the point where people like me can be openly gay and not be afraid for our lives.
The weaknesses of a woman are typically the strengths of a man. The weaknesses of a man are typically the strengths of a woman. Combined, they have no weaknesses
While I certainly acknowledge that in many cases, women have strengths that men do not have, and vice versa, this is certainly not the case across the board. As we've moved progressively further away from being held to traditional gender roles, many men have been able to demonstrate their feminine sides, and many women have been able to demonstrate their masculine sides.
In any case, you need not worry, because in homosexual relationships, we do just fine without a woman being involved:D. In fact, it's much simpler, because while women may have difficulties understanding certain inherent differences between men and women (and vice versa), we don't have those same problems.
As for this comment,
gay men are being more open about their sexuality to the point where they are making advances toward other men who do not want those advances made.
Straight women make advances towards me all the time, and those advances are most certainly not welcome. However, I'm mature enough about it to make my disinterest clear, and usually, they don't persist.
Now, if they persisted, or were overtly and inappropriately sexual (as was the case in your glory hole experience), I think that would be grounds to contact the police. Such behaviour is not acceptable. I've met hundreds of other gay guys in my life, and I've only once had someone be inappropriately sexual towards me. They backed off immediately when I made it clear that I was not interested in casual sex. The point of this is to let you know that, while you may have had one or even a few unpleasant experiences with homosexuals, the majority of us are not that way. (In fact, you probably would never know most of us were gay, which may be why you've had few positive experiences - you weren't even aware that the people you were interacting with were gay.)
In any case, regarding "pressing my issue on society", I will continue to do so until my partner and I are granted the same rights and freedoms as heterosexual couples. Until then, I will not be quiet simply because a segment of the heterosexual majority doesn't like what I have to say. My homosexuality does not make me a lesser citizen to you, and I refuse to be treated as such.
Fortunately for me, I'm lucky enough to be living in a place (Ontario) where things seem to be slowly but surely moving towards equality for me and others who share my sexual orientation.
Dude, you've posted this like 30 times in different threads. We're all sick of it and we all get your point, alright? You don't need to repeat yourself ad nauseum.
Personally, I'm a UNIX user who adores Mac OS X, and find it completely usable on my iBook. The keyboard doesn't pose any significant problems for me. I understand why you'd want the mappability (the default layout suits me fine), but it's still usable without it.
Funny that the DSM-III and earlier declared homosexuality a mental illnes. Funny how politics decide what is a mental illness and what isn't
The DSM is written by humans with limited knowledge of psychology and psychobiology. Hence, it's going to often prove to be wrong and require modification as discoveries are made. This isn't any different, really, than how the classical model of Newtonian mechanics was shown to be wrong, and we had to deduce newer models to explain things on a macro scale.
Homosexuals didn't demonstrate any mental detriment and homosexuality was shown to be a natural deviation in sexuality, so it was removed from DSM.
As another poster mentioned, many, many species demonstrate homosexual / bisexual tendencies. In fact, some primates to which we're fairly closely related engage in homosexual relations all their lives except during mating seasons. There's also a well-documented case about a monogamously coupled pair of gay penguins at a zoo (google-search if you're interested).
Homosexuality is a learned behavior, there is no "fag gene."
As a polite hint for future posting, you don't have to tolerate homosexuality, but using the word "fag" just makes you look like an idiot, really. Throwing around derogatory terms isn't the sign of an educated mind; it's the sign of a hateful, sick, and IMO, uneducated one.
The exact biological mechanism of homosexuality has yet to be determined, and while I find the "gay gene" theory to be unlikely, it cannot be discounted completely. Let us also note that as populations increase to unhealthy levels, there is a natural tendency for normally heterosexual members to become homosexual. Natural population growth.
Unlike you, I go to great lengths to teach my children what is right and wrong.
I (obviously, being gay) don't have (nor do I ever desire) children, but if I were to have children, I'd certainly teach them the difference between right and wrong, and encourage them to formulate their own concepts of right and wrong (since I don't think anyone with a shred of intelligence believes that there's such a thing as universal morality). I'm sure that our (yours and mine) concepts of right and wrong differ on many, many levels, judging by the nature of this post.
You and your fellow homosexuals have NO RIGHT telling my children that homosexuality is good.
No one is saying that homosexuality is *good*. We're just saying this it *is*. It's here. It's not going to go away. And we can't change, believe me. I'm glad that this trend towards awareness has come, because let me tell you, growing up gay and not knowing another gay person at all was incredibly distressing. No one wants to think that they're alone like that.
On the other hand, many heterosexual women seem enamored of the gay community because IMO, we know how to have fun and gay guys often take a lot of pride in their appearance (you'll hear no complaints from me), so maybe being gay *is* good:D.
Both men and women have strengths and weaknesses, but together they are invulnerable.
Invulnerable? I don't see that at all. Invulnerable in what way? Care to elaborate?
Admittedly, the dynamics of a gay relationship are much different than a straight one, but these days, heterosexual relationships are no longer held to traditional gender roles, so you'll find that their dynamics are quite diverse from one relationship to the next as well.
Agreed. I'm a gay geek through and through, but sadly, we seem to be few and far between. All of my boyfriends have been in arts or social sciences, annoyingly. What I wouldn't give for a boyfriend in math!
I, also being a gay geek (although with a boyfriend of over three years now, so not looking) was also wondering why such a large segment of the geek population was overlooked. Thanks to the poster who pointed this out.
Nothing could possibly approach the Goodness of an Infinite Life. By definition, it is Infinitely Better than All Other Goods.
I would entirely disagree with this, thus relegating it to a matter of perspective. While I'm enjoying being alive now, I'm not frightfully attached to it either, and when my time comes to die, I'll exeunt gracefully and be more than happy to let go so that others may live.
Thanks for the heads up. When I get my back pay from the university (if that ever happens:-/), I'll be sure to pick up a 512 MB module for my iBook (and maybe one for my G4 as well:D).
Orthogonal? In what sense? I've believed that ultimately, science and religion, which were highly divergent at times in the past, will ultimately converge to the same thing. I enjoy studying eastern religions in particular, and I find it fascinating to notice parallels between, say, Taoism and quantum / relativity theory.
Agreed. The simplest, and most logical notion to me is that the universe is infinite in every way and has always existed. Thus, it has always been infinitely large and infinitely expanding in an infinite number of dimensions. The only caveat to this fact is that we can't possibly truly wrap our minds around it, and IME, I've found that attempts to do so boggle the mind and freak me out.
This concept of multiple universes makes absolutely no sense to me; doesn't, by definition, the universe mean "everything"? Hence, if multiple time/space continuums existed, they would just constitute different parts of the same universe? If the universe truly means everything, then concepts like "before" the universe and "outside" the universe have no meaning, because the nature of statements like that would imply that they are a part of the universe.
The only model that possibly makes sense to me yet, of course, due to my limited brain as a human, is that the universe is infinite in every possible way. It has existed infinitely far back in time, and it will exist infinitely far forward in time, in an infinite number of dimensions, etc... At least when I start thinking this way, I get into paradoxes about the nature of the universe and I find that deducible logical arguments lead to dualities and contradictions, but in the context of infinity (true infinity, beyond what we can conceive in a mathematical sense), I would imagine that given a statement, there exists a finite framework (indeed, an infinite number of finite frameworks) in which the statement is provably true, and likewise, a finite framework in which the statement is provably false. We can only think in finite frameworks (even our concepts of countably infinite and uncountably infinite aren't *truly* infinite), and when you really think about it, it only makes sense to think in finite frameworks, so unfortunately, it is my belief that the universe will never truly be within our realm of understanding.
Agreed. My 12" 700 MHz iBook runs like a champ now that I've upgraded to 384 MB of RAM. Absolutely no problems here. I was expecting some speed issues with Mac OS X 10.2 on a G3 processor, but I've had none since the RAM upgrade (128 MB just wasn't enough), and now this machine has largely replaced my Dell 2.4 GHz and my G4 733 MHz as my main computer.
Apologies, and *nods*. While I haven't had to endure the joy that I'm sure is heroin withdrawal, I have gone through nicotine withdrawal, which was about as comfortable as trying to pry one's eye out with a rusty coat hanger.
Wow... interesting to see that there are a few others here on slashdot who know the annoyances of being highly sensitive to MSG and L-glutamic acid in general.
I've been avoiding monosodium glutamte, hydrolyzed proteins, autolyzed yeast, modified starches, and a list of about 20 or more things for a couple of years now and I've never felt better. Most of my symptoms prior to eliminating MSG from my diet were as yours, albeit perhaps not as severe. I suffered from panic attacks, migraines, memory loss, dizziness, heart palpitations, disorientation, and general feelings of very unpleasant weirdness. All of those have long since gone away. To top matters off, when I quit eating food additives (I figured if I was cutting out MSG, I'd cut them all out and eat naturally), I shed 67 lbs in less than six months without cutting my diet and without doing a lick of exercise. I certainly wasn't complaining about that, as I'd always fought to keep my weight in check my entire life!
I don't know if you're aware of this, but I find that I'm able to eat trace amounts of MSG if I take Vitamin B6 prior to the meal that might be suspect. Apparently, from what I've read, B6 speeds up the metabolization of MSG. I find this a helpful technique for when I want to eat out at a restaurant that I'm fairly sure is safe (I've had particularly good luck with Thai restaurants, and they generally seem to be MSG-informed) but that may still use certain questionable ingredients that contain things like "natural flavours". YMMV, but I thought that I'd pass along the tip all the same!
Just FYI: MSG was discovered in Japan, and the Japanese use trace amounts of it to enhance the taste of certain dishes. In China, you won't find MSG at all; it's only used in Chinese restaurants outside of China in an attempt to maximize profits while minimizing cost of ingredients.
I've read that in North America, we consume insane quantities of food additives that are not consumed or are consumed in very conservative levels elsewhere.
I am one of those individuals that is sensitive to MSG, and from experience, let me tell you that trying to avoid MSG can be a nightmare.
The reason for this is that companies are becoming aware of the trend of people to avoid MSG, and so they stop using MSG in their foods. However, because of the financial benefits of using flavour enhancers, they use other chemicals that don't sound quite so ominous, but are still very high in L-glutamic acid, which is what MSG sufferers are sensitive to. To give you an example, I have to avoid all of the following: Monosodium glutamate Hydrolyzed *anything* protein Autolyzed yeast extract Modified *anything* starch Modified milk ingredients Artificial flavour Natural flavour Sodium caseinate Microbial enzymes Citric acid derived from corn
and probably around 20 other things, all of which are very high in free L-glutamic acid or that cause L-glutamic acid to be released from meats, proteins, etc...
So, in conclusion, an MSG sensitivity isn't like a red dye sensitivity. An MSG sensitivity can make life quite debilitating, especially with regards to eating at restaurants. Even an MSG-free Chinese restaurant, for instance, might use an oyster sauce or soya sauce with hydrolyzed proteins in it, and there's no way you can possibly ask all the necessary questions needed to make sure that the food will be safe for you.
Slashdot Mirror
People who use drugs-- pot, coke, heroin, whatever-- are fucking losers, and of that there is NO doubt.
And even better... what about coffee drinkers?
People who use drugs-- pot, coke, heroin, whatever-- are fucking losers, and of that there is NO doubt.
What about people who drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes? Are they, as you so eloquently put it, "fucking losers" as well?
Drugs are "guaranteed" to be bad for you? What are you talking about??? Very few drugs are addictive or physically damaging. Indeed, it's highly likely that a single meal at McDonald's is ridiculously worse for you, in terms of cholesterol or sheer chemicals, than smoking a joint. And people have been able to use opiates for most of their lives without significant physical problems (apart from physical addiction, which in itself, is not dangerous with respect to opiates).
You can't make sweeping generalizations about drugs with regards to issues like dangers. Comparing marijuana to crack cocaine is like comparing apples to water buffalo; certainly, there are some commonalities, but there are many more differences.
Additives try to be beneficial? Again, I don't see the logic in this. How is MSG beneficial to me, the consumer? All it does is allow Campbell's Soup to skimp out on the chicken in their broth and cut corners with regards to quality. Since I've gotten off MSG and other chemicals, I dropped 67 lbs without doing a lick of exercise or cutting calories (apparently, this is not uncommon, either), and I haven't felt better.
Certainly, heroin and cocaine can be used in a recreational manner. I personally have never played with cocaine as I'm not particularly interested in stimulants (I'm naturally an overstimulated person), but I have experimented fairly extensively with opiates (never heroin directly), and have not demonstrated any particular tendencies towards addiction in that domain.
Now I have tried a wide variety of drugs in recreational and spiritual settings, and the only ones that I have ever gotten addicted to are alcohol and tobacco. Because of this and the hardships that alcohol abuse instilled in my life, do I propose that alcohol should be illegalized? No - just because I was unable to be responsible with alcohol is no indication that others cannot drink in moderation or without negative consequences.
Drug use is a victimless crime. I'm all for drug awareness education and full legalization, and I see no reason why our bodies should be governed. You know when you get into certain classes of drugs that you may be treading dangerous territory, and you have to be willing to accept the consequences. Put the responsibility on the individual, not on the legal system.
Besides, personally, I would feel *much* safer ingesting cocaine and opiates (which have both been in use by humans for hundreds of years) than the bevvy of experimental, poorly-understood chemical additives that are being crammed in our food in ridiculous levels these days. At least, drugs have something to offer me, whereas preservatives, flavour enhancers, growth hormones, pesticides, etc... serve no purpose other than to fatten some corporation's bank accounts.
You do realize that legalizing drugs would address every single problem that you've mentioned in your post, don't you?
As another poster mentioned, 1 is not a prime element of the integers. Basically, in algebra, we have the concept of a unit, which is an element that has a multiplicative inverse (i.e. which can be multiplied by another element to give 1). Part of the definition of being a prime is that you cannot be a unit.
In the integers, it's easy to see that the only units are -1 and 1 (e.g. 5x = 1 has no integer solution, so 5 is not a unit). Because of this, 1 is not a prime element of the integers, and thus, not a prime number.
While you're correct, and 1 is not a prime, it's not because of the reasons that you've stated; part of the formal definition of a prime element in a ring is that it cannot be a unit (i.e. an element that has a multiplicative inverse in the ring - which basically means an element that can be multiplied by another element to give 1). The only units of the integers are {-1, 1}, and so they are not considered primes.
Unfortunately, it's not as easy as all that. Often, I've found that you'll have roughly 20 programs that offer similar functionality, but none of them are complete and they all do one or two different things well. Hence, it's nearly a requirement to keep duplicate purpose apps on your computer.
As a former Linux user, I waited and waited for Linux to make strides on the desktop, thinking that that next release of KDE would bring us ever closer. But now I realize that the overabundance of developer commitment, combined with the lack of standards, designers, and usability experts (my god... the KDE 3.x control panel is the most nightmarish thing I've ever seen) may result in this goal never being reached.
And while choice is a good thing, there's something to be said for standardization, especially if you want the support of commercial industry. Again, in Linux, you have 128190 GUIs, 23198139 CD players, 92182 window managers, etc... etc... With that level of fragmentation, I fear that Linux will never advance to the level that it could advance. When I hear of someone releasing yet another Linux distro, I cringe in horror.
Except that it's not Office
Huh? What are you talking about??? If you'll check http://www.microsoft.com/mac, you'll clearly see that MS has released Office v. X, which is a Mac version of MS Office that is fully compatible with Office XP.
It is really sad that you are so blinded by a lifestyle choice that you will never understand this.
:D.
:D. In fact, it's much simpler, because while women may have difficulties understanding certain inherent differences between men and women (and vice versa), we don't have those same problems.
Actually, I'm pretty happy, so don't worry too much about me. Thanks all the same
It has also been proven that in animals such as dogs, a dog humping another dog is a show of dominance and not a display of sexuality.
So, instead of acknowledging the thousands of species that do demonstrate homosexual tendencies, you pick one whose behaviour is not necessarily linked directly to homosexual urges, and suddenly, you've contradicted what I've said? Hardly.
Well there you go, primates have platonic relationships with the same sex
Ummm... go back and read what I said. They have homosexual relations. Specifically, the males of the species fuck each other up the ass. Do I need to make it clearer than this? It's hardly platonic.
If you are not ready to accept my beliefs against homosexuality, then how can you ask me to accept yours.
You don't have to accept my beliefs. And I will certainly not accept yours, which are intolerant. The point of the matter, sir, is that you aren't homosexual, so you can't possibly conclude with certainty that homosexuality is a, as you put it, "lifestyle choice". In fact, attempts to convert homosexuals to a heterosexual lifestyle have failed in nearly every case.
Monkeys throw feces at zoo visitors so I hope you don't mind if I throw shit at homosexuals since other animals do it.
Well, I certainly hope that you wouldn't be so discriminatory as to throw your feces at homosexuals. The heterosexuals might start feeling left out. The monkeys certainly aren't so exclusionary in their feces throwing behaviour.
The problem is that you are trying to force an issue into a society which others do not want forced into it.
Equality for blacks was an issue that was forced onto a society that did not want to be forced into such things. Would you argue that we should have continued things as they were, with black people being forced into slavery?
There is no biological mechanism for homosexuality
I'm certainly no expert on the matter, but my understanding of the subject is that there is quite a bit of evidence to believe that there *is* a biological mechanism for homosexuality.
As humans we supposedly have another level of sexuality which is not present in animals. It is called emotions and love and is probablyt he one thing which separates humans from animals
Huh? Many, *many* species demonstrate the capacity to love. Indeed, many birds mate for life. Have you ever seen a bird whose mate has been killed? If the grief that that bird experiences isn't a clear demonstration of love, I don't know what is.
The partner you choose is a voluntary choice and is a learned behaviour.
I disagree. Voluntary choice in some degree, yes, but obviously, there has to be an attraction, and attraction is not a voluntary choice. I'd also argue that it is not a learned behaviour; it's a question of biology.
Everwhere i turn, someone is trying to force the belief that homosexuality is proper upon me.
"Proper" is kind of an odd term to be using here, and I'm not sure it's correct. I wouldn't say homosexuality is "proper". All we're saying is that we're here and we're tired of living a heterosexual facade. We no longer want to live our lives afraid of the consequences, and we want to be able to celebrate our relationships just as heterosexuals do. We will not stand to be treated as lesser members of society simply because we choose same-sex partners.
Your movement has created people like me.
People like you, sir, existed well before the movement was created. In fact, if anything, we've dispelled a lot of the misinformation that existed down there, and certainly, the number of people like you has decreased significantly to the point where people like me can be openly gay and not be afraid for our lives.
The weaknesses of a woman are typically the strengths of a man. The weaknesses of a man are typically the strengths of a woman. Combined, they have no weaknesses
While I certainly acknowledge that in many cases, women have strengths that men do not have, and vice versa, this is certainly not the case across the board. As we've moved progressively further away from being held to traditional gender roles, many men have been able to demonstrate their feminine sides, and many women have been able to demonstrate their masculine sides.
In any case, you need not worry, because in homosexual relationships, we do just fine without a woman being involved
As for this comment,
gay men are being more open about their sexuality to the point where they are making advances toward other men who do not want those advances made.
Straight women make advances towards me all the time, and those advances are most certainly not welcome. However, I'm mature enough about it to make my disinterest clear, and usually, they don't persist.
Now, if they persisted, or were overtly and inappropriately sexual (as was the case in your glory hole experience), I think that would be grounds to contact the police. Such behaviour is not acceptable. I've met hundreds of other gay guys in my life, and I've only once had someone be inappropriately sexual towards me. They backed off immediately when I made it clear that I was not interested in casual sex. The point of this is to let you know that, while you may have had one or even a few unpleasant experiences with homosexuals, the majority of us are not that way. (In fact, you probably would never know most of us were gay, which may be why you've had few positive experiences - you weren't even aware that the people you were interacting with were gay.)
In any case, regarding "pressing my issue on society", I will continue to do so until my partner and I are granted the same rights and freedoms as heterosexual couples. Until then, I will not be quiet simply because a segment of the heterosexual majority doesn't like what I have to say. My homosexuality does not make me a lesser citizen to you, and I refuse to be treated as such.
Fortunately for me, I'm lucky enough to be living in a place (Ontario) where things seem to be slowly but surely moving towards equality for me and others who share my sexual orientation.
Dude, you've posted this like 30 times in different threads. We're all sick of it and we all get your point, alright? You don't need to repeat yourself ad nauseum.
Personally, I'm a UNIX user who adores Mac OS X, and find it completely usable on my iBook. The keyboard doesn't pose any significant problems for me. I understand why you'd want the mappability (the default layout suits me fine), but it's still usable without it.
Funny that the DSM-III and earlier declared homosexuality a mental illnes. Funny how politics decide what is a mental illness and what isn't
:D.
The DSM is written by humans with limited knowledge of psychology and psychobiology. Hence, it's going to often prove to be wrong and require modification as discoveries are made. This isn't any different, really, than how the classical model of Newtonian mechanics was shown to be wrong, and we had to deduce newer models to explain things on a macro scale.
Homosexuals didn't demonstrate any mental detriment and homosexuality was shown to be a natural deviation in sexuality, so it was removed from DSM.
As another poster mentioned, many, many species demonstrate homosexual / bisexual tendencies. In fact, some primates to which we're fairly closely related engage in homosexual relations all their lives except during mating seasons. There's also a well-documented case about a monogamously coupled pair of gay penguins at a zoo (google-search if you're interested).
Homosexuality is a learned behavior, there is no "fag gene."
As a polite hint for future posting, you don't have to tolerate homosexuality, but using the word "fag" just makes you look like an idiot, really. Throwing around derogatory terms isn't the sign of an educated mind; it's the sign of a hateful, sick, and IMO, uneducated one.
The exact biological mechanism of homosexuality has yet to be determined, and while I find the "gay gene" theory to be unlikely, it cannot be discounted completely. Let us also note that as populations increase to unhealthy levels, there is a natural tendency for normally heterosexual members to become homosexual. Natural population growth.
Unlike you, I go to great lengths to teach my children what is right and wrong.
I (obviously, being gay) don't have (nor do I ever desire) children, but if I were to have children, I'd certainly teach them the difference between right and wrong, and encourage them to formulate their own concepts of right and wrong (since I don't think anyone with a shred of intelligence believes that there's such a thing as universal morality). I'm sure that our (yours and mine) concepts of right and wrong differ on many, many levels, judging by the nature of this post.
You and your fellow homosexuals have NO RIGHT telling my children that homosexuality is good.
No one is saying that homosexuality is *good*. We're just saying this it *is*. It's here. It's not going to go away. And we can't change, believe me. I'm glad that this trend towards awareness has come, because let me tell you, growing up gay and not knowing another gay person at all was incredibly distressing. No one wants to think that they're alone like that.
On the other hand, many heterosexual women seem enamored of the gay community because IMO, we know how to have fun and gay guys often take a lot of pride in their appearance (you'll hear no complaints from me), so maybe being gay *is* good
Both men and women have strengths and weaknesses, but together they are invulnerable.
Invulnerable? I don't see that at all. Invulnerable in what way? Care to elaborate?
Admittedly, the dynamics of a gay relationship are much different than a straight one, but these days, heterosexual relationships are no longer held to traditional gender roles, so you'll find that their dynamics are quite diverse from one relationship to the next as well.
Agreed. I'm a gay geek through and through, but sadly, we seem to be few and far between. All of my boyfriends have been in arts or social sciences, annoyingly. What I wouldn't give for a boyfriend in math!
I, also being a gay geek (although with a boyfriend of over three years now, so not looking) was also wondering why such a large segment of the geek population was overlooked. Thanks to the poster who pointed this out.
Nothing could possibly approach the Goodness of an Infinite Life. By definition, it is Infinitely Better than All Other Goods.
I would entirely disagree with this, thus relegating it to a matter of perspective. While I'm enjoying being alive now, I'm not frightfully attached to it either, and when my time comes to die, I'll exeunt gracefully and be more than happy to let go so that others may live.
Very interesting, and just wanted to say thanks for the explanation!
Thanks for the heads up. When I get my back pay from the university (if that ever happens :-/), I'll be sure to pick up a 512 MB module for my iBook (and maybe one for my G4 as well :D).
Orthogonal? In what sense?
I've believed that ultimately, science and religion, which were highly divergent at times in the past, will ultimately converge to the same thing. I enjoy studying eastern religions in particular, and I find it fascinating to notice parallels between, say, Taoism and quantum / relativity theory.
Agreed. The simplest, and most logical notion to me is that the universe is infinite in every way and has always existed. Thus, it has always been infinitely large and infinitely expanding in an infinite number of dimensions. The only caveat to this fact is that we can't possibly truly wrap our minds around it, and IME, I've found that attempts to do so boggle the mind and freak me out.
This concept of multiple universes makes absolutely no sense to me; doesn't, by definition, the universe mean "everything"? Hence, if multiple time/space continuums existed, they would just constitute different parts of the same universe? If the universe truly means everything, then concepts like "before" the universe and "outside" the universe have no meaning, because the nature of statements like that would imply that they are a part of the universe.
The only model that possibly makes sense to me yet, of course, due to my limited brain as a human, is that the universe is infinite in every possible way. It has existed infinitely far back in time, and it will exist infinitely far forward in time, in an infinite number of dimensions, etc... At least when I start thinking this way, I get into paradoxes about the nature of the universe and I find that deducible logical arguments lead to dualities and contradictions, but in the context of infinity (true infinity, beyond what we can conceive in a mathematical sense), I would imagine that given a statement, there exists a finite framework (indeed, an infinite number of finite frameworks) in which the statement is provably true, and likewise, a finite framework in which the statement is provably false. We can only think in finite frameworks (even our concepts of countably infinite and uncountably infinite aren't *truly* infinite), and when you really think about it, it only makes sense to think in finite frameworks, so unfortunately, it is my belief that the universe will never truly be within our realm of understanding.
Agreed. My 12" 700 MHz iBook runs like a champ now that I've upgraded to 384 MB of RAM. Absolutely no problems here. I was expecting some speed issues with Mac OS X 10.2 on a G3 processor, but I've had none since the RAM upgrade (128 MB just wasn't enough), and now this machine has largely replaced my Dell 2.4 GHz and my G4 733 MHz as my main computer.
Apologies, and *nods*. While I haven't had to endure the joy that I'm sure is heroin withdrawal, I have gone through nicotine withdrawal, which was about as comfortable as trying to pry one's eye out with a rusty coat hanger.
Wow... interesting to see that there are a few others here on slashdot who know the annoyances of being highly sensitive to MSG and L-glutamic acid in general.
I've been avoiding monosodium glutamte, hydrolyzed proteins, autolyzed yeast, modified starches, and a list of about 20 or more things for a couple of years now and I've never felt better. Most of my symptoms prior to eliminating MSG from my diet were as yours, albeit perhaps not as severe. I suffered from panic attacks, migraines, memory loss, dizziness, heart palpitations, disorientation, and general feelings of very unpleasant weirdness. All of those have long since gone away. To top matters off, when I quit eating food additives (I figured if I was cutting out MSG, I'd cut them all out and eat naturally), I shed 67 lbs in less than six months without cutting my diet and without doing a lick of exercise. I certainly wasn't complaining about that, as I'd always fought to keep my weight in check my entire life!
I don't know if you're aware of this, but I find that I'm able to eat trace amounts of MSG if I take Vitamin B6 prior to the meal that might be suspect. Apparently, from what I've read, B6 speeds up the metabolization of MSG. I find this a helpful technique for when I want to eat out at a restaurant that I'm fairly sure is safe (I've had particularly good luck with Thai restaurants, and they generally seem to be MSG-informed) but that may still use certain questionable ingredients that contain things like "natural flavours". YMMV, but I thought that I'd pass along the tip all the same!
Just FYI: MSG was discovered in Japan, and the Japanese use trace amounts of it to enhance the taste of certain dishes. In China, you won't find MSG at all; it's only used in Chinese restaurants outside of China in an attempt to maximize profits while minimizing cost of ingredients.
I've read that in North America, we consume insane quantities of food additives that are not consumed or are consumed in very conservative levels elsewhere.
I am one of those individuals that is sensitive to MSG, and from experience, let me tell you that trying to avoid MSG can be a nightmare.
The reason for this is that companies are becoming aware of the trend of people to avoid MSG, and so they stop using MSG in their foods. However, because of the financial benefits of using flavour enhancers, they use other chemicals that don't sound quite so ominous, but are still very high in L-glutamic acid, which is what MSG sufferers are sensitive to. To give you an example, I have to avoid all of the following:
Monosodium glutamate
Hydrolyzed *anything* protein
Autolyzed yeast extract
Modified *anything* starch
Modified milk ingredients
Artificial flavour
Natural flavour
Sodium caseinate
Microbial enzymes
Citric acid derived from corn
and probably around 20 other things, all of which are very high in free L-glutamic acid or that cause L-glutamic acid to be released from meats, proteins, etc...
So, in conclusion, an MSG sensitivity isn't like a red dye sensitivity. An MSG sensitivity can make life quite debilitating, especially with regards to eating at restaurants. Even an MSG-free Chinese restaurant, for instance, might use an oyster sauce or soya sauce with hydrolyzed proteins in it, and there's no way you can possibly ask all the necessary questions needed to make sure that the food will be safe for you.