Then your seeing eye dog sucks, and deserves to die with you.
Seriously, though, you're right - I hadn't considered that aspect of it. Thank you for pointing out the flaw in my argument. Can you provide links to statistics supporting the idea that most of the accidents involving people stepping in front of electric cars were blind?
Personally, I'm inclined to believe they just weren't looking.
Actually, the quietness of electric and hybrid cars is already an issue, and a real one. There is a measurable rise in car/pedestrian accidents in ares with a lot of electric or hybrid cars.
So? It's obvious Darwin is succeeding, and those who step out in front of large, fast-moving objects without looking are being culled from the herd.
When I was younger, I was taught to look both ways before crossing the street...
I can't believe I'm actually going to toe the party line here, but here we go... It's OSS. If a piece of functionality you believe should exist does not, perhaps you could "code it up"? It would be some seriously mind-numbing data entry unless/until you figured a way to script it out (my script-fu is weak, so I'd be doing a lot of copy/pasting or researching some other method), but it should be fairly trivial to just write up an html document (or better yet, a set of them) with a searchable index, and apt:// links in there... hmm. It would probably *need* to be automated, unless we were going to have a team of people dedicated to the task of keeping it updated.
As I stated above, my shell-scripting abilities are on the weak side (in Linux, anyway), but I can imagine ways to automate it in a Windows command prompt, so it shouldn't be too terrible in a Linux shell.
Hmm. The more I think about it, the less problematic it seems, and the more fun it sounds like it would be. Maybe I'll dedicate some time to "giving back to the community" next weekend.
Gosh, I was so irritated but your ignorant remark that I completely forgot to thank you for reinforcing my point for me.
I don't see that I did that. You're complaining about the GUI being confusing, when the problem is that you failed to read the prompt before reacting to it. The only thing that could possibly keep me from thinking this is a PEBKAC issue is if it was in a foreign language.
PEBKAC = "Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair" (or in this case, couch, if I read your flame correctly).
I'm willing to bet that I can out script fu you from the command line any day (possibly due to 20+ years of experience using Unix as my primary dev platform).
I won't argue that, I'm not a coder. Why does someone with "20+ years of experience using Unix as my primary dev platform" make careless errors due to failing at reading comprehension? I would think that someone with "20+ years of experience" would be a more careful reader than myself, not an auto-clicker. I guess my own 20+ years of experience with various operating systems as a mere technician make me more apt to read before clicking or typing?
Doesn't change the fact that the login widget and the screenlock widget look remarkably similar.
Unless you know how to read, and aren't blindly assuming any given prompt is asking for "yes". Too much Vista?
I also happened to be ssh'd into the Debian box from my laptop with the monitor for the Debian system sitting on the coffetable with a keyboard stretched across to me, so it wasn't right in front of my face.
Ok, so your space-usage issues and apparently poor vision are somehow my problem?
Doing some cross devel for an embedded Linux system and still not comfortable enough with avahi-autoipd to tuck the Debian box back off into a corner.
What you're doing at the time is not so important. Your comfort level with unrelated software is also irrelevant to the discussion at hand. What *is* directly related to the issue you described is your reading comprehension issues and silly auto-click (or in this case, auto-type) tendencies.
But hey - go ahead- be a pompous ass. Nothing personal, just pointing out that you're apparently better at being an ass than you are at accurately guessing people's skill sets.
Considering I wasn't flaming you, but pointing out what any AC here could have, I don't see how I was being a pompous ass. Come to think of it, harping on my ability to guess your skillset (again, irrelevant to the discussion) kinda makes you out to be the ad-hominem attacker, here.
To sum up, don't get pissy with *me* because *you* failed to read, and typed your password in the clear. Your security issues are not my problem, unless you work for my bank... in which case, I hope your boss reads slashdot, sees that you're incompetent (and apparently a prick, to boot), and fires you.
Sorry, I apparently misread your post, and was explaining to you how you can download a.deb in firefox, and it will cheerfully (by default, even!) open it with your package manager. This would kinda assume you were downloading a non-standard package, since if you wanted the one from the standard repository, you could use Add/Remove Programs in the Application menu, or Synaptic from the Administration menu. I thought you wanted to know how to install a.deb from your web browser... Oh, wait, you did.
I wonder how hard it would be to make it possible to do links in a browser that install packages.
(And could someone please change the login widget to make it obvious that both a username AND password are going to be called for? At a glance, I thought it was a screen lock and typed my password in "in the clear").
Hmm... maybe with a little label that says "username"? Try reading instead of looking at the pictures, next time.
Nothing personal, just pointing out that you're a GUI user, not a CLI guy.
So I've read that the `mount' command would allow me to access my windows drive. So I do a `sudo mount/dev/sda1/windows/', then try to enter that directory. What do I see when I type `cd/windows/'? "bash: cd:/windows/: Permission denied" -- WTF!? Where to start looking for help? Why am I not permitted to see my files? Why won't it tell me to mount it with this or that option to be user-readable? Seriously, last time I tried to access an NTFS partition I had to run mc as root.
Why didn't you just mount it from within the file manager? Click on the drive icon with the text label "Windows" (assuming that's your drive's name), and poof, it opens - with the possibility of an access control (gksudo) prompt, of course. If NTFS says it's dirty, Ubuntu even pops up a nice little message box that, to the newbie, would appear to say "it didn't work", but to someone who actually reads it, contains instructions for "forcing" access. I wish more error messages were that informative.
Nevermind making the CLI more intuitive - get the hardcore geeks out of the CLI and into the GUI, make *it* work better.
Seriously... fire up firefox, google a software package, click the link to the.deb file, it opens a dialog asking what you want to do with it - select to open it with your package manager, it installs...
For a lot of the more low-level stuff in Windows you have to resort to viewing hidden or system folders, editing config files in notepad, or registry-editors.
Huh. So, what you're saying is, Linux is user-friendly, whereas with Windows, you have to use arcane commands and edit text files to get anything done? Interesting...
Ya know, public consciousness is that the opposite is typical. Looks like we've come full circle, eh?
Most of you are missing the point on the insurance thing.
It's not about assigning the benefits to whomever you'd like in the event of your death or whatnot...
It's about whether your partner is AUTOMATICALLY OFFERED COVERAGE. Having insurance is important, no? Well, your spouse is automatically assumed, in most cases, to be covered under your policy. "Domestic partner"? Not so much.
Your argument is false, based on improper data collection and hastily-constructed conjecture.
Allow me to explain:
Darwin's hypotheses apply to species, not individuals. Humans as a species have evolved to the point where we are now, and we will continue to adapt to our environment (or adapt it to ourselves, which ability is another adaptation). The same (demonstrably false) arguments you made in this post's parent could be used in exactly the same way you used them to disprove the existence of sterile drones in ant or bee colonies, which is quite obviously false. Similarly, mules cannot reproduce themselves, and yet they still somehow exist. Someone's sexual preferences do not magically disqualify them from being a capable care provider (whether for children or others), nor do they prevent someone from being a productive member of society.
The key phrasing I will attack is as follows:
This means that not only must these beings be able to reproduce sexually, they must actually do so, for evolution to work as posited. The species would thus have changed or evolved to favor traits that favor survival and reproduction.
The first statement is completely false, as I explained in the paragraph above the quote. I will now explain to you how G/L/B/T humans do not violate the second statement in the quoted text.
The produced offspring (in this case, humans with a preference for sexual relations with other same-gender humans (or is it a distaste for the opposite gender?)) are not necessarily able to reproduce themselves, this is true. However, their continuing presence in our species may actually indicate a need that their presence fulfills (via the same theories you are misusing). Please keep in mind that homosexuality is not new, there are documented cases from thousands of years ago.
Oh, and on a personal note: my IQ is higher than yours by nearly a dozen points, despite your "50k in the bank" and my apparent financial lack; Furthermore, my testing was done by an actual testing center, not some ad-based website. Fortunately, I recognize that the testing criteria are flawed (as most experts agree), and I don't try to hold that up as an indicator of higher intelligence or fitness for a particular purpose. If I did, I might think myself better than you... oh, wait.
Well-executed bullshit is still bullshit. Move along.
Well, running in a sandbox (ie, a virtual machine), I'm alright with whatever happens to my "surfing rig" - restoring from a snapshot fixes any issues, and there are no hardware concerns;)
As for goatse - well, after having seen it a few times, the burning retina sensation and nausea is barely noticeable.
I don't think as much in terms of people hopping around the EU as going really from country to country, but, more like how people in the US move from state to state.
My point exactly, except that it's getting to be the case in more places than just the EU. Boundaries are meaning less and less, as people start to figure out that this rock only has so much living space on it.
Call me old fashioned, but I'm for equal rights... which strangely seems to piss a few women off.
Signed. It is now practically a requirement to have a two-earner household if you want to be able to afford a family - thus making absolutely sure that a woman's place is *not* in the kitchen - it's out there in the workforce, so the family can afford to have someone else watch the kids.
The problem here would be that by causing such an uproar over "preserving" the "sanctity" of marriage, all that has occurred is that the concept of "marriage" has been demeaned by the very people claiming to want to protect it. If nowhere else (yet), it is now seen in my household as nothing more than a means to an end; it's a tax dodge and a deduction on the insurance premiums.
We have "civil unions" that supposedly do roughly the same thing, in a legal sense... in some places, with differing implementations, and only in certain circumstances... "Here, just make sure to wear your yellow star at all times, keeping it visible from all directions, ok? We'll round all of you up and shoot you later, but for now, you just run along and play nice, and we'll all pretend you're not a loathsome and disgusting second-class citizen."
Face it, marriage as an institution is already dead. We need to just get over it, decide that any group of two or more consenting adults can incorporate and/or contract to share living space/living expenses/a bed, and be done with it. What is marriage, at its essence? Is it not simply two adults incorporating (becoming a single legal entity)? Oh, my, yes... Do explain to me how your deity gives a whoop-tee-do about our legal system, and how that should matter to me (who doesn't believe in your worship object anyway). Am I supposed to believe that there's an actual, justifiable reason that the legal and financial benefits accruing to bi-gendered contracted couples shouldn't apply to any other groupings who adhere to the same life choices (share living space, share expenses, love and cherish one another) just because their "equipment" may not match someone's ideals? Oh, and please do whip out the procreation argument, I'd love to throw the baby-factory welfare mentality back into your face. Personally, I don't see any issues at all with same-sex marriage, plural marriage, or even the old-fashioned marriage of one man and one woman - they should all receive the same treatment on the insurance paperwork and tax filings. Some people's prejudices about adoption suitability aside, what's the difference? Let people become a single legal entity with whomever they want to, and get your paperwork out of my bedroom. What I do with my life, right up to the point where it interferes with someone else's life, is my own business.
Sorry for ranting, but I just have to share my outrage at the people who are "defending the sanctity of marriage" by keeping people from getting married. This makes almost as much sense as a screen door on a submarine, and is almost as useful as an ejection seat in a helicopter. When religious doctrine becomes a legal issue, things just get stupid.
As I have said before, "welcome to the global community". Hopefully, we can pull our collective heads out of our asses and start thinking about the issues that are actually important.
Your "littleurl" link points to http://youngfoxredux.blogspot.com/2009/01/take-walk-through-gaza.html - although I don't understand why you felt the need to hide that with a contrived url. I'm not saying your cause is unjust, or even that you'll ever see this now that you've drive-by spammed a forum with it (congrats, by the way, you gained a pageview due to my curiosity).
For those who are curious but don't want to reward AC link spam with page hits, the referenced page talks about the atrocities in gaza, and calls for some political action amidst the finger-pointing propaganda.
Come to think of it, we should all be this conscientious, and just have *one* page hit generated by random AC link spam, by someone who then reports what it is - that way, the spammer doesn't get a reward, and those of us with a curiosity bordering on OCD can be satisfied without having to click an "unknown" link.
Please, don't let this post threadjack anything, I just wanted to point it out for what it was.
I just have to share my amusement at your excellent witticism. Assuming you are family (or related to some), I'll extend a warm and hearty chuckle in your direction.
As an aside, one of my girlfriends and I are considering a civil union, because marriage is just a legal matter for us... we want the tax breaks, but the religious aspects don't mean diddly, and the fact that I am male and she is female shouldn't disqualify us from a CU, right? I mean, it's not just a way to label "gay marriage", is it? Should be fun to watch the HR department try to figure that one out on my tax form, though... hehehe.
Besides, what are the legal aspects of recognizing a (predominantly) religious pairing ceremony? Why is there such a big difference between "Bill and Jane want to share living space and expenses" vs "Bob and Neal want to share living space and expenses"? I thought we had that whole "separation of church and state" thing... oh, wait. I see we now have an "Office for Faith-based Services". My bad.
Most people in the world don't move from country to country do they? Don't most people stay their live (aside from vacation) in the country of birth? Gay or straight?
Might wanna check your migration figures against the facts and statistics in Europe. If I understand it correctly, many people bounce between countries several times throughout their lifetimes on that side of the pond...
Comparatively speaking, the United States is fairly large, landmass-wise (Texas is bigger than several European countries), so us "Americans" might not think of leaving the country as a viable employment search. In smaller countries, one might have to show their passport 3 or more times on a 6-hour drive. I don't know about you, but if the money was right, I wouldn't hesitate to push a 90+ minute daily commute, assuming I wouldn't just up stakes and move to someplace closer - i like my commute to be 10 minutes or less, and have moved across town, even to another state for exactly that reason.
In other words, don't show off your lack of culture. The world is more than just this hemisphere, and if you pay attention, national boundaries are becoming less important to everyone except the politicians. Welcome to the global community.
First of all I was responding to another poster who was talking about how Child Porn laws are just hysteria and not sensible. I wasn't responding to the original article, this was a separate sub-discussion. IF you had actually read the post I was responding to, you would have seen that. What was that about reading comprehension?
Slashdot's rendering glitches are not my fault, nor my responsibility. Oh, and quite a few of the "OMG protect the children!" kneejerk laws ARE hysteria, and quite a few of them end up putting children in the courtroom as defendants. (semi-related anecdote: A friend of mine was sent to juvie hall when he was 13 for sleeping with a 15 year old girl - no effect for her. She was older, she led him on, she explicitly invited the act itself; he went to "kid jail" for the statutory rape of a girl two years his senior. Hooray for capitalism - I mean, the justice system.)
Secondly, the guy in question was convicted on OBSCENITY charges, NOT on Child Porn charges, even though the judge in the case spoke about the PROTECT act in his sentencing. I think you mentioned something about READING THE ARTICLE in your post?
No, he was busted for kiddie porn.
From the article: Judge Paul V. Niemeyer noted in the majority opinion that the statute under which Whorley was convicted, the PROTECT Act of 2003, clearly states that "it is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exists."
Also, from the wiki entry describing the PROTECT act (the first link in the summary, supposedly to an entry about Dwight Whorley): The first conviction of a person found to have violated the sections of the act relating to virtual child pornography, Dwight Whorley of Virginia, was upheld in a 2-1 panel decision of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in December 2008.
So, what they said was that cartoon sex acts can be considered child pornography. Your entire confused and misguided rant is hereby refuted, and your lack of reading comprehension is shown to the (slashdot) world. Again. Have a nice day.
Look, if you want to Troll someone, At least have the intelligence to do it properly.
I'm not a troll, merely someone who points out (and by doing so, attempts to correct) ignorance and/or misinformation. Sorry you got your panties in a bunch, hope you read with more comprehension next time. I wasn't aware that I was trolling, but if I was, I think I've done it "properly" - I've certainly got your knickers in a twist, and to top it off, it appears the facts support my statements... Which of us is unintelligent, again?
I'd also like to point out that I wasn't really disagreeing with anything except the comment you made stating that the LEOs weren't busting people for cartoon porn, since they quite obviously are doing exactly that, and as a matter of fact that's what the article we're discussing is about.
Oh, and fuck you. Asshole.
Good job! That's how you win at intarweb fights! Ad hominem attacks! Gee, why didn't I think of that? Maybe next time I'll close my post by insulting your mother, instead of sticking to the facts of the discussion at hand... On second thought, I think I'll stick to logical and factual discussion and refutation of obvious falsehoods, but thanks for the invite to the chop-fights.
Child Porn task forces are highly focused units with very specific and narrowly defined missions. They are NOT out there after Hentai viewers, for instance. They are only after REAL Child porn, both it's purveyors and consumers.
Hmmm... didn't read the article, right? (from the article):
Dwight Whorley of Richmond is serving 20 years in prison, convicted in 2005 of using a public computer for job-seekers at the Virginia Employment Commission to receive 20 Japanese cartoons, called anime, illustrating young girls being forced to have sex with men.
Oh, wait. You didn't even read the summary. Here, I'll post it for your edification:
"Two out of the three Virginia judges involved with Dwight Whorley's case say cartoon images depicting sex acts with children are considered child pornography in the United States. Judge Paul V. Niemeyer noted the PROTECT Act of 2003, clearly states that 'it is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exists.'"
Yeah, yeah. You said "task forces". Great. Fantastic. So you didn't really fail at reading comprehension, you just really, really suck at staying on topic.
Next time, try paying attention to what you're saying, at least when you're apparently responding to an article that has absolutely nothing to do with your agenda.
T[h]en teach her howto install free/open software using Synaptic or command line apt if she want to impress her retired friends.
Or simply install wine, and let the autorun prompt install her software from the cd for her. If it's not 3d-rendered, it "just works". Most of the stuff that *is* 3d-rendered "just works", actually. I still play WoW under Windows to get my fps up a bit (5-10 fps difference), but that's about the only reason I boot into XP anymore... and once I get my new "gaming" rig, that will become less relevant.
To be completely honest, wine seems to be more backwards-compatible with windows software than Windows is.
Oh, and before you tag me as a Linux fanboy, allow me to point out that I'm a Microsoft Certified Professional, working in a Windows-based shop.
Slashdot Mirror
The inability to experience compassion is a warning sign of a psychopathic personality.
Thanks for the warning... I'm guessing you've never heard of the Darwin Awards? Some people find them humorous.
and if you're blind, asshole?
Then your seeing eye dog sucks, and deserves to die with you.
Seriously, though, you're right - I hadn't considered that aspect of it. Thank you for pointing out the flaw in my argument. Can you provide links to statistics supporting the idea that most of the accidents involving people stepping in front of electric cars were blind?
Personally, I'm inclined to believe they just weren't looking.
Actually, the quietness of electric and hybrid cars is already an issue, and a real one. There is a measurable rise in car/pedestrian accidents in ares with a lot of electric or hybrid cars.
So? It's obvious Darwin is succeeding, and those who step out in front of large, fast-moving objects without looking are being culled from the herd.
When I was younger, I was taught to look both ways before crossing the street...
I can't believe I'm actually going to toe the party line here, but here we go...
It's OSS. If a piece of functionality you believe should exist does not, perhaps you could "code it up"? It would be some seriously mind-numbing data entry unless/until you figured a way to script it out (my script-fu is weak, so I'd be doing a lot of copy/pasting or researching some other method), but it should be fairly trivial to just write up an html document (or better yet, a set of them) with a searchable index, and apt:// links in there... hmm. It would probably *need* to be automated, unless we were going to have a team of people dedicated to the task of keeping it updated.
As I stated above, my shell-scripting abilities are on the weak side (in Linux, anyway), but I can imagine ways to automate it in a Windows command prompt, so it shouldn't be too terrible in a Linux shell.
Hmm. The more I think about it, the less problematic it seems, and the more fun it sounds like it would be. Maybe I'll dedicate some time to "giving back to the community" next weekend.
Gosh, I was so irritated but your ignorant remark that I completely forgot to thank you for reinforcing my point for me.
I don't see that I did that. You're complaining about the GUI being confusing, when the problem is that you failed to read the prompt before reacting to it. The only thing that could possibly keep me from thinking this is a PEBKAC issue is if it was in a foreign language.
PEBKAC = "Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair" (or in this case, couch, if I read your flame correctly).
I'm willing to bet that I can out script fu you from the command line any day (possibly due to 20+ years of experience using Unix as my primary dev platform).
I won't argue that, I'm not a coder. Why does someone with "20+ years of experience using Unix as my primary dev platform" make careless errors due to failing at reading comprehension? I would think that someone with "20+ years of experience" would be a more careful reader than myself, not an auto-clicker. I guess my own 20+ years of experience with various operating systems as a mere technician make me more apt to read before clicking or typing?
Doesn't change the fact that the login widget and the screenlock widget look remarkably similar.
Unless you know how to read, and aren't blindly assuming any given prompt is asking for "yes". Too much Vista?
I also happened to be ssh'd into the Debian box from my laptop with the monitor for the Debian system sitting on the coffetable with a keyboard stretched across to me, so it wasn't right in front of my face.
Ok, so your space-usage issues and apparently poor vision are somehow my problem?
Doing some cross devel for an embedded Linux system and still not comfortable enough with avahi-autoipd to tuck the Debian box back off into a corner.
What you're doing at the time is not so important. Your comfort level with unrelated software is also irrelevant to the discussion at hand. What *is* directly related to the issue you described is your reading comprehension issues and silly auto-click (or in this case, auto-type) tendencies.
But hey - go ahead- be a pompous ass. Nothing personal, just pointing out that you're apparently better at being an ass than you are at accurately guessing people's skill sets.
Considering I wasn't flaming you, but pointing out what any AC here could have, I don't see how I was being a pompous ass. Come to think of it, harping on my ability to guess your skillset (again, irrelevant to the discussion) kinda makes you out to be the ad-hominem attacker, here.
To sum up, don't get pissy with *me* because *you* failed to read, and typed your password in the clear. Your security issues are not my problem, unless you work for my bank... in which case, I hope your boss reads slashdot, sees that you're incompetent (and apparently a prick, to boot), and fires you.
Have a nice day.
Sorry, I apparently misread your post, and was explaining to you how you can download a .deb in firefox, and it will cheerfully (by default, even!) open it with your package manager. This would kinda assume you were downloading a non-standard package, since if you wanted the one from the standard repository, you could use Add/Remove Programs in the Application menu, or Synaptic from the Administration menu. I thought you wanted to know how to install a .deb from your web browser... Oh, wait, you did.
I wonder how hard it would be to make it possible to do links in a browser that install packages.
Am I missing something here?
Yeah, Hari Seldon's work lays an interesting Foundation for Psychohistory.
(And could someone please change the login widget to make it obvious that both a username AND password are going to be called for? At a glance, I thought it was a screen lock and typed my password in "in the clear").
Hmm... maybe with a little label that says "username"? Try reading instead of looking at the pictures, next time.
Nothing personal, just pointing out that you're a GUI user, not a CLI guy.
So I've read that the `mount' command would allow me to access my windows drive. So I do a `sudo mount /dev/sda1 /windows/', then try to enter that directory. What do I see when I type `cd /windows/'? "bash: cd: /windows/: Permission denied" -- WTF!? Where to start looking for help? Why am I not permitted to see my files? Why won't it tell me to mount it with this or that option to be user-readable? Seriously, last time I tried to access an NTFS partition I had to run mc as root.
Why didn't you just mount it from within the file manager? Click on the drive icon with the text label "Windows" (assuming that's your drive's name), and poof, it opens - with the possibility of an access control (gksudo) prompt, of course.
If NTFS says it's dirty, Ubuntu even pops up a nice little message box that, to the newbie, would appear to say "it didn't work", but to someone who actually reads it, contains instructions for "forcing" access. I wish more error messages were that informative.
Nevermind making the CLI more intuitive - get the hardcore geeks out of the CLI and into the GUI, make *it* work better.
Seriously... fire up firefox, google a software package, click the link to the .deb file, it opens a dialog asking what you want to do with it - select to open it with your package manager, it installs...
Poof.
For a lot of the more low-level stuff in Windows you have to resort to viewing hidden or system folders, editing config files in notepad, or registry-editors.
Huh. So, what you're saying is, Linux is user-friendly, whereas with Windows, you have to use arcane commands and edit text files to get anything done? Interesting...
Ya know, public consciousness is that the opposite is typical. Looks like we've come full circle, eh?
(insert evil grin here)
Damn no edit button!
Allow me to point out the "Preview" button...
Most of you are missing the point on the insurance thing.
It's not about assigning the benefits to whomever you'd like in the event of your death or whatnot...
It's about whether your partner is AUTOMATICALLY OFFERED COVERAGE. Having insurance is important, no? Well, your spouse is automatically assumed, in most cases, to be covered under your policy. "Domestic partner"? Not so much.
Your argument is false, based on improper data collection and hastily-constructed conjecture.
Allow me to explain:
Darwin's hypotheses apply to species, not individuals. Humans as a species have evolved to the point where we are now, and we will continue to adapt to our environment (or adapt it to ourselves, which ability is another adaptation). The same (demonstrably false) arguments you made in this post's parent could be used in exactly the same way you used them to disprove the existence of sterile drones in ant or bee colonies, which is quite obviously false. Similarly, mules cannot reproduce themselves, and yet they still somehow exist. Someone's sexual preferences do not magically disqualify them from being a capable care provider (whether for children or others), nor do they prevent someone from being a productive member of society.
The key phrasing I will attack is as follows:
This means that not only must these beings be able to reproduce sexually, they must actually do so, for evolution to work as posited. The species would thus have changed or evolved to favor traits that favor survival and reproduction.
The first statement is completely false, as I explained in the paragraph above the quote. I will now explain to you how G/L/B/T humans do not violate the second statement in the quoted text.
The produced offspring (in this case, humans with a preference for sexual relations with other same-gender humans (or is it a distaste for the opposite gender?)) are not necessarily able to reproduce themselves, this is true. However, their continuing presence in our species may actually indicate a need that their presence fulfills (via the same theories you are misusing). Please keep in mind that homosexuality is not new, there are documented cases from thousands of years ago.
Oh, and on a personal note: my IQ is higher than yours by nearly a dozen points, despite your "50k in the bank" and my apparent financial lack; Furthermore, my testing was done by an actual testing center, not some ad-based website. Fortunately, I recognize that the testing criteria are flawed (as most experts agree), and I don't try to hold that up as an indicator of higher intelligence or fitness for a particular purpose. If I did, I might think myself better than you... oh, wait.
Well-executed bullshit is still bullshit. Move along.
Well, running in a sandbox (ie, a virtual machine), I'm alright with whatever happens to my "surfing rig" - restoring from a snapshot fixes any issues, and there are no hardware concerns ;)
As for goatse - well, after having seen it a few times, the burning retina sensation and nausea is barely noticeable.
I don't think as much in terms of people hopping around the EU as going really from country to country, but, more like how people in the US move from state to state.
My point exactly, except that it's getting to be the case in more places than just the EU. Boundaries are meaning less and less, as people start to figure out that this rock only has so much living space on it.
Call me old fashioned, but I'm for equal rights... which strangely seems to piss a few women off.
Signed. It is now practically a requirement to have a two-earner household if you want to be able to afford a family - thus making absolutely sure that a woman's place is *not* in the kitchen - it's out there in the workforce, so the family can afford to have someone else watch the kids.
The problem here would be that by causing such an uproar over "preserving" the "sanctity" of marriage, all that has occurred is that the concept of "marriage" has been demeaned by the very people claiming to want to protect it. If nowhere else (yet), it is now seen in my household as nothing more than a means to an end; it's a tax dodge and a deduction on the insurance premiums.
We have "civil unions" that supposedly do roughly the same thing, in a legal sense... in some places, with differing implementations, and only in certain circumstances... "Here, just make sure to wear your yellow star at all times, keeping it visible from all directions, ok? We'll round all of you up and shoot you later, but for now, you just run along and play nice, and we'll all pretend you're not a loathsome and disgusting second-class citizen."
Face it, marriage as an institution is already dead. We need to just get over it, decide that any group of two or more consenting adults can incorporate and/or contract to share living space/living expenses/a bed, and be done with it. What is marriage, at its essence? Is it not simply two adults incorporating (becoming a single legal entity)? Oh, my, yes... Do explain to me how your deity gives a whoop-tee-do about our legal system, and how that should matter to me (who doesn't believe in your worship object anyway). Am I supposed to believe that there's an actual, justifiable reason that the legal and financial benefits accruing to bi-gendered contracted couples shouldn't apply to any other groupings who adhere to the same life choices (share living space, share expenses, love and cherish one another) just because their "equipment" may not match someone's ideals? Oh, and please do whip out the procreation argument, I'd love to throw the baby-factory welfare mentality back into your face. Personally, I don't see any issues at all with same-sex marriage, plural marriage, or even the old-fashioned marriage of one man and one woman - they should all receive the same treatment on the insurance paperwork and tax filings. Some people's prejudices about adoption suitability aside, what's the difference? Let people become a single legal entity with whomever they want to, and get your paperwork out of my bedroom. What I do with my life, right up to the point where it interferes with someone else's life, is my own business.
Sorry for ranting, but I just have to share my outrage at the people who are "defending the sanctity of marriage" by keeping people from getting married. This makes almost as much sense as a screen door on a submarine, and is almost as useful as an ejection seat in a helicopter. When religious doctrine becomes a legal issue, things just get stupid.
As I have said before, "welcome to the global community". Hopefully, we can pull our collective heads out of our asses and start thinking about the issues that are actually important.
Your "littleurl" link points to http://youngfoxredux.blogspot.com/2009/01/take-walk-through-gaza.html - although I don't understand why you felt the need to hide that with a contrived url. I'm not saying your cause is unjust, or even that you'll ever see this now that you've drive-by spammed a forum with it (congrats, by the way, you gained a pageview due to my curiosity).
For those who are curious but don't want to reward AC link spam with page hits, the referenced page talks about the atrocities in gaza, and calls for some political action amidst the finger-pointing propaganda.
Come to think of it, we should all be this conscientious, and just have *one* page hit generated by random AC link spam, by someone who then reports what it is - that way, the spammer doesn't get a reward, and those of us with a curiosity bordering on OCD can be satisfied without having to click an "unknown" link.
Please, don't let this post threadjack anything, I just wanted to point it out for what it was.
I just have to share my amusement at your excellent witticism. Assuming you are family (or related to some), I'll extend a warm and hearty chuckle in your direction.
As an aside, one of my girlfriends and I are considering a civil union, because marriage is just a legal matter for us... we want the tax breaks, but the religious aspects don't mean diddly, and the fact that I am male and she is female shouldn't disqualify us from a CU, right? I mean, it's not just a way to label "gay marriage", is it? Should be fun to watch the HR department try to figure that one out on my tax form, though... hehehe.
Besides, what are the legal aspects of recognizing a (predominantly) religious pairing ceremony? Why is there such a big difference between "Bill and Jane want to share living space and expenses" vs "Bob and Neal want to share living space and expenses"? I thought we had that whole "separation of church and state" thing... oh, wait. I see we now have an "Office for Faith-based Services". My bad.
Most people in the world don't move from country to country do they? Don't most people stay their live (aside from vacation) in the country of birth? Gay or straight?
Might wanna check your migration figures against the facts and statistics in Europe. If I understand it correctly, many people bounce between countries several times throughout their lifetimes on that side of the pond...
Comparatively speaking, the United States is fairly large, landmass-wise (Texas is bigger than several European countries), so us "Americans" might not think of leaving the country as a viable employment search. In smaller countries, one might have to show their passport 3 or more times on a 6-hour drive. I don't know about you, but if the money was right, I wouldn't hesitate to push a 90+ minute daily commute, assuming I wouldn't just up stakes and move to someplace closer - i like my commute to be 10 minutes or less, and have moved across town, even to another state for exactly that reason.
In other words, don't show off your lack of culture. The world is more than just this hemisphere, and if you pay attention, national boundaries are becoming less important to everyone except the politicians. Welcome to the global community.
First of all I was responding to another poster who was talking about how Child Porn laws are just hysteria and not sensible. I wasn't responding to the original article, this was a separate sub-discussion. IF you had actually read the post I was responding to, you would have seen that. What was that about reading comprehension?
Slashdot's rendering glitches are not my fault, nor my responsibility. Oh, and quite a few of the "OMG protect the children!" kneejerk laws ARE hysteria, and quite a few of them end up putting children in the courtroom as defendants.
(semi-related anecdote: A friend of mine was sent to juvie hall when he was 13 for sleeping with a 15 year old girl - no effect for her. She was older, she led him on, she explicitly invited the act itself; he went to "kid jail" for the statutory rape of a girl two years his senior. Hooray for capitalism - I mean, the justice system.)
Secondly, the guy in question was convicted on OBSCENITY charges, NOT on Child Porn charges, even though the judge in the case spoke about the PROTECT act in his sentencing. I think you mentioned something about READING THE ARTICLE in your post?
No, he was busted for kiddie porn.
From the article:
Judge Paul V. Niemeyer noted in the majority opinion that the statute under which Whorley was convicted, the PROTECT Act of 2003, clearly states that "it is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exists."
Also, from the wiki entry describing the PROTECT act (the first link in the summary, supposedly to an entry about Dwight Whorley):
The first conviction of a person found to have violated the sections of the act relating to virtual child pornography, Dwight Whorley of Virginia, was upheld in a 2-1 panel decision of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in December 2008.
So, what they said was that cartoon sex acts can be considered child pornography. Your entire confused and misguided rant is hereby refuted, and your lack of reading comprehension is shown to the (slashdot) world. Again. Have a nice day.
Look, if you want to Troll someone, At least have the intelligence to do it properly.
I'm not a troll, merely someone who points out (and by doing so, attempts to correct) ignorance and/or misinformation. Sorry you got your panties in a bunch, hope you read with more comprehension next time. I wasn't aware that I was trolling, but if I was, I think I've done it "properly" - I've certainly got your knickers in a twist, and to top it off, it appears the facts support my statements... Which of us is unintelligent, again?
I'd also like to point out that I wasn't really disagreeing with anything except the comment you made stating that the LEOs weren't busting people for cartoon porn, since they quite obviously are doing exactly that, and as a matter of fact that's what the article we're discussing is about.
Oh, and fuck you. Asshole.
Good job! That's how you win at intarweb fights! Ad hominem attacks! Gee, why didn't I think of that? Maybe next time I'll close my post by insulting your mother, instead of sticking to the facts of the discussion at hand... On second thought, I think I'll stick to logical and factual discussion and refutation of obvious falsehoods, but thanks for the invite to the chop-fights.
Child Porn task forces are highly focused units with very specific and narrowly defined missions. They are NOT out there after Hentai viewers, for instance. They are only after REAL Child porn, both it's purveyors and consumers.
Hmmm... didn't read the article, right?
(from the article):
Dwight Whorley of Richmond is serving 20 years in prison, convicted in 2005 of using a public computer for job-seekers at the Virginia Employment Commission to receive 20 Japanese cartoons, called anime, illustrating young girls being forced to have sex with men.
Oh, wait. You didn't even read the summary.
Here, I'll post it for your edification:
"Two out of the three Virginia judges involved with Dwight Whorley's case say cartoon images depicting sex acts with children are considered child pornography in the United States. Judge Paul V. Niemeyer noted the PROTECT Act of 2003, clearly states that 'it is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exists.'"
Yeah, yeah. You said "task forces". Great. Fantastic. So you didn't really fail at reading comprehension, you just really, really suck at staying on topic.
Next time, try paying attention to what you're saying, at least when you're apparently responding to an article that has absolutely nothing to do with your agenda.
T[h]en teach her howto install free/open software using Synaptic or command line apt if she want to impress her retired friends.
Or simply install wine, and let the autorun prompt install her software from the cd for her. If it's not 3d-rendered, it "just works". Most of the stuff that *is* 3d-rendered "just works", actually. I still play WoW under Windows to get my fps up a bit (5-10 fps difference), but that's about the only reason I boot into XP anymore... and once I get my new "gaming" rig, that will become less relevant.
To be completely honest, wine seems to be more backwards-compatible with windows software than Windows is.
Oh, and before you tag me as a Linux fanboy, allow me to point out that I'm a Microsoft Certified Professional, working in a Windows-based shop.