I was thinking more along the lines of communication data. Crystals of this sort could be placed on either end of a pipe, and translate the data into and from ultra high frequency. Essentially working like a switch. If the data travels well in those frequencies, I could see massive potential in communications.
Considering they've already had over 1,000 people die of Swine Flu so far this year in the US alone, why would anyone really need to question this? There is no natural immunity to N1H1. It also affects young adults more than any other group (and need I say a very mobile crowd), with a much higher chance of spreading the disease in colleges, schools, and just in general.
What media center hacks? I use it on my HTPC. It works as well as any other media player/center. Just download the Hulu Desktop app (OS X/Windows/Linux) Just launch it and go. I wonder if those folks realize exactly how easy it is to watch this stuff on a TV? I would actually consider canceling cable if they had just a bit more content that was good.
They should ditch the youtube 'clips' and stick to full TV shows and movies. They could also jettison a lot of IMO, useless content. Get some good deals with content providers with exclusive 15, 30, and 60 second commercials if you need to.
It's a good service, but it does need more polish.
If you have products that are out of date, you see a prompt asking if you want to upgrade, with a checkbox to never show it again.
The 'shovelware' you are referring to is part of the product, just as the Java updater is, and the Adobe Reader product. It takes up a few Kb and no CPU cycles. The background task is used to launch iTunes when you plug in an iPod or iPhone.
To add or remove iTunes from the system tray in Windows XP or Windows 2000 or Windows Vista, on the Edit menu, click Preferences, and then click the Advanced tab. Then select or deselect the “Show iTunes icon in system tray” checkbox.
Not to mention the utter lack of any shovelware on a Mac install. No McAfee adds, Quicken shortcuts on your desktop, Printer supplies, etc, etc. There is none of that on any Mac. You get the OS, and no 3rd party crap that has to be uninstalled as soon as you unbox it.
I just don't see Apple pushing any of this into any of it's products, but it can certainly prevent others from doing it as well.
I have to point out the App Store. I can recall seeing very few actual app advertisements yet thousands of apps are selling there. I think in a way that these publishers have become their own worse enemy. They are so driven by profit that they sometimes damage the product to get it.
On the other hand, you have something like Steam, or the App store, which is in itself a publisher of sorts (ok, more of a distributor, but they have aspects of both). The only advertisement you need is for the publisher, to get the people to the store. If the app is good, it will float to the top. If it's bad, it will sink the both bottom with the fart jokes.
Less cost for the publisher, less cost for the developer.
Once the developer has a brand recognition, it becomes easier to sell their product, maintain larger staff, etc.
If the existing model of publisher vs developer is to survive, I think the developers are going to need better contacts.
Agreed. I think McCain is confused about the difference between "Government Takeover", and Regulation. Perhaps if they had tried a little more Regulation these last few years, we would have had a little less of the 'takeover'...
Something else to consider. The existing model allows breaking with one leg, acceleration with the other leg, and steering with one or both hands. If they put all of that into one hand, or require the use of your hands for long trips, that could get very tedious for constant corrections, where a steering wheel requires only a minor nudge from time to time on a relatively straight stretch of road.
I'm not saying that current drivers do hands free, but they multitask with their legs and do minimal corrections with a hand for steering. Putting everything into a single control will make constant corrections with a hand a requirement. The majority of folks are right handed, meaning no easy access to cups, radio controls, and sundry other items for US drivers. They could use a left handed joystick, but many right handed people would invariable not use it for that reason.
And now in typical style, you simply ignore the facts. You don't think any of these studies might note if they found any significant reason for homosexual couples to not adopt? Perhaps it's because they found the children turned out the same regardless of the parents sexual orientation? Did you expect them to become super children or to excel in all areas of learning and emotional growth? They turned out to be normal children as one would expect given a loving home.
Perhaps you should actually read the studies.
I found no where in the last link that had contradictory study information.
Have you even posted a single relevant link to this discussion? By relevant, I mean accepted studies by non-partisan groups. Your arguments lack any foundation in fact. Your dislike of gay marriage is simply because your religion dictates you should. You refuse to accept any facts presented, or rationalize your religious views regardless of the facts presented. This in and of itself is the danger of allowing religion to establish law.
You're obviously intelligent. I find it curious listening to you rationalize any argument you can come up with against each fact presented to you. You also jump to another topic as soon as facts are posted negating your arguments.
Here are the findings from the final link. There are no contradictory results:
In an effort to inform the debate, the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute has conducted an extensive examination of the relevant issues, laws and practices, and available research spanning the last several decades. This effort - which represents one of the broadest, most thorough reviews and analyses to date on gay/lesbian adoption and parenting - is part of a larger, more detailed project that will be completed and released in several months. This paper, meanwhile, is intended as an overview that serves two principal functions: to inform and provide context for the often-fractious debate over gay/lesbian adoption currently taking place in our country; and, most important, to provide information that can be used to shape best practices that focus on providing boys and girls in the child welfare system with safe, committed and enduring families.
Principal findings
* Against a backdrop of increasing public acceptance, social science research concludes that children reared by gay and lesbian parents fare comparably to those of children raised by heterosexuals on a range of measures of social and psychological adjustment.
* Studies are increasing in number and rigor, but the body of research on gay/lesbian parents is relatively small and has methodological limitations. Still, virtually every valid study reaches the same conclusion: The children of gays and lesbians adjust positively and their families function well. The limited research on gay/lesbian adoption points in the same direction.
* Though few states have laws or policies explicitly barring homosexuals from adopting, some individual agencies and workers outside those states discriminate against gay and lesbian applicants based on their own biases or on mistaken beliefs that such prohibitions exist.
* Laws and policies that preclude adoption by gay or lesbian parents disadvantage the tens of thousands of children mired in the foster care system who need permanent, loving homes.
It doesn't force you to accept anything. Your signature is not required on your neighbors marriage license, nor is your consent, as frankly it would be none of your business.
Yes, it would be discrimination, just as it would be discrimination to prevent a mixed race couple from adopting. The burden of proof lies on those trying to prevent it. Any non-partisan study you find will show the same result. The children grow up to be normal, well adjusted children with no ill affects.
Ignoring you? I gave you..how many posts of facts? I haven't seen a single one from you, other than the fact that you believe homosexual marriage tarnishes the idea of 'marriage' and some off the wall percent of people who 'practice' homosexuality, whatever that means.
You would have America run by mob rules? There is a reason for law as there is a reason for separation of church and state. If you can't see the very necessity of that separation, and that it gives you the very rights you would usurp, then I can't help you.
How is a civil union or equal rights bill forcing you to marry the same sex? Can you point one of those out? I must have missed it. They don't force you personally to marry these folks. They don't force your churches to marry these folks. They don't harm you in the slightest.
So you also believe that African Americans should not marry whites? They were also a majority when those laws were passed.
I also wasn't aware that any of these laws were 'forcing' you to marry another man or woman of the same sex? How would you feel if the current 'popular' religion said that all men will only have sex with other men? Would you comply because the majority told you it was your moral obligation?
That nagging 'All Men are Created Equal' nonsense...
First you argued that civil unions were the same. You've given up on that and tried the 'it's not a legal right' argument. Now you're just saying it should be so, because the religious majority doesn't like it. Religion doesn't dictate law and for a very good reason. Take a look at the middle east if you need a good example of where that leads. You find it convenient because you may be in the 'popular' religion.
Pity about all those other religions. I guess they will just have to ditch their beliefs and follow yours since just 'right'.
Homosexuals haven't always been viewed the way you view them now. I would suggest you brush up on your history. It doesn't matter how they were 'viewed'. Unless your claiming the ability to read dead people's minds, then the law as written didn't specify.
Unless the supreme court comes in at some point and defines it as such, then you really don't have a legal leg to stand on.
I follow no religion and have no moral obligation to restrict what they do. Are you going to claim your reasoning is not due to your religion? I will ask again: do you think it's right to apply your religion to others who don't follow yours?
Law is never 'obvious'. It is very explicit. The law as it was in these states did not define it between a man and a woman. The religious right did that.
Actually they already did include homosexual couples. You forget that states had to pass the DOMA laws to specifically say 'between a man and a woman'.
I wouldn't ask such a question. It's none of my business.
Now I think we're getting to the meat of it. You indicate it's a moral decay of society. Unless I'm unaware of it, there are no laws against pre-marital sex. You are again, trying to force your religious laws into government. If a person does not follow your religion, whatever that may be, or if they follow no religion, you believe they must follow your religious teachings?
Do you see the quandary in that? No one is forcing you to have pre-marital sex, and by all means don't if that's what you believe is right, just as no one should force them not to have pre-marital sex if they don't believe it's wrong and harms anyone (it doesn't unless you can point out some sort of statistic that indicates otherwise)?
"In addition to cheapening the meaning of the word "marriage" in the minds of many religious people, it could have various legal ramifications against churches that teach homosexuality is immoral."
Again, you are attempting to add a religions 'moral' laws which are religious in nature into a public law, which would be government sponsored religion.
In every state that has passed civil unions laws, churches have been protected from being forced to perform these unions if it is against their religious beliefs or values. You're throwing up arguments which frankly have no standing.
"A group called Protect Marriage Washington circulated a petition to put the domestic partnership law before the voters. Under the Washington state constitution, voters have the power to reject any law through the referendum process."
These people are not trying to defend marriage.
Just in case you missed it in the other link, the folks who put up the website displaying the petition names are actually for civil unions, just to clear that up. I think the intent was to shame the folks who actually signed the petition to get this on the public ballot in hopes of defeating this civil unions bill.
I could agree with that if there was some great outcry from these same folks when all of those ridiculous game shows hit the air. There was none that I'm aware of.
I might remind you that the very thing your asking is what this thread is about. They are asking for 'civil unions' in Washington, and the religious right is still fighting it.
I believe they are trying to do just that by defining these civil unions in Washington state. It appears the religious groups simply feel they don't have the support to block it because they would appear to be discriminating and taking away rights.
Unless you hadn't noticed, it's the religious right who is redefining marriage with these 'defense of marriage' acts. They did so after the courts started legally recognizing these gay marriages because there was nothing in the law defining marriage between a man and a woman.
Do you really believe that just anyone in the US can 'sponsor' someone and get them through immigrations that way? You can via marriage. You cannot simply pick someone and sponsor them in any other manner.
You seem to be the only one not offering up any facts. Do your own homework.
What is the difference what word they use. These folks only want the same rights granted to any married couple.
I think the "straight" crowd has done quite enough to 'cheapen' the word marriage with the gameshows like "The Bachelor", "How to Marry a Millionaire", ad nauseam.
How much 'cheaper' can you get then a gameshow? I think we've lost all right to refer to the sanctity of marriage.
Slashdot Mirror
I was thinking more along the lines of communication data. Crystals of this sort could be placed on either end of a pipe, and translate the data into and from ultra high frequency. Essentially working like a switch. If the data travels well in those frequencies, I could see massive potential in communications.
I also see storage potential here as well.
Considering they've already had over 1,000 people die of Swine Flu so far this year in the US alone, why would anyone really need to question this? There is no natural immunity to N1H1. It also affects young adults more than any other group (and need I say a very mobile crowd), with a much higher chance of spreading the disease in colleges, schools, and just in general.
What media center hacks? I use it on my HTPC. It works as well as any other media player/center. Just download the Hulu Desktop app (OS X/Windows/Linux) Just launch it and go. I wonder if those folks realize exactly how easy it is to watch this stuff on a TV? I would actually consider canceling cable if they had just a bit more content that was good.
They should ditch the youtube 'clips' and stick to full TV shows and movies. They could also jettison a lot of IMO, useless content. Get some good deals with content providers with exclusive 15, 30, and 60 second commercials if you need to.
It's a good service, but it does need more polish.
If you have products that are out of date, you see a prompt asking if you want to upgrade, with a checkbox to never show it again.
The 'shovelware' you are referring to is part of the product, just as the Java updater is, and the Adobe Reader product. It takes up a few Kb and no CPU cycles. The background task is used to launch iTunes when you plug in an iPod or iPhone.
To add or remove iTunes from the system tray in Windows XP or Windows 2000 or Windows Vista, on the Edit menu, click Preferences, and then click the Advanced tab. Then select or deselect the “Show iTunes icon in system tray” checkbox.
Not to mention the utter lack of any shovelware on a Mac install. No McAfee adds, Quicken shortcuts on your desktop, Printer supplies, etc, etc. There is none of that on any Mac. You get the OS, and no 3rd party crap that has to be uninstalled as soon as you unbox it.
I just don't see Apple pushing any of this into any of it's products, but it can certainly prevent others from doing it as well.
I have to point out the App Store. I can recall seeing very few actual app advertisements yet thousands of apps are selling there. I think in a way that these publishers have become their own worse enemy. They are so driven by profit that they sometimes damage the product to get it.
On the other hand, you have something like Steam, or the App store, which is in itself a publisher of sorts (ok, more of a distributor, but they have aspects of both). The only advertisement you need is for the publisher, to get the people to the store. If the app is good, it will float to the top. If it's bad, it will sink the both bottom with the fart jokes.
Less cost for the publisher, less cost for the developer.
Once the developer has a brand recognition, it becomes easier to sell their product, maintain larger staff, etc.
If the existing model of publisher vs developer is to survive, I think the developers are going to need better contacts.
Agreed. I think McCain is confused about the difference between "Government Takeover", and Regulation. Perhaps if they had tried a little more Regulation these last few years, we would have had a little less of the 'takeover'...
Ugh..make that breaking and accelerating with one leg. I need more coffee...
Something else to consider. The existing model allows breaking with one leg, acceleration with the other leg, and steering with one or both hands. If they put all of that into one hand, or require the use of your hands for long trips, that could get very tedious for constant corrections, where a steering wheel requires only a minor nudge from time to time on a relatively straight stretch of road.
I'm not saying that current drivers do hands free, but they multitask with their legs and do minimal corrections with a hand for steering. Putting everything into a single control will make constant corrections with a hand a requirement. The majority of folks are right handed, meaning no easy access to cups, radio controls, and sundry other items for US drivers. They could use a left handed joystick, but many right handed people would invariable not use it for that reason.
And now in typical style, you simply ignore the facts. You don't think any of these studies might note if they found any significant reason for homosexual couples to not adopt? Perhaps it's because they found the children turned out the same regardless of the parents sexual orientation? Did you expect them to become super children or to excel in all areas of learning and emotional growth? They turned out to be normal children as one would expect given a loving home.
Perhaps you should actually read the studies.
I found no where in the last link that had contradictory study information.
Have you even posted a single relevant link to this discussion? By relevant, I mean accepted studies by non-partisan groups. Your arguments lack any foundation in fact. Your dislike of gay marriage is simply because your religion dictates you should. You refuse to accept any facts presented, or rationalize your religious views regardless of the facts presented. This in and of itself is the danger of allowing religion to establish law.
You're obviously intelligent. I find it curious listening to you rationalize any argument you can come up with against each fact presented to you. You also jump to another topic as soon as facts are posted negating your arguments.
Here are the findings from the final link. There are no contradictory results:
In an effort to inform the debate, the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute has conducted an extensive examination of the relevant issues, laws and practices, and available research spanning the last several decades. This effort - which represents one of the broadest, most thorough reviews and analyses to date on gay/lesbian adoption and parenting - is part of a larger, more detailed project that will be completed and released in several months. This paper, meanwhile, is intended as an overview that serves two principal functions: to inform and provide context for the often-fractious debate over gay/lesbian adoption currently taking place in our country; and, most important, to provide information that can be used to shape best practices that focus on providing boys and girls in the child welfare system with safe, committed and enduring families.
Principal findings
* Against a backdrop of increasing public acceptance, social science research concludes that children reared by gay and lesbian parents fare comparably to those of children raised by heterosexuals on a range of measures of social and psychological adjustment.
* Studies are increasing in number and rigor, but the body of research on gay/lesbian parents is relatively small and has methodological limitations. Still, virtually every valid study reaches the same conclusion: The children of gays and lesbians adjust positively and their families function well. The limited research on gay/lesbian adoption points in the same direction.
* Though few states have laws or policies explicitly barring homosexuals from adopting, some individual agencies and workers outside those states discriminate against gay and lesbian applicants based on their own biases or on mistaken beliefs that such prohibitions exist.
* Laws and policies that preclude adoption by gay or lesbian parents disadvantage the tens of thousands of children mired in the foster care system who need permanent, loving homes.
It doesn't force you to accept anything. Your signature is not required on your neighbors marriage license, nor is your consent, as frankly it would be none of your business.
No study? Seriously, do you even read the news?
http://prorev.com/2009/09/study-gay-adoption-doesnt-harm.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSTRE58O3MK20090925
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/sep/25/local/chi-gay-adoption-25-sep25
http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/policy/2006_Expanding_Resources_for_Children.php
Yes, it would be discrimination, just as it would be discrimination to prevent a mixed race couple from adopting. The burden of proof lies on those trying to prevent it. Any non-partisan study you find will show the same result. The children grow up to be normal, well adjusted children with no ill affects.
Ignoring you? I gave you..how many posts of facts? I haven't seen a single one from you, other than the fact that you believe homosexual marriage tarnishes the idea of 'marriage' and some off the wall percent of people who 'practice' homosexuality, whatever that means.
You would have America run by mob rules? There is a reason for law as there is a reason for separation of church and state. If you can't see the very necessity of that separation, and that it gives you the very rights you would usurp, then I can't help you.
How is a civil union or equal rights bill forcing you to marry the same sex? Can you point one of those out? I must have missed it. They don't force you personally to marry these folks. They don't force your churches to marry these folks. They don't harm you in the slightest.
So you also believe that African Americans should not marry whites? They were also a majority when those laws were passed.
I also wasn't aware that any of these laws were 'forcing' you to marry another man or woman of the same sex? How would you feel if the current 'popular' religion said that all men will only have sex with other men? Would you comply because the majority told you it was your moral obligation?
That nagging 'All Men are Created Equal' nonsense...
First you argued that civil unions were the same. You've given up on that and tried the 'it's not a legal right' argument. Now you're just saying it should be so, because the religious majority doesn't like it. Religion doesn't dictate law and for a very good reason. Take a look at the middle east if you need a good example of where that leads. You find it convenient because you may be in the 'popular' religion.
Pity about all those other religions. I guess they will just have to ditch their beliefs and follow yours since just 'right'.
120,577 required signatures.
I'm unsure as to how many they actually acquired but it appears they needed at least that many to get on the ballot.
Homosexuals haven't always been viewed the way you view them now. I would suggest you brush up on your history. It doesn't matter how they were 'viewed'. Unless your claiming the ability to read dead people's minds, then the law as written didn't specify.
Unless the supreme court comes in at some point and defines it as such, then you really don't have a legal leg to stand on.
I follow no religion and have no moral obligation to restrict what they do. Are you going to claim your reasoning is not due to your religion? I will ask again: do you think it's right to apply your religion to others who don't follow yours?
Law is never 'obvious'. It is very explicit. The law as it was in these states did not define it between a man and a woman. The religious right did that.
Actually they already did include homosexual couples. You forget that states had to pass the DOMA laws to specifically say 'between a man and a woman'.
I wouldn't ask such a question. It's none of my business.
Now I think we're getting to the meat of it. You indicate it's a moral decay of society. Unless I'm unaware of it, there are no laws against pre-marital sex. You are again, trying to force your religious laws into government. If a person does not follow your religion, whatever that may be, or if they follow no religion, you believe they must follow your religious teachings?
Do you see the quandary in that? No one is forcing you to have pre-marital sex, and by all means don't if that's what you believe is right, just as no one should force them not to have pre-marital sex if they don't believe it's wrong and harms anyone (it doesn't unless you can point out some sort of statistic that indicates otherwise)?
"In addition to cheapening the meaning of the word "marriage" in the minds of many religious people, it could have various legal ramifications against churches that teach homosexuality is immoral."
Again, you are attempting to add a religions 'moral' laws which are religious in nature into a public law, which would be government sponsored religion.
In every state that has passed civil unions laws, churches have been protected from being forced to perform these unions if it is against their religious beliefs or values. You're throwing up arguments which frankly have no standing.
From TFA (see the Seattle Times link):
"A group called Protect Marriage Washington circulated a petition to put the domestic partnership law before the voters. Under the Washington state constitution, voters have the power to reject any law through the referendum process."
These people are not trying to defend marriage.
Just in case you missed it in the other link, the folks who put up the website displaying the petition names are actually for civil unions, just to clear that up. I think the intent was to shame the folks who actually signed the petition to get this on the public ballot in hopes of defeating this civil unions bill.
I could agree with that if there was some great outcry from these same folks when all of those ridiculous game shows hit the air. There was none that I'm aware of.
I might remind you that the very thing your asking is what this thread is about. They are asking for 'civil unions' in Washington, and the religious right is still fighting it.
I believe they are trying to do just that by defining these civil unions in Washington state. It appears the religious groups simply feel they don't have the support to block it because they would appear to be discriminating and taking away rights.
Time will tell as to what happens.
Unless you hadn't noticed, it's the religious right who is redefining marriage with these 'defense of marriage' acts. They did so after the courts started legally recognizing these gay marriages because there was nothing in the law defining marriage between a man and a woman.
Do you really believe that just anyone in the US can 'sponsor' someone and get them through immigrations that way? You can via marriage. You cannot simply pick someone and sponsor them in any other manner.
You seem to be the only one not offering up any facts. Do your own homework.
What is the difference what word they use. These folks only want the same rights granted to any married couple.
I think the "straight" crowd has done quite enough to 'cheapen' the word marriage with the gameshows like "The Bachelor", "How to Marry a Millionaire", ad nauseam.
How much 'cheaper' can you get then a gameshow? I think we've lost all right to refer to the sanctity of marriage.