i'm 25 (about the same age as you from what i can tell). i've been in a handful of relationships. the first girl i dated was unstable, but ended up breaking up with me... i enjoyed the stability of having just one girlfriend. we dated for about a year (during which, we had "adventure" and did a lot of different things). had some fun for a few months with a couple other girls. next girl i seriously dated was for 4 years. i thought i'd marry her. it ended up not working out. she was too young and immature.
i'm currently dating a girl, have been for 6 months. i know she's the girl i'll marry. now, while dating her, we'll have fun, go out and do different things, try different things. we already have, and it's been great.
i know a lot of married people, some are settling down with kids, others are going out and having fun and travelling, etc. of course if you wanna go out and sleep around and be with a lot of different women, well, marriage just doesn't allow for that. sure, i get a bit frightened by the fact that this could be the last girl i ever date, but knowing her is the consolation....
they released a beta of this new aim product... it's got ads. do you really think the official client from aol won't have ads? come on now...
i use gaim. it's alright, although it does use a lot of ram (but so does the official aim client). i don't have a lot of hope for what they're going to release... the're really just opening the protocol, probably meaning they're not gonna harass 3rd party clients.
for $1200 a computer is no longer "reasonable", it's pretty damn good, considering you can buy a "reasonable" machine for $500.
but you hit the nail right on the head. i tried playing halo. i used to play FPS games all the time (mainly quake2 and quake3). trying to play a FPS on a console after having the keyboard/mouse customized exactly to my liking was a real bitch. i never understood how people could enjoy playing halo on the console so much... but the controllers they make suck for FPS games.
the $8 goes to the state. they use it for things other than recycling programs, probably to pay the terminator more. since most people would just throw something like that out with the trash anyways...
more robust, more stable alternatives, while free, are not as easy to use.
easier to use, more stable alternatives are far more expensive...
and my machine isn't virus/worm/trojan/spyware/malware-ridden. get over yourself. while apples are higher quality, they are still susceptible to problems as seen here. and don't get me started on the problems with introducing linux to the mainstream average computer user...
they're not there. the reason being that people don't chain smoke marijuana like they do tobacco. they smoke until they're high and stop. and if, per chance there are a few, it's so low, you can probably account those deaths to something else (combined use of marijuana and tobacco).
marijuana has the same carcinogens as cigarettes... but there's a difference. the majority of marijuana users don't chain smoke. they smoke until they're high and stop. and while your risk of cancer has increased, you're rick of cancer has also increased by walking through a major city on a daily basis. do you know of anyone who was determined to get lung cancer solely from their use of marijuana?
as for use by older individuals, the same care must be taken as that of drinking or anything that's out of the ordinary for your body. also, did their study include people who were lifelong users or just people who tried it once or twice or started when they were older? all questions that need to be taken into account. since it wasn't published, i'd imagine there were too many questions left unanswered.
and i won't say it's safer than donuts, but it's safer than alcohol and it's safer than cigarettes.
witnessing countless individuals all drunk (and this is a non-scientific study, just like your bouncer study), i will say that the majority of individuals who are drunk are non-violent drunks. this is a study of thousands of people. i went to college, i've seen what alcohol can do to people... generally they're just sloppy and stupid, not violent.
marijuana and cocaine ahve been around just as long as alcohol, they just haven't been as prominent in society.
they tried making alcohol illegal in the US, but that caused teh same crime and trouble that exists due to illegal drugs.
what scientific studies show that alcohol makes you violent? when i'm drunk, i don't get violent.
caffeine is an addictive substance. i know several people who have tried to get off it, but had just a hard a time as people i know who were addicted to cigarettes and ecstasy (different people). and you're telling me caffeine is harmless... HA!
marijuana is harmless. it doesn't cause addiction, it doesn't cause death, and when used properly in THE PRIVACY OF YOUR OWN HOME, you affect no one but yourself. there are no known deaths related to marijuana.
you haven't told me why drugs should be illegal? the facts are out there that they can mess you up when abused. people should be held responsible for their own actions, not protected from themselves. the government is protecting me by making pot illegal, yet i can use it and not cause harm to others or myself. same goes for a slew of other drugs... heroin is an exception because you're practically hooked once you shoot up the first time.
the punishments don't fit the crimes in the US. while drug use/possession might be illegal elsewhere, it's not as major an offense as it is here. prison time for possession of marijuana. it's a non-violent crime. how about a fine or community service instead? the's why our prisons are over-crowded, there's too many non-violent "criminals" locked up. drugs shouldn't even be illegal here. and don't go and say "your username contains 420, so of course you think that" because i just got in the habit of adding that after my name when "rizzo" didn't work. there's just no really good reason for drugs to be illegal while alcohol and cigarettes are legal.
you actually make a good point... except for one thing... this has already sorta been done with BSD and apple. MS doesn't need red hat to do this, the kernel is open source. they can build proprietary stuff off the kernel. the only benefit to buying red hat would be having developers already very familiar with working with the linux kernel.
to add to that wonderful list... use different cybercafes in a random manner... don't use the same machine at any cybercafe.
also, try using one of those secure usb key's (lexar has one). and always do boring, mundane stuff while you're at the cafes, even when you go for the main purpose, start up a normal browsing session before you upload anything and flip back to it during the transfer.
same here... it's overkill... if i were to buy a laptop, it'd be about portability... i like having a desktop as my workhorse, but don't see the point in having a portable desktop. i actually like the 12" laptops... 19" has to weigh a TON (probably about as much as my tower).
in addition to this (on the real id thing), no one knows about the real id outside of slashdot and other civil liberties circles. the patriot act has been all over the place.
i think children can get the exposure in other ways. i believe in showing children all sides of the spectrum and letting them decide on things for themselves (when they are mature enough for certain things). i don't see how having 2 mom's or 2 dad's limits this during their younger days. and when they're younger, they should be brought out to play with other children and families and see how others are.
i don't know about elsewhere, but it can be very difficult in the US to find good parents willing to adopt. that coupled with the strict rules that make it difficult for a couple to adopt add to the problems the children have.
by stating that gays shouldn't be allowed the same rights as heterosexuals, you make them out to be unequal, inferior. the same can be said about the lack of rights blacks received in the US and many other countries based on the color of their skin. other countries don't believe women are equal to men, and it's in their constitution (or whatever they have, see any muslim nation or much of asia). do i consider that bigotted behavior? yes. i don't care if their "religion" makes someone out to be inferior because of the way they were born, it's not right.
and if you read back, i wasn't the first to even use the word "bigot", you were. you must've had some thought that maybe you were being a bit bigotted in your thoughts.
so tell me... if you think that women and blacks should have the same rights as everyone else, why not homosexuals?
scientific studies have not shown anything about microsoft being cheaper. they're usually studies by some biased company. granted, everyone is biased, however, a biased scientist will come under great attack by the rest of his peers (senator bill frist MD, for example).
yes, children should be raised by their natural parents, unless it is not possible (sperm donations, psychotic/abusive parents, etc). that i agree with. marriage has nothing to do with it.
however, and this is where we disagree... children are optimally raised by loving parents, regardless of the gender of those parents. i live in the US (where you say people value the lives of rats of unborn children), but i am anti-abortion to a point (it needs to remain legal, but it shoudln't be performed except in extreme cases, such as the mother's life is in jeopardy or if someone becomes pregnant as a result of rape, generally the only 2 cases where i find it acceptable).
as for your definition of bigotry, you're partial to heterosexual couples. sounds to me that you're bigotted against gay parents. what would your gay friends think if they knew that you were so against them adopting a child?
and what is immoral about being gay? tell me that. morals have nothing to do with sexual orientation. or are you one of those people who believes that sex is purely for procreation?
didn't have to do the google search. and you can think i'm full of shit all you want. just as your scenarios didn't apply everywhere, either did mine. you did a terrible job explaining your instances and left out the points that i included.
i am not a religious person, yet i have this strange feeling you won't believe that either. unfortunately, i am not longer in the biological sciences field, so i am a little out of practice. we did learn about different types of evolution. and we were also taught to look at evidence (which is all theories since you can't really prove any of it) and consider which works and which doesn't (much like a scientist does). and while it would be absurd for me to see the relation between species on the large scale, and it would be absurd for me to say that it's impossible for us to have come from a common anscestor, unfortunately the fossil record doesn't cover everything, so the proof there is incomplete. i can't come out and say that it's definitely the way it happened. new fossil evidence proves theories wrong all the time, as well as giving other theories strong backing. there's just not enough evidence to prove that evolution happens on a much larger scale than within a species.
as for the definitions of species and speciation, there are different ones because there are different theories and mindsets. the definition you gave differs from that of many top evolutionary biologists. in fact, a few of my professors had different thoughts on it as well. so don't go and say that they're all correct, when not even the top minds in the field can agree on it.
you have admitted to being a roman catholic. therefore, your argument is already flawed to a religious background in your judgement.
there is the possibility of problems between gay couples. and i don't have good proof that it's more prevalent in hetero couples than in gay couples. however, given my experience with many gay couples and many hetero couples, i have seen that more problems (abuse, either verbal, physical, or emotional) exist in the hetero couples.
so if you admittedly don't think that love depends on sexual orientation, why is it so wrong that gay couples adopt and become parents? you have given no proof other than the fact that they are physically incapable of procreating, and that is about as far from proof as you can get. they are emotionally perfectly capable of raising a child. and there is absolutely NO scientific evidence that a child raised by a gay couple is any more likely to be gay. there is no evidence that a child raised by a gay couple will not be fit for society. there is no evidence that a child raised by a gay couple will be any less loved than a child raised by a hetero couple. the only "evidence" given is that of religious bigotry stating that because they are physically incapable of procreating that they are incapable of raising a child properly.
and when there's so many kids being born out of wedlock?
i'm baptized and confirmed roman catholic. i see more love between gay couples than between heterosexual couples. how often do you hear about domestic abuse between gay couples? does it happen? maybe, but not like with a man and a woman. and who is the victim? the child. in a gay household, a child learns about love. just because it happens to be between 2 men or 2 women doesn't mean it's any different than between a man and a woman.
so i think i can safely say that children are safer in the hands of gays than they are in the hands of most heterosexuals. come back with a better argument other than the fact that you are repeating religious tradition.
a new species of bird emerges in your scenario because 2 species are not going to reproduce with each other based on differences in looks. however, they can reproduce in a lab. apparently you don't know the definition of species (of which there are many).
species are generally differentiated by the fact that they will not reproduce with one another in a natural setting, be it that they are geographically incapable (like your weak example) or it's just physically impossible. for instance (and you just had to choose birds), there are species of birds in north america an in europe that are exactly the same in everything except their name and some slight differences in looks (sparrows). they're perfectly capable of reproducing with one another, but a sparrow cannot fly across the atlantic ocean. therefore they are different species. that's not so much evolution. bad example. you explained no concepts to me.
darwin's finches, however, are an example with the different beak shapes for different eating habits.
Slashdot Mirror
try the IEView extension for firefox... makes it much easier. :)
contra!!!
define youth, change, and adventure.
i'm 25 (about the same age as you from what i can tell). i've been in a handful of relationships. the first girl i dated was unstable, but ended up breaking up with me... i enjoyed the stability of having just one girlfriend. we dated for about a year (during which, we had "adventure" and did a lot of different things). had some fun for a few months with a couple other girls. next girl i seriously dated was for 4 years. i thought i'd marry her. it ended up not working out. she was too young and immature.
i'm currently dating a girl, have been for 6 months. i know she's the girl i'll marry. now, while dating her, we'll have fun, go out and do different things, try different things. we already have, and it's been great.
i know a lot of married people, some are settling down with kids, others are going out and having fun and travelling, etc. of course if you wanna go out and sleep around and be with a lot of different women, well, marriage just doesn't allow for that. sure, i get a bit frightened by the fact that this could be the last girl i ever date, but knowing her is the consolation....
i got 256 MB on the machine i'm using now... with XP. it hangs every now and then and serious multi-tasking sucks ass.
they released a beta of this new aim product... it's got ads. do you really think the official client from aol won't have ads? come on now...
i use gaim. it's alright, although it does use a lot of ram (but so does the official aim client). i don't have a lot of hope for what they're going to release... the're really just opening the protocol, probably meaning they're not gonna harass 3rd party clients.
for $1200 a computer is no longer "reasonable", it's pretty damn good, considering you can buy a "reasonable" machine for $500.
but you hit the nail right on the head. i tried playing halo. i used to play FPS games all the time (mainly quake2 and quake3). trying to play a FPS on a console after having the keyboard/mouse customized exactly to my liking was a real bitch. i never understood how people could enjoy playing halo on the console so much... but the controllers they make suck for FPS games.
the $8 goes to the state. they use it for things other than recycling programs, probably to pay the terminator more. since most people would just throw something like that out with the trash anyways...
more robust, more stable alternatives, while free, are not as easy to use.
easier to use, more stable alternatives are far more expensive...
and my machine isn't virus/worm/trojan/spyware/malware-ridden. get over yourself. while apples are higher quality, they are still susceptible to problems as seen here. and don't get me started on the problems with introducing linux to the mainstream average computer user...
they're not there. the reason being that people don't chain smoke marijuana like they do tobacco. they smoke until they're high and stop. and if, per chance there are a few, it's so low, you can probably account those deaths to something else (combined use of marijuana and tobacco).
marijuana has the same carcinogens as cigarettes... but there's a difference. the majority of marijuana users don't chain smoke. they smoke until they're high and stop. and while your risk of cancer has increased, you're rick of cancer has also increased by walking through a major city on a daily basis. do you know of anyone who was determined to get lung cancer solely from their use of marijuana?
as for use by older individuals, the same care must be taken as that of drinking or anything that's out of the ordinary for your body. also, did their study include people who were lifelong users or just people who tried it once or twice or started when they were older? all questions that need to be taken into account. since it wasn't published, i'd imagine there were too many questions left unanswered.
and i won't say it's safer than donuts, but it's safer than alcohol and it's safer than cigarettes.
witnessing countless individuals all drunk (and this is a non-scientific study, just like your bouncer study), i will say that the majority of individuals who are drunk are non-violent drunks. this is a study of thousands of people. i went to college, i've seen what alcohol can do to people... generally they're just sloppy and stupid, not violent.
marijuana and cocaine ahve been around just as long as alcohol, they just haven't been as prominent in society.
they tried making alcohol illegal in the US, but that caused teh same crime and trouble that exists due to illegal drugs.
what scientific studies show that alcohol makes you violent? when i'm drunk, i don't get violent.
caffeine is an addictive substance. i know several people who have tried to get off it, but had just a hard a time as people i know who were addicted to cigarettes and ecstasy (different people). and you're telling me caffeine is harmless... HA!
marijuana is harmless. it doesn't cause addiction, it doesn't cause death, and when used properly in THE PRIVACY OF YOUR OWN HOME, you affect no one but yourself. there are no known deaths related to marijuana.
you haven't told me why drugs should be illegal? the facts are out there that they can mess you up when abused. people should be held responsible for their own actions, not protected from themselves. the government is protecting me by making pot illegal, yet i can use it and not cause harm to others or myself. same goes for a slew of other drugs... heroin is an exception because you're practically hooked once you shoot up the first time.
people like you make me sick.
the punishments don't fit the crimes in the US. while drug use/possession might be illegal elsewhere, it's not as major an offense as it is here. prison time for possession of marijuana. it's a non-violent crime. how about a fine or community service instead? the's why our prisons are over-crowded, there's too many non-violent "criminals" locked up. drugs shouldn't even be illegal here. and don't go and say "your username contains 420, so of course you think that" because i just got in the habit of adding that after my name when "rizzo" didn't work. there's just no really good reason for drugs to be illegal while alcohol and cigarettes are legal.
you actually make a good point... except for one thing... this has already sorta been done with BSD and apple. MS doesn't need red hat to do this, the kernel is open source. they can build proprietary stuff off the kernel. the only benefit to buying red hat would be having developers already very familiar with working with the linux kernel.
to add to that wonderful list... use different cybercafes in a random manner... don't use the same machine at any cybercafe.
also, try using one of those secure usb key's (lexar has one). and always do boring, mundane stuff while you're at the cafes, even when you go for the main purpose, start up a normal browsing session before you upload anything and flip back to it during the transfer.
same here... it's overkill... if i were to buy a laptop, it'd be about portability... i like having a desktop as my workhorse, but don't see the point in having a portable desktop. i actually like the 12" laptops... 19" has to weigh a TON (probably about as much as my tower).
in addition to this (on the real id thing), no one knows about the real id outside of slashdot and other civil liberties circles. the patriot act has been all over the place.
i think children can get the exposure in other ways. i believe in showing children all sides of the spectrum and letting them decide on things for themselves (when they are mature enough for certain things). i don't see how having 2 mom's or 2 dad's limits this during their younger days. and when they're younger, they should be brought out to play with other children and families and see how others are.
i don't know about elsewhere, but it can be very difficult in the US to find good parents willing to adopt. that coupled with the strict rules that make it difficult for a couple to adopt add to the problems the children have.
by stating that gays shouldn't be allowed the same rights as heterosexuals, you make them out to be unequal, inferior. the same can be said about the lack of rights blacks received in the US and many other countries based on the color of their skin. other countries don't believe women are equal to men, and it's in their constitution (or whatever they have, see any muslim nation or much of asia). do i consider that bigotted behavior? yes. i don't care if their "religion" makes someone out to be inferior because of the way they were born, it's not right.
and if you read back, i wasn't the first to even use the word "bigot", you were. you must've had some thought that maybe you were being a bit bigotted in your thoughts.
so tell me... if you think that women and blacks should have the same rights as everyone else, why not homosexuals?
scientific studies have not shown anything about microsoft being cheaper. they're usually studies by some biased company. granted, everyone is biased, however, a biased scientist will come under great attack by the rest of his peers (senator bill frist MD, for example).
yes, children should be raised by their natural parents, unless it is not possible (sperm donations, psychotic/abusive parents, etc). that i agree with. marriage has nothing to do with it.
however, and this is where we disagree... children are optimally raised by loving parents, regardless of the gender of those parents. i live in the US (where you say people value the lives of rats of unborn children), but i am anti-abortion to a point (it needs to remain legal, but it shoudln't be performed except in extreme cases, such as the mother's life is in jeopardy or if someone becomes pregnant as a result of rape, generally the only 2 cases where i find it acceptable).
as for your definition of bigotry, you're partial to heterosexual couples. sounds to me that you're bigotted against gay parents. what would your gay friends think if they knew that you were so against them adopting a child?
and what is immoral about being gay? tell me that. morals have nothing to do with sexual orientation. or are you one of those people who believes that sex is purely for procreation?
didn't have to do the google search. and you can think i'm full of shit all you want. just as your scenarios didn't apply everywhere, either did mine. you did a terrible job explaining your instances and left out the points that i included.
i am not a religious person, yet i have this strange feeling you won't believe that either. unfortunately, i am not longer in the biological sciences field, so i am a little out of practice. we did learn about different types of evolution. and we were also taught to look at evidence (which is all theories since you can't really prove any of it) and consider which works and which doesn't (much like a scientist does). and while it would be absurd for me to see the relation between species on the large scale, and it would be absurd for me to say that it's impossible for us to have come from a common anscestor, unfortunately the fossil record doesn't cover everything, so the proof there is incomplete. i can't come out and say that it's definitely the way it happened. new fossil evidence proves theories wrong all the time, as well as giving other theories strong backing. there's just not enough evidence to prove that evolution happens on a much larger scale than within a species.
as for the definitions of species and speciation, there are different ones because there are different theories and mindsets. the definition you gave differs from that of many top evolutionary biologists. in fact, a few of my professors had different thoughts on it as well. so don't go and say that they're all correct, when not even the top minds in the field can agree on it.
you have admitted to being a roman catholic. therefore, your argument is already flawed to a religious background in your judgement.
there is the possibility of problems between gay couples. and i don't have good proof that it's more prevalent in hetero couples than in gay couples. however, given my experience with many gay couples and many hetero couples, i have seen that more problems (abuse, either verbal, physical, or emotional) exist in the hetero couples.
so if you admittedly don't think that love depends on sexual orientation, why is it so wrong that gay couples adopt and become parents? you have given no proof other than the fact that they are physically incapable of procreating, and that is about as far from proof as you can get. they are emotionally perfectly capable of raising a child. and there is absolutely NO scientific evidence that a child raised by a gay couple is any more likely to be gay. there is no evidence that a child raised by a gay couple will not be fit for society. there is no evidence that a child raised by a gay couple will be any less loved than a child raised by a hetero couple. the only "evidence" given is that of religious bigotry stating that because they are physically incapable of procreating that they are incapable of raising a child properly.
and when there's so many kids being born out of wedlock?
i'm baptized and confirmed roman catholic. i see more love between gay couples than between heterosexual couples. how often do you hear about domestic abuse between gay couples? does it happen? maybe, but not like with a man and a woman. and who is the victim? the child. in a gay household, a child learns about love. just because it happens to be between 2 men or 2 women doesn't mean it's any different than between a man and a woman.
so i think i can safely say that children are safer in the hands of gays than they are in the hands of most heterosexuals. come back with a better argument other than the fact that you are repeating religious tradition.
a new species of bird emerges in your scenario because 2 species are not going to reproduce with each other based on differences in looks. however, they can reproduce in a lab. apparently you don't know the definition of species (of which there are many).
s .html
species are generally differentiated by the fact that they will not reproduce with one another in a natural setting, be it that they are geographically incapable (like your weak example) or it's just physically impossible. for instance (and you just had to choose birds), there are species of birds in north america an in europe that are exactly the same in everything except their name and some slight differences in looks (sparrows). they're perfectly capable of reproducing with one another, but a sparrow cannot fly across the atlantic ocean. therefore they are different species. that's not so much evolution. bad example. you explained no concepts to me.
darwin's finches, however, are an example with the different beak shapes for different eating habits.
also, i believe the prime example used in most science books (the peppered moth) has been refuted. http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moth