Re:I'm Not a Fan of Sequels, Trilogys and That Sor
on
New Ender Sequel
·
· Score: 1
Actually, I would not be surprised if he was on here. If you look at what he has written, he wrote for computer magazines for a while. So it is not too far fetched that he would be interested in a Nerdy site like Slashdot... Especially if he hears about discussions about his book being posted.
First of all, I do not support any of the taxes mentioned. I was just saying how there are valid reasons for tobacco tax, , none of which apply to the other tax.
>>but all of the people around him are also injured from the second hand smoke.
>I assume you're aware that there's no conclusive evidence of this? You don't care, do you? Any excuse will do, as far as you're concerned. And given the general hysteria on the subject, no excuse is even necessary. As long as you go along with the crowd, you'll always have a majority to back you up.
You are right, in one sense, all is probably too strong of a word. I do know that I, and many people I know, have adverse reactions to inhaling cigarette smoke. So it does harm me. Im not "going along with the crowd". I hate smoke. If you can create smokeless cigarettes, that would be great with me, and you can smoke tham all you want for all I care.
>> "Practicing" homosexuality involves far more high-risk sexual behavior than practicing heterosexuality. Not all gays are promiscuous, but the ones that are tend often to be very, very promiscuous. HIV happens to people. This is real. It's not a joke.
Now this is a bunch of hogwash. The promiscuity argument is just plain ludicrous. Im sure you will find heterosexuals just as promiscuous. Obviously, there is a problem -- homosexuals are not allowed to marry. If they were, Im sure there would be less promiscuous behavior, Sure, they can now be domestic partners or something like that, but marriage would do so much for them.
First of all, I do not support any of the taxes mentioned. I was just saying how there are valid reasons for tobacco tax, , none of which apply to the other tax. >>but all of the people around him are also injured from the second hand smoke. >I assume you're aware that there's no conclusive evidence of this? You don't care, do you? Any excuse will do, as far as you're concerned. And given the general hysteria on the subject, no excuse is even necessary. As long as you go along with the crowd, you'll always have a majority to back you up. You are right, in one sense, all is probably too strong of a word. I do know that I, and many people I know, have adverse reactions to inhaling cigarette smoke. So it does harm me. Im not "going along with the crowd". I hate smoke. If you can create smokeless cigarettes, that would be great with me, and you can smoke tham all you want for all I care. >> "Practicing" homosexuality involves far more high-risk sexual behavior than practicing heterosexuality. Not all gays are promiscuous, but the ones that are tend often to be very, very promiscuous. HIV happens to people. This is real. It's not a joke. Now this is a bunch of hogwash. The promiscuity argument is just plain ludicrous. Im sure you will find heterosexuals just as promiscuous. Obviously, there is a problem -- homosexuals are not allowed to marry. If they were, Im sure there would be less promiscuous behavior, Sure, they can now be domestic partners or something like that, but marriage would do so much for them.
I know Im relying to a flame, but had to answer based on general principle. I will try to make this short and simple, just for you.
1) I find you filthy and disgusting, therefore, you should be taxed. Thats a silly argument. There are reasons why tobacco is taxed, which I will go into later.
2) Taxpayers already pay money do to people using tobacco. These are in many forms, most importantly hospital bills.
3) Smoking is often not done only in ones own home, whereas sexual acts are usually done in private. When they are done in public, there is a tax, usually in the form of a ticket.
4) Snoking kills, homosexuality doesnt. And not only does smoking kill the person smoking, but all of the people around him are also injured from the second hand smoke.
So the general ideas are that homosexuality is a private matter, hurting noone, whereas smoking hurts many people, and causes a monetary burden on the taxpayer which should be payed back for.
Personally, I dont see anything wrong with Verisign. They ensure that the file you are downloading actually comes from that source, nothing more. An analogy would be secure sites. Just becasue you are on a secure site does not mean that what you are doing/getting isnt bad for you. I think Verisign is a good tool as is. If you try making them have to check out everything they sign, the service will cost more and be used less often.
I think you are missing the point. Read the article! They are not talking about cencoring porn and mp3, they are censoring anything which is not directly related to a school project. Personally, I feel my education is enhanced by reading slashdot, which Im sure would not be a direct link to most if any of my school projects.
The bill says there should be no use of the internet unless it is directly for class. This would be a pretty big restriction and amazingly stupid. One mention is that students should not e able to use the internet to pick a political representative. This is way beyond porn. So of course, no one should see anything political. Sorry political science majors. I can think of other fun filters. Might as well filter out everything, then the taxpayers will be happy that the money they spend on the bandwidth is used for a good cause -- politicians^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
However, there is a lovely workaround! As long as each student had one professor who had a project each semester to use the internet to "enrich your minds", anything you used you could say has educational value and therefore permissable. How about a 0 hour internet usage class:)
So of course that brings up the workaround for the coed visitation clause. Have the rooms be coed! Therefore the people of the opposite sex are not visitors to people of the wrong gender!
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I would not be surprised if he was on here. If you look at what he has written, he wrote for computer magazines for a while. So it is not too far fetched that he would be interested in a Nerdy site like Slashdot... Especially if he hears about discussions about his book being posted.
To reiterate with linebreaks...
First of all, I do not support any of the taxes mentioned. I was just saying how there are valid reasons for tobacco tax, , none of which apply to the other tax.
>>but all of the people around him are also injured from the second hand smoke.
>I assume you're aware that there's no conclusive evidence of this? You don't care, do you? Any excuse will do, as far as you're concerned. And given the general hysteria on the subject, no excuse is even necessary. As long as you go along with the crowd, you'll always have a majority to back you up.
You are right, in one sense, all is probably too strong of a word. I do know that I, and many people I know, have adverse reactions to inhaling cigarette smoke. So it does harm me. Im not "going along with the crowd". I hate smoke. If you can create smokeless cigarettes, that would be great with me, and you can smoke tham all you want for all I care.
>> "Practicing" homosexuality involves far more high-risk sexual behavior than practicing heterosexuality. Not all gays are promiscuous, but the ones that are tend often to be very, very promiscuous. HIV happens to people. This is real. It's not a joke.
Now this is a bunch of hogwash. The promiscuity argument is just plain ludicrous. Im sure you will find heterosexuals just as promiscuous. Obviously, there is a problem -- homosexuals are not allowed to marry. If they were, Im sure there would be less promiscuous behavior, Sure, they can now be domestic partners or something like that, but marriage would do so much for them.
First of all, I do not support any of the taxes mentioned. I was just saying how there are valid reasons for tobacco tax, , none of which apply to the other tax. >>but all of the people around him are also injured from the second hand smoke. >I assume you're aware that there's no conclusive evidence of this? You don't care, do you? Any excuse will do, as far as you're concerned. And given the general hysteria on the subject, no excuse is even necessary. As long as you go along with the crowd, you'll always have a majority to back you up. You are right, in one sense, all is probably too strong of a word. I do know that I, and many people I know, have adverse reactions to inhaling cigarette smoke. So it does harm me. Im not "going along with the crowd". I hate smoke. If you can create smokeless cigarettes, that would be great with me, and you can smoke tham all you want for all I care. >> "Practicing" homosexuality involves far more high-risk sexual behavior than practicing heterosexuality. Not all gays are promiscuous, but the ones that are tend often to be very, very promiscuous. HIV happens to people. This is real. It's not a joke. Now this is a bunch of hogwash. The promiscuity argument is just plain ludicrous. Im sure you will find heterosexuals just as promiscuous. Obviously, there is a problem -- homosexuals are not allowed to marry. If they were, Im sure there would be less promiscuous behavior, Sure, they can now be domestic partners or something like that, but marriage would do so much for them.
I know Im relying to a flame, but had to answer based on general principle. I will try to make this short and simple, just for you.
1) I find you filthy and disgusting, therefore, you should be taxed. Thats a silly argument. There are reasons why tobacco is taxed, which I will go into later.
2) Taxpayers already pay money do to people using tobacco. These are in many forms, most importantly hospital bills.
3) Smoking is often not done only in ones own home, whereas sexual acts are usually done in private. When they are done in public, there is a tax, usually in the form of a ticket.
4) Snoking kills, homosexuality doesnt. And not only does smoking kill the person smoking, but all of the people around him are also injured from the second hand smoke.
So the general ideas are that homosexuality is a private matter, hurting noone, whereas smoking hurts many people, and causes a monetary burden on the taxpayer which should be payed back for.
Personally, I dont see anything wrong with Verisign. They ensure that the file you are downloading actually comes from that source, nothing more. An analogy would be secure sites. Just becasue you are on a secure site does not mean that what you are doing/getting isnt bad for you. I think Verisign is a good tool as is. If you try making them have to check out everything they sign, the service will cost more and be used less often.
I think you are missing the point. Read the article! They are not talking about cencoring porn and mp3, they are censoring anything which is not directly related to a school project. Personally, I feel my education is enhanced by reading slashdot, which Im sure would not be a direct link to most if any of my school projects.
However, there is a lovely workaround! As long as each student had one professor who had a project each semester to use the internet to "enrich your minds", anything you used you could say has educational value and therefore permissable. How about a 0 hour internet usage class :)
So of course that brings up the workaround for the coed visitation clause. Have the rooms be coed! Therefore the people of the opposite sex are not visitors to people of the wrong gender!