Hint: if it costs you nothing that I copy your game, you didn't lose jack shit.
Sigh. Opportunity cost. If the pirate would have purchased, but didn't, then it does cost them the profit they otherwise would have made. That's precisely why this article is trying to estimate the number of lost customers, compared to those pirates who were never going to buy it if they couldn't pirate.
If you don't like it, make your game more entertaining than the pirated version.
If you don't like what the game companies are doing, why not protest by not playing the game? Same logic, I'm not sure why they have to do something about it, and you don't.
Because in order to obey the conservation of energy laws, energy in >= energy out of that DC/DC converter.
But a decent DC/DC converter is 85-95% efficient. If the alternatives are to lose 50% of the power in resistance or 15% in resistance and converter, the choice is obvious.
Total (Vin * Iin) = Total ( Vout * Iout) If you increase the output voltage, the output current drops proportionally. Furthermore, to increase output voltage while keeping the output current similar, you need more input current.
Since photovoltaic are already low current, there is not much head room to increase output voltage.
Not sure what you're talking about. We only care about the power on the output, rather than the current itself. The whole point is to reduce the current, since that is how we minimize resistive losses (power lost in the wire = I^2 * R_wire). Considering the output will do another DC/DC or DC/AC conversion, the current is negligible as long as it is sufficient to operate the DC/DC converters. That's left as an exercise to the engineers, and I'm sure it's easily handled.
I think all of the other companies doing solar-with-inkjet have been printing on plastic or metal substrates. MIT is printing on a paper (and thus cheap, flexible, and renewable) substrate.
The printing isn't the important part, but what it is being printed upon.
Grow the trees to make the paper that you'd use for these cells then... Don't.
Look up coppicing.
Or, do both. You can only burn wood to create energy once, but if that wood is the substrate for a solar panel you've vastly increased the solar energy we can harvest over burning. The tree is one time producer (with a long lead time), but even inefficient solar can catch up over time.
Coppicing regrows harvestable trees in about 7 years, but one tree's worth of a 1% efficient solar panel (in the right sunlight) can produce more energy over those 7 years that simply burning the wood. Of course, the panel requires additional raw materials, but I expect we'd still end up energy positive.
the only industry that would be impacted is transportation based on heavy fuels like jet fuel and diesel and those also have alternatives.
You do realize that virtually every other industry depends on the transportation sector to move goods around, right? How do you think your food makes it from the fields to the cities? Scotty, beam me up?
And don't forget the chemical and plastics industries which produce petrolium products. Considering these two industries produce much of the raw material and packaging for the other industries. Of course, we can increase our usage of tree and plant products, but we'll wipe the planet of greenery trying to keep up, at least at our current rate.
Read yesterday that they're seeing sand and gravel in the oil plume and are afraid that the cavern the line taps in to might be fracturing. There's a chance this could turn in to something larger than a pipe with no valves on it. But then again, that may just be alarmists begging for trouble.
For a failure analysis engineer, it's best to assume the worst and prepare for it. Better to be prepared for it does happen and not need to do anything, than to be caught off guard when the entire chamber dumps its crude into the ocean is 3 days.
They are trying to achieve a reduction in spam. Didn't you even read the title of the article?
I also don't see how, according to the GP, the user experience can possibly be degraded if it was already overrun with spam. If the simple usenet solution is overrun with spam, the only way to prevent it may require an increase in complexity. Simple solutions only solve simple problems, and spam is anything but.
In others words, he is assuming that the "multi" core market will continue to grow and without parallel programming Moore's Law will be unnecessary to follow.
Wrong, Moore's Law will continue to affect both architectures. It will simultaneously allow parallel processors to fit more cores and pipelines on a chip, and allow single core processors to become smaller, and therefor cheaper and use less power.
Right, there's no physical reason that the rate couldn't be higher or lower.
However, it is a well-fit trend. He saw the trend, and predicted it should continue for at least 10 years. It has continued for much longer than that.
My complaint is with using it as a buzz-word for a completely unrelated phenomenon. He might as well claim that we need to use parallel GPUs to promote synergy in the next paradigm shift, and leverage the dynamic long-tail proactively.
Could you restate that in the form of a car analogy please? Preferably one involving Toyotas?
This is like a tire manufacturer claiming that the only way to improve vehicle performance is with low-rolling-resistance tires, and claiming that it makes hybrid and electric vehicles obsolete.
The connection to Moore's Law is that parallel structures are the only really understood and manageable way to keep increasing the transistor count in any useful way. We don't know how to throw twice as many transistors at a CPU and get it to do twice as much work, though we know how to put more processors on the chip and get them to do more work.
And I would argue that isn't necessarily true, or necessary. Parallel computing is probably more efficient than replacing your adders and multipliers with lookahead versions, but it's not the only method for speeding up a processor.
As well, Moore's Law's benefits aren't limited to performance. Die size reduction (for higher yields), lower power, and higher transition speeds are the primary benefits, and smaller transistors are a better way to achieve that than parallel structures.
In other words, Moore's Law helps both single- multi- and many-core processors equally. Simply changing architecture doesn't obsolete the desire for small transistors.
If you always have 1-5 of these guys in the 'air' at any one time, there's your plausible deniability. If the flights are routine enough, it's no longer out of the ordinary to launch a kill vehicle, since it's otherwise identical to the other (non-military or weaponized) launches.
Or, more efficiently, a small cloud of undetectable debris, released on a colission course from an alternate orbit to impart a sufficiently large relative velocity. Make the orbit suitably eliptic and any debris that misses would burn up in the atmosphere within several orbits, and you can avoid collateral damage.
Yes, reusable have proven to be the way to go, but other forms of transport aren't going 17,500 miles an hour, getting up to 5,000 degrees and going millions of miles.
Being harder isn't an excuse unto itself. Supersonic jets are more difficult than subsonic jets, which are more difficult than prop airplanes, which in turn are more difficult cars, trains, and bicycles. Yet somehow, we have managed up until now, yet I'm certain the same argument has been made throughout history that the next step couldn't be made.
The issue isn't with the reusable portion of the reusable spacecraft, but with its non-reusable parts. Thermal tiles, booster rockets, etc. As well, with the added weight, for which spacecraft are more severely punished than airplanes.
In my independent judgment, I happen to agree with the guy. Clockspeeds have been stalled at ~ 3Ghz for nearly a decade now. There are only so many ways of getting more per clock cycle and radical parallelization is a good answer.
Right, but what does Moore's Law have to do with any of that. He is right, aside from using the totally unrelated Moore's Law as a buzz-word.
Moore's Law just refers to the size/density/number of transistors on a chip, not the overall speed of that chip once they're there. Single-core processors (and other 'few'-core such as double- or maybe quad-)can still benefit from Moore's Law due to reduced die size, power cunsumption, and heat dissipation.
If and when Moore's Law fails, it will be due to limitations of physics, materials, and/or manufacturing, not that we have a more productive CPU architecture. The claim that parallel computing invalidates Moore's somehow is just as ridiculous as claiming that the Industrial Revolution's effect on mass production and duplication violates Occam's Razor.
It's a purely economic law, not a technical or physical law. It simply states that apparently chip manufacturers need their chips to be certain percentage better than the predecessor's, otherwise consumers will walk over to the competitor that can offer it.
Moore was an engineer, not a project manager or accountant. It has absolutely nothing to do with people buying things, it's a purely technical observation. What he actually said was:
The complexity for minimum component costs has increased at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year... Certainly over the short term this rate can be expected to continue, if not to increase. Over the longer term, the rate of increase is a bit more uncertain, although there is no reason to believe it will not remain nearly constant for at least 10 years.
What you claim can certainly be interpreted as following from Moore's Law, but it has nothing to do with Moore himself or what he actually said.
The law states that the number of transistors on a chip that you can buy for a fixed investment doubles every 18 months. CPUs remaining the same speed but dropping in price would continue to match this prediction as would things like SoCs gaining more domain-specific offload hardware (e.g. crypto accelerators).
Actually, parallel processing is completely external to Moore's Law, which refers only to transistor quantity/size/cost, not what they are used for.
So while he's right that for CPU makers to continue to realize performance benefits, parallel computing will probably need to become the norm, it doesn't depend upon nor support Moore's Law. We can continue to shrink transistor size, cost, and distance apart without using parallel computing; similarly by improving speed with multiple cores we neither depend upon nor ensure any improvement in transistor technology.
I absolutely think that it is wrong, but I know that from a social standpoint it's not reasonable to force it on you or anyone. Our nation's laws provide for a separation of church and state, and I respect that. But, morality and legality aren't linked. I don't see what you're getting at.
All I'm saying is that if a group subscribes to this moral code, what right do you have telling them how they go about enforcing it?
Anyway, we're getting nowhere, I have work to do, the last word is yours if you choose to take it.
I never expected we would come to an agreement. More importantly, there will never be a clean inductive argument either way, that's just how these philosophical issues are.
My only beef with what you said is that my belief is based on 'ignorance and fear'. If you still feel that way, there's no way I can convince you otherwise.
I'm just disappointed that you still think I'm trying to force my morals on anyone, while you simultaneously claim that the BSA should follow your moral code.
By saying that an adult male is unfit to be a leader purely because of his sexual orientation? WTF has one got to do with the other?
Same reason the head of a liberal PAC should also be a liberal. If a leader of your private organization does not agree with your point of view, or follow your code of conduct, they are removed. Seems reasonable to me, or do you want to force the NAACP to accept white supremecists, and for PETA to accept membership from Ted Nugent?
"Intended"? By whom?
Oh, right - God. That's your set of beliefs. You are welcome to them, of course, but you are not welcome to compel others to adopt them. When, oh when, will otherwise bright and reasonable people grasp this important point?
Where do you get that from anything I've said? I claim it is immoral, not that it should be illegal. It is, in fact, others who are trying to compel my church and other private organizations to which I belong to adopt their set of morals.
I don't want to force someone to 'not be gay'. I just want my church and the BSA to be allowed to follow our moral code as they see fit, without interference from those who do not share it.
I desperately care why, at least insofar as I am motivated to continue this conversation. It's what you've been avoiding for the past several exchanges. The suspense is killing me.
Because sex, necessarily, requires a second person. I believe it is impossible to show respect to yourself, or to your partner, outside of a monogamous relationship. The piano has no such limitation, there is no disrespect.
Ok, if you're with me that far, then help me understand your penis argument again. It is immoral to put a penis anywhere else but a vagina because somehow that's the only natural way to do it (even though it's not). But other natural things may or may not be moral. Huh?
I never said that was the only proper way to use it, only that it was evidence that man and woman are intended for each other. Forgive me for being unclear. If we didn't have sexual reproduction, we wouldn't have two genders. So what's the practical purpose of homosexuality?
I don't know what American Humanist Association is, but if they exclude people based on who they are, or espose the viewpoint that people living normal lives are "immoral" because of how they happened to be born, then I'm having none of it. That goes for NOW, NAACP, whatever.
They are the largest group of secular-humanists in the US. They may not actively bar membership on the basis of being a theist, but you can bet your ass that if someone preached on God while a member they would get kicked the hell out. The same with the BSA: it is simply inconsistent with their views to have a member or leader actively espousing something different.
So you would take away tax-exempt status from groups who funnel that money towards the good of others, just because you don't agree with them? Even for a moral relativist, that seems way out there.
Then they should have to promise to support X years, and if they want to extend past that then fine, but anybody buying the game would know its "sell by" date.
I feel like planning that from the start will lead to the opposite intention. No company will want to commit to more than 1 year, just in case nobody buys the game. Then, the bean counters will start discontinuing right on that date. Add that if the closing date gets pushed back, it's already on the box, which is equally misleading.
And back to MMOs, it's somewhat difficult to force a company to funnel money into a service that isn't making money, especially if it's not making money because too few people are paying to use the service. And, especially with an MMO, it is almost impossible to estimate the date when the servers will go down. Asheron's Call is still running, but the sequel died relatively quickly.
I agree on principle, just not implementation. Just put stickers on the boxes when the decision is made, I don't see an effective way to guarantee the dates the service will run before the disc is released.
You say the penis and vagina are evolved solely to work with each other, and therefore no other interaction involving them is "moral", and yet you find nothing unnatural about playing the piano?
Short answer: yes. But you don't really care why, so I'll save my breath.
Homosexuality occurs frequently in nature, but I can assure you piano playing does not.
So infanticide and sexual cannibalism is ok? They are quite common in nature. Also, in many animals the males disappear after mating, leaving the female to raise the children on their own. I assume you are against child support from deadbeat dads?
What animals do is a terrible guide for our actions.
Because your church gets tax breaks from my government and your private organizations are operating in my public schools.
If your church paid taxes and your boy scouts kept their propaganda out of the schools, then I would care a whole lot less. I am not interested in subsidizing hate groups or welcoming them into what should be a safe place for my childrens' education.
The American Humanist Association is tax-exempt as well. They sell morality as well. The only difference I see is which one we think is right.
Why shouldn't they be tax-exempt? They're not-for-profit, you want to make a rule against it just because you don't like it?
Slashdot Mirror
Hint: if it costs you nothing that I copy your game, you didn't lose jack shit.
Sigh. Opportunity cost. If the pirate would have purchased, but didn't, then it does cost them the profit they otherwise would have made. That's precisely why this article is trying to estimate the number of lost customers, compared to those pirates who were never going to buy it if they couldn't pirate.
If you don't like it, make your game more entertaining than the pirated version.
If you don't like what the game companies are doing, why not protest by not playing the game? Same logic, I'm not sure why they have to do something about it, and you don't.
Because in order to obey the conservation of energy laws, energy in >= energy out of that DC/DC converter.
But a decent DC/DC converter is 85-95% efficient. If the alternatives are to lose 50% of the power in resistance or 15% in resistance and converter, the choice is obvious.
Total (Vin * Iin) = Total ( Vout * Iout) If you increase the output voltage, the output current drops proportionally. Furthermore, to increase output voltage while keeping the output current similar, you need more input current. Since photovoltaic are already low current, there is not much head room to increase output voltage.
Not sure what you're talking about. We only care about the power on the output, rather than the current itself. The whole point is to reduce the current, since that is how we minimize resistive losses (power lost in the wire = I^2 * R_wire). Considering the output will do another DC/DC or DC/AC conversion, the current is negligible as long as it is sufficient to operate the DC/DC converters. That's left as an exercise to the engineers, and I'm sure it's easily handled.
I think all of the other companies doing solar-with-inkjet have been printing on plastic or metal substrates. MIT is printing on a paper (and thus cheap, flexible, and renewable) substrate.
The printing isn't the important part, but what it is being printed upon.
Grow the trees to make the paper that you'd use for these cells then... Don't.
Look up coppicing.
Or, do both. You can only burn wood to create energy once, but if that wood is the substrate for a solar panel you've vastly increased the solar energy we can harvest over burning. The tree is one time producer (with a long lead time), but even inefficient solar can catch up over time.
Coppicing regrows harvestable trees in about 7 years, but one tree's worth of a 1% efficient solar panel (in the right sunlight) can produce more energy over those 7 years that simply burning the wood. Of course, the panel requires additional raw materials, but I expect we'd still end up energy positive.
the only industry that would be impacted is transportation based on heavy fuels like jet fuel and diesel and those also have alternatives.
You do realize that virtually every other industry depends on the transportation sector to move goods around, right? How do you think your food makes it from the fields to the cities? Scotty, beam me up?
And don't forget the chemical and plastics industries which produce petrolium products. Considering these two industries produce much of the raw material and packaging for the other industries. Of course, we can increase our usage of tree and plant products, but we'll wipe the planet of greenery trying to keep up, at least at our current rate.
Read yesterday that they're seeing sand and gravel in the oil plume and are afraid that the cavern the line taps in to might be fracturing. There's a chance this could turn in to something larger than a pipe with no valves on it. But then again, that may just be alarmists begging for trouble.
For a failure analysis engineer, it's best to assume the worst and prepare for it. Better to be prepared for it does happen and not need to do anything, than to be caught off guard when the entire chamber dumps its crude into the ocean is 3 days.
Apple may not have a profitable App Store, but they probably want to keep it from becoming any more un-profitable.
They are trying to achieve a reduction in spam. Didn't you even read the title of the article?
I also don't see how, according to the GP, the user experience can possibly be degraded if it was already overrun with spam. If the simple usenet solution is overrun with spam, the only way to prevent it may require an increase in complexity. Simple solutions only solve simple problems, and spam is anything but.
In others words, he is assuming that the "multi" core market will continue to grow and without parallel programming Moore's Law will be unnecessary to follow.
Wrong, Moore's Law will continue to affect both architectures. It will simultaneously allow parallel processors to fit more cores and pipelines on a chip, and allow single core processors to become smaller, and therefor cheaper and use less power.
Right, there's no physical reason that the rate couldn't be higher or lower.
However, it is a well-fit trend. He saw the trend, and predicted it should continue for at least 10 years. It has continued for much longer than that.
My complaint is with using it as a buzz-word for a completely unrelated phenomenon. He might as well claim that we need to use parallel GPUs to promote synergy in the next paradigm shift, and leverage the dynamic long-tail proactively.
Could you restate that in the form of a car analogy please? Preferably one involving Toyotas?
This is like a tire manufacturer claiming that the only way to improve vehicle performance is with low-rolling-resistance tires, and claiming that it makes hybrid and electric vehicles obsolete.
The connection to Moore's Law is that parallel structures are the only really understood and manageable way to keep increasing the transistor count in any useful way. We don't know how to throw twice as many transistors at a CPU and get it to do twice as much work, though we know how to put more processors on the chip and get them to do more work.
And I would argue that isn't necessarily true, or necessary. Parallel computing is probably more efficient than replacing your adders and multipliers with lookahead versions, but it's not the only method for speeding up a processor.
As well, Moore's Law's benefits aren't limited to performance. Die size reduction (for higher yields), lower power, and higher transition speeds are the primary benefits, and smaller transistors are a better way to achieve that than parallel structures.
In other words, Moore's Law helps both single- multi- and many-core processors equally. Simply changing architecture doesn't obsolete the desire for small transistors.
If you always have 1-5 of these guys in the 'air' at any one time, there's your plausible deniability. If the flights are routine enough, it's no longer out of the ordinary to launch a kill vehicle, since it's otherwise identical to the other (non-military or weaponized) launches.
Or, more efficiently, a small cloud of undetectable debris, released on a colission course from an alternate orbit to impart a sufficiently large relative velocity. Make the orbit suitably eliptic and any debris that misses would burn up in the atmosphere within several orbits, and you can avoid collateral damage.
Yes, reusable have proven to be the way to go, but other forms of transport aren't going 17,500 miles an hour, getting up to 5,000 degrees and going millions of miles.
Being harder isn't an excuse unto itself. Supersonic jets are more difficult than subsonic jets, which are more difficult than prop airplanes, which in turn are more difficult cars, trains, and bicycles. Yet somehow, we have managed up until now, yet I'm certain the same argument has been made throughout history that the next step couldn't be made.
The issue isn't with the reusable portion of the reusable spacecraft, but with its non-reusable parts. Thermal tiles, booster rockets, etc. As well, with the added weight, for which spacecraft are more severely punished than airplanes.
In my independent judgment, I happen to agree with the guy. Clockspeeds have been stalled at ~ 3Ghz for nearly a decade now. There are only so many ways of getting more per clock cycle and radical parallelization is a good answer.
Right, but what does Moore's Law have to do with any of that. He is right, aside from using the totally unrelated Moore's Law as a buzz-word.
Moore's Law just refers to the size/density/number of transistors on a chip, not the overall speed of that chip once they're there. Single-core processors (and other 'few'-core such as double- or maybe quad-)can still benefit from Moore's Law due to reduced die size, power cunsumption, and heat dissipation.
If and when Moore's Law fails, it will be due to limitations of physics, materials, and/or manufacturing, not that we have a more productive CPU architecture. The claim that parallel computing invalidates Moore's somehow is just as ridiculous as claiming that the Industrial Revolution's effect on mass production and duplication violates Occam's Razor.
It's a purely economic law, not a technical or physical law. It simply states that apparently chip manufacturers need their chips to be certain percentage better than the predecessor's, otherwise consumers will walk over to the competitor that can offer it.
Moore was an engineer, not a project manager or accountant. It has absolutely nothing to do with people buying things, it's a purely technical observation. What he actually said was:
The complexity for minimum component costs has increased at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year... Certainly over the short term this rate can be expected to continue, if not to increase. Over the longer term, the rate of increase is a bit more uncertain, although there is no reason to believe it will not remain nearly constant for at least 10 years.
What you claim can certainly be interpreted as following from Moore's Law, but it has nothing to do with Moore himself or what he actually said.
The law states that the number of transistors on a chip that you can buy for a fixed investment doubles every 18 months. CPUs remaining the same speed but dropping in price would continue to match this prediction as would things like SoCs gaining more domain-specific offload hardware (e.g. crypto accelerators).
Actually, parallel processing is completely external to Moore's Law, which refers only to transistor quantity/size/cost, not what they are used for.
So while he's right that for CPU makers to continue to realize performance benefits, parallel computing will probably need to become the norm, it doesn't depend upon nor support Moore's Law. We can continue to shrink transistor size, cost, and distance apart without using parallel computing; similarly by improving speed with multiple cores we neither depend upon nor ensure any improvement in transistor technology.
I absolutely think that it is wrong, but I know that from a social standpoint it's not reasonable to force it on you or anyone. Our nation's laws provide for a separation of church and state, and I respect that. But, morality and legality aren't linked. I don't see what you're getting at.
All I'm saying is that if a group subscribes to this moral code, what right do you have telling them how they go about enforcing it?
Anyway, we're getting nowhere, I have work to do, the last word is yours if you choose to take it.
I never expected we would come to an agreement. More importantly, there will never be a clean inductive argument either way, that's just how these philosophical issues are.
My only beef with what you said is that my belief is based on 'ignorance and fear'. If you still feel that way, there's no way I can convince you otherwise.
I'm just disappointed that you still think I'm trying to force my morals on anyone, while you simultaneously claim that the BSA should follow your moral code.
By saying that an adult male is unfit to be a leader purely because of his sexual orientation? WTF has one got to do with the other?
Same reason the head of a liberal PAC should also be a liberal. If a leader of your private organization does not agree with your point of view, or follow your code of conduct, they are removed. Seems reasonable to me, or do you want to force the NAACP to accept white supremecists, and for PETA to accept membership from Ted Nugent?
"Intended"? By whom? Oh, right - God. That's your set of beliefs. You are welcome to them, of course, but you are not welcome to compel others to adopt them. When, oh when, will otherwise bright and reasonable people grasp this important point?
Where do you get that from anything I've said? I claim it is immoral, not that it should be illegal. It is, in fact, others who are trying to compel my church and other private organizations to which I belong to adopt their set of morals.
I don't want to force someone to 'not be gay'. I just want my church and the BSA to be allowed to follow our moral code as they see fit, without interference from those who do not share it.
I desperately care why, at least insofar as I am motivated to continue this conversation. It's what you've been avoiding for the past several exchanges. The suspense is killing me.
Because sex, necessarily, requires a second person. I believe it is impossible to show respect to yourself, or to your partner, outside of a monogamous relationship. The piano has no such limitation, there is no disrespect.
Ok, if you're with me that far, then help me understand your penis argument again. It is immoral to put a penis anywhere else but a vagina because somehow that's the only natural way to do it (even though it's not). But other natural things may or may not be moral. Huh?
I never said that was the only proper way to use it, only that it was evidence that man and woman are intended for each other. Forgive me for being unclear. If we didn't have sexual reproduction, we wouldn't have two genders. So what's the practical purpose of homosexuality?
I don't know what American Humanist Association is, but if they exclude people based on who they are, or espose the viewpoint that people living normal lives are "immoral" because of how they happened to be born, then I'm having none of it. That goes for NOW, NAACP, whatever.
They are the largest group of secular-humanists in the US. They may not actively bar membership on the basis of being a theist, but you can bet your ass that if someone preached on God while a member they would get kicked the hell out. The same with the BSA: it is simply inconsistent with their views to have a member or leader actively espousing something different.
So you would take away tax-exempt status from groups who funnel that money towards the good of others, just because you don't agree with them? Even for a moral relativist, that seems way out there.
Then they should have to promise to support X years, and if they want to extend past that then fine, but anybody buying the game would know its "sell by" date.
I feel like planning that from the start will lead to the opposite intention. No company will want to commit to more than 1 year, just in case nobody buys the game. Then, the bean counters will start discontinuing right on that date. Add that if the closing date gets pushed back, it's already on the box, which is equally misleading.
And back to MMOs, it's somewhat difficult to force a company to funnel money into a service that isn't making money, especially if it's not making money because too few people are paying to use the service. And, especially with an MMO, it is almost impossible to estimate the date when the servers will go down. Asheron's Call is still running, but the sequel died relatively quickly.
I agree on principle, just not implementation. Just put stickers on the boxes when the decision is made, I don't see an effective way to guarantee the dates the service will run before the disc is released.
You say the penis and vagina are evolved solely to work with each other, and therefore no other interaction involving them is "moral", and yet you find nothing unnatural about playing the piano?
Short answer: yes. But you don't really care why, so I'll save my breath.
Homosexuality occurs frequently in nature, but I can assure you piano playing does not.
So infanticide and sexual cannibalism is ok? They are quite common in nature. Also, in many animals the males disappear after mating, leaving the female to raise the children on their own. I assume you are against child support from deadbeat dads?
What animals do is a terrible guide for our actions.
Because your church gets tax breaks from my government and your private organizations are operating in my public schools.
If your church paid taxes and your boy scouts kept their propaganda out of the schools, then I would care a whole lot less. I am not interested in subsidizing hate groups or welcoming them into what should be a safe place for my childrens' education.
The American Humanist Association is tax-exempt as well. They sell morality as well. The only difference I see is which one we think is right.
Why shouldn't they be tax-exempt? They're not-for-profit, you want to make a rule against it just because you don't like it?