"We wanted people who would represent the Administration positively, and--call us nutty--it seemed like those who wanted to kick this Administration out of town last November would have some difficulty doing that"
He's right, they wouldn't. Thing is, "representing the administration positively" isn't a valid goal in selecting delegates for this non-partisan commission. This reminds me of all that AdCouncil PR for the Dept. of Homeland Security that prominently featured the smiling, sturdy face of Tom Ridge.
Yes, perhaps important to get certain Homeland Security information out to the public. No, not important to increase the celebrity of Tom Ridge. Not a valid goal.
These twisted motherfuckers just keep getting more brazen.
I would be curious to ask him what his take would be on someone who thinks
it is idealistic to promote capitalism and the economy (and hence a better standard of living, at least in their minds) by refusing to give anything away free. My guess is he would say they are dead wrong, tragically wrong, or even criminally wrong, but I'll bet he would find that person less exasperating on some level because they were acting on principle rather than expedience.
My guess is that he would say that is irrelevant to the question of software freedom. He isn't insisting that you give away your time or your work or your property. He is insisting that when you sell it, you do not use the long arm of the law to prevent your customers from using product however they want, including modification & redistribution. Whether you charge what the market will bear for your work is totally unrelated.
This is basic, and this is simple. You probably wouldn't agree with him if you did understand him, but you obviously don't understand. Your comment is interesting like pavement is interesting.
And further, in grandparent's comment, the RMS quote has nothing to do with Free Software absolutism. Whether or not you are in the OSS camp has nothing to do with whether you would agree with that particular quote.
A team at University College London found with fMRI they could tell what a person was thinking deep down even when the individual was unaware themselves.
This research may present novel information, but this is not what you were "thinking deep down". Many parts of your brain do their processing automatically and without conscious intervention. If you break the part of your brain that identifies objects visually for cognition, but do not break the part of your brain that identifies objects visually for physical use, you can use objects that you cannot consciously identify. You could use a kleenex without knowing that it was on your desk ahead of time.
It should be completely unsurprising that without being aware of an image being flashed, other ("unaware") parts of your brain are doing things with that image. That doesn't mean that it's what you were "thinking deep down".
"This is the first basic step to reading somebody's mind "
Researcher Dr Geraint Rees
This quote is in reference to fMRI detecting whether you are paying attention to vertical stripes or diagonal stripes. It is well known that parts of the primate visual cortex are dedicated to identifying verticle and horizontal lines. This is like saying that Neil Armstrong's first breath was the first step towards Alpha Centauri. Yeah, maybe. Maybe not.
Are you talking about regulating ISPs differently? Corporate IT departments? Home computer software? All of the above? What are you talking about regulating? What is the problem that you would like to solve?
"Sarbanes-Oxley Act for the Internet" is meaningless. How would that be significantly different from a Sarbanes-Oxley Act for your dumb face?
The second is for IE to show me a big nasty error instead of my web page if it is not compliant with the DTD. If browsers worked that way the whole web would be in better shape.
In that either people would be forced to spend millions of dollars to re-implement the web before it was functional, or everyone would stick with IE6, yes, it would be in better shape.
Not to mention, the behavior you describe would violate the W3C's recommendations on error handling. You are describing a non-standards-compliant browser. So even the people who put the standards together seem to disagree with you. Idiot. IHBT. HAND.
Fernet Branca is unusually popular in San Francisco, due to the fact that Fernet Branca pays attractive boys and girls to hang out in San Francisco bars and talk about how popular Frenet Branca is in San Francisco. I spoke to one such spokeswoman, and she said that even when they realize they are being marketted to, people still don't mind it. IMHO, she is wrong, and does not notice when people mind it, because she enjoys being paid large sums of money.
And here I am, in San Francisco, and I love Fernet Branca. Can't seem to bring myself to order it anymore though.
I think we simply disagree on what is fair or unfair, since I do not see any unfairness that you claim to have pointed out.
I seem to be unable to describe a rule about marriage that you consider unfair or discriminatory. This makes your original post extremely disingenuous, because you acted as if it was both a valid and important point that the rules you described were fair and non-discriminatory.
Besides, just because a law is "unfair" does not make it unconstitutional. We don't allow minors to vote, that is often seen as "unfair" yet it is not unconstitutional.
You continue to bring up completely irrelevant issues. Your original point was that the rules you described are neither unfair nor discriminatory, which I maintain that I have either falsified or shown meaningless, depending on your definitions of fairness and discrimination. I can't imagine why you would bring up the US constitution, except that perhaps you would like to distract from your logical failures.
Ok. You have effectively responded to my assertion about your feelings.
Calling it discrimination is just trying to tie it into slavery.
I don't know what you are talking about. You are the one who brought up descrimination, with your point that:
In each of the three previous lines, it DOES NOT MATTER whether said man or said woman is gay or straight. The rules apply to everyone equally! So how is this discrimination?
Based on this statement, I assumed that your definition of discrimination was whether the rules apply to everyone equally. I pointed out that they do not. If you would not like to call that discrimination, that's fine. Your original post is still completely incorrect. I have explained the unfairness of your rules, exactly as you requested, and you have not supplied a rebuttal.
I'm not being pedantic. I believe rather firmly that you are completely incorrect, and, as I said, advocating a serious injustice. I'm not nitpicking. You have not changed the meaning of your statement.
Okay, there's one rule to apply to everyone equally. To me, that one rule appears to codify the "current" meaning of marriage. Now where is the discrimination?
All of my arguments continue to apply to this one rule. Some people, who feel just as you do about women, are prevented from marrying women while you are not. Your rule discriminates against them.
I trust you would feel discriminated against, as a heterosexual, if we changed the law so that:
- Every man or woman, regardless of race, color, creed, or sexuality, may marry one person of the same sex.
I certainly would. Just because you can write it in one sentence and apply it to everyone equally doesn't make it fair or non-discriminatory. And you thought I was being pedantic?
I understand all of that perfectly well, but it has nothing to do with our discussion, in which I invalidated the claimed fairness of the rules you described. I feel that I have shown that:
The rules apply to everyone equally! So how is this discrimination? It sounds to me like some people want to change the rules rather than have the rules applied equally, since they already are!
These statements are false. You are advocating laws that are do not apply to everyone equally, and they are a hardship for some people. You may believe that this is the only moral option, and you are also wrong about that, but you can no longer claim that the rules are "fair" unless you figure out a new way to do so.
I would like to remind you that you have failed to address my point, as I do not assume that women and men are the same. I know perfectly well that they are different.
You claimed "I seriously want to hear what you have to say in a logical, intelligent discussion." and I have provided that to you. I believe that you want no such thing, and would much prefer to reaffirm your existing beliefs.
Throughout this thread, you have dismissed valid, rational arguments without cause. Please consider the possibility that you are irrationally advocating injustice against your fellow human beings.
Again, would you be upset if you could only legally marry a man? I trust that you would. Similarly, there are women that are upset because they are legally prevented from marrying women. Why should you have that ability and they not? They probably feel just as you would in such a situation.
Please address my rebuttal to the fairness of your rules.
You've never actually read the Bible, or you'd realise that it isn't oral and anal sex that's condemned, but homosexuality, be it guy-guy or girl-girl. (Islam does actually explicitly teach that anal sex is sinful.)
The bible is boring, so no, never read the whole thing, but typically the only support folks can come up with for their homophobia is one passage in Leviticus that says, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is an abomination". Why they pay so much attention to that, but ignore all 613 of the Mitzvahs, I'll never quite understand. I've never heard a similar quotation regarding lesbianism.
Ok when was the last time a man impregnated another man, and a healthy child was produced from that? I would say never. If you say other wise youve been brainwashed.
Dunno what your problem is. I've been perfectly clear about this from the start. Homosexuals can reproduce naturally by having sex with members of the opposite sex, just like heterosexuals. This refutes your point that gay people are abnormal because "first they cant have childern naturally." They can, and do.
For those of you browsing at +2 w/karma bonuses (doubtful in a 1300 post story), I apologize for keeping my karma bonus on so long into this idiotic thread.
All the changes described in this post mortem helped but were not enough in themselves, and it has to be said that if Myst IV: Revelation came out in time and with zero critical bugs, it is due to the relentless work and ingenuity of most members of the team who, knowing they were working on a legendary brand, compensated for all the difficulties of the project.
This is a policy discussion. Obviously, in saying that I am looking at "empirical" evidence, I am considering aggregates, not anecdotes.
Which is why I linked you that APA research review. I don't see what your problem is.
Thus, I care not about "certain" single parents or "certain" gay couples.
That's funny, current policy cares about "certain" potential parents w.r.t. adoption. Candidates are compared on their individual merits as parents. What's wrong with that?
I care about better vs. worse. I am not prepared to allow most children be poorly socialized so that good people can feel good about themselves.
so your saying that 2 people from the same sex cant have concievechildern(which is true) or they have sex and a child is born(dosent work). BTW your a faggot arent you?
Dunno how that relates to my original counterpoint, where I contradicted your assertion that gay people are abnormal because "first they cant have childern naturally."
They can and do have children naturally. Rather often.
The APA study is interesting, though there were things that gave me pause; for example, the finding that children raised by lesbian households tend to adopt more feminine characteristics.
/me pauses.
So?
I guess I want to be convinced that being raised by a gay couple is substantially preferrable to being raised by a single parent/guardian.
I can guarantee you without doing any empirical research at all that being raised by certain single guardians is worse than being raised by certain gay couples, and likewise that being raised by certain gay couples is worse than being raised by certain single guardians. So, what bearing should this have on legal policy?
Am I wrong to wonder about socialization?
No, you are not wrong to wonder about socialization. You are wrong to prevent good people from doing good things.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, perhaps important to get certain Homeland Security information out to the public. No, not important to increase the celebrity of Tom Ridge. Not a valid goal.
These twisted motherfuckers just keep getting more brazen.
This is basic, and this is simple. You probably wouldn't agree with him if you did understand him, but you obviously don't understand. Your comment is interesting like pavement is interesting.
And further, in grandparent's comment, the RMS quote has nothing to do with Free Software absolutism. Whether or not you are in the OSS camp has nothing to do with whether you would agree with that particular quote.
Idiots.
It should be completely unsurprising that without being aware of an image being flashed, other ("unaware") parts of your brain are doing things with that image. That doesn't mean that it's what you were "thinking deep down".This quote is in reference to fMRI detecting whether you are paying attention to vertical stripes or diagonal stripes. It is well known that parts of the primate visual cortex are dedicated to identifying verticle and horizontal lines. This is like saying that Neil Armstrong's first breath was the first step towards Alpha Centauri. Yeah, maybe. Maybe not.
I certainly thought so. But I guess I didn't need to take no tone of voice.
Heh.
Are you talking about regulating ISPs differently? Corporate IT departments? Home computer software? All of the above? What are you talking about regulating? What is the problem that you would like to solve?
"Sarbanes-Oxley Act for the Internet" is meaningless. How would that be significantly different from a Sarbanes-Oxley Act for your dumb face?
Not to mention, the behavior you describe would violate the W3C's recommendations on error handling. You are describing a non-standards-compliant browser. So even the people who put the standards together seem to disagree with you. Idiot. IHBT. HAND.
And the phrase "press hit".
Fernet Branca is unusually popular in San Francisco, due to the fact that Fernet Branca pays attractive boys and girls to hang out in San Francisco bars and talk about how popular Frenet Branca is in San Francisco. I spoke to one such spokeswoman, and she said that even when they realize they are being marketted to, people still don't mind it. IMHO, she is wrong, and does not notice when people mind it, because she enjoys being paid large sums of money.
And here I am, in San Francisco, and I love Fernet Branca. Can't seem to bring myself to order it anymore though.
There's a sad story up on progressiveboink.com called Illusion of Gaia and my cousin David that's rather relevant.
"heard it hear first"
/. comment, and it's in my comment.
Jesus God, that's one of the dumbest fuckups I've seen in a
You heard it hear first, Tridge is anti-comments. If you want GCC to continue to support comments, speak up now or forever hold your peace.
I trust you would feel discriminated against, as a heterosexual, if we changed the law so that:
- Every man or woman, regardless of race, color, creed, or sexuality, may marry one person of the same sex.
I certainly would. Just because you can write it in one sentence and apply it to everyone equally doesn't make it fair or non-discriminatory. And you thought I was being pedantic?
I would like to remind you that you have failed to address my point, as I do not assume that women and men are the same. I know perfectly well that they are different.
You claimed "I seriously want to hear what you have to say in a logical, intelligent discussion." and I have provided that to you. I believe that you want no such thing, and would much prefer to reaffirm your existing beliefs.
Throughout this thread, you have dismissed valid, rational arguments without cause. Please consider the possibility that you are irrationally advocating injustice against your fellow human beings.
Again, would you be upset if you could only legally marry a man? I trust that you would. Similarly, there are women that are upset because they are legally prevented from marrying women. Why should you have that ability and they not? They probably feel just as you would in such a situation.
Please address my rebuttal to the fairness of your rules.
For those of you browsing at +2 w/karma bonuses (doubtful in a 1300 post story), I apologize for keeping my karma bonus on so long into this idiotic thread.
They can and do have children naturally. Rather often.
So?I can guarantee you without doing any empirical research at all that being raised by certain single guardians is worse than being raised by certain gay couples, and likewise that being raised by certain gay couples is worse than being raised by certain single guardians. So, what bearing should this have on legal policy?No, you are not wrong to wonder about socialization. You are wrong to prevent good people from doing good things.