USA.gov should have its right to operate a website revoked, it's at least as culpable as any of the idiots who implement the link-following on their.gov site, as it presumes there are no idiots with.gov domains.
For me, when I click on a link to a youtube video from within a comment on a youtube video, youtube warns me that I'm about to leave youtube, and be redirected to youtube, asking me if I really want to do that.
Certainly in the last 2 decades much of the world, at least from a Northern European atheist's perspective, has come on leaps and bounds when it comes to giving column-inches and air-time to atheists. In that past it was almost a dirty word. However, is this growth in awareness, and willingness to explicitly involve atheists in debate, going to increase until the person who says "thank God" on telly is looked at as if he just said "thank Poseidon"? Or is it just a fad which the TV chanels, and radio stations, and printed media, etc. will get bored of, and then stop being so willing to carry?
95%? On my network, last time I calculated it, nearly 99% was dropped without opening the envelope as being too spammy. And over 97% of what got past that was 'marginal' spam. (OK, having "asdf" as several of my 2nd level domains probably exascerbated the problem. Everyone seems to use that as a fake signing-up address.)
> I really believe sex is a built in drive meant to cause procreation and I fail to see where homosexuality brings procreation about.
So all contraception, including the rhythm method, is as wrong as homosexuality? And having sex once per weeks guarantees that at least 3/4 of your fucks are as wrong as as homosexuality? And having sex after the menopause is as wrong as homosexuality? And masturbation is as wrong as homosexuality? And blow jobs, and hand jobs are as wrong as homosexuality? And deciding to not have sex, but just have a cuddle, is as bad as homosexuality?
None of the above cause children and the passing of onees genes, you must judge them all to be equivalent to homosexuality using the criteria you yourself present.
> Leaving out any [...] religious argument
WTF? You are channelling the dead popes, and I claim my 5 UKP.
What is your reaction to the frequent stories in various media about people migrating away from the GPL and using less restrictive licenses, complete with predictions that the GPL will eventually become irrelevant? Do you believe that there's any truth to that - do you believe that the GPL is intrinsically moribund, or do you dismiss such stories as simply being partisan shillery?
I think we're in pretty much complete agreement. I added my final paragraph above in order to try to make unnecessary some of the final questions you raise, but apparently I failed at that. I'm not sure quite what I should reword though.
"I don't see any reason to accept abnormal behavior as normal either. I live and let live but I really don't understand homosexuality and see no reason to try to. It's not part of my world."
How are you defining "normal" and "abnormal"? Homosexuality is everywhere in your world. If you can name a species of common higher animal where homosexual behaviour has never been recorded, then I'll name several where it has. You will run out of examples before I will. Homosexuality is completely normal in situations where species are no longer under great pressure to survive. There's no need to fuck just for offspring any more, non-generative fucking's a perfectly good use of time and energy too now.
The strongest definition for "abnormal" you can really justify is "not as popular as the stuff I call 'normal'". But by that standard, playing chess isn't normal. Playing the piano isn't normal. Posting on slashdot isn't normal. Braiding your hair isn't normal. Eating at Wendy's isn't normal. All these things are to you "abnormal", and almost nothing is normal. Is your world made out of ticky-tacky?
Those who chose to deny their own innate homosexuality are still homosexual. Their preference is irrelevant.
Then again, I don't like an absolute black/white view. I believe that for a significant proportion of the population there is some element of preference. OK, for the majority of those it is an extremely strong preference, and going against that preference would be surprising. But not impossible. (I do know several people who I would say are clearly more gay than straight, and at least one of them is now happier than he's ever been now he's in a straight marriage. (There's a larger pool of potential partners to chose from, it's not that surprising.))
For an analogy. I'm right handed in almost all aspects of my life, except I am ambidextrous when it comes to knife/fork usage. I have a weak preference for them one way round but that's more current habit than anything absolute. I could cut either way quite happily, I just happen to have chosen to use one particular way presently.
Some people read way outside the lines when I make comments like this, and think that I'm saying that every body has some fraction of the opposite sexuality in them, and everyone therefore has a choice to make. I'm not saying that at all. I just don't think that these absolutes are 100% of the population, which is what the naysayers against "homosexuality is a choice" are effectively asserting. There's no way I'd even raise my argument in the company of your average "homosexuality is a choice" absolutists. I believe they are incredibly wrong. At least the naysayers against them are mostly right, but not quite right in corner cases. (I'm not saying anything radical, this is all supported by Kinsey.)
Well, I know that Fielding published a new version of the DNT standard with changes to the "defaults" section exactly 1 month *after* he submitted the patch to change Apache's behaviour; and that change to the standard supported his patch, whereas the origins of the DNT standard explicitly preclude his patch. And the topic of defaults wasn't in the agenda of any of the WG mettings since the previous version of the standard.
Not coming up with the conclusion that Fielding is a corrupt shill is quite difficult at this stage. Yes, that's litotes.
> Because it's exciting an interesting to watch. That's why movies have car chases.
That could be why I find so many movies desperately boring. I was watching Total Recall (2012) last night, and it was just the same few people/robots chasing after the same couple of people over and over again. In what way was that exciting or interesting? (It evn had a scene which was just as awful as the pod-racing in Star Wars I.) I was more entertained by the unusual place my mouse cursor ended up being projected while watching the film.
If you want something interesting to watch, try "The Year of the Sex Olympics", from 1968, which quiet unambiguously and very accurately foretells the downward evolution of television that seems to be well under way - in particular regarding this story.
Slashdot Mirror
Google for ``inurl:.gov?LinkClick.aspx?link=''
.gov site, as it presumes there are no idiots with .gov domains.
About 53,400 results
Good luck blacklisting all of them, USA.gov...
USA.gov should have its right to operate a website revoked, it's at least as culpable as any of the idiots who implement the link-following on their
For me, when I click on a link to a youtube video from within a comment on a youtube video, youtube warns me that I'm about to leave youtube, and be redirected to youtube, asking me if I really want to do that.
Thanks for the link. I'm not surprised he was yelling at that interviewer, who had terminal cluelessness.
Certainly in the last 2 decades much of the world, at least from a Northern European atheist's perspective, has come on leaps and bounds when it comes to giving column-inches and air-time to atheists. In that past it was almost a dirty word. However, is this growth in awareness, and willingness to explicitly involve atheists in debate, going to increase until the person who says "thank God" on telly is looked at as if he just said "thank Poseidon"? Or is it just a fad which the TV chanels, and radio stations, and printed media, etc. will get bored of, and then stop being so willing to carry?
I worry that it is, alas.
You've not got away with it - I have reported your MAC address to the Internet Central Administation Bureau!
and you're a troll because you link to a site which talks of "the nine planets"?
95%? On my network, last time I calculated it, nearly 99% was dropped without opening the envelope as being too spammy. And over 97% of what got past that was 'marginal' spam. (OK, having "asdf" as several of my 2nd level domains probably exascerbated the problem. Everyone seems to use that as a fake signing-up address.)
> I really believe sex is a built in drive meant to cause procreation and I fail to see where homosexuality brings procreation about.
So all contraception, including the rhythm method, is as wrong as homosexuality?
And having sex once per weeks guarantees that at least 3/4 of your fucks are as wrong as as homosexuality?
And having sex after the menopause is as wrong as homosexuality?
And masturbation is as wrong as homosexuality?
And blow jobs, and hand jobs are as wrong as homosexuality?
And deciding to not have sex, but just have a cuddle, is as bad as homosexuality?
None of the above cause children and the passing of onees genes, you must judge them all to be equivalent to homosexuality using the criteria you yourself present.
> Leaving out any [...] religious argument
WTF? You are channelling the dead popes, and I claim my 5 UKP.
What is your reaction to the frequent stories in various media about people migrating away from the GPL and using less restrictive licenses, complete with predictions that the GPL will eventually become irrelevant? Do you believe that there's any truth to that - do you believe that the GPL is intrinsically moribund, or do you dismiss such stories as simply being partisan shillery?
I think we're in pretty much complete agreement. I added my final paragraph above in order to try to make unnecessary some of the final questions you raise, but apparently I failed at that. I'm not sure quite what I should reword though.
"I don't see any reason to accept abnormal behavior as normal either. I live and let live but I really don't understand homosexuality and see no reason to try to. It's not part of my world."
How are you defining "normal" and "abnormal"? Homosexuality is everywhere in your world. If you can name a species of common higher animal where homosexual behaviour has never been recorded, then I'll name several where it has. You will run out of examples before I will. Homosexuality is completely normal in situations where species are no longer under great pressure to survive. There's no need to fuck just for offspring any more, non-generative fucking's a perfectly good use of time and energy too now.
The strongest definition for "abnormal" you can really justify is "not as popular as the stuff I call 'normal'". But by that standard, playing chess isn't normal. Playing the piano isn't normal. Posting on slashdot isn't normal. Braiding your hair isn't normal. Eating at Wendy's isn't normal. All these things are to you "abnormal", and almost nothing is normal. Is your world made out of ticky-tacky?
The someone else, of course, is not Facebook. Facebook is merely the medium which enables others to propagate information about you against your will.
Facebook is merely the toilet wall.
> People can't tag you in photos if they aren't friends with you.
Total bullshit. All of my friends know that I do not want my face on facebook, and I definitely don't want my real name associated with my face.
And yet it's happened.
Those who chose to deny their own innate homosexuality are still homosexual. Their preference is irrelevant.
Then again, I don't like an absolute black/white view. I believe that for a significant proportion of the population there is some element of preference. OK, for the majority of those it is an extremely strong preference, and going against that preference would be surprising. But not impossible. (I do know several people who I would say are clearly more gay than straight, and at least one of them is now happier than he's ever been now he's in a straight marriage. (There's a larger pool of potential partners to chose from, it's not that surprising.))
For an analogy. I'm right handed in almost all aspects of my life, except I am ambidextrous when it comes to knife/fork usage. I have a weak preference for them one way round but that's more current habit than anything absolute. I could cut either way quite happily, I just happen to have chosen to use one particular way presently.
Some people read way outside the lines when I make comments like this, and think that I'm saying that every body has some fraction of the opposite sexuality in them, and everyone therefore has a choice to make. I'm not saying that at all. I just don't think that these absolutes are 100% of the population, which is what the naysayers against "homosexuality is a choice" are effectively asserting. There's no way I'd even raise my argument in the company of your average "homosexuality is a choice" absolutists. I believe they are incredibly wrong. At least the naysayers against them are mostly right, but not quite right in corner cases. (I'm not saying anything radical, this is all supported by Kinsey.)
I think the name of the country "The Islamic Republic of Iran" gives pretty strong clues that anything that is political is also religious.
> So why is 'it's ok to track' the default?
Blame Fielding, who is injecting user-unfriendly paragraphs into the w3c standard with apparently no discussion and consensus at all.
Well, I know that Fielding published a new version of the DNT standard with changes to the "defaults" section exactly 1 month *after* he submitted the patch to change Apache's behaviour; and that change to the standard supported his patch, whereas the origins of the DNT standard explicitly preclude his patch. And the topic of defaults wasn't in the agenda of any of the WG mettings since the previous version of the standard.
Not coming up with the conclusion that Fielding is a corrupt shill is quite difficult at this stage. Yes, that's litotes.
> Why on earth would Microsoft sign such a bootloader?
Probably as there are monopoly/anti-trust implications if they don't.
> Of-course AFAIC US bonds are junk.
Isn't that what "AAA" means anyway? Can you name one recent junk scandal that wasn't to do with things formerly rated at "AAA"?
I did indeed mean Apache people, yup, sorry for the silly brainfart
Read the DNT standard, section 6.3. MS are in the right. End of story.
The standard says nothing of the sort.
6.3. Default
A user agent MAY adopt NO-EXPRESSED-PREFERENCE or OPT-OUT by default.
It MUST NOT transmit OPT-IN without explicit user consent.
i.e.
a) DNT set to opt-out may be default
b) No preference may be default
c) The third option, DNT saying "may track" may not be a default.
MS is doing (a) - i.e. they are explicitly following the wording and the intentions of the standard.
I see no problem with MS's actions. MS are in the right. The idiot at Firefox who submitted the anti IE10 patch is so clearly in the wrong.
Now do a millisecond of research, and find out what the real quote was, so that you don't ignorantly parrot an incorrect one again.
Or secure classified computer systems in the hands of the military were compromised, not Whitehouse ones.
> Because it's exciting an interesting to watch. That's why movies have car chases.
That could be why I find so many movies desperately boring. I was watching Total Recall (2012) last night, and it was just the same few people/robots chasing after the same couple of people over and over again. In what way was that exciting or interesting? (It evn had a scene which was just as awful as the pod-racing in Star Wars I.) I was more entertained by the unusual place my mouse cursor ended up being projected while watching the film.
If you want something interesting to watch, try "The Year of the Sex Olympics", from 1968, which quiet unambiguously and very accurately foretells the downward evolution of television that seems to be well under way - in particular regarding this story.