What I don't understand is, even though FireFox puts the short-cut on ALL desktops, why can't I delete it from MY desktop (without affecting the others) if I want? Why isn't that an option?
Sure, I know that due to the implementation, that'd be a weird/difficult thing to do under the covers, but as a user I don't care about that. It seems to me that I should have control over MY desktop. If I delete a "global" shortcut from MY desktop, the OS should just simply hide the shortcut on my desktop and leave everything else alone. Same effect from a user's point of view, and no stupid permission dialog required.
In XP, the inactive windows have significantly dulled colors and title bars. It's pretty obvious once you know that cue.
In Vista, the ONLY distinction I can see is that the close-window button in the upper right is red in the active window, and grayed out in inactive windows. This was pretty obvious to me too, but it's really not enough. I'm used to the whole window (frame and title-bar) giving me a clue.
It seems to me that with AreoGlass, it would be easy enough to dim or darken the window slightly at least (not the contents but the non-client areas) in such a fashion that it would be obvious which was active and which wasn't.
I totally agree that the current UI is completely unacceptable as-is. And also agree with your grandparent post about the idiotic dialog choices.
And you know what? Those people don't need laws to protect them - if they behave normally, nobody knows they're gay, so there's no problem here.
Yes. Yes they do. Because you can't hide being gay even if you act "normally". Because your partner, the person you love, lives with you. Because you go out in public and do things with them. Because you want to have a picture of them on your desk the way your officemates have pictures of their loved ones on their desks. Because you are a couple.
You don't seem to have any concept of just how damaging the closet it, how denial of self, denial of love and expression of that love, and internalized hatred of self can damage someone.
Bill Clinton got a lot of shit for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", but quite frankly I think that's an appropriate response. Why? (1) It's none of my damn business who you sleep with; (2) I don't want to know, so please don't make it so obvious; (3) If I don't know, you don't have to worry about my opinion of it.
No, actually it isn't appropriate. It's stupid and fundamentally flawed. You're asking people to LIE (by omission) and HIDE WHO THEY ARE. That's not rational or justified. Straight guys in the army can talk about their girlfriends and wives. But gay people have to hide any indiciation that they're in a long-term relationship from everyone, and risk getting kicked out if any such indication ever gets even accidentally exposed?
Yes, it's none of your business who anyone sleeps with, but that's not the same thing as saying you have some sort of RIGHT to never know who anyone sleeps with -- much less restricting that right to just one segment of the population. God knows you know who straight people sleep with... that information is on every wedding invitation, in the wearing of every wedding band, and all around you in society. Why is it okay for you to get all this passive information about who heterosexuals sleep with, but you feel you have some right to ban homosexuals from giving off any such passive information?
I am significantly more supportive of gay people who behave normally. I'm sorry, but it's the flamers who have ruined it for your community.
I think you really have some rigid issues with gender conformity. You have to understand that most of the people who you consider to be flaming fall into one of two camps: 1) Those who are just behaving naturally for themselves, which if you look at it, is not much different from the way a lot of women act in public, and 2) those who are over-compensating for years of repression of their natural selves. I know many people in the first group. They are the way they are, and if you take a step back, their behavior is absolutely no different than you'd find in women in many other cultures. The behavior is only "wrong" because it's a man doing it? Sounds misogynistic to me. Or at least sexist. I do admit that those in the 2nd camp can be downright obnoxious (the way recent ex-smokers can be really obnoxious), but they tend to settle down after a while, and of course if the oppression didn't exist in the first place, this camp wouldn't even exist.
I don't have any problem with the 9 out of 10 gay people who behave normally in public.
So you'd be willing to acknowledge it's not "just a choice", and support equal treatment under the law for these people, in terms of housing, employment, and civil marriage rights and responsibilities?
Further, there is a huge difference between tolerance and acceptance, which is something the gay community needs to learn. Tolerance is, "I understand you are this way. I don't like it and I don't agree with it, but it is your decision and I will leave well enough alone." I have infinite tolerance for homosexuals.
But you have to consider how ridiculous that sounds. It's like saying "I understand you are left handed. I dont like it and I don't agree with it, but it is your decision and I will leave well enough alone." The WHOLE P
I was talking about two people of the same sex loving one another in an intimate manner.
So... to extrapolate, you don't think homosexuals deserve love or to have satisfying relationships with people they love? Wow.
With regards to hiring, homosexuals are discriminated against for perfectly valid reasons. Many people find their behavior disgusting.
Yeah, and people used to say that blacks (or jews, or insert minority group here) were discriminated against for perfectly valid reasons. And I'm sorry, but someone being disgusted by who I or you or anyone else sleeps with or is in love with is NOT a valid reason for firing someone. I think my coworkers' wife is a fat cow who's ugly and smells funny, and the thought of them having sex digusts me. Why should that make any difference to housing or employment or anything? It's an OPINION. It shouldn't be law.
Quite frankly, grown men behaving like little girls, displaying the stereotypical homosexual traits, really puts people off.
More ignroant bigoted ramblings. Imagine saying the equivalent statement about black people and then trying to clame you weren't a bigot. But 9 of 10 gay people do not behave "like little girls" in any way (in fact, you probably are around a lot of gay people you have no clue are gay). Not every gay person displays "stereotypical homosexual traits", and I know more than a few straight guys who are quite effeminate or flamboyant. And who the hell cares if it puts people off? Someone who doesn't hew to rigid gender stereotypes deserves to be fired or evicted?
To punish ALL gay people because you're uncomfortable about people who don't behave the way you want them to is... ridiculous.
And just be aware, that throughout history, bigots never think of themselves that way. They always have rationalizations and justifications, they always feel righteous and just in their behavior and their opinions. But that doesn't make them any less well informed or any less prejudiced. Yes, you're a bigot. Yes, because you still believe homosexuality is any kind of "choice" even after it has been proven in study after study to be no such thing, you are ignorant. "Ignorant" is not an insult... we're all ignorant on SOME topic. You're ignorant on this one, and I'm just inviting you to learn more so that you stop spreading misinformation and start being a little more rational on this issue.
As I said before, it wasn't long ago that people held the same opinions as you towards left-handed people... that they were making a bad moral choice, and it was perfectly okay to shun them for their "behavior". Now, nobody thinks twice about the minor efforts needed to accomodate left-handed people in society. And all the SAME lame arguments against gay marrage were used only 50 years ago to justify the ban on interracial marriage. When interracial marraige was legalized, 90% of the population was against it. But it was the right thing to do, and allowing same-sex couples to have the same legal protections as other couples. Because if my two friends Mark and Jennifer, who are both athiests, and who have both been sterilized and unable to have children, can go down to the justice of the peace with a couple of witnesses and get a marriage license, then I can't understand why my friends Victor and Steve can't. It's not just, and it doesn't serve the greater good to treat them as second-class citizens.
Once again, you've given no indication if you've read the links I posted or not, or the reviews of Brokeback mountain (written by straight guys) or not. There is much, I think, for you to learn there, and I'm fully willing to give you other links to research and studies that support everything I've said, and which refute most of your beliefs on this subject (re: it being a 'choice'). I encourage you to read them. And maybe after some reading, you'll understand, and you won't be ignorant any more. And maybe with a little more life experience, you won't be a bigot any more either.
Just like sexual orientation. Or left vs. right handedness.
Homosexual behavior is.
But Homosexual orientation isn't. Sure, you can force a left-handed person to write right-handed, but why? And it really ends up causing damage. Imagine if someone told you you couldn't act on your sexual orientation ever, and you had to "pretend" to be gay. You'd go nuts. You'd hate it. Why do you think it's any different for someone who is homosexual?
Sorry, but the "facts" of homosexuals being "born that way" are very much in dispute.
It's only disputed by ignorant bigots. Scientists and people who actually KNOW what they're talking about are not in dispute. They don't necessarily know the root cause, but they know a few things about it, and the fact is they know it's NOT due to nurture or to choice. Period. Current theories tend towards invitro hormonal environment combined with genetic predisposition.
See, I find it ridiculous you can stand up and compare a behavior with something a person "is".
Oh really? So a left-handed person is "just a behavior"? I mean, they naturally want to write with the wrong hand. There was a time, hundreds of years ago, when left-handed people were treated as "evil" and forced to "convert" to right-handed (it rarely worked). Your opinion of homosexuality is just like the old, ignorant attitudes that used to be expressed towards left-handed people. It's just as ridiculous and just as ignorant.
A homosexual is only a homosexual because he engages in homosexual behavior.
WRONG WRONG WRONG. You think homosexuals can't be virgins? Of course they can be. Being celebate doesn't make one any less homosexual, any more than being celebate makes one any less heterosexual. It's NOT just a behavior. It's emotion, and love, and feeling, and desire. It is FUNDAMENTAL to the person's being, just like your sexuality is.
Surely you can understand the difference between behavior - something you can control - and something you simply are whether you like it or not.
And surely you can understand that what you ARE affects your behavior. Homosexual people (what they are) enjoy homosexual sex (a behavior) and do not enjoy heterosexual sex (also a behavior). You ARE striaght. Homosexuals ARE homosexual. It's not just "what they do", it's who they are. You cannot "chose" who makes your dick hard. Being turned on JUST HAPPENS.
"Homosexuality is a learned behavior."
Bullshit. That is such a false behavior. Where do they learn it? From the moment of birth they are taught and innundated with heterosexuality. From every single billboard, magazine, TV show, movie, family member, and friend, heterosexuality is taught and asusmed. Most gay people of the past thought they were the only ones. You are just so flat out wrong with that assertion I can't even begin to comprehend how you can defend such a statement! You didn't choose to be straight, you just are. A homosexual person fantasizes about members of the same sex during adolescence, just as a heterosexual has wet-dreams about the opposite sex. If you had watched "60 Minutes" you would have seen a complete debunking of the myth that homosexuality is 'learned' behavior or a 'choice'. You can educate yourself. Repeating ignorant stuff like this will get you labeled, rightly so, as ignorant.
As for your "friend", your generalizing from a non-comprehension of what he was going through. And not every gay person is the same. Like I said before (and you ignored), human sexuality is complicated. Some people are totally homosexual, some are totally heterosexual, and some are anyhere in between. Human sexuality is a spectrum of desires, and is complicated by all sorts of things. Some people are hypersexual, some are asexual, some are fixated on fetishes. Maybe your friend is "mostly gay" or really is bisexual. Or maybe he was just gay, and in denial for a long time. That
Well, I'm not into cowboy movies or westerns at all either. The movie isn't one of those. But it's a decent love story in the vein of Romeo and Juliet (forbidden love with a tragic end). Now that it's out on DVD (well, effective tomorrow), maybe you can grab your girlfriend (real, potential, or imaginary) and watch it and score some points. Of all the chick-flicks in the world, this one is among the least painful as long as you accept one thing: it's not an action film. There are no car chases or explosions. It's a story told quietly and at a laconic pace befitting the time and setting of the film. It doesn't spoon-feed you or hit you over the head with anything, requiring you to perceive the meaning in the quite spaces and looks. It's very much an Ang Lee movie, if you've ever appreciated any of his others (such as "Ice Storm").
Does it help to mention you get to see both Michelle Williams' and Anne Hathaway's boobies? (they're the two female leads, if you didn't know):-)
Narnia made $290,821,636 domestic, and $718,262,636 world-wide.
King King made $217,958,250 domestic, and $546,973,600 world-wide.
Brokeback Mountain made $82,851,000 domestic, and $165,851,000 world-wide.
None of them "tanked" at the box-office, though King Kong didn't do quite as well as was expected.
Having Brokeback Mountain outsell the other two on DVD release says one of two things: Those that saw it in the theater liked it enough to want to own it, while those that saw the other two movies didn't... or that a lot of people who wanted to see Brokeback Mountain either couldn't see it or wouldn't see it in public. Maybe a little of both. Either way, it's pretty astonishing for a little art film like this to not only do those box office numbers, but to be ranking so high in DVD pre-orders. But then again, it is one of the most universally well reviewed movies released in the last year, and winner of the most awards and prizes of any movie released in the last year. That might have something to do with it too.
But then there are also those that just see the word 'gay' anywhere associated with the movie (the word is never spoken in the film, neither is the word 'homosexual') and dismiss it out of hand, or run away from it as if it might be 'catching' or something.
BTW, kudos for not going with the obvious "top" joke:-)
I guess the fact they're releasing 'Brokeback Mountain' as a download is a good thing, for all those too embarrased to see it at the cinema or go out and buy it.
I'm guessing you're right on this one... Brokeback Mountain has been the number one seller on both DVD Empire and Amazon.com for weeks now, topping King Kong and Narnia in orders/pre-orders. Go figure.
A new service being launched by Vivid Entertainment on April 3rd, 2006 will allow consumers to purchase, download and burn a complete DVD for instant gratification. Always on the leading edge of technology innovation, the adult entertainment industry is again among the first to offer the ability to download and burn a fully functioning DVD complete with menus, chapter navigation and subtitles (do adult entertainment videos even have subtitles?). The initial launch of the service will include 30 movies from the Vivid Video collection and will cost about $25, which is the same price as purchasing the physical DVD.
This may not be exactly what Bill Gates was referring to when he said that the format war between Blu-Ray and HD DVD would likely be the last, but this is clearly a step forward for the digital distribution of content. The Vivid download DVDs are using a DRM technology that will only allow the video file to be burned to a DVD once. This technology is an important step in providing Vivid with the confidence to go forward with its plan. It's not known whether the burned DVDs will be encrypted with CSS and can be unencrypted and replicated using software such as DVD Decrypter or DVDShrink.
Mainstream studios will probably pay close attention to this service to see if the initial 30 DVDs start to show up on P2P networks with any greater frequency as an indication of piracy rates of movies distributed in this manner. The benefits of digital distribution are significant since it reduces manufacturing and distribution costs as well as any issues with inventory surplus or shortfall (not to mention personal discretion). Despite these advantages, I don't think we'll be seeing any of the major studios following suit anytime soon.
I think they're shooting themselves in the foot by not allowing you to burn a DVD of major Hollywood titles, personally, but maybe they'll fix that after they see how Vivid's experiment goes.
I have to disagree, but it's only a disagreement in terms of degree.
Voting for Republicans is voting for things to get a hundred times worse in this direction.
Voting for Democrats is voting for things to get not much worse in this direction.
With a plurality voting system, voting for a third party isn't a viable option... it can lead to results such as the least popular alternative winning (when majorities get split). Until the voting system is fundamentally changed to something other than "Plurality", we're going to be pretty much stuck with two options: the party that at least tries to care about individuals (Democrats) and the party that doesn't give a damn about individuals and doesn't even pretend to (Republicans). Both parties have deep flaws, but one is about a hundred times worse than the other in the end result (as we see under Bush).
Voting Democratic will help pull back from this head-long rush to the bottom, and that's at least a start in the right direction.
Saying or implying that the two parties are EQUALY funded and owned by the same corporations and wealthy individuals who gain the most from outsourcing is just wrong, though. There's certainly some overlap, but it's like saying a medicine ball and a BB are "equal" because they're both round.
I do wish the Democratic party would be a bit more populist than it is. I can't stand the DLC wing of the party at this point ("Republican Lite") as I find it intellectually and morally bankrupt and weak-kneed. But that's just my opinion.
I presume it's launching before Blu-Ray is, so that's got to be before May, right? I can't recall having seen anything.
Who gets there first is part of the battle. Not the entire battle, but it can be significant if played right.
And how soon after HD-DVD launch will something like XBox feature HD-DVD players built-in and/or as add-on options? How about packaged PCs from Dell, Gateway2000, and/or Apple? What side is Apple on, anyway? (we KNOW what side Microsoft is on, but Vista is still a long ways away).
I'm an introvet myself, and having to -- feeling forced to -- hook up and coordinate with massive numbers of other players (turning game play into more of an 'obligation' than fun) in order to progress is a real turn-off.
I was originally attracted to this game by the notion that I could "quest with other people, alone". When that turned out to not be the case, I decided not to bother purchasing the game at all. And I haven't to this day, and am unlikely to in the future at this point.
So in essence, I'm all about his #4, and it was a deal-killer for me. If it had let me get in and quest alone for a while and feel productive and unforced to get into huge groups, etc., I might have ultimately warmed up to that idea over time.
While I do think the author is taking things too seriously, I think he has a lot of valid points of criticism of the overall game design, especially when it comes to the terms of service issue.
It seems to me that scientific studies on children raised in same-sex households have indeed been done, and have found little difference in the emotional or physical health and well-being of the individual, including no statistical difference in the rate of homosexuality among children raised in same sex households vs. opposite sex households. You see, most same sex couples really WANT their children and love them (because they're never accidents), and in addition, same sex couples always have members of the opposite sex in their lives (friends, family) to serve as role models and the like, and actively participate in the raising of the children.
I think having a healthy, functioning, loving home is more important by far. A child in a same-sex household that is loving and caring is far far better off than a child in an opposite-sex household where one or both of the parents is abusive or resentful for having to raise an 'accident' or 'someone else's kid', after all.
Those children do come from several sources: female couples can get artifically inseminated; male couples can get a surrogate; all same-sex couples can have children from previous heterosexual marriages; all same-sex couples can adopt.
In particular, same-sex couples who want children would seem the idea group of people to help take up the slack for all those unwanted children that heterosexuals seem to be constantly producing and putting up for adoption. It would seem the Religious Right, who wants to ban abortion and force all pregnancies to come to term and result in children should be pushing FOR gay marriage and gay adoption, to help take care of all those unwanted children that would result.
Actually, marriage is more about rights of suvivorship and emergencies. Being married designates this "stranger" as now "family". As Family, they inherit things when you pass on, and can make decisions for you if you become incapacitated or are absent (not just medical decisions, but also decisions about children, and property). Additionally Spouses cannot be compelled to testify against their partner in court. There are some very basic civil rights involved.
Gay couples, especially those with children, have no way to get many of these rights that other people take for granted and that save their asses in the event of emergencies (medical or financial or otherwise).
There's a hell of a lot more to it than just "economic freebies"... think of it as a joint incorporation of two individuals who are now seen as "one entity" for any number of purposes, not just tax purposes. In fact, there are over one thousand and forty rights and responsibilties imbued by a marriage license. Same sex couples are only able to obtain a small subset of those through various means (durable powers of attorney, etc), and at much greater expense, and such documents have been easily defeated when contested by "actual family" (since a same sex partner isn't considered "family") when brought before homophobic judges (and that would be a majority of them).
It seems to me the only right and just thing to do is either allow same sex marriages by simply changing "husband and wife" to "spouses" or "partners" and let everything be equivalent... or to completely split the dual nature of marriage, and use "Marriage" to refer only to the religious aspect and ceremony, and use "civil union" to refer to the secular/civil aspect of a government issued contract binding two individuals as 'family'.
As long as two athiests who never intend to have kids (and indeed have taken steps to ensure that, such as vasectomy and/or tubal ligation) such as my friends Mark and Jennifer can get married, then I can't see any reason what so ever to rationally defend denying my friends Wayne and Cody from getting married. Both couples are every bit as in love and committed, and both have been together for over a decade and are going strong. Why should only one be considered a family with legal protections and civl rights that the other is denied?
And if you've ever been in a relationship where one person works a corporate job and another works out of the home or doesn't work for whatever reason (including raising the kids), you'd suddenly stop being "all for dropping all those freebies" such as joint health care coverage, I think.
I have to say, since someone here pointed me to K9, and since installing it and spending a couple of weeks "training it", I almost don't notice spam any more. It's awesome. I must get over 100 spam emails a day (easily), but I can't remember the last time one got through (or the last time a legitimate email got snagged).
If you haven't tried K9, and you aren't happy with your current spam solution, give it a try...
Say you have points A and B that are one light year apart. Person 1 leaves point A and travels to point B in one day. They then spend one day there, and return to point A in another day. They return to point A just three days after they left. A year or so hence, observers at point A will be able to see the antics of person 1 at point B (presuming they have the resolving power to do so).
In no way can Person 1 return to point A PRIOR to their inital leaving time. I also don't see how causality is broken.
Nope. The Marketing royally sucked. The commercials were mostly lame or even bad, and they were concentrated in niche cable channels like Comedy Central and the Sci-Fi channel, such that most people I know had never seen or heard of the movie (let alone the series), had no idea what it was about, didn't think it looked all that good from the commercials they DID see, and had no idea when it had opened.
I strong-armed several people into going to go see it before it left theatres, and they all, every single one of them, loved the movie.
Word of mouth was good, and it was one of the best reviewed movies of the year.
So why didn't anyone go see it? Well, I can only blame the marketing. If that was the best Universal could do, then they suck at it.
How does one find or obtain the "Firefly" comics that he's already written? (The ones that are supposed to take place between the end of the series and the beginning of the movie?)
I'm not into comic books and don't follow that sub-culture, so I really have no clue how to find or obtain these things... but in this case (and in the case of an extended Buffy series), I'm very interested. But it's not like amazon.com carries them so, how do I get them?
Slashdot Mirror
What I don't understand is, even though FireFox puts the short-cut on ALL desktops, why can't I delete it from MY desktop (without affecting the others) if I want? Why isn't that an option?
Sure, I know that due to the implementation, that'd be a weird/difficult thing to do under the covers, but as a user I don't care about that. It seems to me that I should have control over MY desktop. If I delete a "global" shortcut from MY desktop, the OS should just simply hide the shortcut on my desktop and leave everything else alone. Same effect from a user's point of view, and no stupid permission dialog required.
In XP, the inactive windows have significantly dulled colors and title bars. It's pretty obvious once you know that cue.
In Vista, the ONLY distinction I can see is that the close-window button in the upper right is red in the active window, and grayed out in inactive windows. This was pretty obvious to me too, but it's really not enough. I'm used to the whole window (frame and title-bar) giving me a clue.
It seems to me that with AreoGlass, it would be easy enough to dim or darken the window slightly at least (not the contents but the non-client areas) in such a fashion that it would be obvious which was active and which wasn't.
I totally agree that the current UI is completely unacceptable as-is. And also agree with your grandparent post about the idiotic dialog choices.
What makes you think those statements oppose each other? It's been my experience that frequently both apply and both are appropriate.
And you know what? Those people don't need laws to protect them - if they behave normally, nobody knows they're gay, so there's no problem here.
... that information is on every wedding invitation, in the wearing of every wedding band, and all around you in society. Why is it okay for you to get all this passive information about who heterosexuals sleep with, but you feel you have some right to ban homosexuals from giving off any such passive information?
Yes. Yes they do. Because you can't hide being gay even if you act "normally". Because your partner, the person you love, lives with you. Because you go out in public and do things with them. Because you want to have a picture of them on your desk the way your officemates have pictures of their loved ones on their desks. Because you are a couple.
You don't seem to have any concept of just how damaging the closet it, how denial of self, denial of love and expression of that love, and internalized hatred of self can damage someone.
Bill Clinton got a lot of shit for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", but quite frankly I think that's an appropriate response. Why? (1) It's none of my damn business who you sleep with; (2) I don't want to know, so please don't make it so obvious; (3) If I don't know, you don't have to worry about my opinion of it.
No, actually it isn't appropriate. It's stupid and fundamentally flawed. You're asking people to LIE (by omission) and HIDE WHO THEY ARE. That's not rational or justified. Straight guys in the army can talk about their girlfriends and wives. But gay people have to hide any indiciation that they're in a long-term relationship from everyone, and risk getting kicked out if any such indication ever gets even accidentally exposed?
Yes, it's none of your business who anyone sleeps with, but that's not the same thing as saying you have some sort of RIGHT to never know who anyone sleeps with -- much less restricting that right to just one segment of the population. God knows you know who straight people sleep with
I am significantly more supportive of gay people who behave normally. I'm sorry, but it's the flamers who have ruined it for your community.
I think you really have some rigid issues with gender conformity. You have to understand that most of the people who you consider to be flaming fall into one of two camps: 1) Those who are just behaving naturally for themselves, which if you look at it, is not much different from the way a lot of women act in public, and 2) those who are over-compensating for years of repression of their natural selves. I know many people in the first group. They are the way they are, and if you take a step back, their behavior is absolutely no different than you'd find in women in many other cultures. The behavior is only "wrong" because it's a man doing it? Sounds misogynistic to me. Or at least sexist. I do admit that those in the 2nd camp can be downright obnoxious (the way recent ex-smokers can be really obnoxious), but they tend to settle down after a while, and of course if the oppression didn't exist in the first place, this camp wouldn't even exist.
I don't have any problem with the 9 out of 10 gay people who behave normally in public.
So you'd be willing to acknowledge it's not "just a choice", and support equal treatment under the law for these people, in terms of housing, employment, and civil marriage rights and responsibilities?
Further, there is a huge difference between tolerance and acceptance, which is something the gay community needs to learn. Tolerance is, "I understand you are this way. I don't like it and I don't agree with it, but it is your decision and I will leave well enough alone." I have infinite tolerance for homosexuals.
But you have to consider how ridiculous that sounds. It's like saying "I understand you are left handed. I dont like it and I don't agree with it, but it is your decision and I will leave well enough alone." The WHOLE P
I was talking about two people of the same sex loving one another in an intimate manner.
... ridiculous.
So... to extrapolate, you don't think homosexuals deserve love or to have satisfying relationships with people they love? Wow.
With regards to hiring, homosexuals are discriminated against for perfectly valid reasons. Many people find their behavior disgusting.
Yeah, and people used to say that blacks (or jews, or insert minority group here) were discriminated against for perfectly valid reasons. And I'm sorry, but someone being disgusted by who I or you or anyone else sleeps with or is in love with is NOT a valid reason for firing someone. I think my coworkers' wife is a fat cow who's ugly and smells funny, and the thought of them having sex digusts me. Why should that make any difference to housing or employment or anything? It's an OPINION. It shouldn't be law.
Quite frankly, grown men behaving like little girls, displaying the stereotypical homosexual traits, really puts people off.
More ignroant bigoted ramblings. Imagine saying the equivalent statement about black people and then trying to clame you weren't a bigot. But 9 of 10 gay people do not behave "like little girls" in any way (in fact, you probably are around a lot of gay people you have no clue are gay). Not every gay person displays "stereotypical homosexual traits", and I know more than a few straight guys who are quite effeminate or flamboyant. And who the hell cares if it puts people off? Someone who doesn't hew to rigid gender stereotypes deserves to be fired or evicted?
To punish ALL gay people because you're uncomfortable about people who don't behave the way you want them to is
And just be aware, that throughout history, bigots never think of themselves that way. They always have rationalizations and justifications, they always feel righteous and just in their behavior and their opinions. But that doesn't make them any less well informed or any less prejudiced. Yes, you're a bigot. Yes, because you still believe homosexuality is any kind of "choice" even after it has been proven in study after study to be no such thing, you are ignorant. "Ignorant" is not an insult... we're all ignorant on SOME topic. You're ignorant on this one, and I'm just inviting you to learn more so that you stop spreading misinformation and start being a little more rational on this issue.
As I said before, it wasn't long ago that people held the same opinions as you towards left-handed people... that they were making a bad moral choice, and it was perfectly okay to shun them for their "behavior". Now, nobody thinks twice about the minor efforts needed to accomodate left-handed people in society. And all the SAME lame arguments against gay marrage were used only 50 years ago to justify the ban on interracial marriage. When interracial marraige was legalized, 90% of the population was against it. But it was the right thing to do, and allowing same-sex couples to have the same legal protections as other couples. Because if my two friends Mark and Jennifer, who are both athiests, and who have both been sterilized and unable to have children, can go down to the justice of the peace with a couple of witnesses and get a marriage license, then I can't understand why my friends Victor and Steve can't. It's not just, and it doesn't serve the greater good to treat them as second-class citizens.
Once again, you've given no indication if you've read the links I posted or not, or the reviews of Brokeback mountain (written by straight guys) or not. There is much, I think, for you to learn there, and I'm fully willing to give you other links to research and studies that support everything I've said, and which refute most of your beliefs on this subject (re: it being a 'choice'). I encourage you to read them. And maybe after some reading, you'll understand, and you won't be ignorant any more. And maybe with a little more life experience, you won't be a bigot any more either.
Blue eyes are something you can't control.
Just like sexual orientation. Or left vs. right handedness.
Homosexual behavior is.
But Homosexual orientation isn't. Sure, you can force a left-handed person to write right-handed, but why? And it really ends up causing damage. Imagine if someone told you you couldn't act on your sexual orientation ever, and you had to "pretend" to be gay. You'd go nuts. You'd hate it. Why do you think it's any different for someone who is homosexual?
Sorry, but the "facts" of homosexuals being "born that way" are very much in dispute.
It's only disputed by ignorant bigots. Scientists and people who actually KNOW what they're talking about are not in dispute. They don't necessarily know the root cause, but they know a few things about it, and the fact is they know it's NOT due to nurture or to choice. Period. Current theories tend towards invitro hormonal environment combined with genetic predisposition.
See, I find it ridiculous you can stand up and compare a behavior with something a person "is".
Oh really? So a left-handed person is "just a behavior"? I mean, they naturally want to write with the wrong hand. There was a time, hundreds of years ago, when left-handed people were treated as "evil" and forced to "convert" to right-handed (it rarely worked). Your opinion of homosexuality is just like the old, ignorant attitudes that used to be expressed towards left-handed people. It's just as ridiculous and just as ignorant.
A homosexual is only a homosexual because he engages in homosexual behavior.
WRONG WRONG WRONG. You think homosexuals can't be virgins? Of course they can be. Being celebate doesn't make one any less homosexual, any more than being celebate makes one any less heterosexual. It's NOT just a behavior. It's emotion, and love, and feeling, and desire. It is FUNDAMENTAL to the person's being, just like your sexuality is.
Surely you can understand the difference between behavior - something you can control - and something you simply are whether you like it or not.
And surely you can understand that what you ARE affects your behavior. Homosexual people (what they are) enjoy homosexual sex (a behavior) and do not enjoy heterosexual sex (also a behavior). You ARE striaght. Homosexuals ARE homosexual. It's not just "what they do", it's who they are. You cannot "chose" who makes your dick hard. Being turned on JUST HAPPENS.
"Homosexuality is a learned behavior."
Bullshit. That is such a false behavior. Where do they learn it? From the moment of birth they are taught and innundated with heterosexuality. From every single billboard, magazine, TV show, movie, family member, and friend, heterosexuality is taught and asusmed. Most gay people of the past thought they were the only ones. You are just so flat out wrong with that assertion I can't even begin to comprehend how you can defend such a statement! You didn't choose to be straight, you just are. A homosexual person fantasizes about members of the same sex during adolescence, just as a heterosexual has wet-dreams about the opposite sex. If you had watched "60 Minutes" you would have seen a complete debunking of the myth that homosexuality is 'learned' behavior or a 'choice'. You can educate yourself. Repeating ignorant stuff like this will get you labeled, rightly so, as ignorant.
As for your "friend", your generalizing from a non-comprehension of what he was going through. And not every gay person is the same. Like I said before (and you ignored), human sexuality is complicated. Some people are totally homosexual, some are totally heterosexual, and some are anyhere in between. Human sexuality is a spectrum of desires, and is complicated by all sorts of things. Some people are hypersexual, some are asexual, some are fixated on fetishes. Maybe your friend is "mostly gay" or really is bisexual. Or maybe he was just gay, and in denial for a long time. That
Well, I'm not into cowboy movies or westerns at all either. The movie isn't one of those. But it's a decent love story in the vein of Romeo and Juliet (forbidden love with a tragic end). Now that it's out on DVD (well, effective tomorrow), maybe you can grab your girlfriend (real, potential, or imaginary) and watch it and score some points. Of all the chick-flicks in the world, this one is among the least painful as long as you accept one thing: it's not an action film. There are no car chases or explosions. It's a story told quietly and at a laconic pace befitting the time and setting of the film. It doesn't spoon-feed you or hit you over the head with anything, requiring you to perceive the meaning in the quite spaces and looks. It's very much an Ang Lee movie, if you've ever appreciated any of his others (such as "Ice Storm").
:-)
Does it help to mention you get to see both Michelle Williams' and Anne Hathaway's boobies? (they're the two female leads, if you didn't know)
Narnia made $290,821,636 domestic, and $718,262,636 world-wide.
:-)
King King made $217,958,250 domestic, and $546,973,600 world-wide.
Brokeback Mountain made $82,851,000 domestic, and $165,851,000 world-wide.
None of them "tanked" at the box-office, though King Kong didn't do quite as well as was expected.
Having Brokeback Mountain outsell the other two on DVD release says one of two things: Those that saw it in the theater liked it enough to want to own it, while those that saw the other two movies didn't... or that a lot of people who wanted to see Brokeback Mountain either couldn't see it or wouldn't see it in public. Maybe a little of both. Either way, it's pretty astonishing for a little art film like this to not only do those box office numbers, but to be ranking so high in DVD pre-orders. But then again, it is one of the most universally well reviewed movies released in the last year, and winner of the most awards and prizes of any movie released in the last year. That might have something to do with it too.
But then there are also those that just see the word 'gay' anywhere associated with the movie (the word is never spoken in the film, neither is the word 'homosexual') and dismiss it out of hand, or run away from it as if it might be 'catching' or something.
BTW, kudos for not going with the obvious "top" joke
I guess the fact they're releasing 'Brokeback Mountain' as a download is a good thing, for all those too embarrased to see it at the cinema or go out and buy it.
I'm guessing you're right on this one... Brokeback Mountain has been the number one seller on both DVD Empire and Amazon.com for weeks now, topping King Kong and Narnia in orders/pre-orders. Go figure.
Heath Ledger's character never said that line... It was Jake Gyllenhaal's character. And it was "I wish I knew how to quit you."
:-)
Just FYI
(yes, I've seen the movie four times in the theatre... so sue me)
I think they're shooting themselves in the foot by not allowing you to burn a DVD of major Hollywood titles, personally, but maybe they'll fix that after they see how Vivid's experiment goes.
If you really think the 2004 election was "fair", you might want to read this well researched and documented book: Fooled Again
BTW, I agree with most of the rest of your little rant.
Man I wish I had mod points.
Very well said.
Bravo.
I have to disagree, but it's only a disagreement in terms of degree.
... it can lead to results such as the least popular alternative winning (when majorities get split). Until the voting system is fundamentally changed to something other than "Plurality", we're going to be pretty much stuck with two options: the party that at least tries to care about individuals (Democrats) and the party that doesn't give a damn about individuals and doesn't even pretend to (Republicans). Both parties have deep flaws, but one is about a hundred times worse than the other in the end result (as we see under Bush).
Voting for Republicans is voting for things to get a hundred times worse in this direction.
Voting for Democrats is voting for things to get not much worse in this direction.
With a plurality voting system, voting for a third party isn't a viable option
Voting Democratic will help pull back from this head-long rush to the bottom, and that's at least a start in the right direction.
Saying or implying that the two parties are EQUALY funded and owned by the same corporations and wealthy individuals who gain the most from outsourcing is just wrong, though. There's certainly some overlap, but it's like saying a medicine ball and a BB are "equal" because they're both round.
I do wish the Democratic party would be a bit more populist than it is. I can't stand the DLC wing of the party at this point ("Republican Lite") as I find it intellectually and morally bankrupt and weak-kneed. But that's just my opinion.
I presume it's launching before Blu-Ray is, so that's got to be before May, right? I can't recall having seen anything.
Who gets there first is part of the battle. Not the entire battle, but it can be significant if played right.
And how soon after HD-DVD launch will something like XBox feature HD-DVD players built-in and/or as add-on options? How about packaged PCs from Dell, Gateway2000, and/or Apple? What side is Apple on, anyway? (we KNOW what side Microsoft is on, but Vista is still a long ways away).
I'm an introvet myself, and having to -- feeling forced to -- hook up and coordinate with massive numbers of other players (turning game play into more of an 'obligation' than fun) in order to progress is a real turn-off.
I was originally attracted to this game by the notion that I could "quest with other people, alone". When that turned out to not be the case, I decided not to bother purchasing the game at all. And I haven't to this day, and am unlikely to in the future at this point.
So in essence, I'm all about his #4, and it was a deal-killer for me. If it had let me get in and quest alone for a while and feel productive and unforced to get into huge groups, etc., I might have ultimately warmed up to that idea over time.
While I do think the author is taking things too seriously, I think he has a lot of valid points of criticism of the overall game design, especially when it comes to the terms of service issue.
More than "some" doubt, actually....
"Fooled Again" Mark Crispin Miller
We need a new mod-category for your post: "+2 Funny because it's insightfully true" :-)
It seems to me that scientific studies on children raised in same-sex households have indeed been done, and have found little difference in the emotional or physical health and well-being of the individual, including no statistical difference in the rate of homosexuality among children raised in same sex households vs. opposite sex households. You see, most same sex couples really WANT their children and love them (because they're never accidents), and in addition, same sex couples always have members of the opposite sex in their lives (friends, family) to serve as role models and the like, and actively participate in the raising of the children.
I think having a healthy, functioning, loving home is more important by far. A child in a same-sex household that is loving and caring is far far better off than a child in an opposite-sex household where one or both of the parents is abusive or resentful for having to raise an 'accident' or 'someone else's kid', after all.
Those children do come from several sources: female couples can get artifically inseminated; male couples can get a surrogate; all same-sex couples can have children from previous heterosexual marriages; all same-sex couples can adopt.
In particular, same-sex couples who want children would seem the idea group of people to help take up the slack for all those unwanted children that heterosexuals seem to be constantly producing and putting up for adoption. It would seem the Religious Right, who wants to ban abortion and force all pregnancies to come to term and result in children should be pushing FOR gay marriage and gay adoption, to help take care of all those unwanted children that would result.
Actually, marriage is more about rights of suvivorship and emergencies. Being married designates this "stranger" as now "family". As Family, they inherit things when you pass on, and can make decisions for you if you become incapacitated or are absent (not just medical decisions, but also decisions about children, and property). Additionally Spouses cannot be compelled to testify against their partner in court. There are some very basic civil rights involved.
Gay couples, especially those with children, have no way to get many of these rights that other people take for granted and that save their asses in the event of emergencies (medical or financial or otherwise).
There's a hell of a lot more to it than just "economic freebies"... think of it as a joint incorporation of two individuals who are now seen as "one entity" for any number of purposes, not just tax purposes. In fact, there are over one thousand and forty rights and responsibilties imbued by a marriage license. Same sex couples are only able to obtain a small subset of those through various means (durable powers of attorney, etc), and at much greater expense, and such documents have been easily defeated when contested by "actual family" (since a same sex partner isn't considered "family") when brought before homophobic judges (and that would be a majority of them).
It seems to me the only right and just thing to do is either allow same sex marriages by simply changing "husband and wife" to "spouses" or "partners" and let everything be equivalent... or to completely split the dual nature of marriage, and use "Marriage" to refer only to the religious aspect and ceremony, and use "civil union" to refer to the secular/civil aspect of a government issued contract binding two individuals as 'family'.
As long as two athiests who never intend to have kids (and indeed have taken steps to ensure that, such as vasectomy and/or tubal ligation) such as my friends Mark and Jennifer can get married, then I can't see any reason what so ever to rationally defend denying my friends Wayne and Cody from getting married. Both couples are every bit as in love and committed, and both have been together for over a decade and are going strong. Why should only one be considered a family with legal protections and civl rights that the other is denied?
And if you've ever been in a relationship where one person works a corporate job and another works out of the home or doesn't work for whatever reason (including raising the kids), you'd suddenly stop being "all for dropping all those freebies" such as joint health care coverage, I think.
I have to say, since someone here pointed me to K9, and since installing it and spending a couple of weeks "training it", I almost don't notice spam any more. It's awesome. I must get over 100 spam emails a day (easily), but I can't remember the last time one got through (or the last time a legitimate email got snagged).
If you haven't tried K9, and you aren't happy with your current spam solution, give it a try...
I guess I don't follow this line of reasoning.
Say you have points A and B that are one light year apart. Person 1 leaves point A and travels to point B in one day. They then spend one day there, and return to point A in another day. They return to point A just three days after they left. A year or so hence, observers at point A will be able to see the antics of person 1 at point B (presuming they have the resolving power to do so).
In no way can Person 1 return to point A PRIOR to their inital leaving time. I also don't see how causality is broken.
Nope. The Marketing royally sucked. The commercials were mostly lame or even bad, and they were concentrated in niche cable channels like Comedy Central and the Sci-Fi channel, such that most people I know had never seen or heard of the movie (let alone the series), had no idea what it was about, didn't think it looked all that good from the commercials they DID see, and had no idea when it had opened.
I strong-armed several people into going to go see it before it left theatres, and they all, every single one of them, loved the movie.
Word of mouth was good, and it was one of the best reviewed movies of the year.
So why didn't anyone go see it? Well, I can only blame the marketing. If that was the best Universal could do, then they suck at it.
How does one find or obtain the "Firefly" comics that he's already written? (The ones that are supposed to take place between the end of the series and the beginning of the movie?)
I'm not into comic books and don't follow that sub-culture, so I really have no clue how to find or obtain these things... but in this case (and in the case of an extended Buffy series), I'm very interested. But it's not like amazon.com carries them so, how do I get them?