Doom3 plays just fine on my 2.0Ghz machine with 512Meg of RAM and an ATI Radeon 9600 Pro card.
Half-Life 2 stutters all the time, sometimes badly. I thought it was just because my machine is under-powered for the game, but I definitely exceed the specs, and turning down some of the detail and unloading some services and other applications to free up more memory didn't help the problem.
Glad to see it's not just me, and is likely a problem wtih the game itself.
Just to echo you, I sat down to install the game at 7pm, and it was almost 10pm before I actually was into the game and playing.
I also had a shit-load of trouble thanks to an installer bug. I didn't want to install the counter-strike option, so I unchecked it. Well, that causes the game to fail to install most of the way through the fourth disc. And it just bails, making you start all the way over. Damn. You think they would have TESTED that, maybe?? Obviously not.
My computer is no slouch, but the game load times are rather incredibly long for me as well, which takes me out of the action. I launch the game and come back 5-10 minutes later to start playing. And when I reach a new level, I go and get a drink, and maybe it's loaded by the time I get back.
That's frustration on top of the incredibly long install/decrypt times!
The ultimate speed of ion propulsion is higher than that of chemical propulsion.
But the mass being expelled at high speeds (the ions) is so low, that accelleration is VERY slow. So it takes a long time to get up to speed, but the maximum speed you can theoretically reach is much greater than that of chemical rockets.
Under President Clinton, the number of abortions performed in this country went down every single year.
Under President Bush, the number of abortions have gone up every single year.
Think about that when you hit the polls. Sometimes the POLICIES have more practial effect on issues than rhetoric. Kerry is personally against abortion, but is politically pro-choice (i.e. it's up to each of us, it's too complicated and divisive a topic and no two people fully agree on the issue, so a one-size-fits-all solution from the government simply cannot work, and thus it's best for this issue to be left up to the people directly involved). Bush is rabidly anti-choice and is using whatever mechanisms he can to impose that view on everyone else.
However, Clinton's and Kerry's policies tend to lead to environments where abortions are less "necessary". Clinton's refrain is likely going to be echoed by Kerry: "Abortions in this country should be safe, legal, and RARE."
And if you truly believe that human life is precious, keep in mind that Bush is rabidly PRO Death-penality. Kerry isn't.
When President Bush attempts to justify his Iraqi misadventure, he inevitably claims that he is on the side of justice and truth and that those who oppose him are "evil doers" or their accomplices. Again and again he reminds the world, you either for us, or against us. There is no room for nuance, much less dissent. Though he has learned to avoid the word itself, "crusade" accurately describes the evangelical fervor with which Bush pursues the continued occupation of Iraq. His fanatical zeal can admit no mistakes nor tolerate any criticism.
The Administration paints Iraqi resisters as crazed fundamentalists hell-bent on enforcing their self-centered vision of God's will, the cost in human lives be damned. But, with tragic irony, such a description applies equally well to the White House. They wave the flag, hoist the cross, and profess theirs to be a mission from the Almighty. If blood is being spilled, so be it. It is God's will.
Fundamentalism of any stripe makes for bad politics, for politics involves the art of getting along and living together in peace. Any group believing itself in sole possession of The Truth will inevitably, perhaps with the best of intentions, try to convert others. The more fervently any fundamentalist believes in his "truth" (be it Mohammad, Jesus, or laissez-faire capitalism), the more coercive conversion methods can be justified. If thumb-screws or worse are needed to get non-believers on board, their use is surely better than allowing someone to go unconverted.
One of America's enduring political strengths has been a skepticism about religious fundamentalism and political absolutism. Indeed, our Founders recognized the utility of tolerance, religious and political, in encouraging diversity. From diversity spring vitality and resilience; good ideas are more likely found from amongst many options than from one dusty scroll or one blinkered political doctrine. "Truth" is not ever captured in just one person or one time or one text. It is the goal of constantly thinking, living - and thus changing - minds. Fundamentalism, demanding unyielding adherence to a predetermined creed, inevitably becomes the enemy of truth.
The motto of America itself celebrates the utility of diversity: E pluribus unim (out of many, one). It is tempting for some politicians, eager for the power of unity, to forget that a strong unum is predicated on a vital pluribus. Enforcing oneness while quashing deviation leads to brittle totalitarianism. Any system aimed at avoiding such brutal and short-lived rule, must derive legitimacy and strength by embracing and encouraging sometimes inconvenient and messy diversity
Instead of drawing on our strength in pluribus, Bush has sought to stifle and silence critics. He has armed John Ashcroft with the power to sneak peeks at political opponents' credit card receipts, video rentals, and library borrowings. Secret tribunals are to replace public trials. And everywhere, fear is generated to prevent people from daring to oppose our leader. Dissent is explicitly equated with treason.
Bush claims his fundamentalist-inspired war is to be "perpetual", thus civil liberties need be suspended indefinitely. But real Americans understand that tolerance, dissent, and diversity make America stronger, not weaker. Let us hope voters this November 2nd send a message to the world: anyone parading narrow-minded fundamentalism, martial law, and endless war as true Americanism is a dangerous charlatan to be exposed and rejected.
The reason spending is up, is because the GOP controlls both houses and the Presidency. There is no "check" or "balance". It's congressional hogs feeding at the trough.
By voting for Kerry, you put a Democrat in the White House. There is no danger of the Republicans losing congress. Thus you restore the adversarial "Democratic President with Republican congress" dynamic that has given us great economies in the past, and under which the budget was balanced and federal spending actually reduced all during the 90's.
No, it's done all the time. Ever notice that the statistics given at sites like boxofficemojo.com always show "theatres", not "screens"? It's easy for the studios to count the number of venues or even prints they send out, but the theatres are free to show each print on multiple screens, by threading the film through two projectors simultaneously (out of one projecter into the next). And the studios don't mind this, because it all translates into more money for them anyway.
Here in Austin, at least one theatre was playing it on eight of their twelve screens at one point. They only had two prints of the film, so they were showing each print in four theatre simultaneously. They had started out on only two screens, but as the demand surged, they kept canceling showings of other movies and adding screens for Fahrenheit 9/11 until they were showing it on 2/3rds of the screens. The movie was showing at six or seven theatres around town, and Friday evening, virtually every showing was sold out.
If Jeb Bush did that, it would be a gross abuse of power. Besides, Jeb needs Disney. I'm certain any such threat -- besides being completely immoral and reprehensible in an allegedly free country -- was most certainly empty.
Well, I have to say the very ending of Cryptonomicon didn't really live up to all the set-up, in my view. But over-all I enjoyed the book. The second half more than the first, primarily because it took me that long to get all the characters and times and places under my belt in a solid fashion.
I do like how the writing style made you feel like you were inside the mind of an autistic person, but that style seemed to bleed far outside the thoughts of the one relatively autistic/savant character, and that got tedious quickly.
I have to say I did enjoy the bit about how his problem solving abilities were directly related to the length of time since his last orgasm (complete with graphs). That was amusing:-)
But yeah, it's annoying when authors get so "popular" that they don't get edited like they should. Stephen King suffers from this problem as well.
Cryptonomicon really was a struggle for the first 400 page. It was strange, though, that after slogging through that first half, I couldn't put it down. It really got interesting.
He just needs a good editor. I mean, the two or three pages he spent describing how to eat the perfect bowl of Captain Crunch really wasn't necessary and didn't add much.
You really should read it to get his side though. It's called getting both sides of an issue. Of course he's not unbiased, but he does do a serious analysis of the press coverage of various things and comes up with some figures that can at least be debated rationally. Unlike the conservative press that claim a pervasive liberal bias from all their conservative radio stations, from Fox news, and from every conservative editorial and opinion piece in every paper in the country... (*cough*).
The CEO is on record as saying he will be honored to *DELIVER* the votes to put Bush into the white house in 2004.
At the very least, this is not an appropriate thing for a representative of an electronic voting machine company to say... let alone at a Bush fundraiser.
When it comes to voting, even the *appearance* of impropriety is a problem. The voting system and counting system must be above reproach by any party.
By this standard, the planned voting machines utterly fail. Austrailia has done a better job, as have some other countries. Electronic voting machines at the very least need to be open-source so that everyone can have confidence the code is valid and not biased or insecure. Beyond that, some sort of verifiable paper-trail or some other verification system is a must.
When it comes to voting systems, there MUST be voter-trust of the system. The current system that is planned for use in 2004 has no such trust, and this is a serious problem that must be addressed.
You're right, there isn't. You're just plain wrong and your imagination is working over time. There's no such thing as "recruitment". It's not possible. It's like recruiting people to become left-handed. It ain't gonna work.
Seduction? Sure. But at 16, if some woman or girl had tried to seduce me, she NEVER would have been successful. Because I'm not heterosexual. Or even bisexual. The same is true in reverse. A gay guy can hit on a guy all he wants, but unless that guy is gay or bisexual to begin with, he's not going to have any sort of success.
I know what you're talking about, and I know what you mean, but what you're thinking and saying is just wrong. You're missing the forest for the trees. There will always be individuals that "prey" on the weak, the lonely, the disenfranchized. And it's not at all a straight/gay thing. It's always wrong, but to advocate that all homosexuals everywhere should be denied equal rights because, just like straights, some of them have questionable moral character, is just not rational.
All the same, a parent's anxieties might not be assuaged by this.
A parent's irrational anxieties should never be the basis for disenfranchising and denying equal rights to entire segments of the population. You're anxieties are ill-founded, bordering on ridiculous. You focus all on the anti-gay side, while never seeming to acknowledge that even if you wiped out gays, the same issues will still exist. A friend of mine has two kids. One is infertile, the other has no interest in kids. My friend will never have grandchildren and both her kids are straight.
Look, deal with what life gives you and stop trying to change everything to meet your idealistic wishing. You go on and on about how you hate gays allegedly trying to pervert your world, yet you think you have the right to pervert theirs and force them in the closet or advocate eradicating them? Hypocritical is the word that comes to mind. Irrational. Maybe even "control freak".
And as for a child needing a mum and a dad, try and get a little perspective. Divorce is MUCH more damaging to children than having loving gay parents. Why aren't you advocating the elimination of divorce? It's definitely a choice, and is definitely a *heterosexual* problem. Why continue to scape-goat gay people for problems that are not their fault at all? Besides, gay couples help raise all those unwanted, abandoned, and given-up-for-adoption children that heterosexuals are always producing. If you're really interested in helping children, I can think of dozens of far more relevent and immediate issues to address than gay parents, gay couples, or gays in general. Perspective.
As for your dreams and hopes for the future, I find them beyond chilling. You are essentially advocating eugenics and genocide. You sit there calmly and cooly advocating the elimination of a whole group of people as a 'problem', using questionable pseudo-scientific reasoning and incredibly warped perspectives, even though you yourself admit it's not everyone in the group that's a problem. You even managed to identify the real problem you have ("promiscuity") without seemingly realizing it. It's fine if you want to curb promiscuity, but promiscuity is not the sole posession of homosexuals. Yet you demonize an entire group based on your perceptions on this one issue.
You can say I automatically "lose" the argument, but it is seriously no different than Germans in 1930 discussing the "Jewish Problem" and their disgust at any positive images of jewish people... or people in Idaho discusing the "black" problem, talking about how they're all lazy and on welfare. Selective perception, twisted by a bizzarely hateful ideology, and some bizzare fear or insecurity that isn't based on anything real or rational.
Heterosexuality IS considered normal, and nothing will ever change that, so why you phrase your argument so that it implies that t
Disasterous?? No offence, but not having grandkid is hardly disasterous. Your children's lives are not All About You. Besides, as the incidence of homosexuality goes up the more older siblings you have, it's likely you'll have plenty of grandchildren through other offspring. Are you completley closed to the concept that there may be evolutionary benefit to having gay siblings? To individuals whose energy isn't totally devoted to the raising of their own offspring? Do you wonder why gays are so prevalent in the arts? Do you think Alan Turing could have done all he did, from establishing computer science to winning WW2 if he had four kids demanding all his time? And do you conceed no evolutionary advantage to the woman with several children, who has a gay brother who can help her from time to time to provide for those kids?
I only ask that they avoid influencing our young in their sexual preferences.
You keep making vague claims like this, with no concrete evidence of what you MEAN. Do you mean simply existing? Being visible like any other citizen? And you speak of "gay culture" as if it were a single, monolithic concept. Which only proves to me how ignorant you are of gay people.
The vast majority of gay people do NOT participate in the "stereotypical gay lifestyle" and more than all straight people go to raves and have kids as teens out of wedlock. Gays are just not monolithic. They're republicans, democrats, and everything else. They're religious, they're atheist. They're wild and crazy, and they're shy and reserved.
And removing the presence of gay people from media? Are you KIDDING me? You want all media to conspire to show the world as it is not? There was ZERO gay presence in the media in the 50's (well, not zero, what what little there was was certainly not understandable by kids, and was exteremely negative), and it did not in any way supress the number of gay people in existence. All such things do is drive people into closets (a VERY mentally unhealthy place to be), breed resentment, and exactly the kind of Act-Up in-your-faceness that you abhor so much. Your "solution" is indeed the biggest problem.
Gays are on TV all over Europe, and it's no big thing. Nothing special. No "special episodes", no massive drama, no major outcries. And you know what? There's no greater incidence of homosexuality there, and in fact, there's markedly less "in your face" reactionaries. There's no NEED for such fighting for rights or organizing, because they simply have their rights and can simply live their lives just like anyone else.
The age of consent for homosexuality shouldn't be any different for heterosexuality (you do know that the vast, vast majority of sexual abuse is by heterosexuals on opposite sex children, mostly uncles and fathers on their own neices and daughters), right? And you've heard of the "equal protection" clause of the consititution, right?
You've not established that any real "recruitment" occurs, scientifically. You haven't proven beyond a shadow of a doubt exactly what form this alleged "recruitment" takes, so I think legislating against an ENTIRE group of people is a bit premature, don't you think?
And any association of homosexuality to paedophilia on any level is just repugnant. There's a major difference: one of consent. I know you understand this concept since you're always going on about free will.
(on a side-note, you might want to read "Metamagical Themas: Questing for the Essence of Mind and Pattern" by Douglas R. Hofstadter for some interesting discussions on the illusion of 'free will';-)
The fact is that no matter how attracted you are to someone it is always possible to make yourself turn away
And there's where we differ. When I say one doesn't choose to fall in love, you don't really refute that fact. I don't CHOOSE who I subconsciously react to. What I CAN do is choose to not act on my feelings. That's the only "choice" involved.
Trust me, it's sexual ORIENTATION, not "disorientation". There ain't nothing wrong with me.
Homosexuals have existed throughout history, and even exist in most other animal species. It's a part of nature. It just is. Do you term left-handedness as "disfunctional handedness"?? I doubt it.
It's just different. I have no idea why it bothers you so much. I really don't. Nobody's trying to convert you. Nobody *wants* to convert you.
Even if you did consider it a dysfunction, why show such disrespect and distaste? Do you show as much to people who are blind or otherwise diabled? (and no, I don't think you can equate homosexuality with being disabled, but some people seem to... yet still treat it with a special reserve of contempt and/or venom). Even if you did consider it a "choice" (which it emphatically is not), do you show such contempt for people of different religions than you? Are they "dysfunctionally religious"?
Sigh. I wish I could comprehend what you're so afraid of, and what you're so up in arms about, and why you hold such contempt for people not like you.
If you re-read my comments, you'll see I never ever claimed it was *solely* genetic. In fact, I repeated the twins study, which shows that in twins, if one is gay, the other is twice as likely to be gay as in fraternal twins. I think this clearly shows that there's a genetic predisposition, but obviously not a genetic certainty.
But again, this doesn't mean it's a "choice", nor does it mean it's a "disease" to be "cured".
As for your concern about free will, other twin studies show more cause for your concern (twins raised apart from birth tend to dress very similarlly, use the same brands and products, have the same tastes, etc., to a statistically significant degree). And as for the genetic screening to terminate gay fetuses, of course it's a concern (Ever see the movie "Twilight of the Golds"? It's pretty decent, if not, and touches on this exact subject. It stars Brendan Fraser).
Additional studies show that the more older brothers you have, the greater the chances of you being gay are. It's an interesting study. Additionally, homosexuality seems to 'run' in some families... but not in others. I know one family where all three children are gay (one gay man, two lesbians). Even more interestingly, the parents are very straight, very religious, VERY right-wing conservative Republicans. Two of the children are in the closet to their parents. The third (one of the lesbians) is essentially cut out of the Parent's lives (their insistence). Wouldn't it be ironic if anti-gay upbringings caused homosexuality?? ROFL! (just kidding)
And while it isn't a choice in any sense of the word that matters (i.e. I can only really choose to be closeted or to be honest and open... I can't choose what makes my dick hard, or who I fall in love with)... even if it were, should it matter? If two people love each other, why try and keep them apart? In past decades, interracial relationships were *illegal*. In past decades inter-faith relationships were scandalous, if not illegal. Now, most people don't even bat an eye at either. Someday, the same will be true of same-sex relationships. It's already that way in a great many European countries, and Canada is following quickly behind. Gays serve openly in virtually every military in NATO except in the US. The direction of time and progress is clear.
The US is just a little backwards in this regard. But not endlessly so. This too shall pass.
"How many times have you watched a gay pride carnival on TV only to see a bunch of (frankly ugly) blokes dressed up to look like female brazilian dancers or some other ultra feminine stereotype?"
Well, honestly, I'd suggest you blame the media for that. They tend to focus on the small minority of more 'colorful' participants in these parades.
But really, homosexuality is orthogonal to cross-dressing. Yes, there are people who are in both camps. But that doesn't mean they're TIED TOGETHER. Yes, the public psyche might think they are, but they'd be wrong.
It's not "gay representatives" that are "pushing" these stereotypes, frankly. It's a media distortion that picks out the fringes as if they were "representative". And of course anti-gay forces and homophobes with an anti-gay agenda seize on this and exploit it every chance they get. But you know something? If it wasn't this, they'd find or make up something else.
...oh, one last thing. It won't change your mind at all (I'm not convinced your mind can be changed), but here's an article on the latest study out of the UK:
I'm sure you'll just dismiss it out of hand (as it doesn't fit your newly found preconceived stereotypes), but hopefully you'll instead add it to the list of data available. Between this, and the studies that show that "ex-gay" repairative therapy simply doesn't work, maybe you might become convinced that it's not a "choice" (in what is typically meant by that word).
Transvestites aren't trying to take over the world and remodel it in their own image.
Neither are gays. What a bizzare assertion. Since when is wanting equal rights (not special rights) and a place at the table "trying to take over the world". Get over it. Gays are part of society and will always remain so.
They don't appear to actively recruit young people the way that some gays do.
That is such a lie. Sexual orientation is relatively fixed, either at birth or by a very young age (two or so). That there are a few pedophiles out there (which, by the way, the majority of are STRAIGHT) and preditors out there (again, most sexual predators are STRAIGHT) is not relevent. You don't hold ALL straight people responsibile for a few straight sex criminals, do you? Then why do you hold ALL gay people responsible for the few gay sex criminals out there?!? Trust me, RECRUITING doesn't happen. It can't happen. You can't turn a straight person gay, and vice-versa.
They're not inimical to the nuclear family and are perfectly capable of marrying and raising children.
The "nuclear family" is an invention of the last century, and there is nothing inherently superior about it. (In fact, it was the 'nuclear family' of the 40's/50's that gave rise to the generation of rebelion in the 60's/70's, right?). Most succesfull families in human history have been multigenerational. But beyond the 'nuclear family' myth, most gay people I know of live in stable couples, and many raising children just fine. After all, who ELSE is going to raise all those massive numbers of unwanted children that straights manage to thoughtlessly produce? Gay couples adopt, and raise perfectly fine kids.
They don't use the words "ignorant bigot" in every other sentence and they don't shout in all caps.
Heh! They certainly do when addressing ignorant bigots. Especially ignorant bigots who are in denial and have frustrated them to no end with their constant counter-factual nonsense.
The increasing acceptance of transvestitism in society has not led to increased incidence of references to deviant sexual practices in the mainstream media
Wow, you're making a lot of tenuous connections here. I'd say one of the events that increased the incidence of references to "deviant sexual practices" the MOST in this country was Bill Clinton's affair (thanks to Republican partisan Ken Starr). Gays had nothing to do with it. And beyond that, you're assuming "the closet" is the proper place for people who are different from you (your attitude seems to be "I don't care if you're different, just MAKE SURE I don't know about it"). Which is very elitist, narrow-minded, and yes bigoted. It certainly isn't very realistic either.
Don't you get it yet? Are you so steeped in your own preconceptions that you are incapable of listening? You have done everything in your power to drain your argument of any credibility; you must be the least convincing apologist for gay ideals that I have ever encountered.
Substitute "gay" with "anti-gay", and I could turn that sentence around right back at you. You *clearly* don't get it.
Whereas the personal experience that you refer to is only internal reflection and counts only for you...
You must not comprehend what you read well... what I describe is not just personal experience, but is the experience I've witnessed in the gay community as near-universal. I've talked with hundreds of gay people and bisexuals, and nobody (NOBODY) has even the slightest feeling that they "chose" to be gay, and all report first realizing they were gay during puberty, or the standard 'sexual awakening'. Almost all of them can cite examples prior to puberty that only make sense if you knew they were a gay kid. And most of them never wanted to be gay, and fought it long and hard (up to and including contemplating suicide because they had such disapproving parents who were teaching th
Slashdot Mirror
Doom3 plays just fine on my 2.0Ghz machine with 512Meg of RAM and an ATI Radeon 9600 Pro card.
Half-Life 2 stutters all the time, sometimes badly. I thought it was just because my machine is under-powered for the game, but I definitely exceed the specs, and turning down some of the detail and unloading some services and other applications to free up more memory didn't help the problem.
Glad to see it's not just me, and is likely a problem wtih the game itself.
I still think it's a kick-ass game, though.
Just to echo you, I sat down to install the game at 7pm, and it was almost 10pm before I actually was into the game and playing.
I also had a shit-load of trouble thanks to an installer bug. I didn't want to install the counter-strike option, so I unchecked it. Well, that causes the game to fail to install most of the way through the fourth disc. And it just bails, making you start all the way over. Damn. You think they would have TESTED that, maybe?? Obviously not.
My computer is no slouch, but the game load times are rather incredibly long for me as well, which takes me out of the action. I launch the game and come back 5-10 minutes later to start playing. And when I reach a new level, I go and get a drink, and maybe it's loaded by the time I get back.
That's frustration on top of the incredibly long install/decrypt times!
The ultimate speed of ion propulsion is higher than that of chemical propulsion.
But the mass being expelled at high speeds (the ions) is so low, that accelleration is VERY slow. So it takes a long time to get up to speed, but the maximum speed you can theoretically reach is much greater than that of chemical rockets.
Here's an interesting fact:
Under President Clinton, the number of abortions performed in this country went down every single year.
Under President Bush, the number of abortions have gone up every single year.
Think about that when you hit the polls. Sometimes the POLICIES have more practial effect on issues than rhetoric. Kerry is personally against abortion, but is politically pro-choice (i.e. it's up to each of us, it's too complicated and divisive a topic and no two people fully agree on the issue, so a one-size-fits-all solution from the government simply cannot work, and thus it's best for this issue to be left up to the people directly involved). Bush is rabidly anti-choice and is using whatever mechanisms he can to impose that view on everyone else.
However, Clinton's and Kerry's policies tend to lead to environments where abortions are less "necessary". Clinton's refrain is likely going to be echoed by Kerry: "Abortions in this country should be safe, legal, and RARE."
And if you truly believe that human life is precious, keep in mind that Bush is rabidly PRO Death-penality. Kerry isn't.
When President Bush attempts to justify his Iraqi misadventure, he inevitably claims that he is on the side of justice and truth and that those who oppose him are "evil doers" or their accomplices. Again and again he reminds the world, you either for us, or against us. There is no room for nuance, much less dissent. Though he has learned to avoid the word itself, "crusade" accurately describes the evangelical fervor with which Bush pursues the continued occupation of Iraq. His fanatical zeal can admit no mistakes nor tolerate any criticism.
The Administration paints Iraqi resisters as crazed fundamentalists hell-bent on enforcing their self-centered vision of God's will, the cost in human lives be damned. But, with tragic irony, such a description applies equally well to the White House. They wave the flag, hoist the cross, and profess theirs to be a mission from the Almighty. If blood is being spilled, so be it. It is God's will.
Fundamentalism of any stripe makes for bad politics, for politics involves the art of getting along and living together in peace. Any group believing itself in sole possession of The Truth will inevitably, perhaps with the best of intentions, try to convert others. The more fervently any fundamentalist believes in his "truth" (be it Mohammad, Jesus, or laissez-faire capitalism), the more coercive conversion methods can be justified. If thumb-screws or worse are needed to get non-believers on board, their use is surely better than allowing someone to go unconverted.
One of America's enduring political strengths has been a skepticism about religious fundamentalism and political absolutism. Indeed, our Founders recognized the utility of tolerance, religious and political, in encouraging diversity. From diversity spring vitality and resilience; good ideas are more likely found from amongst many options than from one dusty scroll or one blinkered political doctrine. "Truth" is not ever captured in just one person or one time or one text. It is the goal of constantly thinking, living - and thus changing - minds. Fundamentalism, demanding unyielding adherence to a predetermined creed, inevitably becomes the enemy of truth.
The motto of America itself celebrates the utility of diversity: E pluribus unim (out of many, one). It is tempting for some politicians, eager for the power of unity, to forget that a strong unum is predicated on a vital pluribus. Enforcing oneness while quashing deviation leads to brittle totalitarianism. Any system aimed at avoiding such brutal and short-lived rule, must derive legitimacy and strength by embracing and encouraging sometimes inconvenient and messy diversity
Instead of drawing on our strength in pluribus, Bush has sought to stifle and silence critics. He has armed John Ashcroft with the power to sneak peeks at political opponents' credit card receipts, video rentals, and library borrowings. Secret tribunals are to replace public trials. And everywhere, fear is generated to prevent people from daring to oppose our leader. Dissent is explicitly equated with treason.
Bush claims his fundamentalist-inspired war is to be "perpetual", thus civil liberties need be suspended indefinitely. But real Americans understand that tolerance, dissent, and diversity make America stronger, not weaker. Let us hope voters this November 2nd send a message to the world: anyone parading narrow-minded fundamentalism, martial law, and endless war as true Americanism is a dangerous charlatan to be exposed and rejected.
Here's a suggested thought.
The reason spending is up, is because the GOP controlls both houses and the Presidency. There is no "check" or "balance". It's congressional hogs feeding at the trough.
By voting for Kerry, you put a Democrat in the White House. There is no danger of the Republicans losing congress. Thus you restore the adversarial "Democratic President with Republican congress" dynamic that has given us great economies in the past, and under which the budget was balanced and federal spending actually reduced all during the 90's.
It's something to consider, anyway.
Well, imho, IntelliJ IDEA offers more than Eclipse, so it's worth the extra cost.
Hey, now... I really liked BASEketball. Not as good as Orgasmo, perhaps, but I still thought it was quite funny.
No, it's done all the time. Ever notice that the statistics given at sites like boxofficemojo.com always show "theatres", not "screens"? It's easy for the studios to count the number of venues or even prints they send out, but the theatres are free to show each print on multiple screens, by threading the film through two projectors simultaneously (out of one projecter into the next). And the studios don't mind this, because it all translates into more money for them anyway.
Here in Austin, at least one theatre was playing it on eight of their twelve screens at one point. They only had two prints of the film, so they were showing each print in four theatre simultaneously. They had started out on only two screens, but as the demand surged, they kept canceling showings of other movies and adding screens for Fahrenheit 9/11 until they were showing it on 2/3rds of the screens. The movie was showing at six or seven theatres around town, and Friday evening, virtually every showing was sold out.
If Jeb Bush did that, it would be a gross abuse of power. Besides, Jeb needs Disney. I'm certain any such threat -- besides being completely immoral and reprehensible in an allegedly free country -- was most certainly empty.
Could be worse... they could come out with the Pentium DMV
Instructions have to queue up forever before they're executed. Talk about long pipelines!
Well, I have to say the very ending of Cryptonomicon didn't really live up to all the set-up, in my view. But over-all I enjoyed the book. The second half more than the first, primarily because it took me that long to get all the characters and times and places under my belt in a solid fashion.
:-)
I do like how the writing style made you feel like you were inside the mind of an autistic person, but that style seemed to bleed far outside the thoughts of the one relatively autistic/savant character, and that got tedious quickly.
I have to say I did enjoy the bit about how his problem solving abilities were directly related to the length of time since his last orgasm (complete with graphs). That was amusing
But yeah, it's annoying when authors get so "popular" that they don't get edited like they should. Stephen King suffers from this problem as well.
Cryptonomicon really was a struggle for the first 400 page. It was strange, though, that after slogging through that first half, I couldn't put it down. It really got interesting.
He just needs a good editor. I mean, the two or three pages he spent describing how to eat the perfect bowl of Captain Crunch really wasn't necessary and didn't add much.
I loved Snow Crash though.
You really should read it to get his side though. It's called getting both sides of an issue. Of course he's not unbiased, but he does do a serious analysis of the press coverage of various things and comes up with some figures that can at least be debated rationally. Unlike the conservative press that claim a pervasive liberal bias from all their conservative radio stations, from Fox news, and from every conservative editorial and opinion piece in every paper in the country... (*cough*).
The CEO is on record as saying he will be honored to *DELIVER* the votes to put Bush into the white house in 2004.
At the very least, this is not an appropriate thing for a representative of an electronic voting machine company to say... let alone at a Bush fundraiser.
When it comes to voting, even the *appearance* of impropriety is a problem. The voting system and counting system must be above reproach by any party.
By this standard, the planned voting machines utterly fail. Austrailia has done a better job, as have some other countries. Electronic voting machines at the very least need to be open-source so that everyone can have confidence the code is valid and not biased or insecure. Beyond that, some sort of verifiable paper-trail or some other verification system is a must.
When it comes to voting systems, there MUST be voter-trust of the system. The current system that is planned for use in 2004 has no such trust, and this is a serious problem that must be addressed.
"Media = liberal"
That myth (urban legend?) is quite well debunked in Al Franken's latest book, among many other places.
If anything, the media (owned as it is by giant corporations) is conservatively biased.
They are not, in fact, including the "Return to Hobbiton" chapter. Peter Jackson has stated this in some previous interviews.
Wasn't this exactly the plot of Start Trek: Generations?
There's just no room for argument about this.
You're right, there isn't. You're just plain wrong and your imagination is working over time. There's no such thing as "recruitment". It's not possible. It's like recruiting people to become left-handed. It ain't gonna work.
Seduction? Sure. But at 16, if some woman or girl had tried to seduce me, she NEVER would have been successful. Because I'm not heterosexual. Or even bisexual. The same is true in reverse. A gay guy can hit on a guy all he wants, but unless that guy is gay or bisexual to begin with, he's not going to have any sort of success.
I know what you're talking about, and I know what you mean, but what you're thinking and saying is just wrong. You're missing the forest for the trees. There will always be individuals that "prey" on the weak, the lonely, the disenfranchized. And it's not at all a straight/gay thing. It's always wrong, but to advocate that all homosexuals everywhere should be denied equal rights because, just like straights, some of them have questionable moral character, is just not rational.
All the same, a parent's anxieties might not be assuaged by this.
A parent's irrational anxieties should never be the basis for disenfranchising and denying equal rights to entire segments of the population. You're anxieties are ill-founded, bordering on ridiculous. You focus all on the anti-gay side, while never seeming to acknowledge that even if you wiped out gays, the same issues will still exist. A friend of mine has two kids. One is infertile, the other has no interest in kids. My friend will never have grandchildren and both her kids are straight.
Look, deal with what life gives you and stop trying to change everything to meet your idealistic wishing. You go on and on about how you hate gays allegedly trying to pervert your world, yet you think you have the right to pervert theirs and force them in the closet or advocate eradicating them? Hypocritical is the word that comes to mind. Irrational. Maybe even "control freak".
And as for a child needing a mum and a dad, try and get a little perspective. Divorce is MUCH more damaging to children than having loving gay parents. Why aren't you advocating the elimination of divorce? It's definitely a choice, and is definitely a *heterosexual* problem. Why continue to scape-goat gay people for problems that are not their fault at all? Besides, gay couples help raise all those unwanted, abandoned, and given-up-for-adoption children that heterosexuals are always producing. If you're really interested in helping children, I can think of dozens of far more relevent and immediate issues to address than gay parents, gay couples, or gays in general. Perspective.
As for your dreams and hopes for the future, I find them beyond chilling. You are essentially advocating eugenics and genocide. You sit there calmly and cooly advocating the elimination of a whole group of people as a 'problem', using questionable pseudo-scientific reasoning and incredibly warped perspectives, even though you yourself admit it's not everyone in the group that's a problem. You even managed to identify the real problem you have ("promiscuity") without seemingly realizing it. It's fine if you want to curb promiscuity, but promiscuity is not the sole posession of homosexuals. Yet you demonize an entire group based on your perceptions on this one issue.
You can say I automatically "lose" the argument, but it is seriously no different than Germans in 1930 discussing the "Jewish Problem" and their disgust at any positive images of jewish people... or people in Idaho discusing the "black" problem, talking about how they're all lazy and on welfare. Selective perception, twisted by a bizzarely hateful ideology, and some bizzare fear or insecurity that isn't based on anything real or rational.
Heterosexuality IS considered normal, and nothing will ever change that, so why you phrase your argument so that it implies that t
Disasterous?? No offence, but not having grandkid is hardly disasterous. Your children's lives are not All About You. Besides, as the incidence of homosexuality goes up the more older siblings you have, it's likely you'll have plenty of grandchildren through other offspring. Are you completley closed to the concept that there may be evolutionary benefit to having gay siblings? To individuals whose energy isn't totally devoted to the raising of their own offspring? Do you wonder why gays are so prevalent in the arts? Do you think Alan Turing could have done all he did, from establishing computer science to winning WW2 if he had four kids demanding all his time? And do you conceed no evolutionary advantage to the woman with several children, who has a gay brother who can help her from time to time to provide for those kids?
;-)
I only ask that they avoid influencing our young in their sexual preferences.
You keep making vague claims like this, with no concrete evidence of what you MEAN. Do you mean simply existing? Being visible like any other citizen? And you speak of "gay culture" as if it were a single, monolithic concept. Which only proves to me how ignorant you are of gay people.
The vast majority of gay people do NOT participate in the "stereotypical gay lifestyle" and more than all straight people go to raves and have kids as teens out of wedlock. Gays are just not monolithic. They're republicans, democrats, and everything else. They're religious, they're atheist. They're wild and crazy, and they're shy and reserved.
And removing the presence of gay people from media? Are you KIDDING me? You want all media to conspire to show the world as it is not? There was ZERO gay presence in the media in the 50's (well, not zero, what what little there was was certainly not understandable by kids, and was exteremely negative), and it did not in any way supress the number of gay people in existence. All such things do is drive people into closets (a VERY mentally unhealthy place to be), breed resentment, and exactly the kind of Act-Up in-your-faceness that you abhor so much. Your "solution" is indeed the biggest problem.
Gays are on TV all over Europe, and it's no big thing. Nothing special. No "special episodes", no massive drama, no major outcries. And you know what? There's no greater incidence of homosexuality there, and in fact, there's markedly less "in your face" reactionaries. There's no NEED for such fighting for rights or organizing, because they simply have their rights and can simply live their lives just like anyone else.
The age of consent for homosexuality shouldn't be any different for heterosexuality (you do know that the vast, vast majority of sexual abuse is by heterosexuals on opposite sex children, mostly uncles and fathers on their own neices and daughters), right? And you've heard of the "equal protection" clause of the consititution, right?
You've not established that any real "recruitment" occurs, scientifically. You haven't proven beyond a shadow of a doubt exactly what form this alleged "recruitment" takes, so I think legislating against an ENTIRE group of people is a bit premature, don't you think?
And any association of homosexuality to paedophilia on any level is just repugnant. There's a major difference: one of consent. I know you understand this concept since you're always going on about free will.
(on a side-note, you might want to read "Metamagical Themas: Questing for the Essence of Mind and Pattern" by Douglas R. Hofstadter for some interesting discussions on the illusion of 'free will'
The fact is that no matter how attracted you are to someone it is always possible to make yourself turn away
And there's where we differ. When I say one doesn't choose to fall in love, you don't really refute that fact. I don't CHOOSE who I subconsciously react to. What I CAN do is choose to not act on my feelings. That's the only "choice" involved.
Trust me, it's sexual ORIENTATION, not "disorientation". There ain't nothing wrong with me.
Homosexuals have existed throughout history, and even exist in most other animal species. It's a part of nature. It just is. Do you term left-handedness as "disfunctional handedness"?? I doubt it.
It's just different. I have no idea why it bothers you so much. I really don't. Nobody's trying to convert you. Nobody *wants* to convert you.
Even if you did consider it a dysfunction, why show such disrespect and distaste? Do you show as much to people who are blind or otherwise diabled? (and no, I don't think you can equate homosexuality with being disabled, but some people seem to... yet still treat it with a special reserve of contempt and/or venom). Even if you did consider it a "choice" (which it emphatically is not), do you show such contempt for people of different religions than you? Are they "dysfunctionally religious"?
Sigh. I wish I could comprehend what you're so afraid of, and what you're so up in arms about, and why you hold such contempt for people not like you.
If you re-read my comments, you'll see I never ever claimed it was *solely* genetic. In fact, I repeated the twins study, which shows that in twins, if one is gay, the other is twice as likely to be gay as in fraternal twins. I think this clearly shows that there's a genetic predisposition, but obviously not a genetic certainty.
But again, this doesn't mean it's a "choice", nor does it mean it's a "disease" to be "cured".
As for your concern about free will, other twin studies show more cause for your concern (twins raised apart from birth tend to dress very similarlly, use the same brands and products, have the same tastes, etc., to a statistically significant degree). And as for the genetic screening to terminate gay fetuses, of course it's a concern (Ever see the movie "Twilight of the Golds"? It's pretty decent, if not, and touches on this exact subject. It stars Brendan Fraser).
Additional studies show that the more older brothers you have, the greater the chances of you being gay are. It's an interesting study. Additionally, homosexuality seems to 'run' in some families... but not in others. I know one family where all three children are gay (one gay man, two lesbians). Even more interestingly, the parents are very straight, very religious, VERY right-wing conservative Republicans. Two of the children are in the closet to their parents. The third (one of the lesbians) is essentially cut out of the Parent's lives (their insistence). Wouldn't it be ironic if anti-gay upbringings caused homosexuality?? ROFL! (just kidding)
And while it isn't a choice in any sense of the word that matters (i.e. I can only really choose to be closeted or to be honest and open... I can't choose what makes my dick hard, or who I fall in love with)... even if it were, should it matter? If two people love each other, why try and keep them apart? In past decades, interracial relationships were *illegal*. In past decades inter-faith relationships were scandalous, if not illegal. Now, most people don't even bat an eye at either. Someday, the same will be true of same-sex relationships. It's already that way in a great many European countries, and Canada is following quickly behind. Gays serve openly in virtually every military in NATO except in the US. The direction of time and progress is clear.
The US is just a little backwards in this regard. But not endlessly so. This too shall pass.
"How many times have you watched a gay pride carnival on TV only
to see a bunch of (frankly ugly) blokes dressed up to look like female brazilian dancers or some other ultra feminine stereotype?"
Well, honestly, I'd suggest you blame the media for that. They tend to focus on the small minority of more 'colorful' participants in these parades.
But really, homosexuality is orthogonal to cross-dressing. Yes, there are people who are in both camps. But that doesn't mean they're TIED TOGETHER. Yes, the public psyche might think they are, but they'd be wrong.
It's not "gay representatives" that are "pushing" these stereotypes, frankly. It's a media distortion that picks out the fringes as if they were "representative". And of course anti-gay forces and homophobes with an anti-gay agenda seize on this and exploit it every chance they get. But you know something? If it wasn't this, they'd find or make up something else.
Whatever.
...oh, one last thing. It won't change your mind at all (I'm not convinced your mind can be changed), but here's an article on the latest study out of the UK:
U.K. study: Sexuality is set before birth
I'm sure you'll just dismiss it out of hand (as it doesn't fit your newly found preconceived stereotypes), but hopefully you'll instead add it to the list of data available. Between this, and the studies that show that "ex-gay" repairative therapy simply doesn't work, maybe you might become convinced that it's not a "choice" (in what is typically meant by that word).
Transvestites aren't trying to take over the world and remodel it in their own image.
Neither are gays. What a bizzare assertion. Since when is wanting equal rights (not special rights) and a place at the table "trying to take over the world". Get over it. Gays are part of society and will always remain so.
They don't appear to actively recruit young people the way that some gays do.
That is such a lie. Sexual orientation is relatively fixed, either at birth or by a very young age (two or so). That there are a few pedophiles out there (which, by the way, the majority of are STRAIGHT) and preditors out there (again, most sexual predators are STRAIGHT) is not relevent. You don't hold ALL straight people responsibile for a few straight sex criminals, do you? Then why do you hold ALL gay people responsible for the few gay sex criminals out there?!? Trust me, RECRUITING doesn't happen. It can't happen. You can't turn a straight person gay, and vice-versa.
They're not inimical to the nuclear family and are perfectly capable of marrying and raising children.
The "nuclear family" is an invention of the last century, and there is nothing inherently superior about it. (In fact, it was the 'nuclear family' of the 40's/50's that gave rise to the generation of rebelion in the 60's/70's, right?). Most succesfull families in human history have been multigenerational. But beyond the 'nuclear family' myth, most gay people I know of live in stable couples, and many raising children just fine. After all, who ELSE is going to raise all those massive numbers of unwanted children that straights manage to thoughtlessly produce? Gay couples adopt, and raise perfectly fine kids.
They don't use the words "ignorant bigot" in every other sentence and they don't shout in all caps.
Heh! They certainly do when addressing ignorant bigots. Especially ignorant bigots who are in denial and have frustrated them to no end with their constant counter-factual nonsense.
The increasing acceptance of transvestitism in society has not led to increased incidence of references to deviant sexual practices in the mainstream media
Wow, you're making a lot of tenuous connections here. I'd say one of the events that increased the incidence of references to "deviant sexual practices" the MOST in this country was Bill Clinton's affair (thanks to Republican partisan Ken Starr). Gays had nothing to do with it. And beyond that, you're assuming "the closet" is the proper place for people who are different from you (your attitude seems to be "I don't care if you're different, just MAKE SURE I don't know about it"). Which is very elitist, narrow-minded, and yes bigoted. It certainly isn't very realistic either.
Don't you get it yet? Are you so steeped in your own preconceptions that you are incapable of listening? You have done everything in your power to drain your argument of any credibility; you must be the least convincing apologist for gay ideals that I have ever encountered.
Substitute "gay" with "anti-gay", and I could turn that sentence around right back at you. You *clearly* don't get it.
Whereas the personal experience that you refer to is only internal reflection and counts only for you...
You must not comprehend what you read well... what I describe is not just personal experience, but is the experience I've witnessed in the gay community as near-universal. I've talked with hundreds of gay people and bisexuals, and nobody (NOBODY) has even the slightest feeling that they "chose" to be gay, and all report first realizing they were gay during puberty, or the standard 'sexual awakening'. Almost all of them can cite examples prior to puberty that only make sense if you knew they were a gay kid. And most of them never wanted to be gay, and fought it long and hard (up to and including contemplating suicide because they had such disapproving parents who were teaching th