First of all, macs do have two mouse buttons, the second one is just on the keyboard, where it belongs.
This has got to be one of the most inanely stupid sentences I've read in a long time. No, the Macs have one mouse button. If a button isn't on the mouse, it's not a MOUSE button but a keyboard key. Is that so hard to understand? And it takes TWO HANDS to use a keyboard-modified mouse click (which Windows has too... both shift and ctrl versions). Think about people (like the guy I work with) who can only use one hand. Accessibility is greatly improved by being able to do tons right there on the mouse (select AND use) without having to move the mouse all over the screen (back and forth from that screen-edged menu) and without having to use the keyboard simultaneously.
And god knows that 'mouse buttons' don't belong on the keyboard. Yeesh. What a load of rationalism.
Your argument that most people know what to do with two (or three) mouse buttons is simply wrong, I know this because I work in tech support for an isp
Don't misquote me. I said people know what MICE are. They are comfortable with GUIs. If Macs introduced a mouse with a second button, it wouldn't take NEARLY the effort to learn to use it as it would have 20 years ago. That was my point. Users in general, even the stupid ones, are more sophisticated than they were 20 years ago when it comes to computers and GUIs. And I know plenty of people in Customer Service, so I've heard all the 'horror stories'. I wouldn't judge everyone in the computing universe by some of the obviously brain-damaged people who call customer support lines. There will always be someone that doesn't get it. Hell, when I was first training my dad, I told him to move the mouse cursor up to the top of the screen, and he LIFTED THE MOUSE OFF THE DESK. Yikes. But even he can use a right mouse button. It didn't take much...
And your "right click" thing is only relavent to phone support. If more people were using two button mice, it'd be easier as time goes on. And I'm sure phone-support people could come up with a nice, concise way of describing it (I've always heard them say 'click the right mouse button', which really doesn't seem that difficult to me). A few stupid morons will need a bit more help, but then if they're so stupid they need to be told about the right mouse button, they're going to need more help no matter what.
and frankly, I would prefer to program the buttons to do what I want them to do rather then have Apple define a rigid standard.
Um, excuse me? Apple has defined a horribly rigid 'standard' in the use if their GUI (which as limited innovation and enhancement over the years, but which also has made Mac aps some of the easiest to learn and use because so much is consistent across apps), and that's OK, but god forbid they define a standard for Mouse Buttons?
MS tried to leave the right-button 'free', and it just lead to a mess, with each app doing its own thing. As apps became less and less 'stand alone' and more and more were being used simultaneously, it was OBVIOUS this was a very bad decision. Using the Noun/Verb (or Select/Do) paradigm is very straight forward, very powerful, applicable across all apps, etc. And there's nothing that prevents some apps from using the right button in other ways (some game apps allow me to scroll by right-click-dragging the screen around, for example). WarCraftII is far more playable on the PC because I can select and direct using only the mouse, without having to constantly use the keyboard or go back and forth between the units and the 'commands palette'.
If there are more than two buttons, then let THEM be programmable. My two side (where the thumb is) mouse buttons are defaulted to forward/back buttons, but may be programmed to be anything else (I leave them as default... as much browsing as I do, they come in really handy, and with Windows adopting the browser-like interface, I even use them when working in the OS).
So, as you can see, I respectly disagree with your respectful disagreement:-)
Motif's use of more buttons does suck, but don't judge more-than-one-button mice by that.
Windows doesn't FORCE you to use the second (or third or fourth or fifth) button on a mouse. However, the second buttons makes TONS of tasks easier and 'more direct'. The left button is for selecting, the right button for a context menu listing actions on the selected items (left button = noun, right button = verb). This isn't rocket science. It's easy to grasp, and a VERY useful paradigm.
And like you said, the Apple human interface work was done in the early 80's!!! Back when nobody new GUI from a hole in the ground. EVERYONE knows GUI these days. Hell, TV shows even use GUI metaphors, and movies feature GUI screen shots. It's been nearly 20 years, and it's a different society. People getting their first computer have actually been exposed to computers for much of their lives now. It's time for Apple to drop the one-button non-sense, and get with the program. Apple needs to grow and evolve with its user-base.
The main problem with multiple buttons, as you noted in the Motif example, is lack of standardization of use. It would be REALLY great if Apple started laying down the UI guidlines for the use of a second button mouse now, for MacOS X in particular. Then people who bought 2-button mice could actually make good use of the second button across apps... and it would pave the way for Apple to release a mouse in the future with more than one button.
But I'd take just adding a mouse-wheel:-)
(for the record, my mouse has 5 buttons, of which I use four constantly: left (select), right (action), thumb ('back' in the browser and in Windows Explorer), and the wheel (which doubles as a button and is used for scrolling as well). This is a bit much for my parents, but my parents use two button mice and the wheel JUST FINE!)
Did I *say* it wasn't the theatre? Did I SAY it was part of the movie itself? Yeesh. Read what I say, and don't spend so much of your time and effort reading things into it and assuming stuff. Someone else bitched about the commercials at the beginning (and the insane number of them), so I added my two cents worth. I really doubt we saw it at the SAME theatre, so the fact is, we're commenting on an annoying *trend*.
Yeah, but think about facing those school yard taunts on a daily basis, where the words are used like brick-bats to belittle and marginalize you and shove you aside, isolating you from your peers. Being called a 'fag' is a taunt, but it's a bigoted and mean-spirited taunt. Do you think it's ok to go around calling black people 'niggers', I wonder? Or latinos "wetbacks"?
It's one thing if done between friends as a sorta friendly ribbing, but it's another to use it as an attack... even a schoolyard taunt. Just because YOU used to do it (still do?), doesn't make it right.
Well no... one author has an article on Salon that sees strong parallels between mutants as portrayed in X-Men and gay people. This is very defensable. But the author also notes he feels this way because he is gay and feels the parallels strongly. He also acknowledges that the themes of alienation and persecution are strong and generic, so that other groups (jews, blacks, geeks, whatever) can draw the same feelings from the comic.
"Gay" means either happy/upbeat, or it means homosexual (with some implied lifestyle or political overtones).
It does NOT mean 'lame', and to use it in that context is both ignorant and bigoted.
The line in the movie in question, however, could be called very "Straight"... a 'gay' line would have been bitingly funny or witty (see "Oscar Wilde"). However, Storm's little retort was totally lame, and utterly 'straight'.:-)
I can't see anything particularly 'gay' about that line. It sure was LAME, but it wasn't at all gay. In fact, any number of gay men I know could have come up with a MUCH better line:-)
Yeah. I thought it was bad enough when they started showing one commerical. This movie had what seemed like a dozen commercials... and that was before the PREVIEWS started... I felt I had been sitting there for ages before the movie actually started. I think if you pay full price to see a movie, you should be spared the d*mn commercials...
But nobody can see over you. Glad you have this 'me first' attitude.
it's safe For you. In an accident, if the two vehicles were normal cars, the two people might walk away with whiplash and nothing more. Same accident with an SUV and a normal car, and you walk away with no problems, the other person might not ever walk again. Your "safety" comes at the expense of others on the road. Not to mention that the vehicle fills narrow lanes and leaves less margin for error, and blocks the views of other motorists, giving them less time to react. The 'safety' is entirely selfish. Again, thanks for your 'me first' attitude.
I can stick each of my kids in a separate row of seats (no fighting on long trips!)
An extravagance that simply cannot be justified. Dear lord, this is the excuse used for raping the environment, wasting resources, and being a menace on the road and taking up two parking spots? Because you want to abdicate your responsibility as a parent??
Glad you can afford it. Too bad you fail to realize how many others are paying for it (including your kids, who obviously aren't learning how to share their space or cooperate or deal with less-than-ideal situations).
Have you seen me state that it is wrong? As I've said, live your life as yo see fit. If you're happy, I'm happy for you.
Well, you've heavily implied it in several different ways, but no, you haven't come out and said it. And thankfully, we are in total agreement with the last part. I just wish everyone felt that way.
I've seen several on TV who claim otherwise.
Yeah, yeah. And I've seen people on TV claim this toothpaste will make my love-life better. Don't believe everything you see on TV, especially when backed by a televangelist trying to win money from the gullible.
So, now you're doing what you accuse me of doing. You don't know their hearts. If they say that they were homosexuals and now they're not you have no choice but to accept that.
Actually, I do have a choice: I can ask them specific questions to see what REALLY happened in their 'divine conversion', and I can look at scientific studies on the subject. First off, if you ask these people, as I said before, they all (ALL) admit that their same sex feelings haven't gone away. Further, if you inquire, you'll find that those who are sexually attracted to women now, always were. I.E. Bisexual. There are lots of very religious people who claim that they've been visited by Mary and that they talk with Jesus every day. That doesn't mean that's really the case, just that they believe it to be:-)
Additionally, every scientific study has shown that there has not been a 'permanent' change in ones orientation in any case looked at. That includes cases where cruel classical conditioning techniques (including electro-shock) were used. Most people who go through 'ex-gay' programs "relapse" rather quickly. Most only find true happiness once they're able to actually accept themselves as they are, rather than trying to be what some religion says they should be.
When I meet someone who is gay (or ex-gay) who has a compelling story that actually holds water, I will be glad to believe them. I have not seen any evidence of such yet. In fact, there is much evidence that homosexuality is a completely natural phenomina (see "Biological Exuberance" for studies of homosexuality throughout nature and the animal kingdom).
You deserve to be able to live without being murdered, beaten up, fired, or evicted because of who you are. If you want anything beyond that, tough.
Well, I do want something just a little bit beyond that. I want the same rights (and responsibilities) as any other citizen of my country. I want the same consideration and accomodation given to anyone else (say, a left-handed person... it takes so little). For those who believe that homosexuals are 'biological errors' of some sort, then how about the same respect and accomodation as most other 'handicapped' people. Again, it doesn't take much. Just don't kick me out of my home, dump me as a friend, fire me from my job, or beat me to a pulp because I'm in love with someone you don't "approve of" (or even if it is someone your god doesn't "approve of"). I ask for nothing beyond equal rights AND responsibilities and recognition as a human being.
You do not have the right to never be offended. None of us do. Deal with it.
Exactly right. We agree 100%. For the record, I was never 'offended'. I was just trying to correct what I saw/perceived to be an unfounded and incorrect statement or belief on your part. I do reserve the right to do that... to try and educate people who hold misrepresented ideas regarding who and what I am or why I am the way I am.
That's my last word... feel free to take your last word. It's been interesting.
Well, for one thing, I didn't say there were only ten years left. I said some oil-producing countries only had a ten years supply left. Most countries have more (double, triple, sextuple that).
Second, market forces are good, but the problem with that is that Americans currently pay what are in effect 'subsidized' prices. And there is such a huge infrastructure right now supporting the oil industry that you couldn't change it all over to something else in 'market time'.
The best solution is to economize where possible and reasonable (gives us more time), and to tax (gives more incentive to start the groundwork for looking for and implementing replacements). These additional things in concert with market forces will help a lot.
The reason SUVs are "popular" has as much to do with the fact that their 'class' exempts them from the fuel efficiency and emissions requirements of 'cars'.
That and the fact that people can see over other SUVs in them. It's sort of like an Arms Race: people bought the first SUVs to see over the mini-vans... then people bought Bigger SUVs to see over the smaller SUVs. Now we're up to the Excursions and Suburbans... and gawd knows what's next (The Chevy Subdivision?)
I'd wager that 90% of the people driving SUVs NEVER use the "utility" of the vehicle. Ever. They never do a single thing that couldn't be done just as easily in either a 'regular car' or something like a station-wagon or mini-van (both of which are cheaper, more fuel efficient, etc).
SUVs are a menace on the road, and the stupid arrogant people that drive them for 'status' while yacking on their cell-phones...
You can fit two parents and three kids into any normal mid-size car that gets much better than 20mpg on the low end. There is no NEED for an SUV.
But even worse are the single females who drive Suburbans and Excursions and/or other SUV vehicles. They have NO excuse. They say it makes them feel 'safer'... well sure, at the expense of everyone else's safety who's driving around them. And if they were really concerned about safety, they'd get off the d*mn cell phone while driving!
I agree. Here's my proposal for a new tax system (which would apply to all personally owned private vehicles, not to commercial vehicles. SUVs would definitely be covered):
A tax on all cars that get less than 20 mpg city, and a separate tax on all cars that get less than 20 mpg highway. Each mpg less than that level gets socked with a $500 tax.
Thus, a car that gets 19mpg highway, 15mpg city would pay 1 x $500 plus 5 x $500, or $3000 tax on the vehicle at purchase time.
Each and every year, the mpg threshold goes up by one mpg. Thus in ten years time, the tax would apply to all cars getting less than 30mpg highway/city. The amount of the tax would go up $100 per mpg every year, so that after 10 years, it'd be $1500 per mpg missed.
That provides both incentive, and a nice 'ramp up' time.
On top of that, add a nickle/gallon gas tax, and up it by a nickle each year.
I remember reading a list of oil-producing countries... listed was their known oil reserves (in barrels) and their pumping rates (in barrels per day). It didn't take much calculation to note that most countries had about a ten to sixty year supply left.
This assumes, of course, the listed reserves was the amount of RECOVERABLE oil (keeping in mind that as there is less in a well, it gets harder and harder to extract the remaining amount), and that pumping rates would stay the same. The fact is that pumping rates (and demand) are increasing steadily and strongly world-wide. Assume there are still some more oil fields to be discovered... that might cover the increase in demand. This still leaves much less than a century of oil left... and who knows when the 'shortages' start.
Do you want to gamble the life and lifestyle of your own children on the philosophy of "use all you want, there'll always be more"?
Why the HELL do people insist on buying over-priced, gas-guzzling, polluting SUV's when they have absolutely no rational, realistic use for one??
Frankly, I think gas prices are fine where they are. They're at a level that MIGHT just encourage some conservation, and they're still less than half what Europeans pay.
No, you were the one that made the equation with smoking. Very specifically.
And it wasn't political pressure that made the APA stop doing so, it was education and enlightenment.
Sorta like the way people stopped treating left-handed people as 'posessed by satan'. Do you realize that left-handed people used to be persecuted in exactly the same way homosexuals were up until very recently? Lots of parallels there. It's something that's different, that you may not understand, but that doesn't make it WRONG.
And there are no homosexuals who have ever been 'cured'. All that has happened is confused bisexuals have learned to go back in the closet because they're so screwed up by their religious beliefs and societal pressure. Not one of them claims that their same-sex desires have gone away. Most 'relapse' in very short order. The founder of the "Evergreen Foundation", one of a few ex-gay ministries has actually come out AGAINST the whole concept, and is currently very happy with a same-sex partner.
And by 'invalid' I mean 'non-factual'. I'm not stating opinions here, but facts as I know them, having had lots of experience in the area. You however, have very little knowlege (or even interest) in this area. Funny you would so flat out assume you are totally right and be so closed minded to listening to the truth.
Excuse me, but now you're comparing homosexuality to SMOKING?!?
You really just don't get it. Homosexuality isn't a choice. It isn't a bad habit. It's something fundamental in the way you ARE. Where do you get this stuff??
And sure, you have every right to your opinion no matter how erronious it is. (pink Gestapo? Excuse me? Someone who tries to simply correct an invalid/erronious belief with some facts is now equated with the horrific Nazi secret police??). But as I said before, an intelligent man generally likes to learn, and prefers to spout off about things *correctly* rather than sounding like an idiot to all those around him who know better. And of course I have every right to call you on the bogus assertion and to try and inject a little reality and facts into the situation. Hopefully you'll be open-minded enough to accept that you don't have all the facts and will attempt to learn something...
Nobody decides to be gay. Nobody 'learns' to be gay (tell me, could you 'learn' to have zero sexual attraction or interest in the opposite sex? Could you learn to be turned on by and fall in love with someone of the same sex? I doubt it!). It's not catching. It's not a mental illness. It's not a disease that needs to be 'cured'.
Slashdot Mirror
The way I pronounce it, it rhymes with "ow"
- Spryguy
A new quark walked into the gay bar on the corner. One of the regulars walked up to the new quark and asked "Hey, are you at Top or a Bottom?"
- Spryguy
First of all, macs do have two mouse buttons, the second one is just on the keyboard, where it belongs.
:-)
This has got to be one of the most inanely stupid sentences I've read in a long time. No, the Macs have one mouse button. If a button isn't on the mouse, it's not a MOUSE button but a keyboard key. Is that so hard to understand? And it takes TWO HANDS to use a keyboard-modified mouse click (which Windows has too... both shift and ctrl versions). Think about people (like the guy I work with) who can only use one hand. Accessibility is greatly improved by being able to do tons right there on the mouse (select AND use) without having to move the mouse all over the screen (back and forth from that screen-edged menu) and without having to use the keyboard simultaneously.
And god knows that 'mouse buttons' don't belong on the keyboard. Yeesh. What a load of rationalism.
Your argument that most people know what to do with two (or three) mouse buttons is simply wrong, I know this because I work in tech support for an isp
Don't misquote me. I said people know what MICE are. They are comfortable with GUIs. If Macs introduced a mouse with a second button, it wouldn't take NEARLY the effort to learn to use it as it would have 20 years ago. That was my point. Users in general, even the stupid ones, are more sophisticated than they were 20 years ago when it comes to computers and GUIs. And I know plenty of people in Customer Service, so I've heard all the 'horror stories'. I wouldn't judge everyone in the computing universe by some of the obviously brain-damaged people who call customer support lines. There will always be someone that doesn't get it. Hell, when I was first training my dad, I told him to move the mouse cursor up to the top of the screen, and he LIFTED THE MOUSE OFF THE DESK. Yikes. But even he can use a right mouse button. It didn't take much...
And your "right click" thing is only relavent to phone support. If more people were using two button mice, it'd be easier as time goes on. And I'm sure phone-support people could come up with a nice, concise way of describing it (I've always heard them say 'click the right mouse button', which really doesn't seem that difficult to me). A few stupid morons will need a bit more help, but then if they're so stupid they need to be told about the right mouse button, they're going to need more help no matter what.
and frankly, I would prefer to program the buttons to do what I want them to do rather then have Apple define a rigid standard.
Um, excuse me? Apple has defined a horribly rigid 'standard' in the use if their GUI (which as limited innovation and enhancement over the years, but which also has made Mac aps some of the easiest to learn and use because so much is consistent across apps), and that's OK, but god forbid they define a standard for Mouse Buttons?
MS tried to leave the right-button 'free', and it just lead to a mess, with each app doing its own thing. As apps became less and less 'stand alone' and more and more were being used simultaneously, it was OBVIOUS this was a very bad decision. Using the Noun/Verb (or Select/Do) paradigm is very straight forward, very powerful, applicable across all apps, etc. And there's nothing that prevents some apps from using the right button in other ways (some game apps allow me to scroll by right-click-dragging the screen around, for example). WarCraftII is far more playable on the PC because I can select and direct using only the mouse, without having to constantly use the keyboard or go back and forth between the units and the 'commands palette'.
If there are more than two buttons, then let THEM be programmable. My two side (where the thumb is) mouse buttons are defaulted to forward/back buttons, but may be programmed to be anything else (I leave them as default... as much browsing as I do, they come in really handy, and with Windows adopting the browser-like interface, I even use them when working in the OS).
So, as you can see, I respectly disagree with your respectful disagreement
- Spryguy
Motif's use of more buttons does suck, but don't judge more-than-one-button mice by that.
:-)
Windows doesn't FORCE you to use the second (or third or fourth or fifth) button on a mouse. However, the second buttons makes TONS of tasks easier and 'more direct'. The left button is for selecting, the right button for a context menu listing actions on the selected items (left button = noun, right button = verb). This isn't rocket science. It's easy to grasp, and a VERY useful paradigm.
And like you said, the Apple human interface work was done in the early 80's!!! Back when nobody new GUI from a hole in the ground. EVERYONE knows GUI these days. Hell, TV shows even use GUI metaphors, and movies feature GUI screen shots. It's been nearly 20 years, and it's a different society. People getting their first computer have actually been exposed to computers for much of their lives now. It's time for Apple to drop the one-button non-sense, and get with the program. Apple needs to grow and evolve with its user-base.
The main problem with multiple buttons, as you noted in the Motif example, is lack of standardization of use. It would be REALLY great if Apple started laying down the UI guidlines for the use of a second button mouse now, for MacOS X in particular. Then people who bought 2-button mice could actually make good use of the second button across apps... and it would pave the way for Apple to release a mouse in the future with more than one button.
But I'd take just adding a mouse-wheel
(for the record, my mouse has 5 buttons, of which I use four constantly: left (select), right (action), thumb ('back' in the browser and in Windows Explorer), and the wheel (which doubles as a button and is used for scrolling as well). This is a bit much for my parents, but my parents use two button mice and the wheel JUST FINE!)
- Spryguy
Imagine a world with no computer crashes! No I don't own a Mac, never have, never even used one before.
Your first sentence proves your second sentence.
- Spryguy
First, the iMac was a whole new paradigm for computers. No more beige box and separate monitor.
;-)
Spoken like someone who never owned or used a TRS-80 Model II, III, 4, or 12
And this was back in, what, 1980??
- Spryguy
Did I *say* it wasn't the theatre? Did I SAY it was part of the movie itself? Yeesh. Read what I say, and don't spend so much of your time and effort reading things into it and assuming stuff. Someone else bitched about the commercials at the beginning (and the insane number of them), so I added my two cents worth. I really doubt we saw it at the SAME theatre, so the fact is, we're commenting on an annoying *trend*.
- Spryguy
Yeah, but think about facing those school yard taunts on a daily basis, where the words are used like brick-bats to belittle and marginalize you and shove you aside, isolating you from your peers. Being called a 'fag' is a taunt, but it's a bigoted and mean-spirited taunt. Do you think it's ok to go around calling black people 'niggers', I wonder? Or latinos "wetbacks"?
It's one thing if done between friends as a sorta friendly ribbing, but it's another to use it as an attack... even a schoolyard taunt. Just because YOU used to do it (still do?), doesn't make it right.
- Spryguy
Well no... one author has an article on Salon that sees strong parallels between mutants as portrayed in X-Men and gay people. This is very defensable. But the author also notes he feels this way because he is gay and feels the parallels strongly. He also acknowledges that the themes of alienation and persecution are strong and generic, so that other groups (jews, blacks, geeks, whatever) can draw the same feelings from the comic.
- Spryguy
Um, no, it's not the same.
... a 'gay' line would have been bitingly funny or witty (see "Oscar Wilde"). However, Storm's little retort was totally lame, and utterly 'straight'. :-)
"Gay" means either happy/upbeat, or it means homosexual (with some implied lifestyle or political overtones).
It does NOT mean 'lame', and to use it in that context is both ignorant and bigoted.
The line in the movie in question, however, could be called very "Straight"
- Spryguy
I can't see anything particularly 'gay' about that line. It sure was LAME, but it wasn't at all gay. In fact, any number of gay men I know could have come up with a MUCH better line :-)
- Spryguy
Yeah. I thought it was bad enough when they started showing one commerical. This movie had what seemed like a dozen commercials... and that was before the PREVIEWS started... I felt I had been sitting there for ages before the movie actually started. I think if you pay full price to see a movie, you should be spared the d*mn commercials...
- Spryguy
One point I have to agree with in that posted rant, is that Alamo Car Rental totally sucks. Beyond belief. Stay away from them at any cost.
;-)
Go with National, or Avis, or pretty much any other car rental company. ANY other rental company will be an order of magnitude better than Alamo.
I'd like to hear more details about the strict type system that was mentioned... (a last ditch effort to keep this post on-topic
- Spryguy
Because I have testicles
:-)
And aparently a VERY tiny penis that you feel the need to compensate for...
- Spryguy
I can see over other vehicles
But nobody can see over you. Glad you have this 'me first' attitude.
it's safe For you. In an accident, if the two vehicles were normal cars, the two people might walk away with whiplash and nothing more. Same accident with an SUV and a normal car, and you walk away with no problems, the other person might not ever walk again. Your "safety" comes at the expense of others on the road. Not to mention that the vehicle fills narrow lanes and leaves less margin for error, and blocks the views of other motorists, giving them less time to react. The 'safety' is entirely selfish. Again, thanks for your 'me first' attitude.
I can stick each of my kids in a separate row of seats (no fighting on long trips!)
An extravagance that simply cannot be justified. Dear lord, this is the excuse used for raping the environment, wasting resources, and being a menace on the road and taking up two parking spots? Because you want to abdicate your responsibility as a parent??
Glad you can afford it. Too bad you fail to realize how many others are paying for it (including your kids, who obviously aren't learning how to share their space or cooperate or deal with less-than-ideal situations).
- Spryguy
Have you seen me state that it is wrong? As I've said, live your life as yo see fit. If you're happy, I'm happy for you.
:-)
Well, you've heavily implied it in several different ways, but no, you haven't come out and said it. And thankfully, we are in total agreement with the last part. I just wish everyone felt that way.
I've seen several on TV who claim otherwise.
Yeah, yeah. And I've seen people on TV claim this toothpaste will make my love-life better. Don't believe everything you see on TV, especially when backed by a televangelist trying to win money from the gullible.
So, now you're doing what you accuse me of doing. You don't know their hearts. If they say that they were homosexuals and now they're not you have no choice but to accept that.
Actually, I do have a choice: I can ask them specific questions to see what REALLY happened in their 'divine conversion', and I can look at scientific studies on the subject. First off, if you ask these people, as I said before, they all (ALL) admit that their same sex feelings haven't gone away. Further, if you inquire, you'll find that those who are sexually attracted to women now, always were. I.E. Bisexual. There are lots of very religious people who claim that they've been visited by Mary and that they talk with Jesus every day. That doesn't mean that's really the case, just that they believe it to be
Additionally, every scientific study has shown that there has not been a 'permanent' change in ones orientation in any case looked at. That includes cases where cruel classical conditioning techniques (including electro-shock) were used. Most people who go through 'ex-gay' programs "relapse" rather quickly. Most only find true happiness once they're able to actually accept themselves as they are, rather than trying to be what some religion says they should be.
When I meet someone who is gay (or ex-gay) who has a compelling story that actually holds water, I will be glad to believe them. I have not seen any evidence of such yet. In fact, there is much evidence that homosexuality is a completely natural phenomina (see "Biological Exuberance" for studies of homosexuality throughout nature and the animal kingdom).
You deserve to be able to live without being murdered, beaten up, fired, or evicted because of who you are. If you want anything beyond that, tough.
Well, I do want something just a little bit beyond that. I want the same rights (and responsibilities) as any other citizen of my country. I want the same consideration and accomodation given to anyone else (say, a left-handed person... it takes so little). For those who believe that homosexuals are 'biological errors' of some sort, then how about the same respect and accomodation as most other 'handicapped' people. Again, it doesn't take much. Just don't kick me out of my home, dump me as a friend, fire me from my job, or beat me to a pulp because I'm in love with someone you don't "approve of" (or even if it is someone your god doesn't "approve of"). I ask for nothing beyond equal rights AND responsibilities and recognition as a human being.
You do not have the right to never be offended. None of us do. Deal with it.
Exactly right. We agree 100%. For the record, I was never 'offended'. I was just trying to correct what I saw/perceived to be an unfounded and incorrect statement or belief on your part. I do reserve the right to do that... to try and educate people who hold misrepresented ideas regarding who and what I am or why I am the way I am.
That's my last word... feel free to take your last word. It's been interesting.
- Spryguy
Well, for one thing, I didn't say there were only ten years left. I said some oil-producing countries only had a ten years supply left. Most countries have more (double, triple, sextuple that).
Second, market forces are good, but the problem with that is that Americans currently pay what are in effect 'subsidized' prices. And there is such a huge infrastructure right now supporting the oil industry that you couldn't change it all over to something else in 'market time'.
The best solution is to economize where possible and reasonable (gives us more time), and to tax (gives more incentive to start the groundwork for looking for and implementing replacements). These additional things in concert with market forces will help a lot.
- Spryguy
Except where does that 'clean/efficient' electricity come from to separate the hydrogen from water?
Probably a coal-burning power plant.
There's only so much energy to be had from solar or wind or hydro-electric sources... and it's just not nearly enough for forecast energy needs.
Everyone's talking about oil... I wonder how long the coal will last?
- Spryguy
The reason SUVs are "popular" has as much to do with the fact that their 'class' exempts them from the fuel efficiency and emissions requirements of 'cars'.
That and the fact that people can see over other SUVs in them. It's sort of like an Arms Race: people bought the first SUVs to see over the mini-vans... then people bought Bigger SUVs to see over the smaller SUVs. Now we're up to the Excursions and Suburbans... and gawd knows what's next (The Chevy Subdivision?)
I'd wager that 90% of the people driving SUVs NEVER use the "utility" of the vehicle. Ever. They never do a single thing that couldn't be done just as easily in either a 'regular car' or something like a station-wagon or mini-van (both of which are cheaper, more fuel efficient, etc).
SUVs are a menace on the road, and the stupid arrogant people that drive them for 'status' while yacking on their cell-phones...
- Spryguy
That's Bullsh*t.
You can fit two parents and three kids into any normal mid-size car that gets much better than 20mpg on the low end. There is no NEED for an SUV.
But even worse are the single females who drive Suburbans and Excursions and/or other SUV vehicles. They have NO excuse. They say it makes them feel 'safer'... well sure, at the expense of everyone else's safety who's driving around them. And if they were really concerned about safety, they'd get off the d*mn cell phone while driving!
- Spryguy
I agree. Here's my proposal for a new tax system (which would apply to all personally owned private vehicles, not to commercial vehicles. SUVs would definitely be covered):
A tax on all cars that get less than 20 mpg city, and a separate tax on all cars that get less than 20 mpg highway. Each mpg less than that level gets socked with a $500 tax.
Thus, a car that gets 19mpg highway, 15mpg city would pay 1 x $500 plus 5 x $500, or $3000 tax on the vehicle at purchase time.
Each and every year, the mpg threshold goes up by one mpg. Thus in ten years time, the tax would apply to all cars getting less than 30mpg highway/city. The amount of the tax would go up $100 per mpg every year, so that after 10 years, it'd be $1500 per mpg missed.
That provides both incentive, and a nice 'ramp up' time.
On top of that, add a nickle/gallon gas tax, and up it by a nickle each year.
- Spryguy
That's not really true.
I remember reading a list of oil-producing countries... listed was their known oil reserves (in barrels) and their pumping rates (in barrels per day). It didn't take much calculation to note that most countries had about a ten to sixty year supply left.
This assumes, of course, the listed reserves was the amount of RECOVERABLE oil (keeping in mind that as there is less in a well, it gets harder and harder to extract the remaining amount), and that pumping rates would stay the same. The fact is that pumping rates (and demand) are increasing steadily and strongly world-wide. Assume there are still some more oil fields to be discovered... that might cover the increase in demand. This still leaves much less than a century of oil left... and who knows when the 'shortages' start.
Do you want to gamble the life and lifestyle of your own children on the philosophy of "use all you want, there'll always be more"?
- Spryguy
Why the HELL do people insist on buying over-priced, gas-guzzling, polluting SUV's when they have absolutely no rational, realistic use for one??
Frankly, I think gas prices are fine where they are. They're at a level that MIGHT just encourage some conservation, and they're still less than half what Europeans pay.
- Spryguy
*groan*
No, you were the one that made the equation with smoking. Very specifically.
And it wasn't political pressure that made the APA stop doing so, it was education and enlightenment.
Sorta like the way people stopped treating left-handed people as 'posessed by satan'. Do you realize that left-handed people used to be persecuted in exactly the same way homosexuals were up until very recently? Lots of parallels there. It's something that's different, that you may not understand, but that doesn't make it WRONG.
And there are no homosexuals who have ever been 'cured'. All that has happened is confused bisexuals have learned to go back in the closet because they're so screwed up by their religious beliefs and societal pressure. Not one of them claims that their same-sex desires have gone away. Most 'relapse' in very short order. The founder of the "Evergreen Foundation", one of a few ex-gay ministries has actually come out AGAINST the whole concept, and is currently very happy with a same-sex partner.
And by 'invalid' I mean 'non-factual'. I'm not stating opinions here, but facts as I know them, having had lots of experience in the area. You however, have very little knowlege (or even interest) in this area. Funny you would so flat out assume you are totally right and be so closed minded to listening to the truth.
- Spryguy
Excuse me, but now you're comparing homosexuality to SMOKING?!?
You really just don't get it. Homosexuality isn't a choice. It isn't a bad habit. It's something fundamental in the way you ARE. Where do you get this stuff??
And sure, you have every right to your opinion no matter how erronious it is. (pink Gestapo? Excuse me? Someone who tries to simply correct an invalid/erronious belief with some facts is now equated with the horrific Nazi secret police??). But as I said before, an intelligent man generally likes to learn, and prefers to spout off about things *correctly* rather than sounding like an idiot to all those around him who know better. And of course I have every right to call you on the bogus assertion and to try and inject a little reality and facts into the situation. Hopefully you'll be open-minded enough to accept that you don't have all the facts and will attempt to learn something...
Nobody decides to be gay. Nobody 'learns' to be gay (tell me, could you 'learn' to have zero sexual attraction or interest in the opposite sex? Could you learn to be turned on by and fall in love with someone of the same sex? I doubt it!). It's not catching. It's not a mental illness. It's not a disease that needs to be 'cured'.
It's not equatable with smoking or vegetarianism.
It just is. Is that so hard to understand?
- Spryguy