You can condemn them and see them as evil, and hate them as much as the day is long. But supporting *legislating against* a lifestyle, ethnic group or religion that harms no one, then that's intolerance, and therefore bigotry by definition.
There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. I'm not asking for acceptance.
You spend a lot of time on what marriage isn't. So, tell me what it is. Seriously, I'm interested to know. Is it simply a union between a man and a woman? That's it? Is it a loving union showing one's commitment to one another? Or is it a religious ceremony in the eyes of the Lord, a right of santification?
The first case, well, what about a man who has a sex change? The second, why not any two consenting adults? And the third, well, if it's that, then the government has no business in it anyway, it's a religious matter and that's that.
But, please, you define marriage, and then tell me precisely why any two consenting adults cannot enter in to it in a governmentally sanctioned, legally binding fashion.
Oh, and then tell me why the union of two consenting adults that you don't know, don't care about and most likely will never meet in your life has any effect on you whatsoever. How does my marriage have any effect on you? How about Taco's marriage? How about the marriage of Gabe over at Penny Arcade? Any effect on you at all, name it. Now tell me, how would it be different if I married someone the same sex as myself, or if Gabe married Spiderman, or Taco married the main Slashsot server. Fire away. Hell, send your response right to my e-mail, it's listed above.
I want to know what makes people who think like you tick on this subject.
True, one can argue that limiting marriage . . . limits freedoms, but in a sense limiting my ability to steal from you limits freedoms as well.
This is the kind of specious reasoning that chaps my ass. If I steal your car, I've deprived you of a car you worked and paid for. If a gay man marries another gay man, exactly what have they taken from you? Some intangible feeling that your own marriage is worth less? That your religious views are shaken? Guess what, if gay marriage is all it took to do that, you had loads of other problems already. Something was going to shake such flimsy faith, be it a low-flying helicopter or a delinquent tax return. Gay and lesbian marriages take nothing from you. These marriages don't limit your freedoms, or take your money, or rob your home.
Here's the test: replace "gay" with "black" or "asian" or "interracial" or "handicapped" or "midget." Sound bigoted? Yeah, it is. And anyone who stands up for legislating away marriage (or civil union) rights for gays and lesbians is just that: a bigot.
Somewhere along the line, "a duty to be an informed citizen able to vote intelligently" became "a duty to vote". I'm not really quoting anyone here. Just paraphrasing what I was taught in elementary civics compared to what I hear on ABCNNBCBS, a division of News Corp.
So, I agree that if someone doesn't know anything, he or she should stay home. It's not that she or he has failed in his or her duty to vote, he or she has failed in his or her duty to be an informed voter.
If you know the issues, are well informed, and still don't vote? Fine by me, you're an informed voter who abstained for informed reasons. But that's less likely to happen. Most people have an opinion on something. If an issue matches your opinion topics, vote. But you still need to be informed to do that.
The problem with Bush annoying some of the GOP is this: who will they go and vote for? Is there a candidate who is seriously against this entirely?
Another example: say Bush said abortion should be kept legal. That would seriously PO a large segment of the GOP. But where would they go? Bush can say whatever the hell he likes, and the GOP members are still stuck voting for him, because there isn't any alternative for fundamentalist busy bodies (not that all the GOP are).
At some level, I am sure the same is true of Kerry. Well, maybe they could jump over to Badnarik, if Kerry suddenly said he'd legislate against gay marriage. But there isn't another candidate who has even hinted at making gay marriage illegal at a federal level (as far as I can tell). Bush will not lose a single vote with this flip-flop.
Apple could have said, "Windows users, the iPod Photo can show the album art from iTunes, but you can't upload your photos for display unless you get a Mac with iPhoto." Frankly, as a long time Mac user, this would have been what I would have done. It means that the iPod Photo is just a little less useful on the Windows side. And how do Windows users sync addresses (Address Book) and appointments (iCal)? Do they (they can, with vCards and vCalendar files)? I don't know, as I don't sync my iPod using Windows, but I doubt it. So, on the Windows side, the iPod already isn't being used to it's fullest (or easiest), it seems.
What Apple has effectively done is made things more difficult for Mac iPod Photo users in order to make things easier for Windows iPod Photo users. I'm rather grumpy about that. You'd think Apple would have done it the other way around.
You hit on a point here that may answer why the Apple stores do so much better than, say, Gateway Country stores: clueful staff. The staff at both the Apple stores in the Phoenix area are knowledgable and well trained. They know their stuff. They can make recommendations. I had to take my 12" PB G4 in because the drive failed on me (backups, people, backups), and I mentioned when I picked it up the next day that I was taking it to Scotland. Just making conversation. Well, the clerk said, "Oh, you'll need the adapters for the power supply, here they are." Had I thought about getting them? Yes. But the clerk was right there, attentive, and with the solution at hand, yet not pushy about it. If I had said I'd get them next time I was in, she'd probably have said that's cool. I get that level of service every time I'm in those stores.
Gateway Country, on the one occasion I was there, was nothing like it. The person I was there with wasn't getting attentive service, and what service he got wasn't keyed in to what was being sought (a lightweight laptop with some features I no longer recall). I asked him later if it was like that all the time, and he said mostly, sometimes you get a good clerk, but usually they don't really know the stock that well.
Of course, Gateway at the time had lots more minutely differentiated products, and Apple has more clearly defined lines of products, so it may be easier for the clerks in Apple stores to keep up with the stocks. Still, if your clerks don't know what they're doing, it makes your store look bad.
That's what Sony needs to get right, but from the parent's post, that may not happen.
Well reasoned. But my point is still two-fold: (a) If I take a picture of some random bit of scenery, and you happen to be in it, tough. But if it's the police, now that's bad somehow? Why? Why can I take a picture of what you are doing in public, and not one of what the police are doing in public? Hiding from the public what the police are doing in public to the public - that's part of a police state, isn't it?
And (b) if I take a picture of some random person in some random scenery, and it turns out that said person is actually an undercover police officer, is it better to blow the cover with an action like this? Or is it better to pretend like that picture is still of some random person in some random scenery?
I'm not debating the need for undercover police work. Eventually, the work needs to be available to the public, via due process, otherwise the undercover police force is just spying on someone, possibly you, for no reason. And so, we also need a rational oversight process, just as you described. So I agree with you mostly, but the question(s) still stand.
Yup, but it's simpler, and keeps the noob drivers from screwing things up too badly, since it's only a brake pedal - the car cruises at the posted speed limit with AI to determine road conditions and adjust appropriately. The more experienced drivers go out and get a 5 pedal replacement (gas, brake, clutch - the others go mostly unused except for one guy who hooks up to his convertible controls and door locks for some reason) with toe-scroll-wheels to adjust the cruise control, volume on the stereo and thermostat depending on where they are looking in the car. Apple iAutomotive points out that users can get acceleration control by pressing the horn while touching the single pedal. MS Auto builds a similar user interface, but with two pedals, which the noobs confuse all the time, causing accidents which MS then blames on Swedish hackers working for Volvo. Penguin Motorcars, Ltd. builds a system that runs better on MS Autos than MS's own system, but since it takes 2 more steps to start the car, most people deride it as too complex. Vintage car enthusiasts embrace the Penguin Motorcars system, since it runs great on their older cars.
Flamebait. This is what I get for not using the sarcasm tags. One look at my webpage would show the moderator that I myself use Macs. All the time. Someone buy the moderator a sense of humor.
I read a really good comment back when he said all iPod users were theives (paraphrasing). The first statement in the comment still applies to this. I think I may just have to repeat it every time Ballmer opens his pie hole: What is this sweaty ogre talking about? I still want the t-shirt.
I have one. Bought it from ThinkGeek, ostensibly so that I'd always have a remote when I am travelling. Of course, now that most hotels use the OnCommand remotes to make the ordering of games and porn easier, it's useless for that. Now, I use it to frustrate my friends.
I've always held that a certain level of intelligence and/or education is required to be able to vote, not just being of a certain age. First, you have to be literate, or know and trust someone who is. That right there implies a certain level of education within a community. Beyond that, I'd really like it if critical thinking skills and reading comprehension were also a pre-requisite, but that's probably asking too much of the average American.
But there is really no reason that technology can't be used to make the process easier and less confusing than the current system. Now, me, I always vote via mail-in. Mostly because I get to vote before a lot of the last-minute mud really starts to fly, plus I have a good, long time to peruse my ballot, vet my candidates, and make an informed decision from the comfort of my own couch. But the system is really simple - fill in an arrow. If the computer ballot is any more complex than that, it's too complex. I haven't seen it, of course, so I can't say.
Also, is there some reason a mock-up of the screen couldn't be mailed to the electorate beforehand so people have a chance to see what it's like before they go in? Perhaps they did, which means perhaps the parent is right: if you can't figure out how to press a button next to the name you like, why the hell are you even allowed to vote?
In short, without seeing the screens, we really can't say either way. Anyone from Florida care to comment?
The sad thing is that most voters are more like Homer than Lisa:
Homer: "Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm."
Lisa: "That's specious reasoning, Dad."
Homer: "Thank you, dear."
Lisa: "By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away."
Homer: "Oh, how does it work?"
Lisa: "It doesn't work."
Homer: "Uh-huh."
Lisa: "It's just a stupid rock."
Homer: "Uh-huh."
Lisa: "But I don't see any tigers around, do you?"
Homer: "Lisa, I want to buy your rock."
People, Homer is not a role model. The basis of the republic is a well-informed and educated citizenry. Clearly, thanks to Fox News and "No Child Let Behind" we have neither. Not that any other "news" station or education policy in the last 50 years has done anything differently.
My parents call me if they get something like this. My sister calls me. Now, the calls have been getting fewer and fewer since I've been subtly educating them on how to recognize such things. Plus, I've always told them, even if it's me asking you for information in an e-mail, call the person who sent it first. Call Earthlink. Call your bank. Call me if it looks like it came from me. Remember that all of these people should already know the information they are supposedly requesting.
As an aside, kudos to National City Mortgage. Someone published a phishing e-mail, and I got it. First time I looked at it, I said, yeah, phishing. When I looked at it again half an hour later, the banner, which was linked in the e-mail to NCM's website, had "DO NOT REPLY TO THIS E-MAIL! IT IS A SCAM ATEMPTING TO GAIN ACCOUNT NUMBER AND PASSWORD!" overlayed on it. Pretty slick way for NCM to get the word out to everyone who got the e-mail, and not startle people who didn't. Of course, the phishers had to be morons to do something like that.
And before they had pagers, they just notified the theater that they were there, and what seat they were in. An usher would come in to get them if a call was made to the theater for them. In fact, you can still do this at some of the better theaters, if the management is nice enough to let you know the direct line (there is one theater near me that will do this - I use that for babysitting purposes, and they get all my movie business - plus it's in a conveniently dead cell either by luck or building design).
Is CNN a legitimate news source? How about in light of the fact that this event doesn't appear on CNN's website at all? Is the arrest of a third-party presidential candidate outside a presidential debate not actually news-worthy? That last question is more of a rorschach test. Let me know what your answer is.
But if they're undercover, no one but their bosses should have known they were police officers anyway. And their bosses probably would have been better off keeping quiet about it, rather than letting the whole world know that some site which has probably been cached and archived all over by now, had some pictures of undercover police officers.
OK, so it's illegal in France, but if no one knew they were undercover police . . .
If I understand this correctly, this sort of says to me that if it's me in public, I don't have a right not to be photographed (i.e. traffic cameras, security cameras), but if it's the police, they do? If that's not a step on the way to a police state, I don't know what is . . .
How do we know it was the police anyway, if they were supposedly undercover? If they were, and someone photographed them, the undercover police shouldn't have had identifying marks. If they're that easily identifable, they're not really undercover, are they? And if they aren't identifiable, then the Swiss themselves gave away the whole shebang by raising a stink about it, no? If the police wanted to remain anonymous, maybe they should have taken the pictures from a long way away with a telephoto lens the size of Hubble, or from behind a one-way mirror in a van or something.
Sorry, this just all seems really messed up to me in general.
Anyone know if Virgin Galactic will actually be launching in the US? If not, how, exactly, can the US regulate this? Frankly, if the US does over-regulate all of this, it'll just drive those high-dollar flights to other countries. We should be making it *easier* (within reason) not harder to run such touristy flights from here.
Ah, but according to my early ballot which I looked at last night, Bush, Kerry and Badnarik are the only three on the official ballot (in that order - sigh) here in AZ. I think if he's on the ballot produced by the state, then he should be on the stage at the state university where the debate is held. If Nader had made it, I'd be all for him getting up there, too.
This just pushes back the argument as to how one gets on the ballot at all.
And while I generally vote libertarian, I'm not voting for Badnarik. I'd rather get a lot of libertarians in the Congress, and then get one in the White House. Stacking Congress can go on for years (I mean, look how long AZ kept Goldwater as a senator), but with the President, you get 8 years tops. Get the Libs in Congress, then we'll talk. I am voting for Ernest Hancock (Senator - over McCain) and after I investigate my rep (AZ 3rd), I'll be making a decision.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. I'm not asking for acceptance.
The first case, well, what about a man who has a sex change? The second, why not any two consenting adults? And the third, well, if it's that, then the government has no business in it anyway, it's a religious matter and that's that.
But, please, you define marriage, and then tell me precisely why any two consenting adults cannot enter in to it in a governmentally sanctioned, legally binding fashion.
Oh, and then tell me why the union of two consenting adults that you don't know, don't care about and most likely will never meet in your life has any effect on you whatsoever. How does my marriage have any effect on you? How about Taco's marriage? How about the marriage of Gabe over at Penny Arcade? Any effect on you at all, name it. Now tell me, how would it be different if I married someone the same sex as myself, or if Gabe married Spiderman, or Taco married the main Slashsot server. Fire away. Hell, send your response right to my e-mail, it's listed above.
I want to know what makes people who think like you tick on this subject.
This is the kind of specious reasoning that chaps my ass. If I steal your car, I've deprived you of a car you worked and paid for. If a gay man marries another gay man, exactly what have they taken from you? Some intangible feeling that your own marriage is worth less? That your religious views are shaken? Guess what, if gay marriage is all it took to do that, you had loads of other problems already. Something was going to shake such flimsy faith, be it a low-flying helicopter or a delinquent tax return. Gay and lesbian marriages take nothing from you. These marriages don't limit your freedoms, or take your money, or rob your home.
Here's the test: replace "gay" with "black" or "asian" or "interracial" or "handicapped" or "midget." Sound bigoted? Yeah, it is. And anyone who stands up for legislating away marriage (or civil union) rights for gays and lesbians is just that: a bigot.
There, I said it.
Point to something W has done that actually has made me, personally, safer than I was 4 years ago.
So, I agree that if someone doesn't know anything, he or she should stay home. It's not that she or he has failed in his or her duty to vote, he or she has failed in his or her duty to be an informed voter.
If you know the issues, are well informed, and still don't vote? Fine by me, you're an informed voter who abstained for informed reasons. But that's less likely to happen. Most people have an opinion on something. If an issue matches your opinion topics, vote. But you still need to be informed to do that.
Another example: say Bush said abortion should be kept legal. That would seriously PO a large segment of the GOP. But where would they go? Bush can say whatever the hell he likes, and the GOP members are still stuck voting for him, because there isn't any alternative for fundamentalist busy bodies (not that all the GOP are).
At some level, I am sure the same is true of Kerry. Well, maybe they could jump over to Badnarik, if Kerry suddenly said he'd legislate against gay marriage. But there isn't another candidate who has even hinted at making gay marriage illegal at a federal level (as far as I can tell). Bush will not lose a single vote with this flip-flop.
What Apple has effectively done is made things more difficult for Mac iPod Photo users in order to make things easier for Windows iPod Photo users. I'm rather grumpy about that. You'd think Apple would have done it the other way around.
DNA was right. 42.
Gateway Country, on the one occasion I was there, was nothing like it. The person I was there with wasn't getting attentive service, and what service he got wasn't keyed in to what was being sought (a lightweight laptop with some features I no longer recall). I asked him later if it was like that all the time, and he said mostly, sometimes you get a good clerk, but usually they don't really know the stock that well.
Of course, Gateway at the time had lots more minutely differentiated products, and Apple has more clearly defined lines of products, so it may be easier for the clerks in Apple stores to keep up with the stocks. Still, if your clerks don't know what they're doing, it makes your store look bad.
That's what Sony needs to get right, but from the parent's post, that may not happen.
And (b) if I take a picture of some random person in some random scenery, and it turns out that said person is actually an undercover police officer, is it better to blow the cover with an action like this? Or is it better to pretend like that picture is still of some random person in some random scenery?
I'm not debating the need for undercover police work. Eventually, the work needs to be available to the public, via due process, otherwise the undercover police force is just spying on someone, possibly you, for no reason. And so, we also need a rational oversight process, just as you described. So I agree with you mostly, but the question(s) still stand.
They're all equally responsible. Fox news is just this year's scapegoat.
I've taken this too far, haven't I?
Flamebait. This is what I get for not using the sarcasm tags. One look at my webpage would show the moderator that I myself use Macs. All the time. Someone buy the moderator a sense of humor.
Comment, and my reply.
I have one. Bought it from ThinkGeek, ostensibly so that I'd always have a remote when I am travelling. Of course, now that most hotels use the OnCommand remotes to make the ordering of games and porn easier, it's useless for that. Now, I use it to frustrate my friends.
Well, he does utilize Mac OS X. And everyone knows there are no games for Macs, right?
But there is really no reason that technology can't be used to make the process easier and less confusing than the current system. Now, me, I always vote via mail-in. Mostly because I get to vote before a lot of the last-minute mud really starts to fly, plus I have a good, long time to peruse my ballot, vet my candidates, and make an informed decision from the comfort of my own couch. But the system is really simple - fill in an arrow. If the computer ballot is any more complex than that, it's too complex. I haven't seen it, of course, so I can't say.
Also, is there some reason a mock-up of the screen couldn't be mailed to the electorate beforehand so people have a chance to see what it's like before they go in? Perhaps they did, which means perhaps the parent is right: if you can't figure out how to press a button next to the name you like, why the hell are you even allowed to vote?
In short, without seeing the screens, we really can't say either way. Anyone from Florida care to comment?
Homer: "Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm."
Lisa: "That's specious reasoning, Dad."
Homer: "Thank you, dear."
Lisa: "By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away."
Homer: "Oh, how does it work?"
Lisa: "It doesn't work."
Homer: "Uh-huh."
Lisa: "It's just a stupid rock."
Homer: "Uh-huh."
Lisa: "But I don't see any tigers around, do you?"
Homer: "Lisa, I want to buy your rock."
People, Homer is not a role model. The basis of the republic is a well-informed and educated citizenry. Clearly, thanks to Fox News and "No Child Let Behind" we have neither. Not that any other "news" station or education policy in the last 50 years has done anything differently.
My parents call me if they get something like this. My sister calls me. Now, the calls have been getting fewer and fewer since I've been subtly educating them on how to recognize such things. Plus, I've always told them, even if it's me asking you for information in an e-mail, call the person who sent it first. Call Earthlink. Call your bank. Call me if it looks like it came from me. Remember that all of these people should already know the information they are supposedly requesting.
As an aside, kudos to National City Mortgage. Someone published a phishing e-mail, and I got it. First time I looked at it, I said, yeah, phishing. When I looked at it again half an hour later, the banner, which was linked in the e-mail to NCM's website, had "DO NOT REPLY TO THIS E-MAIL! IT IS A SCAM ATEMPTING TO GAIN ACCOUNT NUMBER AND PASSWORD!" overlayed on it. Pretty slick way for NCM to get the word out to everyone who got the e-mail, and not startle people who didn't. Of course, the phishers had to be morons to do something like that.
And before they had pagers, they just notified the theater that they were there, and what seat they were in. An usher would come in to get them if a call was made to the theater for them. In fact, you can still do this at some of the better theaters, if the management is nice enough to let you know the direct line (there is one theater near me that will do this - I use that for babysitting purposes, and they get all my movie business - plus it's in a conveniently dead cell either by luck or building design).
Is CNN a legitimate news source? How about in light of the fact that this event doesn't appear on CNN's website at all? Is the arrest of a third-party presidential candidate outside a presidential debate not actually news-worthy? That last question is more of a rorschach test. Let me know what your answer is.
OK, so it's illegal in France, but if no one knew they were undercover police . . .
See my point here?
How do we know it was the police anyway, if they were supposedly undercover? If they were, and someone photographed them, the undercover police shouldn't have had identifying marks. If they're that easily identifable, they're not really undercover, are they? And if they aren't identifiable, then the Swiss themselves gave away the whole shebang by raising a stink about it, no? If the police wanted to remain anonymous, maybe they should have taken the pictures from a long way away with a telephoto lens the size of Hubble, or from behind a one-way mirror in a van or something.
Sorry, this just all seems really messed up to me in general.
Anyone know if Virgin Galactic will actually be launching in the US? If not, how, exactly, can the US regulate this? Frankly, if the US does over-regulate all of this, it'll just drive those high-dollar flights to other countries. We should be making it *easier* (within reason) not harder to run such touristy flights from here.
This just pushes back the argument as to how one gets on the ballot at all.
And while I generally vote libertarian, I'm not voting for Badnarik. I'd rather get a lot of libertarians in the Congress, and then get one in the White House. Stacking Congress can go on for years (I mean, look how long AZ kept Goldwater as a senator), but with the President, you get 8 years tops. Get the Libs in Congress, then we'll talk. I am voting for Ernest Hancock (Senator - over McCain) and after I investigate my rep (AZ 3rd), I'll be making a decision.