For one, the Chinese do have their Chinese TLDs (.cn, as another poster indicated). For another, nothing is stopping a Chinese company from registering chinafoo.com or whatever - the only problem was Chinese character controlled TLDs. Well, you know, it's just that the rest of the world does not speak Chinese, so that might be a reason?
This is just an excuse for them to do what they would have anyway, this is just an excuse that holds water, for now. They're a totalitarian state, duh. You really think they are doing this because of ICANN?
While I don't recall Yahoo! performing any heroic deeds in the past, I don't recall them not having a spine, either. However, latetly I've seen the do some pretty spineless things - disclosing information to the Chinese government (twice!), this etc.
Is this because of Yahoo!'s change of focus? They're trying hard to become a media company rather than a technology company.
And of course, considering the fact that someone like Terry Semel (a media executive with little to no technology experience) is leading them, such policies would not be surprising. Ever since Semel's been on board, Yahoo! has taken great pains to build a brand-name, and a lot of tech folks have been replaced by older media people, and Semel has indicated that Yahoo! would "diversify" the way Warner Brothers did.
So, that probably explains why Yahoo! is afraid to ruffle any feathers. While companies like Microsoft and Google are still technology companies at heart, Yahoo! is probably attempting to get into the media, and having bad publicity in the media industry has worse consequences than it would in the high-tech industry.
Oh, I absolutely understand - I was corroborating what you said, but just wanted to tell you that not all actions have religions motivations (or attempts at placating a community).
Like I said, the topic of homosexuality seems to transcend borders, so it would be unfair to pin actions against it on any one (or more) religion(s).
How many forums ban the word "gay" even though there is nothing wrong with it aside from Christian oppression?
I think banning homosexuals has a lot to do with people in general and not any one religion. The world in general is yet to come to terms with homosexuality, and it's not because of Christianity (or any one religion).
I mean, this Sunday, the service I was at had a Pastor who discussed this very issue - people do some things (i.e. ban gays) and say that they did it for Christians. Seriously, nobody cares, and even if people do, it's a very small percentage.
I think this political debate is also way too early, in 10, or 15 years when Google actually is powerful enough to take on the Chinese government, thats when you should have this debate.
10-15 years from now, Google will be as bad as the Chinese government. All companies are nice when they start out, because they are the underdog. Once they grow large, it becomes inevitable that profits get put before morals and ethics.
Google is a classic example of this.
"Do no evil" - until our profits are on the line. Oh, sorry. Did we just help one of the world's largest human rights abusers keep information from its own citizens on how those that seek freedom are treated? Oops! But hey, look! Our stock price just went up. Tra la la. You were saying?
10-15 years from now, Google is more likely to be every bit as bad as the Chinese government, only in a different way. They won't be chopping off people's parts or throwing them into prison themselves, but they'd surely be part of the process that makes it happen.
They are unable to stop themselves from sticking to their own words and they aren't even that big yet. Ten years from now, they would be, and do you really think they'd stick to any semblance of ethics? If they do, it would only be like Microsoft - because the law expects them to, so they'd tread the line as thinly as they can.
Why go far, look right here on Slashdot. These are geeks, supposedly the folks who're "smarter" than the average population.
And even here, instead of accepting grammatical and spelling mistakes, people would rather flame you for correcting them. Not to mention the piss-poor quality of writing that most Slashdotters (and the editors) have. If you can follow the rules in a programming language, why is it so hard to do so for a natural language?
Personally, if folks do not communicate in good English, I'd simply not respond - be it IM, SMS or e-mail. And guess what? Most folks talk a lot better English when they're communicating with me, simply because they know that they'd not get a response - or that they'd get their English corrected.
I do not care if you are using e-mail, IM or SMS, use that period and use that apostrophe. Use appropriate and proper punctuation, capitalization, spelling and grammar, else I'm simply not talking to you.
That needs to be the general attitude, if we want to see any semblance of Good English (TM) exist in the next few generations.
Seriously, encourage your kids to look up that dictionary. Encourage them to read good literature, aside from the pop crap that exists today. Encourage them to write, to put down their thoughts. The only way you are going to develop writing skills is by writing.
You may be able to emulate a lot, but it will not be real. I'm not arguing philosophy here, I'm talking of what is actually *around* you.
You maybe able to convert a piece of doll into an animated blonde bombshell, but it won't be real because at the end of the day, it's a piece of plastic.
I may sit in a cubicle and pretend that I'm in a beach in my VR set, but it would still be a virtual projection. The reality would be that you're in a 10x10 cube with grey walls.
Anything else you may do will be an illusion. You can pretty things up, emulate every damn thing but it won't be reality.
Those shares may earn me privileges (e.g. being on the board of company and making *real* money that I can buy my next car with). The shares and the numbers in a bank account are tangible - you can have hard cash in return. It's just a convenience method of storing them.
Things like second life are virtualizing your *life*. Second life? Why should I bother having my avatar do stupid things when I can go ahead and do those things in my real life?
Why should I spend that time cooped up in front of a screen when you can get out and have a *real* life?
I'd rather that they have a life, not a make-believe one.
While MMORPGs and games are nice to an extent for the odd hour or two, this is just taking those to an extreme. Sheesh, get a life people.
Go out there and play a sport, climb a mountain or go to a party, rather than sitting in a virtual glorified chat room and getting your social fix.
Seriously, this is a disturbing trend - just *why*? Spending an odd hour or two is one thing, obsessing over this stuff and paying huge sums of money for virtual things and taking it so far is completely another thing.
A chimpanzee can raise children (as a matter of fact many chimps, do - hell all mammals do), that does not mean that the environment would be balanced. Well, not unless you are a chimp.
Gay parents cannot provide a balanced upbringing - two women do not make a man and a woman, no matter how much you argue. It's a biological fact.
Even if they couldn't, marriage has other benefits such as hospital visitation rights, inheritance, power of attorney, etc.
Exactly! Those rights are given to married couples primarily for the function of helping propagate the society. As another poster remarked, marriage has evolved in every culture, and social benefits are provided to help support precisely that.
Gay couples cannot do that, ergo they cannot have those privileges. I would go so far as to argue that even if technology changes to a point where women and men can interchange their sexes completely, you ought not to let two people who are not "originally" man and woman marry.
> as a people men and men or women and women are dead ends of an evolutionary chain.
Evolutionary chains are irrelevent here; homosexuality isn't hereditary.
Err, it's not. You made my point for me. The idea of marriage is a social benefit granted to those that help propagate the society. Gays cannot propagate the society, well except by their contributions - not through progeny.
They can be granted other privileges for their contributions, but the social benefits of marriage accompany those that can have progeny. Since gay couples cannot, they should not be granted those rights.
I look forward to having kids too; I'm sure most people do. Since people want to have kids anyway, why should society offer special incentives to encourage it?
Because it's society's purpose to propagate itself, it's in every culture's root to spread forth and flourish. Gays cannot do that - so why should they have the incentives that were designed for the purpose of propagation?
Umm, if I'm not feeling well, I hardly go to a plumber for advice.
Likewise, why should people who cannot have children be allowed to part-take in an institution that was primarily designed for raising children? The question is not specifically about a few exceptions (i.e. women past menopause or infertile people) but about the whole community. As a community, men and women can have and raise children together, but as a people men and men or women and women are dead ends of an evolutionary chain.
PS - I don't have an opinion either way in terms of an opinion on this subject, and I'm arguing for the sake of argument. To me, it's interesting (and amusing) to watch the liberals and the conservatives fight it out. Just so you know, I'm not particularly against gay marriage (but nor am I in support of it). Neither side gives a convincing argument on why it should happen.
On a related note, I read about story set in the future where you can predict whether or not your kids would be homosexual. Turned out that the only homosexuals in the world were Catholics, because the rest usually choose to abort their kids, but to Catholics, that is a bigger sin than homosexuality. I thought it was interesting, realistic even
Besides, the last thing the world needs is more children.
I do not know about that. Personally, I look forward to having several children. Then again, it's a perosnal thing I suppose.
But changing marriage as an institution that was designed for raising children for a segment of the population that cannot biologically have kids and is about 3-4% at max?
If it's Open Source and a popular program, no matter what they do, it's the right thing. If it's a popular company (e.g. Google/Apple), no matter what they do, it's the right thing (censorship? oh yeah, absolutely).
I agree with you. This is a disturbing trend, and it does not matter what purpose it is being used for, you are going against the spirit of OSS.
So, today it's spyware and adware - who's going to define what it's going to be tomorrow?
The spirit of open source is not in letting those whose principles you approve of using it*, but everbody, immaterial of how you think they use it.
Sheer hypocrisy from the community, that's what it is.
*It here refers to everything about the software, including the name - a name is an integral part of how people identify a software.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, how did this ignorant drivel get modded up?
For one, the Chinese do have their Chinese TLDs (.cn, as another poster indicated). For another, nothing is stopping a Chinese company from registering chinafoo.com or whatever - the only problem was Chinese character controlled TLDs. Well, you know, it's just that the rest of the world does not speak Chinese, so that might be a reason?
This is just an excuse for them to do what they would have anyway, this is just an excuse that holds water, for now. They're a totalitarian state, duh. You really think they are doing this because of ICANN?
Wow. Only on Slashdot.
I agree.
And it's not just astronauts. All the explorers who discovered new lands and the new world were all folks who were willing to take the risks.
You're not going to get ahead if you are not willing to take chances, the safest path is often the most stagnant path.
These days, people have lost the balls to do risky things. Are we so far gone that we're not willing to take an odd risk or two?
Yeah, that's what I thought too.
But then, he was a master troll if there ever was one.
You, sir, said it best!
-hats off-
While I don't recall Yahoo! performing any heroic deeds in the past, I don't recall them not having a spine, either. However, latetly I've seen the do some pretty spineless things - disclosing information to the Chinese government (twice!), this etc.
Is this because of Yahoo!'s change of focus? They're trying hard to become a media company rather than a technology company.
And of course, considering the fact that someone like Terry Semel (a media executive with little to no technology experience) is leading them, such policies would not be surprising. Ever since Semel's been on board, Yahoo! has taken great pains to build a brand-name, and a lot of tech folks have been replaced by older media people, and Semel has indicated that Yahoo! would "diversify" the way Warner Brothers did.
So, that probably explains why Yahoo! is afraid to ruffle any feathers. While companies like Microsoft and Google are still technology companies at heart, Yahoo! is probably attempting to get into the media, and having bad publicity in the media industry has worse consequences than it would in the high-tech industry.
Just a thought, that's all.
Oh, I absolutely understand - I was corroborating what you said, but just wanted to tell you that not all actions have religions motivations (or attempts at placating a community).
Like I said, the topic of homosexuality seems to transcend borders, so it would be unfair to pin actions against it on any one (or more) religion(s).
Cheers.
How many forums ban the word "gay" even though there is nothing wrong with it aside from Christian oppression?
I think banning homosexuals has a lot to do with people in general and not any one religion. The world in general is yet to come to terms with homosexuality, and it's not because of Christianity (or any one religion).
I mean, this Sunday, the service I was at had a Pastor who discussed this very issue - people do some things (i.e. ban gays) and say that they did it for Christians. Seriously, nobody cares, and even if people do, it's a very small percentage.
I think this political debate is also way too early, in 10, or 15 years when Google actually is powerful enough to take on the Chinese government, thats when you should have this debate.
10-15 years from now, Google will be as bad as the Chinese government. All companies are nice when they start out, because they are the underdog. Once they grow large, it becomes inevitable that profits get put before morals and ethics.
Google is a classic example of this.
"Do no evil" - until our profits are on the line. Oh, sorry. Did we just help one of the world's largest human rights abusers keep information from its own citizens on how those that seek freedom are treated? Oops! But hey, look! Our stock price just went up. Tra la la. You were saying?
10-15 years from now, Google is more likely to be every bit as bad as the Chinese government, only in a different way. They won't be chopping off people's parts or throwing them into prison themselves, but they'd surely be part of the process that makes it happen.
They are unable to stop themselves from sticking to their own words and they aren't even that big yet. Ten years from now, they would be, and do you really think they'd stick to any semblance of ethics? If they do, it would only be like Microsoft - because the law expects them to, so they'd tread the line as thinly as they can.
No, that's how I learnt a whole lot of things. ;)
Indeed. But why does this not surprise me?
Why go far, look right here on Slashdot. These are geeks, supposedly the folks who're "smarter" than the average population.
And even here, instead of accepting grammatical and spelling mistakes, people would rather flame you for correcting them. Not to mention the piss-poor quality of writing that most Slashdotters (and the editors) have. If you can follow the rules in a programming language, why is it so hard to do so for a natural language?
Personally, if folks do not communicate in good English, I'd simply not respond - be it IM, SMS or e-mail. And guess what? Most folks talk a lot better English when they're communicating with me, simply because they know that they'd not get a response - or that they'd get their English corrected.
I do not care if you are using e-mail, IM or SMS, use that period and use that apostrophe. Use appropriate and proper punctuation, capitalization, spelling and grammar, else I'm simply not talking to you.
That needs to be the general attitude, if we want to see any semblance of Good English (TM) exist in the next few generations.
Seriously, encourage your kids to look up that dictionary. Encourage them to read good literature, aside from the pop crap that exists today. Encourage them to write, to put down their thoughts. The only way you are going to develop writing skills is by writing.
You may be able to emulate a lot, but it will not be real. I'm not arguing philosophy here, I'm talking of what is actually *around* you.
You maybe able to convert a piece of doll into an animated blonde bombshell, but it won't be real because at the end of the day, it's a piece of plastic.
I may sit in a cubicle and pretend that I'm in a beach in my VR set, but it would still be a virtual projection. The reality would be that you're in a 10x10 cube with grey walls.
Anything else you may do will be an illusion. You can pretty things up, emulate every damn thing but it won't be reality.
I'm not talking about the content creators, I'm talking of end users.
:-/
What does paying real $$$ for a piece of land in a virtual environment give me? Or what does paying real $$$ for a stupid virtual costume get me?
I'd much rather buy real land and real clothes.
Hey, come on. The reality-is-what-my-brain tells me is a load of crap.
You may have a pr0n setup in the future where you might think you're having sex, but it's not the real thing.
Reality and perception are two entirely different things. IMHO, blah blah.
What the hell are you talking about?
Those things have tangible benefits.
Those shares may earn me privileges (e.g. being on the board of company and making *real* money that I can buy my next car with). The shares and the numbers in a bank account are tangible - you can have hard cash in return. It's just a convenience method of storing them.
Things like second life are virtualizing your *life*. Second life? Why should I bother having my avatar do stupid things when I can go ahead and do those things in my real life?
Why should I spend that time cooped up in front of a screen when you can get out and have a *real* life?
I'm sure that's what folks that take LSD and smoke crack say, too.
After all, what's more real than what my brain tells me is real, right?
Blech.
So, is this code still up somewhere?
I hope to god, not.
I'd rather that they have a life, not a make-believe one.
While MMORPGs and games are nice to an extent for the odd hour or two, this is just taking those to an extreme. Sheesh, get a life people.
Go out there and play a sport, climb a mountain or go to a party, rather than sitting in a virtual glorified chat room and getting your social fix.
Seriously, this is a disturbing trend - just *why*? Spending an odd hour or two is one thing, obsessing over this stuff and paying huge sums of money for virtual things and taking it so far is completely another thing.
You're missing my point.
A chimpanzee can raise children (as a matter of fact many chimps, do - hell all mammals do), that does not mean that the environment would be balanced. Well, not unless you are a chimp.
Gay parents cannot provide a balanced upbringing - two women do not make a man and a woman, no matter how much you argue. It's a biological fact.
Even if they couldn't, marriage has other benefits such as hospital visitation rights, inheritance, power of attorney, etc.
Exactly! Those rights are given to married couples primarily for the function of helping propagate the society. As another poster remarked, marriage has evolved in every culture, and social benefits are provided to help support precisely that.
Gay couples cannot do that, ergo they cannot have those privileges. I would go so far as to argue that even if technology changes to a point where women and men can interchange their sexes completely, you ought not to let two people who are not "originally" man and woman marry.
> as a people men and men or women and women are dead ends of an evolutionary chain.
Evolutionary chains are irrelevent here; homosexuality isn't hereditary.
Err, it's not. You made my point for me. The idea of marriage is a social benefit granted to those that help propagate the society. Gays cannot propagate the society, well except by their contributions - not through progeny.
They can be granted other privileges for their contributions, but the social benefits of marriage accompany those that can have progeny. Since gay couples cannot, they should not be granted those rights.
I look forward to having kids too; I'm sure most people do. Since people want to have kids anyway, why should society offer special incentives to encourage it?
Because it's society's purpose to propagate itself, it's in every culture's root to spread forth and flourish. Gays cannot do that - so why should they have the incentives that were designed for the purpose of propagation?
Not even when biology imposes limitations? :)
Umm, if I'm not feeling well, I hardly go to a plumber for advice.
Likewise, why should people who cannot have children be allowed to part-take in an institution that was primarily designed for raising children? The question is not specifically about a few exceptions (i.e. women past menopause or infertile people) but about the whole community. As a community, men and women can have and raise children together, but as a people men and men or women and women are dead ends of an evolutionary chain.
PS - I don't have an opinion either way in terms of an opinion on this subject, and I'm arguing for the sake of argument. To me, it's interesting (and amusing) to watch the liberals and the conservatives fight it out. Just so you know, I'm not particularly against gay marriage (but nor am I in support of it). Neither side gives a convincing argument on why it should happen.
On a related note, I read about story set in the future where you can predict whether or not your kids would be homosexual. Turned out that the only homosexuals in the world were Catholics, because the rest usually choose to abort their kids, but to Catholics, that is a bigger sin than homosexuality. I thought it was interesting, realistic even
Besides, the last thing the world needs is more children.
I do not know about that. Personally, I look forward to having several children. Then again, it's a perosnal thing I suppose.
Of course.
But changing marriage as an institution that was designed for raising children for a segment of the population that cannot biologically have kids and is about 3-4% at max?
A bit ridiculous, don't you think?
How can you accuse people of being partial to heterosexuals when nature itself is implicity partial? That was my point.
*hush*
This is Slashdot.
If it's Open Source and a popular program, no matter what they do, it's the right thing. If it's a popular company (e.g. Google/Apple), no matter what they do, it's the right thing (censorship? oh yeah, absolutely).
I agree with you. This is a disturbing trend, and it does not matter what purpose it is being used for, you are going against the spirit of OSS.
So, today it's spyware and adware - who's going to define what it's going to be tomorrow?
The spirit of open source is not in letting those whose principles you approve of using it*, but everbody, immaterial of how you think they use it.
Sheer hypocrisy from the community, that's what it is.
*It here refers to everything about the software, including the name - a name is an integral part of how people identify a software.
On a related note, the Spanish speaking population knows it as El.
Very well said. Hats off, sir.