I'm in love with my Geforce 6800 Ultra, yet I cannot marry it.
*shock* You mean to tell me that there are still morons out there trying to make idiotic analogies involving inanimate objects, animals and underage children even though none of them can enter into legal contracts?
Besides, much of what gays seek through legal, state-sanctioned marriage can be accomplished via contract.
Much != all, and you're leaving out both the fact that it's far easier for a blood relative to have such contracts declared null and void by a court as well as the incredibly massive expense and time required for all of the contractual arrangements when compared to an opposite-sex couple simply going down to city hall and getting themselves a marriage license.
That's true. It currently is about creating a legally recognized familial relationship where no blood relationship exists. It confers upon the people entering the marriage contract a variety of legal rights and benefits, many of which are not available through any other contractual method (and, if Virginia's heavily bigoted law is interpreted the way many think that it will be, even the currently available options will be shut off).
Now, can you explain why those legal benefits should be available to unrelated persons of the opposite gender, but not of the same gender?
Yes. Yes, yes, yes. Why can't more people take a commun sense stand like this?
Because they want to rally around a statement like this and shout "See! They really do want to DESTROY MARRIAGE".
It's a win-win for them. Argue for marriage benefits, and you're trying to destroy the institution of marriage. Suggest that the government get out of the marriage business altogether, and suddenly you're destroying the institution of marriage. They toss this shit out to their flock, many of whom buy it up because they're convinced that if their faith does not have government backing (in the form of supporting only marriages that their religion endorses), then it will falter.
They're about promoting marriage, not opposing a group of people.
Would you mind explaining exactly how preventing same-sex couples who are unrelated and of legal age from obtaining over one-thousand legal rights and benefits currently available to any opposite-sex couple who are unrelated and of legal age somehow "promotes" marriage, or did the anti-gay propaganda not go into detail on that matter?
In general, the majority of people are afraid of same-sex marriage. I'm not sure why, I'm not sure if they're just spiteful or stupid (it's either one, the other or both), but you'll find that more than 66% of any state's population for most states (with a few exceptions) will vote to deny the rights of same-sex couples to have easy access to over one-thousand legal rights and benefits despite the fact that it causes no harm to anyone.
Win2k required you to have admin rights to burn cds!
What software were you using? When I used Win2K to burn CDs (usually with DiscJuggler or Nero), I could do it as a Power User.
True, Nero required additional software for non-Admins, but at least Ahead stated it up front and made obtaining and configuring the software very easy.
Installing software more often than not alters the Windows OS configuration by way of registry writes (and changes to Program Files). Requiring Administrator rights for that is perfectly reasonable and often preferrable. However, once installed, software like Firefox should not require Administrative rights to run.
So, to recap, software installers make fundamental OS configuration changes and thus are fine when restricted to Admin users. The software that they install, however, should be accessable by anyone unless specifically denied by the system Admin unless the software is specifically designed to alter hardware or OS config.
Without Administrator rights, Citrix Client will open, try to initiate a session, fail and then close without error.
1) A lot of programs where this happens can be fixed by adjusting configuration, or copying registry keys rather than giving the user full Admin rights.
2) Developers who write software that absolutely requires Administrative rights for common use, and the program is not designed to alter fundamental hardware or OS configuration (such as a registry editor or a graphics driver tweak utility) are incompetent and should be killed.
Congress will just dissolve NASA and pretend that they've solved the problem.
Then, after the asteroid hits, any surviving Republicans will blame the Democrats and any surviving Democrats will blame the Republicans and surviving followers of both parties will eat it up.
t's not just bollocks, it's rank hypocrisy coming from Linus Torvalds, who would be a completely unknown, minor software developer in Finland if he hadn't ridden -- dry-humped, actually -- on the coattails of Unix. The same goes for his last employer, whose business is built on a reverse-engineering of x86 microcode.
Wait, are you saying that Linux had a specially negotiated license to a normally commercial UNIX and reverse-engineered it in violation of the terms of the free license?
There's nothing wrong with Tridge writing a program that can read Bitkeeper'd files any more than there is Open Office writing programs that can read Microsoft Word files.
The difference here is that Microsoft isn't letting you use Office for free with the stipulation that so long as you use the free licence you do not engage in any reverse engineering.
If someone were to pay for a commercial Bitkeeper license and reverse-engineer, then there would probably be little that McVoy could do about it, but McVoy is under no obligation to provide his software to a programmer for free so that said programmer can create a directly competing product with it.
The part of irreducible complexity that gets me is where life formed out of non life.
Now you're no longer talking evolution.
A cell must have so many parts working in order to still function. Take away one of those parts and it cease to be alive.
What features make a cell "alive"? Be specific.
Is a virus "alive"?
You're assuming that there's a rigid line between "alive" and "not alive", but any biologist worth his (or her) salt will tell you that it's actually a very fuzzy distinction.
If no miracles occur, then we need something like evolution to explain how superheated hydrogen plasma could possibly turn into Kelly Hu or Nicola Tesla. And it must explain all of it, else miracles are required.
Wrong. Evolution explains a specific phenomena: the diversity of species on earth. It is not required, despite your ranting arrogance, to explain anything beyond that.
Evolution is not, despite the lies of many creationists, an attempt to displace "God" (to whichever deity you may refer). It is an explanation based upon observation about a specific set of events. As such, there is no requirement that it suddenly be able to explain events far beyond its scope.
Believe it or not, saying "I don't know how the first life forms came to exist" does not, in any way, falsify evolution.
I'll leave your silly statistics games to someone else; my point here is that your claim that evolution must explain the ultimate origin of life is nothing more than patent creationist dishonest. This is why creationists are derided and/or ignored: they are so often shameless liars
No, but a bunch of screeching Christians like to pretend that they did (the law that they cite as "proof" has specific religious exceptions) because it feeds their persecution complex.
It evolved out of sticks and stones in the ground, all by itself. Yes, I know a bunch of idiots will say 'somebody designed it' and junk like that, but it doesn't phase me. Weren't they listening in school?
Demonstrating once again that creationists don't study the theory of evolution, because knowing facts would take away the strawmen that they love to attack.
My only point was to demonstrate how there are people out there other than brain-dead backwater hicks; people who command a great deal of intelligence (even on the pitiful worldly scale), who have accepted creationism.
Except that your "statement" loses a great deal of meaning when it is pointed out that the examples that you offered are of people who weren't around when there was a theory of evolution. Saying that Issac Newton is proof that there are smart people who will choose creationism over evolution isn't making a point of anything except the desperation of your own arguments.
That doesn't prove creationism to be right or wrong, as that wasn't my intention, yet you and others automatically assumed that it was.
I never claimed that you were trying to prove creationism to be right or wrong. I merely pointed out that your offering was dishonest, and I gave an explanation as to why.
Now, do you actually have an argument against evolution, or are you going to do nothing more than drudge up old creationist arguments that neither advance a "theory of creation" nor offer any reason to doubt the validity of evolution?
So any Christian declaration that the earth must not be older than a specific age just doesn't add up, by the Bible's own text.
Yes, but it's not about what the Bible says, it's about what they want the Bible to say. They have arrogantly decided that they know the True(tm) interpretation of the Bible and that all other interpretations are heretical. Hell, some of them are still geocentrists!
Why does it matter where the photo-receptors are physically if they can be logically connected in any way?
First, you quoted a different sentence than the one that stated that the photoreceptors are backwards.
I think that what he means are that the photoreceptors are positioned BEHIND the ganglion and bipolar cells, which seems a very poor choice for cells allegedly 'designed' to receive light coming in from the pupil. It would make more sense to have the photoreceptors right up front, where the light can hit them directly, unobstructed.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm in love with my Geforce 6800 Ultra, yet I cannot marry it.
*shock*
You mean to tell me that there are still morons out there trying to make idiotic analogies involving inanimate objects, animals and underage children even though none of them can enter into legal contracts?
Besides, much of what gays seek through legal, state-sanctioned marriage can be accomplished via contract.
Much != all, and you're leaving out both the fact that it's far easier for a blood relative to have such contracts declared null and void by a court as well as the incredibly massive expense and time required for all of the contractual arrangements when compared to an opposite-sex couple simply going down to city hall and getting themselves a marriage license.
There's MUCH more to marriage than just love.
That's true. It currently is about creating a legally recognized familial relationship where no blood relationship exists. It confers upon the people entering the marriage contract a variety of legal rights and benefits, many of which are not available through any other contractual method (and, if Virginia's heavily bigoted law is interpreted the way many think that it will be, even the currently available options will be shut off).
Now, can you explain why those legal benefits should be available to unrelated persons of the opposite gender, but not of the same gender?
In places where homosexuals are persecuted, it's because of their actions.
What "actions" define a homosexual. Be specific.
That WOULD BE redefining marriage.
Marrige used to be defined as the union of a man and a woman of the same race.
When the US Supreme Court struck down that definition, do you believe it was the wrong thing to do?
Do NOT try to equate the struggle for racial equality with the battle over equality of sexual orientation.
Why? Because it makes you uncomfortable?
Richard Simmons and Jim J Bullock are NOT MLK.
Funny how no one tried to make this comparison. Almost like you're tossing out stupid strawmen in an attempt to prop up your arguments.
Yes. Yes, yes, yes. Why can't more people take a commun sense stand like this?
Because they want to rally around a statement like this and shout "See! They really do want to DESTROY MARRIAGE".
It's a win-win for them. Argue for marriage benefits, and you're trying to destroy the institution of marriage. Suggest that the government get out of the marriage business altogether, and suddenly you're destroying the institution of marriage. They toss this shit out to their flock, many of whom buy it up because they're convinced that if their faith does not have government backing (in the form of supporting only marriages that their religion endorses), then it will falter.
Nope,sucks for them, but they're stuck with it.
Why isn't it, or are you just arrogantly declaring your position beyond question?
They're about promoting marriage, not opposing a group of people.
Would you mind explaining exactly how preventing same-sex couples who are unrelated and of legal age from obtaining over one-thousand legal rights and benefits currently available to any opposite-sex couple who are unrelated and of legal age somehow "promotes" marriage, or did the anti-gay propaganda not go into detail on that matter?
In general, the majority of people are afraid of same-sex marriage. I'm not sure why, I'm not sure if they're just spiteful or stupid (it's either one, the other or both), but you'll find that more than 66% of any state's population for most states (with a few exceptions) will vote to deny the rights of same-sex couples to have easy access to over one-thousand legal rights and benefits despite the fact that it causes no harm to anyone.
Win2k required you to have admin rights to burn cds!
What software were you using? When I used Win2K to burn CDs (usually with DiscJuggler or Nero), I could do it as a Power User.
True, Nero required additional software for non-Admins, but at least Ahead stated it up front and made obtaining and configuring the software very easy.
Installing software more often than not alters the Windows OS configuration by way of registry writes (and changes to Program Files). Requiring Administrator rights for that is perfectly reasonable and often preferrable. However, once installed, software like Firefox should not require Administrative rights to run.
So, to recap, software installers make fundamental OS configuration changes and thus are fine when restricted to Admin users. The software that they install, however, should be accessable by anyone unless specifically denied by the system Admin unless the software is specifically designed to alter hardware or OS config.
Hey, could I ask you for a favor? I've got a couple Russian VB programmers who are in need of your services.
They'll have to get in line behind the Microsoft programmers who wrote the Age of Empires games.
Without Administrator rights, Citrix Client will open, try to initiate a session, fail and then close without error.
1) A lot of programs where this happens can be fixed by adjusting configuration, or copying registry keys rather than giving the user full Admin rights.
2) Developers who write software that absolutely requires Administrative rights for common use, and the program is not designed to alter fundamental hardware or OS configuration (such as a registry editor or a graphics driver tweak utility) are incompetent and should be killed.
Congress will just dissolve NASA and pretend that they've solved the problem.
Then, after the asteroid hits, any surviving Republicans will blame the Democrats and any surviving Democrats will blame the Republicans and surviving followers of both parties will eat it up.
Spam is like porn: hard to define but you know what it when you see it.
Actually, spam is bulk email deliberately sent to recipients who did not request the mail.
t's not just bollocks, it's rank hypocrisy coming from Linus Torvalds, who would be a completely unknown, minor software developer in Finland if he hadn't ridden -- dry-humped, actually -- on the coattails of Unix. The same goes for his last employer, whose business is built on a reverse-engineering of x86 microcode.
Wait, are you saying that Linux had a specially negotiated license to a normally commercial UNIX and reverse-engineered it in violation of the terms of the free license?
There's nothing wrong with Tridge writing a program that can read Bitkeeper'd files any more than there is Open Office writing programs that can read Microsoft Word files.
The difference here is that Microsoft isn't letting you use Office for free with the stipulation that so long as you use the free licence you do not engage in any reverse engineering.
If someone were to pay for a commercial Bitkeeper license and reverse-engineer, then there would probably be little that McVoy could do about it, but McVoy is under no obligation to provide his software to a programmer for free so that said programmer can create a directly competing product with it.
The part of irreducible complexity that gets me is where life formed out of non life.
Now you're no longer talking evolution.
A cell must have so many parts working in order to still function. Take away one of those parts and it cease to be alive.
What features make a cell "alive"? Be specific.
Is a virus "alive"?
You're assuming that there's a rigid line between "alive" and "not alive", but any biologist worth his (or her) salt will tell you that it's actually a very fuzzy distinction.
Pick up a ball and drop it. Now do it again. Now, once more for good measure.
Now explain exactly what causes the ball to fall in the way that it does. Now prove without any doubt that this will always be the case.
Now explain why observed instances of speciation are not repeatable evidences of evolution.
Now go away and stop using invalid analogies that seem so popular amongst lying creationists.
If no miracles occur, then we need something like evolution to explain how superheated hydrogen plasma could possibly turn into Kelly Hu or Nicola Tesla. And it must explain all of it, else miracles are required.
Wrong. Evolution explains a specific phenomena: the diversity of species on earth. It is not required, despite your ranting arrogance, to explain anything beyond that.
Evolution is not, despite the lies of many creationists, an attempt to displace "God" (to whichever deity you may refer). It is an explanation based upon observation about a specific set of events. As such, there is no requirement that it suddenly be able to explain events far beyond its scope.
Believe it or not, saying "I don't know how the first life forms came to exist" does not, in any way, falsify evolution.
I'll leave your silly statistics games to someone else; my point here is that your claim that evolution must explain the ultimate origin of life is nothing more than patent creationist dishonest. This is why creationists are derided and/or ignored: they are so often shameless liars
Canada banned the bible?
No, but a bunch of screeching Christians like to pretend that they did (the law that they cite as "proof" has specific religious exceptions) because it feeds their persecution complex.
It evolved out of sticks and stones in the ground, all by itself. Yes, I know a bunch of idiots will say 'somebody designed it' and junk like that, but it doesn't phase me. Weren't they listening in school?
Demonstrating once again that creationists don't study the theory of evolution, because knowing facts would take away the strawmen that they love to attack.
My only point was to demonstrate how there are people out there other than brain-dead backwater hicks; people who command a great deal of intelligence (even on the pitiful worldly scale), who have accepted creationism.
Except that your "statement" loses a great deal of meaning when it is pointed out that the examples that you offered are of people who weren't around when there was a theory of evolution. Saying that Issac Newton is proof that there are smart people who will choose creationism over evolution isn't making a point of anything except the desperation of your own arguments.
That doesn't prove creationism to be right or wrong, as that wasn't my intention, yet you and others automatically assumed that it was.
I never claimed that you were trying to prove creationism to be right or wrong. I merely pointed out that your offering was dishonest, and I gave an explanation as to why.
Now, do you actually have an argument against evolution, or are you going to do nothing more than drudge up old creationist arguments that neither advance a "theory of creation" nor offer any reason to doubt the validity of evolution?
That's not evolution theory in action, that's just natural selection in action.
Evolution is defined as a change in alelle frequency over time. If alelle frequencies change, evolution occurs.
Natural selection is part of both the evolution theory and creation theory.
What is "creation theory"? What does it predict, how can these predictions be tested and what hypothetical observation would falsify it?
So any Christian declaration that the earth must not be older than a specific age just doesn't add up, by the Bible's own text.
Yes, but it's not about what the Bible says, it's about what they want the Bible to say. They have arrogantly decided that they know the True(tm) interpretation of the Bible and that all other interpretations are heretical. Hell, some of them are still geocentrists!
Why does it matter where the photo-receptors are physically if they can be logically connected in any way?
First, you quoted a different sentence than the one that stated that the photoreceptors are backwards.
I think that what he means are that the photoreceptors are positioned BEHIND the ganglion and bipolar cells, which seems a very poor choice for cells allegedly 'designed' to receive light coming in from the pupil. It would make more sense to have the photoreceptors right up front, where the light can hit them directly, unobstructed.