... laying down sensible rules for using these things (minimum yellow light duration, camera is only armed 1 second after red light comes on, _no sharing revenues with the manufacturer/contractor_, etc), they're banned outright?
I smell a bit of luddism here.
WTF is it with you people? First, we pretty much decide here that traffic cameras are evil, Big Brother instruments dedicated to profits and intrusive government more than public safety.
But when a state actually listens to its citizens and bans the things... they're luddites?
What the hell does it take to make you people happy?
Current plans call for a fleet of 314 ships or so in a few years... up from our current fleet of 280.
The problem is that the number is a pipe dream because of rising costs. A number of new and current ship programs have simply gone off the rails in terms of costs, and the Navy is going to have to make some hard choices. All dollar figures below are referenced from the CBO when possible, and reputable news outlets otherwise.
The Littoral Combat Ship program; originally the Navy's "cheap" solution to getting more ships in the fleet, these controversial (lightly armed, aluminum hulls) have doubled in cost per unit, from $225 million apiece, to over $500 million per piece.
The Virginia Class Submarine; a "cheap" alternative to the $2 billion apiece Seawolf class, the Virginias... smaller, and less capable than the Seawolfs in most respects... are now even more expensive than the ships they replaced, at $2.3 billion a pop.
The Zumwalt Class Destroyer; the Navy's White Elephant. An all-things to all-people design with cutting edge tech in every nook and cranny, and the price tag shows... $7 billion per ship (that's per unit cost, folks, not including development costs). The Navy orginally wanted 7, canceled the program, and Congress is forcing them to build 2 anyway, and possibly 3. To put this price into perspective, these destroyers cost more apiece than a Nimitz class carrier.
The VH-71 Kestrel Helicopter; the Navy's replacement for the President's current Marine One fleet, the Kestrel is as effed-up a defense program as you'll ever find. It's basically a European helicopter built in America... except the prime contractor (excuse me, systems integrator), Lockheed Martin, has precisely zero experience building helicopters. After all of the subcontractor price markups, this helicopter now costs more per unit than Air Force one. That's a right, a helicopter that costs more than a tricked-out 747.
The Joint Strike Fighter; again, supposedly a "cheap" way to put airplanes on Navy and USMC decks, most realistic estimates put the cost for the Navy and USMC versions at over $100 million apiece and climbing. One CBO report claims the initial production run will be closer to $200 million apiece because of production line start-up costs. This for a plane that in many cases is inferior in some modes of performance to some of the planes it'll be replacing (the F-16, A-10, F/A-18C).
You should see who goes down in the radio room. Ba-dum-ding. Submarine jokes: there's a million of 'em:). --
Submarines: the only ships in the Navy where 100 men go out, and 50 couples come back.
Sorry, fellas, I had to. Signed, an ex-Airedale
PS- My cousin, a retired Master Chief, has a scar on his scalp from telling that one in a Yokosuka club years ago. The bubbleheads sitting behind him didn't think it was very funny.
Sun has open sourced nearly everything they have. Which is why I'm at a loss to understand why IBM is buying them. There's no product Sun makes that has a distinct advantage over an IBM product, nothing Sun has that IBM would really consider an improvement over their products. Solaris over AIX? Eh, that's iffy.
There was a time I thought they'd buy Sun just to own Java, but now that its been open sourced, that reasoning is out the window. I think what IBM is really buying is quite simple: Sun's customer base. That base is fairly loyal, and still significant, and rather than just waiting another decade for Sun to die (and giving rivals a chance at those customers), IBM just decided that it was more practical to buy Sun out now. It's the only thing that makes sense to me. They'll probably integrate a few Sun products into their lineup, but frankly I think a lot of Sun's stuff will just be allowed to wither and disappear... become abandonware.
"....mom and dad always told them they were incredibly special, and would do amazing things."
There's a great line from that movie about the math teacher Jaime Escalante, Stand and Deliver. In the movie, Escalante is arguing with an Anglo teacher, who is worried that Escalante is raising their expectations too much. She was one of the "villains" in the film, but she had a great line, one that should be stamped on the brain of every teacher in the world. I can't find the exact quote so I'll have to paraphrase it from memory here:
"
You've convinced them that they're all geniuses, that they can all be Einstein and Newton. But the truth is, most are ordinary, and one day they'll realize that despite what you say, they're nothing special. And they'll hate you for it.
Our school systems tell our kids that they all have the potential for greatness. Not just being good at something, but great at something. And that's simply not true. The truth is, most of us are ordinary, and with hard work, we can become competent, or even solid. And that's just fine. That's the way of things. As the saying goes, if everyone was special, no one would be. And yet, the "self-esteem" movement in schools tells kids that they're all potential writers, artists, engineers, presidents, etc. Very few of us go on to do anything like that. Most of us lead middle-class lives with middle-class jobs, with middle-class pains and joys. Many of us don't even get that far. Not because of any conspiracy, or bad schools, but because that's the state of humanity. That's what we are. A few bright minds, a lot of workers, and some dim bulbs. John Lennon was wrong. We don't all shine on. Very few of us do. Unfortunately, too many teachers preach Lennon's line at students. You don't want to discourage students from trying to reach higher, but you also want them to be realistic about the world.
And working with finite resources like coal is a dead end. You will end up with the dirty parts regardless.
Coal is indeed finite, but we in the US have so much of it, it would take centuries to use it all. The US alone has one quarter of the Earth's coal reserves... no one else is even a close second. And even with the heavy use of coal in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, we've barely touched the supply.
With our huge coal reserves, untapped oil reserves, and untapped uranium, the US could be completely energy self-sufficient. The powers that be just don't want to be for political and environmental reasons.
"The military these days contracts out EVERYTHING, not just IT stuff."
And I don't understand this, because the idea was that it would save money. But the contractors make so much that it more than eats any savings. The Navy does this with their supports ships now. They've transferred many to the USNS ranks, and the ships are mostly manned by contractors and GS career employees. And much of the work is physical deck labor... line handling and cargo management. Who costs more? A contractor making 60K+ a year with benefits, or an E-2 or E-3 that's in for one hitch, and thus, in addition to his low salary, isn't going to costs you a lifetime of retirement benefits that the GS personnel will?
Initially I was going to just dismiss this, but then it struck me: yeah, they do. The latest Secretary of the Air Force had this dumbass idea that he would try to make the Air Force tougher. It basically consisted of sending horribly, horribly undertrained airmen out with Marines and Army to do things they weren't good at. A good friend of mine took a 2 week crash course before being sent to Afghanistan where he had to beg Marines to show him how to do things like install the IED countermeasures on the Hummer he was issued. Another friend was sent to Camp Victory in Baghdad without a weapon, and when he finally got one, no ammo.
It had nothing to do with making USAF personnel tougher. It had everything to do with a temporary shortage of ground personnel in the fields because the Army and Marines are fighting a two front war. They need every one they can to be shooting at bad guys. The Navy did this too. Both services were asked to by the SecDef because of troop shortages. The Navy and Air Force "infantrymen" were basically sent TDY to do things like camp security and combat logistics, so the Army and USMC could send every warm body to combat. Its not like the Secratary of the Air Force woke up one morning and went "We're not tough enough. I know! We'll make our own infantry divisions!".
I think the "picking on geeks" thing here is way overblown, especially considering that both the Navy and USAF are manned largely by technocrats in the enlisted ranks. Maybe if a geek joined the Marines he'd get some heat, but the Air Force? I think someone got their feelings hurt. You joined a military force, not the Boy Scouts.
There is one caveat here, and that's the officer corps in USAF, which is a fighter pilot culture, and thus tends to go off the macho scale. I can easily see where, say, a comp sci grad in charge of computer networks would be given the nasty eye by his fellow officers. In USAF's officer corps, if you don't turn and burn for a living, you're somewhat less than a man.
"They are calling on Congress to grant patents only where an invention has social value"
And of course, such a thing as "social value" can be easily determined before the product has the ability to hit the market...
Not to mention the very idea of letting Congress decide what's "socially valuable" for you. I think copyright is abused as it currently stands, but these guys want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think I'll say "no thanks" to their revolution.
Yet people flock to strip clubs to watch women dance and take off their clothes. Erotic Services with no sex are quite common.
The difference being that if you actually touch the strippers, those large-muscled guys at the door will promptly come over and kick the living shit out of you. In a restaurant, you're allowed to have the food.
While I like the idea of reinforcing what works and discouraging what doesn't, the fact is, this is a federal study, and likely the well-intentioned results will be some government panel or body controlling what doctors can and cannot do, regardless of the patient's circumstances, all in the name of "science" and "efficiency". They may well make some things better. But they'll inevitably make more things worse.
I want to aid in better treatments, but I can also easily see some overreaching federal agency micromanaging physicians. Sorry, but find me one federal agency that never tried to expand their power exponentially, often in the name of "the public good".
"Honestly, I think this was a better choice than a 10% FTE workforce reduction, and 50% contractor pool reduction like we had where I work."
It's an interesting question: what would be better for those workers, their families, the company, and the economy over all? The workforce taking a pay and benefits cut, but losing no jobs, or leaving pay and benefits at current levels, but laying off X number of workers to achieve the necessary cuts.
I have no idea which would be better. Anyone else given this scenario some serious thought? Myself, I'd rather take the pay cut, and just see people cut back on movies, fast food, trips to Blockbuster, etc. We could all use some more economizing. But maybe there's a case for the layoffs being better for the health of the company and economy. Thoughts?
"The fact is there is big money in filing frivolous lawsuits"
Well, we certainly agree on that statement. I've seen your nick around, and read a few of your posts, but other than your opposition to the RIAA, I'm really not aware of your stands on other issues. Since you indicate that you're a lawyer, and since you made the statement about frivolous lawsuits, I have ask, doesn't that put you in opposition to most tort lawyers? My state has been called "Tort Hell" for the habit of tort lawyers shopping for the for the most favorable courts and juries, and filing frivolous lawsuits. When you say "frivolous lawsuits", are you including all the ambulance chasers too?
Re:This too was foreseen
on
Designer Babies
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Who gives a shit what you or "society" thinks. I think it is retarded to allow people to call their children "Apple" or "Montana" but, thankfully, I don't have the right to control other people's choices. Freedom means putting up with shit you don't like.
There are limitations to freedom when it comes to other people. And babies are people. Even if it's your own child, you can't do anything you want to them. If you suddenly decided that your little girl would look nice in earings, fine, not many people will care if you get her ears pierced. If you suddenly decide that she would look better without ears, then you have a problem. The law doesn't allow for you to just go and cut them off.
We're headed down a very tricky road here. These "designer baby" choices would be made before conception, but the consequences would last the life of the child, so we have some big issues to debate, not to mention those minor questions of when human life deserves protection and to what degree we should "play God".
For instance, I don't know where you stand on the copyright infringment side, but a common argument here is when someone calls copyright infringment "theft". Some people argue that languge is important here because the word "theft" implies a crime worse than what is actually being committed. That the very words being used are important in the debate, and can be abused.
The "phobia" thing is a similar issue. Using "*insert-cause-here*-phobia" implies that, not only is your opponents position on the argument wrong, but that there's something medically wrong with him.
That is a dangerous and tricky road to go down. That's why it's important to "argue semantics", as you put it.
"And that's my point: it is seen by society at large, and descriptive linguists, as correct usage for 'hatred of homosexuals.'"
But that's not correct usage of the word. A phobia is not a hatred, it's a fear; a paralyzing fear of something, one so great that it's debilitating.
Whatever else you wish to say about opponents of homosexuality, they don't have a phobia.
And yes, Xenophobia is another made-up word in this sense. If someone balled up in a corner in stark terror when a foreigner walked in, then yes, they'd have a phobia. If they just hated the guy, that's not the same thing.
Another issue where this ridiculous phobia meme is being used... "Islamophobia".
"The only people who think homosexuality is abnormal or immoral are people who's religion or culture told them that."
You do realize that list pretty much includes, oh, most of the world, right? But they're all wrong, and you're right? They're the delusional ones, and you're the voice of wisdom? The vast majority of the world belongs to one religion or another, and most of them hold homosexuality to be immoral.
I'll be the first to admit that "just because" isn't a justification, but most people believe in that "invisible man in the sky" you so readily mock (or one like Him). And they're all wrong, not you?
Diners are completely private entities, owned by people who sunk money into the business? Are you suggesting it's okay to stop blacks from sitting at the counter?
Morally? No. Legally? Yes. And it's also legal for a lunch counter in Harlem to refuse service to whites.. And despite what you think, the legal right to "refuse service" has never changed. What changed were attitudes, because of the dedication of protestors, and the impact they had on public opinion. Read up on the Greensboro Sit-Ins. Authorities never made Woolworth's desegrate; they did so because the protests were starting to hurt their business. When a group of sit-in protestors at another business tried to press their legal right to use the facility, they lost.
In a pre-cursor to the Woolworth sit-ins, on June 23, 1957, seven students organized by a local pastor were arrested in Durham, North Carolina at the Royal Ice Cream Shop for staging a sit-in in the "whites only" section. [12] After being convicted in North Carolina courts, the seven appealed their case all the way to the United States Supreme Court, which refused to hear their case.
It was the use of organized protest, public awareness, and economic boycotts that desegregated lunch counters. Not the law. The didn't come into it until it addressed issues of equal access to public services.... i.e. schools, courts, etc. No one ever told a restaurant they had to desegregate. They did because it was necessary to survive economically.
"First off hate speech is not protected speech so your example falls on it's ass"
Why isn't it? Hate speech laws (as opposed to hate crimes laws) haven't been tested in SCOTUS, so we don't know if they lack protection or not. But they certainly violate the 1st Amendment. Calling someone a racial epithet, for instance, is nasty, but not the same thing as shouting fire in a crowded theater. What good is freedom of speech if we only protect nice speech? If we only protect speech that we approve of?
Besides, "hate speech" codes are sliding into political correctness with the force of law behind it. The hypocrisy of "freedom" libertarians and liberals never ceases to amaze me when it comes to government control of social systems. They cry out that social conservatives are fascists for wanting to impose their idea of social order, but then these same people have no problem when social order is imposed from the other direction.
Slashdot Mirror
... laying down sensible rules for using these things (minimum yellow light duration, camera is only armed 1 second after red light comes on, _no sharing revenues with the manufacturer/contractor_, etc), they're banned outright?
I smell a bit of luddism here.
WTF is it with you people? First, we pretty much decide here that traffic cameras are evil, Big Brother instruments dedicated to profits and intrusive government more than public safety.
But when a state actually listens to its citizens and bans the things... they're luddites?
What the hell does it take to make you people happy?
Mistake? How so? It's pretty obvious that the purpose of the naming-competition was to get people involved and excited.
Howard Stern could get legions of his fans excited about the project too. I still wouldn't want a station module named after him.
From the article: "NASA reserves the right to choose an appropriate name."
Good
Current plans call for a fleet of 314 ships or so in a few years... up from our current fleet of 280.
The problem is that the number is a pipe dream because of rising costs. A number of new and current ship programs have simply gone off the rails in terms of costs, and the Navy is going to have to make some hard choices. All dollar figures below are referenced from the CBO when possible, and reputable news outlets otherwise.
The Littoral Combat Ship program; originally the Navy's "cheap" solution to getting more ships in the fleet, these controversial (lightly armed, aluminum hulls) have doubled in cost per unit, from $225 million apiece, to over $500 million per piece.
The Virginia Class Submarine; a "cheap" alternative to the $2 billion apiece Seawolf class, the Virginias... smaller, and less capable than the Seawolfs in most respects... are now even more expensive than the ships they replaced, at $2.3 billion a pop.
The Zumwalt Class Destroyer; the Navy's White Elephant. An all-things to all-people design with cutting edge tech in every nook and cranny, and the price tag shows... $7 billion per ship (that's per unit cost, folks, not including development costs). The Navy orginally wanted 7, canceled the program, and Congress is forcing them to build 2 anyway, and possibly 3. To put this price into perspective, these destroyers cost more apiece than a Nimitz class carrier.
The VH-71 Kestrel Helicopter; the Navy's replacement for the President's current Marine One fleet, the Kestrel is as effed-up a defense program as you'll ever find. It's basically a European helicopter built in America... except the prime contractor (excuse me, systems integrator), Lockheed Martin, has precisely zero experience building helicopters. After all of the subcontractor price markups, this helicopter now costs more per unit than Air Force one. That's a right, a helicopter that costs more than a tricked-out 747.
The Joint Strike Fighter; again, supposedly a "cheap" way to put airplanes on Navy and USMC decks, most realistic estimates put the cost for the Navy and USMC versions at over $100 million apiece and climbing. One CBO report claims the initial production run will be closer to $200 million apiece because of production line start-up costs. This for a plane that in many cases is inferior in some modes of performance to some of the planes it'll be replacing (the F-16, A-10, F/A-18C).
You should see who goes down in the radio room. Ba-dum-ding. Submarine jokes: there's a million of 'em :).
--
Submarines: the only ships in the Navy where 100 men go out, and 50 couples come back.
Sorry, fellas, I had to.
Signed, an ex-Airedale
PS- My cousin, a retired Master Chief, has a scar on his scalp from telling that one in a Yokosuka club years ago. The bubbleheads sitting behind him didn't think it was very funny.
"Sun has open sourced:"
Sun has open sourced nearly everything they have. Which is why I'm at a loss to understand why IBM is buying them. There's no product Sun makes that has a distinct advantage over an IBM product, nothing Sun has that IBM would really consider an improvement over their products. Solaris over AIX? Eh, that's iffy.
There was a time I thought they'd buy Sun just to own Java, but now that its been open sourced, that reasoning is out the window. I think what IBM is really buying is quite simple: Sun's customer base. That base is fairly loyal, and still significant, and rather than just waiting another decade for Sun to die (and giving rivals a chance at those customers), IBM just decided that it was more practical to buy Sun out now. It's the only thing that makes sense to me. They'll probably integrate a few Sun products into their lineup, but frankly I think a lot of Sun's stuff will just be allowed to wither and disappear... become abandonware.
"....mom and dad always told them they were incredibly special, and would do amazing things."
There's a great line from that movie about the math teacher Jaime Escalante, Stand and Deliver. In the movie, Escalante is arguing with an Anglo teacher, who is worried that Escalante is raising their expectations too much. She was one of the "villains" in the film, but she had a great line, one that should be stamped on the brain of every teacher in the world. I can't find the exact quote so I'll have to paraphrase it from memory here:
"
You've convinced them that they're all geniuses, that they can all be Einstein and Newton. But the truth is, most are ordinary, and one day they'll realize that despite what you say, they're nothing special. And they'll hate you for it.
Our school systems tell our kids that they all have the potential for greatness. Not just being good at something, but great at something. And that's simply not true. The truth is, most of us are ordinary, and with hard work, we can become competent, or even solid. And that's just fine. That's the way of things. As the saying goes, if everyone was special, no one would be. And yet, the "self-esteem" movement in schools tells kids that they're all potential writers, artists, engineers, presidents, etc. Very few of us go on to do anything like that. Most of us lead middle-class lives with middle-class jobs, with middle-class pains and joys. Many of us don't even get that far. Not because of any conspiracy, or bad schools, but because that's the state of humanity. That's what we are. A few bright minds, a lot of workers, and some dim bulbs. John Lennon was wrong. We don't all shine on. Very few of us do. Unfortunately, too many teachers preach Lennon's line at students. You don't want to discourage students from trying to reach higher, but you also want them to be realistic about the world.
And working with finite resources like coal is a dead end. You will end up with the dirty parts regardless.
Coal is indeed finite, but we in the US have so much of it, it would take centuries to use it all. The US alone has one quarter of the Earth's coal reserves... no one else is even a close second. And even with the heavy use of coal in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, we've barely touched the supply.
With our huge coal reserves, untapped oil reserves, and untapped uranium, the US could be completely energy self-sufficient. The powers that be just don't want to be for political and environmental reasons.
"The military these days contracts out EVERYTHING, not just IT stuff."
And I don't understand this, because the idea was that it would save money. But the contractors make so much that it more than eats any savings. The Navy does this with their supports ships now. They've transferred many to the USNS ranks, and the ships are mostly manned by contractors and GS career employees. And much of the work is physical deck labor... line handling and cargo management. Who costs more? A contractor making 60K+ a year with benefits, or an E-2 or E-3 that's in for one hitch, and thus, in addition to his low salary, isn't going to costs you a lifetime of retirement benefits that the GS personnel will?
Initially I was going to just dismiss this, but then it struck me: yeah, they do. The latest Secretary of the Air Force had this dumbass idea that he would try to make the Air Force tougher. It basically consisted of sending horribly, horribly undertrained airmen out with Marines and Army to do things they weren't good at. A good friend of mine took a 2 week crash course before being sent to Afghanistan where he had to beg Marines to show him how to do things like install the IED countermeasures on the Hummer he was issued. Another friend was sent to Camp Victory in Baghdad without a weapon, and when he finally got one, no ammo.
It had nothing to do with making USAF personnel tougher. It had everything to do with a temporary shortage of ground personnel in the fields because the Army and Marines are fighting a two front war. They need every one they can to be shooting at bad guys. The Navy did this too. Both services were asked to by the SecDef because of troop shortages. The Navy and Air Force "infantrymen" were basically sent TDY to do things like camp security and combat logistics, so the Army and USMC could send every warm body to combat. Its not like the Secratary of the Air Force woke up one morning and went "We're not tough enough. I know! We'll make our own infantry divisions!".
I think the "picking on geeks" thing here is way overblown, especially considering that both the Navy and USAF are manned largely by technocrats in the enlisted ranks. Maybe if a geek joined the Marines he'd get some heat, but the Air Force? I think someone got their feelings hurt. You joined a military force, not the Boy Scouts.
There is one caveat here, and that's the officer corps in USAF, which is a fighter pilot culture, and thus tends to go off the macho scale. I can easily see where, say, a comp sci grad in charge of computer networks would be given the nasty eye by his fellow officers. In USAF's officer corps, if you don't turn and burn for a living, you're somewhat less than a man.
"They are calling on Congress to grant patents only where an invention has social value"
And of course, such a thing as "social value" can be easily determined before the product has the ability to hit the market...
Not to mention the very idea of letting Congress decide what's "socially valuable" for you. I think copyright is abused as it currently stands, but these guys want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think I'll say "no thanks" to their revolution.
I guess that my idea of a flash "take a dump on the sidewalk" mob isn't going to please these clean freaks in San Francisco either.
It's San Francisco. No one will notice.
Roger Ebert
Ebert also gave The Phantom Menace 3 1/2 out of 4 stars. His opinion isn't a guarantee of quality.
Yet people flock to strip clubs to watch women dance and take off their clothes. Erotic Services with no sex are quite common.
The difference being that if you actually touch the strippers, those large-muscled guys at the door will promptly come over and kick the living shit out of you. In a restaurant, you're allowed to have the food.
... where I live. So the Cook County Sheriff can lump it if he doesn't like it.
And this has exactly what to do with him going after crime in his jurisdiction?
Wow, one pound on the whole Earth?
That's pretty much not existent.
It doesn't matter if you can make juice at a buck a watt if your panels are made of unobtainium.
While I like the idea of reinforcing what works and discouraging what doesn't, the fact is, this is a federal study, and likely the well-intentioned results will be some government panel or body controlling what doctors can and cannot do, regardless of the patient's circumstances, all in the name of "science" and "efficiency". They may well make some things better. But they'll inevitably make more things worse.
I want to aid in better treatments, but I can also easily see some overreaching federal agency micromanaging physicians. Sorry, but find me one federal agency that never tried to expand their power exponentially, often in the name of "the public good".
"Honestly, I think this was a better choice than a 10% FTE workforce reduction, and 50% contractor pool reduction like we had where I work."
It's an interesting question: what would be better for those workers, their families, the company, and the economy over all? The workforce taking a pay and benefits cut, but losing no jobs, or leaving pay and benefits at current levels, but laying off X number of workers to achieve the necessary cuts.
I have no idea which would be better. Anyone else given this scenario some serious thought? Myself, I'd rather take the pay cut, and just see people cut back on movies, fast food, trips to Blockbuster, etc. We could all use some more economizing. But maybe there's a case for the layoffs being better for the health of the company and economy. Thoughts?
"The fact is there is big money in filing frivolous lawsuits"
Well, we certainly agree on that statement. I've seen your nick around, and read a few of your posts, but other than your opposition to the RIAA, I'm really not aware of your stands on other issues. Since you indicate that you're a lawyer, and since you made the statement about frivolous lawsuits, I have ask, doesn't that put you in opposition to most tort lawyers? My state has been called "Tort Hell" for the habit of tort lawyers shopping for the for the most favorable courts and juries, and filing frivolous lawsuits. When you say "frivolous lawsuits", are you including all the ambulance chasers too?
Who gives a shit what you or "society" thinks. I think it is retarded to allow people to call their children "Apple" or "Montana" but, thankfully, I don't have the right to control other people's choices. Freedom means putting up with shit you don't like.
There are limitations to freedom when it comes to other people. And babies are people. Even if it's your own child, you can't do anything you want to them. If you suddenly decided that your little girl would look nice in earings, fine, not many people will care if you get her ears pierced. If you suddenly decide that she would look better without ears, then you have a problem. The law doesn't allow for you to just go and cut them off.
We're headed down a very tricky road here. These "designer baby" choices would be made before conception, but the consequences would last the life of the child, so we have some big issues to debate, not to mention those minor questions of when human life deserves protection and to what degree we should "play God".
"Why do you argue semantics? "
Because language is important.
For instance, I don't know where you stand on the copyright infringment side, but a common argument here is when someone calls copyright infringment "theft". Some people argue that languge is important here because the word "theft" implies a crime worse than what is actually being committed. That the very words being used are important in the debate, and can be abused.
The "phobia" thing is a similar issue. Using "*insert-cause-here*-phobia" implies that, not only is your opponents position on the argument wrong, but that there's something medically wrong with him.
That is a dangerous and tricky road to go down. That's why it's important to "argue semantics", as you put it.
"And that's my point: it is seen by society at large, and descriptive linguists, as correct usage for 'hatred of homosexuals.'"
But that's not correct usage of the word. A phobia is not a hatred, it's a fear; a paralyzing fear of something, one so great that it's debilitating.
Whatever else you wish to say about opponents of homosexuality, they don't have a phobia.
And yes, Xenophobia is another made-up word in this sense. If someone balled up in a corner in stark terror when a foreigner walked in, then yes, they'd have a phobia. If they just hated the guy, that's not the same thing.
Another issue where this ridiculous phobia meme is being used... "Islamophobia".
"The only people who think homosexuality is abnormal or immoral are people who's religion or culture told them that."
You do realize that list pretty much includes, oh, most of the world, right? But they're all wrong, and you're right? They're the delusional ones, and you're the voice of wisdom? The vast majority of the world belongs to one religion or another, and most of them hold homosexuality to be immoral.
I'll be the first to admit that "just because" isn't a justification, but most people believe in that "invisible man in the sky" you so readily mock (or one like Him). And they're all wrong, not you?
Diners are completely private entities, owned by people who sunk money into the business? Are you suggesting it's okay to stop blacks from sitting at the counter?
Morally? No. Legally? Yes. And it's also legal for a lunch counter in Harlem to refuse service to whites.. And despite what you think, the legal right to "refuse service" has never changed. What changed were attitudes, because of the dedication of protestors, and the impact they had on public opinion. Read up on the Greensboro Sit-Ins. Authorities never made Woolworth's desegrate; they did so because the protests were starting to hurt their business. When a group of sit-in protestors at another business tried to press their legal right to use the facility, they lost.
It was the use of organized protest, public awareness, and economic boycotts that desegregated lunch counters. Not the law. The didn't come into it until it addressed issues of equal access to public services.... i.e. schools, courts, etc. No one ever told a restaurant they had to desegregate. They did because it was necessary to survive economically.
"First off hate speech is not protected speech so your example falls on it's ass"
Why isn't it? Hate speech laws (as opposed to hate crimes laws) haven't been tested in SCOTUS, so we don't know if they lack protection or not. But they certainly violate the 1st Amendment. Calling someone a racial epithet, for instance, is nasty, but not the same thing as shouting fire in a crowded theater. What good is freedom of speech if we only protect nice speech? If we only protect speech that we approve of?
Besides, "hate speech" codes are sliding into political correctness with the force of law behind it. The hypocrisy of "freedom" libertarians and liberals never ceases to amaze me when it comes to government control of social systems. They cry out that social conservatives are fascists for wanting to impose their idea of social order, but then these same people have no problem when social order is imposed from the other direction.