If I was gay and in a relationship, my kid would be too embarassed to bring home any friends.
If you were gay and in a relationship, then your life would probably be very different from what it is now. Given that, it's hard to know what you child would think about bringing friends home.
I'm not proud of this fact, but I'm sure that it is very common among teenagers. Kids want to fit in.
True, but I have found through contacting other gay parents that this problem is much smaller than most people make it to be. Truth is, gay parents are very aware of this problem (naturally), and take measures to ensure that their children interact with accepting children with accepting parents. My partner and I have taken specific steps to ensure this life for our son. We're not alone.
Thank you for your kind and thoughtful response, and your apologies are accepted. I can understand your point of view: UNIX is not designed for end-users, it's designed for engineers. Some parts of it are downright cryptic. So I can see how you might be frustrated when you see seemingly intelligent UNIX users railing about how Win2k is not as stable/easy as it claims to be.
At the same time, I think it's worth admitting the truth behind the statement "Win2k is not as stable or easy as it claims to be." It's long been my assertion that Windows (in whatever flavor) is not "easy to use." And I'm speaking from the sysadmin perspective, not the end-user perspective. UNIX still has a ways to go in the end-user space.
And I can admit that Win2k is more stable than NT4. Does that imply "stable enough"? Well, that's subjective, of course. And my issues with using Microsoft's products go far beyond mere stability.
Again, I appreciate the improved tone of your reply. I think that UNIX people and Windows people have more common ground to stand on than they would lead eachother to believe.
I'd expect someone with such a low/. number to be smarter than that.
And I would expect someone who's trying to be convincing to not have to resort to such lame ad hominems.
It never ceases to amaze me the number of/.'ers who have the dumbest problems with Win2K. They have no problems recompiling kernels, patching BIND, or hunting down obscure equipment that has Linux drivers for it, but when it comes to ensuring they have compatible equipment and drivers before installing Win2K, well that seems to be too much to ask.
And yet another ad hominem from you.
Considering that I don't use Win2k either at home or at work, I guess you could consider all of my Win2k problems "dumb." I have little experience troubleshooting Windows problems, and I prefer to keep it that way. In my opinion, the mouse should not just stop working, unless you'd like to argue that the Microsoft mouse was not on the HCL. In my opinion, when an application crashes the entire OS should not come crashing down with it, HCL or no HCL.
So, here in a nutshell is your guide to a stable Win2K. 1) Check the HCL and make sure you have compatible equipment and drivers. 2) Check any software that you have so to make sure there won't be any surprises with Win2K. 3) Install.
I have never seen Linux crash or freeze when it has incompatible hardware. It's either supported or it isn't. If you're going to make the statement that "Win2k is just as stable as UNIX as long as you strictly adhere to the HCL and know that any deviation will render Win2k into an unstable and unpredictable OS," then I may be willing to accept that. But that certainly hasn't been the rallying cry of the Win2k proponents I've encountered.
Use common sense like you would with Linux and you can get a very stable system.
And another ad hominem. The implication here is that I don't have "common sense." Tell me, just what is "common sense" anyway? Furthermore, can you list me any hardware which will cause Linux to freeze if an application crashes?
In the future, you will do much better at convincing people if you attack their argument and refrain from making personal attacks.
I remember reading an anthropology textbook which opened my eyes. Part of it read (paraphrased), "All human cultures have had marraige, and the purpose of marraige in every culture has been to regulate sexual functions."
The notions of marraige being "from God" or being "the fabric of our society" or being "for raising children" are much more about promoting social/religious agendas than they are about stating any truths about marraige.
The reason why some gay men and women advertise the fact that they are gay is so that they don't have to come out to anybody -- coming out is automatic.
I am a gay man who is, shall I say, "non-obvious." When I speak, yards of chiffon do not come pouring out of my mouth. When I dress, I don't look like a model out of International Male.
Because of this, I have to come out to people. I have to tell them, "I'm gay," because they assume that I am straight. Every time I come out to somebody, I face being rejected and despised.
By contrast, "flaming" gays don't have to face this. Everyone knows that they're gay, so people who choose to interact with them obviously don't care or accept that they are gay. They don't have to face rejection. For that I am jealous, but I am who I am and make no apologies for it.
You, as someone who is obviously not gay, never have to face this. Specifically, you never have to "come out" to anyone that you are straight. Nor do you ever have to face being hated or rejected because you are straight. Nor do you have to face losing a job or being put in prison becuase you are straight. Nor do you have to advertise to people that you're straight to avoid the possibility of being hated or rejected.
By the way, did you realize that even now, the majority of gay men are in the closet and married to women?
It's obvious you've thought about this issue a bit, and I think you still have more thinking to do. For example, you write: That having a good female mother and a good male father will get people farther along to being well-adjusted than not., yet you provide no evidence to support this statement. Why are heterosexuals more capable of raising children than homosexuals? You don't say why; you merely insist that it's probably better to be raised by straight parents.
Your argument is weak, but that doesn't stop you from concluding that gay couples should not be raising kids. Do you not realize that gay couples are raising children, right now, all over the U.S.? Are you going to use your crappy argument to argue that gay couples should be forbidden by law to adopt children? You wouldn't be the first to do so.
I, for one, will argue that the average gay male couple will make better parents than the average straight couple. Before you get all worked up over this statement, consider that gay men can not have children by accident. They have to fight anti-gay adoption agencies, anti-gay U.S. government, anti-gay foreign adoption agencies, anti-gay foreign governments, disapproval from family, disapproval from friends, and disapproval from society. My partner and I have faced all of these things. Compare this to any straight couple which can have a child by sheer accident and never have to worry about any of the hurdles that gay couples have to face.
Face it: If my partner and I want children, we have to work for it, and work for it hard. Much harder than the average straight couple will ever have to. And we do this because we want very much to have children of our own to love, raise, and turn into compassionate and responsible young men and women. And this is the experience for almost all of the gay men who wish to have children. It takes a lot of love, more than I've ever mustered for either myself or my partner.
In contrast, many straight couples can and do have children becuase the condom broke. How much love does that take?
> > we all know that windows without a mouse is like a bicycle without wheels.
> You are thinking Linux's GUI or (maybe) Macs
No, I was thinking about Windows's GUI. Then again, what is the alternative to Windows's GUI? Does it have a robust command-line interface? Not at all! How on earth did you think I was thinking about Linux in this light? Linux is a command-line-based OS before it is a GUI-based OS.
And I would argue that using Windows without a mouse is *so uncomfortable* that very, very few users would choose to continue in that manner. Hence, a bicycle withough wheels. I don't think you and I can find a user who, if losing the mouse under Windows, would say, "That's no problem," and continue to work mouse-less instead of rebooting.
> > I have also seen Win2k lock hard if IE crashes.
> I've'd IE crash on me several times, it *never* locked the machine.
And I, on the other hand, *have* seen it lock the machine. Did you read the point I was trying to make? I will restate it here:
When the crashing of IE does not lock Win2k hard *on all machines* then I will agree that Win2k is stable.
I have personally seen Win2k lose the mouse pointer (move the mouse, yet pointer stays in the same place) many times. And we all know that windows without a mouse is like a bicycle without wheels. Reboot. I have also seen Win2k lock hard if IE crashes. Reboot.
So I see that Win2k is stable on some machines, while on others it is not. Hasn't this always been the truth with some form of Windows? This leads me to believe that Win2k is not stable. It simply cannot be trusted on all machines.
And when Win2k stops losing the mouse or locking hard when IE crashes *on all machines*, then I will agree that Win2k is stable.
And although the argument against Windows's stability is getting old, it's still valid. Perhaps you should be attacking that which causes the criticism, not the criticism itself.
Uhm... last I checked, you needed a home to have cable tv, and if you have a home, you are not homeless... or did I miss some crucial part of my education?
Your snide attitude does a disservice to your argument. Sure, you need a home to have cable tv, but I also mentioned "drug addicts" who can and do live in homes. Did you not consider that I could have been referring to them? I also notice that you chose not to pick on the beer and cigarettes aspect of my argument.
But - it's nice to know, that if your house is ruined in a disaster, the insurance company goes bankrupt and can't help you, your company goes bankrupt and you're out of work and a home, that you don't want help from the government, because it's your own fault.
Strawman.
Or what if your daughter/son gets addicted to heroin and loses his/her home - do you want to kick them out into the streets everytime they come to the hospital for help? Because it's obviously their own fault, and yours because you didn't teach them not to do drugs.
This is a different argument. Do you honestly think that I would abandon my own child? I *totally* think that parents should take responsiblity for their children. How on earth did you take my belief that the government should not be in the business of social programs and assume that I must, therefore, not want to take care of my children?
It's called a society - "a system in which people live together in organized communities", not Loundrys-System - "a system in which people don't give a shit about others".
In case you haven't noticed, I am a part of this thing called society, and so are millions of others who share many of my opinions. I notice that your definition of society neither states nor implies that government should be involved in health care or social programs, yet you treat it like it's a given. Furthermore, how did you come to the conclusion that I don't "give a shit about others"?
You may have problems too, but I'm sure your problems aren't of the calibre of many of the people who have become addicted to hard drugs. Have you ever been chronically, severely depressed?
You are so sure that my problems "aren't of the calibre" of other peoples' problems. Tell me, how could you know that, given that you have never even met me?
And to answer your question, yes, I have been severely depressed. I have been on nine different medications. I have been through seven different doctors. I have cut myself with a knife. I suffered from obsessive-compulsive disorder and borderline personality disorder. My life was living hell for most of my childhood and got really shitty when I realized that I was gay. Too bad for me that happend at a time when I was the youth pastor and music director at a church at a small, southern town.
Through therapy I have resolved many of my issues and I will probably be on antidepressants for the rest of my life. But at least I am free of the demons that have tortured me for much of my life, and that is a wonderful feeling.
Now tell me, are you still going to try to trivialize my struggles? I think it sucks that I had to drag all of that out to make a point that you are being assuming and insensitive.
I can appreciate how someone might feel as you do (but I don't share your beliefs). However, you make it clear that you cannot understand how someone might believe in the social welfare of the entire country, instead of the welfare of the self.
Yes I can understand, but I think you are wrong. I do not believe that it is government's job to take money from one class of persons and give it to another. These are vote-buying schemes. And now, given that I had to share pieces of my history with you, you cannot claim that I'm just a rich snob who doesn't have any "real" problems.
Well, several years ago I was (because of a chemical imbalance completely out of my control), and let me tell you that it is absolute hell.
Two things: I am first of all very sorry you had to go through that. I know first hand how horrible it feels, and no one deserves to feel that way. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy, and I have openly stated (at my lowest times), "I'd rather have cancer." No doubt you've felt the same way. Second, the "chemical imbalance" diagnosis is one of many possible diagnoses. It's how medical doctors treat depression. You may be surprised to know that cognitive therapists, existential therapists, and psychotherapists all have different treatments for what medical therapists call "chemical imbalances," and many times they are more effective.
If my spouse leaves me, I become depressed, eat more, gain weight, and suffer a heart attack as a result, then we can conclude that it was my fault that I suffered a heart attack just as we can conclude that it is a heroin addict's fault that s/he is addicted to heroin.
How on earth does that give the government the right to take my money to give to those people? I didn't make anyone eat too much and get fat, nor did I make anyone start using heroin.
And if you're wondering where I got the money for my treatment, I'll tell you: my mom did it for me. At this point you'll probably make the argument about "some people don't have rich parents" or something like that. First, my mom is not rich. Second, people should not have children that they cannot afford to raise.
But your opinions . . . are just that, opinions.
Social programs are, in fact, vote-buying and income-redistribution schemes. And they have failed in their stated goals. Medicare? Going bankrupt. Medicaid? Going bankrupt. Social Security? Going bankrupt. Can you name one social program (in the US) that has succeeded in its goals?
You're speaking from an American point of view; for some reason, many Americans cannot understand _why_ Canadians want to pay tax for a healthcare program that helps people like heroin addicts and homeless people.
Frankly, I can't believe you can't understand many Americans' point of view as to why government social programs are so abhorrent.
Personally, I don't think people move out onto the streets and become addicted to heroin because it's fun, or because there's nothing better to do. Usually, these people have more serious problems than a mere heroin addiction.
Their choice to start using herion was their choice, not mine. And their herion addiction is their addiction, not mine. Why should I be forced to pay for someone elses choices or addictions?
I'd like to think that if I was having such serious problems that I turned to hard drugs to alleviate the psychological pain of what was going on that someone would be available to help me break free when I was ready to do so.
And who will pay for that help? You would think that you should take care of your own problems, so you would pay for it. But somehow you seem content with the idea of government taking money from those people who are NOT wasting thier lives on drugs, who are trying to earn a living, who are working to support thier families, and who generally owe nothing to drug addicts they don't even know.
People make mistakes; life is about learning. I will make mistakes in my lifetime, and I'd appreciate it if people were there to help me. I'd like to be able to do the same for others. A heroin addict is not a depraved lunatic; s/he is merely a person that has made some wrong choices, and needs help.
And I would appreciate it if someone was there to give me free food whenever I got hungry. After all, no one should go hungry, right?
It's the heroin addict who made the choice to become a heroin addict, and s/he should have to pay for making that choice. This is the very definition of responsibility. I guess in your mind you think the government should force me to pay for things I don't want to pay for and pick up the slack for people who feel like the best solution to their problems is through heroin.
You might prefer to have your fancy cars, but I'm quite content aiming away at something so commercially shallow and helping my fellow man, thank you very much.
How insulting! The implication here is that the only thing I have to spend my money on is "fancy cars" and that I'm not concerned enough about my "fellow man" because of my own greed. My car is ten years old and I plan to drive it to its grave. I am a homeowner. I pay my bills. I raise my family. I save money for my retirement. And, believe it or not, I have problems too. But at least I am responsible enough to take care of my own life. And perhaps if the government wasn't taking my money and feeding it into its many failed, backward, ineffecient, vote-buying, income redistribution schemes then I would have more money to give to charities. As is, government takes my money to give to drug addicts and homeless people who can afford beer, cigarettes, and cable tv.
5) Theo has a right to be elitist...he's earned it.
He has no such right. No one has the "right" to be an asshole. And yes, being elitist is being an asshole. Theo may be able to speak with authority on the subject of programming because of his intelligence and his experience, but that does not give him the right to be condescending or rude.
I guess turnabout is fair play, since you Microsoft people have been making us sick for years.
I work for Microsoft as a developer, and I really resent the fact that I and my coworkers are being called thieves.
Perhaps because there is a grain of truth in it, and that truth hurts.
We work hard on developing quality, innovative products here at Microsoft,
Now it's my turn to be offended. Microsoft has a reputation of developing low-quality, copycat programs. Microsoft has been the number one contributer to the public's notion that computers are unreliable and crash frequently. Microsoft has a reputation of buying companies rather than developing software in-house. What you are describing seems to be the exception, not the rule. Furthermore, Microsoft has gone through great efforts to eliminate open protocols and standards and supplant them with their own. It is specifically for this reason that I hate Microsoft.
and sorry but the odd time I have looked at Linux source code to get a better idea of how to come up with innovation solutions in Windows 2000 does *not* make me a thief!!
If Linux were for sale Microsoft would probably have bought it already. That would make Microsoft less of a thief, n'est-ce pas?
I wish you pimply-faced teenagers would take your 1960's-era piece of crap toy shareware so-called Operating System and shove it!
God, where to start!
Linux has its roots in 1960's technology. So does IBM which currently rules the world. So does ethernet which currently runs the majority of all the networks.
"piece of crap" in what sense?
"toy"? yes, and also a valuable work tool. My company currently uses it to power all of its back-end servers. How expensive would the NT solution be?
"shareware" is simply false.
Most importantly, if Linux is as bad as you make it out to be, then why are you wasting time looking at the source code for ideas?
Just stop sullying the reputation of my fine employer.
Your employer has a well-earned reputation. Gone are the days where no one dared criticize Microsoft. Perhaps you just don't like hearing the truth.
We are having enough problems without you faggots making things worse.
Speaking as a gay man and not as a "Linux zealot," your problems are caused by your company's poor management and evil culture -- not by me and my faggot brethren. And since your argument is so pathetic, I don't really mind being your scapegoat.
I do not use Win2K at all -- I use Linux at work and BeOS at home. But my coworker uses Win2K and he experiences the loss of the mouse and the freezing of the computer on a daily basis.
It seems that for every anecdotal story about Windows being stable there is another about it being unstable, and vice versa. What can we conclude from this?
Win2K is really no different from any other Windows: on some circumstances it is inexplicably stable, and on others it is inexplicably unstable. From this, I conclude that Windows is unreliable.
America restricts the rights to see nudity and drink alchol from all minors.
And all majors as well, to a degree. Can you see people having sex at 3:00 PM on any public station anywhere in the USA? Can you buy beer on Sunday in Georgia?
Once you're of age, have at it! Download
porn off the internet, get those smutty DVDs, watch Pay-Per-View sex show.
Except that lawmakers have traditionally tried to heavily regulate that as well. There are still laws on the books regulating how, with whom, and with what devices you are allowed to have sex.
The official reason that TV and radio is censored is that children can view it without restriction.
But the real reason that TV and radio is censored is because people want to use the law as a club to beat up the things that they think are immoral.
So while I agree with the spirit of your post, I feel like some of the details are not quite correct. America is still very backward when it comes to sex. Spend a few weeks (or hell, even a few days) in Amsterdam and you'll see what I mean.
Your post is the obligitory "Once again people are bashing Microsoft on Slashdot."
Honestly, what did you expect? This is a largely pro-Linux site, most Linux advocates are anti-Microsoft, and Bill Gates himself has mused that Linux is "Microsoft's largest competitor."
Slashdot is an opinion site and never claimed to not be biased.
Besides, perhaps you should click back in older news and see how many frequently an X-box story appears on Slashdot. It seems to me that every time a rumor comes out about the non-existent X-box product the story is immediately posted to Slashdot. Does that sound like Microsoft bashing to you?
Maybe it can be duplicated at near-zero cost, but the cost of the initial creation isn't anywhere near zero.
You still failed to answer the question. How much should it cost?
Maybe one day you'll get a job that shows you just how much effort it takes to build a real software project. Maybe not, though: I doubt you're bright enough.
So instead of attacking my argument, you decide to attack me. This is called argumentum ad hominem and it means that your argument is too weak to stand on its own.
What an idiotic thing to write. The poster could very well have been a student or faculty member who had nothing to do with the purchase... er, "licensing" of software.
But while we're on the subject, perhaps you'd like to share with me what you think a good price would be for a product that can be duplicated infinitely and perfectly at near-zero cost.
People who generalize like you just did are a sad, sad bunch...
First, this is an ad hominem. Second, every human being on the planet makes generalizations. It is human nature to do so.
But perhaps you were merely objecting to the kind of generalization I was making. You did, after all, write, "...like you just did...." Would you share with me what kinds of generalizations are acceptable to you?
Believe it or not, we're all geeks who love technology.
Do you remember this lie: "Windows NT Server and Windows NT Workstation are completely different operating systems."
In other words, I don't believe it. The Microsoft employees I've talked to in the past have not shown me that they are "geeks who love technology." They have been much more like arrogant, elitist people who think that Microsoft is the end-all, be-all of computing, internetworking, and technology.
I'm not trying to say that's what you are. I'm trying to say that's the impression I have of Microsoft employees and Microsoft's culture.
Or perhaps just an anti-Gore rant. Just in case you are pro-Bush (and you weren't merely being sarcastic), let me challenge you on one issue:
I think thay we should be leading the way in the war on drugs.
And how, exactly, is the government going to "lead the way" in the war on drugs? The same way it's been "leading the way" in the drug war for the past few decades (and still failing miserably)? The same way it was "leading the way" in prohibition (which everyone agrees was a miserable failure)?
Tell me, at what point will we have decided that we've "won" the war on drugs? And how is alcohol prohibition different from marijuana prohibition (or any other drug prohibition)? Also, do you think that Bush would be a better candidate if he had spent ten years in prison for his "youthful indescretions"?
Slashdot Mirror
If I was gay and in a relationship, my kid would be too embarassed to bring home any friends.
If you were gay and in a relationship, then your life would probably be very different from what it is now. Given that, it's hard to know what you child would think about bringing friends home.
I'm not proud of this fact, but I'm sure that it is very common among teenagers. Kids want to fit in.
True, but I have found through contacting other gay parents that this problem is much smaller than most people make it to be. Truth is, gay parents are very aware of this problem (naturally), and take measures to ensure that their children interact with accepting children with accepting parents. My partner and I have taken specific steps to ensure this life for our son. We're not alone.
Thank you for your kind and thoughtful response, and your apologies are accepted. I can understand your point of view: UNIX is not designed for end-users, it's designed for engineers. Some parts of it are downright cryptic. So I can see how you might be frustrated when you see seemingly intelligent UNIX users railing about how Win2k is not as stable/easy as it claims to be.
At the same time, I think it's worth admitting the truth behind the statement "Win2k is not as stable or easy as it claims to be." It's long been my assertion that Windows (in whatever flavor) is not "easy to use." And I'm speaking from the sysadmin perspective, not the end-user perspective. UNIX still has a ways to go in the end-user space.
And I can admit that Win2k is more stable than NT4. Does that imply "stable enough"? Well, that's subjective, of course. And my issues with using Microsoft's products go far beyond mere stability.
Again, I appreciate the improved tone of your reply. I think that UNIX people and Windows people have more common ground to stand on than they would lead eachother to believe.
I'd expect someone with such a low /. number to be smarter than that.
/.'ers who have the dumbest problems with Win2K. They have no problems recompiling kernels, patching BIND, or hunting down obscure equipment that has Linux drivers for it, but when it comes to ensuring they have compatible equipment and drivers before installing Win2K, well that seems to be too much to ask.
And I would expect someone who's trying to be convincing to not have to resort to such lame ad hominems.
It never ceases to amaze me the number of
And yet another ad hominem from you.
Considering that I don't use Win2k either at home or at work, I guess you could consider all of my Win2k problems "dumb." I have little experience troubleshooting Windows problems, and I prefer to keep it that way. In my opinion, the mouse should not just stop working, unless you'd like to argue that the Microsoft mouse was not on the HCL. In my opinion, when an application crashes the entire OS should not come crashing down with it, HCL or no HCL.
So, here in a nutshell is your guide to a stable Win2K. 1) Check the HCL and make sure you have compatible equipment and drivers. 2) Check any software that you have so to make sure there won't be any surprises with Win2K. 3) Install.
I have never seen Linux crash or freeze when it has incompatible hardware. It's either supported or it isn't. If you're going to make the statement that "Win2k is just as stable as UNIX as long as you strictly adhere to the HCL and know that any deviation will render Win2k into an unstable and unpredictable OS," then I may be willing to accept that. But that certainly hasn't been the rallying cry of the Win2k proponents I've encountered.
Use common sense like you would with Linux and you can get a very stable system.
And another ad hominem. The implication here is that I don't have "common sense." Tell me, just what is "common sense" anyway? Furthermore, can you list me any hardware which will cause Linux to freeze if an application crashes?
In the future, you will do much better at convincing people if you attack their argument and refrain from making personal attacks.
I remember reading an anthropology textbook which opened my eyes. Part of it read (paraphrased), "All human cultures have had marraige, and the purpose of marraige in every culture has been to regulate sexual functions."
The notions of marraige being "from God" or being "the fabric of our society" or being "for raising children" are much more about promoting social/religious agendas than they are about stating any truths about marraige.
It's time to come out of the closet, Mary.
The reason why some gay men and women advertise the fact that they are gay is so that they don't have to come out to anybody -- coming out is automatic.
I am a gay man who is, shall I say, "non-obvious." When I speak, yards of chiffon do not come pouring out of my mouth. When I dress, I don't look like a model out of International Male.
Because of this, I have to come out to people. I have to tell them, "I'm gay," because they assume that I am straight. Every time I come out to somebody, I face being rejected and despised.
By contrast, "flaming" gays don't have to face this. Everyone knows that they're gay, so people who choose to interact with them obviously don't care or accept that they are gay. They don't have to face rejection. For that I am jealous, but I am who I am and make no apologies for it.
You, as someone who is obviously not gay, never have to face this. Specifically, you never have to "come out" to anyone that you are straight. Nor do you ever have to face being hated or rejected because you are straight. Nor do you have to face losing a job or being put in prison becuase you are straight. Nor do you have to advertise to people that you're straight to avoid the possibility of being hated or rejected.
By the way, did you realize that even now, the majority of gay men are in the closet and married to women?
It's obvious you've thought about this issue a bit, and I think you still have more thinking to do. For example, you write: That having a good female mother and a good male father will get people farther along to being well-adjusted than not., yet you provide no evidence to support this statement. Why are heterosexuals more capable of raising children than homosexuals? You don't say why; you merely insist that it's probably better to be raised by straight parents.
Your argument is weak, but that doesn't stop you from concluding that gay couples should not be raising kids. Do you not realize that gay couples are raising children, right now, all over the U.S.? Are you going to use your crappy argument to argue that gay couples should be forbidden by law to adopt children? You wouldn't be the first to do so.
I, for one, will argue that the average gay male couple will make better parents than the average straight couple. Before you get all worked up over this statement, consider that gay men can not have children by accident. They have to fight anti-gay adoption agencies, anti-gay U.S. government, anti-gay foreign adoption agencies, anti-gay foreign governments, disapproval from family, disapproval from friends, and disapproval from society. My partner and I have faced all of these things. Compare this to any straight couple which can have a child by sheer accident and never have to worry about any of the hurdles that gay couples have to face.
Face it: If my partner and I want children, we have to work for it, and work for it hard. Much harder than the average straight couple will ever have to. And we do this because we want very much to have children of our own to love, raise, and turn into compassionate and responsible young men and women. And this is the experience for almost all of the gay men who wish to have children. It takes a lot of love, more than I've ever mustered for either myself or my partner.
In contrast, many straight couples can and do have children becuase the condom broke. How much love does that take?
Just some things to think about.
> > we all know that windows without a mouse is like a bicycle without wheels.
> You are thinking Linux's GUI or (maybe) Macs
No, I was thinking about Windows's GUI. Then again, what is the alternative to Windows's GUI? Does it have a robust command-line interface? Not at all! How on earth did you think I was thinking about Linux in this light? Linux is a command-line-based OS before it is a GUI-based OS.
And I would argue that using Windows without a mouse is *so uncomfortable* that very, very few users would choose to continue in that manner. Hence, a bicycle withough wheels. I don't think you and I can find a user who, if losing the mouse under Windows, would say, "That's no problem," and continue to work mouse-less instead of rebooting.
> > I have also seen Win2k lock hard if IE crashes.
> I've'd IE crash on me several times, it *never* locked the machine.
And I, on the other hand, *have* seen it lock the machine. Did you read the point I was trying to make? I will restate it here:
When the crashing of IE does not lock Win2k hard *on all machines* then I will agree that Win2k is stable.
I have personally seen Win2k lose the mouse pointer (move the mouse, yet pointer stays in the same place) many times. And we all know that windows without a mouse is like a bicycle without wheels. Reboot. I have also seen Win2k lock hard if IE crashes. Reboot.
So I see that Win2k is stable on some machines, while on others it is not. Hasn't this always been the truth with some form of Windows? This leads me to believe that Win2k is not stable. It simply cannot be trusted on all machines.
And when Win2k stops losing the mouse or locking hard when IE crashes *on all machines*, then I will agree that Win2k is stable.
And although the argument against Windows's stability is getting old, it's still valid. Perhaps you should be attacking that which causes the criticism, not the criticism itself.
Uhm ... last I checked, you needed a home to have cable tv, and if you have a home, you are not homeless ... or did I miss some crucial part of my education?
Your snide attitude does a disservice to your argument. Sure, you need a home to have cable tv, but I also mentioned "drug addicts" who can and do live in homes. Did you not consider that I could have been referring to them? I also notice that you chose not to pick on the beer and cigarettes aspect of my argument.
But - it's nice to know, that if your house is ruined in a disaster, the insurance company goes bankrupt and can't help you, your company goes bankrupt and you're out of work and a home, that you don't want help from the government, because it's your own fault.
Strawman.
Or what if your daughter/son gets addicted to heroin and loses his/her home - do you want to kick them out into the streets everytime they come to the hospital for help? Because it's obviously their own fault, and yours because you didn't teach them not to do drugs.
This is a different argument. Do you honestly think that I would abandon my own child? I *totally* think that parents should take responsiblity for their children. How on earth did you take my belief that the government should not be in the business of social programs and assume that I must, therefore, not want to take care of my children?
It's called a society - "a system in which people live together in organized communities", not Loundrys-System - "a system in which people don't give a shit about others".
In case you haven't noticed, I am a part of this thing called society, and so are millions of others who share many of my opinions. I notice that your definition of society neither states nor implies that government should be involved in health care or social programs, yet you treat it like it's a given. Furthermore, how did you come to the conclusion that I don't "give a shit about others"?
You may have problems too, but I'm sure your problems aren't of the calibre of many of the people who have become addicted to hard drugs. Have you ever been chronically, severely depressed?
You are so sure that my problems "aren't of the calibre" of other peoples' problems. Tell me, how could you know that, given that you have never even met me?
And to answer your question, yes, I have been severely depressed. I have been on nine different medications. I have been through seven different doctors. I have cut myself with a knife. I suffered from obsessive-compulsive disorder and borderline personality disorder. My life was living hell for most of my childhood and got really shitty when I realized that I was gay. Too bad for me that happend at a time when I was the youth pastor and music director at a church at a small, southern town.
Through therapy I have resolved many of my issues and I will probably be on antidepressants for the rest of my life. But at least I am free of the demons that have tortured me for much of my life, and that is a wonderful feeling.
Now tell me, are you still going to try to trivialize my struggles? I think it sucks that I had to drag all of that out to make a point that you are being assuming and insensitive.
I can appreciate how someone might feel as you do (but I don't share your beliefs). However, you make it clear that you cannot understand how someone might believe in the social welfare of the entire country, instead of the welfare of the self.
Yes I can understand, but I think you are wrong. I do not believe that it is government's job to take money from one class of persons and give it to another. These are vote-buying schemes. And now, given that I had to share pieces of my history with you, you cannot claim that I'm just a rich snob who doesn't have any "real" problems.
Well, several years ago I was (because of a chemical imbalance completely out of my control), and let me tell you that it is absolute hell.
Two things: I am first of all very sorry you had to go through that. I know first hand how horrible it feels, and no one deserves to feel that way. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy, and I have openly stated (at my lowest times), "I'd rather have cancer." No doubt you've felt the same way. Second, the "chemical imbalance" diagnosis is one of many possible diagnoses. It's how medical doctors treat depression. You may be surprised to know that cognitive therapists, existential therapists, and psychotherapists all have different treatments for what medical therapists call "chemical imbalances," and many times they are more effective.
If my spouse leaves me, I become depressed, eat more, gain weight, and suffer a heart attack as a result, then we can conclude that it was my fault that I suffered a heart attack just as we can conclude that it is a heroin addict's fault that s/he is addicted to heroin.
How on earth does that give the government the right to take my money to give to those people? I didn't make anyone eat too much and get fat, nor did I make anyone start using heroin.
And if you're wondering where I got the money for my treatment, I'll tell you: my mom did it for me. At this point you'll probably make the argument about "some people don't have rich parents" or something like that. First, my mom is not rich. Second, people should not have children that they cannot afford to raise.
But your opinions . . . are just that, opinions.
Social programs are, in fact, vote-buying and income-redistribution schemes. And they have failed in their stated goals. Medicare? Going bankrupt. Medicaid? Going bankrupt. Social Security? Going bankrupt. Can you name one social program (in the US) that has succeeded in its goals?
You're speaking from an American point of view; for some reason, many Americans cannot understand _why_ Canadians want to pay tax for a healthcare program that helps people like heroin addicts and homeless people.
Frankly, I can't believe you can't understand many Americans' point of view as to why government social programs are so abhorrent.
Personally, I don't think people move out onto the streets and become addicted to heroin because it's fun, or because there's nothing better to do. Usually, these people have more serious problems than a mere heroin addiction.
Their choice to start using herion was their choice, not mine. And their herion addiction is their addiction, not mine. Why should I be forced to pay for someone elses choices or addictions?
I'd like to think that if I was having such serious problems that I turned to hard drugs to alleviate the psychological pain of what was going on that someone would be available to help me break free when I was ready to do so.
And who will pay for that help? You would think that you should take care of your own problems, so you would pay for it. But somehow you seem content with the idea of government taking money from those people who are NOT wasting thier lives on drugs, who are trying to earn a living, who are working to support thier families, and who generally owe nothing to drug addicts they don't even know.
People make mistakes; life is about learning. I will make mistakes in my lifetime, and I'd appreciate it if people were there to help me. I'd like to be able to do the same for others. A heroin addict is not a depraved lunatic; s/he is merely a person that has made some wrong choices, and needs help.
And I would appreciate it if someone was there to give me free food whenever I got hungry. After all, no one should go hungry, right?
It's the heroin addict who made the choice to become a heroin addict, and s/he should have to pay for making that choice. This is the very definition of responsibility. I guess in your mind you think the government should force me to pay for things I don't want to pay for and pick up the slack for people who feel like the best solution to their problems is through heroin.
You might prefer to have your fancy cars, but I'm quite content aiming away at something so commercially shallow and helping my fellow man, thank you very much.
How insulting! The implication here is that the only thing I have to spend my money on is "fancy cars" and that I'm not concerned enough about my "fellow man" because of my own greed. My car is ten years old and I plan to drive it to its grave. I am a homeowner. I pay my bills. I raise my family. I save money for my retirement. And, believe it or not, I have problems too. But at least I am responsible enough to take care of my own life. And perhaps if the government wasn't taking my money and feeding it into its many failed, backward, ineffecient, vote-buying, income redistribution schemes then I would have more money to give to charities. As is, government takes my money to give to drug addicts and homeless people who can afford beer, cigarettes, and cable tv.
I wish someone would post more of Microsoft's internal memos. I find them very interesting and revealing of Microsoft's culture.
But I agree with you about ZDNet.
5) Theo has a right to be elitist...he's earned it.
He has no such right. No one has the "right" to be an asshole. And yes, being elitist is being an asshole. Theo may be able to speak with authority on the subject of programming because of his intelligence and his experience, but that does not give him the right to be condescending or rude.
I think I'll have a little fun and bite back.
You god damn Linux zealots make me SICK.
I guess turnabout is fair play, since you Microsoft people have been making us sick for years.
I work for Microsoft as a developer, and I really resent the fact that I and my coworkers are being called thieves.
Perhaps because there is a grain of truth in it, and that truth hurts.
We work hard on developing quality, innovative products here at Microsoft,
Now it's my turn to be offended. Microsoft has a reputation of developing low-quality, copycat programs. Microsoft has been the number one contributer to the public's notion that computers are unreliable and crash frequently. Microsoft has a reputation of buying companies rather than developing software in-house. What you are describing seems to be the exception, not the rule. Furthermore, Microsoft has gone through great efforts to eliminate open protocols and standards and supplant them with their own. It is specifically for this reason that I hate Microsoft.
and sorry but the odd time I have looked at Linux source code to get a better idea of how to come up with innovation solutions in Windows 2000 does *not* make me a thief!!
If Linux were for sale Microsoft would probably have bought it already. That would make Microsoft less of a thief, n'est-ce pas?
I wish you pimply-faced teenagers would take your 1960's-era piece of crap toy shareware so-called Operating System and shove it!
God, where to start!
Just stop sullying the reputation of my fine employer.
Your employer has a well-earned reputation. Gone are the days where no one dared criticize Microsoft. Perhaps you just don't like hearing the truth.
We are having enough problems without you faggots making things worse.
Speaking as a gay man and not as a "Linux zealot," your problems are caused by your company's poor management and evil culture -- not by me and my faggot brethren. And since your argument is so pathetic, I don't really mind being your scapegoat.
Can it detect the difference between art and pornography?
I do not use Win2K at all -- I use Linux at work and BeOS at home. But my coworker uses Win2K and he experiences the loss of the mouse and the freezing of the computer on a daily basis.
It seems that for every anecdotal story about Windows being stable there is another about it being unstable, and vice versa. What can we conclude from this?
Win2K is really no different from any other Windows: on some circumstances it is inexplicably stable, and on others it is inexplicably unstable. From this, I conclude that Windows is unreliable.
I think you got a few things wrong:
America restricts the rights to see nudity and drink alchol from all minors.
And all majors as well, to a degree. Can you see people having sex at 3:00 PM on any public station anywhere in the USA? Can you buy beer on Sunday in Georgia?
Once you're of age, have at it! Download
porn off the internet, get those smutty DVDs, watch Pay-Per-View sex show.
Except that lawmakers have traditionally tried to heavily regulate that as well. There are still laws on the books regulating how, with whom, and with what devices you are allowed to have sex.
The official reason that TV and radio is censored is that children can view it without restriction.
But the real reason that TV and radio is censored is because people want to use the law as a club to beat up the things that they think are immoral.
So while I agree with the spirit of your post, I feel like some of the details are not quite correct. America is still very backward when it comes to sex. Spend a few weeks (or hell, even a few days) in Amsterdam and you'll see what I mean.
Your post is the obligitory "Once again people are bashing Microsoft on Slashdot."
Honestly, what did you expect? This is a largely pro-Linux site, most Linux advocates are anti-Microsoft, and Bill Gates himself has mused that Linux is "Microsoft's largest competitor."
Slashdot is an opinion site and never claimed to not be biased.
Besides, perhaps you should click back in older news and see how many frequently an X-box story appears on Slashdot. It seems to me that every time a rumor comes out about the non-existent X-box product the story is immediately posted to Slashdot. Does that sound like Microsoft bashing to you?
It was so rife with factual errors about Solaris that I had to recommend against reading the book.
For instance...?
Not that I doubt you. I'm just curious.
Maybe it can be duplicated at near-zero cost, but the cost of the initial creation isn't anywhere near zero.
You still failed to answer the question. How much should it cost?
Maybe one day you'll get a job that shows you just how much effort it takes to build a real software project. Maybe not, though: I doubt you're bright enough.
So instead of attacking my argument, you decide to attack me. This is called argumentum ad hominem and it means that your argument is too weak to stand on its own.
Maybe next time you will pay for your software.
What an idiotic thing to write. The poster could very well have been a student or faculty member who had nothing to do with the purchase ... er, "licensing" of software.
But while we're on the subject, perhaps you'd like to share with me what you think a good price would be for a product that can be duplicated infinitely and perfectly at near-zero cost.
People who generalize like you just did are a sad, sad bunch...
First, this is an ad hominem. Second, every human being on the planet makes generalizations. It is human nature to do so.
But perhaps you were merely objecting to the kind of generalization I was making. You did, after all, write, "...like you just did...." Would you share with me what kinds of generalizations are acceptable to you?
Believe it or not, we're all geeks who love technology.
Do you remember this lie: "Windows NT Server and Windows NT Workstation are completely different operating systems."
In other words, I don't believe it. The Microsoft employees I've talked to in the past have not shown me that they are "geeks who love technology." They have been much more like arrogant, elitist people who think that Microsoft is the end-all, be-all of computing, internetworking, and technology.
I'm not trying to say that's what you are. I'm trying to say that's the impression I have of Microsoft employees and Microsoft's culture.
Or perhaps just an anti-Gore rant. Just in case you are pro-Bush (and you weren't merely being sarcastic), let me challenge you on one issue:
I think thay we should be leading the way in the war on drugs.
And how, exactly, is the government going to "lead the way" in the war on drugs? The same way it's been "leading the way" in the drug war for the past few decades (and still failing miserably)? The same way it was "leading the way" in prohibition (which everyone agrees was a miserable failure)?
Tell me, at what point will we have decided that we've "won" the war on drugs? And how is alcohol prohibition different from marijuana prohibition (or any other drug prohibition)? Also, do you think that Bush would be a better candidate if he had spent ten years in prison for his "youthful indescretions"?