Notice I said returned to a republic AND focused on limiting government. I really should have cleared up the fact that I meant republic as it meant to America itself. We've shifted towards a more "pure" democratic system--i.e. if the people are OK with it, then it's fair play. The problem ultimately is disregarding the constitution, and I missed the constitutional part in my post, but I figured it was implied.
Many, many people today live with the notion that if most people think a law is ok, then it should pass. There was a really cool story I read about a congressman that voted for a federal law to allocate treasury to relief efforts for a hurricane. Everyone, including most people, thought it was a good idea, but one congressman who voted for it had the displeasure of meeting up with a fellow by the name of Horatio Bunce. Bunce refused openly to vote for him because he knew that federal "relief" spending is unconstitutional. He convinced the politician exactly why the bill was dead wrong, and the politician never supported such a bill again.
Today, most people are "cool" with federal relief packages, even though they're utterly unconstitutional.
The real problem I guess isn't whether we think we're a republic or a democracy so much as whether we abide by the rules and limitations we've put on our government. A republic, as the founders thought of it, seems to guard against it better, because the people's feelings cannot "trump" unconstitutionality as easily as it seems with democracy.
I may not have a point at all. I dunno, you be the judge.
Now you've done it...you've made me question my beliefs:)
See, there are homosexuals that convert to Christianity (probably Islam as well) and are "cured." I wonder if their INAH3 grows when this happens. It doesn't seem to make any sense without God existing?
I don't see how Lordosis implies trying to mate with other males--I mean, it's the same movement, right? Or is it...to put it nicely...a back condition caused by being "on the bottom?"
I have known heterosexual men that seem to exude a more femenine attitude. Perhaps they have similar physical traits.
I have heard of such studies. However, there is no proof that this is a trait that they are born with.
Furthermore, is the same section smaller with pedophiles? Necrophiles? Is the section always smaller? Psycological conditions often have very real physical effects, as well. Such studies are utterly inconclusive.
To be fair, San Antonio isn't as militantly conservative as Austin is militantly liberal.
San Antonio is also mostly hispanic and Catholic, which tends to be a liberal voting block. The only reason they voted for Bush was because he tried speaking Spanish to them (it sounded horrible).
If American people started caring about real issues, instead of falling prey to outrageous ad campaigns, then perhaps this wouldn't be as much of an issue. Sadly, I see it getting worse before it gets better.
Democracy is a horrible form of government--it's two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. If we returned to a Republic, and focused on limiting the powers of the government instead of a consistent regime of overtaxation, then I don't think this would be as much of a problem.
He's very different from the other Republicans, though. After 9/11, he was one of the first to voice concerns about civil liberties (this is from Sept. 17th, 2001):
We are placing tremendous trust in our president to pursue our enemies as our commander-in-chief but Congress must remain vigilant as to not allow our civil liberties here at home to be eroded. The temptation will be great to sacrifice our freedoms for what may seem to be more security. We must resist this temptation.
Even the most rabid Democrat should stop and thank this guy for speaking up for our rights, even when party line has spoken otherwise.
If you don't like SCO stories, go into preferences and turn off all stories related to SCO/Caldera.
Doesn't change the fact that the stories get published (what you seem to have a problem with; I somewhat agree), but it might help keep you from losing your mind.
No offense, but do you know what aptitude and CNR are? You don't need to go to the sourceforge page to find the package. You find a web browser by clicking on "Internet" -> "Web Browsers." Then you pick the one you like the best, and one click will install it all for you and satisfy the dependencies. Ideally, you'd already have a web browser, and if you're talking about a distro for grandma, then you probably want to eliminate all the choices and leave the best one. If your grandma distro uses Gnome, then you probably want "Epiphany" as the web browser.
The people who get on TV or pulpit and say that gays should stop being gay to save their souls are much more offensive to me than a statement in a very old book.
Christians don't believe that homosexuals could save their souls by ceasing to be gay. There's only one way to save one's soul, according to the Bible--you must accept Christ as your savior.
Basically, that's the most important point. Simply calling something evil does not make it so, regardless how many people believe it is or is not.
Christians don't think so. Christians think that by God calling it evil, it is so. If you suppose for a second that a God exists, then it would make sense that the same entity that creates humanity can also create the laws by which humanity should abide by. He doesn't even force you to follow them, either.
Most people who are gay don't CHOOSE to be, they were born that way (that's arguable I think, but it's how I feel).
I don't think they make an active choice, but I definately think that they aren't born homosexual. There are many homosexuals that convert to Christianity. Upon doing so, at the very least some of them cease to be homosexuals. If homosexuality is a genetic trait, then there needs to be some sort of omnipotent entity capable of changing the DNA of a live creature. As an atheist, I do not believe this.
Religious conversion often corrects numerous psycological disorders. No one will argue that pedophilia, for example, is such a disorder. Hence, I hold the belief that homosexuality is an aquired psychological condition. Furthermore, the idea of there existing some gene that determines if the carrier will go on to sexually lust for the same sex seems as unlikely as there being a gene that deactivates one's reproductive system--i.e. evolution would never let such genes survive to reproduce, for obvious reasons.
That means their only choices are: Live in "sin," be alone and unhappy,
That's pretty much what Christians think of me, as well.
What if the Bible said that those with diabetes were sinful?
Oddly enough, type 2 diabetes is entirely avoidable, and even curable with a proper diet.
They can't just say "okay, I decide I don't want Diabetes, so I can get to heaven." It would be nice, but it doesn't work that way.
No, it does not. There's only one way to get to heaven, according to Christians, and it isn't cessation of sin.
It is a Bad Thing, IMO, to call someone a sinner over something they have little control (as I see it).
Again, the assumption that the Bible is untrue. Furthermore, without Christ, Christians assert that homosexuals would be sinners in need of forgiveness even if they weren't homosexuals.
If you're going to bash something, it would be prudent to understand what you're bashing. Homosexuality isn't something that Christians view as a sin "just 'cause." It is something that God tells them is as sin. Furthermore, the idea that homosexuality is the only sin that homosexuals partake in is wrong. You may not think that you said that, but you did say "gays should stop being gay to save their souls" with reference to "Christian gay bashers."
The idea that homosexuality is a gene is about as absurd as the idea that pedophilia is a gene. Sexuality is something that is defined mostly by our upbringing, even for heterosexuals. Notice how larger women used to be considered more attractive, and now "big butts" are making a comeback. In parts of Africa, the largest women are considered the most attractive, because size indicates wealth.
I'm not saying homosexuality is Wrong, either. I just think it's a psycological condition. Do you really think that "they gay gene" would survive to give it's traits to it's offspring? Do you really think that who we are attracted to is in our genes at all? I mean, think about it. Who we think is attractive is so clearly defined by our upbringing that I cannot even concieve that we're born with dormant genes that activate at puberty that control our sexual attraction.
You misunderstand him. Think of Lindows' Click-n-run program, or synaptic (althuogh it is a bit less user friendly).
Package management is a superior architecture for software installation and uninstallation than Windows. With well-designed graphical frontends, installation can be easier than Windows. In Windows, you have to go out and find the software. With GUI frontends, grandma can browse through the software available without having to go find it.
Grandma can't install software in all Linux distributions, but she has an easier time in Lindows than she would in Windows. Not saying Lindows is cool, or that I like their distribution (I don't), but CNR beats MSI any day of the week.
There is nothing wrong with package management. You completely misunderstood his post. He isn't saying that in UserLinux, you'll have to enter the terminal, type 'su,' then apt-get foo.
Synaptic is cool, but I think it would need work to be used by "grandma."
What would rock is if it displayed the "long" package name (i.e. "GIMP Graphical Image Manipulation Program" instead of "gimp"). The ui is great for power users, but for a really good new user experience, it's a bit much. Ideally, libraries wouldn't even be listed (or at least in their own category), only the applications. And dependency information should be hidden completely. You should have a repository tree on the left, and descriptions on the right. Perhaps a screenshot for each app would be cool too.
Of course, I'm not saying synaptic needs to change, just that an "easy for beginners" distro would have different needs for the apt frontend.
I think the grandparent is just yanking your chain. Apt+frontend such as CNR and synaptic makes software installation easier than Windows and OS X if done right; it takes away the step of having to go find software.
The most 'offensive" anti-gay rally I saw was television clips from an aids rally. There were signs saying "God hates fags," and "AIDS: You Asked For It." Even these guys aren't saying gays should have their right to life taken away by men. Furthermore, there really aren't that many people out there that think homosexuals should be killed. And I live in Texas.
I'm not going to lie and say it's the majority, but I'd be willing to put every dollar I own down on the bet that of the gay-bashers, a large majority of them are Christian and of them, most are anti-gay simply because the church tells them it's wrong, so they assume with all fervor that the church is right.
The Church does not save Christians, Jesus does. If you assume for a moment that God exists and that homosexuality is a perversion and a sin, then obviously Christians are going to think that homosexuals are living sinful lives. However, they also contend that everyone else is, and it's only through the forgivenenss of Christ that we can be given a new "start."
Please note, this isn't a post against christianity in general, just Christian gay-bashers.
I think you're attacking Christianity in general. Just like people who attack abortion clinic bombers. The idea that homosexuals should be denied fundamental human rights is not a commonly accepted one; the idea that homosexuality is sin is. The idea that bashers who believe that gays should be "round up and shot" who profess to be Christian are a large enough population that they need to be publicly addressed and shown to be wrong indicates some sort of fear that their ideas are somehow accepted.
Hence, I'm forced to conclude that while you may not admit it, it's Christianity's assertian that homosexuality is evil that you really don't like.
This reaks of bias. I don't want to put words in your mouth (as you did to me) but the essence of this statement is that "homosexuality is evil, but not the most evil." Who the heck are you to say that it is evil? Because a book written by illiterate nomads, thousands of years ago, said it's bad.
Christians argue that they aren't anyone to say homosexuality is evil. Read that sentence again, and realize that it stems from the fundamental assumption that God does not exist, and that the Bible is not the word of God.
I've learned from my years of being an atheist never to go up against God. You can say all you want; what He says holds a lot more water.
Christians don't believe that it is morally correct to limit the rights of homosexuals. However, they don't recognize homosexual marriages because they believe that God doesn't recognize them.
The only reason not it matters if they can get married or not is because we give tax breaks to married couples. If we made government marriage-agnostic, then it wouldn't be seen as a rights issue at all, because common law marriages wouldn't exist.
You ruined it! Now no one will post anything to that effect.
Of course, if you waited until the comments rolled in, and told people you predicted it all along, then no one would take you seriously. Catch 22, I suppose.
A good StarCraft player can defend a rush. I used to defend 4 pool rushes (the fastest rush you can do), and I wasn't even that great.
A good SC game ideally lasts about 15-20 minutes.
Re:More "IP" landgrabbing...
on
Who Owns The Facts?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
That's not true. Damages could be "levied" to someone trying to use information stored in a corporate database. The idea that they "own" the data is false, but they do own the database; hence, you can't use information illegaly gathered from their database. If you aquire the data elsewhere and by legal means, you are perfectly within your rights to use it as you wish. If the corp. actually owned the data, then you could not use data that exist in a corp. database but is aquired elsewhere.
I personally don't really think that the Illuminati exist. There are people who are seeking a New World Order, but I haven't seen evidence concluding that they are in any way powerful enough to make such a change. I believe, as most do, that corruption in Washington certainly exists, and that legislation such as the Patriot act is designed to infringe on civil liberties.
I have often heard this criticism of Tolkien's work. The "long-winded" style seems to put a lot of people off, but it definately gives other readers a greater depth of immersion. Reading LOTR can be a month-long total immersion into a world that frankly is a whole lot cooler than ours, if you like that sort of thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Many, many people today live with the notion that if most people think a law is ok, then it should pass. There was a really cool story I read about a congressman that voted for a federal law to allocate treasury to relief efforts for a hurricane. Everyone, including most people, thought it was a good idea, but one congressman who voted for it had the displeasure of meeting up with a fellow by the name of Horatio Bunce. Bunce refused openly to vote for him because he knew that federal "relief" spending is unconstitutional. He convinced the politician exactly why the bill was dead wrong, and the politician never supported such a bill again.
Today, most people are "cool" with federal relief packages, even though they're utterly unconstitutional.
The real problem I guess isn't whether we think we're a republic or a democracy so much as whether we abide by the rules and limitations we've put on our government. A republic, as the founders thought of it, seems to guard against it better, because the people's feelings cannot "trump" unconstitutionality as easily as it seems with democracy.
I may not have a point at all. I dunno, you be the judge.
See, there are homosexuals that convert to Christianity (probably Islam as well) and are "cured." I wonder if their INAH3 grows when this happens. It doesn't seem to make any sense without God existing?
I don't see how Lordosis implies trying to mate with other males--I mean, it's the same movement, right? Or is it...to put it nicely...a back condition caused by being "on the bottom?"
I have known heterosexual men that seem to exude a more femenine attitude. Perhaps they have similar physical traits.
This is begging more questions than I began with.
Furthermore, is the same section smaller with pedophiles? Necrophiles? Is the section always smaller? Psycological conditions often have very real physical effects, as well. Such studies are utterly inconclusive.
San Antonio is also mostly hispanic and Catholic, which tends to be a liberal voting block. The only reason they voted for Bush was because he tried speaking Spanish to them (it sounded horrible).
If American people started caring about real issues, instead of falling prey to outrageous ad campaigns, then perhaps this wouldn't be as much of an issue. Sadly, I see it getting worse before it gets better.
Democracy is a horrible form of government--it's two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. If we returned to a Republic, and focused on limiting the powers of the government instead of a consistent regime of overtaxation, then I don't think this would be as much of a problem.
Furthermore, I live in Austin, and am very happy with my Republican representative in Washington.
He's very different from the other Republicans, though. After 9/11, he was one of the first to voice concerns about civil liberties (this is from Sept. 17th, 2001):
We are placing tremendous trust in our president to pursue our enemies as our commander-in-chief but Congress must remain vigilant as to not allow our civil liberties here at home to be eroded. The temptation will be great to sacrifice our freedoms for what may seem to be more security. We must resist this temptation.
Even the most rabid Democrat should stop and thank this guy for speaking up for our rights, even when party line has spoken otherwise.
6) The GPL is responsible for "Who Let the Dogs Out."
Pity he wouldn't get any karma for it.
Doesn't change the fact that the stories get published (what you seem to have a problem with; I somewhat agree), but it might help keep you from losing your mind.
Those problems don't come up often enough to warrant ditching package management for an inherently inferior system.
No offense, but do you know what aptitude and CNR are? You don't need to go to the sourceforge page to find the package. You find a web browser by clicking on "Internet" -> "Web Browsers." Then you pick the one you like the best, and one click will install it all for you and satisfy the dependencies. Ideally, you'd already have a web browser, and if you're talking about a distro for grandma, then you probably want to eliminate all the choices and leave the best one. If your grandma distro uses Gnome, then you probably want "Epiphany" as the web browser.
Christians don't believe that homosexuals could save their souls by ceasing to be gay. There's only one way to save one's soul, according to the Bible--you must accept Christ as your savior.
Basically, that's the most important point. Simply calling something evil does not make it so, regardless how many people believe it is or is not.
Christians don't think so. Christians think that by God calling it evil, it is so. If you suppose for a second that a God exists, then it would make sense that the same entity that creates humanity can also create the laws by which humanity should abide by. He doesn't even force you to follow them, either.
Most people who are gay don't CHOOSE to be, they were born that way (that's arguable I think, but it's how I feel).
I don't think they make an active choice, but I definately think that they aren't born homosexual. There are many homosexuals that convert to Christianity. Upon doing so, at the very least some of them cease to be homosexuals. If homosexuality is a genetic trait, then there needs to be some sort of omnipotent entity capable of changing the DNA of a live creature. As an atheist, I do not believe this.
Religious conversion often corrects numerous psycological disorders. No one will argue that pedophilia, for example, is such a disorder. Hence, I hold the belief that homosexuality is an aquired psychological condition. Furthermore, the idea of there existing some gene that determines if the carrier will go on to sexually lust for the same sex seems as unlikely as there being a gene that deactivates one's reproductive system--i.e. evolution would never let such genes survive to reproduce, for obvious reasons.
That means their only choices are: Live in "sin," be alone and unhappy,
That's pretty much what Christians think of me, as well.
What if the Bible said that those with diabetes were sinful?
Oddly enough, type 2 diabetes is entirely avoidable, and even curable with a proper diet.
They can't just say "okay, I decide I don't want Diabetes, so I can get to heaven." It would be nice, but it doesn't work that way.
No, it does not. There's only one way to get to heaven, according to Christians, and it isn't cessation of sin.
It is a Bad Thing, IMO, to call someone a sinner over something they have little control (as I see it).
Again, the assumption that the Bible is untrue. Furthermore, without Christ, Christians assert that homosexuals would be sinners in need of forgiveness even if they weren't homosexuals.
If you're going to bash something, it would be prudent to understand what you're bashing. Homosexuality isn't something that Christians view as a sin "just 'cause." It is something that God tells them is as sin. Furthermore, the idea that homosexuality is the only sin that homosexuals partake in is wrong. You may not think that you said that, but you did say "gays should stop being gay to save their souls" with reference to "Christian gay bashers."
The idea that homosexuality is a gene is about as absurd as the idea that pedophilia is a gene. Sexuality is something that is defined mostly by our upbringing, even for heterosexuals. Notice how larger women used to be considered more attractive, and now "big butts" are making a comeback. In parts of Africa, the largest women are considered the most attractive, because size indicates wealth.
I'm not saying homosexuality is Wrong, either. I just think it's a psycological condition. Do you really think that "they gay gene" would survive to give it's traits to it's offspring? Do you really think that who we are attracted to is in our genes at all? I mean, think about it. Who we think is attractive is so clearly defined by our upbringing that I cannot even concieve that we're born with dormant genes that activate at puberty that control our sexual attraction.
Package management is a superior architecture for software installation and uninstallation than Windows. With well-designed graphical frontends, installation can be easier than Windows. In Windows, you have to go out and find the software. With GUI frontends, grandma can browse through the software available without having to go find it.
Grandma can't install software in all Linux distributions, but she has an easier time in Lindows than she would in Windows. Not saying Lindows is cool, or that I like their distribution (I don't), but CNR beats MSI any day of the week.
There is nothing wrong with package management. You completely misunderstood his post. He isn't saying that in UserLinux, you'll have to enter the terminal, type 'su,' then apt-get foo.
What would rock is if it displayed the "long" package name (i.e. "GIMP Graphical Image Manipulation Program" instead of "gimp"). The ui is great for power users, but for a really good new user experience, it's a bit much. Ideally, libraries wouldn't even be listed (or at least in their own category), only the applications. And dependency information should be hidden completely. You should have a repository tree on the left, and descriptions on the right. Perhaps a screenshot for each app would be cool too.
Of course, I'm not saying synaptic needs to change, just that an "easy for beginners" distro would have different needs for the apt frontend.
I think the grandparent is just yanking your chain. Apt+frontend such as CNR and synaptic makes software installation easier than Windows and OS X if done right; it takes away the step of having to go find software.
OSS suffers from too many developers scratching the same itch. Pfffftt.
The most 'offensive" anti-gay rally I saw was television clips from an aids rally. There were signs saying "God hates fags," and "AIDS: You Asked For It." Even these guys aren't saying gays should have their right to life taken away by men. Furthermore, there really aren't that many people out there that think homosexuals should be killed. And I live in Texas.
I'm not going to lie and say it's the majority, but I'd be willing to put every dollar I own down on the bet that of the gay-bashers, a large majority of them are Christian and of them, most are anti-gay simply because the church tells them it's wrong, so they assume with all fervor that the church is right.
The Church does not save Christians, Jesus does. If you assume for a moment that God exists and that homosexuality is a perversion and a sin, then obviously Christians are going to think that homosexuals are living sinful lives. However, they also contend that everyone else is, and it's only through the forgivenenss of Christ that we can be given a new "start."
Please note, this isn't a post against christianity in general, just Christian gay-bashers.
I think you're attacking Christianity in general. Just like people who attack abortion clinic bombers. The idea that homosexuals should be denied fundamental human rights is not a commonly accepted one; the idea that homosexuality is sin is. The idea that bashers who believe that gays should be "round up and shot" who profess to be Christian are a large enough population that they need to be publicly addressed and shown to be wrong indicates some sort of fear that their ideas are somehow accepted.
Hence, I'm forced to conclude that while you may not admit it, it's Christianity's assertian that homosexuality is evil that you really don't like.
Christians argue that they aren't anyone to say homosexuality is evil. Read that sentence again, and realize that it stems from the fundamental assumption that God does not exist, and that the Bible is not the word of God.
I've learned from my years of being an atheist never to go up against God. You can say all you want; what He says holds a lot more water.
The only reason not it matters if they can get married or not is because we give tax breaks to married couples. If we made government marriage-agnostic, then it wouldn't be seen as a rights issue at all, because common law marriages wouldn't exist.
Of course, if you waited until the comments rolled in, and told people you predicted it all along, then no one would take you seriously. Catch 22, I suppose.
A good SC game ideally lasts about 15-20 minutes.
That's not true. Damages could be "levied" to someone trying to use information stored in a corporate database. The idea that they "own" the data is false, but they do own the database; hence, you can't use information illegaly gathered from their database. If you aquire the data elsewhere and by legal means, you are perfectly within your rights to use it as you wish. If the corp. actually owned the data, then you could not use data that exist in a corp. database but is aquired elsewhere.
I personally don't really think that the Illuminati exist. There are people who are seeking a New World Order, but I haven't seen evidence concluding that they are in any way powerful enough to make such a change. I believe, as most do, that corruption in Washington certainly exists, and that legislation such as the Patriot act is designed to infringe on civil liberties.
My record is 5 days. Wow is all I can say here. Well, wow and, did you read all the songs too?
1) Nobody thinks it's real
2) You don't have to read about lineages to like LoTR (I couldn't stand a page of that stuff to be honest).
Yes, but before the birthday itself, Bilbo is still 110. Hence the "+" after 110.
But if you don't like it, no big deal.