Linus IS, in fact, occupying a very small percentage of total OS installs. This has nothing to do with "fanboi"ism, its just a stated fact. As such, even if every Linux user lacking a sense of fun decided to synaptic/apt-get/etc... it wouldn't have too big an influence on the record count. Granted it might be disproportionate to the actual Linux install base, but still not a large number.
How about you huge percentage of non-Linux users go back to your nice little world of closed operating systems and closed source applications by pretending that we're not here then? Oh, and give us Firefox back, by the way..
Are Linux users the new hybrid owners? I use two closed source operating systems daily, AND Linux, and all of my apps are a nice mix of closed/open source (depending on how good they are). I like to evaluate the performance of all of my apps, using OSS as a secondary consideration, or tie breaker. Right now I have OpenOffice (almost as good as MS), Firefox, and Pidgen open, not because I think using them will save the world, but because they are good software, better than their closed competitors.
A lot of people here on/. use windows at work, and Linux at home, or visa versa. Many people here have more than one OS sitting on their various computers, this isn't black or white, closed or open. Look at how much of Gnome and KDE's modern developments owe to OS X, and Firefox wouldn't have been here if it wasn't for the closed source Netscape Navigator.
OSS main strength is that it COMPETES with the big guys, making them better, and the various OSS bits better. It also serves as a laboratory for good code to emerge, and ideas, which then get merged into both closed and open projects, making the full software ecosystem better/more rich. Just look at the things that Microsoft had to do because of Linux/Firefox, the new ideas are good for all.
I wouldn't want to live in a world where you had a choice between Firefox and Konqueror, and were limited to Gnome or KDE. The more players (open and closed) the better.
That really is an ugly ugly page, with massive numbers.
Back on topic, 8 million downloads in a day isn't something to sneeze at. I wonder how many individual people downloaded though. I grabbed 3 copies once the server stopped being wonky and serving me version 2 (or just not loading). And I wonder how many missed downloads there were because of aforementioned problems.
I do find it interesting, though, that about an hour in ALL of Mozilla was down, meaning no finding add-ons for you new shiny browser, especially annoying for people like me who decided to clear the cruft and decided to uninstall/reinstall (had detritus from 1.0 beta sitting around still)
If your using Ubuntu, it in the update programs bit. But for the bz2 file, Ark is the program that decompresses 'em. Think stuffit or winzip for Linux.
I finally got it to load, but it redirects to something bizarre...
The button says;
"Firefox 3 Free download 2.0.0.14 for windows English (US) (7.18Mb)" Anyone else notice something wrong with this?
I just grabbed it from the isohunt mirror, though mozilla's ftp servers still seem up, none of these count towards the record, though, sadly. And there is some confusion over whether these are RC3 or the Final.
Is there anyway to tell between RC3 and the Final, the about dialog for both just lists it as Firefox 3, with no other data.
At about 10:05 local (which also happens to be Pacific) I tried to grab it through spreadfirefox.com, or getfirefox.com, but both servers are completely hosed. I managed to grab it from Mozilla's FTP, but I'm not quite sure that this counts (both Mac and Vista, I'll put off the Linux version for a couple hours). Getfirefox.com just loaded, but still offers version 2.
They really should have been a bit more prepared for this. They asked the world to all hit there servers at roughly the same time, and this is what they get, a bunch of smoking servers. If only/. could take credit for this!
Even the Mozilla.org server is being wonky. They really should have put up an "official" torrent that they could track, or something more server freindly. I wonder how many people shooting for the record will get the first time-out and give up.
I suppose having notice posted at each entry is rather much.
But here in AZ much of the fenced land isn't private property, but public grazing land, where the ranchers have the right to put up fences, build gates/cattle guards, etc... But they still may not restrict public use of these lands. Sometimes its very hard to differenciate between public/private here, since over-zealous ranchers stick "no trespassing" signs on public lands.
To get to our claims we need to pass through about 10 cattle guards, and 3 gates, and we only pass through one bit of real private property which the rancher paved for private/public use.
In short, fences don't property make here.
I generally do the research, and ask the ranchers before hand, just to be safe, but I can see how some wouldn't.
Huh... you missed the phrase "but to be Devil's advocate". I'd recommend looking this up before trying to start an emotional flame-war. It means I'm endorsing opinions I don't necessarily agree with, to explore other sides of the issue.
No, what the world needs is a way to remove the "suicide = sin" meme from religions. If suicide was okay, there would be no more religion tomorrow, since heaven is better than here, so why wait?
The only people who stuck around would either be lying to themselves about their faith, or some kind of saint or bodhisattva.
I say let them come. Even with nukes. I'll take the chance.
Good, we've been looking for a few good men for our new defense plan; Operation Meat Shield.
I guess my patriotism doesn't go very deep, since I really enjoy living much more than I love my country, or any odd idealistic slogan saying, flag waving, sense of invincibility. What doesn't kill us, sometimes makes us wish it did.
don't really care who gets Nucs these days because MAD works
Mutually Assured Destruction depends on two things that are lacking in the current geopolitical world:
A) An enemy state, or territory to retaliate against B) Logic, and cost analysis
And for shits and giggles;
C) A blatant disreguard for collateral damage/human life
We would be fighting international terrorist groups, with no real home territory. Where, out of curiosity, is the home base for Al Quieda? The middle east in general, and bits and pieces of the rest of the Western world. Who are we going to destroy in retaliation? C comes to play in this too, since we're not dealing with nation states, so whatever target we pick, millions of innocents will die.
We're dealing with religiously motivated fanatics, so I doubt they care if we'll blow them up afterwards. These are the people who think suicide bombings are a good idea, by nature this isn't rational. If you're willing to die crashing a plane into a building, who says they aren't willing to die in other circumstances? I doubt they are scared of death, as much as the established nuclear powers are.
I'm not a big fan of bringing back the cold war, it left an emotional stain on every generation from 1945 until 1991. It was a REAL fear, and really affected peoples lives. Nuclear war, or bombings, is not an issue to take lightly. Even a smallish nuke would make 9/11 look like a college kegger.
To think that this is not a major issue, is to not understand much of all. I'm sorry for sounding trollish, but you don't understand the gravity of this much. I recommend reading survivor accounts of Hiroshima/Nagasaki, and talking to your Boomer grandparents about fallout shelters in the backyard, and ducking and covering.
I see what your getting at, but to be Devil's advocate; couldn't this been seen as a service, since person with the compromised address would then know that it was compromised?
Its no one else's job to raise your kids though. I'm all for.xxx if its completely optional, and up to the site owners discretion, which makes the whole thing pointless.
Your kid is going to find smut, even without the internet. When I was a kid I found some raunchy hardcore porn on the slide of the local church play ground. When we moved into a new house the attic had a big box full of nasty (scat, etc...) Swedish porn mags. Thank god BBS ASCII porn prepared me.
In the end you just have to talk to your kids, and watch them when they're online. Nothing anyone else can, or should, do to protect them more.
Snakeshot, its like really fine buckshot, meaning you can hit it, and kill without having to worry about it, or ricochets from rocks.
The stuff I buy is.22LR, in a snub revolver, every other round is.22LR hollow point, for the bigger nasties you might run into. Most of the time the boom is enough to scare off most things.
limiting of certain types of traffic or certain pages (like the alt.* section of usenet) is fine.. if the ISP is upfront about it. If they had a cheap plan that limited you like that, and an expensive plan that had no restrictions, I'd be fine with it.
I'd like to add something; they may do this IF I HAVE ANOTHER VIABLE CHOICE. If ISPs didn't operate as minor monopolies, I'd be fine with them doing whatever (if they are honest about it), as long as I can find another service who doesn't.
there's NO NEED for the average citizen to have a gun
I spend lots of times in the wilderness, looking for a valuable metal. There are lots of insane people up here who I don't trust, may I have a gun now? I'm not going to mention snakes, javelena, mountain lions, angry bulls, coyotes, and wild dogs, but sometimes a gun is comforting. May I have one now?
Yes, I have used it too, but I've never killed a damn thing with it, nor do I want to. Its just nice in case.
There is a story up where we prospect, where the sheriff of a near by town pulled out an gun and killed someone because they were too close to their gold claim (the victim was on his own, neighboring) claim. Up here there isn't conflict resolution because there are no roads, and the nearest law enforcement is about 4 hours away, IF you can get a cell signal.
You statement is too broad. There are needs to have guns.
The US is a VERY big place, with lots of wilderness. Having a gun is a nice thing out there, it might even be considered a necessity from time to time.
If you read the military specifications you'll see no mention of killing anything in connection with the design of the firearms itself.
Its a military spec, there really is no need to say "this is for killing shit" because, you know, its the military, thats their job it would be rather redundant. Unless the military is now only a target practice organization, of course.
Most people have guns to kill things, basic gun training even tells you "don't point it at someone, unless you intend to kill them", this is in classes, and in most of our childhoods, this exact phrase.
I'm not anti-gun, but lets not split hairs. You have a gun in your dresser to defend yourself by killing the assailant.
Trespassers will be SHOT, Survivors will be SHOT AGAIN.
Extreme much? Trespassers will be asked to remove themselves (depending on their number, and if they're causing damage), and if they resist shot (or have the authorities called). This is how things work in a SANE society.
If your land isn't posted at each entry, you really should be a decent human and operate under the assumption that they don't know that they are trespassing. And if is, you should be a decent person and ask nicely before killing people.
Generally killing people should be the last resort. If your not a sociopath.
I notice that in the link you provided, access rights DO NOT EXIST for "houses... and associated land" - a ranch would qualify under this definition, so access rights would not apply.
That depends. Most large ranches are based on public land with grazing rights, and not actual ownership. Sometimes ranchers confuse this issue, and claim all of the grazing land is their's, this is not true. But its generally best to head to the ranch house and discuss the issue first, its polite, and safe.
I don't mean to bash all of them, but a couple that I know have an unnatural fear of guns, hell I'm dating one. She grew up in an affluent family in SF, and until she moved to AZ, has never really seen a real gun, much less handled one.
The first time we went up north, I threw on my "snake, javelena, mountain lion, pissed off bull" gun (a 22 revolver with alternating snake snake shot), and she was scared shitless. I asked her if she wanted to shoot it, but she couldn't even touch it, so much was her dread. She didn't even want me to wear it, until I pointed to the paw prints the size of my fist.
You grossly overestimate coyotes. I doubt that a pack of them COULD take down a cow, much less would. You need to worry about the young, and the sick, just like nature intended it. Coyotes are about the size of an starving golden retriever. They like to feed on pets though.
If you're going to go to a rural area and be an ass expect to get cornholed. I like the comic but if it's readers are such stupid fucking morons as to trespass they can be hog feed for all I would care.
Most of the ranches in the west are on public lands, so even if it is posted there is no such thing as trespassing, since all the ranchers have is grazing rights. A couple of our gold claims out here are smack dab in the middle of ranches, and the rancher can't deny access. The only time it gets iffy is on privately maintained roads, then courtesy (and often personal safety) demands that you head up to the ranch house and ask permission.
As for cornholing... Erm... are you living in the 1800s, or in the Deliverance country? Most ranches are big businesses, with thousands of head, and tens of thousands of acres. These are run by huge companies, and the head rancher is usually financially well off, and educated. Most of the hands are either freindly half-drunk Mexicans, or friendly blue collar folk escaping from city life and complications.
The wild west isn't that wild anymore.
As for guns, expect them. Where we go, there are rather large predators running about, and tons and tons of poisonousness snakes. Also your 200 miles from nowhere, and there are some bad folk stomping around up there.
This is my experience in AZ, but I'm guessing it is largely the same everywhere in the west, possibly more so in civilized CA.
I'll wait for science to give me an answer, not anecdotal evidence or activism.
Just because a ton of gays don't want it to be a choice, doesn't mean it isn't. Just like if a ton of religious fundamentalist anti-gays wanting it to be a choice doesn't make it one.
I have a feeling the true answer lays somewhere between, since I happen to know a few ex-gays, and (I suppose oddly, by your reasoning) a ton of HAPPY gays, who would continue to choose to be so if it turned out to be a choice.
Truth has NOTHING to do with what you want, thats the moral of the story. I'll wait for science, and continue to ignore the idealistic rants from both sides.
Uh, you realize that it's not a choice, right? There are plenty of people out there who would love to stop being attracted to their own gender if they could help it.
Citation Needed.
I haven't seen any scientific study pointing either way definitively. And I refuse to listen to gay rights folk scream "its not a choice", and anti-gay-rights folk scream "it is a choice", since both of those fall into the realms of opinion and have no bearing on the truth value of the proposition.
Until we find a chemical/biological/genetic or social explanation, no one can really say that it is or not, regardless of what political/religious spin they want to yell at me.
That said, invariably they will find that there is a component of choice, since I know a few ex-homosexuals, meaning that some percentage of the gay community DOES have a choice. I also know tons and tons of bisexual folk, giving a little more credence to the choice option. There may or may not be a genetic component though.
I'm sick of wishful thinking being used as a valid determination of truth value.
If being gay turns out to be a choice, whats the big deal? Who cares? It doesn't make it any more right or wrong.
I don't think technical merits have much to do with Usenet dying. Most of us here remember the Internet before it became synonymous with HTTP, but most of the general population don't. Usenet isn't an advertised feature, and is slightly more complicated than the Web-only crowd can handle (zomg I need to picks my subscriptions!)
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I think the flamebait mod was deserved.
/. use windows at work, and Linux at home, or visa versa. Many people here have more than one OS sitting on their various computers, this isn't black or white, closed or open. Look at how much of Gnome and KDE's modern developments owe to OS X, and Firefox wouldn't have been here if it wasn't for the closed source Netscape Navigator.
Linus IS, in fact, occupying a very small percentage of total OS installs. This has nothing to do with "fanboi"ism, its just a stated fact. As such, even if every Linux user lacking a sense of fun decided to synaptic/apt-get/etc... it wouldn't have too big an influence on the record count. Granted it might be disproportionate to the actual Linux install base, but still not a large number.
How about you huge percentage of non-Linux users go back to your nice little world of closed operating systems and closed source applications by pretending that we're not here then? Oh, and give us Firefox back, by the way..
Are Linux users the new hybrid owners? I use two closed source operating systems daily, AND Linux, and all of my apps are a nice mix of closed/open source (depending on how good they are). I like to evaluate the performance of all of my apps, using OSS as a secondary consideration, or tie breaker. Right now I have OpenOffice (almost as good as MS), Firefox, and Pidgen open, not because I think using them will save the world, but because they are good software, better than their closed competitors.
A lot of people here on
OSS main strength is that it COMPETES with the big guys, making them better, and the various OSS bits better. It also serves as a laboratory for good code to emerge, and ideas, which then get merged into both closed and open projects, making the full software ecosystem better/more rich. Just look at the things that Microsoft had to do because of Linux/Firefox, the new ideas are good for all.
I wouldn't want to live in a world where you had a choice between Firefox and Konqueror, and were limited to Gnome or KDE. The more players (open and closed) the better.
That joke just flew straight over your head.
That really is an ugly ugly page, with massive numbers.
Back on topic, 8 million downloads in a day isn't something to sneeze at. I wonder how many individual people downloaded though. I grabbed 3 copies once the server stopped being wonky and serving me version 2 (or just not loading). And I wonder how many missed downloads there were because of aforementioned problems.
I do find it interesting, though, that about an hour in ALL of Mozilla was down, meaning no finding add-ons for you new shiny browser, especially annoying for people like me who decided to clear the cruft and decided to uninstall/reinstall (had detritus from 1.0 beta sitting around still)
If your using Ubuntu, it in the update programs bit. But for the bz2 file, Ark is the program that decompresses 'em. Think stuffit or winzip for Linux.
The button says; "Firefox 3
Free download
2.0.0.14 for windows
English (US) (7.18Mb)" Anyone else notice something wrong with this?
I just grabbed it from the isohunt mirror, though mozilla's ftp servers still seem up, none of these count towards the record, though, sadly. And there is some confusion over whether these are RC3 or the Final.
Is there anyway to tell between RC3 and the Final, the about dialog for both just lists it as Firefox 3, with no other data.
Also ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/3.0/
It worked for me, but don't know if it will count towards the record.
At about 10:05 local (which also happens to be Pacific) I tried to grab it through spreadfirefox.com, or getfirefox.com, but both servers are completely hosed. I managed to grab it from Mozilla's FTP, but I'm not quite sure that this counts (both Mac and Vista, I'll put off the Linux version for a couple hours). Getfirefox.com just loaded, but still offers version 2.
/. could take credit for this!
They really should have been a bit more prepared for this. They asked the world to all hit there servers at roughly the same time, and this is what they get, a bunch of smoking servers. If only
Even the Mozilla.org server is being wonky. They really should have put up an "official" torrent that they could track, or something more server freindly. I wonder how many people shooting for the record will get the first time-out and give up.
Off now for the fresh install.
As I've stated before, not all fences demarcate property, often they just keep cattle separated on public grazing land.
I suppose having notice posted at each entry is rather much.
But here in AZ much of the fenced land isn't private property, but public grazing land, where the ranchers have the right to put up fences, build gates/cattle guards, etc... But they still may not restrict public use of these lands. Sometimes its very hard to differenciate between public/private here, since over-zealous ranchers stick "no trespassing" signs on public lands.
To get to our claims we need to pass through about 10 cattle guards, and 3 gates, and we only pass through one bit of real private property which the rancher paved for private/public use.
In short, fences don't property make here.
I generally do the research, and ask the ranchers before hand, just to be safe, but I can see how some wouldn't.
Huh... you missed the phrase "but to be Devil's advocate". I'd recommend looking this up before trying to start an emotional flame-war. It means I'm endorsing opinions I don't necessarily agree with, to explore other sides of the issue.
No, what the world needs is a way to remove the "suicide = sin" meme from religions. If suicide was okay, there would be no more religion tomorrow, since heaven is better than here, so why wait?
The only people who stuck around would either be lying to themselves about their faith, or some kind of saint or bodhisattva.
I say let them come. Even with nukes. I'll take the chance.
Good, we've been looking for a few good men for our new defense plan; Operation Meat Shield.
I guess my patriotism doesn't go very deep, since I really enjoy living much more than I love my country, or any odd idealistic slogan saying, flag waving, sense of invincibility. What doesn't kill us, sometimes makes us wish it did.
don't really care who gets Nucs these days because MAD works
Mutually Assured Destruction depends on two things that are lacking in the current geopolitical world:
A) An enemy state, or territory to retaliate against
B) Logic, and cost analysis
And for shits and giggles;
C) A blatant disreguard for collateral damage/human life
We would be fighting international terrorist groups, with no real home territory. Where, out of curiosity, is the home base for Al Quieda? The middle east in general, and bits and pieces of the rest of the Western world. Who are we going to destroy in retaliation? C comes to play in this too, since we're not dealing with nation states, so whatever target we pick, millions of innocents will die.
We're dealing with religiously motivated fanatics, so I doubt they care if we'll blow them up afterwards. These are the people who think suicide bombings are a good idea, by nature this isn't rational. If you're willing to die crashing a plane into a building, who says they aren't willing to die in other circumstances? I doubt they are scared of death, as much as the established nuclear powers are.
I'm not a big fan of bringing back the cold war, it left an emotional stain on every generation from 1945 until 1991. It was a REAL fear, and really affected peoples lives. Nuclear war, or bombings, is not an issue to take lightly. Even a smallish nuke would make 9/11 look like a college kegger.
To think that this is not a major issue, is to not understand much of all. I'm sorry for sounding trollish, but you don't understand the gravity of this much. I recommend reading survivor accounts of Hiroshima/Nagasaki, and talking to your Boomer grandparents about fallout shelters in the backyard, and ducking and covering.
I see what your getting at, but to be Devil's advocate; couldn't this been seen as a service, since person with the compromised address would then know that it was compromised?
I suppose this isn't true in all cases... but...
Its no one else's job to raise your kids though. I'm all for .xxx if its completely optional, and up to the site owners discretion, which makes the whole thing pointless.
Your kid is going to find smut, even without the internet. When I was a kid I found some raunchy hardcore porn on the slide of the local church play ground. When we moved into a new house the attic had a big box full of nasty (scat, etc...) Swedish porn mags. Thank god BBS ASCII porn prepared me.
In the end you just have to talk to your kids, and watch them when they're online. Nothing anyone else can, or should, do to protect them more.
How would guns help you in that situation?
.22LR, in a snub revolver, every other round is .22LR hollow point, for the bigger nasties you might run into. Most of the time the boom is enough to scare off most things.
Snakeshot, its like really fine buckshot, meaning you can hit it, and kill without having to worry about it, or ricochets from rocks.
The stuff I buy is
limiting of certain types of traffic or certain pages (like the alt.* section of usenet) is fine.. if the ISP is upfront about it. If they had a cheap plan that limited you like that, and an expensive plan that had no restrictions, I'd be fine with it.
I'd like to add something; they may do this IF I HAVE ANOTHER VIABLE CHOICE. If ISPs didn't operate as minor monopolies, I'd be fine with them doing whatever (if they are honest about it), as long as I can find another service who doesn't.
there's NO NEED for the average citizen to have a gun
I spend lots of times in the wilderness, looking for a valuable metal. There are lots of insane people up here who I don't trust, may I have a gun now? I'm not going to mention snakes, javelena, mountain lions, angry bulls, coyotes, and wild dogs, but sometimes a gun is comforting. May I have one now?
Yes, I have used it too, but I've never killed a damn thing with it, nor do I want to. Its just nice in case.
There is a story up where we prospect, where the sheriff of a near by town pulled out an gun and killed someone because they were too close to their gold claim (the victim was on his own, neighboring) claim. Up here there isn't conflict resolution because there are no roads, and the nearest law enforcement is about 4 hours away, IF you can get a cell signal.
You statement is too broad. There are needs to have guns.
The US is a VERY big place, with lots of wilderness. Having a gun is a nice thing out there, it might even be considered a necessity from time to time.
If you read the military specifications you'll see no mention of killing anything in connection with the design of the firearms itself.
Its a military spec, there really is no need to say "this is for killing shit" because, you know, its the military, thats their job it would be rather redundant. Unless the military is now only a target practice organization, of course.
Most people have guns to kill things, basic gun training even tells you "don't point it at someone, unless you intend to kill them", this is in classes, and in most of our childhoods, this exact phrase.
I'm not anti-gun, but lets not split hairs. You have a gun in your dresser to defend yourself by killing the assailant.
Trespassers will be SHOT, Survivors will be SHOT AGAIN.
Extreme much? Trespassers will be asked to remove themselves (depending on their number, and if they're causing damage), and if they resist shot (or have the authorities called). This is how things work in a SANE society.
If your land isn't posted at each entry, you really should be a decent human and operate under the assumption that they don't know that they are trespassing. And if is, you should be a decent person and ask nicely before killing people.
Generally killing people should be the last resort. If your not a sociopath.
I notice that in the link you provided, access rights DO NOT EXIST for "houses ... and associated land" - a ranch would qualify under this definition, so access rights would not apply.
That depends. Most large ranches are based on public land with grazing rights, and not actual ownership. Sometimes ranchers confuse this issue, and claim all of the grazing land is their's, this is not true. But its generally best to head to the ranch house and discuss the issue first, its polite, and safe.
These are people from the bay area.
I don't mean to bash all of them, but a couple that I know have an unnatural fear of guns, hell I'm dating one. She grew up in an affluent family in SF, and until she moved to AZ, has never really seen a real gun, much less handled one.
The first time we went up north, I threw on my "snake, javelena, mountain lion, pissed off bull" gun (a 22 revolver with alternating snake snake shot), and she was scared shitless. I asked her if she wanted to shoot it, but she couldn't even touch it, so much was her dread. She didn't even want me to wear it, until I pointed to the paw prints the size of my fist.
You grossly overestimate coyotes. I doubt that a pack of them COULD take down a cow, much less would. You need to worry about the young, and the sick, just like nature intended it. Coyotes are about the size of an starving golden retriever. They like to feed on pets though.
If you're going to go to a rural area and be an ass expect to get cornholed. I like the comic but if it's readers are such stupid fucking morons as to trespass they can be hog feed for all I would care.
Most of the ranches in the west are on public lands, so even if it is posted there is no such thing as trespassing, since all the ranchers have is grazing rights. A couple of our gold claims out here are smack dab in the middle of ranches, and the rancher can't deny access. The only time it gets iffy is on privately maintained roads, then courtesy (and often personal safety) demands that you head up to the ranch house and ask permission.
As for cornholing... Erm... are you living in the 1800s, or in the Deliverance country? Most ranches are big businesses, with thousands of head, and tens of thousands of acres. These are run by huge companies, and the head rancher is usually financially well off, and educated. Most of the hands are either freindly half-drunk Mexicans, or friendly blue collar folk escaping from city life and complications.
The wild west isn't that wild anymore.
As for guns, expect them. Where we go, there are rather large predators running about, and tons and tons of poisonousness snakes. Also your 200 miles from nowhere, and there are some bad folk stomping around up there.
This is my experience in AZ, but I'm guessing it is largely the same everywhere in the west, possibly more so in civilized CA.
I'll wait for science to give me an answer, not anecdotal evidence or activism.
Just because a ton of gays don't want it to be a choice, doesn't mean it isn't. Just like if a ton of religious fundamentalist anti-gays wanting it to be a choice doesn't make it one.
I have a feeling the true answer lays somewhere between, since I happen to know a few ex-gays, and (I suppose oddly, by your reasoning) a ton of HAPPY gays, who would continue to choose to be so if it turned out to be a choice.
Truth has NOTHING to do with what you want, thats the moral of the story. I'll wait for science, and continue to ignore the idealistic rants from both sides.
Uh, you realize that it's not a choice, right? There are plenty of people out there who would love to stop being attracted to their own gender if they could help it.
Citation Needed.
I haven't seen any scientific study pointing either way definitively. And I refuse to listen to gay rights folk scream "its not a choice", and anti-gay-rights folk scream "it is a choice", since both of those fall into the realms of opinion and have no bearing on the truth value of the proposition.
Until we find a chemical/biological/genetic or social explanation, no one can really say that it is or not, regardless of what political/religious spin they want to yell at me.
That said, invariably they will find that there is a component of choice, since I know a few ex-homosexuals, meaning that some percentage of the gay community DOES have a choice. I also know tons and tons of bisexual folk, giving a little more credence to the choice option. There may or may not be a genetic component though.
I'm sick of wishful thinking being used as a valid determination of truth value.
If being gay turns out to be a choice, whats the big deal? Who cares? It doesn't make it any more right or wrong.
I don't think technical merits have much to do with Usenet dying. Most of us here remember the Internet before it became synonymous with HTTP, but most of the general population don't. Usenet isn't an advertised feature, and is slightly more complicated than the Web-only crowd can handle (zomg I need to picks my subscriptions!)
Popularity is not a judge of merit.