It doesn't need to be a natural right, anymore than we need an explicit natural right for people with ginger hair marrying. It automatically follows from the ability of adults to make legal contracts with each other - or it should, at least.
And if you're going to get constitutional, perhaps you should remember the bit that states it does not enumerate all rights (i.e., not being in the constitution doesn't imply people don't have that right).
I don't see how an amendment would be required. And it seems the only ones trying to make amendments are those wanting to ban it.
but yes, here we believe in having occasional referendums on things that ordinary people might be concerned about
I'm just curious why preventing other people from having the same rights you do, is considered more important than all other questions that might be put to a referendum.
rather than ridiculing, abusing, or imprisoning them for having an unpopular view.
Actually it seems I misunderstood - the summary is rather unclear, and I thought it was talking about how people voted in a referendum itself.
If it's talking about simply people signing a petition, then it ought to be fair game to make the names on it public, at the least. If I sign a petition, I assume that there won't be any privacy protection over my name.
Petitions are a bad measure for deciding popularity or political decisions anyway, due to their one-sided and often biased nature (even worse than referendums!). But now we're allowed secret petitions? I find that very worrying.
My view is that votes should be private, but my concern is more about other possible cases.
In this case, we have people voting to take away other adults' rights, on a matter that doesn't affect them. If they're now crying that other people are trying to take away some rights from them, I have little sympathy.
But the problem of public votes can affect everyone. Indeed, you could have an anti-gay group making public the votes in favour of gay marriage - not to mention more controversial laws (there are many issues where any rational argument is drowned out by hysteria - e.g., "anti-terrorism" laws).
Well, it didn't take long for the children and animals straw man to come along! (Is it legal to marry a man made of straw?)
Children and animals can't enter legal contracts. Adults can. If you want to claim that some adults can't enter into legal contracts with other adults, then it's up to you to make the case, without nonsensical comparisons to children or animals.
Right now, your argument is that gay people should be treated like children and animals in terms of their ability to enter a contract - and that says all we need to know about your argument.
The discussion is over the legal recognition of said marriage.
Um yes, that's the debate we're having too. And that's what these referendums are about too.
I don't think a person's rights and privileges are up for "vote".
I agree - and as someone in the UK, I find it astonishing that these things are put to referendum.
If nothing else, surely there are far more important things to put to the vote - you know, things that actually affect most the population?
Here in the UK, hardly anything ever goes to a referendum. So my question is, is just about everything put to the referendum in the US? Or if not, how is it decided which questions are asked - and why is it they seem to be used for mostly straight people to decide whether gay people should have their rights taken away, and not for many other issues?
Maybe I and the rest of the planet should be allowed a vote on whether US citizens should have rights - that's democracy, right?
Or perhaps someone should propose a referendum on whether people on this list should be allowed rights?
Indeed - in general I'm not a fan of exposing people like this (a similar issue in the UK is the leaking of the BNP member lists), and in general I'd argue for laws protecting privacy. But if they used perfectly legal means to publish the list, well good luck to them.
Oh, I can't explain it - you just have to use it, then you'll see.
It's not about "feature lists" or what it can do "on paper" - it's about the whole experience, man. It's not that it does anything new, it's about how it does it. It integrates it better.
Or that's how an Apple fan would argue it, anyway...
Who cares, they're both niches compared to a platform like Windows (which was never a niche, as another commenter points out). Apple only got to improve their lot by ditching the Mac, and using the brandname for PC hardware running a new OS they bought out. (Citation for approaching double-digit share?)
I just love the double standard, that's all - it's supposed to be cool to think different and use something other than Windows, but then Mac users slag off the Amiga. Why should the Mac market share be the "optimal" level of users?
Either Amiga users can say they're cool and thinking different by not using Windows or a Mac - or I as a Windows user can make joke about the few Mac users and how little it's used compared to Windows.
Which doesn't mean that the Amiga isn't worth talking about, of course.
But there's too much missing in AmigaOS in modern terms.... you need subsystems critical to any modern OS (full networking stacks, 3D, video pipeline, device independent graphics, etc).
To be fair, I believe it has networking, 3D, and device independent graphics, and has done in years.
I do agree though, that:
An Amiga with today's hardware specs would be just like a Macintosh with today's hardware specs: it would be a PC.
I do sometimes it would be nice for a company to use the Amiga brandname to bring out new PCs with new standard hardware, in the spirit of the Amiga (e.g., small low end but with decent graphics). A few whiners on Slashdot would scream "It's not an Amiga", but there's no shame in switching to new hardware. It worked for the Mac - you never hear people say "It's not a Mac", on the contrary, these days people accept x86 PC hardware running a completely different OS to MacOS as being a "Mac".
This, NewAmiga, Inc. went forward with something they called "Amiga" for cellphones that had nothing whatsoever to do with AmigaOS.
I don't think that's a problem in itself (as I say, OS X is nothing whatsoever to do with MacOS), rather it was the confusion that they were proposing these plans, whilst also developing the classic Amiga line, when they obviously wouldn't be compatible.
Even a mid-spec'ed Windows PC can handle genuine video editing, multi-track virtual recording studios with awesome soft synths and effects plug-ins, 24-bit colour to massive resolutions.
How is that relevant though? When we have Mac vs Windows battles, is it sufficient to say that?
I haven't used an Amiga in years, but it's not like they're talking about the A500 these days. AmigaOS 4 won't even run on such a machine (or anywhere near it - IIRC, it's PPC only).
Great in the day, but only interesting in a historical context. The same could be said of the Atari ST or Acorn Archimedes.
And many other platforms, e.g., the Mac. But it's all still news for nerds, historical or not, why not have an occasional story.
As your post demonstrates, the only fanatics are those who have a problem with an Amiga story once in a blue moon. Perhaps there were some zealots back in the day, but they're the ones on other platforms now. In my experience, Amiga forums these days contain people who are rational and realistic about the platform.
It's a good thing when companies jerk people around? What a disgusting and petty - and yes, obnoxious, as you are the only one here displaying that attitude - sentiment.
If you want zealots, look at Apple fanatics - those people who actually believe that Apple did everything first, that they are number one in the mobile market, the Iphone is something special because it can access a web page and so on. Not to mention that their zealotry is over nothing more than a brand, where as Amiga users are just people who've stuck with a product like that. Why on earth does that bother you so much?
I'm still waiting for my answers. The fact that Apple fans would rather use -ve mods than discuss proves my point. I've not had mod points in years, and they're the ones who abuse them.
But the truth is not up for a vote (and a minority vote, by the cliche that get mod points). The truth is decided by rational arguments and evidence. I've put forward mine - where's yours?
If you define market leader to be the company that sells the most, then there are a lot of markets who's leader is a generic brand.
Such as? Go on, give me an example where the market leader is a niche player of that market in terms of sales?
Well indeed, in general it's true that most "pro-" comments are simply poking criticisms (usually in an unfair manner) at other platforms. But for certain products, like the Amiga, it gets held to some unreasonable standard of "But you must tell us what this can do, that no other platform can do, otherwise what's the point!"
I see it with other products too - e.g., Opera. Internet Explorer is disliked, Firefox is loved. But when there's an Opera story, despite it also being a decent alternative to IE, that was around long before Firefox, it still draws out legions of "But tell me why I should switch to Opera when I'm happy on Firefox!"
I know, it's annoying when on a news for nerds site, we learn about tech companies that you might not have read about in the mainstream news. Please take me back to the three stories a day, where we can learn about accessing websites or downloading apps on one particular make of phone, as if no one ever knew you could do that.
Indeed, they probably can't, but would they have to?
Apple realised they were no longer able to compete with their MacOS, or hardware, so now we have Macs that are PC hardware running an OS derived from Next.
Does anyone mind? On the contrary, Apple fans seem to love the new platform better than the old. They seem to be doing better than before, now they've made the switch.
can begin producing hardware and operating systems that are going to compete with current market players in any meaningful way.
But you're conflating things - just because they can't compete on hardware doesn't mean they can't compete. I don't see how it isn't "meaningful", when you can make money and sell computers doing it. The market's moved on - people don't make custom hardware anymore, not even Apple.
Coleco announces they have a Windows 7 killer in a brand new updated ColecoVision 2009?
More like Apple announces they have a Windows 7 killer in a brand new updated Mac.
Yes, it's sad that a series of PC companies drove the Amiga into the ground. It says something that the Amiga is still around in some form, despite all these set backs (remember the jokes we used to get about a new Amiga being vaporware? Then witness the back-pedalling when one was released (years ago, in fact) - they're suspiciously silent in this thread).
Imagine what computing might have been like today? We might have had something better than a choice between one monopoly, and a niche platform that still did all the same tricks as the aforemented platform.
I'm not sure what your evidence of this claim is - my experience of looking at Amiga forums is that most people there have a range of computers, including PCs too (much like Mac users, according to that recent survey).
It's not like the OS and hardware being talked about here is the same OS that most people remember - some of the comments here are like making "Macs can't multitask" comments, or joking about DOS and Windows 9x. Sure, it's not cutting edge or used by the majority anymore, but Slashdot covers plenty of OSs and platforms that aren't, or in some cases, have never been.
So it turns out you're an Apple user - I do find it funny when we get these arguments between users of niche platforms.
The Amiga can be considered technically revolutionary in its day, but that day is passed imho - significant investment would be needed to rejuvinate the platform today.
Same could be said of the Mac. Oh wait - to be fair, they already did that. MacOS and the hardware was ditched.
It wouldn't require significant investment - they could just go the Apple route, and release some PCs with an Amiga logo on them...
"I know I'll be flamed, but in all honesty, is the Mac platform even relevant any more? The hardware and OS were revolutionary in 1989, but 20 years later, is it really something all that different?"
See, if I posted that to every Mac story, I'd get modded down in an instant. Please, mod the parent down, as it's no different a troll. Why must every Amiga story (it's not like we get them often, unlike the three Apple stories a day) be bogged down with these flames?
In answer to your question - go to an Apple versus Windows debate, note that every pro-Mac argument is simply an argument against Windows, and therefore note they can be applied here in favour of the Amiga too. E.g., you don't have to worry about viruses, DRM, bloatware. Or perhaps borrow from Iphone arguments - e.g., "it doesn't matter that it gets features later, it just does them better. Amiga are a market leader, because other companies looked to them in the past. If it lacks certain features like Flash or Java, that's obviously a good thing, as they're obviously bloated".
See? I used to have trouble arguing for the Amiga in the late 90s, but now supporting a non-Windows platform here on Slashdot is easy:) A shame the anti-Amiga trolls are still around though - why not moan about the platforms we hear more often about?
For a second there, it looked like I was reading a story about the Iphone being able to check a website in 2009. Ha ha ha! Silly clock radio.
For a second there, it looked like I was reading a comment from someone still poking fun at the Amiga in 2009. Ha ha ha! Silly clock radio.
Yep that's right - one Amiga article in a blue moon and the jokes start, yet Slashdot covers all manner of other platforms and systems, whether they're still cutting edge or not.
Hell, we still have stories about other old platforms too (such as old Macs). The Amiga has plenty of historical importance, but I guess it's sad that the anti-Amiga posters are still here, even in 2009.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't need to be a natural right, anymore than we need an explicit natural right for people with ginger hair marrying. It automatically follows from the ability of adults to make legal contracts with each other - or it should, at least.
And if you're going to get constitutional, perhaps you should remember the bit that states it does not enumerate all rights (i.e., not being in the constitution doesn't imply people don't have that right).
I don't see how an amendment would be required. And it seems the only ones trying to make amendments are those wanting to ban it.
but yes, here we believe in having occasional referendums on things that ordinary people might be concerned about
I'm just curious why preventing other people from having the same rights you do, is considered more important than all other questions that might be put to a referendum.
rather than ridiculing, abusing, or imprisoning them for having an unpopular view.
Who said that?
Yes, that was my point - allowing other people to help decide the rights of a minority subset of that group isn't really democratic.
Actually it seems I misunderstood - the summary is rather unclear, and I thought it was talking about how people voted in a referendum itself.
If it's talking about simply people signing a petition, then it ought to be fair game to make the names on it public, at the least. If I sign a petition, I assume that there won't be any privacy protection over my name.
Petitions are a bad measure for deciding popularity or political decisions anyway, due to their one-sided and often biased nature (even worse than referendums!). But now we're allowed secret petitions? I find that very worrying.
Was that question rhetorical?
Yes.
My view is that votes should be private, but my concern is more about other possible cases.
In this case, we have people voting to take away other adults' rights, on a matter that doesn't affect them. If they're now crying that other people are trying to take away some rights from them, I have little sympathy.
But the problem of public votes can affect everyone. Indeed, you could have an anti-gay group making public the votes in favour of gay marriage - not to mention more controversial laws (there are many issues where any rational argument is drowned out by hysteria - e.g., "anti-terrorism" laws).
Well, it didn't take long for the children and animals straw man to come along! (Is it legal to marry a man made of straw?)
Children and animals can't enter legal contracts. Adults can. If you want to claim that some adults can't enter into legal contracts with other adults, then it's up to you to make the case, without nonsensical comparisons to children or animals.
Right now, your argument is that gay people should be treated like children and animals in terms of their ability to enter a contract - and that says all we need to know about your argument.
The discussion is over the legal recognition of said marriage.
Um yes, that's the debate we're having too. And that's what these referendums are about too.
I don't think a person's rights and privileges are up for "vote".
I agree - and as someone in the UK, I find it astonishing that these things are put to referendum.
If nothing else, surely there are far more important things to put to the vote - you know, things that actually affect most the population?
Here in the UK, hardly anything ever goes to a referendum. So my question is, is just about everything put to the referendum in the US? Or if not, how is it decided which questions are asked - and why is it they seem to be used for mostly straight people to decide whether gay people should have their rights taken away, and not for many other issues?
Maybe I and the rest of the planet should be allowed a vote on whether US citizens should have rights - that's democracy, right?
Or perhaps someone should propose a referendum on whether people on this list should be allowed rights?
Indeed - in general I'm not a fan of exposing people like this (a similar issue in the UK is the leaking of the BNP member lists), and in general I'd argue for laws protecting privacy. But if they used perfectly legal means to publish the list, well good luck to them.
Ho ho ho. I didn't see that one coming.
Oh, I can't explain it - you just have to use it, then you'll see.
It's not about "feature lists" or what it can do "on paper" - it's about the whole experience, man. It's not that it does anything new, it's about how it does it. It integrates it better.
Or that's how an Apple fan would argue it, anyway...
Who cares, they're both niches compared to a platform like Windows (which was never a niche, as another commenter points out). Apple only got to improve their lot by ditching the Mac, and using the brandname for PC hardware running a new OS they bought out. (Citation for approaching double-digit share?)
I just love the double standard, that's all - it's supposed to be cool to think different and use something other than Windows, but then Mac users slag off the Amiga. Why should the Mac market share be the "optimal" level of users?
Either Amiga users can say they're cool and thinking different by not using Windows or a Mac - or I as a Windows user can make joke about the few Mac users and how little it's used compared to Windows.
Which doesn't mean that the Amiga isn't worth talking about, of course.
Exactly.
But there's too much missing in AmigaOS in modern terms.... you need subsystems critical to any modern OS (full networking stacks, 3D, video pipeline, device independent graphics, etc).
To be fair, I believe it has networking, 3D, and device independent graphics, and has done in years.
I do agree though, that:
An Amiga with today's hardware specs would be just like a Macintosh with today's hardware specs: it would be a PC.
I do sometimes it would be nice for a company to use the Amiga brandname to bring out new PCs with new standard hardware, in the spirit of the Amiga (e.g., small low end but with decent graphics). A few whiners on Slashdot would scream "It's not an Amiga", but there's no shame in switching to new hardware. It worked for the Mac - you never hear people say "It's not a Mac", on the contrary, these days people accept x86 PC hardware running a completely different OS to MacOS as being a "Mac".
This, NewAmiga, Inc. went forward with something they called "Amiga" for cellphones that had nothing whatsoever to do with AmigaOS.
I don't think that's a problem in itself (as I say, OS X is nothing whatsoever to do with MacOS), rather it was the confusion that they were proposing these plans, whilst also developing the classic Amiga line, when they obviously wouldn't be compatible.
Even a mid-spec'ed Windows PC can handle genuine video editing, multi-track virtual recording studios with awesome soft synths and effects plug-ins, 24-bit colour to massive resolutions.
How is that relevant though? When we have Mac vs Windows battles, is it sufficient to say that?
I haven't used an Amiga in years, but it's not like they're talking about the A500 these days. AmigaOS 4 won't even run on such a machine (or anywhere near it - IIRC, it's PPC only).
Great in the day, but only interesting in a historical context. The same could be said of the Atari ST or Acorn Archimedes.
And many other platforms, e.g., the Mac. But it's all still news for nerds, historical or not, why not have an occasional story.
Got out of bed the wrong side today did we?
As your post demonstrates, the only fanatics are those who have a problem with an Amiga story once in a blue moon. Perhaps there were some zealots back in the day, but they're the ones on other platforms now. In my experience, Amiga forums these days contain people who are rational and realistic about the platform.
It's a good thing when companies jerk people around? What a disgusting and petty - and yes, obnoxious, as you are the only one here displaying that attitude - sentiment.
If you want zealots, look at Apple fanatics - those people who actually believe that Apple did everything first, that they are number one in the mobile market, the Iphone is something special because it can access a web page and so on. Not to mention that their zealotry is over nothing more than a brand, where as Amiga users are just people who've stuck with a product like that. Why on earth does that bother you so much?
I'm still waiting for my answers. The fact that Apple fans would rather use -ve mods than discuss proves my point. I've not had mod points in years, and they're the ones who abuse them.
But the truth is not up for a vote (and a minority vote, by the cliche that get mod points). The truth is decided by rational arguments and evidence. I've put forward mine - where's yours?
If you define market leader to be the company that sells the most, then there are a lot of markets who's leader is a generic brand.
Such as? Go on, give me an example where the market leader is a niche player of that market in terms of sales?
But if we go by a subjective definition, then fine. I say that Amiga are a market leader.
Well indeed, in general it's true that most "pro-" comments are simply poking criticisms (usually in an unfair manner) at other platforms. But for certain products, like the Amiga, it gets held to some unreasonable standard of "But you must tell us what this can do, that no other platform can do, otherwise what's the point!"
I see it with other products too - e.g., Opera. Internet Explorer is disliked, Firefox is loved. But when there's an Opera story, despite it also being a decent alternative to IE, that was around long before Firefox, it still draws out legions of "But tell me why I should switch to Opera when I'm happy on Firefox!"
I know, it's annoying when on a news for nerds site, we learn about tech companies that you might not have read about in the mainstream news. Please take me back to the three stories a day, where we can learn about accessing websites or downloading apps on one particular make of phone, as if no one ever knew you could do that.
And Apple introduce the Jphone! All new for 2010!
Indeed, they probably can't, but would they have to?
Apple realised they were no longer able to compete with their MacOS, or hardware, so now we have Macs that are PC hardware running an OS derived from Next.
Does anyone mind? On the contrary, Apple fans seem to love the new platform better than the old. They seem to be doing better than before, now they've made the switch.
can begin producing hardware and operating systems that are going to compete with current market players in any meaningful way.
But you're conflating things - just because they can't compete on hardware doesn't mean they can't compete. I don't see how it isn't "meaningful", when you can make money and sell computers doing it. The market's moved on - people don't make custom hardware anymore, not even Apple.
Coleco announces they have a Windows 7 killer in a brand new updated ColecoVision 2009?
More like Apple announces they have a Windows 7 killer in a brand new updated Mac.
Yes, it's sad that a series of PC companies drove the Amiga into the ground. It says something that the Amiga is still around in some form, despite all these set backs (remember the jokes we used to get about a new Amiga being vaporware? Then witness the back-pedalling when one was released (years ago, in fact) - they're suspiciously silent in this thread).
Imagine what computing might have been like today? We might have had something better than a choice between one monopoly, and a niche platform that still did all the same tricks as the aforemented platform.
I'm not sure what your evidence of this claim is - my experience of looking at Amiga forums is that most people there have a range of computers, including PCs too (much like Mac users, according to that recent survey).
It's not like the OS and hardware being talked about here is the same OS that most people remember - some of the comments here are like making "Macs can't multitask" comments, or joking about DOS and Windows 9x. Sure, it's not cutting edge or used by the majority anymore, but Slashdot covers plenty of OSs and platforms that aren't, or in some cases, have never been.
For a moment, I actually thought this was some sort of a joke.
It's sad that there's so much ignorance around here.
Personally I thought it was a joke when I saw the "Iphone can access a website" story.
So it turns out you're an Apple user - I do find it funny when we get these arguments between users of niche platforms.
The Amiga can be considered technically revolutionary in its day, but that day is passed imho - significant investment would be needed to rejuvinate the platform today.
Same could be said of the Mac. Oh wait - to be fair, they already did that. MacOS and the hardware was ditched.
It wouldn't require significant investment - they could just go the Apple route, and release some PCs with an Amiga logo on them...
"I know I'll be flamed, but in all honesty, is the Mac platform even relevant any more? The hardware and OS were revolutionary in 1989, but 20 years later, is it really something all that different?"
See, if I posted that to every Mac story, I'd get modded down in an instant. Please, mod the parent down, as it's no different a troll. Why must every Amiga story (it's not like we get them often, unlike the three Apple stories a day) be bogged down with these flames?
In answer to your question - go to an Apple versus Windows debate, note that every pro-Mac argument is simply an argument against Windows, and therefore note they can be applied here in favour of the Amiga too. E.g., you don't have to worry about viruses, DRM, bloatware. Or perhaps borrow from Iphone arguments - e.g., "it doesn't matter that it gets features later, it just does them better. Amiga are a market leader, because other companies looked to them in the past. If it lacks certain features like Flash or Java, that's obviously a good thing, as they're obviously bloated".
See? I used to have trouble arguing for the Amiga in the late 90s, but now supporting a non-Windows platform here on Slashdot is easy :) A shame the anti-Amiga trolls are still around though - why not moan about the platforms we hear more often about?
For a second there, it looked like I was reading a story about the Iphone being able to check a website in 2009. Ha ha ha! Silly clock radio.
For a second there, it looked like I was reading a comment from someone still poking fun at the Amiga in 2009. Ha ha ha! Silly clock radio.
Yep that's right - one Amiga article in a blue moon and the jokes start, yet Slashdot covers all manner of other platforms and systems, whether they're still cutting edge or not.
Hell, we still have stories about other old platforms too (such as old Macs). The Amiga has plenty of historical importance, but I guess it's sad that the anti-Amiga posters are still here, even in 2009.