"Why do the definitions of normalcy and family need to be strengthened? The problems we face today are war, terrorism and recession, caused by neoconservatives, fanatical Islamists, and Wall Street."
Why? How can you ask that? Because of war, terrorism, recession, etc. These problems will not be solved easily and it will take the unity of the family and country to defeat them. But don't mistake 'unity' for being all-inclusive or mandate it be so.
"I guarantee that in 50 years, gay marriage will be a reality all across the U.S. just because of generational change. They will consider it normal and look back on our generation as we look back on the generation that fought to prevent mixed-race marriages."
Yes, I concede that I'm old and that some change is difficult. But when you look at the massive social changes that have happened in the past 50 years or so, you'll find they are not all positive or healthy either. Time may dim common sense, but it will not diminish truth. The technology changes, understanding changes, but people - people NEVER change.
You are right, I don't want the definition of marriage to change. I don't want this thing rammed down my throat without a passing thought to the consequences.
Your side in general, and you specifically say this: "You haven't demonstrated to me yet how this affects you directly. It doesn't change your marriage in any material way. It doesn't force you to do anything. It doesn't infringe on your rights at all, because you don't have a right for the world to be a certain way."
And then this: "because you don't have a right for the world to be a certain way."
I most certainly DO have that right, and so do you. We live in a free country, well... Mostly. Anyway, when the people decide, we abide. That doesn't mean we have to be happy about it, but we do have the power to change things when it is necessary and considered to be for the good of all.
But this issue DOES and WILL certainly affect me and my family. The societal changes this introduces are monumental, as were the forces that brought this issue to the level it's at now. Acceptance of this, leads to acceptance of still worse unions which I believe are harmful to our society.
When this is legal, and when I teach my son that homosexual marriage is wrong, I technically go against the law. My son will be taught in public school that having two daddies is somehow normal. But don't you see that this is exactly what led us to this pass in the first place?
What will certainly be next will be legal definition of poly marriages, followed up by bestial marriages, and legal definitions we haven't even dreamed up yet. Would you really be OK with that? And if you weren't, how could you make a legal stand once the initial definition was changed? It just wouldn't be fair to the poly people, would it?
In a way, it reminds me of Tolkien. Remember how Saruman the White became Saruman of Many Colours, as if having more colors somehow made him stronger? But the white was no longer white. his strength was in it's purity, just as marriage's greatest strength is in it's pure simplicity. A man and a woman. The foundation of humanity.
Complicating the definition dilutes the the true meaning of the word, and the concept of something held to be a special arrangement becomes just another ceremony - like opening a new mall.
No, I'm not saying all marriages are like this, but there is an ideal to be upheld here. Perhaps your 'religion' teaches that gay marriage tolerance is to be respected at all costs. That's your ideal. Mine is, marriage should be a protected right and sacred trust of a man and a woman.
"You viewed them negatively, I take it, but the protests really weren't for your benefit."
But they couldn't be ignored either. Don't worry, they weren't. People definitely took notice, and I think it woke some of us up to the danger we face.
Never before has the sanctity of a church been so brazenly defiled in this country. That was an incredibly stupid th
Re:Gay 'marriage'...
on
Ender in Exile
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"You and I are here because our parents had sex, not because they were married, as many children born out of wedlock are every day. How does gay marriage threaten continued heterosexual reproduction?"
It doesn't, never suggested it did. But it does weaken the definitions of normalcy and family at a time they need to be strengthened. Sorry, but it's true, homosexuals are in the minority. Humanity may breed homosexuals, but it certainly does not encourage the creation of them in the same way a healthy virus will be sure not to overkill it's victims.
For instance, I have a young son. The LAST thing I would wish for him is to be homosexual. Not for the reason you probably think (because I will love him no matter WHAT he becomes), but because it's a hard life, and not fun being on the outer edge of society. No amount of can-banging and church gankings are going to change the basic facts of family, procreation, and marriage.
"Not seeing how gay marriage poses any threat to the continuation of the species...."
Again, you are missing the point, probably purposely. The point isn't necessarily procreation, but it's the legal and societal recognition of that unique distinction that men and women have.
Society defines what is 'normal' and clearly, most members of our society have decided that gay 'marriage' is NOT normal. Defining 'gay marriage' the way you want IS unique, but it is NOT progressive in any sense other than providing rights for partners, and I was already pretty clear on where I stand on that (civil unions).
And just why isn't that enough? Why must homosexuals force themselves and their lifestyle on the rest of us trying to raise families without the very definition of that being called into constant question? Today it's the gays, who knows what tomorrow will bring? There will be NO defense if the initial definition is weakened to the point of meaninglessness.
This isn't about some sort of civil right, this is about forcing an agenda on people who DO NOT WANT.
I know that goes against your particular 'religion', but that's the way it is.
"If you don't have a problem with gay couples having access to a legal arrangement that's functionally identical to marriage, then why do you have a problem with using the word "marriage" to describe it?"
Why must you take yet another word, if not institution, and claim it as your own? We let 'gay' go, why should we redefine 'marriage' as well? It is what it is, and what it is not is two people of the same sex coming together.
"What should those gay people have done in California? Not gotten married because they might be involuntarily divorced by referendum later on?"
Oh please, I weep not for homosexuals in California - ESPECIALLY in California. I'm sure they can handle it just fine. My guess is they have more rights than heteros do there.
I notice you failed to comment on the rantings, can-bangings, and church crashings. How is this helping 'the cause'?
By the way, I very much respect that you haven't turned this discussion into a joke. I've rarely been able to have this civil a discussion on this subject with anyone on the other side of it. It usually dissolves into name-calling and accusing the other side of either being right-wing, homophobic gay bashers or lefty communist child stalkers.
"And what, exactly, is wrong with not stopping at a union of two, male and female?"
Simple. You and I would not be here but for that unique and special union between male and female. I'm not even going to get into 'loving and committed', because I don't have to. Just because not all parents are responsible, doesn't mean they don't deserve the unique framework that is the formation of a family, and with that goes the special definition. The very entomology of the word, 'marriage' describes a union of opposites.
As for 'rights and responsibilities', I don't have a problem with civil unions, although I'm certain that these too will be abused in the future with wackjobs wanting to marry their cats, furniture, and other atrocities we've already seen glimpses of in Europe. And don't say 'it can't happen here'. 20 years ago the very idea of 'gay marriage', whatever the hell that is, was an affront to society.
And as for their 'legal' right - well, it's not now - at least in California. I guess Connecticut is an option still. When a majority change their minds, perhaps it will be again. Trouble is, with the kind of people you've got in the street and tearing through churches now, that's going to be a hard sell.
Yeah, the 'Far Star' had water recycling in the 'Empire' series. I believe the quote to the horrified Pelorat was something like, 'we'd run out of water pretty quick if we didn't.'
Re:Hey, remember when Ender's Game was good?
on
Ender in Exile
·
· Score: 1
Ahahaha! Shame about your ID with those views - want to swap?
Seriously, it is apparent that gays have their agenda and it's religious as well. Just because there's a condom instead of a cross doesn't mean the same belief system isn't there.
Look at what happened in that Michigan church as a terrific example. Why attack people in a church? Because they offend YOUR religion.
Yeah, read the original article - still not seeing this call for pitchforks and machine guns.
I thought his viewpoint was well expressed and I would totally subscribe to his newsletter.
Questioning the fundamental building block of society is dangerous, sorry, that's how I see it also. Gay groups crashing churches is probably only the beginning of the lawlessness so if we're talking about violence, the other side of this argument had better be careful.
If they pulled that Michigan church stunt somewhere down South, my guess is that the 'protesters' would not have made it out as unscathed as those people.
Sorry I don't have a more 'moderate' website to show you but it seems the liberal news media is totally covering this up (as usual).
Others have posted this, and if this is the link, I'm still not seeing it.
'Bringing down' a government doesn't have to mean violent overthrow. That said, I realize that it's 'hip' to be gay or support gay rights these days, but not all of us agree with gay marriage - and never will.
And as much as the media like to portray the singing, can-banging gay throngs as if they are the majority, the real majority voted in California and the answer was, 'no'. Screaming and crying about it will almost certainly not change their minds.
You know, promoting music that encourages people to break the law might also encourage them to download music. After all, those 'rap guys' are always stealing shit, and downloading music isn't exactly breaking into a store and grabbing all the CD's you can before the cops get there, right?
I think the record industry may be figuring out that all that moral ambiguity they promoted in the past is now going to bite them in the ass - big time.
See, to paraphrase the great Reverend Wright... The chickens... Have come home... To ROOST!:)
I came in here specifically for someone to mention the fact that Amiga's booted in under 10 seconds. My A1200 was probably the fastest to boot to a GUI that I've ever seen.
I was only interested in a couple things with the eee:
- It runs Linux well. - It's really small. - It's pretty cheap.
That's about it. Any business of this thing running Windows in the first place is a mystery to me. We bought a number of these for students here and they love them to death (yes, even with Linux).
OMG. 12 years ago, we sat in an office building in Vienna, VA waiting for our 128K ISDN to be installed. While were totally disgusted by it, it was better than the cable company's dial-up/cable hybrid 'solution'.
Bell Atlantic (now Verizon), the supposed "Heart of Communication" didn't even sell Internet services through ISDN to small businesses back then so we had to go third party. And yet...
RIGHT DOWN THE BLOCK was the almighty Mae East. We'd eat lunch, staring forlornly at the Unattainable and wonder how long it would take for the fiber to eventually arrive.
Inevitably, plots would form consisting of technical and/or social engineering stunts; like trying to convince someone over there to leave an 802.11b wireless open for us, etc.
The solution is algorithmic in that these games should be able to support a non-entropic reality and introduce things on their own.
I know that's much easier to say than do, but perhaps the bar is set too high to do this now - particularly on a planet wide scale. Maybe it should be tried at a city or small town level first before trying to do it all at once.
If things were dynamic enough, the developers wouldn't have to plan huge expansions of meaningless quests - ideally, these quests should form on their own based on the changing social-political situation in-game. Solutions to the computer-generated quests should also be up to the players at hand. Oh no, there's a Big Magic Dragon! Should we use magic or spears to kill it, how many people will we need, etc.
One of the most disappointing things about MMO's to me is the fact that NOTHING matters. It's an empty experience but for the social interaction with the other players. Most of the quest solutions are online anyway, there doesn't seem to be much of a sense of true adventure. True adventure involves risk of the unknown and there's damned little of that in an MMO game.
I think that games like Spore will prove (at least to some extent) that this is possible now. The first company to apply Spore-like persistence and algorithmic flexibility to MMO's will do incredibly well.
And what backup solutions exist for 1.5TBs today? Anything affordable, or just more RAID solutions (again, hard drives)?
You can talk about backups all day long, but you know that when HP pushes out their latest consumer desktop with this drive, a home user is essentially buying a ticking time bomb.
How about a drive that advertises longevity instead of storage density. Seriously, I'd take half that storage if there was more assurance of my data integrity.
Losing an 80 GB HD nearly broke my heart, I can't imagine what losing 1.5 TB would do...
The rules that Congress have already passed have placed us in the precarious position we are in concerning oil. Actually working together and hammering out a fix for these sorts of issues is what we pay them for.
The impeachment thing is pointless political showmanship - step right up and get yer kewpie doll. Putting those cameras in the House and Senate (CSPAN) might've been the worst possible idea ever, as this sort of grandstanding wouldn't have been bothered with in the past.
The House and Senate management already said nothing will be done about it - so why waste time doing it? Like with most things the Dems do, all show, no results.
I guess the 'point' being that since Congress has solved all the other pressing issues of the day (gas prices, terrorism, Iraq, etc.), they have time for this sort of horseshit.
Sorry, if they'd spend more time being practical and actually getting shit done without the melodrama I'd be more impressed.
The important thing to look at here is why did Azureus lose so many users to uTorrent? The easy answer is that Azureus lost it's way. One day, I upgraded my client and it was this huge, bloated... THING.
I gave it about 15 minutes before I sadly shook my head, deleted it and installed uTorrent. It's a shame b/c there was a lot of things I liked about Azureus - especially those things having to do with individual privilege controls.
Slashdot Mirror
Does anyone else remember the 'good old days' when certain 3D graphics cards (the ViRGE comes to mind), were actually SLOWER than software renderers?
The term used then was 'decelerator' and I think MS's stupid decision to (once again) bow to Intel on this should share the same term.
How long will it take for true 3D acceleration to become an expected standard feature on PC's?
"Why do the definitions of normalcy and family need to be strengthened? The problems we face today are war, terrorism and recession, caused by neoconservatives, fanatical Islamists, and Wall Street."
Why? How can you ask that? Because of war, terrorism, recession, etc. These problems will not be solved easily and it will take the unity of the family and country to defeat them. But don't mistake 'unity' for being all-inclusive or mandate it be so.
"I guarantee that in 50 years, gay marriage will be a reality all across the U.S. just because of generational change. They will consider it normal and look back on our generation as we look back on the generation that fought to prevent mixed-race marriages."
Yes, I concede that I'm old and that some change is difficult. But when you look at the massive social changes that have happened in the past 50 years or so, you'll find they are not all positive or healthy either. Time may dim common sense, but it will not diminish truth. The technology changes, understanding changes, but people - people NEVER change.
You are right, I don't want the definition of marriage to change. I don't want this thing rammed down my throat without a passing thought to the consequences.
Your side in general, and you specifically say this: "You haven't demonstrated to me yet how this affects you directly. It doesn't change your marriage in any material way. It doesn't force you to do anything. It doesn't infringe on your rights at all, because you don't have a right for the world to be a certain way."
And then this: "because you don't have a right for the world to be a certain way."
I most certainly DO have that right, and so do you. We live in a free country, well... Mostly. Anyway, when the people decide, we abide. That doesn't mean we have to be happy about it, but we do have the power to change things when it is necessary and considered to be for the good of all.
But this issue DOES and WILL certainly affect me and my family. The societal changes this introduces are monumental, as were the forces that brought this issue to the level it's at now. Acceptance of this, leads to acceptance of still worse unions which I believe are harmful to our society.
When this is legal, and when I teach my son that homosexual marriage is wrong, I technically go against the law. My son will be taught in public school that having two daddies is somehow normal. But don't you see that this is exactly what led us to this pass in the first place?
What will certainly be next will be legal definition of poly marriages, followed up by bestial marriages, and legal definitions we haven't even dreamed up yet. Would you really be OK with that? And if you weren't, how could you make a legal stand once the initial definition was changed? It just wouldn't be fair to the poly people, would it?
In a way, it reminds me of Tolkien. Remember how Saruman the White became Saruman of Many Colours, as if having more colors somehow made him stronger? But the white was no longer white. his strength was in it's purity, just as marriage's greatest strength is in it's pure simplicity. A man and a woman. The foundation of humanity.
Complicating the definition dilutes the the true meaning of the word, and the concept of something held to be a special arrangement becomes just another ceremony - like opening a new mall.
No, I'm not saying all marriages are like this, but there is an ideal to be upheld here. Perhaps your 'religion' teaches that gay marriage tolerance is to be respected at all costs. That's your ideal. Mine is, marriage should be a protected right and sacred trust of a man and a woman.
"You viewed them negatively, I take it, but the protests really weren't for your benefit."
But they couldn't be ignored either. Don't worry, they weren't. People definitely took notice, and I think it woke some of us up to the danger we face.
Never before has the sanctity of a church been so brazenly defiled in this country. That was an incredibly stupid th
"You and I are here because our parents had sex, not because they were married, as many children born out of wedlock are every day. How does gay marriage threaten continued heterosexual reproduction?"
It doesn't, never suggested it did. But it does weaken the definitions of normalcy and family at a time they need to be strengthened. Sorry, but it's true, homosexuals are in the minority. Humanity may breed homosexuals, but it certainly does not encourage the creation of them in the same way a healthy virus will be sure not to overkill it's victims.
For instance, I have a young son. The LAST thing I would wish for him is to be homosexual. Not for the reason you probably think (because I will love him no matter WHAT he becomes), but because it's a hard life, and not fun being on the outer edge of society. No amount of can-banging and church gankings are going to change the basic facts of family, procreation, and marriage.
"Not seeing how gay marriage poses any threat to the continuation of the species...."
Again, you are missing the point, probably purposely. The point isn't necessarily procreation, but it's the legal and societal recognition of that unique distinction that men and women have.
Society defines what is 'normal' and clearly, most members of our society have decided that gay 'marriage' is NOT normal. Defining 'gay marriage' the way you want IS unique, but it is NOT progressive in any sense other than providing rights for partners, and I was already pretty clear on where I stand on that (civil unions).
And just why isn't that enough? Why must homosexuals force themselves and their lifestyle on the rest of us trying to raise families without the very definition of that being called into constant question? Today it's the gays, who knows what tomorrow will bring? There will be NO defense if the initial definition is weakened to the point of meaninglessness.
This isn't about some sort of civil right, this is about forcing an agenda on people who DO NOT WANT.
I know that goes against your particular 'religion', but that's the way it is.
"If you don't have a problem with gay couples having access to a legal arrangement that's functionally identical to marriage, then why do you have a problem with using the word "marriage" to describe it?"
Why must you take yet another word, if not institution, and claim it as your own? We let 'gay' go, why should we redefine 'marriage' as well? It is what it is, and what it is not is two people of the same sex coming together.
"What should those gay people have done in California? Not gotten married because they might be involuntarily divorced by referendum later on?"
Oh please, I weep not for homosexuals in California - ESPECIALLY in California. I'm sure they can handle it just fine. My guess is they have more rights than heteros do there.
I notice you failed to comment on the rantings, can-bangings, and church crashings. How is this helping 'the cause'?
By the way, I very much respect that you haven't turned this discussion into a joke. I've rarely been able to have this civil a discussion on this subject with anyone on the other side of it. It usually dissolves into name-calling and accusing the other side of either being right-wing, homophobic gay bashers or lefty communist child stalkers.
"And what, exactly, is wrong with not stopping at a union of two, male and female?"
Simple. You and I would not be here but for that unique and special union between male and female. I'm not even going to get into 'loving and committed', because I don't have to. Just because not all parents are responsible, doesn't mean they don't deserve the unique framework that is the formation of a family, and with that goes the special definition. The very entomology of the word, 'marriage' describes a union of opposites.
As for 'rights and responsibilities', I don't have a problem with civil unions, although I'm certain that these too will be abused in the future with wackjobs wanting to marry their cats, furniture, and other atrocities we've already seen glimpses of in Europe. And don't say 'it can't happen here'. 20 years ago the very idea of 'gay marriage', whatever the hell that is, was an affront to society.
And as for their 'legal' right - well, it's not now - at least in California. I guess Connecticut is an option still. When a majority change their minds, perhaps it will be again. Trouble is, with the kind of people you've got in the street and tearing through churches now, that's going to be a hard sell.
Yeah, the 'Far Star' had water recycling in the 'Empire' series. I believe the quote to the horrified Pelorat was something like, 'we'd run out of water pretty quick if we didn't.'
Ahahaha! Shame about your ID with those views - want to swap?
Seriously, it is apparent that gays have their agenda and it's religious as well. Just because there's a condom instead of a cross doesn't mean the same belief system isn't there.
Look at what happened in that Michigan church as a terrific example. Why attack people in a church? Because they offend YOUR religion.
Yep, pretty much. Just because people get it into their heads that something is a 'civil right', doesn't make it so.
Where do you stop when you can't stop at defining something as basic and fundamental as the union of two in marriage as male and female?
Yeah, read the original article - still not seeing this call for pitchforks and machine guns.
I thought his viewpoint was well expressed and I would totally subscribe to his newsletter.
Questioning the fundamental building block of society is dangerous, sorry, that's how I see it also. Gay groups crashing churches is probably only the beginning of the lawlessness so if we're talking about violence, the other side of this argument had better be careful.
If they pulled that Michigan church stunt somewhere down South, my guess is that the 'protesters' would not have made it out as unscathed as those people.
Sorry I don't have a more 'moderate' website to show you but it seems the liberal news media is totally covering this up (as usual).
http://www.rightmichigan.com/story/2008/11/10/13335/904
If this is 'tolerance', don't be surprised what follows.
Others have posted this, and if this is the link, I'm still not seeing it.
'Bringing down' a government doesn't have to mean violent overthrow. That said, I realize that it's 'hip' to be gay or support gay rights these days, but not all of us agree with gay marriage - and never will.
And as much as the media like to portray the singing, can-banging gay throngs as if they are the majority, the real majority voted in California and the answer was, 'no'. Screaming and crying about it will almost certainly not change their minds.
Reliability. I'll take it over speed. I'll take it over capacity. Most of the time.
Give me a 500 GB drive that's guaranteed for 10 years and I'll be a customer.
You know, promoting music that encourages people to break the law might also encourage them to download music. After all, those 'rap guys' are always stealing shit, and downloading music isn't exactly breaking into a store and grabbing all the CD's you can before the cops get there, right?
I think the record industry may be figuring out that all that moral ambiguity they promoted in the past is now going to bite them in the ass - big time.
See, to paraphrase the great Reverend Wright... The chickens... Have come home... To ROOST! :)
Howard Stern, Janet Jackson, and hardcore rap happened. The rest was all the FCC actually enforcing the pre-existing rules.
Urbana-Champaign gets to inventing HAL, I'd say they should stop wasting their time with this sort of thing...
I came in here specifically for someone to mention the fact that Amiga's booted in under 10 seconds. My A1200 was probably the fastest to boot to a GUI that I've ever seen.
I do miss that!
I was only interested in a couple things with the eee:
- It runs Linux well.
- It's really small.
- It's pretty cheap.
That's about it. Any business of this thing running Windows in the first place is a mystery to me. We bought a number of these for students here and they love them to death (yes, even with Linux).
>>>>1988 - download of 880k floppy game over then-typical 2400 baud modem =~ 1 hour (from my own personal experience)
Simple solution my brother...
Don't Copy That Floppy!
\Word!
OMG. 12 years ago, we sat in an office building in Vienna, VA waiting for our 128K ISDN to be installed. While were totally disgusted by it, it was better than the cable company's dial-up/cable hybrid 'solution'.
Bell Atlantic (now Verizon), the supposed "Heart of Communication" didn't even sell Internet services through ISDN to small businesses back then so we had to go third party. And yet...
RIGHT DOWN THE BLOCK was the almighty Mae East. We'd eat lunch, staring forlornly at the Unattainable and wonder how long it would take for the fiber to eventually arrive.
Inevitably, plots would form consisting of technical and/or social engineering stunts; like trying to convince someone over there to leave an 802.11b wireless open for us, etc.
Good times, good times... ;)
The solution is algorithmic in that these games should be able to support a non-entropic reality and introduce things on their own.
I know that's much easier to say than do, but perhaps the bar is set too high to do this now - particularly on a planet wide scale. Maybe it should be tried at a city or small town level first before trying to do it all at once.
If things were dynamic enough, the developers wouldn't have to plan huge expansions of meaningless quests - ideally, these quests should form on their own based on the changing social-political situation in-game. Solutions to the computer-generated quests should also be up to the players at hand. Oh no, there's a Big Magic Dragon! Should we use magic or spears to kill it, how many people will we need, etc.
One of the most disappointing things about MMO's to me is the fact that NOTHING matters. It's an empty experience but for the social interaction with the other players. Most of the quest solutions are online anyway, there doesn't seem to be much of a sense of true adventure. True adventure involves risk of the unknown and there's damned little of that in an MMO game.
I think that games like Spore will prove (at least to some extent) that this is possible now. The first company to apply Spore-like persistence and algorithmic flexibility to MMO's will do incredibly well.
He must be confusing Slashdot with Reddit. I used to see that kind of post there all the time. It's why I stopped going there. :|
All this so we can fit another 10 or 20 cores that programmers won't use... Or was that too bitter?
And what backup solutions exist for 1.5TBs today? Anything affordable, or just more RAID solutions (again, hard drives)?
You can talk about backups all day long, but you know that when HP pushes out their latest consumer desktop with this drive, a home user is essentially buying a ticking time bomb.
How about a drive that advertises longevity instead of storage density. Seriously, I'd take half that storage if there was more assurance of my data integrity.
Losing an 80 GB HD nearly broke my heart, I can't imagine what losing 1.5 TB would do...
Uhmmm..
The rules that Congress have already passed have placed us in the precarious position we are in concerning oil. Actually working together and hammering out a fix for these sorts of issues is what we pay them for.
The impeachment thing is pointless political showmanship - step right up and get yer kewpie doll. Putting those cameras in the House and Senate (CSPAN) might've been the worst possible idea ever, as this sort of grandstanding wouldn't have been bothered with in the past.
The House and Senate management already said nothing will be done about it - so why waste time doing it? Like with most things the Dems do, all show, no results.
I guess the 'point' being that since Congress has solved all the other pressing issues of the day (gas prices, terrorism, Iraq, etc.), they have time for this sort of horseshit.
Sorry, if they'd spend more time being practical and actually getting shit done without the melodrama I'd be more impressed.
The important thing to look at here is why did Azureus lose so many users to uTorrent? The easy answer is that Azureus lost it's way. One day, I upgraded my client and it was this huge, bloated... THING.
I gave it about 15 minutes before I sadly shook my head, deleted it and installed uTorrent. It's a shame b/c there was a lot of things I liked about Azureus - especially those things having to do with individual privilege controls.