No it wouldn't Money as compensation is not the same as discrimination, and you damn well know it. Property is not governed by the same laws as the citizenry. The very same legal system you refer to recognizes the difference.
Instead of trying to wriggle out of the uncomfortible position of endorsing discrimination, why not just admit it's wrong but we're stuck with it.
You talk about "legal" when I talk about right. Stop trying to act like they're the same. I'm sure, however, that at one point slave owners said much of what you have.
granting groups the same rights as others (is)"submitting to them"?
WHERE?
I asked a REAL question fuckwit, and you respond with party propaganda. Typical.
No, you did NOT answer my question, you spouted your talking points. Are people like you even capable of listening to others, or do you just rant til they shut up and then take that as their agreement?
The majority decided against it. If it is allowed against the will of the majority, it takes their freedom of self-detemination (THE most important freedom you have) away.
You, in this case, are a memeber of the so called "protected" minority. It has nothing to do with who you fuck, only your opinion on the issues.
Where the Court upheld the constitutionality of affirmative action set asides.
"The Court based this on the fact that Congress was willing to accept the higher bids of MBEs if the bids were reflective of attempts to cover increased costs due to present effects of past discrimination"
See that "past discrimination" part? That's what I'm talking about.
So, for the US at least, you're counting a few politicians and judges? They're the ones who legalised it you know.
The public on the other hand, soundly put it down everywher it was voted upon.
The judges who ruled affirmative action to be constitutional were activist. Nowhere in the constitution does it allow for discrimination based on "race" but that didn't matter.
They allow discrimination. Now, I don't care what your political leanings are, intentionally hamstringing someone based on something they cannot control is wrong. Period.
And worse, it should be unconstitutional but it's not.
"Larry stabbed his friend in the back in order to make tridge stop doing something he had legal right to do"
Regardless of your position on the rest, Tridge fucked Linus over, because he did what HE wanted to do. That's not a friend at all. In fact it could be said that
"Tridge stabbed his friend in the back in order to make Larry stop doing something he had legal right to do."
Which one do you suggest? Debian? Tried it. SuSe? Tried it. Mandrake? Tried it. Fedora Core?...
I hope you get the point. There are problems with all of the distros. Why attempt to deny what is RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU? Do you think you're some kind of "Linux knight" here to save it from being defiled?
Instead of dancing around the truth, why not just admit that there are problems, that development is occurring, and it may be awhile before the bugs get ironed out?
Oh, right, because you're a zealot. And you've made up your mind, and no amount of evidence will convince you.
That makes you the "zealot" I was speaking of. Congrats.
So, you're another Linux dick. Ask me if I care what you think.
If you don't plan to add anything other than MORE stupid zealotry, then please shut up. Things don't work in Linux. Fact. Shouting me down won't help, because I won't shut up.
I agree with everything you said. The state of things has improved, and as you say, it is difficult to hit a "moving target".
My problem has never been with people who are willing to address problems, and find fixes. Instead, it is with the people who flatly deny that problems exist. I read a post earlier today that said "Linux is ready and has been for about 5 years". Now I've parsed that as many ways as I can, but how can such a statement be justified? On servers, maybe, but that qualification wasn't there. The poster believed Linux was ready, and wouldn't listen to anyone who said otherwise.
Sadly, I see far too many posts like that, and too few like yours.
No, I'm saying you should avoid comparing your product to Windows.
And that idiotic fire with fire line is the same kind of ratioanlization my kids pull in class. They're either retarded, emotionally hadicapped, or both. What's your excuse for thinking 2 wrongs make a right?
YOU are the problem with open source. YOU are the cause of so much animosity in the community, because YOU refuse to do the right thing, and instead rely on grade school justification of your childish behavior.
Take the high road, and stop wallowing in the mud with the other pigs (windows).
No, it's not. And if people like you keep perpetuating this lie, it will be much longer til it is ready.
Accept honest criticism, otherwise you look like a zealot.
You don't honestly think you can shout down everyone who has a problem do you? You certainly can't shout me down, so don't try.
I realize I'm wasting my time, but why are you so averse to criticism of Linux? Do you think we're lying about the problems we have? Why would we do that?
I will not say you are wrong, but your experience does not parallel mine. I think you are really off the mark here.
The majority of packages I have installed on every version of Linux require some kind of tomfoolery to get working correctly. Some are really great, but most aren't.
If you continue to deny that issues exist with this on Linux, what would it take to convince you? You seem to have decided.
Finally, minor annoyances are one thing, such as changing settings. Not working at all is different. If you can't get the thing working, who cares about settings.
Please don't be a zealot. Accept some honest criticism, or your experiment will fail.
Slashdot Mirror
No it wouldn't Money as compensation is not the same as discrimination, and you damn well know it. Property is not governed by the same laws as the citizenry. The very same legal system you refer to recognizes the difference.
Instead of trying to wriggle out of the uncomfortible position of endorsing discrimination, why not just admit it's wrong but we're stuck with it.
You talk about "legal" when I talk about right. Stop trying to act like they're the same. I'm sure, however, that at one point slave owners said much of what you have.
Ok, knee jerk. Where did I claim that
granting groups the same rights as others (is)"submitting to them"?
WHERE?
I asked a REAL question fuckwit, and you respond with party propaganda. Typical.
No, you did NOT answer my question, you spouted your talking points. Are people like you even capable of listening to others, or do you just rant til they shut up and then take that as their agreement?
"And how does preventing loving couples for legally marrying somehow promote marriage?"
It doesn't. But two chix having a marriage ceremony isn't a marriage.
"Anyway, bending the words doesn't change the facts."
Right, so why are gays so hung up on "marriage" instead of equivalent rights?
Because to them, the words do matter. They equal acceptance. If you are "married" to many people that conveys a sense of legitimacy and pride.
"The gay/lesbian market is a hell of a lot more computer literate than the zombies in the Religious Right" Proof? Of course not.
I was going to use cannibalism, but yours is better.
"He has no right telling anybody what they can and can't do"
Sure he does. It's HIS software. You must have forgotten that part. He has the LEGAL right.
But you've made your choice about which side to come down on.
Sad that you refuse to listen to anyone with a point you disagree with.
By the way, you're wrong, and if you treat your friends like Tridge apparently treats his, you're probably a shitty friend too.
The majority decided against it. If it is allowed against the will of the majority, it takes their freedom of self-detemination (THE most important freedom you have) away.
You, in this case, are a memeber of the so called "protected" minority. It has nothing to do with who you fuck, only your opinion on the issues.
Or did you not think that far ahead?
Listen, I need to say this first. Slavery is bad. So bad that there is no real language to describe how bad it is.
But that doesn't make discrimination right. You cannot justify doing a wrong in response to being wronged, and consider your self a moral person.
You cannot do bad things to others on the idea that they did them to you first.
Affirmative action,
Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448
Where the Court upheld the constitutionality of affirmative action set asides.
"The Court based this on the fact that Congress was willing to accept the higher bids of MBEs if the bids were reflective of attempts to cover increased costs due to present effects of past discrimination"
See that "past discrimination" part? That's what I'm talking about.
One example of many.
"Also, isn't it the Federal Courts job to determine the original meaning the written law?"
Used to be. Now it seems to also be in the business of righting social wrongs, regardless of the law involved.
Sometimes they get it right and sometimes they botch it. Mostly when they let their personal politics get involved.
Yup. What were you hoping for an inconsistency? Judges rule on matters of LAW. In this case, calling him an activist judge is perfectly appropriate.
So here's the question I always ask, and never get a decent answer for. When does it turn from protecting the minority to submitting to them?
So, for the US at least, you're counting a few politicians and judges? They're the ones who legalised it you know. The public on the other hand, soundly put it down everywher it was voted upon.
The judges who ruled affirmative action to be constitutional were activist. Nowhere in the constitution does it allow for discrimination based on "race" but that didn't matter.
They allow discrimination. Now, I don't care what your political leanings are, intentionally hamstringing someone based on something they cannot control is wrong. Period.
And worse, it should be unconstitutional but it's not.
Good for them.
"Tridge was just minding his business doing something he had full legal right to do"
So easy
"Larry was just minding his business doing something he had full legal right to do."
The saddest part is you don't see. You poor blind fucker.
"Larry stabbed his friend in the back in order to make tridge stop doing something he had legal right to do"
Regardless of your position on the rest, Tridge fucked Linus over, because he did what HE wanted to do. That's not a friend at all. In fact it could be said that
"Tridge stabbed his friend in the back in order to make Larry stop doing something he had legal right to do."
Hurts doesn't it?
Which one do you suggest? Debian? Tried it. SuSe? Tried it. Mandrake? Tried it. Fedora Core? ...
I hope you get the point. There are problems with all of the distros. Why attempt to deny what is RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU? Do you think you're some kind of "Linux knight" here to save it from being defiled?
Instead of dancing around the truth, why not just admit that there are problems, that development is occurring, and it may be awhile before the bugs get ironed out?
Oh, right, because you're a zealot. And you've made up your mind, and no amount of evidence will convince you.
That makes you the "zealot" I was speaking of. Congrats.
So, you're another Linux dick. Ask me if I care what you think.
If you don't plan to add anything other than MORE stupid zealotry, then please shut up. Things don't work in Linux. Fact. Shouting me down won't help, because I won't shut up.
Deny, Deny, Deny you sound like a politician.
I agree with everything you said. The state of things has improved, and as you say, it is difficult to hit a "moving target".
My problem has never been with people who are willing to address problems, and find fixes. Instead, it is with the people who flatly deny that problems exist. I read a post earlier today that said "Linux is ready and has been for about 5 years". Now I've parsed that as many ways as I can, but how can such a statement be justified? On servers, maybe, but that qualification wasn't there. The poster believed Linux was ready, and wouldn't listen to anyone who said otherwise.
Sadly, I see far too many posts like that, and too few like yours.
No, I'm saying you should avoid comparing your product to Windows.
And that idiotic fire with fire line is the same kind of ratioanlization my kids pull in class. They're either retarded, emotionally hadicapped, or both. What's your excuse for thinking 2 wrongs make a right?
YOU are the problem with open source. YOU are the cause of so much animosity in the community, because YOU refuse to do the right thing, and instead rely on grade school justification of your childish behavior.
Take the high road, and stop wallowing in the mud with the other pigs (windows).
"Linux is ready and has been for about 5 years"
No, it's not. And if people like you keep perpetuating this lie, it will be much longer til it is ready.
Accept honest criticism, otherwise you look like a zealot.
You don't honestly think you can shout down everyone who has a problem do you? You certainly can't shout me down, so don't try.
I realize I'm wasting my time, but why are you so averse to criticism of Linux? Do you think we're lying about the problems we have? Why would we do that?
How about some rationality please.
So, do you honestly think you're the only one to have thought of these things? Why do you make it sound that way?
"Is it me, or is off shoring getting out of hand?"
It's you. Offshoring may be the pet issue of the Slasdot IT crowd, but the reality is that it's an minor issue to everyone else.
And if you haven't done any research into it, you should try to find out how offshoring helps our economy. Nothing is all good or all bad.
I will not say you are wrong, but your experience does not parallel mine. I think you are really off the mark here.
The majority of packages I have installed on every version of Linux require some kind of tomfoolery to get working correctly. Some are really great, but most aren't.
If you continue to deny that issues exist with this on Linux, what would it take to convince you? You seem to have decided.
Finally, minor annoyances are one thing, such as changing settings. Not working at all is different. If you can't get the thing working, who cares about settings.
Please don't be a zealot. Accept some honest criticism, or your experiment will fail.