I think his point is less that, "more scientists favor evolution over ID", and more that "NO scientists favor ID over evolution".
And my point remains: It doesn't matter how many scientists favor or don't favor anything. Look at the results yourself and evaluate and try to reproduce them. If you can't, don't buy it. If you just accept an idea because it came from several or many scientists, you're no better than the ID people you decry for accepting ideas from their pastor without the possibility of investigation, or the eugenecists of my previous post. Remember that scientists are human beings, and human beings can be bought. The scientific method is very good, but the people that *claim* to practice it may or may not be.
I think to consider homosexuality either 100% culture or 100% genetic is an oversimplification. I would suspect there are many factors at play here.
Man's closest relative is the bonobo chimp, and you'd have to look really, really hard to find a bonobo, of either gender, that doesn't swing both ways.
Both Bonobos and humans have a desire to do whatever gives them pleasure. One's nerve endings don't necessarily distinguish whether a fondle comes from a man or woman. Both can be made to produce pleasure. The distinction is made in the thought patterns which can be greatly affected by external stimuli, especially in formative years. Humans being intellectually more complex than Bonobos, have a wider variety of cultural responses to stimuli to their nervous system. It is interesting that although you can find many Bonobos that swing both ways (bisexual), you won't find many that are strictly homosexual, and yet you do find this in humans. Why is that? Could it be culture? Despite all this, there are many humans that are strictly heterosexual. This would also seem to indicate that culture can be an influence in sexual preferences. It is generally understood that phsycology plays a large part of sexual enjoyment in humans. Some people really get off just because they're doing something that society considers a "taboo", as you put it. The taboo doesn't have to be homosexuality, maybe not even inherently sexual. It could be anything. Were they born that way, too? How do you explain the many former homosexuals that go straight and find that they like it? How do explain the many straight people that go gay and find that they also like that? Do bisexuals have the "gay gene"? If so, why can they also get aroused by the opposite sex? I suggest you read some of the articles I linked to. Many of them are written by people who are openly gay, but object to the idea that they can't help it and were born that way.
The origin of life from non-life is not evolution, it is abiogenesis. Evolution != abiogenesis nor is it a sub/superset thereof. Just to head you off at the pass, evolution also has nothing to do with the big bang.
I know this, and you know this, however, the term "evolution" is frequently used (incorrectly by laypersons), as I explained in my orignal post, as an umbrella term covering several distinct ideas including abiogenesis. Although this is an incorrect usage of terminology, it is really what the whole ID vs. "evolution" debate is about. This is what I was trying to point out.
And please, tell us these HOLES evolutions have. I've been hearing them a lot online and yet to seen an article on them. Full of holes... WHAT HOLES!?
That really depends. Part of the problem is that the word "evolution" is used to describe several distinct ideas (Much like "intellectual property" is used to confuse copyright, patent, and other laws). If you're talking about [natural] selection, there really aren't any holes. If you're talking about the orign of man and life from non-life, there are many. Can you design a reproduceable experiment that creates life (not just amino acids) from non-life? If so, please post your findings, so that I can evaluate and reproduce your results.
This is the most insightful comment I've read all day. If I had mod points, I'd put you over the top. We need to get the state out of the business of educating the population. Modern public schools have more in common with prisons than educational institutions. They aren't centers of education, but rather re-education camps.
A few years ago a Denver student made a valiant attempt to open classroom discussion in his school system about alternatives to evolution. He was shot down by the "free minded" educators. No discussion, no alternative, "it's our way and that's it". Is this what teaching science has come to in this nation?
I think part of the problem is that many of the scientific establishment immediately interpret any new angle as being associated with religion, and although this is justified in the case of ID, it may not be everywhere. I also think that over-zealous religionists like the ID crowd are much to blame for creating this atmosphere of paranoia in the established scientific community. Please note that I don't think that ID should be taught in the science classes of any public school, but anyone with a compelling alternate, scientific theory should be allowed to speak up. If the student in Denver you mention had a valid theory (I'm unfamiliar with the specifics of the case you bring up), he should have been allowed to open a dialog, If, however, he was trying to turn his publicly funded science class into a religious debate, that was probably innappropriate. If he had a sound scientific theory he wanted to present, let it stand on it's own merits. If his reasoning was faulty, it will be eventually disproven. What's to fear? How do we expect the holes in evolutionary theory to ever be plugged if it is presented as case-closed, not-up-for-discussion, shut-up-and-put-this-on-the-multiple-choice-test.
You should be modded up, not down. Metamoderators, please take note of the guy that called this a troll.
As for me, I am able to accept that people are born homosexual
Why? Have you conducted some new studies that I should know about? I don't have the links handy, but I seem to recall that most of the Born-That-Way® argument came from 3 separate studies done in the mid-to-late ninetees and that each one of them has been thouroughly discredited. If you've done some more research on this matter, please post the results so we can put them to the test and see if they are reproduceable. If not, it sounds like maybe you are one of the people that were "born religious" that you speak of -- taking things on faith with no evidence.
"If Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel, who did Cain and Abel marry to have kids?"
After reading your post, my main question is what kind of lus3r theologians were stumped by such a simple question? Although the Bible talks about Cain's birth first, nowhere is it stated that Cain and Abel were Adam and Eve's first or only children. This is a popular misconception, but it is not Biblical.
Second, there are currently no scientific theories that explain the development of life as well as evolution does.
Agreed, but although currently the best explanation, it is still a piss-poor one. Not evolution in the sense of natural selection (which is an observed fact), mind you, but "evolution" in the sense that you seem to be using it: life from non-life.
It is the most widely accepted theory by a huge margin.
Science is not a popularity contest. Widely accepted is not good enough. If I can't reproduce the results, I would mistrust it.
Fine, where are the papers on ID that have been accepted to respected conferences. None? Ok.
Where are the professors speaking up in favor of it. None?
Although I agree with your thesis that ID is an attempt to push a certain religious view as science, you should know that science is not a popularity contest. You should rather be asking where are the verifiable and testable experiments that can prove or disprove it. Just because many "respected conferences" or "professors" say something doesn't mean jack if I can't reproduce their results. I'm sure that in Nazi Germany many "respectable" (at least under that regime) scientists and conferences were pushing the eugenics agenda, but that didn't make it real science. Stay focused on what is reproduceable, not what is popular.
It said that schools should present evolution as a flawed theory. This has the effect of students looking at evolution and saying "oh, it's not good enough to explain what we see...". A side effect of this is that the students now become more receptive to kooky ideas like Intelligent Design. [emphasis mine]
This is probably correct for a certain percentage of students, however I think you underestimate them as a whole. The fact is, although evolution is fact, the hypothesis of life from non-life (which is what this is really all about), although currently the best scientific explanation, is full of holes. Students being made aware of this, rather than following kooky ideas like ID, could just as easily be inspired to investigate these holes, fill them in, or replace the hypothesis entirely with a better scientific explanation not yet conceived. Not that any of this will be thanks to the efforts of the Kansas bureaucracy, but I don't think the sky is falling.
How is this any different than when I remove the DRM from an iTunes song
The only real difference, when you get down to it, is that you are just a lowly individual, and not a mighty corporation. In the case of music, the courts rule in favor of the DMCA, but in the case of a single programmer's code, they rule seemingly contrarily -- until we note that they again ruled in favor of a corporation. Notice an underlying theme developing?
The whole point of having massive quantities of seemingly contradictory laws on the books is to make it impossible for anyone to be a "law-abiding citizen". Anyone at any time can be randomly grabbed off the street and charged for any number of "crimes". This empowers the judiciary to effectually legislate on the fly in the courtroom -- picking and choosing selectively which laws will be ignored today, and which will be enforced -- to the benefit of "friends" of the state, and detriment of those who aren't so fortunate.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." Tacitus, 56-120 A.D.
"The greater the number of laws and enactments, the more thieves and robbers there will be." - Lao Tsu
"The number of laws is constantly growing in all countries and, owing to this, what is called crime is very often not a crime at all, for it contains no element of violence or harm." -- P. D. Ouspensky
...to stop using their terminology. It's not *piracy*, it's infring... hold on, wait a sec... this is about real pirates, you say?!? Can't... I don't... how to proceed...
Hold them as long as it takes is my opinion, or they decrypt the hard drive for the investigators, which if they had nothing to hide, would mean they would get out in a few days.
The "if-you've-got-nothing-to-hide" argument is very short-sighted. Sometimes you do have something to hide, and for good reason.
Here's a short list of legitamate reasons for anonymity I once found somewhere. Sorry I can't credit the original author, you know who you are:
Secret Ballots. Otherwise a sufficiently motivated group could bully voters who previously voted for another party.
The battered wife (or husband for that matter) that doesn't want to be tracked down.
The whistleblower that wants to be able to let the authorities know that his or her organization is doing something illegal, but doesn't want their life destroyed by doing so.
The ex-con that served his time and paid for his crime, and only wants a job.
The journalist that has sources to protect. One of the most famous in history: "deep throat".
Important historical documents were sometimes posted anonymously, great literature has been written anonymously or under psuedonyms to protect the author who may have been living under an oppressive political environment.
The Federalist papers were published under the pseudonym "Publius", and several of the U.S. Founders had to publish pre-revolution political treatises anonymously for their own protection. Voltaire said It's dangerous to be right when the government is wrong. I would advise you to turn off the TV and pick up some history books. I mean no disrespect, just to give you some helpful advice.
For those in the U.S., here are some other good reasons [emphasis mine, of course]:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
It's quite possible I misunderstood your intent, but the implied meaning seemed to be your concession that although they might not make one a good programmer, alcohol and caffiene can make one a good "human being". I was trying to point out that both of you missed the mark and that alcohol and caffiene use are completely irrelevant to programming as well as "human being" skills.
It's not a democracy. It's more of a meritocracy. It isn't entirely without representation, however. The members of the FSF that will ultimately make the final decisions have gained their considerable power by the choice of the masses that use their software and licenses. RMS is nothing without the collective respect of the thousands (millions?) that use his code, licenses, and philosophy in their own projects. They are, in a sense, casting their vote for him -- recognizing his importance -- every time they type code in EMACS, compile with GCC, or slap a GPL on their latest release.
If FSF were a government that had the means to force your use of their code and licenses, things would be different. All use of FSF and related projects is completely voluntary. No one forced these hoardes of end-users and developers to hold these individuals in high regard. They have chosen to do so based on their past merit. Because of this, if at any time the FSF were to violate that trust, it's power would evaporate overnight. The masses of FOSS enthusiasts from which they derive their power would throw their support behind another organization (fork?). There is nothing stopping them from doing so. This is why, although not a direct democracy, the FSF knows it must at the very least hear our opinions and take them into consideration or face irrelevancy.
Regardless of all this, I'm rather tired of sound-bites proclaiming democracy as the end-all, be-all of government. Might (sheer numbers/popularity) does not make right. Democratic principles should be observed, but within certain agreed-upon limits -- the rule of law. A majority should not have the power to vote for enslaving a minority, for example. This is why the right to defend one's own liberty, and the rules of the game that permit that liberty -- the law, is so crucial. If a majority rises up with the purpose of oppressing my minority, I have to be prepared to enforce the rules, the limits -- ensure that they are adhered to -- as Malcolm X put it: "by any means necessary."
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin
"There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." -- John Quincy Adams
Both of them have health benefits. A recent study even told that (this is crazy) more alcohol you drink, not just red wine as you point, better it is to your hearth. Some research also suggests that moderate drinking may cut the risk of developing dementia, including Alzheimer's disease. The only problem is that it's also very harmful to drink large amounts of alcohol so the harmful effects are a lot bigger issue than health benefits.
Also, There has been a lot discussion lately about coffees health benefits
The real issue is not whether there exist benefits. The real question is whether the promised benefits outweigh the well-observed and well-documented detriments. If "health-giving" antioxidants were suddenly discovered in crack cocaine, it wouldn't necessarily justify running out and smoking some. Like most "studies" you should always investigate who funded the research, and whether a conflict of interest was present. I seem to recall that the alcohol studies that everyone frequently cites were funded by wine growers (if someone can find the link to document this, please post it). If we're going to be skeptical on/. of M$ funded TCO "studies", we have to apply the same standard across the board.
What matters is that you have fun together, not whether or not she cares about the RIAA. I can't believe people like you exist.
I stand by my previous assertion: There are more fish in the sea. If you look hard enough, you will find any number of women that you can have fun with *and* <gasp> share common interests with. They do exist. Don't give up so quickly. Keep looking.
...it may seem harsh and difficult, but you *can* do better. Despite/. stereotypes, there really are more fish in the sea. I've been happily married for 6+ years, now. It's not perfect, but we generally reach understandings. My wife does take much interest in social issues and we frequently enjoy engaging in thoughtful discussions on such matters. You deserve someone who will stick to ideals that are more compatible with your own. Your marriage will be better (probably last longer) and you will be happier if you wait for someone that does. I'm sure she's nice and all, maybe very pretty (looks aren't everything -- many so-called "average-looking" women are actually better in bed), but one of the greatest problems facing our society is intelligent people of principle, like yourself, degrading themselves by reproducing with apathetic ignorami like your fiancee. I'm not trying to be rude, just give you some advice. Sometimes the truth hurts. Some more advice: Marry foreign. I've found that non-USian women are generally more principled, intelligent, reasonable, less materialistic, and even better in bed. American women can keep their apathetic and unjustifiable "men-can-do-no-right--women-can-do-no-wrong" attitudes, but they need to learn that they will lose their men if they choose to do so. </rant>
I call BS. I'm a graphic designer. I work on a Mac (PS, Illustrator, InDesign) at work, but a Linux box at home. I've done a lot of freelance work on Linux from home lately. I typeset and did all prepress for a 700 page book over the summer using Scribus, Gimp, and Inkscape. I keep hearing about how Linux fonts suck, but they always look great to me. *Much* better than the non-anti-aliased fonts that are the default on Windows. In fact, the only way I can make fonts look half-way decent in Winbl0w$ is to turn on their crappy ClearType® feature, but I've noticed that even that screws up the colors at the edges of the characters. If you have some specific examples of font issues, please link to some screenshots, until then I'm of the opinion that the "fonts suck on Linux" argument is a complete troll.
Re:Wished they never sold Unix
on
Ma Bell is Back
·
· Score: 1
Linux is perfect for small to midsize scale duty, but when you have 500+ users hitting nearly two hundred gigabytes worth of Oracle databases, you've got to use the primary o/s developed for that hardware.
Maybe someone should warn Google -- they might actually get up past 500 users real soon.
Slashdot Mirror
And my point remains: It doesn't matter how many scientists favor or don't favor anything. Look at the results yourself and evaluate and try to reproduce them. If you can't, don't buy it. If you just accept an idea because it came from several or many scientists, you're no better than the ID people you decry for accepting ideas from their pastor without the possibility of investigation, or the eugenecists of my previous post. Remember that scientists are human beings, and human beings can be bought. The scientific method is very good, but the people that *claim* to practice it may or may not be.
I think to consider homosexuality either 100% culture or 100% genetic is an oversimplification. I would suspect there are many factors at play here.
Both Bonobos and humans have a desire to do whatever gives them pleasure. One's nerve endings don't necessarily distinguish whether a fondle comes from a man or woman. Both can be made to produce pleasure. The distinction is made in the thought patterns which can be greatly affected by external stimuli, especially in formative years. Humans being intellectually more complex than Bonobos, have a wider variety of cultural responses to stimuli to their nervous system. It is interesting that although you can find many Bonobos that swing both ways (bisexual), you won't find many that are strictly homosexual, and yet you do find this in humans. Why is that? Could it be culture? Despite all this, there are many humans that are strictly heterosexual. This would also seem to indicate that culture can be an influence in sexual preferences. It is generally understood that phsycology plays a large part of sexual enjoyment in humans. Some people really get off just because they're doing something that society considers a "taboo", as you put it. The taboo doesn't have to be homosexuality, maybe not even inherently sexual. It could be anything. Were they born that way, too? How do you explain the many former homosexuals that go straight and find that they like it? How do explain the many straight people that go gay and find that they also like that? Do bisexuals have the "gay gene"? If so, why can they also get aroused by the opposite sex? I suggest you read some of the articles I linked to. Many of them are written by people who are openly gay, but object to the idea that they can't help it and were born that way.
I know this, and you know this, however, the term "evolution" is frequently used (incorrectly by laypersons), as I explained in my orignal post, as an umbrella term covering several distinct ideas including abiogenesis. Although this is an incorrect usage of terminology, it is really what the whole ID vs. "evolution" debate is about. This is what I was trying to point out.
That really depends. Part of the problem is that the word "evolution" is used to describe several distinct ideas (Much like "intellectual property" is used to confuse copyright, patent, and other laws). If you're talking about [natural] selection, there really aren't any holes. If you're talking about the orign of man and life from non-life, there are many. Can you design a reproduceable experiment that creates life (not just amino acids) from non-life? If so, please post your findings, so that I can evaluate and reproduce your results.
This is the most insightful comment I've read all day. If I had mod points, I'd put you over the top. We need to get the state out of the business of educating the population. Modern public schools have more in common with prisons than educational institutions. They aren't centers of education, but rather re-education camps.
I think part of the problem is that many of the scientific establishment immediately interpret any new angle as being associated with religion, and although this is justified in the case of ID, it may not be everywhere. I also think that over-zealous religionists like the ID crowd are much to blame for creating this atmosphere of paranoia in the established scientific community. Please note that I don't think that ID should be taught in the science classes of any public school, but anyone with a compelling alternate, scientific theory should be allowed to speak up. If the student in Denver you mention had a valid theory (I'm unfamiliar with the specifics of the case you bring up), he should have been allowed to open a dialog, If, however, he was trying to turn his publicly funded science class into a religious debate, that was probably innappropriate. If he had a sound scientific theory he wanted to present, let it stand on it's own merits. If his reasoning was faulty, it will be eventually disproven. What's to fear? How do we expect the holes in evolutionary theory to ever be plugged if it is presented as case-closed, not-up-for-discussion, shut-up-and-put-this-on-the-multiple-choice-test.
You should be modded up, not down. Metamoderators, please take note of the guy that called this a troll.
The U.S. is 52% protestant and only 24% Catholic. Why should the 52% majority care what that old geezer in Rome thinks?
Why? Have you conducted some new studies that I should know about? I don't have the links handy, but I seem to recall that most of the Born-That-Way® argument came from 3 separate studies done in the mid-to-late ninetees and that each one of them has been thouroughly discredited. If you've done some more research on this matter, please post the results so we can put them to the test and see if they are reproduceable. If not, it sounds like maybe you are one of the people that were "born religious" that you speak of -- taking things on faith with no evidence.
After reading your post, my main question is what kind of lus3r theologians were stumped by such a simple question? Although the Bible talks about Cain's birth first, nowhere is it stated that Cain and Abel were Adam and Eve's first or only children. This is a popular misconception, but it is not Biblical.
Agreed, but although currently the best explanation, it is still a piss-poor one. Not evolution in the sense of natural selection (which is an observed fact), mind you, but "evolution" in the sense that you seem to be using it: life from non-life.
Science is not a popularity contest. Widely accepted is not good enough. If I can't reproduce the results, I would mistrust it.
Although I agree with your thesis that ID is an attempt to push a certain religious view as science, you should know that science is not a popularity contest. You should rather be asking where are the verifiable and testable experiments that can prove or disprove it. Just because many "respected conferences" or "professors" say something doesn't mean jack if I can't reproduce their results. I'm sure that in Nazi Germany many "respectable" (at least under that regime) scientists and conferences were pushing the eugenics agenda, but that didn't make it real science. Stay focused on what is reproduceable, not what is popular.
This is probably correct for a certain percentage of students, however I think you underestimate them as a whole. The fact is, although evolution is fact, the hypothesis of life from non-life (which is what this is really all about), although currently the best scientific explanation, is full of holes. Students being made aware of this, rather than following kooky ideas like ID, could just as easily be inspired to investigate these holes, fill them in, or replace the hypothesis entirely with a better scientific explanation not yet conceived. Not that any of this will be thanks to the efforts of the Kansas bureaucracy, but I don't think the sky is falling.
Point taken, but it's easier still to influence their votes if they have an education and *I* control that "education".
The only real difference, when you get down to it, is that you are just a lowly individual, and not a mighty corporation. In the case of music, the courts rule in favor of the DMCA, but in the case of a single programmer's code, they rule seemingly contrarily -- until we note that they again ruled in favor of a corporation. Notice an underlying theme developing?
The whole point of having massive quantities of seemingly contradictory laws on the books is to make it impossible for anyone to be a "law-abiding citizen". Anyone at any time can be randomly grabbed off the street and charged for any number of "crimes". This empowers the judiciary to effectually legislate on the fly in the courtroom -- picking and choosing selectively which laws will be ignored today, and which will be enforced -- to the benefit of "friends" of the state, and detriment of those who aren't so fortunate.
Fair enough. I won't modify the music or movies -- just the DRM software on the disc that "protects" them.
...to stop using their terminology. It's not *piracy*, it's infring... hold on, wait a sec... this is about real pirates, you say?!? Can't ... I don't... how to proceed...
The "if-you've-got-nothing-to-hide" argument is very short-sighted. Sometimes you do have something to hide, and for good reason.
Here's a short list of legitamate reasons for anonymity I once found somewhere. Sorry I can't credit the original author, you know who you are:
The Federalist papers were published under the pseudonym "Publius", and several of the U.S. Founders had to publish pre-revolution political treatises anonymously for their own protection. Voltaire said It's dangerous to be right when the government is wrong. I would advise you to turn off the TV and pick up some history books. I mean no disrespect, just to give you some helpful advice.
For those in the U.S., here are some other good reasons [emphasis mine, of course]:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
It's quite possible I misunderstood your intent, but the implied meaning seemed to be your concession that although they might not make one a good programmer, alcohol and caffiene can make one a good "human being". I was trying to point out that both of you missed the mark and that alcohol and caffiene use are completely irrelevant to programming as well as "human being" skills.
It's not a democracy. It's more of a meritocracy. It isn't entirely without representation, however. The members of the FSF that will ultimately make the final decisions have gained their considerable power by the choice of the masses that use their software and licenses. RMS is nothing without the collective respect of the thousands (millions?) that use his code, licenses, and philosophy in their own projects. They are, in a sense, casting their vote for him -- recognizing his importance -- every time they type code in EMACS, compile with GCC, or slap a GPL on their latest release.
If FSF were a government that had the means to force your use of their code and licenses, things would be different. All use of FSF and related projects is completely voluntary. No one forced these hoardes of end-users and developers to hold these individuals in high regard. They have chosen to do so based on their past merit. Because of this, if at any time the FSF were to violate that trust, it's power would evaporate overnight. The masses of FOSS enthusiasts from which they derive their power would throw their support behind another organization (fork?). There is nothing stopping them from doing so. This is why, although not a direct democracy, the FSF knows it must at the very least hear our opinions and take them into consideration or face irrelevancy.
Regardless of all this, I'm rather tired of sound-bites proclaiming democracy as the end-all, be-all of government. Might (sheer numbers/popularity) does not make right. Democratic principles should be observed, but within certain agreed-upon limits -- the rule of law. A majority should not have the power to vote for enslaving a minority, for example. This is why the right to defend one's own liberty, and the rules of the game that permit that liberty -- the law, is so crucial. If a majority rises up with the purpose of oppressing my minority, I have to be prepared to enforce the rules, the limits -- ensure that they are adhered to -- as Malcolm X put it: "by any means necessary."
The real issue is not whether there exist benefits. The real question is whether the promised benefits outweigh the well-observed and well-documented detriments. If "health-giving" antioxidants were suddenly discovered in crack cocaine, it wouldn't necessarily justify running out and smoking some. Like most "studies" you should always investigate who funded the research, and whether a conflict of interest was present. I seem to recall that the alcohol studies that everyone frequently cites were funded by wine growers (if someone can find the link to document this, please post it). If we're going to be skeptical on /. of M$ funded TCO "studies", we have to apply the same standard across the board.
Correlation does not imply causality. The inverse of any of these statements are equally accurate (or innaccurate).
I stand by my previous assertion: There are more fish in the sea. If you look hard enough, you will find any number of women that you can have fun with *and* <gasp> share common interests with. They do exist. Don't give up so quickly. Keep looking.
...it may seem harsh and difficult, but you *can* do better. Despite /. stereotypes, there really are more fish in the sea. I've been happily married for 6+ years, now. It's not perfect, but we generally reach understandings. My wife does take much interest in social issues and we frequently enjoy engaging in thoughtful discussions on such matters. You deserve someone who will stick to ideals that are more compatible with your own. Your marriage will be better (probably last longer) and you will be happier if you wait for someone that does. I'm sure she's nice and all, maybe very pretty (looks aren't everything -- many so-called "average-looking" women are actually better in bed), but one of the greatest problems facing our society is intelligent people of principle, like yourself, degrading themselves by reproducing with apathetic ignorami like your fiancee. I'm not trying to be rude, just give you some advice. Sometimes the truth hurts. Some more advice: Marry foreign. I've found that non-USian women are generally more principled, intelligent, reasonable, less materialistic, and even better in bed. American women can keep their apathetic and unjustifiable "men-can-do-no-right--women-can-do-no-wrong" attitudes, but they need to learn that they will lose their men if they choose to do so. </rant>
I call BS. I'm a graphic designer. I work on a Mac (PS, Illustrator, InDesign) at work, but a Linux box at home. I've done a lot of freelance work on Linux from home lately. I typeset and did all prepress for a 700 page book over the summer using Scribus, Gimp, and Inkscape. I keep hearing about how Linux fonts suck, but they always look great to me. *Much* better than the non-anti-aliased fonts that are the default on Windows. In fact, the only way I can make fonts look half-way decent in Winbl0w$ is to turn on their crappy ClearType® feature, but I've noticed that even that screws up the colors at the edges of the characters. If you have some specific examples of font issues, please link to some screenshots, until then I'm of the opinion that the "fonts suck on Linux" argument is a complete troll.
Maybe someone should warn Google -- they might actually get up past 500 users real soon.