Except, you can't eliminate the statistics are you wish. Subtract the difference in home violence from same sex relationships from different sex relationships, especially two males, have you're left with an interesting statistic.
Oh shesh. I see mostly garbage that you've typed. Offer something which isn't garbage, while not attempting to be inflamitory, and I'll happily respond.
Before you bother to reply, bother to check the statistics on same sax relationships. Both to check duration of relationship AND the associated crime rates (mostly same-sex males). Now, check the social statistics for unwed mothers and/or fractured families. Now, compare against healthy families.
You can get angry all you want, but don't bother to reply until you understand the value of "family" on society and the associated costs. Until such time, you're waving a banner with nothing to say.
"encourage children" as in "encourage production of children"? Yeah, a lot of the western world has a birth-rate that's below the replenishment rate, but failing to recognise same-sex relationships is not the way to do it.
You misunderstand. Marriage has nothing to do with procreation. It does, on the other hand, have everything to do with good citizenship. Doubt me? Look at the statistics for successful people that come from a stable, healthy family structure versus a broken home and/or unmarried women. The statistics speak for themselves. Bluntly, a healthy family makes tomorrows healthy society. Period.
You seem to be running under the misconception that there is only one form of "marriage".
That would be 100% wrong and there is no supporting statements, which I've made, which could give you that understanding.
It seems to me your describing a christian marriage idea.
Yes. That is true.
Which of course is only a subset of all of "marriage".
This is true. But, we are talking about the US, which is a western country, which is mostly christian, so it's not like I'm out in left field. I'm exactly, on topic.
Furthermore, what you describe WAS true, it no longer is the case even in christian marriages.
Well, WAS isn't 100% correct. It's mostly true. If you look at western marriages, you'll find that social norms have changed, but some of the underpinnings are still in place. Which isn't exactly surprising, considering that's it's a shared history. Basically, there are still women that accept an engagement band as a down payment on sex. Likewise, despite the hige differences in social norms (then and now), it's not uncommon for women to take the position of, I had sex with him, he gave the ring to me, it's mine. It's basically payment for sex. While if you put it in cras terms as such, most will be insulted, but it doesn't change the facts.
The whole point of changing the wording of the marriage vows from "love, honor and obey" was to indicate a change in the concept that the woman was no longer "owned" by the man.
Which really has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Simple fact is, many social norms have changed. Granted, I was speaking from a historical accounting, but again, many of the underpinnings remain. Those that charish their virginity, in the west, are most likely to still be charging for sex.
Like it or not, sex is part of society and many western women are taught that their is a value to it. Accordingly, terms of trade may not be strictly those used as prostitutes, but you'll find that a trade for sex is more subtle terms is still very common.
You can prove me wrong by making the wedding jewlery industry all but vanish.
Marriage as a religious institution is defined by the religion and not all religions define it's purpose the same.
Only because you deem it to be. There is zero reason to sustain such an opinion. In other words, religion need not be the sole tie that binds a marriage. Accordingly, the government recognizes a marriage, not specific religion's view of marriage. You can shake a fist at that statement all you want, but reality speaks clearly here.
Thus the government has no business regulating marriage.
It surely does if there is any benefit to recognizing it. Is your position that the government should recognize legal unions but there should be no benefit from its legal status?
I believe it is Western European society that I'm describing. Sadly, I don't recall where I read this. As such, I don't have a reference to point you to. I bet that with a little foot work and google, you'll be able to find much more historical details on our marriage traditionals.
If you happen to find more details and/or links, please feel free to push them back my way.;) I happen to find this interesting too.
Well, I my be overally pedantic here, but I don't think I said, "who", should be married. I said that that there is perfectly valid reasons for the government to support the notion of a legal union and that it's reasonable for them to define what qualifies as a union, in such, that it promotes the government's vision (indirectly the populas) for healthy social structure.
To play on Futurama, if everyone is having sex with robots, who will be around to perpetuate a healthy and stable society?;)
Thanks for the pricing update. I should of mentioned that my pricing was based on information that is about 8-years ago. Wow. I hadn't realized it was that long ago until I stopped to think about it. I guess prices have fallen!
Well, to be cras, yes. What do you think the ENTIRE and SOLE purpose of an engagement and wedding ring is for? Basically, it's a downpayment for sex. If you have sex before you marry, the women is to keep the ring as compensation for having had sex. AKA, a prepayment on the intention to have sex. If the women does not have sex and a marriage is not completed, the ring is to be returned. This means, payment returned for services not provided (no sex, no payment). In the event the marriage takes place, and is consummated, then both rings are the women's to keep. In the event of death of the husband, the ring is to be sold to help sustain and/or support the widow. This is why both rings of traditionally of great value.
I believe later, it was realized that an engaged women that didn't retain her engagement ring was considered worthless and without honor, then it was understood that the engagement ring is hers to keep, to retain honor and worth.
In a nut shell, rings are socially acceptible forms of payment for sex. Period. It's just that most women don't realize that they are engaging in a historical practice that is tantamount to prostitution.
Some may say that same sex relationships are "ungodly" because they don't produce children,
What does god have to do with this? The primary reason for goverment recognition of family to to encourage children and a stable social environment for future citizens. If you're not encouraging "family", then there is no point in government recognized union. This has nothig to do with "god", just common sense.
Because it helps destroy our economy and increases demand on social programs. Like it or not, a lot of guys used this as a means to nail 14, 15, and 16 year old girls, knock them up three or four times, and then left them all. This means that social programs were left to take care of three or four wives, each with two, three, and four kids, none of whom, had an education or a means to support themselves. Which in turn, improves the odds that the offspring with be social program dependants for life.
In other words, I'm okay with it as long as, leaving your family or divorce means, that you get executed by the state, assuming that children are involved.
Beyond that, how many wives names do you think you can fit in the "spouse" space, provided on most forms.;)
As long as there is ground visibility, taking off is the easy part. It's landing that'll kill ya if you're not careful. In other words, as long as you have some visibliity to taxi and roll down a runway, you can easily get into the air. The problem is, getting safely back on the ground.;)
I'm guessing that it's an IR type camera, which is more commonly being used by fire fighters these days. They use these to quickly search burning houses (etc). Without this gear, they must search the same way rescue workers have for the last several hundred years (blind belly crawl), if not longer. Even these cameras have their limitations, based on the ambient temp and the number/size of particulants in the air. These generally work well for rescue because the air on the floor is cool and a warm body still makes for good contrast.
I can't remember the brand of this system, but IIRC, they are super expensive. Expect to have to pay something like $40-60k per camera, per fire fighter. This is why communities often do fund raisers to get these for their local firehouses. Bluntly, most firehouses can't afford one, let alone the multiples, which are considered ideal.
At any rate, after all that, there is a huge difference between IR and what this article is talking about.
Considering the license that he released his efforts under, I think it speaks clear and loud.
The zlib/libpng License
Copyright (c)
This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages arising from the use of this software.
Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose, including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it freely, subject to the following restrictions:
1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be appreciated but is not required.
2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be misrepresented as being the original software.
3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution.
Then put the whole thing back into the context from which you took it from. I politely said a dumb decision has been made and that it wasn't surprising, having previously spoken with several of them. You came back and wacked me for not being professional. I came back wacked them by stating the truth about them. Thusly, highlighting that my original statement was professional. Many people consider that to be funny.
Besides, I get annoyed when people disagree with the direction a developer takes, and decides they are 'arrogant pricks'.
Then read again as that's not what I said. I decided that the developers I've spoken to were idiots, long before they performed this odd action. Thusly, based on previous interactions, it makes complete sense that they would do something which is dumb. Disagreeing with people has absoluetely nothing to do with my original assessment.
Seemingly, you're made at me because you took things out of context.
And what is 'arrogance' anyway - that they think they know more than you on the software they are developing and you're not?
As a developer, I'm fully qualified to make quantitive measurements of other developers. Besides, when the developers make statements like (paraphrasing), "people can wait until we're ready to make a release. It doesn't matter if we have a fix for known exploits...if people want the fix, they can get it from CVS". A month later, they finally released. Basically, the developers position is, they couldn't care less if the population has potential exploits. You don't have to be a developer to judge that they are arrogant idiots. But, they didn't care enough about their blind follows (seemingly you) or the userbase in general, to do the right thing.
Please, do give me an example where the gaim developers arrogance has offended you.
The above should be enough. Though honestly, it's one of MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY, examples. Basically, several of the developers have proven that they are arrogant idiots. Period.
To then turn around and release a feature incomplete product, completely arbitrary, seems to match their previous pattern of ignorance and stupidity. After all, if it was truely artbitrary, why not keep a sub-1.0 version until they were actually basic-text IM complete? Why now? It makes no sense.
The majority of users are very nice - it's just the one or two.
Except that I'm not talking about users, I'm talking about the developers...well, a couple of them anyways. After talking with a couple of them, it's obvious that they are fairly inexperienced developers, purely driven by their egos...and it shows.
I must say, not only is it odd that you have no sense of humor, but it's very odd that you consider very pressional remarks to be insults. To then mark someone as a foe because you lack a sense of humor clearly indicates where the problem is.
No, he's saying they should of waited until they were feature complete with the things that people take for granted. Personally, I can agree that they shouldn't wait for video, but not supporting downloads through all of the services that they support, IMO, is enough to say that this is NOT 1.0 quality. If their 1.0.0 release number is as arbitrary as they claim it is, then it's just plain dumb for them to of done this. Not exactly a surprise after having chatted with a couple of the devs here and there.
They're pretty good about having a two-week release schedule.
Their two-week release cycle is very new. Before that, they released whenever they felt like it, in spite of known remote exploits and buffer overflow issues in wild, even though they had fixes sitting in CVS.
While I personally use gaim, I think the people driving the project are some of the ego-centric, oddities of the Internet. AFAIC, gaim is a success in spite of their best efforts. And don't get me started on their odd/rude IRC presence.
Not to belittle your friend's efforts, but there is a difference. You're friend's implementation simply floated on top and moved in a straight line. The new robot actually mimicks the locomotion of a real strider. It's suttle, but there is a difference.
Snails have 3 modes of locomotion on solid surfaces: forward unduating motion, backward undulating motion, and galloping.
Galloping??? Is that some insightful snail humor or is this for real? It's sorta funny because when I picture this in my head, I expect to see a snail moving at, well, a snail's pace, along with horse clop noises as it moves.
Can anyone share any insights as to what snail galloping is??
Slashdot Mirror
You're looking at a corner case. Make the girls, poor ignorant 17 and 18 year olds, and you still have a big problem.
Except, you can't eliminate the statistics are you wish. Subtract the difference in home violence from same sex relationships from different sex relationships, especially two males, have you're left with an interesting statistic.
Oh shesh. I see mostly garbage that you've typed. Offer something which isn't garbage, while not attempting to be inflamitory, and I'll happily respond.
Before you bother to reply, bother to check the statistics on same sax relationships. Both to check duration of relationship AND the associated crime rates (mostly same-sex males). Now, check the social statistics for unwed mothers and/or fractured families. Now, compare against healthy families.
You can get angry all you want, but don't bother to reply until you understand the value of "family" on society and the associated costs. Until such time, you're waving a banner with nothing to say.
"encourage children" as in "encourage production of children"? Yeah, a lot of the western world has a birth-rate that's below the replenishment rate, but failing to recognise same-sex relationships is not the way to do it.
You misunderstand. Marriage has nothing to do with procreation. It does, on the other hand, have everything to do with good citizenship. Doubt me? Look at the statistics for successful people that come from a stable, healthy family structure versus a broken home and/or unmarried women. The statistics speak for themselves. Bluntly, a healthy family makes tomorrows healthy society. Period.
You seem to be running under the misconception that there is only one form of "marriage".
That would be 100% wrong and there is no supporting statements, which I've made, which could give you that understanding.
It seems to me your describing a christian marriage idea.
Yes. That is true.
Which of course is only a subset of all of "marriage".
This is true. But, we are talking about the US, which is a western country, which is mostly christian, so it's not like I'm out in left field. I'm exactly, on topic.
Furthermore, what you describe WAS true, it no longer is the case even in christian marriages.
Well, WAS isn't 100% correct. It's mostly true. If you look at western marriages, you'll find that social norms have changed, but some of the underpinnings are still in place. Which isn't exactly surprising, considering that's it's a shared history. Basically, there are still women that accept an engagement band as a down payment on sex. Likewise, despite the hige differences in social norms (then and now), it's not uncommon for women to take the position of, I had sex with him, he gave the ring to me, it's mine. It's basically payment for sex. While if you put it in cras terms as such, most will be insulted, but it doesn't change the facts.
The whole point of changing the wording of the marriage vows from "love, honor and obey" was to indicate a change in the concept that the woman was no longer "owned" by the man.
Which really has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Simple fact is, many social norms have changed. Granted, I was speaking from a historical accounting, but again, many of the underpinnings remain. Those that charish their virginity, in the west, are most likely to still be charging for sex.
Like it or not, sex is part of society and many western women are taught that their is a value to it. Accordingly, terms of trade may not be strictly those used as prostitutes, but you'll find that a trade for sex is more subtle terms is still very common.
You can prove me wrong by making the wedding jewlery industry all but vanish.
Marriage as a religious institution is defined by the religion and not all religions define it's purpose the same.
Only because you deem it to be. There is zero reason to sustain such an opinion. In other words, religion need not be the sole tie that binds a marriage. Accordingly, the government recognizes a marriage, not specific religion's view of marriage. You can shake a fist at that statement all you want, but reality speaks clearly here.
Thus the government has no business regulating marriage.
It surely does if there is any benefit to recognizing it. Is your position that the government should recognize legal unions but there should be no benefit from its legal status?
I believe it is Western European society that I'm describing. Sadly, I don't recall where I read this. As such, I don't have a reference to point you to. I bet that with a little foot work and google, you'll be able to find much more historical details on our marriage traditionals.
;) I happen to find this interesting too.
If you happen to find more details and/or links, please feel free to push them back my way.
Well, I my be overally pedantic here, but I don't think I said, "who", should be married. I said that that there is perfectly valid reasons for the government to support the notion of a legal union and that it's reasonable for them to define what qualifies as a union, in such, that it promotes the government's vision (indirectly the populas) for healthy social structure.
;)
To play on Futurama, if everyone is having sex with robots, who will be around to perpetuate a healthy and stable society?
Thanks for the pricing update. I should of mentioned that my pricing was based on information that is about 8-years ago. Wow. I hadn't realized it was that long ago until I stopped to think about it. I guess prices have fallen!
Thanks again!
Well, to be cras, yes. What do you think the ENTIRE and SOLE purpose of an engagement and wedding ring is for? Basically, it's a downpayment for sex. If you have sex before you marry, the women is to keep the ring as compensation for having had sex. AKA, a prepayment on the intention to have sex. If the women does not have sex and a marriage is not completed, the ring is to be returned. This means, payment returned for services not provided (no sex, no payment). In the event the marriage takes place, and is consummated, then both rings are the women's to keep. In the event of death of the husband, the ring is to be sold to help sustain and/or support the widow. This is why both rings of traditionally of great value.
I believe later, it was realized that an engaged women that didn't retain her engagement ring was considered worthless and without honor, then it was understood that the engagement ring is hers to keep, to retain honor and worth.
In a nut shell, rings are socially acceptible forms of payment for sex. Period. It's just that most women don't realize that they are engaging in a historical practice that is tantamount to prostitution.
Some may say that same sex relationships are "ungodly" because they don't produce children,
What does god have to do with this? The primary reason for goverment recognition of family to to encourage children and a stable social environment for future citizens. If you're not encouraging "family", then there is no point in government recognized union. This has nothig to do with "god", just common sense.
Because it helps destroy our economy and increases demand on social programs. Like it or not, a lot of guys used this as a means to nail 14, 15, and 16 year old girls, knock them up three or four times, and then left them all. This means that social programs were left to take care of three or four wives, each with two, three, and four kids, none of whom, had an education or a means to support themselves. Which in turn, improves the odds that the offspring with be social program dependants for life.
;)
In other words, I'm okay with it as long as, leaving your family or divorce means, that you get executed by the state, assuming that children are involved.
Beyond that, how many wives names do you think you can fit in the "spouse" space, provided on most forms.
Airplanes! No more grounding because of fog.
;)
As long as there is ground visibility, taking off is the easy part. It's landing that'll kill ya if you're not careful. In other words, as long as you have some visibliity to taxi and roll down a runway, you can easily get into the air. The problem is, getting safely back on the ground.
I'm guessing that it's an IR type camera, which is more commonly being used by fire fighters these days. They use these to quickly search burning houses (etc). Without this gear, they must search the same way rescue workers have for the last several hundred years (blind belly crawl), if not longer. Even these cameras have their limitations, based on the ambient temp and the number/size of particulants in the air. These generally work well for rescue because the air on the floor is cool and a warm body still makes for good contrast.
I can't remember the brand of this system, but IIRC, they are super expensive. Expect to have to pay something like $40-60k per camera, per fire fighter. This is why communities often do fund raisers to get these for their local firehouses. Bluntly, most firehouses can't afford one, let alone the multiples, which are considered ideal.
At any rate, after all that, there is a huge difference between IR and what this article is talking about.
Considering the license that he released his efforts under, I think it speaks clear and loud.
The zlib/libpng License
Copyright (c)
This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages arising from the use of this software.
Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose, including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it freely, subject to the following restrictions:
1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be appreciated but is not required.
2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be misrepresented as being the original software.
3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution.
Hmm, it did not come across as a joke to me.
Then put the whole thing back into the context from which you took it from. I politely said a dumb decision has been made and that it wasn't surprising, having previously spoken with several of them. You came back and wacked me for not being professional. I came back wacked them by stating the truth about them. Thusly, highlighting that my original statement was professional. Many people consider that to be funny.
Besides, I get annoyed when people disagree with the direction a developer takes, and decides they are 'arrogant pricks'.
Then read again as that's not what I said. I decided that the developers I've spoken to were idiots, long before they performed this odd action. Thusly, based on previous interactions, it makes complete sense that they would do something which is dumb. Disagreeing with people has absoluetely nothing to do with my original assessment.
Seemingly, you're made at me because you took things out of context.
And what is 'arrogance' anyway - that they think they know more than you on the software they are developing and you're not?
As a developer, I'm fully qualified to make quantitive measurements of other developers. Besides, when the developers make statements like (paraphrasing), "people can wait until we're ready to make a release. It doesn't matter if we have a fix for known exploits...if people want the fix, they can get it from CVS". A month later, they finally released. Basically, the developers position is, they couldn't care less if the population has potential exploits. You don't have to be a developer to judge that they are arrogant idiots. But, they didn't care enough about their blind follows (seemingly you) or the userbase in general, to do the right thing.
Please, do give me an example where the gaim developers arrogance has offended you.
The above should be enough. Though honestly, it's one of MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY, examples. Basically, several of the developers have proven that they are arrogant idiots. Period.
To then turn around and release a feature incomplete product, completely arbitrary, seems to match their previous pattern of ignorance and stupidity. After all, if it was truely artbitrary, why not keep a sub-1.0 version until they were actually basic-text IM complete? Why now? It makes no sense.
The majority of users are very nice - it's just the one or two.
Except that I'm not talking about users, I'm talking about the developers...well, a couple of them anyways. After talking with a couple of them, it's obvious that they are fairly inexperienced developers, purely driven by their egos...and it shows.
I must say, not only is it odd that you have no sense of humor, but it's very odd that you consider very pressional remarks to be insults. To then mark someone as a foe because you lack a sense of humor clearly indicates where the problem is.
Cheers!
Hmmm. I thought I did good by not stating that the ones I've talked to have been arrogant pricks. I thought I did well. I guess I stand corrected.
No, he's saying they should of waited until they were feature complete with the things that people take for granted. Personally, I can agree that they shouldn't wait for video, but not supporting downloads through all of the services that they support, IMO, is enough to say that this is NOT 1.0 quality. If their 1.0.0 release number is as arbitrary as they claim it is, then it's just plain dumb for them to of done this. Not exactly a surprise after having chatted with a couple of the devs here and there.
What are you talking about?
They're pretty good about having a two-week release schedule.
Their two-week release cycle is very new. Before that, they released whenever they felt like it, in spite of known remote exploits and buffer overflow issues in wild, even though they had fixes sitting in CVS.
While I personally use gaim, I think the people driving the project are some of the ego-centric, oddities of the Internet. AFAIC, gaim is a success in spite of their best efforts. And don't get me started on their odd/rude IRC presence.
Great question! Too bad someone more knowledgeable didn't answer. :(
Not to belittle your friend's efforts, but there is a difference. You're friend's implementation simply floated on top and moved in a straight line. The new robot actually mimicks the locomotion of a real strider. It's suttle, but there is a difference.
From the article:
Snails have 3 modes of locomotion on solid surfaces: forward unduating motion, backward undulating motion, and galloping.
Galloping??? Is that some insightful snail humor or is this for real? It's sorta funny because when I picture this in my head, I expect to see a snail moving at, well, a snail's pace, along with horse clop noises as it moves.
Can anyone share any insights as to what snail galloping is??
and is not compareable to silly little toys such as MS Access
You forget MySQL there. It should read, "...MS Access and MySQL".
on a small external site or (i guess) distributed to clients as part of your product.
That's correct. On the page you download, it clearly says (paraphrasing), if you're interested in VAR or repackaging, write them for details.