Would you choose to be discriminated and hated the world over? Would you choose to be severly beaten and left in a field to die (Matthew Sheppard). Would you choose to be told "We find your kind so repulsive that we are proposing a Constitutional Amendment to keep you from marrying?" Yeah, I didn't think so. People are born gay. Face it. Treating it like its a disease that can be cured is only deluding yourself. And I never said it was a malady. ACs did.
Yet you have not provided how being gay is a malady. Are people with poor eyesight, in the adult world, cast out for something they have no control over?
Though I see the person's point, I think this is a loaded question with a dash of desparation (which frankly cuases an initial eye rolling). A better way of phrasing this would be:
Do each of you recognize a difference in civil marriage and religious marriage i.e., a couple may marry without a religious ceremony and the marriage is still recognized as such civilly?
If you do not, why not?
If you do, do you feel that the man-woman marriage is generally a product of religious beliefs? Though there is the propogation of the species argument for a man-woman union, there are many things we humans do to fight nature (e.g., people with poor eyesight are not naturally selected against; they wear glasses). If man-woman marriages are the product of religious beliefs, yet you recognize marriages may be purely civil in nature, why then are homosexuals not allowed civil marriages? Not civil unions, civil marriages.
Please explain/justify how being born black and being born gay are different as far as immutable characteristics go. Being gay is no more a malady than being born black, white or otherwise is.
Did you read my whole comment?? Because at the end, the tapping, the pointing, and my capitulation implied that, yeah, I see that it supports ogg. I understand if you didn't think it was funny, but c'mon man, I was being pretty obvious on my stance
Although it doesn't support.flac files like the Rio Karma, it does support.ogg, in addition to the usual file formats (mp3,.wmv,.asf,.wav) and sports a nifty color screen
No Ogg?? WTF??? I, for one, will not be buying this. When are digital music player companies going to start supporting Ogg?! I ripped my entire album collection into Ogg and I've noticed a dramatic quality difference over 256 kb/sec mp3s. C'mon! Just support Og*tap*tap* *point*point*
TV Card = $50. Wireless TV access = $0.
Small TV = $50. 100 feet of cable (from nearest outlet) = ~$25. Pissing off wife for drilling holes in my condo AND snaking an unsightly coax throughout = $???
Sorry, the tuner card is the cheaper option and less of a hassle.
But, were the house mine for the next 30 years instead of the next 5-7, I would agree with you because I'd run the cables (and probably some gigabit connections while I was at it) through the walls. But you can't be expected to know my situation or the layout of my abode.
Tangentially related: I'd watch TV on my notebook if I didn't have to have the coax feeding into it. I have three cable conenctions in my house, none of which are in my computer room. One however happens to be near my server upstairs. Is there a way to get the signal from my server (running Mandrake) to my machines in my computer room via wireless access? I could theoretically put a tv card in the server and run a TV program (tvtime) on the server upstairs vi a remote X connection to view it, but how do I get the sound to my local speakers?
it seems to me that most of the work of building current distributions is going into packaging things specifically so they won't work in any other distribution. Why does anyone want that?
For the same reason people give Apple money for Macs/Os X: because it just works on your system.
Distro vendors are providing a service. They are saying "here are compiled/patched versions of the software you want that should just work if you are using our system. We provide./configure && make && sudo make install so you don't have to!"
Want to use apt-get? We have a distro for you. Want to use someting like YAST? We have a (couple) distro(s) fo you. Want to roll-your-own? We have a distro for you.
People pay distro companies to provide that "distro for you."
What's funny is I related the very same story today to a girl I know and your response is exactly what she said. She said it because her boyfriend installed it on her computer.
When the girl sitting in front of me in my law school class was using Firefox. She's not a techie at all and to see jane six-pack using it kinda blew my mind since everything else she uses is Dell-installed.
Because though crummy, it's still a different scenario than the car manufacturer who selectively issues recalls. It's not the way I would run my business, but it's also not worth making a big issue out of it.
Though this is a crummy thing to do, your/their example is not entirely accurate. It's not that Ford would not issue recalls to everyone, they would just let their premium customers know about the recall (that will be for everyone) in advance. People can then plan better when they will have their car serviced.
Yes and no. Yick Wo, after some contemplation, is bad because it was the reverse of what I was arguing. I said that it was not meant to discriminate and it was, so the guy was freed. The topic was only bad will be discriminated agianst, and not the good guys, so it won't be abused.
AFAIK, the intent of the ordinance was to prevent fires and all laundromats in wooden building were to be regulated. The discrimination came in, again AFAIK, not in the drafting, but in the application. The legislature did plan it that way but the permit board was using it that way. Please feel free to correct me though.
That being said, Yick Wo was a bad example, but the statement that intent of the law is ignored is no less wrong.
Jeebus cripes are you wrong. Judges look to intent vs. results all the time. The Yick Wo case is an example where the intent of the law wasn't to discriminate against Chinese laundromats, but the defendant in the case was freed because the law was being used exactly for that. In fact, since all law is public policy in some form or another, the courts always look to the intent of the law when deciding a case. Did this guy commit a murder? The jury says "yes." Well the law says I can give him 20 - life. Given that the object of the law is to deter people from committing these crimes, and though this is a terrible crime, it does not rise to the level of cutting him up and eating him. I will give the defendant X years... etc, etc.
Regardless if the INDUCE Act will be used or judged this way, to say that judges don't look to the intent of the law they are weighing the facts against is just ignorant.
No. Being pessimistic is the worst thing you can do. Saying "we're sunk" is worse than "uhhh... hmmmm" for the people that are neither optimists or pessimists. And optimists may hope for an unrealistic outcome. So while I'd rather have an optimist, I still think being a pessimist is the worst thing a lawyer can be.
Yeah... so? Given that guesstimating 70% of them go on to pass the bar, they'll be lawyers. And not in some far distant future; in a year or two. What's your point?
Regardless of the validity of this statement, I find the opposite to be true. In my law school classes, it is the optimists who seem to be the better lawyers.
Many cases can be looked at as losers. "You did what? Crud, we're sunk" is not the lawyer I want to hire. "You did what? Hmmm, well maybe we could stretch the reasoning on this case and apply it to yours. Or maybe this decision from a neighboring jurisdiction, tough no decisive, may be persuasive." That's the lawyer I want. Everything can be looked at from different angles and being pessimistic is the worst thing you can do.
I'm not a lawyer yet, I'm still in school. I enjoy the work, but most of it is not in the court. Many, many lawyers never see the inside of a court room. My real estate lawyer in fact hasn't. Funny/sad that I, as a non-lawyer working in IP, have a higher billing rate than she did as a 3rd year associate.
That all being said, I think I will enjoy the work. Though I definitely have a more balanced view of IP than when I entered ("Damn corporations!"), I still think I'd like to end up doing something like the EFF lawyers do. I want to make a comfortable living, but I'm not looking to be a star litigator that makes a bazillion dollars an hour. But though you see wasted time, I guarantee the lawyer is looking at it as a chance to go over his schpiel one more time. Gotta get it right. Gotta nail. I mean, that's what they're paid for, right?
When the lawyers involved walk away with most of the money - everyone loses.
I don't buy that lawyers walk away with "most" of the money. There are definitely lawyers that take 1/3 of the award, and I personally think that, like you said, does not work toward compensating the injured party. But realize that some lwayers, during a trial for their clients, put their employment and lives on hold. If a lawyer is working on one case, on contingency, and one case only, for say, 6 months, and he loses, then he just worked 6 months for free. Imagine if you did not get a paycheck for half the year, yet worked 60+ hour weeks during that time. Just something to think about.
The court system is overworked. I won't deny that. Judges have to crank through cases to get them done. But what is the solution? Tell person X they deserve a trial but person Y does not? To person Y their case is just as important and their rights have been just as damaged.
as a class, lawyers are overpaid and not compelled by market forces to compete
This is simply not true. Lawyers have to fight like dogs to keep existing clients and recruit new ones. Their are always lawyers out there that will do the same job and for less money. The only thing I see that is different business-wise when I was a software engineer and now is that in a law firm, I don't have to worry about the work being outsourced. I've watched more than a handful of clients leave our firm since I started (not long ago) because they found the work for cheaper. And you cannot say "lawyers as a class" because there are 100 different kinds of lawyers. There are the DAs in Rochester, NY who made, at least a couple years ago, less than I did as an intern at IBM in the same area (30k). There are also the IP litigator partners who make a million+ a year. You can't say "lawyers as a class" because that is like saying "Scientists as a class" where some of the scientists are in the lab making agarose prep mediums while some are heading huge R&D projects. You need to narrow it down before you say "X type of lawyers make too much money."
You seem to be a programmed gone lawyer
"What if we're still doing this in fifty years?" That and my interest in the whole Napster episode really made me decide that banging out code for the rest of my life is not what I was looking for. Sad to say, but Office Space changed my life.
Slashdot Mirror
-truth
Yet you have not provided how being gay is a malady. Are people with poor eyesight, in the adult world, cast out for something they have no control over?
-truth
Do each of you recognize a difference in civil marriage and religious marriage i.e., a couple may marry without a religious ceremony and the marriage is still recognized as such civilly?
If you do not, why not?
If you do, do you feel that the man-woman marriage is generally a product of religious beliefs? Though there is the propogation of the species argument for a man-woman union, there are many things we humans do to fight nature (e.g., people with poor eyesight are not naturally selected against; they wear glasses). If man-woman marriages are the product of religious beliefs, yet you recognize marriages may be purely civil in nature, why then are homosexuals not allowed civil marriages? Not civil unions, civil marriages.
-truth
-truth
Did you read my whole comment?? Because at the end, the tapping, the pointing, and my capitulation implied that, yeah, I see that it supports ogg. I understand if you didn't think it was funny, but c'mon man, I was being pretty obvious on my stance
-truth
No Ogg?? WTF??? I, for one, will not be buying this. When are digital music player companies going to start supporting Ogg?! I ripped my entire album collection into Ogg and I've noticed a dramatic quality difference over 256 kb/sec mp3s. C'mon! Just support Og*tap*tap* *point*point*
Oh. Ummmm. It's cool then I guess.
-truth
Small TV = $50. 100 feet of cable (from nearest outlet) = ~$25. Pissing off wife for drilling holes in my condo AND snaking an unsightly coax throughout = $???
Sorry, the tuner card is the cheaper option and less of a hassle.
But, were the house mine for the next 30 years instead of the next 5-7, I would agree with you because I'd run the cables (and probably some gigabit connections while I was at it) through the walls. But you can't be expected to know my situation or the layout of my abode.
-truth
Seriously.
-truth
-truth
For the same reason people give Apple money for Macs/Os X: because it just works on your system.
Distro vendors are providing a service. They are saying "here are compiled/patched versions of the software you want that should just work if you are using our system. We provide ./configure && make && sudo make install so you don't have to!"
Want to use apt-get? We have a distro for you. Want to use someting like YAST? We have a (couple) distro(s) fo you. Want to roll-your-own? We have a distro for you.
People pay distro companies to provide that "distro for you."
-truth
Yes. Just don't to set up that machine to dual boot with Windows.
-truth
-truth
-truth
-truth
I'm no Sherlock Holmes, but I'd bet dollars to donuts you aren't married.
-truth
-truth
-p-
-truth/Khorne
If you don't get it, ask GB.
AFAIK, the intent of the ordinance was to prevent fires and all laundromats in wooden building were to be regulated. The discrimination came in, again AFAIK, not in the drafting, but in the application. The legislature did plan it that way but the permit board was using it that way. Please feel free to correct me though.
That being said, Yick Wo was a bad example, but the statement that intent of the law is ignored is no less wrong.
-truth
Regardless if the INDUCE Act will be used or judged this way, to say that judges don't look to the intent of the law they are weighing the facts against is just ignorant.
-truth
No. Being pessimistic is the worst thing you can do. Saying "we're sunk" is worse than "uhhh... hmmmm" for the people that are neither optimists or pessimists. And optimists may hope for an unrealistic outcome. So while I'd rather have an optimist, I still think being a pessimist is the worst thing a lawyer can be.
Yeah... so? Given that guesstimating 70% of them go on to pass the bar, they'll be lawyers. And not in some far distant future; in a year or two. What's your point?
Regardless of the validity of this statement, I find the opposite to be true. In my law school classes, it is the optimists who seem to be the better lawyers.
Many cases can be looked at as losers. "You did what? Crud, we're sunk" is not the lawyer I want to hire. "You did what? Hmmm, well maybe we could stretch the reasoning on this case and apply it to yours. Or maybe this decision from a neighboring jurisdiction, tough no decisive, may be persuasive." That's the lawyer I want. Everything can be looked at from different angles and being pessimistic is the worst thing you can do.
-truth
That all being said, I think I will enjoy the work. Though I definitely have a more balanced view of IP than when I entered ("Damn corporations!"), I still think I'd like to end up doing something like the EFF lawyers do. I want to make a comfortable living, but I'm not looking to be a star litigator that makes a bazillion dollars an hour. But though you see wasted time, I guarantee the lawyer is looking at it as a chance to go over his schpiel one more time. Gotta get it right. Gotta nail. I mean, that's what they're paid for, right?
-truth
I don't buy that lawyers walk away with "most" of the money. There are definitely lawyers that take 1/3 of the award, and I personally think that, like you said, does not work toward compensating the injured party. But realize that some lwayers, during a trial for their clients, put their employment and lives on hold. If a lawyer is working on one case, on contingency, and one case only, for say, 6 months, and he loses, then he just worked 6 months for free. Imagine if you did not get a paycheck for half the year, yet worked 60+ hour weeks during that time. Just something to think about.
The court system is overworked. I won't deny that. Judges have to crank through cases to get them done. But what is the solution? Tell person X they deserve a trial but person Y does not? To person Y their case is just as important and their rights have been just as damaged.
as a class, lawyers are overpaid and not compelled by market forces to compete
This is simply not true. Lawyers have to fight like dogs to keep existing clients and recruit new ones. Their are always lawyers out there that will do the same job and for less money. The only thing I see that is different business-wise when I was a software engineer and now is that in a law firm, I don't have to worry about the work being outsourced. I've watched more than a handful of clients leave our firm since I started (not long ago) because they found the work for cheaper. And you cannot say "lawyers as a class" because there are 100 different kinds of lawyers. There are the DAs in Rochester, NY who made, at least a couple years ago, less than I did as an intern at IBM in the same area (30k). There are also the IP litigator partners who make a million+ a year. You can't say "lawyers as a class" because that is like saying "Scientists as a class" where some of the scientists are in the lab making agarose prep mediums while some are heading huge R&D projects. You need to narrow it down before you say "X type of lawyers make too much money."
You seem to be a programmed gone lawyer
"What if we're still doing this in fifty years?" That and my interest in the whole Napster episode really made me decide that banging out code for the rest of my life is not what I was looking for. Sad to say, but Office Space changed my life.
-truth