Virtual Earth does work with Firefox, though I agree that MS seems to be mostly ignoring non-IE users. Their developer API requires an undocumented patch in order to make third party sites work in Firefox.
In 1956, geophysicist Marion King Hubbert predicted that _U.S._ oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970. In fact, U.S. oil production peaked in 1971, so he was pretty close. U.S. production has been going down ever since.
This current article is about _World_ production. Hubbert predicted that would peak around 2000.
Human propensity towards social conditioning over pragmatism is why we have things like government, religion, music, corporations, indoor plumbing and Madonna while chimpanzees still live in the trees. We in "civilized" societies will do things that we don't see as necessary, even things we can easily reason to be a waste of time, if we believe it is somehow the "right" thing to do.
Not to say that social conformity is always a good thing, but is a significant reason why humans dominate the planet, for better or worse. And earlier posts noting that this study was done on (probably upper-middle-class) American children are defintely apt - the results probably would be quite different if the prize was food and the humans were malnourished third world children - i.e. people who have not benefited so much from the glories of civilization.
Chill dude. Did you read my post? Where did I even come close to suggesting we abolish the world wide web?
In my post I was merely pointing out that the journalist and google in large part did the same thing: re-publish information that was _already_ public. Just because Google does it in an automated way doesn't mean they are any more or less ethical than someone who does it manually.
I don't happen to think that what cnet did was unethical - they just created a link to a site that contains information that is a matter of public record. Especially given that it was done to illustrate a primary point of the article, I really don't see the big deal.
If Google thinks it so great to make all information on a particular subject easily accessible (and I agree that it is great), then they should not throw a fit when someone else does exactly the same thing.
Eventually, the "equal protection under the laws" amendment was passed
Actually, the 14th Amendment, which guarantees "equal protection under the laws" for all citizens, was passed in the 1860s, before the Jim Crow laws. The reality, however, was that blacks were not treated equally under the laws, particularly state laws in the south. The Jim Crowe laws were, in fact, an attempt to get around the 14th Amendment by creating the concept of "separate but equal". It wasn't until years later, after JUDGES started "making up" rights for blacks (i.e. Brown vs Board of Education - 1954) and blacks started breaking laws (sitting in whites-only bus seats, sitting at whites-only lunch counters, etc.) that the Jim Crowe laws were ended. At the time, those judges and those law breakers were in fact acting against the beliefs and wishes of the majority of the people, particulary in the southern states.
So no, it's not a right just because you say it is. It's a right when the majority of people decide it's a good idea to recognize a homosexual union as marriage.
It's not a matter of creating some new right, it's a matter of upholding current law. The 14th amendment says that everyone has equal protection under the law. The opinion of the majority of the populace, stictly speaking, has nothing to do with it.
You are correct that marriage itself is not a right, but marriage is legal status, a sort of contract that confers certain rights upon the individuals involved. Straight people in general have the right to enter into such a contract with someone they love. Gay people in general do not. Gays are not receiving equal protection under the law. Yes, a gay person could marry someone they didn't love, but that is missing the whole point.
As an analogy, having a particular job is not a "right". Nobody in this country has a "right" to work for the XYZ company, but it is still illegal for the XYZ company to deny a job to someone just because they are black. Doing so would deny blacks the opportunity to even try to get such a job. Sure, they could go try and get a job somewhere else, but that is not the point if the person wants to work at XYZ company. Every citizen (barring unusual circumstances such as incarceration) should have equal access to every right granted under our laws.
Either gays should be allowed to marry or the legal rights that come with marriage should be removed from the marriage contract - those are the only two scenarios that would result in equal protection under the law.
Let's say that's true, it still doesn't matter. Just because something is "in your being" doesn't necessarily make it right, particularly if it involves violating the law.
Just because something is a law doesn't necessarily make it right either. Or perhaps you think those uppity Negros of forty years ago should have just kept walking to the back of the bus instead of challenging the law.
Sexual preference is just a preference, it doesn't carry any rights along with it.
- after all, riding the bus is just a transportation preference, it doesn't carry any rights along with it.
Sodomy is orthogonal to homosexuality. You can be straight and practice sodomy, or be gay and not practice it. The state legislature could have had many reasons to outlaw it, I merely guessed that "health" was the reason they used since it can transmit disease.
reality check: Male/female sexual intercourse can transmit disease just as effectively as sodomy
Those state legislatures forty years ago could have had many reasons for the Jim Crow laws. It's probably safer at the back of the bus if it gets into a head on collision. So I guess that the Jim Crow laws must have been written for safety reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
Virtual Earth does work with Firefox, though I agree that MS seems to be mostly ignoring non-IE users. Their developer API requires an undocumented patch in order to make third party sites work in Firefox.
I'll probably regret this, since it is not really ready, but what the hell (shameless plug here):
v map_a
http://daemmonhughes.com/mapper?map1=gmap_m&map2=
http://www.changingworldtech.com/>
But, being the terminally unhappy people they are, they'll just blame Bush and not MoveOn.
Quite the contrary. Most people I know who would fit in that description are quite happy about it
In 1956, geophysicist Marion King Hubbert predicted that _U.S._ oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970. In fact, U.S. oil production peaked in 1971, so he was pretty close. U.S. production has been going down ever since. This current article is about _World_ production. Hubbert predicted that would peak around 2000.
Not to say that social conformity is always a good thing, but is a significant reason why humans dominate the planet, for better or worse. And earlier posts noting that this study was done on (probably upper-middle-class) American children are defintely apt - the results probably would be quite different if the prize was food and the humans were malnourished third world children - i.e. people who have not benefited so much from the glories of civilization.
In my post I was merely pointing out that the journalist and google in large part did the same thing: re-publish information that was _already_ public. Just because Google does it in an automated way doesn't mean they are any more or less ethical than someone who does it manually. I don't happen to think that what cnet did was unethical - they just created a link to a site that contains information that is a matter of public record. Especially given that it was done to illustrate a primary point of the article, I really don't see the big deal.
If Google thinks it so great to make all information on a particular subject easily accessible (and I agree that it is great), then they should not throw a fit when someone else does exactly the same thing.
... as did Google.
Just at the state level instead:r izon_wireless/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/01/philly_ve
Eventually, the "equal protection under the laws" amendment was passed
Actually, the 14th Amendment, which guarantees "equal protection under the laws" for all citizens, was passed in the 1860s, before the Jim Crow laws. The reality, however, was that blacks were not treated equally under the laws, particularly state laws in the south. The Jim Crowe laws were, in fact, an attempt to get around the 14th Amendment by creating the concept of "separate but equal". It wasn't until years later, after JUDGES started "making up" rights for blacks (i.e. Brown vs Board of Education - 1954) and blacks started breaking laws (sitting in whites-only bus seats, sitting at whites-only lunch counters, etc.) that the Jim Crowe laws were ended. At the time, those judges and those law breakers were in fact acting against the beliefs and wishes of the majority of the people, particulary in the southern states.
So no, it's not a right just because you say it is. It's a right when the majority of people decide it's a good idea to recognize a homosexual union as marriage.
It's not a matter of creating some new right, it's a matter of upholding current law. The 14th amendment says that everyone has equal protection under the law. The opinion of the majority of the populace, stictly speaking, has nothing to do with it.
You are correct that marriage itself is not a right, but marriage is legal status, a sort of contract that confers certain rights upon the individuals involved. Straight people in general have the right to enter into such a contract with someone they love. Gay people in general do not. Gays are not receiving equal protection under the law. Yes, a gay person could marry someone they didn't love, but that is missing the whole point.
As an analogy, having a particular job is not a "right". Nobody in this country has a "right" to work for the XYZ company, but it is still illegal for the XYZ company to deny a job to someone just because they are black. Doing so would deny blacks the opportunity to even try to get such a job. Sure, they could go try and get a job somewhere else, but that is not the point if the person wants to work at XYZ company. Every citizen (barring unusual circumstances such as incarceration) should have equal access to every right granted under our laws.Either gays should be allowed to marry or the legal rights that come with marriage should be removed from the marriage contract - those are the only two scenarios that would result in equal protection under the law.
Just because something is a law doesn't necessarily make it right either. Or perhaps you think those uppity Negros of forty years ago should have just kept walking to the back of the bus instead of challenging the law.
Sexual preference is just a preference, it doesn't carry any rights along with it.
- after all, riding the bus is just a transportation preference, it doesn't carry any rights along with it.
Sodomy is orthogonal to homosexuality. You can be straight and practice sodomy, or be gay and not practice it. The state legislature could have had many reasons to outlaw it, I merely guessed that "health" was the reason they used since it can transmit disease.
reality check: Male/female sexual intercourse can transmit disease just as effectively as sodomy
Those state legislatures forty years ago could have had many reasons for the Jim Crow laws. It's probably safer at the back of the bus if it gets into a head on collision. So I guess that the Jim Crow laws must have been written for safety reasons.