The problem is that the same founding fathers that insisted on the principle of separation of church and state still allowed the legal and religious definitions of marriage to commingle. The two need to be completely and permanently separated. Register with the state to receive the legal benefits of marriage for yourself and your family. Perform a religious ceremony in your church of choice to receive the religious benefits of marriage. One does not require the other; the two can be completely independent.
Idealistically, I have no problem with polygamy and consider it to be a cultural artifact that it is taboo in our culture, just like males but not females being allowed to bare their chests in public. However, the anecdotal evidence I have heard from women who have actually lived in polygamous cultures indicates that the practice causes a lot of bickering, hurt feelings, and abuse, so it definitely is not for everyone. In addition, many (especially younger women) may be coerced into plural marriages, or not really give fully informed consent. In short, not much is lost by refusing to legally recognize plural marriage in Western culture.
Because I'm obviously joking, while those that say "Gays do have equal rights -- they have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that straights do" are not so obviously joking. Equating being against gay rights with being "pro family" ignores the basic fact that same sex couples can and do have children, and those children deserve to have the same benefits as the children of opposite sex couples. Finally, defining marriage as only being legal between one man and one woman appears to completely deny hermaphrodites, males with an extra X chromosome, and transgendered individuals any right to marry if you take a literal, scientific interpretation of exactly one male and exactly one female. Would Caster Semenya be allowed to marry ANYONE under current California law?
In the US, you are free to criticize the US president publicly. In China, you are also free to criticize the US president publicly. See, they have an equal amount of free speech!
Please post objectionable material to slashdot and get it taken down... I'm losing far too much productivity at work from reading and posting on this site!
Dean Kamen's original intent was to build a 2-wheel balancing wheelchair, but unfortunately the global market for that doesn't justify the development costs. So he tricked the investors into paying the development costs for the Segway, knowing most of the technology could be easily transferred to the wheelchair.
Any guess on how many people share the name "Wang Chen" in all of China? Chances are most people could use their real name and still remain relatively anonymous.
By that same token, every school should have a disgruntled student with a black trench coat and an AK47, so that kids can learn how to deal with psychopathic killers in the real world!
Why is it that every suggested other way of encoding the image data sounds like a fractal to me? Yes, you get better compression if you only completely encode reference points or reference blocks, and then encode only the differences between the reference and other points or blocks. JPEG does this in small macro blocks, whereas wavelet encoding does the entire image at once, but they are both essentially doing the same thing. Fractals add an additional step of allowing a difference in size between the reference and it's children -- which sounds a lot like what is being proposed in the original article.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that the same founding fathers that insisted on the principle of separation of church and state still allowed the legal and religious definitions of marriage to commingle. The two need to be completely and permanently separated. Register with the state to receive the legal benefits of marriage for yourself and your family. Perform a religious ceremony in your church of choice to receive the religious benefits of marriage. One does not require the other; the two can be completely independent.
"Ha, ha, made you blink!"
Idealistically, I have no problem with polygamy and consider it to be a cultural artifact that it is taboo in our culture, just like males but not females being allowed to bare their chests in public. However, the anecdotal evidence I have heard from women who have actually lived in polygamous cultures indicates that the practice causes a lot of bickering, hurt feelings, and abuse, so it definitely is not for everyone. In addition, many (especially younger women) may be coerced into plural marriages, or not really give fully informed consent. In short, not much is lost by refusing to legally recognize plural marriage in Western culture.
Because I'm obviously joking, while those that say "Gays do have equal rights -- they have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that straights do" are not so obviously joking. Equating being against gay rights with being "pro family" ignores the basic fact that same sex couples can and do have children, and those children deserve to have the same benefits as the children of opposite sex couples. Finally, defining marriage as only being legal between one man and one woman appears to completely deny hermaphrodites, males with an extra X chromosome, and transgendered individuals any right to marry if you take a literal, scientific interpretation of exactly one male and exactly one female. Would Caster Semenya be allowed to marry ANYONE under current California law?
In the US, you are free to criticize the US president publicly. In China, you are also free to criticize the US president publicly. See, they have an equal amount of free speech!
Please post objectionable material to slashdot and get it taken down... I'm losing far too much productivity at work from reading and posting on this site!
Dean Kamen's original intent was to build a 2-wheel balancing wheelchair, but unfortunately the global market for that doesn't justify the development costs. So he tricked the investors into paying the development costs for the Segway, knowing most of the technology could be easily transferred to the wheelchair.
Looks like they're trying to compensate for something.
Oh wait... they are compensating for something! Never mind!
Shouldn't this have been titled Breaking News?
You know, it's people like you that make it difficult for Mike Hawk to be taken seriously as a dentist!
You mean other than in a review of the new "Alice in Wonderland" movie, right?
Any guess on how many people share the name "Wang Chen" in all of China? Chances are most people could use their real name and still remain relatively anonymous.
Yes... if you don't mind your battery life being measured in seconds instead of hours.
Now hidden cameras will be able to stream up-skirt videos in HD!
(Please gentle viewer, let me have the M1) Sorry, you're ALL getting the aluminum bats -- much more entertaining to watch!
By that same token, every school should have a disgruntled student with a black trench coat and an AK47, so that kids can learn how to deal with psychopathic killers in the real world!
"Do you think he's maybe compensating for something?" -- Shrek
Sure, it will be within GTX470 speeds for at least few days before it burns up...
Compared to the cost of hookers and blow, it's a downright bargain!
Anybody got a white dwarf sized Beano?
So now we can all start fucking again?
Only if the robot encorporates a fleshlight...
That's because the operator forgot to type in the correct command.
And tits?
Why is it that every suggested other way of encoding the image data sounds like a fractal to me? Yes, you get better compression if you only completely encode reference points or reference blocks, and then encode only the differences between the reference and other points or blocks. JPEG does this in small macro blocks, whereas wavelet encoding does the entire image at once, but they are both essentially doing the same thing. Fractals add an additional step of allowing a difference in size between the reference and it's children -- which sounds a lot like what is being proposed in the original article.