Give me one good reason to believe that gay "marriage" is good for society. One.
Lower incidence of sexually-transmitted diseases and suicide, particularly among youth (you know, the children you all are claiming to want to protect). STDs place a burden upon society in medical and maintenance costs. Suicide removes potentially useful members who may do "good" for society.
It should come as no surprise that homosexuals are more likely to respect the bounds of their relationships when the society they live in also treat such relationships with respect. Don't forget, even if HIV and the like are "gay diseases" brought on by God to punish the wicked, they can still spread to the self righteous believers like yourself. I'm one of those terrifying things you dare not conceive: a bisexual. I could take it up the butt from God knows who and then impregnate your wife with my demon seed.
Monogamous (or at least responsible) relationships encourage the growth of stable individuals whom are a benefit to society. Period.
I will not consider some narcissistic nonsense about "it's my right".
That pretty much says all one need know about you.
You have the rights designated by law, no more, no less.
This is so wrong I don't even know where to begin. Let me put it to you this way though: you better hope that human rights and dignity come from somewhere other than a scrap of paper somewhere because otherwise we're all fucked. That means 0.00001% of the country's population can grant or retract rights at a whim.
You saw that I'm actively engaged in that conversation on the Seattle paper. Refute my objections.
And you saw that I'm actively engaged in the discussion here on this website. Refute my objections instead of attempting misdirection. Why would I go argue on a comment roll that has no thread context, has no community moderation system, is limited in the quantity and format of text allowed, and where the participants don't even appear to know what they're arguing about?
Seriously, some can't tell the difference between a public statement requesting a measure be put on a ballot and an anonymous vote. Others appear to think that the gay community is behind R71.
All I hear are complaints that "I should be allowed to gaze into my navel, or my gaybo buddy's navel, and eat lotus forever if I choose."
No one suggests that gay marriage will benefit society. No one.
Who cares? If I want to gaze into my "gaybo buddy's" navel, you're goddamn right that I should be allowed to. Last I checked this was still a free country and the burden of proof is on you that I should not have that right.
Why is the bar set at a benefit for society anyway? Football does no good for society as far as I can tell. It breeds violence, drug use, organized crime, creates poor roll models for children, and as a society we spend an unbelievable amount of money on it--money that could be used to do "good for society." And yet we allow it and in fact, regard little else as more "American."
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/reader_feedback/public/display.php?thread=198053&offset=0&column=create_date&direction=DESC [nwsource.com]
Join the discussion. Refute the arguments.
Right, because I want to waste my time on a comments roll where the people have this much of a grip on reality:
What a shock (not) that the lefty loons on the 9th Circuit issued that inane ruling. To hell with voter confidentiality if it flies in the face of their politics, right?
I’m glad there’s a Kennedy who does NOT hail from Massachusetts.
Name and shame? I'm quite proud that I oppose the gay agenda.
Good for you; I told you bigots were proud of their delinquencies!
And, I'll thank you to stop comparing queer to being black, or Baptist, or Catholic, or male or female, or whatever else.
A "lifestyle" is not an inherited condition of your being.
If no one has a right to be homosexual because it's a "lifestyle" (this term makes no sense), then why does anyone have a right to be Baptist or Catholic? That's also a "lifestyle." Congratulations, you yourself just compared "queer" to being Baptist.
However, I'm curious: what's your take on the homosexual behavior exhibited by every mammalian species that has been studied in any depth? Those deer watch too much Bravo and decided the "lifestyle" was right for them?
What is not liked by the proponents of interracial marriage is that this 'right' isn't something that they can as readily take advantage of given their preference for a mate runs counter to what current law allows in most states (ie the right to marry a member of a different race).
I think you need to ask yourself a very important question... what is the compelling state interest (look it up) in supporting/endorsing marriage? And no... it's not taxes, clearer inheritance law or hospital visitation. Once you understand this answer, you may just understand better why most states have not enacted specific provisions allowing same sex marriage. Btw... the answer is not "homophobia", "bigotry" or "intolerance" either.
Really? Here's a compelling State interest: equal rights to all human beings. OK, your implied "compelling interest" is children. Not that this hasn't been countered to death, but maybe you'll be the first person in human history to provide a cogent argument.
If the compelling State interest to provide additional benefits to couples in the interests of raising children why
do unwed couples with children not receive benefits?
do wed couples without children receive benefits?
do wed couples who refuse to ever procreate (even before marriage) receive benefits?
does the State allow divorce?
does the State allow abortion?
does the State allow adoption?
do homosexual couples already raising children not receive benefits?
do homosexual couples who desire to help raise foster and unwanted children not receive benefits?
do marriages provide thousands of benefits and rights completely unrelated to childrearing?
I'm sure I could go on all day. So yeah, so far it seems the only reason to oppose homosexual marriage is bigotry. Feel free to craft a real argument, but please skip the slurry of hate and nonsense.
What is being sought in Washington, like California was/is additional (ie new) rights, not the same rights.
Is there some kind of conservative playbook that teaches you to throw a collection of information into a bottle, shake it, and then present whatever garbage that comes out as the truth? Or is just a side effect of having an underdeveloped cerebral cortex?
Hold onto your seat, because I'm about to blow your fucking mind. Washington already has domestic partnerships. Right now in Washington, there are many families led by two men and they are raising children. I know, must be terrifying.
However, even though homosexual couples can enter into a domestic partnership and receive some of the rights heterosexual couples have in a full "marriage," domestic partnerships are still lesser than marriages. That is, many rights are still not afforded to people in domestic partnerships. So yeah, homosexuals are fighting to gain "additional" rights in hopes of coming somewhere close to a heterosexual marriage. Referendum 71 is an attempt to get a vote to repeal these rights already guaranteed. So not only do gay couples not have the same rights, people are fighting to make sure they have zero rights.
So no, it's not OK for gays to use violence or threats of violence to further their cause. I can't say I blame them though. These people have declare war on their existence and are determined to make sure they are treated as less than human. It's completely unreasonable to expect that homosexuals won't fight back.
What the fuck are you talking about? I'm going to ignore for a moment the fact that that one line in Leviticus is about the only one people follow in the whole damn book. Who said anything about compelling any religious institution to sanction any particular union male/male, male/female, or female/female? Honestly, no one cares what sort of hate you chant in your nuthouse.
More importantly, why would a homosexual want to be involved with a group that tells them they are going to Hell simply because their Creator says so. Their Creator makes them gay and then punishes them for eternity for it. Yeah, makes a lot of sense.
Who cares? We have plenty. You address infertile couples and say well fine we'll let them keep their useless marriage. What about heterosexual couples who decide they don't want to have children, ever? I suppose we should force them to make babies, huh? I know our country is just dying for more unwilling parents. What about couples that decide not to have children as a conscious, socially-responsible choice to prevent severe inheritable diseases from being passed on (this reduces the burden on society, as well)? Should these people be prevented from getting married?
What I really wanted to correct you on, however, is this:
The reason we give married couples benefits is because they make children.
This is not the only reason to get married and is certainly not the main reason homosexual couples want to be "married." Spouses receive many extra rights, privileges and conveniences not afforded to anyone else, both legally and socially. If my wife becomes a vegetable then I, in the absence of a living will, have the final say about her life support. If my wife is in the hospital, I simply say I'm her husband and I'm ushered right on through to her (unless she's in the OR or something). And on and on with tax filing, estate rights, guardianship over children, etc.
The peter-puffers don't need to know WHO, specifically, is opposed to their agenda.
Really? As a free-thinking citizen of these United States, I can assure you that I do need to know who is attempting to oppress the rights of others. Surely you would want to know who is proposing to lock the people of Westboro Baptist Church away in a mental institution? Or who is proposing that black people are (again) not actual human beings?
More importantly, these signatures are not votes on a ballot. There is no expectation of privacy when signing a public petition and indeed, there can be none. This is why online petitions are typically useless; I can go create one for any topic I want and write a script to generate as many signatories as I desire. Petition signatures need to be verified to establish that they do reflect the will of a significant percentage of a population.
All they need to know is, they can't get "married".
Most gay people that I know don't care about getting "married," they just want the same legal protections guaranteed to heterosexual couples. What this usually means is that they want civil unions or domestic partnerships or whatever other term you want to come up with. Now here's the important part: The State of Washington already offers domestic partnerships. It's not perfect though and that's why the State Senate passed SB 5688 to expand the rights guaranteed by a domestic partnership. So what we're actually talking about here is a group of people trying to take away rights that have already been guaranteed by their governing body.
The ONLY reason they want to know who signed is to start harassing people.
Incorrect. A simple name and shame can be quite effective and sufficient (and if you truly believe that some people should have fewer rights simply because their brain is wired differently or were created differently, then why would you be ashamed to have anyone know this? Most bigots are proud of their delinquencies). It's drawing a line in the sand saying put up or shut up. If you don't want to be on the public record for having opposed civil rights, rescind your signature.
Wanna get married, dude? Go find a woman. Dick are for chicks, you silly faggot.
Oh, I'm terribly sorry; I thought I was having an adult conversatation.
OK, I read it. Can I judge now? It's a fearful soup made from ignorance, strained through something made to resemble a scientific process in a desperate attempt to justify the continued existence of an anti-intellectual movement.
The Context
Oh, they indeed set the context for their misinformation piece. Of course the language used should come as no surprise: "one who believes in evolution," "according to neo-Darwinism," etc. The primary base context Don Batten is trying to establish is that even if the bacteria can be shown to have evolved a functional trait through random mutation, such a feat would be impossible for a more "complex" lifeform, such as a human.
They can also sustain higher mutation rates than organisms with much larger genomes, like vertebrates such as us.
Curiously, his cited source for this claim is himself in an article which twists the purpose of one of Dawkins' experiments and claims that mutations can only destroy, not create.
(but the evolutionary opportunities for humans would be far, far less, due to the small population numbers limiting the number of mutational possibilities; and the much larger genome, which cannot sustain a similar mutation rate without error catastrophe; i.e. extinction;
Ah, yes, I forgot. If one set of parents produces a mutant baby, the species goes extinct. I hate it when that happens.
and sexual reproduction means that there is 50% chance of failing to pass on a beneficial mutation ).
Right, because that's how sexual reproduction works. "Sexual reproduction" in the article is a link, and I was hoping for some kind of argument supporting their claims but all I got was a piece about sexual morality and that just because we have sex doesn't mean we evolved sex.
He then goes on to state that "Lenski seemed to have given up on 'evolution in the lab'" and was forced to "resort" to "computer modelling of 'evolution' with a program" in order to prove his claims. (This supposedly happened at generation 20,000 but we're now on generation 40,000) Apparently this is some sort of attempt to assure the reader that there is no need to continue reading as the issue is quite put to rest. After all, "Lenski had good reason to abandon hope," so why wouldn't dear reader?
The science: what did they find?
I simply don't have the time to comment on everything in this section but Batten simply dumped some technical jargon to distract any reader that dared continue on past the point of hope and to gain the opportunity to promote some concept called "The Edge of Evolution." Paragraph three is exemplary:
This is close to what Michael Behe calls ‘The Edge of Evolution’—the limit of what ‘evolution’ (non-intelligent natural processes) can do. For example, an adaptive change needing one mutation might occur every so often just by chance. This is why the malaria parasite can adapt to most antimalarial drugs; but chloroquine resistance took much longer to develop because two specific mutations needed to occur together in the one gene. Even this tiny change is beyond the reach of organisms like humans with much longer generation times.4 With bacteria, there might be a chance for even three coordinated mutations, but it’s doubtful that Lenski’s E. coli have achieved any more than two mutations, so have not even reached Behe’s edge, let alone progressed on the path to elephants or crocodiles.
You heard that right, folks. Evolution can't happen because we have arbitrarily defined that all mutations must coordinate to produce the final product. Since it is very unlikely that even 2, let alone dozens or even more which may be needed, will occur at the same time without negative consequence, evolution is false. QED. Furthermore, a mere 40,000 generations of a single bacterium species over
I can see I have no chance of convincing you of anything.
You didn't answer my question (although admittedly, it was more of a rhetorical one). My point was to underline the ridiculousness of the situation. Violence, death, and gore? Wholesome family entertainment. A hint of sex? Sinful, obnoxious, and must be blocked from anyone under the age of 21.
I will say this though: Your son is 15. By your own words, he's old enough to desire and fantasize about sex and I'd be willing to bet money that he knows why you fast-forwarded through the show. So ask yourself this (and you don't have to answer to me--I'm just some guy on the Internet): do you really want to teach him that he has to hide his sexuality from you?
Did you also skip over the part where the guy was bleeding out from a neck wound? The part where the unstable soldier who was in detention "for good reason" was threatening to kill another character? What about the part where one of the main characters starts plotting the execution of the least useful human on the ship?
Why are any of those more "wholesome" than a very short, very tame sex scene (where the actors were basically full clothed anyway)? Seriously, I've seen "embracing/kissing" scenes that were more pornographic.
According to the page on Wikipedia, Camile Wray "is the first openly gay character in the Stargate franchise. Her long-time partner back on Earth, Sharon, will first appear in "Life" in a possibly recurring role." Of course it's exactly as you said: a lesbian relationship. This should be no surprise though because lesbianism is well tolerated, even encouraged, in this country.
You can currently only have gay male characters on mainstream television if they are the "flaming queen" type for comic relief. Given the level of homophobia in this country, if you were to portray a realistic, loving relationship between two men you would have moral outrage from the religious right and basically instantly kill your show (simply because so many people would stop watching).
I know it's hip to hate on Apple and Apple products on Slashdot, but if you honestly think the iPhone hasn't significantly changed the smartphone market, you're living in a dream.
The iPhone brought the smartphone concept to the masses. Sure, powerusers have had access to Blackberries for a long time and it's probably true that many of the features of the iPhone are not particularly revolutionary and have been available in some form or another in other phones for years. However, the average person had no knowledge of such things and would compare their understanding of a smartphone to their understanding of a computer (i.e. none at all). Now I hear people rave about their iPhone all the time (even from people who were afraid to text message before) and how they can access the Internet from anywhere, even from clients that I still try to get to understand accessing their email on their desktop.
For confirmation, one need only observe the major companies in the market. How often does AT&T complain about the heavy burden iPhone usage is placing on their network? I hate to break it to you, but there were no complaints about EDGE and 3G usage before the iPhone because it was only business users accessing their email. How many commercials do you see now for the Blackberry et al. emulating the iPhone commercials by touting the applications and access to the Internet from anywhere?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but you're missing the point made by Nicolas MONNET. He's not pushing some Apple agenda, just pointing out that the iPhone brings a usability to the smartphone device that was simply not available before and still has yet to be matched though competitors continue to try. So while I agree that "I think most people here are capable of discussing the technical points," I think that most people are also capable of understanding a simple analogy.
The iPhone brought usability to smartphones. StackOverflow brought usability to the community help-site. Get it?
In this case, I'm left wondering what the fuck just happened? like when someone from marketing comes by my desk with a slurry of buzzwords and technical jargon they don't understand, but it's sure to make my code rock solid. Seriously, I usually like his articles, but what the fuck is he on about?
He starts out with a good premise, that as programmers we tend to want to over-engineer stuff and that is something we should try to avoid because it adds unnecessary cost to a project. Then he apparently has a brain hemorrhage and starts dumping on a whole host of invaluable software tools that actually increase productivity and reduce errors, both of which help you ship your code faster.
C++ is too hard? I admit it's no longer my first choice of language, but seriously? How much software (enterprise-class, even) is written and continues to be written in C++? I'd wager quite a bit.
Templates are too hard? I sincerely hope he's referring to jackasses that try to write an entire program solely out of templates and not the code reuse and simplification they offer. If he's actually supporting the kind of jackass that copy-pastes everything so there are a dozen different copies of a file with 1 change each (previously, I've referred to this kind of programmer as a Duct Tape Programmer in my head)... then fuck you, Joel, that guy is in the cubicle next to mine and I'm the one that has to fix his shit!
Multithreading is too hard? When you first heard about it, maybe. Yes it requires a bit of a mental shift from blowing through your whole process in one god-awful, huge, slow loop but asynchronous processes are not rocket science.
And what the hell is he talking about with "those breathtakingly good-looking young men"? Homoeroticism aside, what does this have to do with anything? The only thing I can see is that he's saying these guys can get away with horrific things (e.g. not writing unit tests, pointer voodoo--wait, I thought we weren't using C++-like languages because they're too hard and you can't ship quickly enough), simply because they are pretty and/or smart. I thought this was also how people got away with over-engineered projects too? The smart, charismatic guy proposes a solution that's over-the-top but everyone is too busy being in awe over his intelligence or their desire to fellate him that no one notices.
Am I way off-base here? As I said, I usually like reading Joel's stuff and I feel like I've learned a few things from his articles but after this I'm left wondering where he's getting access to such fine recreational drugs and hot, smart programmer guys.
that it never hid the use of the free software VNC, licensed under the GNU GPL,
that it never supported the obligation to be the owner of the software used (that's a pretty literal translation; I'd likely have to read the whole thing to have enough context for a translation that makes more sense) and never pretended to be the author of the GPL software,
that it had the option to modify, correct, and adapt the free software under the GPL, to integrate it into its IT solution, and to distribute the software with the changes it made,
that it carried out a standard delivery on April 5, 2002, as held by expert Wallon,
that this expert found that the software as delivered is composed of three modules: the student module, the tutor module, and the VNC module and specified that the VNC included, version 3.3r7, is distributed under the GNU GPL license,
that this expert has further indicated that the modifications made by Edu4 regarding the copyright notices were not intended to conceal the origin of the third program (VNC), and that it's at the moment of final receipt, at the time of the effective transfer of rights to the user, that it should respect the formal obligations regarding licensing, but before that date, the programs could be modified or adapted and not be in their final form (i.e., Edu4 is saying "oh no, no. We're going to put the notices back when we ship, it just helped our developers to remove the notices." lol?),
that the AFPA knew about the use of VNC and that it had verified the fitness of its use in full knowledge of the situation, although it reserved its rights,
that as of January 15, 2002, it had informed the AFPA that it was going to put the copyrights in place at the time of distribution when the definitive version of the GPL software had been integrated into its IT solution,
Without reading the whole ruling, my guess is that the above is a summary of Edu4's appeal after the original ruling.
Basically, I think the ruling comes down to: Edu4 used and modified software licensed under the GPL which extends rights to recipients of the distributed modified software (namely, the right to the source code). Edu4 refused to provide the source code upon request, violating the license agreement and the rights granted to recipients of the software by the original author. What I can't be sure of is if this is directly a result of the GPL which grants rights to recipients of GPL software, or an artifact of the French legal system which has different thresholds for legal standing than perhaps we are used to.
Well, your body doesn't "know" anything about reproducing. It just so happens that if a male's sexual response cycle completes while he is inside of a female (which, for heterosexual males, is likely the most satisfying scenario), reproduction can occur. In terms of the sexual response cycle, reproduction is simply a side-effect of something you're already doing. And you're having sex because it feels good and (presumably) you find your partner attractive.
Attractiveness is a major contributing factor to sexual arousal so that's why it works either way. Sexual arousal/climax is the body's (mind's) goal, offspring is the (potential) consequence.
I'm confused. I'm sitting here in Chrome right now, in full screen mode. Tabs are in the space normally wasted by a title bar in full screen mode. There is still a space to the left of the window buttons that I can use to drag the window if I want to take advantage of Windows 7's functionality (this space is just slightly smaller than the window buttons themselves so I can't see the complaint there). If I do switch to windowed mode, either by dragging it out of full screen or double-clicking, there is now a hideous waste of space in the form of an empty title bar (well, empty save for a "Google" in small print near the window buttons). Same size as any other window/full screen application. What's the problem again?
It's a reasonable conclusion but a different argument as well.
Your original argument was "If [Situation X], then don't do [Action Y]."
Your jobs analogy makes the argument "If [Situation X], then don't do [Action Y] using [Method Z]."
Essentially, you're saying "Maybe if you don't want your job to see that you're looking for another job, don't look for another job because then you wouldn't have that problem." That's why it was perceived as a morality statement.
Yes, in a science fashion. Sure, you would be ridiculed by the vast majority of scientists because you were claiming to have contradicted our understanding of the universe (complete with supporting evidence against your claim). Eventually though, you'd eventually get someone pissed off enough (or hopelessly optimistic enough) to want to duplicate your experiment to show how stupid and wrong you are. Thus, you will receive a "fair" hearing by having someone else examine your process and either disprove or support your hypothesis.
Contrast that with "Intelligent Design" which offers neither real evidence or theory, nor any opportunity for falsifiability. So as ridiculous as your claimed invention might be, it's still more scientific than ID.
As far as sharing the road, thats nonsense. Bikes want cars to give up the roads totally to them
No, bikes just don't want cars to hit them. The problem is car drivers are like spoiled children who can't be bothered to slow down or obey traffic rules ("but mommy, I want it NOW!!").
[bikes] ignore all the traffic laws the cars are for the most part obeying.
Well at least you admit that cars tend to ignore traffic laws when it suits them, but you're right I see bikes run through stop signs/red lights all the time. And while riding on the sidewalk is illegal in most places, I can understand why they do it sometimes. As I said, most bikers aren't out their to shove it in your face, they just want to ride without getting turned into roadkill. There are many roads that have no shoulder at all, high speed, blind curves, and idiots who can't think 2 seconds in front of them on the road. Sometimes it just makes more sense to hop onto the sidewalk for a few hundred feet than become a hood ornament.
I don't know where cyclist got the idea that they should have the right to use a road build for a car with their bike anyway.
Uh, perhaps the part where bicycles are written into the traffic laws? The roads were built for all vehicles not just your gas guzzling Suburban. I have yet to here of a jurisdiction in the US that does not consider a bicycle a vehicle for the purposes of traffic law.
You know exactly whats going to happen, that YOU are causing problems with traffic INCREASING the amount of gas and oil used than would otherwise normally be used. So yes, it IS the cyslists fault... their actions are DIRECTLY wasting MORE gas and oil.
Wait, are you seriously suggesting that slowing down for a few seconds consumes more gas than barreling down the road, exceeding the speed limit by 10-15mpg? I guess you might be referring to the part where you honk your horn, pass within inches of the bike and slam on the accelerator to show how much better you are. Wow, you really showed him.
The other side of the coin is that roads DIRECTLY benefit everyone, bike paths only the VERY small minority that choose to cycle.
Everyone? Really? In 2006, there were about 250 million total registered highway vehicles, or about half that for passenger vehicles at 135 million. In the same year, the US population hit 300 million. In other words, 135 million passenger vehicles for 300 million people, or 45% (i.e. a minority).
Yet you think we should invest as much for a small minority? That's just arrogant if you ask me.
I doubt anyone is seriously suggesting that a single city spend millions of dollars on bike paths. Of course, they're not needed anyway as long as drivers don't behave as homicidal assholes.
Also, where do you think you have any RIGHT to ride a bike at all on public property?
See, it's people like you who truly show that you are the one who has no right to use public property as you seem to be woefully uninformed about the conditions for such use. As you already stated, roads are public property and a citizen does not lose his rights just because he hops on a bicycle.
Maybe its the self righteous, self centered, arrogant attitude that most cyclists have that turn off most Americans.
Self-centered? Arrogant? Funnily, I believe you just described yourself. Complaining about cyclists forcing you to slow down (while simultaneously suggesting that they should be aware of you even before you are in their presence, and then that they should inconvenience themselves by pulling over) is remarkably self-centered. The definition of
Not everywhere it doesn't. In my country (USA) the roads are funded by a tax on gasoline. That means that a car (which pays the tax) has a right to be there. Your bike, not so much.
You may be describing to us your dream world, but unless you post your city/state so that we can verify your situation is different, you are very, very wrong. In every city, county, and state that I have heard of, bicycles are considered vehicles just like any other. That means that have equal right to use the road, and also means they are bound by the same traffic laws as everyone else.
As for the inane comment about gasoline tax, consider how much damage a 200lb bike-and-rider traveling at speeds less than 20mph does to the road as compared to a 2500lb+ car-and-driver traveling at speeds greater than or equal to 30mph. Those potholes are not being created by bicycles.
As long as we're having a Slashdot gripe-fest, anyone know why I seem to have "lost" the majority of my comments? I was trying to find a comment I made a long time ago and it seems like everything before January 8, 2009 is just gone. WTF?
Doesn't this sort of thing help with testing though? I guess it 'depends', but if you are testing some part of the code, then it's much easier to pass in the things it needs so that you can control it's environment
I think they call it 'dependency injection' or something like that.
If you're talking about something like (pseudo-code):
var file = File.Open("path");
var stream = new StreamReader(file);
var contents = stream.ReadAll();
and testing the above, I think you're referring to "mocking." That is, you can create fake (mock) objects to test individual parts of the above. Instead of telling "StreamReader" to read from whatever is returned by File.Open, you could instead create a "MockFile" class and pass it in to the StreamReader. This allows you to test the functionality of StreamReader by varying the data returned, or simulating conditions that may be hard to force otherwise (like file system corruption, access permissions, etc.).
Dependency Injection is a separate concept that is intended to reduce tight coupling between classes. If you have a class that needs a connection to a database, instead of that class creating it's own instance or retrieving one explicitly from elsewhere in the code, it should instead be "injected" via a constructor or method parameter, usually via an interface instead of an implementation so that the class is also decoupled from explicit implementations of a type. For example:
public MyType(IConnection connection)// constructor
There exist many dependency injection frameworks that are designed to allow you to specify dependencies like the above without having to handle all the details of injecting the actual instances into the constructor. You simple request a new instance of a type and it fills in the blanks for you.
So, more on-topic, yes, having those 5 lines of setup code can improve testability. When we're talking about standard library code though, it's kind of a mess. You end up having to sprinkle your code with these little bits of dirt and perform the little rituals the library demands. In theory, you shouldn't need to be testing your standard library since it should already be done (and the results well documented). However since that's rarely the case, I suppose there is something to be said for having the option. Still, I agree with the GP that this sort of thing is "annoying". In my opinion the best solution is to provide options for both expressiveness (such as many ways to create a StreamReader) and minimizing verbosity (like var contents = File.ReadAll()).
Slashdot Mirror
Lower incidence of sexually-transmitted diseases and suicide, particularly among youth (you know, the children you all are claiming to want to protect). STDs place a burden upon society in medical and maintenance costs. Suicide removes potentially useful members who may do "good" for society.
It should come as no surprise that homosexuals are more likely to respect the bounds of their relationships when the society they live in also treat such relationships with respect. Don't forget, even if HIV and the like are "gay diseases" brought on by God to punish the wicked, they can still spread to the self righteous believers like yourself. I'm one of those terrifying things you dare not conceive: a bisexual. I could take it up the butt from God knows who and then impregnate your wife with my demon seed.
Monogamous (or at least responsible) relationships encourage the growth of stable individuals whom are a benefit to society. Period.
That pretty much says all one need know about you.
This is so wrong I don't even know where to begin. Let me put it to you this way though: you better hope that human rights and dignity come from somewhere other than a scrap of paper somewhere because otherwise we're all fucked. That means 0.00001% of the country's population can grant or retract rights at a whim.
And you saw that I'm actively engaged in the discussion here on this website. Refute my objections instead of attempting misdirection. Why would I go argue on a comment roll that has no thread context, has no community moderation system, is limited in the quantity and format of text allowed, and where the participants don't even appear to know what they're arguing about?
Seriously, some can't tell the difference between a public statement requesting a measure be put on a ballot and an anonymous vote. Others appear to think that the gay community is behind R71.
Who cares? If I want to gaze into my "gaybo buddy's" navel, you're goddamn right that I should be allowed to. Last I checked this was still a free country and the burden of proof is on you that I should not have that right.
Why is the bar set at a benefit for society anyway? Football does no good for society as far as I can tell. It breeds violence, drug use, organized crime, creates poor roll models for children, and as a society we spend an unbelievable amount of money on it--money that could be used to do "good for society." And yet we allow it and in fact, regard little else as more "American."
Right, because I want to waste my time on a comments roll where the people have this much of a grip on reality:
Good for you; I told you bigots were proud of their delinquencies!
If no one has a right to be homosexual because it's a "lifestyle" (this term makes no sense), then why does anyone have a right to be Baptist or Catholic? That's also a "lifestyle." Congratulations, you yourself just compared "queer" to being Baptist.
However, I'm curious: what's your take on the homosexual behavior exhibited by every mammalian species that has been studied in any depth? Those deer watch too much Bravo and decided the "lifestyle" was right for them?
Really? Here's a compelling State interest: equal rights to all human beings. OK, your implied "compelling interest" is children. Not that this hasn't been countered to death, but maybe you'll be the first person in human history to provide a cogent argument.
If the compelling State interest to provide additional benefits to couples in the interests of raising children why
I'm sure I could go on all day. So yeah, so far it seems the only reason to oppose homosexual marriage is bigotry. Feel free to craft a real argument, but please skip the slurry of hate and nonsense.
Is there some kind of conservative playbook that teaches you to throw a collection of information into a bottle, shake it, and then present whatever garbage that comes out as the truth? Or is just a side effect of having an underdeveloped cerebral cortex?
Hold onto your seat, because I'm about to blow your fucking mind. Washington already has domestic partnerships. Right now in Washington, there are many families led by two men and they are raising children. I know, must be terrifying.
However, even though homosexual couples can enter into a domestic partnership and receive some of the rights heterosexual couples have in a full "marriage," domestic partnerships are still lesser than marriages. That is, many rights are still not afforded to people in domestic partnerships. So yeah, homosexuals are fighting to gain "additional" rights in hopes of coming somewhere close to a heterosexual marriage. Referendum 71 is an attempt to get a vote to repeal these rights already guaranteed. So not only do gay couples not have the same rights, people are fighting to make sure they have zero rights.
So no, it's not OK for gays to use violence or threats of violence to further their cause. I can't say I blame them though. These people have declare war on their existence and are determined to make sure they are treated as less than human. It's completely unreasonable to expect that homosexuals won't fight back.
What the fuck are you talking about? I'm going to ignore for a moment the fact that that one line in Leviticus is about the only one people follow in the whole damn book. Who said anything about compelling any religious institution to sanction any particular union male/male, male/female, or female/female? Honestly, no one cares what sort of hate you chant in your nuthouse.
More importantly, why would a homosexual want to be involved with a group that tells them they are going to Hell simply because their Creator says so. Their Creator makes them gay and then punishes them for eternity for it. Yeah, makes a lot of sense.
Who cares? We have plenty. You address infertile couples and say well fine we'll let them keep their useless marriage. What about heterosexual couples who decide they don't want to have children, ever? I suppose we should force them to make babies, huh? I know our country is just dying for more unwilling parents. What about couples that decide not to have children as a conscious, socially-responsible choice to prevent severe inheritable diseases from being passed on (this reduces the burden on society, as well)? Should these people be prevented from getting married?
What I really wanted to correct you on, however, is this:
This is not the only reason to get married and is certainly not the main reason homosexual couples want to be "married." Spouses receive many extra rights, privileges and conveniences not afforded to anyone else, both legally and socially. If my wife becomes a vegetable then I, in the absence of a living will, have the final say about her life support. If my wife is in the hospital, I simply say I'm her husband and I'm ushered right on through to her (unless she's in the OR or something). And on and on with tax filing, estate rights, guardianship over children, etc.
Really? As a free-thinking citizen of these United States, I can assure you that I do need to know who is attempting to oppress the rights of others. Surely you would want to know who is proposing to lock the people of Westboro Baptist Church away in a mental institution? Or who is proposing that black people are (again) not actual human beings?
More importantly, these signatures are not votes on a ballot. There is no expectation of privacy when signing a public petition and indeed, there can be none. This is why online petitions are typically useless; I can go create one for any topic I want and write a script to generate as many signatories as I desire. Petition signatures need to be verified to establish that they do reflect the will of a significant percentage of a population.
Most gay people that I know don't care about getting "married," they just want the same legal protections guaranteed to heterosexual couples. What this usually means is that they want civil unions or domestic partnerships or whatever other term you want to come up with. Now here's the important part: The State of Washington already offers domestic partnerships. It's not perfect though and that's why the State Senate passed SB 5688 to expand the rights guaranteed by a domestic partnership. So what we're actually talking about here is a group of people trying to take away rights that have already been guaranteed by their governing body.
Incorrect. A simple name and shame can be quite effective and sufficient (and if you truly believe that some people should have fewer rights simply because their brain is wired differently or were created differently, then why would you be ashamed to have anyone know this? Most bigots are proud of their delinquencies). It's drawing a line in the sand saying put up or shut up. If you don't want to be on the public record for having opposed civil rights, rescind your signature.
Oh, I'm terribly sorry; I thought I was having an adult conversatation.
The Context
Oh, they indeed set the context for their misinformation piece. Of course the language used should come as no surprise: "one who believes in evolution," "according to neo-Darwinism," etc. The primary base context Don Batten is trying to establish is that even if the bacteria can be shown to have evolved a functional trait through random mutation, such a feat would be impossible for a more "complex" lifeform, such as a human.
Curiously, his cited source for this claim is himself in an article which twists the purpose of one of Dawkins' experiments and claims that mutations can only destroy, not create.
Ah, yes, I forgot. If one set of parents produces a mutant baby, the species goes extinct. I hate it when that happens.
Right, because that's how sexual reproduction works. "Sexual reproduction" in the article is a link, and I was hoping for some kind of argument supporting their claims but all I got was a piece about sexual morality and that just because we have sex doesn't mean we evolved sex.
He then goes on to state that "Lenski seemed to have given up on 'evolution in the lab'" and was forced to "resort" to "computer modelling of 'evolution' with a program" in order to prove his claims. (This supposedly happened at generation 20,000 but we're now on generation 40,000) Apparently this is some sort of attempt to assure the reader that there is no need to continue reading as the issue is quite put to rest. After all, "Lenski had good reason to abandon hope," so why wouldn't dear reader?
The science: what did they find?
I simply don't have the time to comment on everything in this section but Batten simply dumped some technical jargon to distract any reader that dared continue on past the point of hope and to gain the opportunity to promote some concept called "The Edge of Evolution." Paragraph three is exemplary:
You heard that right, folks. Evolution can't happen because we have arbitrarily defined that all mutations must coordinate to produce the final product. Since it is very unlikely that even 2, let alone dozens or even more which may be needed, will occur at the same time without negative consequence, evolution is false. QED. Furthermore, a mere 40,000 generations of a single bacterium species over
They can be Emo all they want as long as they keep the floors clean!
I can see I have no chance of convincing you of anything.
You didn't answer my question (although admittedly, it was more of a rhetorical one). My point was to underline the ridiculousness of the situation. Violence, death, and gore? Wholesome family entertainment. A hint of sex? Sinful, obnoxious, and must be blocked from anyone under the age of 21.
I will say this though: Your son is 15. By your own words, he's old enough to desire and fantasize about sex and I'd be willing to bet money that he knows why you fast-forwarded through the show. So ask yourself this (and you don't have to answer to me--I'm just some guy on the Internet): do you really want to teach him that he has to hide his sexuality from you?
Did you also skip over the part where the guy was bleeding out from a neck wound? The part where the unstable soldier who was in detention "for good reason" was threatening to kill another character? What about the part where one of the main characters starts plotting the execution of the least useful human on the ship?
Why are any of those more "wholesome" than a very short, very tame sex scene (where the actors were basically full clothed anyway)? Seriously, I've seen "embracing/kissing" scenes that were more pornographic.
According to the page on Wikipedia, Camile Wray "is the first openly gay character in the Stargate franchise. Her long-time partner back on Earth, Sharon, will first appear in "Life" in a possibly recurring role." Of course it's exactly as you said: a lesbian relationship. This should be no surprise though because lesbianism is well tolerated, even encouraged, in this country.
You can currently only have gay male characters on mainstream television if they are the "flaming queen" type for comic relief. Given the level of homophobia in this country, if you were to portray a realistic, loving relationship between two men you would have moral outrage from the religious right and basically instantly kill your show (simply because so many people would stop watching).
I know it's hip to hate on Apple and Apple products on Slashdot, but if you honestly think the iPhone hasn't significantly changed the smartphone market, you're living in a dream.
The iPhone brought the smartphone concept to the masses. Sure, powerusers have had access to Blackberries for a long time and it's probably true that many of the features of the iPhone are not particularly revolutionary and have been available in some form or another in other phones for years. However, the average person had no knowledge of such things and would compare their understanding of a smartphone to their understanding of a computer (i.e. none at all). Now I hear people rave about their iPhone all the time (even from people who were afraid to text message before) and how they can access the Internet from anywhere, even from clients that I still try to get to understand accessing their email on their desktop.
For confirmation, one need only observe the major companies in the market. How often does AT&T complain about the heavy burden iPhone usage is placing on their network? I hate to break it to you, but there were no complaints about EDGE and 3G usage before the iPhone because it was only business users accessing their email. How many commercials do you see now for the Blackberry et al. emulating the iPhone commercials by touting the applications and access to the Internet from anywhere?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but you're missing the point made by Nicolas MONNET. He's not pushing some Apple agenda, just pointing out that the iPhone brings a usability to the smartphone device that was simply not available before and still has yet to be matched though competitors continue to try. So while I agree that "I think most people here are capable of discussing the technical points," I think that most people are also capable of understanding a simple analogy.
The iPhone brought usability to smartphones. StackOverflow brought usability to the community help-site. Get it?
He starts out with a good premise, that as programmers we tend to want to over-engineer stuff and that is something we should try to avoid because it adds unnecessary cost to a project. Then he apparently has a brain hemorrhage and starts dumping on a whole host of invaluable software tools that actually increase productivity and reduce errors, both of which help you ship your code faster.
And what the hell is he talking about with "those breathtakingly good-looking young men"? Homoeroticism aside, what does this have to do with anything? The only thing I can see is that he's saying these guys can get away with horrific things (e.g. not writing unit tests, pointer voodoo--wait, I thought we weren't using C++-like languages because they're too hard and you can't ship quickly enough), simply because they are pretty and/or smart. I thought this was also how people got away with over-engineered projects too? The smart, charismatic guy proposes a solution that's over-the-top but everyone is too busy being in awe over his intelligence or their desire to fellate him that no one notices.
Am I way off-base here? As I said, I usually like reading Joel's stuff and I feel like I've learned a few things from his articles but after this I'm left wondering where he's getting access to such fine recreational drugs and hot, smart programmer guys.
Considering that the company Edu4 replies
Without reading the whole ruling, my guess is that the above is a summary of Edu4's appeal after the original ruling.
Basically, I think the ruling comes down to: Edu4 used and modified software licensed under the GPL which extends rights to recipients of the distributed modified software (namely, the right to the source code). Edu4 refused to provide the source code upon request, violating the license agreement and the rights granted to recipients of the software by the original author. What I can't be sure of is if this is directly a result of the GPL which grants rights to recipients of GPL software, or an artifact of the French legal system which has different thresholds for legal standing than perhaps we are used to.
Well, your body doesn't "know" anything about reproducing. It just so happens that if a male's sexual response cycle completes while he is inside of a female (which, for heterosexual males, is likely the most satisfying scenario), reproduction can occur. In terms of the sexual response cycle, reproduction is simply a side-effect of something you're already doing. And you're having sex because it feels good and (presumably) you find your partner attractive.
Attractiveness is a major contributing factor to sexual arousal so that's why it works either way. Sexual arousal/climax is the body's (mind's) goal, offspring is the (potential) consequence.
I'm confused. I'm sitting here in Chrome right now, in full screen mode. Tabs are in the space normally wasted by a title bar in full screen mode. There is still a space to the left of the window buttons that I can use to drag the window if I want to take advantage of Windows 7's functionality (this space is just slightly smaller than the window buttons themselves so I can't see the complaint there). If I do switch to windowed mode, either by dragging it out of full screen or double-clicking, there is now a hideous waste of space in the form of an empty title bar (well, empty save for a "Google" in small print near the window buttons). Same size as any other window/full screen application. What's the problem again?
Why bother? Every browser has a "porn mode" now.
It's a reasonable conclusion but a different argument as well.
Your original argument was "If [Situation X], then don't do [Action Y]."
Your jobs analogy makes the argument "If [Situation X], then don't do [Action Y] using [Method Z]."
Essentially, you're saying "Maybe if you don't want your job to see that you're looking for another job, don't look for another job because then you wouldn't have that problem." That's why it was perceived as a morality statement.
Yes, in a science fashion. Sure, you would be ridiculed by the vast majority of scientists because you were claiming to have contradicted our understanding of the universe (complete with supporting evidence against your claim). Eventually though, you'd eventually get someone pissed off enough (or hopelessly optimistic enough) to want to duplicate your experiment to show how stupid and wrong you are. Thus, you will receive a "fair" hearing by having someone else examine your process and either disprove or support your hypothesis.
Contrast that with "Intelligent Design" which offers neither real evidence or theory, nor any opportunity for falsifiability. So as ridiculous as your claimed invention might be, it's still more scientific than ID.
No, bikes just don't want cars to hit them. The problem is car drivers are like spoiled children who can't be bothered to slow down or obey traffic rules ("but mommy, I want it NOW!!").
Well at least you admit that cars tend to ignore traffic laws when it suits them, but you're right I see bikes run through stop signs/red lights all the time. And while riding on the sidewalk is illegal in most places, I can understand why they do it sometimes. As I said, most bikers aren't out their to shove it in your face, they just want to ride without getting turned into roadkill. There are many roads that have no shoulder at all, high speed, blind curves, and idiots who can't think 2 seconds in front of them on the road. Sometimes it just makes more sense to hop onto the sidewalk for a few hundred feet than become a hood ornament.
Uh, perhaps the part where bicycles are written into the traffic laws? The roads were built for all vehicles not just your gas guzzling Suburban. I have yet to here of a jurisdiction in the US that does not consider a bicycle a vehicle for the purposes of traffic law.
Wait, are you seriously suggesting that slowing down for a few seconds consumes more gas than barreling down the road, exceeding the speed limit by 10-15mpg? I guess you might be referring to the part where you honk your horn, pass within inches of the bike and slam on the accelerator to show how much better you are. Wow, you really showed him.
Everyone? Really? In 2006, there were about 250 million total registered highway vehicles, or about half that for passenger vehicles at 135 million. In the same year, the US population hit 300 million. In other words, 135 million passenger vehicles for 300 million people, or 45% (i.e. a minority).
I doubt anyone is seriously suggesting that a single city spend millions of dollars on bike paths. Of course, they're not needed anyway as long as drivers don't behave as homicidal assholes.
See, it's people like you who truly show that you are the one who has no right to use public property as you seem to be woefully uninformed about the conditions for such use. As you already stated, roads are public property and a citizen does not lose his rights just because he hops on a bicycle.
Self-centered? Arrogant? Funnily, I believe you just described yourself. Complaining about cyclists forcing you to slow down (while simultaneously suggesting that they should be aware of you even before you are in their presence, and then that they should inconvenience themselves by pulling over) is remarkably self-centered. The definition of
You may be describing to us your dream world, but unless you post your city/state so that we can verify your situation is different, you are very, very wrong. In every city, county, and state that I have heard of, bicycles are considered vehicles just like any other. That means that have equal right to use the road, and also means they are bound by the same traffic laws as everyone else.
As for the inane comment about gasoline tax, consider how much damage a 200lb bike-and-rider traveling at speeds less than 20mph does to the road as compared to a 2500lb+ car-and-driver traveling at speeds greater than or equal to 30mph. Those potholes are not being created by bicycles.
As long as we're having a Slashdot gripe-fest, anyone know why I seem to have "lost" the majority of my comments? I was trying to find a comment I made a long time ago and it seems like everything before January 8, 2009 is just gone. WTF?
If you're talking about something like (pseudo-code):
// constructor
var file = File.Open("path");
var stream = new StreamReader(file);
var contents = stream.ReadAll();
and testing the above, I think you're referring to "mocking." That is, you can create fake (mock) objects to test individual parts of the above. Instead of telling "StreamReader" to read from whatever is returned by File.Open, you could instead create a "MockFile" class and pass it in to the StreamReader. This allows you to test the functionality of StreamReader by varying the data returned, or simulating conditions that may be hard to force otherwise (like file system corruption, access permissions, etc.).
Dependency Injection is a separate concept that is intended to reduce tight coupling between classes. If you have a class that needs a connection to a database, instead of that class creating it's own instance or retrieving one explicitly from elsewhere in the code, it should instead be "injected" via a constructor or method parameter, usually via an interface instead of an implementation so that the class is also decoupled from explicit implementations of a type. For example:
public MyType(IConnection connection)
There exist many dependency injection frameworks that are designed to allow you to specify dependencies like the above without having to handle all the details of injecting the actual instances into the constructor. You simple request a new instance of a type and it fills in the blanks for you.
So, more on-topic, yes, having those 5 lines of setup code can improve testability. When we're talking about standard library code though, it's kind of a mess. You end up having to sprinkle your code with these little bits of dirt and perform the little rituals the library demands. In theory, you shouldn't need to be testing your standard library since it should already be done (and the results well documented). However since that's rarely the case, I suppose there is something to be said for having the option. Still, I agree with the GP that this sort of thing is "annoying". In my opinion the best solution is to provide options for both expressiveness (such as many ways to create a StreamReader) and minimizing verbosity (like var contents = File.ReadAll()).
Security through obscurity, eh? Well, whatever helps you sleep at night.