Actually, I don't have the quote wrong at all. Pastor Hutcherson is marginalizing the discrimination that gays experience by comparing it with the experiences of the black race in this country. Just because gays are not discriminated against with the same intensity and violence that blacks were, does not make it OK. If he wants to get into a pissing match about whose cultural group was shit on the most, I'm sure there's more than a few Jews who would like to take him up on that.
It's intolerance in the sense that he's marginalizing the issues gays experience by comparing them against the issues blacks had to go through long ago. In essence, he's saying 'you've got nothing to whine about....now us blacks...we had it hard...'
Mabye some Jew ought to marginalize his pain by comparing it to Auschwitz. Mabye some American Indian ought to marginalize his pain by comparing it to the Trail of Tears. Mabye then he would shut the hell up.
Are you saying that they have been considered one fight of a human being? I've never heard of that one. If he has not either, forgive me for not being shocked.
Also, why did you not have a direct quote for the shockingly intollerant other statement you attribute to him? I call bullshit.
Bullshit call accepted. Here is the webpage that contains the article I quoted. Read it for yourself.
(By the way, if you're going to reference my posts, at least have the courtesy to read them. The word was 'fifth', not 'fight'.)
First of all, I am a heterosexual, and a Christian...just like you. I have a fiancee (the big day is in October), and she and I go to church every Sunday. So you can stop calling me 'gay' and 'christian bashing', OK?
Now that that's out of the way, allow me to address your points:
Descrimination (sic) based on sexual orientation does not exist.
Again, here's a quote from the good Pastor Hutcherson:
"Homosexuals have never been considered one-fifth of a human being."
Discrimination 'doesn't exist', huh?
...nobody is getting fired, nobody strikes out at an interview because he/she is GLBT.
Wrong. I personlly know not one, but two gay friends who have lost their positions solely on the basis of their sexual orientation. If you choose to disbelieve me, fine...I'm sure you can dig up many more similar cases with a simple Google search. Just because you haven't seen it (or don't want to see it), doesn't mean it's not happening.
Sexual orientation is not an unvariable of yourself.
What does this even mean??? (Hint: 'unvariable' is not a noun, genius.)
Further, sexual orientation is simple to hide.
Congratulations. With this phrase, you've just proven me right. If "nobody is getting fired, nobody strikes out at an interview because he/she is GLBT", then exactly why would they need to hide said sexual-orientation???
I would imagine there are a lot of bible-thumpers who would never hurt another human being, gay or not. And until told otherwise, I'd assume this pastor is one of them.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but here's a quote from the good Pastor, during the Senate Hearing on HB1515, on March 22nd:
"Homosexuals have never been considered one-fifth of a human being,"
(He then went on to say that homosexuals want to molest young boys.)
Sorry, but with that sort of intolerance, this man has no right to call himself a servant of God.
The Stranger has learned that last month the $37-billion Redmond-based software behemoth quietly withdrew its support for House bill 1515, the anti-gay-discrimination bill currently under consideration by the Washington State legislature, after being pressured by the Evangelical Christian pastor of a suburban megachurch.
You mean it's that easy? I got an idea...Let's all march on Redmond and threaten to boycott Microsoft...unless they fix all of these unnecessary security holes in their products.:P
Seriously, though, this is a MAJOR issue...Microsoft withdraws its support on a subject it's been championing for years, becuse of threats from one rabidly evangelistic, gay-hating preacher??? Just what exactly does Ken Hutcherson have on Bill anyway? For the life of me, I don't understand why Bill didn't just tell him to fuck off. He should have ordered that Ken be dragged out back and shot (fun fact: it's legal for him to do that in Redmond). But no...he just caves, despite the fact that Microsoft owns the consumer market, and Ken's followers could no longer 'boycott' the use of Microsoft's products than they could 'boycott' the use of oxygen.
I almost feel sorry for Microsoft. Almost.
It's going to be interesting to see how Microsoft wriggles out of this one...although I would have much rather they called Ken's bluff...the 'boycott' would have been even more interesting to watch.
The use of the word 'thousands' to refer to a number of one thousand or greater is grammatically correct, no matter how much you whine about it.
Of course, you've chosen probably the most inconsequential portion of my post to have a beef about...you know, the topic was boycotting mainstream cinema...if you have any insights about that, please share them...but if all you can do is keen about a grammatical dispute around ONE WORD of my post, in a part which wasn't even central to the issue being discussed, then we really don't need to hear any more of you than we already have.
When did it become your constitutional right to commit crimes because you don't like what someone else did? or because someone else did something illegal?
Please point out the exact statement in my original post that said, because Bush lied about WMD, it's OK for me to pirate movies.
...
Having trouble finding that exact statement? Perhaps that's becuse it DOESN'T EXIST.
I never put forth the President's unlawful and immoral activities as justifiction for my own, what I did do is compare the two.
Honestly, you people really need to stop putting words in my mouth. Your straw-man attacks are getting tiresome.
For a real good time, suggest that people just stop watching television if they don't like the price of cable, and read a book or something. I once saw 20 different posters get modded to -1 for that suggestion in the course of 15 minutes.
Yeah...that's why I suggested independent movies on the Web instead....I daren't suggest books to this crowd...:P
Wow.. From your post I can see that you clearly know what 'flamebait' is all about.
If you have an opposing argument to what I've posted, then by all means let's hear it. If however, your dialectic skills are limited to ad hominem attacks, then I think we've already heard your best.
"This bill plugs a hole in existing law by allowing for easier and more expeditious enforcement of prerelease piracy by both the government and property owners," said Mitch Bainwol, chairman of the Recording Industry Association of America. "We applaud Congress for taking this step."
It sounds like you're talking about a Vampire: The Masquerade LARP, and yes, that game was painful to watch. LARPS are pretty painful in and of themselves, but when you toss in a handful of morose Goth types all pretending to be some sort of vampire and trying to out-tragic each other, than it hits a whole new level of embarassing.
Just when we think it can't get any worse, we see this sort of crap:
From the article:
File-swappers who distribute a single copy of a prerelease movie on the Internet can be imprisoned for up to three years.
Nice. Our President lies to us about weapons of mass destruction and drags us into an unjust war that has cost thousands of Americn lives, but I'm the felon.
And look how they got this thing passed...it rode in on the coattails of this:
Also from the article:
The bill's supporters in Congress won passage of the prison terms by gluing them to an unrelated proposal to legalize technologies that delete offensive content from a film. That proposal was designed to address a lawsuit that Hollywood studios and the Directors Guild of America filed against ClearPlay over a DVD player that filtered violent and nude scenes. (ClearPlay had gained influential allies among family groups such as the Parents Television Council and Focus on the Family.)
Honestly, why are we stealing this crap anymore? Especially as the three most popular movies currently are Hitch, The Pacifer, and Be Cool (thanks to www.the-numbers.com)? Why do we waste our time and endanger our freedom?
Well, I say, it's time to stop. Not just stop pirating mainstream movies, but stop watching them altogether. There's plenty of content to be found out there on the Web (AtomFilms and INetFilm come to mind).
Show the RIAA that we are not sheep. Show them that we don't need to see the latest Keanu Reeves travesty. Show them we're tired of their shit. Don't see their movies. Don't pirate their movies. Don't have anything to do with their movies. If enough of us shake off the yoke, it will make a difference.
It takes more time, money and training than doing nothing.
No, it doesn't.
In terms of time, it's an extra 5 seconds when setting up the backup job. Not each time the backup job is run, but when it is set up. This amounts to a one-time cost of 25 seconds at my site.
In terms of money, the backup software most corporations use is already capable of encryption. No extra financial outlay required.
In terms of training, the system administrator should not require training to accomplish this, since he is expected to know how to do such things by virtue of his profession (or at least know how to learn for himself). It took me a whole 2 minutes to figure out how to enable encryption on our backups when I first started at this company).
Any competent administrator should be making sure his company's data is protected at all points. If he fails to do this, he opens up the company to possible litigation, not to mention bad press. Ask yourself: how much has AmeriTrade lost because of this latest blunder? (Please don't say nothing...be a little more honest than that). If the admin had encrypted the backup, they would still have been lost, but the data would still be entirely secure. Wouldn't that have been worth a 30-second investment?
Umm, you're aware that this already happens under the table, right?
<sarcasm> Oh, really??? I had no idea! Well, as long as it's already happening, there's certainly no reason for Sony not to legalize it, and make a profit in the bargain! Say, while we're at it, let's legalize heroin, child pornography, and murder! After all, this sort of thing already happens 'under the table'...may as well legalize it, so Uncle Sam can make a few bucks in the bargain! I wonder what the 'one time nominal fee' would be for murder, anyway... </sarcasm>
Just because a thing is happening doesn't make it right. I'm surprised your parents didn't teach you that.
Then why do the games struggle so much to provide realism?
I think you're being deliberately obtuse, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
What you're referring to with your blanket statement of 'realism' is the game designers' attempt to create a complete, internally consistent, self-contained world, where a player may have adventures and interesting encounters, and gereally be someone else...a person totally seperate from his or her RL existence (and attendant socioeconomic status). By allowing players to purchase game items for RL money, the distinction between a person's RL economic success and their game character's economic success is broken, distorting the game mechanics and artificially skewing the game in favor of the wealthy.
I'm not saying that this Station Exchange deal is a priori a Bad Thing, but I am saying that this is not something the original Everquest II players signed on for, and I know I'd be plenty upset if I was one of those players.
These games are a vacation from real life...an escape. That's pretty much the whole point. Allow Real Life to intrude upon the game in this fashion, and you obviate the appeal.
By allowing (condoning, actually) this sort of activity, Sony is ensuring that this game dies a slow and lingering death. Gone are the days when all you needed to excel at Everquest was a good internet connection and a complete lack of a life...now you need the cash, too. People with money will be better equipped than people with no money...those with no money will quit in disgust, and those with money will lose interest after they run up against enough other players with enough money to equip themselves well. Fortunately, those who don't want to participate in this mercenary practice will have the option to play on non-Station Exchange servers...that is, until a majority of the players on that server want the server to be a Station Exchange server...in which case you'll have to find another server...sorry.
It seems that Sony is turning on their major client base...risking alienation and mass defection...so why would Sony embraace such a controversial move?
From The Players:
SOE is charging a nominal, nonrefundable listing fee, plus a percentage of the final sale.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I don't have the quote wrong at all. Pastor Hutcherson is marginalizing the discrimination that gays experience by comparing it with the experiences of the black race in this country. Just because gays are not discriminated against with the same intensity and violence that blacks were, does not make it OK. If he wants to get into a pissing match about whose cultural group was shit on the most, I'm sure there's more than a few Jews who would like to take him up on that.
It's intolerance in the sense that he's marginalizing the issues gays experience by comparing them against the issues blacks had to go through long ago. In essence, he's saying 'you've got nothing to whine about....now us blacks...we had it hard...'
Mabye some Jew ought to marginalize his pain by comparing it to Auschwitz.
Mabye some American Indian ought to marginalize his pain by comparing it to the Trail of Tears.
Mabye then he would shut the hell up.
Are you saying that they have been considered one fight of a human being? I've never heard of that one. If he has not either, forgive me for not being shocked.
Also, why did you not have a direct quote for the shockingly intollerant other statement you attribute to him? I call bullshit.
Bullshit call accepted. Here is the webpage that contains the article I quoted. Read it for yourself.
(By the way, if you're going to reference my posts, at least have the courtesy to read them. The word was 'fifth', not 'fight'.)
OK...let's get a few things straight.
First of all, I am a heterosexual, and a Christian...just like you. I have a fiancee (the big day is in October), and she and I go to church every Sunday. So you can stop calling me 'gay' and 'christian bashing', OK?
Now that that's out of the way, allow me to address your points:
Descrimination (sic) based on sexual orientation does not exist.
Again, here's a quote from the good Pastor Hutcherson:
Discrimination 'doesn't exist', huh?
Wrong. I personlly know not one, but two gay friends who have lost their positions solely on the basis of their sexual orientation. If you choose to disbelieve me, fine...I'm sure you can dig up many more similar cases with a simple Google search. Just because you haven't seen it (or don't want to see it), doesn't mean it's not happening.
Sexual orientation is not an unvariable of yourself.
What does this even mean??? (Hint: 'unvariable' is not a noun, genius.)
Further, sexual orientation is simple to hide.
Congratulations. With this phrase, you've just proven me right. If "nobody is getting fired, nobody strikes out at an interview because he/she is GLBT", then exactly why would they need to hide said sexual-orientation???
Log off before you hurt yourself.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but here's a quote from the good Pastor, during the Senate Hearing on HB1515, on March 22nd:
(He then went on to say that homosexuals want to molest young boys.)
Sorry, but with that sort of intolerance, this man has no right to call himself a servant of God.
All his parishoners should be ashamed.
You mean it's that easy? I got an idea...Let's all march on Redmond and threaten to boycott Microsoft...unless they fix all of these unnecessary security holes in their products.
Seriously, though, this is a MAJOR issue...Microsoft withdraws its support on a subject it's been championing for years, becuse of threats from one rabidly evangelistic, gay-hating preacher??? Just what exactly does Ken Hutcherson have on Bill anyway? For the life of me, I don't understand why Bill didn't just tell him to fuck off. He should have ordered that Ken be dragged out back and shot (fun fact: it's legal for him to do that in Redmond). But no...he just caves, despite the fact that Microsoft owns the consumer market, and Ken's followers could no longer 'boycott' the use of Microsoft's products than they could 'boycott' the use of oxygen.
I almost feel sorry for Microsoft. Almost.
It's going to be interesting to see how Microsoft wriggles out of this one...although I would have much rather they called Ken's bluff...the 'boycott' would have been even more interesting to watch.
What can I say, other than....you're wrong.
The use of the word 'thousands' to refer to a number of one thousand or greater is grammatically correct, no matter how much you whine about it.
Of course, you've chosen probably the most inconsequential portion of my post to have a beef about...you know, the topic was boycotting mainstream cinema...if you have any insights about that, please share them...but if all you can do is keen about a grammatical dispute around ONE WORD of my post, in a part which wasn't even central to the issue being discussed, then we really don't need to hear any more of you than we already have.
Log off before you hurt yourself.
Check your earlier post, jimi...
One thousand or more is officially 'thousands'. If you don't like it, sue the people who invented language, but quit bawling about it to me.
Please point out the exact statement in my original post that said, because Bush lied about WMD, it's OK for me to pirate movies.
Having trouble finding that exact statement? Perhaps that's becuse it DOESN'T EXIST.
I never put forth the President's unlawful and immoral activities as justifiction for my own, what I did do is compare the two.
Honestly, you people really need to stop putting words in my mouth. Your straw-man attacks are getting tiresome.
Since when does 1559 people killed equal thousands of American lives?
Since the advent of language, braniac. One thousand or more is officially 'thousands'.
No, it's because you're using the topic to spout off on your political misconceptions.
Misconceptions, huh?
For God's sake, man, open your eyes.
For a real good time, suggest that people just stop watching television if they don't like the price of cable, and read a book or something. I once saw 20 different posters get modded to -1 for that suggestion in the course of 15 minutes.
Yeah...that's why I suggested independent movies on the Web instead....I daren't suggest books to this crowd...
Wow.. From your post I can see that you clearly know what 'flamebait' is all about.
If you have an opposing argument to what I've posted, then by all means let's hear it. If however, your dialectic skills are limited to ad hominem attacks, then I think we've already heard your best.
But then again, merely saying "Bush lied about WMD" is guaranteed to get any post at least +2 mod points on slashdot.
Are you sure of that? The GP is currently '-1 flamebait' because I dared say something offensive about Dubbya.
You were saying?
It sounds like you're talking about a Vampire: The Masquerade LARP, and yes, that game was painful to watch. LARPS are pretty painful in and of themselves, but when you toss in a handful of morose Goth types all pretending to be some sort of vampire and trying to out-tragic each other, than it hits a whole new level of embarassing.
Just when we think it can't get any worse, we see this sort of crap:
From the article:
Nice. Our President lies to us about weapons of mass destruction and drags us into an unjust war that has cost thousands of Americn lives, but I'm the felon.
And look how they got this thing passed...it rode in on the coattails of this:
Also from the article:
Honestly, why are we stealing this crap anymore? Especially as the three most popular movies currently are Hitch, The Pacifer, and Be Cool (thanks to www.the-numbers.com)? Why do we waste our time and endanger our freedom?
Well, I say, it's time to stop. Not just stop pirating mainstream movies, but stop watching them altogether. There's plenty of content to be found out there on the Web (AtomFilms and INetFilm come to mind).
Show the RIAA that we are not sheep. Show them that we don't need to see the latest Keanu Reeves travesty. Show them we're tired of their shit. Don't see their movies. Don't pirate their movies. Don't have anything to do with their movies. If enough of us shake off the yoke, it will make a difference.
It takes more time, money and training than doing nothing.
No, it doesn't.
In terms of time, it's an extra 5 seconds when setting up the backup job. Not each time the backup job is run, but when it is set up. This amounts to a one-time cost of 25 seconds at my site.
In terms of money, the backup software most corporations use is already capable of encryption. No extra financial outlay required.
In terms of training, the system administrator should not require training to accomplish this, since he is expected to know how to do such things by virtue of his profession (or at least know how to learn for himself). It took me a whole 2 minutes to figure out how to enable encryption on our backups when I first started at this company).
Any competent administrator should be making sure his company's data is protected at all points. If he fails to do this, he opens up the company to possible litigation, not to mention bad press. Ask yourself: how much has AmeriTrade lost because of this latest blunder? (Please don't say nothing...be a little more honest than that). If the admin had encrypted the backup, they would still have been lost, but the data would still be entirely secure. Wouldn't that have been worth a 30-second investment?
So in short, there is no excuse. Period.
Umm, you're aware that this already happens under the table, right?
<sarcasm>
Oh, really??? I had no idea! Well, as long as it's already happening, there's certainly no reason for Sony not to legalize it, and make a profit in the bargain! Say, while we're at it, let's legalize heroin, child pornography, and murder! After all, this sort of thing already happens 'under the table'...may as well legalize it, so Uncle Sam can make a few bucks in the bargain! I wonder what the 'one time nominal fee' would be for murder, anyway...
</sarcasm>
Just because a thing is happening doesn't make it right. I'm surprised your parents didn't teach you that.
Oh wait...no, I'm not.
At my company, custodians do not have the keys to the server room.
Of course, this means I have to clean up my own messes, but I'm fine with that, considering the alternative.
Just where do you see the word 'encrypted' in that quote? I sure don't see it.
(I see the word 'compressed', but that's an entirely different word.)
Encrypting takes money and time in order to set up procedures and train and implement.
Just how much time, money, and training does it take to specify a session/encryption password in the backup dialog?
We encrypt all our backups. Not doing so is reckless, as backup copies are regularly sent via UPS to offsite storage facilities.
Then why do the games struggle so much to provide realism?
I think you're being deliberately obtuse, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
What you're referring to with your blanket statement of 'realism' is the game designers' attempt to create a complete, internally consistent, self-contained world, where a player may have adventures and interesting encounters, and gereally be someone else...a person totally seperate from his or her RL existence (and attendant socioeconomic status). By allowing players to purchase game items for RL money, the distinction between a person's RL economic success and their game character's economic success is broken, distorting the game mechanics and artificially skewing the game in favor of the wealthy.
I'm not saying that this Station Exchange deal is a priori a Bad Thing, but I am saying that this is not something the original Everquest II players signed on for, and I know I'd be plenty upset if I was one of those players.
Hope that clears things up for you.
Sounds like Life to me.
These games are a vacation from real life...an escape. That's pretty much the whole point. Allow Real Life to intrude upon the game in this fashion, and you obviate the appeal.
By allowing (condoning, actually) this sort of activity, Sony is ensuring that this game dies a slow and lingering death. Gone are the days when all you needed to excel at Everquest was a good internet connection and a complete lack of a life...now you need the cash, too. People with money will be better equipped than people with no money...those with no money will quit in disgust, and those with money will lose interest after they run up against enough other players with enough money to equip themselves well. Fortunately, those who don't want to participate in this mercenary practice will have the option to play on non-Station Exchange servers...that is, until a majority of the players on that server want the server to be a Station Exchange server...in which case you'll have to find another server...sorry.
It seems that Sony is turning on their major client base...risking alienation and mass defection...so why would Sony embraace such a controversial move?
From The Players: