What right-wing bullshit. Gays don't have the same rights if they can't marry the person with whom they are in love. You have that right. They do not. Don't play ignorant word games with me, homophobe.
Right-wing bullshit... Like everyone who opposes same-sex marriage is a homophobe? Because of this little slip I refuse to answer you too much, you're obviously not serious.
The law states a man and woman can marry. A gay man can marry a gay woman. A straight man can marry a gay woman, etc. This is what I mean by saying we have the *same exact rights*. But you can ignore that and claim the law states "anyone can marry whomever they please."
In the same sense that mixed-race marriage was a "new" right when it became legal. But you probably opposed that right, too, didn't you?
No, I don't (can't say "didn't" because I was born after this was an issue). But that was still a *new* right. It was a right I agree with though. Oh, wait. I'm a homophobe, so I'm probably also racist. I obviously meant to say "Colored men can't marry white women!"
BTW, have you noticed that you're just as zealous and simple minded as your supposed opposition? "Who are you to say what society should accept as normal marriage practices?" I never said anything about degrading marriage, or the sanctity of marriage BTW. Just that Gays do *NOT* have less rights than straights. We are all limited by the same law the same way.
If I claimed my religion required me to marry my sister, would it be religious prosecution to not allow me to exercise my right?
But wait, I'm a homophobe. I can't really be making a point can I? Nor do I expect anything but "left wing" crap from you...
Truth? What truth? That was a long winded rant disguised as truth!
He could just as well be talking about how France is a bunch of surrender monkeys who prefer cheese and I'd still be disgusted with him.
We are not all christians. Not all christians are fundamentalists (see decline in church attendances). Not all fundamentalists are "scared" of change. Not all fundamentalists beliefs are bad.
Bah, what do you care. You've likely already made up your mind to just hate and believe that everyone is as bad as you like to think they are.
The "fear and hatred" was directed at same-sex couples who wished to have the same rights as straight couples.
See, the problem is this: They *do* have the same rights as I do (as straight man). In fact, the *exact* same rights. There is no law that says says can't marry, just as there is no law that says straights can't marry. This is *not* a violation of civil rights issue.
Straights and gays are all allowed to get married! It just has to be to the opposite gender. But to say they are not afforded the same rights I am is false!
Same-sex marriage is a *new* right. Not the same right. And it's debatable as to whether it's "right" or not. Is incest "right?" How about beastiality? They don't effect you, right?
What i dont understand about the anti missil interceptors lasers ect , is whats to stop a correctly motivated idiot from sailing a cheap boat into a coastal city and hitting the button ?
Homeland security. Something we are also building up.
The US defence department isn't single-tasking you know...
Comopared to the german army at that time they were far more advanced.
Spelling aside... The french were more advanced in *some* areas. Not all. The germans started about even with the rest of the world, but were advancing very fast (their machine guns were fantastic; the luftwaffe was unsurpassed at both the start and the end of the war; etc).
It's funny. Europe still doesn't want to take the US seriously. They never really did, and I doubt they ever will...
Which country in Europe fought (and won against) Germany, Italy, *and* Japan during world war II? A full two-front war? I think we deserve a bit more respect for our efforts - not to mention the lives lost. Instead we're poster boys for schaudenfreude to the world, and our successes are ignored or brushed off.
Oh, I didn't say they were incompetent. Nor was I actually bashing the French (sorry if it came out that way). Just they were unprepared technically. Most allies were compared to the Germans (who'd been preparing for war unlike the allies). The US had crappy tanks. The soviets flew bi-planes. The polish had horse calvary. The french had the Maginot line (would have been great in WWI, but not WWII). Etc.
The idea is to be prepared for the next threat, not wait around to find out the enemy has surpassed you...
Well, as I understand it they had no air force to speak of, and little armored vehicles (worse tanks than the US even). The "maginot line" was a great disaster, and did little to defend against Germany. In all they fought WWII the same way as WWI (which is somewhat understandable, they had no visible threat, right?). It took the other allies some time to catch up to Germany because the Germans had been preparing for the war in advance...
But yes, other countries were worse off still than the French.
Also, the laser is attached to a 747. You think this is to keep it over US territory? Perhaps fly it around your enemy with the missiles? Use it to defend troops on the ground perhaps? Maybe even the Kuwatis(sp)? Anyone?
If there's no immediate threat to our safety, then that money could be better spent.
have you any idea how long things like this take to develop? The idea here is to develop it and have it ready before it is needed, not long after...
If a major war did break out a decade or more from now, the country would be much better off with the money having been invested in science/education/economy than having outdated laser system.
Germany will never try to conquor Europe! They'd have to be crazy to try! Why would they piss off that many countries? Not to mention attacking the Soviet Union in the Winter?
You act as though it's a sane world, and nobody ever acts irrationally... The US was behind the ball at the start of both world wars. We don't want to be in that position again. Remember what happened to the technically challenged French in WWII? I believe they call that "steam rolled..."
n the future, instead of quizzing commenters
I couldn't figure out which link was the "article." Many slashdot posters seem to think the value of a post is in making everything a bloody link. I got a PDF for the first link, but that didn't seem to have much.
I'm not a big fan of assembling those sets the way they are supposed to be, but don't let them stop you from buying it. Just steal the directions and tell the kid to build what he thinks he should build.
What if the kid wants to build what's on the box?
Using the directions isn't bad. In fact, when we (my brothers and I) were kids we'd first build what was on the box (instant gratification) via the instructions. Later it would be disassembled or modified using other blocks we already had.
I was listening to the FCC chairman (or spokesman?) on CNBC this evening, and the reason given was that VOIP run on the *internet*, and therefore states having regulatory control seemes silly (given that the internet is *global*).
Many phone lines et al are still local, and that high-speed DSL or Cable you use to connect is up for regulation still...
This is definitely a step in the right direction, and an amazing realization by the FCC IMHO.
Slashdot Mirror
What right-wing bullshit. Gays don't have the same rights if they can't marry the person with whom they are in love. You have that right. They do not. Don't play ignorant word games with me, homophobe.
Right-wing bullshit... Like everyone who opposes same-sex marriage is a homophobe? Because of this little slip I refuse to answer you too much, you're obviously not serious.
The law states a man and woman can marry. A gay man can marry a gay woman. A straight man can marry a gay woman, etc. This is what I mean by saying we have the *same exact rights*. But you can ignore that and claim the law states "anyone can marry whomever they please."
In the same sense that mixed-race marriage was a "new" right when it became legal. But you probably opposed that right, too, didn't you?
No, I don't (can't say "didn't" because I was born after this was an issue). But that was still a *new* right. It was a right I agree with though. Oh, wait. I'm a homophobe, so I'm probably also racist. I obviously meant to say "Colored men can't marry white women!"
BTW, have you noticed that you're just as zealous and simple minded as your supposed opposition? "Who are you to say what society should accept as normal marriage practices?" I never said anything about degrading marriage, or the sanctity of marriage BTW. Just that Gays do *NOT* have less rights than straights. We are all limited by the same law the same way.
If I claimed my religion required me to marry my sister, would it be religious prosecution to not allow me to exercise my right?
But wait, I'm a homophobe. I can't really be making a point can I? Nor do I expect anything but "left wing" crap from you...
Truth? What truth? That was a long winded rant disguised as truth!
He could just as well be talking about how France is a bunch of surrender monkeys who prefer cheese and I'd still be disgusted with him.
We are not all christians. Not all christians are fundamentalists (see decline in church attendances). Not all fundamentalists are "scared" of change. Not all fundamentalists beliefs are bad.
Bah, what do you care. You've likely already made up your mind to just hate and believe that everyone is as bad as you like to think they are.
This "teacher" was not teaching philosophy. He was preaching dogma. Big difference.
The "fear and hatred" was directed at same-sex couples who wished to have the same rights as straight couples.
See, the problem is this: They *do* have the same rights as I do (as straight man). In fact, the *exact* same rights. There is no law that says says can't marry, just as there is no law that says straights can't marry. This is *not* a violation of civil rights issue.
Straights and gays are all allowed to get married! It just has to be to the opposite gender. But to say they are not afforded the same rights I am is false!
Same-sex marriage is a *new* right. Not the same right. And it's debatable as to whether it's "right" or not. Is incest "right?" How about beastiality? They don't effect you, right?
Wow... If one of my children had a teacher who spoke like that of other countries I'd demand they be removed from the class.
I agree. As far as I'm concerned the money was *laundered* thought the Unix license.
It's not blood money, it was for a Unix license!
What i dont understand about the anti missil interceptors lasers ect , is whats to stop a correctly motivated idiot from sailing a cheap boat into a coastal city and hitting the button ?
Homeland security. Something we are also building up.
The US defence department isn't single-tasking you know...
Comopared to the german army at that time they were far more advanced.
Spelling aside... The french were more advanced in *some* areas. Not all. The germans started about even with the rest of the world, but were advancing very fast (their machine guns were fantastic; the luftwaffe was unsurpassed at both the start and the end of the war; etc).
It's funny. Europe still doesn't want to take the US seriously. They never really did, and I doubt they ever will...
Which country in Europe fought (and won against) Germany, Italy, *and* Japan during world war II? A full two-front war? I think we deserve a bit more respect for our efforts - not to mention the lives lost. Instead we're poster boys for schaudenfreude to the world, and our successes are ignored or brushed off.
Sorry, more rant than I originally intended...
I'm not bashing the french. Just that they (and many others) happened to be in the wrong place when the shit hit the fan.
I didn't say that they started in the winter, only that they attacked in the winter.
"continued to attack" is still an attack.
Oh, I didn't say they were incompetent. Nor was I actually bashing the French (sorry if it came out that way). Just they were unprepared technically. Most allies were compared to the Germans (who'd been preparing for war unlike the allies). The US had crappy tanks. The soviets flew bi-planes. The polish had horse calvary. The french had the Maginot line (would have been great in WWI, but not WWII). Etc.
The idea is to be prepared for the next threat, not wait around to find out the enemy has surpassed you...
Well, as I understand it they had no air force to speak of, and little armored vehicles (worse tanks than the US even). The "maginot line" was a great disaster, and did little to defend against Germany. In all they fought WWII the same way as WWI (which is somewhat understandable, they had no visible threat, right?). It took the other allies some time to catch up to Germany because the Germans had been preparing for the war in advance...
But yes, other countries were worse off still than the French.
nukes and missile range
Nukes are the only WMD. Chem weapons also exist.
Also, the laser is attached to a 747. You think this is to keep it over US territory? Perhaps fly it around your enemy with the missiles? Use it to defend troops on the ground perhaps? Maybe even the Kuwatis(sp)? Anyone?
but to merely say the federal government shouldn't support local schools requires some sort of handwavy proof.
Umn. He's right. It's a state and local issue... Why must the feds be involved in local schools? What authority does the individual state have?
If there's no immediate threat to our safety, then that money could be better spent.
have you any idea how long things like this take to develop? The idea here is to develop it and have it ready before it is needed, not long after...
If a major war did break out a decade or more from now, the country would be much better off with the money having been invested in science/education/economy than having outdated laser system.
And if one does?
Germany will never try to conquor Europe! They'd have to be crazy to try! Why would they piss off that many countries? Not to mention attacking the Soviet Union in the Winter?
You act as though it's a sane world, and nobody ever acts irrationally... The US was behind the ball at the start of both world wars. We don't want to be in that position again. Remember what happened to the technically challenged French in WWII? I believe they call that "steam rolled..."
n the future, instead of quizzing commenters I couldn't figure out which link was the "article." Many slashdot posters seem to think the value of a post is in making everything a bloody link. I got a PDF for the first link, but that didn't seem to have much.
The "write up" is confusing. Are the Iraqis being forced to use the GM seeds? Can't just just continue using what they've been using?
Or do they just want to get extra money from users.
Hmmmmm. Let's see.... Maybe... No. That couldn't be it...
I agree completelyi. Now-a-days you can build a tie-fighter with like 10 parts due to all the custom pieces...
I'm not a big fan of assembling those sets the way they are supposed to be, but don't let them stop you from buying it. Just steal the directions and tell the kid to build what he thinks he should build.
What if the kid wants to build what's on the box?
Using the directions isn't bad. In fact, when we (my brothers and I) were kids we'd first build what was on the box (instant gratification) via the instructions. Later it would be disassembled or modified using other blocks we already had.
"created" != "transformed"
It's called the law of conservation of energy
I was listening to the FCC chairman (or spokesman?) on CNBC this evening, and the reason given was that VOIP run on the *internet*, and therefore states having regulatory control seemes silly (given that the internet is *global*).
Many phone lines et al are still local, and that high-speed DSL or Cable you use to connect is up for regulation still...
This is definitely a step in the right direction, and an amazing realization by the FCC IMHO.
knowing full well that when my SS check comes in, I'll be able to say, "hey honey, wanna go see a movie?"
*rofl*
Just remember that George W. Bush reduced the outsourcing tax from 25% to 5% when you vote on November 2.
But it's 4 years 'til election time, and Bush isn't running again!