Funny part is, there never really was a conflict, and the Church was in on evolution even before Darwin wrote Origin of Species... (you'd think the schmuck had never heard of Br. Gregory Mendel or something...)

But you know, some folks just cannot let fact get in the way of their rants (especially among heretics - I mean WTF?)

Actually, I kind of disagree to an extent...

I say we should allow claptrap like this to air, and for a couple of decent reasons:

* You never know - maybe they might stumble (albeit accidentally) across something tangential that sparks the mind of someone, and that in turn improves real science. It's happened before...
* Stifling such things only lends them credence, and a pre-packaged conspiracy theory that goes along the lines of "they're trying to shut us up because..."
* There is a danger that once you stifle the obvious BS, a strong temptation arises to stifle anything else the Scientific Community doesn't agree with, yet might indeed prove to be the more correct model/theory/hypothesis/etc (see also the debate on AGW). Eventually you end up with a monster that is just as censorious and closed-minded as the folks you originally sought to silence.

I see that an SF City worker got hisself some mod points.

Let the butthurt flow, boyo - you know I'm right. ;)

FTFY.

You are correct, but one thing disturbs me - from TFS:

Using an apartment for short-term rentals is a crime in San Francisco.

Notice the word "crime". What in the unholy fuck is the City of San Francisco doing by saying that subletting is a crime? I get the whole tax angle (but seriously, I don't; WTF is so special about a hotel that a city - any city - needs a special tax for one?), but damn... just something about calling it a criminal activity that is way the hell wrong.

...and economic coercion is harmless? Given the results, I'd disagree. A blacklist is a blacklist. ;)

Unless you "run" Mozilla, your argument is meaningless.

It actually does - if the property is jointly owned and the beneficiary/contract names the surviving member, it's solved.

Otherwise, depending on state law, the usual rules apply (which means in some states, some jackass relative can bung-up/contest the process, etc...)

...Not as much as you might think.

...only because there is the general assumption that both spouses are the biological parents of that child, and/or that any step parents have adopted said child.

Now here you have a point; however, any two human beings can jointly own property, thus erasing that question almost entirely (yes, this includes bank accounts).

I agree with this bit entirely.

Then again, marriage has always been a jointly-faceted aspect of both religion and secular rule - it was founded in early human societies to establish inheritance, lineage (hence the whole "taking his name" thing), property ownership, etc. It was considered a religious thing because religions generally outlasted kings, so it had the relative staying power to act as an authority on the subject. This is sort of why most progressive folks in the 1970's and 1980's had condemned marriage as a "curse of the breeders." Now it's just a means of sticking it to the Man, and at the same time gleaning the benefits and validation that marriage does bring to the table.

Personally? I think that sure, let the marriage laws change to include any two or more parties of any sex or combination thereof (yes, including polygamy, polyandry, whatever), but the divorce laws should change too: Jettison "no-fault" divorce. Barring proven abuse or actual crime, such things as alimony and the allocation thereof based on income should remain in place... for life. Nullify any and all attempts at a pre-nup contract. Barring (again) proven abuse or actual crime, ban both parties from re-marrying in the eyes of the state (or at least have the state not recognize any subsequent marriages). Sleep together all you want, shack-up all you want, do it in any combination thereof - but if you really want to get married, go in knowing that it is for life, and not just only as long as you and your spouse "love" each other (yes, those scare quotes go for hetero couples too.)

I bet modifying divorce laws in such a way would stop marriage from being treated as a political football, turn off a ton of people clamoring for it to be made into such, and instead make into what it was originally intended to be: a life-long bonding of two human beings for the purpose of building a family. Additionally, it would at least start to make people stop and fucking think before popping the question, and perhaps even make them become absolutely certain before they do get married. I further bet that most folks would condemn the idea right away - with the progressives at the head of the charge.

It's not that simple. I could post something that says "I just discovered that the proprietor of $locaBuisness thinks that purple wigs are hateful. I say we harass and hound and blackball him until his business closes and he is forced to begs on the street for a living. Of course, you're under no compulsion or obligation to do it (but if you were a truly caring and compassionate human being, you'd do just that.)"

It's one thing to post an opinion. It's another to demand that people totally blackball someone into penury just because their opinion on a political subject differs.

Consider this: What makes the guy at OKCupid any different from Sen. Joe McCarthy?

...neither of them stack up to "Leisure Suit Larry". Funny thing is, I know of more women who bought that particular game then men, mostly because it was funnier than hell.

But then, the ladies in question weren't overly-sensitive professional victims, either.

Seriously - would anyone have even bothered with titles like DOAX or Duke Nuke'Em if it didn't have the content it had?

They both sold like effing mad... I'll leave it up to the reader to decide why they think that is.

Down that path lies perdition. I'll explain:

The moment you start "cleaning up" the design and atmosphere of a game, you open the door to censorship, even if self-imposed.

While ordinarily clearing such things out of a given game is, on the surface, a laudable goal, there's one great big problem: There is no objective definition and delineation of terms like "mysogyny", "racism", or "homophobia". I have seen people called "racist" point-blank because they disagreed with the president's policies, or called "homophobic" because they believe homosexual activity to be a moral wrong (though not a crime, or cause to hate someone, or etc).

Given this, first, okay, you clear out the obvious stuff. But then some loudmouthed political action group starts squealing about things which kinda-sorta-might-count, but likely don't. Next thing you know, you're having to nerf the game entirely, and are stuck with an ever-decreasing list of genres, or wildly inaccurate ones just to satisfy the perpetually-offended.

Screw it - let the market decide: If a game is truly offensive, word will get out and it won't be bought, leading to its failure. No one is forcing anyone to buy a given game, FFS.

...nor does he understand the concept of back-porting patches, apparently.

It gets worse (or IMHO, less competent):

Author Comment FTFA (bottom of page - emphasis mine):

"We haven’t identified the initial attack vector. We have no reason to suspect that the attack isn’t via http. I’d be very interested to hear from any affected sys admins if they identify how the attackers gain access."

In other words, they don't even know if it's the effing kernel at this point -all they know is that 2,000 some-odd websites have been bit, and they all use the absolute most common kernel version for webservers on the planet (2.6.x).

  Hell, for all we know it could be some commonly-shared crappy PHP script getting popped. :/