Sex is definitely one of the most prevalent topics in our daily lives.

Expression of sexual things is arguably in almost everything we do as human beings and fundamental to how groups of people interact.

Consequently, sexual identity is more than just a small facet of one's identity, it is a major element.

One's own esteem is not, nor should it ever be, considered an individual's responsibility, but is instead enmeshed in the social situation with which they are taking part. Social acceptance is a generally necessary element for satisfaction with life.

Thus, not being able to express one's identity openly leads to self-repression and thus a policy that asks someone to do such a thing is repressive.

Things that repress gay people, specifically, are generally labelled homophobic.

That is why I consider DADT homophobic. But, I tend not to use that word and would prefer the less ambiguous, "repressive" word.

If you can't understand how something is repressive without putting it into context, imagine not being able to wear your wedding ring, not being able to talk about your marriage, not being able to discuss your kids, not being able to express affection for that cute girl you admire in front of your soldier friends for fear of letting them know you're heterosexual, and then really begin to understand just how much of your social communication has your sexuality embedded in it, in some form or fashion, and then try, however impossible it is, to understand what life would be like if you had to neuter everything you say from having any relevance to that.

There are a number of people of prominence throughout history where there is some evidence to suggest they were in fact homosexual. Granted, its assumptive, but I think a moment's reflection says it is not at all irrational to think that these people hid their sexuality in order to be successful.

Isaac Newton is just one of those individuals with whom we can say the possibility that he was homosexual is increased. I think this statement so offends some because they view it with stigma. If you are truly ambivalent as to the morality of sexuality, it is also assumptive to say he was heterosexual. The evidence of his marriage to a woman is not decisive, there are sufficient numbers of modern homosexuals in heterosexual marriages because of social pressure and many more that left them because of a perceived relaxation in social pressure. It is rather bold for the other poster to claim him to be gay, but there is evidence to support the claim.

Would we even know Alan Turing was a homosexual if he wasn't caught by the policeman? I'm not sufficiently caught up in the details of his life to know. I think there is a great desire on the part of homosexuals to claim some luminaries in their camp because it shows homosexuals can be pillars of society. Certainly some of these historical people with evidence are in fact closeted by the laws of probability alone.

Lets try to break this down into stuff thats worth talking about.

1) You feel like society can force you to follow a norm. Maybe that is the function of society, to have norms. And, the function of some people is to challenge those norms. No right, no wrong, just roles to play.

2) You seem awfully bitter, but maybe this is also your role to play.

3) There is some truth to the fact that the people with girl parts have more consistent differences than the external with those who have boy parts.

4) A helluva lot of people fit into two constrained categories which might not necessarily encompass the totality of the human experience.

5) If I were in a business trying to sell tech crap to one of those categories, I'm not going to care that it offends your special snowflake personality by pandering to a specific category with a pink laptop covered in powder blue flower symbols. I'm going to care whether it sells.

To sum it up, you've missed the point entirely. Not only do some people want to know what society wants and to follow it, there are generalizations that are generally true, and these truths can be used to reach a "market" better. No one is holding you back from dying your hair red and running around in a black tutu. Although, if that is what society wanted you to do, I'm absolutely positive that you would wear A&F and write venomous posts on slashdot about those conformist black tutu personalities.

After rereading, I don't think I quite addressed your point about "what if your mom hadn't played with barbies." The mentality that you have to do X to fit in is prevalent in any human culture anywhere. If a generation is a specific way because of society, maybe we shouldn't decry that society shapes people, which is silly because that is human nature. Instead, we should decry what society shaped them into, and try to change society so the next generation comes out better.

Properly written code is a compendium of solutions to small problems. If a problem is well solved, why try to solve that problem again? This is why coders push for abstraction, generics, templates, etc. A major point is to be able to rip out the common required solutions to common problems and with possibly a little refactoring adapt it to your new project.

I disagree that "content is king". Unless code == content.

No other RTS plays quite like Blizzard RTS's, and some of that has to do with code at least.

So much of how wow "plays" and how polished the mechanisms are has to do with excellent coding.

The best games have good artwork AND good code.

How do you think all that art gets animated and rendered, anyway?

N

I wish I had mod points for this post. +2 insightful, +4 funny, -1 flamebait!

Queue new top 10 Microsoft support complaint...

"My cdrom is broke" "It doesn't know there is a cd in there anymore!"

N

How is giving away shoddy software that requires a lot of hand holding (and therefore expensive service contracts) any different based on whether the source is open or not?

If anything, actually seeing the source might shame some companies into generating better code, and cut down on intentionally malicious code by having added transparency.

However, all software companies are in the support game, and therefore have an investment in maintaining lucrative support contracts.

50 cents

Gender is more than an external orientation of bits. Attraction is more than an external orientation of bits. Gay people have a difference of attraction. Transsexuals have a difference of gender in a way that is not externally obvious.

It is easier to accept gay people. But it is still an internal, non-transparent "modification" of what is "typical".

Is it moral for a surgeon to give a person what they want, no matter how patently absurd? Yes. Why should it not be?

In the end, everyone is just getting in everyone else's business, and that is the only immoral thing going on.

On the issue of insane people: leave one out in the cold and a truly insane person will die. They are not able to take care of themselves. For these we pity them, shelter them, and frequently imprison them in asylums to make it easier on society without having to broach the delicate subject of neglecting them or killing them. It is a rough compromise of our morals. Don't let people die, don't let them suffer beyond what can't be helped, and don't drain all of societies resources to do either.

Transgender people are still able to function, can still contribute to society, and can still make life more pleasant for others. So, who the hell cares what they want to do their bodies? People who are addictive personalities are ridiculously more harmful to society by being a huge drain on our health care. Too much smoking, eating (diabetes), and abusing drugs leads to tremendous fiscal waste and has the side effect of increasing crime, the number of orphans, and other deleterious effects.

All in all, its a shame what society does to try to "control" people whose only 'bent' is so harmless and such a strong part of what they want to be and do.

What a waste.

N

This is a good point, but we should realize several things from this.

You still have to go to the run.

You still have to work socially with the guild.

You get the gear late in the cycle.

I think it is all perception. You perceive effort, pain, and difficulty not to apply to virtual action, but I think you're misguided.

There is effort, pain, and difficulty in being a part of a raiding guild. Just because you, or TR, might not value it, doesn't mean it isn't valuable to someone.

Or to put it another way, there is no stone tablet floating in orbit in our universe somewhere visible to us that enumerates all that we should consider worthwhile.

Why do 'games' have to be what you define them as? Why can't a game be as serious a hobby as gardening is to some people? Why can't games be a reason for some to live? Do you tell Roger Federer that he's taking tennis too seriously? Or are his efforts equally futile? Or maybe you condone what he does because he makes money and other people are effectively willing to subsidize him to be the best because they enjoy watching him, or whatever.

Life is supposed to be fun, how about that? And if that means working ridiculously hard at gaming, then why not?

I would argue that we, as a species, don't have an understanding of the concept of marriage that differs that significantly from what voles do, for instance.

We spend some time together, share some resources, copulate, and use pretty tokens to indicate how we feel and to calm our partner's insecurities. Lots of species display this behavior.

Or, is the hallmark of humanity's understanding of marriage best understood by our invention of divorce court?

N

You haven't seen any logical explanations? What?

Oh, you haven't because you haven't been looking.

Do a google search on kin selection. There is just one of many theories put forth on why homosexuality is actually something that could have positive results in an model of evolution.

I can't think of any positive benefits of you destroying people's hopes and preventing them from enjoying their lives the way they want to. Wouldn't your energy be better served on some green cause, internet liberation, the next great technological revolution for humanity, or ?

The reason I think you, and others, spend so much time fighting so that other people can't enjoy their lives is because you're so generally inept and such a busybody that you have nothing better that you *could* be doing.

N

As opposed to the indignity of naming spaceships after anthropomorphic deities from 2,000 year old cultures that never have existed or never will exist?

Science fiction seems to me to contain a massive element of hope or fascination at what could be. Even when great liberties are taken with scientific theories as they are known to us. Just how is it undignified to use these concepts?

Or, maybe we should just call it generic boring names like "voyager" or "enterprise"? When they named a submarine Nautilus, I, for one, thought that was 'cool'.

No, the only objection I have to the name 'serenity' is that it hails from obviously bad science fiction. Take something from Asimov, or Heinlen, or what have you.