Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Would you guys be as poutraged for a Klansman? (Score 1) 187

Let us back up and ask a more fundamental question:

Who is supposed to be the primary beneficiary of marriage?

For thousands of years across many cultures, marriages were frequently arranged by the parents of those to be married. How could the parents know what was in the best interest of their children?

Because marriage was never about the people getting married. It was about the CHILDREN that marriage produced. People have known instinctively for thousands of years, and modern studies have confirmed it, that children do best, on average, when raised in a home with a mother and father. Ideally a father and mother who is blood related to them.

Take out the issue of gay marriage, what do researchers find when gay marriage is not in the picture?

Children raised by single parents, on average, do worse than children raised by a married mother and father.
Children raised by divorced heterosexual parents, on average, do worse than children raised by a married mother and father. Children raised by heterosexual adoptive parents, on average, do worse than children raised by a blood related mother and father. (Adoption is not the same as surrogacy. Adoption seeks to make the most of a bad situation, surrogacy seeks to create that bad situation.)
Children raised by heterosexual parents who got them via egg or sperm donation and is unrelated to one of the parents, on average, do worse than children raised by a blood related mother and father.

Then SUDDENLY, gay marriage comes into the picture and it's "children raised by gay parents turn out just as good as heterosexual parents". That is obviously false, since how else do gay "parents" get their children except by divorce, buying them via surrogacy, or adoption? Thankfully honest research is starting to come out, exposing this lie for what it is.

Note that the media and the gay lobby only ever shows children who are still dependent on their parents for testimony, they NEVER bring in people who are now adults and financially free of their parents. Ever wonder why that is?

Don't take MY word for it, look at the testimony of adults who were raised by gay parents and DARED speak openly about it and how they are against gay marriage. They have been subject to death threats, lost their jobs, put on "watch lists" for doing nothing more than talking truthfully about their childhood.

Let me repeat that, MANY CHILDREN RAISED BY GAY COUPLES ARE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE!

Here is Robert Oscar-Lopez, a bisexual man raised by his mother and her lesbian partner. https://www.lifesitenews.com/n...

It’s disturbingly classist and elitist for gay men to think they can love their children unreservedly after treating their surrogate mother like an incubator, or for lesbians to think they can love their children unconditionally after treating their sperm-donor father like a tube of toothpaste.

It’s also racist and condescending for same-sex couples to think they can strong-arm adoption centers into giving them orphans by wielding financial or political clout. An orphan in Asia or in an American inner city has been entrusted to adoption authorities to make the best decision for the child’s life, not to meet a market demand for same-sex couples wanting children. Whatever trauma caused them to be orphans shouldn’t be compounded with the stress of being adopted into a same-sex partnership.

Lastly, it’s harmful to everyone if gay men and lesbians in mixed-orientation marriages with children file for divorce so they can enter same-sex couplings and raise their children with a new homosexual partner while kicking aside the other biological parent. Kids generally want their mom and dad to stop fighting, put aside their differences, and stay together, even if one of them is gay.

Go read the briefs submitted, by Mr. Lopez and the other children of gay parents who are critical of gay marriage, to the supreme court.

Even better, why don't you go read Mr. Lopez's blog and see what people raised by gay parents really think (At least those brave enough to speak out about it.) http://englishmanif.blogspot.c...

Also go check out "Ask the Bigot" who was likewise raised by gay parents and who is against gay marriage. http://askthebigot.com/

Suffice to say, your bigoted support for a culture of child sacrifice on the altar of "equality" will not last. You and I will grow old and eventually die. The special interest money will move elsewhere, and the children raised under the system you are creating will grow up and tear down what you have created.

Stop pretending that you are fighting some noble battle against "the man", the LGBT lobby IS "the man" and has been so for quite some time. (Note that the LGBT lobby is not the same thing as LGBT people, in private you will find quite a few gays and lesbians who do not approve of what is being done in their name.)

First it was easy divorce, abortion, and now gay marriage. The interests and rights of children always sacrificed for the selfishness of adults. In some ways, gay marriage is a good thing because it will eventually bring about the end of all three. An entire generation of children bought and sold like cattle via surrogacy, the divorce courts, and adoption. Denied their rights to a mother and father. Denied their right to know their origins because of anonymous sperm and egg donation. Denied their right to not be bought and sold like cattle. You pro-LGBT folk need to remember that children are humans and that they have their own feelings and hold their own views. One day they are going to be independent of you and free to speak their mind, that should terrify you.

The pro-abortion crowd won a decisive battle in 1973 and has been losing the war ever since. The gay marriage crowd has won a great battle in 2015, but is going to lose for the same reason, because the truth is not on their side.

Am I right? Lets stop back in a few decades and find out.

Comment Re:The A10 (Score 1) 731

"A problem which still exists and for which the A10 is still apparently quite effective."

Sorry, but no. Against opponents who have competent anti-air capabilities, the A-10 is sadly long obsolete, as neat an aircraft that it is..

The 2K22 "Tunguska" was designed to specifically blow aircraft like the A-10 to tiny slivers of metal, with guns and missiles that out-range the A-10 by a good margin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

There are SPAAGs newer than that of course with even greater capabilities. The future is probably with simpler turboprop aircraft that can fly even lower and slower than the A-10, with a combination of cannons and rocket pods.

Comment Re:Justifiable under ISLAM (Score 1) 147

"The Koran is NOT the bible, it does not have any conflicting passages, why? Because Muhammad had the benefit of seeing how the other religions worked and came up with a frankly brilliant little fix for all the conflicts. Its really very simple...if a rule comes later that conflicts with a rule that comes earlier then the latter one supersedes the earlier one which takes care of conflicting passages."

Except that cop-out doesn't save the Koran, philosophically. You also have the problem that we know that the Koran was heavily edited by Uthman, about 20 or so years after Mohammad's death who had the political power to order competing version destroyed. Versions that survived this event differ significantly from today's Koran, confirming the editing process.

The New Testament, by contrast, was not compiled into a single work for hundreds of years. Before that the documents circulated independently. It wasn't until about the 8th century that the church had become powerful enough to physically enforce a cannon. Before the 3rd century the church was a persecuted organisation. The fact that these "contradictions" remain shows that the church did not attempt to edit and harmonize the New testament documents. Texts found today from before this time, about 25,000 full or partial texts in various languages, prove this lack of editing by being the same as what we have today, with mostly minor spelling and grammatical errors and no meaningful variations that affect core doctrines. It's so cute how some people go on about "bible contradictions" when, if you actually go and READ the Gospels and Acts as nothing more than what they undeniably are, Greco-Roman biographies you find that effectively all the "contradictions" arise from the following reasons;

Deliberate misreading of the text. (Surprising how many "contradictions" fall under this category.)

Translation issues that are resolved when read in the original Greek.

Cultural Ignorance.

Geographic ignorance

Assuming that a work is a complete and total account of everything that occurred. This was not possible due to practical constraints. All 4 gospels and acts each fit on one standard-sized scroll from the 1st century, with Mark potentially being written on a smaller than standard scroll. There are many instances were events and conversations were compressed to save space. The trial before Pilate is just one example, where the conversation between Pilate and Jesus is compressed and details omitted in one account. Arguments from Silence

Holding documents that were written in the 1st century to 20th century standards. Examples:
Greco-Roman
It was common and accepted practice for 1st century Greco-Roman biographies to be arranged topically, not chronologically. Chronological order should only be assumed if it is explicitly stated.
Authors at that time, when mentioning themselves in a work, usually refer to themselves in the third person. See the works of Josephus as just one example.

Transcription errors that are resolved via textual criticism. (The heard of pigs at Gadara that ran into the sea almost certainly actually occurred at Kursi,)

Treating two accounts as describing the same event when they might actually be describing two separate, but similar events.

People had multiple names at that time and clarification about who was being spoken to or about did not always happen. Calling conflicting minor details contradictions, when they are actually evidence for independent sources. Historians expect independent eyewitness sources to differ on the minor details of an event while agreeing on the major points. Just go ask 10 people how many planes crashed on 9/11. You will get answers that vary between 2 to 4. Does that mean that 9/11 did not happen? It does if you take the line of many biblical skeptics. If all accounts of an event read exactly the same it would be evidence of tampering, collusion, or the reliance on a single source.

Treating the inerrancy of the text as core to Christianity, when it is the inerrancy of the MESSAGE contained in the text that is core. Example: You got a text from someone you know that said, "Yure houce iz un fure. Gt hom rite now." Now that message is FULL of errors in transmision, yet that is not what is important. What is important is the message contained within the text, and that came though 100% despite the errors in the transmission of the message.

Comment Re: Yet more proof ... (Score 1) 258

No they aren't.

Imagine that instead of elections, politicians were hired and you were on the committee that was choosing the person to fill the position. How many in Congress today would even get past the written application?

People are given a false dichotomy with the oligarchy in place today which includes the media. See that right now with Obama being little more than George Bush's third and fourth terms for the most part.

The only way they get away with this incompetence is with the current 40 year experiment with fiat money, in which politicians are able to tax the poor and middle class via currency debasement, and then return some of that stolen wealth to them through various programs. (Since there never was enough "rich" to fund these programs, even if you took 100% of the wealth from the 1%.) This of course makes the government into the generous sugar daddy in the eyes of the public. Nobody wants to rock the boat and lose their share of the loot.

When will it change? When the fiat currency inevitably becomes over-issued and collapses. We bought some time with the dollar being the world reserve currency, but countries like China are buying up gold as fast as they can without sending the price to the moon and rolling over their long term US bonds into T-bills with maturities ranging from 6 months to 3 years. China is getting ready to exit the dollar and other nations are diversifying. When will it fall apart, who knows. Greece borrowed right up to the point where they finally couldn't. Things will come unraveled very fast when it does. Odds are before 2020, even the normally optimistic CBO is saying trillion dollars in interest alone by then, assuming interest rates don't rise.

Things will get much worse before they either get even worse than that or the welfare/dependency state finally dies the death it deserves and the US can become great again. Only time will tell.

Comment Re:iPad too fucking expensive (Score 1) 139

People were saying that same tripe back when agriculture was being mechanized.

Back around the year 1800 about 90% of the population was involved in agriculture. Today it is about 2%. Last I checked we do not have an 88% unemployment rate.

What you are professing is what is known as the "Lump of Labor" fallacy. It has been recognized as a fallacy for only a couple hundred years and it is amazing how otherwise intelligent people keep spewing economic gibberish.

Labor will be rearranged to other avenues and other uses. The problem arises when artificial constraints, government mainly, prevent that reorganization of labor though bailouts, government guarantees, and regulation. As someone who claims to work in a small business you should be painfully aware of the minefield of regulations that exist against anyone who employs another person in their business.

Comment Re:What it means: (Score 1) 254

He has pointed out the FACT that men and women are different and make different choices based on those differences and this is somehow sexist?

What next? Are you going to say that the fact that White people sunburn easier than Black people is also racist?

That the fact that the sky is blue is discriminatory against colorblind people?

Guess what? Life isn't fair. Never was and never will be. The sooner a person realizes that, the sooner a person can start looking at what can be done to make the world a better place and what is simply a pie in the sky fantasy..

Comment Re:Please take your ignorant attitude somewhere el (Score 1) 132

Why do people like you see ignorance as a virtue?

If a person kept a child from learning to talk we would see that as abuse and neglect.

If a person kept a child from learning to read we would see that as abuse and neglect.

When a person willfully neglects from learning the local language of the place they live, that is them neglecting themselves.

People who willfully neglect to take care of those they are responsible for are rightfully looked down upon in effectively every society. Those who willfully neglect themselves in such fundamental ways are within that category and worthy of the utmost contempt.

Comment Re:A joke? (Score 1) 647

Implement a stable hardware/driver ABI and video card manufacturers will code a driver for it without too much asking. Keep your broken-ass monkey-code driver model, that has no stability and requires modification to work between even minor releases, and don't be surprised when video card manufacturers show token support at best and give you the finger at worst. No they are not gonna open source their code because there often is code that is not theirs to give that is subject to a NDA. They are also not gonna continue supporting hardware that went off the market years ago with updates.

This isn't rocket science. BSD has video drivers that work quite nicely and don't break between updates. Linux is stuck using a driver model that is so old Windows 95 is cutting edge compared to it.

Too bad Shuttleworth didn't put his money towards BSD because some REAL progress would have been made instead of flushed down a toilet.

If you want Linux to be a religion, then fine. Just stop trying to claim that it can compete with anything other than Windows 98 and we'll stop mocking you for it's hilariously bad and obsolete design choices.

Comment Re:A joke? (Score 0) 647

Quit repeating BS that was last true under Windows 98. Windows 2000 was rock solid over a decade ago and infections since Windows 7 came out over 5 years ago are mostly down to user stupidity than the operating system, see the number of Android device infections. Even my mom, who can't program a VCR, would see your bullshiat.

The numbers don't lie and Linux remains statistically less used than the margin of error. The amateur hour monkey code just does not cut it even against Windows XP.

Comment Re:Alternative? (Score 1) 377

Nothing new there. Those sorts of things have been done before. The proof is in the pudding and even the article admits that they aren't even to the point that they are selling anything yet. Get back to me when they're turning a profit. Looking at the massive amounts of artificial lighting required in the photos I'm not that enthusiastic about their chances. Interesting how that article claims the system is "organic". In the US that particular system would NOT be considered an organic operation.

I'll repeat the same point as before, that tech is not cost effective vs conventional arming methods and YOU asserted that it WAS when you replied to:

And Big Ag doesn't just feed hippies, it feeds the world, and there currently isn't any good substitute for it.

with,

Bullshit. We have plenty of alternatives to chemical-intensive agriculture. From vertical farming methods to advanced hydroponics methods that can reduce water AND nutrient requirements by 95% and 60% respectively.

Your hydroponics are not an alternative since they are too expensive to actually "feed the world" and I was correct to call bullshiat on your assertion. I think people reading this will be able to see who the winner is here.

Real Programs don't use shared text. Otherwise, how can they use functions for scratch space after they are finished calling them?

Working...