You've obviously never paid a software license that was based on # cpus, otherwise you might actually care very much.
The problem is, that many mac folks think that a mac is *the* solution to this problem for *everyone*. Thinking differently simply means you have some sort of mental issue.
I've always found it interesting that people present the artificial *restriction* of OSX to only Apple hardware is actually a benefit. Apple provides more choice! The makers of other hardware get dinged for a decision made by Apple. Amazing.
Unfortunately, many mac user in my experience as accurately described as smug assholes wrt to computers. I've been guilty of creating quite a few of them by recommending Macs to friends and relatives over the years when asked advice about purchasing a computer.
It is ironic and annoying to have someone ask my advice about computers, take that advice, be very happy, and then later proceed to tell me how terrible my choice of computer (Linux) is and how much happier I'd be with a Mac. I've never met a mac user who could be convinced that I actually *prefer* Linux to a mac. They simply think I just don't know any better or am being willfully ignorant. At the very least, they think I should buy a mac just for the hardware.
You've got to be kidding, really. Apple absolutely refuses to allow anyone to use OS/X on non-apple hardware and you spin it as a *benefit* of Apple hardware. The only reason you can run other OS's on Apple hardware is that other companies aren't like Apple. That's a real benefit.
We have four of these that we have used for years. They work great under linux, no muss no fuss. Cups will drive them just fine. We've never actually run them them under Windows.
A majority of people who voted in the Prop 8 referendum voted for it. That is NOT the same as a majority of voters (e.g., all people who can vote)
Prop 8 was actually passed by ~36% of eligible voters. The CA amendment process is borked. A constitution should *never* be amendable by a minority of possible voters. That's just nuts, regardless of the subject matter.
Note that amendments to the federal constitution must be passed by majorities of all *possible* voters not just ones who bother to actually vote. Not voting = No.
I agree with you 100%. I've done this many times, myself.
The correct approach is to more narrowly tailor benefits to childbearing heterosexual married couples, rather than extend them to a group that cannot possibly create children without support.
Actually, since it would quite easy to implement, the correct thing would be to tailor benefits to any couple with children. Please explain how the manner in which the children arrive is even relevant. Children are children. Again and again you simply suspend all of your criteria when it would apply equally to heterosexual couples.
So, then, if we're talking about marriage and spousal rights for adoptive parents in a gay couple, that I can understand. But we're not. We're talking about a blanket extension for a group that is categorically unable to reproduce.
This argument is NOT valid unless you apply to *all* couples who are "categorically unable to reproduce" which does, in fact, include some heterosexual couples. When you allow non-fertile heterosexual couples, but deny same-sex ones the rationale is solely gender, not fecundity. You are disingenuous. Your argument is simply non-rational at that point and you've crossed over the bigotry line.
Why can't you just be honest and just say that you don't think that same-sex couples should have such rights instead of hiding behind straw men?
The Tao is like a glob pattern: used but never used up. It is like the extern void: filled with infinite possibilities.