Silicon Valley's contribution to the US Republican Convention: Gayness If ever there was any doubt that billionaire Peter Thiel was a contrarian, he put it to bed last night in a short speech at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, US. The Paypal cofounder and early investor in Facebook already stood out as a supporter of Donald Trump in Silicon Valley – an industry that despises the …
This post has been deleted by its author
""We" didn't go to Mars yet, we sent a couple of probes/robots. I think the point he wanted to make was that there hasn't been a manned mission yet. You know, planting flags and stuff."
Great, let's do that. We'll need a visionary to go first: how about Peter Thiel? Unfortunately it's a one-way trip, but I'm sure everyone else will be glad to be shot of the windbag honour the guy in such a way.
He'll be at the end of a very long line indeed. It's no wonder there are so many poor, ignorant, non-millionaire Repubs; they lack the initiative to read anything relating to STEM that will get them ahead in life rather than some stupid morality story book written by old assholes. AKA The bible. It's how their fucked-up world works; never learn anything, then complain about lack of good jobs "'cus dem foreigners be taken em all, guy!" get a gun, shoot up a school 'cus; can't learnin' nothin'.
America is already a great place to live and work, when you know how it works, and to stay out of the middle of the US. That's where our "Brexit" idiots live and shoot themselves in the foot. Look, don't take my word for it, I'm making many many dollars an hour doing VERY LIGHT WORK. Work smart, not hard, we always say. Anyway, poor angry assholes are poor because they're angry assholes and have no real value to any industry, except perhaps the birdcall noise maker biz. Anything that is crafty and doesn't take any mind power to do. They will NEVER learn. Ever. It is known.
@ Dadmin
Er, yeah.
Packer #1 was known as "The Goanna" in Australia, a place where Cockatiels come from but are widely caged as pets in USA.
Cockatiels (Nymphicus hollandicus): Cockatiels are small, crested members of the parrot family. There is no visual difference in the appearance of a male or female cockatiel. but normally males have BRIGHT YELLOW FACES AND ORANGE CHEEK PATCHES. The females have duller cheek patches and grey or brown faces.
http://www.cockatiel.com/malefemale.html
As Kerry is reputed to have said, "Toss you for it".
" they lack the initiative to read anything relating to STEM that will get them ahead in life rather than some stupid morality story book written by old assholes. AKA The bible"
If they did read the majority of the Bible - not the cherry picked mistranslated bits of the Bible Belt - there's no way they'd be voting Republican. There's rather a lot in there about fixing your society rather than spending money on temples, getting on with your neighbour, and not being judgemental.
Unfortunately it is possible in the US to get a degree in a STEM subject and remain ignorant of things like evolution and psychology - Ben Carson being a high profile example. You can be a semiconductor engineer or a programmer and never stop believing Young Earth Creationism, because there's too much vocational training and not enough education. It's been coming this way for a while too.
Being taught about evolution doesn't prevent people from believing in young earth creationism. Most of those who believe in it were taught that by their parents and church at a young age, and no matter how much they might be taught about evolution in school later they've already been taught it is a fraud and will simply ignore it.
I love how the author implies that acceptance of gay marriage is a prerequisite for acceptance of gays period. They are different issues, regardless of what the Gaystapo says. It is possible to accept gays, and still consider the ancient institution of Marriage to be intended for the raising of children and not just a societal label that all have rights to.
Most cultures in this world are in agreement with Republicans on this issue, regardless of how the press tries to make it appear the opposite.
Big John wrote: "the author implies that acceptance of gay marriage is a prerequisite for acceptance of gays period. They are different issues"
Sometimes big words can be confusing, so I'll break this down. "Gay" - this part is about gay people. "Marriage" - this is about marriage, which is a legal and social (and possibly political) contract between two people. A contract must be accepted to be valid. Thus, "gay marriage" is about accepting that a marriage contract between two gay people is valid.
Big John wrote: "It is possible to accept gays, and still consider the ancient institution of Marriage to be intended for the raising of children and not just a societal label that all have rights to."
Gay people can and do raise children, so that's clearly not quite the issue. Create new children, that makes sense. I defer to John's obviously greater understanding about the ancient origins of marriage. In recent centuries, though, marriage is about much more than pure reproduction. For example, it's deeply tied to property and inheritance law. Although failure to consummate and failure to conceive have been used in English law to annul marriages, I'm not aware of recent cases where a marriage license was refused or revoked because a couple was unable or unwilling to bear biological children together. (Again, it could result in a divorce, but by its nature a divorce recognizes the validity of the original marriage contract, and an annulment is a retroactive challenge to the previously recognized validity of a marriage contract.) (Note that religious entities might refuse to perform a marriage ceremony for any number of reasons, including failure to promise children.)
I haven't yet found Big John's sources, but here are two that I used:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/marriage
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17351133
This post has been deleted by its author
> institution of Marriage to be intended for the raising of children
Really? Care to explain the multitude of (straight) friends and co-workers that are married, and have no intention of ever having children (and a couple of them pretty much hate crotch-fruit snot monkeys little mistakes kids)
There's four couples I know where one has been snipped, and one where both have been.
But I guess in your world that's an abomination too.
I love how the author implies that acceptance of gay marriage is a prerequisite for acceptance of gays period. They are different issues, regardless of what the Gaystapo says. It is possible to accept gays, and still consider the ancient institution of Marriage to be intended for the raising of children and not just a societal label that all have rights to.
Well, there's this former politician, a Republican, who's on the air with a radio talk show in my area. He's also an openly gay guy. Demo-rats actually tried to use that AGAINST him, stressing things about "his BOYfriend" in political debates, etc.. Yet Carl DeMaio is VERY conservative on most issues. On social issues, he's kinda 'libertarian', which I think is the better position to take. And he's NOT "an activist" by any means. And I suspect that OTHER members of the Republican party (who happen to be gay) are the same way, and would EQUALLY get MY vote.
The thing worth re-pointing out: It was a DEMO-RAT that kept HARPING on his Republican opponent being gay. That Demo-Rat became mayor of San Diego (Bob Filner). THEN, he got ousted for being a sexual harassment predator. It shows you what kind of guy he is.
The only problem with the 'gay' issue (that I see) is how IN YOUR FACE the activists are. The moralists (their only opposition) are in the minority. Most people (as I see it) take a 'live and let live' stance on this. They don't want their OWN lives disrupted, but think that others shouldn't have THEIR lives disrupted either. So we don't need 'in your face' activism, OR changing the definition of what 'marriage' is to suit 1.8% of the population. [I support Civil Unions for equal legal protection and so did Arnold Swarzenegger when he was Gov. of California].
Why gummints got involved in the whole 'marriage' thing is beyond me. It is possible for gummints to get OUT of it. Just call ANY marriage a 'civil union' for legal purposes, STOP ABusing the tax code by using different rates for married vs single, and basically ELIMINATE the "grievances" that the gay marriage issue is trying to resolve. Then nobody has to be 'forced' to accept anything they don't like. People can MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS.
And when it comes to child custody and support issues, actual marriage is not even required in the legal dispute, at least not in California. So gummint involvement in marriage, including the determination of who can marry and who cannot, is just an IRRITANT. It's just not needed.
I'm perfectly happy, as a Republican, with welcoming and recognizing the 'LGBTQ' community (as so-named in Trump's speech), and welcoming them into the party. But I'd expect them to act more like CONSERVATIVES, in that they're "not activists" about it.
Worth pointing out: the 'moralists' aren't CONSERVATIVES. They are 'activists' in their own way. Conservatives seek to work with things as they are and NOT make radical changes. Activists, on the other hand (and I include the 'moralist' activists in this), want nothing BUT 'radical changes'. So openly accepting and acknowledging 'LGBTQ' people is a good step forward, without the 'radical' element you would see in the Demo-Rat party. I think it was done appropriately, without the usual one-sided activism you see from the Demo-Rats.
Most cultures in this world are in agreement with Republicans on this issue, regardless of how the press tries to make it appear the opposite.
In fact, the USA today is one of the most TOLERANT nations with respect to 'LGBTQ', and SHOULD be. If you look at Obaka's favorite religion, Islam, you'll find a LOT of hate in there, and nations that embrace Shariah would (obviously) NOT treat 'LGBTQ' people well. Neither did the Nazis (pink triangle) back in WW2. Something to think about.
It falls under the argument that 'most people are really conservative', which is why Republican candidates need to stop leaning to the left after the primaries, and instead SELL CONSERVATISM to the 'undecided'. And, I bet Trump will say ON MESSAGE without deviating at all.
Regarding "Shariah" law, it derives almost word for word from it's roots in the Torah. Christianity came from Judaism and about 300 years later Islam partially arose from Christianity. I suspect it was in response to the "weaponization" of Christianity by Rome. (Accept the Cross and win wars) But, no one has an issue with kosher salt. Go figure. At any rate, present day Christianity has zip to do with the teaching of Jesus the Christ, starting with the fact that "Christ" was not Jesus's last name. . "Christ" is a title. so he would be properly referred to as "Jesus The Christ".
Religious and legal. The government has no business telling churches what types of marriages they should perform or recognize. The government recognition of marriage affects taxes, inheritance, insurance, contracts, children and a lot of other aspects of daily life. You can't claim to be for "gay rights" but against gay marriages being recognized by the government.
Donald Trump paying lip service to "L ... G ... B ... T ... Q" (you could tell he was speaking that sequence of letters for the first time in his speech by how slowly he read it) doesn't undo all extremist anti-gay policy in the republican platform. Nor does his super-awkward air kiss of Mike Pence when he introduced him during the convention (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/us/politics/mike-pence-trump-air-kiss.html)
"The government has no business telling churches what types of marriages they should perform or recognize."
Quite right. It's not like churches are performing legal functions, is it? Oh, wait, you say that churches want to have their cake -- be able to perform legal functions -- and eat it as well -- deny people they don't like on religious grounds? No. Choose: you can be perform a legal function, and don't discriminate, or discriminate, and have your legal functions stripped from you. Religious objections are irrelevant; if you can't marry any two people who walk through the door, stop being in the marriage game.
Churches don't perform legal functions with regard to marriage. If you get married in a church it isn't legally recognized unless you have applied for a marriage license beforehand and then file the paperwork after the ceremony actually takes place. Same things you have to do if you want to get married without a church being involved, except that the whole 'ceremony' that takes place in a church can be replaced by with a more simple process.
"Churches don't perform legal functions with regard to marriage. If you get married in a church it isn't legally recognized unless you have applied for a marriage license beforehand and then file the paperwork after the ceremony actually takes place."
Really? I assumed it was the same in the US as the UK, where churches are registered to perform ceremonies and you complete the forms there. That sounds more like Germany, where the church is just used for a fun ceremony, which has no legal basis at all, and the legal parts are done somewhere else.
Maybe you can complete the forms in the church in some places, I don't know, but where you are physically located when sign your name on pieces of paper is irrelevant to the fact that the ceremony the church does (i.e. "I now pronounce you man and wife") by itself does not change your legal status from single to married. You have to fill out the proper paperwork for the state to recognize your marriage.
"I love how the author implies that acceptance of gay marriage is a prerequisite for acceptance of gays period. They are different issues, regardless of what the Gaystapo says. It is possible to accept gays, and still consider the ancient institution of Marriage to be intended for the raising of children and not just a societal label that all have rights to."
Yep, because when it became unacceptable to think homosexuality is illegal, people like you -- you know, bigots -- had to move their goalposts. You might as well have said
"Now that I can't demand that the gays be chemically castrated or even just imprisoned, I'm going to fight tooth and nail against them having each and every societal right and make it as difficult as possible for them. Because God dammit if I'm not a complete pigfucker who loves seeing people miserable. Of course it doesn't affect me if two gay people are married or not, but I want my divine right to interfere in other people's business and impose my own stupid ignorance on them. Because I'm white and so I'm right."
I'm guessing you were also against interracial marriage until that became unfashionable. (1967, by the way, when the Supreme Court had to intervene in that one.)
"Most cultures in this world are in agreement with Republicans on this issue, regardless of how the press tries to make it appear the opposite."
I think if you set the bar of acceptability as "what most cultures in the world do" then democracy is out, as probably is the right of women not to be raped by their husband. (I cannot be bothered to check if this is the majority of countries, but you're a fuckwit and I've spent enough time on you.)
"I'm guessing you were also against interracial marriage until that became unfashionable. (1967, by the way, when the Supreme Court had to intervene in that one.)"
...and I am glad they did. But, don't tar-brush parents with the "racist" label who merely want their grandchildren to look like them.
Doesn't mean I agree with him at all, mind.
Like many I only really was aware of him when he went gunning for Gawker and I looked up why.
Now there are many perspectives on how Gawker treated Thiel - not illegal, but at least to me it was despicable.
It wasn't a major act of civil disobedience - but I removed engadget and kotaku from my RSS feeds.
Then Gawker published Hulk's sex tape - a quite stupendously stupid/illegal thing - and Thiel saw this and provided a well-funded match to take to burn them to the ground.
Good.
And burn he did.
I can guess that Terry would have settled for some cash, rather than risking personal bankruptcy and I can further guess that that's the worst case Gawker thought they'd have to deal with.
Oops.
Not really. He did highlight the increasing polarisation of modern politics and you seem to be providing the proof.
JFK may be a Democrat icon but was he really liberal? The Apollo project was undoubtedly progressive but it was also one of the best examples of the military industrial complex. And, in a way, it was the ideas of Barry Goldwater that, through Nixon and Reagan did more to reshape American politics.
"JFK may be a Democrat icon but was he really liberal? "
Actually, No. JFK and Nixon were friends, and actually agreed on MOST issues. JFK was a CONSERVATIVE Democrat, probably one of the last [along with his brother, Robert Kennedy].
For example, JFK believed in tax rate CUTS, and his policies went into effect after his death, in 1964, causing an economic boon. JFK was ALSO a cold war 'Anti-Communist' kinda guy, like Nixon. But JFK's big issue was civil rights, as I recall, which may have differentiated him significantly from Nixon (that, and the press LOVED him) and got him elected. As I recall, Nixon later embraced the civil rights issue, which helped him win against Humphrey (and Wallace) in 1968. (many of the hippies really liked Nixon in 1968).
Civil Rights issues really started in the 1800's. The Republican party formed out of the Abolitionist movement, and Lincoln was the first Republican president. Democrats, on the other hand, heavily promoted "state's rights" when it comes to slavery. And the REAL Demo-Rat party surfaced as LBJ created "the great society", a means by which they can buy 'poor minority' votes INDEFINITELY, by giving away other people's money (i.e. higher taxes), but not enough given away to create wealth among the poor; the policies deliberately give away just enough to "keep them in their place" and buy their votes (with plenty of fear-mongering that Republicans HATE them and will stop the gravy train if they don't vote Demo-Rat).
Applying the contrarian argument to his crusade against Gawker is fatuous at best. Being outed at a time when you may not be ready is a horrid experience regardless of whether you can later say you're proud to be gay. And let's not forget Gawker is one of the nastiest examples of unrelenting gutter journalism there's ever been and definitely deserves to die.
"We have already gone to Mars. Maybe Thiel thinks we should go each year?"
A bit of partisan hacking there. Obviously he was talking about efforts to establish a base, manned missions and so on. This should have been obvious checking e.g. Thiel's Founders Fund public statements at : http://foundersfund.com/the-future/#
"We believe that the shift away from backing transformational technologies and toward more cynical, incrementalist investments broke venture capital". (and more details on aerospace there).
Mars and other missions, so far, do not contain actual "transformational technologies" but "cynical, incrementalist" innovation (bigger robot, cooler landing, better mechanics). From the perspective of spaceflight economics and reliability these increments and modes revolutions do make sense. Curiosity was a big step actually considering the many new technologies involved. But Thiel is from a crowd which aims higher and more ambitious.
Or perhaps he justs desires to get better returns again from a worn out economical model in a tired world?
"Mars and other missions, so far, do not contain actual "transformational technologies" but "cynical, incrementalist" innovation (bigger robot, cooler landing, better mechanics). From the perspective of spaceflight economics and reliability these increments and modes revolutions do make sense. Curiosity was a big step actually considering the many new technologies involved. But Thiel is from a crowd which aims higher and more ambitious."
Thiel, I would hazard a guess, has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to space travel, and doesn't quite appreciate the difficulties in manned missions to Mars.
I'm just fed up, as a scientist, of doing stuff nobody else really understands and then being told by some little shit that he's unhappy with the speed of scientific advancement. These people are rich beyond the dreams of avarice and are moaning because scientists who are paid a small fraction of his income aren't developing cool shit for his personal use quickly enough for his liking.
I have a modest collection of books on the Apollo missions, only about 2m of shelf space. Six of the books are signed by a Moonwalking author.
When a Mars Probe can return to Earth, write a book, and sign my copy; then and only then will "We" have been to Mars.
Until then, no. "We" have NOT already gone to Mars.
Hmmm... Unless this column was written by a returned space probe. Hey 'Kieren', can you sign my print out?
"I have a modest collection of books on the Apollo missions, only about 2m of shelf space. Six of the books are signed by a Moonwalking author."
I didn't know Michael Jackson even wrote any books. But I'm sure they are worth a good bit of money with his signature.
"Such distorted thinking is also apparent in his attacks on the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton – blaming her for wars in the Middle East and conveniently forgetting which administration made the decisions that led to the current situation in the region."
^I'm a former Democratic organizer, and was an anti-war activist in 2003, but this is wrong. The Democratic Party in the US has the same attitude toward pacifism that Republicans have toward balanced budgets; a lot of talk, and completely contradictory actions. Here are some things that you won't find in blue-tinted talking points:
- Removing Saddam was a policy goal of the Clinton Administration.
- Hillary voted for the war.
- Each of the last four US presidents has bombed Iraq for one reason or another.
- Clinton's 1998 war was justified by Saddam's refusal to allow inspectors into his palaces, which not all of the inspectors considered a violation.
- Our lack of knowledge about Iraq's weapons was a result of the above breakdown of inspections.
- Most Democrats (myself included) thought that Saddam had retained some capacity to make chemical weapons, and probably wanted to build nuclear ones as well. The debate was about the severity of the threat, and whether the new round of inspections had really failed.
- The New York Times and New Yorker were vocal, influential war proponents.
- For all of his folly, Bush did not try to overthrow Gaddafi's government; he started to make peace with it.
- President Obama egged on Syrian rebels and then bailed on them. Jimmy Carter thought that his focus on overthrowing Assad was a mistake.
- Hillary Clinton has been more consistently hawkish about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than the Republican nominee.
President Obama's policies have been a continuation of the Bush administrations concept of spreading democracy by overthrowing governments. Trump would be a pain in many ways, but he's slightly better positioned to cut back on foreign wars. (His supporters aren't as heavily invested overseas and Clinton's, and the US has a small enough population relative to our natural resources that we could probably pull back if we really wanted to.)
perhaps _because_
"our newest fighters can't even fly in the rain."
I'm sure the attempt to produce a reliable secure replacement for those old computers will make some well-connected company (or at least its executives and offshore contractors) quite a nice chunk of change, but not so sure that it will produce a reliable, secure replacement.
Those floppy disks don't have CPUs and firmware to go sideways when the time for the extinction of civilization comes up.
OK, maybe that would be a good thing.
OTOH, maybe General Jack D, Ripper would make sure the plethora of back/side/front doors and byzantine software stack of the new systems "fail safe" (for some definition of "safe" that safeguards our Purity Of Essence)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
