eeky

Does this allow anonymous Bitcoin transactions, obviating the Zerocoin project?

You are not supporting a thing, you are supporting keeping that thing from someone else.

Here lies the crux of the debate. You think straight people are keeping something away from gays. But I think its gays trying to take something from straight people.

Let's say I lived in a country that banned marriage entirely. I would still get married and it would be enough for me and my family to recognize that we are married. Gays can do the same thing - they're not restricted at all in what they can do these days. But they want something more - they want everyone to be forced to recognize their marriage. They get infuriated when straight people don't want to recognize them. So they are taking something - our freedom to interpret our own reality. This is a kind of rabbit hole type revelation that spans many other issues and underpins my fundamental opposition to statism/slavery.

It's changing the definition of the word, so yes there is something to stand for. If you don't believe marriage needs defending, look at the rates of marriage. Now the meaning of marriage has been diluted so much, no one wants to get married anymore - there's no point except to possibly get benefits from the state.

I could have just as easily said people who use the term "homophobic" automatically lose the argument, as there's no fear involved. This is a battle of semantics - and if we want a quality debate then we need to keep definitions consistent.

You arguments are good but not airtight. I'll pick out the ones I disagree with.

To be clear, there are difference in say how gay couples reproduce Straight couples can reproduce with their spouse - gays cannot. That's not just a difference, but a complete opposite.

Let's be honest - opposition to gay marriage is based on religion, ignorance, or personal aesthetics.

I agree that most people oppose gay marriage because of religion, but religion may have underlying logical reasoning for it. I don't think ignorance/personal aesthetics is a reason, because if someone is intuitively disgusted by two males sodomizing, there may be a biological reason for it. Ignorance is better than false beliefs.

The reason I'm against gay marriage is that I don't want the definition to change, and I don't want my children having gay propaganda pushed on them. That's it. These are good reasons in my opinion.

I've never seen a resume where the candidate listed anti-gay or anti-gay marriage advocacy groups.

This very fact should concern people. You rarely see people advertising their support for traditional marriage (especially in california/new york. There is a common misconception that supporting gay marriage is somehow a proud rebellious cause against the status quo. But the reality couldn't be further from the truth - virtually the entire media and up to the president support gay marriage. Organizations supporting traditional marriage will immediately be called "intolerant, bigoted, hate groups" and shouted out of the debate. There is something seriously wrong with that.

So no, I would not put any political organizations on my resume for a software engineering job. I rarely discuss politics/religion at work. I hope you wouldn't hire such people who jump on the bandwagon issue de jour.

"tolerance means accepting intolerance"

That is not at all what I said. He suggested that he supports me going away and dying out, and I think shouting out your opposition is intolerant.

Irrelevant. If your grounds for opposing marriage equality are on purely biological grounds, you must also oppose all forms of birth control and support compulsory reproduction for married couples.

I agree it's not relevant. I was responding to an equally irrelevant comment.

I'm justice noticing that you're not even bothering to respond to the messages that completely disprove your points

I'm responding very frequently.

"traditional marriage" is a nebulous term

Somewhat. But I have a webster's dictionary from the 60's and the definition of marriage quite clearly reads between a man and woman. Marriage having that meaning dates back centuries (millenia even?), back to its original conception. So it's pretty obvious that the "traditional" meaning is the original and longest standing one.

A straight person has the same rights as a homosexual person. They can both get married. That's equal protection under the law. What you want to do is change the definition of marriage, which I think is like missing a soccer goal but arguing to move the goal posts to make you win. Make a new word for gay marriage if you want - but leave the definition of marriage alone as changing it would break a lot of legacy code.

How do you know I'm not right? Do you provide any evidence? Also what is your obsession with calling me a bigot, when I'm open to dialogue. You are the one who is glad that I'm a "dying breed", so I would say you're the bigot. Also, if you want to talk about literally being a dying breed, I would think homosexuals who do not have children fit that definition better. Also, I'm 19 years old. Much how there was a reactionary swing to the left in the 1960/70's, there could very well be a reactionary swing back to the right that is emerging. (I'm using the archaic "left/right" metaphors just for sake of argument)

I'm a bigot? Please, look up the definition of bigot and then look in the mirror. I even explicitly said I was tolerant of gays. You are the one intolerant of others' opinions.

Majority of people - so the world population.

These are the kinds of attacks that people who stand for traditional marriage have to face. A bigoted army of people who can't muster a better argument than vulgar name calling. The irony is that they claim to stand against intolerance...

The main reason is that people don't understand science, but they will still appeal to it as if it were the law of the universe. It's an appeal to authority: Much like people used to say "X is true because God said it", it is now "X is true because Science proved it". Science is a continual work in progress towards an objective understanding of the universe. But it's so easy to see a news story saying: "A new study shows that global warming will melt the ice caps before 2012! More at 11". People have been lied to before and don't trust these studies, because they may have faulty conclusions. We need to look at the data and make our own conclusions, because we may all have different perspectives on what caused a result.

Relevant reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lie_with_Statistics

It helps if you contribute factual and useful information instead of trite emotional attacks.

You keep arguing with logical fallacies, but I'll respond anyway. Russia is doing quite well and just became the 5th largest economy[1]. They also have a news station (Russia Today) which reports on real issues - unlike western "mainstream" media. You act as if Russia is some backwater slump and not a growing modern nation. Meanwhile the western world is teetering into bankruptcy. You won't know which side of history is right until it actually becomes history.

[1] http://rt.com/business/russia-gdp-5th-largest-158/

The problem arises that the legality of marriage was designed around traditional families. There's nothing that stops homosexuals from fulfilling their emotional, romantic, and other needs. But when you involved tax deductions because children are such an expensive commitment, it gets hairy. I do support civil unions (but not gay adoption), and I am tolerant of gays (I discuss these issues with friends who are gay), but to change the very definition of marriage goes too far - and ends up confusing everyone.

I said majority of people, not Americans. My statement stands correct. Look at what other countries have done to recently stem gay culture: Russia recently passed a unanimous (436-0) vote which banned gay propaganda[1]. Homosexuals acceptance is pushed hard in the western media, but don't let that skew your worldview. Reactionary responses are not uncommon.

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/11/russia-law-banni...

Like the majority of people, I oppose gay marriage. But what the British government did with chemical castration to Alan Turing and others is absolutely reprehensible - and they should pardon all of them. Let's not conflate these issues please.

The deindustrialization and depopulation really hurt Detroit. But what also strikes me is the rapid change in racial demographics. In 1940, Detroit had a 90% white population and was the highest standard of living city in America. During the course of WWII, 350,000 blacks moved into Detroit. In 1943, the Detroit Race Riot caused by tensions between whites and blacks resulted in 43 dead, 433 wounded. In 1967 it happened again, this time 43 dead, 1189 injured, over 7,200 arrests, and more than 2,000 buildings destroyed. President Lyndon B. Johnson sent in the Army to quell it. In 2010, the demographics are 10% white and 82% black, and Detroit is a bankrupt wasteland.

Deindustrialization happened in other cities such as Pittsburgh - but they've recovered by transitioning into technology/medicine industries and the like. Pittsburgh has not seen a demographic shift like Detroit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Detroit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_Race_Riot_%281943%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Detroit_riot

THIS. I mostly go to RT for actual news these days. The American media is propaganda and it's killing our country with DELIBERATE misinformation.

Are you kidding me? At the very least, wearable computing as a form factor is going to be huge. And Google has the resources and flagship product to pull a big win. It's a convenient, hands free device with display. I suspect this is one of the main reasons their stock has been doing so well lately.

Why not use bitcoin instead of dollars? The point of using dollars in Argentina is to avoid inflation by a central entity, but doesn't bitcoin solve that problem better? It has the added benefit of not being explicitly illegal and having to use a black market.

The problem you are talking about arises from the result of competition in the markets. If someone has a cheaper production because of better technology, then the market as a whole will use their business (as the buyer has the freedom to choose who they buy from). This is fair, consensual, and it makes sense to help society gain more value as a whole. Limiting this in any way (as many regulations unfortunately do) is a restriction of people's free choice and thus an aggressive and unethical act. But of course the negative part comes in when the person who used to work in that market has now lost their job and thus their income. Well that is like crying about the slow gazelle who got eaten by the cheetah. It's nature and unfortunately you can't artificially make everybody win, or nature would push back.

Some solutions include higher taxes to make an assured living wage. This is possible today but not if everyone keeps raising the standard of what a "living" wage is. If we could produce a guaranteed living wage, we could get rid of minimum wage and thus give people a ladder to compete in markets they otherwise wouldn't be able to get experience/train in. This would be because you could literally work for free, so the company could only see a benefit to hiring you (rather than being stymied by minimum wage).

The wealth disparity is normal, look at any statistical data like humans and you will see outliers. Thus you will see people with ideas that are a million times more productive than others. Don't worry, if someone else gains wealth and you didn't lose, it does indirectly benefit you. Don't be jealous bro.

It doesn't destroy jobs, it obviates the ones it replaces (and sometimes creates new ones). Which is a good thing, right? It makes it so that no one has to do those jobs to receive the same productivity. Thus freeing up our time for either leisure or something else productive.

Also it should be noted that technology is a double edged sword and can also make things worse. An example: a big farming corporation decides to improve profits by using new chemicals to preserve their food longer. Of course this may seem like a productive decision on paper, but it could actually be unproductive to society as a whole if the chemical has subtle but negative side effects that take a bigger toll.

Couldn't agree more. The Syrian rebels are a loosely associated group with several elements who are radical Islamist and Al Qaeda. This could have easily been titled "DIY Terrorism".

Russia leading the way once again.

Linus is awesome. He gets things done. He calls out bullshit when he sees it. And he doesn't afraid of anything.

The gender wage gap is a well-documented, persistent, and worldwide phenomenon wherein women earn, on average, an estimated 9 to 18 percent less than men who have the same job descriptions and equivalent education and experience.

If women were 18% more effective then men, then this is a surefire way to get rich:

Step 1: Start a business and employ only women

Step 2: Crush your competitors by being 18% more efficient

Heck, even if you could find a way to cut costs by 1% in an industry, that's huge.

It is now possibly to link any US bank account to Coinbase[1], buy bitcoin instantly[2], and donate to an educational institution in another country. This is with no fees and goes directly to the source.

[1] http://blog.coinbase.com/post/34357253898/you-can-now-buy-an...

[2] http://blog.coinbase.com/post/55203204550/instant-bitcoin-pu...

EDIT: Well technically Coinbase takes a 1% fee in the process of converting USD to BTC, but that's it. Which makes this attractive transfer money across countries. This technology could also be especially useful for remittances.

We need some startups to fill the void of typewriter demand resurgence. I can see it now: "100% cyber network secure technology, impenetrable to electronic surveillance".

freedom of speech has limits

Well it's not really freedom of speech then, is it? I understand physical dangers like yelling fire in a theater, but this is limiting what can actually be expressed despite the context. "Hateful language" is defined by the victim's feelings, and someone expressing their speech has no control over that. Perhaps someone innocuously posts a picture of Muhammed unknowing that it just offended millions of Muslims who want him punished for his "hateful language". So you can't draw the line when people's feelings are involved.

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. EDIT: -Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall