473,839 Members | 1,540 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
+ Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation


Dear all,

I would like to announce that the department of computer
science of the University of Namur, Belgium, is seeking a
post-doctoral researcher for a one-year fellowship in the area
of

(logic-based) program development, analysis and transformation.
Candidates should not be older than 35 years and hold a PhD in
computer science (or equivalent) acquired within the past five
years at a university outside Belgium.

For more details, please contact Wim Vanhoof (wv*@info.fundp .ac.be)
or visit http://www.info.fundp.ac.be/~cri/Pos...cts/index.html
Please note the deadline for application is april 2, 2004.

Kind regards,
Wim Vanhoof.

------------------------------------------------------------
Wim Vanhoof E-mail: wv*@info.fundp. ac.be
University of Namur Tel. ++32(0)81.72.49 .77
Rue Grandgagnage, 21 Fax. ++32(0)81.72.52 .80
B-5000 Namur http://www.info.fundp.ac.be/~wva
Belgium


Jul 17 '05
72 7005
I have not been reading this thread, just glancing at random
postings.

In article <3d************ **************@ posting.google. com>,
mi**********@ya hoo.com (Mike Cox) wrote:
Joe Sixpack <co************ *********@yahoo .com> wrote in message
news:<kg******* ****@192.168.1. 75>...
I believe it was Mike Cox who said...
Children need a mom and a dad.


Prove it.


http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...l.cfm?ID1=3523


This study does not prove your point, and I am quite sure that either
you did not read it or are unfamiliar with how to read research studies.

The web page contains the following information:

===
(1) This finding looks at relationships between family structure,
mobility, high-school dropout rates.

(2) Finding: "Students from single-parent and step-parent families were
more likely than students from two-parent families to change schools and
to drop out, a finding consistent" with earlier studies.

(3) Sample or Data Description
11,671 students from the 1988-1994 National Educational Longitudinal
Study

(4) Source
Russell W. Rumberger, and Katherine A. Larson
"Student Mobility and the Increased Risk of High School Dropout"
American Journal of Education.
Vol. 107, Number . , 1998. Page(s) 1-35.

(5) Associated Keywords: Drop-out, Family relocation, Single-parent
household, Stepfamilies,

(6) FindingID: 3523
===

(I added the numbers to facilitate references.)

Sentence (1), The Heritage Foundation's summary of the study is
incorrect, which is to say it distorts the research goal of the
study.

Here is the article's abstract:

===
A variety of evidence suggests that students in the United States change
schools frequently. But there has been relatively little research that
examines the educational consequences of student mobility. This study
examined the incidence of student mobility between the eighth and
twelfth grades and its effect on high school completion using the
National Educational Longitudinal Survey third follow-up data. Three
models were tested on two groups of students. For eighth-grade students
in 1988, we predicted (1) whether students changed schools or dropped
out between the eighth and twelfth grades and (2) high school completion
status two years after twelfth grade. For twelfth-grade students in 1992
we predicted high school completion status two years after twelfth
grade. The models were developed from a conceptual framework based on
theories of dropping out, postsecondary institutional departure, and
student transfer adjustment that suggest school mobility may represent a
less severe form of educational disengagement similar to dropping out.
The results generally support this idea. That is, measures of social and
academic engagement, such as low grades, misbehavior, and high
absenteeism, predicted both whether students changed schools or dropped
out. The results further indicate that, controlling for other
predictors, students who made even one nonpromotional school change
between the eighth and twelfth grades were twice as likely to not
complete high school as students who did not change schools. Together,
the findings suggest that student mobility is both a symptom of
disengagement and an important risk factor for high school dropout.
===

The last sentence of the abstract summarizes the paper's
conclusion: High school students who move between schools are
at a greater risk to drop out.

How about that juicy quote, statement (2)? Here it is in the
context of the article:

===
Only six studies have examined the causes or consequences of student
mobility during high school. Two of these focus on the causes of
mobility. The first study examined predictors of school and residential
mobility between the fifth and tenth grades on high school sophomores
and its effect on high school graduation with a specific focus on family
structure (Astone and McLanahan 1994). The study found that students
from single-parent and stepparent families were more likely to change
schools and less likely to complete high school than were students from
two-parent families, even after controlling for differences in SES.
Mobility also reduced the odds of completing high school.
===

So in fact the quote is not a conclusion drawn from Rumberger and
Larson's (1998) review of "11,671 students from the 1988-1994 National
Educational Longitudinal Study", as statement (3) tells us. It is
their summary of a study by Astone and McLanahan (1994) on an
unknown sample. Furthermore, if you read the previous paragraph,
you learn that this data (and other prior studies) are methodologicall y
flawed; this is precisely why Rumberger and Larson conducted their
study. To quote:

===
There is very limited empirical research that specifically focuses on
student mobility. Most empirical research on student mobility consists
of descriptive statistics compiled by federal, state, and local
education agencies, which document the incidence of student mobility. A
few other empirical studies have also examined descriptively the
differences in the academic achievement between mobile and stable
students (Ingersoll et al. 1989). There are relatively few studies that
have examined either the causes or consequences of student mobility, and
most of them have focused on the educational effect of student mobility
during elementary or junior high school. In general, such studies have
found that transfer students experience both social and academic
adjustment problems that affect their academic achievement, with older
students more likely to develop problems than younger ones (Benson et
al. 1979; Crockett et al. 1989; Holland et al. 1974; Jason et al. 1992).
===

I confess I did not read the rest of the article. I could not
check your second reference easily because I do not have on-line
access to that journal.

My conclusion is that you are unable or unwilling to give
evidence for your claim.
Jul 17 '05 #61
> I support civil unions for gay people so they can visit each other in
the hospital and inherit items when one of them dies, but we must
always acknowledge that marriage is something *very* unique, something
between a man and woman.


See, this is where the anti-gay-marriage argument falls on its face.
It sets a *very* dangerous precedence concerning the relationship
between Church and state. Basically, the Church wants the state to
pass laws protecting marriage. This in and of itself is not
unprecedented. The problem here is that the Church wants the state to
adopt its definition of the word "marriage." If the Church controls
the definitions of the words used by the state, it exerts an
unacceptable power over it.

Thus, those who say "marriage is defined as a something between a man
and a women" are missing the point. What we are talking about here is
seperating the legal definition of marriage from the religious
definition of marriage. Such a seperation is warrented, and has
precedence. Consider: the Biblical definition of adultry says "if you
look at women with lust, you have already commited adultry with her in
your heart." However, the legal definition of adultry is something
wholly different and quite a bit more permissive. As much as it might
annoy some elements of society, the religious definition of marriage
and the legal definition of marriage must be similarly seperated.
Jul 17 '05 #62
Thant Tessman wrote:
{stuff deleted}
BTW the legal system and our laws need not be logically consistent.
They fundamentally reflect the values of the society however logically
inconsistent societies view points are.

No, they don't. They reflect the values of the politically influential.
There's a difference. Hell, none of the representatives that voted for
the so-called "Patriot Act" had even read it.


Fair... my real point is that the values of the politically influential are
not and in fact need not be logically consistent. Just sufficently
consistent to keep the peons happy.
Jul 17 '05 #63
I believe it was Mike Cox who said...
Joe Sixpack <co************ *********@yahoo .com> wrote in message news:<kg******* ****@192.168.1. 75>...
I believe it was Mike Cox who said...
>
> If they choose to be gay, then they made their choice about having
> children.
False.


100% true. There are more married couples who want to adopt children
then there are children available.


So?
It is better to put a child in the home of a married couple then risk the
increase chances of high school drop out, and drug use that is associated
with children from single parent and gay homes.
You have no data backing up your accusations about gay homes, first of
all.

Secondly, if the likelihood of drug problems in the children will be a
deciding factor in marriage, should we ban black couples from marriage
as well? Or inner city folks? Or the Bush family?
> Children need a mom and a dad.


Prove it.


http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...l.cfm?ID1=3523


""Students from single-parent and step-parent families were more likely
than students from two-parent families to change schools and to drop
out, a finding consistent" with earlier studies."

Where do you see the word "gay" or the phrase "same sex" in that
statement? You dont. Gay marriages qualify as two-parent families.
http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...l.cfm?ID1=3654
Same.
> I believe that 2 consenting adults should be able to do what they want
> as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Unfortunatly, being gay and
> having children does harm the child the same way single parenthood
> does.


Prove it, homophobe.


How am I a homophobe?


Probably you are either a religous sheep, or you have questions about
your own sexuality.
I stated in my post that I believe homosexuals
should be allowed to have civil unions that would allow them to
inherit property, and get partner benefits, and hospital visitation
rights.
Of course they should.
> That is a very special
> relationship that has the *potential* to produce another living being,
> something that homosexuality cannot ever do.


Sperm donors.


Requires a man. Read the research about single parents.


We are not talking about single parents... why do you keep bringing
that up? We are talking about MARRIAGE, not single parents.
> I support civil unions for gay people so they can visit each other in
> the hospital and inherit items when one of them dies, but we must
> always acknowledge that marriage is something *very* unique, something
> between a man and woman.


Why?


Because when a man and woman come together they *can* produce a child
if they are young and healthy! That is the only relationship that
*can* produce children!


So what? That is not the definition of marriage, unless you want to
disclude anyone who cannot have children.
> I know it isn't fair,


Then why suggest it. idiot?


Because some parts of life will be unfair do to either evolution or
nature. Men and Women are different biologically! That is why men
are required by LAW to register for the selective service and women
are not.


No you jackass, that has nothing to do with biology, that has to do
with our government's policy.

Get a clue.
If equal protection were applied, logically it would be
discrimination against men, but THE SUPREME COURT RULED SELECTIVE
SERVICE LEGAL!
Completely off topic.
Some men would probably want to carry children, but they can't because
they are men and don't have wombs! Things like this will always be
unfair because it is nature you're dealing with. Discrimination on
irrelevant things like race, national origin, gender is wrong because
most jobs are not specific enough to warrent them.

In cases like strip clubs, the courts have ruled that it is OK to
discriminate AGAINST HIRING MEN as strippers because the nature of the
business is about WOMEN STRIPPING. Marriage is that. It is a
relationship between a man and a woman just like a strip club is a
business that features women dancing not men. That is MY point and the
courts agree with me there.
Yes, but you and the courts are wrong....just like people were wrong
when they said that black people only counted for 2/3 of a vote. They
were wrong and now we look back at how stupid they were....just like
people will look back at people like you and wonder how you could be
so fucking stupid.
> but if gay men wanted
> to be married, they HAVE the right currently. They just need to find
> a woman to marry.


No, there are even limitations on that.

Therefore, marriage *isnt* between a man and a woman, it is between
certain men and certain women.

Therefore, society places the goal posts wherever it is currently
convenient.


No the goal posts have always been there.


Wrong...ever state has different goal posts when it comes to marriage.
The age, for example, isnt internationally agreed upon.

And in most places, you may not marry your first of kin.
They have actually been
eased over time, rightly so in those cases. But allowing gay marriage
is different from allowing interacial couples from marring.
In what way?
> Besides, is it fair that men cannot carry babies? To some it may not
> be, but it is still the foundation of life, just like marriage!


Marriage is not a foundation of life.


It is because it is the best place to bring up healthy, well adjusted
children.


Are you saying two wealthy, healthy, homosexuals would make worse
parents than male and female crack addicted ghetto dwellers? It sounds
like you are.
>> The premise that the mere
>> production of babies is axiomatically a good thing leads to all sorts
>> of other bizzarre conclusions, like that all birth control should be
>> banned, and that rape is a good thing as long as it results in
>> pregnancy.
>
> The production of babies IS good as long as it is done responsibly and
> both parties consent to it.


Bullshit, moron. This planet is overpopulated. We should be
*encouraging* gay marriage.


The planet is NOT over-populated.


Of course it is.
Russia is losing its young as is
Europe.
So?
The only places the population is rising is in the places
were there is no economic incentive to produce quality offspring.
Those are the populations that suffer the water and food shortages.
In the USA we have a surplus of food, hence the farm subsides.


A surplus of food is a good thing.
> Quality raised children led to great societies. Poorly raised children
> lead to disaster and sociatal destruction. Just look at the middle
> east. The reponsible people will not have children if the conditions
> are not right. We want to encourage Amercians to have children by
> lowering taxes, creating real competition among colleges to lower
> cost, and improving job security at home so the responsible people
> will feel secure enough to have quality raised children.


Thanks for reminding why voting Republican is not an option anymore.


Too bad you can't look at the facts because you were clearly
brainwashed in school.


What? Brainwashed by whom? Are you suggesting that I was taught
respect for homosexuals in school? Thats laughable.

--

"I have bowel movements worth more than Italy" --Bill Gates

Jul 17 '05 #64
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, Mike Cox wrote:
100% true. There are more married couples who want to adopt children
then there are children available. It is better to put a child in the
home of a married couple then risk the increase chances of high school
drop out, and drug use that is associated with children from single
parent and gay homes.
it is truely amazing that you beleive there is an increased chance that
kids in a gay relationship will drop out of school or use drugs. Honestly,
how many gay people do you personally know? I know quite a few, some even
friends, and honestly, I cannot see a difference between their capacity to
raise children and that of my straight friends.

I think the big problem with people like you is the lack of truely knowing
gay people. This is why never escaped your homophobia.
http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...l.cfm?ID1=3523

http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...l.cfm?ID1=3654
as other people pointed out, this says nothing about gay people,
independently of the quality of the study. It is scary that you even try
to use it for your argument, even though it is obviously wrong.
How am I a homophobe? I stated in my post that I believe homosexuals
should be allowed to have civil unions that would allow them to
inherit property, and get partner benefits, and hospital visitation
rights.
If you beleive sweeping comments like "kids in a gay relationship have an
increased chance on higher drug usage", you obviously are homophobe.
Because when a man and woman come together they *can* produce a child
if they are young and healthy! That is the only relationship that
*can* produce children!
This argument is logically flawed of course. Why is the distinction
between a man and a woman more relevant that between a woman and an
infertile woman? Besides, why on earth is the production of a kid that
important? Wouldn't you think that raising them is way more the issue?
Because some parts of life will be unfair do to either evolution or
nature. Men and Women are different biologically! That is why men
are required by LAW to register for the selective service and women
are not. If equal protection were applied, logically it would be
discriminati on against men, but THE SUPREME COURT RULED SELECTIVE
SERVICE LEGAL!
In the early 20th century, in most European countries (I don't know about
N.A.), women could not vote. The reason was obvious for the people at the
time: women could not think, women were supposed to raise children (which
is there biological function), women did not understand politics, etc.
Today, these practices do not exist anymore in western democracies because
it is considered discrimination. So tell me, why is your viewpoint on gay
marriage different from what most people (men probably) thought about
women's ability to vote in the 19th century?
Some men would probably want to carry children, but they can't because
they are men and don't have wombs! Things like this will always be
unfair because it is nature you're dealing with.
But this implies that marriage is only there for biological procreation
and as many people have stated, it is not!
Discriminati on on irrelevant things like race, national origin, gender is
wrong because most jobs are not specific enough to warrent them.
nor is marriage!
In cases like strip clubs, the courts have ruled that it is OK to
discriminate AGAINST HIRING MEN as strippers because the nature of the
business is about WOMEN STRIPPING. Marriage is that. It is a
relationship between a man and a woman just like a strip club is a
business that features women dancing not men. That is MY point and the
courts agree with me there.
not really. Most courts do not see marriage as an institution for
procreation, but as a set of rights that allows two people to live
together and give them rights and obligations towards each other and the
state (the church probably does think it is only about procreation, but
they should not dictate such decisions of course)
It is because it is the best place to bring up healthy, well adjusted
children.
good. I agree in fact. And I beleive that gay (wo)men are perfectly
capable to raise children, so they should be able to marry.
The planet is NOT over-populated. Russia is losing its young as is
Europe. The only places the population is rising is in the places
were there is no economic incentive to produce quality offspring.
Those are the populations that suffer the water and food shortages.
In the USA we have a surplus of food, hence the farm subsides.
wow. You obviously need to take some lessons in demography. We are
currently at 6billion people and we are expected to reach 9billion by
2050. The burden on this planet is reaching dangerous levels.
Overpopulation is a *major* issue (the UN projects that by the end of the
21st century, we will fight wars over water). However, what you are saying
is something entirely different, namely that there is a large difference
between population in the developing and developed world (and inequality
between rich and poor). This schema will collapse one day, sure, but that
does not mean that we have to produce more kids. Rather, we should allow
more flexible immigration mechanisms (and Europe has some catching up to
do). But, sorry, I am sure you don't want that considering the fact that
your rather homophobic about gays...
Too bad you can't look at the facts because you were clearly brainwashed
in school.


This is bizarre. To me, it seems that you were brainwashed at home (very
likely - I don't know any homophobe person who grew up in an open-minded
home). As for me, I learned this stuff by traveling, meeting with people
from other cultures, backgrounds, and yes, having gay friends. In fact,
what they tought me in my (catholic) high-school made me even better
understand how 'wrong' they were.

I hope you will learn (it is never too late)

Simon
Jul 17 '05 #65
Mike Cox wrote:

If they choose to be gay, then they made their choice about having
children. Children need a mom and a dad. Look at all the research
that has been done on kids from single parent households. Parental
role models are very important, and it is best if children have a mom
Absolutely wrong. There is no data showing that children of divorced
parents have any detrimental bias.

However, what has been documented is that little or no learning occurs
between the parent and the child. That is, almost 100% of knowledge and
behavior is learned from peers and siblings in school and at play.

This makes sense biologically. The parents have already contributed 100% of
the genetic material, it would be stupid to then have the child stick
around them when he's already inherited their behavior. I believe that
most parents *smother* children with overprotective and extreme dad-momism.

I think the British system was best -- ship them off to boarding school
asap.
Quality raised children led to great societies. Poorly raised children
lead to disaster and sociatal destruction. Just look at the middle
east. The reponsible people will not have children if the conditions


The problem isn't gay marriage. It's marriage, period, which I personally
feel is banned by the 13th and 14th amendments of the Constitution banning
slavery.

Marriage is clearly a personal slavery contract. If there were say, an
employment contract, that had the same stipulations as marriage, it would
be struck down in the courts. No other contract has as much power over the
individual and oppresses the individual as much.

I believe straigh marriage should be outlawed.
--
W '04 <:> Open
Jul 17 '05 #66
Joe Sixpack <co************ *********@yahoo .com> wrote in message news:<kg******* ****@192.168.1. 75>...
Children need a mom and a dad.


Prove it.


Interestingly, I heard on the radio a report about the benefits of
dual-parent households (over single-parent households). They didn't
discuss at all the gay marriage issue, but I found it significant that
they always said "two parent", not "married couple" or "mother and
father".

I strongly suspect that the significant factor in having a healthy
household is having two parents, not that they be of different sex.

Finally, if you (not You, Joe Sixpack, but You the Conservative Right)
are going to ban gay marriage on the basis that they can't provide a
healthy environment for children, I suggest that you focus your
attentions on restricting the right of couples to marry full stop.
The same secular logic used to ban gay marriage could be used to ban
marriage for people who can't financially afford to support another
human being, or who show a tendancy for criminal negligence, or who
are just plain bad role models (such as our drunk-driving president).
It is a slippery slope, pretending that you can tell what kind of
parents a couple will be and restricting their freedoms as a result.

Look at all the research
that has been done on kids from single parent households.


We're not talking about single parent households.
Parental role models are very important, and it is best if children
have a mom and dad.


Prove it.


I think Mike is (intentionally or not) misquoting the research. He's
right, insofar as I've seen research that shows that two-parent
households are generally an improvement over single-parent households,
but I've seen no research suggesting that mixed-sex, two-parent
households are an improvement over same-sex, two-parent households.

In fact, he points to the Heritage Foundation's research, which -- on
the front page -- says:

"Finding: "Students from single-parent and step-parent families were
more likely than students from two-parent families to change schools
and to drop out, a finding consistent" with earlier studies."

Notice that they say "two-parent", not "husband and wife", or
"heterosexu al couples".
I believe that 2 consenting adults should be able to do what they want
as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Unfortunatly, being gay and
having children does harm the child the same way single parenthood
does.


Prove it, homophobe.


Yeah, I'd like to see that research, too.

"Homophobe" is good, but the best argument I've seen in this thread,
bar none, was the "dumbass" argument. Man, was that compelling, and
so versitile, too! Calling someone a "dumbass" really exposes them as
the lying, unethical, uneducated fascist that they are. It really
shuts them up, too!
Marriage is something between a man and woman.


And at one time it was only between men and women of the same color.
Luckily humankind evolves...excep t for overly religous types.


No, they evolve, too, just more slowly. Sometimes, they're leading
the evolutionary wave. The mormons defined marriage as something
between a man and one or more women, until they were crushed by the US
government.
That is a very special
relationship that has the *potential* to produce another living being,
something that homosexuality cannot ever do.


Sperm donors.


Earlier, Mike was arguing that the important thing was to have both a
man and wife in the household, and now he's arguing that procreating
is the important thing. So, if I understand him correctly, a man and
a woman who adopt are better than a same-sex couple who adopt
because... they *could* breed? Dang! So we have to ban marriages
between people who are infertile, whether they're same-sex or not.
I support civil unions for gay people so they can visit each other in
the hospital and inherit items when one of them dies, but we must
always acknowledge that marriage is something *very* unique, something
between a man and woman.


Why?


Actually, Mike is mistaken here. In most states, marriage confers
upon the partners many benefits -- and responsibilitie s -- than civil
unions do.

(1) Marriages are portable; civil unions may not be. That is, if
you're married in Pennsylvania, California must recognize also the
marriage[1]. The same is not true of civil unions.

(2) You can get divorced in any state in which you are a resident,
regardless of where you are married. You must be a resident in the
state where you engaged in the civil union to disolve the civil union.
This means that if you get a civil union in Vermont and move to
California, you must both move BACK to Vermont and establish residency
before you can disolve the legal union.

(3) The federal government does not respect civil unions for tax
purposes. IE, you can't file jointly for your federal taxes in a
civil union.

(4) You've seen "Single" and "Married" options on forms (EG, medical
forms) you fill out... have you ever seen a "Civil Union" option?

(5) "Hey... we gave them blacks their own drinking fountains -- why
should they want to drink out of ours, too?" It is fundamentally
demeaning, and I've yet to hear a substantive secular argument against
gay marriage.
I know it isn't fair,


Then why suggest it. idiot?


I have to admit, I'm puzzled by this, too. If it isn't fair, why is
he opposed to changing the laws so that it *is* fair?
The production of babies IS good as long as it is done responsibly and
both parties consent to it.


Bullshit, moron. This planet is overpopulated. We should be
*encouraging* gay marriage.


Hey, he may be misled, he may be biggotted, and he may have poor
arguments... but, seriously, is insulting him going to assist your
argument? Is he likely to suddenly say "Dang, he called me a moron.
Maybe I should really re-evaluate my beliefs and see whether I *have*
been a moron?" Not likely. It makes YOU feel better, maybe, but it
isn't a good way to convince people that they're wrong.

Furthermore, to his benefit, Mike has done a really good job of not
resorting to personal attacks. He's trying really hard to keep this
argument on a secular basis, which is why all of his arguments are so
weak. He doesn't have anything to stand on. But at least he's not
getting personal.

--- SER

[1] Except for gay marriages, which are not portable (conservative
extremists can thank Bill Clinton for that one).
Jul 17 '05 #67
Joe Sixpack <co************ *********@yahoo .com> wrote:
If equal protection were applied, logically it would be
discrimination against men, but THE SUPREME COURT RULED SELECTIVE
SERVICE LEGAL!


Completely off topic.


Perhaps, but then this thread has long ago become extremely off-topic
for ALL newsgroups it is posted to.

Hint. Hint.

Jul 17 '05 #68
Sean Russell wrote:
Furthermore, to his benefit, Mike has done a really good job of not
resorting to personal attacks. He's trying really hard to keep this
argument on a secular basis, which is why all of his arguments are so
weak. He doesn't have anything to stand on. But at least he's not
getting personal.


Mike Cox's greatest hits on comp.lang.lisp:

2004/03/13: "I've been using lisp now for a week, and now I want to make
some bucks selling my software."

2004/03/14: "I KNOW computer science. For me to pick up another
language is trivial. Are you familiar with Knuth, or Dijkstra? I am,
and with my solid theoretical knowledge, it is expected that one be able
to master a language in a week."

2004/03/15: "2 weeks ago, I tried lisp for the first time so I could use
emacs. Now I'm about to write a .NET implementation of lisp, LISP.NET."

2004/03/16: "I know enough about lisp that I'm a master of emacs, it
just that I started reading about lisp macros last night."

2004/03/21: "This topic is too funny! I know a few "jobs" that San
Francisco "lispers" can do!"

2004/03/23: "The REASON people are not having kids is because they
cannot afford it because of the high taxes they pay to care for the
immigrant's child. They are being RESPONSIBLE when the delay having kids
because of the high cost, unfortunatly they just end up paying for some
imigrant who pumps out kids because they get government help and have no
incentive to keep it under control."

2004/03/24: "In cases like strip clubs, the courts have ruled that it is
OK to discriminate AGAINST HIRING MEN as strippers because the nature of
the business is about WOMEN STRIPPING. Marriage is that. It is a
relationship between a man and a woman just like a strip club is a
business that features women dancing not men."
Sorry, no points for not resorting to personal attacks. We should not
credit people for insulting broad groups rather than individuals. Alas,
it is to the detriment of all of us that we continue this offtopic
discussion. If Mike hadn't been distracted by the sirens, we'd have some
REALLY AMAZING software by now, and Will Hartung could save his mythical
$1 million (see "What would you do with 10 man years?").

--
Cameron MacKinnon
Toronto, Canada

Jul 17 '05 #69
Sean Russell wrote:
[1] Except for gay marriages, which are not portable (conservative
extremists can thank Bill Clinton for that one).


WEll... So the law says. But that section of the law is prima facie
unconstitutiona l. Whether the marriages are portable or not is
something the courts will ultimately decide, but the Defense of Marriage
Act won't have much to do with it.

David
Jul 17 '05 #70

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

12
2075
by: Aaron Watters | last post by:
I'm doing a heart/lung bypass procedure on a largish Python program at the moment and it prompted the thought that the methodology I'm using would be absolutely impossible with a more "type safe" environment like C++, C#, java, ML etcetera. Basically I'm ripping apart the organs and sewing them back together, testing all the while and the majority of the program at the moment makes no sense in a type safe world... Nevertheless, since...
22
3620
by: edgrsprj | last post by:
PROPOSED EARTHQUAKE FORECASTING COMPUTER PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT EFFORT Posted July 11, 2005 My main earthquake forecasting Web page is: http://www.freewebz.com/eq-forecasting/Data.html Newsgroup Readers: If you circulate copies of this report to groups of computer programmers at different universities etc. around the world then they might find the subject matter to be interesting.
1
1472
by: cablespeed | last post by:
We currently are looking to fill two positions for our client (a large MNC) in Lancaster PA. Please reply ASAP to careers@techneers.com Here is the position description: Principal Responsibilities o Analyze requirements from primary stakeholders
5
1285
by: abhi | last post by:
Hello, My name is Abhilash and I am recruiting for an experienced Bioinformatics Programmer. This opportunity is permanent, full-time, and on site in Bethesda/Rockville, MD. The opportunity is with a team that has been tasked with providing scientific computing support for national and international research and development projects in Bioinformatics, Genomics, and Proteomics. Our clients produce some of the largest and most rapidly...
0
9855
marktang
by: marktang | last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However, people are often confused as to whether an ONU can Work As a Router. In this blog post, we’ll explore What is ONU, What Is Router, ONU & Router’s main usage, and What is the difference between ONU and Router. Let’s take a closer look ! Part I. Meaning of...
0
9697
by: Hystou | last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can effortlessly switch the default language on Windows 10 without reinstalling. I'll walk you through it. First, let's disable language synchronization. With a Microsoft account, language settings sync across devices. To prevent any complications,...
0
10906
Oralloy
by: Oralloy | last post by:
Hello folks, I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>". The problem is that using the GNU compilers, it seems that the internal comparison operator "<=>" tries to promote arguments from unsigned to signed. This is as boiled down as I can make it. Here is my compilation command: g++-12 -std=c++20 -Wnarrowing bit_field.cpp Here is the code in...
0
10292
tracyyun
by: tracyyun | last post by:
Dear forum friends, With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each protocol has its own unique characteristics and advantages, but as a user who is planning to build a smart home system, I am a bit confused by the choice of these technologies. I'm particularly interested in Zigbee because I've heard it does some...
0
9426
agi2029
by: agi2029 | last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing, and deployment—without human intervention. Imagine an AI that can take a project description, break it down, write the code, debug it, and then launch it, all on its own.... Now, this would greatly impact the work of software developers. The idea...
0
7017
by: conductexam | last post by:
I have .net C# application in which I am extracting data from word file and save it in database particularly. To store word all data as it is I am converting the whole word file firstly in HTML and then checking html paragraph one by one. At the time of converting from word file to html my equations which are in the word document file was convert into image. Globals.ThisAddIn.Application.ActiveDocument.Select();...
0
5682
by: TSSRALBI | last post by:
Hello I'm a network technician in training and I need your help. I am currently learning how to create and manage the different types of VPNs and I have a question about LAN-to-LAN VPNs. The last exercise I practiced was to create a LAN-to-LAN VPN between two Pfsense firewalls, by using IPSEC protocols. I succeeded, with both firewalls in the same network. But I'm wondering if it's possible to do the same thing, with 2 Pfsense firewalls...
0
5866
by: adsilva | last post by:
A Windows Forms form does not have the event Unload, like VB6. What one acts like?
2
4064
muto222
by: muto222 | last post by:
How can i add a mobile payment intergratation into php mysql website.

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.