tman's comments

If Microsoft had released it in 1999 instead of 2009, they wouldn't have Apple and Google nipping at their heels today. It's that simple.

4 years out of a young person's life when a 2-hour test works better for predicting job performance is sort of awful, isn't it?.

2. Full Web -- You don't really want Flash.

3. R,S,P -- Flash is some buggy shit.

4. Battery -- Forcing you not to use Flash saves your batteries! Aren't we nice?

5. Touch -- Multi-touch fail. We can't hover like a mouse.

6. We're saving the developers from themselves. The morons.

I think that sufficiently sharpens the contradictions.

Now, the problem that gay men seem to have with sexual abuse (while Catholic) wasn't enough to give you pause? It gives me pause. I'm even worried about allowing men (gay or straight) to be baby sitters. Because sexual abuse is an out-sized male thing. Does it bother me that men would be harmed by this restriction? No. Identity politics disgust me, even white male identity politics.

On to your argument. Why have high standards for adoption? Because there are too many people who want to adopt (white kids), and too few (white) kids to go around. Hence, we can be demanding.

Arguments to be "fair" don't go far with me.

Do you mean, "Let us be willfully blind and refuse to engage our senses, not recognizing any differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals despite large behavioral differences (beyond sexual preference) which do exist."

Or do you mean, "Despite your arguments, I categorically state that no differences between these groups exist (beyond the sexual preference of each). I state this without any argument of my own, please accept it for no reason that I care to state."

Before we get to adoption, lets analyze an easier statement: Gays shouldn't be allowed to become Catholic priests.

What? Can it be defended?

Well, you've heard about the abuse cases. Two-thirds of the problem, going by published numbers, involve priests who have sex with young boys. These are not children, but rather teenagers. There can be argument about whether homosexual sex with a pre-pubescent is really homosexual behavior, but there is no argument about post-pubescent sex. This is a problem with gay priests.

At most, gay priests make up 30% of the Catholic clergy. More likely, they are in the 10-20% range. The male population is 3% homosexual (yes, I know you heard 10% and that you should drink 8 glasses of water a day and that we only use 10% of our brains; the 3% number for male homosexuality has the advantage of actual facts to back it up). So gays make up an out-sized proportion of Catholic priests and there are various reasons for that. Guilt, etc., of course, and a homosexual seminary culture that is now being rooted out by Catholics who (somewhat wrongly) blame it for lots of things that are wrong with the Church.

Regardless, the gay Catholic priests seem to be committing a far out-sized proportion of the abuse. The Church simply can't afford to keep paying out the damage settlements that it would have to in order to keep its gay clergy. The congregations don't like the clergy having sex with their young boys either. Hence, expect to see less gay priests going forward.

While many gay men make wonderful priests, a few ruin it for the rest of them.

So, adoption? While a person could make arguments about equality and fairness before the law, etc., I personally have a low tolerance for that sort of democratic cant and tune it out. It's illogical rabble-rousing. As Socrates says (I'll point out that I'm a fan of the Symposium -- yes, that's the Platonic dialogue on love with a disturbing amount of gay sex thrown in), democracies equate things that are not equal.

Throw those arguments out -- which I do, and with prejudice -- and you have to make a case for choosing a segment of our population (homosexuals) that is more likely to do drugs, have psychiatric problems, etc., etc., and singling them out to allow adoption. It's not a brilliant move.

Aside: The percentage of the female population that is homosexual is harder to get a feel for, but somewhere around 1.5% seems to be exclusively homosexual. Bisexual behavior is much more common in females, or so Kinsey found. The weirdness of homosexuality in humans, a weirdness found in only one other mammal, so far as I know, is that opportunistic homosexual behavior. That happens all the time in the animal kingdom. It's exclusive homosexuality that is non-standard. That's bizarre from a fitness standpoint. There are some electrode studies (electrodes + dirty pictures, you imagine the rest) that suggest that there are no genuine bisexual males as far as desire goes, only males that are bisexual in behavior. It's harder to tell with females (30% or more are unaroused by dirty pictures of either sex, which ruins the studies).

Penny Arcade's comment on this is wonderfully wrong: "If a hundred artists create art for five years, how could the result not be art?"

Interestingly, that's exactly the sort of film that fails to be art. Great films are, without exception, products of a single driving vision, not designed by committee.

The only way to really claim that video games are art is to say, "Here, this game X is the equivalent to The Seven Samurai." Only that's not going to happen, because it doesn't exist. And because it doesn't exist, Ebert gets pummeled with long screeds of gamer angst rather than the only answer that would matter: "Game X is art."

Instead, we got a lot of (now somewhat wasted) effort on concepts. I like concepts in principle, but too many C++ people saw concepts as a way to write provable code and unreadable library documentation instead of as a way to simplify compiler error messages.

What about those of us who have a mustache every day?

Your next point, that C++ is just C "with OO" strikes me as deeply ignorant. OO is an important feature, but 95% of the language innovation of the last 20 years has been in templates.

Compilation errors are a pain in C++. It's something that takes months for a smart programmer to figure out. Debugging C++ is harder than debugging C, yes. It's a more complex beast.

Reading your post I get the impression of someone who has read a lot more about C++ than working with C++. Try interacting with any modern C++ code-base (something written in the last 10 years), avoiding the template meta-programming code-bases which are really only of use for library-writers not library-users.

However, a couple of general statements: There are reams of genetic and psychometric data available. More than enough to develop pretty good idea when and where the most probable selection events for good brain genes occurred and how fast they spread. Your word 'premature' tells me something about your acquaintance with that data.

Also, there is one very simple rule: totally genetically isolated communities only have access to their own mutations. Their population is small, so the number of mutations is also small. Non-isolated communities get swept by every positive selection event that comes along.

Some Google searching brings up an article with a descriptions of mitochondrial sequencing done on the Andamanese. Apparently they are of African pygmoid descent.

It's a rather good object lesson -- if you want to be a professor (the one on the right), don't let your ancestors get trapped in a genetic backwater for tens of thousands of years, missing out on all those good brain gene selection events.

EDIT: Not pygmoid after all. The pygmoid features are the product of convergent evolution. The evolutionary trend towards small stature seems to be due to resource competition from living on an island with barely enough space to support human habitation. It looks like they came through southern Asia.

Building screen isn't too hard. Run the autogen.sh script to generate the configure script.