Sex and gender are the same thing. I'ts precisely that choice that promotes the ideology that gender is separate and maleable, which is what children are vulnerable to.
Same here. Lauds before work, Vespers in the evening. I'm currently praying what I think is a Franciscan Secular Order variant. I also pray a short prayer at 15:00 (Our Father and Glory Be) which is purportedly the time when Jesus died on the Cross for us, which is also very beneficial. Sundays I read Scripture, following what is really a daily Coming Home Network schedule [1] - a couple of chapters from the Old Testament in order, a Psalm or a a short excerpt from one of the books of wisdom, a chapter from the New Testament
It's not your job to tell other people what they should and shouldn't be interested in.
Is your own discomfort from being shocked that TCP/IP allows homosocketuality, because you're "not a gay supporter", so seductively connecting innocent sockets of the same parity sickens you?
Certainly your morality influences how you view things.
We have links for this, to plagiarize your own words:
I didn't say this shouldn't be of interest. I was defending the author of the original comment, which in light of the fact that both accounts belong to you means my intention was ensuring your attribution.
I felt no discomfort here, though granted I haven't read the whole comment. "Same-sex network connections" gave me a chuckle - I assume a reference to the "male" and "female" hardware connectors. I was actually weighing on commending you for the joke before I found out the same words were used elsewhere by another account.
I am surprised by the tone of your reply. I kind of hope most of my downvotes are from you then, as I would hate to see a rise in reposts. I also hope you have an automated way of finding non-positive comments, because knowing you went through them by hand would be somewhat discomforting.
Now, my morality certainly should influence how I view things - that's what it's for. If it is the case that here lies your problem with me, you should be aware that when I say gay I don't have in mind the mere attraction to the same sex, but indulgence, the practice of sexual acts of this nature (which is closer to the original sexualized definition of the term). The distinction may appear subtle, but isn't really. The grave difference is between temptation and sin. In recognizing the difference, one may become accepting of the human without in process compromising that human's soul.
You are incorrect that gay sex is a sin or compromises your soul, and this is not the right place for you to try to spread those outdated prejudices of yours. Your homophobia is just as unacceptable as racism or misogyny, so keep a lid on it.
but its fine for you to spread your prejudicial views of his religious beliefs? pot, kettle?
And just because someone doesn't agree with your view doesn't instantly make then [x]Phobic, its quite possible to be against something without hating on it, im sure most people who hold views similar are not scared of or hold intense hatred to those in same sex relationships, just like i don't like mushrooms, doesn't mean Im a funghiphobic.
This is not a forum for accusing people of being sinners. Don't you have something braver to do than standing up for bigotry, even after the bigot has been politely and repeatedly asked by a moderator to stop his religious harangue, but was argumentative in response [1], found it "somewhat discomforting" to have his own words quoted back to him, and has declared he won't stop [2], regardless of how discomforted his own words make other people feel?
You are wrong to tolerate intolerance, and wrong to accuse me of bigotry for standing up against bigotry. It doesn't work that way.
And the fact that you're standing up against my stand against bigotry, without bothering to stand up against the original bigotry itself, means you're tacitly supporting that bigotry yourself, which is unethical.
And you're also violating the rules of this forum by continuing to post off-topic unsubstantive comments and baseless personal attacks. So stop it.
Philosopher Karl Popper defined the paradox in 1945 in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1.
"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
He concluded that we are warranted in refusing to tolerate intolerance: "We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."
Now you're violating the rules again by making personal attacks, and continuing to post off-topic unsubstantive comments. As you well know, this is not the place for that. Yet you continue to do it. I'll tell you once again: stop it.
The fact that you have to resort to personal attacks instead of facts demonstrates that you have no better arguments to defend your support of bigotry and intolerance.
Why do you get so angry and triggered when I and others (including Sir Karl Popper, who is "generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century" [1]) stand up against intolerance, bigotry, bullying and name calling, that you have to repeatedly violate the rules of Hacker News, and make baseless excuses and failed attempts to justify that very bigotry, without ever denouncing the actual bigotry yourself?
I don't use this forum with the intent to spread such persistent truths as that gay acts are gravely sinful or that human life possesses inherent dignity (something that popped up a few times as well). However, I do and will proclaim and defend truth provided I see a need. I hope to do this to the benefit of any readers, not simply to counter. To this end, and because of the importance, I hope never to let myself be pressured into desisting regardless of how unpopular it may become to resist.
>I don't [do what I am doing in the same sentence]. However, I do [it again]. I hope to do this [for your own good]. To this end, [I won't stop, even after being politely asked to by a moderator (dang), because I am the victim].
You are already on record as using this forum to "provoke souls", and you have already been politely asked to provoke souls somewhere else. Unless you can offer some objective proof that gay sex is a sin, what you're doing is no different than the actions of a schoolyard bully taunting and calling people names. The suicide rate among gays is way too high without your help [1]. Take it elsewhere, or better yet, never do it again, anywhere.
"The Suicide Prevention Resource Center synthesized these studies and estimated that between 5 and 10% of LGBT youth, depending on age and sex groups, have attempted suicide, a rate 1.5-3 times higher than heterosexual youth."
"Bullying of LGBT youth has been shown to be a contributing factor in many suicides, even if not all of the attacks have been specifically addressing sexuality or gender." Savin-Williams, Ritch C (1994). "Verbal and physical abuse as stressors in the lives of lesbian, gay male, and bisexual youths: Associations with school problems, running away, substance abuse, prostitution, and suicide". Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 62 (2): 261–269. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.62.2.261.
I must say you're conflating my conversations, and misinterpreting my words. I don't think it needs explaining, but if you disagree, I am willing to say (and repeat) exactly where and how.
Instead, here I will just point out that you're now equating talking about sin to bullying. This is harmful because it puts reconciliation with God out of sight and out of mind, but also because it tells bullies they are "no different" than those fighting sin: With blowing things out of proportion like this, you are doing an additional disservice to those sinners you're purporting to support. Note that I was generalizing because your argument allows it - at least to, say, pre-marital sex. And while there is a difference in subject sensitivity, I am not being a bully by simply countering the world when it claims either of these things are acceptable. One's cross is much greater another's, but so is the reward. No surrender, try again.
You were already warned several times by a moderator that this is not the place for you to "provoke souls" with your religious harangue and unsubstantive comments, yet you continued to argue with him.
You just directly contradicted yourself in the first sentence of your previous reply, as I already pointed out, by falsely claiming that "I don't use this forum with the intent to spread..." and then continuing on to do just that in the same sentence by mischaracterizing your religious bigotry and unsubstantiated falsehoods as "persistent truths", which they most certainly are not.
Calling people sinners and telling them their souls are compromised is bullying and religious harangue, no matter how hard you try to justify it by proselytizing and appealing to your iron age religious prejudices, and this is absolutely not the place for it here.
You have also made it very clear that you have no intention of following the rules of this site or abiding by any of the repeated polite warnings the administrator gave you to "please provoke souls somewhere else", to "please stop posting unsubstantive comments", and that "continuing will get your account banned, so please stop."
I don't "purport to support" sinners, because "sinner" is just an offensive name with which you choose to taunt and harangue people of whom you don't approve.
I am flagging your post as offensive and as breaking the rules, and if you reply again in the same manner that makes it clear you have no intention of following the rules and every intention of continuing to call people names and harass them with your religious bigotry, then I will flag your reply too. If you apologize for repeatedly breaking the rules and attempting to bully people, and finally end the conversation, I won't flag or reply to that.
Is 640KiB not the whole index? Because partial download would mean having to request new pieces based on the previously-downloaded ones, adding latency to the mix. Assuming just 50ms latency, for 20 packets that would account for a whole second before seeing a result. And 20 decisions seems a lot, though I don't know how the index works.
What bothers me is that you've rounded the time down in your calculation despite ignoring throughput factors like packet overhead, piece message metadata, other protocol messages and processing time. I'd be interested to see some real time measurements. If you decide to do it (maybe for a research paper?), consider using kibis explicitly (and mind capitalization - b vs B).
