***Dave Does the Blog: Comments

Comment: "Kids, don't try this at home (or anywhere else!)"

Fri, 16 May 2008 19:54:52 -0700

dust:

Woot!

Comment: "More on the California gay marriage ruling"

Fri, 16 May 2008 19:28:43 -0700

Well -- it passed overall with 60% of the vote, which doesn't sound like "overwhelmingly in almost all congressional districts." That was also eight years ago -- which, in terms of this sort of issue, is a long time.

I'm not saying the ban isn't going to win (heaven knows California has passed goofier constitutional amendments) -- but it will be interesting to see what happens between now and then, especially as gay marriage will be legal for some months preceding, and presumably the state won't fall into the ocean because of it.

Comment: "More on the California gay marriage ruling"

Fri, 16 May 2008 18:16:50 -0700

Michael Ejercito:

A ballot initiative to ban same sex marriage constitutionally will draw liberals to the polls- in favor of the ban.

Note that Prop 22 passed overwhelmingly in almost all congressional districts.

Comment: "I'm not dead ..."

Fri, 16 May 2008 18:04:08 -0700

*** Dave:

Apologies if I've inadvertently infringed on any copyright. I've replaced the image with a piece by Titian.

Comment: "I'm not dead ..."

Fri, 16 May 2008 18:02:07 -0700

BD:

And yet another reason to end copyright laws.

He did speak at a CC forum, and I assume in the negetive.

His Studio is here.

Comment: "I'm not dead ..."

Fri, 16 May 2008 17:10:12 -0700

Gerald Bybee:

I am the author/creator and registered copyright owner of the sisyphus image you have posted.
Please take down this image immediately and contact me about obtaining an after the fact usage license.
Regards,
Gerald

Comment: "Back to ecto"

Fri, 16 May 2008 16:52:53 -0700

*** Dave:

And, for the record, the product is being renamed from "Ecto for Windows" to "Linear."

Comment: "Landscaping"

Fri, 16 May 2008 16:49:53 -0700

*** Dave:

Well, the pillars were Margie's idea. I was going for the whole Stonehenge plinth look, myself ...

Comment: "Still more on the California gay marriage rulling"

Fri, 16 May 2008 16:44:51 -0700

*** Dave:

Yeah, see, to my way of thinking, it's a civil rights issue as well -- a little something in our Constitution that talks about "equal protection under the law" -- which means if the government treats one group of people one way, and another group another way, they need a darned good reason -- which aesthetics and religious dogma ought not to count toward that.

But, then, I'm one of those knee-jerk liberal atheist commie pervert-lovers, so what do you expect?

Comment: "Landscaping"

Fri, 16 May 2008 16:40:38 -0700

Ginger & Jim:

I think the pillars are a little over the top!
The M-I-L

Comment: "Still more on the California gay marriage rulling"

Fri, 16 May 2008 15:14:29 -0700

Marn, eh:

I'm with you here.

We've had same-sex marriage here in Canuckistan for several years now. My marriage has withstood it.

In Canada, it's always been seen as a civil rights issue, not a moral or religious issue. To discriminate against someone because of their race, gender, or sexuality is against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in my country. Once the Charter was created, it was just a matter of time until a case went to our Supreme Court to extend marriage rights.

Comment: "Landscaping"

Fri, 16 May 2008 15:05:01 -0700

Marn, eh:

PICTURES!

Will want before and after pictures.

I'm always interested in seeing what the pros are doing.

Comment: "Back to ecto"

Fri, 16 May 2008 14:42:00 -0700

*** Dave:

Well, here's a good sign -- went to the forum, placed the first troubleshooting request there ... and had a response within a couple of hours. A few hours later, a new version was up for me to test, and it solved the problem.

Promising.

Comment: ""I'm Robin Hood""

Fri, 16 May 2008 12:13:55 -0700

Mary:

Loved ROS which was on the local PBS station at midnight, so I usually had to tape it. And the soundtrack introduced me to Clannad, for which I am grateful.
I've only seen a small amount of the new version since I don't have access to BBC America.

Comment: ""I'm Robin Hood""

Fri, 16 May 2008 12:00:34 -0700

*** Dave:

I never watched it, but knew many people who spoke highly of it. In my pre-DVR days. :-)

The current incarnation -- I don't know that I'd call it Hollywoodish, but it's definitely ... fluff.

Comment: "More on the California gay marriage ruling"

Fri, 16 May 2008 11:57:50 -0700

*** Dave:

As a Mariott stockholder (well, husband of one), and occasional business traveler who patronizes them -- what a bunch of maroons ...

Comment: ""I'm Robin Hood""

Fri, 16 May 2008 11:07:59 -0700

Boulder Dude:

Huh...

Looks like a very hollywoodish redo of the '80s version (Robin of Sherwood) but without the really spiffy Clannad soundtrack, or the more somber medieval plotting and pacing. The Robin of Sherwood was more along the lines of Cadfael in feel.

Comment: "More on the California gay marriage ruling"

Fri, 16 May 2008 09:24:07 -0700

Boulder Dude:

Yeah the two afternoon local righties were all up in arms about both it and that Merriott Hotels offer pr0n.....which they oddly enough completely ignored back when the Mittster was still in the race.

Their take was that it would flip Gullyfornya to the GOP, and put McTool (R-War Criminal) into the White House simply on the the SCotUS issue alone.

I was amused, though not shocked that they ignored Rep. Bob Schaffer's Campaign ad mess up and focused on the dog whistle issues instead. ;P

Comment: "Equal Protection Under the Law in California"

Fri, 16 May 2008 07:29:26 -0700

*** Dave:

Jim: Most Christian denominations interpret the Bible to consider homosexuality sinful. Some members and leaders of those denominations go further to consider gays evil; others try to adopt a "hate the sin, love the sinner" stance (which ought to be better, but often isn't).

That said, from *my* perspective, the issues of church theology and civil policy are not necessarily. There are many things that are legal that are not (in one sect or another) considered moral-- and there are some things that one sect or another considers moral that are not legal.

If the First Baptist Church down the street considers gay marriage to be an abomination, they shouldn't be compelled to religiously officiate any such weddings. If the St Swithins Episcopal next door feels they are okay, they should be allowed to do so. And if a heterosexual couple can get married in a civil ceremony, absent *any* religious trappings, why (I ask rhetorically) should homosexual couples be any different?

You are correct, though, that issues of "equal treatment under the law" and public policy and so forth often get swamped by moral outrage (and conflated aesthetic judgment), esp. when whipped up by crusaders and demagogues.

Kelson: Yeah, but they're *Californian* Republican judges. That's only just short of raving lunatics as far as the Right is concerned ...

Comment: "Posting from the Belly of the Beast"

Fri, 16 May 2008 07:16:49 -0700

*** Dave:

You're correct -- I was using short-hand. Since going to Codeplex, I don't see (alas) any changes or updates or work on it by anyone else.

No complaints -- heaven knows I have plenty of projects I've worked on and then left behind for one reason or another. Putting it out to open source is a fine move.