Boy Scouts of America keeps gay ban

By +Frank B.
in Real World News

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

mudslag

Posted
Posted

Those are some wild generalizations. I am sure there are many atheists that are also homophobic. There are also many religions that preach judgment, to show sin/evil, so you have a reason to want to be forgiven/saved. To answer the example and question, my post described hypocrisy. The post does not reference hypocrisy going in the other direction, because you don't tend to see that.

Im sure there are others outside the general religious boundaries but it's safe to say those within the boundaries of religion are the ones that pushes against homosexuality more so. So no it's not to wild of a generalization. Within that religious side, you can often find those that preach one thing but practice another.

Grand Master

articuno1au

Posted
Posted (edited)

<snipped out off-topic paragraph>

Yes yes yes, "protesting, debating and discussing" with a stated goal - YOUR STATED GOAL BTW - to either contribute to their financial ruin OR compel/shame/force them into changing their policy. These are your words from like 10 comments ago.

Denying someone something isn't oppression. I'm not oppressing my daughter when I deny her Kool Aid and Ice Cream for dinner.

Let me ask you this, have you ever thought to look at this from a perspective other than your own? Of course you haven't, the idea is most likely repugnant to you. You believe anyone with opinions contrary to your own are evil and wrong, therefore you're comfortable believing a change in policy would not hurt anyone. It's funny how you're a champion against evil oppression, yet are perfectly fine oppressing people you've deemed not as morally pure as you. You're no worse than a bible thumping theocrat. Your way is the divine, unchallenged truth because you say so, damn anyone else that thinks otherwise.

<snipped out reply to off-topic paragraph>

I'm going to pass on line 2.

Agree with line 3.

Kind of agree here. I think he just argues passionately without consideration for how his language looks to someone with a more literary background. I don't believe he is so shallow minded as to think his opinion is the only right opinion.

And you finished superbly, bravo. The irony of the stark contrast of your opening and closing not withstanding, I agree with most of what you have said.

Edited by Calum
Grand Master

theyarecomingforyou

Posted
Posted (edited)

<snipped out reply to off-topic paragraph>

Denying someone something isn't oppression. I'm not oppressing my daughter when I deny her Kool Aid and Ice Cream for dinner.

No, but denying it to your son for not being a girl would be oppressive/discriminatory.

Let me ask you this, have you ever thought to look at this from a perspective other than your own? Of course you haven't, the idea is most likely repugnant to you. You believe anyone with opinions contrary to your own are evil and wrong, therefore you're comfortable believing a change in policy would not hurt anyone.

That was not his position at all. The point he made was that such a ban is discriminatory and perpetuates inequality, which is a well reasoned and valid position. And he stated that he was open to other positions but simply did not agree with them.

In the UK all scout groups must legally accept girls, so there isn't even any gender discrimination. The BSA is institutionally sexist and homophobic and it is very sad that Americans tolerate it.

Edited by Calum
Grand Master

Noir Angel

Posted
Posted

I love that we live in a world today, were if we do not accept everyone's views we are bashed.

Can you give a single rational reason why people should be obliged to accept exclusionary bigotry?

But that's not your end goal, you've stated you want to attack them and hurt their business until they comply with what you think is right. You have no regard for why they hold these views, you just want to destroy them until they are forced to change them. That's the definition of intolerance.

Why they hold those views isn't really relevant, they receive public money therefore they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate.

Discrimination is an opinion. You can't go around bashing people who think differently than you. We're talking about a metaphorical private water fountain, not a public one. If it were public, gays would have no choice to use any water fountain used by non-gays.

So it's OK to be a raging homophobe, but not OK to criticise someone for being a raging homophobe? yeah there's no hypocrisy there!

Gang, please be careful when grouping everyone into a single category of 'religion/religious' - I think some see extremists as the-end-all-be-all of everything religion-related. There are Christians that have extremely different beliefs from what is considered Catholic, for example.

The vast majority of Americans that are homophobes are that way for religious reasons.

Grand Master

Noir Angel

Posted
Posted

Homophobia is all about bashing people because you don't like the way they live their lives. Why should bigoted asshats be immune from criticism? People might have freedom of speech, but that doesn't give us an obligation to pretend that their bigoted hate is some kind of special flower that needs to be protected from criticism.

  • shakey and Calum
  • Like 2
Grand Master

shakey

Posted
Posted

Homophobia is all about bashing people because you don't like the way they live their lives. Why should bigoted asshats be immune from criticism? People might have freedom of speech, but that doesn't give us an obligation to pretend that their bigoted hate is some kind of special flower that needs to be protected from criticism.

People might have freedom of speech, but that doesn't give us an obligation to pretend that their bigoted hate is some kind of special flower that needs to be protected from criticism.

People might have freedom of speech, but that doesn't give us an obligation to pretend that their bigoted hate is some kind of special flower that needs to be protected from criticism.

People might have freedom of speech, but that doesn't give us an obligation to pretend that their bigoted hate is some kind of special flower that needs to be protected from criticism.

People might have freedom of speech, but that doesn't give us an obligation to pretend that their bigoted hate is some kind of special flower that needs to be protected from criticism.

People might have freedom of speech, but that doesn't give us an obligation to pretend that their bigoted hate is some kind of special flower that needs to be protected from criticism.

People might have freedom of speech, but that doesn't give us an obligation to pretend that their bigoted hate is some kind of special flower that needs to be protected from criticism.

  • Noir Angel, Vykranth and mudslag
  • Like 3
Grand Master

Calum Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

[. . .]

Yes yes yes, "protesting, debating and discussing" with a stated goal - YOUR STATED GOAL BTW - to either contribute to their financial ruin OR compel/shame/force them into changing their policy. These are your words from like 10 comments ago.

[. . .]

No. Those are your words. I have never used the word "force" and I didn't even use the word "shame." You used both of those words. From "like 10 comments ago," I mentioned that telling the public what they believe can often lead to the company publicly changing their position. As I keep pointing out to you, that would be entirely the choice of the company. They wouldn't have to change their opinion. It's hilarious that you believe I'd be forcing them to change their opinion by merely telling others what their opinion is, but you don't believe the company is forcing themselves to change their opinion by broadcasting it in the first place. After all, I am doing nothing differently to the company. The company has broadcast its opinion and told people who heard that, and I am further broadcasting their message, telling people who hear what I say. Yet you're stating that I'm forcing them to change their opinion by doing that :s What you're saying doesn't make sense.

Denying someone something isn't oppression. I'm not oppressing my daughter when I deny her Kool Aid and Ice Cream for dinner.

Again, I didn't say it was. I said denying someone something for no justifiable reason is oppression. I didn't make up the definition. The definition is in the dictionary, which I linked you to. As it has been explained to you and proven to you, why are you denying what is fact? I don't like bringing up the idea that it is oppression, but the dictionary doesn't lie, and as it's true, pointing out that powerfully concerning fact makes sense.

Your analogy is ridiculous because most people know that Kool Aid and ice cream isn't a particularly healthy dinner for a kid, so that would be a justifiable reason to deny them it.

[. . .]

Let me ask you this, have you ever thought to look at this from a perspective other than your own? Of course you haven't, the idea is most likely repugnant to you.

[. . .]

I have thought to look at it from perspectives other than my own. I do so all the time. So why do you lie and state that I haven't? Your lying is despicable, and you've lied quite a few times throughout this topic, in a terrible effort to misrepresent my views.

I look at every issue from every perspective I'm aware of in order to determine what the best conclusion is.

I have tried many times to sympathise with religious people, knowing that they believe what they're doing is right. But I have always come to the conclusion that them believing they're right does not justify their ignorance and bigotry. If I explain to a religious person how they're harming those they're helping to oppress, providing reason and logic, and they state that they won't change their view, I'll deem that ignorant. Put yourself in my perspective: How else could I deem that? I accept that they have a different opinion to me, but I still cannot allow the oppression to continue.

[. . .]

You believe anyone with opinions contrary to your own are evil and wrong, therefore you're comfortable believing a change in policy would not hurt anyone.

[. . .]

That is not correct. I constantly invite people to prove me wrong. My opinions are not absolute?they are always subject to change, if someone can reasonably explain to me why they should. I have told you that many times in this thread, so why do you continue to lie? You've seriously harmed any credibility you may have originally had, by constantly lying.

I believe a change in policy would not hurt or harm anyone because that is what I have deemed logical, after much thought and consideration of all possible issues. As you're the person implying harm could result, I've asked you a few times to explain what harm you believe could be caused, but you've failed to do so. That, of course, is not surprising to me, considering my view on this is a result of logic and reason.

[. . .]

It's funny how you're a champion against evil oppression, yet are perfectly fine oppressing people you've deemed not as morally pure as you.

[. . .]

In what way do you believe I am oppressing other people? All I am doing is debating, discussing, and protesting. Are you suggesting you deem any of those three accepted activities to be oppression, or are you just lying and misrepresenting my viewpoint yet again?

[. . .]

You're no worse than a bible thumping theocrat. Your way is the divine, unchallenged truth because you say so, damn anyone else that thinks otherwise.

Wrong again and another lie. I have told you more than once that my mind is always open to changing. This is the final straw. I am now going to speak to the other supervisors to see if there is anything we can agree to do about people who constantly intentionally misrepresent other people's views. What you're doing is unacceptable. I've told you my view and you state that my view is something completely different. That is a terrible thing to do, it is unacceptable, and it should not be allowed.

Grand Master

Noir Angel

Posted
Posted

Private orginization...they can let in whomever they like..government can't do jack squat about it.

They're not a completely private organisation, they receive public money.

Collaborator

Touchadowns

Posted
Posted (edited)

<snipped out response to off-topic paragraph>

No. Those are your words. I have never used the word "force" and I didn't even use the word "shame."

You used both of those words. From "like 10 comments ago," I mentioned that telling the public what they believe can often lead to the company publicly changing their position. As I keep pointing out to you, that would be entirely the choice of the company. They wouldn't have to change their opinion. It's hilarious that you believe I'd be forcing them to change their opinion by merely telling others what their opinion is,

This is really your most ridiculous argument. If you constantly call a company wrong and evil for having a policy you don't agree with your end goal is obviously to get that policy to change. You've stated this as one of your goals (the other being monetary ruin). You're not "telling others what their opinion is", you're telling others what your opinion is of their policy, with the goal of FORCING the company - out of shame, or to just shut people up - into changing the policy you're relentless attacking. It really boggles my mind how your view of your own actions can be so skewed.

Again, I didn't say it was. I said denying someone something for no justifiable reason is oppression. I didn't make up the definition. The definition is in the dictionary, which I linked you to. As it has been explained to you and proven to you, why are you denying what is fact? I don't like bringing up the idea that it is oppression, but the dictionary doesn't lie, and as it's true, pointing out that powerfully concerning fact makes sense.

Your analogy is ridiculous because most people know that Kool Aid and ice cream isn't a particularly healthy dinner for a kid, so that would be a justifiable reason to deny them it.

It's not oppression, if anything it's discrimination which isn't always a bad thing. I have a "senior living facility" down the road from my house, they don't accept anyone under 50, am I being oppressed because I can't live there? No, I'm being discriminated against because of my age, but it's not bad. Quit saying this is oppression, or hilariously comparing it to Apartheid as you did earlier. All of that verbiage is meant to generate an emotional response and nothing else. It's a disingenious debate tactic employed by rank amatuers and people unable to defend their positions with facts or reason.

I have thought to look at it from perspectives other than my own. I do so all the time. So why do you lie and state that I haven't? Your lying is despicable, and you've lied quite a few times throughout this topic, in a terrible effort to misrepresent my views.

I look at every issue from every perspective I'm aware of in order to determine what the best conclusion is.

No you didn't, as evidenced by your statement below you came into this with a hatred or dislike of anyone religious and that clouded your reasoning from the outset.

I have tried many times to sympathise with religious people, knowing that they believe what they're doing is right. But I have always come to the conclusion that them believing they're right does not justify their ignorance and bigotry. If I explain to a religious person how they're harming those they're helping to oppress, providing reason and logic, and they state that they won't change their view, I'll deem that ignorant. Put yourself in my perspective: How else could I deem that? I accept that they have a different opinion to me, but I still cannot allow the oppression to continue.

I think this paragraph really gets to the meat of your bigotry. You hate anyone religious, therefore you hate any policy that may have a basis in religion. The way you dismiss "relgious people" and have come to the conclusion that they are all "ignorant" and like to "oppress" people it's all very similar to how a racist KKK member talks.

Now I'm sure you'll do your typical "no no wait, you misunderstood me!" schtick, but it's old at this point. You're a <snipped> that hates and degrades anyone that is religious because you feel you're superior.

I'm an atheist - been one long before it was trendy to be one - and <snipped> like you just give us a bad name.

In what way do you believe I am oppressing other people? All I am doing is debating, discussing, and protesting. Are you suggesting you deem any of those three accepted activities to be oppression, or are you just lying and misrepresenting my viewpoint yet again?

You're not CURRENTLY oppressing anyone, but your desire - your goal - is to force BSA to change the policy you've stated you disagree with. You may say "but I'm just discussing!" but you're not, when you compare the policy to South African Apartheid you are not "discussing", you are attacking for the purpose of souring it in people's minds and getting BSA to change the policy, which would be oppressing their beliefs.

Wrong again and another lie. I have told you more than once that my mind is always open to changing. This is the final straw. I am now going to speak to the other supervisors to see if there is anything we can agree to do about people who constantly intentionally misrepresent other people's views. What you're doing is unacceptable. I've told you my view and you state that my view is something completely different. That is a terrible thing to do, it is unacceptable, and it should not be allowed.

Really? what a blatantly transparent attempt at intimidation and an abuse of power. It's also a perfect example of what I said earlier, Your way is the divine, unchallenged truth because you say so, and you'll call mommy and daddy if anyone dares question you.

Edited by Calum
Personal attacks are against our rules. Attack the view, not the member
Grand Master

Calum Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

Thread cleaned

This thread was becoming significantly off-topic; something I realise I'm guilty of contributing to, due to replying to an off-topic paragraph.

I have now cleaned this thread and moved some of your posts to Official: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Issues. Your posts start appearing from Page 287 onward. I tried to save as many posts as I could, but I couldn't copy over the views expressed in those posts that contained other content relevant to this discussion, so I had to snip out those parts. Still, you should be able to carry on your discussion in that thread :)

This thread cannot be a discussion regarding general LGBT issues (that is what we have the official thread for). We must keep this thread to the topic of the Boy Scouts's policy mentioned in the initial post.

Thank you for you co-operation :)

Grand Master

Calum Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

[. . .]

I think this paragraph really gets to the meat of your bigotry. You hate anyone religious, therefore you hate any policy that may have a basis in religion. The way you dismiss "relgious people" and have come to the conclusion that they are all "ignorant" and like to "oppress" people it's all very similar to how a racist KKK member talks.

Now I'm sure you'll do your typical "no no wait, you misunderstood me!" schtick, but it's old at this point. You're a <snipped> that hates and degrades anyone that is religious because you feel you're superior.

I'm an atheist - been one long before it was trendy to be one - and <snipped> like you just give us a bad name.

[. . .]

I will reply to the other parts of your post later, when I have more time. But I wanted to point this out to all who are reading: This part of your post is a great example of what I'm talking about when I point out that you're lying and misrepresenting my views.

You terribly, indecently, erroneously state "You hate anyone religious." Considering the post of mine you quoted when you wrote that, and all of my 11,750 posts in other threads, that statement of yours is absurd, and the fact you lied like that (even if you did it unintentionally) is preposterous!

I don't know whether you're doing this intentionally or not, but if you are doing this unintentionally, you must be more careful, because it is unacceptable and highly indecent.

I do not hate anyone religious. I hate very few people in life, if anyone, and I respect everyone's right to form, hold, and broadcast religious beliefs (that doesn't mean I have to respect the beliefs themselves, though).

I will reply to this quote in full later, as well as the other parts of your post. But I felt compelled to point out that you're lying, with an example this time, because such an unacceptable manner of debating will lead those who have not read my posts to believe I hold a belief that I do not.

Disgusting.

Collaborator

Touchadowns

Posted
Posted

I will reply to the other parts of your post later, when I have more time. But I wanted to point this out to all who are reading: This part of your post is a great example of what I'm talking about when I point out that you're lying and misrepresenting my views.

You terribly, indecently, erroneously state "You hate anyone religious." Considering the post of mine you quoted when you wrote that, and all of my 11,750 posts in other threads, that statement of yours is absurd, and the fact you lied like that (even if you did it unintentionally) is preposterous!

I don't know whether you're doing this intentionally or not, but if you are doing this unintentionally, you must be more careful, because it is unacceptable and highly indecent.

I do not hate anyone religious. I hate very few people in life, if anyone, and I respect everyone's right to form, hold, and broadcast religious beliefs (that doesn't mean I have to respect the beliefs themselves, though).

I will reply to this quote in full later, as well as the other parts of your post. But I felt compelled to point out that you're lying, with an example this time, because such an unacceptable manner of debating will lead those who have not read my posts to believe I hold a belief that I do not.

Disgusting.

When you make blanket statements about "religious people" that they are full of "ignorance and bigotry" and that are "harming those they are helping to oppress" you come off sounding like a typical anti-religious bigot. You didn't make any specific charges about specific topics regarding that group of people or who they are oppressing and being bigots towards, you just made a blanket charge that these "religious people" are ignorant bigots oppressing people. It's pretty much like the ignorant racist that says all the "black people" are stealing their women or all the "Mexicans" are stealing our jobs, it's a blanket condemnation of millions of people under the guise of being enlightened.

Also, I love the admonishment in your edit of my previous post to "Attack the view, not the member" after repeatedly calling me a liar for disagreeing with your opinions.

Grand Master

DocM

Posted
Posted

^^____ You noticed that too, 'eh?

We spend hour after hour, year after year, trying to do good works though our church; food kitchens, taking care of pregnant girls, aid to the aged, poor & handicapped, disaster relief, trucking busloads of us hundreds of miles to take part in Freedom March's in the 1960's etc., then get hit with this kind of ignorant crap from online know-nothings.

Yeah, we're really oppressing them.

Grand Master

Calum Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

When you make blanket statements about "religious people" that they are full of "ignorance and bigotry" and that are "harming those they are helping to oppress" you come off sounding like a typical anti-religious bigot. You didn't make any specific charges about specific topics regarding that group of people or who they are oppressing and being bigots towards, you just made a blanket charge that these "religious people" are ignorant bigots oppressing people. It's pretty much like the ignorant racist that says all the "black people" are stealing their women or all the "Mexicans" are stealing our jobs, it's a blanket condemnation of millions of people under the guise of being enlightened.

What a ridiculous conclusion. I was asked if I'd ever looked at these views from perspectives other than my own. I was asked about perspectives, not specific opinions, so I answered your question by mentioning a perspective: a religious perspective. I wasn't asked to comment on a specific topic, nor was I asked for examples of specific religious people. I didn't generalise by stating all religious people; I spoke about the religious people that are ignorant and bigoted. That is not a blanket statement because, from my experience, some religious people are ignorant and bigoted. It is ridiculous that you're condemning me for implying that some religious people are ignorant and bigoted, especially when I mention experience in this regard. Religious people are capable of being so, in case you didn't know.

It is not pretty much like racists who say "all black people [. . .]" or "all the Mexicans [. . .]", because I didn't state or imply all religious people! I was talking about some religious people! My post does not indicate in any way that I was referring to all religious people! If I don't state "all religious people" you cannot reasonably assume I'm referring to all religious people. "I have tried many times to sympathise with religious people" is a statement that refers to more than one religious person, but nothing in that statement suggests I'm talking about all religious people, like you have implied I am!

As I mention in my next paragraph, you have now gone way too far with your indecent method of debating, your lying, your assuming, and your disgusting maliciousness, so I will no longer discuss issues with you on Neowin. Please stop replying to me.

Also, I love the admonishment in your edit of my previous post to "Attack the view, not the member" after repeatedly calling me a liar for disagreeing with your opinions.

Yet again, you're lying. I didn't call you a liar for disagreeing with my opinions. I called you a liar for completely lying about my views and misrepresenting them. The lack of remorse you've shown in this post of yours indicates you have no problem debating in such a terrible manner and that you may well be doing it on purpose. People who actually like being disgusting and indecent are terrible people.

I am through reply to you. I don't wish to speak with people who knowingly misrepresent my views and lie about my views, even if the reason they're doing it is because they cannot refute the actual views I've posted.

Grand Master

Jaybonaut

Posted
Posted

Im sure there are others outside the general religious boundaries but it's safe to say those within the boundaries of religion are the ones that pushes against homosexuality more so. So no it's not to wild of a generalization. Within that religious side, you can often find those that preach one thing but practice another.

Thankfully, you can rewrite that same sentence this way, and it stays 100% true:

"Within any group of people, you can often find those that preach one thing but practice another."

Grand Master

Jaybonaut

Posted
Posted

Homophobia is all about bashing people because you don't like the way they live their lives. Why should bigoted asshats be immune from criticism? People might have freedom of speech, but that doesn't give us an obligation to pretend that their bigoted hate is some kind of special flower that needs to be protected from criticism.

That argument can be used in reverse. Earlier there was a question of why homophobic behavior is intolerable but homosexuality has to be tolerable - they are different lifestyles with different beliefs, upbringings, and feelings.

Grand Master

nominak

Posted
Posted

That argument can be used in reverse. Earlier there was a question of why homophobic behavior is intolerable but homosexuality has to be tolerable - they are different lifestyles with different beliefs, upbringings, and feelings.

Of course they're different. One was born that way, the other wasn't. One is hurtful, the other isn't.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Posts

    • Google Meet brings Gemini note-taking to AI Pro and Ultra subscribers

      By Karthik Mudaliar · Posted

      Google Meet brings Gemini note-taking to AI Pro and Ultra subscribers by Karthik Mudaliar Google's Gemini-powered "Take notes for me" feature inside Google Meet is now available to Google AI Pro and Ultra subscribers. The features work on Google Meet for web as well as on mobile, and Google says that subscribers can use it for meetings they host in many supported languages. As the name suggests, "Take notes for me" allows Gemini to listen to a meeting, generate a summary, identify action items, and save the notes as a Google Doc in the user’s Drive. After the meeting, the organizer receives an email recap with the summary and action items, while the notes can also be attached to the related Calendar event depending on the meeting setup and sharing settings. The feature isn't automatically turned on for everyone, though. Google says that all meeting participants are notified when note-taking is turned on, and users can start it from the pencil icon in Meet or enable it for future calls through Meet’s meeting records settings. For work or school accounts, administrators can also control whether the feature is available and may require explicit participant consent for note-taking, recording, or transcription features. The feature first launched back in 2024, when it was available just for selected Workspace users. Over the years, Google added refinements and more options, including the ability to enable it when scheduling meetings via Google Calendar. Google's support docs say that the feature currently supports English, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, and Spanish, but only one language at a time. Meetings with multiple spoken languages are not currently supported, and Google recommends using the tool for meetings between 15 minutes and eight hours. The new feature makes Google Meet closer to its rivals that have AI tools already built in. Microsoft Teams has recently started offering Copilot and intelligent recap features that summarize meetings, surface highlights, and help with follow-ups, while Zoom’s AI Companion can also generate meeting summaries from desktop and mobile meetings.
    • GnuCash 5.16

      By Copernic · Posted

      GnuCash 5.16 by Razvan Serea GnuCash is a personal and small business finance application, freely licensed under the GNU GPL and available for GNU/Linux, BSD, Solaris, Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows. It’s designed to be easy to use, yet powerful and flexible. GnuCash allows you to track your income and expenses, reconcile bank accounts, monitor stock portfolios and manage your small business finances. It is based on professional accounting principles to ensure balanced books and accurate reports. GnuCash can keep track of your personal finances in as much detail as you prefer. If you are just starting out, use GnuCash to keep track of your checkbook. You may then decide to track cash as well as credit card purchases to better determine where your money is being spent. When you start investing, you can use GnuCash to help monitor your portfolio. Buying a vehicle or a home? GnuCash will help you plan the investment and track loan payments. If your financial records span the globe, GnuCash provides all the multiple-currency support you need. Between 5.15 and 5.16, the following bugfixes were accomplished: Bug 421610 - RFE: Include logical dates for View->Filter by "date range"The Select Range section of the Date tab of the register's Filter By dialog box is changed to provide relative, specific date, or days ago options for the start and end of the filter range. The Show number of days item label is changed to Show from days ago to better reflect what it does. Bug 436105 - esc key not working as expected in register: Enable the escape key to cancel a field edit. Bug 797384 - Gnucash doesn't handle commodity prices with big numerator/denominator properly. Bug 798004 - Next gen UI for stock transactions Bug 799314 - Add "enter now" option in scheduled transaction editor. tab to allow users to select the scheduled transactions to be included in a “Since Last Run…” window. If there are no instances of a selected transaction triggered by today’s date, the next instance is triggered. Bug 799751 - autocomplete crash Bug 799759 - Users can't Enable entries via Checkboxes on Scheduled Transactions PageAllow the Enabled box in the list of scheduled transactions to be operated instead of having to open the transaction editor dialog and change the Enabled checkbox. Also added use of the Name column as the secondary column sort for all the other columns. Bug 799762 - Poor handling of cases where hidden/placeholder accounts are used in the account register Bug 799766 - Double line preference not respected in search register Bug 799767 - POST /accounts in bindings/python/example_scripts/rest-api is broken Bug 799777 - `xaccSplitSetParent`: reparenting a committed split silently drops its KVP slots (online_id, cap-gains links) Other changes & improvements: Numeric values may now be selected to copy in the Accounts page. Add new Finance::Quote source Finnhub.io: Free API key (personal/non-professional use) available at https://finnhub.io. Set FINNHUB_API_KEY environment variable to API key to use this source. As of June 2026, free tier API limit is 60 API calls/minute. The Investment Lots report has new optional columns for Computed Annual Growth Rate. Python Bindings: Improved translation of primary object (Account, Transaction, Split, etc.) so that they can be treated as normal Python objects. This is accomplished with SWIG magic so no existing code is obsoleted. Python Bindings: Better conversion of GLists to Python lists. Python Bindings: Destroy the QofSession in the Python Session dtor to prevent leaving the database locked. [engine] Add first-class online_id accessors for Split and Account and make them available to Python bindings, removing the unused Transaction online_id property. Improve C++ implementation of QofBook. Correct the Doxygen doc for qof_instance_get/set_kvp. [gnc-log-replay.cpp] fix incorrect guid dump Add some Boost library requirements needed by libgnucash-guile to CMakeLists.txt so that missing feature will fail at configure time. Use Compile-time Regular Expressions instead of std::regex in gnc-filepath-utils.cpp and instead of boost::regex in the CSV importer, with the CTRE v3.11.1 header added to borrowed [gnc-filepath-utils.cpp] null check char* arguments Add ChartJS licenses. Removed AEX from list of commodities. euronext.com is now using JS based anti-webscraping. [report-core] always offer options summary in reports. This is useful to debug reports. The Add options summary option is removed because it's no longer optional. Remove remaining obsolete IMContext from sheet Fix blurry text in HiDPI offscreen-rendered widgets Add port field to database connection dialog: The convention of appending the port number after the host isn't obvious. When editing a split in the register treat the account as being changed only if it isn't the one selected before editing instead of if the user performed an edit Return immediately from qof_book_destroy if hash_of_collections is null. If qof_book_destroy is called on a QofBook* freshly created with qof_book_new (usually because it was used to create a session that now must be destroyed) it would try to empty the non-existent hash tables, crashing. Clean up Flathub metadata to solve warnings at flatpak build time. Be consistent in naming GncPluginPage and GncPluginPageRegister HTML: Remove unimplemented function declarations. [gnc-html.cpp] remove unused buggy string conversion functions Convert libgnc-html to C++ Apply -Wall -Werr -Wmissing-prototypes to C++ compilation on Windows and fix the resulting errors. New and Updated Translations: Arabic, Croatian, Danish, Dutch, German, Finnish, Hungarian, Korean, Norwegian-Bokmal, Spanish Download: GnuCash 5.16 | 176.0 MB (Open Source) Links: GnuCash Home page | Other Operating Systems | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Microsoft finally launches WSL Containers in public preview

      By David Uzondu · Posted

      Microsoft finally launches WSL Containers in public preview by David Uzondu Microsoft has announced that WSL containers, a feature that allows developers to run Linux containers natively inside Windows without the need for Docker Desktop, is now available in public preview several weeks after Microsoft previewed it at Build 2026. To use the new container feature, you first have to install the latest pre-release version of the Windows Subsystem for Linux by running a quick update command in your terminal: wsl --update --pre-release After installing, you'd get access to the new Linux container CLI (wslc.exe) and the programmable API. Microsoft said that the CLI has a "familiar format" that matches the toolsets developers already use every day. If you know standard Docker commands, your muscle memory will translate directly to wslc.exe, which even features a built-in alias called container.exe. You can quickly run a full Ubuntu KDE desktop container by exposing ports, or pass your graphics card straight into a machine learning environment to run PyTorch workloads. Passing the --gpus all flag inside the run command instantly links your hardware. Image via Microsoft As for the API, developers can now embed Linux container operations directly inside native Windows applications without exposing the command line to users. The team integrated the API directly into MSBuild and CMake, so developers can define container steps directly in project files. Apart from bringing the CLI and API into public preview, Microsoft also said that it's working on a new default file system called virtiofs to speed up file transfer rates between Windows and Linux. Microsoft also introduced an experimental networking mode named consomme, which resolves compatibility issues with corporate VPNs by routing Linux network traffic straight through Windows. One thing to note about WSL containers is that they don't run in your standard WSL distributions; instead, every application and CLI session spawns its own lightweight Hyper-V utility VM in the background. This basically reduces the chances of one app snooping on the container of another app.
    • Google reportedly limited Meta's Gemini access over limited AI compute

      By Karthik Mudaliar · Posted

      Google reportedly limited Meta's Gemini access over limited AI compute by Karthik Mudaliar Google is reportedly limiting Meta's use of its Gemini AI models after Meta tried buying more computing capacity than even Google could supply. According to the Financial Times, Google told Meta in March that it could not provide the full Gemini capacity that Meta had requested. This shortfall even disrupted and delayed some of Meta's internal projects. Due to this, Meta even told its employees internally to use AI tokens more efficiently. Meta wasn't the only one to get hit by this sudden refusal by Google; even other customers were affected. But Meta was hit harder because of its unusually high demand for Google's models. The move from Google makes it evident that companies all over are in limited supply of both infrastructure and compute. Alphabet said in April that Google Cloud revenue grew 63% year-over-year to $20 billion in the first quarter, helped by enterprise AI infrastructure and AI solutions. In pursuit of more compute, Meta had earlier signed a multi-billion-dollar AWS agreement as well as a large AMD GPU deal for AI data centers. But the crunch would be short-lived as both Meta and Google have also ramped up infrastructure investments heavily. Meta said in November that it was committing more than $600 billion in the U.S. by 2028 for AI technology, infrastructure, and workforce expansion. In the first quarter of this year, Meta also raised its expected capital expenditure for 2026 to a range of $125 billion to $145 billion, citing higher component pricing and additional data center costs for future capacity. However, this doesn't make the company immune to the current dependence on outside suppliers. Meta has also spent many years promoting Llama as an open-weight alternative to closed models from Google, OpenAI, and Anthropic. But if the reported reliance on Google's Gemini models is severe enough for internal work to get impacted, then it looks like even frontier labs and Big Tech aren't fully self-sufficient. Source: Financial Times
    • Samsung, Amazon extend 990 PRO 2TB NVMe SSD deal beyond Prime Day 2026

      By seeprime · Posted

      I like to reminisce about the good old days, way back in autumn 2025 when building a gaming machine was fun and the drives were about $150 when you caught a deal. Yes duh, back in the day we had it gone. Then baby Skynet came along, hiding in AI datacenters demanding more processing power until it reached singularity. End of a not totally fictional story.

  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Year In
      BA the Curmudgeon earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Conversation Starter
      rosiecharles earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      KMilenkoski1202 earned a badge
      First Post

  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      533
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      269
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      150
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      98
    5. 5
      macoman
      66
    Show More

  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!