Slashdot Mirror

For those who don't catch the references...
Principia Discordia (visual)... and there are many sequels, such as the apocrypha and the errata

You must be referring to PinealWeb, the browser that lets you surf the Internet directly from your third eye! Using patented GneoGnostic technology, PinealWeb is able to provide an immersive Web browsing experience by pumping data directly through your pineal gland.

Be sure to read more at the PinealWeb website.

You must be referring to PinealWeb, the browser that lets you surf the Internet directly from your third eye! Using patented GneoGnostic technology, PinealWeb is able to provide an immersive Web browsing experience by pumping data directly through your pineal gland.

Be sure to read more at the PinealWeb website.

DNA analysis strongly indicates a widespread influence from the Nordic cultures, which are often associated with the Aryans. However, the Norse of old would have laughed at such a delusion. The Norsemen are a far more ancient lineage, which spread up through Europe in the stone age - long before the Aryans existed. Indeed, there are few in Europe whose lineage is not provably far older and far more noble.

Is this flamebait? Probably. I have little time for supremacist groups. There's nothing supreme about them, apart from their egos, and their claims are easily disprovable trash. I'd rather go to a Microsoft conference - and that's saying something. Even Discordians are more worthy of respect.

• Flying Spaghetti Monsterism
  
• The Church of last Thursdayism of Queen Maeve
  
• Discordianism
  
• The Church Of The Subgenius
  
• etc...

A point I will conceed. Alas, George Bush isn't even close to being a John Adams, as a study of their mutual efforts pre-presidency will reveal. Adams at least had a height to fall from, to make his failures more tragic than farce.

Gee, it seems that Jefferson and Madison were religion neutral as well.

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
--James Madison

..."the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro' the U.S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to To Dr. Benjamin Rush, Monticello, Sep. 23, 1800. (Emphasis added, because the quote fucking rocks. )

For some reason, Fundamentalist Evangelicals seldom cite Jefferson, and never do so referring to the full source. =)

As for the other issues which you don't address, again the 10th Amendment covers it very nicely. If it ain't in the Constitution, a document I swore a long time ago to preserve, protect and defend and still hold to that oath despite my country breaking faith from me, it is left to the states or the people.

Article V: Amendments "shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution". Which means you're still stuck (as I noted) with Amendment 14, not to mention assorted loons empowered by Article III until and unless they quit or keel over dead.

Sorry, but try another shot at my bows.

"Mister Christian! Man the Canons!"

God won't suddenly be a woman instead of a man...

And this from other belief systems differs... how?

One of the perks of being a programmer is that, normally, coding is a refuge from thinking about this kind of crap. GCC doesn't give a fliegende kinderscheisse that I'm gay.

For a while I couldn't read the newspaper without getting a knot in my stomach, and just looking at the Opinion section can give me a headache these days without even reading it. Between what my own state is up to and the creepy backlash building up at the national level, I've decided that sticking it out in the U.S. just isn't worth it and I'm currently saving up to move to Vancouver.

Now, though, the insanity is even making its way onto the Slashdot front page. Tech companies being gay-friendly has always just been a given in the back of my mind. The fact that the biggest of them all is backing off due to outside pressure has me worried even more. I can't shake the feeling that there's something big and scary happening here in the U.S. right now, and the backlash against gay rights is only the tip of it.

Oh, also I'm an ordained Priest of Universal Life Church but that ordination was probably done by the hand of Eris, nothing else. At least I can argue with a priest on the same level, both of us are the man of cloth, so to speak.

Eris, presumably.

"English: How I found my mother tongue, and what I did to her when I found her." (with no apologies, just applause, hold the applesauce, to the Principia Discordia)

Much of the confusion, of terminology, rights, usage, and their respective applicabilities, comes from sloppy boundary drawing around various kinds of intellectual "properties".

We are here dealing with an XML schema, WordML. It is a data format specification, proprietary to Microsoft: they own all the rights to it, including the right to use it by writing executable programs which process it meaningfully, and even to know the specifics of its properties (names of characteristics, and their meanings when used). Until they publish its specifics, it is "closed", in addition to proprietary, just like the .doc format. This status is analagous to Microsoft's Word code, which is "closed source", as well as proprietary - you have to get it from Microsoft directly, with their express permission (usually for money). Likewise, redistribution of Word code is not free - it is strictly licensed, preventing licensees from reselling licenses once they have it (with the possible exception of transferring the license with the original installer media, providing no "backup" copies are retained by the original licensee). Microsoft has published some specifications to its Word executable interfaces, Word APIs, so it is a little bit "open". You can write your own program (eg. in Visual Basic, or Perl) that uses Microsoft's proprietary Word interfaces. But since many Word APIs are not published, nor their inner workings, it is not very open. And due to the license, it is not free at all, neither costless, nor restrictionless (100% to the contrary).

Compare the status of Word, its APIs, and the .doc format to the new status of WordML. Until Microsoft published it, WordXML was just as open (not very) and free (not at all) as Word and .doc. By publishing WordML, Microsoft has changed its openness. It is open to reading, and open to use. It is not, however, open to change - Microsoft alone retains the right to change the names of entities in the schema, or what they mean (how they behave when processed). The other rights in question for any data specification is redistribution and incorporation. There is still some question as to my rights to software which incorporates WordML, say to read a WordML document into my own application. And the redistribution of the specification beyond using it in my own application is very ambiguous: must you get the spec directly from Microsoft or its asignees (like the ISB), rather than from my server, from which you downloaded my app which reads WordML?

So we are talking about a semantic difference: is a specification "open" if it is restricted from certain uses? There's enough confusion between free speech and free beer. I draw a distinction between open and closed information, whether it's code, data format specs, political meetings. It's as binary a duality as humans indulge, whether there is access to know, or use, like an open book, or an open market. Freedom is another issue, much fuzzier: whether there are any constraints on access or use. Openness is one kind of freedom. Price is another kind of freedom. Redistribution is another kind of freedom. Review, criticism and satire is another kind of freedom. But developers are primarily concerned with openness, and secondarily with redistribution and price. The other constraints on freedom provide penalties for violation, which are part of an overall value proposition tradeoff. But openness is an all or nothing proposition, making development a nonstarter in its absence.

Overlying the constraints on our use, and underlying our terminology, is the legal structure to enforce those limits. Patenting a data spec, like WordML, seems inappropriate. Trademark seems the most apt, where you can't call data a sample of "WordML" unless Microsoft licenses you the trademark.

so many links are good !

Religion these days is largely about keeping things consistent. Heck, 100 years ago, they were still using Latin routinely in Roman Cathloic services! Lots of people are attracted to religion because it provides a feeling of continuity/oneness with the past. As such, it's a difficult thing for a "futurist" to talk about sanely.

Yet, I think something will surface as a "catch all" religion for people who would simply be Atheists otherwise.

That has already been done a couple of times.

so maybe new "religions" will spring up that focus on maximizing the life we live now

That too.

I'd like to see corporate recognition of Mungday, Chaoflux, Mojoday, Discoflux, Syaday, Confuflux, Zaraday, Bureflux, Maladay, Afflux and St. Tibs day, myself.

Ahh well, at least I can still Go Off Alone & Partake Joyously of a Hot Dog on a Friday.

Linux is a religion these days. Really. It may not have gods, but it has a fiercly defended ideology that really does border on the metaphysical.

fnord

Naturally Linus would like to distance himself from anyone who tries to call a chunk of code a religion. Look it's fun to run Linux and give MS the finger and all that, but there's gotta be limits. You've gotta keep those sanity checks and reality checks in your code (of conduct!). If you don't, you might wind up in a very strange and dangerous place. (Maybe hanging off the side of a building threatening to jump if the boss won't let you install Linux, I don't know.) Please, please, please, never start thinking of Linux as a religion.

Try Discordianism instead. fnord It's much safer. :-)

But just because the Discordian religion probably appeared first in a fictional novel...

What have we been telling people? It's all about Base 5!


Ewige Blumenkraft!
-shpoffo