Slashdot Mirror
Finally, A Solution To The DMCA
morcego writes: "Well, finally someone came up with a solution to the DMCA problem.
You can read it on the archive of the Humorix list." Well, combine this with my ULC Reverendship, and we're well underway *grin*.
Freedom of Religion? How 'bout Freedom of Speech? We've already eroded freedom of religion to the point that kids have to fight hard to convince their school administrations to allow Bible clubs, even though such groups are explicitly legal. Oh well. :)
Also note that having sex with a dozen teenage chicks at a time is part of my religion.
The article in question can be found here
Hope this helps out. I always hate it when we slashdot a story this quickly.
We Apprentice Developers and Designers
Your message would have more weight if you'd used a spell checker, or even a dictionary. Try "puerile" next time.
You do realize this article is humor, right?
Virg
Does this mean that if I sin & distribute DeCSS but confess to it in the DMCA house of god, the evidence can't be used against me in court?
Then the Great Programmer leaned back in his executive chair, and gazed upon the newborn Universe.
And frowned. He knew those sentient humans would be a problem. Even after He had sweated over a hot terminal for thirteen days, those humans were ungrateful. They called their place of existence the "Universe", not the "Great Programmer/Universe".
Richard M Stallman, eat your heart out...!
If God gave us curiosity
If American Indians can't eat peyote for religious rituals, I doubt this idea will fly either... but still, it's a nice thought.
I remember a while back, here in Canada, a bunch of pot smokers made a religion up by saying that pot was god's method of showing us truth and beauty etc. Needless to say, nothing came of that. It's someone's right to refuse blood, but if a child is refused blood due to the religious beleifs of the parents, and death is possible our government would and has 'taken protective custody' of the child. I know that the DMCA is an American law and this loophole looks towards the American constitution, but governments all really think alike. I don't think the U.S. government would tolerate some of the things the Afghan Taliban does. Here, if your wife cheats on you and you kill her, you go to jail. They don't care what religious right you have. I realise the things a joke but we can dream can't we?
All a coder really wants, are fast cars, fast women and fast algorithms.
BILL GATES!!!
NO!!!!!
of course, that would explain why humans are so insecure and unstable....
Yeah! Then Bush will have to support it with his community/religion program. You are therefore compelled to "grep for the divine message" in order to receive Gov't help! This is excellent because it a) gives us a *real* reason to pirate American Pie, and b) pitts the gov't against the MPAA/RIAA in an all out rumble. Where's Jessie Ventura when we need him!
std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
The P.I. believes that the holy document was actually written last Wednesday when the High Priest had a little too much to drink.
This procedure for creating a religion seems pretty popular, I believe Scientology was created that way.
> Also note that having sex with a dozen teenage chicks at a time is part of my religion.
Actually, by the time they're teenaged, they're not "chicks" any more. They're just "chickens" at that point.
Virg
Didn't go very far, but you had to admire their gusto.
- - -
Radio Free Nation
"If You have a Story, We have a Soap Box"
- - -
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
That's what the Great Programmer gets for writing self-modifying code.
My spoon is too big!
In most cases (in America), you cannot break the law in the name of religion. Aztecs cannot sacrifice people, Mormons can't practice polygamy, White Power churches cannot lynch people and violate civil rights, Branch Davidians couldn't violate gun laws and practice statutory rape (depending on who you believe).
However, there are a lot of exceptions, mostly cultural. Amish are except from certain mandatory schooling laws. Native tribes are excempt from prohibitions against hunting endangered animals. Underage Cattholics can drink alcohol as part of services.
"Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
So what does it actually take to create your own religion? You obviously don't need proof of the existence of a higher power or every religion out there wouldn't be acknowledged. Can I start saying that my god is the "Great Programmer" and get away with stuff, or is there some sort of catch, like you must prove that your IQ is the same as a cabbage to be legally allowed to believe in such things.
Wrong, it's Lisp.
My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
Ahh, as my first administration of the sacrement, I would like to decrypt the ULC eBook in order to gain access to the materials needed for an ordination in a box.
Just encrypt your own transmissions violating the dmca using Really Obvious Encryption, then if someone charges you, you can countersue because they don't have a license from you.
Even Slashdot wants to hide some things
Actually, I have been having some pretty serious discussions about this with friends of mine, most of whom are grads from divinity and transpersonal psych backgrounds, as well as with my tech friends (the two happen to coincide quite often as well).
Truth is, freedom of religion pretty much trumps just about every other right in the US. There are exceptions, but in general, even those who have lost on gambles such as polygamy and controlled substances still have a pretty wide berth on just about anything else.
As such, many of my friends thought that creating a religion that covers code as an expressive form of religion has come up very often. If you think about it, people who have a deep understanding (deep by the average citizens' point of view, shallow in the tech world) of computers and technology are pretty much regarded as witches by most folks out in the world. The best way, my friends and I thought, to fight this kind of mindset is simply to adopt a shroud of religion.
Hey Joe, you got a problem with the fact that I know things you don't? Well, I know this because God says ITS OK TO KNOW IT. Join my religion, and you can know it too. Just follow the rules. All of the sudden, most of the arguements over whether it should be legal to even KNOW about system security or info sec goes out the window by most peoples' standards if a christian church says its ok, then maybe it isnt the work of the devil, or witches, or evil haxors. Its ok, because god says it can exist.
Yeah, I know that there is some moral reckoning in how the above is presented that wouldn't wash with some knowledgeable and highly ethical people. I don't care. I care about not being picked out of a crowd because I know something other people don't. I care about having something besides the EFF to back my ass up when someone decides to sue me or press charges over something nobody really understands, but hey, THATS OK to press charges, HE knows TECH. He's GOT TO be a witch/evil haxor/apostate.
Fact is, I really do think whatever force that holds it all together talks through us and what we do. I don't think that it would be too unusual to start a church or temple or whatever to back that up, and to spread more knowledge around. Yeah, there are the baptists down the street, they are having a bake sale; the Catholics are having roulette night...oh, look over there, that new church, they are having free computer lessons!
Anyways, we never got around to getting that IDEA off the ground. It was a nice one. However, that may happen in the future. Essentially, at the time, nobody wanted to do the research to write the canon and background literature. Everybody was busy working. Well, now that the bubble has burst, we've got that time. Maybe it will happen, maybe not.
But really think about it...not many organizations can pull off the kind of stunts that folks need when shit hits the fan. Maybe a religion might not be a bad idea, jokes aside.
'Hail Eris, baby, hail Eris...pfffffffttt.' *cough* 'Yeah.'
It has come to my attention that some of you think that we should incorporate ourselves as a religion based on tightly holding on to our intellectual property and trampling anyone who thinks their pitiful little rights matter.
This would be pointless. I know that some of you are concerned because some religions have sprung up that worship free speech and such things.
Just remember what happened years ago when John Lennon made the mistake of saying that the Beatles were bigger than Jesus.
He was wrong. The Beatles weren't. We, however, are.
Sincerely yours,
Jack Valenti
He would obviously pull out a rock and a pointy stick and code directly into punch cards...
www.dedserius.com
VB != VisualBasic
Official state religions slowly withered away in the years following the signing of the Constitution. Now people who have no knowledge of why that clause exists in the Constitution believe it means something totally orthogonal to its original meaning. Welcome to Amerika.
the First Disassembly of God church.
/etc/hosts file.)
In the First Disassembly of God church we seek to reverse engineer the nature of the cosmos and supply weekly diffs and patches at our worship services. (As well as debugging of the faithful, documenting the numberous ways of violating syntax, and distribution of the Wine libraries and
"Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
I AM, therefore I THINK!
WASHINGTON POSTTIMESHEARLD
.0000001% of all our net net revenues. We're very serious about this."
WASHINGTON, DC: Aug 30, 2001
As Congress furiously discussed what to do with the newly discovered "First Church Of Digital Grepping" and its alleged dogma that requires its members to constantly search through copyrighted materials for sacred meaning and salvation, the lobbying organizations for the entertainment and publishing sprang into action.
The entertainments' lawyer and lobbyists have already brought about a marked increase in donations of cash, luxury cars, booze, dope and the deployment of hookers.
One crack addict in a poor neighborhood of DC told us today, "Man, you can't score any good shit with it all going to them Congressmen. We down here smoking Draino and hoping those lobbyists from the entertainment industment get whatever the hell it is they want so we can get our freak back on!"
Another professional worker in the recreational sex business tells relates a similar story, "Geez, it's normally bad enough here with all these Congressmen around. Can't keep in they pants, anyway. You know how it is, if they ain't doing one of us out here, they doing the American people in there. But with all them lawyers and lobbyists working Congress about that Geek Religion thing, its nearly as bad for a sex worker as it is when they ain't no interns around. That's the worst, it's just every ho for themselves then and pray for new load of interns."
Sources within the entertainment industry say their goal is the simple protection of the artists.
One anonymous source said, "Look we all know that the actual artist, the creator who is the principal beneficiary of our actions here. We're going to ensure that the people who create the movies, music and books that we all love and cherish continue to receive their
Another source said that perhaps a solution similar to the one used with Native American peoples would be effective in dealing with "The First Church Of Digital Grepping".
That is, round all them up, march two thousand miles in the middle of winter. Take their computers and ATM cards away from them. Give them habitats in faroff remote Northern rural areas, and allow them to practice their supposed religion two or three times a year, under close Bureau of Geek Affairs supervision.
Ten quid, she's so easy to blind. And not a word is spoken...
Hence, The Great Programmer really was probably a kid playing with Deity Basic his mom got him for christmas and now we're stuck living in his malformed world because he doesn't know proper techniques.
But.. is it really a surprise thinking of it this way. This explains every natural disaster, problem, and why-do-bad-things-happen-to-good people.
Karma.c:293:
if ( entity.action() == K_GOOD )
entity.karma(entity.karma()-1);
...
if ( entity.karma()
All because of a single typo.. damn I need a more productive job..
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
ah, geez, and don't get me started on the "void main" thing.
(that should be "int main")
room101 -- how much can you stand before they break you?
(they always break you eventually)
My understanding is also that the church would have to have a precident to it. So a church that was created right after the DMCA was written specifically to override the DMCA wouldn't work at all. However, the catholics have a long established tradition of the sacrament. If memory serves many people in the 60s tried to argue that they couldn't be drafted because of a freedom of religion (they started a religion to avoid the draft). The courts held that one couldn't merely start a relegion to avoid a law.
By the way, the mormon church gave up pologomy of their own accord before even joining the union. It's not a matter of the law telling them not to. - AC post above
This was informative, and I didn't have mod points, and just wanted to make sure it got read.
"Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
Its funny to argue this point with anyone but here goes....
Satanic [or Satanists for that matter] clubs do not in anyway promote evil, killing or any other bad morals that would adversly affect a society. For the most part "Anton Le Vay" satanists are the perfect citizen because they only work for a better life here on earth instead of spirtual pipe dreams. I cannot think of a better club for school. I would hope that people would understand some day that Satanist's do not worship Satan. Most Satanists do not even believe in god. This is the offical stand point I have about myself, and what most other satanists have told me when I have met them.
Back to the point here I think that if you allow one club, you should make room for all of them. I personaly found that my high school (back in the day here...) had a club called: C.H.A.O.S (Christ has all our anwsers) but to start a club you needed a teacher to sponser you. Needless to say that anyone that wanted a christian club could find a sponsor, but I could not get one for my club S.I.N. (Satanism is Natural), so I was allowed to have a club of this nature, but I wasnt allowed to have this club with out a sponsor. The lesson learned is leave the descrimination up to the teachers and you only get the type of clubs the teachers would join.
"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
Hey! That ULC website is really cool. Now, I've got a prefix for my name.
Anyone know of something like that for a Ph.D? Or, at least, a very easy mail-order or online course?
"Dr. Lawrence Wade" suits my officious nature far more than "Rev. Lawrence Wade".
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
That all depends on if He planned for the universe to ever exit(). We will need to consult the prophets to find the answer.
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
You cant win with someone that doesnt fight with facts.
"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
Even if he did make it somewhat inflammatory. I'd like to know as well. What makes a religion "legitimate" in the eyes of the government?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Were government run schools really around much when the constitution was written? I though they became the norm 50-100 years later.
The best solution to this whole mess would be to get the governemnt out of the school business altogether. It's not like they're doing a good job or anything...
Hmm, maybe that explains the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. He was using FDIVs on a Pentium to model the particle positions and momentum vectors.
(Schrodinger's Cat is just the Excel spreadsheet that makes it show up in dollar amounts. Bell's Theorem is, uh... well, we're still trying to figure that one out. But it's pretty weird)
had a club called: C.H.A.O.S (Christ has all our anwsers)
I remember that. But then they changed it to the C.I.A.: Christians in Action. They sang songs around the flagpole, put up posters with bible passages around school, and even got some airtime on the school P.A. now and then.
I had a talk with the vice-principal about it. He agreed that they were probably crossing the line in some areas, but said it was "too popular to shut down". This is in sunny liberal california, btw.
___
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
The arguments aren't whether kids are allowed to form Gay and Lesbian Student Aliances, but whether allowing the clubs to use school property constitutes state support of homosexuality. My own view is that it does not, but reasonable people may differ on this point.
Kinda falls on it's face when you apply it to someone else's pet group, don't it?
Don't forget to recomend government restrictions on gun ownership because "militias" no longer serve a useful purpose now that constitutionally banned standing armies exist. Also, you might argue that the government should be alowed to billet those troops in your house because only criminals have things to hide. Reasonable people can differ, right?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
The unclear part is how to apply this when the each of these two adjacent sentence clauses (no establishment/no prohibition) contradict each other.
It is unclear whether providing overhead (electricity, land, janitorial services etc) support for people egaged in religious activity constitutes a move, however tiny, towards the establishment of religion. Neither is it perfectly clear that forbidding equally all such support to all such groups effectively prohibits their right to excercise freedom of religion.
People tend to see the issue as perfectly clear cut on one side or the other. It isn't, in my opinion. It is perfectly possible, in my view, that the framers left us with situations where those two adjacent phrases give us two contradictory imperatives, at least viewed using two valued logic.
Let A be the proposition that letting the students meet on school property is kind of state establishment of religion. Let B be the proposition that not letting the students meet on school property limits their free excercise of religion.
It's not a black and white issue. Propositions like this aren't true or false in the same way that "3 > 2" or "pi is irrational" are. They are matters of judgement, and can be somewhat true or somewhat false. I happen to think A is practically completely false (but to a tiny degree true); and B is mostly false (but considerably more true than A). Therefore, I favor the students being allowed to meet, but I can see how other people would have different opinions.
Since neither A, nor B is anything like 50% true, I'm not going to get very worked up either way. Since there is not way to split the difference (the students are allowed to meet on the property or they are not), then either decision is somewhat good and somewhat bad.
Now, if the policy where not applied equally to atheists, jews, pagans, muslims and christians, then I would definitely get very excited about it, since it would be a clear step towards establishment.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Please notice your examples and how they break down into two major camps: Ones that violate someone else's rights and ones that don't.
Killing someone (even in Religion's name) is violating that person's right to life (whether it be voluntary or not is another question). Whereas an "underage" person taking the sacrament in the Catholic church is not violating anyone else's rights.
Classic quote by Frederic Bastiat in The Law (1850):
Don't steal. The government hates competition.
We don't even have our own religion for a freakin' day and already it gets forked into splinter factions! Bah!
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Good thing He didn't use Java; I don't think humanity would survive the garbage collection process. And lets face it, we're leaking resources and the Earth's going to GPF real soon now.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
To be defined as a religion doesn't take all of these things, but the more you got, the more it helps. For the most part, judges will use "common sense" for something like proving is a belief system is a legitamate religion. This approach to worshiping code certain can take on many aspects though.
BTW, using religion as an aspect of political protest has a much longer tradition than even non-violent protests that you see much more commonly, and tends to get neglicted by the ruling governments until they can't do anything about it. (C.F. Christianity and the Roman Empire, as well as the Catholic Church and Communism... especially in Poland and much of Eastern Europe).
"The mission of the church is to make digital copies of
every music CD, every movie DVD, and every printed book and
then grep the digital version for any tell-tale signs of
'The Meaning Of Life'."
That won't be neccessary. I've got a copy of it on VHS that I'll loan you! (Warning: the flick is extremely British.)
Why bother? Aren't we pretty sure the halting problem isn't solvable?
(That is, even if you had the answer to the halting problem out of divine revelation from the Great Programmer, by Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, you'd never be able to prove it...)
You just can't have 5 people filing their taxes as "married" all to one person. Technically speaking, as far as the law was concerned, it *would* be adultery, but I don't think there's laws against that.
Technically speaking, in the US, a constitutional ammendment (specifically modifying the 14th) would be required to even allow different income taxation for marrieds and non-marrieds.
Funny that the Universal Life Church, Inc. has been brought up repeatedly in this thread.
The founder, Kirby J. Hensley, was a guy who didn't believe in tax-exempt status for churches. He fought this law for a long time, even including suing the IRS, and he lost at every turn - (big surprise, eh?).
As an extreme effort, he figured that he might try to form his own church and make it profit oriented , but not so much that it would look like a disingenous effort. Then, when the IRS turned him down for tax-exempt status, he could use this as a precedent to fight again for repeal of the tax-exempt status of the more mainstream churches.
Much to his surprise, the IRS granted him tax-exempt status. I think he folded at that point and I guess he figured, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
At least that's the condensed version of the story I heard when I became a minister with the Universal Life Church, Inc. in 1979. Five bucks and I was a minister. I can marry people, bury people, and legally avoid the draft on concientious objector status. I qualify for any benefit that any other clergy would receive. (I even signed the certificate for my step-daughters marriage. My now ex-wife performed the Pagan ceremony.)
Additionally, myself and two others can form a local chapter of the church, take a vow of poverty, donate all our secular income to our church (which then takes care of all our bills), and donate our home(s) to our chapter of the church - then the home comes off the property tax rolls as church property.
The potential tax savings are incredible.
What does it take to create your own religion? I guess if you follow in the footsteps of ULC, that should be close enough. If someone does, please let me know, I'd join up.
Open Source Software - it's the difference between Trust and Anti-Trust.
War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. - George Orwell or George Bush?
Because in our society, Satan represents the advesary in christian mythos. Satan represents what we do, Satan represents what america stands for. Free speech even when its against god, sex, the abilty to vote for the other party that isnt a christian. Satanism is what comes natural. Christianty is living like a monk for god. If your inbetween your confused.
"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
"Better than nothing" is a pretty low standard though. The alternative wouldn't be to replace them with nothing, but with competing private schools. Harry Brown puts the argument pretty well here.
Oh, and comparing literacy rates from before public schools (1840?) and 2001 is of course of very litle value, since society has changed in 42 zillion other ways in between.
Basically, for a large chunk of the republican party, their whole "morality" play is just a ploy to dupe the churchgoing population into voting for them. There are still LOTS of people who attend church (esp. in rural areas) and would like to see our government represent good morals. However, sooner or later, I believe that we'll see congress siding up with the businesses they are truly loyal to as opposed to the faithful.
Might be something hard to percieve, but it isn't impossible. For instance, maybe a church group decides to protest outside of many movie theaters or the movie studio that they disagree with the content of a movie. The studio feels that the protesting is hurting their movie at the box office, and sues them, or lobbies congress for new laws to shut up "moral" protesters.
Or perhaps a poor country church is accused by the RIAA of having a "public performance" of one of the songs "owned" by them without proper lisencing.
These things have probably happened quietly in the past. But maybe the media corporations will try to squash out the religious types after they are done dealing with the "evil hacker" types. I'm sure parents who are trying to raise their kids to follow their faith rather than becoming zombie consumers are pretty annoying to media corps.
BTW, Corporations want to convey the idea that file and intellectual property sharing == theft.
Hmn, an interesting quote here....
And all that believed were together, and had all things common
And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
Acts 2:44-45 (KJV)
Of course, this verse was written almost 2000 years ago, but it does pertain to the sharing of goods and possessions with other people in your church. During the days of the early Christians, there really was no such thing as Intellectual Property as far as it exists today. I guess if you were to read this one loosely then you could justify sharing of things such as software between church members if there was a need for it. Just a thought anyway.
It is scary, however, how much we've let our rights get trampled over.
We've pretty much already given up on the right to bear arms in this country. Now we've got all of these gun control laws in place that were put there comfort all of those who are foolish enough to trade freedom for a false sense of security.
Let us not give up the rights guaranteed in the 1st. Ammendment just so we can stop the "evil hackers" out there from "stealing" from corporate fat cats. Congress is so sold out... if we sit here and let them, they WILL take away our other rights gradually if it benefits the corporations who bought them.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
That is, you can't find a way to prove that any program P will halt, but you can find infinite P for which you can decide whether it will halt or not.
Perhaps the Great Programmer is writing to something a little more powerful than a mere Turing Machine?
My guess is that "Does [reg1] halt on [reg2]" is an one-cycle machine code instruction on His Almighty Box.
Obviously, the registers are cabable of holding arbitrary length lambda expressions. Much more elegant than all this primitive finite state rubbish.
Other useful instructions:
"Is function [reg1] equal to function [reg2]"
We can't do this for general functions at the moment. Problem is caused by the fact that lots of different algorithms produce the same result for all possible input, and are therefore equal functions.
"Calculate (possibly countable infinite) set determined by condition [reg1] on superset [reg2]"
"return [reg1]th element of countable set [reg2] ordered by comparison function [reg3]"
This would be handy for stuff like calculating the set of all primes.
"Calculate maximum of function [reg1] on set [reg2]"
Really, really useful.
[paraphrase]The arguments aren't whether kids are allowed to form Gay and Lesbian Student Aliances, but whether allowing the clubs to use school property constitutes state support of homosexuality. My own view is that it does not, but reasonable people may differ on this point. [paraphrase]
Kinda falls on it's face when you apply it to someone else's pet group, don't it?
Not really. I think it applies just as well to Christians, Gays, and Nazis equally.
Why do you think I would have a problem with gays?
It's funny how people seem to think I'm either a foaming at the mouth Christian zealot or a flaming secular humanist, because I can see both sides of the argument.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Think "teenaged" in chicken years.
Virg
Nothing to figure. You were just doing it to piss off the other students. You didn't really believe in anything good or bad, by your own admission you were just trying to cause trouble.
So its in the hands of school administrators to decide who's faith is pure enough to be allowed in-school worship?
Thats no good at all!
___
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
Feel free to check the rather in-depth anaylsis of this amendment at Findlaw. A search on Google will turn up some less-dense discussions of this amendment's implications as well.
The fact is that Christian groups are not treated as well as homosexual organizations. School administrators frown on religious groups while promoting homosexual group activities. Just look at Chicago sometime where public money is spent on a seperate prom for homosexuals. Yet church groups are looked on as strange and subversive. This kind of treatment is not confined to Chicago. So much the better for homosexuals, as long as these events and clubs are not being used for the exploitation of children by their supposed gaurdians.
It is perverse that the "establishment clause" which aims to protect religious expresion is used to opress religion. It seeks to protect religious expression in part by preventing the formation of a single state sponsored religion, but mosly by telling the state that no laws should be made against any religious activity or speach. People who prevent church groups from using public property by creating rules or laws against such use have clearly violated the constitution's spirit and letter.
It's hard to model yourself as moderate and side with those who violate the rights of others. The framers of the constitution considered homosexuality such a perversion as to continue to keep it unlawful. America has become a more tollerant place than that. Why would you side with anyone less tollerant than the constitution's framers? To "see the both sides" there is to give legitimacy to oppresors.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Yes I realise that this is true, however in Anton Le vay Satanism, Satan is called such because he is the advesary to god. To christianity's hipocrocy comes a figure agaisnt this, he is the opposite, he is Satan. He does what is correct in life, he follows what he says. After all its god that starves the little children after putting them here, right?
"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
>
> My guess is that "Does [reg1] halt on [reg2]" is an one-cycle machine code instruction on His Almighty Box.
Wow, could you imagine a Beowulf cluster of...