Slashdot Mirror
More on the Microsoft v. EU Decision on Software Patents
bollow (a) NoLockIn writes "As
pointed
out on Groklaw, Microsoft has told the EU's Court of First Instance that
"certain of the communications protocols that the Commission requires it to
provide are covered by patents or patent applications and that it intends to
file, before June 2005, a large number of patent applications." In view of
this,
Poland's
courageous action against software patents is a great relief. There's an
online thank-you letter for Poland with
already over 10000 signatures."
I guess we're sure, now, that Poland will never be forgotten.
Somehow I was able to get in. I can't hit the main page, but my Firefox LiveBookmark for Slashdot is still working, and clicking them gets me here logged in. Interesting. First non-AC post? Haha
yep, you can also it seems log in now by posting, wonder what the bug was
"goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
Wow, 85 AC replies vs 3 real replies.
Let's hope someone patents AC spam so that they get charged a dollar everytime they wanna talk about something offtopic.
wonder what the bug was
Whatever it was, it still is. I still get a 503 from the main page.
true here too, looks like we are the only ones on slashdot, stranded on one page and nowhere to go :-P
"goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
You know, I read the headline, and I honestly could not figure out WHO'S sql server was being delayed. So I said to myself while opening it; why diden't the author of this specify which SQL server is being affected?
On a slightly more seious tone (though I did honestly not know who's server was being delayed; I thought it was some no named server that I'd never heard of!), do not allow microsoft to pull another 'we own the word windows'; never shortern Microsoft SQL server, into SQL server- at the absolute least call it MS SQL, so that this way in 5 years they can't turn around and sue everyone who has SQL in there name!
Don't believe me; look at lindows. hh
Netscape doesnt work to get in, IE does. Firefox works. This is really strange happenings tonight.
Pete Carr Owner Chatmag.com
I think you missed the thrust of the grandparent's comments. A better way to put it would be that the DMCA makes it trivial to prevent all legal copying. Do we threrefore need specific legal rights to restore the ability to create "fair use" copies? It may be impossible to prevent most forms of copying from a technical stand-point, but doing so makes you a criminal, even if what you're doing falls easily under "fair use" provisions. lq
And I'm reading all comments on this article, but lots of 'm don't make any sense. There's always some noise, but in this case it looks as if comments on random articles get attached to this article. Maybe some server or software processing the submitted comments has gone cazy?
The only way I can get in is via the RSS feed in Firefox
totaly weird....
K Man
do you think it could have happened at a worse time? Someone in support is having a shitty kickoff to their christmas weekend.
#!/usr/bin/english
replying to my own post, and that, but does anybody else think this is some kind of script thing? Comments are increasing rapidly, and (take a look)... even worse than usual, if you get my drift. I especially like the trolls that are pure slashbot with the exception of references to something called "GNAA/Linux"...
or maybe i'm just paranoid. If it is, it's a shitty thing to do today.
#!/usr/bin/english
looks like a major crapflood from the GNAA.
I believe they are using the 'tor' p2p anonymous internet system, from my sources (antislash.org forums).
IntechHosting - Free domain, 2GB, PHP, £4.95/$8.95
1) It's criminal.
2) It's criminal.
3) Years ago.
4) Because the Australian courts determined that no crime was committed on an Australian victim on Australian "soil".
5) Because relations with the USA take precedent over the rights of Australian citizens in the eyes of the Australian government.
The US court believes it has jurisdiction over *everywhere* in the world (see DVD Jon, and that e-book guy).
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
Unless there has been a change since I had a minor involvement with it, European and international patent law requires that a patent be at least applied for before an invention is put into commercial service. Apparently putting an unpatented invention into commercial service is roughly the equivalent of publishing it. I believe this is different from US patent law.
There has been a major security issue with Slashcode revealed this week. See http://www.slashcode.com/article.pl?sid=04/12/20/1 946225. I hope today's Slashdot troubles are not related to this...
Animoog.org
And also that documents defining protocols or interfaces may be copyrighted, but that fact alone should not prevent competing implementations of such protocols. Read: perhaps a patent covered protocol, a copyrighted document describing the details, but still allow 3rd parties to make their own implementation of it.
Microsoft may have many bases covered, but sometimes the interests of society to enable inter-operating software, weighs heavier than the patent/copyright interests of a company. IMHO a very balanced, and righteous decision. It doesn't prevent Microsoft from making money with implementation of such protocols, it just levels the playingfield a bit for other parties who want to do that as well.
If a software interface isn't so crucial, one might say: let company have its way, and consumers choose alternatives if they want to. But with 90+ % market share, a software interface can become crucial, or leave no real alternative. A legal decision like this is good, simply for putting at least some limits on corporate greed and vendor lock-in.
If you can't beat them, make them irrelevant.
Nope. The major security issue is a cross-site scripting vulnerability. Basically, you craft a special URL to /seearch.pl and steal the password of those who click on the link. This is just a shitstorm of AC spam DDOSing the site. (I thought FormKeys prevented this?)
> You think that's bad? Try working at an isp and have people yelling at you and blaming you for ;).
> breaking hotmail
>
> ahh the joys of the internet. bx
You too, huh? I even get the odd like "Why did the Internet screw up Word?" or my ever favorite "The Internet caused my printer to stop working, so when can you fix it?"
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
but a reasonable chance of food on the table. Lousy but public health care. Public education. Tyrranical but secular governemnt which allows women to go to school and become professionals. And (bonus) not being blown up on the way to school. In time, with patience and some work perheaps a peaceful, bloodless, transition to less totalitarian form of government ala Eastern Europe.
Liberated Iraq = democracy offering freedom for ANYONE to build a political party and candidates to sell for market value or give away free (whatever the the party boss desires)...
You mean "anyone with sufficient cash and corporate support" ala USA. Wholesale theft of Iraq's resources by the Western corporations. Near total destruction of public infrastructure. 60% unemployment. 15% flat tax unable to generate revenues to cover even the most basic necessites of government. Laws dictated and set in stone by the occupiers (new government is not allowed to reverse these). 5-mile long lineups for gas in one of the largest oil producing counties. 100% prospect of either Islamic theocracy or civil war. Loss of rights for most females. Higher chance of getting your ass blown-off or shot-off then getting education. Non-existant medical care. Arrogant foreign army complete with mercenaries, "shoot first, ask questions later" checkpoints, cluster-bombing of cities and even modern rendition of concentration camps, gearing itself to stay in Iraq for foreseeable future (building permanent, hardened bases).
If I were an Iraqi, the choice would be rather easy: Saddam as bad as he was, was an Iraqi problem and Iraqis would have dealt with him sooner or later, thank you very much, and truth be told the "liberation" will be spelled "conquest" in Arabic for generations of Iraqis to come.
Also note that the assault on social foundations of Iraq is totally consistent with the philosophies US-led band of Christian-capitalist fundamentalist ideologues. It is part of their agenda and was indended to demonstrate that zero-government inteference, dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest capitalism will produce miracles in the "new" Iraq. And all they had to do it is to kill 100,000 people (after starving to death another 500,000 earlier).
You forgot to mention.
How Saddam came to power, after trying to overthrow the Iraqi covernment he lived in exile for many years, later to lead the iraqi people in the to overthrow the government (put inplace by the UK) and to become leader (a bit like old castro).
He then privatised all the oil and feed the money back into the country, oh and killed a few people kerds complaining)
He then spent a lot of money on himself (like which leader doesn't) everyone else and started to rebuild the wonders of the world.
Not to bad for a rebel milletry leader, well a lot better than the current lot.
Incidently Saddam allegedly killed 400,000 kurds in 10 years, the current death rate estimated as upto 100,000 in 3 years.
Bush also has mass graves to his name, just look out side any Texas prison.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I forgot to mention a lot of things, these were just what I was able to come up with in 5 seconds flat off the top of my head. The complete list is so long that it would probably take a post longer then Slashcode allows.
Democracy, making sure you can shit on 49% of the people to butter up the other 51%.
Look at the UK if you don't believe me, Blair will get elected next time round, he's done the sums, he knows the liberals don't have a chance, so he shits on them. ID cards, dead people having rights (if you trying to shag them!), anti campaigner laws etc....
They also know that the snobby Conservative voters are too few, so he shits on them too.
Now he's just left with the 25k-60k income bracket people who just care about going to work and not having to see children on the way home and a few right wingers.
fortunately that's about 55% of the population and he's got them buttered up a treat.
The only possible chance we have of change of government is if some of those 25k-60k earners switch to Conservative and we get a hung election forcing in Proportional representation.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Since it is important, I will follow you this far off-topic.
I personally believe that religions are like computer and real-life viruses. Their only preorogative is to use their hosts to spread. The wellbeing of the host is not important to religion, the propagation of the desease is. Real-life viruses use various propagation mechanisms but the most similar would be an e-mail bourne computer virus that promises something a victim might want in order to get him/her to activate the payload. Similarily, religions offer to fullfil basic needs of sentient beings which are hard to satisfy otheriwse (explanations of their origin, universal "truths" about universe, simple rules to follow in daily life to achieve immortality, simple and reassuring explanations of exceedingly complex things etc etc) and as soon as the victim takes the bait, his/her mind is devoured and digested by the virus and quickly turned to its true purpose: further propagation. Loss of objectivity and acquisition of feverent zeal are just some of the effects of this destruction which are beneficial to the virus in its quest to spread.
Some clever charlatans, seeing this power, made minor modifications to the virus code in order to use it for their own ends. Enter organised, institutional religion and all the fun that follows, Inqusitions, Crusades, Witch-hunts, Jihads and reclamations and ethnic-clensing of "God-given" lands being just the tip of the iceberg.
How to cure this? Well, its tough. A mind once corrupted in-depth is damaged beyond repair I am afraid. It loses ability to function on its own, the virus having replaced critical thought functions. Your guess is as good as mine here but putting the victim into a logical-loop is not going to solve the problem, logic and reason being the first victims in the desease's progression. They will just "rationalize" it away somehow and move on merilly with the parasite clinging to their brain.
P.S. I normally do not answer ACs because Slashdot does not email me when they post replies.
Thanks, I still hope to find a cure one day, even if that cure is preventing anyone else from getting infected.
Evey person who steps of the fence away from the 'control' of religion is a person saved.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it...
Why was there such a big push to get software patents through in the EU before the end of the year, why was the dutch deligation applying pressure on Poland to accept software patents without a vote?
Could it have been related to the judgement date of the Microsoft appeal?
Through court actions, Microsoft postpones having to give more information about their protocols, until Software Patents are safely in place, to turn their punishment into a completely ineffective slap on the wrist.
Saddam Hussein = totalitarian dictatorship not giving anyone any rights only Saddam has power, absolute and totally corrupted power...
True. And Saudi Arabia = totalitarian dictatorship (an "absolute monarchy") without giving anyone any rights (especially women), only the royal family has power, absolute and totally corrupted power... And Burma (only there, it's a military dictatorship), and North Korea (only there, unlike Saddam, they maybe have weapons of mass destruction, and in any case have the ability to flatten Seoul with conventional artillery), and Belarus (a country best known for shooting down and killing the pilots of an off-course hot-air balloon), and any other of a dozen or so countries. What was your point exactly? That the USA should immediately invade all of them?
come on /.ers http://thankpoland.info/ is still up - go and sign your name.
I wish you good luck but this is indeed a tall order to fill. As you certainly know, religions are very successful and virulent deseases. I think the major enabling problem is that our evolution is a random process focused on making our species more "succesful" in spreading (the same brain-dead objective the evolutionary process of the virus has) and is not influenced adversly by propagation of religion. Thus no "natural" defenses exist. As long as the religion is not interfering too badly with reproductive cycle, the evolutionary process does not get involved.
So in order to immunize people against religion, you would have to find a mechanism that allows for raltional, science based world view to be somehow emotionally and psychologially sufficient for everyone. Unfortunately, people who are capable of supporting that position without a failure when faced with traumatic experiences are far and few between. Again, it is my personal speculation that further evolution of human consciousness might not be driven by a darwinian process but by our decisions to augment our minds by either biological or mechanical means. This would introduce new capabilities and perheaps eliviate the failure modes that allow religion and other assorted deseases to consume our minds.
Why must it have to be such a courageous act? Shouldn't it be more an act of common sense?
I don't think abolishing religion is the way to go. Religion seems to be a simple case of hit or miss. If you apply religion wrong, then it leads to problems. Some religions are quite specific, find one with specifics that match what you believe in. Doing away with religion will only make other problems.
I would like to take the time to thank you personally for resisting pressure from special-interest groups with a vested interest in pushing software patents. Software patents are slowly stifling our industry, and by extension muddling and retarding our technological advancement as a species.
The original aim of a patents was to grant a *temporary* monopoly, for the express purpose of encouraging innovation by allowing inventors to bring a new invention to market without having to worry about plagiarism. Software is not an invention - is is more akin to an idea, which was expressely *not* patentable for most of the history of patents.
The US has (relatively) recently begun to allow the patenting of ideas - software algorithms, "features" of software, even "business models"(!), and this has almost completely co-opted the patent system from an inventor support mechanism to a business weapon - "You do what we want or we'll sue for infringement". This was never the intention of patents, and patenting of ideas instead of inventions has mired the entire US technology industry in litigation, and made independant developers afraid to write useful software in case it infringes upon a patent they didn't even know existed.
Add to this the US patent office's blatant inability to understand the industry, and terrible track-record on prior art (eg, people were able to successfully patent the idea of "hyperlinks", even many years after the web became mainstream), and you have a situation where patents are issued almost carte-blanche, and it is left up to the legal system to decide who owns what (which rapidly becomes a case of "who can afford the most justice"). If it's left up to the legal system to decide on patent claims, invariably the richest company or individual will succeed, and many (most?) smaller developers and inventors are simply priced out of the market - they can't afford to defend their patents, so they aren't worth the paper thay're written on.
This devalues patents as a concept unless the holder can afford hundreds of thousands of pounds of legal fees. This leads invariably to a type of techno-feudalism: the rich and powerful can own all the (intellectual) property they desire, while the poor have no rights they can defend - their right to own (intellectual) property exists in name only.
I doubt this gigantic and unequal division between the "haves" and the "have-nots" is the *intended* consequence of a decision to allow software patents, but it is the inevitable one.
Many thanks for taking the time to read this letter, and please continue to resist pressure from all those who would co-opt our laws and statutes for their own selfish ends. You have the support of the technology worker (even if not the technology companies) behind you.
<name>
<e-mail address>
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
You're generalizing religion, I think you only mean Christianity. Not all religions say faith conflicts with reason, you know. If you find that there's a mismatch I think that's a divine sign that you should cross that religion out as it fails the reality test.
You sir are a prime example of what I am talking about. What religion are you? Christian? Muslim? If so, in case you didnt notice a Christian White House is waging a religious crusade on a muslim Arab nation. Who in turn wage Jihad on the USA. Jewish? I am certainly impacted by actions of religious fanatics in Israel as well as Zionists in my own country. Would you care to be more specific because it is without fail a hallmark of nearly every religion to stick its nose into other people's affairs and try to dictate laws for them.
We never mocked them.
(Some) Americans mocked Bush, not Poland, for calling the group he had formed a 'strong' coalition. When it was anything but. 1,000 brave Polish men and woman are in Iraq. 120,000 brave American men and woman are in Iraq.
Some of us, while deeply respecting the sacrifices both nation's soldiers have made, do not call that a 'coalition. Alteast, not anywhere(anywhere!) near the same level the first gulf war had. THAT was a coalition.
If a religion is not attempting to "explain" things dear to people's hearts in a way that must conflict with, or evade empirical evidence and then does not proceed to dictate "laws" for converts to obey, it probably does not fit the bill for being a religion. I am however willing to be enlightened. Please elaborate.
Put it this way, if your religion is based on 'good' and 'evil' then everything must be either good or evil.
Your religion must be good, well, because it's yours, anything that disagrees must be.. well.. bad and so should be stopped.
If on the other hand you don't have a religion or your religion isn't based on good and evil then you can have many shades of grey, someone else could be more right etc...
This isn't to say all problems would be solved, but a lot of the problems we have wouldn't be so great.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Bravo! Too bad the mainstream thought is still so much b-s and you re-elected the fraudster&killer.
Do you believe in this religion[Sikh], or this one [jewish],or this one [christian] or this one[muslim].
If so then it affect me and millions of others every single day of my life.
If not then well done, I'm glad you found 'God' on your own.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I have a friend who's from Poland, but he's been away from writing anything in Polish for six years, so I think it's probably better if someone else does the translation and I ask my friend only to double-check the translation for accuracy.
-- Norbert Bollow (contact information here)
Under construction: swpat politics overview article
It was as violent and as bloody as it goes. New cemeteries we made to bury the dead. The sound of machine gun fire was in the streets for days. And now fifteen years later the old comunists are still ruling as the new rich.
That I am afraid depends on the depth of the conviction. If the religion has only superfluous influence (people tend to self-delude themselves into fancying themselves pious to soothe their minds) it is probably possible to break its hold. I am willing to conceed you this point: human minds are exceedingly complicated and the full effects of religion on them are, I am sure, very complex. Having said this however, I am afraid that significant majority of the infected is capable of doing what I described, i.e. coming to depend on the religion to do all their "thinking" for them.
You're a fucking idiot who doesn't respect other's beliefs? My belief in God doesn't effect you in the least, so how about you back off and stop trying to call me mentally damaged?
OK, I know people who believe can believe strange and illogical things, but that is ridiculous. Do you honestly believe that people who have faith don't influence the lives of the atheists and the agnostics? How about the hundreds to thousands of "morally" inspired laws which make no sense from a non-believer point of view, like the ban on gay marriage? How about the requirement to hold a christian-style faith (or pretend you do) before you can credibly be elected to a national public office (name me a muslim or openly agnostic senator, I dare you)? How about the immediate social stigma you gather in tons of circles when you admit to not believing in God?
It would be easier to have respect for the faithful if they had any respect for the non-faithful. As it is, a lot of faithful not only do not respect those who choose not to hold that faith, but actively attempt to enforce religious dogma onto those people. Like trying to replace the reality of evolution with the dogmatic fiction of creationism. (This, incidentally, is where the "mentally damaged" remark comes from. Denying reality is a hallmark of the insane.)
Let's be honest here, you're not being true to your faith if you're not actively trying to turn people who don't believe (since almost all faiths require this). So the better a believer you are, the more likely you are to be affecting the life of the person you replied to.
What is really funny about this, is that they contradict the same believe system they swear by. I'm specifically speaking of Christians here, the weird evangelicals who are taking control over this country.
I'm really tired of seeing these idiotic bumper stickers proclaiming their love for Jesus as if you don't, you don't deserve to live. From what I know, what Jesus tried to tell people was to have love in your heart, be tolerant, inclusive, care for others, etc. These people are anything but that. They have nothing but deep hate for those who aren't clone of themselves, they are extremely intolerant, highly exclusive, and don't give a fuck about you unless you belong to the same clan as they do.
This, by the way, is a verbatim description of the radical Muslims they so specially hate.
Go figure...
How about I'm not part of a religion? I don't care whether I'm being "faithful." I know there is a God. However, what I said still stands true. MY belief in God does not effect you in the least.
Wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.
Way to go trying to categorize me, I'm none of those. I believe what I believe and I don't need others to tell me. You are an ass who can't accept the fact that my beliefs do not effect you in the least. Maybe Bush's do, but mine don't.
Wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.
1: How do you know there is a God?
Or to put it another way, if no one had ever told you about 'God' would your belief be the same?
2: Given your belief in God I can only assume that you try do things you believe that your God would find acceptable, things you believe to be moral. Do your actions truly effect no one and nothing else?
3: If that is the case then why do you believe in a God, just believe in yourself as that's what you appear to be doing. Next time put I believe in myself in the religion box, not God.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Iraq has nothing to do with "terrorism". "Terrorism" is just Bush's excuse to do whatever he wants, wherever he wants. "If you don't agree with us, you're supporting terrorism."
What's worse is that many people fall for it.
The Tlog - a technology blog
Right. You are a member of a one-man, non-violent, non-expansionist religion which does not require of its disciples to convert hethens nor to preach its tennents to anyone. I am dying of curiosity as to its name. Is the holy book written yet or are you working on it?
What is God:
God is something that has an influence over us but
At the same time we must have free will.
The Christmas challenge is, give me 1 example where this is true.
An explanation of my criteria.
1: If God does not effect us then there is no point in God in a present tense.
2: If we do not have free will then there is no point in belief.
If you think my criteria are wrong then please give me your description of God.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
You'll never understand. Go back under your bridge.
Wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.
I'm sorry, I've just read you post properly.
I believe you are using the word God when you really mean 'something I don't know'
Don't use the word God, next time admit that you don't know.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
1: How do you know there is a God? Or to put it another way, if no one had ever told you about 'God' would your belief be the same?
Faith is believing without proof. And I honestly don't know if I would believe in God if I had never heard of Him before.
2: Given your belief in God I can only assume that you try do things you believe that your God would find acceptable, things you believe to be moral. Do your actions truly effect no one and nothing else?
No, I do what *I* find acceptable. I believe I'm a good person and I do good things. Of course, everyone's actions affect other people, but that wasn't my point.
3: If that is the case then why do you believe in a God, just believe in yourself as that's what you appear to be doing. Next time put I believe in myself in the religion box, not God.
I believe in God because I don't believe the universe can just exist.
Understand: I don't care what you believe. I really don't. You and IgnorusMaximus or whatever don't need to be asses to say you don't believe in God. You still need to respect, or at least not be hostile, to someone else's views.
Wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.
So, you believe that the universe just can't exist, but that God can.
Belief is not knowing if you believe then you are saying you do not know.
I'm not being hostile, I'm trying to help. If you accept that the universe is not the work of God maybe you'll try to find out what the universe is which can only be a 'good' thing.
I wouldn't say you believe in 'God' in the sense that most people say that they believe in God and I wouldn't have a problem if everyone that believed in god had the same kind of belief as you have.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
But of course I will never understand your particular flavour of delusion. These types of things are always personal affairs. But there are some general patterns that apply here since this particular path was traveled by countless victims before you. Like for example:
- How did you come to know "God"?
- What gave you the idea that it/he/she is called "God"? Why not "Bob"?
- Is it really "God" as in omnipotent, omnipresent creator of Everything? Or perheaps an out-of-work, lesser deity pretending to be Him (Her? It?) while the real boss is out golfing?
- How does your deity communicate with you? Since it appears it is your personal religion and thus you must have a direct pipeline. I certainly hope the answer isn't "voices" or similiar otherwise I would suggest immediate medical attention.
- What is the moral code your deity dictates? How do you propose to carry it out without affecting others, like me for example? (A point of note here: your religion has already and directly affected me: I am wasting my time trying to talk sense into you after you made your assertion to the contrary)
The list goes on. Allthough thats unlikely, I hope this little sample illustrates to you the extent of your folly.All you need is to win by 1 vote in more seats than your opponents. You could in theory win an election with a very small percentage of the vote. Labour are likely to get a healthy parliamentary majority with less than 40% of the vote.
Parties like UKIP are a concern for the tories. In effect, the tories could lose a seat because their vote gets split two ways. So, even though the majority don't want a party, they get in.
It's why first-past-the-post is a terrible system, and for all it's faults, PR is better.
I believe that the next election will spark a massive public debate about this, because the number of fringe parties (eg UKIP, Greens, socialists, BNP) will start making a difference.
If people really want to make a difference, help to fund a fringe candidate who works in the same sphere as your opponent and help to split the vote.
Also, you don't even have to butter up the other 51%. They only have to be fractionally in preference to you than the rest. Personally, I can't really stand any of the parties. Show me a libertarian party, and I'll vote for them.
Our politics are good at geting things apart, nice they found good use for this "skill" :)
Well, then, what you say is wrong. I do believe in God. Perhaps others believe in something else.
Wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.
Yes! Me and old Uncle Saddam. We had this deal going where I supplied chicken entrails and he sent me diamonds. Oh why did it have to end? Oh the humanity!
"health care"? Yea, if you were a party member
Really? Nooo!
"education"- indoctination since Saddam was the only person ever allowed to be discussed
Right
tell me ANY dictatorship that has been overthrown without any blood being shed
Sure: Poland, Chechoslovakia, Hungary, East Germany, etc etc.
"theft of Iraq resources"..Bullshit. Iraq owns it's oil and sells it to whomever pulls up to the terminal at Basra.
All Iraqi industries (with exception of oil) were privatized by the order of Vice Roy Bremmer just before his departure. Furthermore, he set rules in place that: allow 100% foreign ownership of all Iraqi companies, allow 100% of profits to be taken out of the country and even though oil fields were exluded, the oil terminals and processing wasnt, a consortium of CHEVRON and Betchel and several other foreign companies operates these. All of Bremer's rules are set in stone and the new "sovereign" government will not be allowed to change them (including the 15% flat income tax)
90% of the problems are being caused by EXTERNAL NON-IRAQI Muslim fundamentalists who want a theocracy.
I was treating you semi-seriously up to this point but this is clearly a waste of time. Lay off FOX "news" and Rush Limbaugh. Of all the "insurgents" captured in Iraq less then 2% are foreigners and thats according to US Army's own data.
As to the Crusade...
I can tell you from personal references that have BEEN In Iraq that what you read in the popular Press is WRONG. The press is reporting ANY bad news that they can. Iraqi's were in bad shape, the WAS no health care Saddam was siphoning all the money away. As far as foreign ownership of oil, that's total BS, Iraq's own president has said as much. I see the typical liberal trick of only reporting PART of the news..here is the FULL context from http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/article.print?id=2623.. ."The new policy also allows for 100 percent foreign ownership of all industries except for oil, which will remain under government control for the time being"., Notice the policy says ALLOW, not WILL. Iraqi's can buy Iraqi companies, and many ex-pat Iraqis are working on doing just that.
I believe in God because I don't believe the universe can just exist.
I believe in the universe because I don't believe god can just exist.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Sorry, this is off-topic.
Poland's intervention against Software patents is courageous while Poland's support of the US invasion was just prostitution. The supporters of the US objected the war in Iraq and tried to slow down the misguided US machine. Those nations were the friends of the US and they were willing to pay a price for their honesty.
I regard soldiers as an instrument of policy, the guys who have to do the dirty job. A braveness and respect cult just creates the wrong image of their work. Who cares whether a soldier is brave or not, they have to do their job and they do it, not because they want it but because they are ordered so. In communism they had "heros of work", in the US a new kind of hero cult seems to take place. But that's bad propaganda for uneducated people.
That was *supposed* to be a satirical adaptation of the parent ... see, the juxtaposition of an absolute dictator and a party boss ... the government sold to the highest corporate bidder ...
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
there is no cure for the human condition. people are all sick, even those "unafflicted" w/ religion. from the moment of your birth, you begin to die, it's just that some are more graceful, charming or entertaining in their death throes than others. that some would cling to their private aesthetic w/o acknowledging pov of others, of insentient machines (and other missives from reality), of even themselves from repeated experience, is a constantly renewing phenomenon.
let us hope the machines (both of flesh and of silicon) we teach today will deign to let this human nature survive.
it looks like the EU, thanks in part to the FSF who actually listened to what i had to say, is actually going after microsoft at the level where it actually matters.
AOL: waste of time.
Netscape: waste of time.
Media players: mostly a waste of time.
Browsers: mostly a waste of time.
Protocols and specifications: absolutely essential.
Stopping agreements forcing OEMs to only install windows: pretty essential.
US Dept of Justice: time wasters (esp. on not taking BEOS, protocols and specifications into account).
Perhaps you should get out more. Memes, which are exactly the word I would want to use instead of this 'virus' stuff are possibly just as dificult to deal with as real viruses but that doens't mean they are impossible to combat.
As you said, clever people have utilized memes for their own ends.
So, too, can you. Think of retroviruses. We utilize them now, to combat bodily illnesses. You can utilize a meme as an intellectual retrovirus.
When you say that a mind is 'damaged beyond repair' through the action of memes, you are wrong. Unless you are writing of physical damage, the mind has an incredibly plastic ability to adapt.
Perhaps the frontal assault of a logic error will not force the meme to mutate, but that doesn't mean that they don't, or can't.
P.S. All thoughts are parasites.
yr. obt. svt,
jvk
Your parent never said he didn't influence religious people, he only said that your claim that "My belief in God doesn't effect you in the least" was nonsense. And I think he made some pretty good points supporting it.
Of course, claiming that religious people are sick, and religion is a virus, does indeed imply that atheists are superior to others. Additionally claiming that this sickness is not curable means that there's nothing you can do about that. It doesn't surprise me at all that people are not going to believe that about themselves. However, it does seem similar to smoking to me, where people think they do it because they like it, but all doctors agree that it is in fact an illness (called addiction). The problem with such things is that you can no longer trust your own thinking. Realising what that means will likely make you insane, though.
Hahahaha! Good one. You do realise that words are nothing more than their definition? If you have a different definition from the rest of the world, it would be good to start using other people's definition, to prevent communication problems. Which means you don't believe in "God", but you do believe in something else (which I shall leave undefined, as it is irrelevant for this discussion).
Of course I know very well that there are no two people with the same definition of "God", but yours seems to be so far off the average that it would be wise to use a different word.
printed that off and gave it to my christian friends.
Merry Christmas, thank you.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
You make some good points but you also make some stupid ones.
The Iraqis had 4 decades to deal with Saddam. Even after his army was "destroyed" in the Gulf War, they didn't stand a chance.
Even if their land is a warzone, Iraqis are now free. Before you & your family might be publicly executed if you said the wrong thing.
Yes, it's still a mess and if the guerillas don't chill after the elections and/or the withdrawal of Israel from the West Bank, it's going to be years before it's safe.
However, long term peace in the Middle East will make even that carnage worthwhile.
The fact is that the Dutch were pressuring everyone to accept the text of the proposal. This makes me suspiscious, because, as I pointed out in a recent post, the Dutch have become even more America's whore in recent years than the English have. What do the Dutch have to gain from selling out the EU to the Americans? Are they so scared of the Germans and the French and did America make some really big promises about saving Holland economically and politically, or did they just offer to give the Dutch nice old age homes in Arizona?
That's a little mis-informed. The laws and courts in TX sentence people to death. It is up to the state. It happened before Bush was gov. there....and has not stopped with his departure. To lay blame on him for allowing the laws of the state to be carried out....well, that's not quite fair is it? He didn't kill anyone at all....just was gov. of a state that did.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
However, the snake handlers can't accept this. They want to force their beliefs on everyone else. As soon as they do that, it becomes a public matter.
For instance, a great many people have decided to support Bush because he's outwardly religious. *BAM*, public matter, we get to criticize their religion and their application of it.
So here's how things are: if you and your religion can't take even the slightest criticism, I'd suggest you keep it private.
The Iraqis had 4 decades to deal with Saddam.
Easter Europe had 5 to "deal" with their tyrants. Your point?
Even if their land is a warzone, Iraqis are now free.
If you define "freedom" as "free to get blown into bits" I agree. I am sick and tired of right-wingnuts blabber about "freedom". Naked and hungry on a 2-foot square rock in the middle of Atlantic you are also "free" from political opression. Would you expect a Chinese political dissident to take that option to become "free"? Freedom by itself is worthless, it is the entrie framework of free scociety that makes it worthwile and thats what the USA idologue-nuts destroyed while installing their brand of "freedom".
Before you & your family might be publicly executed if you said the wrong thing.
You must be kidding. Seriously. I mean the Al-Qeida nuts will not slit your throat if you do not grow a beard or are a woman on the street not in a burka, right? How about Baathist guerillas when you say the "wrong thing": "I work for Halliburton"?
if the guerillas don't chill after the elections and/or the withdrawal of Israel from the West Bank, it's going to be years before it's safe.
Again, reality dysfunction here: the "elections" will not chill anything even if "successful" (provide your definition of succes here because they are all equally laughable). In the most rosy, pie-in-the-sky scenario, the elections result in Shia-controlled constitutional comission (you do realise that the elections are to elect the commission not the real government which is to be elected in the next elections sonewhere in 2006? 7? 8?..., no?). Following which Sunni rebellion (who at that point will really have nothing to lose) will get massively worse and will require wholesale pacification of places like Baghdad via the Falluja method of cluster bombing. In the ruins of what remains of Iraq, a theocratic Shia government will craft its Sharia-law based constitution. And there are many worse scenarios possible, invovling combined Sunni/Shia revolts.
However, long term peace in the Middle East will make even that carnage worthwhile.
This is how brainless empires a born. You statement here says it all: "I the stupendous, infallable, all-wise UpnAtom will bring to the barbarians the light of my religion and bring them into its fold by the might of His word or the steel of my sword if they refuse!". The religion being: market libertarianism, Christianity, USA-rendition of "democracy", take your pick. You just declared yourself fit to decide that 600,000 people dead and many more crippled and maimed are "advancing" your cause and not only that, a direct and personally perpetrated carnage on their lands is "justified" because it will "make peace in the long term".
I believe it was said about the Romans : "They create desolation and call it peace". Yea, Pax Romana... ugh wait Pax Americana... Who would have thought, they are baaaaack! Under a new managment! New and improved! More hubris! More carnage!
Welcome to the Imperial Club, the slaves will take you coat on the left, would you like a Bloody Mary while you wait? Its made with real blood you know! *wink*
As far as foreign ownership of oil, that's total BS, Iraq's own president has said as much.
That would be the president democratically elected by the Iraqi people? Oh wait, they haven't had any elections, yet. That would be the person the U.S. put in charge temporarily, so take what he says with that proverbial grain of salt.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
How about the people actually living in Iraq?
the WAS no health care
false, although at the end of 10 year sanction cycle little remained.
Saddam was siphoning all the money away
False, he was siphoning some of the money away. Evil tyrant as he was, he considered himself an avenging Arab hero and was a patriot (notice that he didnt run away to a safe country like virtually any other 2-bit dictator in history?). His deluded ideas on how to go about making Iraq better are another discussion.
As far as foreign ownership of oil, that's total BS, Iraq's own president has said as much.
What? What? The who said that? Oh you mean the US-installed ex-CIA henchman whose speeches are written by White House staffers? Right.
Notice the policy says ALLOW, not WILL. Iraqi's can buy Iraqi companies, and many ex-pat Iraqis are working on doing just that.
This is a downward spiral of complete nuttiness. Yes in theory Iraqis can own Iraqi companies but when it comes to a bidding proces between Ahmed the Fallafel-Stand-Man and an ex-patriot Texaco front-man I do truly wonder which one will win. No other country had these sort of rules implemented ever. All require significant portion of local ownership and all require that a major share of profits is reinvested locally. Bremer's rules are the apex of neo-con insanity and make Iraq an exception in the history of the planet as well as the very reason we are there in the first place: to perform an experiment in unrestricted capitalism. All that other hogwash about "freedom" is just that. Too bad children had to lose their limbs over it.
Easter Europe had 5 to "deal" with their tyrants. Your point?
Eastern Europe was controlled by the Soviet Union. The US went to war with them as well.
Even if their land is a warzone, Iraqis are now free.
If you define "freedom" as "free to get blown into bits" I agree. I am sick and tired of right-wingnuts blabber about "freedom". Naked and hungry on a 2-foot square rock in the middle of Atlantic you are also "free" from political opression. Would you expect a Chinese political dissident to take that option to become "free"? Freedom by itself is worthless, it is the entrie framework of free scociety that makes it worthwile and thats what the USA idologue-nuts destroyed while installing their brand of "freedom".
It is funny how I get called left-wing one day and right-wing the next. I am sorry that your government has tainted the concept of freedom for you. For me, being free to make my own decisions and influence those who have power over me is fundamental to my existence.
Before you & your family might be publicly executed if you said the wrong thing.
You must be kidding. Seriously. I mean the Al-Qeida nuts will not slit your throat if you do not grow a beard or are a woman on the street not in a burka, right? How about Baathist guerillas when you say the "wrong thing": "I work for Halliburton"?
Al-Qaeda is nothing but a call to arms. These guerillas aren't the Taliban. They're a violent underclass that every country suppresses (or builds an army out of).
if the guerillas don't chill after the elections and/or the withdrawal of Israel from the West Bank, it's going to be years before it's safe.
Again, reality dysfunction here: the "elections" will not chill anything even if "successful" (provide your definition of succes here because they are all equally laughable). In the most rosy, pie-in-the-sky scenario, the elections result in Shia-controlled constitutional comission (you do realise that the elections are to elect the commission not the real government which is to be elected in the next elections sonewhere in 2006? 7? 8?..., no?). Following which Sunni rebellion (who at that point will really have nothing to lose) will get massively worse and will require wholesale pacification of places like Baghdad via the Falluja method of cluster bombing. In the ruins of what remains of Iraq, a theocratic Shia government will craft its Sharia-law based constitution. And there are many worse scenarios possible, invovling combined Sunni/Shia revolts.
Maybe you're right. I don't think anyone knows for sure.
However, long term peace in the Middle East will make even that carnage worthwhile.
This is how brainless empires a born. You statement here says it all: "I the stupendous, infallable, all-wise UpnAtom will bring to the barbarians the light of my religion and bring them into its fold by the might of His word or the steel of my sword if they refuse!".
My statement is clear (it's the one in bold). Deal with it, not some pathetic argument that you made up. Have some respect for yourself and your audience.
The religion being: market libertarianism, Christianity, USA-rendition of "democracy", take your pick. You just declared yourself fit to decide that 600,000 people dead
Where did you get that 600,000 figure from?
and many more crippled and maimed are "advancing" your cause
If you really need to deceive people as to what I said, then maybe your point isn't worth making.
and not only that, a direct and personally perpetrated carnage on their lands is "justified" because it will "make peace in the long term".
This is your issue, not mine. I am not Geor
Without diactrics (damn Slashcode):
,,pozycji A'' dotycz\k{a}cej ,,Dyrektywy Patentowej na Oprogramowanie''. Przyj\k{e}cie ,,Dyrektywy Patentowej'' by{\l}oby ogromnym b{\l}\k{e}dem Unii
My, nizej podpisani, chcemy przekazac Rzadowi Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej
szczere wyrazy wdziecznosci za dzialania na rzecz usuniecia z porzadku
obrad posiedzenia Komisji Rolnictwa w dniu 21 grudnia 2004 "pozycji A"
dotyczacej przyjecia "Dyrektywy Patentowej na Oprogramowanie".
Przyjecie tej "Dyrektywy Patentowej" byloby ogromnym bledem Unii
Europejskiej.
With diactrics in LaTeX format:
My, ni\.{z}ej podpisani, chcemy przekaza\'{c} Rz\k{a}dowi
Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej szczere wyrazy wdzi\k{e}czno\'{s}ci za
dzia{\l}ania na rzecz usuni\k{e}cia z porz\k{a}dku obrad posiedzenia
Komisji Rolnictwa w dniu 21 grudnia 2004
przyj\k{e}cia
tej
Europejskiej.
HTML codes:
\k{a} = #261
\'{c} = #263
\k{e} = #281
{\l} = #322
\'{s} = #347
\'{z} = #380
Save the bandwidth. Don't use sigs!
Curious, I must have missed that, could you enlighten me what was the last date when US pacified Warsaw or cluster bombed Moscow? The best I can come up with is 3 million dead in Vietnam and some few more in Laos and Cambodia. My history book must be missing a few chapters.
Al-Qaeda is nothing but a call to arms. These guerillas aren't the Taliban. They're a violent underclass that every country suppresses (or builds an army out of).
I countered your point that in the "old regime" people were killed for their oppinion with a clear cut example of even worse oppressive activity occuring at the present time. To which it seems you replied with a line about how Al-Qeida is a manifesto rather then an organisation (I think a few people in a few intelligence agencies would disagree) and something about them not being Taliban, relevance of which is non-existant to the Iraq situation. This is not even a misdirection. Just incoherent rambling.
I am sorry that your government has tainted the concept of freedom for you. For me, being free to make my own decisions and influence those who have power over me is fundamental to my existence.
No, you simply have no idea what freedom means, never heard of negative freedom and are just a spoiled brat who figures that if he gets to go shopping, dream of becoming a CEO and post on Slashdot he is free. Your chances of being able to "influence those with power over you" is slim to none unless you are a long-time inner-circle operative of the ruling classes or come to the table with significant cash.
However, long term peace in the Middle East will make even that carnage worthwhile. My statement is clear (it's the one in bold). Deal with it, not some pathetic argument that you made up. Have some respect for yourself and your audience.
Since it escaped you, let me spell it out for you: Wrong, it does not "make it worthwile" and on top of it, even if it did, which it does not, it is not for you to decide who gets to die so that your delusion can be fulfilled.
Where did you get that 600,000 figure from?
The NGOs running in Iraq during the 10 year sanctions estimated 500,000 dead from shortages of food and medicine due to the sanctions. The Lancet medical journal in Britain run a study which gave a number of 100,000 deaths attributed to the war and subsequent occupation. The number of wounded and maimed is of course much higher.
Unfortunately, hundreds of thousands were probably going to die anyway
Only if neocons persisted.
I despise the Neocons as much as you, but I can also distinguish between them and people who disagree with me.
Unfortunately since your position on this is indistinguishable from that of the Necoons, the distinction between them and you is nil.
(If you'd like to see your name, rather than just the slashdot nick, in the Credits section of the page, you'll need to tell me your name :-)
Under construction: swpat politics overview article
typos fixed, thx
Under construction: swpat politics overview article
I despise the Neocons as much as you, but I can also distinguish between them and people who disagree with me.
Unfortunately since your position on this is indistinguishable from that of the Necoons, the distinction between them and you is nil.
Since you just proved my point, and destroyed your credibility in the process, I guess we'll leave it there.
"The slightest criticism" - It's one of the main facts of my life. No one even attempted to be polite about my beliefs. No, they were assholes and deserve no consideration. "Keep it private" - I do. So leave me and God the fuck alone.
Wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.
Sorry, I forgot about one more thing. The typo was in the original text this time:
Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej
It's either "Rzeczpospolita Polska" or "Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej" as can be seen in the Constitution. In this text the latter must be used.
Good for you.
And I do think that one of the biggest problems is that when people talk about "religion", they lump everybody together - the snake handlers and the rational people. There's a lot of religious people who don't feel the need to force everyone to conform to their beliefs, and it should be made clear that they are not the ones we have a problem with.
Not every religion thinks in terms of absolute good and evil. The Pope didn't declare Judaism or Islam evil, and Islam considers Christianity and Judaism to be deviations, but still contain some truths in each. Buddhists or Taoists aren't out to abolish other religions or philosophies.
Your arguement against classifying good and evil falls into a bigger arguement. Can good and evil be absolute and can we classify them? Socrates was working on this for a long time. Muslims rank everything on a scale from good deeds to bad, but none of them claim to have the perfected formula, only God knows. I forget which philosopher it was who decided that absolute right and wrong did exist, but humans would never be able to nail it. I've seen many followers of different religions who agree with that.
There are religions and philosophies that rely on empiricism and human reasoning. The Tao tells its followers how to go about treating one another, and how to seek wisdom, not what clear-cut right and wrong is.
While Jerry Falwell may see dinosaur fossils as God putting them there to "test my faith," Muslims see no contradiction between the current scientific evidence for evolution and the Qur'an. The Qur'an quotes God as saying "You shall not accept any information, unless you verify it for yourself. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them." (The Quran, 17:36) This is just one example.
I've added the "y" -- thx!
Under construction: swpat politics overview article
And you appear to be an atheist or an agnostic attempting to influence the life of a person with faith.
Your post leads to the implication that it's easy to have respect for the non-faithful while you show disrespect to the faithful.
Oh no, an oppressed believer. Help me mommy, the evil agnostic guy is making me do things.
At no point did I say anything that was meant as a command for religious people. Nor did I say I somehow malign or feel superior to faithful people in general. If you misconstrued my statements as such, that is your problem.
Religious people have never been oppressed by the non-religious. It's so funny that the fear of agnostics and atheists dominating the lives of the faithful runs so strong when religious persecution in the past was always perpetrated by those with different religions.
For the record, I have many friends who strongly believe in God (and base their actions in life on their belief). I respect their belief, because I can't prove them wrong. I just don't partake in it, since I can't convince myself any specific religion has it by the right end. (In other words, I'm on the fence waiting for a sign.) What I do not respect is when religious people try to control the lives of those around them, which happens a lot more often than non-religious people doing it. It's just that most of the believers are blind to the oppression their own consorts wreak on the world, because it agrees with their personal morality, so they do not see it as oppression.
And what was your attack on me other than an attempt to shut me up? Where are the arguments against what I was saying? Seemingly lost in the long list of personal attacks and assumptions about just how much of a bastard I am. If I believed that those who are religious always must oppress the voice of those who aren't, you would be proof for my belief. Ofcourse I don't believe that, but hey, you can keep trying to convince me.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
"If you religion is based on 'good' and 'evil'"
Which part of this says that I only believe religions are based on good and evil?
Good= Something God would like me to do.
Evil= Everything else (or something of the devil).
So, yes the pope can say that some things in another religion are 'good' because they are things that are Godly, he can also say that things are 'evil' because they are of the Devil.
'Buddhists or Taoists', well I would argue that they probably believe all 'religions' are equal. Even though Buddhism isn't a religion because Buddhists don't worship God.
As for Socrates he's not the pope, or Mohamed, or Christ, or Abraham or whoever, religion isn't based on logic.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
At no point did I say anything that was meant as a command for religious people.
If you aren't even cognizant of your own comments, you undermine any point you might have wished to make.
it just makes me sick what the companies in the US put up with as far as software. reading that document on Groklaw just makes me sick. I feel like I gotta take a shower now - I guess I could never be a lawyer. it all comes clear now what the dutch were trying to do before the end of the year - what worms. Why can't these corporations see that using open source gets away from all this lawyer crap - if microsoft's software fails do you really think they are going to accept damages - and I can't believe that corporations buy microsoft just for running office applications - it a sham.
Lots of things happened before Bush, if he openly support the killing of native Indians I'd say that he supported all the killings that have happened before hand.
SFAIK Bush openly support the death penalty so I say anyone killed due to the death penalty under his jurisdiction was killed by bush by proxy.
Just like Bush is still killing Iraqis by paying the Army and 'telling them' to kill Iraqis, he doesn't have to go over there and rip them apart with his bare hands.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
PR is to FPTP
....
like
stopping eating so many sweets, getting a bit so you don't grind you teeth, brushing twice daily, and visiting the dentists is to just popping down the dentists and getting a filing.
brushing you teeth isn't a cure any more than a filling is.
But brushing your teeth and getting a filling is a lot better then having to select one activity.
the problem I have with PR is that the representatives are stacked by the parties.
So,
Tony is first out the hat.
Then all the people that agree with tony.
Then his best friend at school.
Then
Then some random people who have been with the party for a few years and could possibly fit into government.
PR can make the system worse by reducing the Mix of representatives up for grabs.
The truth is that most MP's are put into 'safe' seats effectively being hand picked by the party.
Personally I like the house of Lords because they don't have to worry about short term goals and frequently reject knee-jerk policies put through by whatever government is in power.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
' Show me a libertarian party'
The greens aren't too bad, if you can put up with the terribly middle class names they all have.
The Liberals are better than most and at least there not totalitarian like the Conservitaves and 'new' Labour.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
The one thing lacking in slashdot, compared to good mail/news readers, is thread/user killfiles. I would love to be able to kill offtopic threads, or eliminate posts by specific users (I know friends/foes can do this, but it is not what it is for). I want three buttons on each posting (when logged in): Kill thread (making it disappear from my worldview forever), kill user (never see another posts by this user), and semi-kill user (never show posts by user, unless they have highly rated followups).
Note: I'm not picking on you in particular, your posting is just the start of a massive, off-topic, thread, which I would rather have been without. You can speak your mind all you want, but I'm just bitching about the fact that I have no easy way to stop listening.
'It's almost as though you're implying some sort of inherent status possessed by the non-faithful that grants them an ethical superiority'
Yes, you can join us.
Talking to someone who believes in God is a bit like talking to someone who still thinks the earth is flat, I think that allows us to have some kind of 'superiority' over them.
A religious person (well a monocastic one) can not say anything to me that will make me change my mind, not because I won't to believe them, but because what they say is not the truth in-fact I'm so confident that they are wrong I will disprove everything they say, without having to invent crap like the 'multiverse'.
So, how's your faith today then?
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
OK, maybe it gives you a few rebels in a party, but it's better to have a larger number of parties, even if it means control is at the centre.
Tony Blair can give as many jobs as he likes to his university chums, but they'll still only have 39% of the seats at the next election, which means creating alliances with other parties. Instead, he's going to get a sizable majority.
Those rebels do nothing anyway. They've barely made a difference to the direction of the Labour government.
The greens and LDs may be more liberal in terms of personal freedom, but aren't very keen on economic freedom.
This probably does not warrant a reply but here it goes: it is what one does and not what one says about himself that counts. If you are calling yourself an anti-neo-con and then promote the very ideas you claim to disagree with, that action and not the label you claim for yourself is what counts. Similarly, you can call yourself an enviromentalist and then drive a V8 Suburban from your luxurious villa for which you landscaped 50 hectares of a forest, the latter speaking far louder then the former.
The emphasis mine. So in effect Tao dictates rules of conduct which by necessity affect the non-believers.
The Qur'an quotes God as saying "You shall not accept any information, unless you verify it for yourself. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them.
Unfortunately, the very idea of a God is contradictory with that statement. Unless you are in a possession of a reliable, repeatable experiment which I can perform to validate existence of a God such as Qur'an claims to exist, this very statement contradicts the entire religion to begin with.
I am afraid that all religions are intriniscally suffering from the same problem because at their very core is a set of wild, unproveable assumptions, frequently backed with chickanery and outright insanity, and from these assumptions flow rules and regulations applicable to our real life pursuits, almost inevietably resulting in adverse effects on non-believers and always resulting in some effects on them.