Slashdot Mirror


Language Creation Society Says Klingon Language Isn't Covered By Copyright

Reader AmiMoJo writes: Earlier this year Paramount Pictures and CBS Studios filed a lawsuit against the makers of a Star Trek inspired fan film, accusing them of copyright infringement. In their amicus brief, which actually uses Klingon language, the Language Creation Society lists many examples of how Klingon has evolved, and it specifically disputes Paramount's earlier claims that there are no human beings who communicate using the Klingon language. "In fact, there are groups of people for whom Klingon is their only common language. There are friends who only speak Klingon to each other. In fact, at least one child was initially raised as a native speaker of Klingon." As such, Paramount should not be allowed to claim copyright over the entire Klingon language, both in written and spoken form. The language is a tool for people to communicate and express ideas, something people should be allowed to do freely under U.S. law, LCS argues.

220 comments

  1. Good luck with that! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Just remove the word "Klingon" and you're good to go

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Good luck with that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DAHH YI'DIL

    2. Re:Good luck with that! by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Just remove the word "Klingon" and you're good to go

      Just call the language "Nognilk" and tell Paramount and CBS to fuck off.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    3. Re:Good luck with that! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The real problem here is dysfunctional corporate management. Many CEOs tend to let their legal dept run amok and dictate policy, rather than treating them as advisors. Whenever you find yourself suing your own fanbase, you know it is time to rein in the lawyers.

    4. Re:Good luck with that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, tell them to ffo kcuf.

    5. Re: Good luck with that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean to ffokc uf

    6. Re:Good luck with that! by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 1

      Oracle comes to mind.
      The only reason they still are getting money(from my perspective), are from old systems(up to 10 years old) not yet migrated to running something else. And then the odd case where someone, somewhere in the company, managed to buy a new product that required something from Oracle(a loose end we have now tied up so that every new project requiring something from Oracle, now has the true TCO from their bullshit license requirements when running virtualized serveres, and that's expensive.).
      Their legal and license department, have scared everyone with a bit of brains away.

    7. Re:Good luck with that! by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      No, time to fire them all.

  2. K'Pla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Utegros Vreeen.

    1. Re:K'Pla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gagh me Paramount.

  3. Elvish by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

    Maybe if this goes well it can wrest Elvish away from the Tolkien estate

    1. Re: Elvish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Tolkien actually invented the elvish languages himself, in full. A professional linguist was simply hired by the studio to flesh out the bits that James Doohan made up for the star trek movies. I'd be interested in seeing how that distinction plays out legally

    2. Re: Elvish by saizai · · Score: 2

      Not really relevant to the arguments in our amicus brief. Same would apply to any conlang.

      --
      http://s.ai - http://s.ai/foia - http://s.ai/tsa/legal - https://patreon.com/saizai
    3. Re: Elvish by Chas · · Score: 2

      The other thing is, Mark Okrand (the guy who fleshed out the Klingon language) has sold books on the Klingon Language.

      * The Klingon Dictionary
      * Klingon for the Galactic Traveler
      * Conversational Klingon (this had an accompanying Audiobook with Michael Dorn).

      Unlike Tolkien, an actual effort was made to push Klingon out into the fanbase and public at large.

      Now they're trying to take their ball and go home.

      TOUGH SHIT.

      It's like the estate of L.L. Zamenhof trying to take back Esperanto.

      Also, unless Paramount and CBS actually have an actual "work for hire" contract (on paper) with Jim Doohan, the rights to Klingon reside with HIS estate.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    4. Re: Elvish by saizai · · Score: 5, Informative

      Simple response to this: you can't assign IP that you don't own to begin with. ("Work for hire" is a sort of presumptive assignment doctrine.)

      Our argument is that a language *can't* be copyrighted at all in the first place, so it doesn't really matter who made it or what contracts they had.

      Of course, the *books* can be copyrighted, and the movies, and the scripts, etc. And they can use trademark to control what's "official" (mostly). But not the language itself.

      --
      http://s.ai - http://s.ai/foia - http://s.ai/tsa/legal - https://patreon.com/saizai
    5. Re: Elvish by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Unlike Tolkien, an actual effort was made to push Klingon out into the fanbase and public at large.

      Strange, I know more people speaking elvish than people speaking Klingon. Funnily they dress as Klingons on fan conventions ... weird world.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re: Elvish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called "infiltration tactics".

    7. Re: Elvish by Teun · · Score: 1

      Or don't call it a language.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    8. Re: Elvish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What, are you Klingons or Feringi?! Just declare war on Paramount. This is coming from a Federation native. Even we wouldn't let someone charge us for our language... Ugh!

    9. Re: Elvish by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      So the studios are actually trying to steal Mark Okrand's work by suing others who are just using it. There is also the matter of allowing use for an extended period, decades without contest allowing rights to end and not copyright because a language is not copyrightable just the content created with it is ie you can not make up a word and than claim copyright on it, especially with regard to close associations with foreign languages when making up words in other languages, just changing definition does not imply ownership.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  4. Can’t copyright a programming language eithe by Theovon · · Score: 2

    There may or may not be patentable aspects of conlangs, but a language is an idea, and you can’t copyright ideas. You can copyright a BOOK on a language, but not the language itself.

  5. Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    " In fact, at least one child was initially raised as a native speaker of Klingon."

    1. Re:Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Billions of children are raised on the delusion that there's a man in the sky who forbids them to masturbate and tells them to hate gay people. And you worry about something innocent such as this?

      First, let's make sure all religious upbringing is classified as child abuse, then think about whether some nerdy shit is actually harmful.

    2. Re:Child abuse by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Informative

      The father was featured in a documentary I saw a while back, but I can't remember which one. Anyway, he taught his daughter Klingon from birth and she picked it up easily and quickly, as an experiment to study language development in children and see if there was something special about natural languages compared to invented ones. At the age of about 4 she lost interest and stopped using it. Of course she spoke English too.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *tips fedora*

    4. Re:Child abuse by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      > there's a man in the sky who forbids them to masturbate and tells them to hate gay people.

      [[Citation]]

    5. Re:Child abuse by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      You'll get bullied less if you have a popular delusion.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      No true Christians raise their children this way. I said "true" Christians. Sadly, the media likes to portray all Christians to be like those weirdos like Westboro Baptist Church or nutters like the Duggars. True Christians know they have free will given by God. We are free to choose God's path or the path of the world. True Christians love homosexuals and see them as simply people who need to hear the truth about Jesus and that He has a better way for them. I understand I will likely be flamed for this post, but that's OK. I'm a Christian. I have free will and I hate no one. I'm a sinner and I fall short everyday, same as you. Non-Christians may not understand what faith is and that's OK. You are free to believe as you will. Free will is there for all of us.

    7. Re:Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Genesis 38:8-10
      Leviticus 18:22

    8. Re: Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hogwash. True Christian vs non true Christian is arguing semantics. As both put their faith in a fairy tale that offers contradicting evidence, it's ludacris to try and say one is more rational than the other because one adheres to the fairy tale in a literal way and the other draws inspiration from it. In this case one is just less delusional than the other.

    9. Re:Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

      But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit!"

      Thanks to George Carlin for this response.

    10. Re: Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      I'm not going to argue with you over what you may believe. Know this: there is an afterlife. Every single ethnic group believes in the afterlife in some form or fashion. If you believe you're destined only for the worms when you're tossed in the dirt, that's your prerogative. What will you do if you're wrong? That's the thing. Even if I'm wrong, I've patterned my life in a way that shows compassion, love, and a helpful attitude towards others and I have nothing to fear. If I'm right, I have eternal life in paradise. Ask yourself again: "what if I'm wrong?".

    11. Re:Child abuse by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Billions of children are raised on the delusion that there's a man in the sky who forbids them to masturbate and tells them to hate gay people. And you worry about something innocent such as this?

      First, let's make sure all religious upbringing is classified as child abuse, then think about whether some nerdy shit is actually harmful.

      If I had mod points, I'd upvote this.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    12. Re:Child abuse by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 2

      [[Citation]]

      It's called "the bible", look it up, specifically Genesis and Leviticus. Also check out the Quran, which is chock-full of the same hateful shit.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    13. Re:Child abuse by guruevi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No true Scotsman falacy. If that were the case we wouldn't have laws like the ones in North Carolina and Alabama. Most Christians raise their children similar to Muslims raising theirs; if they had their way we'd all be dead.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    14. Re:Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hats off to the Christian above standing up for what they believe. I'm with him, and agree with what he says. Non-religious people have hatred towards groups of people too - All the guy was refuting is that Christianity teaches to hate gay people, etc. It doesn't.

    15. Re:Child abuse by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 2

      No true Christians raise their children this way. I said "true" Christians.

      Bullshit. That's like saying no "true" slashdot commenter ever uses the word "fuck" in a post.

      -

      I'm a sinner and I fall short everyday, same as you.

      No, you're just deluded. You've been lied to by people you trusted and you accepted the lies they told you, which were no doubt told to them by people they trusted.

      I'm not a "sinner", because "sin" is an "offense against god", and you can't offend that which does not exist.

      I may or may not "fall short" sometimes, but it's not because of a fairy tale about some woman being convinced to eat a piece of fruit by a talking snake in a magical garden.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    16. Re:Child abuse by silas_moeckel · · Score: 2

      You get bullied less if you stand up to the bullies from the start.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    17. Re:Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I had mod points, I'd upvote this.

      Yeah, but then you wouldn't able to post banal comments on having mod points.

      Try to stay on topic... Nobody cares about religion

    18. Re: Child abuse by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Every single ethnic group believes in the afterlife in some form or fashion.

      At one time, every single ethnic group believed that the Earth was flat. Turns out they were wrong.

      -

      What will you do if you're wrong?

      Ahhh, Pascal's Wager, the lamest of all "arguments" to believe in magical fairy tales.

      If I'm wrong, I'll get to hang out with all the cool people- Jimi Hendrix, Christopher Hitchens, most of my friends, family, and lovers, Janis Joplin, Carl Sagan, Bertrand Russell, Douglas Adams, Woody Allen, Mick Jagger, Kevin Bacon, Richard Burton, George Carlin, Jeremy Clarkson, Jimmy Carr, Bruce Lee, Orson Welles, Robin Williams, David Gilmour, Charlie Parker, Steve Wozniak, etc etc etc....the list goes on and on.

      If your god is willing to cast those people into the pit of Hell, then fuck your god, okay? Just fuck him.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    19. Re: Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I've also patterned my life in a way that shows compassion, love and good will to the people I meet. And I don't need any BS fairy tale to make me a good person.

      Regarding the philosophical question of whether you're right or wrong, there is 1 way you can be right, and an infinity of ways you can be wrong. Any system of belief that has been invented or can be imagined constitutes one of ways in which you might be wrong. Because all of them, including yours, has the exact same level of proof and evidence for it's veracity. There might even be one where naivity is punished with eternal torment.

    20. Re: Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      At one time, every single ethnic group believed that the Earth was flat. Turns out they were wrong.

      That is wrong, actually. A few people might have believed it, of course, but the majority did not. In particular not those living close to the sea.

      You should realize that just because these people lived a long time ago this does not mean that they were stupid. They were just as smart as us. And they understood what they saw when a ship vanished behind the horizon.

    21. Re: Child abuse by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      You're obviously an intelligent guy. If you're willing, please read the following two links. It shouldn't take too long.
      Proving God's Existence
      Does God Exist

      Thanks, but I stopped reading comic books and fantasy novels decades ago.

      And if god really does exist and faith healing works, why has god never healed an amputee?

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    22. Re: Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We know what gets tossed into the dirt: your memory, personality, senses basically most, if not all, of what makes you, you. Whatever goes on to eternal life, if anything, is so little, who cares?

    23. Re: Child abuse by wbr1 · · Score: 1
      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    24. Re:Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not the same anon, but, just because you don't think the bible should be interpreted that way, doesn't mean children aren't still taught that. Don't try to minimize that issue.

    25. Re: Child abuse by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Reality is not a democracy. A bunch of people believing in something is not sufficient to declare its existence. Large numbers of people have believed all manner of absolute fucking garbage.

      And to me, Pascal's Wager has to be the worst kind of cynicism. Beyond that, why should you be anything but a decent human being even if you think that when you die, that's the end of the road?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    26. Re:Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christianity teaches to hate gay people, etc. It doesn't.

      Try telling that to the WBC.

      The problem with any religious-based argument, is that both ends of the spectrum are correct. Hell, every single point on the infinite-dimension grid is correct. Because there isn't just one religion, isn't just one flavor of one type of religion. I can find a version of Christianity that proves me right, and you can find a version that proves you right.

    27. Re: Child abuse by MightyMartian · · Score: 0

      Jesus fucking Christ. Answers in Genesis? Really?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    28. Re: Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not the same anon as well, and I'm not religious but I'll still teach my children to hate, fear and eradicate mutants and mentally ill as danger to the stability of the gene pool, including pederasts (called gay these days), travestites, bisexual and crosdressers, and to respect people that undergo gender change operations

    29. Re:Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christianity itself? Maybe, maybe not. But the fact is that people all over the world (call them whatever you like, "true christians" or not) teach their children these things! And this is an incomparably huge and serious issue, as opposed to some nerd teaching their kid klingon. The OP's comment exemplifies the sort of twisted mentality people have, where something is bad because it's "nerdy" yet something else that's similar that's actually horrifying gets a free pass because it's "normal".

    30. Re: Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on, are you really trying to convince us the Christian god exists qouting from the Cristian's fairy tales?

    31. Re: Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Proving God's Existence: Good luck with that.
      Does God Exist: Nope.

    32. Re:Child abuse by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      Tell that to Latimer & Ridley.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    33. Re:Child abuse by Jamu · · Score: 4, Funny

      You've obviously not read it in the original Klingon.

      --
      Who ordered that?
    34. Re:Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention the fact that the "BOOKS" might have it ass backward. All the scumbags go to heaven and all the believers go to "HELL". Heaven is going to be very very crowded. Hell of a place to go forever.

    35. Re: Child abuse by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Wet cleanup on Aisle 6!

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    36. Re:Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was it a Japanese documentary? I heard they're the best. You need a college education in the relevant subject to understand them.

    37. Re:Child abuse by Megol · · Score: 1

      Continuing your reasoning:

      Severely beating ones disobedient children so they get permanent disabilities isn't a problem - as there are "cultures" where a child that brings dishonor to the family is killed, often in a horrifying and painful way.
      Stalking, slandering and threatening women that doesn't want to date/have sex etc. with you is okay - in other places they throw acid on them.

    38. Re:Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I'm wrong you burn in a lake of fire alongside me because you had no faith you only followed out a sense of fear, I might be shown mercy because I may have shown that compassion without expecting a reward at the end,

    39. Re: Child abuse by Megol · · Score: 2

      So transsexuals are okay? Sounds like Iran to me.

      BTW pederasts are male pedophiles that prefer boys. Gay men aren't attracted to children - but sure, there are gay pedophiles too. The linking of pedophiles with homosexuals was popular for a while but just as phrenology isn't used today that is also seen as unscientific (and false). Well unless you are Russian, they seem to like that kind of thinking over there.
      Science have shown that bisexual and homosexual behavior is relatively common in nature just as in humans. That shows that it isn't a danger to the gene pool...

      (yeah I took the bait - but it looked so damn tasty!)

    40. Re:Child abuse by Noah+Haders · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      OMG MUST UPVOTE

    41. Re: Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is the ability to spell correctly a mental illness you are trying to eradicate?

    42. Re: Child abuse by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      > Ask yourself again: "what if I'm wrong?".

      Pascal's wager.

    43. Re:Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure the Klingons wouldn't sully their language by translating that book into Klingon, much less claim that philosophy for their own.

    44. Re: Child abuse by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      > If I'm wrong, I'll get to hang out with all the cool people- Jimi Hendrix, Christopher Hitchens, most of my friends, family, and lovers, Janis Joplin, Carl Sagan, Bertrand Russell, Douglas Adams, Woody Allen, Mick Jagger, Kevin Bacon, Richard Burton, George Carlin, Jeremy Clarkson, Jimmy Carr, Bruce Lee, Orson Welles, Robin Williams, David Gilmour, Charlie Parker, Steve Wozniak, etc etc etc....the list goes on and on.

      Uhhh, many of these people are still alive. Allen, Jagger, Gilmour, Wozniak... also what do you know about what they believe in their hearts? that's what matters.

    45. Re: Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Atheists do not believe in free will. Neuroscience has debunked it.

    46. Re: Child abuse by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2

      Many ethnic groups do not believe in an afterlife. There are many african gods who simply manage a portfolio and have no afterlife. Some don't even have directions for believers except don't mess with their temple or they'll hurt you.

      Many agnostics and atheists live lives filled with compassion, love, and a helpful attitude. I give about $2000 to charity per year, I've built houses for the homeless, sorted food at the food bank, donated money to slain police officer's families, rescued people whose cars had died- pushing them out of traffic, and so on.

      By christianity, showing compassion, love, and a helpful attitude isn't at all sufficient. Either you have faith in jesus or you are not saved. You can't pretend to have faith. Yahweh is omniscient and will know if you are faking it.

      And there are MANY MANY exclusionary religions (including christian sects) which say if you don't believe there way- fail. you are either exiled from yahweh's presence for an eternity of solitary confinement, or to an eternity of torture, or a near eons of torture in purgatory.

      Pascal's wager is a major fail.

      An even if a god created the universe exists, tying that god to your particular values or what body parts can be stuck where is impossible. There's a huge gap between the position 'a god created the universe' and 'that god cares about humans' and 'that god cares where humans stick body parts and whether they eat shelfish'.

      And why would an omniscient, omnipotent being not simultaneously have spoken to all humans all over the planet and kept them on the same religion. The fact that that religion comes from one specific incredibly tiny part of the earth is really good evidence that the people there just happened to make up a religion that became a popular meme.

      And have you considered how many inhuman creatures will outnumber humanity in heaven? Every stillbirth, every child that died before it reached 12 months, every miscarriage and every abortion (by the current christian faith) will be there. These beings which were never humanized, have no language, and have no culture will outnumber humanity by 20 to 1 (conservative estimate, it could easily be 100 to 1). So you'll live eternity surrounded by a sea of non-humanity.

      And what kind of eternal life? Reading revelations, there's a good chance you'd be standing around for large parts of eternity doing nothing but praising yahweh along with the angels. OTH, other parts of the bible strongly imply (and some christian sects teach) that only your soul will be saved- not your personality. That's great for yahweh but not so great for you as a person.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    47. Re: Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, perhaps there's a God, and he doesn't want people to believe in him. Maybe he hates people who eat bananas. Maybe she's mad or bad. Since we have no way of knowing best to forget about it. Pascal's wager makes sense only if we know what this hypothetical being is like. And we have no clue.

    48. Re: Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, technically atheism has nothing to do with neuroscience or science in general. It doesn't even say anything about free will.

    49. Re:Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go look up what the no true scotsman fallacy is. Lumping Westboro folks in with mainstream Christianity is much to the actual fallacy you mention.

    50. Re: Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pascal's wager is beaten to shit simply by looking at all the different religions and realizing they are all just random guesses. Worse is the willingness they show of the religious leaders to lie to their people about being certain. Solomon was a fool, and so was Pascal.

    51. Re:Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some guy taught their kid a language that's not useful. It is innocent and doesn't in any way compare to any of the shit you just listed, yet someone is trying to classify it as child abuse while things that should be classified as child abuse, aren't. That's the point of the initial comment, which should be clear to anyone with half a brain.

    52. Re: Child abuse by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Uhhh, many of these people are still alive. Allen, Jagger, Gilmour, Wozniak...

      Sure, but they'll all die eventually and we're told in no uncertain terms that Hell is forever, so sooner or later I'll get to hang out with them. It's inevitable, if you believe in this particular fairy tale.

      also what do you know about what they believe in their hearts? that's what matters.

      What I know is that they're all self-professed atheists, and they're happy to identify as such. According to christian dogma, atheists go to Hell for the sin of not believing.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    53. Re:Child abuse by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I'm not a "sinner", because "sin" is an "offense against god", and you can't offend that which does not exist.
      No it is not.
      If you want to argue about religions you should know the basics.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    54. Re: Child abuse by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      At one time, every single ethnic group believed that the Earth was flat. Turns out they were wrong.
      That is an assumption that is very likely false.
      For everyone with good eyes and basic concepts of geometry it always was obvious that earth is anything but flat.

      If your god is willing to cast those people into the pit of Hell, then fuck your god, okay? Just fuck him. That is a Christian thing. And the Islam took it over from Christianity. No idea how the Jews see it.

      Most other religions don't really distinguish between Heaven or Hell, but have a common afterlife, that probably contain particular good spots (like Walhalla versus Hel - Hel, not hell). Plenty of religions believe in reincarnation or continued life in the memories of the offsprings/successors.

      Do you actually have religion classes in your country? And what do you learn there?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    55. Re: Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol, you can't even spell "ludicrous". Nerds are so funny, always thinking they're so smart. Not the case. Not the case at all. :)

    56. Re: Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you understand what Hell is if you think there's a happy social club there. Anyhow, just remember that in spite of your angry rants, we'd welcome you. The only person keeping you out is yourself.

      I know you won't believe a single word of this, but please don't say later that nobody warned you. The one who condemned you is yourself.

    57. Re:Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *golf clap*

    58. Re: Child abuse by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      People love to cite that Columbus business because it's taught in grammar school (or at least was in my day), as part of another fairy tale. See a pattern developing here?

    59. Re:Child abuse by Kjella · · Score: 1

      You get bullied less if you stand up to the bullies from the start.

      As a general rule that's fine but it depends on how rational the bully is in his victim selection process, how publicly he was stood up, how vindictive he is, how far he's willing to go and a host of other factors. If you run into the full psycho/ragetard that's going to haunt you for years it'll easily backfire like "Did that little twerp just [act of defiance]? I'm going to fucking destroy him. I'm going to make his every day a living hell." Because of that I have a feeling that advice is the least helpful when it's most needed.

      It's a "common wisdom" because most bullies are just jerks who'll move along to the next easy mark, so it has worked for most people. In fact, it's so common I think you can assume everyone with a serious bullying problem has already tried that several times in several ways. Like going to the doctor and he tells you to rest and drink lots of water, it's probably good advice in general but when you got cancer and need chemo therapy or surgery no amount of water will do the trick.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    60. Re: Child abuse by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      Maybe rappers are marketing spell checkers these days.

    61. Re: Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is spelt wrong there? travestite comes from travesty, not form "trans*"

    62. Re:Child abuse by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      If you want to argue about religions you should know the basics.

      Perhaps it's you that needs to learn the basics. Here's something from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that should help make it clear to you:

      THE DEFINITION OF SIN
      Sin is an offense against God: "Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight."
      http://www.vatican.va/archive/...

      Sin: An Offense Against God
      http://www.sermoncentral.com/s...
      Scriptures: Revelations 13:3-8; 16-18; 20:12-15; 12:10; 1 Corinthians 5

      CHRISTIAN MORAL PRINCIPLES
      Question C:In what sense is sin an offense against God?

      1.Certain sins, such as idolatry, obviously infringe upon religion, but it is not so clear what bearing most immoral acts have upon the relationship with God. How do immoral acts which do not directly involve religion nevertheless offend God?
      2.St. Augustine defines sin as “anything done, said, or desired against the eternal law”
      "...In fact, however, sinners generally do not advert to the fact that their sins are offenses against God or, if they are believers, only reluctantly accept this implication of their sinning."
      http://www.twotlj.org/G-1-13-C...

      Seems pretty fuckin' clear to me. Sin is defined as "an offense against god".

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    63. Re: Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Care to elaborate what exactly is spelled wrong? "Travestite" comes from "travesty", not related to "trans*" in any way. Also the Italian spelling is tra*, not trans*

    64. Re: Child abuse by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      That is an assumption that is very likely false. For everyone with good eyes and basic concepts of geometry it always was obvious that earth is anything but flat.

      Nooooooooooo. Nice try, but for centuries pretty much everyone believed the Earth to be flat. The bible even makes the claim:

      Isaiah 40:22: "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

      Except the Earth is NOT a circle, it's an oblate sphere. A circle is flat, a sphere is not.

      ‘Within its historical context, therefore, the conception of the “earth” in Gen 1 is most probably that of a single continent in the shape of a flat circular disc. In addition the Hebrews were influenced via the patriarchs by Mesopotamian concepts and via Moses and their time in Egypt by Egyptian concepts. It is, therefore, all the more historically probable that the writer and first readers of Gen 1 thought of the earth as a single continent in the shape of a flat circular disc.
      https://www.trueorigin.org/fla...

      -

      That is a Christian thing. And the Islam took it over from Christianity. No idea how the Jews see it.

      Then maybe you should educate yourself. There is no 'Hell' in the Jewish faith.

      -

      Most other religions don't really distinguish between Heaven or Hell, but have a common afterlife, that probably contain particular good spots (like Walhalla versus Hel - Hel, not hell). Plenty of religions believe in reincarnation or continued life in the memories of the offsprings/successors.

      What's your point? So if a lot of people believe in something then it must be true? Are you seriously claiming that it must be true because lots of people believe in it? That's argumentum ad populum, a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it. That's a FAIL. The number of people that believe in something does not indicate whether or not it's true.

      -

      Do you actually have religion classes in your country? And what do you learn there?

      Yes, my country is filled to the brim with all sorts of cranks and simple-minded folk who believe in magical fairy tales, especially the bible. The bible is riddled with errors, so I don't know why anyone would put any stock in it, but people will believe any kind of crazy shit for all sorts of reasons (usually ignorance).

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    65. Re: Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is the proof for free will? Unless you have some, it's a belief.

    66. Re:Child abuse by lgw · · Score: 1

      Leviticus condemns homosexuality with exactly the same strength is condemns wearing a cotton-poly shirt. Leviticus condemns just about everything, really.

      There's almost no mention of homosexuality in the Bible either way. For most of human history, it simply didn't matter what you wanted to fuck, you did your part to raise a family as one of the more important duties to your tribe. The American social conservatives aren't very centered on the bible, whatever they may tell themselves, and most of the big American churches welcome anyone who's likely to donate, regardless of sexual preference.

      The Quran, I don't know about what's written, but it's always the Muslims, not the Lutherans, who murdered a few more homosexuals this week by throwing them off buildings.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    67. Re: Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In short, it's belief in magic. Magic free will daddy, same thing.

    68. Re: Child abuse by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The bible is about 6000 years old. Perhaps less. Written by "flat landers" living on the land.

      Every sea farer knows the earth is not flat.

      The babylonians, mentioned in the bible quite often: knew the earth is a sphere.

      The only idiot who believed otherwise over centuries were the uneducated Christian masses.

      Do you actually have religion classes in your country? And what do you learn there?

      Yes, my country is filled to the brim with all sorts of cranks and simple-minded folk who believe in magical fairy tales, especially the bible.
      Religion classes are not about telling fairy tells, but about telling narrow minded people about religions of other people in other nations in other parts of the world.
      Obviously you never learned anything about Shinto, Hinduism, Zaratustra, Yezidi, Bush Man religions, Anoriginies, Hawaiian or Vikings/Norse/Teutons or Roman or greek or Egyptian or Buddhism (insert random "nation").

      The bible is riddled with errors,
      That is the wrong approach.

      The bible is a collection of writings of various authors and we don't even know who or which groups made that "collection" to form one book from it.

      What you likely mean are: unscientific claims and contradictions from "chapter" to "chapter".

      It helps to read an original bible instead of King Gorges version or the various american ones.

      P.S.
      I'm an Atheist ... but again: if you want to argue about "religious" stuff, you should know what you are talking about. You don't.

      P.P.S.
      My previous post was about if the earth is flat, or a sphere: your idea that only in resent history people figured that the earth is a sphere, is wrong. I don't know about Aboriginees or Bush Men, but I'm pretty sure any sea faring nation knew it as soon as they went to see the sea.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... -- that article is very bad as a Kamal was mostly used for land signs and not stars ... but anyway ... same principle.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    69. Re: Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hogwash. True Christian vs non true Christian is arguing semantics. As both put their faith in a fairy tale that offers contradicting evidence, it's ludacris to try and say one is more rational than the other because one adheres to the fairy tale in a literal way and the other draws inspiration from it. In this case one is just less delusional than the other.

      Not so much semantics as it is a "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy.

    70. Re:Child abuse by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The definition of Sin is what the ancient Christians defined it.
      Not what the Vatikan does.

      Seems pretty fuckin' clear to me. Sin is defined as "an offense against god".
      But you made several citations that show it is not. I don't get you.

      Most of your links are simply sermons from priests ... their interpretation.

      The original meaning of Sin is "missing the mark". Not offending god. Unless you consider not living up to someones expectations is an offense to that guy.

      Like you shoot at a target with your arrow or gun, you either say: hit/score or miss/failed. Sin means "miss/failed". That is all.

      Probably the translations from Aramaic to Greek to Coptic to Latin to Saxon to English lost its meaning?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    71. Re: Child abuse by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      What I know is that they're all self-professed atheists, and they're happy to identify as such. According to christian dogma, atheists go to Hell for the sin of not believing.

      Maybe they'll all change their minds at your funeral, and you'll be like lolwut?

    72. Re:Child abuse by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 0

      1, Neither of those verses say anything about masturbation.

      2. You're quoting a book written by men who (allegedly) claimed they were listing to god. Neither of those 2 verses are proof about a man in the sky saying those things.

    73. Re:Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quoting strawmen arguments against religion isn't going to help you be any more right either. So get your fedora and your euphoria and maybe your plastic katana outta here.

    74. Re:Child abuse by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Where specifically is masturbation proclaimed in Genesis or Leviticus as being sin??

      The story in Genesis 38:8-10 is not about masturbation but about a man fulfilling his legal duty to carry on the family's name and refusing to do that.

      8 Then Judah told Onan, âoeGo in to your brotherâ(TM)s widow, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law [under the levirate marriage custom]; [be her husband and] raise children for [the name of] your brother.â 9 Onan knew that the child (heir) would not be his [but his dead brotherâ(TM)s]; so whenever he lay with his brotherâ(TM)s widow, he spilled his seed on the ground [to prevent conception], so that he would not give a child to his brother. 10 But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord; therefore He killed him also [in judgment].

    75. Re: Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Answer: The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved."

      That's hilarious. God is all-knowing and all-powerful, but he cannot prove himself to us. Well, if he can't prove himself to me, he's no God.

    76. Re: Child abuse by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > True Christian vs non true Christian is arguing semantics.

      Incorrect.

      1. Claiming I'm the pope doesn't make me one. Hijacking a term by some people doesn't make the claim magically valid.

      2. The **only** true Christian was Yeshua. He specifically said that "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." and "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves."

      Clearly we have a group of followers who aren't true Christians.

      3. Where specifically did Jesus preach about masturbation being sinful or hating gays?

      4. **Everything else** is words **by men**.

    77. Re:Child abuse by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      If I had modpoints, I'd 'off-topic' the bit about the bible.

      Came to read about Klingon, not scroll through 100 comments about religion.

    78. Re:Child abuse by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 2

      The definition of Sin is what the ancient Christians defined it.
      Not what the Vatikan does.

      LOL, why don't you take that up with the Pope and see what he says? Or do your opinion outweigh the Pope's?

      Too funny- you religious fanatics ALWAYS seem to have your very own interpretation of what the various bible verses mean and what the commandments mean and what god really means...and every one of you lives in your own little Truth Bubble. Too fucking funny!!

      But of course you are privy to The One True Interpretation and all those other people- they're just wrong. LOL!!

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    79. Re: Child abuse by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Obviously you never learned anything about Shinto, Hinduism, Zaratustra, Yezidi, Bush Man religions, Anoriginies, Hawaiian or Vikings/Norse/Teutons or Roman or greek or Egyptian or Buddhism (insert random "nation").

      It's like, super cool how you think you can read my mind and know what I have and haven't learned. :)

      -

      The bible is a collection of writings of various authors and we don't even know who or which groups made that "collection" to form one book from it.

      The bible was written by ignorant, Bronze-Age sheep herders who lived in the desert, and most of them had never been more than about 10 miles from where they were born. That's why it's so chock-full of ridiculous errors.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    80. Re:Child abuse by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      There's almost no mention of homosexuality in the Bible either way.

      I know. You know what Jesus said about homosexuals? Nothing, not a single word.

      -

      The Quran, I don't know about what's written, but it's always the Muslims, not the Lutherans, who murdered a few more homosexuals this week by throwing them off buildings.

      Be honest- the Lutherans and Christians and Baptists and all the other denominations would do the same thing if they thought they could get away with it, like they did for centuries. They can't anymore, but they did, and they would again if they got the chance.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    81. Re:Child abuse by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Where specifically is masturbation proclaimed in Genesis or Leviticus as being sin??
      The story in Genesis 38:8-10 is not about masturbation but about a man fulfilling his legal duty to carry on the family's name and refusing to do that.

      Well then we better email the Pope and tell him to straighten this out ASAP.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    82. Re: Child abuse by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Maybe they'll all change their minds at your funeral, and you'll be like lolwut?

      I plan on outliving them all, and statistically speaking, I've got a decent shot at doing so. :)

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    83. Re:Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As the story goes she lost interest because the inventors of the language hadn't needed to translate everyday words like breakfast, or toy, or clothes or any number of thoughts a child might need to relate. Even a language without too much self-consistency (like English) can be adopted by a child, but one can't be surprised when it's abandoned in favour of a language that everyone but one's parents speaks.

    84. Re: Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if it doesn't work, resist harder.
      Pepper spray, slingshots and metal pipes can do wonders. So does having a bunch of friends to back you up.

    85. Re: Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's some nice bait there.
      In short: fuck yourself and your imaginary friend with a cactus.

    86. Re:Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you conceded the argument as soon as you made your first brainless non-post, so I'm good, thanks. :)

    87. Re: Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullies don't pick on people who have lots of friends, for fairly obvious reasons. You epic fuckwit.

    88. Re: Child abuse by Evtim · · Score: 1

      Yhea, what a company to spend eternity with; can't wait! [no sarcasm; my list is similar though it begins with Terry Pratchett].

      However, as far as I remember the Pascal wager is [also] logically unsound to begin with. Because its presumption is that we do not know if god exists or not but in the body of the argument [which is supposed to prove you that it is better to be a believer regardless] he says that god will not like [approve] of non-believers. So how do we know that god likes believers? Suddenly a premiss is used that is not specified at the beginning of the argument, quite the contrary - we say we don't know if god exists let alone know his opinion about believers and non-believers. So the argument is false. BTW, I read the above refute in a philosophy book...

    89. Re:Child abuse by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      The Bible also never mentions homosexuality, which isn't surprising, as the idea probably didn't exist at the time. What is mentioned is the (homo-)sexual act of 2 men lying together as a man and a women do. This is, in context, taken to mean some kind of penetrative act (anal) by one man with another. It says nothing about the sexual attraction of either participant.

    90. Re: Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I know is that they're all self-professed atheists, and they're happy to identify as such. According to christian dogma, atheists go to Hell for the sin of not believing.

      Here is the source, from the lion's mouth:

      1. Revelation 20:14-15 "Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire."
      2. Revelation 21:8 "But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."
    91. Re: Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So basically getting bullied is your own fault? Same logic with rape, getting beaten and other abuse?

    92. Re: Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Says internet computer nerd with no degree whatsoever. :)

    93. Re: Child abuse by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      No, the reason it is choke full with ridiculous errors is:

      The got introduced by various translations from and to languages that are not related.

      E.g. "Rather goes a full loaded camel through (a^H) the Needle Ear than a rich goes into heaven": sounds ridiculous unless you know that there is a small doorway in Jerusalem which is so small that camels get unloaded in front of it and reloaded after it has passed. The doorway still exists.

      Or you might know that "Jesus was walking on the water" is a figurative speech for "walking along the beach". It is a wrong translation from Aramaic into Greek.

      The bible was written by ignorant, Bronze-Age sheep herders who lived in the desert, and most of them had never been more than about 10 miles from where they were born.
      And nevertheless the captivity of the Jews in Babylon, their flight to Egypt and their flight from Egypt to what now is Israel: is a historical fact. So plenty of them obviously moved far far farer than you think. Even during the stone ages traders traveled from east Mediterranean to the far north west of europe. Many of them made the journey multiple times back and forth during their lifetime.

      Like salt routes or silk routes at those time we had trade routes for honey, flint stone, gems and other stuff. There are plenty of bronze age men who were smarter than me, e.g. Ramses, Hamurabi to name just two. And looking at your ignorance I assume they were smarter than you, too :D

      The bible is a religious work, and granted in comparison to other religions, not a very good one. As you seem relatively uninterested into religions as a part of culture, why don't you do what a true atheist would do: simply ignore it. Who cares in what people who are infected by the brain disease called religion need or do to justify their believes?

      If I was religious and someone comes and explains me why everything I believe in is wrong I would be very pissed. As an Atheist I'm already pretty pissed if one tries to convince me to come to his "religious classes".

      Perhaps you should take a meditation class ;D to calm down. And please don't think that meditation is a form of religion.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    94. Re:Child abuse by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      There is no definition in the bible that I'm aware of that makes a sin an offense or insult to god.

      After all the catholics invented the "confession" which relieves you from all Sins you are confessing. That is either an indication that god is not offended and priest can give absolution. Or it is one of the ridiculous contradictions you are talking about.

      Interpretation and all those other people- they're just wrong
      No, my point is: that are interpretations as you correctly worded, hence they are not truths. Hence your conclusion Sin is an affront or offense to god can't be right.

      However there are "capital sins" perhaps they are considered offenses to god? But a quick googling dos not say so.

      My claim a few posts back that Sin only means "missing the target" however you can easy google and get dozens of hits. Likely it is even explained on the english Wikipedia article :D on the german it is.

      However, lets stop here ... or at least soon.

      Does not really make sense that I as an Atheist teach you about your misconceptions of christian religion(s), after all: I have only basic knowledge about it.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    95. Re: Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing you didn't bother to look up the etymology of the word before replying. It's "transvestite," not "travestite."

    96. Re: Child abuse by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Or you might know that "Jesus was walking on the water" is a figurative speech for "walking along the beach". It is a wrong translation from Aramaic into Greek.

      how do you square that with there being a whole fucking story about his disciples doing the same thing, and then falling in the water when they lost faith that they could walk on top of it?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    97. Re: Child abuse by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Reality is not a democracy. A bunch of people believing in something is not sufficient to declare its existence.

      A lot of people believe in consensus reality, and then go on to believe that they can change the world by believing hard enough. But that's an incredibly arrogant belief if you accept the first part, because you have to believe that your belief is stronger than that of billions of other people. Mind-boggling.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    98. Re: Child abuse by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      And have you considered how many inhuman creatures will outnumber humanity in heaven?

      They don't go to heaven, because they don't have souls! Only humans were created with souls, everything else on the planet is here for our use and/or amusement! Haven't you read the Bible? It's a blank check to do whatever the fuck you want.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    99. Re: Child abuse by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      1. Claiming I'm the pope doesn't make me one.

      Every MAN, WOMAN, AND CHILD on this planet is a CERTIFIED POPE

      2. The **only** true Christian was Yeshua. He specifically said that

      What he specifically never said was that he was literally the son of God, at least, until Saul got ahold of the bible and fucked it all up. He also said that we would do greater deeds even than his, but we're still all hung up on waiting for him to come back instead of getting shit done on our own.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    100. Re: Child abuse by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      No, the reason it is choke full with ridiculous errors is:
      The got introduced by various translations from and to languages that are not related.

      I see....so the whole bit about god making Adam out of dirt, and then making Eve out of one of his ribs, and then a talking snake in a magical garden convincing her to eat a forbidden fruit which had the effect of making us all mortal...that's all just because it was mistranslated?

      What the fuck did they translate it from? Klingon?

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    101. Re:Child abuse by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      There is no definition in the bible that I'm aware of that makes a sin an offense or insult to god.

      There's no definition in the bible that says the Earth is a sphere, yet you insist it says exactly that. The head poobah of the Catholic Church says that sin is an offense to god, so maybe you and he can get together and work it out.

      -

      Like you shoot at a target with your arrow or gun, you either say: hit/score or miss/failed. Sin means "miss/failed".

      You've failed completely at trying to prove or show that this is what "sin" actually means.

      -

      Hence your conclusion Sin is an affront or offense to god can't be right.

      It's not my conclusion- I'm quoting verbatim from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

      -

      However there are "capital sins" perhaps they are considered offenses to god? But a quick googling dos not say so.

      That is exactly what a "quick googling" says. That's how I found the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I quoted.

      -

      However, lets stop here ... or at least soon. ... after all: I have only basic knowledge about it.

      I think it's clear that you don't even have basic knowledge about it, since nearly everything you've said has been dead wrong.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    102. Re: Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The term is self-defined as being restricted or free. There is a belief baked into it. Free will is the default position, since no belief falls on that side of the false-dichotomy. Try again.

    103. Re:Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean this? (which I got from a single google search attempt)

      http://www.todayifoundout.com/...

    104. Re: Child abuse by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      This is a mere syntactic fault with pascal's wager. You can replace the initial assumption with "whether a god that punished non-believers exists".

      The fault can also be easily explained - he might be thinking of the God that is widely believed in his culture. Otherwise more faults can be found, like whether the God is capable of punishing non-believers, whether God knows if someone is a real believer or not, etc.

      All these faults are not applicable because it is "widely" believed that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and loves sycophants.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    105. Re: Child abuse by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      No by current christian belief, ensoulment begins at conception.

      How human is a fetus that never had parents, has no language, nationality, no experience at all with what it is to be human.

      Many women miscarry multiple times in their lives without even realizing it. Miscarriages greatly outnumber live births.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    106. Re:Child abuse by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Klingons would not play a game that is so ... sedate.

      As for applause, you are still alive - you would wish for more?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    107. Re:Child abuse by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      There's no definition in the bible that says the Earth is a sphere
      There is o definition that the earth is flat either. So what is your point.

      The head poobah of the Catholic Church says that sin is an offense to god, so maybe you and he can get together and work it out.
      No, the single link you provided says that 'some head of the Catholic Church' once said it is. No idea about the current head of the church. Neither have you nor have I. But he is german I believe, I could ask him :D Oh noes, they replaced him by an argentinian Spaniard! Inquisition is back!

      Then again, who cares about the Polytheistic Sekt called Catholic? There are plenty of other Christian churches that don't claim this. And the Churches before Catholicism developed don't claim this neither.

      You've failed completely at trying to prove or show that this is what "sin" actually means.
      Why should I "proof" it? You can google it. Verifying stuff is called studying. Performing your own Studies gives you an Education.
      Proves you only use when you want to win an argument, especially in court.

      I have no argument to win. Either you check my claim or you don't. That is up to you.

      As a hint for googleing: don't quote stuff / links by just looking on the result page. Read the linked page. Because if you search for "is Angelo gay" you will get hits like "Martin claimed Angelo is gay" but "Angelo defeated that claim by showing his lovely wife and beautiful kids"

      Also it is helpful not just to read the first article, but also others :D because -- you know -- the top three link might support your position and he next 25 reject it.

      I think it's clear that you don't even have basic knowledge about it, since nearly everything you've said has been dead wrong.
      No it is not. If you want to prove me wrong, prove it :D
      And a singel quote from a long dead pope is not a proof. There is no current doctrine that "sin" means "offense to god" (I already hinted that you read the english wikipedia article). Actually the current Catholic "doctrines" are quite/relatively relaxed ... if they now finally admit that the "be fertile and rule the world" was figurative and that prevention is fine and on top of that that sex is an act of creation and that it can't be wrong or be ashamed about because "god created the world" then it is finally a religion that is human friendly and makes some sense. Regardless how "strangely" it was founded.

      I think it's clear that you don't even have basic knowledge about it
      As long as I know roughly 100 times more than the average /. poster, that does not bother me :D

      How much you know I have no idea, as you are only spreading hate and seem not to be able to calm down and write a true and coherent sentence. Or calm down and actually comprehend what I write.

      I understand that you have "trouble" with the church or with religions. Probably bad Childhood. Hence the topic of this thread.
      As long as you have trouble with religions, you are not an Atheist, but someone seeking for an alternative faith.

      So make up your mind. Seek a religion you can follow or stop bothering about religions. And if you stop bothering about them but still want to participate in intellectual discussions, you unfortunately have to study those religions. Instead of cherry picking arguments.

      I don't study religions, but I like to read folklore ... e.g. Edda or Vedic mythology.

      How many nations/tribes on the world do you know that report about an mythological flood that nearly extinguished all mankind? Hm? Ark of Noah? And then any other tribe/nation?

      You don't know? Wow ... sure, all those tribes except a few selected ones were still in the "wood age" and not even bronze age savages not moving more than 10 miles away from the home ... as you claimed in a post above.

      Nevertheless we

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    108. Re: Child abuse by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Wow, how dumb are you?

      That is obviously a "creation myth" every "religion" or nation has that.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      https://asabharwal.com/explori...

      http://www.crystalinks.com/mao...

      http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/crea...

      http://www.viking-mythology.co...

      etc. just some random links.

      If you can not cope with the fact that ancient civilizations somehow mystified their origins ... then perhaps you should chose a different hobby?

      Probably fishing? I was told sitting at some water with a fishing pole and pondering how the world works is a quite relaxing thing. You could also try meditation. But as you occur to me to be an angry man: what about rock climbing? As soon as you climb (not in a hall obviously) you are one on one with your environment, does not really matter how difficult. You have only the rock, the sky the wind and if you are advanced enough to "relax" and "meditate" a bit while climbing: bees, eagles, falcons, swallows ... nature. When you are on top of your climbing route you will realize: for hours you have not thought about anything at all. Except for putting gear into the wand, moving forward, looking into the valley, at the sun, at the sky ... and realizing: it is just you. Regardless how angry you are, you can not fight the rock ...

      Probably it cures your anger and hate?

      I dont get what is wrong in your eyes with the Adam and Eve myth. It is a nice story and every child know: it is just a story.

      Probably you believed it was true when you were a young child and are now ashamed and feel abused.

      Sorry, when it was first told to me at age of 4 I knew it was "a story" and not anything other. Probably that is why my mother called me "smart".

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    109. Re: Child abuse by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      how do you square that with there being a whole fucking story about his disciples doing the same thing, and then falling in the water when they lost faith that they could walk on top of it?
      We/I don't know as no one actually knows what they tried to do. Perhaps walking on a plank or something.

      As mentioned before: the King George bible is a extremely bad translation. The relevant passages once where linked to me here on /. and they make no sense at all.

      The fact that "walking on the water" is a mistranslation I learned in school in religion classes shortly before becoming age of 14. It is actually undisputed. My teacher was a protestant priest who spoke latin, greek and aramaic fluently.

      So, a man of faith admitted that some stories are just an "allegory" and explains there original meaning ... why should I not believe in that, in the sense of trust that he is right?

      This is the first hit on a google search:
      http://www.exitmundi.nl/bible/...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    110. Re: Child abuse by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      I dont get what is wrong in your eyes with the Adam and Eve myth. It is a nice story and every child know: it is just a story.

      Not according to the bible and the Catholic church, they claim it is 100% true and it's to be taken literally.

      If you don't see what's wrong with that then I probably can't find a way to make you understand. The fact that it's also taught to countless children as the literal truth is probably also something you don't understand as being wrong.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    111. Re: Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eradicate the mentally ill? You mean murder them?

    112. Re: Child abuse by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Not according to the bible and the Catholic church, they claim it is 100% true and it's to be taken literally.
      Actually they don't, since over 100 years.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    113. Re: Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True. But it's quite possible to believe in magic, but not in God. Which makes one an atheist.

    114. Re:Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And technically it only says things about men who lay with both males and female personally.

    115. Re: Child abuse by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Not according to the bible and the Catholic church, they claim it is 100% true and it's to be taken literally.
      Actually they don't, since over 100 years.

      So the Catholic church says the Catechism of the Catholic Church isn't to be taken literally? I think you and the Pope have a difference of opinion on this, cuz I'm pretty sure he stands by it,

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    116. Re:Child abuse by lgw · · Score: 1

      Funny how everyone keeps comparing the Muslims today with the Christians of centuries ago, as if that somehow excuses something.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    117. Re:Child abuse by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Funny how everyone keeps comparing the Muslims today with the Christians of centuries ago, as if that somehow excuses something.

      Yep. Their "but we're not the ones doing it now" excuse is pretty ballsy.

      Just a day ago, the Pope, the leader of the largest pedophile ring in history, came out and called for "severe punishment" for child abusers (!!) casually neglecting to mention a single word about the centuries of abuse that his own church has committed.

      Pope Francis said, “We must defend the children and we must severely punish the abusers." Yeah, great idea- how about you start with your own clergy?

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    118. Re:Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Quran, I don't know about what's written, but it's always the Muslims, not the Lutherans, who murdered a few more homosexuals this week by throwing them off buildings.

      Give them a deep look, you'll find all sorts of noxious behavior among any number of faiths.

      Yeah, the rest of us won't allow them to be quite so open with their viciousness, but that doesn't mean their hearts are pure.

      It just means we've limited them to griping in the local newspaper.

    119. Re: Child abuse by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Stop running in circles with arguments that don't belong to the discussion.

      Does the pope claim the earth is flat? Was made 6000 years ago? No? See ... but you likely don't want to see.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    120. Re: Child abuse by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Does the pope claim the earth is flat? Was made 6000 years ago?

      No, not this pope, but all of the previous ones did until very recently.

      And the only reason this one doesn't is because now too many people know that the Earth isn't flat. Even after the majority of people knew this they STILL claimed it was, and they still claimed the Earth was 6,000 years old until relatively recently. Many of the current crop of priests and preachers still do.

      They still feel they have the right to tell you what to do with your own dick and whether or not you should decide if you want to use birth control. They still feel they have the right to tell you who you can and cannot marry, and your feelings be damned.

      Sure, go ahead and ignore 2,000 years of willful ignorance and just focus on the last ten years of somewhat rational behavior.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    121. Re: Child abuse by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Not according to the bible and the Catholic church, they claim it is 100% true and it's to be taken literally.

      As a Catholic, I challenge you to come up with proof of that statement. I have never been taught that the bible should be entirely read as literal truth. There are many places in the bible that are stories, so not meant to be taken as fact. Adam and Eve is one of these stories, if it was literally true, who recorded the story?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    122. Re: Child abuse by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      As a Catholic, I challenge you to come up with proof of that statement. I have never been taught that the bible should be entirely read as literal truth.

      Who cares what you've been taught? Lots of people have been taught that it's the literal truth. What makes you right and them wrong? Visit any of the "old school" Catholic schools and you'll find that's exactly what they're being taught.

      -

      There are many places in the bible that are stories, so not meant to be taken as fact.

      Many, MANY people would disagree vehemently, even violently with you on this point. There are plenty of schools that teach that the bible is absolutely factual and is the "inerrant word of god". So again, how is it that you're "right" while they're "wrong"?

      -

      Adam and Eve is one of these stories, if it was literally true, who recorded the story?

      Researchers think that about 40 different authors wrote the Bible over a period of 1,500 years. The story goes that the writers wrote what they did because (supposedly) they were "inspired by the Holy Spirit" (see 2 Timothy 3:16-17). That's how fundies get out of needing an eyewitness to the purported events in the Garden of Eden.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    123. Re: Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are many places in the bible that are stories, so not meant to be taken as fact. Adam and Eve is one of these stories, if it was literally true, who recorded the story?

      I used to work with a woman who was taught (and still believed) that the Bible was literally dictated by God to its authors. She wasn't Cathoilic, though-- some sect of Evangelical.

      When I went to Catholic catechism as a boy, they didn't teach that the Garden story was literally true, but they used it to justify the doctrine of original sin, which made no sense to me. How can a child be responsible for what an ancestor did? Corrupted, maybe, but not responsible for the corruption.

    124. Re: Child abuse by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Show anywhere that the Catholic church (what you wrote!) teaches that the bible is absolute fact?

      Was the good samaritan an actual person, or was it just a story Jesus told to illustrate a point?

      Not according to the bible and the Catholic church, they claim it is 100% true and it's to be taken literally.

      That is your statement I had issue with, please, show where the Catholic church claims that the bible is 100% true and should be taken literally.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    125. Re: Child abuse by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Show anywhere that the Catholic church (what you wrote!) teaches that the bible is absolute fact?

      Instead, how about you show me where the Catholic church admits that the bible has errors, or states that it is not fact, or says that it is not the "inerrant word of god". Can't do it, can you?

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    126. Re: Child abuse by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      https://jhaines6.wordpress.com...
      http://www.nowtheendbegins.com...

      As, in the Catholic Church, the Pope dictates the law, here are some of his quotes as the head of the church. Next?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    127. Re: Child abuse by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      The pope also stated that “God does not exist", so who can believe a word of what that old man in a dress says?

      He also said, “There is no Catholic God", yet he's the leader of the Catholic church, so obviously he's babbling.

      http://www.novusordowatch.org/...

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    128. Re: Child abuse by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Did you actually read what he said, or are you just spouting off?

      He said that there is not one God, but the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is consistent with Catholic teachings. Where did he stray from the Catechism?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    129. Re: Child abuse by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Seems pretty clear to me. Maybe he's the one that need to clarify things.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  6. Children raised on it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Which kind of idiots raise their children on Klingon as their main language?

    1. Re:Children raised on it by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Which kind of idiots raise their children on Klingon as their main language?

      The same people would name their kids after fictional characters. Baby names based on Game of Thrones are popular these days.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3200776/Oliver-Amelia-popular-names-second-year-running.html

    2. Re:Children raised on it by NettiWelho · · Score: 4, Funny

      Which kind of idiots raise their children on Klingon as their main language?

      Klingons.

    3. Re:Children raised on it by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      You really think those are in the same league?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:Children raised on it by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      You really think those are in the same league?

      You haven't enjoyed Game of Thrones until you heard it in the original Klingon.

    5. Re: Children raised on it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It obviously did not hurt her, and she speaks English.

    6. Re:Children raised on it by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      Which kind of idiots raise their children on Klingon as their main language?

      Terrorists, that's who! It's the language they use when they conspire on the Internet.

      CBS/Paramount received a subpoena from the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which issued the following statement: "You [CBS and Paramount] have invented a tool that allows terrorists to communicate to each other in the dark, secretly, and law enforcement has no way to interpret what they're saying. You were smart enough to invent the language, so you can surely modify it so that it sounds just like English if the FBI listens in. We don't need it to sound like English to *everybody*, just the U.S. government."

      CBS replied that this is impossible, so the committee planned to bring them to court and force them to make Klingon sound like English. They were about to be taken to court when the FBI announced it had found a third party who had been raised speaking Klingon.

    7. Re:Children raised on it by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Aside from nerds, obviously - Linguists.

      There was a study on childhood acquisition of language where two parents raised their children as German native speakers despite neither parent being Germanic themselves - all as some bizarre experiment.

      Well the advantage of learning German would be that you could travel to Europe and speak with 'real' people, I guess. But then a kid might equally grow up to attend PAX or Comicon and have 'real' conversations in Klingon.

    8. Re:Children raised on it by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      ..and if they heard you call them "idiots", they would kill you where you stand.

  7. Re:Can’t copyright a programming language ei by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what about Microshaft collecting (by threats) fees for code used by Linux, Android, and just about everyone else? They didn't even create it, it was around when Gates was in diapers.

  8. Oh yeah? by XMadtowner · · Score: 1

    Your mother has a smooth forehead. Klingon lives matter!

  9. Side Note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    FWIW: Klingon is no longer listed as one of the translatable languages on Google's "Translate" site ... no idea when it disappeared.

    Paramount?

    1. Re:Side Note by dlingman · · Score: 1

      But it is there on Bing Translate.

    2. Re:Side Note by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      Really? So what's the score now?

      Bing: 1, Google: 434203234232368037061

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    3. Re:Side Note by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing you got that number from the Google search engine, it seems to have difficulty counting, much like Youtube's servers.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  10. Re:Can't help it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or even just hear the word Klingon, I immediately think of "dingleberry".

    I immediately think "circles Uranus"

  11. Re:Can't help it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What that before or after we changed the planet's name to Urectum?

  12. LCS rep here by saizai · · Score: 5, Informative

    See http://conlang.org/axanar for our press release giving background, links to all the case docs, and a formal legal memorandum from Dentons on conlangs & IP law.

    Feel free to ask if you have any questions.

    --
    http://s.ai - http://s.ai/foia - http://s.ai/tsa/legal - https://patreon.com/saizai
    1. Re:LCS rep here by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Thanks for taking the time. I don't know if you have any insight, but do you have any idea why Paramount is bringing the lawsuit? They have traditionally been tolerant of fan works.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:LCS rep here by saizai · · Score: 2

      Sorry, but I can't comment on that — both because it's outside of our scope (we're strictly in this for the language aspect) and it'd be speculation.

      --
      http://s.ai - http://s.ai/foia - http://s.ai/tsa/legal - https://patreon.com/saizai
    3. Re:LCS rep here by John.Banister · · Score: 5, Funny

      Have you considered resolving this dispute in a traditional Klingon manner? It would be fun to see a Paramount executive attempting to enforce copyright with a bat'leth.

    4. Re:LCS rep here by saizai · · Score: 4, Funny

      I can't comment on any discussions of legal strategy we may or may not have had with counsel. :-)

      --
      http://s.ai - http://s.ai/foia - http://s.ai/tsa/legal - https://patreon.com/saizai
    5. Re:LCS rep here by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      The lawsuit seems to be around the "product" of a fan-fic and I think it's entirely reasonable for Star Trek to own the rights to the Star Trek universe, or for lawyers to argue that at least.

      Klingon itself, however... If you're defending the language as a standalone concept can the defence cite *any* hearty examples of the language being used outside of the sci-fi universe? I saw one video on youtube of the "to be or not to be" soliloquy. But surely that's a demonstration of the quip in the show about "Hamlet being better in the original Klingon".

      What I'm asking therefore, is whether as a test case, someone might film a feature length family drama or rom-com in, say, New York or Berlin as an example of Klingon used as a real-life human language and not as an extension of Trek. Original compositions, i.e. not translating Harry Potter into Klingon for the sake of it.

    6. Re:LCS rep here by saizai · · Score: 1

      Actually, the whole of Hamlet has been translated. Not just the soliloquy.

      I believe we would take the same position in your hypothetical test case, though I highly doubt it would get litigated.

      --
      http://s.ai - http://s.ai/foia - http://s.ai/tsa/legal - https://patreon.com/saizai
  13. Does the intent of the creators make a difference? by hey! · · Score: 1

    Take Esperanto. Clearly this falls under the "useful system" rubric; it was intended by its creator to be a useful system to exchange ideas.

    Now consider a hypothetical. Suppose Paramount produced a movie about an eccentric scholar who invents a universal language. They go so far as to hire a linguist to construct the rudiments of such a language. In that case the language is constructed to give the most convincing artistic impression of a constructed language possible. It's not designed to be useful, it just is, like fantasy weapons and armor which are probably not very practical but in some cases could hurt someone if you finished them properly (e.g. putting an edge on Sting from LotR). Is the movie Esperanto essentially different from a realistically designed fantasy sword?

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  14. Re:Can’t copyright a programming language ei by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    programming language != code

  15. Re:Can’t copyright a programming language ei by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your analogy would imply no written works could ever be copyrighted.

  16. Re:Can't help it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Whenever I run into someone who speaks Klingon, or even just hear the word Klingon, I immediately think of "dingleberry". Just me?

    Well now I will... Thanks a lot.

  17. Re:Can’t copyright a programming language ei by saizai · · Score: 3, Informative

    Can't comment on this directly because it's out of scope for us.

    However, the API cases are certainly related law. I suggest you google "Charles Duan" + Klingon, Oracle, Lexmark, and/or Cisco. You'll get relevant info; he writes well, both for posts and amicus briefs.

    --
    http://s.ai - http://s.ai/foia - http://s.ai/tsa/legal - https://patreon.com/saizai
  18. 'oH wej vIHarbej by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    Daj qech. nuvpu' lo' tlhIngan qa'majvaD tho ghewmey Har jIH.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    1. Re:'oH wej vIHarbej by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Daj qech. nuvpu' lo' tlhIngan qa'majvaD tho ghewmey Har jIH.

      Dude!

      You just told us:

      "My dog has an unusually low testosterone level"!

      Check yourself before you wreck yourself!

  19. Re:Can’t copyright a programming language ei by Megol · · Score: 1

    What are you talking about?

  20. God heals amputees in two ways by tepples · · Score: 1

    God heals amputees in two ways, one in the present and the other in the future. One is by leading smart men and women to develop innovative prosthetics and other means to make amputees' impairments less disabling.* The other, if prophecies in Isaiah, Revelation, and elsewhere are to be believed, is by describing his plan to resurrect the dead into rebuilt bodies to fix up the earth during the millennium after Armageddon. These rebuilt bodies would have the limbs needed for the job. This second bodily healing doesn't happen prematurely because God is busy illustrating a point to Satan.

    * An "impairment" is a problem in body function; a "disability" is the consequence of an impairment on activities of daily living.

    1. Re:God heals amputees in two ways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oooooooooga booooooooooga booga boooga booga.

    2. Re:God heals amputees in two ways by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      One is by leading smart men and women to develop innovative prosthetics and other means to make amputees' impairments less disabling.

      So in other words, SCIENCE, not god. And regardless, prosthetics mitigate the effects of the loss of a limb, they're not "healing".

      That's a FAIL on your first stab at rationalizing the failure of your god to heal amputees. What else ya got?

      -

      The other, if prophecies in Isaiah, Revelation, and elsewhere are to be believed, is by describing his plan to resurrect the dead into rebuilt bodies to fix up the earth during the millennium after Armageddon.

      So, just wait for the Magical Pie In The Sky After You Die, is that it? And that's if you believe in this utter nonsense, which any rational person won't.

      Sorry, that's a FAIL on your second attempt at rationalizing the failure of your god to heal amputees.

      -

      This second bodily healing doesn't happen prematurely because God is busy illustrating a point to Satan.

      Ooooooooh, that makes it all so clear. Your imaginary friend is "illustrating a point" to his imaginary enemy. Why that makes perfect sense, even if it still leaves the amputee without his or her arms and legs!

      It's amazing the contortions that believers have to go through to try and rationalize their delusional beliefs.

      The simple and straightforward explanation as to "why god doesn't heal amputees" is "because there is no god". Once you realize that, the entire universe and everything in it begins to make perfect sense.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    3. Re:God heals amputees in two ways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's also St. Anthony of Padua who did the healing of amputees more directly.

      And the original bit about everyone believing the world to be flat is just nonsense. Coastal and mountainous areas could *see* the damn curves. It's everyone else who had only experienced flat land. Funny that, people reasoning from their experiences...

    4. Re:God heals amputees in two ways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One is by leading smart men and women to develop innovative prosthetics and other means to make amputees' impairments less disabling.

      So in other words, SCIENCE, not god. And regardless, prosthetics mitigate the effects of the loss of a limb, they're not "healing".

      That's a FAIL on your first stab at rationalizing the failure of your god to heal amputees. What else ya got?

      -

      The other, if prophecies in Isaiah, Revelation, and elsewhere are to be believed, is by describing his plan to resurrect the dead into rebuilt bodies to fix up the earth during the millennium after Armageddon.

      So, just wait for the Magical Pie In The Sky After You Die, is that it? And that's if you believe in this utter nonsense, which any rational person won't.

      Sorry, that's a FAIL on your second attempt at rationalizing the failure of your god to heal amputees.

      -

      This second bodily healing doesn't happen prematurely because God is busy illustrating a point to Satan.

      Ooooooooh, that makes it all so clear. Your imaginary friend is "illustrating a point" to his imaginary enemy. Why that makes perfect sense, even if it still leaves the amputee without his or her arms and legs!

      It's amazing the contortions that believers have to go through to try and rationalize their delusional beliefs.

      The simple and straightforward explanation as to "why god doesn't heal amputees" is "because there is no god". Once you realize that, the entire universe and everything in it begins to make perfect sense.

      Hyper-religiosity is a mental disorder.

    5. Re:God heals amputees in two ways by tepples · · Score: 1

      So in other words, SCIENCE, not god.

      People who believe this stuff believe that God provides for his people in part by arranging for science to happen.

    6. Re:God heals amputees in two ways by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      People who believe this stuff believe that God provides for his people in part by arranging for science to happen.

      People who believe in this stuff also believe in talking snakes, demon pigs, towns full of people coming back to life, and a boatload of other magical bullshit.

      I have little or no respect for people that propose unfalsifiable "explanations" as to why things happen.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  21. Going off personal experience... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The one in which naivity is punished with eternal torment I am pretty sure is the reality we reside in.

    You will note the only people rising to the top are the ones who are not naive, and in the case of religion are often the most sinful behind closed doors. From possession of wealth, to sexual abuse, to hiding misdeeds, to brokering deals with groups who their religion tells them to oppose.

    On the other hand the naive struggle at the bottom reinforcing their beliefs into an aggressive fervor because it is all they have to hold onto saying that their naivety will be rewarded when they finally die.

  22. You can't copyright a language by swm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In the Oracle vs. Google Java case, the judge asked the parties, "Can the Java programming language be copyrighted?"
    It seemed obvious to me that the answer was no.

    The definition of the Java programming language is, "the set of all Java programs".
    This is an infinite set.
    Therefore it cannot be fixed in a tangible medium.
    Therefore it cannot be copyrighted.

    It seems like a similar argument should prevail here.

    1. Re: You can't copyright a language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. Excellent point.

    2. Re:You can't copyright a language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The definition of the Java programming language is, "the set of all Java programs". This is an infinite set. Therefore it cannot be fixed in a tangible medium. Therefore it cannot be copyrighted.

      Why is the definition of the Java programming language given by "the set of all Java programs"? Most languages are defined by an alphabet, a dictionary, and a grammar, all of which are finite.

    3. Re:You can't copyright a language by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      They didn't try to claim ownership of the language though, just material parts of it like the code in header files or the API definitions.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:You can't copyright a language by swm · · Score: 1

      The word "definition" is used in different senses. The alphabet/dictionary/grammar are more properly referred to as a "specification". They help you decide whether a given character string is a valid Java program. But the language is not the specification: the language is the collection of strings that satisfy the specification.

      It's like saying, what is the definition of the set of prime numbers. People will typically say something like, "the set of numbers with no divisors except for one and the number". But that phrase is not the set of prime numbers: it is rule for deciding whether a number is prime. The set of prime numbers is this set: { 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, ... } (you know the one I mean).

      See also: This is not a pipe.

    5. Re:You can't copyright a language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it really an infinite set when the computers it runs on are finite state machines though?

    6. Re:You can't copyright a language by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      I don't think your argument would work, for several reasons, even if it weren't factually incorrect.

      The definition of the Java programming language is, "the set of all Java programs". This is an infinite set.

      Only if you allow infinitely-long programs. Any finite limit on program length -- no matter how large -- means the number of possible programs is finite. Unimaginably large, but finite.

    7. Re:You can't copyright a language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does the Java language (the source language, not compiled formats or the implementation of the compiler on a particular OS) have a finite limit on program length? It would be a bit strange if that were the case. Java is a strange language, though; I suppose that if ever a programming language specification were to mandate that source files must be shorter than 2 GB, Java would be it.

      Either way I am sure that the number of valid Java programs vastly exceeds the number of particles in the universe, so OP's argument that the set "cannot be fixed in a tangible medium" still holds.

  23. It is a Good Day to Counter Sue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The outlook for the rest of the week is Rain Sunday and Monday an Tuesday will be a good day to die,

  24. This is a standards issue by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Has Klingon ever been officially released to open source, like Swift?

  25. Wow, raising a child with Klingon as first languag by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    ... is that not a bit retarded?

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  26. Klingon tea for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I truly hope this matter gets settled in a positive way for all involved. Your work is just too spot on to be crushed in such a way.

    Qapla'

    1. Re:Klingon tea for you by saizai · · Score: 1

      Me too. For now, we wait and see how Paramount responds.

      --
      http://s.ai - http://s.ai/foia - http://s.ai/tsa/legal - https://patreon.com/saizai
  27. Re:Can’t copyright a programming language ei by istartedi · · Score: 1

    I'm guessing he's referring to MS's inclusion of code under permissive Open Source licenses, such as the BSD license. The counterpoint is that MS can't "steal" the BSD code, because it's still there for everybody to use. The MS copyright is just for the work as a whole, not the unmodified code. Without further detail, his post appears to be a variation on the common /. riff of "You can't steal ideas, because ideas aren't things; unless we don't like you. Then you stole our ideas".

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  28. Isn't copyright the wrong kind of IP protection? by Misagon · · Score: 1

    I mean, a language is an encoding of copyrightable works, not the copyrightable works themselves.

    If they wanted to protect a kind of encoding, shouldn't Paramount have applied for a patent on it before publishing a multitude of books encouraging people to use it?

    --
    "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
  29. 17 CFR 102(b) by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

    In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

    The plaintiff has to prove that Mark Okrand's work is expressive rather than functional. Since there are many languages, and they use different words and grammar for the same things, the plaintiff may indeed be able to prove this, and they may be able to assert copyright. But it will be interesting seeing them try to do this.

    1. Re:17 CFR 102(b) by saizai · · Score: 1

      Also (a) — no copyright for words.

      --
      http://s.ai - http://s.ai/foia - http://s.ai/tsa/legal - https://patreon.com/saizai
  30. Re:Wow, raising a child with Klingon as first lang by Livius · · Score: 1

    First versus second language is not really an issue if the child is young enough. And after a certain age children will speak the same way as their peers in the same age group no matter what their parents try to do.

  31. Re:Wow, raising a child with Klingon as first lang by saizai · · Score: 1

    In fairness, his wife spoke English with the kid, and he stopped when the kid was clearly rejecting the Klingon.

    (Though also, that would probably have happened with other cases of one parent speaking one language to the kid, while understanding the dominant language used by everyone else. No reason to bother learning a language that is not necessary for communicating with anyone, including the person speaking it.)

    --
    http://s.ai - http://s.ai/foia - http://s.ai/tsa/legal - https://patreon.com/saizai
  32. Re:Isn't copyright the wrong kind of IP protection by saizai · · Score: 1

    Yes. (Not that I think they could have gotten a patent, but that's another story.)

    --
    http://s.ai - http://s.ai/foia - http://s.ai/tsa/legal - https://patreon.com/saizai
  33. Re:Wow, raising a child with Klingon as first lang by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I saw that later. The summary looked a bit weird regarding this.

    Raising kids bilingual in a dominated environment works easy if both parents always talk their primary language, e.g. a friend of mine is more or less german and his wife is french. She speaks always french, to him and the kids. He speaks always german to his wife and the kids.

    It is a bit weird if you see a couple talking to each other using different languages but the kids speak perfect french now (the dominant language) and with age of 7 to 11 speak better german than their german teacher in school.

    A friend of mine learned 4 languages as child around 1936 - 1942, he lived as the child of an archeology couple in what is now Iraq, until it got occupied by british troops during WWII.

    He learned english, german, an arabic dialect and farsi, an persian dialect. However, until he was about 6 he never spoke a single word. The parents thought he was mute.

    At certain event, the persian cook sent him to tell his mother that she needs more potatoes from the cellar, from that moment on he spoke all 4 languages fluently and talked as if never anything was wrong.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  34. translation needed: by cellocgw · · Score: 1

    So, how do you say "Streisand Effect" in Klingon?

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    1. Re: translation needed: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DawI'pu' streisand

  35. Re:Wow, raising a child with Klingon as first lang by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

    It would have been fine if they were raising the kid in the Klingon Empire.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  36. Re:Wow, raising a child with Klingon as first lang by cwsumner · · Score: 1

    ... He learned english, german, an arabic dialect and farsi, an persian dialect. However, until he was about 6 he never spoke a single word. The parents thought he was mute.

    At certain event, the persian cook sent him to tell his mother that she needs more potatoes from the cellar, from that moment on he spoke all 4 languages fluently and talked as if never anything was wrong.

    Some kids do this, particularly if they have siblings that "translate" their needs for them, so they don't really have to talk at first.