In the end, I think who picks it up is what matters. If noone else picks up OOXML and it's as unimplementable as slashdot claims, then ODF will be the standards that others ask to exchange on. I don't believe you are correct. Since OOXML has been declared a standard, Microsoft will claim that their Office suite follows this "standard". Whether it does nor not is irrelevant - large organizations, including government agencies, will allow the Office suite to compete in bids that specify a standard since OOXML is an ISO standard.
No one else will create a commercial implementation, either due to the impossibility of following the "standard" or patent issues with the "standard".
MS will win the majority of these bids, or in reality, continue to be the vendor for these rollouts. We will be in the same shape as now. We will still be asked to exchange in Office formats because that is what "everyone else" is using. In the end, ODF does not gain any traction because MS is already in place.
Either that or government agencies and large corporations:
1) wake up and realize that in spite of OOXML being a "standard" that it really promulgates vendor lock in (which is the opposite of why you want a standard in the first place!) 2) care enough to do something about it 3) Have the Will to defy MS to do so (remember what happened to the government employee in Massachusetts?)
Which scenario do you expect to happen, truthfully?
Maybe in 10 - 20 years it may change, or there may be a "sea change" sooner if we reach a tipping point but I would tend to doubt that.
Shouldn't each piece be an original in its own right? Made as perfectly as possible from the digitally-stored-and-distributed plans?
All one should need for a screw is to draw up a perfect one in a CAD program, translate that to instructions for the RepRap, feed the latter the instructions, some raw material and energy and wait. You would be correct if we were making another digital copy of the device. However, you are making another copy of the device with the one you already have.
Think of it instead like successive generations of tapes. Make a copy of the master, then make a copy of that copy, then a copy of that copy. Pretty soon your copy is pretty bad.
In the RipRap case this is because the tolerances of the parts you make on the machine are at best! just almost as good as the tolerances of the parts used to make that machine in the first place. This error gets magnified as you continue - the tolerances of the next machine are not as good (and thus cannot produce as precision parts). So, while the file still contains the digitally pure data stream a machine X generations down simply cannot produce the required output.
Well, since you appear interested, this is not exactly the quote, and the original does not reverse the kabbalistic meanings.
The Book of the Law (Liber al vel Legis) contains two fundamental verses:
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. and
Love is the law, love under Will To grok the meaning of these properly it is necessary to understand that Will in this sense is not what I want to do right now it is more akin to your drive as a realized being to go about immanetizing Divine Will (that is, creating heaven in this Reality).
However, the second quote is co-equal with the first and Thelema requires both of these or the philosophy is out of balance. However, Love is to be considered under the Will of your Higher Self (which has communion with the divine). For the full second quote goes:
Love is the law, love under will. Nor let the fools mistake love; for there are love and love. This suggests that some loves are not in accordance with the Will being discussed. Perhaps love of money, egoism (self love to the extreme), or other addictions would tend to fall in this category. So you can't just allow love to rule, it must be tempered by Will.
One can certainly derive an injunction against harm from this and it appears more general than "An it harm none so mote it be" in several senses; the basic one being that sometimes "harm" is relative. It certainly harms someone to cut off their arm but dying from gangrene through inaction is a worse harm. Following your Will in this case leads you more surely that following an aphorism.
Not to say that similar distinctions can't made in kabbalism and Wicca, but it appears on the face that Thelema has a stronger sense of individuation and in fact insists upon it to work properly - you must seek to find and communicate with your Higher Self in order to proceed at all.
I'll only respond to one of the pieces of crap that you wrote.. Why, because it's an accurate portrayal of your position?
I'm not sure what 'job' you are talking about but stealing is not necessarily immoral. If I stole food to prevent a starving child from dying, stealing is still illegal but the act itself is not immoral as there is a greater good. You claimed that your use of "stealing" in this thread was morality neutral. Are you trying to say that there is some person out there who is backing up or format shifting their dvd's to prevent a starving child from dying and that's why the use is morally neutral? Because in order for you to bring up this type of argument about the morality of stealing, it actually has to apply to the conversation at hand.
When you get out of your mothers basement you will realize the world is not black and white. I see more shades of colour in the world than I believe you are aware exist. However, to claim that there is no black or white just as much a fallacy.
Because obviously "stealing" to you doesn't have any moral connotations one way or another. I can see this from your point of view, after all you don't even have enough morality not to take a job like this.
So I'm curious if you're paid by the word or the post?
You've tried to convince people that making a backup copy is stealing.
You've tried to convince people that they should absolutely go buy another copy if their copy is damaged (instead of backing up).
You've told someone they are clumsy because they tend to damage dvds and you never have this problem.
You've tried to equate a dvd with a car (hey it's a good analogy on slashdot) in that when it "wears out" we should not deprive the content distributors with their rightful profit$ by buying a new one.
If you're not trolling, and I'll take your word on that, you are a shill or apologist (Stockholm syndrome?). I am actually afraid that you aren't a shill and that you believe what you're saying. That would be sad. At least if you're getting paid there would be some sense to the crap you're peddling.
Again, the only thing I have ever stated here is that a backup copy of a movie, or copying it to your hardrive is not legal in the US. I never said it was wrong, or stated it was not moral, or that the law was correct, or there weren't many reasons why someone needs a legitimate backup. Again I only stated that it is currently illegal since many posters seem to think that it is. ORLY?
from another of your posts:
Oh I get what you are trying to do - I don't agree you are correct however. Since copying movies is not permissible by fair use then you are violating copyright by making a backup and therefore stealing. Simple as that. So don't try and justify your actions by saying 'but it's just data'. another post:
No, I'm just responding to different arguments people make to try and justify their stealing of movies.another
I'm using the legal definition of 'fair use'. You can use whatever version you feel is correct to justify your actions. (emphasis mine)
Right, none of these statements are making moral arguments. Only if you're blind.
So even though you are equating backup copies with "stealing" you don't consider that a statement that you shouldn't have the right to copy or that it is not a "moral" issue?
Hmmm. Troll.
It's fun, because your comments are all out there for people read and yet you contradict yourself blatantly with this last post. You are making moral judgments, and it drips from your posts. You may think that you're only stating facts, but it is obviously not so. If you claim your opinion on the "whole copying matter" is pro, then you must hate yourself; if it's anti, then at least you're consistent!
And thus, you promulgate the idea that because it's not legal it's not right.
The fact that you say
I'm just trying to stop this ridiculous misinformation, not to be moral and say you shouldn't do it.
(emphasis mine)
It appears from the above that your position is that backup copies are not "moral". You have gone on in a number of posts to say that one shouldn't have this right.
The only justification you have, when pressed is that it is illegal. Which then points to the idea that you believe that what is legal is therefore moral, and what is illegal not moral.
Or am i missing something?
By the way, I have never claimed that making copies is legal, only that it should be, and since it is not, nor are the laws likely to change any time soon, people have the right, nay, the obligation to break this law.
But still, I *do* get to use my own posts as fair use, don't I?
Simple answer? I don't care if the legal version of fair use is what you claim here.
More complete answer? If the laws are not reasonable, they need to be changed. If the cartels hold all the power to change the laws, then the laws deserve to be disobeyed.
If you believe time or format shifting should not be legal then I simply disagree with your position.
If you believe that all laws should be followed, whether they are reasonable or not, then you are an idiot.
While this is a copy of another of my posts, the parent makes the same general statements in several posts, and i feel no compunction to refute the same bullshit with different words.
Who's version of fair use is that? Yours? What is fair use was just to be able to watch the movie however many times you like? What? I cannot quite parse that sentence. Are you trying to argue that I should not be able to play a movie as many times as I like?
If not, i am assuming that you mean fair use is only just being able to watch the movie however many times you like (on the media it came on).
My version of fair use is much less restrictive than this, so yes, mine. I don't think the version of "fair use" you are advocating is fair or reasonable.
so, One more time, with feeling...
Simple answer? I don't care if the legal version of fair use is what you claim here.
More complete answer? If the laws are not reasonable, they need to be changed. If the cartels hold all the power to change the laws, then the laws deserve to be disobeyed.
If you believe time or format shifting should not be legal then I simply disagree with your position.
If you believe that all laws should be followed, whether they are reasonable or not, then you are an idiot.
While this is a copy of another of my posts, the parent makes the same general statements in several posts, and i feel no compunction to refute the same bullshit with different words.
Neither of these are valid examples of fair use as defined under US law. Go look it up. Simple answer? I don't care if they are legal.
More complete answer? If the laws are not reasonable, they need to be changed. If the cartels hold all the power to change the laws, then the laws deserve to be disobeyed.
If you believe time or format shifting should not be legal then I simply disagree with your position.
If you believe that all laws should be followed, whether they are reasonable or not, then you are an idiot.
While this is a copy of another of my posts, the parent makes the same statements in several places, and i feel no compunction to refute the same bullshit with different words.
While they may be reasonable to you, what makes you think they are legal? Simple answer? I don't care if they are legal.
More complete answer? If the laws are not reasonable, they need to be changed. If the cartels hold all the power to change the laws, then the laws deserve to be disobeyed.
If you believe time or format shifting should not be legal then I simply disagree with your position.
If you believe that all laws should be followed, whether they are reasonable or not, then you are an idiot.
I will take it up. I have karma to burn and i know i will burn in women's hell too.
Women's suffrage is the root cause of all our present problems now.
The idea that women are equal to men came up during the 60s and the Pill just made it right for them to do so. This created a great imbalance in the minds of men whom evolution for a million years had treated them superior to women.
Add to that mix, the force of law, lawsuits and jail time for discrimination, being called a backward village bumpkin, etc., made men say out loud that they too support women as equals.
But deep down each man, burns the desire, to return to the time of pre-WW2 era when women were more submissive and did not talk back.
Look into each of you and tell me if its true or not. Ok, hmm, let me do that.
Nope, not true. I prefer to live in a society of equals. And don't start on about how nobody is "really equal" or other rubbish.
I would guess that you are at heart insecure in your own Power and need someone to be "below" you in station. Of course, many people are like that, men and women both - it's not a very new thing. Power hierarchies with power over others have been around a long time but it doesn't mean they aren't corruptions.
Maybe you should be asking yourself - "Why do I wish women were more submissive and did not talk back?"
Cause it's evoluuuution man!" just doesn't cut it.
A real time system is one that guarantees that some operations will obey a deterministic contract on time response, it's not about performance, it's more about "Fuck the hell! I need a fix on my position every 1/2000 sec, and the Hell if the AC is going to get crazy because there won't be cycles left to poll the temperature from the sensors and adjust the fucking atuators" Unless you're writing a chemical plant controller, a flight computer or something like that, an Strictly Real Time System is overkill and probably a pain in the ass to program. The only thing you need is a good scheduler. Or then, call Edsger Dijkstra to the party and blame the invention of interrupts. Without interrupts, it would be a lot more easy to write enourmously inneficient systems, but also highly predictable ones. However, for example, it might be really nice if while capturing 5-8 microphones (enough for a small live session) with effects done in software I had guaranteed latency and jitter in the OS and not have to rely on quite expensive outboard ADCs and effects units, you know?
For example, the singer probably doesn't want a dry output to their headphones (it seems to help if it's at least a little massaged). Add in midi inputs, etc., and it can sometimes go quite awry (if only for a brief second - but that's enough to cause pops, clicks and other artefacts that can ruin a session).
Certainly one can take Windows or Mac OSX and disable enough stuff to get the job done most of the time given that the processors are so powerful these days, but I have to wonder what an RTOS could bring to the table in terms of guaranteed registration of audio streams that include soft processing.
Hasn't the military been getting people to sign up by blatantly lying to them about what they'd wind up doing once they got in for...ever? Once they get you to sign on the dotted line, it doesn't matter if they told you that you WOULD be smoking pot and playing video games all day. They can put you wherever they need you once you sign. No complaints, no law suits, nothing. Door to door in Iraq or afghanistan. Who knows, you could wind up hacking all day. Actually, if they really want you, your contract (yes, you *do* sign a contract to join the military) can stipulate the job you are signing up for. It can also stipulate that the contract is null and void if they are unable (for whatever reason) to give you that job.
I happen to know, because that was the only way I joined. Of course, you have to have the balls to say - "Fine, I quit!" if they don't keep their end of the bargain. But, they don't have a legal leg to stand on if it's in your contract.
So the moral of the story is: If they tell you you can smoke pot and play video games all day get it in writing as part of your contract. Because you will have recruiters tell people all kinds of things but only what's in writing sticks. Kind of like any other employment contract, no?
What is kind of interesting, but really very very bad for a free world is how brazenly corporate interests are now attempting to trample on the rights of everyday citizens.
While internet access is not yet thought of as a basic service such as electricity, having the government mandate such proposed actions based on civil (not criminal) impropriety (leaving aside the whole goddamn issue of the (lack of) morality that is the current copyright morass) seems like a direct bid by corporate interests for more power over citizens (notice - not consumers!).
I can imagine a time when some corporate agency will be able to call upon armed marshals and forcibly invade someone's business or home based on anonymous tips that some civil laws have been violated. Oh wait, that already happens.
I am quoting Crowley's The Book of the Law which contains no namby-pamby injunction against harming others. Which is probably where Crowley went wrong. If you don't enjoin yourself against harming others, you cannot enjoin yourself against self harm. On the level of the Higher Self it's like pissing in your own drinking water. Crowley was certainly a powerful and influential figure but it is clear that as some point something went wrong - he took it that he couldn't make change without harming society or morals and appears to conflate this with harming beings of consciousness and since he needed one the other came along for the ride.
And, really now, Liber al vel Legis does indeed contain injunctions against harming others -- to my reading that is the point of "Love is the law, love under will." Thelema requires both of these statements and is unbalanced one without the other. While this verse does have other convoluted meanings, one that can certainly be derived is an injunction against "harm". "Do as thou wilt" == "Love", in the base term.
Really, "harming none" is just an invitation to be exterminated. No, not really. If someone attempts to cause you harm, the simplest defense is to redirect their corrupted will back to them so they may attempt to correct the problem. Even if this results in the destruction of their physical being you are helping them, not harming them. Does it get more messy IRL? Quite right, since no one appears currently to be in absolute harmony with their HGA or Higher Self, additional mis-applied energies are loosed which may continue the cycle of harm.
To play with these Laws properly requires more than a simplistic reading and approach.
You do realize that there is a qualifying clause to that (For those that do not know, that is the second half of what is popularly called "The Wiccan Rede") statement, don't you?
"An (if) it harm thee none, do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" And, yet, still that is not the whole of it. To be more clear a broader realization of what harm is and what the "thee" talked about is, is called for.
The milieu of An (if) it harm thee none does not just mean personal harm to self. As a very crude example, hitting someone with a bat does harm to that person, yet also harms the hitter even if the ways it does so are not physically noticeable. So by hitting someone with a bat, you are also hurting yourself.
This is because the belief is that we are all one, in some respects. The "thee" in this case is the Consciousness inherent within and without. That is, they are the same thing in essence and linked in fact and the Higher Self encompasses both.
Another fun fact is Do as thou wilt is the whole of the law. is also valid as it is historically correct (without the "an it harm none") and is generally preferred by some schools of thought over the Wiccan Rede (see for example, Golden Dawn). It can be viewed as an antithesis to the Rede (which is how many Wiccans seem to view it) and indeed seems to be so in many ways with the emphasis on breaking out of traditional mores ("harming" of Society, which as it is a mere construct, cannot actually be harmed!).
Yet on another level, as soon as one realizes that the "Thou" in this shorter statement is the same Higher Self referenced in the Rede one can see that the first part becomes superfluous except for its additional expository nature.
I left this on another comment, but it certainly applies to your comment as well:
As far as I understand, an individual must make a positive effort to block these calls by signing up for the "Do Not Call" list.
I did not realize that the First Amendment required me to listen to speech that I did not want to hear, even political speech. Hm. Maybe I should go read it again. The government in this case is acting at the behest of the individual that the caller wishes to reach. As was probably said before - "you may have the right to speak, but you do not have the right to make me listen..."
As far as I understand, an individual must make a positive effort to block these calls by signing up for the "Do Not Call" list.
I did not realize that the First Amendment required me to listen to speech that I did not want to hear, even political speech. Hm. Maybe I should go read it again. The government in this case is acting at the behest of the individual that the caller wishes to reach. As was probably said before - "you may have the right to speak, but you do not have the right to make me listen..."
Oh, whew! That's a relief. I seriously thought that sentence was going to end with "face". Originally... it did. And the trolls say that SP1 isn't any better than the original! At least MS fixed that!
Slashdot Mirror
No one else will create a commercial implementation, either due to the impossibility of following the "standard" or patent issues with the "standard".
MS will win the majority of these bids, or in reality, continue to be the vendor for these rollouts. We will be in the same shape as now. We will still be asked to exchange in Office formats because that is what "everyone else" is using. In the end, ODF does not gain any traction because MS is already in place.
Either that or government agencies and large corporations:
1) wake up and realize that in spite of OOXML being a "standard" that it really promulgates vendor lock in (which is the opposite of why you want a standard in the first place!)
2) care enough to do something about it
3) Have the Will to defy MS to do so (remember what happened to the government employee in Massachusetts?)
Which scenario do you expect to happen, truthfully?
Maybe in 10 - 20 years it may change, or there may be a "sea change" sooner if we reach a tipping point but I would tend to doubt that.
All one should need for a screw is to draw up a perfect one in a CAD program, translate that to instructions for the RepRap, feed the latter the instructions, some raw material and energy and wait. You would be correct if we were making another digital copy of the device. However, you are making another copy of the device with the one you already have.
Think of it instead like successive generations of tapes. Make a copy of the master, then make a copy of that copy, then a copy of that copy. Pretty soon your copy is pretty bad.
In the RipRap case this is because the tolerances of the parts you make on the machine are at best! just almost as good as the tolerances of the parts used to make that machine in the first place. This error gets magnified as you continue - the tolerances of the next machine are not as good (and thus cannot produce as precision parts). So, while the file still contains the digitally pure data stream a machine X generations down simply cannot produce the required output.
Do you know of any other places these posts show up besides El Reg, or do you know if anyone has compiled a list of posts? I'm curious, I must admit.
The Book of the Law (Liber al vel Legis) contains two fundamental verses: Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. and Love is the law, love under Will To grok the meaning of these properly it is necessary to understand that Will in this sense is not what I want to do right now it is more akin to your drive as a realized being to go about immanetizing Divine Will (that is, creating heaven in this Reality).
However, the second quote is co-equal with the first and Thelema requires both of these or the philosophy is out of balance. However, Love is to be considered under the Will of your Higher Self (which has communion with the divine). For the full second quote goes: Love is the law, love under will. Nor let the fools mistake love; for there are love and love. This suggests that some loves are not in accordance with the Will being discussed. Perhaps love of money, egoism (self love to the extreme), or other addictions would tend to fall in this category. So you can't just allow love to rule, it must be tempered by Will.
One can certainly derive an injunction against harm from this and it appears more general than "An it harm none so mote it be" in several senses; the basic one being that sometimes "harm" is relative. It certainly harms someone to cut off their arm but dying from gangrene through inaction is a worse harm. Following your Will in this case leads you more surely that following an aphorism.
Not to say that similar distinctions can't made in kabbalism and Wicca, but it appears on the face that Thelema has a stronger sense of individuation and in fact insists upon it to work properly - you must seek to find and communicate with your Higher Self in order to proceed at all.
Okay, totally off topic! Woohoo!
Are you trying to say that there is some person out there who is backing up or format shifting their dvd's to prevent a starving child from dying and that's why the use is morally neutral? Because in order for you to bring up this type of argument about the morality of stealing, it actually has to apply to the conversation at hand. When you get out of your mothers basement you will realize the world is not black and white. I see more shades of colour in the world than I believe you are aware exist. However, to claim that there is no black or white just as much a fallacy.
I am not trolling,
Right because astroturfing is not trolling.
nor did I make a contradiction in my argument.
Because obviously "stealing" to you doesn't have any moral connotations one way or another. I can see this from your point of view, after all you don't even have enough morality not to take a job like this.
So I'm curious if you're paid by the word or the post?
You've tried to convince people that making a backup copy is stealing.
You've tried to convince people that they should absolutely go buy another copy if their copy is damaged (instead of backing up).
You've told someone they are clumsy because they tend to damage dvds and you never have this problem.
You've tried to equate a dvd with a car (hey it's a good analogy on slashdot) in that when it "wears out" we should not deprive the content distributors with their rightful profit$ by buying a new one.
If you're not trolling, and I'll take your word on that, you are a shill or apologist (Stockholm syndrome?). I am actually afraid that you aren't a shill and that you believe what you're saying. That would be sad. At least if you're getting paid there would be some sense to the crap you're peddling.
from another of your posts: Oh I get what you are trying to do - I don't agree you are correct however. Since copying movies is not permissible by fair use then you are violating copyright by making a backup and therefore stealing. Simple as that. So don't try and justify your actions by saying 'but it's just data'. another post: No, I'm just responding to different arguments people make to try and justify their stealing of movies. another I'm using the legal definition of 'fair use'. You can use whatever version you feel is correct to justify your actions. (emphasis mine)
Right, none of these statements are making moral arguments. Only if you're blind.
So even though you are equating backup copies with "stealing" you don't consider that a statement that you shouldn't have the right to copy or that it is not a "moral" issue?
Hmmm. Troll.
It's fun, because your comments are all out there for people read and yet you contradict yourself blatantly with this last post. You are making moral judgments, and it drips from your posts. You may think that you're only stating facts, but it is obviously not so. If you claim your opinion on the "whole copying matter" is pro, then you must hate yourself; if it's anti, then at least you're consistent!
Either way, I'm done.
And thus, you promulgate the idea that because it's not legal it's not right.
The fact that you say
I'm just trying to stop this ridiculous misinformation, not to be moral and say you shouldn't do it.
(emphasis mine)
It appears from the above that your position is that backup copies are not "moral". You have gone on in a number of posts to say that one shouldn't have this right.
The only justification you have, when pressed is that it is illegal. Which then points to the idea that you believe that what is legal is therefore moral, and what is illegal not moral.
Or am i missing something?
By the way, I have never claimed that making copies is legal, only that it should be, and since it is not, nor are the laws likely to change any time soon, people have the right, nay, the obligation to break this law.
Cheers.
But still, I *do* get to use my own posts as fair use, don't I? Simple answer? I don't care if the legal version of fair use is what you claim here.
More complete answer? If the laws are not reasonable, they need to be changed. If the cartels hold all the power to change the laws, then the laws deserve to be disobeyed.
If you believe time or format shifting should not be legal then I simply disagree with your position.
If you believe that all laws should be followed, whether they are reasonable or not, then you are an idiot.
While this is a copy of another of my posts, the parent makes the same general statements in several posts, and i feel no compunction to refute the same bullshit with different words.
If not, i am assuming that you mean fair use is only just being able to watch the movie however many times you like (on the media it came on).
My version of fair use is much less restrictive than this, so yes, mine. I don't think the version of "fair use" you are advocating is fair or reasonable.
so, One more time, with feeling...
Simple answer? I don't care if the legal version of fair use is what you claim here.
More complete answer? If the laws are not reasonable, they need to be changed. If the cartels hold all the power to change the laws, then the laws deserve to be disobeyed.
If you believe time or format shifting should not be legal then I simply disagree with your position.
If you believe that all laws should be followed, whether they are reasonable or not, then you are an idiot.
While this is a copy of another of my posts, the parent makes the same general statements in several posts, and i feel no compunction to refute the same bullshit with different words.
More complete answer? If the laws are not reasonable, they need to be changed. If the cartels hold all the power to change the laws, then the laws deserve to be disobeyed.
If you believe time or format shifting should not be legal then I simply disagree with your position.
If you believe that all laws should be followed, whether they are reasonable or not, then you are an idiot.
While this is a copy of another of my posts, the parent makes the same statements in several places, and i feel no compunction to refute the same bullshit with different words.
More complete answer? If the laws are not reasonable, they need to be changed. If the cartels hold all the power to change the laws, then the laws deserve to be disobeyed.
If you believe time or format shifting should not be legal then I simply disagree with your position.
If you believe that all laws should be followed, whether they are reasonable or not, then you are an idiot.
This is actually just really quite obnoxious and not very helpful.
Do you really want a user program hooking into trapping the ctrl-alt-delete sequence? I thought not.
Being pedantic, since the tester appears to be so, "any key" does not imply "any combination of keys", either.
I test by hitting the reset button, after all it can be considered a key too, just not a 'key' on the keyboard...
If I was the company, instead of changing the message, i would have modified the tester's behaviour, perhaps with a hammer if necessary...
Women's suffrage is the root cause of all our present problems now.
The idea that women are equal to men came up during the 60s and the Pill just made it right for them to do so.
This created a great imbalance in the minds of men whom evolution for a million years had treated them superior to women.
Add to that mix, the force of law, lawsuits and jail time for discrimination, being called a backward village bumpkin, etc., made men say out loud that they too support women as equals.
But deep down each man, burns the desire, to return to the time of pre-WW2 era when women were more submissive and did not talk back.
Look into each of you and tell me if its true or not. Ok, hmm, let me do that.
Nope, not true. I prefer to live in a society of equals. And don't start on about how nobody is "really equal" or other rubbish.
I would guess that you are at heart insecure in your own Power and need someone to be "below" you in station. Of course, many people are like that, men and women both - it's not a very new thing. Power hierarchies with power over others have been around a long time but it doesn't mean they aren't corruptions.
Maybe you should be asking yourself - "Why do I wish women were more submissive and did not talk back?"
Cause it's evoluuuution man!" just doesn't cut it.
Disney Takes Another Stab at the House of the Future
I hope they killed it this time. You ever notice how those houses are really hard to stop when they're after you?
Unless you're writing a chemical plant controller, a flight computer or something like that, an Strictly Real Time System is overkill and probably a pain in the ass to program. The only thing you need is a good scheduler. Or then, call Edsger Dijkstra to the party and blame the invention of interrupts. Without interrupts, it would be a lot more easy to write enourmously inneficient systems, but also highly predictable ones. However, for example, it might be really nice if while capturing 5-8 microphones (enough for a small live session) with effects done in software I had guaranteed latency and jitter in the OS and not have to rely on quite expensive outboard ADCs and effects units, you know?
For example, the singer probably doesn't want a dry output to their headphones (it seems to help if it's at least a little massaged). Add in midi inputs, etc., and it can sometimes go quite awry (if only for a brief second - but that's enough to cause pops, clicks and other artefacts that can ruin a session).
Certainly one can take Windows or Mac OSX and disable enough stuff to get the job done most of the time given that the processors are so powerful these days, but I have to wonder what an RTOS could bring to the table in terms of guaranteed registration of audio streams that include soft processing.
Why shouldn't you be able to?!?
I happen to know, because that was the only way I joined. Of course, you have to have the balls to say - "Fine, I quit!" if they don't keep their end of the bargain. But, they don't have a legal leg to stand on if it's in your contract.
So the moral of the story is: If they tell you you can smoke pot and play video games all day get it in writing as part of your contract. Because you will have recruiters tell people all kinds of things but only what's in writing sticks. Kind of like any other employment contract, no?
What is kind of interesting, but really very very bad for a free world is how brazenly corporate interests are now attempting to trample on the rights of everyday citizens.
While internet access is not yet thought of as a basic service such as electricity, having the government mandate such proposed actions based on civil (not criminal) impropriety (leaving aside the whole goddamn issue of the (lack of) morality that is the current copyright morass) seems like a direct bid by corporate interests for more power over citizens (notice - not consumers!).
I can imagine a time when some corporate agency will be able to call upon armed marshals and forcibly invade someone's business or home based on anonymous tips that some civil laws have been violated. Oh wait, that already happens.
Well then, nothing to see here, move along...
Ok, thanks for the clarification.
And, really now, Liber al vel Legis does indeed contain injunctions against harming others -- to my reading that is the point of "Love is the law, love under will." Thelema requires both of these statements and is unbalanced one without the other. While this verse does have other convoluted meanings, one that can certainly be derived is an injunction against "harm". "Do as thou wilt" == "Love", in the base term. Really, "harming none" is just an invitation to be exterminated. No, not really. If someone attempts to cause you harm, the simplest defense is to redirect their corrupted will back to them so they may attempt to correct the problem. Even if this results in the destruction of their physical being you are helping them, not harming them. Does it get more messy IRL? Quite right, since no one appears currently to be in absolute harmony with their HGA or Higher Self, additional mis-applied energies are loosed which may continue the cycle of harm.
To play with these Laws properly requires more than a simplistic reading and approach.
93/93
"An (if) it harm thee none, do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" And, yet, still that is not the whole of it. To be more clear a broader realization of what harm is and what the "thee" talked about is, is called for.
The milieu of An (if) it harm thee none does not just mean personal harm to self. As a very crude example, hitting someone with a bat does harm to that person, yet also harms the hitter even if the ways it does so are not physically noticeable. So by hitting someone with a bat, you are also hurting yourself.
This is because the belief is that we are all one, in some respects. The "thee" in this case is the Consciousness inherent within and without. That is, they are the same thing in essence and linked in fact and the Higher Self encompasses both.
Another fun fact is Do as thou wilt is the whole of the law. is also valid as it is historically correct (without the "an it harm none") and is generally preferred by some schools of thought over the Wiccan Rede (see for example, Golden Dawn). It can be viewed as an antithesis to the Rede (which is how many Wiccans seem to view it) and indeed seems to be so in many ways with the emphasis on breaking out of traditional mores ("harming" of Society, which as it is a mere construct, cannot actually be harmed!).
Yet on another level, as soon as one realizes that the "Thou" in this shorter statement is the same Higher Self referenced in the Rede one can see that the first part becomes superfluous except for its additional expository nature.
Ok, so totally off topic. Sue me
I left this on another comment, but it certainly applies to your comment as well:
As far as I understand, an individual must make a positive effort to block these calls by signing up for the "Do Not Call" list.
I did not realize that the First Amendment required me to listen to speech that I did not want to hear, even political speech. Hm. Maybe I should go read it again. The government in this case is acting at the behest of the individual that the caller wishes to reach. As was probably said before - "you may have the right to speak, but you do not have the right to make me listen..."
As far as I understand, an individual must make a positive effort to block these calls by signing up for the "Do Not Call" list.
I did not realize that the First Amendment required me to listen to speech that I did not want to hear, even political speech. Hm. Maybe I should go read it again. The government in this case is acting at the behest of the individual that the caller wishes to reach. As was probably said before - "you may have the right to speak, but you do not have the right to make me listen..."