Where and how? Please stick to current times; everyone involved in the inquisitions is dead.
But it showed us that the Church is not above using lies, intimidation, torture and murder to ensure its survival. It showed us that Christians will do what the Church wants them to do, even if it means murdering others. Did the rules of Christianity change sometime after the Inquisition or other atrocities? Did they find some missing pages of the Bible that make it more clear that torture and murder are wrong? Why exactly is the Church to be trusted today? Is it somehow incapable of commiting such acts? Or has it found better ways of enforcing its control?
Actually, in most/. stories about censorship, there seems to be a general consensus that censorship should be the responsibility of the individual or parent. I should be the one deciding what I want to see and what I don't want to see. If I'm a parent, then I should be deciding that for my kids as well. Aside from those who believe that all censorship is wrong, we seem to be in general agreement. Jamie makes good and valid points about the fact that censorware makers often deceive their customers about what is blocked and what isn't. It's quite right that they should know what the products really do. Not just what the maker claims they do.
Even belief in the separation of Church and State is simply an Atheist faith
How is that a faith? Is the fact that I think my cat is cute also a faith? What about believing that the chair on the other side of the room is blue? Is that also a faith? Make some sense. Separation of Church and State is not a faith. It's more like an attempt at self-preservation. It's one of the most intelligent decisions that the founders of the United States ever made. I'd rather not have the Church ruling my life just because they believe that some guy who died 2000 years ago was the son of God and they think that they can figure out what the heck the Bible is actually saying (if anything, it rambles quite a bit and it's often tough to figure out what is to be taken literally and what is just God going on a rant).
The question is this: What is true, what has eternal implications, and what are we willing to do?
Since the first couple parts of that question can't be answered conclusively (unless God himself decides to make an undisputeable appearance again. Maybe go on Oprah or something), I think that Christians should just believe what they want to believe and leave everyone else the hell alone. Don't try to enforce your morality by making it law. If you believe that looking at porn is wrong, then don't do it. Don't let your kids do it. Don't try to make the decision for the rest of us though. Quit trying to get crap like the CDA passed into law. Quit trying to publicly humiliate and shame people who don't share your beliefs. If other people calling themselves Christian try to do those things, perhaps then you can have a discussion with them about minding their own business. Is it possible to be a good Christian without forcing others to comply with your beliefs? History seems to say no. I hope that's not true.
There have been hypocrites, but why people have a prolem with Christ, a man who had nothing to gain by dying for us of His own will, is really beyond me.
I don't think I've seen anyone here saying anything against Christ himself. He got killed on a stick. If he was truly the son of God, then he got off easy. Many people die much more horrible deaths for no reason at all. Most people have a problem with the Church, which is largely responsible for thousands upon thousands of horrible deaths. Whatever Christ tried to teach, it obviously didn't get through to the people who lead the church.
There will always be holes in it, but these tend to be red herrings.
Red Herrings? How so? One of Peacefire's goals is to educate people aobut the effects of censorware. Showing them exactly what gets blocked by this stuff seems like a good thing to do. Or are you in favor of people remaining ignorant and letting others decide what they should or should not see?
Groups such as peacefire use this to push their agenda.
Sure, but it wouldn't help them if the examples they give weren't so damn good, or if there weren't so very many of them. Admit it. They make an excellent point that filtering software not only works poorly in most cases, but is also abused quite frequently.
First, I admit that no one in the Church is perfect, and that many in the Church have done ungodly acts through the ages. However, as a whole, I do believe that the Church is based on the truth of Jesus Christ, and it's mission is good.
It's amazing to me that the murder of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people over the centuries by the Church can be dismissed so easily. Doesn't the commandment say "Thou shalt not kill?" Did the Church find a loophole in the commandment that allows them to kill those who don't believe the same things that they do? How can people follow a religion that is responsible for so much suffering and death?
Lionhead may not be a "major" game company, but it was founded by Peter Molyneux, who is certainly a major player in the game industry, and has been for years and years. He's been the guy behind some truly great games.
Clinton was president for EIGHT YEARS! Why didn't he do something?
Cause he would have to get Congress to actually make a law to undo the damage they already did. Not bloody likely. He probably didn't pay much attention to the patent issue really. If the political will isn't there, and the people aren't bitching at you on a fairly large scale, it's not gonna get done.
Now, it's true that the Republicans DID turn the PTO into a profit center. They cut it off and told it that it had to earn its own bread. That was moronic. The patent office shouldn't be encouraged to grant patents in order to ensure its own solvency. It's supposed to grant those patents that are deserving and no more. That should require that it hire competent examiners and do thorough research. That costs money. That's the price of our patent system. Unfortunately, the PTO does not hire competent examiners (or at least none with the skills required to evaluate software-related patents), does not do thorough research before granting a patent, and is constantly trying to expand the realm of what can be patented (which is certainly not their role). All the Republicans did was create a mess of conflicts of interest, that happen to make it easy to get a patent on any stupid software trick you care to name.
Actually, I think the wording is more like, "someone of ordinary skill in the art." But you're right, you probably won't find anyone like that working in the patent office.
Many pistols and rifles are 'automatic' meaning that the weapon prepares itself for the next shot after one is fired. IE: No cocking required.
I thought that was "semi-automatic." I think the poster was referring to "fully automatic" when he said automatic. If you know the difference, you normally understand "automatic" to mean "fully automatic."
No, I meant just that. It sounds like entrapment. It had all the marks of entrapment, except that it was carried out by a teacher rather than a law enforcement officer. I was pointing out that it was the same principle and was wrong for the same reasons.
I never said it was entrapment. I said it was the same principle as entrapment. The teacher enticed the kids into doing something and then had the kid who actually did it arrested for it. So now you're arguing with my definition of entrapment, whereas earlier you were attacking my logic in concluding that the same principle was involved in this case as in an entrapment case. You're not making much sense to me. I think we're done here.
Well, anything taken to extremes can be made to look silly. Obviously the teacher doesn't work for the bank, and therefore would have no authority to give you permission to rob the bank. But you obviously didn't give much thought to your analogy. You just enjoy being a (not so)smartass.
In the case we were talking about, a teacher, who is an employee and representative of the school and has authority over the kids in his class, challenged a bunch of 15 year olds to break the security on the school's computers. There was no reason for them to think that he didn't have the authority to give them such permission. It even makes sense really, that is if you aren't familiar with the DMCA and other such laws, which I'm sure most 15 year olds aren't. He was asking them to act as white-hat hackers and test the school's security, and then punished the kid for it.
The same principle applies though. The teacher was in a position of authority over the student. The teacher works for the local government (unless it was a private school). The teacher basically lied to a group of students and challenged them to do something. The students had no reason to believe that he didn't have the authority to let them do it. Then, when one does it, the teacher turns him in to the police for it. Sounds like entrapment to me.
Some things have to be done just on principle. What other recourse does the kid have? They suspended him for something that was really the teacher's fault. That's wrong, and I don't see what other recourse he has to protest such action against him. At least nothing nearly as effective as a lawsuit. This is not a frivolous case. School administrations should not be allowed to get away with this sort of thing. If they want to hold kids responsible for the things that they do wrong, then they better be willing to admit when they screw up as well.
Exactly the point. The teacher challenged the students to break into the computer. He is in a position of authority over them. He should have known better and should face the consequences of his actions. They should not be punishing a 15 year old kid for doing what his teacher told him to do. Hell, they're used to being punished when they DON'T do what the teacher tells them to do. To the kids, the teacher represents the school. If the teacher says you can do something, they believe he has the authority to authorize it. In this case that wasn't true. But it's the teacher who really screwed up, not the kid.
It's not illegal if you can justify it and relate it to work. Just make sure all your lunches and dinners are "business lunches or dinners." Travel is paid for. Probably even the cost of an apartment in D.C. since it's job-related. Maybe stay in a hotel the whole time. Might get a good rate, and they have maid and laundry service.
The ruling, in a nutshell, said that a recount without rules (which is what the David Boise said he wanted) would lead to 'unequal treatment' of the votes.
Which is complete hogwash, of course. The votes are already treated unequally. They're cast and counted as each district decides to do. Some are hand-counted from the start. Some are impossible to recount due to the method of voting used. Why should recounts be any different? There were representatives from both parties present at each counting table. They only counted votes they could agree on, those where the intent was clear. Even the manufacturer of the vote-counting machines in a lot of the districts agreed that a recount was the best way to get a conclusive answer as to who the people elected. The margin of error of the machines was much greater than the lead that Bush had. We should have had a recount of all counties where a recount was possible. Excluding those that did hand counts from the start, those that used machines that don't allow for a recount, and possibly those that used optically read ballots with a very tiny margin of error, if that was agreeable to both sides. It should have been done this way from the start.
Even if we're the two wisest, most honest people on earth, there's no telling that we're gonna both come to the same conclusions from this dented piece of paper.
They managed to count many ballots by hand. Yes, they didn't agree on all of them, but quite often there was a clear intent discernable from looking at the ballot. Intent which even the opposing party would not deny. In the end, you end up with more votes counted and included than you get with machines.
$500 plus somewhere around $30/month for the service to be able to talk on the PHONE?!!
First of all, talking on the phone is hardly the only thing you can do with the Visor, which makes your statement seem kind of silly. Second, most people interested in the phone have already bought a Visor. Third, while the phone may be a bit pricy, it's also quite small, light, and integrates nicely with the Visor. I'm sure that's worth something.
Slashdot Mirror
Where and how? Please stick to current times; everyone involved in the inquisitions is dead.
But it showed us that the Church is not above using lies, intimidation, torture and murder to ensure its survival. It showed us that Christians will do what the Church wants them to do, even if it means murdering others. Did the rules of Christianity change sometime after the Inquisition or other atrocities? Did they find some missing pages of the Bible that make it more clear that torture and murder are wrong? Why exactly is the Church to be trusted today? Is it somehow incapable of commiting such acts? Or has it found better ways of enforcing its control?
Sharp? What the heck is that supposed to mean to the students?
Actually, in most /. stories about censorship, there seems to be a general consensus that censorship should be the responsibility of the individual or parent. I should be the one deciding what I want to see and what I don't want to see. If I'm a parent, then I should be deciding that for my kids as well. Aside from those who believe that all censorship is wrong, we seem to be in general agreement. Jamie makes good and valid points about the fact that censorware makers often deceive their customers about what is blocked and what isn't. It's quite right that they should know what the products really do. Not just what the maker claims they do.
One more thing...
Even belief in the separation of Church and State is simply an Atheist faith
How is that a faith? Is the fact that I think my cat is cute also a faith? What about believing that the chair on the other side of the room is blue? Is that also a faith? Make some sense. Separation of Church and State is not a faith. It's more like an attempt at self-preservation. It's one of the most intelligent decisions that the founders of the United States ever made. I'd rather not have the Church ruling my life just because they believe that some guy who died 2000 years ago was the son of God and they think that they can figure out what the heck the Bible is actually saying (if anything, it rambles quite a bit and it's often tough to figure out what is to be taken literally and what is just God going on a rant).
The question is this: What is true, what has eternal implications, and what are we willing to do?
Since the first couple parts of that question can't be answered conclusively (unless God himself decides to make an undisputeable appearance again. Maybe go on Oprah or something), I think that Christians should just believe what they want to believe and leave everyone else the hell alone. Don't try to enforce your morality by making it law. If you believe that looking at porn is wrong, then don't do it. Don't let your kids do it. Don't try to make the decision for the rest of us though. Quit trying to get crap like the CDA passed into law. Quit trying to publicly humiliate and shame people who don't share your beliefs. If other people calling themselves Christian try to do those things, perhaps then you can have a discussion with them about minding their own business. Is it possible to be a good Christian without forcing others to comply with your beliefs? History seems to say no. I hope that's not true.
There have been hypocrites, but why people have a prolem with Christ, a man who had nothing to gain by dying for us of His own will, is really beyond me.
I don't think I've seen anyone here saying anything against Christ himself. He got killed on a stick. If he was truly the son of God, then he got off easy. Many people die much more horrible deaths for no reason at all. Most people have a problem with the Church, which is largely responsible for thousands upon thousands of horrible deaths. Whatever Christ tried to teach, it obviously didn't get through to the people who lead the church.
There will always be holes in it, but these tend to be red herrings.
Red Herrings? How so? One of Peacefire's goals is to educate people aobut the effects of censorware. Showing them exactly what gets blocked by this stuff seems like a good thing to do. Or are you in favor of people remaining ignorant and letting others decide what they should or should not see?
Groups such as peacefire use this to push their agenda.
Sure, but it wouldn't help them if the examples they give weren't so damn good, or if there weren't so very many of them. Admit it. They make an excellent point that filtering software not only works poorly in most cases, but is also abused quite frequently.
First, I admit that no one in the Church is perfect, and that many in the Church have done ungodly acts through the ages. However, as a whole, I do believe that the Church is based on the truth of Jesus Christ, and it's mission is good.
It's amazing to me that the murder of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people over the centuries by the Church can be dismissed so easily. Doesn't the commandment say "Thou shalt not kill?" Did the Church find a loophole in the commandment that allows them to kill those who don't believe the same things that they do? How can people follow a religion that is responsible for so much suffering and death?
Lionhead may not be a "major" game company, but it was founded by Peter Molyneux, who is certainly a major player in the game industry, and has been for years and years. He's been the guy behind some truly great games.
Isn't the pres. Adrian Carmack?
Clinton was president for EIGHT YEARS! Why didn't he do something?
Cause he would have to get Congress to actually make a law to undo the damage they already did. Not bloody likely. He probably didn't pay much attention to the patent issue really. If the political will isn't there, and the people aren't bitching at you on a fairly large scale, it's not gonna get done.
Now, it's true that the Republicans DID turn the PTO into a profit center. They cut it off and told it that it had to earn its own bread. That was moronic. The patent office shouldn't be encouraged to grant patents in order to ensure its own solvency. It's supposed to grant those patents that are deserving and no more. That should require that it hire competent examiners and do thorough research. That costs money. That's the price of our patent system. Unfortunately, the PTO does not hire competent examiners (or at least none with the skills required to evaluate software-related patents), does not do thorough research before granting a patent, and is constantly trying to expand the realm of what can be patented (which is certainly not their role). All the Republicans did was create a mess of conflicts of interest, that happen to make it easy to get a patent on any stupid software trick you care to name.
Actually, I think the wording is more like, "someone of ordinary skill in the art." But you're right, you probably won't find anyone like that working in the patent office.
Many pistols and rifles are 'automatic' meaning that the weapon prepares itself for the next shot after one is fired. IE: No cocking required.
I thought that was "semi-automatic." I think the poster was referring to "fully automatic" when he said automatic. If you know the difference, you normally understand "automatic" to mean "fully automatic."
I don't know of a government department called DFAST, but there is one called DFAS (Defense Finance and Accounting Service).
No, I meant just that. It sounds like entrapment. It had all the marks of entrapment, except that it was carried out by a teacher rather than a law enforcement officer. I was pointing out that it was the same principle and was wrong for the same reasons.
I never said it was entrapment. I said it was the same principle as entrapment. The teacher enticed the kids into doing something and then had the kid who actually did it arrested for it. So now you're arguing with my definition of entrapment, whereas earlier you were attacking my logic in concluding that the same principle was involved in this case as in an entrapment case. You're not making much sense to me. I think we're done here.
Well, anything taken to extremes can be made to look silly. Obviously the teacher doesn't work for the bank, and therefore would have no authority to give you permission to rob the bank. But you obviously didn't give much thought to your analogy. You just enjoy being a (not so)smartass.
In the case we were talking about, a teacher, who is an employee and representative of the school and has authority over the kids in his class, challenged a bunch of 15 year olds to break the security on the school's computers. There was no reason for them to think that he didn't have the authority to give them such permission. It even makes sense really, that is if you aren't familiar with the DMCA and other such laws, which I'm sure most 15 year olds aren't. He was asking them to act as white-hat hackers and test the school's security, and then punished the kid for it.
Heh.. apparently this little stunt was quite common in high school CS classes. We did it too.
The same principle applies though. The teacher was in a position of authority over the student. The teacher works for the local government (unless it was a private school). The teacher basically lied to a group of students and challenged them to do something. The students had no reason to believe that he didn't have the authority to let them do it. Then, when one does it, the teacher turns him in to the police for it. Sounds like entrapment to me.
Some things have to be done just on principle. What other recourse does the kid have? They suspended him for something that was really the teacher's fault. That's wrong, and I don't see what other recourse he has to protest such action against him. At least nothing nearly as effective as a lawsuit. This is not a frivolous case. School administrations should not be allowed to get away with this sort of thing. If they want to hold kids responsible for the things that they do wrong, then they better be willing to admit when they screw up as well.
Exactly the point. The teacher challenged the students to break into the computer. He is in a position of authority over them. He should have known better and should face the consequences of his actions. They should not be punishing a 15 year old kid for doing what his teacher told him to do. Hell, they're used to being punished when they DON'T do what the teacher tells them to do. To the kids, the teacher represents the school. If the teacher says you can do something, they believe he has the authority to authorize it. In this case that wasn't true. But it's the teacher who really screwed up, not the kid.
Umm... you could work at McDonald's and make more than a high school teacher makes.
Already done.
It's not illegal if you can justify it and relate it to work. Just make sure all your lunches and dinners are "business lunches or dinners." Travel is paid for. Probably even the cost of an apartment in D.C. since it's job-related. Maybe stay in a hotel the whole time. Might get a good rate, and they have maid and laundry service.
The ruling, in a nutshell, said that a recount without rules (which is what the David Boise said he wanted) would lead to 'unequal treatment' of the votes.
Which is complete hogwash, of course. The votes are already treated unequally. They're cast and counted as each district decides to do. Some are hand-counted from the start. Some are impossible to recount due to the method of voting used. Why should recounts be any different? There were representatives from both parties present at each counting table. They only counted votes they could agree on, those where the intent was clear. Even the manufacturer of the vote-counting machines in a lot of the districts agreed that a recount was the best way to get a conclusive answer as to who the people elected. The margin of error of the machines was much greater than the lead that Bush had. We should have had a recount of all counties where a recount was possible. Excluding those that did hand counts from the start, those that used machines that don't allow for a recount, and possibly those that used optically read ballots with a very tiny margin of error, if that was agreeable to both sides. It should have been done this way from the start.
Even if we're the two wisest, most honest people on earth, there's no telling that we're gonna both come to the same conclusions from this dented piece of paper.
They managed to count many ballots by hand. Yes, they didn't agree on all of them, but quite often there was a clear intent discernable from looking at the ballot. Intent which even the opposing party would not deny. In the end, you end up with more votes counted and included than you get with machines.
$500 plus somewhere around $30/month for the service to be able to talk on the PHONE?!!
First of all, talking on the phone is hardly the only thing you can do with the Visor, which makes your statement seem kind of silly. Second, most people interested in the phone have already bought a Visor. Third, while the phone may be a bit pricy, it's also quite small, light, and integrates nicely with the Visor. I'm sure that's worth something.