Yep, Firefox's memory issues have been fixed AFAICT - I haven't seen it do the memory glutton thing in 5 months at least. But if you're satisfied with Opera, you should keep using it. IMHO, no browser should own more than 50% of the market, lest web designers start coding for its quirks (yes, IE, I staring at you, you sorry old dog!).
Swiftfox, maybe? Or do you need something even faster? (You can tell that Firefox is maturing and gaining market share by the number of people looking for alternatives.;-)
I suffered with Firefox memory problems through the 1.x series, the "that's not a memory leak!" claims when Firefox slowly consumed every drop of memory and had to be restarted every month or so (while I have to restart Linux... every time I install a new version of Linux:-).
Then one day, around the time I installed FF2, *poof*. No more out of memory condition. I haven't restarted Firefox since I installed Ubuntu 7.04 (counts on fingers) almost 5 months ago.
Did I miss the announcement that the not-memory-leak was plugged???
Like heck. "30 seconds vs. 20 seconds" and I switch. "30 usec vs. 20 usec" and who gives a flip? If all you care about is bragging rights, fine - but I have real work to do!
(Well, OK, I'm cruising slashdot, so I don't have real work to do right now.:-)
Or is good software engineering only to be appreciated if it comes from the open source community?
Well, I'm always willing to appreciate good technology whatever the source. For example, I'll readily admit that.NET and Visual Studio are top quality products, even if they do come from a convicted monopolist. Opera, too, is an excellent product, and I used it BF (Before Firefox) with pleasure and persuaded some friends as well.
That said, I value my freedom enough that the closed source nature of both of the above products seriously diminishes their value to me. I'm not a hard-nosed RMS wannabe - I use some closed source, such as Flash plug-ins and non-free video drivers, because they work so well - but when a free option is good enough (and Firefox, like virtually all packages in my current distro of choice, is far better than "good enough"), I personally prefer to support free software with my usage, bug reports, and cash.
Perhaps one day soon, I can use a 100% free-as-in-speech distro without compromising any functionality at all. I'll celebrate the day. But that's my choice.
Once you've used a browser that renders pages considerably faster than your old browser, there's no going back.
Really? And here I switched from Opera to Firefox. Isn't that "going back"?
I personally found Firefox more of a joy to use than Opera (though Opera was leagues ahead of the browsers I had previously used). Possibly this is because of the wealth of plugins that allow me to configure it to work exactly as I want it to work.
It's probably a personal preference thing - but I notice the market share numbers, and suspect I'm not that unusual.
Nevertheless - congratulations, Opera, on 9.5's performance! I appreciate having choice again in the browser market.
I too used Mandrake / Mandriva for years (it was my first full-time distro), but wandered away a few years back. I lost track of the company once Gaël Duval left. Partly, I was disappointed by the website, which I never quite understood (perhaps I should have studied harder in French:-). Partly, I kept falling into dependency hell - when I tried Ubuntu, installing new packages Just Worked, and I couldn't bring myself to return to my first love.
But I remember Mandriva fondly, and wish them all the best with 2008.
HP is way ahead of you. When my wife purchased one a few months ago, it came with *2* EULAs - Microsoft's and HP's. Microsoft's promised a refund if you reject their EULA, and HP's limited Microsoft's promise to a refund for all hardware and software only.
In other words, you can return everything or nothing. You can't return just the parts you don't want for partial credit anymore.
As silly as it sounds, I've come across so many new Linux users who have messed up their display settings in some way, been unable to use the command line to fix it and have just resorted to giving up or reinstalling, neither is really an ideal option.
I'm in the midst of my self-defined "acid test" for whether Ubuntu is ready for the mass market - I replaced my 88 year old dad's Win 98-based eMachine with a custom built machine running Ubuntu 7.04. (Let's see if he notices...;-)
On my first return to check things out, all was well with one small issue - his task bar was gone. Vamooshed. I had no idea you could even delete the task bar in Gnome (of course, he didn't either).
After a few minutes of mousing about, I figured out how to create a new one - but I think Gnome needs a "restore desktop" option under System -> Administration -> Display (for example).
Of course, if I were a Linux fanbois, I'd say that Windows is so pathetic even my 88-year-old father couldn't figure out how to reconfigure the desktop! Thank goodness he could on Linux!:-D:-D
Microsoft will be "exempt" from the GPLv3 simply because they will never distribute or pay others to distribute GPLv3 code
I understood Microsoft's problem to be that they neglected to specify which version of Suse could be obtained with their vouchers, or even to specify a time limit on their redemption. Did I misunderstand that?
If not, then Microsoft will "distribute" GPLv3 software (should the courts so rule) as soon as the first person redeems one of their vouchers for a future version of Suse containing any GPL3 code.
Of course, since Microsoft took my money for a copy of XP, then refused to honor it because their servers decided I was a pirate (like it's my fault their crappy software keeps dying and needing to be re-installed over and over and over...), they'll get no sympathy from me should the courts hoist them on their own petard.
Sorry, when I said "replied", I didn't mean "hit 'Reply to This' and spew hate-filled vitriol". I meant, "respond to my points with relevant counter-points". I enjoy the latter type of interchange, as I usually learn something; although, of course, your method may have something in it for you, and if so, I hope you found it.
Final thought - I'd humbly suggest some anger management counseling. I really do wish you the best. Cheers!
However, the complaint is against school officials and ONLY seeks to restrict the actions of school officials.
Isn't that a little like saying that George Wallace's actions ONLY sought to restrict the action of police when he prohibited them from permitting Blacks to enter the University of Alabama? If the school administration is prohibited from "permitting... 1) "See You at the Pole", can you not see that SYatP is prohibited, and the students' right to pray is being violated?
I do not believe I have misrepresented their position in any way - I'm quoting their lawsuit directly here - but I suppose that when the law is settled, we'll see whether the students are permitted to pray or not.
BTW, all three links at the bottom of your post are dead.
Oh, that's what "Check those URLs!" means on the Post Comment page!:-) Mea culpa. But I suppose you can google as well as I can.;-)
Thanks for the debate - it helped me settle my thoughts on some of the prayer issues I haven't spent time considering before.
1977. I used a Silent 700 terminal via a 300 baud acoustic modem (you plugged the phone receiver into suction cups) that connected to the mainframe at Jackson State University in Mississippi. Tommy Mason and I taught ourselves to program with our Algebra III teacher's assistance (I as a junior in high school), and I wrote a football game in BASIC based on some statistics I happened to have.
Then the terminal broke, and all we could get was a "BEEP" - no text at all. We took the last version of the program we had printed, rewrote the output routines to beep out downs, yards to go and such, and entered it blind. It worked! We played it for weeks (cheap school wouldn't fix the dang terminal).
I met someone from our crosstown rival (which shared our account) some time after that. He recognized my name from the program, and said, "We used to play your football game all the time. Then one day we tried it, and all it would do is BEEP."
And that, boys and girls, is how I discovered "Configuration Management".
You seem to have trouble staying with a topic. I made a statement about topic A. You demanded references, and I provided them. Instead of attempting to refute them, you insist you were really talking about topic B. I eventually provided some evidence related to that in good faith, even though it's unrelated to the my statement that started this sub-thread. Instead of refuting them, you switched to arguing about typos.
OK, I apologize to Anonymous Coward for calling him by the name of someone whose "debating skills" consist of calling people names. See you at the pole!;-)
maybe they should try doing so before school anyway!
Too late, I discovered while doing a little research for an acquaintance that the ACLU has filed suit to prohibit voluntary student prayer anywhere, anytime on public school grounds - even before school.
Bullshit. Unless you have a specific case number to cite, I am inclined to think you've been listening to too much conservative talk radio.
Not talk radio (I'm more of an editorial person, and read Ted Rall to William F. Buckley, and everyone in between), but I do Internet searches.;-) I'm also not anti-ACLU - they do a lot of good work in many areas, as my political leanings tend toward Libertarian. Like every good organization, however, I feel they sometimes get carried away in their enthusiasm.
The case reference is Doe v. The Wilson County School System, and you can download an image of the complaint and associated exhibits at http://www.aclu-tn.org/currentdocket.htm#religious freedom/. Note that this is an ACLU website, so I'm fairly certain it's not tainted. The lawsuit contains a wealth of allegations, which may or may not be true (I don't live in Wilson county), but it's the requested Injunctive Relief sought by the ACLU that caught my eye and supports my assertion.
The legal documents themselves are images, so I'll retype the key paragraph and add emphasis. Please excuse the inevitable typos, and I encourage you to verify with the ACLU's original image:
111. Plaintiffs seek a preliminary and, in due course, a permanent injunction pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which enjoins Defendants, their successors, employees and agents, from permitting, authorizing, encouraging, and acquiescing in delivering of: 1) "See You at the Pole", 2) Praying Parents activities, 3) the "National Day of Prayer", 4) Christian themes and songs at the Christmas program, 5) Classroom prayers.
I would certainly interpret an injunction requiring that school officials not permit "See You at the Pole" as prohibiting voluntary student-led prayer before school. (The lawsuit itself alleges, among other things, that the school permitted SYatP to be advertised during school to the same extent that secular events were advertised, and that this violates the Establishment Clause; and that students wearing "I Prayed" stickers at school constituted harassment of other students. I disagree with those positions, although some of the other actions alleged by the ACLU I would consider potential violations if true. The proposed remedy, that is, requiring the school to be actively hostile to voluntary student-led prayer on school grounds outside of school hours, is overreaching IMHO.)
Here are a few other random references on various websites / blogs, to give you a flavor of the position of both sides; feel free to search on your own terms. As far as I know, the case has not been adjudicated yet, so both pro and anti positions are just allegations at this point, and I don't claim to know which are true and which are (ahem) less true. My point is limited to the ACLU's brief paragraph 111, and it's request that SYatP be prohibited at Wilson County schools.
An old preacher once told me that God gave each race an opportunity to hold power, to clearly show that not one of us is actually worthy to hold it. I suspect the same is true for religious fervor, and perhaps it's the Protestant's turn.
Please allow me to apologize for my fellows who have offended you in their zeal. I strive to be as zealous for tolerance as for evangelism, and I'll happily stand up for your freedom to worship (or not) as you please without harassment from me or anyone else.
maybe they should try doing so before school anyway!
Too late, I discovered while doing a little research for an acquaintance that the ACLU has filed suit to prohibit voluntary student prayer anywhere, anytime on public school grounds - even before school.
I said that has never happened, then I qualified that with passing a law to stop prayer.
Ah, so you weren't claiming anything that *I* said never happened - you were talking about something totally unrelated? Sorry, that wasn't clear from your starting your post with "That never happened". Perhaps "Here's something that never happened" would have made it clear that you were changing the subject rather than disagreeing with my point.
No prob, have some (decaf) coffee and we'll switch to your topic.
You politely (ahem) requested that I "show [you] a law that has tried to stop someone from PRAYING". That wasn't as hard as I expected it to be. I don't pay much attention to those - I pray pretty much whenever I feel like it, verbally or silently, and don't plan to stop just because some law says otherwise (and never claimed to be "persecuted", either) - but I made a special effort to look up some cases for you. Here's the three most interesting to me - if not to you, feel free to do a little research yourself.;-)
In Marsh v. Chambers (1983), a lower court injunction on a complaint by Rep. Earnest Chambers to outlaw the ceremonial opening invocation of the Nebraska Legislature by a taxpayer-paid chaplain due to the Establishment Clause was overturned by the Supreme Court. The court noted that the Establishment Clause and the selection of the first chaplain of the first Congress occurred the same week in 1789, so the intent of the Establishment clause (coupled with the 14th amendment) made the lower court's ruling inconsistent with hundreds of years of precedent. As far as I know, the chaplain still prays in spite of Rep. Chambers' efforts.
In Doe v. The Wilson County School System, the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit on behalf of other students to prohibit voluntary, student-led prayer outside of normal school hours on school grounds on the basis that other students might overhear (the "See You at the Pole" event). The event still take place (it's Sept 26 this year), so either the ACLU failed to outlaw prayer on school grounds outside of school hours, or the case is still pending.
The Doe v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board decision concerned an ACLU proposal that opening a (closed) Tangipahoa Parish School Board meeting with an invocation, with which all board members were in agreement, was a violation of the Establishment Clause, and thus board members or their designates should be prohibited from prayer in that setting. Judge Ginger Berrigan so ordered, and for a while prayer was prohibited within the closed meetings (hard to tell if they complied;-), but the subject decision overturned Judge Berrigan on the grounds that the plaintiff (the father of a child attending school in the district) lacked standing to sue because neither he nor his children could actually hear, read or otherwise know anything about the prayer and thus could not be offended. The school board subsequently voted 5-0 to continue with the invocation (can't tell if they actually pray, though - it's a closed meeting;-).
Hope that helps to broaden your world. Hope we can be back to bashing Microsoft or SCO soon - Slashdot isn't a very neutral setting for a discussion on religion.:-D
Just like anti-religious bigots try to outlaw public worship and evangelism.
It's not just the anti-religious bigots that want to outlaw public evanglism. Well, maybe not outlaw, but definately prevent them from harassing.
The trick is to define "harassing", no?:-) Public religious expression is not "harassment", even if you or I feel offended by it. It is those who are offended by any visible expression of religion, and attempt to restrict or outlaw it, that I mean by the term above.
The case I cited was intentional - generally, if a non-religious action or expression is permitted, then a religious action or expression must be permitted in the same context - otherwise, the government has moved from neutrality to hostility. (By "action", I'm obviously omitting government-related action, e.g., writing laws to enforce religious practice isn't permitted just because writing secular laws are!)
But the devil is always in the details (to use a religion-based expression;-).
Nobody in the USA has tried to pass a law to stop someone from praying, ever.
I'm not sure how you think a court ruling is the same thing as adding a new law to the books
Focus, Pinky, focus! Your "stop someone from praying" rabbit trail is off in the weeds. Here's that thread again:
I said: "Just like anti-religious bigots try to outlaw public worship and evangelism."
Afecks said: "That's never happened."
I said: "Child Evangelism Fellowship of San Fernando Valley v. Los Angeles Unified School District"
Now, as to your response: The court ruling I cited evaluated the validity of an executive branch regulation that prescribed "punitive fees" for the use of taxpayer funded facilities (in this case, public schools) by religious groups that were made available to other non-profit groups free of charge. This regulation, under the Chevron legal doctrine or Chevron deference (oh, go look it up!) is a "law" per Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
Thus, I cited an instance of a recent law (eventually struck unconstitutional under the 1st amendment) that attempted to outlaw public worship and evangelism (in this case, in a public facility).
The Open Group owns the trademark on the name UNIX®, so whoever owns code that TOG says is Unix owns a Unix product.
TOG currently gives the nod to any set of code that conforms to the Single UNIX® Specification, as maintained by The Austin Group. Thus, from a product point of view, Unix is not a set of code but a set of specifications.
So, if Linux were to evolve to the point where it met the SUS, Linux could be UNIX®.:-)
The community they should be considering is the "internet at large".
That's a pretty good point, actually - hadn't thought about it before. I'd mod you insightful if I hadn't already posted.:-/
Many porn sites will put "Teaser, erotic" material on the front page to get to you pay, and then have the "Hard Core" stuff be restricted to paying members only.
And many don't, rather unfortunately. However, since anybody can put up a website anywhere on the planet, trying to regulate the Internet's content is like trying to regulate an ant mound. Not that some people won't try.:-/
At least at one time, certain organizations (perhaps American Family Association?) offered a "safe" Internet service - they blocked all sites at the login server except those they had white-listed as "safe for the family". Attempting to access a site automatically cued it for review. Sounds like a good solution for those who are easily offended, primarily because it doesn't bother the rest of us.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, Firefox's memory issues have been fixed AFAICT - I haven't seen it do the memory glutton thing in 5 months at least. But if you're satisfied with Opera, you should keep using it. IMHO, no browser should own more than 50% of the market, lest web designers start coding for its quirks (yes, IE, I staring at you, you sorry old dog!).
Swiftfox, maybe? Or do you need something even faster? (You can tell that Firefox is maturing and gaining market share by the number of people looking for alternatives. ;-)
I suffered with Firefox memory problems through the 1.x series, the "that's not a memory leak!" claims when Firefox slowly consumed every drop of memory and had to be restarted every month or so (while I have to restart Linux... every time I install a new version of Linux :-).
Then one day, around the time I installed FF2, *poof*. No more out of memory condition. I haven't restarted Firefox since I installed Ubuntu 7.04 (counts on fingers) almost 5 months ago.
Did I miss the announcement that the not-memory-leak was plugged???
Like heck. "30 seconds vs. 20 seconds" and I switch. "30 usec vs. 20 usec" and who gives a flip? If all you care about is bragging rights, fine - but I have real work to do!
(Well, OK, I'm cruising slashdot, so I don't have real work to do right now. :-)
Well, I'm always willing to appreciate good technology whatever the source. For example, I'll readily admit that .NET and Visual Studio are top quality products, even if they do come from a convicted monopolist. Opera, too, is an excellent product, and I used it BF (Before Firefox) with pleasure and persuaded some friends as well.
That said, I value my freedom enough that the closed source nature of both of the above products seriously diminishes their value to me. I'm not a hard-nosed RMS wannabe - I use some closed source, such as Flash plug-ins and non-free video drivers, because they work so well - but when a free option is good enough (and Firefox, like virtually all packages in my current distro of choice, is far better than "good enough"), I personally prefer to support free software with my usage, bug reports, and cash.
Perhaps one day soon, I can use a 100% free-as-in-speech distro without compromising any functionality at all. I'll celebrate the day. But that's my choice.
YMMV.
Really? And here I switched from Opera to Firefox. Isn't that "going back"?
I personally found Firefox more of a joy to use than Opera (though Opera was leagues ahead of the browsers I had previously used). Possibly this is because of the wealth of plugins that allow me to configure it to work exactly as I want it to work.
It's probably a personal preference thing - but I notice the market share numbers, and suspect I'm not that unusual.
Nevertheless - congratulations, Opera, on 9.5's performance! I appreciate having choice again in the browser market.
I too used Mandrake / Mandriva for years (it was my first full-time distro), but wandered away a few years back. I lost track of the company once Gaël Duval left. Partly, I was disappointed by the website, which I never quite understood (perhaps I should have studied harder in French :-). Partly, I kept falling into dependency hell - when I tried Ubuntu, installing new packages Just Worked, and I couldn't bring myself to return to my first love.
But I remember Mandriva fondly, and wish them all the best with 2008.
HP is way ahead of you. When my wife purchased one a few months ago, it came with *2* EULAs - Microsoft's and HP's. Microsoft's promised a refund if you reject their EULA, and HP's limited Microsoft's promise to a refund for all hardware and software only.
In other words, you can return everything or nothing. You can't return just the parts you don't want for partial credit anymore.
I'm in the midst of my self-defined "acid test" for whether Ubuntu is ready for the mass market - I replaced my 88 year old dad's Win 98-based eMachine with a custom built machine running Ubuntu 7.04. (Let's see if he notices... ;-)
On my first return to check things out, all was well with one small issue - his task bar was gone. Vamooshed. I had no idea you could even delete the task bar in Gnome (of course, he didn't either).
After a few minutes of mousing about, I figured out how to create a new one - but I think Gnome needs a "restore desktop" option under System -> Administration -> Display (for example).
Of course, if I were a Linux fanbois, I'd say that Windows is so pathetic even my 88-year-old father couldn't figure out how to reconfigure the desktop! Thank goodness he could on Linux! :-D :-D
I understood Microsoft's problem to be that they neglected to specify which version of Suse could be obtained with their vouchers, or even to specify a time limit on their redemption. Did I misunderstand that?
If not, then Microsoft will "distribute" GPLv3 software (should the courts so rule) as soon as the first person redeems one of their vouchers for a future version of Suse containing any GPL3 code.
Of course, since Microsoft took my money for a copy of XP, then refused to honor it because their servers decided I was a pirate (like it's my fault their crappy software keeps dying and needing to be re-installed over and over and over...), they'll get no sympathy from me should the courts hoist them on their own petard.
Sadder still is that you will - but, to quote you, "You guys get all the good deals." ;-)
Sorry, when I said "replied", I didn't mean "hit 'Reply to This' and spew hate-filled vitriol". I meant, "respond to my points with relevant counter-points". I enjoy the latter type of interchange, as I usually learn something; although, of course, your method may have something in it for you, and if so, I hope you found it.
Final thought - I'd humbly suggest some anger management counseling. I really do wish you the best. Cheers!
Isn't that a little like saying that George Wallace's actions ONLY sought to restrict the action of police when he prohibited them from permitting Blacks to enter the University of Alabama? If the school administration is prohibited from "permitting... 1) "See You at the Pole", can you not see that SYatP is prohibited, and the students' right to pray is being violated?
I do not believe I have misrepresented their position in any way - I'm quoting their lawsuit directly here - but I suppose that when the law is settled, we'll see whether the students are permitted to pray or not.
Oh, that's what "Check those URLs!" means on the Post Comment page! :-) Mea culpa. But I suppose you can google as well as I can. ;-)
Thanks for the debate - it helped me settle my thoughts on some of the prayer issues I haven't spent time considering before.
1977. I used a Silent 700 terminal via a 300 baud acoustic modem (you plugged the phone receiver into suction cups) that connected to the mainframe at Jackson State University in Mississippi. Tommy Mason and I taught ourselves to program with our Algebra III teacher's assistance (I as a junior in high school), and I wrote a football game in BASIC based on some statistics I happened to have.
Then the terminal broke, and all we could get was a "BEEP" - no text at all. We took the last version of the program we had printed, rewrote the output routines to beep out downs, yards to go and such, and entered it blind. It worked! We played it for weeks (cheap school wouldn't fix the dang terminal).
I met someone from our crosstown rival (which shared our account) some time after that. He recognized my name from the program, and said, "We used to play your football game all the time. Then one day we tried it, and all it would do is BEEP."
And that, boys and girls, is how I discovered "Configuration Management".
You seem to have trouble staying with a topic. I made a statement about topic A. You demanded references, and I provided them. Instead of attempting to refute them, you insist you were really talking about topic B. I eventually provided some evidence related to that in good faith, even though it's unrelated to the my statement that started this sub-thread. Instead of refuting them, you switched to arguing about typos.
OK, I apologize to Anonymous Coward for calling him by the name of someone whose "debating skills" consist of calling people names. See you at the pole! ;-)
Not talk radio (I'm more of an editorial person, and read Ted Rall to William F. Buckley, and everyone in between), but I do Internet searches. ;-) I'm also not anti-ACLU - they do a lot of good work in many areas, as my political leanings tend toward Libertarian. Like every good organization, however, I feel they sometimes get carried away in their enthusiasm.
The case reference is Doe v. The Wilson County School System, and you can download an image of the complaint and associated exhibits at http://www.aclu-tn.org/currentdocket.htm#religious freedom/. Note that this is an ACLU website, so I'm fairly certain it's not tainted. The lawsuit contains a wealth of allegations, which may or may not be true (I don't live in Wilson county), but it's the requested Injunctive Relief sought by the ACLU that caught my eye and supports my assertion.
The legal documents themselves are images, so I'll retype the key paragraph and add emphasis. Please excuse the inevitable typos, and I encourage you to verify with the ACLU's original image:
111. Plaintiffs seek a preliminary and, in due course, a permanent injunction pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which enjoins Defendants, their successors, employees and agents, from permitting, authorizing, encouraging, and acquiescing in delivering of: 1) "See You at the Pole", 2) Praying Parents activities, 3) the "National Day of Prayer", 4) Christian themes and songs at the Christmas program, 5) Classroom prayers.
I would certainly interpret an injunction requiring that school officials not permit "See You at the Pole" as prohibiting voluntary student-led prayer before school. (The lawsuit itself alleges, among other things, that the school permitted SYatP to be advertised during school to the same extent that secular events were advertised, and that this violates the Establishment Clause; and that students wearing "I Prayed" stickers at school constituted harassment of other students. I disagree with those positions, although some of the other actions alleged by the ACLU I would consider potential violations if true. The proposed remedy, that is, requiring the school to be actively hostile to voluntary student-led prayer on school grounds outside of school hours, is overreaching IMHO.)
Here are a few other random references on various websites / blogs, to give you a flavor of the position of both sides; feel free to search on your own terms. As far as I know, the case has not been adjudicated yet, so both pro and anti positions are just allegations at this point, and I don't claim to know which are true and which are (ahem) less true. My point is limited to the ACLU's brief paragraph 111, and it's request that SYatP be prohibited at Wilson County schools.
I appreciate the ACLU quote, by the way, and the relative lack
An old preacher once told me that God gave each race an opportunity to hold power, to clearly show that not one of us is actually worthy to hold it. I suspect the same is true for religious fervor, and perhaps it's the Protestant's turn.
Please allow me to apologize for my fellows who have offended you in their zeal. I strive to be as zealous for tolerance as for evangelism, and I'll happily stand up for your freedom to worship (or not) as you please without harassment from me or anyone else.
Not to belabor the obvious, but... I wasn't talking to you. :-)
Too late, I discovered while doing a little research for an acquaintance that the ACLU has filed suit to prohibit voluntary student prayer anywhere, anytime on public school grounds - even before school.
Ah, so you weren't claiming anything that *I* said never happened - you were talking about something totally unrelated? Sorry, that wasn't clear from your starting your post with "That never happened". Perhaps "Here's something that never happened" would have made it clear that you were changing the subject rather than disagreeing with my point.
No prob, have some (decaf) coffee and we'll switch to your topic.
You politely (ahem) requested that I "show [you] a law that has tried to stop someone from PRAYING". That wasn't as hard as I expected it to be. I don't pay much attention to those - I pray pretty much whenever I feel like it, verbally or silently, and don't plan to stop just because some law says otherwise (and never claimed to be "persecuted", either) - but I made a special effort to look up some cases for you. Here's the three most interesting to me - if not to you, feel free to do a little research yourself. ;-)
In Marsh v. Chambers (1983), a lower court injunction on a complaint by Rep. Earnest Chambers to outlaw the ceremonial opening invocation of the Nebraska Legislature by a taxpayer-paid chaplain due to the Establishment Clause was overturned by the Supreme Court. The court noted that the Establishment Clause and the selection of the first chaplain of the first Congress occurred the same week in 1789, so the intent of the Establishment clause (coupled with the 14th amendment) made the lower court's ruling inconsistent with hundreds of years of precedent. As far as I know, the chaplain still prays in spite of Rep. Chambers' efforts.
In Doe v. The Wilson County School System, the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit on behalf of other students to prohibit voluntary, student-led prayer outside of normal school hours on school grounds on the basis that other students might overhear (the "See You at the Pole" event). The event still take place (it's Sept 26 this year), so either the ACLU failed to outlaw prayer on school grounds outside of school hours, or the case is still pending.
The Doe v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board decision concerned an ACLU proposal that opening a (closed) Tangipahoa Parish School Board meeting with an invocation, with which all board members were in agreement, was a violation of the Establishment Clause, and thus board members or their designates should be prohibited from prayer in that setting. Judge Ginger Berrigan so ordered, and for a while prayer was prohibited within the closed meetings (hard to tell if they complied ;-), but the subject decision overturned Judge Berrigan on the grounds that the plaintiff (the father of a child attending school in the district) lacked standing to sue because neither he nor his children could actually hear, read or otherwise know anything about the prayer and thus could not be offended. The school board subsequently voted 5-0 to continue with the invocation (can't tell if they actually pray, though - it's a closed meeting ;-).
Hope that helps to broaden your world. Hope we can be back to bashing Microsoft or SCO soon - Slashdot isn't a very neutral setting for a discussion on religion. :-D
The trick is to define "harassing", no? :-) Public religious expression is not "harassment", even if you or I feel offended by it. It is those who are offended by any visible expression of religion, and attempt to restrict or outlaw it, that I mean by the term above.
The case I cited was intentional - generally, if a non-religious action or expression is permitted, then a religious action or expression must be permitted in the same context - otherwise, the government has moved from neutrality to hostility. (By "action", I'm obviously omitting government-related action, e.g., writing laws to enforce religious practice isn't permitted just because writing secular laws are!)
But the devil is always in the details (to use a religion-based expression ;-).
Um hm. That's what I meant by could, but technically your version is more precise. All the details tend to obscure the irony, though. :-) :-)
Focus, Pinky, focus! Your "stop someone from praying" rabbit trail is off in the weeds. Here's that thread again:
Now, as to your response: The court ruling I cited evaluated the validity of an executive branch regulation that prescribed "punitive fees" for the use of taxpayer funded facilities (in this case, public schools) by religious groups that were made available to other non-profit groups free of charge. This regulation, under the Chevron legal doctrine or Chevron deference (oh, go look it up!) is a "law" per Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
Thus, I cited an instance of a recent law (eventually struck unconstitutional under the 1st amendment) that attempted to outlaw public worship and evangelism (in this case, in a public facility).
The Open Group owns the trademark on the name UNIX®, so whoever owns code that TOG says is Unix owns a Unix product.
TOG currently gives the nod to any set of code that conforms to the Single UNIX® Specification, as maintained by The Austin Group. Thus, from a product point of view, Unix is not a set of code but a set of specifications.
So, if Linux were to evolve to the point where it met the SUS, Linux could be UNIX®. :-)
No, rms uses Gnu/Linux, you heathen!
That's a pretty good point, actually - hadn't thought about it before. I'd mod you insightful if I hadn't already posted. :-/
And many don't, rather unfortunately. However, since anybody can put up a website anywhere on the planet, trying to regulate the Internet's content is like trying to regulate an ant mound. Not that some people won't try. :-/
At least at one time, certain organizations (perhaps American Family Association?) offered a "safe" Internet service - they blocked all sites at the login server except those they had white-listed as "safe for the family". Attempting to access a site automatically cued it for review. Sounds like a good solution for those who are easily offended, primarily because it doesn't bother the rest of us.
I guess liberty is the right answer after all. ;-)