it always happens. I've spent enough time already playing dannite on slashdot to know that religion and misconseptions (mostly from those who have very little religion) go hand in hand as they lead people very far off topic.
To this poster I commend him. He/She kept the issue to democracy and majority rules. Sure we have a constitution and bill of rights to protect rights from majority rule, but we also have a majority rule.
Aside from the Bill of rights we have republics or states that also protect us from majority rules. There people can form isolated sectors of where they make laws accordingly to their views. They can move away from what they consider tyranny to what they consider a state that "gets it right".
The constitution itself is a benifit from many state constitutions that were written previously, and accordingly the federal laws benefit from the lessons of state laws.
In Essence, it is Utah's state right to pronounce this. It is a benefit for the Federal Government to protect a States right to do so. It is a benefit for those in the state to do so.
It isn't a right of the Mormon church, but then it *isn't* the Mormon church that is pronounceing it. It does however pronounce warnings about the dangers of pornography. Some listen and make laws accordingly, some don't and go their way in peace. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^ ~
isn't Corel still suing Microsoft over DR DOS and such?
I think you mean Caldera.
how, if at all will microsoft owning 4% of Corel affect the outcome of the lawsuit?
That was already settled out of court. I see no affect possible on the past.
i'd say the fact Corel ships a halfassed, not-fully-developed, debian-based linux distro is probably not the most alarming aspect of all this.
Release early release often. When was that a crime? As far as polished, its right up there with Redhat and Mandrake (except 7.0).
I also agree with the rant. I wish Rob congradulations on a great sight, and the publicity from the other sights....
Hmmm, funny I have no moderation points to use so I have to simply offer corrections. Maybe that should be my new sig... ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^ ~
I'm starting a company too and IT outsourcing firm with potential to develop a really killer product for information management. It goes without saying that liability is a supreme concern.
My friend is really pounding the importance of a Nevada Corp. Basicaly his point is that even if you have a company, set up in limited liability (as in they can only get the assets of the company and not your personal posessions if they sue you and win) they can pierce that "corporate vail" and get to your own posessions.
I was wondering what experiences anyone else here has in that. I know that to get a nevada corp there are registered agents who are happy to take $75 a month to forward mail sent to your company. He claims taxes are best in Nevada too.
He credits the Mafia for bringing such buisness friendly legistation to the state.
Now the only thing that keeps me from this plan is that the people following it are selling things like plastic balls that will keep your clothes clean for 70 washes and stuff like that.
Is there some way to run a company so that it is more difficult to "pierce the corporate vail" without resorting to such shoddy measures? Are there some rules I should follow that avoid loopholes that lawyers might use to get at my possesions? ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~ ~^~~^~
I'm starting a company too, with KlTheKiten. My friend is really pounding the importance of a Nevada Corp. Basicaly his point is that even if you have a company, set up in limited liability (as in they can only get the assets of the company and not your personal posessions if they sue you and win) they can pierce that "corporate vail" and get to your own posessions.
I was wondering what the experiences anyone else here has in that. I know that to get a nevada corp there are registered agents who are happy to take $75 a month to forward mail sent to your company. He claims taxes are best in Nevada too.
He credits the Mafia for bringing such buisness friendly legistation to the state.
Now the only thing that keeps me from this plan is that the people following it are selling things like plastic balls that will keep your clothes clean for 70 washes and stuff like that.
Is there some way to run a company so that it is more difficult to "pierce the corporate vail" without resorting to such shoddy measures? Are there some rules I should follow that avoid loopholes that lawyers might use to get at my possesions? ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~ ~^~~^~
Mind for engineering Career ambitions (commercial pilot) and her good looks.
She's got to be one of the coolest girls sounding girls I've seen on the web. How do they say it...IDDG...?
I've actualy known only a few good looking female engineers. I don't know why that is, but I do know how uncool it is to be a smart girl. "It'll intimidate the guys" Cosmo says.
I can count four including this woman. Then all that about the super model of the 40's who helped invent spread spectrum technology.
If she is reading this, I'm one who is in her fan club. I respect any good looking woman who isn't afraid to use her mind. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
While it is true that you have to search truth yourself (a primary theme of Christ, Budha, Mohomed, and Greek Philosophy) I'm not dodging the point.
I never once said its true because the Bible said so. I said I know its true. I say you can know also. I figure you want too.
I am attacking fervently the essense of saying "you can't know." It is something you are hoping is true, yet you seem to believe it very strongly as if you *knew* it. Do you know it? What is your authority on that?
I'm exactly addressing the point. You *can* know everything that happened in someone's life 2000 years ago. But I think its more important since the point you are origionaly attaking is that Christs life was sinless. You can know that even easier without knowing everything he did.
Do you need to know every molecule of a solution to know its Ph? Or is there another test you can run to find the answer from some other results of tests?
I'm attaking that point becuase you use it to narrowly defined the test, and even as if you were stating fact declared you can not know the results of the test. And like misusing Occam's Razor, the idea of Faith, and supposing facts that aren't there you are mis-stating that I am not addressing the point.
I think what you mean is that I'm not working in your idea of the problem. Indeed I am not and cannot, for you state immediately that someone cannot know the truth.
That successfuly sets up a situation where someone cannot solve a problem, your problem. Setting up unsolvable problens is not hard. Give me a number that equals 5 when three is added to it, and 100 when 9 is subtracted from it. And only integers are allowed. See I created such a problem too, but it doesn't invalidate mathematics. And it doesn't mean I'm sitting in a ivory tower sneering down at mear mortals pretending I'm right.
I call it as I see it, and my sig says it all. I'm happy calling it quits. But its not becuase I'm not addressing the point. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^ ~
You CAN NOT KNOW that it's true. You can trust, and believe, but you can't KNOW. ...and you can't KNOW the truth of the words you base your entire faith on.
This position you realize is something you can only hope is true. Its funny, you can always second guess yourself. You can always doubt. I had someone recently ask me on slashdot how I can base so much of my life on thing that there is no empirical evidence for.
While he was honest, and not trolling, it is a loaded question. I have experienced empirical evidence. I have excersized the scientific method on these points and I have seen the results.
And even if you have no more than a desire to know *if* you can _know_ the truth. Even to where if they did find...an ancient Bible with the previously missing foreward: "Written for all my friends and my lovely wife, this epic play will be performed next Tuesday at Herod's" it seriously wouldn't phase [YOU] at all....
However your other point that many people are mistaken, or even lying only emphazises the importance of finding things out for yourself. I promise it is possible, even if you only want to find out the truth of what I'm saying.
I promise everyone will know the truth sooner or later. And the sooner you learn the truth the sooner you are free from hashing philosophies like one of a thousand people groping in the dark and bumping into each other. Like what happens on Slashdot. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^ ~~^~
Its interesting. How come you don't just say that the reports of him coming back were one of the apostles dressed a lot like him? Or maybe the reports were all made up to begin with because they couldn't stand the idea of losing him? Those are even further from the truth, but make an easier to believe story (which is how I am figuring you are really using Occam's Razor, the easier to beleive story must be true.)
I agree with the need for faith, but too many times people confuse faith with hope or even imagination. Faith is an assurance that something is true. Hope is conjering up will power to follow something you believe is true. Imagination is pulling things out of thin air becuase they don't care what is true.
And that is what happens all too frequently. People I guess don't care enough about truth, or maybe they just lose faith entirely that they can know something is true. But the truth is out there... Christ and Buddha and Mohomed and Abraham all point out, you have to open your eyes to see it. Open your eyes to it means roughly that one has to look for it. Then you'll know it when you see it. At least if you are to believe them. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Sorry, but I search up and down slashdot for two things and allways post when I find them.
1) Posts quoting what's-his-faces law that mentioning Nazis is death to a thread.
It usualy works as censorship, and I'm sorry but my loathing the Nazis makes me loath censorship even more.
2) Occam' Razor
I search for these to test a theory that it is used almost always wrong on slashdot. This supports my theory.
In this case, if you are to take the Biblical account for your facts, he was on the cross a short time. It is possible for someone to survive that. However, He was run in the side with a sword, and blood and water came out. Symbolic references aside, it shows that He was dead long enough (heart stopped beating) for his blood to start seperating. Its hard enough to start a heart beating after just minutes after death. Its a miracle after that long (an hour at least if my sources are correct).
So Occam's Razor does not justify your story as you think it does. Nor does Occam's razor find or even verify truth in any way shape or form. It is a statistical guess, playing the odds. I am so tired of people using it as a divining rod pointing to their half baked ideas. It is useful in interpolating data, not to support arguments.
However I agree that we are inherently good until something compels us to be bad. Christians actualy believe this through the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden. They (like us) as creations of God were pretty good, mostly just innocent. Then they started talking to snakes...
Their "sin" (better said as transgression, even though many would argue there isn't a difference but look it up) was eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
This fruit, or ability to know good and evil is inherited with us. It means we get to know evil, sometimes by participation. This is what is confused some times and given the name origional sin, or being born in sin.
Note however the phrase "born in sin" does not say "born by sin". Many celebates base their obstinance on such a extrapolation of the doctrine as to say that birth happens from sin. This is not true.
Born in sin means more like born into a sinful environment. The sinful environment we find outselves in is the influence that you are speaking of. The good people resist and continue to do good, or repent of the evil they do and become good again.
This repenting, a neccisary step when someone does sin actualy requires an intersesion of someone outside themselves. One can not just change their mind after raping someone and say "Its all better I won't do it again I repent (meaning "change my mind about it") and will never do it again. Justice still demands a price. And the repentant person is not able to pay it.
Hence a believe that we're not nice unless something outside of us compels us to be nice. Surrounded by sin, even the best people need an influence from this intersessory power to be nicer. But most importantly they need someone to "right the wrongs."
That is why the need for someone to die, and live again on their own power. That is why it is so important that Christ either rose from the dead or He didn't. How could someone show us how to overcome our death if he couldn't even overcome his own? Yet there is even more to this that I would explain but I've run out of attention span of the readers a long time ago.
Thanks to the readers that wadded this far... ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^ ~
Sorry, but I search up and down slashdot for two things and allways post when I find them.
1) Posts quoting what's-his-faces law that mentioning Nazis is death to a thread.
It usualy works as censorship, and I'm sorry but my loathing the Nazis makes me loath censorship even more.
2) Occam' Razor
I search for these to test a theory that it is used almost always wrong on slashdot. This supports my theory.
In this case, if you are to take the Biblical account for your facts, he was on the cross a short time. It is possible for someone to survive that. However, He was run in the side with a sword, and blood and water came out. Symbolic references aside, it shows that He was dead long enough (heart stopped beating) for his blood to start seperating. Its hard enough to start a heart beating after just minutes after death. Its a miracle after that long (an hour at least if my sources are correct).
So Occam's Razor does not justify your story as you think it does. Nor does Occam's razor find or even verify truth in any way shape or form. It is a statistical guess, playing the odds. I am so tired of people using it as a divining rod pointing to their half baked ideas. It is useful in interpolating data, not to support arguments. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~ ^~~^~
So often on slashdot two people argue to find they are on opposite sides. It is better when they find that they are on the same side, really, but are using different words and concentrating on different focuses within a viewpoint.
Yeah, you are right in pointing out how one should (how I should) show how it is good as well as bad. A wise person once said, "Teaching [the principles of the matter] always leads to better conduct than training with rules and guidelines."
The principles of sex are good, and should be expressed as such, as to not drag people down with boundaries. If they understood the principles well enough, then they would understand and be stronger in the correct use of it.
Its good to end this in agreement. I've liked your postings on many different subjects in the past. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
I hate going on, but when accusations are so foundless, for example...
But this [the GPL] has very little to do with free speech. And nothing to do with sex.
I guess all those who make the distinction the GPL being free as in speech, not free as in free beer see that it has little to do with speech either. I suppose you saying that [Sex is] the ultimate expression of caring and trust between people who love each other means that you even see the correlation between sex itself and speech as means of communication (which I already said). Now you might see the correlation on how it needs to be protected sometimes by limiting others expression of it, to be able to really enjoy the freedom to express it.
I repmasize that this is just like the GPL restricts people from using your code (your expression) without ensuring you can use theirs. I don't think I need to recall to you that the BSD liscence does not impose a simular restriction on how you express someone else's code. And for that *lack* of restriction on expression, the GPL is considered by many to be a more free form of expression.
The reason I took such offense at your answer was because you made sex sound like it's something wrong.
I appologize, I mean no such thing. Allow me to re-quote what I wrote previously when I said that sex is dangerous, not wrong. It is funny how I was thinking if my kids would really take a talk about how it is a communication, and some people can communicate harmful things by it, and to be careful who you let communicate with you that way, and that it is best inside of marraige, if they really would take it as "Don't do, touch, or listen to anything like that." I suspected that I was wrong to assume such and that they wouldn't until I saw you, an adult take what I said that way.
And fair enough I did fail to mention that it is a great expression. It helps Mommies and Daddies be Mommies and Daddies. And I don't just mean by having kids, it helps them grow closer to each other. It gives both sides encouragement and energy. It is a lot of fun.
However you or my kids take it however, I do not appologize for saying it is dangerous. I know from my own experience and from watching the experience of others. I know that historians also say "Sex is a river of fire, that needs to be quelched and banked a thousand times if it isn't to consume a person and civilization."
To me Sex is like atomic fusion, and freedom to express atomic fusion however or whenever you like would likely destroy a whole bunch. But contained in a safe way it is boundless in supplying energy for thousands. Even if that expression is giving it to countries that aren't quite self disciplined enough to use it as a weapon against other countries. I see a direct correlation with sex in this analogy, don't you?
and your last accusation wich is totaly unfounded in history or anywhere else is...
...if you and others like you persist in your blind faith that sex is something to be hidden away and suppressed, then I fear for the next generation.
This is straight FUD, and a misrepresentation of my position. I am not coming from blind faith. I know of broken homes, and lives from people who had Sex expressed on them in very wrong ways. I know of deep scars that take a long time to heal.
I never said that it needs to be hidden away and supressed. I prefer the term "bridled." My kids need to talk about sex with me, and other trusted individuals. And yes it is to warn them that something that seems so naturaly good can do very much harm. I give my assurance that when done right, there is nothing wrong with it. But thats easy to figure out for ones self too.
As much as it needs to be done, and talked about it needs to be done right. And the importance of doing it right, to enable the freedom of expressing it correctly, requires restraints on its expression.
Freedom is not doing whatever you want with something. It is incompatible with itself if it is.
[me...] why is Katz so confused about thinking Free Speech means someone is allowed to distribute Sex material to anyone?
[you...] Uh... because it means exactly that. Speech about sex must be just as protected as any other kind of speech.
[me again...] No, Freedom does not mean do whatever you want. Those that ascribe the GPL as an expression of freedom already understand this concept, as you are restricted to how you can use something that is GPL'ed. It is an interesting irony that *restricting* some things actualy enhances freedom.
By restricting traffic, for instance, to one side of the road or the other depending on the direction it is traveling you are actualy more free to arive at the destination you desire. However, I can see why that is a more difficult concept for Katz and you to understand. (Oh no, not the old two sides of the road argument... but when will you actually get-it.)
now back to me and you... [me] Unfortunately without a great understanding of the world at their age it will have to come across as "Don't let anyone show, touch, or talk about anything like that."
[you] Every child is different. I don't even know how old yours are, so I can't judge your statement at face value. But when my children ask me about sex, I hope -- nay, I know -- that I can give them a better answer than that.
[me again...] I'm listening, I always want to hear how I can do better but I think you are bluffing. Are you planning on just being able to give it to them on the spot? Do you have any idea what you might say? How would you protect them against people who would naturaly abuse them?
In any case, I didn't say that is how I'd answer them, but that is about how I expect it to come across. I'm sure I'd tell them that some people destroy there lives thinking it is like one lady put it "Sex is the third best thing in life, and I forgot what the first two are."
I'd tell them that it is a way that people communicate and is dangerous becuase somepeople communicate very destructive messages by it. Be very careful and date a long time people so you can get to know them and trust them if they will be destructive or not.
And if they want to enjoy it the most they'll wait until they are married. When people are married there is a lot more safety in sex, and it means a whole lot more. And the children it produces will be *much* happier with a committed mommy and daddy.
I am not the poster of what you are reaponding to but what he wrote did strike a resonant chord with me. Oddly enough I even used to be that way in High School. Nowadays I really don't care.
But the poster wrote about something interesting, and something I really identify with. Linux isn't so much a popular fringe rock band. Its more like a refugee camp. And we all have shared a real commrodery that is found in them.
Back when I first went with linux, it was as a refugee from Windows. Like Linus himself I felt there had to be a better way. Windows was only 16 bit, while processors had understood 32 bit code for years.
And as a refugee camp, the motto was to include people. Like America in the 19th century "Give us your downtrodden and oppressed." We liked each other, not becuase we were different or strange but becuase we all were cast in the flattering light of unity. Then our differences and oddities were highlighted and looked cool.
And in a way we wouldn't second guess anyone in the community becuase it was a uncomfortable place to be, you know they had to love it to be there.
Now Linux is successful. Not a refugee camp anymore, its becoming a global power. It was easier in the day when all we had was each other. No one could steal that, or would even see any value to steal.
Now there is value to protect. Do we horde it like the people we were fleeing from? How do we distribute it?
Many of us morn the loss of those good old days. The origional poster sees Linus's crack down as a change away from that. I don't consider it so much outsider's angst as wanting us to me more including of people and ideas again. I feel very much the same way.
I agree with Linus on protecting the name however. Linux is something now, and if people want to be carpet-baggers or charletons to steal it away or profit from it, then they don't fit inside a community of mutual respect and sharing that Linux is.
Meanwhile, I search for the good old days in something new and exciting. Maybe its EROS, maybe its still being discovered...
You put it much better than I did. I more jumped into the action on the RedHat ideology point. I wouldn't like it if they aquired Loki. Loki is doing some really fantasic work. They are doing well in an area where most have not had much hope for, Linux Gaming.
I'd like to see them carry the spot light a little longer on their own. They are doing too well.
As for RedHat, I like their stratagy and approach. Debian too has a really good approach to being able to add on proprietary packages, it all works through apt and even dselect. They won't do it, but they make it easy for them to.
It takes both in this software world. The free and the non-free. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^ ~~^~
I forgot to add, Real Player server and client, as well as buying Cygnus (which makes *ahem* proprietary software) and Hells Kitchen Systems. According to earlier articles they are coming up with a Motif distribution for the enterprise/ goverment work.
There was a third party cd, but for trial purposes. The ones I mentioned were on the main CD, at least BRU, and RealPlayer were. (I admit to not purchasine any Redhat later than 5.2, and I'm unlikely too.)
It seems they now have just an open source "division." They have a RMS distribution for GNU-free stuff, seperate for their own. Heck the beloved president Bob Young steped aside to pursue the Open Source side of the company.
They are pulling things right. They want to do open source (who wouldn't) but I think the game issue is more what killed them, becuase they've not had qualms against distributing binaries in the past. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
But given their current business, no amount of bending would be enough to fit in with Red Hat's stated business philosophy.
I'm not quite with this, I probably haven't read Redhat's statement. Does this buisness philosophy as you understand it mean they shouldn't package Brun, Applix, MetroX, Motif etc... with their distribution?...(they do.) They won't package Quake II with their distribution?
RedHat is very pro opensource software, don't get me wrong, but never has proprietary software been out of the picture either. Thats for the amish-orthodox Debianites, the extremely vocal 10%. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
First of all I morn the ruling Katz used in the article. I suppose it will still be contested and we'll have to see what happens.
But lets look at, once again, the main mistake Katz makes --always.
Freedom != the right to do whatever you want with something.
Those who have found the GPL as an expression of freedom understand this naturaly, as the GPL restricts someone from proprietarily using code. If the GPL is freedom then freedom is not the right to do whatever you want with something.
Free Speech, as many point out is not the right to make people hear you. There are constitutional restrictions to Free Speech, as in you are restricted from yelling "fire" in public places, distributing porn on high school, Junior High, and Elementary campuses. Everyone is restricted from graffitiing other peoples property.
So why is Katz so confused about thinking Free Speech means someone is allowed to distribute Sex material to anyone? Hasn't he matured in life enough to realize such a basic concept?
I don't know. What I understand is the 20% (unscientific) or so of Slashdot that actualy by into it. They still see life as text book concepts, without understanding the human drama behind them. They still see the keyboard and monitor, text and screen names instead of what is driving people. In thier simplified view of the world they might even think they already know it all, like a Bob Ueker sitting high in the bleachers commenting on the distant game below.
Its not their fault, it is very difficult to explain to people who don't have kids (that would be a cool slashdot poll, btw) the immediate realization of sensitive issues that you want to take full responsibility for your child learning. And also the fear of not knowing how to do it that sometimes grips parents when they try.
I realize that the net is a dangerous playground and I am forced to teach my children earlier about sex. Unfortunately without a great understanding of the world at their age it will have to come across as "Don't let anyone show, touch, or talk about anything like that." Which is exactly the Taboo that Katz is making fun of. They just don't have the capacity to learn Sex's intricacies, and will wind up confused at this point. Yet they are still bombarded by it and need to know what to do about it still. It think its the best advice I can give them at this point.
Later on I would hope to explain to them it is good, and like nuclear power is safe when used properly, and like chocolate Syrup is better on Ice Cream than taken by itself, etc...(haha, what analogies, actualy I have heard many good talks about morality that I hope to pass on down, that don't use such ambiguous analogy but I think for slashdot purposes its plain enough.)
Katz I liked your articles on your troubles learning Linux. But you are still coming across as a person more "telling" people what they want to hear, and taking advantage of seeming contradictions (you call it hypocrisy) that come from such a simplified understanding, more than what you know is right. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^ ~
I think I need to explain a bit more. I seem to have fed more to a distain for ecclesiastical authority than a rational for dealing with the situation.
The position of a parent discussing the family vacation with his children has some key simularities to researchers discussing this sort of experiment with religious leaders. Some religious leaders might, like an impune little kid just dig in his heals and say "No" without any really good reason. It was still okay to ask, after all you don't need the okay of people like that.
You however seem to lump them all into this catagory. Such a low opinion of religious authorities might come from watching fanatics deserving of the evening news. Like Jeff Foxworthy says about the south "We aren't any dumber than the rest of the nation, we just can't keep the stupidest 10% from being on television."
Most ecclesiastical leaders are much like some of the very intelligent people I've seen who believe in God responding to this post. They have been most considerate to the researchers, and have happily given a sort of blessing on the project saying from what they can see it is entirely within our rights as stewards on this earth.
Also provided are many simple truths that make navigating the ethics easier, using God (who God is, and his attributes) as a successful creator. Oddly enough, things written and kind of passed over for many millenia seem to have direct relevance to this situation and are in my opinion a great help to the endeavor. Those sandal wearing strange people in the desert seem to know their stuff even in the 20th century.
This reality check would be appliciable to children who would offer great input on a Family vacation. Like "We are going to France? my teacher told us about a big invasion on the beaches there, can we go look at that?" and the like.
I don't mean a personal attack, but you might think about if your low opinion of children and others might stem from having such a bleak view about God. Are you that sure that "there is no God?" You can convince yourself all you want and indeed everyone accuses each other of doing that, but how can we all move above convincing yourself to where we "know the truth?"
Does Liber Oz, answer that one question? Or does it just placate us into justifying our own beliefs even further becuase of another self-hoped assertion that no one can know the truth... ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
To me life is an energy that is closely related to light that permeates the whole universe. Creating it is like creating matter or energy.
Now I think that creating a life form, one respects it becuase of two reasons, its potential and its ability to fulfil or not to fulfil potential and to some degree decide what its potential is.
God respects that about us, and gives us great freedom to express our own potential. Yet God still asserts ownership of his creation, and the right to destroy it when he needs to. The more I look into this and think about it the more I see scriptures coming to life, about how God deals with us now that we might have our own creation to deal with.
However in essence this is nothing new, parents deal with new creations all the time. But I think the ethics of dealing with a creation are really unlocked. In fact, scriptures have been jumping out at me recently as almost a guide to respecting your own creations, whether they be alive or not.
This is an intreguing discussion in and of itself, but taking the preposition that there is a God, and he is a very successful creator, I think the study of God and his relation to us has great relevance to this discussion. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~ ~^~~^~
If it makes you feel any better I would have liked to have moderated you up. I think you have summed it up really well.
A lord in the biblical sence is something more like a gardener. We are only learning how to do our job as lords of the earth.
As a side not, I don't really consider this as creating life as much as it is creating a life form, like taking apart a mercedes to make a dune buggy and hoping it will run.
And it just might work.... ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~ ~^~
I know my mother can create life. My father helped, I don't think she could of done it without him.
I only point this out to bring in a religious topic of interest. God created the world, the Universe, and Adam and Eve's body. It is very interesting wording in the Bible, (I'd like to see how other religions with simular Adam and Eve Stories put this) but God gave Adam the breath of life. Or in other words, he formed Adam and gave him life.
That might be different than creating life. Indeed it turns into a real extreme chicken and egg problem to comprehend a God who created "life" when he would have to be alive to do it.
Lazerus was in the grave three days (and stinking from decomposition) when Christ brought him back to life.
That God gives life to God' own creation seems to fit with Johns view of God, who is the light and life of the world. In all things, and through all things. Even the very source of life in the Universe.
I think this works well into your next point where the complexity of our existence must have been designed from something that understood at least our complexity. Universal Forces? Natural Selection? Or a being with a Purpose veiled behind and using the former two? I think that is why I agree entirely with George Lucas that "whether or not there is a God is the most important question."
I entirely enjoyed your discussion on whether splicing out some DNA and seeing if it lives constitutes creating life. My opinion is that it doesn't. Thanks for posting I found it very interesting. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Heres another way to look at it. If you had kids and you were going to take them on a vacation would you ask them where they wanted to go first? After all you have the money, car, everything needed to make the trip. Its your resources, they can't stop you from going wherever so why ask them?
Well, when its obvious you aren't asking there permission you find a few reasons too, 1) So that they can get envolved with it too 2) So that you can know better if they will enjoy the vacation too. I don't think you base the vacation entirely on their input, but there are places to improve on the main idea with it. 3) So they don't scream that you decided behind there backs.
I think that aside this provides the best explanation of why they should ask ecclesiastical authorities.
If they asked me, I'd say "Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's and unto the Lord that which is the Lords". This is a scientific effort, not a religous one. A religious effort would be trying to gain an understanding of if and who God is. This really is more like playing around with the tools God left us. I wish them success. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~ ~^~
Although dpkg can use a format for the pixel hunters, one thing I've really appreciated about debian is the installation and removal. It really is very easy, to add and remove *and* the programs instantly show up on my windowmaker menu. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Slashdot Mirror
*Sigh*
^ ~
it always happens. I've spent enough time already playing dannite on slashdot to know that religion and misconseptions (mostly from those who have very little religion) go hand in hand as they lead people very far off topic.
To this poster I commend him. He/She kept the issue to democracy and majority rules. Sure we have a constitution and bill of rights to protect rights from majority rule, but we also have a majority rule.
Aside from the Bill of rights we have republics or states that also protect us from majority rules. There people can form isolated sectors of where they make laws accordingly to their views. They can move away from what they consider tyranny to what they consider a state that "gets it right".
The constitution itself is a benifit from many state constitutions that were written previously, and accordingly the federal laws benefit from the lessons of state laws.
In Essence, it is Utah's state right to pronounce this. It is a benefit for the Federal Government to protect a States right to do so. It is a benefit for those in the state to do so.
It isn't a right of the Mormon church, but then it *isn't* the Mormon church that is pronounceing it. It does however pronounce warnings about the dangers of pornography. Some listen and make laws accordingly, some don't and go their way in peace.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~
isn't Corel still suing Microsoft over DR DOS and such?
^ ~
I think you mean Caldera.
how, if at all will microsoft owning 4% of Corel affect the outcome of the lawsuit?
That was already settled out of court. I see no affect possible on the past.
i'd say the fact Corel ships a halfassed, not-fully-developed, debian-based linux distro is probably not the most alarming aspect of all this.
Release early release often. When was that a crime? As far as polished, its right up there with Redhat and Mandrake (except 7.0).
I also agree with the rant. I wish Rob congradulations on a great sight, and the publicity from the other sights....
Hmmm, funny I have no moderation points to use so I have to simply offer corrections. Maybe that should be my new sig...
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~
I'm starting a company too and IT outsourcing firm with potential to develop a really killer product for information management. It goes without saying that liability is a supreme concern.
~ ~^~~^~
My friend is really pounding the importance of a Nevada Corp. Basicaly his point is that even if you have a company, set up in limited liability (as in they can only get the assets of the company and not your personal posessions if they sue you and win) they can pierce that "corporate vail" and get to your own posessions.
I was wondering what experiences anyone else here has in that. I know that to get a nevada corp there are registered agents who are happy to take $75 a month to forward mail sent to your company. He claims taxes are best in Nevada too.
He credits the Mafia for bringing such buisness friendly legistation to the state.
Now the only thing that keeps me from this plan is that the people following it are selling things like plastic balls that will keep your clothes clean for 70 washes and stuff like that.
Is there some way to run a company so that it is more difficult to "pierce the corporate vail" without resorting to such shoddy measures? Are there some rules I should follow that avoid loopholes that lawyers might use to get at my possesions?
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~
I'm starting a company too, with KlTheKiten. My friend is really pounding the importance of a Nevada Corp. Basicaly his point is that even if you have a company, set up in limited liability (as in they can only get the assets of the company and not your personal posessions if they sue you and win) they can pierce that "corporate vail" and get to your own posessions.
~ ~^~~^~
I was wondering what the experiences anyone else here has in that. I know that to get a nevada corp there are registered agents who are happy to take $75 a month to forward mail sent to your company. He claims taxes are best in Nevada too.
He credits the Mafia for bringing such buisness friendly legistation to the state.
Now the only thing that keeps me from this plan is that the people following it are selling things like plastic balls that will keep your clothes clean for 70 washes and stuff like that.
Is there some way to run a company so that it is more difficult to "pierce the corporate vail" without resorting to such shoddy measures? Are there some rules I should follow that avoid loopholes that lawyers might use to get at my possesions?
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~
I respect her,
...IDDG...?
~
Mind for engineering
Career ambitions (commercial pilot)
and her good looks.
She's got to be one of the coolest girls sounding girls I've seen on the web. How do they say it
I've actualy known only a few good looking female engineers. I don't know why that is, but I do know how uncool it is to be a smart girl. "It'll intimidate the guys" Cosmo says.
I can count four including this woman. Then all that about the super model of the 40's who helped invent spread spectrum technology.
If she is reading this, I'm one who is in her fan club. I respect any good looking woman who isn't afraid to use her mind.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^
haha,
^ ~
While it is true that you have to search truth yourself (a primary theme of Christ, Budha, Mohomed, and Greek Philosophy) I'm not dodging the point.
I never once said its true because the Bible said so. I said I know its true. I say you can know also. I figure you want too.
I am attacking fervently the essense of saying "you can't know." It is something you are hoping is true, yet you seem to believe it very strongly as if you *knew* it. Do you know it? What is your authority on that?
I'm exactly addressing the point. You *can* know everything that happened in someone's life 2000 years ago. But I think its more important since the point you are origionaly attaking is that Christs life was sinless. You can know that even easier without knowing everything he did.
Do you need to know every molecule of a solution to know its Ph? Or is there another test you can run to find the answer from some other results of tests?
I'm attaking that point becuase you use it to narrowly defined the test, and even as if you were stating fact declared you can not know the results of the test. And like misusing Occam's Razor, the idea of Faith, and supposing facts that aren't there you are mis-stating that I am not addressing the point.
I think what you mean is that I'm not working in your idea of the problem. Indeed I am not and cannot, for you state immediately that someone cannot know the truth.
That successfuly sets up a situation where someone cannot solve a problem, your problem. Setting up unsolvable problens is not hard. Give me a number that equals 5 when three is added to it, and 100 when 9 is subtracted from it. And only integers are allowed. See I created such a problem too, but it doesn't invalidate mathematics. And it doesn't mean I'm sitting in a ivory tower sneering down at mear mortals pretending I'm right.
I call it as I see it, and my sig says it all. I'm happy calling it quits. But its not becuase I'm not addressing the point.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~
You CAN NOT KNOW that it's true.
...and you can't KNOW the truth of the words you base your entire faith on.
^ ~~^~
You can trust, and believe, but you can't KNOW.
This position you realize is something you can only hope is true. Its funny, you can always second guess yourself. You can always doubt. I had someone recently ask me on slashdot how I can base so much of my life on thing that there is no empirical evidence for.
While he was honest, and not trolling, it is a loaded question. I have experienced empirical evidence. I have excersized the scientific method on these points and I have seen the results.
And even if you have no more than a desire to know *if* you can _know_ the truth. Even to where if they did find...an ancient Bible with the previously missing foreward: "Written for all my friends and my lovely wife, this epic play will be performed next Tuesday at Herod's" it seriously wouldn't phase [YOU] at all....
However your other point that many people are mistaken, or even lying only emphazises the importance of finding things out for yourself. I promise it is possible, even if you only want to find out the truth of what I'm saying.
I promise everyone will know the truth sooner or later. And the sooner you learn the truth the sooner you are free from hashing philosophies like one of a thousand people groping in the dark and bumping into each other. Like what happens on Slashdot.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~
Its interesting. How come you don't just say that the reports of him coming back were one of the apostles dressed a lot like him? Or maybe the reports were all made up to begin with because they couldn't stand the idea of losing him? Those are even further from the truth, but make an easier to believe story (which is how I am figuring you are really using Occam's Razor, the easier to beleive story must be true.)
~
I agree with the need for faith, but too many times people confuse faith with hope or even imagination. Faith is an assurance that something is true. Hope is conjering up will power to follow something you believe is true. Imagination is pulling things out of thin air becuase they don't care what is true.
And that is what happens all too frequently. People I guess don't care enough about truth, or maybe they just lose faith entirely that they can know something is true. But the truth is out there... Christ and Buddha and Mohomed and Abraham all point out, you have to open your eyes to see it. Open your eyes to it means roughly that one has to look for it. Then you'll know it when you see it. At least if you are to believe them.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^
Sorry, but I search up and down slashdot for two things and allways post when I find them.
^ ~
1) Posts quoting what's-his-faces law that mentioning Nazis is death to a thread.
It usualy works as censorship, and I'm sorry but my loathing the Nazis makes me loath censorship even more.
2) Occam' Razor
I search for these to test a theory that it is used almost always wrong on slashdot. This supports my theory.
In this case, if you are to take the Biblical account for your facts, he was on the cross a short time. It is possible for someone to survive that. However, He was run in the side with a sword, and blood and water came out. Symbolic references aside, it shows that He was dead long enough (heart stopped beating) for his blood to start seperating. Its hard enough to start a heart beating after just minutes after death. Its a miracle after that long (an hour at least if my sources are correct).
So Occam's Razor does not justify your story as you think it does. Nor does Occam's razor find or even verify truth in any way shape or form. It is a statistical guess, playing the odds. I am so tired of people using it as a divining rod pointing to their half baked ideas. It is useful in interpolating data, not to support arguments.
However I agree that we are inherently good until something compels us to be bad. Christians actualy believe this through the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden. They (like us) as creations of God were pretty good, mostly just innocent. Then they started talking to snakes...
Their "sin" (better said as transgression, even though many would argue there isn't a difference but look it up) was eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
This fruit, or ability to know good and evil is inherited with us. It means we get to know evil, sometimes by participation. This is what is confused some times and given the name origional sin, or being born in sin.
Note however the phrase "born in sin" does not say "born by sin". Many celebates base their obstinance on such a extrapolation of the doctrine as to say that birth happens from sin. This is not true.
Born in sin means more like born into a sinful environment. The sinful environment we find outselves in is the influence that you are speaking of. The good people resist and continue to do good, or repent of the evil they do and become good again.
This repenting, a neccisary step when someone does sin actualy requires an intersesion of someone outside themselves. One can not just change their mind after raping someone and say "Its all better I won't do it again I repent (meaning "change my mind about it") and will never do it again. Justice still demands a price. And the repentant person is not able to pay it.
Hence a believe that we're not nice unless something outside of us compels us to be nice. Surrounded by sin, even the best people need an influence from this intersessory power to be nicer. But most importantly they need someone to "right the wrongs."
That is why the need for someone to die, and live again on their own power. That is why it is so important that Christ either rose from the dead or He didn't. How could someone show us how to overcome our death if he couldn't even overcome his own? Yet there is even more to this that I would explain but I've run out of attention span of the readers a long time ago.
Thanks to the readers that wadded this far...
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~
Sorry, but I search up and down slashdot for two things and allways post when I find them.
~ ^~~^~
1) Posts quoting what's-his-faces law that mentioning Nazis is death to a thread.
It usualy works as censorship, and I'm sorry but my loathing the Nazis makes me loath censorship even more.
2) Occam' Razor
I search for these to test a theory that it is used almost always wrong on slashdot. This supports my theory.
In this case, if you are to take the Biblical account for your facts, he was on the cross a short time. It is possible for someone to survive that. However, He was run in the side with a sword, and blood and water came out. Symbolic references aside, it shows that He was dead long enough (heart stopped beating) for his blood to start seperating. Its hard enough to start a heart beating after just minutes after death. Its a miracle after that long (an hour at least if my sources are correct).
So Occam's Razor does not justify your story as you think it does. Nor does Occam's razor find or even verify truth in any way shape or form. It is a statistical guess, playing the odds. I am so tired of people using it as a divining rod pointing to their half baked ideas. It is useful in interpolating data, not to support arguments.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~
haa, cool.
~
So often on slashdot two people argue to find they are on opposite sides. It is better when they find that they are on the same side, really, but are using different words and concentrating on different focuses within a viewpoint.
Yeah, you are right in pointing out how one should (how I should) show how it is good as well as bad. A wise person once said, "Teaching [the principles of the matter] always leads to better conduct than training with rules and guidelines."
The principles of sex are good, and should be expressed as such, as to not drag people down with boundaries. If they understood the principles well enough, then they would understand and be stronger in the correct use of it.
Its good to end this in agreement. I've liked your postings on many different subjects in the past.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^
I hate going on, but when accusations are so foundless, for example...
...if you and others like you persist in your blind faith that sex is something to be hidden away and suppressed, then I fear for the next generation.
But this [the GPL] has very little to do with free speech. And nothing to do with sex.
I guess all those who make the distinction the GPL being free as in speech, not free as in free beer see that it has little to do with speech either. I suppose you saying that [Sex is] the ultimate expression of caring and trust between people who love each other means that you even see the correlation between sex itself and speech as means of communication (which I already said). Now you might see the correlation on how it needs to be protected sometimes by limiting others expression of it, to be able to really enjoy the freedom to express it.
I repmasize that this is just like the GPL restricts people from using your code (your expression) without ensuring you can use theirs. I don't think I need to recall to you that the BSD liscence does not impose a simular restriction on how you express someone else's code. And for that *lack* of restriction on expression, the GPL is considered by many to be a more free form of expression.
The reason I took such offense at your answer was because you made sex sound like it's something wrong.
I appologize, I mean no such thing. Allow me to re-quote what I wrote previously when I said that sex is dangerous, not wrong. It is funny how I was thinking if my kids would really take a talk about how it is a communication, and some people can communicate harmful things by it, and to be careful who you let communicate with you that way, and that it is best inside of marraige, if they really would take it as "Don't do, touch, or listen to anything like that." I suspected that I was wrong to assume such and that they wouldn't until I saw you, an adult take what I said that way.
And fair enough I did fail to mention that it is a great expression. It helps Mommies and Daddies be Mommies and Daddies. And I don't just mean by having kids, it helps them grow closer to each other. It gives both sides encouragement and energy. It is a lot of fun.
However you or my kids take it however, I do not appologize for saying it is dangerous. I know from my own experience and from watching the experience of others. I know that historians also say "Sex is a river of fire, that needs to be quelched and banked a thousand times if it isn't to consume a person and civilization."
To me Sex is like atomic fusion, and freedom to express atomic fusion however or whenever you like would likely destroy a whole bunch. But contained in a safe way it is boundless in supplying energy for thousands. Even if that expression is giving it to countries that aren't quite self disciplined enough to use it as a weapon against other countries. I see a direct correlation with sex in this analogy, don't you?
and your last accusation wich is totaly unfounded in history or anywhere else is...
This is straight FUD, and a misrepresentation of my position. I am not coming from blind faith. I know of broken homes, and lives from people who had Sex expressed on them in very wrong ways. I know of deep scars that take a long time to heal.
I never said that it needs to be hidden away and supressed. I prefer the term "bridled." My kids need to talk about sex with me, and other trusted individuals. And yes it is to warn them that something that seems so naturaly good can do very much harm. I give my assurance that when done right, there is nothing wrong with it. But thats easy to figure out for ones self too.
As much as it needs to be done, and talked about it needs to be done right. And the importance of doing it right, to enable the freedom of expressing it correctly, requires restraints on its expression.
Freedom is not doing whatever you want with something. It is incompatible with itself if it is.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
[me...] why is Katz so confused about thinking Free Speech means someone is allowed to distribute Sex material to anyone?
[you...] Uh... because it means exactly that. Speech about sex must be just as protected as any other kind of speech.
[me again...] No, Freedom does not mean do whatever you want. Those that ascribe the GPL as an expression of freedom already understand this concept, as you are restricted to how you can use something that is GPL'ed. It is an interesting irony that *restricting* some things actualy enhances freedom.
By restricting traffic, for instance, to one side of the road or the other depending on the direction it is traveling you are actualy more free to arive at the destination you desire. However, I can see why that is a more difficult concept for Katz and you to understand. (Oh no, not the old two sides of the road argument... but when will you actually get-it.)
now back to me and you...
[me] Unfortunately without a great understanding of the world at their age it will have to come across as "Don't let anyone show, touch, or talk about anything like that."
[you] Every child is different. I don't even know how old yours are, so I can't judge your statement at face value. But when my children ask me about sex, I hope -- nay, I know -- that I can give them a better answer than that.
[me again...] I'm listening, I always want to hear how I can do better but I think you are bluffing. Are you planning on just being able to give it to them on the spot? Do you have any idea what you might say? How would you protect them against people who would naturaly abuse them?
In any case, I didn't say that is how I'd answer them, but that is about how I expect it to come across. I'm sure I'd tell them that some people destroy there lives thinking it is like one lady put it "Sex is the third best thing in life, and I forgot what the first two are."
I'd tell them that it is a way that people communicate and is dangerous becuase somepeople communicate very destructive messages by it. Be very careful and date a long time people so you can get to know them and trust them if they will be destructive or not.
And if they want to enjoy it the most they'll wait until they are married. When people are married there is a lot more safety in sex, and it means a whole lot more. And the children it produces will be *much* happier with a committed mommy and daddy.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
HAHA, good one.
I am not the poster of what you are reaponding to but what he wrote did strike a resonant chord with me. Oddly enough I even used to be that way in High School. Nowadays I really don't care.
But the poster wrote about something interesting, and something I really identify with. Linux isn't so much a popular fringe rock band. Its more like a refugee camp. And we all have shared a real commrodery that is found in them.
Back when I first went with linux, it was as a refugee from Windows. Like Linus himself I felt there had to be a better way. Windows was only 16 bit, while processors had understood 32 bit code for years.
And as a refugee camp, the motto was to include people. Like America in the 19th century "Give us your downtrodden and oppressed." We liked each other, not becuase we were different or strange but becuase we all were cast in the flattering light of unity. Then our differences and oddities were highlighted and looked cool.
And in a way we wouldn't second guess anyone in the community becuase it was a uncomfortable place to be, you know they had to love it to be there.
Now Linux is successful. Not a refugee camp anymore, its becoming a global power. It was easier in the day when all we had was each other. No one could steal that, or would even see any value to steal.
Now there is value to protect. Do we horde it like the people we were fleeing from? How do we distribute it?
Many of us morn the loss of those good old days. The origional poster sees Linus's crack down as a change away from that. I don't consider it so much outsider's angst as wanting us to me more including of people and ideas again. I feel very much the same way.
I agree with Linus on protecting the name however. Linux is something now, and if people want to be carpet-baggers or charletons to steal it away or profit from it, then they don't fit inside a community of mutual respect and sharing that Linux is.
Meanwhile, I search for the good old days in something new and exciting. Maybe its EROS, maybe its still being discovered...
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
You put it much better than I did. I more jumped into the action on the RedHat ideology point. I wouldn't like it if they aquired Loki. Loki is doing some really fantasic work. They are doing well in an area where most have not had much hope for, Linux Gaming.
^ ~~^~
I'd like to see them carry the spot light a little longer on their own. They are doing too well.
As for RedHat, I like their stratagy and approach. Debian too has a really good approach to being able to add on proprietary packages, it all works through apt and even dselect. They won't do it, but they make it easy for them to.
It takes both in this software world. The free and the non-free.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~
I forgot to add, Real Player server and client, as well as buying Cygnus (which makes *ahem* proprietary software) and Hells Kitchen Systems. According to earlier articles they are coming up with a Motif distribution for the enterprise/ goverment work.
~
There was a third party cd, but for trial purposes. The ones I mentioned were on the main CD, at least BRU, and RealPlayer were. (I admit to not purchasine any Redhat later than 5.2, and I'm unlikely too.)
It seems they now have just an open source "division." They have a RMS distribution for GNU-free stuff, seperate for their own. Heck the beloved president Bob Young steped aside to pursue the Open Source side of the company.
They are pulling things right. They want to do open source (who wouldn't) but I think the game issue is more what killed them, becuase they've not had qualms against distributing binaries in the past.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^
But given their current business, no amount of bending would be enough to fit in with Red Hat's stated business philosophy.
...(they do.) They won't package Quake II with their distribution?
I'm not quite with this, I probably haven't read Redhat's statement. Does this buisness philosophy as you understand it mean they shouldn't package Brun, Applix, MetroX, Motif etc... with their distribution?
RedHat is very pro opensource software, don't get me wrong, but never has proprietary software been out of the picture either. Thats for the amish-orthodox Debianites, the extremely vocal 10%.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
First of all I morn the ruling Katz used in the article. I suppose it will still be contested and we'll have to see what happens.
^ ~
But lets look at, once again, the main mistake Katz makes --always.
Freedom != the right to do whatever you want with something.
Those who have found the GPL as an expression of freedom understand this naturaly, as the GPL restricts someone from proprietarily using code. If the GPL is freedom then freedom is not the right to do whatever you want with something.
Free Speech, as many point out is not the right to make people hear you. There are constitutional restrictions to Free Speech, as in you are restricted from yelling "fire" in public places, distributing porn on high school, Junior High, and Elementary campuses. Everyone is restricted from graffitiing other peoples property.
So why is Katz so confused about thinking Free Speech means someone is allowed to distribute Sex material to anyone? Hasn't he matured in life enough to realize such a basic concept?
I don't know. What I understand is the 20% (unscientific) or so of Slashdot that actualy by into it. They still see life as text book concepts, without understanding the human drama behind them. They still see the keyboard and monitor, text and screen names instead of what is driving people. In thier simplified view of the world they might even think they already know it all, like a Bob Ueker sitting high in the bleachers commenting on the distant game below.
Its not their fault, it is very difficult to explain to people who don't have kids (that would be a cool slashdot poll, btw) the immediate realization of sensitive issues that you want to take full responsibility for your child learning. And also the fear of not knowing how to do it that sometimes grips parents when they try.
I realize that the net is a dangerous playground and I am forced to teach my children earlier about sex. Unfortunately without a great understanding of the world at their age it will have to come across as "Don't let anyone show, touch, or talk about anything like that." Which is exactly the Taboo that Katz is making fun of. They just don't have the capacity to learn Sex's intricacies, and will wind up confused at this point. Yet they are still bombarded by it and need to know what to do about it still. It think its the best advice I can give them at this point.
Later on I would hope to explain to them it is good, and like nuclear power is safe when used properly, and like chocolate Syrup is better on Ice Cream than taken by itself, etc...(haha, what analogies, actualy I have heard many good talks about morality that I hope to pass on down, that don't use such ambiguous analogy but I think for slashdot purposes its plain enough.)
Katz I liked your articles on your troubles learning Linux. But you are still coming across as a person more "telling" people what they want to hear, and taking advantage of seeming contradictions (you call it hypocrisy) that come from such a simplified understanding, more than what you know is right.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~
hmm
I think I need to explain a bit more. I seem to have fed more to a distain for ecclesiastical authority than a rational for dealing with the situation.
The position of a parent discussing the family vacation with his children has some key simularities to researchers discussing this sort of experiment with religious leaders. Some religious leaders might, like an impune little kid just dig in his heals and say "No" without any really good reason. It was still okay to ask, after all you don't need the okay of people like that.
You however seem to lump them all into this catagory. Such a low opinion of religious authorities might come from watching fanatics deserving of the evening news. Like Jeff Foxworthy says about the south "We aren't any dumber than the rest of the nation, we just can't keep the stupidest 10% from being on television."
Most ecclesiastical leaders are much like some of the very intelligent people I've seen who believe in God responding to this post. They have been most considerate to the researchers, and have happily given a sort of blessing on the project saying from what they can see it is entirely within our rights as stewards on this earth.
Also provided are many simple truths that make navigating the ethics easier, using God (who God is, and his attributes) as a successful creator. Oddly enough, things written and kind of passed over for many millenia seem to have direct relevance to this situation and are in my opinion a great help to the endeavor. Those sandal wearing strange people in the desert seem to know their stuff even in the 20th century.
This reality check would be appliciable to children who would offer great input on a Family vacation. Like "We are going to France? my teacher told us about a big invasion on the beaches there, can we go look at that?" and the like.
I don't mean a personal attack, but you might think about if your low opinion of children and others might stem from having such a bleak view about God. Are you that sure that "there is no God?" You can convince yourself all you want and indeed everyone accuses each other of doing that, but how can we all move above convincing yourself to where we "know the truth?"
Does Liber Oz, answer that one question? Or does it just placate us into justifying our own beliefs even further becuase of another self-hoped assertion that no one can know the truth...
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Hmmm what is creating life?
~ ~^~~^~
To me life is an energy that is closely related to light that permeates the whole universe. Creating it is like creating matter or energy.
Now I think that creating a life form, one respects it becuase of two reasons, its potential and its ability to fulfil or not to fulfil potential and to some degree decide what its potential is.
God respects that about us, and gives us great freedom to express our own potential. Yet God still asserts ownership of his creation, and the right to destroy it when he needs to. The more I look into this and think about it the more I see scriptures coming to life, about how God deals with us now that we might have our own creation to deal with.
However in essence this is nothing new, parents deal with new creations all the time. But I think the ethics of dealing with a creation are really unlocked. In fact, scriptures have been jumping out at me recently as almost a guide to respecting your own creations, whether they be alive or not.
This is an intreguing discussion in and of itself, but taking the preposition that there is a God, and he is a very successful creator, I think the study of God and his relation to us has great relevance to this discussion.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~
If it makes you feel any better I would have liked to have moderated you up. I think you have summed it up really well.
~ ~^~
A lord in the biblical sence is something more like a gardener. We are only learning how to do our job as lords of the earth.
As a side not, I don't really consider this as creating life as much as it is creating a life form, like taking apart a mercedes to make a dune buggy and hoping it will run.
And it just might work....
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^
I firmly believe that only God can create life.
I know my mother can create life. My father helped, I don't think she could of done it without him.
I only point this out to bring in a religious topic of interest. God created the world, the Universe, and Adam and Eve's body. It is very interesting wording in the Bible, (I'd like to see how other religions with simular Adam and Eve Stories put this) but God gave Adam the breath of life. Or in other words, he formed Adam and gave him life.
That might be different than creating life. Indeed it turns into a real extreme chicken and egg problem to comprehend a God who created "life" when he would have to be alive to do it.
Lazerus was in the grave three days (and stinking from decomposition) when Christ brought him back to life.
That God gives life to God' own creation seems to fit with Johns view of God, who is the light and life of the world. In all things, and through all things. Even the very source of life in the Universe.
I think this works well into your next point where the complexity of our existence must have been designed from something that understood at least our complexity. Universal Forces? Natural Selection? Or a being with a Purpose veiled behind and using the former two? I think that is why I agree entirely with George Lucas that "whether or not there is a God is the most important question."
I entirely enjoyed your discussion on whether splicing out some DNA and seeing if it lives constitutes creating life. My opinion is that it doesn't. Thanks for posting I found it very interesting.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
"There is no God but man". So sez Liber OZ
~ ~^~
Who is Liber OZ?
Heres another way to look at it. If you had kids and you were going to take them on a vacation would you ask them where they wanted to go first? After all you have the money, car, everything needed to make the trip. Its your resources, they can't stop you from going wherever so why ask them?
Well, when its obvious you aren't asking there permission you find a few reasons too,
1) So that they can get envolved with it too
2) So that you can know better if they will enjoy the vacation too. I don't think you base the vacation entirely on their input, but there are places to improve on the main idea with it.
3) So they don't scream that you decided behind there backs.
I think that aside this provides the best explanation of why they should ask ecclesiastical authorities.
If they asked me, I'd say "Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's and unto the Lord that which is the Lords". This is a scientific effort, not a religous one. A religious effort would be trying to gain an understanding of if and who God is. This really is more like playing around with the tools God left us. I wish them success.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^
Although dpkg can use a format for the pixel hunters, one thing I've really appreciated about debian is the installation and removal. It really is very easy, to add and remove *and* the programs instantly show up on my windowmaker menu.~
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^
I hope it benefits Wine, Twin and Twine....
~ ^~
hint:
(open the source, open the source)
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~