Agreed, I'd much rather have a computer that just works (or my iBook, which is cool already), and spend my time and money making my truck or house look better.
Let's say that you want to change the permissions of all the files in your home directory to go-rwx (which make sense). So, you type:
chmod go-rwx ~/*
But by mistake, you hit the space bar, and get:
chmod go-rwx ~/*
By the time you realize the hard disk has churned too long, you'd just gone and wiped the permissions on/bin,/sbin,/var, etc. You're system is now screwed up to the point where it's probably faster to reinstall than change all the permissions. If you weren't root, you'd see something like this (from a Linux-PPC box):
[pts/2@tardis:/home/dmorriso @00:45] chmod go-rwx ~/* chmod:/bin: Operation not permitted chmod:/boot: Operation not permitted chmod:/dev: Operation not permitted chmod:/etc: Operation not permitted chmod:/home: Operation not permitted chmod:/lib: Operation not permitted chmod:/lost+found: Operation not permitted chmod:/mnt: Operation not permitted chmod:/opt: Operation not permitted chmod:/proc: Operation not permitted chmod:/root: Operation not permitted chmod:/sbin: Operation not permitted chmod:/tmp: Operation not permitted chmod:/usr: Operation not permitted chmod:/var: Operation not permitted [pts/2@tardis:/home/dmorriso @00:46]
And yes, back in the day, I did make this oops and had to reinstall, because I had used su rather than sudo, and had forgotten to un-su. I started using sudo right afterwards.:)
I love Linux on my iBook 500 (it's my main machine), but I am really dieing for accelerated X - X is the only slow part (and it kills DVD playing, etc).
I haven't done enough research into getting it working, but my impression is that right now it does not.
Does anyone out there have it working? Could you post some tips/resources/steps? Thanks!
Simple - five 9s hardware. The problem is X86 boxen (as most PC users can attest) is shit breaks. Fans stop, harddrives fail, MBs blink out. Mainframes don't have this problem - they are designed to keep ticking. If you have 10 CPUs in your 390, and one goes down, IBM just comes by and puts in a new one while everything is still going.
Incidentally, the hardware console for a 390 is a Thinkpad. That's right - a whole Thinkpad just for the console. And often there are multiple Thinkpads for redundancy.
The other big difference is bandwidth - the bandwith in a mainframe is incredible.
If someone offered me to colocate my server in an x86 farm, or under VM on a 390, I would choose the latter any day. Instant setup, and most reliable hardware in the world. If you need more data space, or processing time, etc, you don't even need to bring the machine down - cut them a check, they tweak some settings in VM, and *voila*, you're set. Once you get to know them, Mainframes are really cool.:)
Simple - buy a low end S/390 (sorry - zSeries, stupid IBM marketing), get yourself a VM license, and just give each customer thier own complete Linux box. Maintinence becomes really easy too, and it will never go down.
Of course, there is a downside - $500,000 for the Iron, and some outrageous license fee for using VM.
As an aside, I've heard the computer science dept. of one University was going to do this and give each student thier own Linux box to use, as an alternative to shell accounts.
You can see some Linux on VM/390 screenshots here.
I have directions for folding an F-14 Tomcat from a square of paper. It flies great, and even has airfoils on the wings and control surfaces on the tail. You can see a picture of it here - it's the blue one in the middle.
The model is by Micheal LaFosse (you can find books by him with instructions for the "Aero-gami" F-14), and he has some other amazing models on this site.
I know this is not completely on topic, but I thought it would be interesting to fellow/.'s, and when else will it be even close to on topic.;)
First, I would like to thank the membersof the Committee for querying the public for thier comments - it is not everyday when our government takes a proactive role in listening to the American public at large.
I understand that digital media producers have a need to control the rights of thier IP. I respect this right. Unfortunately, digital media prevents a quandry in that it is perfectly duplicated an unlimited number of times.
I feel that a basic technical issue must be understood: If the data can be access for the purpose of using the media, it can also be copied. To get around this problem, you can do a couple things. You can restrict the access to device containing a digital key, and restrict what those devices can do (as done in the case of DVDs). You can also legislate protection around the media, making it a crime to access the data in a non-approved manner (the DMCA). You could also charge a tarrif on the blank media, providing a profit to the companies being short changed by piracy.
I feel the first solution, the technical solution, is the best. But I strongly belive that forcing hardware and/or software to be certified by a government or sudo-government agency is a bad idea. This will undoubtedly stiffle innovation, and deal a death blow to Open Source solutions. I believe it will drive technology development out of the US, and result in a bootleg device industry. Digital key solutions, such as those implemented in DVDs, are a good idea, but the companies producing them must change thier mindset, and make the technology available to all users, not just the users who have selected an certain platform or operating system. This requires both a strong technical solution, and open standards.
The legislative solution can be used to buttress the technical one, but laws such as the DMCA are too broad. Such laws should punish people who seek to pirate the digital information, but should protect at all costs fair use and research. A purchaser of digital media or a digital device has a right to use it however they see fit, as long as doing so does not constitute a violation the copyright - the in the traditional sense.
Finally, taxing blank media for the good of the digital content producers is a violation of the proper role of government. If digital contents producers feel that the only way to remain profitable is to tax blank media, they should increase thier prices and let the market settle it. To use the government for this purpose is a travesty.
Well, I spend some time reading over the site. I saw a few things that I didn't really like (that turned me off from trying it)
1) You have to code in this one window that seems to have the problem pinned to the top of it. In a Java applet. With a half assed vi. I'd want to be able to code the thing in vim (or editor of choice), in multiple windows. I know as a programmer I am attached to the way I code (and really attached to regex searches and s/xxx/yyy in vi) and wouldn't want to code on a time limit in an awkward environment.
2) It says if you use C++, you are restricted to using C++ strings (null terminated char * I guess?) which is cool, but vectors must be STL Vectors. Why not let you do what ever you want (i.e. vectors are just arrays)
3) It seems like it gives you the classes/methods you should use. I see this makes judging it simpler, but it seems sort of like CS 101 projects on a time limit. I don't like coding into someone elses architecture, or worrying about using classes well when I am doing a quick and dirty solution and just want to hack out some procedural stuff.
Overall, I see what they are trying to accomplish, and I guess it would work. Like putting rules on any arbitratry activity, it allows for good competition, but limits people. I personally like the idea of the programming competitions we had way back in High School better - a team of 4 picks a language from 3 or 4, designates one person as a coder, gets 10 or so problems or reasonable difficulty with nothing more than a description and requirements, and has 4 or 6 hours to code solutions to as many as possible correctly. There you aptitude with the chosen language, understanding the limitations and advantages of your language, your collective skill at architecting innovative solutions, and the make up of your team all made a big difference. Being able to code correctly and quickly was just a benefit - but finding solutions to difficult problems that were elegant and efficient was most important. And in my experience, while coding quickly and aptly make a big difference, someone with a mastery of all the constructs of a language isn't worth their salt if they can't envision a solution. This contest seems to concentrate more on the coding than the problem solving. (Hence the name TopCoder I guess). An interesting competition, but not something I would spend my precious non-work coding hours on.
If someone who has participated could provide insight to any of this, please do - I am interested to know if I am misunderstanding any/all of this.
The full quote
on
DOJ Dot-Narc
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The full "push the limits" quote can be found on this page.
Advocates of an expanded freedom of expression are purveyors of information with yet another agenda. These individuals and groups publish information on the Internet to push the boundaries of self-expression and the First Amendment. The information they provide may induce minors and young adults to break drug laws or to become a danger to themselves or to others by abusing illegal drugs.
I find this infuriating... that the our government considers people who "push the boundries" of the amendment that gives the freedom to do just that criminal, and that they feel that it is within thier purview to control the content of the Internet. *grumble*
I also took a look at your website, and yes, you are a bigot.
How are my views (expressed via the links on my website) bigotted? I am shocked that an open-minded person could think this.
If the facts, are true and they are from other religions, then no problem. I don't mind.
Problem is, that as far as schools are concerned, any facts that are backed up with Faith alone are not facts, they are beliefs. And you can teach those as beliefs (which happens all the time in History, Literature, and Comparative Religion classes), but not as fact. I find different Religions and philosophies intriguing, and I would love it if a standard course in our schools was a good comparative religion course. But teach religious beliefs as fact is just wrong in a public school. Note that more fussy things, such as ethics and civic morals, which are in general shared all religions, are promoted in schools, becuase this is what the majority of society supports. But they are (or should be) promoted without a specific relgious bent.
Why don't you have any links on your web site that put down other religions because of their negative aspects?
Huh? Becuase I don't see this as approprate. MY website lets other's know what I belive, because I think what I believe is pretty cool (which is good, since if I didn't, I'd probably be pretty unhappy). Other people can think whatever they want (although if I don't agree, I'll argue it with them) But they have that right, and I won't bash them by putting up "anti-whatever" links. What I don't like, and what I consider wrong and don't respect, is people bashing other people on thier beliefs in a hateful manner.
Your statement that all religious views have equal merit is not at all objective. It's a definite opinion in and of itself; a religious opinion at that since that's the subject to which it relates.
Hrm... in that case, what would be an "objective" view of Religions? Or would you advocate that an objective view does not exist?
and further confusing any opinions that contrdict yours with bigotry
Incorrect - I never said this, and I never said you were a Bigot. I said: "Asserting one Religion over another in a derogatory and hateful manner is a matter of bigotry", which is a very different thing.
To judge from the name of site, I probably do not agree with most of it.
I don't think I ever said, although I may have accidentally implied (but I don't think so), that you did agree. I tried to keep my comments to your stated opinion on the passage at hand - and not to your personal beliefs.
You err further when you associate faith with hatred.
Once again, I did not do this. I associated faith that is asserted in a dergoatory or hateful manner as being on shakey ground. I belive that this is true - especially when the faith in question (as do many philosophies) promotes universal love. But this is bordering on another discussion.
although I will mention that it's quite possible to believe that another person is mistaken on a subject without hating him.
I agree whole heartedly... once again, my comments were specific to the kind of language that I feel promotes more misunderstanding and hate between Religions that otherwise.
Your website betrays your actual religious point of view, which is what you're preaching here and attempting to pass off as objective reality.
My website states my personal beliefs, and my political beliefs. Yes, I have been arguing for the Seperation of Church and State, and I belive in this. I don't see anything wrong with supporting my views, and I have tried to do so in as factual manner as I can. As for this particular conversation, other than my belief that Religions should respect each other and not encourage hate of other beliefs, I don't see how my opinions have anything to do with this. I provide the link to my page, and the links on my page, partially so people can go there and evaluate what I say against my own slant on the world. If anything, I feel this increases my integrity in this forum.
It seems that the correct point of view is that Islam is "another truth!"
Yes, to an objective observer - i.e. an observer that sees all religious views as having equal merit, Islam is just as truthful as Christianity. And for one religion to assert itself over another with such strong language can easily be interpreted as a hateful message. In the least, it certainly doesn't encourage the people that read that "Christian" website to show any Christian love to their Islamic neighbors (or the Islamic countries that some of them are apparently guests in).
You, sir, are confusing objectivity and Religion. Asserting one Religion over another in a derogatory and hateful manner is a matter of bigotry (or, as you would have it, Faith). Asserting that all Religions have an equal right to existence and an equal claim in "truth" is nothing more than openminded objectivity.
I use a base YDL install with most everything compiled myself, but I agree - the iBook 500 makes a sweet Linux box. I've got sound, ethernet, airport... I sort of have firewire, but I haven't invested the time to actually getting past seeing my external CD Burner (and actually burning something with it)
If you could search for the appropriate texts for me, I would appreciate it.
Well, I did find the letter I was refering to: here
To do this, school funds would have to be collected in another way, but let's say that each community managed to have their own school taxes directed to their own school.
Well, for one, at least in NY communities do provide the taxes for thier own schools. There are school lunch programs, etc from state/federal governments, but the majority of the funds are local.
The problem with have each community set its own standard is that the constitution is still the law of the land. This would be akin to a community deciding that it was legal to stop women from voting. The Constitution has the last word, so every government body at any level in the US has to abide by the minimum freedoms and laws set forth by the Constitution. From an ethical point of view, you have the problem that if a community did vote to have a government funded parochial school, even if 95% of that community was X religion, you are still violating the rights of 5% that are Y or Z religion. Not to mention the number of that 95% that feel that the schools should not be teaching thier children religion, but the parents should. Or the guy from another community who happens to move there and doesn't buy into what's being done (see the movie Footloose for what I mean).
OK, those are the facts. Now I am going to throw in some opinionated stuff. First, the Separation of Church and State is a good thing to just about anyone who isn't look to force thier religion on other people. It garuntees that everyone will have complete freedom to practice thier religion however they want, and that no one will have to worry about having to support someone else's religion, or face descrimination by the government for their religious choices. This is a very important thing. Second, if you look at religion as a private and community entity, the majority of times it is a worthwhile force. But when you look at religion mixed with government (or sudo-government) entities, you get things like the Crusades, nations that don't respect women, pilgrims crossing huge oceans just to practice thier religion, etc. Europeans first came to what is now the US becuase of the problems caused by State-sponsered religion. People seem to forget this.
I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that you are Christian, and therefore you are conveniently in the majority in the US. Imagine for a moment if the push for religion in schools/government was coming from the Jews, or the Hindus, or the Pagans, or the practitioners of Voodoo - and you were in the minority. I hope that it will help put things in perspective, and personalize the things at stake. And keep in mind the Danbury Baptists, and the Pilgrims - who relied on the Freedom of Religion to be able to practice thiers.
Seperation between church and state? Well, okay. But must there be a seperation between church and city or church and school? Why can't each school decide for themselves?
Becuase the school is run by the state. And incientally, state applys to any government in this country - federal, state, local. And government operated school has to abide by the constitution. Not to get ad hominem (sp?) here - but this is really basic American civics.
Secondly, isn't there already a seperation between "church" and state? I figured that with so many religions involved that there was no official "church".
It's not about an official church, its about any religion have any more or less influence on goernment than any other religion. So if we let Religion A have a certain right, we need to let every other religion (even the one's that A doesn't like, or thinks is occult, etc) have the same right. What is often forgotten is that the same applies in reverse - all religion's have protection and free from the government. So the government can't decide to, say, tax your local Baptist church out of existence, and let your local synagogue or mosque get a free ride. Incidentally, the famous "Wall of Separation" quote was in response to a Baptist group writing the president thanking him for supporting the Seperation of Church and State - as they were facing oppression at the hands of thier Congregationalist controled local government.
Also, where is the exact passage that contains "seperation between church and state"?
Well, it all stems from the "Congress shall make no law..." clause in the Constitution about relgions. The actualy phrase was coined in the aforementioned letter by (I am almost sure, but I am tired) Thomas Jefferson. More details about all this can be found at a place like the ACLU or AU.
Incidentally, regardless of what PP might say, good, scientific studies say that teaching kids about *only* abstinence won't work. Some kids are going to have sex - the only way to protect them from becoming STD victims or teenage parents is to teach them how to do what they will do anyway safely. It's common sense that is backed up by good research. It has nothing to do with religion - it has *everything* to do with human nature.
I do agree with the rest of your argument to some degree - and I would advocate that any pre-high school internet access in schools should *always* be supervised, and that high schools should employ a simple corporate-type filter that blocks only overtly pornographic type sites; computers should all be in public areas; and the adult in charge should be able to override the blocks at will on thier own judgement for a certain site.
Of course, we have a law on the books that won't allow this, so until the law changes, it is important that we ensure that our schools are not being unwittingly used to influence children in "non-sanctioned" ways.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed, I'd much rather have a computer that just works (or my iBook, which is cool already), and spend my time and money making my truck or house look better.
NB: this is zsh figuring out my typo, not 'rm' being annoying.
:)
You mean, that's zsh being annoying.
D'oh - I forgot the -R in that example, which is the real kicker.
Let's say that you want to change the permissions of all the files in your home directory to go-rwx (which make sense). So, you type:
/*
/bin, /sbin, /var, etc. You're system is now screwed up to the point where it's probably faster to reinstall than change all the permissions. If you weren't root, you'd see something like this (from a Linux-PPC box):
/* /bin: Operation not permitted /boot: Operation not permitted /dev: Operation not permitted /etc: Operation not permitted /home: Operation not permitted /lib: Operation not permitted /lost+found: Operation not permitted /mnt: Operation not permitted /opt: Operation not permitted /proc: Operation not permitted /root: Operation not permitted /sbin: Operation not permitted /tmp: Operation not permitted /usr: Operation not permitted /var: Operation not permitted
:)
chmod go-rwx ~/*
But by mistake, you hit the space bar, and get:
chmod go-rwx ~
By the time you realize the hard disk has churned too long, you'd just gone and wiped the permissions on
[pts/2@tardis:/home/dmorriso @00:45] chmod go-rwx ~
chmod:
chmod:
chmod:
chmod:
chmod:
chmod:
chmod:
chmod:
chmod:
chmod:
chmod:
chmod:
chmod:
chmod:
chmod:
[pts/2@tardis:/home/dmorriso @00:46]
And yes, back in the day, I did make this oops and had to reinstall, because I had used su rather than sudo, and had forgotten to un-su. I started using sudo right afterwards.
For a guy worth $500,000, your grasp of English isn't worth shit.
I love Linux on my iBook 500 (it's my main machine), but I am really dieing for accelerated X - X is the only slow part (and it kills DVD playing, etc).
I haven't done enough research into getting it working, but my impression is that right now it does not.
Does anyone out there have it working? Could you post some tips/resources/steps? Thanks!
Just remembered, one of the products they recommended was Evidence Eliminator by Robin Hood software.
...just did a story about this. Can't find it online, but it's in libraries now.
Simple - five 9s hardware. The problem is X86 boxen (as most PC users can attest) is shit breaks. Fans stop, harddrives fail, MBs blink out. Mainframes don't have this problem - they are designed to keep ticking. If you have 10 CPUs in your 390, and one goes down, IBM just comes by and puts in a new one while everything is still going.
:)
Incidentally, the hardware console for a 390 is a Thinkpad. That's right - a whole Thinkpad just for the console. And often there are multiple Thinkpads for redundancy.
The other big difference is bandwidth - the bandwith in a mainframe is incredible.
If someone offered me to colocate my server in an x86 farm, or under VM on a 390, I would choose the latter any day. Instant setup, and most reliable hardware in the world. If you need more data space, or processing time, etc, you don't even need to bring the machine down - cut them a check, they tweak some settings in VM, and *voila*, you're set.
Once you get to know them, Mainframes are really cool.
Simple - buy a low end S/390 (sorry - zSeries, stupid IBM marketing), get yourself a VM license, and just give each customer thier own complete Linux box. Maintinence becomes really easy too, and it will never go down.
Of course, there is a downside - $500,000 for the Iron, and some outrageous license fee for using VM.
As an aside, I've heard the computer science dept. of one University was going to do this and give each student thier own Linux box to use, as an alternative to shell accounts.
You can see some Linux on VM/390 screenshots here.
I think it has something to do with that whole "combustion" thing. *shrug*
I have directions for folding an F-14 Tomcat from a square of paper. It flies great, and even has airfoils on the wings and control surfaces on the tail. You can see a picture of it here - it's the blue one in the middle.
/.'s, and when else will it be even close to on topic. ;)
The model is by Micheal LaFosse (you can find books by him with instructions for the "Aero-gami" F-14), and he has some other amazing models on this
site.
I know this is not completely on topic, but I thought it would be interesting to fellow
First, I would like to thank the membersof the Committee for querying the
public for thier comments - it is not everyday when our government takes a
proactive role in listening to the American public at large.
I understand that digital media producers have a need to control the
rights of thier IP. I respect this right. Unfortunately, digital media
prevents a quandry in that it is perfectly duplicated an unlimited number
of times.
I feel that a basic technical issue must be understood: If the data can
be access for the purpose of using the media, it can also be copied. To
get around this problem, you can do a couple things. You can restrict the
access to device containing a digital key, and restrict what those devices
can do (as done in the case of DVDs). You can also legislate protection
around the media, making it a crime to access the data in a non-approved
manner (the DMCA). You could also charge a tarrif on the blank media,
providing a profit to the companies being short changed by piracy.
I feel the first solution, the technical solution, is the best. But I
strongly belive that forcing hardware and/or software to be certified by a
government or sudo-government agency is a bad idea. This will undoubtedly
stiffle innovation, and deal a death blow to Open Source solutions. I
believe it will drive technology development out of the US, and result in
a bootleg device industry. Digital key solutions, such as those
implemented in DVDs, are a good idea, but the companies producing them
must change thier mindset, and make the technology available to all users,
not just the users who have selected an certain platform or operating
system. This requires both a strong technical solution, and open
standards.
The legislative solution can be used to buttress the technical one, but
laws such as the DMCA are too broad. Such laws should punish people who
seek to pirate the digital information, but should protect at all costs
fair use and research. A purchaser of digital media or a digital device
has a right to use it however they see fit, as long as doing so does not
constitute a violation the copyright - the in the traditional sense.
Finally, taxing blank media for the good of the digital content producers
is a violation of the proper role of government. If digital contents
producers feel that the only way to remain profitable is to tax blank
media, they should increase thier prices and let the market settle it. To
use the government for this purpose is a travesty.
Thank you very much for this opportunity.
Well, I spend some time reading over the site. I saw a few things that I didn't really like (that turned me off from trying it)
1) You have to code in this one window that seems to have the problem pinned to the top of it. In a Java applet. With a half assed vi. I'd want to be able to code the thing in vim (or editor of choice), in multiple windows. I know as a programmer I am attached to the way I code (and really attached to regex searches and s/xxx/yyy in vi) and wouldn't want to code on a time limit in an awkward environment.
2) It says if you use C++, you are restricted to using C++ strings (null terminated char * I guess?) which is cool, but vectors must be STL Vectors. Why not let you do what ever you want (i.e. vectors are just arrays)
3) It seems like it gives you the classes/methods you should use. I see this makes judging it simpler, but it seems sort of like CS 101 projects on a time limit. I don't like coding into someone elses architecture, or worrying about using classes well when I am doing a quick and dirty solution and just want to hack out some procedural stuff.
Overall, I see what they are trying to accomplish, and I guess it would work. Like putting rules on any arbitratry activity, it allows for good competition, but limits people. I personally like the idea of the programming competitions we had way back in High School better - a team of 4 picks a language from 3 or 4, designates one person as a coder, gets 10 or so problems or reasonable difficulty with nothing more than a description and requirements, and has 4 or 6 hours to code solutions to as many as possible correctly. There you aptitude with the chosen language, understanding the limitations and advantages of your language, your collective skill at architecting innovative solutions, and the make up of your team all made a big difference. Being able to code correctly and quickly was just a benefit - but finding solutions to difficult problems that were elegant and efficient was most important. And in my experience, while coding quickly and aptly make a big difference, someone with a mastery of all the constructs of a language isn't worth their salt if they can't envision a solution. This contest seems to concentrate more on the coding than the problem solving. (Hence the name TopCoder I guess). An interesting competition, but not something I would spend my precious non-work coding hours on.
If someone who has participated could provide insight to any of this, please do - I am interested to know if I am misunderstanding any/all of this.
The full "push the limits" quote can be found on this page.
Advocates of an expanded freedom of expression are purveyors of information with yet another agenda. These individuals and groups publish information on the Internet to push the boundaries of self-expression and the First Amendment. The information they provide may induce minors and young adults to break drug laws or to become a danger to themselves or to others by abusing illegal drugs.
I find this infuriating... that the our government considers people who "push the boundries" of the amendment that gives the freedom to do just that criminal, and that they feel that it is within thier purview to control the content of the Internet. *grumble*
IBM uses Notes for it's inter-office email, calendar, databases, etc. In a word, it sucks.
Ya, I got it too... you beat me to the post. Most spooky indeed.
I also took a look at your website, and yes, you are a bigot.
How are my views (expressed via the links on my website) bigotted? I am shocked that an open-minded person could think this.
If the facts, are true and they are from other religions, then no problem. I don't mind.
Problem is, that as far as schools are concerned, any facts that are backed up with Faith alone are not facts, they are beliefs. And you can teach those as beliefs (which happens all the time in History, Literature, and Comparative Religion classes), but not as fact. I find different Religions and philosophies intriguing, and I would love it if a standard course in our schools was a good comparative religion course. But teach religious beliefs as fact is just wrong in a public school. Note that more fussy things, such as ethics and civic morals, which are in general shared all religions, are promoted in schools, becuase this is what the majority of society supports. But they are (or should be) promoted without a specific relgious bent.
Why don't you have any links on your web site that put down other religions because of their negative aspects?
Huh? Becuase I don't see this as approprate. MY website lets other's know what I belive, because I think what I believe is pretty cool (which is good, since if I didn't, I'd probably be pretty unhappy). Other people can think whatever they want (although if I don't agree, I'll argue it with them) But they have that right, and I won't bash them by putting up "anti-whatever" links. What I don't like, and what I consider wrong and don't respect, is people bashing other people on thier beliefs in a hateful manner.
Your statement that all religious views have equal merit is not at all objective. It's a definite opinion in and of itself; a religious opinion at that since that's the subject to which it relates.
Hrm... in that case, what would be an "objective" view of Religions? Or would you advocate that an objective view does not exist?
and further confusing any opinions that contrdict yours with bigotry
Incorrect - I never said this, and I never said you were a Bigot. I said: "Asserting one Religion over another in a derogatory and hateful manner is a matter of bigotry", which is a very different thing.
To judge from the name of site, I probably do not agree with most of it.
I don't think I ever said, although I may have accidentally implied (but I don't think so), that you did agree. I tried to keep my comments to your stated opinion on the passage at hand - and not to your personal beliefs.
You err further when you associate faith with hatred.
Once again, I did not do this. I associated faith that is asserted in a dergoatory or hateful manner as being on shakey ground. I belive that this is true - especially when the faith in question (as do many philosophies) promotes universal love. But this is bordering on another discussion.
although I will mention that it's quite possible to believe that another person is mistaken on a subject without hating him.
I agree whole heartedly... once again, my comments were specific to the kind of language that I feel promotes more misunderstanding and hate between Religions that otherwise.
Your website betrays your actual religious point of view, which is what you're preaching here and attempting to pass off as objective reality.
My website states my personal beliefs, and my political beliefs. Yes, I have been arguing for the Seperation of Church and State, and I belive in this. I don't see anything wrong with supporting my views, and I have tried to do so in as factual manner as I can. As for this particular conversation, other than my belief that Religions should respect each other and not encourage hate of other beliefs, I don't see how my opinions have anything to do with this. I provide the link to my page, and the links on my page, partially so people can go there and evaluate what I say against my own slant on the world. If anything, I feel this increases my integrity in this forum.
It seems that the correct point of view is that Islam is "another truth!"
Yes, to an objective observer - i.e. an observer that sees all religious views as having equal merit, Islam is just as truthful as Christianity. And for one religion to assert itself over another with such strong language can easily be interpreted as a hateful message. In the least, it certainly doesn't encourage the people that read that "Christian" website to show any Christian love to their Islamic neighbors (or the Islamic countries that some of them are apparently guests in).
You, sir, are confusing objectivity and Religion. Asserting one Religion over another in a derogatory and hateful manner is a matter of bigotry (or, as you would have it, Faith). Asserting that all Religions have an equal right to existence and an equal claim in "truth" is nothing more than openminded objectivity.
I use a base YDL install with most everything compiled myself, but I agree - the iBook 500 makes a sweet Linux box. I've got sound, ethernet, airport... I sort of have firewire, but I haven't invested the time to actually getting past seeing my external CD Burner (and actually burning something with it)
If you could search for the appropriate texts for me, I would appreciate it.
Well, I did find the letter I was refering to: here
To do this, school funds would have to be collected in another way, but let's say that each community managed to have their own school taxes directed to their own school.
Well, for one, at least in NY communities do provide the taxes for thier own schools. There are school lunch programs, etc from state/federal governments, but the majority of the funds are local.
The problem with have each community set its own standard is that the constitution is still the law of the land. This would be akin to a community deciding that it was legal to stop women from voting. The Constitution has the last word, so every government body at any level in the US has to abide by the minimum freedoms and laws set forth by the Constitution. From an ethical point of view, you have the problem that if a community did vote to have a government funded parochial school, even if 95% of that community was X religion, you are still violating the rights of 5% that are Y or Z religion. Not to mention the number of that 95% that feel that the schools should not be teaching thier children religion, but the parents should. Or the guy from another community who happens to move there and doesn't buy into what's being done (see the movie Footloose for what I mean).
OK, those are the facts. Now I am going to throw in some opinionated stuff. First, the Separation of Church and State is a good thing to just about anyone who isn't look to force thier religion on other people. It garuntees that everyone will have complete freedom to practice thier religion however they want, and that no one will have to worry about having to support someone else's religion, or face descrimination by the government for their religious choices. This is a very important thing. Second, if you look at religion as a private and community entity, the majority of times it is a worthwhile force. But when you look at religion mixed with government (or sudo-government) entities, you get things like the Crusades, nations that don't respect women, pilgrims crossing huge oceans just to practice thier religion, etc. Europeans first came to what is now the US becuase of the problems caused by State-sponsered religion. People seem to forget this.
I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that you are Christian, and therefore you are conveniently in the majority in the US. Imagine for a moment if the push for religion in schools/government was coming from the Jews, or the Hindus, or the Pagans, or the practitioners of Voodoo - and you were in the minority. I hope that it will help put things in perspective, and personalize the things at stake. And keep in mind the Danbury Baptists, and the Pilgrims - who relied on the Freedom of Religion to be able to practice thiers.
Seperation between church and state? Well, okay. But must there be a seperation between church and city or church and school? Why can't each school decide for themselves?
Becuase the school is run by the state. And incientally, state applys to any government in this country - federal, state, local. And government operated school has to abide by the constitution. Not to get ad hominem (sp?) here - but this is really basic American civics.
Secondly, isn't there already a seperation between "church" and state? I figured that with so many religions involved that there was no official "church".
It's not about an official church, its about any religion have any more or less influence on goernment than any other religion. So if we let Religion A have a certain right, we need to let every other religion (even the one's that A doesn't like, or thinks is occult, etc) have the same right. What is often forgotten is that the same applies in reverse - all religion's have protection and free from the government. So the government can't decide to, say, tax your local Baptist church out of existence, and let your local synagogue or mosque get a free ride. Incidentally, the famous "Wall of Separation" quote was in response to a Baptist group writing the president thanking him for supporting the Seperation of Church and State - as they were facing oppression at the hands of thier Congregationalist controled local government.
Also, where is the exact passage that contains "seperation between church and state"?
Well, it all stems from the "Congress shall make no law..." clause in the Constitution about relgions. The actualy phrase was coined in the aforementioned letter by (I am almost sure, but I am tired) Thomas Jefferson. More details about all this can be found at a place like the ACLU or AU.
Incidentally, regardless of what PP might say, good, scientific studies say that teaching kids about *only* abstinence won't work. Some kids are going to have sex - the only way to protect them from becoming STD victims or teenage parents is to teach them how to do what they will do anyway safely. It's common sense that is backed up by good research. It has nothing to do with religion - it has *everything* to do with human nature.
I do agree with the rest of your argument to some degree - and I would advocate that any pre-high school internet access in schools should *always* be supervised, and that high schools should employ a simple corporate-type filter that blocks only overtly pornographic type sites; computers should all be in public areas; and the adult in charge should be able to override the blocks at will on thier own judgement for a certain site.
Of course, we have a law on the books that won't allow this, so until the law changes, it is important that we ensure that our schools are not being unwittingly used to influence children in "non-sanctioned" ways.
Can you provide some sort of link for this? Sounds interesting...