First, I don't see anyone claiming holy water is a miracle. What I see are several people saying "it is not magic, it is a symbol". Do you understand what a symbol is?
Secondly, popular culture believing that catholics believe holy water is magic is not the same as catholics believing holy water is magic.
Of course it is legal. They aren't discriminating against people based on their religion, they are just setting limits on what they sell in their store. Nobody (regardless of their religion) can sell a spell. Anyone (regardless of their religion) can sell a car part. No discrimination.
Where did I say anything about not being able to afford insurance? Choosing not to buy is not the same as can't afford.
It is entirely possible (in fact, very likely) that someone can afford an insurance policy and other driving expenses, yet chooses not to purchase insurance. That does not mean, however, that they would have the financial wherewithal to pay for damages they caused in an accident.
Whose fault is not irrelevant, it is the entire point. Nobody is required to have insurance to cover your own loses, you are required to have insurance to cover your liability for other people's loses.
If you wreck your own car, and don't have collision insurance and can't afford to fix it, well that is your problem. Too bad.
If you wreck MY car, you owe me for the repairs/replacement, and 'sorry, I can't afford that' is NOT an option. That is why liability insurance is required. It is a financial loss to you, but not being able to cover that loss is not acceptable.
Yes, let's just conveniently ignore little realities like the fact that the people most likely to not have insurance (especially if not mandated) are the ones who can not afford to pay for damage they cause.
"Facing financial consequences" does not mean anything. The point of the lawsuit is not to punish the driver (although there may be an element of that), it is to make the victim whole. The victim has medical bills, loss of income, property loss, etc NOW, not in dribs and drabs 'for a long time'.
Your entire premise seems to be: you can do anything you like - if you hurt someone in the process that is their problem. Sorry, but society says a resounding 'no!' to that.
Are you really that stupid? What if the other party is a pedestrian, or a passenger in a vehicle they don't own, or is standing at a bus stop or sitting at a sidewalk cafe? What you are in effect saying is that instead of you, the owner of a vehicle that can cause untold damage, being forced to have insurance to protect us from you, everyone else should have to have insurance to protect themselves from you.
What you fail to understand is that if you cause an accident 'your own costs' include the harm to the other party. So if you run into me and cause $100K in damages (medical bills, lost income, property damage, etc), do you have a spare $100K laying around to pay for that? Most people do not, so the government requires them to buy liability insurance so they can meet those obligations.
Under you brilliant idea, what happens when you cause $100K in damages, can't afford that, and have no insurance? Either the victim or society pays for your actions, thus you have evaded personal responsibility.
Nobody cares if you can't afford to repair of replace your own car, you are not required to have insurance for that. But society in general certainly does care if you can't afford to pay for damage you cause to others, thus the mandatory liability requirement.
You are completely wrong. You (not an insurance company) are responsible for harm you cause to others. Period. By far, most people could not afford to pay for that harm. The government requires them to buy insurance so they will have the resources to pay for the damage they cause.
Your idiotic scheme places the responsibility on the victim instead of the person causing the harm. Nobody but you supports that.
Uh, no. YOU are responsible for damage you cause to others. It is called liability. The government requires you to have insurance so you can meet that responsibility.
You are required to have liability insurance to protect me from damage you cause.
You are not required to insurance that protects your property (collision, comprehensive, etc).
"State of emergency" mostly means that un-budgeted funds are available to help with the problem. It doesn't have anything to do with "direness" or drastic actions.
In reality, all a "state of emergency" means is that state money is available to combat the problem. There may also be some laws put into effect (like getting fined if you leave standing water on your property). It does not mean that things are dire or that drastic measures are being taken, which is how many people read it.
Bats only go after mosquitoes if there is nothing better to eat (like moths). It would take a whole lot of bats to make any appreciable dent in the mosquito population.
I meant to respond to you. You made the statement "The GPL gives the author COMPLETE freedom" (caps yours). This is factually incorrect. Neither the GPL nor any other copyright license gives the author anything. They also don't take anything away from the author. Copyright law, not some license, gives all rights in a work to the author.
The rest of your post talks solely about 'use'. You never once mention the word 'distribute'. GPL does not apply to use, it applies to distribution. So, even if the did release it under the GPL, their use would not be affected at all. And they certainly would not be required to GPL any of their in-house stuff.
The only thing GPL requires is that IF you distribute binaries, you must distribute the matching source.
Oh please. The GPL does not give the author COMPLETE freedom, copyright law does.
Furthermore, the GPL does not limit what USERS can do, it controls what DISTRIBUTORS must do. So even if your bizarre theory that an author must act under the same terms as he licenses it to others were true (and it most certainly isn't), the GPL wouldn't kick in until they DISTRIBUTED the code. Usage has nothing to do with it.
Buying a business doesn't mean just getting assets (like a server farm). It means getting customers of that business, probably worth way more than any server farm.
OK, so you are an AC, and probably a troll, but I can't help myself.
What universe are you in where "if it ain't true, it's false" is an incorrect statement?
Of course, that is not the statement the OP is making. He is making the statement "if it is not known to be true, it is false". Which is just bullshit.
That makes no sense. Suppose the following statements had been made:
"The father is proud of his son" "The father is not proud of his son"
How can both of those statements be false? If they are both false, then they are both true, because they are opposites of each other.
The correct answer is not "false", it is "I don't know".
Hopefully, the actual statements we something along the lines of "We know from this picture that the father is proud of his son". That one IS false, because we do not know.
No, it is still not a false assertion. No assertion can be made either way.
If the statement "the father is proud of his son" is false, then the statement "the father is not proud of his son" must be true. But it isn't - we simply don't know.
The only way any of those statements could be asserted to be either 'true' or 'false' is if they are prefixed with something along the lines of "We know from this picture that...". Now your true or false statements are not about the happiness of the father, but whether or not you know something.
But that is true of every industry. Take automobiles for instance. Originally, they were built by tinkerers for tinkerers only. Over time, improvements were made, and the need to tinker got less and less all the time. And each time the need to tinker was reduced, the ability to tinker was reduced with it. And today we have cars that the average person can't do anything with except maybe change the oil. On the other hand, there is no need to do anything other than that. No doubt there are car enthusiasts who bemoan the fact that they can't really tinker with their car much. Would the rest of us give up our reliable, fuel-efficient, lower emission cars that don't even need a tuneup until 105K miles just so the enthusiasts could tinker? No way.
Same thing with radio and TV. How many people do you know who complain that their giant HDTV is completely made up of evil, corporate-made chips, and they really miss the ability to swap out those crappy tubes that the manufacturer used with some good, high-performance ones like you could in the good old days? Nobody.
Computing is progressing along the same path. The vast majority of users do not enjoy installing programs, configuring things, dealing with/preventing malware, making sure that every damn thing they do doesn't cause some security problem, etc. They just want a device that does what they want. If that means losing some ability to tinker, who cares?
If you want to be free of corporate control, how about not buying a device built by a corporation for the purpose of running another corporation's OS? Build your own.
As for your earlier comment about innovation - I think you are completely wrong there. I mean, as of today you still have 100% freedom to do whatever you want with your PC, so clearly locked-down PC's can't be blamed for lack of innovation. No, I think the more likely reason for lack of innovation is that for the last couple of decades it has been too easy to do things. Ease does not cause innovation, difficulty does. Installing alternate OS's, programs to let you cheat at games or pirate stuff, etc is not any more innovative than building a Heathkit TV was 40 years ago. It may be fun, it may give you satisfaction, but it sure is not innovative. So maybe the locked-down world of computing will actually cause people to get off their asses and actually tinker with real stuff and innovate once again.
This doesn't make sense to me. The reason that vendors fight for the MS certification in the x86 arena is that without it they won't sell any hardware. There is zero market in x86 for something that doesn't run Windows (Apple excluded, because that doesn't run on anyone else's hardware). The reason there is no market is because everyone has a few decades of Windows 'stuff' that they have accumulated (not only software, but also some hardware like WinPrinters and WinModems) that they did not want to have to replace. And on top of that, there are simply no viable alternatives that Joe Public ever heard of that have a compelling enough reason to go through the pain of switching.
All of that is different with ARM. None of your existing Windows x86 stuff is going to work on ARM, so that advantage is gone. More importantly, there is an alternative now - Android. There are millions of people using Android now. They have Android 'stuff'. They like Android, and see no reason to switch. Why would manufacturers completely abandon Android?
Are manufacturers going to offer at least some Windows certified machines? Probably. Is every manufacturer going to certify every machine? No way, unless all of their customers abandon Android for Windows.
If you call 911 from within Kennedy it is probably their own emergency control you are calling. Many facilities are set up like that. Then the internal 911 makes the decision about whether to handle it themselves or call the county emergency services.
Slashdot Mirror
First, I don't see anyone claiming holy water is a miracle. What I see are several people saying "it is not magic, it is a symbol". Do you understand what a symbol is?
Secondly, popular culture believing that catholics believe holy water is magic is not the same as catholics believing holy water is magic.
Of course it is legal. They aren't discriminating against people based on their religion, they are just setting limits on what they sell in their store. Nobody (regardless of their religion) can sell a spell. Anyone (regardless of their religion) can sell a car part. No discrimination.
Where did I say anything about not being able to afford insurance? Choosing not to buy is not the same as can't afford.
It is entirely possible (in fact, very likely) that someone can afford an insurance policy and other driving expenses, yet chooses not to purchase insurance. That does not mean, however, that they would have the financial wherewithal to pay for damages they caused in an accident.
Whose fault is not irrelevant, it is the entire point. Nobody is required to have insurance to cover your own loses, you are required to have insurance to cover your liability for other people's loses.
If you wreck your own car, and don't have collision insurance and can't afford to fix it, well that is your problem. Too bad.
If you wreck MY car, you owe me for the repairs/replacement, and 'sorry, I can't afford that' is NOT an option. That is why liability insurance is required. It is a financial loss to you, but not being able to cover that loss is not acceptable.
What you meant was "the people that cause accidents would go scott free while the good drivers (who are vicitms) would be forced to bear the costs".
Yes, let's just conveniently ignore little realities like the fact that the people most likely to not have insurance (especially if not mandated) are the ones who can not afford to pay for damage they cause.
"Facing financial consequences" does not mean anything. The point of the lawsuit is not to punish the driver (although there may be an element of that), it is to make the victim whole. The victim has medical bills, loss of income, property loss, etc NOW, not in dribs and drabs 'for a long time'.
Your entire premise seems to be: you can do anything you like - if you hurt someone in the process that is their problem. Sorry, but society says a resounding 'no!' to that.
Are you really that stupid? What if the other party is a pedestrian, or a passenger in a vehicle they don't own, or is standing at a bus stop or sitting at a sidewalk cafe? What you are in effect saying is that instead of you, the owner of a vehicle that can cause untold damage, being forced to have insurance to protect us from you, everyone else should have to have insurance to protect themselves from you.
What you fail to understand is that if you cause an accident 'your own costs' include the harm to the other party. So if you run into me and cause $100K in damages (medical bills, lost income, property damage, etc), do you have a spare $100K laying around to pay for that? Most people do not, so the government requires them to buy liability insurance so they can meet those obligations.
Under you brilliant idea, what happens when you cause $100K in damages, can't afford that, and have no insurance? Either the victim or society pays for your actions, thus you have evaded personal responsibility.
Nobody cares if you can't afford to repair of replace your own car, you are not required to have insurance for that. But society in general certainly does care if you can't afford to pay for damage you cause to others, thus the mandatory liability requirement.
You are completely wrong. You (not an insurance company) are responsible for harm you cause to others. Period. By far, most people could not afford to pay for that harm. The government requires them to buy insurance so they will have the resources to pay for the damage they cause.
Your idiotic scheme places the responsibility on the victim instead of the person causing the harm. Nobody but you supports that.
Uh, no. YOU are responsible for damage you cause to others. It is called liability. The government requires you to have insurance so you can meet that responsibility.
You are required to have liability insurance to protect me from damage you cause.
You are not required to insurance that protects your property (collision, comprehensive, etc).
"State of emergency" mostly means that un-budgeted funds are available to help with the problem. It doesn't have anything to do with "direness" or drastic actions.
In reality, all a "state of emergency" means is that state money is available to combat the problem. There may also be some laws put into effect (like getting fined if you leave standing water on your property). It does not mean that things are dire or that drastic measures are being taken, which is how many people read it.
Bats only go after mosquitoes if there is nothing better to eat (like moths). It would take a whole lot of bats to make any appreciable dent in the mosquito population.
I meant to respond to you. You made the statement "The GPL gives the author COMPLETE freedom" (caps yours). This is factually incorrect. Neither the GPL nor any other copyright license gives the author anything. They also don't take anything away from the author. Copyright law, not some license, gives all rights in a work to the author.
The rest of your post talks solely about 'use'. You never once mention the word 'distribute'. GPL does not apply to use, it applies to distribution. So, even if the did release it under the GPL, their use would not be affected at all. And they certainly would not be required to GPL any of their in-house stuff.
The only thing GPL requires is that IF you distribute binaries, you must distribute the matching source.
Uh, yeah. That is what he says. You get your results by asking your doctor, not the lab.
Oh please. The GPL does not give the author COMPLETE freedom, copyright law does.
Furthermore, the GPL does not limit what USERS can do, it controls what DISTRIBUTORS must do. So even if your bizarre theory that an author must act under the same terms as he licenses it to others were true (and it most certainly isn't), the GPL wouldn't kick in until they DISTRIBUTED the code. Usage has nothing to do with it.
Buying a business doesn't mean just getting assets (like a server farm). It means getting customers of that business, probably worth way more than any server farm.
Yes, that is what I said. If you know the state, then it is either true or false. But it is not false just because you don't know the state.
OK, so you are an AC, and probably a troll, but I can't help myself.
What universe are you in where "if it ain't true, it's false" is an incorrect statement?
Of course, that is not the statement the OP is making. He is making the statement "if it is not known to be true, it is false". Which is just bullshit.
That makes no sense. Suppose the following statements had been made:
"The father is proud of his son"
"The father is not proud of his son"
How can both of those statements be false? If they are both false, then they are both true, because they are opposites of each other.
The correct answer is not "false", it is "I don't know".
Hopefully, the actual statements we something along the lines of "We know from this picture that the father is proud of his son". That one IS false, because we do not know.
No, it is still not a false assertion. No assertion can be made either way.
If the statement "the father is proud of his son" is false, then the statement "the father is not proud of his son" must be true. But it isn't - we simply don't know.
The only way any of those statements could be asserted to be either 'true' or 'false' is if they are prefixed with something along the lines of "We know from this picture that...". Now your true or false statements are not about the happiness of the father, but whether or not you know something.
But that is true of every industry. Take automobiles for instance. Originally, they were built by tinkerers for tinkerers only. Over time, improvements were made, and the need to tinker got less and less all the time. And each time the need to tinker was reduced, the ability to tinker was reduced with it. And today we have cars that the average person can't do anything with except maybe change the oil. On the other hand, there is no need to do anything other than that. No doubt there are car enthusiasts who bemoan the fact that they can't really tinker with their car much. Would the rest of us give up our reliable, fuel-efficient, lower emission cars that don't even need a tuneup until 105K miles just so the enthusiasts could tinker? No way.
Same thing with radio and TV. How many people do you know who complain that their giant HDTV is completely made up of evil, corporate-made chips, and they really miss the ability to swap out those crappy tubes that the manufacturer used with some good, high-performance ones like you could in the good old days? Nobody.
Computing is progressing along the same path. The vast majority of users do not enjoy installing programs, configuring things, dealing with/preventing malware, making sure that every damn thing they do doesn't cause some security problem, etc. They just want a device that does what they want. If that means losing some ability to tinker, who cares?
If you want to be free of corporate control, how about not buying a device built by a corporation for the purpose of running another corporation's OS? Build your own.
As for your earlier comment about innovation - I think you are completely wrong there. I mean, as of today you still have 100% freedom to do whatever you want with your PC, so clearly locked-down PC's can't be blamed for lack of innovation. No, I think the more likely reason for lack of innovation is that for the last couple of decades it has been too easy to do things. Ease does not cause innovation, difficulty does. Installing alternate OS's, programs to let you cheat at games or pirate stuff, etc is not any more innovative than building a Heathkit TV was 40 years ago. It may be fun, it may give you satisfaction, but it sure is not innovative. So maybe the locked-down world of computing will actually cause people to get off their asses and actually tinker with real stuff and innovate once again.
This doesn't make sense to me. The reason that vendors fight for the MS certification in the x86 arena is that without it they won't sell any hardware. There is zero market in x86 for something that doesn't run Windows (Apple excluded, because that doesn't run on anyone else's hardware). The reason there is no market is because everyone has a few decades of Windows 'stuff' that they have accumulated (not only software, but also some hardware like WinPrinters and WinModems) that they did not want to have to replace. And on top of that, there are simply no viable alternatives that Joe Public ever heard of that have a compelling enough reason to go through the pain of switching.
All of that is different with ARM. None of your existing Windows x86 stuff is going to work on ARM, so that advantage is gone. More importantly, there is an alternative now - Android. There are millions of people using Android now. They have Android 'stuff'. They like Android, and see no reason to switch. Why would manufacturers completely abandon Android?
Are manufacturers going to offer at least some Windows certified machines? Probably. Is every manufacturer going to certify every machine? No way, unless all of their customers abandon Android for Windows.
If you call 911 from within Kennedy it is probably their own emergency control you are calling. Many facilities are set up like that. Then the internal 911 makes the decision about whether to handle it themselves or call the county emergency services.