Congratulations, you have grasped my point: slander isn't protected speech. Neither is yelling 'fire' in a crowded, non-burning theater, or inciting a riot. I guess I should always quote the person to whom I am responding. They seemed to be arguing that all speech should be protected, and I gave one of the obvious counter-examples.
So you would be fine with me orchestrating a campaign to convince people you are a child molester? It's free speech. I'm also going to find out all your private information and post it online for scammers to use. Then I'm going to call your job and report you for stealing company property. Then I'll call your wife/S.O. and tell them you are cheating. And that's just the beginning, buddy. But I'm not going to do anything illegal myself, oh no. Nothing but exercising my free speech. And there's nothing you can do.
Ah, anonymity and free speech, the vindictive asshole's wet dream.
In fact...my outrage is that the school is actively encouraging these shit for brains to go forth and share their idiocy.
If you have rational arguments for why their position is wrong, I encourage you to engage with them and make your case.
Engage them? Make your case? You ACTUALLY think these thugs stick around to read the responses from the 'hostile websites' they are enjoined to post on? That isn't part of the requirement. The case has been made, over and over again. They refuse to listen and bring up irrelevant and debunked claims over and over again. Might as well argue with a sea sponge.
I'm all for no tests, more education, a higher minimum driving age, and harsher consequences for reckless driving of any sort. Plus better mass transit, but that is hard to do in most places given the low densities of modern American suburban living.
They are just using DNA as a structural element. You can evidently fold it into all sorts of interesting shapes. Consider this a kind of nano-scale erector set. Motors, computers, power supplies, and other interesting parts sold separately.
Another thought, you may want to read 'A Course in Miracles' for a Christian take on non-dualism. Especially the workbook that goes along with the book, it has a series of meditations that will help you to see what I'm on about.
In Christian terms, dualistic thinking is usurping God's place. You are attempting to create reality, rather than witness God's creation. In dualistic thinking, you give everything in your life all the meaning it has for you, but there is a deeper meaning, God's meaning, and this meaning can not be put into words or ideas at all. I could say, 'The present moment is God's Word. It is the only Truth.' but if you were stuck in dualism, you would actually think you knew what I meant by that. Once you see the truth, you can go on conceptualizing all you like. Enlightenment doesn't mean thought stops, or your personality disappears. It just means you can see both sides of the coin.
You may want to read that book because I'm pretty bad at explaining all this.:)
Dualistic thinking says, 'a thing is what it is.' Non dualistic thinking makes no distinction between subject and object, or object and other object. I may as well say the table is just a table shaped hole in the universe. All definitions are arbitrary and bounded. The table was once a tree, and someday after being digested by termites or bacteria, it will be a bunch of dirt. At what point in the process does it start being a table, and at what point does it cease? Isn't that arbitrary? And even for the duration that it is a table, is it not constantly changing? What is it that stays the same, besides our idea of it?
I think that nothing is a thing unto itself. Nothing is self created or self sustaining. Things come into being because the conditions that support their existence come into being, and they stop existing when the conditions stop existing. Can we really say the thing is separate from the conditions? Things are like the vase in the faces/vase illusion, and conditions are the faces. Looked at one way, we see the foreground of a white vase against a black background. Looked at another way, we see a pair of black faces against a white background. Is it faces, or a vase?
One has to be aware of semantic levels when trying to communicate non-dualism. Of course it is not a lie to say that a table is a table. Of course our conceptions and ideas of things are important. But we get lost in those conceptions and see them as more real than the reality that creates them. We especially get lost in our conception of self. We think that we ARE our conception, but 'self,' insofar as we conceptualize it, is just a construct, an abstraction. We say, I AM this, I am NOT that. But these are just ideas. Useful maybe, as long as we see them as the tools they are, and not underlying reality.
Well, any kind of 'knowing' is illusion. Maybe useful illusion, but not the truth. The truth is just the present moment. It means non-dualism. There is no 'in here' and 'out there.' There is no subject and no object. It's hard to put into words because words are dualistic by their nature. But it is something we all started with, before there were words, before there were ideas, before there was self and other.
Every thing in the world, we gave it all the meaning it has. A table is not a table to someone who has no concept of a table. It is only a 'table' because of past experience. What is it really? Color, texture, extension in space, solidity, form, perhaps even taste. Those are real. Was it a table when it was a tree? Was the tree a tree when it was a seed? At what point during its construction did it cease being a tree and become a table? At what point during its deterioration will it cease being a table and start being a pile of wood? If you stand on it, is it still a table, or is it a step-stool?
Some people believe that everything is changing. I don't think that. I don't think anything stays still long enough to be a thing at all. All there is, is change. Ceaseless and undefined, without boundaries or separation.
Consider the above a sign, pointing at what I mean. It is not the truth, because it is couched in language, which is dualistic, but it points at the truth. In some sense, it isn't possible NOT to be present, not to be enlightened. Even caught in the grips of the deepest illusions, where are those illusions but the present moment? How are they different from any other sense impression?
Does that make any sense at all?:) Let me put it another way. Suppose your life is a movie. A movie has a sound track that is just another track on the film, patterns corresponding to sounds. Your life movie has other tracks, taste, touch, smell, and so on. But no one is watching the movie. The sense of self is just another sense, another track on the movie. But no one separate is watching, it just is. All thoughts, feelings and mental formations of all kinds are similarly just tracks on the movie. But no one is watching, they just are. They relate to one another, just as the sound track relates to the visual track in a movie, but that is all. The events of the movie do not happen 'in here' or 'out there,' there is no location, location is an abstraction, an idea.
I'd say that being self actualized is slightly different. That is knowing what you are, flaws and all, embracing it and moving forward. But there are similarities. Being self actualized means not engaging in patterned behavior, it means being completely adaptable. Patterned behaviors are the kinds of behaviors we have adopted as defense mechanisms. When we look at the world, abstract it down, and act reflexively based on those abstractions, that is patterned behavior and in some sense is as far from enlightenment as it is possible to get.
My favorite C.S. Lewis book is 'The Screwtape Letters,' which is a great read for anyone pursuing a spiritual path, Christian or not. I haven't read 'The Great Divorce,' but now I think I'll see if our local library carries it.
I don't think the majority of Christian factions think doing good works or refraining from evil (like being teh ghey) get you into heaven. I mean, it's kind of a central tenet that that WON'T work, only accepting Christ as your personal savior will do the trick, right?
I had the good fortune to be raised by respectful and curious agnostics who encouraged me to look into all world faiths, and to read ancient mythology as well. I went through a Christian phase and accepted Christ as my personal savior. I don't identify as Christian nowadays, but I never specifically revoked that belief, so I suppose I'm technically still a Christian?
Nowadays my main focus is on the Zen ideal of simply being present. Enlightenment is no great thing, in fact, it is the simplest thing in the world. Everyone is enlightened, because being enlightened simply means being present. However, most of us heap tons of extraneous constructs on top of that. We live in our heads, in our ideas of the world, rather than living in the world. We seek to conceptualize rather than experience. These concepts then have power over us, we forget that we created them and gave them all the meaning and power they have. We think they are real, when they are really illusions.
It's one thing to 'know' that, but that is just another concept, another level of illusion. The trick is to live it without 'knowing' it, which takes a fair bit of practice. I'm still working on it...
We also have well documented medical proof that untreated epilepsy, sleep apnea, and other sleep disorders severely impact driving ability. Should we require people who suffer from those diseases to have that marked on their licenses? I need glasses and it says so on my license. To be fair, people who suffer from conditions that make driving dangerous should also have that noted, and should be able to provide proof that they are treating their condition during a traffic stop. A performance test would be one way such people could prove they can drive.
The only other fair and equitable solution in my mind is no tests whatsoever. If we test for dangerous conditions such as inebriation, we should test for ALL conditions that present a similar risk for accidents, whatever the cause.
If you disagree with that assessment, why? In my mind, we can find out what conditions are the most likely to lead to accidents, and bar those suffering from said conditions from driving. Alcohol is likely to lead to accidents, but ANY other condition that is AS LIKELY to lead to accidents should be treated the same way. Anything else would be hypocritical and unfair.
No, I don't feel being a rational Christian is hypocritical. Why, some of my best friends are Christian.;) For instance, I've never met a Quaker I didn't like. Anyone who honestly tries to live by Jesus' teachings tends to be a good person. People who pay lip service to any religion and tell others how to live while ignoring their own advice just plain suck.
I don't know anything about the afterlife or any God or Gods. I hope that if there is a God, It is like the one C.S. Lewis imagines, and not some horrible monster who doles out infinite punishment for finite transgression. Screw the argument that any transgression against an infinite being is infinite, I ain't buying it.
You remind me of the better types of Christian I've met. Pretty quite about their religion until asked about it. Living a good life is the best type of proselytizing. If you look happy and fulfilled, people will want to know how you do it, you don't need to beat them over the head with it.
I figure the sig gives people fair warning what my online persona is like. I'm a little more tactful in real life, but I enjoy playing the grumpy curmudgeon online. I find that people who can deal with that persona tend to be more honest and forthright, which is what I like.
Oh, that's okay. I'm bombastic, annoying, and crude. I'm used to getting much worse than you handed out. It kinda goes with the territory. I try to be honest and not troll just for the sake of trolling, but I do enjoy being over the top and saying outrageous things.
Mmm, sport fish. Good stuff. My wife just came up with a great recipe last week, we were inspired by a very nice batch of organic yellow raisins we bought at the local Sunflower market. Then, watching the cooking contest show, 'Chopped,' yellow raisins were one of the ingredients they had to use. We thought all the chefs did a poor job incorporating them, and Jenny came up with the idea for an Asian inspired sauce with raisins as the base.
It's basically a couple cups of raisins, finely chopped, a cup of chopped fresh basil, three chopped habenero peppers, carefully cleaned of seeds and veins to reduce the heat, a half cup white wine, two cups chicken stock, a couple tablespoons of Thai fish sauce, and a tablespoon of corn starch.
Pan sear your protein (works great with chicken and pork), set aside the meat to rest, deglaze the pan with the wine, throw in the rest of the ingredients (except the corn starch) and reduce for 5 minutes. Take out a quarter cup and mix in the cornstarch, whisk it back into the sauce and you're done.
I wanted to add garlic, but my wife has been helping me stick to my new direction of 'fewer ingredients is better' and she nixed the idea. Turns out the sauce doesn't need it, but feel free to add some if you're a garlic freak like me.
I feel you, buddy. However, in my experience when one laughs at the boss, the boss gets the last laugh. You know they are ridiculous. I know they are ridiculous, hell, they know, in their dark little hearts, that they are ridiculous. Which is why they are so vindictive.
People who want to make money off of open source. People who want to use open source contributions on their resume. Pointy haired bosses who get to decide if we use open source in our workplace.
In general, maintainers are not distributors. They may work for distributors, but they aren't the ones who package it up and sell it. If anyone could sue anyone who ever worked on a project that had bugs in it, that would be bad. Nobody would sign such an asini... well, maybe they would, but I doubt it.
If Microsoft really stands to benefit from suing open source maintainers, why are they against this as is clearly stated in the summary.
So, are you suggesting that these American Law Institute guidelines will simply be null and void if the end user agrees to a EULA? Problem solved! We EULA them too, and we're off scot-free.
Slashdot Mirror
Congratulations, you have grasped my point: slander isn't protected speech. Neither is yelling 'fire' in a crowded, non-burning theater, or inciting a riot. I guess I should always quote the person to whom I am responding. They seemed to be arguing that all speech should be protected, and I gave one of the obvious counter-examples.
So you would be fine with me orchestrating a campaign to convince people you are a child molester? It's free speech. I'm also going to find out all your private information and post it online for scammers to use. Then I'm going to call your job and report you for stealing company property. Then I'll call your wife/S.O. and tell them you are cheating. And that's just the beginning, buddy. But I'm not going to do anything illegal myself, oh no. Nothing but exercising my free speech. And there's nothing you can do.
Ah, anonymity and free speech, the vindictive asshole's wet dream.
If you have rational arguments for why their position is wrong, I encourage you to engage with them and make your case.
Engage them? Make your case? You ACTUALLY think these thugs stick around to read the responses from the 'hostile websites' they are enjoined to post on? That isn't part of the requirement. The case has been made, over and over again. They refuse to listen and bring up irrelevant and debunked claims over and over again. Might as well argue with a sea sponge.
Are you taking a class from Insurance University?
I'm all for no tests, more education, a higher minimum driving age, and harsher consequences for reckless driving of any sort. Plus better mass transit, but that is hard to do in most places given the low densities of modern American suburban living.
They are just using DNA as a structural element. You can evidently fold it into all sorts of interesting shapes. Consider this a kind of nano-scale erector set. Motors, computers, power supplies, and other interesting parts sold separately.
This? Why, I can make a hat, or a brooch, or a pterodactyl...
Another thought, you may want to read 'A Course in Miracles' for a Christian take on non-dualism. Especially the workbook that goes along with the book, it has a series of meditations that will help you to see what I'm on about.
In Christian terms, dualistic thinking is usurping God's place. You are attempting to create reality, rather than witness God's creation. In dualistic thinking, you give everything in your life all the meaning it has for you, but there is a deeper meaning, God's meaning, and this meaning can not be put into words or ideas at all. I could say, 'The present moment is God's Word. It is the only Truth.' but if you were stuck in dualism, you would actually think you knew what I meant by that. Once you see the truth, you can go on conceptualizing all you like. Enlightenment doesn't mean thought stops, or your personality disappears. It just means you can see both sides of the coin.
You may want to read that book because I'm pretty bad at explaining all this. :)
Dualistic thinking says, 'a thing is what it is.' Non dualistic thinking makes no distinction between subject and object, or object and other object. I may as well say the table is just a table shaped hole in the universe. All definitions are arbitrary and bounded. The table was once a tree, and someday after being digested by termites or bacteria, it will be a bunch of dirt. At what point in the process does it start being a table, and at what point does it cease? Isn't that arbitrary? And even for the duration that it is a table, is it not constantly changing? What is it that stays the same, besides our idea of it?
I think that nothing is a thing unto itself. Nothing is self created or self sustaining. Things come into being because the conditions that support their existence come into being, and they stop existing when the conditions stop existing. Can we really say the thing is separate from the conditions? Things are like the vase in the faces/vase illusion, and conditions are the faces. Looked at one way, we see the foreground of a white vase against a black background. Looked at another way, we see a pair of black faces against a white background. Is it faces, or a vase?
One has to be aware of semantic levels when trying to communicate non-dualism. Of course it is not a lie to say that a table is a table. Of course our conceptions and ideas of things are important. But we get lost in those conceptions and see them as more real than the reality that creates them. We especially get lost in our conception of self. We think that we ARE our conception, but 'self,' insofar as we conceptualize it, is just a construct, an abstraction. We say, I AM this, I am NOT that. But these are just ideas. Useful maybe, as long as we see them as the tools they are, and not underlying reality.
Well, any kind of 'knowing' is illusion. Maybe useful illusion, but not the truth. The truth is just the present moment. It means non-dualism. There is no 'in here' and 'out there.' There is no subject and no object. It's hard to put into words because words are dualistic by their nature. But it is something we all started with, before there were words, before there were ideas, before there was self and other.
Every thing in the world, we gave it all the meaning it has. A table is not a table to someone who has no concept of a table. It is only a 'table' because of past experience. What is it really? Color, texture, extension in space, solidity, form, perhaps even taste. Those are real. Was it a table when it was a tree? Was the tree a tree when it was a seed? At what point during its construction did it cease being a tree and become a table? At what point during its deterioration will it cease being a table and start being a pile of wood? If you stand on it, is it still a table, or is it a step-stool?
Some people believe that everything is changing. I don't think that. I don't think anything stays still long enough to be a thing at all. All there is, is change. Ceaseless and undefined, without boundaries or separation.
Consider the above a sign, pointing at what I mean. It is not the truth, because it is couched in language, which is dualistic, but it points at the truth. In some sense, it isn't possible NOT to be present, not to be enlightened. Even caught in the grips of the deepest illusions, where are those illusions but the present moment? How are they different from any other sense impression?
Does that make any sense at all? :) Let me put it another way. Suppose your life is a movie. A movie has a sound track that is just another track on the film, patterns corresponding to sounds. Your life movie has other tracks, taste, touch, smell, and so on. But no one is watching the movie. The sense of self is just another sense, another track on the movie. But no one separate is watching, it just is. All thoughts, feelings and mental formations of all kinds are similarly just tracks on the movie. But no one is watching, they just are. They relate to one another, just as the sound track relates to the visual track in a movie, but that is all. The events of the movie do not happen 'in here' or 'out there,' there is no location, location is an abstraction, an idea.
I'd say that being self actualized is slightly different. That is knowing what you are, flaws and all, embracing it and moving forward. But there are similarities. Being self actualized means not engaging in patterned behavior, it means being completely adaptable. Patterned behaviors are the kinds of behaviors we have adopted as defense mechanisms. When we look at the world, abstract it down, and act reflexively based on those abstractions, that is patterned behavior and in some sense is as far from enlightenment as it is possible to get.
How dare you insult the Obamessiah! You just wait until I perfect the device that lets me stab people in the face over the Internet.
Youth in Asia, or old people? You aren't even making any sense and you spelled 'youth' wrong.
My favorite C.S. Lewis book is 'The Screwtape Letters,' which is a great read for anyone pursuing a spiritual path, Christian or not. I haven't read 'The Great Divorce,' but now I think I'll see if our local library carries it.
I don't think the majority of Christian factions think doing good works or refraining from evil (like being teh ghey) get you into heaven. I mean, it's kind of a central tenet that that WON'T work, only accepting Christ as your personal savior will do the trick, right?
I had the good fortune to be raised by respectful and curious agnostics who encouraged me to look into all world faiths, and to read ancient mythology as well. I went through a Christian phase and accepted Christ as my personal savior. I don't identify as Christian nowadays, but I never specifically revoked that belief, so I suppose I'm technically still a Christian?
Nowadays my main focus is on the Zen ideal of simply being present. Enlightenment is no great thing, in fact, it is the simplest thing in the world. Everyone is enlightened, because being enlightened simply means being present. However, most of us heap tons of extraneous constructs on top of that. We live in our heads, in our ideas of the world, rather than living in the world. We seek to conceptualize rather than experience. These concepts then have power over us, we forget that we created them and gave them all the meaning and power they have. We think they are real, when they are really illusions.
It's one thing to 'know' that, but that is just another concept, another level of illusion. The trick is to live it without 'knowing' it, which takes a fair bit of practice. I'm still working on it...
We also have well documented medical proof that untreated epilepsy, sleep apnea, and other sleep disorders severely impact driving ability. Should we require people who suffer from those diseases to have that marked on their licenses? I need glasses and it says so on my license. To be fair, people who suffer from conditions that make driving dangerous should also have that noted, and should be able to provide proof that they are treating their condition during a traffic stop. A performance test would be one way such people could prove they can drive.
The only other fair and equitable solution in my mind is no tests whatsoever. If we test for dangerous conditions such as inebriation, we should test for ALL conditions that present a similar risk for accidents, whatever the cause.
If you disagree with that assessment, why? In my mind, we can find out what conditions are the most likely to lead to accidents, and bar those suffering from said conditions from driving. Alcohol is likely to lead to accidents, but ANY other condition that is AS LIKELY to lead to accidents should be treated the same way. Anything else would be hypocritical and unfair.
No, I don't feel being a rational Christian is hypocritical. Why, some of my best friends are Christian. ;) For instance, I've never met a Quaker I didn't like. Anyone who honestly tries to live by Jesus' teachings tends to be a good person. People who pay lip service to any religion and tell others how to live while ignoring their own advice just plain suck.
I don't know anything about the afterlife or any God or Gods. I hope that if there is a God, It is like the one C.S. Lewis imagines, and not some horrible monster who doles out infinite punishment for finite transgression. Screw the argument that any transgression against an infinite being is infinite, I ain't buying it.
You remind me of the better types of Christian I've met. Pretty quite about their religion until asked about it. Living a good life is the best type of proselytizing. If you look happy and fulfilled, people will want to know how you do it, you don't need to beat them over the head with it.
I figure the sig gives people fair warning what my online persona is like. I'm a little more tactful in real life, but I enjoy playing the grumpy curmudgeon online. I find that people who can deal with that persona tend to be more honest and forthright, which is what I like.
Oh, that's okay. I'm bombastic, annoying, and crude. I'm used to getting much worse than you handed out. It kinda goes with the territory. I try to be honest and not troll just for the sake of trolling, but I do enjoy being over the top and saying outrageous things.
Mmm, sport fish. Good stuff. My wife just came up with a great recipe last week, we were inspired by a very nice batch of organic yellow raisins we bought at the local Sunflower market. Then, watching the cooking contest show, 'Chopped,' yellow raisins were one of the ingredients they had to use. We thought all the chefs did a poor job incorporating them, and Jenny came up with the idea for an Asian inspired sauce with raisins as the base.
It's basically a couple cups of raisins, finely chopped, a cup of chopped fresh basil, three chopped habenero peppers, carefully cleaned of seeds and veins to reduce the heat, a half cup white wine, two cups chicken stock, a couple tablespoons of Thai fish sauce, and a tablespoon of corn starch.
Pan sear your protein (works great with chicken and pork), set aside the meat to rest, deglaze the pan with the wine, throw in the rest of the ingredients (except the corn starch) and reduce for 5 minutes. Take out a quarter cup and mix in the cornstarch, whisk it back into the sauce and you're done.
I wanted to add garlic, but my wife has been helping me stick to my new direction of 'fewer ingredients is better' and she nixed the idea. Turns out the sauce doesn't need it, but feel free to add some if you're a garlic freak like me.
Don't find the right person, BE the right person.
I'm filing this one away in the old memory banks, it encapsulates how I've always felt about relationships.
I feel you, buddy. However, in my experience when one laughs at the boss, the boss gets the last laugh. You know they are ridiculous. I know they are ridiculous, hell, they know, in their dark little hearts, that they are ridiculous. Which is why they are so vindictive.
Ah, now it all becomes clear. You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.
People who want to make money off of open source. People who want to use open source contributions on their resume. Pointy haired bosses who get to decide if we use open source in our workplace.
In general, maintainers are not distributors. They may work for distributors, but they aren't the ones who package it up and sell it. If anyone could sue anyone who ever worked on a project that had bugs in it, that would be bad. Nobody would sign such an asini... well, maybe they would, but I doubt it.
If Microsoft really stands to benefit from suing open source maintainers, why are they against this as is clearly stated in the summary.
What constitutes 'knowingly distributing?' What do their guidelines call a bug? If the bug is disclosed, can the lawyers still sue?
Could someone please answer these questions in the form of a car analogy for me? This is Slashdot and I'll be damned if I'm going to read the article.
So, are you suggesting that these American Law Institute guidelines will simply be null and void if the end user agrees to a EULA? Problem solved! We EULA them too, and we're off scot-free.
Somehow, I don't think it works like that.