A lot of people have been burned repeatedly by Microsoft's empty promises. Most have also had to deal with a lot of astroturfing.
And that's different from a lot of other tech companies... how?
Microsoft's grave offenses are monopolistic practices, bundling, and tying. In terms of patents and copyrights vis-a-vis Linux, they have not been worse than other companies.
Anyways. I'm still interested in knowing why this is any more frightening, annoying, upsetting, infuriating, unfair, or censoring than saying I can't tell people that being gay is... hmmm, let's say, condemned by God, or... bad for humanity... or morally bad... or bad for society... or any number of other "bad" things that would be "hate" speech in some countries.
I know of no community, state, or nation where homosexuality is receiving more legal protection than Christianity. Can you point at any?
Free speech for absolutely everything would mean free speech for planning and advocating genocide and murder. Free speech for absolutely everything means free speech for fraud and deception.
Indeed it does. And that's the legal situation in the US. It only becomes illegal once it rises to the level of a conspiracy.
I'm glad that I live in a country that carefully regulates certain forms of speech.
I'm glad I don't. And chances are your country has been continuously democratic nowhere near as long as the US.
Islam is blasphemous to Christianity, Christianity and Islam are blasphemous to Jews, Catholicism is blasphemous to protestants, and protestantism is blasphemous to Catholics. Does that mean the Irish can (finally!) kick the entire lot off the island?
And why should Christians be allowed to insult atheists with impunity?
Or does this law only apply to protect big, arrogant sky-god religions? Oh, why do I even ask, it's Ireland we're talking about.
That way photographers can contribute high-quality photos AND get paid, wikipedia gains,
No, Wikipedia loses. I'd rather have bad photos that I can use when I need to than have to check every time or, worse, have all the free photos be replaced by some photographer's self-promotion stock.
However, given that wikipedians are pretty hard-core about free (libre) content, it's unlikely anyone will take him seriously.
It's not a religious thing, it's a practical thing.
Thus, releasing anything that's substandard is self-defeating.
You could license it "free to redistribute as long as you don't attribute it to me". Or even "free to redistribute as long as you attribute it to that other guy":-)
In over 10 years in the web design industry, working closely with probably 20+ commercial photographers, I have yet to find one that doesn't insist on retaining control of the rights to reproduce the photos they take for you.
Iwantapony.
Seriously, it's high time that changes. Many of the actually creative professions (you know, scientists, engineers, software developers) don't have that luxury, so why should photographers?
I know this opinion won't fly well with the/. crowd. All data and stuff should be free unless it's the work I do for the company on their time
It's not a question of "should". Wikipedia has its rules and they make sense. If celebrities want nice headshots, then they can provide them. If photographers need to be paid extra for that, then let the celebrities worry about how to make that happen.
Because I would lose future rights on the photo, for now and forever, I would charge accordingly. It's not greed, it's pragmatism.
You don't lose rights by licensing under CC.
Since that is lost future potential revenue, it's going to cost more, period.
Fine. Nobody wants to force you to donate anything. Let your clients worry about how to pay for your photo. Alternatively, maybe they can figure out how to use a digital camera and shoot a decent photo themselves; it may not be quite up to your standards, but it's also not that hard to produce something decent.
Assuming that all the stories about MS's backdoors really are true,
What are you talking about? Microsoft sends Microsoft users regular software updates, and their software sends back information to their servers all the time. If they wanted to, they could access information on pretty much any machine running Microsoft Windows. The "backdoors" are there and in plain sight. But they probably don't because they don't want to.
And it's the same with on-line office suites. With both Microsoft and Google, you are depending on the companies to play fair and not invade your privacy. The fact that one runs on your local PC and the other in the cloud makes little difference.
And potential worries about theft from Google servers has to be balanced against the high threat of viruses, worms, and trojan horses on your local Windows installation.
What makes you think your data is safe on your computer? Microsoft can access anything on your PC if they so choose. So can police and others. They don't even need to tell you about it.
Since Microsoft's main bread and butter is MS Office, why would they offer a "free" version- offline or online, other than trialware, crippleware, or sampleware?
Oh dead tree books are so obsolete, even though they are cheap
They're a lot more expensive than electronic distribution, even taking into account electricity.
last longer than I ever will, and don't need electricity!
Well, actually, to last longer than you will, they need to be kept in reasonable surroundings, which costs money and electricity to maintain.
can't be altered from a distance,
They can, however, be altered by police breaking down your door and getting physical with them. Electronic books, on the other hand, can be easily hidden and securely encrypted.
Morals are subjective to the life you live and want to live.
Not according to the Pope. And that's one thing I agree on with him.
And the difference is that
The difference is that governmental power (in our system) derives from compromise and consent; there is no reason why the compromise and consent should be moral.
Seriously, you think christianity is wrong because of something that happened centuries ago
No, I think Christianity is morally wrong because of the positions it takes on morality. Its actions, past and present, merely show that its faulty morality isn't just an abstract, theoretical problem.
Seriously, you think christianity is wrong because of something that happened centuries ago and that they sometimes attempt to impose their morals on people but you want to change them or eliminate them because of wanting to impose your own morals onto them. Isn't that a little hypocritical or do you have some inborn right that supersedes theirs?
I don't want to "impose" anything and I think hate speech legislation is a bad idea. I'm just saying that, in jurisdictions where hate speech legislation actually exists, it should apply to Christianity because Christian theology is intrinsically hateful, whether its followers actually act out that hate or not.
Anyways, I originally asked for what churches are preaching hate.
And I gave you a clear answer: among many others, Catholicism does, and it has done so unchangingly for the past 2000 years.
OK, I asked where and you could only bring things up from a century ago. Do you want to do that again?
The Catholic stances on birth control, family planning, sexuality, social order, and end-of-life decisions are morally wrong and lead to widespread suffering. So, for that matter, do Christian missionaries who interfere in the cultural and social structures of other cultures. That is going on to this very day.
Nope, [government] just claims to have moral authority and truth over you. Break a law and see what happens.
That's not moral authority, it's legal authority.
And yet they havn't murdered you. Perhaps something has changed and your just holding a grudge.
Something has changed: the people have removed religion from governmental authority, which is why, for example, the Pope can't willy-nilly torture and execute people anymore like he used to. Now what remains to do is to place limits on the hateful speech that comes from Christian churches and to place limits on the ability of Christian organizations to lie about objective facts.
Or does the christian religion have the only resented place in your heart?
I don't "resent" Christianity, I just consider it morally wrong in an absolute and universal sense, and I'm also saying that, given the crimes its organizations have committed, we should never again let ourselves be governed by it.
Christianity isn't the only religion that is morally wrong and whose organizations have committed grave crimes against humanity, but it happens to be the most important one in this part of the world. And Catholicism isn't the only branch of Christianity that has done so, but it happens to be the biggest one and claims historical and theological continuity and absolute moral authority, so it is the easiest to make sound arguments against. In fact, in recent times, Catholicism has been one of the more benign denominations and Christianity has been less harmful than, say, Islam. However, that's not due to a change in theology, it's due to a secularization of the environment in which these religions exist.
Was and does makes a big impact on the statement and the history doesn't pertain to the present unless it's something historical that is still going on today.
History very much pertains to the present because Christian authority and morality claims to be absolute and derive from God. So, if torture, murder, and slavery was OK with the church a millennium ago, then it must be OK today. Or else, the church was wrong a millennium ago, which means that it may also be wrong today.
Besides, I chose my words correctly: it is still going on today.
BTW, look at all the crimes against humanity and hate crimes government has done. Even your government.
What does that have to do with anything?
Furthermore, my government doesn't claim to have absolute moral authority or absolute truth, so it's not surprising when it gets things wrong.
Are you scared of the christian church or something?
You bet I am. Christians murdered many of my ancestors because of their religion, and if it weren't for secular government, they'd try to do the same to me today.
What kind of twisted sadomasochistic games is the Christian God playing according to you? If the "almighty" doesn't like sin and doesn't want to torture people for all eternity... he can simply do away with sin, suffering, and hell. Besides, what's suffering on the cross for a few days if you know for certain you're an invulnerable divine being?
More importantly, no matter what Jesus may or may not have said, what matters is what Christian churches, organizations, and individuals do and preach.
Slashdot Mirror
The US doesn't have hate speech laws, so the ACLU can't fight against them. Hate speech is constitutionally protected, like most speech.
There is a lot less uproar about hate speech laws
Yeah, probably because the US doesn't have hate speech laws.
This is a sophomoric view. Free speech always has been limited when it comes into conflict with other rights.
That is almost not a consideration in the US.
You don;t have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater because your free speech does not trump everyone else's safety.
In order to be prohibited, it has to be false and extremely and imminently dangerous.
I think before there can be any dialog with you, you should show the community the 200+ patents you claim Linux infringes, or else retract that claim.
What about it?
A lot of people have been burned repeatedly by Microsoft's empty promises. Most have also had to deal with a lot of astroturfing.
And that's different from a lot of other tech companies... how?
Microsoft's grave offenses are monopolistic practices, bundling, and tying. In terms of patents and copyrights vis-a-vis Linux, they have not been worse than other companies.
Like many great technologies before it, the biggest and most lasting contribution of OLPC has been in its imperfect imitation by other companies.
Anyways. I'm still interested in knowing why this is any more frightening, annoying, upsetting, infuriating, unfair, or censoring than saying I can't tell people that being gay is ... hmmm, let's say, condemned by God, or ... bad for humanity ... or morally bad ... or bad for society... or any number of other "bad" things that would be "hate" speech in some countries.
I know of no community, state, or nation where homosexuality is receiving more legal protection than Christianity. Can you point at any?
Free speech for absolutely everything would mean free speech for planning and advocating genocide and murder.
Free speech for absolutely everything means free speech for fraud and deception.
Indeed it does. And that's the legal situation in the US. It only becomes illegal once it rises to the level of a conspiracy.
I'm glad that I live in a country that carefully regulates certain forms of speech.
I'm glad I don't. And chances are your country has been continuously democratic nowhere near as long as the US.
Islam is blasphemous to Christianity, Christianity and Islam are blasphemous to Jews, Catholicism is blasphemous to protestants, and protestantism is blasphemous to Catholics. Does that mean the Irish can (finally!) kick the entire lot off the island?
And why should Christians be allowed to insult atheists with impunity?
Or does this law only apply to protect big, arrogant sky-god religions? Oh, why do I even ask, it's Ireland we're talking about.
That way photographers can contribute high-quality photos AND get paid, wikipedia gains,
No, Wikipedia loses. I'd rather have bad photos that I can use when I need to than have to check every time or, worse, have all the free photos be replaced by some photographer's self-promotion stock.
However, given that wikipedians are pretty hard-core about free (libre) content, it's unlikely anyone will take him seriously.
It's not a religious thing, it's a practical thing.
Thus, releasing anything that's substandard is self-defeating.
You could license it "free to redistribute as long as you don't attribute it to me". Or even "free to redistribute as long as you attribute it to that other guy" :-)
In over 10 years in the web design industry, working closely with probably 20+ commercial photographers, I have yet to find one that doesn't insist on retaining control of the rights to reproduce the photos they take for you.
Iwantapony.
Seriously, it's high time that changes. Many of the actually creative professions (you know, scientists, engineers, software developers) don't have that luxury, so why should photographers?
I know this opinion won't fly well with the /. crowd. All data and stuff should be free unless it's the work I do for the company on their time
It's not a question of "should". Wikipedia has its rules and they make sense. If celebrities want nice headshots, then they can provide them. If photographers need to be paid extra for that, then let the celebrities worry about how to make that happen.
Because I would lose future rights on the photo, for now and forever, I would charge accordingly. It's not greed, it's pragmatism.
You don't lose rights by licensing under CC.
Since that is lost future potential revenue, it's going to cost more, period.
Fine. Nobody wants to force you to donate anything. Let your clients worry about how to pay for your photo. Alternatively, maybe they can figure out how to use a digital camera and shoot a decent photo themselves; it may not be quite up to your standards, but it's also not that hard to produce something decent.
Assuming that all the stories about MS's backdoors really are true,
What are you talking about? Microsoft sends Microsoft users regular software updates, and their software sends back information to their servers all the time. If they wanted to, they could access information on pretty much any machine running Microsoft Windows. The "backdoors" are there and in plain sight. But they probably don't because they don't want to.
And it's the same with on-line office suites. With both Microsoft and Google, you are depending on the companies to play fair and not invade your privacy. The fact that one runs on your local PC and the other in the cloud makes little difference.
And potential worries about theft from Google servers has to be balanced against the high threat of viruses, worms, and trojan horses on your local Windows installation.
I don't know what country you live in but in the USA the police DO need to tell you if they access your PC
That's not clear; they don't tell you about wiretaps either.
And if you think Microsoft gives a toss about your My Documents folder I think you've overestimated the value of those documents.
Yes, and neither does Google. That's the point.
These birds CAN produce offspring, but behaviorally, don't.
So, you're saying it's like computer geeks and supermodels?
What makes you think your data is safe on your computer? Microsoft can access anything on your PC if they so choose. So can police and others. They don't even need to tell you about it.
Since Microsoft's main bread and butter is MS Office, why would they offer a "free" version- offline or online, other than trialware, crippleware, or sampleware?
Competition perhaps?
Yeah, right. And they're going to stick with that policy... as long as it's convenient for them.
The book actually never has been removed! It never existed!
Oh dead tree books are so obsolete, even though they are cheap
They're a lot more expensive than electronic distribution, even taking into account electricity.
last longer than I ever will, and don't need electricity!
Well, actually, to last longer than you will, they need to be kept in reasonable surroundings, which costs money and electricity to maintain.
can't be altered from a distance,
They can, however, be altered by police breaking down your door and getting physical with them. Electronic books, on the other hand, can be easily hidden and securely encrypted.
all the time fearing that there's something on the other side waiting to gnaw your face off. And you know what? It's still comfortable to play.
This must be some sense of "comfortable" that I'm not familiar with :-)
naked women. What does it mean?
Morals are subjective to the life you live and want to live.
Not according to the Pope. And that's one thing I agree on with him.
And the difference is that
The difference is that governmental power (in our system) derives from compromise and consent; there is no reason why the compromise and consent should be moral.
Seriously, you think christianity is wrong because of something that happened centuries ago
No, I think Christianity is morally wrong because of the positions it takes on morality. Its actions, past and present, merely show that its faulty morality isn't just an abstract, theoretical problem.
Seriously, you think christianity is wrong because of something that happened centuries ago and that they sometimes attempt to impose their morals on people but you want to change them or eliminate them because of wanting to impose your own morals onto them. Isn't that a little hypocritical or do you have some inborn right that supersedes theirs?
I don't want to "impose" anything and I think hate speech legislation is a bad idea. I'm just saying that, in jurisdictions where hate speech legislation actually exists, it should apply to Christianity because Christian theology is intrinsically hateful, whether its followers actually act out that hate or not.
Anyways, I originally asked for what churches are preaching hate.
And I gave you a clear answer: among many others, Catholicism does, and it has done so unchangingly for the past 2000 years.
A human would likely live "on Venus" in a floating city high up in its atmosphere.
OK, I asked where and you could only bring things up from a century ago. Do you want to do that again?
The Catholic stances on birth control, family planning, sexuality, social order, and end-of-life decisions are morally wrong and lead to widespread suffering. So, for that matter, do Christian missionaries who interfere in the cultural and social structures of other cultures. That is going on to this very day.
Nope, [government] just claims to have moral authority and truth over you. Break a law and see what happens.
That's not moral authority, it's legal authority.
And yet they havn't murdered you. Perhaps something has changed and your just holding a grudge.
Something has changed: the people have removed religion from governmental authority, which is why, for example, the Pope can't willy-nilly torture and execute people anymore like he used to. Now what remains to do is to place limits on the hateful speech that comes from Christian churches and to place limits on the ability of Christian organizations to lie about objective facts.
Or does the christian religion have the only resented place in your heart?
I don't "resent" Christianity, I just consider it morally wrong in an absolute and universal sense, and I'm also saying that, given the crimes its organizations have committed, we should never again let ourselves be governed by it.
Christianity isn't the only religion that is morally wrong and whose organizations have committed grave crimes against humanity, but it happens to be the most important one in this part of the world. And Catholicism isn't the only branch of Christianity that has done so, but it happens to be the biggest one and claims historical and theological continuity and absolute moral authority, so it is the easiest to make sound arguments against. In fact, in recent times, Catholicism has been one of the more benign denominations and Christianity has been less harmful than, say, Islam. However, that's not due to a change in theology, it's due to a secularization of the environment in which these religions exist.
Was and does makes a big impact on the statement and the history doesn't pertain to the present unless it's something historical that is still going on today.
History very much pertains to the present because Christian authority and morality claims to be absolute and derive from God. So, if torture, murder, and slavery was OK with the church a millennium ago, then it must be OK today. Or else, the church was wrong a millennium ago, which means that it may also be wrong today.
Besides, I chose my words correctly: it is still going on today.
BTW, look at all the crimes against humanity and hate crimes government has done. Even your government.
What does that have to do with anything?
Furthermore, my government doesn't claim to have absolute moral authority or absolute truth, so it's not surprising when it gets things wrong.
Are you scared of the christian church or something?
You bet I am. Christians murdered many of my ancestors because of their religion, and if it weren't for secular government, they'd try to do the same to me today.
What kind of twisted sadomasochistic games is the Christian God playing according to you? If the "almighty" doesn't like sin and doesn't want to torture people for all eternity... he can simply do away with sin, suffering, and hell. Besides, what's suffering on the cross for a few days if you know for certain you're an invulnerable divine being?
More importantly, no matter what Jesus may or may not have said, what matters is what Christian churches, organizations, and individuals do and preach.