Palestinians electing Hamas? That's not democracy. Venezuelans electing Chavez? That's not democracy. Bolivians electing Morales? That's not democracy. Spain leaving Iraq because 95% oppose the war? That's not democracy.
Pinochet taking over Chile? Triumph of democracy! America invading Iraq? Triumph of democracy! The CIA and the Shah taking over Iran? Triumph of democracy! Turkey supporting the Iraq war against the will of it's populace? Triumph of democracy!
All you have to do is replace "democracy" with "American interests" and it all makes sense.
Verify that the OS we're running on is a supported one (RHEL or CentOS)
This is what I'm talking about. You're just fragmenting "Linux" into a few hundred operating systems.
Customer: Do you support Linux? Dice: Yep! Customer: Excellent! Where's the apt-get repository? Dice: Oh, I mean we support RHEL and CentOS. Customer: *dialtone*
Provide source and do not worry about it, or deal with the costs of closed source software.
Are you trying to prove a point by reinforcing mine?
Pretending that./configure && make && make install works across distros, much less across window managers, is stupendously laughable. Do you really think trying to force the world to open up their source code before they have any sort of Linux userbase is the way to go? I'm really not trying to be snarky for once. How is shutting out all major software vendors from your platform going to get them to your platform?
This is an excellent answer to the typical 'why can't I just double-click on an.exe file?!' whine about Linux software installation, BTW.
Yes. OS X and Windows desktop market share illustrate why binary installers that work across years of operating system releases are dumb.
Until the Linux community can get together and hash the installer problem out, you're not only locking out larger developers, but smaller ones as well. Pretending that this isn't a problem is not a solution.
You skipped a few parts, which I've highlighted below, but you miss the point entirely: Xerox thought it was a dead end. Then, Apple used the Xerox technology and made it successful, and then started suing other companies for infringement. Xerox, as the legitimate inventor of the technology, tried to license it to other companies, and they all said, "You don't own that technology. Apple does." So, it was a dick move to take over intellectual property that they didn't develop.
When Apple sues FreeBSD for having a GUI interface on top of a POSIX compliant kernel that has shiny blue buttons, then maybe you'll get the point.
The tawdry little features of their phone are nothing compared to the foundation of graphical user interfaces that were "borrowed" from Xerox. If Xerox hadn't let Apple in the building, the Mac would not have happened. If Apple wasn't claiming someone else's innovation as their own and suing people for using it, I wouldn't care. And if we were having this conversation about Microsoft, you wouldn't care either.
Xerox had sought to have Apple's Macintosh screen copyrights declared invalid, contending that they were fraudulently obtained because Apple had failed to tell the Copyright Office about Xerox's prior work.
Xerox also accused Apple of unfair competition, saying that Apple's claim to Macintosh screen technology had made it difficult for Xerox to license its technology to other companies. ''Apple is using its copyrights to hold the computer industry hostage by its licensing and litigation practices,'' Xerox, which is based in Stamford, Conn., said in a motion filed in the case....
G. Gervaise Davis 3d, a copyright lawyer in Monterey, Calif., said the decision in the case ''is not a bit surprising.'' He said Xerox had waited too long to file a copyright infringement case and had to resort to a weaker charge of unfair competition. ''I think it's unfortunate,'' he added, ''because Apple is running around persecuting Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard over things that they borrowed from Xerox."
Xerox sued Apple in December, seeking more than $150 million in damages. It asserted that the screen display of Apple's Macintosh computer unlawfully used copyrighted technology that Xerox had developed and incorporated in a computer called the Star, which was introduced in 1981, three years before the Macintosh...
G. Gervaise Davis, a copyright lawyer in Monterey, Calif., said the decision in the case ''is not a bit surprising.'' He said Xerox had waited too long to file a copyright infringement case and had to resort to a weaker charge of unfair competition. ''I think it's unfortunate,'' he added, ''because Apple is running around persecuting Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard over things that they borrowed from Xerox.''
Much later, in the midst of the Apple v. Microsoft lawsuit in which Apple accused Microsoft of violating its copyright by appropriating the use of the "look and feel" of the Macintosh GUI, Xerox also sued Apple on the same grounds. The lawsuit was dismissed because Xerox had waited too long to file suit, and the statute of limitations had expired.
And will Apple pay Xerox for inventing Graphical User Interfaces? Will they pay Nokia for developing cell phones and smart phones for years? Hypocrisy is the one of the most despicable traits imaginable. This lawsuit has that coming out of it's ears.
And as far is hugely innovative... I guessed the form factor in 2006. If I had a company built on the technology developed by others, maybe I could be the one running around like a greedy bitch pretending that I did it all on my own.
You could sway me by showing quotes about BYU (and/or the U) that mention how racism is a fundamental principle that guided the schools' founding and mission.
You already gave up the argument. First, you denied that Young founded the school, because he was a racist, hated atheists, and thought his church was morally superior to all others. Then you state that the church founded the school. Why would a church found a school, if not to produce more good members of the church?
A good mormon follows the dogmas of the mormon Church. The dogma of the mormon church in the 1850s included racism, the inherent argument they have the morally superior set of ideals, and as every good bad idea, despises apostasy. Their ideal student product would have all of these attributes. The church today has dropped the racism bit, so they could keep their tax exempt status. I mean, because they received a revelation from God.
But seriously, if Google were evil geniuses, they'd create hundreds of smaller data centers around the US, with different ecosystems of software security and virtualization and ip blocks, and then use them as a raid array to back up each other.
That still does nothing to prove that BYU was founded on principles of racism and moral superiority. The University of Utah was founded in 1850, by the church-controlled General Assembly (Brigham Young was the governor). Is this institution also founded on principles of racism, moral superiority and hatred of atheism?
And your last statement "you wouldn't know" why is false. I am familiar with those arguments.
Let me get this straight: you think the Mormon church in 1850 wasn't racist and they didn't believe they had moral superiority?
I can rebut this with a single quote from the original source: 2 Nephi 5
Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they were cut off from his presence.
And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.
And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.
Religions center around moral superiority. What do you think their purpose is?
There are certainly counterexamples; I've met people with a certain kind of view-rigidity characterized by a general literalism and intolerance for ambiguity who I believe are blinded by their cosmology/theology. But then again, my observation is that this isn't a problem limited to the religious or religion, and based on the shallowly dismissive attitude in the parent poster's post, it seems likely he's amongst the afflicted.
I can state that horses, swine, cattle, chariots, iron swords, silk, and Jews did not exist in America before it's colonization by Europeans in the 16th Century. Can your colleagues at BYU agree with those statements?
The point is not whether a religious person can perform good science - the scientific method eliminates the importance of the background of the scientist. The question is whether you can have a seriously open academic discussion at BYU. The answer is, yes of course! As long as it doesn't clash with the beliefs of a certain church.
and anyone who has read about their belief system would be forgiven for believing that Mormons have a very poor grasp of what science is. After decades of searching and finding no "Mormon cities" in Central America, I can't say I have scientific respect for any geologist or paleontologist or linguist or anthropologist who remains in the church. The entire hypothesis of the religion is scientifically falsifiable and falsified. So why continue with the charade?
(Notice these claims are made by all religions. Mormonism made the fatal mistake of making specific claims, and in a time where printing presses made their first mistakes all too easy to read.)
Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African Race? If the White man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. -Brigham Young
I am here to answer. I shall be on hand to answer when I am called upon, for all the counsel and for all the instruction that I have given to this people. If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason. -Brigham Young
No grudges. I just think the LDS is a fascinating study in human credulity. And BYU, being the official college of LDS, represents a sea of irony.
Would you have allowed to write a paper on the total lack of evidence for Nephytes in North America in the 5th and 6th centuries? I highly doubt it. Would you be allowed to state unequivocally that the LDS was institutionally racist in the 50s, and that the "revelation" received by the leaders in 1978 was obviously political and not spiritual?
So there will be another revelation about women in the church, since they are still second class citizens. And then another about homosexuals, and perhaps another for transgender. It just baffles me that the civilizing of the LDS isn't commented upon, or that any person trying to learn something would choose a school inexorably intertwined with such obviously flawed ideals.
a term you clearly picked to deprave those you obviously don't understand
No disagreement there. Being terrified of women and certain styles of grooming and atheists and homosexuals is certainly something I don't understand. And I say terrified, since they aren't allowed to be any of those things near the "clean" students at BYU. All, of course, except for the beards. I guess beards aren't so scary.
Never do they force others to be their religion, or to be a member of any other.
You didn't read. It's important:
LDS students may be endorsed only by the bishop of the ward (1) in which they live and (2) that holds their current Church membership record.
Non-LDS students are to be endorsed by (1) the local ecclesiastical leader if the student is an active member of the congregation, (2) the bishop of the LDS ward in which they currently reside, or (3) the nondenominational BYU chaplain.
So, how does an atheist stay within the honor code?
I hope to see an Academy established in Provo that shall do honor to our Territory, and at which the children of the Latter-day Saints can receive a good education unmixed with the pernicious atheistic influences that are found in so many of the higher schools of the country. -Brigham Young
Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African Race? If the White man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. -Brigham Young
I am here to answer. I shall be on hand to answer when I am called upon, for all the counsel and for all the instruction that I have given to this people. If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason. -Brigham Young
"I hope to see an Academy established in Provo that shall do honor to our Territory, and at which the children of the Latter-day Saints can receive a good education unmixed with the pernicious atheistic influences that are found in so many of the higher schools of the country." -Brigham Young
But, you got me on one point. There is a process for "beard exemption":
A student who wishes to obtain a beard exception must visit a BYU Student Health Center doctor by appointment (422.5156). The doctor will fax his recommendation. The student then needs to come to the Honor Code Office to fill out some paperwork and receive the letter allowing the growth of the beard, if approved. If a yearly beard exception is granted, a new Student ID will be issued after the beard has been fully grown, and must be renewed every year by repeating the process.
Fear of Gays! Homosexual behavior and/or advocacy of homosexual behavior are inappropriate and violate the Honor Code. Homosexual behavior includes not only sexual relations between members of the same sex, but all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings. Advocacy includes seeking to influence others to engage in homosexual behavior or promoting homosexual relations as being morally acceptable.
Fear of the Female Body! A clean and well-cared-for appearance should be maintained. Clothing is inappropriate when it is sleeveless, strapless, backless, or revealing; has slits above the knee; or is form fitting. Dresses, skirts, and shorts must be knee-length or longer. Hairstyles should be clean and neat, avoiding extremes in styles or colors. Excessive ear piercing (more than one per ear) and all other body piercing are not acceptable. Shoes should be worn in all public campus areas.
Forced religion! Students are required to be in good Honor Code standing to be admitted to, continue enrollment at, and graduate from BYU. In conjunction with this requirement, all enrolled continuing undergraduate, graduate, intern, and Study Abroad students are required to obtain a Continuing Student Ecclesiastical Endorsement for each new academic year. Students must have their endorsements completed, turned in, and processed by the Honor Code Office before they can register for fall semester or any semester thereafter. To avoid registration delays, endorsement should be submitted to the Honor Code Office by March 15. Those applying to BYU should use the new-student Admissions Application Part 3 endorsement and submit to Admissions, D-155 ASB.
No, my science teacher was a Creationist. He told the class that the Earth was 6000 years old because of the small amount of moon dust they found when the Apollo landed.
Thankfully, I like to read, and unlike the rest of my classmates, I have some scientific background concerning the world in general. And thus, when I heard that BYU, founded on principles of racism, moral superiority, and hatred of atheists, I was surprised they had abandoned enough of their core principles to have a paleontology department that accurately dated fossils.
Kudos to them. Maybe one day their students will be allowed to grow beards and have private sex lives. We can only, hope, right?
Monopoly means you don't necessarily have to market (or market well) most customers are forced to come to you, like it or not.
Microsoft maintains their monopoly through a certain amount of shady business practices, but also because there is no enterprise competition to speak of. If Apple dropped their prices, or if the Linux community could settle on a cohesive set of basic standards, Microsoft could possibly lose their monopoly. Just because Microsoft is the only place you can buy Windows and Office doesn't make them a monopoly. If they somehow worked out a deal to outlaw other software, then I think you would have a more valid argument. (And yes, I have no doubt that Microsoft would love to, and would try to implement, such an idea.)
who wants to be stuck with WM 6.5 when there are a world of more advanced phones out there? Executives will not put up with that BS
Executives only care about being reliably connected to their information. The Blackberry is probably the worst device I have ever used, except for one feature: e-mail. It's always on, works well internationally, and their business devices have very type-able keyboards.
Slashdot Mirror
Palestinians electing Hamas? That's not democracy. Venezuelans electing Chavez? That's not democracy. Bolivians electing Morales? That's not democracy. Spain leaving Iraq because 95% oppose the war? That's not democracy.
Pinochet taking over Chile? Triumph of democracy! America invading Iraq? Triumph of democracy! The CIA and the Shah taking over Iran? Triumph of democracy! Turkey supporting the Iraq war against the will of it's populace? Triumph of democracy!
All you have to do is replace "democracy" with "American interests" and it all makes sense.
Verify that the OS we're running on is a supported one (RHEL or CentOS)
This is what I'm talking about. You're just fragmenting "Linux" into a few hundred operating systems.
Customer: Do you support Linux?
Dice: Yep!
Customer: Excellent! Where's the apt-get repository?
Dice: Oh, I mean we support RHEL and CentOS.
Customer: *dialtone*
Provide source and do not worry about it, or deal with the costs of closed source software.
Are you trying to prove a point by reinforcing mine?
Pretending that ./configure && make && make install works across distros, much less across window managers, is stupendously laughable. Do you really think trying to force the world to open up their source code before they have any sort of Linux userbase is the way to go? I'm really not trying to be snarky for once. How is shutting out all major software vendors from your platform going to get them to your platform?
This is an excellent answer to the typical 'why can't I just double-click on an .exe file?!' whine about Linux software installation, BTW.
Yes. OS X and Windows desktop market share illustrate why binary installers that work across years of operating system releases are dumb.
Until the Linux community can get together and hash the installer problem out, you're not only locking out larger developers, but smaller ones as well. Pretending that this isn't a problem is not a solution.
We can all be as cool as this guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiWMXTqS124
You skipped a few parts, which I've highlighted below, but you miss the point entirely: Xerox thought it was a dead end. Then, Apple used the Xerox technology and made it successful, and then started suing other companies for infringement. Xerox, as the legitimate inventor of the technology, tried to license it to other companies, and they all said, "You don't own that technology. Apple does." So, it was a dick move to take over intellectual property that they didn't develop.
When Apple sues FreeBSD for having a GUI interface on top of a POSIX compliant kernel that has shiny blue buttons, then maybe you'll get the point.
The tawdry little features of their phone are nothing compared to the foundation of graphical user interfaces that were "borrowed" from Xerox. If Xerox hadn't let Apple in the building, the Mac would not have happened. If Apple wasn't claiming someone else's innovation as their own and suing people for using it, I wouldn't care. And if we were having this conversation about Microsoft, you wouldn't care either.
Xerox had sought to have Apple's Macintosh screen copyrights declared invalid, contending that they were fraudulently obtained because Apple had failed to tell the Copyright Office about Xerox's prior work.
Xerox also accused Apple of unfair competition, saying that Apple's claim to Macintosh screen technology had made it difficult for Xerox to license its technology to other companies. ''Apple is using its copyrights to hold the computer industry hostage by its licensing and litigation practices,'' Xerox, which is based in Stamford, Conn., said in a motion filed in the case....
G. Gervaise Davis 3d, a copyright lawyer in Monterey, Calif., said the decision in the case ''is not a bit surprising.'' He said Xerox had waited too long to file a copyright infringement case and had to resort to a weaker charge of unfair competition. ''I think it's unfortunate,'' he added, ''because Apple is running around persecuting Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard over things that they borrowed from Xerox."
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/24/business/most-of-xerox-s-suit-against-apple-barred.html?pagewanted=1
Xerox sued Apple in December, seeking more than $150 million in damages. It asserted that the screen display of Apple's Macintosh computer unlawfully used copyrighted technology that Xerox had developed and incorporated in a computer called the Star, which was introduced in 1981, three years before the Macintosh...
G. Gervaise Davis, a copyright lawyer in Monterey, Calif., said the decision in the case ''is not a bit surprising.'' He said Xerox had waited too long to file a copyright infringement case and had to resort to a weaker charge of unfair competition. ''I think it's unfortunate,'' he added, ''because Apple is running around persecuting Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard over things that they borrowed from Xerox.''
But hey, your anecdote was great!
Much later, in the midst of the Apple v. Microsoft lawsuit in which Apple accused Microsoft of violating its copyright by appropriating the use of the "look and feel" of the Macintosh GUI, Xerox also sued Apple on the same grounds. The lawsuit was dismissed because Xerox had waited too long to file suit, and the statute of limitations had expired.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARC_(company)
The Apple apologists are coming out of the orchard like cockroaches.
Apple sort of deserves to profit from their R&D
And will Apple pay Xerox for inventing Graphical User Interfaces? Will they pay Nokia for developing cell phones and smart phones for years? Hypocrisy is the one of the most despicable traits imaginable. This lawsuit has that coming out of it's ears.
And as far is hugely innovative... I guessed the form factor in 2006. If I had a company built on the technology developed by others, maybe I could be the one running around like a greedy bitch pretending that I did it all on my own.
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=193127&cid=15847027
You could sway me by showing quotes about BYU (and/or the U) that mention how racism is a fundamental principle that guided the schools' founding and mission.
You already gave up the argument. First, you denied that Young founded the school, because he was a racist, hated atheists, and thought his church was morally superior to all others. Then you state that the church founded the school. Why would a church found a school, if not to produce more good members of the church?
A good mormon follows the dogmas of the mormon Church. The dogma of the mormon church in the 1850s included racism, the inherent argument they have the morally superior set of ideals, and as every good bad idea, despises apostasy. Their ideal student product would have all of these attributes. The church today has dropped the racism bit, so they could keep their tax exempt status. I mean, because they received a revelation from God.
I'm sure that doesn't carry any risks!
But seriously, if Google were evil geniuses, they'd create hundreds of smaller data centers around the US, with different ecosystems of software security and virtualization and ip blocks, and then use them as a raid array to back up each other.
Damn I wish I had a billion bucks.
That still does nothing to prove that BYU was founded on principles of racism and moral superiority. The University of Utah was founded in 1850, by the church-controlled General Assembly (Brigham Young was the governor). Is this institution also founded on principles of racism, moral superiority and hatred of atheism?
And your last statement "you wouldn't know" why is false. I am familiar with those arguments.
Let me get this straight: you think the Mormon church in 1850 wasn't racist and they didn't believe they had moral superiority?
I can rebut this with a single quote from the original source: 2 Nephi 5
Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they were cut off from his presence.
And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.
And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.
Religions center around moral superiority. What do you think their purpose is?
Brigham Young didn't found BYU in 1875? I guess next you'll argue that Christ didn't found Christianity. You'd be right, but you wouldn't know why.
There are certainly counterexamples; I've met people with a certain kind of view-rigidity characterized by a general literalism and intolerance for ambiguity who I believe are blinded by their cosmology/theology. But then again, my observation is that this isn't a problem limited to the religious or religion, and based on the shallowly dismissive attitude in the parent poster's post, it seems likely he's amongst the afflicted.
I can state that horses, swine, cattle, chariots, iron swords, silk, and Jews did not exist in America before it's colonization by Europeans in the 16th Century. Can your colleagues at BYU agree with those statements?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms
The point is not whether a religious person can perform good science - the scientific method eliminates the importance of the background of the scientist. The question is whether you can have a seriously open academic discussion at BYU. The answer is, yes of course! As long as it doesn't clash with the beliefs of a certain church.
In my opinion, that does far more harm than good.
Anyone who has seen this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms
and anyone who has read about their belief system would be forgiven for believing that Mormons have a very poor grasp of what science is. After decades of searching and finding no "Mormon cities" in Central America, I can't say I have scientific respect for any geologist or paleontologist or linguist or anthropologist who remains in the church. The entire hypothesis of the religion is scientifically falsifiable and falsified. So why continue with the charade?
(Notice these claims are made by all religions. Mormonism made the fatal mistake of making specific claims, and in a time where printing presses made their first mistakes all too easy to read.)
But the other two?
Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African Race? If the White man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. -Brigham Young
I am here to answer. I shall be on hand to answer when I am called upon, for all the counsel and for all the instruction that I have given to this people. If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason. -Brigham Young
Read on! Enlightenment awaits...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms
No grudges. I just think the LDS is a fascinating study in human credulity. And BYU, being the official college of LDS, represents a sea of irony.
Would you have allowed to write a paper on the total lack of evidence for Nephytes in North America in the 5th and 6th centuries? I highly doubt it. Would you be allowed to state unequivocally that the LDS was institutionally racist in the 50s, and that the "revelation" received by the leaders in 1978 was obviously political and not spiritual?
So there will be another revelation about women in the church, since they are still second class citizens. And then another about homosexuals, and perhaps another for transgender. It just baffles me that the civilizing of the LDS isn't commented upon, or that any person trying to learn something would choose a school inexorably intertwined with such obviously flawed ideals.
a term you clearly picked to deprave those you obviously don't understand
No disagreement there. Being terrified of women and certain styles of grooming and atheists and homosexuals is certainly something I don't understand. And I say terrified, since they aren't allowed to be any of those things near the "clean" students at BYU. All, of course, except for the beards. I guess beards aren't so scary.
Never do they force others to be their religion, or to be a member of any other.
You didn't read. It's important:
LDS students may be endorsed only by the bishop of the ward (1) in which they live and (2) that holds their current Church membership record.
Non-LDS students are to be endorsed by (1) the local ecclesiastical leader if the student is an active member of the congregation, (2) the bishop of the LDS ward in which they currently reside, or (3) the nondenominational BYU chaplain.
So, how does an atheist stay within the honor code?
I hope to see an Academy established in Provo that shall do honor to our Territory, and at which the children of the Latter-day Saints can receive a good education unmixed with the pernicious atheistic influences that are found in so many of the higher schools of the country. -Brigham Young
Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African Race? If the White man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. -Brigham Young
I am here to answer. I shall be on hand to answer when I am called upon, for all the counsel and for all the instruction that I have given to this people. If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason. -Brigham Young
"I hope to see an Academy established in Provo that shall do honor to our Territory, and at which the children of the Latter-day Saints can receive a good education unmixed with the pernicious atheistic influences that are found in so many of the higher schools of the country." -Brigham Young
But, you got me on one point. There is a process for "beard exemption":
A student who wishes to obtain a beard exception must visit a BYU Student Health Center doctor by appointment (422.5156). The doctor will fax his recommendation. The student then needs to come to the Honor Code Office to fill out some paperwork and receive the letter allowing the growth of the beard, if approved. If a yearly beard exception is granted, a new Student ID will be issued after the beard has been fully grown, and must be renewed every year by repeating the process.
http://honorcode.byu.edu/content/what-process-obtaining-beard-waiver
That's literally the funniest thing I have read in the last 24 hours.
But wait! There's more!
Are Mixed Gender Camping Trips allowed?
http://honorcode.byu.edu/content/mixed-gender
Fear of Gays!
Homosexual behavior and/or advocacy of homosexual behavior are inappropriate and violate the Honor Code. Homosexual behavior includes not only sexual relations between members of the same sex, but all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings. Advocacy includes seeking to influence others to engage in homosexual behavior or promoting homosexual relations as being morally acceptable.
Fear of the Female Body!
A clean and well-cared-for appearance should be maintained. Clothing is inappropriate when it is sleeveless, strapless, backless, or revealing; has slits above the knee; or is form fitting. Dresses, skirts, and shorts must be knee-length or longer. Hairstyles should be clean and neat, avoiding extremes in styles or colors. Excessive ear piercing (more than one per ear) and all other body piercing are not acceptable. Shoes should be worn in all public campus areas.
Forced religion!
Students are required to be in good Honor Code standing to be admitted to, continue enrollment at, and graduate from BYU. In conjunction with this requirement, all enrolled continuing undergraduate, graduate, intern, and Study Abroad students are required to obtain a Continuing Student Ecclesiastical Endorsement for each new academic year. Students must have their endorsements completed, turned in, and processed by the Honor Code Office before they can register for fall semester or any semester thereafter. To avoid registration delays, endorsement should be submitted to the Honor Code Office by March 15. Those applying to BYU should use the new-student Admissions Application Part 3 endorsement and submit to Admissions, D-155 ASB.
I mean, this shit sounds like something you'd find the Taliban advocating. Read it for yourself:
http://saas.byu.edu/catalog/2009-2010ucat/GeneralInfo/HonorCode.php#HCOfficeInvovement
The last living white skinned follower of Jesus in North America! And you have blasphemed Elohim, and are doomed to come back with darker skin!!
Seriously. Mormons are slightly less dumb than Scientologists. That's not a compliment.
No, my science teacher was a Creationist. He told the class that the Earth was 6000 years old because of the small amount of moon dust they found when the Apollo landed.
Thankfully, I like to read, and unlike the rest of my classmates, I have some scientific background concerning the world in general. And thus, when I heard that BYU, founded on principles of racism, moral superiority, and hatred of atheists, I was surprised they had abandoned enough of their core principles to have a paleontology department that accurately dated fossils.
Kudos to them. Maybe one day their students will be allowed to grow beards and have private sex lives. We can only, hope, right?
I wouldn't be as surprised if they claimed to have found a spaceship and a saddle in the same strata.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ervaWt03Z3w
Yeah. Fuck "research" about "diseases" or whatever. What we need is more baristas at Starbucks. I actually had to wait last time.
I didn't say it was good or bad. It is just fact.
Earlier you said
Monopoly means you don't necessarily have to market (or market well) most customers are forced to come to you, like it or not.
Microsoft maintains their monopoly through a certain amount of shady business practices, but also because there is no enterprise competition to speak of. If Apple dropped their prices, or if the Linux community could settle on a cohesive set of basic standards, Microsoft could possibly lose their monopoly. Just because Microsoft is the only place you can buy Windows and Office doesn't make them a monopoly. If they somehow worked out a deal to outlaw other software, then I think you would have a more valid argument. (And yes, I have no doubt that Microsoft would love to, and would try to implement, such an idea.)
who wants to be stuck with WM 6.5 when there are a world of more advanced phones out there? Executives will not put up with that BS
Executives only care about being reliably connected to their information. The Blackberry is probably the worst device I have ever used, except for one feature: e-mail. It's always on, works well internationally, and their business devices have very type-able keyboards.