Scientology and Mormonism were not created to satire any existing belief system for the express purpose of trying to make some sort of political point. Pastafarianism was. Henderson first wrote about the FSM to illustrate the absurdity of using science classes to teach scientifically unverifiable accounts of the origin of mankind. It wasn't until *AFTER* he had written the letter to the school board that he even decided to post the letter on his website, making it an open letter. Had this not been the case, and the mere disputing of the teaching of intelligent design in science class not been his agenda, however, certainly Pastafarianism might be eligible for the same status as either of the above two belief systems. But it was the case, and people going around pretending that it's something that they really believe in isn't going to change that. People who believe in a so-called invisible sky god may very well be delusional, but their belief system extends from what their own sensibilities tell them is actually true about reality. In that light, I'd argue that many people who claim to believe in the FSM are largely doing it to mock such people and their beliefs, and are, in my view, nothing short of being just plain and simple assholes... no better than a bible thumper who blindly shouts at people he doesn't agree with, proclaiming they are going to hell.
True enough, but when the historically validated origins of a so-called "religion" belie the notion that it was actually eveer something that the person who brought about the religion ever genuinely believed in, and was intended to be a religion, it kind of takes the ridiculousness to the next level. Bobby Henderson wasn't delusional... he is an intelligent man, and never seriously made any claim to have received divine insight for his original proposed belief in the FSM, it was an open letter, specifically designed to mock the Kanas City's decision (at the time) to teach Intelligent Design in schools, and to show how ludicrous the notion is of trying to teach ideas in a science classroom which are not actually substantiated by any scientific evidence.
One can draw similar conclusions about the so-called "Jedi" religion.
It is possible that the origins of these so-called belief systems may got obscured by the passage of time, but I'd dare say that's not particularly likely to happen in anyone's lifetime who is breathing today.
Other recent religions, even if their belief systems may be entirely unfounded or possibly even outright disproved, at least can lay claim to the notion that the people who initially followed it have always been acting out of a sincere belief that they were acting in accordance with what was true and right, That doesn't make any of the beliefs themselves true, or their practices even necessarily something that should be tolerated, but it certainly smells a lot more like religion than satirical stuff like Pastafarianism, or the fictional Jedi religion.
Assuming that it's not the case that one must make a commitment to be a subscriber for a certain minimum period to qualify for the six free months in the first place, you could just tell them at the end of the six months that while you were entirely willing to try it for free, you aren't willing to actually pay for it.
Well, in the case of google, you'd probably actually have to work there... and probably need to have a superuser account. You could easily write a small script which could delete emails stored on one account, and ensure that the space it occupied is overwritten by other legitimate data, so that the original content is more thoroughly lost. Actually even at that point the previous data is still theoretically possible to recover with forensics, but you'd need to know physically where that data used to be stored on the disk, and if the disk has undergone some period of real-world use *since* that information was deleted, it could be extremely difficult, and probably not technically feasible, to track down exactly where this deleted info was ever stored.
Possible... but it would require quite a lot of work.
Pastafarianism is readily historically verifiable as being deliberately conceived of as a fake religion for the express purpose of satirizing other religious beliefs, not so much to mock those specific beliefs, but to actually show how ludicrous it is to use science classes in school to teach scientifically unverifiable stories about the origin of mankind, arguing that the Flying Spaghetti Monster story has exactly as much scientifically credible as any other unverifiable account of the origin of mankind (which is a mostly accurate assessment, the only difference that I can think of being that how the story of the FSM came about, and the entire purpose of its existence, to mock the teaching of Intelligent Design in schools, is very well historically documented, so the comparison isn't valid 100%... but it's close).
So if you are going to lay claim to any kind of sincere belief in a religion, you should probably try picking one whose origins are lost in obscurity by the passage of time, or at least pick one where there isn't an abundance of documentation to show that the originator only invented it to mock a specific idea, not as something that anyone should necessarily seriously believe in.
In Canada, it's illegal in every province. In the USA, it depends on the state... it's legal in most, but still prohibited in some. Even in states where it is legal, however, there can still be prohibitions on a municipal level (it's my understanding that many larger municipalities outlaw it, or have express prohibitions against picking up hitchhikers,which is an easier thing to enforce, since you can penalize the driver, who will necessarily have ID, while a hitchhiker may not), and municipal restrictions is what I would expect to be most applicable for a system that functions similar to a taxi service anyways.
Fair enough point made about switching providers (although considering the main point behind unlocking phones is *because* you want to switch providers, it strikes me as somewhat ironic), but my underlying point still remains, that there is absolutely *no* kind of electrical difference between a phone which may have previously been on contract, and a phone which was purchased for use with the same carrier, and was not under any contract. How is provider to tell the difference between a phone that they subsidized, for example, and a model-wise identical, much newer replacement phone that they may have purchased *after* the contract had expired, perhaps because the first one broke.... so you went and bought a new one, and put the old sim-card into it. The newer phone would completely assume the identity of the older one, and itwas never under any contract, so there is no reason for the company to charge to unlock it, but there is also no practical way for them to tell that it was not the phone that they subsidized.
My point is that there *IS* no real distinction between a phone that was purchased for use with a particular provider but was never actually under a contract, and a phone which has previously been under a contract and the contract has since expired. One could theoretically simply switch to a different provider after the contract was up, and since it was never actually under any contract with them, and electronically identical to a phone that might have been bought for use with the first provider, but was never actually subsidized by any contract, if the legal requirement for free unlocking is only on phones that were never under any kind of contract, there would be no possible way for the second provider to know that they may not necessarily be required to unlock it for free.
It would, therefore, be in a provider's best interest to *NOT* charge any kind of fee once the contract is up to simply unlock a phone, since after a contract is up, there is little to nothing preventing a customer from switching providers, while offering the service for free to customers who ask for it after their contract is up may enable them to hold onto subscribers even after they are no longer bound by any contract.
But, as I said... once the contract is up, the phone is *NOT* under contract... is not tied to a contract, and is absolutely no different than a phone you have already purchased outright. And of course, not being under any contract, if they wanted to charge a fee simply because it *WAS* under contract previously, you could just switch providers and have the new provider unlock it for free, since it never would have been under contract with them, giving your current provider incentive to do it for free once your contract is up.
Because where I live carriers are obligated by law to unlock any phone not tied to a contract for free, and one tied to a contract for a minimal fee as soon as the contract is up.
You seem to be contradicting yourself. Once a contract is up, the phone is no longer tied to a contract.... so why wouldn't it be free per the first provision?
I hardly think starting workshops that only charge for materials is a particularly smart way to run a business.
If other people thought of it, they kept it to themselves. What this guy did was he shared that info... which may be the particularly ingenious thing to do.
... it that gives people who are inclined to do so further opportunity to act irresponsibly, do harm to others, and to not be held reasonably accountable for their actions.
Not that I think that's an excuse to remove anonymity entirely... only that I'm saying I can see the merit behind the reasoning. If somebody comes up with a system that ensures that people can be fairly held legally responsible for everything that they do online, while still being anonymous, I'm sure if they can box that formula, they'd make billions.
In some cities the city employs all its own inspectors. If just one of those inspectors can be bribed, does that really mean the organization (city) is not serious about the codes being followed? That seems a stretch.
It means that the inspector that can be bribed doesn't place much importance on what they are being bribed to ignore... I was assuming, perhaps erroneously, that any agency which is supposedly acting on behalf of the government in granting filming permits would also act in accordance with the governments own rules.
I personally know people who've purchased film permits from cities before and there's a whole crap-ton of paperwork that apparently goes to different departments of the government if the area you want to film in happens to be an ecologically sensitive area... and I think it would take more a whole lot more luck than money to push actually questionable activities through (it's not ever been a problem for the people that I know who do it because they are such a small film crew, and do not have any large equipment that they must bring in large trucks, so they do not generally pose any kind of environmental threat, and have never had any real problem getting filming rights to a location unless the monetary costs for the location are too high)
Anyways, assuming that everbody's playing on the up-and-up, however, I'd be genuinely surprised if anything that is deemed genuinely harmful to the area actually is likely to happen there... I'd be no less surprised, though, if the permits were awarded in the first place when they really shouldn't have been. If they were bribed into awarding the permits when they shouldn't have, the penalty is liable to be pretty damn high. Being fired from their job would be the least of their worries. Again, one would think that a person in that position would realize that their chances of getting away with this kind of thing are not that good, and wouldn't want to do it in the first place.
I'm not sure I follow your analogy... if somebody is willing to ignore what might be seen as legitimate environmental concerns in exchange for money, then the organization that is accepting that money is not giving due consideration to the environmental impact that might arise... this would usally be because thee environment wasn't important enough to them in the first place. It may arise simply because they have not adequately assessed the enviromental risks involved, but that still reflects an underlying lack of importance. If some corrupt organization granted the filming permits when they weren't supposed to, the government can always revoke them anyways.
I somehow would think that being ignorant of what the underlying problem might be would generally preclude a solution being particularly obvious to them, except in retrospect.
Not to sound like a mastercard commercial, but in this world there really are things that absolutely no amount of money can buy.
The only reason money would ever be able to buy ignoring legitimate environmental concerns is because somebody isn't actually realizing how important the environment (or that aspect of the environment) might be in the first place, or perhaps putting it another way, they have simply not accurately assessed the environmental risks which may be involved.
If the organizations that grant such permission are corrupt enough to accept a fee in exchange for ignoring the environment, then again., as I said, the environment isn't actually that important to them to begin with. Certainly the groups that would be concerned about the environmental impact at that location ought to know whether or not they really have any government backing behind their concerns. If they don't actually know, then there's no reason for them to think that the Irish government would have ever had any reason to object to the filming in the first place, so the idea that they should expect some sort of answer from the government about this is almost laughable. If, however, they know that the government has an obligation to their concerns about the environment, then it stands to reason that the permits should have never really been given in the first place, which was my original point. *IF* it turns out that their concerns are legitimately backed by the government, then the government would have the authority to revoke the permits anyways, pending a review of what environmental effects the presence of the cast and film crew, any equipment or vehicles that they bring with them, and their activites would have on the area. The permit fee would, of course, have to be refunded if it was determined that they determined that they could not film there (although if there were a separate permit application fee applicable that must be paid whether or not the permit is actually granted, then that fee would not have to be refunded).
Slashdot Mirror
Scientology and Mormonism were not created to satire any existing belief system for the express purpose of trying to make some sort of political point. Pastafarianism was. Henderson first wrote about the FSM to illustrate the absurdity of using science classes to teach scientifically unverifiable accounts of the origin of mankind. It wasn't until *AFTER* he had written the letter to the school board that he even decided to post the letter on his website, making it an open letter. Had this not been the case, and the mere disputing of the teaching of intelligent design in science class not been his agenda, however, certainly Pastafarianism might be eligible for the same status as either of the above two belief systems. But it was the case, and people going around pretending that it's something that they really believe in isn't going to change that. People who believe in a so-called invisible sky god may very well be delusional, but their belief system extends from what their own sensibilities tell them is actually true about reality. In that light, I'd argue that many people who claim to believe in the FSM are largely doing it to mock such people and their beliefs, and are, in my view, nothing short of being just plain and simple assholes... no better than a bible thumper who blindly shouts at people he doesn't agree with, proclaiming they are going to hell.
</sarcasm>
True enough, but when the historically validated origins of a so-called "religion" belie the notion that it was actually eveer something that the person who brought about the religion ever genuinely believed in, and was intended to be a religion, it kind of takes the ridiculousness to the next level. Bobby Henderson wasn't delusional... he is an intelligent man, and never seriously made any claim to have received divine insight for his original proposed belief in the FSM, it was an open letter, specifically designed to mock the Kanas City's decision (at the time) to teach Intelligent Design in schools, and to show how ludicrous the notion is of trying to teach ideas in a science classroom which are not actually substantiated by any scientific evidence.
One can draw similar conclusions about the so-called "Jedi" religion.
It is possible that the origins of these so-called belief systems may got obscured by the passage of time, but I'd dare say that's not particularly likely to happen in anyone's lifetime who is breathing today.
Other recent religions, even if their belief systems may be entirely unfounded or possibly even outright disproved, at least can lay claim to the notion that the people who initially followed it have always been acting out of a sincere belief that they were acting in accordance with what was true and right, That doesn't make any of the beliefs themselves true, or their practices even necessarily something that should be tolerated, but it certainly smells a lot more like religion than satirical stuff like Pastafarianism, or the fictional Jedi religion.
Assuming that it's not the case that one must make a commitment to be a subscriber for a certain minimum period to qualify for the six free months in the first place, you could just tell them at the end of the six months that while you were entirely willing to try it for free, you aren't willing to actually pay for it.
Possible... but it would require quite a lot of work.
You can. It just takes some effort.
Please.
Pastafarianism is readily historically verifiable as being deliberately conceived of as a fake religion for the express purpose of satirizing other religious beliefs, not so much to mock those specific beliefs, but to actually show how ludicrous it is to use science classes in school to teach scientifically unverifiable stories about the origin of mankind, arguing that the Flying Spaghetti Monster story has exactly as much scientifically credible as any other unverifiable account of the origin of mankind (which is a mostly accurate assessment, the only difference that I can think of being that how the story of the FSM came about, and the entire purpose of its existence, to mock the teaching of Intelligent Design in schools, is very well historically documented, so the comparison isn't valid 100%... but it's close).
So if you are going to lay claim to any kind of sincere belief in a religion, you should probably try picking one whose origins are lost in obscurity by the passage of time, or at least pick one where there isn't an abundance of documentation to show that the originator only invented it to mock a specific idea, not as something that anyone should necessarily seriously believe in.
In Canada, it's illegal in every province. In the USA, it depends on the state... it's legal in most, but still prohibited in some. Even in states where it is legal, however, there can still be prohibitions on a municipal level (it's my understanding that many larger municipalities outlaw it, or have express prohibitions against picking up hitchhikers,which is an easier thing to enforce, since you can penalize the driver, who will necessarily have ID, while a hitchhiker may not), and municipal restrictions is what I would expect to be most applicable for a system that functions similar to a taxi service anyways.
Fair enough point made about switching providers (although considering the main point behind unlocking phones is *because* you want to switch providers, it strikes me as somewhat ironic), but my underlying point still remains, that there is absolutely *no* kind of electrical difference between a phone which may have previously been on contract, and a phone which was purchased for use with the same carrier, and was not under any contract. How is provider to tell the difference between a phone that they subsidized, for example, and a model-wise identical, much newer replacement phone that they may have purchased *after* the contract had expired, perhaps because the first one broke.... so you went and bought a new one, and put the old sim-card into it. The newer phone would completely assume the identity of the older one, and itwas never under any contract, so there is no reason for the company to charge to unlock it, but there is also no practical way for them to tell that it was not the phone that they subsidized.
My point is that there *IS* no real distinction between a phone that was purchased for use with a particular provider but was never actually under a contract, and a phone which has previously been under a contract and the contract has since expired. One could theoretically simply switch to a different provider after the contract was up, and since it was never actually under any contract with them, and electronically identical to a phone that might have been bought for use with the first provider, but was never actually subsidized by any contract, if the legal requirement for free unlocking is only on phones that were never under any kind of contract, there would be no possible way for the second provider to know that they may not necessarily be required to unlock it for free.
It would, therefore, be in a provider's best interest to *NOT* charge any kind of fee once the contract is up to simply unlock a phone, since after a contract is up, there is little to nothing preventing a customer from switching providers, while offering the service for free to customers who ask for it after their contract is up may enable them to hold onto subscribers even after they are no longer bound by any contract.
But, as I said... once the contract is up, the phone is *NOT* under contract... is not tied to a contract, and is absolutely no different than a phone you have already purchased outright. And of course, not being under any contract, if they wanted to charge a fee simply because it *WAS* under contract previously, you could just switch providers and have the new provider unlock it for free, since it never would have been under contract with them, giving your current provider incentive to do it for free once your contract is up.
Without any sort of commercial license to drive other people around, why don't the drivers run afoul of laws that prohibit pickup of hitchhikers?
You seem to be contradicting yourself. Once a contract is up, the phone is no longer tied to a contract.... so why wouldn't it be free per the first provision?
This has every shade of bad written all over it, if you ask me.
I hardly think starting workshops that only charge for materials is a particularly smart way to run a business.
If other people thought of it, they kept it to themselves. What this guy did was he shared that info... which may be the particularly ingenious thing to do.
So, pray tell, if it was really so obvious, why didn't anyone do it before this as a means of coping with the Chinese air pollution problem?
Even though the implementation is obvious, the application may be not as obvious as people seem to think.
Not that I think that's an excuse to remove anonymity entirely... only that I'm saying I can see the merit behind the reasoning. If somebody comes up with a system that ensures that people can be fairly held legally responsible for everything that they do online, while still being anonymous, I'm sure if they can box that formula, they'd make billions.
It means that the inspector that can be bribed doesn't place much importance on what they are being bribed to ignore... I was assuming, perhaps erroneously, that any agency which is supposedly acting on behalf of the government in granting filming permits would also act in accordance with the governments own rules.
I personally know people who've purchased film permits from cities before and there's a whole crap-ton of paperwork that apparently goes to different departments of the government if the area you want to film in happens to be an ecologically sensitive area... and I think it would take more a whole lot more luck than money to push actually questionable activities through (it's not ever been a problem for the people that I know who do it because they are such a small film crew, and do not have any large equipment that they must bring in large trucks, so they do not generally pose any kind of environmental threat, and have never had any real problem getting filming rights to a location unless the monetary costs for the location are too high)
Anyways, assuming that everbody's playing on the up-and-up, however, I'd be genuinely surprised if anything that is deemed genuinely harmful to the area actually is likely to happen there... I'd be no less surprised, though, if the permits were awarded in the first place when they really shouldn't have been. If they were bribed into awarding the permits when they shouldn't have, the penalty is liable to be pretty damn high. Being fired from their job would be the least of their worries. Again, one would think that a person in that position would realize that their chances of getting away with this kind of thing are not that good, and wouldn't want to do it in the first place.
I'm not sure I follow your analogy... if somebody is willing to ignore what might be seen as legitimate environmental concerns in exchange for money, then the organization that is accepting that money is not giving due consideration to the environmental impact that might arise... this would usally be because thee environment wasn't important enough to them in the first place. It may arise simply because they have not adequately assessed the enviromental risks involved, but that still reflects an underlying lack of importance. If some corrupt organization granted the filming permits when they weren't supposed to, the government can always revoke them anyways.
I somehow would think that being ignorant of what the underlying problem might be would generally preclude a solution being particularly obvious to them, except in retrospect.
Fair point... more accurately, it would be a means of coping with China's air pollution than an actual solution to the underlying problem.
Not to sound like a mastercard commercial, but in this world there really are things that absolutely no amount of money can buy.
The only reason money would ever be able to buy ignoring legitimate environmental concerns is because somebody isn't actually realizing how important the environment (or that aspect of the environment) might be in the first place, or perhaps putting it another way, they have simply not accurately assessed the environmental risks which may be involved.
If the organizations that grant such permission are corrupt enough to accept a fee in exchange for ignoring the environment, then again., as I said, the environment isn't actually that important to them to begin with. Certainly the groups that would be concerned about the environmental impact at that location ought to know whether or not they really have any government backing behind their concerns. If they don't actually know, then there's no reason for them to think that the Irish government would have ever had any reason to object to the filming in the first place, so the idea that they should expect some sort of answer from the government about this is almost laughable. If, however, they know that the government has an obligation to their concerns about the environment, then it stands to reason that the permits should have never really been given in the first place, which was my original point. *IF* it turns out that their concerns are legitimately backed by the government, then the government would have the authority to revoke the permits anyways, pending a review of what environmental effects the presence of the cast and film crew, any equipment or vehicles that they bring with them, and their activites would have on the area. The permit fee would, of course, have to be refunded if it was determined that they determined that they could not film there (although if there were a separate permit application fee applicable that must be paid whether or not the permit is actually granted, then that fee would not have to be refunded).
Which is my point.
Somebody had to think of the idea first... cut the guy some slack.
If it was so obvious to you, then why didn't you suggest it before he did?