That is an excellent idea which will never work because it would exclude too many other religions. You can reproduce the Bible in its original form, but not any of the copyrighted modern translations, and certainly not all the rest of Christian texts -- so there goes all of Christianity. Let's say for argument that Mormons aren't Christians (this is a debatable point): their services aren't open to anyone, so they are out.
Seems like the Jews might be okay, but then you'd have to bicker with the Rabbi about whether Judaism is a religion or an ethnicity. I'm not sure whether Islamic services are open to all, or only open to those who have professed faith in Allah. I'm fairly certain Santeria excludes non-members from its ceremonies. I'd go on but I don't know much about other religions.
To me, it seems the obvious best way to deal with religions (and the definition of "religion") is the same as the obvious best way to deal with marriage (and the definition of "marriage"): just don't. Just don't define it, just don't deal with it. Tax churches like any other landowner. Apply the same standards to religions as to any other organization. Don't stipulate who can or can't marry. Don't even bother, because you are bound to piss of somebody when you try. Leave it to the private sector, the private marketplace of ideas, to sort out socially what a religion is and what marriage means.
I'm not sure if you were trying to be ironic or not. Haven't you also "seen interviews with several people who cite (scientology) as saving either their life or giving them a fresh start"? I have, I just happen to think they are -- damn what's the word -- Wrong, or Crazy or something.
If you are a conservative, why would you vote for McCain or Giuliani? Shouldn't you vote for a conservative? Did you mean, you are a Republican, and thus will vote for a Republican?
It's a sad time for the conservatives, really, because there haven't been any major conservative candidates since, what, Bob Dole probably. Bush isn't a conservative by any stretch. There are a couple conservatives running for the Republican nod right now, but they aren't likely to get it. The Republican party gave up on being conservative mere moments after their revolution in 94, proceeding on a path which left most conservatives reeling and angry.
Hypothetically, if the current presidential race came down to a true conservative and a true liberal, it's hard to say who I'd vote for. What do I want more? Cutting taxes in half and doing away with deductions? Or a sane medical system which covers everybody and saves us money? Would I rather resurrect free speech and gun rights? or resurrect the inheritance tax? Tough choices, but I'd probably vote for the conservative. I think I'll see pigs fly before I see a conservative candidate, though, so I'll probably go back to voting party line: Libertarian.
More importantly, they have shown that their copy editor doesn't know how to hyphenate an adjective phrase. Damn, if the good people at Greenpeace haven't completed fifth grade, how can I trust their policy initiatives? I guess I can't.
You might not have been paying very close attention, but Greenpeace hasn't been credible since the late 80s, if it even ever was credible in the first place. They are mindcontrolling fearmongers pushing untruthful ideology.
Are you sure you didn't get seduced by thinking Windows is a superior OS? or perhaps by wanting to use software only available on Windows?
I ask because it's borderline mentally retarded to use Windows (or, do anything else) just because more people do it. What, are you next going to start speaking Mandarin? or convert to Islam?
If you prefer Windows, that's fine (crazy, but fine); but if you don't prefer Windows, and just use it because "thirty times" more people use it, then you, sir, are a moron.
That sucks, but I'm sure it's not too hard to find used Office on eBay or somewhere. It's probably cheap as dirt, too. Buying old software is a good trick, if you think it's better, for exactly the reason that it's so cheap.
I started working with MS software for the first time six months ago when I got a new job. Since then, I have been told dozens of times to use Notepad to work around various problems with various MS products.
"Oh, Visual Studio doesn't have a Find feature in the text pane you are using? Why don't you just paste the text into Notepad then search with that?"
"Uh... because there is no reason I should have to go to all that trouble to do a trivial search, that's why."
"Oh, yeah, Word is screwing up your text paste and even your typing by changing shit you didn't tell it to change? Why don't you just type it in Notepad, then move the text over to Word when you are ready?"
"Uh... because Word is a fucking word processor and ought to do exactly what, apparently, I have to use Notepad to do, that's why."
I can say with confidence that Notepad is the number-one best piece of Microsoft software I have ever used, though I still refuse to use it to work around various bugs in other MS programs. But I do use it in the fifty or sixty percent of cases when I can substitute it for Word. Without Notepad, I think most Windows users would suddenly realize that none of their MS software works the way it should.
How am I ever going to figure out how to do the silly crap I'm supposed to do?
You should just keep using whatever version of Word (or whatever the program) that you always have. It seems you consider the new version inferior. The obvious course of action is to keep using the same software. Don't pay for a downgrade, that would be silly.
Are we trying to raise a generation of corporate drones who are so obedient they can never pose a competitive threat to existing oligarchy.
Depends on what you mean by "we". If you mean the powers that be, the average person, the democratic mean, then... yes, "we" are. If you mean you, or me, specifically, then no "we" aren't.
PS I wonder: you ended your sentence with a period instead of a question mark; was it a rhetorical question.
I love these Slashdot stories about Macs v. Windows because it's fun to flame. Won't you all join me bitching about Windows? You can bitch about Macs too if you want. Nothing crazy, just good old fashioned complaining.
Why is it, on Windows, when I'm in the middle of the last line of text in a document, and press down-arrow, I don't go to the end of the line? I'm not saying that's God's answer to the question of what down-arrow ought to do, but down-arrow may as well do something in that situation, and going to the end of the line is sure useful.
What is this fascination with control-alt-delete? I've heard they chose that combination specifically because it's difficult to type. So... then... why the hell is it used so often? Did they seriously go out of their way to make things difficult? Seriously?
Why is it, on Windows, when some text is selected, I can't use left or right arrow to go to the beginning or end of the selection? Instead, Windows maintains the carat, uselessly navigating from there.
Why is it, in all MS apps except Windows, you can drag tabs to rearrange them, but you can't do that in the Windows task bar? Did no one at MS ever think that would be useful?
Why is it that the "Are you sure you want to empty the trash?" dialog doesn't have a "Piss off and stop bothering me with this stupid question" checkbox? Okay, fine, 'tards will mistakenly delete things, fine, but the upper 95% of us aren't so daft, so that really ought to be an option. Same goes with every other fucking annoying popup in Windows: each and every single one of them should have a "F.O.A.D." checkbox.
Why is it that MS thinks the most correct way to manage preferences is with a plethora of separate dialog boxes? Why are even the most trivial and basic options hidden in Advanced tabs or separate dialogs? Why the hell is Preferences/Options/Configure called something different, and found in a different menu, in every application?
I might be missing something obvious here, but is there really no keyboard shortcut for quitting a program? I mean, for most programs? Does every Windows user in the world reach for their mouse every single time they want to close a window? And no one has a problem with that?
Crap I have to log off my Mac and go back to work now...
A few months back Slashdot had a "story" about a Linux guy who did a switch experiment with Windows, where he concluded that "Windows isn't bad, but it's not quite ready for primetime", which is a jab at all the Windows switchers who say that about Linux. Well, as a reluctant Mac switcher, I have to say, Windows isn't even close to ready for primetime. The UI is abysmal. But, on the other hand, Windows XP has been very very stable for me, much more than I thought it would be. That's the only nice thing I can say about it though.
Until windows fails miserably, businesses will continue to use what they've used.
You must have been hibernating between 1997 and 2003 when Word macro viruses were causing companies billions of dollars in damages. The evidence suggests that Windows failing miserably has no impact on people continuing to use it.
I don't think I'm following your argument. If lack of competition in the computer industry were causing higher prices, then Windows boxen would cost more than Macs.
The founding fathers got almost everything right. They were remarkably prescient. Then again, they had the benefit of capitalizing on a revolution in a way which would last, by enshrining revolutionary ideals in a Constitution. Over time, that Constitution has very consistently preserved freedom and justice and good governance, when it is respected. Unfortunately, the Constitution is largely ignored today. The only parts that mean shit these days are the amendments, and even still about a third of the amendments are regularly ignored. The actual body of the Constitution has been abandoned for about seventy years, or about two hundred years, depending on who you ask.
To re-establish real freedom, the US will have to undergo another revolution, there is no way to evolve from the current state to a state of justice. Luckily, while we are very much imperfect, we are still closer to perfection than, say, any other country.
Neither you nor your senator made your political desires clear, but if you will allow my assumption, I think her outlook is the opposite of yours. You probably said something like "hey, copyright is supposed to enrich culture, but it's all fucked up and I think you ought to fix it" and she probably meant something like "I support the DMCA, I support DMCA2, and I think Napster was devilspawn". Her response was a thinly veiled way of saying "I think copyright restrictions should be tightened, not loosened".
I really appreciate your comment, it really is +5 Informative.
But I take issue with one part of your statement: ANY change would be required to be labelled, so no one would pull anything over on you, same as it is today.
If I understand correctly, the change under consideration would allow things to be labeled "chocolate" when those things don't currently conform to the definition of "chocolate". Instead, we insist that those products be called something else. So in fact the makers of these products WOULD be pulling something over on us, by labeling as "chocolate" something which is not "chocolate". Sure, it might say "Chocolate" and the ingredients could be totally wrong, but that's like saying we can call Twinkies "fat free" as long as we make sure to list all the fats in the ingredients. No! It's not fat free, and that's why we don't allow it to be labeled as fat free. Similarly, with chocolate, just like you said there is a "standard of identity" for chocolate, and changing the legal standard so that it no longer reflects the common public standard would indeed be "pulling something over on us".
It's not like these pseudochocolates are contraband. You can still sell them. You can call them any number of creative things, so long as you don't try to use a misleading word -- such as, say, "Chocolate".
Okay, now that that is said, I will argue the other side, which is that perhaps the new standards *will* still conform with the public's understanding of chocolate. Me, I'm not a big chocolate fan, so my opinion isn't important, but if you go out and ask a bunch of people what is in chocolate, and most of them say "oh, let's see, there's cacao... and artificial oil subsitutes... and artificail low-cost non-sugar sweetener... and artificial..." then the legal definition would still be in line with the public's presumptions, and thus would be okay.
I'll keep rambling here, and make a simile to beer. I've heard that in Germany only beverages brewed with water, barley, and hops (and NOTHING ELSE) can be called "beer". I wouldn't want that same standard in America, because I figure the American-public definition of the word "beer" could reasonably contain other ingredients (I like pumpkin beer). Nevertheless, if most Germans think that "beer" can contain only those three ingredients, then that is a right proper restriction for beers sold in Germany.
It's all about truth in advertising, which is premised on public understanding of words and concepts. A change to the legal definition of a word without a corresponding change to the common definition of the word, is wrong.
Good jest, but only as a jest, because the truth doesn't support the joke.
Cheese made in the USA is very good, although you are right that "American Cheese" (the variety of cheese named for our continent) is very bad. American pizza, or more specifically Americanized pizza, is the best in the world. American wine has been winning worldwide taste tests for two decades. American beer covers the whole range, from very bad to the very best in the world; so, like cheese, we make the best in the world, we just also make the worst in the world.
I'm not big on chocolate so I won't comment on the state of American chocolate.
I'm having a hard time following you, as I am not a compression algorithm expert. Can you explain how to "fit several values into a single bit"? Where I come from, that would be considered a very good trick indeed.
The original poster phrased his sentence in a way that made me assume he was well aware of jury nullification, but also aware that judges almost never ever ever *instruct* the jury about it, and in fact rather often specifically tell the jury not to pursue it. That's why the poster said
most of the time, juries are advised to not judge the law, but judge whether or not someone broke the law
Also, remember that jury nullification is also the reason white men were never convicted of killing black men in the American Deep South during segregation. It cuts both ways.
Slashdot Mirror
That is an excellent idea which will never work because it would exclude too many other religions. You can reproduce the Bible in its original form, but not any of the copyrighted modern translations, and certainly not all the rest of Christian texts -- so there goes all of Christianity. Let's say for argument that Mormons aren't Christians (this is a debatable point): their services aren't open to anyone, so they are out.
Seems like the Jews might be okay, but then you'd have to bicker with the Rabbi about whether Judaism is a religion or an ethnicity. I'm not sure whether Islamic services are open to all, or only open to those who have professed faith in Allah. I'm fairly certain Santeria excludes non-members from its ceremonies. I'd go on but I don't know much about other religions.
To me, it seems the obvious best way to deal with religions (and the definition of "religion") is the same as the obvious best way to deal with marriage (and the definition of "marriage"): just don't. Just don't define it, just don't deal with it. Tax churches like any other landowner. Apply the same standards to religions as to any other organization. Don't stipulate who can or can't marry. Don't even bother, because you are bound to piss of somebody when you try. Leave it to the private sector, the private marketplace of ideas, to sort out socially what a religion is and what marriage means.
I'm not sure if you were trying to be ironic or not. Haven't you also "seen interviews with several people who cite (scientology) as saving either their life or giving them a fresh start"? I have, I just happen to think they are -- damn what's the word -- Wrong, or Crazy or something.
Yes. You are right about everything except two things: Microsoft is actually a monopoly; and Windows does not "Just Work".
Besides that, you are right: anti-MS people should just stfu and use whatever else they want, there are plenty of options. It's all about choice.
Dude, the real nonsense is your first sentence, which makes no sense because you mistook homophones.
Wait, what I mean is, the nonsense is "you're" first sentence, which makes no "cents". "They're", that should clear things up.
If you are a conservative, why would you vote for McCain or Giuliani? Shouldn't you vote for a conservative? Did you mean, you are a Republican, and thus will vote for a Republican?
It's a sad time for the conservatives, really, because there haven't been any major conservative candidates since, what, Bob Dole probably. Bush isn't a conservative by any stretch. There are a couple conservatives running for the Republican nod right now, but they aren't likely to get it. The Republican party gave up on being conservative mere moments after their revolution in 94, proceeding on a path which left most conservatives reeling and angry.
Hypothetically, if the current presidential race came down to a true conservative and a true liberal, it's hard to say who I'd vote for. What do I want more? Cutting taxes in half and doing away with deductions? Or a sane medical system which covers everybody and saves us money? Would I rather resurrect free speech and gun rights? or resurrect the inheritance tax? Tough choices, but I'd probably vote for the conservative. I think I'll see pigs fly before I see a conservative candidate, though, so I'll probably go back to voting party line: Libertarian.
More importantly, they have shown that their copy editor doesn't know how to hyphenate an adjective phrase. Damn, if the good people at Greenpeace haven't completed fifth grade, how can I trust their policy initiatives? I guess I can't.
You might not have been paying very close attention, but Greenpeace hasn't been credible since the late 80s, if it even ever was credible in the first place. They are mindcontrolling fearmongers pushing untruthful ideology.
Are you sure you didn't get seduced by thinking Windows is a superior OS? or perhaps by wanting to use software only available on Windows?
I ask because it's borderline mentally retarded to use Windows (or, do anything else) just because more people do it. What, are you next going to start speaking Mandarin? or convert to Islam?
If you prefer Windows, that's fine (crazy, but fine); but if you don't prefer Windows, and just use it because "thirty times" more people use it, then you, sir, are a moron.
That sucks, but I'm sure it's not too hard to find used Office on eBay or somewhere. It's probably cheap as dirt, too. Buying old software is a good trick, if you think it's better, for exactly the reason that it's so cheap.
I started working with MS software for the first time six months ago when I got a new job. Since then, I have been told dozens of times to use Notepad to work around various problems with various MS products.
"Oh, Visual Studio doesn't have a Find feature in the text pane you are using? Why don't you just paste the text into Notepad then search with that?"
"Uh... because there is no reason I should have to go to all that trouble to do a trivial search, that's why."
"Oh, yeah, Word is screwing up your text paste and even your typing by changing shit you didn't tell it to change? Why don't you just type it in Notepad, then move the text over to Word when you are ready?"
"Uh... because Word is a fucking word processor and ought to do exactly what, apparently, I have to use Notepad to do, that's why."
I can say with confidence that Notepad is the number-one best piece of Microsoft software I have ever used, though I still refuse to use it to work around various bugs in other MS programs. But I do use it in the fifty or sixty percent of cases when I can substitute it for Word. Without Notepad, I think most Windows users would suddenly realize that none of their MS software works the way it should.
How am I ever going to figure out how to do the silly crap I'm supposed to do?
You should just keep using whatever version of Word (or whatever the program) that you always have. It seems you consider the new version inferior. The obvious course of action is to keep using the same software. Don't pay for a downgrade, that would be silly.
Dude, I've heard about that "telephone" but it sounds stupid. Who would want one? There's no one to call on it!
Are we trying to raise a generation of corporate drones who are so obedient they can never pose a competitive threat to existing oligarchy.
Depends on what you mean by "we". If you mean the powers that be, the average person, the democratic mean, then... yes, "we" are. If you mean you, or me, specifically, then no "we" aren't.
PS I wonder: you ended your sentence with a period instead of a question mark; was it a rhetorical question.
the government spied on us secretly even before the PATRIOT act.
A few months back Slashdot had a "story" about a Linux guy who did a switch experiment with Windows, where he concluded that "Windows isn't bad, but it's not quite ready for primetime", which is a jab at all the Windows switchers who say that about Linux. Well, as a reluctant Mac switcher, I have to say, Windows isn't even close to ready for primetime. The UI is abysmal. But, on the other hand, Windows XP has been very very stable for me, much more than I thought it would be. That's the only nice thing I can say about it though.
Until windows fails miserably, businesses will continue to use what they've used.
You must have been hibernating between 1997 and 2003 when Word macro viruses were causing companies billions of dollars in damages. The evidence suggests that Windows failing miserably has no impact on people continuing to use it.
I don't think I'm following your argument. If lack of competition in the computer industry were causing higher prices, then Windows boxen would cost more than Macs.
Well, to be fair, there would still be one reason, which is the same reason as now: prejudice.
The founding fathers got almost everything right. They were remarkably prescient. Then again, they had the benefit of capitalizing on a revolution in a way which would last, by enshrining revolutionary ideals in a Constitution. Over time, that Constitution has very consistently preserved freedom and justice and good governance, when it is respected. Unfortunately, the Constitution is largely ignored today. The only parts that mean shit these days are the amendments, and even still about a third of the amendments are regularly ignored. The actual body of the Constitution has been abandoned for about seventy years, or about two hundred years, depending on who you ask.
To re-establish real freedom, the US will have to undergo another revolution, there is no way to evolve from the current state to a state of justice. Luckily, while we are very much imperfect, we are still closer to perfection than, say, any other country.
Neither you nor your senator made your political desires clear, but if you will allow my assumption, I think her outlook is the opposite of yours. You probably said something like "hey, copyright is supposed to enrich culture, but it's all fucked up and I think you ought to fix it" and she probably meant something like "I support the DMCA, I support DMCA2, and I think Napster was devilspawn". Her response was a thinly veiled way of saying "I think copyright restrictions should be tightened, not loosened".
I really appreciate your comment, it really is +5 Informative.
But I take issue with one part of your statement: ANY change would be required to be labelled, so no one would pull anything over on you, same as it is today.
If I understand correctly, the change under consideration would allow things to be labeled "chocolate" when those things don't currently conform to the definition of "chocolate". Instead, we insist that those products be called something else. So in fact the makers of these products WOULD be pulling something over on us, by labeling as "chocolate" something which is not "chocolate". Sure, it might say "Chocolate" and the ingredients could be totally wrong, but that's like saying we can call Twinkies "fat free" as long as we make sure to list all the fats in the ingredients. No! It's not fat free, and that's why we don't allow it to be labeled as fat free. Similarly, with chocolate, just like you said there is a "standard of identity" for chocolate, and changing the legal standard so that it no longer reflects the common public standard would indeed be "pulling something over on us".
It's not like these pseudochocolates are contraband. You can still sell them. You can call them any number of creative things, so long as you don't try to use a misleading word -- such as, say, "Chocolate".
Okay, now that that is said, I will argue the other side, which is that perhaps the new standards *will* still conform with the public's understanding of chocolate. Me, I'm not a big chocolate fan, so my opinion isn't important, but if you go out and ask a bunch of people what is in chocolate, and most of them say "oh, let's see, there's cacao... and artificial oil subsitutes... and artificail low-cost non-sugar sweetener... and artificial..." then the legal definition would still be in line with the public's presumptions, and thus would be okay.
I'll keep rambling here, and make a simile to beer. I've heard that in Germany only beverages brewed with water, barley, and hops (and NOTHING ELSE) can be called "beer". I wouldn't want that same standard in America, because I figure the American-public definition of the word "beer" could reasonably contain other ingredients (I like pumpkin beer). Nevertheless, if most Germans think that "beer" can contain only those three ingredients, then that is a right proper restriction for beers sold in Germany.
It's all about truth in advertising, which is premised on public understanding of words and concepts. A change to the legal definition of a word without a corresponding change to the common definition of the word, is wrong.
Yes! Moreover, it can't be the same chemical formula if it has one fewer elements, either!
Good jest, but only as a jest, because the truth doesn't support the joke.
Cheese made in the USA is very good, although you are right that "American Cheese" (the variety of cheese named for our continent) is very bad. American pizza, or more specifically Americanized pizza, is the best in the world. American wine has been winning worldwide taste tests for two decades. American beer covers the whole range, from very bad to the very best in the world; so, like cheese, we make the best in the world, we just also make the worst in the world.
I'm not big on chocolate so I won't comment on the state of American chocolate.
I'm having a hard time following you, as I am not a compression algorithm expert. Can you explain how to "fit several values into a single bit"? Where I come from, that would be considered a very good trick indeed.
The original poster phrased his sentence in a way that made me assume he was well aware of jury nullification, but also aware that judges almost never ever ever *instruct* the jury about it, and in fact rather often specifically tell the jury not to pursue it. That's why the poster said
most of the time, juries are advised to not judge the law, but judge whether or not someone broke the law
Also, remember that jury nullification is also the reason white men were never convicted of killing black men in the American Deep South during segregation. It cuts both ways.