Trebuchets and similar weapons (all the way up to modern indirect fire weapons like the Howitzer) are subject to such a massive number of variables, that aiming for a single person is likely to result in at least one miss.
Assuming that the geeks don't get lucky, the trainded bodyguard will, after a massive rock suddenly destroy's Darl's car, move Darl to a safer location while he looks for the spotter wearing a badly swen tunic.
On the plus side, this confrontation will be good in the same way that SCO taking the GPL to court will be good. Instead of copyleft being given solid legal testing, the question of modern small arms against medieval plate will be put to the test.
(Though I'm no expert, I wager that a good breastplate can stop a 9mm from a hundred yards away.)
If it's a doctor however and they are trained for something, they are still liable for malpractice.
IIRC, "Good samaritan" laws don't apply to anyone who tries to help--just people who know what they're doing, as long as they do it right.
They're exactly designed to allow doctors, EMTs, and Nurses to stop by an accident and help, without worrying about being sued so long as they follow proper emergency procedure.
But, in any case--if a doctor or anyone else is uncertain about it, they should talk to a lawyer in their area for an answer.
Look. Just because you don't like the anti-globalization cause doesn't mean you can deny the mechanism, or especially state that only unions should be allowed to use them.
Actually, I'm extemely sympathetic to the anti-globalization cause. Globalization, as it is now, is horrendously unfair to the workers and to poorer countries.
It is BECAUSE I sympathize with the cause that I feel that the professional protestors should just shut up and go integrate themselves into the caplitalist society. As it is now, they are not having significant effect, as because of such the only thing that they're accomplishing is giving unions and groups with a real reason to protest a reason NOT to use otherwise successful tactics.
Because they have a direct effect on the bottom line, and they're mobilized enough to have a meaningful impact on political elections?
A bunch of non-producing "profresional protestors" do nothing more than diminish the value of a tool that people like unions rely upon. They simply aren't numerous to effect any but the smallest company's bottom line, or to be a politically important force.
however, if my SO wouldn't let me go to the bar after work, she wouldn't be around much longer. What is wrong with simple communication and understanding in relationships today??
Psst, you're supposed to either bring the alcohol HOME, or take the S.O. OUT. Going off and having fun without them is very rarely conducive to a good relationship; at the very least, you have to invite them, even if you think that they'll say no.
Should social-justice advocates give up because the challenge is too great?
No. They should change their tactics because they're counter-productive.
And they should stop looking for causes to champion, and stop thinking that tactics that worked for civil rights will work for everything.
You know what would either kill or equalize gobalization? If the protestors would stop trying to riot around the WTO meetings, and start convincing the unions to act on the cause.
What the article is talking about is supplying enough energy to facilitate a reaction that could cause two hydrogen atoms to form a helium atom. When this occurs, the mass of the helium atom is slightly less than the sum of the two hydrogen masses. Since thermodynamics says the mass had to go somewhere, we account for the loss with an increase in energy (a la E=mc^2). The amount of energy released by this reaction is theoretically substantially greater than the energy used to force the two atoms together. At least, that's the gist of it.
Grammatical nitpick: the atoms don't get together, check their new weight against the required weight of their new self, and discard the rest through energy in accordance with the regulations from the heavenly bureau of thermodynamics.
The people at MS... are in denial about the utility of WP's reveal codes command./i.
No, they're not. They just don't feel that its utility is worth completely re-working their document model.
WP uses an HTML-like "text stream" model, which is why reveal codes can work at all. Word, on the other hand, uses a "letters in words in sentances in pargraphs in pages in sections" model. A reveal codes feature wouldn't do anyone any good, because the document structure is so complex it just won't help at all.
IMO, the best word-processor would be HTML/CSS based, but designed to feel and work like a traditional word proecessor. (Soft page breaks, flat text stream, etc.)
Claiming that the earth rotates around the sun was against church doctrine at the time, thus Galileo was branded a heretic. Point is; he was right. Didn't help him much though. Overall, the historical record of oranized religion is less than shining. Granted, they've done some good things, but they've shovelled more than their share of s**t to counter that.
Despite a huge ammount of controversy and what ammounts to atheist propaganda, Galileo's heresey wasn't that the earth wasn't the center of the universe. It was a succession of other minor heresies--IIRC, the pope in question actually endorsed Galilleo's scientific statement before he died.
Overall, the historical record of oranized religion is less than shining. Granted, they've done some good things, but they've shovelled more than their share of s**t to counter that.
This is a point where, IMO, neither of us is qualified to cohesively argue. Point to ANY element of modern society, and we can find significant good and evil from it.
It's also fairly apparent that the pagans you're referring to aren't representative of the whole. I live within 15 minutes of a native reservation; and attend a very ethnically diverse university; I've heard comments from every ethnic group, about every other ethnic group.
OK, so you've convinced me that canada's a bunch of people who don't get along. All I need is a news story about Quebec to understand that.;)
In the course of my life, I've met and talked with pagans, protestants, christians, blacks, whites, mexicans, and a few other minorities that I didn't notice as different from "me." (I need to amend my previous statement: I have heard a few derogatroy remarks about Catholics by Protestants.) Those few exceptions aside, the closest thing that anyone ever comes to a derogatory remark is extolling the virtues of their own minority.
(And, FWIW, the pagans I was referring to are right in sync with most of the pagan literature and teachings that I've encountered. They were just rude about their "we're not part of the unawakened" gnostic stance.)
No, I'm living in a small town in Canada, with three other people of my religion outside of my family. My parents are both agnostic, remember? As for your wager, you would lose. Outside of town, we have acreages and farms; filled with very devout Christians. Remember the 9 churches -in- town? There are 3 more just outside. All told, I'd guess (generously)another thousand and a half people. Of the four pagans I mentioned, one lives on one of the acreages in question. As for the other minority groups; we have precisely one family of african-american people, 2 chinese families, and 1 vietnamese family (whom I believe moved away about 5 years ago.)
You've personally interviewed all 4500 persons as to their religious beliefs? Wow.
I'm curious as to what you use to make the claim you make. Did you compare the attendance records of the local churches with the town's population roll? Is there a mandatory town meeting every year where you can see something? Is it your job to go around and welcome everyone?
I grew up in small towns throughout America. In each of them, I could go, buy a house that isn't exactly next to any other house, and never get any visitors whatsoever. I wager that half of the people in my mother's town only show up "in town" to vote once a year.
All told, it's probably 1/500 (being generous) who would be willing to offer active support. It's also harder to rally people to defend something they don't recognise, than it is to organize them to attack it.
And this, IMO, the root of your problem.
By hiding your religion, you do make harassment less likely. (You certainly don't prevent it.) However, you also make sympathy and understanding VERY much less likely.
A good reference to this is the american homosexual. For years they existed covertly in their own little world, and they were g
The union doesn't benefit from the destruction of the employer.
Yes, it does.
An employer that doens't play ball with a union can die. Just as a union that doesn't play ball with a company dies.
We're a capitalist country, and so is most of the rest of the world. Capitalism demands that we let people who make bad decisions and plan poorly fail.
In my perfect world, the government would guarante a basic, VERY spartan income for everyone, and there would be NO retirement, minimum wage, or social security laws.
Now the point you keep ignoring: People Are Not Rational. To quote a TV show I no longer remember the name of, "A person is rational, people are stupid and violent."
That was Men in Black. A great line, IMO.
I'll carry it a step further. "People are not rational because they are ignorant. When a hundred people see something new, that they've never seen before, one person will react with anger. And when they start shouting at the new thing, nintey other people will figure he must know what he's talking about, and shout along with him because they simply don't know any better."
Look at the dark ages; scientific knowledge was held back for hundreds of years because new discoveries threatened the views of the church.
Actually, scientific knowledge was only preserved because of the church, and the "Dark Ages" were called such because of the chaos brought about by the fall of Rome, not some bleak period imposed by the Catholic church. The poster child for religious "oppression", Galileo Galilei, wasn't called a heretic because he said that the earth roated around the sun; he was called a heretic because he was one, and he repeatedly agitated the Pope.
How many times have you heard derogatory remarks about a minority group?
About three times. Twice in high school, once shortly after 9/11. The worst derogatory remarks I ever heard have been from pagans about christians.
RE: the religion thing.
You're living in a small town, in Canada, with no one else of your religion at all around you outside of your family--that is, no one that you know of.
I know that paganism is an extreme minority religion, but I don't think that it's as extreme a minority or as hated a minority as it's occasionaly made out to be. I wager that, in the radius of a half-hour drive, there are at least a hundred pagans who would never consider changing their religion, and against as many who are undecided as to what religion that they are. Not to mention the Hindus, native americans, muslims, jews, and bhuddists.
(I base this on what I've seen living in the very-rural parts of Upstate NY. Sure, they aren't a majority or a very significant minority--but they're there.)
If every one of them was identified as such, there would be two immediate effects. Firstly, some people who see you as a friendly neighbor wouldn't anymore. Secondly, you'd have a clear line to people who could support you (or who might need your support) if the majority isn't understanding.
There are people out there, that are willing to sift through that information in order to promote their personal persecutions. There are exactly four people in my town who have pagan beliefs. Even if there was one person in a thousand who cared enough to persecute us, we'd be outnumbered. People are more than willing to do something irrational in order to enforce their own little worldview.
There might be just one person in a thousand who DID think that you deserved persecution, but there would be a signifcantly larger number who both think that you didn't, and who would act to ensure that you weren't. Especially if they knew about the minority that did.
Oh, one more thing:
Trying to demean my faith because I don't make it public knowledge has absolutely no relevance to the discussion.
I wasn't demaning your religion. I was belittling you for not defending your religion. The rhetorical line is similiar to "A man who dates other men is a homosexual. Fred just asked Bob out on a date; ergo, Fred is a homosexual."
But giving away code - how can that be illegal? Thus, legally speaking, their are enough differences that your analogy does not hold.
It's not the giving away. It's the copyleft--the giving away of SOMEONE ELSE's code. (Or, if you prefer, the imperfect gift of software that is GPL'd code.)
But what makes a contract a contract? Consideration and fairness.
"Fairness" isn't one of them--and "consideration" is just "an exchange of one thing of some value for another thing of some value." (As my freshman business law teacher said: "The law won't stop you from making a bad deal.")
The "child eating" is thrown out, not because of any lack of consideration, offer, or acceptance, but because of its illegal purpose. (That's also why sometimes "grossly unfair" contracts are thrown out--because they're specifically illegal.)
You assume that any two groups, however diametrically opposed, will be able to live with one another.
No, I don't. I assume that any two groups will either fight or not fight, regardless of how much "privacy" either group has.
The ONLY three things that privacy does is let you be a criminal, let you be a coward about your beliefs, and let you positively identify yourself as you.
TIA can solve the third one, and IMO we're better off without the first two. (Imagine how feuds would go if there was NO question as to who started it, who did what, etc. etc.)
A few choice rebuttals:
Religion is not meant for the masses; it's a -private- concept.
"Religion" exressly IS meant for the masses. It's a vehicle whereby the enlightened allow more of the unenlightened to learn, and to guide them to moral behavior.
It's easy to bash religion because of the atrocities, but you can't tell me that you'd really rather be living in the tribal, barren hut that we'd be in if we didn't have religion. The first exploratory journies and the first nations were founded BECAUSE of religion.
So if they manage to pass legislation by a 51% majority, should every gun owner in the country be forced to give up their weapons? Keep in mind that some people have spend significant amounts of money collecting these items.
1: Getting rid of the Second Amendment requires the President's signature, a two-thirds majority of each house of congress, AND a two-thirds majority in two-thirds of the states. If enough people want to get rid of guns to pass an amendment, then we can get rid of guns.
2: People spend significant ammounts of money on all sorts of things that later become worthless. We're a capitalist country, and that means that "but I spent so much money!" is the worst of excuses for ANYTHING.
Of the two topics you never discuss in the company of strangers, politics is one. Religion is the other, and mentioning either is a sure way to get you an enemy for life.
No, that's in polite company. Politics and religion are dicussed in front of strangers all the time, and as long as the speakers are upfront about what they're doing, and they back off when asked to, rarely are "enemies for life" made.
The founding fathers recognised that people will discriminate based on any number of inconsequential items, and specifically made a number of those illegal.
No. The founding fathers believed that government, if left unchecked, would become a tyranny. And so, they put specific limitations ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. It was only much later that the restrictions were extended to the states, to businesses, and to actual "discrimination."
That's the problem, I can't assume your points are true; it's against my fundamental nature.
Then you're an idiot. One of the fundamental aspects of intelligence is the ability to reasonably discuss something that you totally disagree with. I wasn't asking you to concede my point; I was asking you to engage in hypothetical discussion.
Why am I so paranoid about privacy? Because I'm pagan. I know what can happen when what should be private knowledge gets into the public.
Let me put in a qualfier here: I know a lot of pagans, study of the pagan traditions is a minor hobby of mine, and a lot of my friends are pagan. Just so that's all out of the way, and you know where I'm coming from.
Now, odds are that you became "pagan" out of personal choice, not because your parents raised you as a "good little pagan." You found a tradition, or picked up a book, or met someone, and you decided to put aside whatever boring mainstream faith you had (likely Christianity, just based on raw numbers) and embrace a "new age" religion. (And if you weren't the one who converted, your parents likely did.)
So why am I getting into this? Because, quite simply, you're arguing a victim's argument. "I'm a religious minority, so I
So what you're telling me is that should change your life so that abuse of the system becomes pointless?
Not how I'd phrase it, but yes. Most major religions have been saying essentially the same thing for thousands of years.
Nice thought, in theory, but it's fundamentally flawed. What happens when the consequences aren't justified? Even if everybody leaves your party sober, they've still been hassled by the police. They haven't done anything to merit it, however.
You're taking the instance as a seperate case. If EVERYONE who had a party had everyone know the outcome, there would be a bit of frevor, and then it would die down after a few months.
What if you own a gun? - You get targeted by anti-gun groups.
Most anti-gun groups work for legislation, and only personally address what they see as radical gun proponents.
What if you don't own a gun? - You get targeted (pun not intended) by the NRA.
Nope. The NRA is fairly honest when it comes to "live and let live" with non-gun fans. They're just bone-headed stubborn about their one issue.
What if you're pro-abortion? - You get targeted by pro-life groups. What if you're anti-abortion? - You get targeted by pro-choice groups.
Where do EITHER get the resources to harass all the folk that don't agree with them? At worst, you'd get a flyer in the mail--and after a bit of backlash, they'd tone it down to a reasonable level.
What if you're a Democrat? - Republicans harass you. What if you're a Republican? - Democrats harass you. What if you're Green/Libertarian/Etc - Everybody else harasses you.
Again, I doubt it. At worst, the parties would actually notice when we change, and would actually look at what we care about and what gets us out to vote.
As long as there are people who feel the need to convince you of -anything-, privacy becomes an important commodity. Doubly so if they're not trying to convince you, but to judge you.
Any benefit that we currently derive from privacy can be had from near-ubiquitous knowledge--save for the illusion that secrecy will protect us from our wrong actions.
My ability as an Engineer has nothing to do with my dietary choices; but what happens if my boss takes exception to vegetarianism?
You take him to court for wrongful termination and/or harassment? You know, the same thing that you would do NOW if he takes exemption to you never eating animal flesh in front of him.
I'll live my life the way I choose; but I'll be damned if it's going to be an open book for all to read.
Assume for a minute that my points above are true, and that there isn't any harassment due to simple inundation of information.
Why be so paranoid about 'privacy'?
Besides, can you honestly say that you have no secrets? I can't, nor would I ever want to.
No secrets? No. No secrets that I couldn't bear to have everyone know? Yes. [Non-facts used to identify myself, such as my SSN or ATM password, aren't "secrets", they're "methods for identification."]
(Go on and test me. Ask me anything that isn't identity-theft material, and I'll answer.)
All I am saying is that to emphasize the fact that it is buoyant they used the name "Air Submarine" because people typically associate buoyancy with submarines in their minds.
odd, when I think "buoyancy", I think BOAT.
You know, that thing that every country or civilization that has ever come across water invented?
Oh, and FYI--Submarines have a lot to do with buoyancy. It's how they ascend and descend.
And either the insurance companies would change their measures, or we would change our lives when we have to deal with the consequences.
(And I might just tell the missionaries that I'm jewish, or just hand them a drink and tell them that we're all a lot more receptive to salvation when drunk.)
My point?
We should all live our lives such that, if we were to have all our secrets exposed, we wouldn't have to stop doing ANYTHING that we do.
Your boss could find out if you go drinking on the weekend, and so on. Imagine anyone being able to use this "public" information to stalk or harass someone. Since the information would reported to municipalities, it would by definition be public unless legislated otherwise.
GOOD!
We as a country do too much just because we think we'll get away with it--and we let slide our liberties because we aren't challenged when we exercise them, and so don't have the chance to defend them.
BOSS: "So, Planesdragon, I see that you bought twenty-four kegs of beer last weekend..."
PD: "Yep. I had a kegger at my house. It's my personal life, and, as you can see, I'm here bright-eyed and bushy-tailed monday morning. So what's it to you?"
I think the only protection here is that since shelter is a basic human neccesity so the court might be reluctant to force you out of your home
IANAL either, but:
I _do_ know that a court doesn't have to void every contract out there. If most of a contract save a single bad part (like, baby-eating or a non-compete agreement) is good, the court can modify a contract instead of voiding all of it.
And even if the contract is "voidable", the parties may decide not to void it anyway. (Like, for example, if your 16 year old buys a car. They don't HAVE to void it, but they can if they want to.)
The key factor to consider, is CONSIDERATION and FAIRNESS.
I disagree. The key factor is LEGALITY and INTENT.
To give out code on the expectation of getting back code comports very well with the concept of fairness. It is thus a good candidate for consideration.
A different conclusion could easily be that folk who GPL software don't expect to get code back, but rather are making a contribution to what they see as a fair cause. They certainly want people to install and use their code without ANY licensing problems... and "Public Domain" causes less problems than "instant reversion."
OTOH, an alternate ruling on the GPL could be "you assign your rights to the FSF, on the condition that they treat it like a copyleft." Which would change things enormously.
You must be smoking something really good, dude. The copyright holder said "take this,..., BUT ONLY IF YOU AGREE TO GIVE YOUR CHANGES AWAY TOO UNDER THE SAME LICENSE" (I am aware that the source/binary code actually has to be redestributed by an entity before this last bit is relevant). That is the spirit of the license and any competent judge will see that.
That's a huge difference, and you know it!
Sign #1 that the poster is a close-minded/.er--calling the other person a troll.
Let me ask you a hypothetical. Let's say that you and I enter into a contract where I loan you money so you can buy a house, in exchange you pay me back, with interest, and I get to eat your firstborn child.
After you and your spouse concieve, you decide that feeding the youngster to me isn't all that good an idea, so you go to court to get the contract broken--which any judge would do in all of one ruling.
Well first of all I doubt there are many judges that understand the amount of chaos it would cause, however even if their were it is a judges job to uphold the law not just do whatever they think is best.
Actually, IIRC, judges are supposed to uphold the law AND do whatever they think best. Which is why you'll occasionally see judges doing things like tossing out cases that they don't see as worthwhile to fight out. (They may not be able to do this directly, but telling one side "make a motion for summary judgement", overtly or covertly, has much the same effect.)
Such a ruling would automatically be appealed.
You're right. Any ruling on the constitutionaly of the GPL would almost certainly find its way to the Supreme Court--which is, after all, where it belongs.
There has never in the history of copyright been any legislation, precedent, or case law that would support a judge doing that.
No?
How about Stallman writing the GPL with the Express Purpose of spreading out software with source code, so that anyone that copy it, install it, and make derivitive works of it?
The only software covered by the GPL is software that says that it is covered by the GPL--and that means that the copyright holder of that software said "take this, make as many copies as you want, and make derivitive works with this source code."
Emminent domain doesn't enter into it. (IANAL-RU?) The express wishes of the copyright holder, and the reasonable consequences of the law, are what matters. I don't think it's unlikely at all that, if the GPL was nullified as unconstitutional, that the same court wouldn't declare all GPL'd work public domain for the public good.
I can't wait for the collective Linux developers to sue them outright, should they get the GPL overturned, for copyright infringement (since the code does NOT actually go PD but rather reverts to standard copyright, which is of course more restrictive by default with regards to copying).
Maybe. Or, maybe, the judge will realize the chaos and havoc that would cause, and rule that all software that has been released under the GPL is effectivly "released to the Public Domain."
Slashdot Mirror
Moderately.
Trebuchets and similar weapons (all the way up to modern indirect fire weapons like the Howitzer) are subject to such a massive number of variables, that aiming for a single person is likely to result in at least one miss.
Assuming that the geeks don't get lucky, the trainded bodyguard will, after a massive rock suddenly destroy's Darl's car, move Darl to a safer location while he looks for the spotter wearing a badly swen tunic.
On the plus side, this confrontation will be good in the same way that SCO taking the GPL to court will be good. Instead of copyleft being given solid legal testing, the question of modern small arms against medieval plate will be put to the test.
(Though I'm no expert, I wager that a good breastplate can stop a 9mm from a hundred yards away.)
Lets see... one guy pisses off a buncha nerds. He's afraid of firepower?
You obviously know a different set of nerds than I do, FK.
The more zealous the linux geek (in my 10-person sample), the more of a gun nut they are.
If it's a doctor however and they are trained for something, they are still liable for malpractice.
IIRC, "Good samaritan" laws don't apply to anyone who tries to help--just people who know what they're doing, as long as they do it right.
They're exactly designed to allow doctors, EMTs, and Nurses to stop by an accident and help, without worrying about being sued so long as they follow proper emergency procedure.
But, in any case--if a doctor or anyone else is uncertain about it, they should talk to a lawyer in their area for an answer.
Look. Just because you don't like the anti-globalization cause doesn't mean you can deny the mechanism, or especially state that only unions should be allowed to use them.
Actually, I'm extemely sympathetic to the anti-globalization cause. Globalization, as it is now, is horrendously unfair to the workers and to poorer countries.
It is BECAUSE I sympathize with the cause that I feel that the professional protestors should just shut up and go integrate themselves into the caplitalist society. As it is now, they are not having significant effect, as because of such the only thing that they're accomplishing is giving unions and groups with a real reason to protest a reason NOT to use otherwise successful tactics.
And why do you think unions are effective?
Because they have a direct effect on the bottom line, and they're mobilized enough to have a meaningful impact on political elections?
A bunch of non-producing "profresional protestors" do nothing more than diminish the value of a tool that people like unions rely upon. They simply aren't numerous to effect any but the smallest company's bottom line, or to be a politically important force.
however, if my SO wouldn't let me go to the bar after work, she wouldn't be around much longer. What is wrong with simple communication and understanding in relationships today??
Psst, you're supposed to either bring the alcohol HOME, or take the S.O. OUT. Going off and having fun without them is very rarely conducive to a good relationship; at the very least, you have to invite them, even if you think that they'll say no.
Should social-justice advocates give up because the challenge is too great?
No. They should change their tactics because they're counter-productive.
And they should stop looking for causes to champion, and stop thinking that tactics that worked for civil rights will work for everything.
You know what would either kill or equalize gobalization? If the protestors would stop trying to riot around the WTO meetings, and start convincing the unions to act on the cause.
What the article is talking about is supplying enough energy to facilitate a reaction that could cause two hydrogen atoms to form a helium atom. When this occurs, the mass of the helium atom is slightly less than the sum of the two hydrogen masses. Since thermodynamics says the mass had to go somewhere, we account for the loss with an increase in energy (a la E=mc^2). The amount of energy released by this reaction is theoretically substantially greater than the energy used to force the two atoms together. At least, that's the gist of it.
Grammatical nitpick: the atoms don't get together, check their new weight against the required weight of their new self, and discard the rest through energy in accordance with the regulations from the heavenly bureau of thermodynamics.
Other than that, seems spot-on to me.
The people at MS ... are in denial about the utility of WP's reveal codes command./i.
No, they're not. They just don't feel that its utility is worth completely re-working their document model.
WP uses an HTML-like "text stream" model, which is why reveal codes can work at all. Word, on the other hand, uses a "letters in words in sentances in pargraphs in pages in sections" model. A reveal codes feature wouldn't do anyone any good, because the document structure is so complex it just won't help at all.
IMO, the best word-processor would be HTML/CSS based, but designed to feel and work like a traditional word proecessor. (Soft page breaks, flat text stream, etc.)
Claiming that the earth rotates around the sun was against church doctrine at the time, thus Galileo was branded a heretic. Point is; he was right. Didn't help him much though. Overall, the historical record of oranized religion is less than shining. Granted, they've done some good things, but they've shovelled more than their share of s**t to counter that.
;)
Despite a huge ammount of controversy and what ammounts to atheist propaganda, Galileo's heresey wasn't that the earth wasn't the center of the universe. It was a succession of other minor heresies--IIRC, the pope in question actually endorsed Galilleo's scientific statement before he died.
Overall, the historical record of oranized religion is less than shining. Granted, they've done some good things, but they've shovelled more than their share of s**t to counter that.
This is a point where, IMO, neither of us is qualified to cohesively argue. Point to ANY element of modern society, and we can find significant good and evil from it.
It's also fairly apparent that the pagans you're referring to aren't representative of the whole. I live within 15 minutes of a native reservation; and attend a very ethnically diverse university; I've heard comments from every ethnic group, about every other ethnic group.
OK, so you've convinced me that canada's a bunch of people who don't get along. All I need is a news story about Quebec to understand that.
In the course of my life, I've met and talked with pagans, protestants, christians, blacks, whites, mexicans, and a few other minorities that I didn't notice as different from "me." (I need to amend my previous statement: I have heard a few derogatroy remarks about Catholics by Protestants.) Those few exceptions aside, the closest thing that anyone ever comes to a derogatory remark is extolling the virtues of their own minority.
(And, FWIW, the pagans I was referring to are right in sync with most of the pagan literature and teachings that I've encountered. They were just rude about their "we're not part of the unawakened" gnostic stance.)
No, I'm living in a small town in Canada, with three other people of my religion outside of my family. My parents are both agnostic, remember? As for your wager, you would lose. Outside of town, we have acreages and farms; filled with very devout Christians. Remember the 9 churches -in- town? There are 3 more just outside. All told, I'd guess (generously)another thousand and a half people. Of the four pagans I mentioned, one lives on one of the acreages in question. As for the other minority groups; we have precisely one family of african-american people, 2 chinese families, and 1 vietnamese family (whom I believe moved away about 5 years ago.)
You've personally interviewed all 4500 persons as to their religious beliefs? Wow.
I'm curious as to what you use to make the claim you make. Did you compare the attendance records of the local churches with the town's population roll? Is there a mandatory town meeting every year where you can see something? Is it your job to go around and welcome everyone?
I grew up in small towns throughout America. In each of them, I could go, buy a house that isn't exactly next to any other house, and never get any visitors whatsoever. I wager that half of the people in my mother's town only show up "in town" to vote once a year.
All told, it's probably 1/500 (being generous) who would be willing to offer active support. It's also harder to rally people to defend something they don't recognise, than it is to organize them to attack it.
And this, IMO, the root of your problem.
By hiding your religion, you do make harassment less likely. (You certainly don't prevent it.) However, you also make sympathy and understanding VERY much less likely.
A good reference to this is the american homosexual. For years they existed covertly in their own little world, and they were g
The union doesn't benefit from the destruction of the employer.
Yes, it does.
An employer that doens't play ball with a union can die. Just as a union that doesn't play ball with a company dies.
We're a capitalist country, and so is most of the rest of the world. Capitalism demands that we let people who make bad decisions and plan poorly fail.
In my perfect world, the government would guarante a basic, VERY spartan income for everyone, and there would be NO retirement, minimum wage, or social security laws.
Now the point you keep ignoring: People Are Not Rational. To quote a TV show I no longer remember the name of, "A person is rational, people are stupid and violent."
That was Men in Black. A great line, IMO.
I'll carry it a step further. "People are not rational because they are ignorant. When a hundred people see something new, that they've never seen before, one person will react with anger. And when they start shouting at the new thing, nintey other people will figure he must know what he's talking about, and shout along with him because they simply don't know any better."
Look at the dark ages; scientific knowledge was held back for hundreds of years because new discoveries threatened the views of the church.
Actually, scientific knowledge was only preserved because of the church, and the "Dark Ages" were called such because of the chaos brought about by the fall of Rome, not some bleak period imposed by the Catholic church. The poster child for religious "oppression", Galileo Galilei, wasn't called a heretic because he said that the earth roated around the sun; he was called a heretic because he was one, and he repeatedly agitated the Pope.
How many times have you heard derogatory remarks about a minority group?
About three times. Twice in high school, once shortly after 9/11. The worst derogatory remarks I ever heard have been from pagans about christians.
RE: the religion thing.
You're living in a small town, in Canada, with no one else of your religion at all around you outside of your family--that is, no one that you know of.
I know that paganism is an extreme minority religion, but I don't think that it's as extreme a minority or as hated a minority as it's occasionaly made out to be. I wager that, in the radius of a half-hour drive, there are at least a hundred pagans who would never consider changing their religion, and against as many who are undecided as to what religion that they are. Not to mention the Hindus, native americans, muslims, jews, and bhuddists.
(I base this on what I've seen living in the very-rural parts of Upstate NY. Sure, they aren't a majority or a very significant minority--but they're there.)
If every one of them was identified as such, there would be two immediate effects. Firstly, some people who see you as a friendly neighbor wouldn't anymore. Secondly, you'd have a clear line to people who could support you (or who might need your support) if the majority isn't understanding.
There are people out there, that are willing to sift through that information in order to promote their personal persecutions. There are exactly four people in my town who have pagan beliefs. Even if there was one person in a thousand who cared enough to persecute us, we'd be outnumbered. People are more than willing to do something irrational in order to enforce their own little worldview.
There might be just one person in a thousand who DID think that you deserved persecution, but there would be a signifcantly larger number who both think that you didn't, and who would act to ensure that you weren't. Especially if they knew about the minority that did.
Oh, one more thing:
Trying to demean my faith because I don't make it public knowledge has absolutely no relevance to the discussion.
I wasn't demaning your religion. I was belittling you for not defending your religion. The rhetorical line is similiar to "A man who dates other men is a homosexual. Fred just asked Bob out on a date; ergo, Fred is a homosexual."
But giving away code - how can that be illegal? Thus, legally speaking, their are enough differences that your analogy does not hold.
It's not the giving away. It's the copyleft--the giving away of SOMEONE ELSE's code. (Or, if you prefer, the imperfect gift of software that is GPL'd code.)
But what makes a contract a contract? Consideration and fairness.
Where'd you hear that?
A contract requires four things:
* Offer
* Acceptance
* Consideration
* Legal Purpose.
"Fairness" isn't one of them--and "consideration" is just "an exchange of one thing of some value for another thing of some value." (As my freshman business law teacher said: "The law won't stop you from making a bad deal.")
The "child eating" is thrown out, not because of any lack of consideration, offer, or acceptance, but because of its illegal purpose. (That's also why sometimes "grossly unfair" contracts are thrown out--because they're specifically illegal.)
You assume that any two groups, however diametrically opposed, will be able to live with one another.
No, I don't. I assume that any two groups will either fight or not fight, regardless of how much "privacy" either group has.
The ONLY three things that privacy does is let you be a criminal, let you be a coward about your beliefs, and let you positively identify yourself as you.
TIA can solve the third one, and IMO we're better off without the first two. (Imagine how feuds would go if there was NO question as to who started it, who did what, etc. etc.)
A few choice rebuttals:
Religion is not meant for the masses; it's a -private- concept.
"Religion" exressly IS meant for the masses. It's a vehicle whereby the enlightened allow more of the unenlightened to learn, and to guide them to moral behavior.
It's easy to bash religion because of the atrocities, but you can't tell me that you'd really rather be living in the tribal, barren hut that we'd be in if we didn't have religion. The first exploratory journies and the first nations were founded BECAUSE of religion.
So if they manage to pass legislation by a 51% majority, should every gun owner in the country be forced to give up their weapons? Keep in mind that some people have spend significant amounts of money collecting these items.
1: Getting rid of the Second Amendment requires the President's signature, a two-thirds majority of each house of congress, AND a two-thirds majority in two-thirds of the states. If enough people want to get rid of guns to pass an amendment, then we can get rid of guns.
2: People spend significant ammounts of money on all sorts of things that later become worthless. We're a capitalist country, and that means that "but I spent so much money!" is the worst of excuses for ANYTHING.
Of the two topics you never discuss in the company of strangers, politics is one. Religion is the other, and mentioning either is a sure way to get you an enemy for life.
No, that's in polite company. Politics and religion are dicussed in front of strangers all the time, and as long as the speakers are upfront about what they're doing, and they back off when asked to, rarely are "enemies for life" made.
The founding fathers recognised that people will discriminate based on any number of inconsequential items, and specifically made a number of those illegal.
No. The founding fathers believed that government, if left unchecked, would become a tyranny. And so, they put specific limitations ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. It was only much later that the restrictions were extended to the states, to businesses, and to actual "discrimination."
That's the problem, I can't assume your points are true; it's against my fundamental nature.
Then you're an idiot. One of the fundamental aspects of intelligence is the ability to reasonably discuss something that you totally disagree with. I wasn't asking you to concede my point; I was asking you to engage in hypothetical discussion.
Why am I so paranoid about privacy? Because I'm pagan. I know what can happen when what should be private knowledge gets into the public.
Let me put in a qualfier here: I know a lot of pagans, study of the pagan traditions is a minor hobby of mine, and a lot of my friends are pagan. Just so that's all out of the way, and you know where I'm coming from.
Now, odds are that you became "pagan" out of personal choice, not because your parents raised you as a "good little pagan." You found a tradition, or picked up a book, or met someone, and you decided to put aside whatever boring mainstream faith you had (likely Christianity, just based on raw numbers) and embrace a "new age" religion. (And if you weren't the one who converted, your parents likely did.)
So why am I getting into this? Because, quite simply, you're arguing a victim's argument. "I'm a religious minority, so I
So what you're telling me is that should change your life so that abuse of the system becomes pointless?
Not how I'd phrase it, but yes. Most major religions have been saying essentially the same thing for thousands of years.
Nice thought, in theory, but it's fundamentally flawed. What happens when the consequences aren't justified? Even if everybody leaves your party sober, they've still been hassled by the police. They haven't done anything to merit it, however.
You're taking the instance as a seperate case. If EVERYONE who had a party had everyone know the outcome, there would be a bit of frevor, and then it would die down after a few months.
What if you own a gun? - You get targeted by anti-gun groups.
Most anti-gun groups work for legislation, and only personally address what they see as radical gun proponents.
What if you don't own a gun? - You get targeted (pun not intended) by the NRA.
Nope. The NRA is fairly honest when it comes to "live and let live" with non-gun fans. They're just bone-headed stubborn about their one issue.
What if you're pro-abortion? - You get targeted by pro-life groups.
What if you're anti-abortion? - You get targeted by pro-choice groups.
Where do EITHER get the resources to harass all the folk that don't agree with them? At worst, you'd get a flyer in the mail--and after a bit of backlash, they'd tone it down to a reasonable level.
What if you're a Democrat? - Republicans harass you.
What if you're a Republican? - Democrats harass you.
What if you're Green/Libertarian/Etc - Everybody else harasses you.
Again, I doubt it. At worst, the parties would actually notice when we change, and would actually look at what we care about and what gets us out to vote.
As long as there are people who feel the need to convince you of -anything-, privacy becomes an important commodity. Doubly so if they're not trying to convince you, but to judge you.
Any benefit that we currently derive from privacy can be had from near-ubiquitous knowledge--save for the illusion that secrecy will protect us from our wrong actions.
My ability as an Engineer has nothing to do with my dietary choices; but what happens if my boss takes exception to vegetarianism?
You take him to court for wrongful termination and/or harassment? You know, the same thing that you would do NOW if he takes exemption to you never eating animal flesh in front of him.
I'll live my life the way I choose; but I'll be damned if it's going to be an open book for all to read.
Assume for a minute that my points above are true, and that there isn't any harassment due to simple inundation of information.
Why be so paranoid about 'privacy'?
Besides, can you honestly say that you have no secrets? I can't, nor would I ever want to.
No secrets? No. No secrets that I couldn't bear to have everyone know? Yes. [Non-facts used to identify myself, such as my SSN or ATM password, aren't "secrets", they're "methods for identification."]
(Go on and test me. Ask me anything that isn't identity-theft material, and I'll answer.)
All I am saying is that to emphasize the fact that it is buoyant they used the name "Air Submarine" because people typically associate buoyancy with submarines in their minds.
odd, when I think "buoyancy", I think BOAT.
You know, that thing that every country or civilization that has ever come across water invented?
Oh, and FYI--Submarines have a lot to do with buoyancy. It's how they ascend and descend.
Somewhere, some time, it'd happen.
Yes, it would. And it would happen a lot.
And either the insurance companies would change their measures, or we would change our lives when we have to deal with the consequences.
(And I might just tell the missionaries that I'm jewish, or just hand them a drink and tell them that we're all a lot more receptive to salvation when drunk.)
My point?
We should all live our lives such that, if we were to have all our secrets exposed, we wouldn't have to stop doing ANYTHING that we do.
That works fine, until your boss gives you alcohol screenings based on this information;
"I saw that you drank a lot of beer over the weekend: here, take this and prove you're not drunk."
"Ok. If i was still drunk, I'd have called in sick and burnt a vacation day. You know me."
Your boss could find out if you go drinking on the weekend, and so on. Imagine anyone being able to use this "public" information to stalk or harass someone. Since the information would reported to municipalities, it would by definition be public unless legislated otherwise.
GOOD!
We as a country do too much just because we think we'll get away with it--and we let slide our liberties because we aren't challenged when we exercise them, and so don't have the chance to defend them.
BOSS: "So, Planesdragon, I see that you bought twenty-four kegs of beer last weekend..."
PD: "Yep. I had a kegger at my house. It's my personal life, and, as you can see, I'm here bright-eyed and bushy-tailed monday morning. So what's it to you?"
BOSS: "Oh, ah... Ok."
I think the only protection here is that since shelter is a basic human neccesity so the court might be reluctant to force you out of your home
IANAL either, but:
I _do_ know that a court doesn't have to void every contract out there. If most of a contract save a single bad part (like, baby-eating or a non-compete agreement) is good, the court can modify a contract instead of voiding all of it.
And even if the contract is "voidable", the parties may decide not to void it anyway. (Like, for example, if your 16 year old buys a car. They don't HAVE to void it, but they can if they want to.)
The key factor to consider, is CONSIDERATION and FAIRNESS.
I disagree. The key factor is LEGALITY and INTENT.
To give out code on the expectation of getting back code comports very well with the concept of fairness. It is thus a good candidate for consideration.
A different conclusion could easily be that folk who GPL software don't expect to get code back, but rather are making a contribution to what they see as a fair cause. They certainly want people to install and use their code without ANY licensing problems... and "Public Domain" causes less problems than "instant reversion."
OTOH, an alternate ruling on the GPL could be "you assign your rights to the FSF, on the condition that they treat it like a copyleft." Which would change things enormously.
You must be smoking something really good, dude. The copyright holder said "take this, ..., BUT ONLY IF YOU AGREE TO GIVE YOUR CHANGES AWAY TOO UNDER THE SAME LICENSE" (I am aware that the source/binary code actually has to be redestributed by an entity before this last bit is relevant). That is the spirit of the license and any competent judge will see that.
/.er--calling the other person a troll.
That's a huge difference, and you know it!
Sign #1 that the poster is a close-minded
Let me ask you a hypothetical. Let's say that you and I enter into a contract where I loan you money so you can buy a house, in exchange you pay me back, with interest, and I get to eat your firstborn child.
After you and your spouse concieve, you decide that feeding the youngster to me isn't all that good an idea, so you go to court to get the contract broken--which any judge would do in all of one ruling.
Now, do you lose your house?
Well first of all I doubt there are many judges that understand the amount of chaos it would cause, however even if their were it is a judges job to uphold the law not just do whatever they think is best.
Actually, IIRC, judges are supposed to uphold the law AND do whatever they think best. Which is why you'll occasionally see judges doing things like tossing out cases that they don't see as worthwhile to fight out. (They may not be able to do this directly, but telling one side "make a motion for summary judgement", overtly or covertly, has much the same effect.)
Such a ruling would automatically be appealed.
You're right. Any ruling on the constitutionaly of the GPL would almost certainly find its way to the Supreme Court--which is, after all, where it belongs.
There has never in the history of copyright been any legislation, precedent, or case law that would support a judge doing that.
No?
How about Stallman writing the GPL with the Express Purpose of spreading out software with source code, so that anyone that copy it, install it, and make derivitive works of it?
The only software covered by the GPL is software that says that it is covered by the GPL--and that means that the copyright holder of that software said "take this, make as many copies as you want, and make derivitive works with this source code."
Emminent domain doesn't enter into it. (IANAL-RU?) The express wishes of the copyright holder, and the reasonable consequences of the law, are what matters. I don't think it's unlikely at all that, if the GPL was nullified as unconstitutional, that the same court wouldn't declare all GPL'd work public domain for the public good.
I can't wait for the collective Linux developers to sue them outright, should they get the GPL overturned, for copyright infringement (since the code does NOT actually go PD but rather reverts to standard copyright, which is of course more restrictive by default with regards to copying).
Maybe. Or, maybe, the judge will realize the chaos and havoc that would cause, and rule that all software that has been released under the GPL is effectivly "released to the Public Domain."