I also took a look at your website, and yes, you are a bigot. If there is truth in everything, then why can't we teach the *truthful* and *objective* facts in Christianity? or other religions? If the facts, are true and they are from other religions, then no problem. I don't mind.
Why don't you have any links on your web site that put down other religions because of their negative aspects?
Then private schools are unconstitutional, because the students are only presented with one view? or perhaps because they have filtered Internet access?
If it's only about protecting the students, then parents can't have any authority over the children either.
I took a look at the site. Thank you for taking the time to find it. I seriously do appreciate it.
The amendment says that government isn't allowed to force a religous view or action on a group/person. Now why are *you* insisting the government *force* its anti-religous view on the schools? Let the schools decide.
When you deny the schools certain freedoms to decide for themselves what to teach, then everybody looses out--not just the students. Your arguement isn't about freedom. It's about preserving your views which are being taught in schools.
What you are also saying is that if they are taught one religion, they will automatically become undiscerning morons who can't figure out truth, as easily as you did. There are Internet connections all over. They are only banning certain sites in school, not everywhere the person goes!
Because then some would decide like one swedish religious school did before being hit by the government; they decided for themselves that their immediate need was to teach children that cancer was due to lack of faith.
How would you *know* that *any* of the US schools would do that? That's only a rehtorical question.
Secondly, to play the devil's advocate, how do any of us know that it isn't due to a lack of faith? Again, a rehtorical question.
The Bible has a story about a man born blind. The disciples asked Jesus, "Who sinned? This man or his parents?". He replied, "Neither. This was done that I should be glorified.". And then Jesus healed him, which stirred up a lot of controversy. By the way, that was only my paraphrase. Whether or not you believe in Jesus Christ or the Bible, is beside my point. Whether or not you believe that it was morally acceptable for God to allow that man to be born blind is beside my point. My point is that the Bible teaches that suffering isn't due to lack of faith. That school to having the right to teach that belief wasn't bad. It was their belief that was bad, and even the Bible disagreed with them.
The way to remedy the situation is to teach the parents the truth so that they can tell their schools what to teach.
For you to have a valid point, you would have to show me that the government controlling our schools will *improve* the quality of education ["quality" in this discussion refers to accuracy and practicalness of what is being taught]. Through my idea, I'm sure that a lot of people will have bad education, but I think that as a whole, everybody will get a better one.
and that high schools should employ a simple corporate-type filter that blocks only overtly pornographic type sites;
I think that alone would put an end to a *lot* of arguements. But I could be wrong. I believe that government organizations should be more transparent to the community in how their computers work. This way the community can have input, and concerned consultants would have brought up your suggestion, by now.
Why shouldn't there be a national standard for filtration if filtration is mandated?
Because with a national standard, there are less people involved. With less people involved there is a greater chance that the standards won't meet everybody's needs.
However, if each group can decide for themselves what to filter, then there is a better chance of everybody having their needs met.
This whole filtering philosophy can be about religion, but it doesn't *have* to be *only* about religon. What if the kids in one school are such Internet addicts that the school recognizes the value of filtering *everything* *except* for a particular site that is relavent and unbiased to the study at hand? A National Board wouldn't have enough time to deal with each school on a case by case basis.
I think it is much more neccessary for those who want local filtering control to argue why their kids need more filtering than anybody elses kids.
That's a good arguement. And I respond by saying that they should decide on a case by case basis. Why should a community in Florida have to explain to a community in Washington State? It doesn't make sense. Why should Columbine High School have to justify their views to you? What if everybody in that community literally adopted the *exact* same beliefs? I know it's impossible, but for the sake arguement, let's examine the senario.
With today's laws would they be able to filter out according to their own beliefs? Remember, there is no disagreement, because they all of a sudden became followers in the same religion! I think that most people would cry foul and start submitting stories to/. Oh my!
Disclaimer [in case someone wasn't following what I said]: I don't believe that everybody in that community has the same religion. It's just something for discussion.
Kids can get Internet access outside of school. We can't please everybody. With each school deciding for themselves, more communities will be happy. With each community deciding for themselves, it will be *harder* [not impossible] for mistakes to be spread to other communities.
I looked up the two links that you provided. I must confess that I didn't do a thorough search, but I did find this one explaining that religous activity in the public schools is allowed. That's sounds more like what I believe and what I was attempting to communicate. I would never allow a church to *directly* control the public coffers, even if it were my own church.
If you could search for the appropriate texts for me, I would appreciate it.
I said:
Why can't each school decide for themselves?
You replied:
Becuase the school is run by the state.
But what I am really trying to ask is why can't the US ammend the laws to allow each school to decide for themselves on what they want to do? I realize that this opens a whole can of worms, but the free market allows each company to set its own prices. Why can't the schools have the same freedoms?
To do this, school funds would have to be collected in another way, but let's say that each community managed to have their own school taxes directed to their own school. Why can't the laws be ammended?
Don't get me wrong. I'm sure that the voters will never accept this, but I still think it's worth debating about.
It's not nonsense. Anytime that anybody has a view that's different from the Linux community and/. community, they are automatically wrong and legalistic./. tells you about your rights online, and *YOU* *MUST* *OBEY*.
I just wonder why they don't recycle organs from executed prisoners..
That's a good point. Ethical issues aside, I wonder how much of an effect their drug and alcohol lifestyles would affect the transplant. I don't know much about medicine, so I myself wouldn't know.
Seperation between church and state? Well, okay. But must there be a seperation between church and city or church and school? Why can't each school decide for themselves?
Secondly, isn't there already a seperation between "church" and state? I figured that with so many religions involved that there was no official "church".
Also, where is the exact passage that contains "seperation between church and state"?
Most left wing non-Christian bleeding heart liberals, like Planned Parenthood, would probably say that teaching kids to abstain from sex won't work. After all, that's why we should give them free condoms, right?
Well, if teaching kids to abstain from sex won't work, why would teaching them to abstain from pornography work?
At this point, I'm sure that someone will say that the filters aren't only about pornography, but my arguement still holds. If people want to surf for certain political information, like how to kill Jews and become a Nazi, then should we as a society allow that kind of stuff? I realize that there is a slippery slope here, but why can't we allow each school to decide for themselves what their immediate needs are?
In the end it doesn't make that big of a difference. After all, enough people get the Internet at home, that info can be spread through there.
Business-school professors could feast for years on the unintended consequences that come from treating Britney Spears tunes like nuclear secrets.
See? We won't have to hear Britney Spears anymore, and that means no more commercials with former presidential candidates saying, "Down boy!". Let's throw the baby out with the bath water.
I saw the pole at the end too. One of the options was "cool". I thought to myself, "Yeah, leave it to a bunch of bored MIT geeks to know what is cool".
I agree to all that you said about responsibility, and would like to add to that that a blacklist won't be a permanent thing. Eventually, there will be incentives to remove them from the list(s).
For those with bleeding hearts, I would like to make this analogy. Why don't we just let anybody drive, without a license? After all, some people don't understand English and we can't be too hard on them. Even if they crash and kill and inconvenience others, it's still okay, right?
Wrong! People have a responsibility to use their tools correctly, and not hurt others. Can't read English? Fine. Don't want to do business with the English-speaking world? Fine. However, if you do want to do business with the English-speaking world, don't start complaining when they don't want to do business with you.
I realize that you are only estimating, but from what I understand, you will save way more space *AND* *SPEED* without libraries, config files and other things.
I will admit though, that when I last saw KDE, it still bloated, but it ran well and fast. The guy who was showing it to me, is helping to develop KDE [if I recall correctly]. He said that it runs well as long as you add enough memory, and get something like a Pentium II.
Well, I agree with him, but I don't want a Pentium II, nor do I want to add more memory.
has the smallest binary, yet is most featureful of the small window managers. If I recall correctly, it is Gnome compliant or something like that. You can check it out for yourself.
For a newbie, it would be good to install that window manager and let them get used to the way it is. After they get more experience with it, they can install another window manager and/or desktop.
It is the smallest window manager binary that I have ever seen. It's only about 12KB. The author has good programming practises in that he lets everything be a compile time option--the way it should be.
Recent developments of DOSEmu with FreeDOS.
on
FreeDOS
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I seem to remember there being a program called "dosemu" that was bundled with a lot of linux distributions in the past, which could run a virtualized dos session from *nix. In fact it used FreeDOS by default IIRC. I don't know what became of it though.
Bart Oldeman is maintaining it at this point. In fact, when I last heard, he was also doing most of the recent work on the FreeDOS kernel. It seems that he is quite the coding machine. Almost every night, an announcement would seem to appear on the kernel mailing list.
At the beginning, they used an old image of a hard drive with FreeDOS installed. You would be able to install it with rpm. A while ago, they managed to improve DOSEmu to the point where you don't have to have the image anymore. You could just read off of an actual partition. In other words, you could dual boot into FreeDOS, or use DOSEmu once you boot into Linux.
Well, Roman records have no mention of this man, nor do Jewish records outside of the Bible itself, so I suppose there is some doubt that he did exist.
Actually, there is a source outside of Christianity.
The Josephus texts [correct spelling?] are highly recognized in the Christian community as a source of *historical* accuracy. He mentions in a sentence, in passing, about Jesus. However, Josephus didn't try to discredit or support the claims of Jesus. It was just in passing.
You would have to check for yourself whether what I said is true. But if it is, then it does prove that there are other sources recognizing the existance of this historical figure, whether or not his claims are true.
I think that you make a good point. I hate it when people grumble and complain about rights, but don't give others the right to do what they are in charge of.
They have an image to protect, and need to put pressure on problem causing societies.
Slashdot Mirror
I also took a look at your website, and yes, you are a bigot. If there is truth in everything, then why can't we teach the *truthful* and *objective* facts in Christianity? or other religions? If the facts, are true and they are from other religions, then no problem. I don't mind.
Why don't you have any links on your web site that put down other religions because of their negative aspects?
[just came up with another idea]
The student's freedoms? Really? Are you sure?
Then private schools are unconstitutional, because the students are only presented with one view? or perhaps because they have filtered Internet access?
If it's only about protecting the students, then parents can't have any authority over the children either.
Sorry, but no.
I took a look at the site. Thank you for taking the time to find it. I seriously do appreciate it.
The amendment says that government isn't allowed to force a religous view or action on a group/person. Now why are *you* insisting the government *force* its anti-religous view on the schools? Let the schools decide.
When you deny the schools certain freedoms to decide for themselves what to teach, then everybody looses out--not just the students. Your arguement isn't about freedom. It's about preserving your views which are being taught in schools.
What you are also saying is that if they are taught one religion, they will automatically become undiscerning morons who can't figure out truth, as easily as you did. There are Internet connections all over. They are only banning certain sites in school, not everywhere the person goes!
How would you *know* that *any* of the US schools would do that? That's only a rehtorical question.
Secondly, to play the devil's advocate, how do any of us know that it isn't due to a lack of faith? Again, a rehtorical question.
The Bible has a story about a man born blind. The disciples asked Jesus, "Who sinned? This man or his parents?". He replied, "Neither. This was done that I should be glorified.". And then Jesus healed him, which stirred up a lot of controversy. By the way, that was only my paraphrase. Whether or not you believe in Jesus Christ or the Bible, is beside my point. Whether or not you believe that it was morally acceptable for God to allow that man to be born blind is beside my point. My point is that the Bible teaches that suffering isn't due to lack of faith. That school to having the right to teach that belief wasn't bad. It was their belief that was bad, and even the Bible disagreed with them.
The way to remedy the situation is to teach the parents the truth so that they can tell their schools what to teach.
For you to have a valid point, you would have to show me that the government controlling our schools will *improve* the quality of education ["quality" in this discussion refers to accuracy and practicalness of what is being taught]. Through my idea, I'm sure that a lot of people will have bad education, but I think that as a whole, everybody will get a better one.
I think that alone would put an end to a *lot* of arguements. But I could be wrong. I believe that government organizations should be more transparent to the community in how their computers work. This way the community can have input, and concerned consultants would have brought up your suggestion, by now.
Because with a national standard, there are less people involved. With less people involved there is a greater chance that the standards won't meet everybody's needs.
However, if each group can decide for themselves what to filter, then there is a better chance of everybody having their needs met.
This whole filtering philosophy can be about religion, but it doesn't *have* to be *only* about religon. What if the kids in one school are such Internet addicts that the school recognizes the value of filtering *everything* *except* for a particular site that is relavent and unbiased to the study at hand? A National Board wouldn't have enough time to deal with each school on a case by case basis.
That's a good arguement. And I respond by saying that they should decide on a case by case basis. Why should a community in Florida have to explain to a community in Washington State? It doesn't make sense. Why should Columbine High School have to justify their views to you? What if everybody in that community literally adopted the *exact* same beliefs? I know it's impossible, but for the sake arguement, let's examine the senario.
With today's laws would they be able to filter out according to their own beliefs? Remember, there is no disagreement, because they all of a sudden became followers in the same religion! I think that most people would cry foul and start submitting stories to
Disclaimer [in case someone wasn't following what I said]: I don't believe that everybody in that community has the same religion. It's just something for discussion.
Kids can get Internet access outside of school. We can't please everybody. With each school deciding for themselves, more communities will be happy. With each community deciding for themselves, it will be *harder* [not impossible] for mistakes to be spread to other communities.
If you could search for the appropriate texts for me, I would appreciate it.
I said:
You replied:
But what I am really trying to ask is why can't the US ammend the laws to allow each school to decide for themselves on what they want to do? I realize that this opens a whole can of worms, but the free market allows each company to set its own prices. Why can't the schools have the same freedoms?
To do this, school funds would have to be collected in another way, but let's say that each community managed to have their own school taxes directed to their own school. Why can't the laws be ammended?
Don't get me wrong. I'm sure that the voters will never accept this, but I still think it's worth debating about.
It's not nonsense. Anytime that anybody has a view that's different from the Linux community and /. community, they are automatically wrong and legalistic. /. tells you about your rights online, and *YOU* *MUST* *OBEY*.
;-p
That's a good point. Ethical issues aside, I wonder how much of an effect their drug and alcohol lifestyles would affect the transplant. I don't know much about medicine, so I myself wouldn't know.
Seperation between church and state? Well, okay. But must there be a seperation between church and city or church and school? Why can't each school decide for themselves?
Secondly, isn't there already a seperation between "church" and state? I figured that with so many religions involved that there was no official "church".
Also, where is the exact passage that contains "seperation between church and state"?
Most left wing non-Christian bleeding heart liberals, like Planned Parenthood, would probably say that teaching kids to abstain from sex won't work. After all, that's why we should give them free condoms, right?
Well, if teaching kids to abstain from sex won't work, why would teaching them to abstain from pornography work?
At this point, I'm sure that someone will say that the filters aren't only about pornography, but my arguement still holds. If people want to surf for certain political information, like how to kill Jews and become a Nazi, then should we as a society allow that kind of stuff? I realize that there is a slippery slope here, but why can't we allow each school to decide for themselves what their immediate needs are?
In the end it doesn't make that big of a difference. After all, enough people get the Internet at home, that info can be spread through there.
Oops!
I meant, "Let's *not* throw the baby out...".
Oh well. The joke's over.
See? We won't have to hear Britney Spears anymore, and that means no more commercials with former presidential candidates saying, "Down boy!". Let's throw the baby out with the bath water.
I saw the pole at the end too. One of the options was "cool". I thought to myself, "Yeah, leave it to a bunch of bored MIT geeks to know what is cool".
So that people can ride the information bikeway. ;-p
Wouldn't it be quicker to just create a Chinese and Russian HOWTO that explains how to close a relay?
I'm seriously asking for advice and discussion. I wouldn't know how to close one. It just seems to me to be so much less work.
I agree to all that you said about responsibility, and would like to add to that that a blacklist won't be a permanent thing. Eventually, there will be incentives to remove them from the list(s).
For those with bleeding hearts, I would like to make this analogy. Why don't we just let anybody drive, without a license? After all, some people don't understand English and we can't be too hard on them. Even if they crash and kill and inconvenience others, it's still okay, right?
Wrong! People have a responsibility to use their tools correctly, and not hurt others. Can't read English? Fine. Don't want to do business with the English-speaking world? Fine. However, if you do want to do business with the English-speaking world, don't start complaining when they don't want to do business with you.
What makes you say that it saves only 200k?
I realize that you are only estimating, but from what I understand, you will save way more space *AND* *SPEED* without libraries, config files and other things.
I will admit though, that when I last saw KDE, it still bloated, but it ran well and fast. The guy who was showing it to me, is helping to develop KDE [if I recall correctly]. He said that it runs well as long as you add enough memory, and get something like a Pentium II.
Well, I agree with him, but I don't want a Pentium II, nor do I want to add more memory.
I don't know about default desktops, but it would be good to have a simple default window manager in placement of twm. From my own experience,has the smallest binary, yet is most featureful of the small window managers. If I recall correctly, it is Gnome compliant or something like that. You can check it out for yourself.
For a newbie, it would be good to install that window manager and let them get used to the way it is. After they get more experience with it, they can install another window manager and/or desktop.
For those who don't know what window manager alternatives are out there, I'd recommend that you check out:
o g/ swm.html
http://www.informatik.hu-berlin.de/~sperling/pr
It is the smallest window manager binary that I have ever seen. It's only about 12KB. The author has good programming practises in that he lets everything be a compile time option--the way it should be.
Bart Oldeman is maintaining it at this point. In fact, when I last heard, he was also doing most of the recent work on the FreeDOS kernel. It seems that he is quite the coding machine. Almost every night, an announcement would seem to appear on the kernel mailing list.
At the beginning, they used an old image of a hard drive with FreeDOS installed. You would be able to install it with rpm. A while ago, they managed to improve DOSEmu to the point where you don't have to have the image anymore. You could just read off of an actual partition. In other words, you could dual boot into FreeDOS, or use DOSEmu once you boot into Linux.
Pretty convenient if you ask me.
Actually, there is a source outside of Christianity.
The Josephus texts [correct spelling?] are highly recognized in the Christian community as a source of *historical* accuracy. He mentions in a sentence, in passing, about Jesus. However, Josephus didn't try to discredit or support the claims of Jesus. It was just in passing.
You would have to check for yourself whether what I said is true. But if it is, then it does prove that there are other sources recognizing the existance of this historical figure, whether or not his claims are true.
I like your post a lot. It attacks the article head on, instead of quoting sources that nobody can look up.
Thanks for speaking up.
I think that you make a good point. I hate it when people grumble and complain about rights, but don't give others the right to do what they are in charge of.
They have an image to protect, and need to put pressure on problem causing societies.