These ideas of eliminating online anonimity need to be offset against the benefits this anonimity brings. It has been a huge boon for political activists in countries with "overbearing" governments, for whistleblowers in all nations, and for all sorts of other reasons.
To quote an article I wrote on this some time ago:
"During the Kosovo conflict in 1999, a sixteen-year old ethnic Albanian girl, nicknamed "Adona", began an e-mail correspondence with a junior at Berkeley High School, America. She wrote of Serbian forces holding her village to ransom, killing journalists and community leaders, raping women, and finally of her friends and family deserting the village ... Because of the anarchistic, anonymous nature of the Internet, the Serbian authorities could do nothing to stop this flow of information between its citizens and the outside world, which meant that it could no longer censor all information. This not only gave the people of Kosovo who had some access to these Internet organisations hope and a sense of purpose during the conflict, but helped the international community better understand the circumstances in Kosovo during and after the conflict. "
We'd all be a lot better off, and all that money wasted running trains could be spent on building proper roads instead. But that will never happen while the transport unions are a significant force in politics.
Hmmm, you haven't thought this through, have you? To match the capacity of a fully operational rail network we'd have to expand roads so dramatically that we'd completely decimate huge areas of natural beauty, cultural and biological significance. We'd have to completely replan every urban centre, and probably knock to pieces half of them to get a road system that could cope with the new load.
Not to mention the massive environmental damage you'd cause with all those extra cars on the road!
I've been riding the trains in the UK for the past 6 months ish and I don't understand what people's problem with them is.
I'd second that. I've used them for about 5 years now, and I commuted regularly on them (12 journeys a week) for about 3 months, and I really don't have a big problem with them. Even when I've had a major problem (like a train from York being diverted and so missing the last train from Birmingham), they've put on coach services to take us there. Doesn't that smack of good service in bad conditions?
Personally I think half the problem is in the British attitude. We want everything to be on time, snappy, and we want the trains to get there as quickly as possible. In my experience, in the rest of Europe trains will wait a little while in each station, giving trains time to catch up if they're a little late; in Britain the train arrives, passengers alight and depart, and whoosh, the train is straight off again, unless it's a big station. No wonder they're always a few minutes late!
That, and of course the antiquitated railway system. If we shut the whole thing down for a few weeks and replacedd most of the track I've no doubt we'd stop having quite so many problems with leaves on the track etc;)
Oh for goodness' sakes, if you're worried about trains because of four train crashes in three years, why on earth don't you worry about the roads? Trains are one of the safest methods of travel, it's just that train crashes are occasional news, whilst no news station wants to be doing a daily update of car accidents.
I thought somebody might misread what I wrote, so, for clarity, but more verbosely:
But she uses Windows at work, and needs to be able to bring home Word docs and maybe other proprietary formats that no MacOSX software supports
Ought to read:
But she uses Windows at work; she needs to bring home Word docs, but find that she can get (a version of) Word for "free" with Windows machines, whereas it will cost an extra 100 or so to get Word for a Mac; she might also need to bring home other proprietary formats for which there is no native software on the Mac, and that doesn't run in the fairly flaky (in my experience) Virtual PC that she will most probably not even hear about unless she starts asking a lot of questions of the sales assistant who may not even know him/herself!
It's a very obvious argument, but "forced" needn't mean "they weren't allowed to use anything else". If your average Joe goes to buy a computer, it's more than likely that all the computers he looks at will run Windows. In that scenario, he will be forced to run Windows.
Let's say Jane then goes to buy a computer, and in the shop she visits she sees Windows and a few Macs. But she uses Windows at work, and needs to be able to bring home Word docs and maybe other proprietary formats that no MacOSX software supports, and besides the Windows machines come with Word bundled "free". In that scenario, she is in a sense forced to use Windows.
If you now think of the number of desktop computer users in the world, there are bound to be well in excess of millions of people "forced" to use Windows.
...but do we really expect management, who has no idea about technology and IP rights to be swayed by a pretty poster vs. massive lawsuits that they hear about on the morning news?
But... but... look at the arrows! There's a flow between me, the market, a funny fat penguin and even some big magnifying glasses! Now I just need a seminar to learn what it all means!
Interesting how science and philosophy intersects at times.
It's well worth remembering that 'science' only started being used as a term a few hundred years ago. Before then, it was considered 'natural philosophy'.
You didn't actually mention where you'd like to see KDE applications involve. Nevermind:)
Still, if you have feature requests, why not post them to KDE's bugzilla? I've got several features included in KDE 3.2 this way. If your feature is stupid, or not something the developers of that particular app think should be implemented, you'll be left wanting; otherwise, given time, developers will usually get around to implementing it.
It's actually really quite important that users do this, otherwise KDE will only develop in the direction that the developers and distributors want to take it.
That's true. I'd then have to change my statement to say that a lot of geeks are reluctant to go beyond technical points in discussions about technology and other geek things where there are some very vocal geeks.
Linus seems to have this attitude that so long as there are other geeks out there lobbying on his behalf, then he can quite happily hack away oblivious to the outside world. Many admire him for that; I think it's childish.
I couldn't agree more with you. There's a strange intellectual cowardlyness amongst a lot of geeks on this, which I think in part comes from their reluctance to step outside technical discussions. Making a confident statement on Free vs proprietary software requires a degree of philosophical and political confidence and knowldge that I think many don't feel they have.
You get to the point where everybody is saying that all opinions are valid, and nobody needs to have one, which is really daft. In fact, each side (Free vs proprietary) has various facts to support them, and either opinion is important in itself and its bases.
I wish Linus, and for that matter all other FOSS developers, would get off their bums and make an effort to be human. I'm sure we'd have far more success in the lobbying world if they didn't say things like "I'm not a lobbyist".
Ah, so you're not talking about proprietary software, OK. With Pine, AFAIK, the reason that Debian cannot include it is because its license stipulates that modified binaries cannot be distributed. That seems like a fairly unambiguous contravention of a user's freedoms, and one that Debian obviously can't accept.
Since, as you say, plenty of alternatives exist, Debian must either make exceptions to allow for users' habits, or it must simply say: learn something else, install Pine yourself, or find another distribution and be clear about your thoughts on Free Software.
It may seem petty, but the alternative would open a pandora's box of problems for the community and the project.
I don't think you're trolling, I just disagree with you:-)
I think you're conflating different kinds of people in your second post. There are those who will persistently pester you for saying "Linux" not "GNU/Linux", who will look down on you for not using a 100% Free distribution, and any manner of other things.
On the other hand, there are those of us who will maintain that Free Software is necessarily the best choice, and that those who disagree are wrong. This is not elitism, any more than it is elitist to believe that your country, party, politician or particular political belief is 'better' than anyone else's. It is simply a statement of belief; not a personal attack, but if people today cannot accept somebody telling them that they think they're wrong, they need to opt out of intelligent society.
So when I say "I wonder how you can grow tired of [Free Software ideals]", I don't mean to demean you, but to state that I believe that it is contradictory to endorse prprietary software whilst using Free Software. In the end, the principles of Free Software are vastly more important than minute separations in degrees of usability, especially if those separations are of no great nuisance to you. When people don't see this, I think it is because they do not reflect enough on the many case studies that come up on Slashdot where public and private organisations and individiuals find important new freedoms that proprietary software cannot offer. If I didn't think this, then I really couldn't believe in and agree with the Free Software movement, could I?
For those who find the different licenses confusing, and maybe the whole point of different licenses confusing, I have written a short article explaining some of the basics:
Why should an idea "get old"? Surely the ideals behind Free Software, insofar as their ground assumptions remain true, are timeless? You either agree with them, or you don't.
What you mean to say is that you have grown tired of these ideals.
Personally, I still feel as strongly about the FS ideals as when I first read GNU's philosophy documents. If they didn't stick to these ideals, the whole fabric of the FS community would disintegrate.
I wonder how you can grow tired of them though, especially if you have woody installed. Do you not see that woody is a direct result of these ideals, that facilitate the development of a system that provides such freedoms, not only in the liberal sense, but also in terms of providing new opportunities to those who, in the 'real' world suffer inequal opportunities. If it weren't for the availability of a completely free system based upon open standards that is guaranteed to remain Free, the only way to ensure that digital media remain accessible would be to constantly legislate to make people use open formats, and of course every day we see why FS people are so right when companies implement more proprietary schemes that deny access.
A firm committment to FS ideals, and a management structure carefully scrutinised by a collection of computer scientists, philosophers, psychologists and whoever else looks after Debian is absolutely the best thing a distribution community could hope for.
I'm still dubious. This may be my political position speaking, but looking at America, it doesn't seem to me like even a majority of the American population lives and breathes those "original American values".
I can see classes in citizenship and political theory having some effect, but merely reciting some words... I think that just gives people the impression that their country somehow embodies those principles by its very nature, and so is inherently just, liberal, etc.
It is not spurious. The founding documents state that rights are God-given...
What the founding documents state is irrelevant, as I said. Whether or not the founding fathers believed those rights to be God-given, I'd guess a majority of Americans don't, and a good number of political theorists dating back to before the Greeks started philosophising in a serious way have come up with reasons why we have certain political rights without reference to a god.
Now saying "there is no reason to adhere to the principles" is different to "there is no motivation to adhere to the principles". I don't know the minds of every American citizen, so it's pointless speculating as to how much motivation there is, but relying on a belief that a large proportion of Americans don't hold seems ridiculous. I respect that you may find motivation in religion, just as I do in a sense (though due to its marked differences to Christianity, Taoism doesn't motivate me in quite the same way), but one cannot put the hope of a nation in religion. Ultimately, we must put hope in human nature, and try to nurture it such that, in this context, humans develop an understanding of their nations' political principles and are motivated to assent to them. To a Christian, I suppose that would translate as meaning that we must work to nurture the human spirit such that it can find God.
That said, the question is whether or not kids needs to say the pledge every day (or ever) in school. I think the answer to that is "yes", and therefore, I think we need to have a godless pledge option for those who do want to "promise or affirm" their allegiance to this country, without making them involve a god in which they don't believe. Some may argue that kids don't have to say the pledge, but in practice, that's just not true in many (most? all?) cases.
Why?
Maybe for practical reasons? Well I don't know any European country that does this, and we seem to be OK. We also don't display much fervent patriotism, except on sporting occasions:-) None of that weird flag waving and chanting that ironically the American news media so often associate with "evildoers".
Or maybe for ideological reasons; children ought to be taught, and ought to reaffirm, the principles of their nation. But does reciting the pledge do this? Do all American adults have a good understanding of their constitution and the principles under which America was founded? I doubt it. In fact, it would probably be more productive to have children write their own pledge under supervision and have them read that; at least that way you might make children think a little about the principles that they ramble on about.
Before you state that something is true, try providing explanations that lead to reasons.
America was formed on Christian principles, not Buddhist principles. It is a Christian country and it is defined and based on those assumptions. If you change that, then the assumptions loose their value. If you can change those assumptions, you can deny people their rights.
That's an entirely spurious argument. Let's suppose somebody in 1200 AD came up with the idea of gravity, and he said a turnip told him so. Newton then comes along and creates a scientific basis for gravity. Do we say: sorry Newton, the assumptions upon which this idea was originally based are false, so you're wrong?
Of course not!
Many American principles may have been heavily influenced by, or based upon, Christian doctrine, but they were also based upon a crazy mix of French, English, German, Greek, America, etc. philosophies. They can also be upheld through the application of reason in political philosophy. The assumptions upon which the "American" principles are based may have been undermined, but that doesn't mean to say that those principles are also necessarily undermined.
I've always thought pledging allegiance to some flag is a bit quaint. It makes no sense. And pledging allegiance to your country each and every day.. doesn't that strike you folks as a bit forced? A bit nationalistic?
I couldn't agree more. Here in the UK the Government, trying to keep one step ahead of the xenophobes (worryingly at the moment seemingly a majority of the country thanks to the tabloids), is considering forcing immigrants to read a pledge of allegiance to the UK Govt and Queen. If I had to do that, I'd be really pissed off, though only because of the Queen bit!:) Considering the many attachments people may actually have to their nation, inclduing principles, a fondness for the political structure, nostalgia, contentedness with the status quo, family connections, cultural ties, prices, etc. etc. it's daft to suppose that everybody would even agree with pledging allegiance to a nation for a specific set of reasons.
Furthermore, why is it necessary? Repeating a few lines doesn't seem to have much point to it; maybe if school children and immigrants were encouraged to write their own pledges it might be worthwhile, because it might make more people actually think about their supposed principles. It might also make them consider morality a little, since the references to religion by US political leaders are almost always to gain (unthinking) moral support. It'd be great if you could pledge allegiance to the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity under Allah, or whatever and whomever else you choose.
More the sort of thing schoolkids in China or North-Korea would have to do, rather than kids in a democratic country?
When you look at films of people chanting "U S A! U S A!" at the foot of the toppled twin towers, and compare them to people chanting "Infitata! Infitada!" or whatever other chant you want to pick from an "evil" regime or organisation, you quickly begin to realise how immitative we all are, and how silly it is to suppose that you are any different.
I'm also not a developer by training or nature. I study philosophy and politics, and have a short coding attention span. I hate problems I can't fix quickly:-)
My advice, after working on QuickRip for almost a year, is to get some developers on board as quickly as possible. I quickly found that I was adding lots of features without having the experience to keep the code clean, well structured and efficient. Once I got some developers on board who had more experience and training than me, things started to improve in QuickRip, and my coding improved.
The other thing is to make good use of alpha and beta releases, something I've failed miserably on. Release an alpha if you just want feedback on ideas, and release a beta once you think you've got a proper release ready. If you're anything like me, you'll have left a few silly bugs in, so giving the beta a week or two will make sure these bugs get squashed and your release looks professional, and doesn't annoy users. That, and it saves you spending hours responding to the same support requests for the same old bugs!
Slashdot Mirror
You talk, apparently, only of America. There are a couple of hundred other countries in the world.
These ideas of eliminating online anonimity need to be offset against the benefits this anonimity brings. It has been a huge boon for political activists in countries with "overbearing" governments, for whistleblowers in all nations, and for all sorts of other reasons.
...
To quote an article I wrote on this some time ago:
"During the Kosovo conflict in 1999, a sixteen-year old ethnic Albanian girl, nicknamed "Adona", began an e-mail correspondence with a junior at Berkeley High School, America. She wrote of Serbian forces holding her village to ransom, killing journalists and community leaders, raping women, and finally of her friends and family deserting the village
Because of the anarchistic, anonymous nature of the Internet, the Serbian authorities could do nothing to stop this flow of information between its citizens and the outside world, which meant that it could no longer censor all information. This not only gave the people of Kosovo who had some access to these Internet organisations hope and a sense of purpose during the conflict, but helped the international community better understand the circumstances in Kosovo during and after the conflict.
"
"If we shut the whole thing down"
We'd all be a lot better off, and all that money wasted running trains could be spent on building proper roads instead. But that will never happen while the transport unions are a significant force in politics.
Hmmm, you haven't thought this through, have you? To match the capacity of a fully operational rail network we'd have to expand roads so dramatically that we'd completely decimate huge areas of natural beauty, cultural and biological significance. We'd have to completely replan every urban centre, and probably knock to pieces half of them to get a road system that could cope with the new load.
Not to mention the massive environmental damage you'd cause with all those extra cars on the road!
I've been riding the trains in the UK for the past 6 months ish and I don't understand what people's problem with them is.
;)
I'd second that. I've used them for about 5 years now, and I commuted regularly on them (12 journeys a week) for about 3 months, and I really don't have a big problem with them. Even when I've had a major problem (like a train from York being diverted and so missing the last train from Birmingham), they've put on coach services to take us there. Doesn't that smack of good service in bad conditions?
Personally I think half the problem is in the British attitude. We want everything to be on time, snappy, and we want the trains to get there as quickly as possible. In my experience, in the rest of Europe trains will wait a little while in each station, giving trains time to catch up if they're a little late; in Britain the train arrives, passengers alight and depart, and whoosh, the train is straight off again, unless it's a big station. No wonder they're always a few minutes late!
That, and of course the antiquitated railway system. If we shut the whole thing down for a few weeks and replacedd most of the track I've no doubt we'd stop having quite so many problems with leaves on the track etc
Oh for goodness' sakes, if you're worried about trains because of four train crashes in three years, why on earth don't you worry about the roads? Trains are one of the safest methods of travel, it's just that train crashes are occasional news, whilst no news station wants to be doing a daily update of car accidents.
I thought somebody might misread what I wrote, so, for clarity, but more verbosely:
But she uses Windows at work, and needs to be able to bring home Word docs and maybe other proprietary formats that no MacOSX software supports
Ought to read:
But she uses Windows at work; she needs to bring home Word docs, but find that she can get (a version of) Word for "free" with Windows machines, whereas it will cost an extra 100 or so to get Word for a Mac; she might also need to bring home other proprietary formats for which there is no native software on the Mac, and that doesn't run in the fairly flaky (in my experience) Virtual PC that she will most probably not even hear about unless she starts asking a lot of questions of the sales assistant who may not even know him/herself!
It's a very obvious argument, but "forced" needn't mean "they weren't allowed to use anything else". If your average Joe goes to buy a computer, it's more than likely that all the computers he looks at will run Windows. In that scenario, he will be forced to run Windows.
Let's say Jane then goes to buy a computer, and in the shop she visits she sees Windows and a few Macs. But she uses Windows at work, and needs to be able to bring home Word docs and maybe other proprietary formats that no MacOSX software supports, and besides the Windows machines come with Word bundled "free". In that scenario, she is in a sense forced to use Windows.
If you now think of the number of desktop computer users in the world, there are bound to be well in excess of millions of people "forced" to use Windows.
...but do we really expect management, who has no idea about technology and IP rights to be swayed by a pretty poster vs. massive lawsuits that they hear about on the morning news?
But... but... look at the arrows! There's a flow between me, the market, a funny fat penguin and even some big magnifying glasses! Now I just need a seminar to learn what it all means!
If it is Slashdotted, here's a mirror.
Rayiner Hashem, Havoc Pennington, Eugenia Loli-Queru
What ever happen to Dick and Jane?
Oh crap! We let America hear about this 'rest of the world' thing. To the bunkers!
Interesting how science and philosophy intersects at times.
It's well worth remembering that 'science' only started being used as a term a few hundred years ago. Before then, it was considered 'natural philosophy'.
It seems surreal that something that was born and raised in academia is now offered for a "discount". What a shame.
Maybe RMS had a point.
Maybe you should have another read of what RMS wrote. Remember free as in speech, not as in beer?
You didn't actually mention where you'd like to see KDE applications involve. Nevermind :)
Still, if you have feature requests, why not post them to KDE's bugzilla? I've got several features included in KDE 3.2 this way. If your feature is stupid, or not something the developers of that particular app think should be implemented, you'll be left wanting; otherwise, given time, developers will usually get around to implementing it.
It's actually really quite important that users do this, otherwise KDE will only develop in the direction that the developers and distributors want to take it.
That's true. I'd then have to change my statement to say that a lot of geeks are reluctant to go beyond technical points in discussions about technology and other geek things where there are some very vocal geeks.
Linus seems to have this attitude that so long as there are other geeks out there lobbying on his behalf, then he can quite happily hack away oblivious to the outside world. Many admire him for that; I think it's childish.
I couldn't agree more with you. There's a strange intellectual cowardlyness amongst a lot of geeks on this, which I think in part comes from their reluctance to step outside technical discussions. Making a confident statement on Free vs proprietary software requires a degree of philosophical and political confidence and knowldge that I think many don't feel they have.
You get to the point where everybody is saying that all opinions are valid, and nobody needs to have one, which is really daft. In fact, each side (Free vs proprietary) has various facts to support them, and either opinion is important in itself and its bases.
I wish Linus, and for that matter all other FOSS developers, would get off their bums and make an effort to be human. I'm sure we'd have far more success in the lobbying world if they didn't say things like "I'm not a lobbyist".
Ah, so you're not talking about proprietary software, OK. With Pine, AFAIK, the reason that Debian cannot include it is because its license stipulates that modified binaries cannot be distributed. That seems like a fairly unambiguous contravention of a user's freedoms, and one that Debian obviously can't accept.
Since, as you say, plenty of alternatives exist, Debian must either make exceptions to allow for users' habits, or it must simply say: learn something else, install Pine yourself, or find another distribution and be clear about your thoughts on Free Software.
It may seem petty, but the alternative would open a pandora's box of problems for the community and the project.
I don't think you're trolling, I just disagree with you :-)
I think you're conflating different kinds of people in your second post. There are those who will persistently pester you for saying "Linux" not "GNU/Linux", who will look down on you for not using a 100% Free distribution, and any manner of other things.
On the other hand, there are those of us who will maintain that Free Software is necessarily the best choice, and that those who disagree are wrong. This is not elitism, any more than it is elitist to believe that your country, party, politician or particular political belief is 'better' than anyone else's. It is simply a statement of belief; not a personal attack, but if people today cannot accept somebody telling them that they think they're wrong, they need to opt out of intelligent society.
So when I say "I wonder how you can grow tired of [Free Software ideals]", I don't mean to demean you, but to state that I believe that it is contradictory to endorse prprietary software whilst using Free Software. In the end, the principles of Free Software are vastly more important than minute separations in degrees of usability, especially if those separations are of no great nuisance to you. When people don't see this, I think it is because they do not reflect enough on the many case studies that come up on Slashdot where public and private organisations and individiuals find important new freedoms that proprietary software cannot offer. If I didn't think this, then I really couldn't believe in and agree with the Free Software movement, could I?
For those who find the different licenses confusing, and maybe the whole point of different licenses confusing, I have written a short article explaining some of the basics:
What are all these licenses? (as part of a series of informative articles to accompany 'technical' tutorials)
Why should an idea "get old"? Surely the ideals behind Free Software, insofar as their ground assumptions remain true, are timeless? You either agree with them, or you don't.
What you mean to say is that you have grown tired of these ideals.
Personally, I still feel as strongly about the FS ideals as when I first read GNU's philosophy documents. If they didn't stick to these ideals, the whole fabric of the FS community would disintegrate.
I wonder how you can grow tired of them though, especially if you have woody installed. Do you not see that woody is a direct result of these ideals, that facilitate the development of a system that provides such freedoms, not only in the liberal sense, but also in terms of providing new opportunities to those who, in the 'real' world suffer inequal opportunities. If it weren't for the availability of a completely free system based upon open standards that is guaranteed to remain Free, the only way to ensure that digital media remain accessible would be to constantly legislate to make people use open formats, and of course every day we see why FS people are so right when companies implement more proprietary schemes that deny access.
A firm committment to FS ideals, and a management structure carefully scrutinised by a collection of computer scientists, philosophers, psychologists and whoever else looks after Debian is absolutely the best thing a distribution community could hope for.
I'm still dubious. This may be my political position speaking, but looking at America, it doesn't seem to me like even a majority of the American population lives and breathes those "original American values".
I can see classes in citizenship and political theory having some effect, but merely reciting some words... I think that just gives people the impression that their country somehow embodies those principles by its very nature, and so is inherently just, liberal, etc.
It is not spurious. The founding documents state that rights are God-given...
What the founding documents state is irrelevant, as I said. Whether or not the founding fathers believed those rights to be God-given, I'd guess a majority of Americans don't, and a good number of political theorists dating back to before the Greeks started philosophising in a serious way have come up with reasons why we have certain political rights without reference to a god.
Now saying "there is no reason to adhere to the principles" is different to "there is no motivation to adhere to the principles". I don't know the minds of every American citizen, so it's pointless speculating as to how much motivation there is, but relying on a belief that a large proportion of Americans don't hold seems ridiculous. I respect that you may find motivation in religion, just as I do in a sense (though due to its marked differences to Christianity, Taoism doesn't motivate me in quite the same way), but one cannot put the hope of a nation in religion. Ultimately, we must put hope in human nature, and try to nurture it such that, in this context, humans develop an understanding of their nations' political principles and are motivated to assent to them. To a Christian, I suppose that would translate as meaning that we must work to nurture the human spirit such that it can find God.
That said, the question is whether or not kids needs to say the pledge every day (or ever) in school. I think the answer to that is "yes", and therefore, I think we need to have a godless pledge option for those who do want to "promise or affirm" their allegiance to this country, without making them involve a god in which they don't believe. Some may argue that kids don't have to say the pledge, but in practice, that's just not true in many (most? all?) cases.
:-) None of that weird flag waving and chanting that ironically the American news media so often associate with "evildoers".
Why?
Maybe for practical reasons? Well I don't know any European country that does this, and we seem to be OK. We also don't display much fervent patriotism, except on sporting occasions
Or maybe for ideological reasons; children ought to be taught, and ought to reaffirm, the principles of their nation. But does reciting the pledge do this? Do all American adults have a good understanding of their constitution and the principles under which America was founded? I doubt it. In fact, it would probably be more productive to have children write their own pledge under supervision and have them read that; at least that way you might make children think a little about the principles that they ramble on about.
Before you state that something is true, try providing explanations that lead to reasons.
America was formed on Christian principles, not Buddhist principles. It is a Christian country and it is defined and based on those assumptions. If you change that, then the assumptions loose their value. If you can change those assumptions, you can deny people their rights.
That's an entirely spurious argument. Let's suppose somebody in 1200 AD came up with the idea of gravity, and he said a turnip told him so. Newton then comes along and creates a scientific basis for gravity. Do we say: sorry Newton, the assumptions upon which this idea was originally based are false, so you're wrong?
Of course not!
Many American principles may have been heavily influenced by, or based upon, Christian doctrine, but they were also based upon a crazy mix of French, English, German, Greek, America, etc. philosophies. They can also be upheld through the application of reason in political philosophy. The assumptions upon which the "American" principles are based may have been undermined, but that doesn't mean to say that those principles are also necessarily undermined.
I've always thought pledging allegiance to some flag is a bit quaint. It makes no sense. And pledging allegiance to your country each and every day.. doesn't that strike you folks as a bit forced? A bit nationalistic?
:) Considering the many attachments people may actually have to their nation, inclduing principles, a fondness for the political structure, nostalgia, contentedness with the status quo, family connections, cultural ties, prices, etc. etc. it's daft to suppose that everybody would even agree with pledging allegiance to a nation for a specific set of reasons.
I couldn't agree more. Here in the UK the Government, trying to keep one step ahead of the xenophobes (worryingly at the moment seemingly a majority of the country thanks to the tabloids), is considering forcing immigrants to read a pledge of allegiance to the UK Govt and Queen. If I had to do that, I'd be really pissed off, though only because of the Queen bit!
Furthermore, why is it necessary? Repeating a few lines doesn't seem to have much point to it; maybe if school children and immigrants were encouraged to write their own pledges it might be worthwhile, because it might make more people actually think about their supposed principles. It might also make them consider morality a little, since the references to religion by US political leaders are almost always to gain (unthinking) moral support. It'd be great if you could pledge allegiance to the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity under Allah, or whatever and whomever else you choose.
More the sort of thing schoolkids in China or North-Korea would have to do, rather than kids in a democratic country?
When you look at films of people chanting "U S A! U S A!" at the foot of the toppled twin towers, and compare them to people chanting "Infitata! Infitada!" or whatever other chant you want to pick from an "evil" regime or organisation, you quickly begin to realise how immitative we all are, and how silly it is to suppose that you are any different.
I'm also not a developer by training or nature. I study philosophy and politics, and have a short coding attention span. I hate problems I can't fix quickly :-)
My advice, after working on QuickRip for almost a year, is to get some developers on board as quickly as possible. I quickly found that I was adding lots of features without having the experience to keep the code clean, well structured and efficient. Once I got some developers on board who had more experience and training than me, things started to improve in QuickRip, and my coding improved.
The other thing is to make good use of alpha and beta releases, something I've failed miserably on. Release an alpha if you just want feedback on ideas, and release a beta once you think you've got a proper release ready. If you're anything like me, you'll have left a few silly bugs in, so giving the beta a week or two will make sure these bugs get squashed and your release looks professional, and doesn't annoy users. That, and it saves you spending hours responding to the same support requests for the same old bugs!