Coming in our July issue, we'll publish an article "How to Set Up a Hackproof IIS" featuring Roger Grimes' recap of the contest, and sharing the secrets of how he created an impenetrable IIS environment.
Sounds like the results have already been decided.
Of course the easiest way to make any system "impenetrable" is to power it off...
And now, they are saying that the burden of complying with a law that will help to prevent future abuses is too high? Boo Hoo.
I don't think it's too much to ask companies to prove they aren't ripping us off.
I'm pretty sure that it was already against the law for executives to loot a company and steal from the shareholders, even before Sarbox was passed.
I am center-left on political, social and economic issues, and even I fail to see how another law will prevent future corporate scandals, when there are plenty of laws on the books that already regulate corporate behaviour.
The problems at Worldcom and Enron (et.al.) happened because existing laws were not enforced, and nobody complained as long as the stock prices were increasing. It was only at the very end when the house-of-cards collapsed that everyone cried foul.
Unfortunately, there would be no glory in enforcing the existing laws. Can you imagine the howls of outrage if the legal system took down Enron or Worldcom at the height of the bubble? The neo-cons would have had a field day complaining about undue government interference in the economy...
I'm not sure whether Sarbox would deter a dishonest CEO from stealing the company blind if he/she thought that they stood a reasonable chance of getting away with it. Even if you get caught, the consequences don't seem to bad. It's not like Bernie Ebbers or Ken Lay are living in cardboard boxes underneath the freeway...
4) The acting. All of the actors involved in the prequels are good, talented actors - yes, even Hayden, in the right role. However, Lucas can't get a performance out of them that contains one shred of emotion. Or, he might be telling them to downplay their acting in order to not upstage his CGI sets.
I read an interview with Mark Hammil, and he recalled that George Lucas' directing techniques involved asking the actors to re-do the scene, either to do it "faster" or "more intense". There wasn't much more direction than that.
In the same article, Hammil also stated that George would be probably be really happy if he could replace all of the human actors with CG creations, since he did not relate well to the actors.
Fourth, by not preserving the original version for posterity he is destroying a small piece of modern history and culture. If he were verifiably insane instead of simply losing his talents and abilities, I doubt anyone would agree with this destruction.
Agreed. Google to see why George Lucas was totally opposed to colourizing classic B&W films. He argued something to the point that the director made the best film that could be made at the time given the constraints of time, money and technology. He was totally opposed to altering those films (by adding colour) as the films should be viewed in the context of what was do-able at the time.
Contrast that with Lucas' rather lame justifications for his alterations to Ep 4-6.
(BTW - does he really expect us to believe that he had always intended for Greedo to shoot first?)
Civil disobedience encompasses the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of a government or of an occupying power without resorting to physical violence.
Ok, now read a bit further until you get to the point where it talks about how civil disobedience involves a public, deliberate display of breaking the unjust law.
From the same entry:
Protesters do so with the expectation that they will be arrested, or even attacked or beaten by the authorities.
Yep. And I choose civil disobedience in this case.
Unless you openly purchasing and selling pot in a deliberate attempt to be arrested, charged and convicted under what you consider to be an unjust law, you are not choosing civil disobedience.
Based on what you have posted, I don't get the impression that you are "choosing civil disobedience". More likely you are trying to rationalize your behaviour, and you made a poor choice of words.
You still seem to be confusing the right to free speech with "being correct" or "being tolerant".
No, I don't. I recognize the limits of free speech, in the context of a free and democratic society. I also agree that people have the right to have wrong or outright false opinions, and they should be free to express them subject to reasonable limits. I feel that it is appropriate to draw the line against religious-based attacks on homosexuality. Why? Because it appears to be nothing more than thinly disguised hatred.
The underlying principle that attacking an innate characteristic of a group (i.e. gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation) is not the same as attacking the group itself, nor any particular members of that group does not hold itself up to scrutiny. The argument is easy to dispell via
reductio ad absurdum.
There is nothing special about homosexuality that makes it worthy of being singled out, other than that doing so is still considered to be acceptible in some corners of society.
If you were to make a similar argument against a different minority group, the underlying bigotry would be immediately obvious.
Both are sexual sins condemned in the Bible.
They are hardly equivalent. It seems to me that you are trying to equate first degree murder with jaywalking. Sure, both are listed in the criminal code, but one is far more significant than the other.
Both were subject to death by stoning in Jerusalem 2000 years ago.
Irrelevant. Many things that would result in summary execution a few thousand years ago today are not considered crimes today. Neither of your examples (homosexuality or adultry) are criminal (or civil) offenses.
I also often compare homosexual sex to pre-marital sex. Both are considered acceptable by our culture and both are considered sins by Christians.
Does the Bible specifically state that pre-marital sex is a sin? For that matter, does it specifically state that homosexuality is a sin? Many religions codified existing societal conventions and taboos into the religious framework.
It's also a useful comparison because it's easier for heterosexuals to relate to the temptations of premarital sex than it is for them to understand the difficulty Christian homosexuals have in rejecting their sexual desires.
Telling young people to wait until they are married until they have sex is not remotely similar to telling gay people that they can never have sex.
I critique a person's actions or decisions to act on those desires (inborne or otherwise) that are bad.
Fine, but who are you to state that homosexuality is bad? Before you start waving your Bible at me and saying "it's all in here", please take a look at that Bible. There are lots of words in there, approximately 774,000 apparently. How many words are spent talking about homosexuality in any form? Not that many. Condemning homosexuality does not appear to have been a primary concern of the author(s).
It all boils down to interpretation of course. I have not forgotten that you suggested that the Sermon on the Mount was not typical of the teachings of Christ! It is one of the very cornerstones of Christianity, and the act that got him into so much trouble with local religious authorities.
Beyond that, you are trivializing a really important aspect of human sexuality. You have reduced sexual orientation to the level of a perversion or fetish.
I don't know about you, but I have no interest and would not be capable of having sex with a member of my own gender. Gay people feel the same way about having sex with someone of the opposite gender.
It's not like they can be converted to heterosexuality, and it i
I do believe that homosexual behaviour is harmful in and of itself. (To the person themselves as well as to the rest of society).
You could believe that the earth was flat, but that would not make it so.
I have a hard time understanding how homosexuality could be harmful to a homosexual person. Uninformed heterosexuals certainly pose a risk to homosexuals, but that reflects more on portions of the heterosexual community rather than the gay community.
Nor do I understand how I, as a member of the rest of society am impacted in any way because there are gay people out there. They will not force me to become gay, nor are they trying to recruit my kids.
I believe that whatever legal activies consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is none of my business. I fail to see how it is any of yours.
This is what is meant by "loving the sinner and hating the sin" as you phrased it.
It is one thing to condemn behaviour that was deliberately chosen. It is quite another to condemn characteristics that were decided at the moment of conception.
Homosexuality is not, as some of the more unenlightened believe, a conscious choice. One does not choose to be gay. Judging by the stories I have heard from gay friends, no rational person would ever choose to be gay.
It makes no more sense to condemn homosexuality but not homosexuals than it does to condemn left-handedness, but not left-handed people. Neither the homosexuals nor the left-handed people had any choice in the matter.
I believe in doing the same when discussing homosexual lifestyles or adulterous ones
Homosexual lifestyles? Do you also speak of heterosexual lifestyles? I thought not...
Personally, I find the way that you constantly juxtapose homosexuality and adultery together to be more than a little intellectually dishonest. They are completely different things, and only one of them is a choice. Using the same logic, I could draw any number of similarities to what Jesus might have said about something completely unrelated, but I don't think it would do either of us any good.
You're talking about excluding anyone with religiously based values from participating in public life.
Nobody is entitled to a job in public service you know. If you work in the public sector, you have to serve the entire public and not just the portions of the public that you approve of. If strongly religious people are not able to do that, then yes, there is no place for them in the public sector.
(Not to mention a gross violation of charter rights if it was implemented)
I think that you will find that employees in the public sector are forbidden to discriminate on the basis of several characteristics including sexual orientation already.
You might also consider that Abraham Lincoln & William Wilberforce would have been excluded from the public sector by your logic.
Oh the irony! In the name of justifying intolerance, you invoke people who opposed intolerance.
I ignored it because it was confusing the point by blurring the distinction between criticism of persons and criticism of lifestyle.
Homosexuality is not a lifestyle, it is an inherant characteristic. To criticize homosexual behaviour is to criticize homosexual people.
Therefore my example was entirely appropriate. A black person cannot choose to not be black, Michael Jackson notwithstanding. By extension, a gay person cannot choose to be straight.
While I might disagree with what the teacher said, I will defend his right to say it.
Thank you. I applaud your consistency.
I do find it highly doubtful that an avowed racist would be able to keep himself from dragging racism into the classroom.
So perhaps you can understand why I question whether Kempler is fit to teach! As I mentioned before, you cannot know with any degree of how his actions affected the students in his school.
There is a reason why the suicide rate for young homosexuals is several* times that of
the correct idea that all people should have equal rights (including gays or any other minority)
If you accept this, then that should be the end of the discussion. If we do not discriminate against people from groups who are different from us, there would be no need for such moralizing on why we are better than they are. Being gay is not a choice, it is no longer a crime, and it is none of anyone else's business.
Some might say that it is the sin that is condemned, and not the sinner. I don't think that gets anyone off the hook. Change things around again, and we do not hate left-handed people, merely the immorality of left-handedness. One may not have anything against blue-eyed people, but we condemn the sin of having blue eyes. Sounds silly, doesn't it?
But you seem to want to go a step farther and remove the right of those people to say they believe homosexual activity to be immoral and a sin. That is despicable.
I read a book that had this to say on the matter:
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
I could not help but notice that you neatly ignored the question I asked in my previous post. I am beginning to think it is central to the debate, so I will ask it again: do you think it have been equally OK if the teacher had publicly condemned blacks, women or jews instead of homosexuals? Quite frankly, I don't see any difference. If you do, please enlighten me.
What I meant to say was that you might as well say a teacher should not express a political view outside the classroom.
Another apples-to-oranges comparison. The teacher did not make a political statement - he made a moral judgement. That is completely different from encouraging people to support the BQ/Green/Liberal/NDP/Reform party.
Okay, but some people believe that it is vital to make one's religious principles an integral part of every aspect of life. Fair enough, but such people ought not work in the public sector where it is their job to assist anyone, and not just the groups in society that are approved of.
Despite your attempts to portray me as some authoritarian censor, I would like to remind you that the reason I believe that the teacher was appropriately held accountable for his actions and given an appropriate punishment was that he worked in the public school system where he will almost certainly educate at least one gay person during his career.
since you believe it should be lawful to sanction him when he does.
It is no crime to have a holier-than-thou attitude, but making public judgements against a minority group is incompatible with teaching in the public school system.
Call me when you're interested in liberty and not just "hooray for my side".
Call me when you stop promoting intolerance in the name of religion.
It is not legitimate to discipline someone for the potential that their views expressed in a public forum might create some bad feelings in a student.
You need to look at this from the position of an individual in a minority group that has historically been oppressed. That is what the school board did, and that is why they suspended the teacher.
I thought that this particular example was a little extreme, but you leave me no alternative. Think about what the teacher wrote, and replace the word homosexual with black or woman or jew. Then tell me if you still think if his actions were appropriate for a teacher who worked in the public school system. Would his punishment be equally unjust?
You might as well argue that a teacher should never express a political view in class
They shouldn't!
Teachers are there to teach, not indoctrinate. Biases should be left at home.
And if Mr. Kempler was within his rights to right the letter how can you justify punishing him?
There are lots of stupid things that are well within my rights to do. But if I choose to do something stupid, I must accept the responsibilities and consequences of my actions.
So, even though it was within his rights to publish an intolerant opinion, he should have known that it was incompatible with his position as a teacher in the public school system. He also should have known that the school board could not turn a blind eye to his actions and that there would be sanctions.
So Mr. Kempling is not a martyr for free speech?
No, he is not. Head on over to Amnesty International if you want to read about people who are. I think you will find that his situation is trivial in comparison.
Meaning that it's what the most Christians believe.
So what? Even if most Christians believe as you suggest, it alters nothing. If 100% of the heterosexual population believed that homosexuality was immoral and a sin, we would still be obliged to extend the same rights and privileges to gays and lesbians that are afforded to everyone else. It's a binary proposition, we either believe in human rights for all people, or we don't.
If you read the charter, you'd find that freedom of expression is one of the fundamental freedoms. Meaning that all other rights and freedoms are subject to it.
You are forgetting about the reasonable limits clause. Section 15 can be invoked (as per the reasonable Limits clause) to limit fundamental freedoms.
You seem incapable of distinguishing the difference between your right to free expression and your non-existant right to shut other people up.
Reasonable limits. Section 15. Check it out. While it does not apply to this particular discussion, Section 318 and 319 of the criminal code *does* give the state the right to shut people up.
Free speech means that you have to not only allow other people to express views that you find intollerant, you have also have a responsibility to defend their right to express their views.
Have I suggested otherwise?
People are entirely free to make controversial statements. However, they must be prepared to accept the consequences of their actions - particularly if they are employed by a public institution. If that is unacceptable, than that person is entirely free to seek employment at some private institution that better reflects their opinions.
Life is not consequence free, no matter your religious convictions or the sincerity thereof.
if he created a hostile environment for any group of students or if he refused to teach some or taught them poorly he should be disciplined. But that isn't what happened!
How can you possibly know? You have no idea what the impact of that letter was.
There are gay and lesbian people in every community, and this guy publishes a letter that is critical of their sexuality. How do you suppose a gay student would feel, knowing that they would have this person as a teacher? There is the potential that he created a hostile environment, and that is why the board took action.
While he was within his rights to write his letter, doing so showed poor judgement.
a man was disciplined for his beliefs which he expressed outside of his workplace in a forum for public discussion
Yes, but the context of his actions suggests to me that this man should not be viewed as a martyr to free speech.
Had he worked in a factory or an office, his intolerant views would not have caused such offense. However, he is a teacher and people in that profession are held to a higher standard of behaviour - and rightly so. There is a power relationship between the teachers and the students. Publicly stating his predjudice against gays and lesbians could have intimidated the students in that community - some of whom may well be homosexuals.
You are framing this as a free speech issue, yet I see it more like someone in a position of trust and authority made a poor decision and was forced to accept the consequences.
Those beliefs are the norm among Christians
Christianity is not a monolithic whole. I believe that the United Church of Canada and the Church of England have a different perspective on the issue.
Freedom of religion is NOT the right to practice my religion privately and outside of the public sphere. It's the right to practice my religion openly without government interference.
Only to the extent that in practicing your religion, you do not break any laws. If your religious principles are contrary to the principles outlined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is only right and proper that the Charter prevail.
But where exactly to Chris Kempler or TWU or I encourage anyone to commit a crime? Your argument is a red herring.
I implied no such thing. I was merely giving you a couple of examples to demonstrate that the freedom of speech is not absolute.
Neither is the freedom of religion absolute. Preaching intolerance in the name of religion does not give you carte blanche to over-ride someone else's human rights.
More specifically, you need a healthy dose of tolerance of viewpoints you don't agree with, so you can get over your desire to punish people like Mr. Kempling who express views you don't approve of.
You would like me to tolerate your intolerance?
Sorry charlie, I don't believe in keeping quiet and lending tacit approval to bigotry. There is plenty of room for different opinions and honourable dissent, but you have to respect other people and the teacher failed to do that.
We either believe in fundamental human rights or we do not. If we do believe, then sometimes our society will have to make changes to accomodate others.
When a man is made to work for another's benefit, with no real choice in the matter, he is a slave; therefore, he is not free.
If that is your view, I hope your chains are not bound too tightly... Maybe you should read Hobbes' Leviathan. In it Hobbs argues that no rational person would ever choose the sort of freedom you seem to be in favour of.
When people voluntarily choose to work together for the common good, it can hardly be considered slavery.
Which is the reason we have something called a 'market'. I'd love to hear you defend beauracracy as a source of efficent resource allocation.
It's really quite simple. Public healthcare is demonstrably cheaper than a private system. Every layer of the private system requires profit and those costs are passed on to the consumer. There is always more demand than there is supply, and the demand curve is quite inelastic. So, there is little or no incentive for the providers to compete based on price.
As a percentage of GDP, the US spends more on healthcare than Canada does. But the quality of that healthcare appears to be lower. The infant mortality rate in the US is much higher than it is in Canada for example.
Which combines the worst of both systems.
Yes, I have heard that the HMOs are pretty useless. Even so, there are more people in the US with no healthcare insurance than the entire population of Canada. I'm thinking we have found a better way, and it costs us less as an added bonus.
They need you guys to keep the borders open.
Care to identify any terrorists who entered the US via Canada?
Mexico has a tighter border than Canada
Oh yes. So tight that no illegal immigrants from Mexico ever reach the US...
terrorists lounging about are more likely to be reported/kidnapped/killed in Mexico.
Reference? More likely a troll...
when they are done with us, you're next.
It all depends on what the goals of the terrorists are. If they want to bring chaos and anarchy to the entire world, you are right. But if their vendetta is focused against the US, perhaps not.
If they think of us at all, it would only be a means to that end.
So, how do we determine what is a human right, and when does it become an issue?
That bastion of socialism the United Nations published the Universal Declaration of Human Rights some time ago. Our constitution and laws are interpreted according to our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It's pretty straightforward to decide when an issue concerns human rights, since those rights have been clearly documented.
Or, as you imply, people with diabolica agendas, possibly involving liberty and other pernicious ideas.
I fail to see what liberty (or lack thereof) has to do with universal healthcare. It exists to ensure that all people regardless of circumstance have access to quality healthcare.
Nobody's freedoms are being reduced or denied. If someone *really* wants to jump the queue and pay out of their own pocket, they are free to travel anywhere they want for treatment. If our system is backlogged and a patient is unable to wait, the public system will pay their expenses elsewhere in order to get that person treatment.
Implying that the public healthcare system infringes on a person's fundamental freedoms seems rather childish.
people who have died while waiting for treatment.
Unfortunate, but true. When allocating scarce resources, there are bound to be a few failures. There is always room for improvement, and the various levels of government are committed to mending the shortcomings. The federal government has announced 40 billion dollars worth of new healthcare spending over the next half-dozen years or so, and reducing the waiting list for critical surgery is a priority.
The neo-cons here have desperately tried to argue that the private sector can offer a better healthcare system at a lower cost than the current publicly funded one, but they are unable to offer any statistical evidence to back up their claims. To the contrary, the Romanow commission on healthcare reform noted that private healthcare systems are typically more expensive and less effective.
Canada depends on American muscle. Put Canada near, say, North Korea. Then come and talk to me about who wants to attack Canada.
The only nation ever to have invaded Canada was the US, and we won that one. The risk the rest of the world poses to us is remarkably small, largely because we post little risk to the rest of the world. We have no colonialist past and no imperialist ambitions. Our only desire for global domination is hockey. Proximity to the US has been a benefit, but let's face it, nobody is actively plotting against those darned Canadians, with the possible exception of Bill O'Reilly...
It's not just self-interest, it's also good neighborliness.
It's nice to have good neighbours, but the US does not spend the same kind of time and money in defending Mexico. Of course, there is no nuclear arsenal belonging to a former superpower on the other side of Mexico...
So you would accept a ban on homosexuality, if the majority elected people who enacted that legislation?
Certainly not. Human rights issues cannot be decided by a show of hands.
If you're going to argue with truisms, I'm allowed to be sloppy.
You are comparing two totally different things. I can't let you get away with being *that* sloppy. What possible connection exists between an overwhelmingly popular government program that works to the advantage of all Canadians and intolerance?
In the USA, we aren't subject to the whims of the majority.
I don't know about that one - you have four more years of GWB, much to the chagrin of about half of the electorate...
aren't y'all still subject to the Queen?
The Queen of England is our head of state, but not the head of our government. Most Canadians are quite happy with that arrangement, and there are no plans to replace her.
it was quite the home to rugged individualism.
I am not sure about that one either. Such a claim is contradictory to our history. Canada is a nation of immigrants and respect for different cultural, ethnic, religious and linguistic groups has always been a major principle. Our constitution and laws have always tried to balance group and individual rights, and sometimes the rights of the group have prevailed.
The best way to measure the success of a democracy is how effectively it protects human rights, and typcially those most at risk are the 'weakest' members of the society.
Seconded!
Pity that more people do not look at the world in the same manner. I wish I had some mod points for this comment.
He wrote this letter as a private citizen and did not share these views in a classroom. Yet he was suspended.
Rightly so. If he teaches in the public system, he is there to teach everyone, including the children of homosexuals and kids who may be homosexual.
Would it have been acceptible if he had submitted a letter critical of a particular religious or ethnic group? Certainly not, and it is right that he was held accountable for his actions and poor judgement.
Christians are beginning to get somewhat distrustful that full freedom of religion will be granted to them in the future.
What is there to distrust? You will remain free to practice your religion in the realm of your private life. Please note that religious freedom != a license for intolerance though. The Bible has a lot more to say about tolerance, love and helping the poor than it does about certain aspects of human sexuality. I listen to what some Christians have to say about gays, and then I read the sermon on the mount, and I wonder if we are both reading from the same book...
What ever happened to "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."?
Two things:
This is not a free speech issue.
Free speech is not absolute. It is subject to the reasonable limits clause of the charter of rights and freedoms. You cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre and justify it as free speech. You cannot council someone to commit a crime and call it free speech.
We live in a pluralistic multi-cultural society . There is plenty of room for different religions, but everyone needs a health dose of tolerance for people who are different.
Personally, I have no problem with the gun legislation. The vast majority of Canadians in all provinces support the concept. The implementation has left something to be desired, but that is another matter altogether.
If anything, the legislation has not gone far enough. I don't think that anyone needs to own a firearm. Nobody apart from the police or military should have hand-guns. They are only useful for killing people, and I would have them banned outright. Hunters should be limited in the weapons they are permitted to own, in terms of the size of the magazine and the power of the weapon. The activity is "hunting" and not "shooting", and nobody needs an ultra high-powered rifle to take down a deer.
outlawing of certain religions in Canada.
Like what? We even let the *cough* pyramid scheme *cough* scientologists operate here.
Canada's socialized health care, for example, is suffering in numerous areas.
People with an agenda other than publicly funded universal healthcare usually make that claim. However, people who have been recent users of the healthcare system have few complaints.
Even though it does have a few problems, it is clearly better than the alternatives.
until Canada pays for its own defense
Who is going to invade Canada? Who wants to attack Canada? Nobody. The US looks out for us purely out of self-interest. An attack on Windsor is as good as an attack on Detroit. An attack on Vancouver is as good as an attack on Seattle.
We have no domestic requirement for a military. We have no desires or intentions of invading anyone else. We only need the armed forces to assist others internationally.
When the government does that, it's not a matter of choice
If a political party openly campaigns on certain policies, is elected based on those policies, and as a government implements those policies, it is not coercion. The electorate chose those policies.
Canadian politicians who openly suggest abandoning universal social programs do so at the risk of their careers. A sizable majority of citizens fully support these programs - and would choose to enhance them, rather than abandone them. Coercion? I hardly think so. It's called democracy.
Depends on what you are talking about. It is not a competitor in consumer markets, but if you want a global network services provider, AT&T is without equal right now.
No division of AT&T has ever actually won over customers based on value,
Gartner suggests otherwise.
No amount of transformation will ever allow AT&T to be a true free market competitor.
How do you figure that? The company that calls itself AT&T today is not the company that was AT&T 20+ years ago. Times have changed.
OK, so you hate AT&T. Fair enough. I know that bashing Microsoft is good for an automatic +5 insightful, but I did not realize that AT&T bashing worked too. Do you actually work for AT&T or do business with them at the moment?
To give a more clear example: Valve patented Half-Life 2, not the idea of a first person shooter game or if you want to take it one step further. They patented Half-Life 2, not the idea of Half-life 2.
To give a more clear example: Amazon patented the *idea* of one-click online shopping, not a particular implementation of one-click shopping. So, if you want to implement something that is covered by Amazon's patent, you need to purchase a license first.
I fail to see how such policy is good for business. Certainly it is very lucrative for individual corporations that hold overly-broad patents, but it is not good for the industry as a whole.
It seems to me the logical outcome of software patents is that it will be impossible to write non-trivial software without having to pay for a bunch of licenses first.
I'm not sure why we should listen to patent advice from someone who copied the name of a teen actress as a/. nick.
What does a nickname have to do with the opinions expressed in a post?
When the idea of patents originally came about there really wasn't much else to patent [besides machinery and other tangible objects].
And these tangible objects were based on what? Oh, that's right, an idea. Please recall the purpose of patents is for the long-term benefit of society and the short-term benefit of inventors. Ford was granted a patent on an implementation of a car, not the idea of a car.
As others have mentioned before, software is just a combination of mathematics and creativity, and neither thing is patentable in and of itself. Patents are for particular implementations of an idea, not the idea itself.
Slashdot Mirror
From TFA:
Sounds like the results have already been decided.
Of course the easiest way to make any system "impenetrable" is to power it off...
Has Netcraft confirmed it?
I don't think I will believe that DNF has shipped until Netcraft confirms that too!
Fun Fact: European governments subsidize Airbus.
As opposed to Boeing, who never receive any subsidies from the US government.
Oh wait...
I thought that was Han Solo's line.
I don't think it's too much to ask companies to prove they aren't ripping us off.
I'm pretty sure that it was already against the law for executives to loot a company and steal from the shareholders, even before Sarbox was passed.
I am center-left on political, social and economic issues, and even I fail to see how another law will prevent future corporate scandals, when there are plenty of laws on the books that already regulate corporate behaviour.
The problems at Worldcom and Enron (et.al.) happened because existing laws were not enforced, and nobody complained as long as the stock prices were increasing. It was only at the very end when the house-of-cards collapsed that everyone cried foul.
Unfortunately, there would be no glory in enforcing the existing laws. Can you imagine the howls of outrage if the legal system took down Enron or Worldcom at the height of the bubble? The neo-cons would have had a field day complaining about undue government interference in the economy...
I'm not sure whether Sarbox would deter a dishonest CEO from stealing the company blind if he/she thought that they stood a reasonable chance of getting away with it. Even if you get caught, the consequences don't seem to bad. It's not like Bernie Ebbers or Ken Lay are living in cardboard boxes underneath the freeway...
I read an interview with Mark Hammil, and he recalled that George Lucas' directing techniques involved asking the actors to re-do the scene, either to do it "faster" or "more intense". There wasn't much more direction than that.
In the same article, Hammil also stated that George would be probably be really happy if he could replace all of the human actors with CG creations, since he did not relate well to the actors.
Agreed. Google to see why George Lucas was totally opposed to colourizing classic B&W films. He argued something to the point that the director made the best film that could be made at the time given the constraints of time, money and technology. He was totally opposed to altering those films (by adding colour) as the films should be viewed in the context of what was do-able at the time.
Contrast that with Lucas' rather lame justifications for his alterations to Ep 4-6.
(BTW - does he really expect us to believe that he had always intended for Greedo to shoot first?)
Hyocrite thy name is George Lucas
Absolutely, because I try to avoid hypocracy.
Ok, now read a bit further until you get to the point where it talks about how civil disobedience involves a public, deliberate display of breaking the unjust law.
From the same entry:
I still fail to see how you qualify...
Unless you openly purchasing and selling pot in a deliberate attempt to be arrested, charged and convicted under what you consider to be an unjust law, you are not choosing civil disobedience.
Based on what you have posted, I don't get the impression that you are "choosing civil disobedience". More likely you are trying to rationalize your behaviour, and you made a poor choice of words.
Every point of view? No I don't.
You still seem to be confusing the right to free speech with "being correct" or "being tolerant".
No, I don't. I recognize the limits of free speech, in the context of a free and democratic society. I also agree that people have the right to have wrong or outright false opinions, and they should be free to express them subject to reasonable limits. I feel that it is appropriate to draw the line against religious-based attacks on homosexuality. Why? Because it appears to be nothing more than thinly disguised hatred.
The underlying principle that attacking an innate characteristic of a group (i.e. gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation) is not the same as attacking the group itself, nor any particular members of that group does not hold itself up to scrutiny. The argument is easy to dispell via reductio ad absurdum.
There is nothing special about homosexuality that makes it worthy of being singled out, other than that doing so is still considered to be acceptible in some corners of society.
If you were to make a similar argument against a different minority group, the underlying bigotry would be immediately obvious.
Both are sexual sins condemned in the Bible.
They are hardly equivalent. It seems to me that you are trying to equate first degree murder with jaywalking. Sure, both are listed in the criminal code, but one is far more significant than the other.
Both were subject to death by stoning in Jerusalem 2000 years ago.
Irrelevant. Many things that would result in summary execution a few thousand years ago today are not considered crimes today. Neither of your examples (homosexuality or adultry) are criminal (or civil) offenses.
I also often compare homosexual sex to pre-marital sex. Both are considered acceptable by our culture and both are considered sins by Christians.
Does the Bible specifically state that pre-marital sex is a sin? For that matter, does it specifically state that homosexuality is a sin? Many religions codified existing societal conventions and taboos into the religious framework.
It's also a useful comparison because it's easier for heterosexuals to relate to the temptations of premarital sex than it is for them to understand the difficulty Christian homosexuals have in rejecting their sexual desires.
Telling young people to wait until they are married until they have sex is not remotely similar to telling gay people that they can never have sex.
I critique a person's actions or decisions to act on those desires (inborne or otherwise) that are bad.
Fine, but who are you to state that homosexuality is bad? Before you start waving your Bible at me and saying "it's all in here", please take a look at that Bible. There are lots of words in there, approximately 774,000 apparently. How many words are spent talking about homosexuality in any form? Not that many. Condemning homosexuality does not appear to have been a primary concern of the author(s).
It all boils down to interpretation of course. I have not forgotten that you suggested that the Sermon on the Mount was not typical of the teachings of Christ! It is one of the very cornerstones of Christianity, and the act that got him into so much trouble with local religious authorities.
Beyond that, you are trivializing a really important aspect of human sexuality. You have reduced sexual orientation to the level of a perversion or fetish.
I don't know about you, but I have no interest and would not be capable of having sex with a member of my own gender. Gay people feel the same way about having sex with someone of the opposite gender.
It's not like they can be converted to heterosexuality, and it i
You could believe that the earth was flat, but that would not make it so.
I have a hard time understanding how homosexuality could be harmful to a homosexual person. Uninformed heterosexuals certainly pose a risk to homosexuals, but that reflects more on portions of the heterosexual community rather than the gay community.
Nor do I understand how I, as a member of the rest of society am impacted in any way because there are gay people out there. They will not force me to become gay, nor are they trying to recruit my kids.
I believe that whatever legal activies consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is none of my business. I fail to see how it is any of yours.
This is what is meant by "loving the sinner and hating the sin" as you phrased it.
It is one thing to condemn behaviour that was deliberately chosen. It is quite another to condemn characteristics that were decided at the moment of conception.
Homosexuality is not, as some of the more unenlightened believe, a conscious choice. One does not choose to be gay. Judging by the stories I have heard from gay friends, no rational person would ever choose to be gay.
It makes no more sense to condemn homosexuality but not homosexuals than it does to condemn left-handedness, but not left-handed people. Neither the homosexuals nor the left-handed people had any choice in the matter.
I believe in doing the same when discussing homosexual lifestyles or adulterous ones
Homosexual lifestyles? Do you also speak of heterosexual lifestyles? I thought not...
Personally, I find the way that you constantly juxtapose homosexuality and adultery together to be more than a little intellectually dishonest. They are completely different things, and only one of them is a choice. Using the same logic, I could draw any number of similarities to what Jesus might have said about something completely unrelated, but I don't think it would do either of us any good.
You're talking about excluding anyone with religiously based values from participating in public life.
Nobody is entitled to a job in public service you know. If you work in the public sector, you have to serve the entire public and not just the portions of the public that you approve of. If strongly religious people are not able to do that, then yes, there is no place for them in the public sector.
(Not to mention a gross violation of charter rights if it was implemented)
I think that you will find that employees in the public sector are forbidden to discriminate on the basis of several characteristics including sexual orientation already.
You might also consider that Abraham Lincoln & William Wilberforce would have been excluded from the public sector by your logic.
Oh the irony! In the name of justifying intolerance, you invoke people who opposed intolerance.
I ignored it because it was confusing the point by blurring the distinction between criticism of persons and criticism of lifestyle.
Homosexuality is not a lifestyle, it is an inherant characteristic. To criticize homosexual behaviour is to criticize homosexual people.
Therefore my example was entirely appropriate. A black person cannot choose to not be black, Michael Jackson notwithstanding. By extension, a gay person cannot choose to be straight.
While I might disagree with what the teacher said, I will defend his right to say it.
Thank you. I applaud your consistency.
I do find it highly doubtful that an avowed racist would be able to keep himself from dragging racism into the classroom.
So perhaps you can understand why I question whether Kempler is fit to teach! As I mentioned before, you cannot know with any degree of how his actions affected the students in his school.
There is a reason why the suicide rate for young homosexuals is several* times that of
If you accept this, then that should be the end of the discussion. If we do not discriminate against people from groups who are different from us, there would be no need for such moralizing on why we are better than they are. Being gay is not a choice, it is no longer a crime, and it is none of anyone else's business.
Some might say that it is the sin that is condemned, and not the sinner. I don't think that gets anyone off the hook. Change things around again, and we do not hate left-handed people, merely the immorality of left-handedness. One may not have anything against blue-eyed people, but we condemn the sin of having blue eyes. Sounds silly, doesn't it?
But you seem to want to go a step farther and remove the right of those people to say they believe homosexual activity to be immoral and a sin. That is despicable.I read a book that had this to say on the matter:
I could not help but notice that you neatly ignored the question I asked in my previous post. I am beginning to think it is central to the debate, so I will ask it again: do you think it have been equally OK if the teacher had publicly condemned blacks, women or jews instead of homosexuals? Quite frankly, I don't see any difference. If you do, please enlighten me.
What I meant to say was that you might as well say a teacher should not express a political view outside the classroom.Another apples-to-oranges comparison. The teacher did not make a political statement - he made a moral judgement. That is completely different from encouraging people to support the BQ/Green/Liberal/NDP/Reform party.
Okay, but some people believe that it is vital to make one's religious principles an integral part of every aspect of life. Fair enough, but such people ought not work in the public sector where it is their job to assist anyone, and not just the groups in society that are approved of.
Despite your attempts to portray me as some authoritarian censor, I would like to remind you that the reason I believe that the teacher was appropriately held accountable for his actions and given an appropriate punishment was that he worked in the public school system where he will almost certainly educate at least one gay person during his career.
since you believe it should be lawful to sanction him when he does.It is no crime to have a holier-than-thou attitude, but making public judgements against a minority group is incompatible with teaching in the public school system.
Call me when you're interested in liberty and not just "hooray for my side".Call me when you stop promoting intolerance in the name of religion.
You need to look at this from the position of an individual in a minority group that has historically been oppressed. That is what the school board did, and that is why they suspended the teacher.
I thought that this particular example was a little extreme, but you leave me no alternative. Think about what the teacher wrote, and replace the word homosexual with black or woman or jew. Then tell me if you still think if his actions were appropriate for a teacher who worked in the public school system. Would his punishment be equally unjust?
You might as well argue that a teacher should never express a political view in classThey shouldn't!
Teachers are there to teach, not indoctrinate. Biases should be left at home.
And if Mr. Kempler was within his rights to right the letter how can you justify punishing him?There are lots of stupid things that are well within my rights to do. But if I choose to do something stupid, I must accept the responsibilities and consequences of my actions.
So, even though it was within his rights to publish an intolerant opinion, he should have known that it was incompatible with his position as a teacher in the public school system. He also should have known that the school board could not turn a blind eye to his actions and that there would be sanctions.
So Mr. Kempling is not a martyr for free speech?No, he is not. Head on over to Amnesty International if you want to read about people who are. I think you will find that his situation is trivial in comparison.
Meaning that it's what the most Christians believe.So what? Even if most Christians believe as you suggest, it alters nothing. If 100% of the heterosexual population believed that homosexuality was immoral and a sin, we would still be obliged to extend the same rights and privileges to gays and lesbians that are afforded to everyone else. It's a binary proposition, we either believe in human rights for all people, or we don't.
If you read the charter, you'd find that freedom of expression is one of the fundamental freedoms. Meaning that all other rights and freedoms are subject to it.You are forgetting about the reasonable limits clause. Section 15 can be invoked (as per the reasonable Limits clause) to limit fundamental freedoms.
You seem incapable of distinguishing the difference between your right to free expression and your non-existant right to shut other people up.Reasonable limits. Section 15. Check it out. While it does not apply to this particular discussion, Section 318 and 319 of the criminal code *does* give the state the right to shut people up.
Free speech means that you have to not only allow other people to express views that you find intollerant, you have also have a responsibility to defend their right to express their views.Have I suggested otherwise?
People are entirely free to make controversial statements. However, they must be prepared to accept the consequences of their actions - particularly if they are employed by a public institution. If that is unacceptable, than that person is entirely free to seek employment at some private institution that better reflects their opinions.
Life is not consequence free, no matter your religious convictions or the sincerity thereof.
How can you possibly know? You have no idea what the impact of that letter was.
There are gay and lesbian people in every community, and this guy publishes a letter that is critical of their sexuality. How do you suppose a gay student would feel, knowing that they would have this person as a teacher? There is the potential that he created a hostile environment, and that is why the board took action.
While he was within his rights to write his letter, doing so showed poor judgement.
a man was disciplined for his beliefs which he expressed outside of his workplace in a forum for public discussionYes, but the context of his actions suggests to me that this man should not be viewed as a martyr to free speech.
Had he worked in a factory or an office, his intolerant views would not have caused such offense. However, he is a teacher and people in that profession are held to a higher standard of behaviour - and rightly so. There is a power relationship between the teachers and the students. Publicly stating his predjudice against gays and lesbians could have intimidated the students in that community - some of whom may well be homosexuals.
You are framing this as a free speech issue, yet I see it more like someone in a position of trust and authority made a poor decision and was forced to accept the consequences.
Those beliefs are the norm among ChristiansChristianity is not a monolithic whole. I believe that the United Church of Canada and the Church of England have a different perspective on the issue.
Freedom of religion is NOT the right to practice my religion privately and outside of the public sphere. It's the right to practice my religion openly without government interference.Only to the extent that in practicing your religion, you do not break any laws. If your religious principles are contrary to the principles outlined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is only right and proper that the Charter prevail.
But where exactly to Chris Kempler or TWU or I encourage anyone to commit a crime? Your argument is a red herring.I implied no such thing. I was merely giving you a couple of examples to demonstrate that the freedom of speech is not absolute.
Neither is the freedom of religion absolute. Preaching intolerance in the name of religion does not give you carte blanche to over-ride someone else's human rights.
More specifically, you need a healthy dose of tolerance of viewpoints you don't agree with, so you can get over your desire to punish people like Mr. Kempling who express views you don't approve of.You would like me to tolerate your intolerance?
Sorry charlie, I don't believe in keeping quiet and lending tacit approval to bigotry. There is plenty of room for different opinions and honourable dissent, but you have to respect other people and the teacher failed to do that.
We either believe in fundamental human rights or we do not. If we do believe, then sometimes our society will have to make changes to accomodate others.
If that is your view, I hope your chains are not bound too tightly... Maybe you should read Hobbes' Leviathan. In it Hobbs argues that no rational person would ever choose the sort of freedom you seem to be in favour of.
When people voluntarily choose to work together for the common good, it can hardly be considered slavery.
Which is the reason we have something called a 'market'. I'd love to hear you defend beauracracy as a source of efficent resource allocation.It's really quite simple. Public healthcare is demonstrably cheaper than a private system. Every layer of the private system requires profit and those costs are passed on to the consumer. There is always more demand than there is supply, and the demand curve is quite inelastic. So, there is little or no incentive for the providers to compete based on price.
As a percentage of GDP, the US spends more on healthcare than Canada does. But the quality of that healthcare appears to be lower. The infant mortality rate in the US is much higher than it is in Canada for example.
Which combines the worst of both systems.Yes, I have heard that the HMOs are pretty useless. Even so, there are more people in the US with no healthcare insurance than the entire population of Canada. I'm thinking we have found a better way, and it costs us less as an added bonus.
They need you guys to keep the borders open.Care to identify any terrorists who entered the US via Canada?
Mexico has a tighter border than CanadaOh yes. So tight that no illegal immigrants from Mexico ever reach the US...
terrorists lounging about are more likely to be reported/kidnapped/killed in Mexico.Reference? More likely a troll...
when they are done with us, you're next.It all depends on what the goals of the terrorists are. If they want to bring chaos and anarchy to the entire world, you are right. But if their vendetta is focused against the US, perhaps not.
If they think of us at all, it would only be a means to that end.
So, how do we determine what is a human right, and when does it become an issue?That bastion of socialism the United Nations published the Universal Declaration of Human Rights some time ago. Our constitution and laws are interpreted according to our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It's pretty straightforward to decide when an issue concerns human rights, since those rights have been clearly documented.
I fail to see what liberty (or lack thereof) has to do with universal healthcare. It exists to ensure that all people regardless of circumstance have access to quality healthcare.
Nobody's freedoms are being reduced or denied. If someone *really* wants to jump the queue and pay out of their own pocket, they are free to travel anywhere they want for treatment. If our system is backlogged and a patient is unable to wait, the public system will pay their expenses elsewhere in order to get that person treatment.
Implying that the public healthcare system infringes on a person's fundamental freedoms seems rather childish.
people who have died while waiting for treatment.Unfortunate, but true. When allocating scarce resources, there are bound to be a few failures. There is always room for improvement, and the various levels of government are committed to mending the shortcomings. The federal government has announced 40 billion dollars worth of new healthcare spending over the next half-dozen years or so, and reducing the waiting list for critical surgery is a priority.
The neo-cons here have desperately tried to argue that the private sector can offer a better healthcare system at a lower cost than the current publicly funded one, but they are unable to offer any statistical evidence to back up their claims. To the contrary, the Romanow commission on healthcare reform noted that private healthcare systems are typically more expensive and less effective.
Canada depends on American muscle. Put Canada near, say, North Korea. Then come and talk to me about who wants to attack Canada.The only nation ever to have invaded Canada was the US, and we won that one. The risk the rest of the world poses to us is remarkably small, largely because we post little risk to the rest of the world. We have no colonialist past and no imperialist ambitions. Our only desire for global domination is hockey. Proximity to the US has been a benefit, but let's face it, nobody is actively plotting against those darned Canadians, with the possible exception of Bill O'Reilly...
It's not just self-interest, it's also good neighborliness.It's nice to have good neighbours, but the US does not spend the same kind of time and money in defending Mexico. Of course, there is no nuclear arsenal belonging to a former superpower on the other side of Mexico...
So you would accept a ban on homosexuality, if the majority elected people who enacted that legislation?Certainly not. Human rights issues cannot be decided by a show of hands.
If you're going to argue with truisms, I'm allowed to be sloppy.You are comparing two totally different things. I can't let you get away with being *that* sloppy. What possible connection exists between an overwhelmingly popular government program that works to the advantage of all Canadians and intolerance?
In the USA, we aren't subject to the whims of the majority.I don't know about that one - you have four more years of GWB, much to the chagrin of about half of the electorate...
aren't y'all still subject to the Queen?The Queen of England is our head of state, but not the head of our government. Most Canadians are quite happy with that arrangement, and there are no plans to replace her.
it was quite the home to rugged individualism.I am not sure about that one either. Such a claim is contradictory to our history. Canada is a nation of immigrants and respect for different cultural, ethnic, religious and linguistic groups has always been a major principle. Our constitution and laws have always tried to balance group and individual rights, and sometimes the rights of the group have prevailed.
Reality check:
Seconded!
Pity that more people do not look at the world in the same manner. I wish I had some mod points for this comment.
Rightly so. If he teaches in the public system, he is there to teach everyone, including the children of homosexuals and kids who may be homosexual.
Would it have been acceptible if he had submitted a letter critical of a particular religious or ethnic group? Certainly not, and it is right that he was held accountable for his actions and poor judgement.
Christians are beginning to get somewhat distrustful that full freedom of religion will be granted to them in the future.What is there to distrust? You will remain free to practice your religion in the realm of your private life. Please note that religious freedom != a license for intolerance though. The Bible has a lot more to say about tolerance, love and helping the poor than it does about certain aspects of human sexuality. I listen to what some Christians have to say about gays, and then I read the sermon on the mount, and I wonder if we are both reading from the same book...
What ever happened to "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."?Two things:
We live in a pluralistic multi-cultural society . There is plenty of room for different religions, but everyone needs a health dose of tolerance for people who are different.
Personally, I have no problem with the gun legislation. The vast majority of Canadians in all provinces support the concept. The implementation has left something to be desired, but that is another matter altogether.
If anything, the legislation has not gone far enough. I don't think that anyone needs to own a firearm. Nobody apart from the police or military should have hand-guns. They are only useful for killing people, and I would have them banned outright. Hunters should be limited in the weapons they are permitted to own, in terms of the size of the magazine and the power of the weapon. The activity is "hunting" and not "shooting", and nobody needs an ultra high-powered rifle to take down a deer.
outlawing of certain religions in Canada.Like what? We even let the *cough* pyramid scheme *cough* scientologists operate here.
People with an agenda other than publicly funded universal healthcare usually make that claim. However, people who have been recent users of the healthcare system have few complaints.
Even though it does have a few problems, it is clearly better than the alternatives.
until Canada pays for its own defenseWho is going to invade Canada? Who wants to attack Canada? Nobody. The US looks out for us purely out of self-interest. An attack on Windsor is as good as an attack on Detroit. An attack on Vancouver is as good as an attack on Seattle.
We have no domestic requirement for a military. We have no desires or intentions of invading anyone else. We only need the armed forces to assist others internationally.
When the government does that, it's not a matter of choiceIf a political party openly campaigns on certain policies, is elected based on those policies, and as a government implements those policies, it is not coercion. The electorate chose those policies.
Canadian politicians who openly suggest abandoning universal social programs do so at the risk of their careers. A sizable majority of citizens fully support these programs - and would choose to enhance them, rather than abandone them. Coercion? I hardly think so. It's called democracy.
Depends on what you are talking about. It is not a competitor in consumer markets, but if you want a global network services provider, AT&T is without equal right now.
No division of AT&T has ever actually won over customers based on value,Gartner suggests otherwise.
No amount of transformation will ever allow AT&T to be a true free market competitor.How do you figure that? The company that calls itself AT&T today is not the company that was AT&T 20+ years ago. Times have changed.
OK, so you hate AT&T. Fair enough. I know that bashing Microsoft is good for an automatic +5 insightful, but I did not realize that AT&T bashing worked too. Do you actually work for AT&T or do business with them at the moment?
To give a more clear example: Amazon patented the *idea* of one-click online shopping, not a particular implementation of one-click shopping. So, if you want to implement something that is covered by Amazon's patent, you need to purchase a license first.
I fail to see how such policy is good for business. Certainly it is very lucrative for individual corporations that hold overly-broad patents, but it is not good for the industry as a whole.
It seems to me the logical outcome of software patents is that it will be impossible to write non-trivial software without having to pay for a bunch of licenses first.
What does a nickname have to do with the opinions expressed in a post?
When the idea of patents originally came about there really wasn't much else to patent [besides machinery and other tangible objects].And these tangible objects were based on what? Oh, that's right, an idea. Please recall the purpose of patents is for the long-term benefit of society and the short-term benefit of inventors. Ford was granted a patent on an implementation of a car, not the idea of a car.
As others have mentioned before, software is just a combination of mathematics and creativity, and neither thing is patentable in and of itself. Patents are for particular implementations of an idea, not the idea itself.