"However, what is the basis for me to call bullshit on a moral/ethical decision that you make, even recognizing the contextual nature of all judgments?"
For most people it's superstition/religion. It all has to with what god you listen to and why.
For example most people believe that life is sacred somehow. Of course they don't actually believe that they just say it. Otherwise they would be opposed to the death penalty, war of all kinds, killing of animals and even vegetables. What they mean is that some life is sacred and other life is disposable.
So the real question is which life is sacred and which life is not. For me my life is more sacred then the lives of a thousand babies. Just like my life is more sacred then the lives of a thousand chicken.
"Containing weasel words does not magically render a sentence meaningless."
Yes it does. Using words weasel words literally renders a sentense meaningless. The sentense "the bags may have contained dope" conveys no actual information. Did it or did it not? You don't know. That's why weasel words are poweful. You can imply things without conveying actual information.
"Wow, you've really got your religions mixed up, huh? Here's a hint: "jihad" is a term from Islam, a religion based on books written 1400 years ago by some people in what is now known as Saudi Arabia. Neither Christianity nor Judaism has a concept quite like jihad, though of course all three have some very similar concepts otherwise."
First of all you should look up the meaning of Jihad, it does not mean what you think it does. Every religion has their version of a Jihad just as every religion has a word meaning "not us". Whether it's infidel, goyem, or heathen all religions seek to set themselves apart from the rest of humanity. They are very effective at causing divisions among people. Do you remember the crusades? You should read about them, it's facinating history.
"1) jesus christ is the son of god. Technically not a moral question, but true."
Only true if your flavor of superstition is christianity. Not true for Jews, Muslims, Budhists, atheists, or thinking people. If you have chosen christianity as a lifestyle choice then you have to believe that. Needless to say many people have been killed for answering false to this question.
"2) Paralell lines never meet. Definitely not a moral question, so it's moot, though it is true."
True in euclidian space, not true under in non eculidian geometries. It depends on your framework.
"3) A gallon of gasoline cost $1.65. Again, not a moral question, so again moot. But it's false, since the Exxon down the street is selling it for $1.73 today."
It's true in some time space continuums and not other. False where you are but true where I am. False at some time and true at another. A truth dependent on space and time.
"4) Christopher columbus discovered america. The least moral question of them all. Though it is true. Whether he was the first, or most important, to do so is a seperate issue, but the fact that he did indeed arrive in the Americas, albeit accidentally, is beyond dispute."
You can't discover a place if people have been living there for thousands of years. So it's actually false. However it's true from a cultural perspective. He discovered it for the portugese but other people discovered for other cultures before and after. A cultural truth much like the first question.
" 1) Is there ever a time when it is OK for someone to rape and murder your sister?
Yes. If it would stop a genocide for example.
2) Would you throw a baby into a lit furnace to save yourself? What about 100 babies? 1000? If so, why? If not, why not?
Yes. I can't imagine a situation in which I would have to throw a thousand babies into a fire but I would very easily leave a burning building with a thousand babies in it to save my life. I would also light the fire if it meant saving my life.
3) If you found a bag full of money on the sidewalk, with no identifying marks, what would you do with it, and why?
I would spend it. Why not?
4) Let's assume you're married. Now let's assume you're at a conference far away from your home town. One of the other attendees, to whom you are attracted, approaches you and offers sex. You know your spouse will never know. Do you accept? If so, why? If not, why not?"
Depends on if I thought she was clean and would not rip me off and other factors. I have cheated on girlfriends before so most likely I would also cheat on my wife. Most people do. Statistics show that a majority of husbands and wives are have cheated on their spouses sometime or another. Have you ever cheated on a girlfriend?
"Think hard now. What does your moral relativism say about the relevance of each question?"
It says that your definition of morality is very limited. It also shows that you lack imagination. Finally your answers to my questions indicate an inability to think deeply about things.
"Yes, you've come so far from the ancient days of 1998, when President Clinton thought it was a good idea to bomb the hell out of Bosnia."
Bosnia was a special case wasn't it? There was a genocide going on. US co-operated with both the UN and NATO. In fact the whole operation was a joing US-NATO operation. Little details you forgot to mention.
"And yeah, you're right, no Democrat would start something like the War on Poverty,"
Right because a war on poverty is exactly like the war on drugs right? NOT!.
'What he seemed to be saying was stifling dissent can lead to violent repercussions. I think that's a no brainer, don't you?"
No I don't. That's the supidest thing I have heard in a long time. Besides even if he wanted to say that he could have. He chose to say instead that liberal professors might get hit in head with a sledge hammer.
"And you know this how? You might be surprised how many Yellow Dog Democrats in the Deep South keep an extra set of sheets in the linen closet. Don't forget, a lot of them good ol' boys want nothing to do with the party of Lincoln."
You keep amusing yourself with those notions if it helps you. I guarantee you no KKK member would ever vote for a democrat. Hell the vast majority of white men in south don't vote for democrats.
"*sniff* Smells fine to me. If you're smelling shit, you might check yourself. Oh, and I'd appreciate a pointer to where I said it's OK to hurt or kill people with whom you disagree."
I was reffering to the original poster (who is a republican just like you). I was also talking about other republicans who regularly kill people who disagree with them such as the well publizised murders or abortion doctors and church burnings. These are ideological killings not motivated by anything other then hatred and ignorance. You just don't see that from democrats.
That's the shit I am talking about. As a republican you are walling in the same shit as those people. These people who murder and preach hatred all the proudly calling themselves republicans. The stink gets on you whether you like it or not. Maybe it doesn't stink to you because you agree with them who knows or maybe you are just used to smell and don't mind it. A fellow republican is talking about smashing the head of liberal professors and it doesn't bother you what does that say about you?
It's no a lie strictly speaking. Strictly speaking it conveys no actual information. Saying "the bags may have contained drugs" is the exact same thing as saying "monkeys may have flown out of my butt". Both sentenses are "true" because neither sentense conveys any information.
It's not a lie but it's a sentense carefully worded in order to mislead people. The intent of the reporter was to make people think that some linux zealot wrote the virus. In order to do that he carefully chose his weasel words to convey that information.
In the end even though it's not a lie it's a willfull attempt to deceive people. There is no getting around that.
"the point which was raised was that liberal professors fail their students merely because their politics are different, not because the student in question was being disrespectful."
This is nonsense. It's a flat out lie.
"In this case, "Mommy and Daddy" would be anyone expressing a sense of moral absolutism"
People who express moral absolutisms are jihadists. They are without reason or rhyme. Osama Bin Laden for example is a prime example or a moral absolutist. The truth is a malleable substance more often then not. Jihadists can't except this, they claim that the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth was known 2000 years ago and written in a book by some people in what is known now as israel. This book is full of all kinds of shit and yet the jihadists take every word to be the "truth". The problem is they often get it wrong too. The bible should clearly says homosexuals should be executed but somehow the jihadists end up saying homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. Go figure.
You want some food for thought answer the following questions true or false.
1) jesus christ is the son of god. 2) Paralell lines never meet. 3) A gallon of gasoline cost $1.65. 4) Christopher columbus discovered america.
Think hard now. What does your moral absolutism say about the truth of each question?
First of all you are neglecting to mention the military actions in panama, granada and afghanistan. The US goes to war at least once a decade after all. Also vietnam was widely opposed by democrats and supported by republicans.
Yes in the sixties the parties were "switched" in their positions but both parties switched their positions later. It's no accident the democrats "lost" the south when they backed full rights for blacks. Today, right now, democrats are generally opposed to using war and violence as a means to solve their problems while republicans are of the opposite opinion. They favor war and violence whenever possible in all possible ways to solve social ills. Whether it's war, death penalty, harsh prison terms, public flogging or what have you. Even their terminology is all about violence. War on drugs, War on hollywood, war on this, war on that. I think it's telling.
"Why is it that liberals constantly feel the need to attack conservatives and their principles in such crude and childish fashion?"
It's not crude and childish it's simple observation. No member of the KKK today is a democrat, no member of the aryan nations is a democrat. Democrats don't crucify gays or shoot abortion doctors do they? Can you imagine a pro choice activist shooting a priest or bombing a church? I can't. Like it or not that's life. Republicans kill people that disagree with them more often. Not only that but they do it for ideological reasons. Trut me no liberal ever painted a shwastika on a synagauge.
"Why is it that liberals constantly feel the need to attack conservatives and their principles in such crude and childish fashion?"
Because the the person I was responding to specifically stated that republicans might smash the head of liberal professors with a sledgehammer. Go read it, it's pretty disturbing. he seemed gleeful at the idea that a republican would render the IQ of a liberal professor to that of a poodle with a well aimed whack in the head.
Really, if you don't want the stink don't roll in shit. If you go around saying that liberals should be hit in the head with sledgehammers or that hippies should be buried in mass graves what else do you expect people to think of you?
Reporters do this very frequently. They use weazel words like "it seems likely", "may have", "could possibly" and such. For example take this.
"the police raided a residence on the north side and took away bags that "may have" contained marijuana. You see how that works? The slobs watching Tee Vee are convinced that the bags contain dope and if the bags contained laundry instead the reporter wasn't lying.
Lying is an art and reporters are very good at it. The same tricks are used by politicans and pundits too. The public is profoundly stupid so they take each "may have" as being god's honest truth.
Do I need to say it again. If you slander somebody then expect to get sued. Just because it's your opinion that does not make it right. The law protects us against libel and slander.
There is a difference between slander, libel, false testimony and an opinion. A person has the right to defend themselves when others attack them with "opinions". If you opinions cross the line then you should be sued it's as simple as that.
Sure if you can. If the class schedule permits, if it meet with your timeline of when you want to graduate.
Collage is supposed to prepare you for life. One part of life is learning to get along when your boss is an asshole or belongs to a different political party. If you can't cope with a professor and feel compelled to argue with him constantly chances are you will fail at your job too.
"There is a movement to have some fairness in hiring and tenure for both sides of the political spectrum. 99% of professors self identify as liberal."
If you start your argument with a lie then you can not expect people to take you seriously. 99% of all professors are not liberal. You are a liar.
"Socialists and marxists dominate many compuses. "
Again another lie. You are probably saying this because you believe that anybody who disagrees with you is a socialist or a marxist. In that case then it's true campuses are dominated by people who disagree with you.
"Have both view points represented."
Take a business course.
"Further, many professors will not accept any viewpoints other than their own. "
Especially republican professors.
"Take a poly sci class, and try to argue the conservative viewpoint, and you get an F."
Take a physics class and try to argue with your professor and you get an F.
" Are you saying that because some opinions are biased, that nobody should be able to make their opinions public?"
It cuts both ways. You can say whatever you want but expect to be sued if somebody thinks you slandered them. Nobody owes you a internet site on which you can say whatever you want. If you got one great, if you use it to slander people then be prepared to get sued. It's the American way.
" Is it Ok for a liberal or marxist prof to fail a student just because he's conservative? "
No it's not. Not that you could ever prove such a thing. Chances are if the professor is a liberal and the student a conservative the student will be bellligerent and argumentititive. I don't know about you but I never got a good grade from a professor I argued constantly with.
Besides which you are making a moot point. Tow wrongs don't make a right. It's wrong to give a student a bad grade because he is a conservative and it's wrong to get a teacher fired because he is a liberal.
"They should be happy that students have this method of attempting to find justice. Take away legal means, and you're likely to walk out to your car after a marxist rally to get brained by a 15 lb sledgehammer from a former student who had no other means to right the wrong done him."
I am sure this has happened and I am sure it will happen again. Abortion doctors get shot, gays get crucified, blacks get dragged behind pickup trucks, planned parenthoods get bombed, black churches get burned.
Republican tend to resort to violence early and often. Apparently they have a ready recruit in you. I am sure you will enjoy your your first maiming immensely but you should probably just kill the guy so he does not get to testify against you in court.
If you look at MacosX it has a directory structure like/Library/StartupItems and such. Maybe that's somewhat more understandable the/usr/local/etc/rc.d but in all honesty the average user will be just as baffled. The library? what the hell is that? Why are the startup items in the library? What's the difference betweek/System/Library/Library and/Users/user/Library.
In MacosX the configuration files are all spread out amongst the applications. Instead of/usr/local/etc/php.ini it's in/Library/PHP4/php.ini. Is that good or bad?
I think it's bad. I liked that all the config files were in one place. I could back it up easy and check it into CVS. I think that I am giving up a lot of functionality just to have a different and slightly less cryptic directory structure.
I also dislike that mixed caps. I dislike typing long directory names. I honestly don't see a huge advantage at all.
Maybe it's possible to do both. Maybe it's possible to have a sane structure and easy management but I have yet to see it. Windows is the worst culprit with programs spewing stuff all over your disk and config data all over the place.
Most likely users of these systems are first time computer owners. They don't need re-training because they don't have any training. Linux supports oder and cheaper parts better then windows does. It's virtually impossible to make windows work with equipment that's older then two years.
What amazes me is that the American corporations continue to pay through the nose for windows and office when they know full well that MS sells it in Thailand for $50.00.
What kind of a sucker are you if you pay $400.00 for something your neighbor bought for $50.00?
I guess it's a matter of degree. Firebird is more compliant then IE. Also the firebird development staff is less evil and not interested in locking users into their program.
I have given up even trying to use MS search on my hard drive. First of all it frequently desides that I have nothing on my machine. In other words whenever I search for something it instantly decides that it's not there. The only cure is to turn off indexing and delete the database files. Then it takes an half an hour to search for one filename.
I have taken to saving things on a samba share just so I can use locate and grep.
I guess similar arguments can be used against the gun makers too. They know for certain that their product is used in committing crimes and yet they continue to make them.
I don't know about patents but Ms has sued lots of people. They have sued lindows and lots of other people for using names that might sound like windows if you were healf deaf. Hell they even sued a Mac columnist for printing an IE logo (http://www.macopinion.com/columns/tangible/02/04/ 01/).
Ms has also sued bandai for "using their intellectual property" (http://ifaq.wap.org/computers/mstomagotchi.html).
Ms has sued people for gathering up hotmail addresses.
Ms has sued tons of people. What makes you think they won't ever sue for patent infringement. If they feel no shame in suing a high school student then they'll sue for patent infringement.
Slashdot Mirror
"However, what is the basis for me to call bullshit on a moral/ethical decision that you make, even recognizing the contextual nature of all judgments?"
For most people it's superstition/religion. It all has to with what god you listen to and why.
For example most people believe that life is sacred somehow. Of course they don't actually believe that they just say it. Otherwise they would be opposed to the death penalty, war of all kinds, killing of animals and even vegetables. What they mean is that some life is sacred and other life is disposable.
So the real question is which life is sacred and which life is not. For me my life is more sacred then the lives of a thousand babies. Just like my life is more sacred then the lives of a thousand chicken.
"Containing weasel words does not magically render a sentence meaningless."
Yes it does. Using words weasel words literally renders a sentense meaningless. The sentense "the bags may have contained dope" conveys no actual information. Did it or did it not? You don't know. That's why weasel words are poweful. You can imply things without conveying actual information.
It's a great way to mislead people.
"Maybe it is, maybe it isn't."
you mean it's relative?
"Wow, you've really got your religions mixed up, huh? Here's a hint: "jihad" is a term from Islam, a religion based on books written 1400 years ago by some people in what is now known as Saudi Arabia. Neither Christianity nor Judaism has a concept quite like jihad, though of course all three have some very similar concepts otherwise."
First of all you should look up the meaning of Jihad, it does not mean what you think it does. Every religion has their version of a Jihad just as every religion has a word meaning "not us". Whether it's infidel, goyem, or heathen all religions seek to set themselves apart from the rest of humanity. They are very effective at causing divisions among people. Do you remember the crusades? You should read about them, it's facinating history.
"1) jesus christ is the son of god.
Technically not a moral question, but true."
Only true if your flavor of superstition is christianity. Not true for Jews, Muslims, Budhists, atheists, or thinking people. If you have chosen christianity as a lifestyle choice then you have to believe that. Needless to say many people have been killed for answering false to this question.
"2) Paralell lines never meet.
Definitely not a moral question, so it's moot, though it is true."
True in euclidian space, not true under in non eculidian geometries. It depends on your framework.
"3) A gallon of gasoline cost $1.65.
Again, not a moral question, so again moot. But it's false, since the Exxon down the street is selling it for $1.73 today."
It's true in some time space continuums and not other. False where you are but true where I am. False at some time and true at another. A truth dependent on space and time.
"4) Christopher columbus discovered america.
The least moral question of them all. Though it is true. Whether he was the first, or most important, to do so is a seperate issue, but the fact that he did indeed arrive in the Americas, albeit accidentally, is beyond dispute."
You can't discover a place if people have been living there for thousands of years. So it's actually false. However it's true from a cultural perspective. He discovered it for the portugese but other people discovered for other cultures before and after. A cultural truth much like the first question.
" 1) Is there ever a time when it is OK for someone to rape and murder your sister?
Yes. If it would stop a genocide for example.
2) Would you throw a baby into a lit furnace to save yourself? What about 100 babies? 1000? If so, why? If not, why not?
Yes. I can't imagine a situation in which I would have to throw a thousand babies into a fire but I would very easily leave a burning building with a thousand babies in it to save my life. I would also light the fire if it meant saving my life.
3) If you found a bag full of money on the sidewalk, with no identifying marks, what would you do with it, and why?
I would spend it. Why not?
4) Let's assume you're married. Now let's assume you're at a conference far away from your home town. One of the other attendees, to whom you are attracted, approaches you and offers sex. You know your spouse will never know. Do you accept? If so, why? If not, why not?"
Depends on if I thought she was clean and would not rip me off and other factors. I have cheated on girlfriends before so most likely I would also cheat on my wife. Most people do. Statistics show that a majority of husbands and wives are have cheated on their spouses sometime or another. Have you ever cheated on a girlfriend?
"Think hard now. What does your moral relativism say about the relevance of each question?"
It says that your definition of morality is very limited. It also shows that you lack imagination. Finally your answers to my questions indicate an inability to think deeply about things.
"Yes, you've come so far from the ancient days of 1998, when President Clinton thought it was a good idea to bomb the hell out of Bosnia."
Bosnia was a special case wasn't it? There was a genocide going on. US co-operated with both the UN and NATO. In fact the whole operation was a joing US-NATO operation. Little details you forgot to mention.
"And yeah, you're right, no Democrat would start something like the War on Poverty,"
Right because a war on poverty is exactly like the war on drugs right? NOT!.
'What he seemed to be saying was stifling dissent can lead to violent repercussions. I think that's a no brainer, don't you?"
No I don't. That's the supidest thing I have heard in a long time. Besides even if he wanted to say that he could have. He chose to say instead that liberal professors might get hit in head with a sledge hammer.
"And you know this how? You might be surprised how many Yellow Dog Democrats in the Deep South keep an extra set of sheets in the linen closet. Don't forget, a lot of them good ol' boys want nothing to do with the party of Lincoln."
You keep amusing yourself with those notions if it helps you. I guarantee you no KKK member would ever vote for a democrat. Hell the vast majority of white men in south don't vote for democrats.
"*sniff* Smells fine to me. If you're smelling shit, you might check yourself. Oh, and I'd appreciate a pointer to where I said it's OK to hurt or kill people with whom you disagree."
I was reffering to the original poster (who is a republican just like you). I was also talking about other republicans who regularly kill people who disagree with them such as the well publizised murders or abortion doctors and church burnings. These are ideological killings not motivated by anything other then hatred and ignorance. You just don't see that from democrats.
That's the shit I am talking about. As a republican you are walling in the same shit as those people. These people who murder and preach hatred all the proudly calling themselves republicans. The stink gets on you whether you like it or not. Maybe it doesn't stink to you because you agree with them who knows or maybe you are just used to smell and don't mind it. A fellow republican is talking about smashing the head of liberal professors and it doesn't bother you what does that say about you?
" Sorry bud, it's still not a lie."
It's no a lie strictly speaking. Strictly speaking it conveys no actual information. Saying "the bags may have contained drugs" is the exact same thing as saying "monkeys may have flown out of my butt". Both sentenses are "true" because neither sentense conveys any information.
It's not a lie but it's a sentense carefully worded in order to mislead people. The intent of the reporter was to make people think that some linux zealot wrote the virus. In order to do that he carefully chose his weasel words to convey that information.
In the end even though it's not a lie it's a willfull attempt to deceive people. There is no getting around that.
"the point which was raised was that liberal professors fail their students merely because their politics are different, not because the student in question was being disrespectful."
This is nonsense. It's a flat out lie.
"In this case, "Mommy and Daddy" would be anyone expressing a sense of moral absolutism"
People who express moral absolutisms are jihadists. They are without reason or rhyme. Osama Bin Laden for example is a prime example or a moral absolutist. The truth is a malleable substance more often then not. Jihadists can't except this, they claim that the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth was known 2000 years ago and written in a book by some people in what is known now as israel. This book is full of all kinds of shit and yet the jihadists take every word to be the "truth". The problem is they often get it wrong too. The bible should clearly says homosexuals should be executed but somehow the jihadists end up saying homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. Go figure.
You want some food for thought answer the following questions true or false.
1) jesus christ is the son of god.
2) Paralell lines never meet.
3) A gallon of gasoline cost $1.65.
4) Christopher columbus discovered america.
Think hard now. What does your moral absolutism say about the truth of each question?
First of all you are neglecting to mention the military actions in panama, granada and afghanistan. The US goes to war at least once a decade after all. Also vietnam was widely opposed by democrats and supported by republicans.
Yes in the sixties the parties were "switched" in their positions but both parties switched their positions later. It's no accident the democrats "lost" the south when they backed full rights for blacks. Today, right now, democrats are generally opposed to using war and violence as a means to solve their problems while republicans are of the opposite opinion. They favor war and violence whenever possible in all possible ways to solve social ills. Whether it's war, death penalty, harsh prison terms, public flogging or what have you. Even their terminology is all about violence. War on drugs, War on hollywood, war on this, war on that. I think it's telling.
"Why is it that liberals constantly feel the need to attack conservatives and their principles in such crude and childish fashion?"
It's not crude and childish it's simple observation. No member of the KKK today is a democrat, no member of the aryan nations is a democrat. Democrats don't crucify gays or shoot abortion doctors do they? Can you imagine a pro choice activist shooting a priest or bombing a church? I can't. Like it or not that's life. Republicans kill people that disagree with them more often. Not only that but they do it for ideological reasons. Trut me no liberal ever painted a shwastika on a synagauge.
"Why is it that liberals constantly feel the need to attack conservatives and their principles in such crude and childish fashion?"
Because the the person I was responding to specifically stated that republicans might smash the head of liberal professors with a sledgehammer. Go read it, it's pretty disturbing. he seemed gleeful at the idea that a republican would render the IQ of a liberal professor to that of a poodle with a well aimed whack in the head.
Really, if you don't want the stink don't roll in shit. If you go around saying that liberals should be hit in the head with sledgehammers or that hippies should be buried in mass graves what else do you expect people to think of you?
"They very clearly said "It seems likely..."."
Reporters do this very frequently. They use weazel words like "it seems likely", "may have", "could possibly" and such. For example take this.
"the police raided a residence on the north side and took away bags that "may have" contained marijuana. You see how that works? The slobs watching Tee Vee are convinced that the bags contain dope and if the bags contained laundry instead the reporter wasn't lying.
Lying is an art and reporters are very good at it. The same tricks are used by politicans and pundits too. The public is profoundly stupid so they take each "may have" as being god's honest truth.
Do I need to say it again. If you slander somebody then expect to get sued. Just because it's your opinion that does not make it right. The law protects us against libel and slander.
There is a difference between slander, libel, false testimony and an opinion. A person has the right to defend themselves when others attack them with "opinions". If you opinions cross the line then you should be sued it's as simple as that.
"Get better professors, then"
Sure if you can. If the class schedule permits, if it meet with your timeline of when you want to graduate.
Collage is supposed to prepare you for life. One part of life is learning to get along when your boss is an asshole or belongs to a different political party. If you can't cope with a professor and feel compelled to argue with him constantly chances are you will fail at your job too.
"There is a movement to have some fairness in hiring and tenure for both sides of the political spectrum. 99% of professors self identify as liberal."
If you start your argument with a lie then you can not expect people to take you seriously. 99% of all professors are not liberal. You are a liar.
"Socialists and marxists dominate many compuses. "
Again another lie. You are probably saying this because you believe that anybody who disagrees with you is a socialist or a marxist. In that case then it's true campuses are dominated by people who disagree with you.
"Have both view points represented."
Take a business course.
"Further, many professors will not accept any viewpoints other than their own. "
Especially republican professors.
"Take a poly sci class, and try to argue the conservative viewpoint, and you get an F."
Take a physics class and try to argue with your professor and you get an F.
" Are you saying that because some opinions are biased, that nobody should be able to make their opinions public?"
It cuts both ways. You can say whatever you want but expect to be sued if somebody thinks you slandered them. Nobody owes you a internet site on which you can say whatever you want. If you got one great, if you use it to slander people then be prepared to get sued. It's the American way.
" Is it Ok for a liberal or marxist prof to fail a student just because he's conservative? "
No it's not. Not that you could ever prove such a thing. Chances are if the professor is a liberal and the student a conservative the student will be bellligerent and argumentititive. I don't know about you but I never got a good grade from a professor I argued constantly with.
Besides which you are making a moot point. Tow wrongs don't make a right. It's wrong to give a student a bad grade because he is a conservative and it's wrong to get a teacher fired because he is a liberal.
"They should be happy that students have this method of attempting to find justice. Take away legal means, and you're likely to walk out to your car after a marxist rally to get brained by a 15 lb sledgehammer from a former student who had no other means to right the wrong done him."
I am sure this has happened and I am sure it will happen again. Abortion doctors get shot, gays get crucified, blacks get dragged behind pickup trucks, planned parenthoods get bombed, black churches get burned.
Republican tend to resort to violence early and often. Apparently they have a ready recruit in you. I am sure you will enjoy your your first maiming immensely but you should probably just kill the guy so he does not get to testify against you in court.
Define Horrible.
To many students a teacher who is demanding, asks the students to homework, and does not hand out As is horrible.
To other students a teacher who belongs to the opposite political party is horrible.
Right now there is a massive movement to get liberal teachers fired for example. Is sombeody horrible just because they are a liberal?
If you look at MacosX it has a directory structure like /Library/StartupItems and such. Maybe that's somewhat more understandable the /usr/local/etc/rc.d but in all honesty the average user will be just as baffled. The library? what the hell is that? Why are the startup items in the library? What's the difference betweek /System/Library /Library and /Users/user/Library.
/usr/local/etc/php.ini it's in /Library/PHP4/php.ini. Is that good or bad?
In MacosX the configuration files are all spread out amongst the applications. Instead of
I think it's bad. I liked that all the config files were in one place. I could back it up easy and check it into CVS. I think that I am giving up a lot of functionality just to have a different and slightly less cryptic directory structure.
I also dislike that mixed caps. I dislike typing long directory names. I honestly don't see a huge advantage at all.
Maybe it's possible to do both. Maybe it's possible to have a sane structure and easy management but I have yet to see it. Windows is the worst culprit with programs spewing stuff all over your disk and config data all over the place.
Most likely users of these systems are first time computer owners. They don't need re-training because they don't have any training. Linux supports oder and cheaper parts better then windows does. It's virtually impossible to make windows work with equipment that's older then two years.
What amazes me is that the American corporations continue to pay through the nose for windows and office when they know full well that MS sells it in Thailand for $50.00.
What kind of a sucker are you if you pay $400.00 for something your neighbor bought for $50.00?
I guess it's a matter of degree. Firebird is more compliant then IE. Also the firebird development staff is less evil and not interested in locking users into their program.
"Firebird isn't standards-compliant. "
Neither is IE. What's your point.
Sometimes that works. Think of it as kicking the legs out of your opponent. If you are able to hurt IE then the rest might fall like dominoes.
Besides it's easy, cheap, and they can do it tommorow if they want to.
Apple has already done it if Google does it too then yahoo might follow just to differentiate themselves from AOL.
I have given up even trying to use MS search on my hard drive. First of all it frequently desides that I have nothing on my machine. In other words whenever I search for something it instantly decides that it's not there. The only cure is to turn off indexing and delete the database files. Then it takes an half an hour to search for one filename.
I have taken to saving things on a samba share just so I can use locate and grep.
I guess similar arguments can be used against the gun makers too. They know for certain that their product is used in committing crimes and yet they continue to make them.
I don't know about patents but Ms has sued lots of people. They have sued lindows and lots of other people for using names that might sound like windows if you were healf deaf. Hell they even sued a Mac columnist for printing an IE logo (http://www.macopinion.com/columns/tangible/02/04/ 01/).
.
Ms has also sued bandai for "using their intellectual property" (http://ifaq.wap.org/computers/mstomagotchi.html)
Ms has sued people for gathering up hotmail addresses.
Ms has sued tons of people. What makes you think they won't ever sue for patent infringement. If they feel no shame in suing a high school student then they'll sue for patent infringement.
So in other words people who pronounced apple dead were wrong.
If you go to the supermarket they pull the old "give us your personal information or we will rip you off" routine.
You just can't win.