I'm pulling for Skyhook. They're not asking to be king. They're asking to compete. Something Google apparently didn't want to do. Sounds familiar. This is a Netscape vs. IE war.
Turf war or no, Google seems to be marching intently away from it's motto, as has been stated. How long can anyone there (Sergey?) continue to stay who might still cling to this motto? It's very tempting, though it would mean moving all of my mail, abandoning feedburner, and no longer using analytics, to leave Google. OTOH, I can't bring myself to use Bing...the other dark meat.:|
Why should anyone care whether or not there's a religiously-inclined search engine? I mean seriously. This has turned into an issue on/. only because anything "religious" is immediately attacked whether it has anything to do with anyone here or not.
Archeological expeditions of the Holy Land depended largely on the Bible. Often, nations thought not to exists were eventually found there. So that there are facts in the Bible is indisputable. What they mean, what evidences they pose to the existence of God is up to the hearer.
"But without opposing views, your chosen view of the world gets ever stronger and - over time - ever more absurd."
So you would advocate the teaching of Intelligent Design? I mean, after all without opposing views your world view gets every stronger.
I have no problem with atheists. But evangelical atheists, yes. Those who not only do not believe in God but actively seek to stop your belief. In the end, both are systems of faith. The original Greek translation for "faith" was simply the noun form of "believe." That we have separated the idea of "faith" and "belief" is really etymologically incorrect.
In the end, if you don't believe in God you have that right. If others do, why should anyone care?
No I just don't see why a browser should be so demanding that you have to tap the GPU to get any speed out of it. It's web browser for crying out loud.
"If it wasn't this, it would be something else."
That doesn't clean their hands. That's the point. Frankly, I don't think western businesses should set up shop in places that abuse their people. Forty years of capitalism in China has done little for human rights. Tienanmen Square was did little more than make the world go, "Bad, bad China!" Which is how the world generally deals with civil rights abuses. Start pulling business out of these places and be done with them. Isolate them like North Korea. How does that help the people? Probably little. But paying lip service to them and shedding crocodile tears seems to make us feel better and does little for them anyway.
If iPhones had been around when my kids were home I'd have had so much ammunition to get them to do more! "Hey, 5 years old kids are making iPhones in China! And you can't do the dishes!?"
But a clearer understanding is that you make disciples of people, not nations. The idea is go into these nations, teach, and make disciples of them. But this is done by changing hearts and minds, not forcing people to become Christians and therefore isn't extreme at all. How were they to make them disciples? By teaching. Not by war, terrorist threats, and force. Christianity understands that one has the right to reject the Gospel as well. "Almost though persuadest me to be a Christian" as recorded in Acts 26:28. Did Paul issue a jihad to force Agrippa to become one? Did he mount a terrorist attack to capture Agrippa and force him to accept discipleship or die? No. So there is no extreme behavior. That others since the first century church have done so in the name of Christ goes back to a previous point, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." Matthew 7:21.
Well contracts taken to a logical extreme could be used to discriminate against say blacks, Hispanics, or anyone else. If not, why not? If I can contractually restrict your freedom of expression then why can I not do so with any other right? In this case, it affects Rackspace in no way shape or form. Whether it did or not is irrelevant. I'm not sure they have a legal leg here. I could be wrong. I'm just saying this could apply to any other right.
First of all, the KKK violate property rights by doing so. We do allow them to do so on their own lawn. As for pedophilia and the like, I haven't seen such labeled as "hate speech" so I have no idea where you're going with that. I would agree with you that people often use the Constitution as a shield. I don't think this rises to that level, though. I think openly discussing the "support" of pedophilia is wrong and certainly not what the founding fathers had in mind to protect. I think a line in the sand can be drawn. This church burning the Quran doesn't begin to compare to pedophilia. Consider me grown!
You might note that one is in quotes and the other is not. My only mistake might be that both should be in quotes or perhaps only "speech" otherwise it's perfectly logical to argue this way. "X is" is simply acknowledging that there are those who alleged it's validity. I go on to explain the superfluity of the notion. Nice try, though. It's this kind of desperate search for technicality that has our country in this predicament in the first place.
Agreed. Remind me never to use Rackspace. There's no such thing as "hate speech." It's a socio-political construct designed to limit Freedom of Speech. Yes, Rackspace may have a right to put such PC lingo in their contract but maybe not. This church may be doing something that is politically incorrect, unwise, and offensive to some people but it's their right. There's probably a lawsuit in there somewhere. It's early, I need coffee, but something about contracting away your rights seems fraught with legal problems.
"It is basic to Christianity that there is one true faith and that Christians will work to eliminate any faith other than Christianity."
I would agree with much of what you say but that. Christians aren't commanded to eliminate other faiths. Rather, to convert the unsaved. It's about changing minds and hearts. The word "eliminate" brings to mind more extreme behavior. That was probably not your intent, though.
OTOH, I'm not sure burning the Quran in this instance is anything more than grandstanding. But I could be wrong. Either way, they have a right to do so and Rackspace embracing the foolish notion of "hate speech" is sad.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pulling for Skyhook. They're not asking to be king. They're asking to compete. Something Google apparently didn't want to do. Sounds familiar. This is a Netscape vs. IE war.
Turf war or no, Google seems to be marching intently away from it's motto, as has been stated. How long can anyone there (Sergey?) continue to stay who might still cling to this motto? It's very tempting, though it would mean moving all of my mail, abandoning feedburner, and no longer using analytics, to leave Google. OTOH, I can't bring myself to use Bing...the other dark meat. :|
Thanks. I just wanted to be clear that you weren't being intellectually honest.
I would agree that people trying to force people to live a certain way is wrong no matter who it is.
Oh brother.
Why should anyone care whether or not there's a religiously-inclined search engine? I mean seriously. This has turned into an issue on /. only because anything "religious" is immediately attacked whether it has anything to do with anyone here or not.
Don't use it. It really doesn't hurt.
Archeological expeditions of the Holy Land depended largely on the Bible. Often, nations thought not to exists were eventually found there. So that there are facts in the Bible is indisputable. What they mean, what evidences they pose to the existence of God is up to the hearer.
"But without opposing views, your chosen view of the world gets ever stronger and - over time - ever more absurd."
So you would advocate the teaching of Intelligent Design? I mean, after all without opposing views your world view gets every stronger.
I'm reminded of the Far Side cartoon of the two fleas deep in the jungle of hair on a dog and one says, "I really don't believe there is a dog."
Oh c'mon, it's funny!
I have no problem with atheists. But evangelical atheists, yes. Those who not only do not believe in God but actively seek to stop your belief. In the end, both are systems of faith. The original Greek translation for "faith" was simply the noun form of "believe." That we have separated the idea of "faith" and "belief" is really etymologically incorrect.
In the end, if you don't believe in God you have that right. If others do, why should anyone care?
No. You know why? You don't have to use it. WTF?
No I just don't see why a browser should be so demanding that you have to tap the GPU to get any speed out of it. It's web browser for crying out loud.
What I'm reading is "Our browser is so fat we have to tap the GPU to make it appear fast." Frankly, bloat is nothing to be proud of.
"If it wasn't this, it would be something else."
That doesn't clean their hands. That's the point. Frankly, I don't think western businesses should set up shop in places that abuse their people. Forty years of capitalism in China has done little for human rights. Tienanmen Square was did little more than make the world go, "Bad, bad China!" Which is how the world generally deals with civil rights abuses. Start pulling business out of these places and be done with them. Isolate them like North Korea. How does that help the people? Probably little. But paying lip service to them and shedding crocodile tears seems to make us feel better and does little for them anyway.
"but we are open to feedback on what we can do to improve in that regard.'"
Of course, such feedback might make you a target but hey...
Microsoft is inherently evil. Like kicking puppies.
Every watch an incandescent light blow? Yeah, pretty benign and rarely does the bulb explode. CFL's can do some alarming things when they die.
Had we known they were THAT wise, would we have been so cavalier about pulling them?
If iPhones had been around when my kids were home I'd have had so much ammunition to get them to do more! "Hey, 5 years old kids are making iPhones in China! And you can't do the dishes!?"
But a clearer understanding is that you make disciples of people, not nations. The idea is go into these nations, teach, and make disciples of them. But this is done by changing hearts and minds, not forcing people to become Christians and therefore isn't extreme at all. How were they to make them disciples? By teaching. Not by war, terrorist threats, and force. Christianity understands that one has the right to reject the Gospel as well. "Almost though persuadest me to be a Christian" as recorded in Acts 26:28. Did Paul issue a jihad to force Agrippa to become one? Did he mount a terrorist attack to capture Agrippa and force him to accept discipleship or die? No. So there is no extreme behavior. That others since the first century church have done so in the name of Christ goes back to a previous point, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." Matthew 7:21.
Well contracts taken to a logical extreme could be used to discriminate against say blacks, Hispanics, or anyone else. If not, why not? If I can contractually restrict your freedom of expression then why can I not do so with any other right? In this case, it affects Rackspace in no way shape or form. Whether it did or not is irrelevant. I'm not sure they have a legal leg here. I could be wrong. I'm just saying this could apply to any other right.
First of all, the KKK violate property rights by doing so. We do allow them to do so on their own lawn. As for pedophilia and the like, I haven't seen such labeled as "hate speech" so I have no idea where you're going with that. I would agree with you that people often use the Constitution as a shield. I don't think this rises to that level, though. I think openly discussing the "support" of pedophilia is wrong and certainly not what the founding fathers had in mind to protect. I think a line in the sand can be drawn. This church burning the Quran doesn't begin to compare to pedophilia. Consider me grown!
You might note that one is in quotes and the other is not. My only mistake might be that both should be in quotes or perhaps only "speech" otherwise it's perfectly logical to argue this way. "X is" is simply acknowledging that there are those who alleged it's validity. I go on to explain the superfluity of the notion. Nice try, though. It's this kind of desperate search for technicality that has our country in this predicament in the first place.
Agreed. Remind me never to use Rackspace. There's no such thing as "hate speech." It's a socio-political construct designed to limit Freedom of Speech. Yes, Rackspace may have a right to put such PC lingo in their contract but maybe not. This church may be doing something that is politically incorrect, unwise, and offensive to some people but it's their right. There's probably a lawsuit in there somewhere. It's early, I need coffee, but something about contracting away your rights seems fraught with legal problems.
"It is basic to Christianity that there is one true faith and that Christians will work to eliminate any faith other than Christianity."
I would agree with much of what you say but that. Christians aren't commanded to eliminate other faiths. Rather, to convert the unsaved. It's about changing minds and hearts. The word "eliminate" brings to mind more extreme behavior. That was probably not your intent, though.
OTOH, I'm not sure burning the Quran in this instance is anything more than grandstanding. But I could be wrong. Either way, they have a right to do so and Rackspace embracing the foolish notion of "hate speech" is sad.
Then a lot of people are going through a lot of trouble for nothing.