In an ideal world, perhaps. In our actual world, the government places many restrictions on our use of our own property, especially so as to prohibit discrimination. For instance, by your theory, private landlords could choose who they rent to, using any criteria they desire; but in reality, in the U.S. anyhow, there are certain criteria one cannot use: you can't refuse to rent to people on the basis of race or homosexuality. Ought you to be able to? I'm not at all sure.
Unfortunately, public universities do it, too. When I was at the University of Vermont, students were told, in no uncertain terms (during Freshman orientation, and reminded constantly thereafter), that politically incorrect speech (actually, I believe they used the term "socially insensitive") would be grounds for suspension or expulsion. When anyone objected: "Free speech!", they told us "the first amendment doesn't apply on school grounds." Anything that was contrary to their definition of "diversity" was considered off-limits.
I remember being grilled for a solid hour by a R.A. as a freshman, after I made a misguided remark to a roommate that I was avoiding the area in front of the library on a particular day, because of the gay rights rally being staged there. I used no hateful language, and merely expressed disagreement with the point of the rally, but it was enough to get me a serious talking-to when he ratted on me. After that, I kept my mouth shut.
Would it have held up in court? I don't know, but no one really wanted to chance it. It was like living in the USSR: you had to be very careful about what you said, and to whom. For the most part, you kept you opinions to yourself.
That being said, the student in question here crossed a line by insulting professors in public. There is a profound difference between regulating ideas, and regulating the manner in which those ideas are expressed.
I'm so sick of seeing "The Vatican says" stories based on a single, so-called spokesman's non-authoritative statement. "The Vatican," in this sense, used to mean statements of the Pope or authoritative congregations, such as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly known as the Holy Office). A single Cardinal, even if he is the head of a largely meaningless council, such as the Council for Culture, never speaks for "The Vatican."
It's not commonly known, even amongst Catholics, that, aside from the CDF and the Pope himself, none of the various Vatican congregations, councils, and commissions, let alone their individual members, have any authority, whatsoever in matters of doctrine. Even informal statements of the Pope are not binding on Catholics to believe, though they deserve respect, because of the authority of the office.
People on both sides of this issue need to stop listening to sound-bites from nobodies, even Cardinal nobodies, and examine the issue on the basis of the Perpetual Magisterium of the Church. Look at the teachings of Fathers and Doctors of the Church, the decrees of the ecumenical councils, and the bulls and briefs of popes throughout Christian history. One thing is for sure: what the Church has ever taught, She still teaches, and always will; most anything else is open to speculation.
I wasn't taking issue with the date, I was simply mentioning, as an aside, that there has been controversy surrounding radiocarbon. You're right, in most cases, especially this recent, it's a good estimate.
Our discovery indicates that noodles were first produced in China
Although I would tend to agree with that theory, this is badly worded, to the verge of being a logical fallacy. It would be better to say that the discovery "rules out the Italians and Arabs," since those cultures post-date these noodles (assuming the accuracy of the dating, despite radiocarbon's vulnerability to contamination). The discovery does not prove that some earlier culture didn't have noodles first. We can only say we have no evidence for an earlier existence.
Well, I only learned about it myself last year, when I was trying to find out if I could make crucible steel in my backyard (the answer: yes, in theory, but not a good idea unless you have lots of experience with smelting). I had known the Arabs had steel swords at the time of the Crusades, but didn't know about anything further back than that. Most people aren't taught much about pre-1840s steel production, I guess because it wasn't mass-production (which is all that seems to matter nowadays). I think the first mention of steel most people (in America anyway) get in school is John Deere's steel plow, but it's rarely conveyed that he made that plow out of old saw-blades. It does tend to leave the impression that steel was new at that time.
Careful there. Some of the metric crowd get insulted if you don't call it "Celsius." Of couse, to be truly S.I. it'd have to be Kelvins, anyhow. Honestly, some people can't be bothered with a little arithmetic.
Not true. While the more efficient means of mass-producing steel (open-hearth, Bessemer process, etc.) were developed in the XIX century, steel was known, though very rare, in the ancient world. It was first developed in China, ca. 500 B.C., and was being made in India possibly by 300 B.C. However, it was not common in Europe until the late middle ages. If it hadn't been invented before the 1800s, as you claimed, we wouldn't have had wheel-lock and flintlock firearms in the XVII century.
As to whether Archimedes had steel available to him, it would seem much more doubtful, but not impossible.
Very true. I highly doubt that RMS will do anything rash here. If he does, it just means some people will either put up with minor inconveniences, or switch to BSDL or some such instead. It's not the end of the world. Frankly, I think Greve kind of put his foot in his mouth (or had it inserted for him by dimwitted reporters: take your pick).
Yeah, but quotes can be muffed (and not just taken out of context, either). I know MS isn't as involved in the network now, but I still don't trust the quality of their reporting (compared to CNN or even CNBC). I hadn't seen El Reg yet today, as I read/. first. Their story seems a bit different, tough.
...to tax everybody for everything just smacks of totalitarianism.
Specifically, it smacks of communism (which is just great, given that we've been trying to counter the "free software is communistic" argument for years). Oh well, like others have said, I'll wait for a better source than MSNBC before I start running around like a chicken with it's head cut off.
Honestly? I really have no way to know: I haven't researched the issue for myself. I know there are people who don't believe it, but I don't know any personally. The TSE issue is one I have researched, and am close too, as my family has raised sheep since 1984. I've learned a lot from USDA ispectors and also from my professors when I was an Animal Science student in college. I'm Catholic and un-married, so I'm not sexually active; therefore AIDS has never been a concern of mine. TSE's, on the other hand, are a major concern for anyone raising ruminant livestock right now.
That is the government-enodrsed theory, yes. I personally know researchers and physicians who remain unconvinced. Too much of the research is affected by cauality fallacies, as well as questionable assumptions stemming from the lack of sufficient research on CJD prior to the BSE outbreak.
Firstly, "Mad Cow Disease" is not CJD. "Mad Cow Disease," is Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), a so-called Transmisable Spongiform Encephalopathy. TSE's occur in several species, including sheep and goats ("scrapie"), deer (Chronic Wasting Disease, or CWD), cattle, and man. CJD is a TSE which occurs in humans, as is Kuru, a disease found in the cannibals of New Guinea. To date, no proof has ever been found that a TSE can jump species, indeed, scrapie, in particular, is known not to be transmisable to man, or even cattle (except, perhaps, under higly-modified labratory conditions). In fact bio-feedback seems unlikely as the culprit, since that practice was common in many countries where BSE has not, or has only lately, occurred.
Bio-feedback is, IMHO, a canard. You say the governments are ignoring the source, but they have significantly curtailed bio-feedback. It is my belief that the blame was put on bio-feedback (a barbaric practice, to be sure, but probably not the cause of BSE) in order to avoid putting it on the real culprits: the chemical industry.
Prions are one possible cause for TSE's, but not the only possibility. While we can be fairly certain that prions are linked to TSE's, there is, as yet, no solid proof of causation. Life-long Vegitarians have contracted CJD, and the most common route seems to be person-to-person, though body fluids (not just blood).
A more probable culprit, according to not a few researchers, veterinarians, and physicians, is that pesticide residues have created chemical, or possibly genetic anomalies, which are the root cause of the TSE. These anomalies are also resonsible for the abnormal proteins (prions) produced in select individuals.
What we really need, more than a test for prions, is solid research that isn't funded by argi-business - research which can honestly examine the potential role of pesticide residues, in search of proof of a cause of TSE's. We also need less public hyteria (mostly the fault of the goverment and media) and more straightforward information. The fact may well be that eating mad-cow beef will not cause CJD. The culprit in any one case may just as likely be pesticide-contaminated vegitables, or a one-night stand - we just don't know yet.
Of all the religions, I suspect catholics are the most ignorant of there own theology
Case in point. Evolution is not part of Catholic doctrine. One interpretation of Catholic dogma allows for belief in limited aspects of evolution (theistic evolution). One of the caveats, even according to this, the most liberal interpretation, is that the human soul cannot be held to be the product of evolution from apes or any other form of life. It must be held to be a special creation of God for the first human. Secondly, it is demonstrably certain (as far as dogma goes), that there was but one man, "Adam" - the first human (and not a whole race of "Adam"s - and that the first woman, "Eve," was formed miraculously from his body.
The whole point, however is openly contested amongst theologians, and theistic evolution is, at most, an acceptable, but probably not preffered theory for Catholics. As was made clear by Leo XIII, in Providentissimus Deus (1893), the preffered position (in all such matters of interpretation) must always be that of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, a position which overwhelmingly supports a literal interpretation of Genesis. Only where absolute proof (by which is meant proof by Thomistic/Aristotilean philosophical standards, not modern scientific "proof") exists of the wrongness of the Patristic interpretation, may it be abandoned in good faith.
Some like to use John Paul II's statement against the Traditional position, but this is misguided at best. The statement in question was in an address to the Pontifical Academy for the Sciences, a body composed of both Catholics and non-Catholics and lacking any doctrinal authority whatsoever. Secondly, the speech was written for the pope by the Academy itself, and thus cannot be attributed to him any more than the "Queen's Speech" can be to Her Majesty. Thirdly, the language is vague, as the English translation potentially flawed. Lastly, these points aside, this statement has no more force of doctrine than any other off-the-cuff statement by a pope. As a further blow, the present Holy Father has made several remarks which seem to distance himself from this oft-quoted statement of his predeccesor (and even some of his own, earlier statements).
Also often invoked are decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission from, IIRC, 1994, which seem to support a non-literal reading of Genesis. However, here as well, these are decisions from a body with no doctrinal authority (as made clear the former Cardinal Ratzinger, whilst in his former post). The PBC did have binding authority once upon a time, before the re-organization of the Curia by Paul VI. Many Catholics would be shocked to know that there are binding decisions of the PBC, which still stand, that contradict many of the claims of liberal Biblical scholars. For instance: it is a binding teaching of the Church that Moses actually wrote the Pentateuch, and that the first ten chapters of Genesis are not a mere collection of "legends."
The Cardinal Archbishop's position is, in fact, an example of the most liberal interpratation of doctrine permitted to a Catholic. To believe anything more radical would be considered a grave theological and moral error. In truth, a number of theologians believe even this position is beyond the bounds of sound Catholic teaching.
It certainly happens alot, doesn't it? Not just the big companies (nVIDIA, Corel, Sun, etc.), either. I've read about individuals who wrote good Windows freeware (Pegasus Mail, for one) getting hate mail, simply because they hadn't supported Linux yet, or had expressed concerns about OSS because of the GPL. I can understand polite requests, but hate mail is not acceptable. It make's me sick to hear about that.
I see your point, but I think you're seeing something that is mostly a specific issue with the FSF/GNU community rather than the OSS community. There are important differences in philosophy here.
The technical issues with closed-source drivers aside, I don't think most advocates of OSS are opposed to closed-source software if it's better or willing to play nicely with others. The FSF crowd, on the other hand, believes closed-source to be morally wrong. They are entitled to that opinion, even if I disagree. Since RMS wrote the GPL, that is how the GPL comes at things. Don't make the mistake of equating OSS with GPL, though: there are lots of other licenses, almost all less restrictive than the GPL, that classify as open-source. *cough*Berkeley*cough*
The fact is that even Linus himself isn't as hardline as the FSF. If he were, the situation you describe, where proprietary modules didn't work, might already have come to pass.
The present love-affair with Linux aside, though, I do agree that this is an issue that will need to be confronted. Many software producers are leary of the GPL, in particular, and it has affected their perception of OSS as a whole. Makers of good software, that just happens to be closed-source, have often recieved hate-mail over that fact. That can't continue. It gives the whole movement a black eye.
Personally, I think the BSD's and the Open Source Initiative (and Linus himself) have been on the right track: singing the praises of OSS on it's technical and economic merits, not on the basis of some hippie pipe dream (yeah, I said it - there goes my kharma, I guess, too). OSS advocates are going to have to realize, however, that there is a breach with FSF/GNU partisans on this matter, and that we are going to be perpetually at odds with them. We need to make it clear to the general public that they don't speak for the OSS movement. If that means avoiding the GPL and using another license, such as Berkeley, MIT, or Mozilla, just to get the point across, then maybe that's what we ought to do.
We are shifting our schedule so that we have more daylight during the majority of people's waking hours.
Living in Vermont (which has DST), I can say that the problem is that this really only works from May-July. In April, and from August to October, "daylight savings" just means it's now dark when you get up instead of in the evening. You still use those same resources, you just use them in the morning instead of at night.
This will only be aggrivated by extending DST. In November, it won't be light until well after people are at work, so the resources we aren't using in the evening, will just be being used by business instead. In adition, some of the worst consumers of power are things like street lighting that are totally unaffected by DST, as they are on whenever it's dark. Plus, around here, March and November are so grey and rainy/snowy that it might as well be dark all day half the time, as far as lighting use is concerned. As it is, we dread the start of DST, and are really itching for it to be over with by late August.
Also, as the article noted, this means children will be walking to school in the dark, a major problem in the northeast (and, I imagine, the midwest and northern plains as well), where the winters are so harsh. It can be awfully cold here before the sun comes up, not to mention the danger from cars and snowplows. This will likely require commiting more resources to make sure they reach the school in safety (such as bus use even in village areas, or more children being driven to work).
Lastly, the whole system is discriminatory towards people who work nights and towards "morning people." A lot of people have their morale and work ethic deeply affected by having get up and go to work in the dark. I would love to see a study that examines just how much better people perfom when they don't have to get up well before the sun.
On the whole, having seen it in use my whole life, I see extending DST as having little, if any, real world net benefit (and am sceptical about any gross benefit). In fact, I am very concerned about the negative impact it will have in many spheres (not just in computing, which I can deal with).
PS: For the record, I am an economic moderate-conseravtive (less ultra- than I once was), and and strong social conservative (yet rather libertarian about it). No sissy liberal here.;-)
...other than to determine, of course, what tomorrow's horiscope brings
Even then there would be no point. Mundane astrology (the kind concerned with horoscopes) has never accounted for the precession of the equinoxes. Therefore, the tables (which are based on tables from Babylonia over two-thousand years old) have long since ceased to have any relation to the actual positions of the stars.
Perhaps they mean natural astrology, which, IIRC, is an old term for astronomy.
While were at it, though others have probably noticed as well, the reason we can see these planets is not because they are "big enough," it's that they are close enough. Uranus and Neptune are much bigger than Mercury, but we don't usually notice them with the naked eye (though it is possible under ideal conditions).
Not quite. Their land was taken by the doctrine of "terra nullus": it was considered unsettled territory, because many of the tribes didn't cultivate the land (cultivation being the key component of settlement according to classical thought). Other parts of it (mostly the "settled" parts) were taken by legitimate purchase (albeit at prices we may now consider unfair). The rest was taken by conquest (which, like it or not, was considered legal in the pre-U.N. era). I'm not aware of any major incidence of taking tribal land by emminent domain.
Your point is taken, though. I'm not sure it's going to be about voting, next though. More likely it'll be about control of "undesireables": Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, Catholics, Arabs (especially, but not exclusively, Muslim Arabs), Wiccans, the poor in general, etc. They've set the stage to re-establish segregation on a scale even grander than before; and this time it'll be nation-wide, not just the South. Then, maybe, comes voting, but they'll have to be careful with that one: the false belief that our vote matters is one of the chief means of control they have over us.
As for the statement about the Republicans, as much as I distrust them, this one isn't their fault. The conservative justices on the court were opposed to this, it was the liberals (read: Democrats, or in this case "Communists") who screwed us here.
Well, as I said, the cops will take cases to court that they can't win. Thankfully, most of these cases will come out alright in the end (well, if you consider spending a small fortune on legal fees and having to endure the experience of being an accused paedophile in jail, etc., to be "alright," that is), as long as the defendant doesn't let law-enforcement badger him/her into taking a plea bargain.
Sadly, the worst part may be living down the stigma in one's community after the fact: everyone remembers you were arrested, but no one cares that you were acquited.
I don't know about the law where you are, but I think the law in most jurisdictions takes into account whether you attemped to "destroy" the material or not (I know it does in mine, anyhow: I looked it up). As I understand it, deletion from your computer counts as an attempt to destroy, so one would not be held liable for possession in that case. Note that it is the "attempt" to destroy that counts, not success; so a deleted file that's still sitting there for lack of the filesystem having overwritten it yet won't get you in trouble.
Despite that, the police tend to be very agressive, even overzealous, in prosecuting "kiddie porn," especially in some areas. They seem to regularly bring charges even when they have a weak (or even virtually non-existant) case, in the hopes of hounding someone into a plea bargain. Judges seem to let them get away with it, too.
My best guess is that, unless the police have some other reason to search your machine (really search it, in their own lab), you needn't worry. If they wan't to get you for something already (e.g., drugs), then you might want to do some low-level cleaning. In your case, since it's been a few years, the files have almost certainly been overwritten, maybe more than once.
All that said, IANAL. I'm also not a paedophile, which would be the other group of people that would actually know all the in's and out's of the law on this matter. Therefore, "your mileage may vary."
Personally, I don't think the cache ought to be considered "possession," for the reasons you've just discribed. Still, from a technical perspective, when you view a web page, you do possess a copy of it, so the interpretation of the law is understandable. Since you generally recieve it sight-unseen, however, justice demands that you be allowed to claim ignorance of the content. Also, because so many people are ingnorant of their cache, the cache contents ought not be used as evidence, at least, not on their own.
This is the beta. It's been going on for 25 years. The current space shuttles, as designed, were never meant to be a long-term solution, but lack of funding meant they began to be treated as one well before the Challenger disaster. Rather than realize this fact at that time, Congress has continued to refuse the funding NASA would need to move on to the next generation of shuttle (and really "go gold" with the program). The result was the Columbia disaster. If the program had moved forward as intended, Columbia (and the rest of these beta-shuttles) would have been long since retired.
As to the overall stupidity of that comment, believe it or not, someone has to do the beta testing here. Yeah, it's a tragedy when lives are lost, but that's the nature of the space program: risks have to be taken, because some things just can't be done without real-world testing. Even when the space program is no longer experimental, lives will still be lost, because space, in and of itself, is a high-risk venture.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, public universities do it, too. When I was at the University of Vermont, students were told, in no uncertain terms (during Freshman orientation, and reminded constantly thereafter), that politically incorrect speech (actually, I believe they used the term "socially insensitive") would be grounds for suspension or expulsion. When anyone objected: "Free speech!", they told us "the first amendment doesn't apply on school grounds." Anything that was contrary to their definition of "diversity" was considered off-limits.
I remember being grilled for a solid hour by a R.A. as a freshman, after I made a misguided remark to a roommate that I was avoiding the area in front of the library on a particular day, because of the gay rights rally being staged there. I used no hateful language, and merely expressed disagreement with the point of the rally, but it was enough to get me a serious talking-to when he ratted on me. After that, I kept my mouth shut.
Would it have held up in court? I don't know, but no one really wanted to chance it. It was like living in the USSR: you had to be very careful about what you said, and to whom. For the most part, you kept you opinions to yourself.
That being said, the student in question here crossed a line by insulting professors in public. There is a profound difference between regulating ideas, and regulating the manner in which those ideas are expressed.
I think that would be "wretched." ;) Besides, IRC makes USENET look like the Ewok village by comparison.
It's not commonly known, even amongst Catholics, that, aside from the CDF and the Pope himself, none of the various Vatican congregations, councils, and commissions, let alone their individual members, have any authority, whatsoever in matters of doctrine. Even informal statements of the Pope are not binding on Catholics to believe, though they deserve respect, because of the authority of the office.
People on both sides of this issue need to stop listening to sound-bites from nobodies, even Cardinal nobodies, and examine the issue on the basis of the Perpetual Magisterium of the Church. Look at the teachings of Fathers and Doctors of the Church, the decrees of the ecumenical councils, and the bulls and briefs of popes throughout Christian history. One thing is for sure: what the Church has ever taught, She still teaches, and always will; most anything else is open to speculation.
I wasn't taking issue with the date, I was simply mentioning, as an aside, that there has been controversy surrounding radiocarbon. You're right, in most cases, especially this recent, it's a good estimate.
Although I would tend to agree with that theory, this is badly worded, to the verge of being a logical fallacy. It would be better to say that the discovery "rules out the Italians and Arabs," since those cultures post-date these noodles (assuming the accuracy of the dating, despite radiocarbon's vulnerability to contamination). The discovery does not prove that some earlier culture didn't have noodles first. We can only say we have no evidence for an earlier existence.
I plead tiredness. :) I was aiming at helpful, but my tone may have come up a bit short of the mark. Nice summary!
Well, I only learned about it myself last year, when I was trying to find out if I could make crucible steel in my backyard (the answer: yes, in theory, but not a good idea unless you have lots of experience with smelting). I had known the Arabs had steel swords at the time of the Crusades, but didn't know about anything further back than that. Most people aren't taught much about pre-1840s steel production, I guess because it wasn't mass-production (which is all that seems to matter nowadays). I think the first mention of steel most people (in America anyway) get in school is John Deere's steel plow, but it's rarely conveyed that he made that plow out of old saw-blades. It does tend to leave the impression that steel was new at that time.
Careful there. Some of the metric crowd get insulted if you don't call it "Celsius." Of couse, to be truly S.I. it'd have to be Kelvins, anyhow. Honestly, some people can't be bothered with a little arithmetic.
As to whether Archimedes had steel available to him, it would seem much more doubtful, but not impossible.
Very true. I highly doubt that RMS will do anything rash here. If he does, it just means some people will either put up with minor inconveniences, or switch to BSDL or some such instead. It's not the end of the world. Frankly, I think Greve kind of put his foot in his mouth (or had it inserted for him by dimwitted reporters: take your pick).
Yeah, but quotes can be muffed (and not just taken out of context, either). I know MS isn't as involved in the network now, but I still don't trust the quality of their reporting (compared to CNN or even CNBC). I hadn't seen El Reg yet today, as I read /. first. Their story seems a bit different, tough.
Honestly? I really have no way to know: I haven't researched the issue for myself. I know there are people who don't believe it, but I don't know any personally. The TSE issue is one I have researched, and am close too, as my family has raised sheep since 1984. I've learned a lot from USDA ispectors and also from my professors when I was an Animal Science student in college. I'm Catholic and un-married, so I'm not sexually active; therefore AIDS has never been a concern of mine. TSE's, on the other hand, are a major concern for anyone raising ruminant livestock right now.
That is the government-enodrsed theory, yes. I personally know researchers and physicians who remain unconvinced. Too much of the research is affected by cauality fallacies, as well as questionable assumptions stemming from the lack of sufficient research on CJD prior to the BSE outbreak.
Bio-feedback is, IMHO, a canard. You say the governments are ignoring the source, but they have significantly curtailed bio-feedback. It is my belief that the blame was put on bio-feedback (a barbaric practice, to be sure, but probably not the cause of BSE) in order to avoid putting it on the real culprits: the chemical industry.
Prions are one possible cause for TSE's, but not the only possibility. While we can be fairly certain that prions are linked to TSE's, there is, as yet, no solid proof of causation. Life-long Vegitarians have contracted CJD, and the most common route seems to be person-to-person, though body fluids (not just blood).
A more probable culprit, according to not a few researchers, veterinarians, and physicians, is that pesticide residues have created chemical, or possibly genetic anomalies, which are the root cause of the TSE. These anomalies are also resonsible for the abnormal proteins (prions) produced in select individuals.
What we really need, more than a test for prions, is solid research that isn't funded by argi-business - research which can honestly examine the potential role of pesticide residues, in search of proof of a cause of TSE's. We also need less public hyteria (mostly the fault of the goverment and media) and more straightforward information. The fact may well be that eating mad-cow beef will not cause CJD. The culprit in any one case may just as likely be pesticide-contaminated vegitables, or a one-night stand - we just don't know yet.
The whole point, however is openly contested amongst theologians, and theistic evolution is, at most, an acceptable, but probably not preffered theory for Catholics. As was made clear by Leo XIII, in Providentissimus Deus (1893), the preffered position (in all such matters of interpretation) must always be that of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, a position which overwhelmingly supports a literal interpretation of Genesis. Only where absolute proof (by which is meant proof by Thomistic/Aristotilean philosophical standards, not modern scientific "proof") exists of the wrongness of the Patristic interpretation, may it be abandoned in good faith.
Some like to use John Paul II's statement against the Traditional position, but this is misguided at best. The statement in question was in an address to the Pontifical Academy for the Sciences, a body composed of both Catholics and non-Catholics and lacking any doctrinal authority whatsoever. Secondly, the speech was written for the pope by the Academy itself, and thus cannot be attributed to him any more than the "Queen's Speech" can be to Her Majesty. Thirdly, the language is vague, as the English translation potentially flawed. Lastly, these points aside, this statement has no more force of doctrine than any other off-the-cuff statement by a pope. As a further blow, the present Holy Father has made several remarks which seem to distance himself from this oft-quoted statement of his predeccesor (and even some of his own, earlier statements).
Also often invoked are decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission from, IIRC, 1994, which seem to support a non-literal reading of Genesis. However, here as well, these are decisions from a body with no doctrinal authority (as made clear the former Cardinal Ratzinger, whilst in his former post). The PBC did have binding authority once upon a time, before the re-organization of the Curia by Paul VI. Many Catholics would be shocked to know that there are binding decisions of the PBC, which still stand, that contradict many of the claims of liberal Biblical scholars. For instance: it is a binding teaching of the Church that Moses actually wrote the Pentateuch, and that the first ten chapters of Genesis are not a mere collection of "legends."
The Cardinal Archbishop's position is, in fact, an example of the most liberal interpratation of doctrine permitted to a Catholic. To believe anything more radical would be considered a grave theological and moral error. In truth, a number of theologians believe even this position is beyond the bounds of sound Catholic teaching.
It certainly happens alot, doesn't it? Not just the big companies (nVIDIA, Corel, Sun, etc.), either. I've read about individuals who wrote good Windows freeware (Pegasus Mail, for one) getting hate mail, simply because they hadn't supported Linux yet, or had expressed concerns about OSS because of the GPL. I can understand polite requests, but hate mail is not acceptable. It make's me sick to hear about that.
The technical issues with closed-source drivers aside, I don't think most advocates of OSS are opposed to closed-source software if it's better or willing to play nicely with others. The FSF crowd, on the other hand, believes closed-source to be morally wrong. They are entitled to that opinion, even if I disagree. Since RMS wrote the GPL, that is how the GPL comes at things. Don't make the mistake of equating OSS with GPL, though: there are lots of other licenses, almost all less restrictive than the GPL, that classify as open-source. *cough*Berkeley*cough*
The fact is that even Linus himself isn't as hardline as the FSF. If he were, the situation you describe, where proprietary modules didn't work, might already have come to pass.
The present love-affair with Linux aside, though, I do agree that this is an issue that will need to be confronted. Many software producers are leary of the GPL, in particular, and it has affected their perception of OSS as a whole. Makers of good software, that just happens to be closed-source, have often recieved hate-mail over that fact. That can't continue. It gives the whole movement a black eye.
Personally, I think the BSD's and the Open Source Initiative (and Linus himself) have been on the right track: singing the praises of OSS on it's technical and economic merits, not on the basis of some hippie pipe dream (yeah, I said it - there goes my kharma, I guess, too). OSS advocates are going to have to realize, however, that there is a breach with FSF/GNU partisans on this matter, and that we are going to be perpetually at odds with them. We need to make it clear to the general public that they don't speak for the OSS movement. If that means avoiding the GPL and using another license, such as Berkeley, MIT, or Mozilla, just to get the point across, then maybe that's what we ought to do.
This will only be aggrivated by extending DST. In November, it won't be light until well after people are at work, so the resources we aren't using in the evening, will just be being used by business instead. In adition, some of the worst consumers of power are things like street lighting that are totally unaffected by DST, as they are on whenever it's dark. Plus, around here, March and November are so grey and rainy/snowy that it might as well be dark all day half the time, as far as lighting use is concerned. As it is, we dread the start of DST, and are really itching for it to be over with by late August.
Also, as the article noted, this means children will be walking to school in the dark, a major problem in the northeast (and, I imagine, the midwest and northern plains as well), where the winters are so harsh. It can be awfully cold here before the sun comes up, not to mention the danger from cars and snowplows. This will likely require commiting more resources to make sure they reach the school in safety (such as bus use even in village areas, or more children being driven to work).
Lastly, the whole system is discriminatory towards people who work nights and towards "morning people." A lot of people have their morale and work ethic deeply affected by having get up and go to work in the dark. I would love to see a study that examines just how much better people perfom when they don't have to get up well before the sun.
On the whole, having seen it in use my whole life, I see extending DST as having little, if any, real world net benefit (and am sceptical about any gross benefit). In fact, I am very concerned about the negative impact it will have in many spheres (not just in computing, which I can deal with).
PS: For the record, I am an economic moderate-conseravtive (less ultra- than I once was), and and strong social conservative (yet rather libertarian about it). No sissy liberal here. ;-)
One problem with that: It makes too damn much sense.
Perhaps they mean natural astrology, which, IIRC, is an old term for astronomy.
While were at it, though others have probably noticed as well, the reason we can see these planets is not because they are "big enough," it's that they are close enough. Uranus and Neptune are much bigger than Mercury, but we don't usually notice them with the naked eye (though it is possible under ideal conditions).
Your point is taken, though. I'm not sure it's going to be about voting, next though. More likely it'll be about control of "undesireables": Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, Catholics, Arabs (especially, but not exclusively, Muslim Arabs), Wiccans, the poor in general, etc. They've set the stage to re-establish segregation on a scale even grander than before; and this time it'll be nation-wide, not just the South. Then, maybe, comes voting, but they'll have to be careful with that one: the false belief that our vote matters is one of the chief means of control they have over us.
As for the statement about the Republicans, as much as I distrust them, this one isn't their fault. The conservative justices on the court were opposed to this, it was the liberals (read: Democrats, or in this case "Communists") who screwed us here.
Well, as I said, the cops will take cases to court that they can't win. Thankfully, most of these cases will come out alright in the end (well, if you consider spending a small fortune on legal fees and having to endure the experience of being an accused paedophile in jail, etc., to be "alright," that is), as long as the defendant doesn't let law-enforcement badger him/her into taking a plea bargain.
Sadly, the worst part may be living down the stigma in one's community after the fact: everyone remembers you were arrested, but no one cares that you were acquited.
Despite that, the police tend to be very agressive, even overzealous, in prosecuting "kiddie porn," especially in some areas. They seem to regularly bring charges even when they have a weak (or even virtually non-existant) case, in the hopes of hounding someone into a plea bargain. Judges seem to let them get away with it, too.
My best guess is that, unless the police have some other reason to search your machine (really search it, in their own lab), you needn't worry. If they wan't to get you for something already (e.g., drugs), then you might want to do some low-level cleaning. In your case, since it's been a few years, the files have almost certainly been overwritten, maybe more than once.
All that said, IANAL. I'm also not a paedophile, which would be the other group of people that would actually know all the in's and out's of the law on this matter. Therefore, "your mileage may vary."
Personally, I don't think the cache ought to be considered "possession," for the reasons you've just discribed. Still, from a technical perspective, when you view a web page, you do possess a copy of it, so the interpretation of the law is understandable. Since you generally recieve it sight-unseen, however, justice demands that you be allowed to claim ignorance of the content. Also, because so many people are ingnorant of their cache, the cache contents ought not be used as evidence, at least, not on their own.
As to the overall stupidity of that comment, believe it or not, someone has to do the beta testing here. Yeah, it's a tragedy when lives are lost, but that's the nature of the space program: risks have to be taken, because some things just can't be done without real-world testing. Even when the space program is no longer experimental, lives will still be lost, because space, in and of itself, is a high-risk venture.