Good thing homosexual perversions aren't genetic (after all, they would have died out by now if they were). Even still, not everyone is called to matrimony.
If you need sex for unity... well... you have other issues.
Most NATs exist to connect multiple computers to a ISP-limited-to-one-IP connection, not for firewall purposes. If you want a firewall, use a firewall, not a NAT. There is a difference.
The legal system has no authority to be involved with marriage, which is a Sacrament. The Truth is not a wacko cult, despite what nonsense lies you may believe.
A married couple does not need to unite sexually on a regular basis, but until it is done at least once, there is no marriage. However, their marital vows would obviously also be violated if they refused to unite with their spouse ever again-- it would hardly be a total or fruitful commitment.
A purpose of marriage/sex is children. A relationship which does not have children as its goal may be acceptable, but it is not marriage.
The reason for marriage/sex is unity and children. Unity without children does not need marriage/sex. I am defending reason, not discouraging it.
I believe the universal truth, which is equivalent to Catholicism. Not the protestant neo-Catholicism led by Anti-Pope Benedict XVI, note, but real Catholicism.
Proper sex is the physical expression of the free, total, faithful, and fruitful marital vows. It has two necessary purposes: unity and procreation. Any attempt to prevent either purpose violates the marital vows and thus is defiling the Sacrament.
Marriage is a free, total, faithful, and fruitful covenant. To make such vows, one must have the intention of having children (fruitful) if possible. Marriage is also a Sacrament-- the vows are merely the spiritual part. Sexual union itself is the physical, consummating part of the Sacrament. Lacking either is not a marriage.
Nothing about the GPL prevents you from selling it or making money from it. It simply requires you to keep the software licensed morally as the person you obtained it from did.
Free software works similar to an invitation system. If someone wants you to pay $1000 for an invite, find someone else who will invite you for less (or gratis). Freedom to invite others is included with membership!
Only morality deals with right vs wrong.
Legality deals with legal vs illegal.
Ethics deal with norm vs taboo.
Now, regarding the issue in question (exercising your right to share information when the author prefers that only e can share it): Morality: It is right for one to share information and benefits society. It is wrong for the author to try to deny people of their rights. Legally: Copyright law attempts to grant the author the power to deny everyone else of their rights to share information. Sharing information when the author does not want you to is currently illegal. Ethically: Sharing information is the norm in most of the world. Nowhere (AFAIK) is it taboo.
They would if they wanted that private-FDA logo on their product.
I'm sure road companies could come up with a system that works... After all, phone and internet services are mostly privatised and they don't have much of a problem.
There are no mandated standards for the internet, yet people still use them. Sure there are exceptions, but when such exceptions affect the user, such exceptions are usually abandoned.
You whine to the bank. They whine to the FBI.
The thought that the current government acts with our well-being in mind over their power is just as ludicrous. Look at the US government... they pass unjust crap like the Patriot Act and Copyright Law and they somehow get away with it.
The people choosing food so low quality that it is deadly also die out, leaving only those who are smart enough to eat healthy.
And 'we' didn't really elect the government. Idiots who don't even consider these topics we are debating about did.
There are SIP (a standard VoIP protocol) clients for pretty much all platforms... KPhone works well on KDE.
Skype doesn't use any standard protocols, so it's useless for communicating with most VoIP users.
Students would be more likely to afford college on their own if the government didn't take the tax money used to fund such grants.
FDA can be privatised-- food companies pay to get their products checked and are then authorised to use the FDA-approved logo. Let the people have an option to risk non-approved food if they so wish.
Government should not be involved in education, period.
A private company could be responsible for the roads just as easily as government could. There's too many lights as it is, though.
People only care about electrical standards because of what is commonly used by electrical appliances.
You can refuse to use a bank run by idiots w/o cryptography-- they will either adapt or go out of business.
If it's the will of certain people to pay for a chemical database, then those people can pay an annual fee to some private company.
Slashdot Mirror
Good thing homosexual perversions aren't genetic (after all, they would have died out by now if they were). Even still, not everyone is called to matrimony.
If you need sex for unity... well... you have other issues.
Well, most firewalls are useless anyway. Don't run applications/configurations you don't trust.
Most NATs exist to connect multiple computers to a ISP-limited-to-one-IP connection, not for firewall purposes. If you want a firewall, use a firewall, not a NAT. There is a difference.
The legal system has no authority to be involved with marriage, which is a Sacrament. The Truth is not a wacko cult, despite what nonsense lies you may believe.
A married couple does not need to unite sexually on a regular basis, but until it is done at least once, there is no marriage. However, their marital vows would obviously also be violated if they refused to unite with their spouse ever again-- it would hardly be a total or fruitful commitment.
A purpose of marriage/sex is children. A relationship which does not have children as its goal may be acceptable, but it is not marriage.
The reason for marriage/sex is unity and children. Unity without children does not need marriage/sex. I am defending reason, not discouraging it.
I believe the universal truth, which is equivalent to Catholicism. Not the protestant neo-Catholicism led by Anti-Pope Benedict XVI, note, but real Catholicism.
Proper sex is the physical expression of the free, total, faithful, and fruitful marital vows. It has two necessary purposes: unity and procreation. Any attempt to prevent either purpose violates the marital vows and thus is defiling the Sacrament.
W3C does content format standards-- protocols are the IETF's area.
It denies your natural rights to modify it.
Marriage is a free, total, faithful, and fruitful covenant. To make such vows, one must have the intention of having children (fruitful) if possible. Marriage is also a Sacrament-- the vows are merely the spiritual part. Sexual union itself is the physical, consummating part of the Sacrament. Lacking either is not a marriage.
Spousal love is personified in children. A legal "marriage" (such as for tax purposes) isn't really a marriage. Sexual perversions are not sex.
Children are the purpose of marriage... tell me again how they have nothing to do with a topic dealing with marriage?
Also, "same-gender marriage" will always be impossible, simply because they cannot sexually unite.
Nothing about the GPL prevents you from selling it or making money from it. It simply requires you to keep the software licensed morally as the person you obtained it from did.
Free software works similar to an invitation system. If someone wants you to pay $1000 for an invite, find someone else who will invite you for less (or gratis). Freedom to invite others is included with membership!
I think you mean a thesaurus... the dictionary verifies that "free software" is a valid term.
Useful to others, maybe, but not to the person writing it.
The Radeon drivers at least support 3D accel (up to 9200). Compare that with nVidia which does not have 3D accel at all...
(immoral drivers not included in comparison)
Only morality deals with right vs wrong.
Legality deals with legal vs illegal.
Ethics deal with norm vs taboo.
Now, regarding the issue in question (exercising your right to share information when the author prefers that only e can share it):
Morality: It is right for one to share information and benefits society. It is wrong for the author to try to deny people of their rights.
Legally: Copyright law attempts to grant the author the power to deny everyone else of their rights to share information. Sharing information when the author does not want you to is currently illegal.
Ethically: Sharing information is the norm in most of the world. Nowhere (AFAIK) is it taboo.
Most any program will interoperate with itself. Try one of you using some other VoIP program-- in particular, one that uses standard VoIP protocols.
Copyrights are unjust and when given the opportunity, violated in protest regardless of whether it benefits you personally or not.
Go ahead. But mod great-grandparent up. :)
Sounds expensive, at least compared to using standard VoIP protocols for primary phone service. ;)
They would if they wanted that private-FDA logo on their product.
I'm sure road companies could come up with a system that works... After all, phone and internet services are mostly privatised and they don't have much of a problem.
There are no mandated standards for the internet, yet people still use them. Sure there are exceptions, but when such exceptions affect the user, such exceptions are usually abandoned.
You whine to the bank. They whine to the FBI.
The thought that the current government acts with our well-being in mind over their power is just as ludicrous. Look at the US government... they pass unjust crap like the Patriot Act and Copyright Law and they somehow get away with it.
The people choosing food so low quality that it is deadly also die out, leaving only those who are smart enough to eat healthy.
And 'we' didn't really elect the government. Idiots who don't even consider these topics we are debating about did.
There are SIP (a standard VoIP protocol) clients for pretty much all platforms... KPhone works well on KDE. Skype doesn't use any standard protocols, so it's useless for communicating with most VoIP users.
Students would be more likely to afford college on their own if the government didn't take the tax money used to fund such grants.
FDA can be privatised-- food companies pay to get their products checked and are then authorised to use the FDA-approved logo. Let the people have an option to risk non-approved food if they so wish.
Government should not be involved in education, period.
A private company could be responsible for the roads just as easily as government could. There's too many lights as it is, though.
People only care about electrical standards because of what is commonly used by electrical appliances.
You can refuse to use a bank run by idiots w/o cryptography-- they will either adapt or go out of business.
If it's the will of certain people to pay for a chemical database, then those people can pay an annual fee to some private company.
Please! It's not like there's much good coming out of them...
I wish I had modpoints.