I should offer one more comment here. I *do not* have good website development skills. I *do* have a prepublishing company. I think that starting a journal and publishing it would be well within the range of possibility and practicability, but what we do not have is money.
So the only way I could publish a journal would be if there were enough subscribers and/or advertisers to cover the cost of page layout and publication. Initially, that would mean black and white print, "text ads", minimal layout, small print, and such. I would be willing to do this, as long as I got as much out of it as it cost me [that is, paper, and I and my family and our workers continue eating].
But there are other prepublishers out there, as well. Any of them could do the job, probably for a similar price. Some could do it for free. But no matter who does it, I really think that paper publishing still needs to be done, both for idea distribution and for the reassurance that the ideas aren't being patented.
If you are doing the publishing, then there are a bunch of methods that can help, including: compiling all information to CD ISO images; printing to polyester paper on an HP DJ5000, and using the polyester paper as an offset print plate; each idea gets its own index number, and the index numbers are then entered into the appropriate classifications. That's for starters.
But I can say immediately that this can't be done without a good web development team, as well [something which I cannot do]. Businesses will want paper and some programmers will prefer paper; but the Free Software developers are too web oriented to let things be limited to paper.
Anyhow, if there is someone who wants to get an FSF idea journal going, and has a web development team, and compiles a list of subscribers, and wants to contact me, they can do so: reply to my journal entry, or to any recent post.
But I probably am not ideal, and if you can get someone who is ideal, so much the better. Look around, especially for those in your own hometown -- but also realize that time is running out. The prior art search service really needs to be up and running *before* the EU patents go through, lest GNU's momentum be destroyed.
Look, there are a couple of problems with this database:
(0) They require CVS. That's awkward. Lots of people have ideas who don't use CVS.
(1) It's website is, by the URL, non-GNU. My worst nightmare would be submitting to this site, and later finding that they patented it. Microsoft would love to buy a site like this. How do I know this won't happen? They don't describe their process; they just say "oh, it's here." That bothers me. Can the FSF verify this site?
(2) the PADB should be sending its ideas to the appropriate developers for possible development. Specifically, coders should be able to sign up for the class of coding they they do, and submitters should be able to direct information to them. But there's a name for this: a journal. At the very least, all ideas in the DB should *also* be published on the web. I should be able to go to a website, and either browse or search.
---Now, what I think the PADB should be doing instead:---
(3) Time-stamping is easy: simply submit a copy of your information to the Library of Congress (US) or any other national library.
(4) Both (2) and (3) can probably be accomplished by publishing a journal would do the trick. Typically, as people subscribe to journals, they also pay a small amount -- or advertisers pay.
(5) As available, the PADB should also research true prior art, to break patents that are strangling free software. Those should be published as well, with a reference.
(6) I have no idea whether this site will do this or not, but the site should keep a database of the inventors. Probably the inventors have more ideas, or have done more work than is published. Therefore, they are an ideal consultant.
If you amortize the penalty, I'm pretty sure the actual cost of $500/month forever is around $120,000. So it's more like just a fine equal to the cost of a house. Bad, but not horrible. He could probably declare bankruptcy if he was extremely poor, but I expect he can afford $120,000.
Re:Uh-huhn. Now let's look at the IRS' real number
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 1
No, you might say that "porn doesn't hurt people", but I would contend it does.
First, life functions best in specific collectives: most of your cells live on after you die, but not for long. But it doesn't stop there; the cell is itself a structure of subunit lifeforms, including mitochondria, DNA, and whatnot, each of which is arguably its own lifeform.
At the level of the human body, we aren't just DNA either. Take away your Vitamin-K-producing bacteria, and you're not going to live for long. We are actually an organization of organisms.
At higher levels, we are family; we are city; and we are country/nation. We don't survive well outside of these units. Therefore, the natural place for holy living is within these units.
[I should note that the Bible also recognizes these units as living entities. Again, that's one interpretation; another interpretation that I feel is *not* correct is that nations, thrones, and powers... are all angels.]
But because the natural unit for holy living is still the family, violence to the family is also violence to the people of the family. But jealousy is inherent to people, and sex outside of marriage hurts the family both through jealousy and through hurting mental/emotional intimacy. Holy living with your family means being more joined to them, not less joined. Therefore, intimacy is important. But when you allow that intimacy to be broken by outsiders, it destroys a certain level of trust; it takes away a lot of the guarantees of the family, and the family does not function well. It is not complete, not holy.
Now, pornography is a violence against the porn actor's lives; but watching it also does violence to your own family, because by watching it, you are saying you support it. And that means that at some level it is possible for you that you could do this too. For example, if I encourage my friends to divorce, saying "well, divorce can be good for you", that's going to make my wife kindof insecure about our own relationship. So pornography also breaks into the relationships of the viewer as well. I'd say that the effect is orders of magnitude less, but it is still significant.
Nor is this a case of only the abuses being bad. I think my reasoning is sound, but it is sound for every single case. That is to say that pornography is inherently violence against the family.
That is why I think that my pornography habit (umm, specifically playboy, penthouse, and hustler magazines that were left out at work) was bad. It is also why I think that the Catholic Church says taht pornography is bad.
Re:Uh-huhn. Now let's look at the IRS' real number
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 1
No, I was not referring to living according to a strict moral religious system. That's called religiousness. Religiousness is the legality; holiness is the relationship. If you're violating the legality all the time and not caring [say, beating your wife], you're not going to have a relationship [good marriage], but religiousness [never touching your wife in anger] doesn't provide holiness.
Holiness, rather, refers to a completeness of spirit that requires at the same time a dependency on God (one of the persons of God being the Holy Spirit). Except in the case of Christ, it is never absolute. A few people are visibly holier than most; Mother Teresa comes immediately to mind, and yet she was continually plagued by doubts of whether God even existed.
I also agree that there are con artists everywhere; that is very different than trying to live a holy life and sometimes failing. As an example, I'd note that in the past I have had a problem with pornography; I now try to avoid it, but I still sometimes have to deal with iniquity [unclean thoughts], such as today, when Conservative Petitions [a singularly useless and pointless service in my opinion] sent around a petition asking that people sign on saying they'll boycott the advertisers of a pornographic TV program. *sigh*. I don't have a TV, partly for that reason, but I still can trigger on even descriptions. I should have dropped that petition in the trash like a stinking pile of poo, instead of reading it. In my opinion, it is what I call "born again Christian pornography": it's supposed dually titilate and make the person think "well I'm better than that." But I didn't, partly because my wife was asking me to explain why I didn't want to touch it. So I'm not successful. But that doesn't mean I'm a con artist or that I don't try. I do try, though that's not particularly for you to know. My wife, probably will know. My son, possibly will know. God and me, definitely should be able to tell. For others across the internet, I rather doubt that they can tell on their own whether I'm truly genuine.
On the subject of multiple meanings, yes: the multiple meanings are there, and in most cases only one can apply, but which one it is varies by case. Ouch: no wonder so many people give it up so quickly. But that's why one again needs a relationship with the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit guides rightly. Not that I can claim that I have a successful relationship with the Holy Spirit. Some do--I can see it--but I cannot claim that I'm there yet. I'm not.
P.S. in the links provided: I am pretty sure that David Wilkerson is not a con artist. The odds of his story happening without the Holy Spirit leading him are pretty slim. It did happen, you can investigate it to your heart's content. As for the rest, I am inclined to believe they are not con artists, because if the Holy Spirit leads him to pick other leaders, again it won't lead him badly.
But I have no way of knowing for sure. Also, I should note that I have no link with this group except that I read the book, I've purchased used goods and occasionally helped them fix their computers at the Newport News VA Teen Challenge thrift store, and I now get their weekly sermon emailed to me.
Re:Uh-huhn. Now let's look at the IRS' real number
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 1
No, the other interpretation is "now that you recognize that your sins are shameful [scarlet, as in blush], and repent them, I will make them as pure as the driven snow.
I am not 100% sure which interpretation is correct; therefore I did put that qualifier in. But I tend to lean towards the one I mentioned. Because usually, when I think I know how bad the things I did were... later on I find out it was worse.
Maybe you can clarify what a troll is, but I was under the impression that trolling was inherently insincere. It was an attempt to get people to react, to then say "look how stupid they are." Most of what I say is sincere, though. I think that 100% of this was sincere.
I also tend to think that everything is related; our problems are organic, not to be solved with a simple political panacaea, which is why Christianity pushes holiness. Not that we are very successful living it, are we? Oh, well. I try--better to try, than not to try.
They said "...while the case for copyright is strong..."
I would argue that the case for copyright is not strong. Rather, the case for copyright is accepted as the norm, but there have been much better cases against the copyright.
That is, for every claim made in favor of copyright, there is a counterargument that decimates it. Meanwhile, copyright is an infringement against a natural right, the right to work. Normally, if there are no good arguments for an infringement against a natural right, then it is a very bad idea to infringe on it.
In reality, I think the reason for the copyright is that large companies with influence want it.
That's arguably exactly the kind of commercial they want to air, since that kind of commercial impinges against your subconscious, and can help make an end run around your will.
If making an end run around your will wasn't important, then the marketing wouldn't be all that important: the product would sell itself. For example, there isn't a lot of marketing for apple corers.
Don't believe me? Get the book "The Clam-plate Orgy",, and read it, and then start looking for subliminal advertising.
Not all of it is subliminal sex, either. I was looking through National Geographic, and saw an ad for Ford Explorer. It showed a comped photograph [really airbrush] of an Explorer driving from dense city straight into Grand Canyon wilderness. But if you looked at the ground carefully, all of a sudden you would see a pair of keys on a chain.
Or Coca-Cola: look on the boxes that show all those nice, iced coca cola bottles and Coke(tm) in a glass with ice... look carefully, and all of a sudden you'll start to see tons of people playing sports.
[It's normal to get angry when you read this... I did, my Dad did, both times saying "That's NONSENSE!!!"; my brother laughed. But after you're done getting angry, and you get curious and start looking... well... let's just say I decided it isn't nonsense. So did he, and my brother.]
Anyhow, I fully expect the TV execs to respond with more boring programming. Either get used to it, or find a way to convert your TV into a goldfish tank. Or sell it and buy a book.
Uh-huhn. Now let's look at the IRS' real numbers
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
You can make your statistics say what you want them to say, as long as you read them correctly.
As of 2000 [it takes a while to compile data], the IRS says otherwise.
Let's try looking at things slightly differently.
Let's suppose that each of us was a slave. If each of us was a slave, then our masters would have to pay for our upkeep. So when you talk about real tax rates, you have to first take the poverty-level upkeep, and then see how much disposable income is paid by each group.
Do that, and you'll quickly see that things are just as the wealthy want it to be: the poor pay for everything, there is a significant fraction of people who are worse off than slaves and working very hard, and the wealthy have both the time and assets to buy the laws. [Rush limbough asks "how can the poor pay for everything"? They pay just as the Egyptian slaves did: with their labor. Let's remember that real wealth is things, not money, and most of that is manufactured by the poor, not the wealthy. Go to a grocery store, and it's a poor person stocking the shelves. Go to a farm, and it's poor people producing the food. Nor is the quantity of food significantly improved by the machinery. I'm writing from an area that has very limited machinery, and much greater food production efficiency than America, with correspondingly lower prices for food.]
I would contend that under this viewpoint, America is very corrupt. But I'd also contend that if your viewpoint makes Daschle look bad, my viewpoint makes him look worse.
But it also makes Bush look much worse.
Things are worse than you see, not better.
(Bible quote with one interpretation: "You say that your sins are as scarlet [like a sore or wound]? I shall make them as white as snow! [look again, that's not a sore, that's leprosy!]". Actually, that's not too far off. Zechariah 11, the people get the masters they deserve. But what you deserve is based on your own individual sins. You want to get out of this, start voluntarily living rightly by your family and neighbors. Which includs no porn, no abortion, and so on.)
American conserv != liberal; radical != "far out"
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 1
Okay, radical means "root". Someone who likes to get to the root of things. And yes, Adam Smit was a radical, but not as we nowadays use it. Thought I should know that.
But I should also note that today's conservative is not liberal either. Today's conservative is nothing more and nothing less than what George Dubija Bush is, a socialist. And lest you think that "oh, he's just a new fuzzy conservative, he's not real", let me remind you about such conservative greats as John Warner, or how the Republican leadership purged the "Contract with America" freshmen, who were looking far too liberal for their taste, and threatening to hijack the show.
In America, conservative really means "pro-military, pro-cartel socialist". In other words, what is normally termed "fascist". "radical", meanwhile, has been redefined to mean "far out", or "outrageous", even "impractical". Which is why you then claim that being a Smith fan today is silly.
Stabilize your definitions, sir, and you'll have a much easier time thinking.
Check this out: they say that viewership is inversely proportional to ad watching, and then give an example of how few people watch a boring show like "The Weakest Link", but lots watch "The Practice" (though they skip the commmercials).
What that says is that bored people stay for the commercials. Interested people watch the show, and skip the commercials.
So that says that the TV shows need to be more boring. That's right, you're going to pay $60 per month for satellite TV, and at any time, you can watch such great shows as: Cooking World; Spatula City; Those Darn Mushroom Growers, and so on. 150 channels of it.
And you'll sit there, flipping from ad to ad, just absorbing information and boredom...
My advice? Sell the TV. Sell the TiVo. Buy a farm, it's a lot more exciting watching the hay mold.
A recall vote is essentially when enough people get a petition together to "recall" a politician, then the politician is no longer authorized to act on the people's behalf, and there must be a new election. That new election can reinstall the pol, or not, but it definitely is a sign that a major fraction of the people are dissatisfied with the pol.
I saw some British Lord demanded a recall of some MEP under Google, but I don't see a lot about recalling MEPs. Still, it should be possible to find out, shouldn't it?
Or are democratic processes strictly verboten?
Regarding socialists and conservatives, the Republicans call themselves conservatives and are all the time railing against "socialism", but if you see what they vote for, they are definitely socialists. The socialists meanwhile rail against the Republicans, but if you see what they vote for, it is the same thing as the Republicans. So really they are identical. My brother (a conservative libertarian) calls it socialist, my uncle (a strongly liberal green) calls it fascist. They're both right.
Here in Europe, the Socialist and Conservative leadership were working together to try to push the software patents through on the fast track. It makes me think maybe they're becoming the same party.
So, how about a payload that made your screen saver also activate the computer to go to scan the net for distributed processing sites, download jobs, and do them.
Oh, yeah. Also check if the computer is on battery or wall power: battery power computers should just remain in default.
That way you couldn't say it's a virus. It's rather a energy conservation program.
Is there a way to recall Arlene McCarthy? Or are recall votes out? I really think that a recall vote would be appropriate, and would send a definite message, quite effectively.
At least in America, the socialists and the conservatives would have you think that they are not one and the same party. I think they are, and perhaps the same is true in Europe.
... just not the way the University of Utah claimed, and it's definitely not easy.
To get cold fusion, you need a molecule with few enough degrees of freedom, and an explosive bond that will get to hydrogen nuclei within the tunnelling distance, say, with a 1% chance of tunnelling.
Do that, and you will end up with successful cold fusion.
However, to make this molecule would take tons of design first using chemistry modellers; then you'd have to figure out a way to assemble the parts, and finally how to activate the explosive bond.
It is not easy. Yes, I can imagine that this guy could do something of the sort. But if he did, then why hide it? Why not just sign up as a member of the American Physical Society, and then bring it in, and say "look. Check the radiation when I heat it up past 40 degrees...." and so on.
I don't think this guy has found cold fusion.
But yes, I do consider it quite possible that the government raided him because they think he has something valuable and wish to steal it, and less likely that they raided him because he was defrauding investors.
On the other hand, maybe he defrauded the wrong investors. That seems to be the theme these days: it's not what you do, it's who you do it to, who benefits, who's hurt, which is important.
If anybody would have bothered to read the article, you'd know that his "compound" wasn't raided; his "complex" was raided.
As a sometime English teacher, I must remind you that the difference between a "compound" and "complex" is huge: compounds have all the required parts in each section. Complexes have multiple instances of the same required parts, together
That said, more than I'm inclined to believe our government raided him for making false statements to his investors [ummm, let's look at exhibit A, Kenneth Lay], I'm inclined to believe that our government thinks he violated the 2nd law of thermo, and can produce energy for free, and wants in on the action [exhibit B, Iraq].
Except this is what it was: a trojan, but with an all new date, and an all new filename. Someone has just rereleased this baby.
Fortunately, a few things clued me in:
(1) It said it was from Microsoft. But the URL said from a Verizon ad.
(2) It called me a Microsoft Client. I've never felt so humiliated. I do *NIX or Mac.
(3) It claimed to fix ALL the known security flaws in Windows. This one should have been obvious.
(4) It was advertised to work on Win9x, ME, and 2000. My guess is that Microsoft doesn't do a whole lot for Win95 people who haven't upgraded. I could be wrong.
(5) It included an executable. [??? how did that slip past my ISP??? They normally strip executables.]
Anyhow, for those of you who use Windows, be aware [once again, and again and again] that those trojans are not to be run.
I would be very interested in knowing what Egypt is like. My direct experience is limited to America, Spain, Portugal, France, Poland and Lithuania -- but more information is better.
It isn't country A suing country B. Those are companies doing the suing. The companies make donations to politicians who will pass laws allowing them to sue. The amount of the donation (the price of the country's people/sheep) is small enough compared to the value of what they take (lamb chops), that the investment makes sense.
This is all addressed in Zechariah 11 of the Bible (apt-get --install bible; bible; Zec 11;;;;). It isn't a US-only thing. It isn't a today-only thing. It's shepherds eating their sheep, and selling their sheep to each other to eat. But the problem, as outlined in Zec 11, is that the sheep get the shepherd they deserve.
The EFF should not just publish stuff. The EFF should publish stuff, and keep an anti-patent database that can be mirrored, downloaded, printed out, and whatnot.
The source for these things should be recorded, if the person desires [for example, I can have this under my name, and give contact info. That makes me a possible expert witness for $$$, or it makes me in line for consultation, if someone wants to carry this through] or it can be anonymous.
If they did this, I would frequent that location often, as I *often* have ideas that are more than marginally patentaable [seeing this], and very practical in some cases.
I would then record my ideas, and software developers could implement them or not, as they see fit.
The problem with just publishing an idea is that it is hard to track it down later. So that's why I think the EFF should proactively begin a database. Begin it, and I will start submitting from day one, and keep submitting.
-----
For example of what I might submit: *** AND THIS IS NOW PUBLISHED, THOUGH I DO NOT GUARANTEE IT TO BE NEW *** to efficiently code a compressed movie, subtract two frames' values. Then run an FFT on portions of the frames. First FFT should be only about 8 pixels wide on 32x32 blocks, if need be second can be 16 pixels on 64x64 blocks, and so on.
The subtraction will yield "fringes" where picture movement has occurred. The FFT will then yield high frequencies that changed, informing the computer which motions to check.
From that, you generate a motion map. From the motion map, you then generate (1) object shapes (2) object motion maps, (3) scaling motion implies object rotation. As objects become well defined, it becomes less necessary to predict this or send new information about it. Indeed, you begin to generate object shape libraries for quick reference. A ford has a particular shape from the side; so does a bicycle. Match a few parameters, and its motions become quite predictable.
Where the mean color-curves of a frame change heavily, you compare it with the last frame with similar mean color curves.
From that, you generate frame predictions. Now, you transmit information from the worst predicted blocks, first the worst predicted half, then the 2nd worst predicted half, and so on, until it is more efficient to send the whole new block, than it is to split it any further. In this way, you minimize the data that must be stored for updates.
Way back when, when they were proposing an income tax "Well, the tax would only be on the rich folks, and not on the poor folks. After all, poor folks don't have money."
Nowadays, the loopholes are all in place, rich folks *don't* pay the tax, quite legally, while poor folks carry a gigantic burden that gets larger every year.
So in ten to twenty years, when the copyrights and patents are *only* for those who can afford the yearly $2000 filing fee from the get go, and they are abused more than ever...... we're going to wonder why our system is so messed up.
My point is that setting up individual accounts, including two individual generic accounts [private_filt, private_nofilt], is no more difficult than using your standard library accounts.
Actually, this would be quite convenient in another way. You open up your account, and all your preferences are there, saved, including bookmarks and everything.
You want the generic account, ask the librarian to log you in. She opens the generic account, and when you're done, the computer resets it back to the previous original setup, by copying archives over the information.
You know, what really gets me is that this discussion that popped up here was mostly on how to legally be called "filtering in good faith", while in reality filtering in bad faith. You do that, and you are really wrecking your country, because you are undermining truth. It would seem that you really *like* devious law. For me, I'd much prefer truth and justice to this new "American Way" bit.
Quite honestly, although I consider my post to be interesting, I don't consider it to be insightful.
It may be inciteful, or not, but I'm not 100% sure it's good. I'm still of the opinion that the best wars are those that are never fought, and that wars have no winners, only losers.
So though I consider this as a trial balloon to think about and consider, I *don't* automatically consider this a good thing. And I don't find any particular insight in this. Insight is "seeing within". This posting, though, was as obvious as a guy carrying a scarecrow into a herd of penguins. I mean, slashdot thinks in terms of distributed function, right?
Now, insightful would have been if I had figured a way to finesse all of this, and completely drop off SCO's radar, and still leave SCO standing.
Thing is, I still don't hate SCO or Microsoft, even with all their criminal behavior. There is some good in every organization, just as there is some good in every city, because you don't get the organization without human trust. I just don't like it when it breaks bad.
Anyhow, someone mod this one down to 3 or 4. I wanted this balloon out there, but it's really not all that insightful.
Slashdot Mirror
I should offer one more comment here. I *do not* have good website development skills. I *do* have a prepublishing company. I think that starting a journal and publishing it would be well within the range of possibility and practicability, but what we do not have is money.
So the only way I could publish a journal would be if there were enough subscribers and/or advertisers to cover the cost of page layout and publication. Initially, that would mean black and white print, "text ads", minimal layout, small print, and such. I would be willing to do this, as long as I got as much out of it as it cost me [that is, paper, and I and my family and our workers continue eating].
But there are other prepublishers out there, as well. Any of them could do the job, probably for a similar price. Some could do it for free. But no matter who does it, I really think that paper publishing still needs to be done, both for idea distribution and for the reassurance that the ideas aren't being patented.
If you are doing the publishing, then there are a bunch of methods that can help, including: compiling all information to CD ISO images; printing to polyester paper on an HP DJ5000, and using the polyester paper as an offset print plate; each idea gets its own index number, and the index numbers are then entered into the appropriate classifications. That's for starters.
But I can say immediately that this can't be done without a good web development team, as well [something which I cannot do]. Businesses will want paper and some programmers will prefer paper; but the Free Software developers are too web oriented to let things be limited to paper.
Anyhow, if there is someone who wants to get an FSF idea journal going, and has a web development team, and compiles a list of subscribers, and wants to contact me, they can do so: reply to my journal entry, or to any recent post.
But I probably am not ideal, and if you can get someone who is ideal, so much the better. Look around, especially for those in your own hometown -- but also realize that time is running out. The prior art search service really needs to be up and running *before* the EU patents go through, lest GNU's momentum be destroyed.
Look, there are a couple of problems with this database:
(0) They require CVS. That's awkward. Lots of people have ideas who don't use CVS.
(1) It's website is, by the URL, non-GNU. My worst nightmare would be submitting to this site, and later finding that they patented it. Microsoft would love to buy a site like this. How do I know this won't happen? They don't describe their process; they just say "oh, it's here." That bothers me. Can the FSF verify this site?
(2) the PADB should be sending its ideas to the appropriate developers for possible development. Specifically, coders should be able to sign up for the class of coding they they do, and submitters should be able to direct information to them. But there's a name for this: a journal. At the very least, all ideas in the DB should *also* be published on the web. I should be able to go to a website, and either browse or search.
---Now, what I think the PADB should be doing instead:---
(3) Time-stamping is easy: simply submit a copy of your information to the Library of Congress (US) or any other national library.
(4) Both (2) and (3) can probably be accomplished by publishing a journal would do the trick. Typically, as people subscribe to journals, they also pay a small amount -- or advertisers pay.
(5) As available, the PADB should also research true prior art, to break patents that are strangling free software. Those should be published as well, with a reference.
(6) I have no idea whether this site will do this or not, but the site should keep a database of the inventors. Probably the inventors have more ideas, or have done more work than is published. Therefore, they are an ideal consultant.
If you amortize the penalty, I'm pretty sure the actual cost of $500/month forever is around $120,000. So it's more like just a fine equal to the cost of a house. Bad, but not horrible. He could probably declare bankruptcy if he was extremely poor, but I expect he can afford $120,000.
First, life functions best in specific collectives: most of your cells live on after you die, but not for long. But it doesn't stop there; the cell is itself a structure of subunit lifeforms, including mitochondria, DNA, and whatnot, each of which is arguably its own lifeform.
At the level of the human body, we aren't just DNA either. Take away your Vitamin-K-producing bacteria, and you're not going to live for long. We are actually an organization of organisms.
At higher levels, we are family; we are city; and we are country/nation. We don't survive well outside of these units. Therefore, the natural place for holy living is within these units.
[I should note that the Bible also recognizes these units as living entities. Again, that's one interpretation; another interpretation that I feel is *not* correct is that nations, thrones, and powers... are all angels.]
But because the natural unit for holy living is still the family, violence to the family is also violence to the people of the family. But jealousy is inherent to people, and sex outside of marriage hurts the family both through jealousy and through hurting mental/emotional intimacy. Holy living with your family means being more joined to them, not less joined. Therefore, intimacy is important. But when you allow that intimacy to be broken by outsiders, it destroys a certain level of trust; it takes away a lot of the guarantees of the family, and the family does not function well. It is not complete, not holy.
Now, pornography is a violence against the porn actor's lives; but watching it also does violence to your own family, because by watching it, you are saying you support it. And that means that at some level it is possible for you that you could do this too. For example, if I encourage my friends to divorce, saying "well, divorce can be good for you", that's going to make my wife kindof insecure about our own relationship. So pornography also breaks into the relationships of the viewer as well. I'd say that the effect is orders of magnitude less, but it is still significant.
Nor is this a case of only the abuses being bad. I think my reasoning is sound, but it is sound for every single case. That is to say that pornography is inherently violence against the family.
That is why I think that my pornography habit (umm, specifically playboy, penthouse, and hustler magazines that were left out at work) was bad. It is also why I think that the Catholic Church says taht pornography is bad.
Holiness, rather, refers to a completeness of spirit that requires at the same time a dependency on God (one of the persons of God being the Holy Spirit). Except in the case of Christ, it is never absolute. A few people are visibly holier than most; Mother Teresa comes immediately to mind, and yet she was continually plagued by doubts of whether God even existed.
I, for one, do believe in the Holy Spirit, and one of the marks of the Holy Spirit is that He does not mislead.
I also agree that there are con artists everywhere; that is very different than trying to live a holy life and sometimes failing. As an example, I'd note that in the past I have had a problem with pornography; I now try to avoid it, but I still sometimes have to deal with iniquity [unclean thoughts], such as today, when Conservative Petitions [a singularly useless and pointless service in my opinion] sent around a petition asking that people sign on saying they'll boycott the advertisers of a pornographic TV program. *sigh*. I don't have a TV, partly for that reason, but I still can trigger on even descriptions. I should have dropped that petition in the trash like a stinking pile of poo, instead of reading it. In my opinion, it is what I call "born again Christian pornography": it's supposed dually titilate and make the person think "well I'm better than that." But I didn't, partly because my wife was asking me to explain why I didn't want to touch it. So I'm not successful. But that doesn't mean I'm a con artist or that I don't try. I do try, though that's not particularly for you to know. My wife, probably will know. My son, possibly will know. God and me, definitely should be able to tell. For others across the internet, I rather doubt that they can tell on their own whether I'm truly genuine.
On the subject of multiple meanings, yes: the multiple meanings are there, and in most cases only one can apply, but which one it is varies by case. Ouch: no wonder so many people give it up so quickly. But that's why one again needs a relationship with the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit guides rightly. Not that I can claim that I have a successful relationship with the Holy Spirit. Some do--I can see it--but I cannot claim that I'm there yet. I'm not.
P.S. in the links provided: I am pretty sure that David Wilkerson is not a con artist. The odds of his story happening without the Holy Spirit leading him are pretty slim. It did happen, you can investigate it to your heart's content. As for the rest, I am inclined to believe they are not con artists, because if the Holy Spirit leads him to pick other leaders, again it won't lead him badly.
But I have no way of knowing for sure. Also, I should note that I have no link with this group except that I read the book, I've purchased used goods and occasionally helped them fix their computers at the Newport News VA Teen Challenge thrift store, and I now get their weekly sermon emailed to me.
No, the other interpretation is "now that you recognize that your sins are shameful [scarlet, as in blush], and repent them, I will make them as pure as the driven snow.
I am not 100% sure which interpretation is correct; therefore I did put that qualifier in. But I tend to lean towards the one I mentioned. Because usually, when I think I know how bad the things I did were... later on I find out it was worse.
Maybe you can clarify what a troll is, but I was under the impression that trolling was inherently insincere. It was an attempt to get people to react, to then say "look how stupid they are." Most of what I say is sincere, though. I think that 100% of this was sincere.
I also tend to think that everything is related; our problems are organic, not to be solved with a simple political panacaea, which is why Christianity pushes holiness. Not that we are very successful living it, are we? Oh, well. I try--better to try, than not to try.
They said "...while the case for copyright is strong..."
I would argue that the case for copyright is not strong. Rather, the case for copyright is accepted as the norm, but there have been much better cases against the copyright.
That is, for every claim made in favor of copyright, there is a counterargument that decimates it. Meanwhile, copyright is an infringement against a natural right, the right to work. Normally, if there are no good arguments for an infringement against a natural right, then it is a very bad idea to infringe on it.
In reality, I think the reason for the copyright is that large companies with influence want it.
If making an end run around your will wasn't important, then the marketing wouldn't be all that important: the product would sell itself. For example, there isn't a lot of marketing for apple corers.
Don't believe me? Get the book "The Clam-plate Orgy",, and read it, and then start looking for subliminal advertising.
Not all of it is subliminal sex, either. I was looking through National Geographic, and saw an ad for Ford Explorer. It showed a comped photograph [really airbrush] of an Explorer driving from dense city straight into Grand Canyon wilderness. But if you looked at the ground carefully, all of a sudden you would see a pair of keys on a chain.
Or Coca-Cola: look on the boxes that show all those nice, iced coca cola bottles and Coke(tm) in a glass with ice... look carefully, and all of a sudden you'll start to see tons of people playing sports.
[It's normal to get angry when you read this... I did, my Dad did, both times saying "That's NONSENSE!!!"; my brother laughed. But after you're done getting angry, and you get curious and start looking... well... let's just say I decided it isn't nonsense. So did he, and my brother.]
Anyhow, I fully expect the TV execs to respond with more boring programming. Either get used to it, or find a way to convert your TV into a goldfish tank. Or sell it and buy a book.
You can make your statistics say what you want them to say, as long as you read them correctly.
As of 2000 [it takes a while to compile data], the IRS says otherwise.
Let's try looking at things slightly differently.
Let's suppose that each of us was a slave. If each of us was a slave, then our masters would have to pay for our upkeep. So when you talk about real tax rates, you have to first take the poverty-level upkeep, and then see how much disposable income is paid by each group.
Do that, and you'll quickly see that things are just as the wealthy want it to be: the poor pay for everything, there is a significant fraction of people who are worse off than slaves and working very hard, and the wealthy have both the time and assets to buy the laws. [Rush limbough asks "how can the poor pay for everything"? They pay just as the Egyptian slaves did: with their labor. Let's remember that real wealth is things, not money, and most of that is manufactured by the poor, not the wealthy. Go to a grocery store, and it's a poor person stocking the shelves. Go to a farm, and it's poor people producing the food. Nor is the quantity of food significantly improved by the machinery. I'm writing from an area that has very limited machinery, and much greater food production efficiency than America, with correspondingly lower prices for food.]
I would contend that under this viewpoint, America is very corrupt. But I'd also contend that if your viewpoint makes Daschle look bad, my viewpoint makes him look worse.
But it also makes Bush look much worse.
Things are worse than you see, not better.
(Bible quote with one interpretation: "You say that your sins are as scarlet [like a sore or wound]? I shall make them as white as snow! [look again, that's not a sore, that's leprosy!]". Actually, that's not too far off. Zechariah 11, the people get the masters they deserve. But what you deserve is based on your own individual sins. You want to get out of this, start voluntarily living rightly by your family and neighbors. Which includs no porn, no abortion, and so on.)
Okay, radical means "root". Someone who likes to get to the root of things. And yes, Adam Smit was a radical, but not as we nowadays use it. Thought I should know that.
But I should also note that today's conservative is not liberal either. Today's conservative is nothing more and nothing less than what George Dubija Bush is, a socialist. And lest you think that "oh, he's just a new fuzzy conservative, he's not real", let me remind you about such conservative greats as John Warner, or how the Republican leadership purged the "Contract with America" freshmen, who were looking far too liberal for their taste, and threatening to hijack the show.
In America, conservative really means "pro-military, pro-cartel socialist". In other words, what is normally termed "fascist". "radical", meanwhile, has been redefined to mean "far out", or "outrageous", even "impractical". Which is why you then claim that being a Smith fan today is silly.
Stabilize your definitions, sir, and you'll have a much easier time thinking.
Check this out: they say that viewership is inversely proportional to ad watching, and then give an example of how few people watch a boring show like "The Weakest Link", but lots watch "The Practice" (though they skip the commmercials).
What that says is that bored people stay for the commercials. Interested people watch the show, and skip the commercials.
So that says that the TV shows need to be more boring. That's right, you're going to pay $60 per month for satellite TV, and at any time, you can watch such great shows as: Cooking World; Spatula City; Those Darn Mushroom Growers, and so on. 150 channels of it.
And you'll sit there, flipping from ad to ad, just absorbing information and boredom...
My advice? Sell the TV. Sell the TiVo. Buy a farm, it's a lot more exciting watching the hay mold.
A recall vote is essentially when enough people get a petition together to "recall" a politician, then the politician is no longer authorized to act on the people's behalf, and there must be a new election. That new election can reinstall the pol, or not, but it definitely is a sign that a major fraction of the people are dissatisfied with the pol.
I saw some British Lord demanded a recall of some MEP under Google, but I don't see a lot about recalling MEPs. Still, it should be possible to find out, shouldn't it?
Or are democratic processes strictly verboten?
Regarding socialists and conservatives, the Republicans call themselves conservatives and are all the time railing against "socialism", but if you see what they vote for, they are definitely socialists. The socialists meanwhile rail against the Republicans, but if you see what they vote for, it is the same thing as the Republicans. So really they are identical. My brother (a conservative libertarian) calls it socialist, my uncle (a strongly liberal green) calls it fascist. They're both right.
Here in Europe, the Socialist and Conservative leadership were working together to try to push the software patents through on the fast track. It makes me think maybe they're becoming the same party.
So, how about a payload that made your screen saver also activate the computer to go to scan the net for distributed processing sites, download jobs, and do them.
Oh, yeah. Also check if the computer is on battery or wall power: battery power computers should just remain in default.
That way you couldn't say it's a virus. It's rather a energy conservation program.
Is there a way to recall Arlene McCarthy? Or are recall votes out? I really think that a recall vote would be appropriate, and would send a definite message, quite effectively.
At least in America, the socialists and the conservatives would have you think that they are not one and the same party. I think they are, and perhaps the same is true in Europe.
... just not the way the University of Utah claimed, and it's definitely not easy.
To get cold fusion, you need a molecule with few enough degrees of freedom, and an explosive bond that will get to hydrogen nuclei within the tunnelling distance, say, with a 1% chance of tunnelling.
Do that, and you will end up with successful cold fusion.
However, to make this molecule would take tons of design first using chemistry modellers; then you'd have to figure out a way to assemble the parts, and finally how to activate the explosive bond.
It is not easy. Yes, I can imagine that this guy could do something of the sort. But if he did, then why hide it? Why not just sign up as a member of the American Physical Society, and then bring it in, and say "look. Check the radiation when I heat it up past 40 degrees...." and so on.
I don't think this guy has found cold fusion.
But yes, I do consider it quite possible that the government raided him because they think he has something valuable and wish to steal it, and less likely that they raided him because he was defrauding investors.
On the other hand, maybe he defrauded the wrong investors. That seems to be the theme these days: it's not what you do, it's who you do it to, who benefits, who's hurt, which is important.
If anybody would have bothered to read the article, you'd know that his "compound" wasn't raided; his "complex" was raided.
As a sometime English teacher, I must remind you that the difference between a "compound" and "complex" is huge: compounds have all the required parts in each section. Complexes have multiple instances of the same required parts, together
That said, more than I'm inclined to believe our government raided him for making false statements to his investors [ummm, let's look at exhibit A, Kenneth Lay], I'm inclined to believe that our government thinks he violated the 2nd law of thermo, and can produce energy for free, and wants in on the action [exhibit B, Iraq].
Idjits. [But we always knew that].
Except this is what it was: a trojan, but with an all new date, and an all new filename. Someone has just rereleased this baby.
Fortunately, a few things clued me in:
(1) It said it was from Microsoft. But the URL said from a Verizon ad.
(2) It called me a Microsoft Client. I've never felt so humiliated. I do *NIX or Mac.
(3) It claimed to fix ALL the known security flaws in Windows. This one should have been obvious.
(4) It was advertised to work on Win9x, ME, and 2000. My guess is that Microsoft doesn't do a whole lot for Win95 people who haven't upgraded. I could be wrong.
(5) It included an executable. [??? how did that slip past my ISP??? They normally strip executables.]
Anyhow, for those of you who use Windows, be aware [once again, and again and again] that those trojans are not to be run.
... I am a resident of one of the many countries that are joining, but do not yet have a voice in the European Parliament?
I would be very interested in knowing what Egypt is like. My direct experience is limited to America, Spain, Portugal, France, Poland and Lithuania -- but more information is better.
Please do tell about how the situation is worse.
This is all addressed in Zechariah 11 of the Bible (apt-get --install bible; bible; Zec 11;;;;). It isn't a US-only thing. It isn't a today-only thing. It's shepherds eating their sheep, and selling their sheep to each other to eat. But the problem, as outlined in Zec 11, is that the sheep get the shepherd they deserve.
Sorry, them's the breaks.
The EFF should not just publish stuff. The EFF should publish stuff, and keep an anti-patent database that can be mirrored, downloaded, printed out, and whatnot.
The source for these things should be recorded, if the person desires [for example, I can have this under my name, and give contact info. That makes me a possible expert witness for $$$, or it makes me in line for consultation, if someone wants to carry this through] or it can be anonymous.
If they did this, I would frequent that location often, as I *often* have ideas that are more than marginally patentaable [seeing this], and very practical in some cases.
I would then record my ideas, and software developers could implement them or not, as they see fit.
The problem with just publishing an idea is that it is hard to track it down later. So that's why I think the EFF should proactively begin a database. Begin it, and I will start submitting from day one, and keep submitting.
-----
For example of what I might submit: *** AND THIS IS NOW PUBLISHED, THOUGH I DO NOT GUARANTEE IT TO BE NEW *** to efficiently code a compressed movie, subtract two frames' values. Then run an FFT on portions of the frames. First FFT should be only about 8 pixels wide on 32x32 blocks, if need be second can be 16 pixels on 64x64 blocks, and so on.
The subtraction will yield "fringes" where picture movement has occurred. The FFT will then yield high frequencies that changed, informing the computer which motions to check.
From that, you generate a motion map. From the motion map, you then generate (1) object shapes (2) object motion maps, (3) scaling motion implies object rotation. As objects become well defined, it becomes less necessary to predict this or send new information about it. Indeed, you begin to generate object shape libraries for quick reference. A ford has a particular shape from the side; so does a bicycle. Match a few parameters, and its motions become quite predictable.
Where the mean color-curves of a frame change heavily, you compare it with the last frame with similar mean color curves.
From that, you generate frame predictions. Now, you transmit information from the worst predicted blocks, first the worst predicted half, then the 2nd worst predicted half, and so on, until it is more efficient to send the whole new block, than it is to split it any further. In this way, you minimize the data that must be stored for updates.
Way back when, when they were proposing an income tax "Well, the tax would only be on the rich folks, and not on the poor folks. After all, poor folks don't have money."
... we're going to wonder why our system is so messed up.
Nowadays, the loopholes are all in place, rich folks *don't* pay the tax, quite legally, while poor folks carry a gigantic burden that gets larger every year.
So in ten to twenty years, when the copyrights and patents are *only* for those who can afford the yearly $2000 filing fee from the get go, and they are abused more than ever...
That said, people *didn't* fall for that scam regarding the income tax. Most states voted it down, in some cases repeatedly.
I, for one, do not favor this law. I favor repealing all patents and copyrights, or reducing their term to a much shorter period.
Re your sig:
"If my enemy's enemy is my friend, what happens if my enemy is his own worst enemy?"
No problem there. You go out with your enemy for a beer, ask for a table for one, and split the beer with him.
Also, regarding SiS: For Linux, you do that best by running it on an AMD blade server, to make a steaming hot SiS-kebab.
My point is that setting up individual accounts, including two individual generic accounts [private_filt, private_nofilt], is no more difficult than using your standard library accounts.
Actually, this would be quite convenient in another way. You open up your account, and all your preferences are there, saved, including bookmarks and everything.
You want the generic account, ask the librarian to log you in. She opens the generic account, and when you're done, the computer resets it back to the previous original setup, by copying archives over the information.
You know, what really gets me is that this discussion that popped up here was mostly on how to legally be called "filtering in good faith", while in reality filtering in bad faith. You do that, and you are really wrecking your country, because you are undermining truth. It would seem that you really *like* devious law. For me, I'd much prefer truth and justice to this new "American Way" bit.
However, at least I already have my escape hatch.
In case you didn't notice, I posted the parent.
Quite honestly, although I consider my post to be interesting, I don't consider it to be insightful.
It may be inciteful, or not, but I'm not 100% sure it's good. I'm still of the opinion that the best wars are those that are never fought, and that wars have no winners, only losers.
So though I consider this as a trial balloon to think about and consider, I *don't* automatically consider this a good thing. And I don't find any particular insight in this. Insight is "seeing within". This posting, though, was as obvious as a guy carrying a scarecrow into a herd of penguins. I mean, slashdot thinks in terms of distributed function, right?
Now, insightful would have been if I had figured a way to finesse all of this, and completely drop off SCO's radar, and still leave SCO standing.
Thing is, I still don't hate SCO or Microsoft, even with all their criminal behavior. There is some good in every organization, just as there is some good in every city, because you don't get the organization without human trust. I just don't like it when it breaks bad.
Anyhow, someone mod this one down to 3 or 4. I wanted this balloon out there, but it's really not all that insightful.
- MickLinux [and yes, it's really me].