The Muslim religion is offended by depictions of Muhammad.
Actually, no. That is something made up by Muslim radicals. Nothing in the Koran about it.
Well not necessarily just radicals, there are many Muslims that subscribe to this belief, which they found in the Koran's clear criticism of idolatry. Depictions of Mohammad, including statues and clearly artful depictions, are viewed as idols by the Wahhabi sect, the most popular minority sect in Saudi Arabia, and the largest in UAE and Qatar.
Years ago, a group of Wahabbi-style Danish imams complained to the government about Charlie Hebdo's cartoons and demanded action. They were understandably ignored. The cartoons were published in Egypt's al-Fajr newspaper (to condemn them as offensive) and in an Indonesian daily, Rakyat Merdeka. Teguh Sentosa, the paper's online editor put the suicide bomber cartoon on its website not once, but twice, to see if people would care. By and large, they didn't.
I've seen claims that Wahhabism is the dominant Islamic tradition in the Arabian peninsula. So, I don't think it's accurate to say it was something "made up by Muslim radicals", it has been a principle among many Muslims for a long time.
By recent estimates at least 85% of people believe in God, in some form or another. That is a lot of people that you will never have as friends, never closely associate with, and will never learn from because of one thing that you disagree with them about. You probably see people every day right now that you respect and do things with, and after a few years you discover they also believe in God, and now you will avoid them or at least lose all respect for them as a person.
That's a pretty myopic and self-defeating world view. Good luck with your tiny circle of devout atheist friends.
I think Muslims, like anyone else, have the right for protection from such open insults.
No, just NO. No one has a "right" for protection from insults, whether open, subtle, or anything else. They have a right to react similarly with their own insults, or pointing out the douchebaggery of the insulter, or other non-violent means. But they do not have the right to preemptively quash anyone's right to speak out, no matter how insulting or offensive they may deem the statements.
Speech has its own consequences, and most people learn to temper their speech as a result. Those that do not are ostracized and ignored, and rightly so. Anyone advocating prior restraint of speech or violence as a response is wrong, and should similar be ostracized and ignored.
The entire safety model is also improved by a limited form of kernel ASLR (the code segment does not move around yet, but data and page table ASLR is fairly good."
Oh, my - unopened quotation and an unclosed parenthetical! This crap drives me nuts. Don't journalists have to take English classes at all?
Considering that this is one of those things that are virtually perfect for computer automation, how do you know that "real CPAs" won't actually be computers in ten to twenty years?
If by "damn near everyone else" you mean "people who run their own business," yes, business taxes are hard. Sorry, that's life. You want to play with the big boys you gotta play by the rules.
Most businesses are sole proprietorships, and many business owners make less than wage slaves (and work many more hours). Delivering newspapers, running a street food cart, yard maintenance, web site consulting, home and appliance repair, even plumbers often work as independents with their own businesses, and are just working class folks. People start their own businesses because they don't want to work for someone else, or be beholden to the "big boys" for their livelihood.
...or if 40$ hurts that bad maybe reconsider your self employment and/or investments.
The point is, they aren't offering anything for that $40. It's the same thing as last year, but twice the price. And there are a dozen other products out there that don't charge that much. In fact, many are free and simply charge for state filing.
If the product costs more than you're willing to pay and there is competition, then move away.
I'm not familiar with the software in question, but putting myself in the shoes of the developers, if the customer segment they were providing a free version for isn't sustainable for them, for whatever reason, then charging a fee is a completely reasonable action IMHO.
It's not free - it's $50. Then you pay that, start on your taxes, then get to that point in the program that says "Based on your tax information you are required to complete Schedule X. Would you like to go online and purchase it for $40 more now?"
There are various other restrictions [wikipedia.org] to free speech in the US
There are also a number of restrictions on making false statements, and they are applied prejudicially. It's possible to make false statements against a public figure or politician, but you can be held civilly liable for slander. And law enforcement are allowed to lie, misrepresent their identity, use phony identification, and make fraudulent statements during investigations. Citizens, however, are not allowed to make any false statements of any kind to law enforcement or government officials or agents. To do so is a criminal offense.
War is peace!
Freedom is slavery!
Ignorance is strength!
Fear is Freedom! Subjugation is Liberation! Contradiction is Truth! Those are the facts of this world, and you will all surrender to them You PIGS IN HUMAN CLOTHING!
Probably knows what it is, but never heard one actually used (outside of television). As a prolific writer, I went through and had multiple typewriters around from at least 3rd grade on. By 1983, I stopped using them entirely in favor of computer-based word processors. Plenty of work office had them around longer than that, but kids don't hang around in the office. So, yea, if you were born in 1988 or later, you likely never heard people working on a typewriter.
That was quick. Usually it takes forever for the government to do anything. You can tell that a federal election is coming up, probably sooner (spring) rather than later (October).
This still isn't enough though. Knowingly doing this should be a criminal offense.
WHAT?!?! They already said they are going to give them a strong talking-to. Geeze some people are never satisfied!
That's already illegal. It's just not enforced very well, and even when it is, they only prosecute the shell company used for labor by the big developers, who act all shocked that their subcontractors would have hired all those illegals. Even Tompkins Builders did it on a federal building in Richmond. Oh, look I found a reference.
But the sponsors are all Democrats, and with Republicans now in charge of both house of Congress, the chances of it passing seem slim.
Which is why they're introducing it now instead of in any of the last 11 sessions when it might have actually passed. It's a way for them to appear like heroes to their constituents, without actually accomplishing anything (or pissing off their corporate donors).
The information you're referring to comes from a small group of people, who are not historians or scholars, with a specific agenda. They cherry-pick certain information to come to a bogus conclusion. They are simply deniers.
In addition, history has shown that it takes at least two generations to pass before myth can enter a historical account. That’s because, as long as there are eyewitnesses to an event, errors can be refuted and mythical embellishments can be exposed. All the Gospels of the New Testament were written during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses, with some of Paul’s Epistles being written as early as A.D. 50.
I'm a bit loath to respond to this, because I'm aware of your hatred of Christians as the motivation to re-write history.
" And wouldn't the existence, and even the sometimes contradictory accounts of the Gnostic gospels, provide a more evidence of an actual historic figure whose image was "stomped over", rather than one made up out of whole cloth?"
No, why would you think that?
Because, as with other events throughout history, people have differing viewpoints. The fact that an event happened, some people viewed it one way, and others another, lends credence to it having been an actual event, not something some group or person just made up.
As for the Wikipedia reference - the science on this is settled. It's fact. 97% of expert history scholars agree that it was real. You can be a denier if you want to, but you're on the wrong side of history.
Well according to Wikipedia, there are writings by Jewish historians and the Roman Tacitus. They also say that There is near unanimity among scholars that Jesus existed historically, which has many references. And wouldn't the existence, and even the sometimes contradictory accounts of the Gnostic gospels, provide a more evidence of an actual historic figure whose image was "stomped over", rather than one made up out of whole cloth?
He's just applying 'replace Jesus' with someone else.
The real problem is it's very unlikely Jesus (as written about in the new testament) ever lived. Christians don't like that fact.
I thought it had been pretty well established archaeologically and by study of secular writings that such a person actually did exist. Sure seems like it from seeing snipits of show they air on the "History Channel".
Actually, there is a right of reply. It's not a law, but it's a standard journalistic practice, and it's in every newspaper style book I've ever seen (including the New York Times style book).
The practice has to do with a specific person (or, maybe, formal organization) that has been criticized or accused of something. Claiming it applies to every opinion or idea printed in the newspaper is moronic.
A null hypothesis is generally the commonly held view or answer compared to the alternate hypothesis. If a missionary comes up to you and suggests God created the universe, what is your null hypothesis? Logically, it is the commonly held view, which is... what for an atheist? If you look at it that way, there are actually a number of different hypotheses that an atheist could subscribe to. Multiverses, child universes, oscillating expansion and contraction, turtles all the way down.... Those are your potential hypotheses, not atheism, but they don't sound particularly null or simple to me.
Your premise is wrong. The genesis of our current environment - the physical universe - is clearly in the purview of us as thinking beings to determine through epistemological means. The existence (or non-) of a higher power or spiritual deity is not.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Slashdot Mirror
The Muslim religion is offended by depictions of Muhammad.
Actually, no. That is something made up by Muslim radicals. Nothing in the Koran about it.
Well not necessarily just radicals, there are many Muslims that subscribe to this belief, which they found in the Koran's clear criticism of idolatry. Depictions of Mohammad, including statues and clearly artful depictions, are viewed as idols by the Wahhabi sect, the most popular minority sect in Saudi Arabia, and the largest in UAE and Qatar.
Years ago, a group of Wahabbi-style Danish imams complained to the government about Charlie Hebdo's cartoons and demanded action. They were understandably ignored. The cartoons were published in Egypt's al-Fajr newspaper (to condemn them as offensive) and in an Indonesian daily, Rakyat Merdeka. Teguh Sentosa, the paper's online editor put the suicide bomber cartoon on its website not once, but twice, to see if people would care. By and large, they didn't.
I've seen claims that Wahhabism is the dominant Islamic tradition in the Arabian peninsula. So, I don't think it's accurate to say it was something "made up by Muslim radicals", it has been a principle among many Muslims for a long time.
By recent estimates at least 85% of people believe in God, in some form or another. That is a lot of people that you will never have as friends, never closely associate with, and will never learn from because of one thing that you disagree with them about. You probably see people every day right now that you respect and do things with, and after a few years you discover they also believe in God, and now you will avoid them or at least lose all respect for them as a person.
That's a pretty myopic and self-defeating world view. Good luck with your tiny circle of devout atheist friends.
I think Muslims, like anyone else, have the right for protection from such open insults.
No, just NO. No one has a "right" for protection from insults, whether open, subtle, or anything else. They have a right to react similarly with their own insults, or pointing out the douchebaggery of the insulter, or other non-violent means. But they do not have the right to preemptively quash anyone's right to speak out, no matter how insulting or offensive they may deem the statements.
Speech has its own consequences, and most people learn to temper their speech as a result. Those that do not are ostracized and ignored, and rightly so. Anyone advocating prior restraint of speech or violence as a response is wrong, and should similar be ostracized and ignored.
It seems that Pope Francis is on the wrong side of history.
The entire safety model is also improved by a limited form of kernel ASLR (the code segment does not move around yet, but data and page table ASLR is fairly good."
Oh, my - unopened quotation and an unclosed parenthetical! This crap drives me nuts. Don't journalists have to take English classes at all?
Considering that this is one of those things that are virtually perfect for computer automation, how do you know that "real CPAs" won't actually be computers in ten to twenty years?
Well it was good enough for Timmy Geithner...
If by "damn near everyone else" you mean "people who run their own business," yes, business taxes are hard. Sorry, that's life. You want to play with the big boys you gotta play by the rules.
Most businesses are sole proprietorships, and many business owners make less than wage slaves (and work many more hours). Delivering newspapers, running a street food cart, yard maintenance, web site consulting, home and appliance repair, even plumbers often work as independents with their own businesses, and are just working class folks. People start their own businesses because they don't want to work for someone else, or be beholden to the "big boys" for their livelihood.
...or if 40$ hurts that bad maybe reconsider your self employment and/or investments.
The point is, they aren't offering anything for that $40. It's the same thing as last year, but twice the price. And there are a dozen other products out there that don't charge that much. In fact, many are free and simply charge for state filing.
If the product costs more than you're willing to pay and there is competition, then move away.
I'm not familiar with the software in question, but putting myself in the shoes of the developers, if the customer segment they were providing a free version for isn't sustainable for them, for whatever reason, then charging a fee is a completely reasonable action IMHO.
It's not free - it's $50. Then you pay that, start on your taxes, then get to that point in the program that says "Based on your tax information you are required to complete Schedule X. Would you like to go online and purchase it for $40 more now?"
Thanks Obama!
There are various other restrictions [wikipedia.org] to free speech in the US
There are also a number of restrictions on making false statements, and they are applied prejudicially. It's possible to make false statements against a public figure or politician, but you can be held civilly liable for slander. And law enforcement are allowed to lie, misrepresent their identity, use phony identification, and make fraudulent statements during investigations. Citizens, however, are not allowed to make any false statements of any kind to law enforcement or government officials or agents. To do so is a criminal offense.
Speech that is abusive or incites hatred is one of the things things that is limited.
Who decides when speech is abusive or incites hatred?
Some prosecutor or bureaucrat with an axe to grind, or sometimes a group looking for a scapegoat to blame for some tragic event.
Or at least that seems to be the way it currently works.
War is peace!
Freedom is slavery!
Ignorance is strength!
Fear is Freedom!
Subjugation is Liberation!
Contradiction is Truth!
Those are the facts of this world,
and you will all surrender to them
You PIGS IN HUMAN CLOTHING!
...and does not know what a typewriter is?
Probably knows what it is, but never heard one actually used (outside of television). As a prolific writer, I went through and had multiple typewriters around from at least 3rd grade on. By 1983, I stopped using them entirely in favor of computer-based word processors. Plenty of work office had them around longer than that, but kids don't hang around in the office. So, yea, if you were born in 1988 or later, you likely never heard people working on a typewriter.
What the hell is this? This is not news. Just put this crap in the polls, where questions belong.
Welcome to Slashdot by Dice, Inc.
That was quick. Usually it takes forever for the government to do anything. You can tell that a federal election is coming up, probably sooner (spring) rather than later (October).
This still isn't enough though. Knowingly doing this should be a criminal offense.
WHAT?!?! They already said they are going to give them a strong talking-to. Geeze some people are never satisfied!
outlaw hiring of illegal immigrants
That's already illegal. It's just not enforced very well, and even when it is, they only prosecute the shell company used for labor by the big developers, who act all shocked that their subcontractors would have hired all those illegals. Even Tompkins Builders did it on a federal building in Richmond. Oh, look I found a reference.
But the sponsors are all Democrats, and with Republicans now in charge of both house of Congress, the chances of it passing seem slim.
Which is why they're introducing it now instead of in any of the last 11 sessions when it might have actually passed. It's a way for them to appear like heroes to their constituents, without actually accomplishing anything (or pissing off their corporate donors).
The information you're referring to comes from a small group of people, who are not historians or scholars, with a specific agenda. They cherry-pick certain information to come to a bogus conclusion. They are simply deniers.
For reference, there remains a nearly universal consensus agreement in historical-critical biblical scholarship that Jesus lived.
In addition, history has shown that it takes at least two generations to pass before myth can enter a historical account. That’s because, as long as there are eyewitnesses to an event, errors can be refuted and mythical embellishments can be exposed. All the Gospels of the New Testament were written during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses, with some of Paul’s Epistles being written as early as A.D. 50.
I'm a bit loath to respond to this, because I'm aware of your hatred of Christians as the motivation to re-write history.
" And wouldn't the existence, and even the sometimes contradictory accounts of the Gnostic gospels, provide a more evidence of an actual historic figure whose image was "stomped over", rather than one made up out of whole cloth?" No, why would you think that?
Because, as with other events throughout history, people have differing viewpoints. The fact that an event happened, some people viewed it one way, and others another, lends credence to it having been an actual event, not something some group or person just made up.
As for the Wikipedia reference - the science on this is settled. It's fact. 97% of expert history scholars agree that it was real. You can be a denier if you want to, but you're on the wrong side of history.
WSJ does that, too, even today, in their news stories. But this is about an opinion piece, and no specific person or organization was criticized.
Well according to Wikipedia, there are writings by Jewish historians and the Roman Tacitus. They also say that There is near unanimity among scholars that Jesus existed historically, which has many references. And wouldn't the existence, and even the sometimes contradictory accounts of the Gnostic gospels, provide a more evidence of an actual historic figure whose image was "stomped over", rather than one made up out of whole cloth?
He's just applying 'replace Jesus' with someone else.
The real problem is it's very unlikely Jesus (as written about in the new testament) ever lived. Christians don't like that fact.
I thought it had been pretty well established archaeologically and by study of secular writings that such a person actually did exist. Sure seems like it from seeing snipits of show they air on the "History Channel".
Actually, there is a right of reply. It's not a law, but it's a standard journalistic practice, and it's in every newspaper style book I've ever seen (including the New York Times style book).
The practice has to do with a specific person (or, maybe, formal organization) that has been criticized or accused of something. Claiming it applies to every opinion or idea printed in the newspaper is moronic.
A null hypothesis is generally the commonly held view or answer compared to the alternate hypothesis. If a missionary comes up to you and suggests God created the universe, what is your null hypothesis? Logically, it is the commonly held view, which is... what for an atheist? If you look at it that way, there are actually a number of different hypotheses that an atheist could subscribe to. Multiverses, child universes, oscillating expansion and contraction, turtles all the way down.... Those are your potential hypotheses, not atheism, but they don't sound particularly null or simple to me.
Your premise is wrong. The genesis of our current environment - the physical universe - is clearly in the purview of us as thinking beings to determine through epistemological means. The existence (or non-) of a higher power or spiritual deity is not.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
"credible objective evidence" would invalidate the paradoxical paradigm required for all forms of spiritual enlightenment.