Perhaps that's why the Linux source is a convoluted mess of hacks on top of hacks. When somebody adds a new feature it breaks half the other features in the kernel. That's what OO programming is designed to prevent - you can replace an object without breaking the rest of the program as long as the public interfaces are kept consistent. Apparently Linus et al haven't read anything on good programming habits since around 1970.
Other synonyms (taken from the Vandals song "I've Got an Ape Drape" of their 1998 album "Hitler Bad, Vandals Good"): ape drape, mullet, normal neckwarmer, hockey hair, achy breaky hair, forbidden hair, shong.
Different endings in Greek form their plurals differently, much as in English. So, yes, the plural of -os is -oi, but at least in modern Greek (I don't know ancient Greek) the pural of -i (Octopodi is octopus) is -ia (Octopodia).
10 years ago undergraduates couldn't run Unix in their dorm room, or even have networking. If they wanted to hack they had to come to SIPB. The machines in the office used to be a big draw. That is not so anymore. Unix workstations that we can afford are comparable to freshman's new Intel machine. Our fastest workstations are rivalled by my $800 Linux box.
So in other words, since joining these clubs is no longer necessary in order to obtain access to UNIX machines, more and more students are giving the finger to the elitist assholes who run the clubs and buying their own Linux boxes. Good.
The slashdot blurb says this could lead to credit card numbers being stolen. The articles linked to did not mention this. Furthermore, since registering for an AIM name does not involve giving a credit card number, I fail to see how this is even plausible. Is slashdot just making up news or is there a factual basis behind this allegation?
Hmm, perhaps it's not slow run in the usual hard-drive-thrashing swapping of memory sense, but it definitely "feels" slow. At the very least it's less responsive than most Windows programs are - moving your mouse around menus, clicking, dragging, etc., should feel like you're performing the actions instantly, not having them lag behind your mouse slightly.
Even if that is the case, you have to provide me with an alternative to IE before I can reasonably be expected to switch. Netscape 4.x is not an alternative, because it crashes far too frequently - I tried to use it as my main browser for several months and finally got fed up and switched to IE. I'm certainly not going back. Both Mozilla nightlies and Netscape 6 are not alternatives for me either, because they load and run incredibly slowly on my Pentium II 266 with 96 MB RAM. I'm left with basically IE and Opera, both of which I use, but Opera doesn't render some of the more eyecandy-heavy pages (or will crash on them occasionally) so I'm forced to use IE for those. Unless Mozilla gets less bloated or I get a faster computer IE it'll stay I suppose.
And how would having the students use the freely-available GCC be any less indoctrination? Instead of trying to force them into using Windows and Microsoft tools you'd be trying to force them into the UNIX mindset (which is often nearly as convoluted and backwards as the Microsoft one).
I was speaking in this case specifically about the installation of Gnome included with Red Hat 7. Its interface is nearly identical to Windows 95 - the maximize/minimize/close icons, the start menu, the taskbar, even the clock on the taskbar. And to top it off it's a less responsive GUI than Windows 95 running on the same hardware is (though it gets some points in that it tends to crash less).
Linux, BEOS, Free BSD, even OS And the other up and coming operating systems have done more to foster innovation by forcing Microsoft to adapt and break the fossilization that in the end takes large companies and stops the innovation which made them so successful take.net for example.
Perhaps they can force Microsoft to innovate more by providing competition, and perhaps BeOS has some innovative features, but on the whole I don't see how you can criticize Microsoft for not being innovative and then support Linux. Linux is, and was intended to be, a free reimplementation of UNIX. A reimplementation with some minor tuning is hardly "innovation." A few days ago I saw a friend's Red Hat 7 system, and this was even less innovative - the Gnome desktop it booted to looked exactly like Windows 95. Every window has the minimize/maximize/close icons in the top/right corner (a GUI feature stolen from Windows 95 - Mac OS and even Windows 3.1 didn't have these icons, so it's obvious that Linux here is attempting to copy Windows 95). There's even a goddamn Start menu, another feature unique to Windows 95 which has been "borrowed" by Linux.
The title of the painting is Arrangement in Black and Grey No. 1. Whistler wished to emphasize the actual technical painting rather than its subject matter, so gave it this title. Apparently most people disagreed with him and insist on referring to it by its subject matter however.
Ever turn on your TV and radio? What about the.COM TLD? The whole bloody lot is a flood of marketing and advertising - at least Europeans are talking about reality, history, hurt and other REAL events and not living in some quasi-euphoric state of consumerism and vapid mind control.
I dunno, I've been to Europe quite a few times, and European TV and radio hardly seems better. It's flooded with marketing and advertising just as much as American TV and radio are, not to mention the proliferation of billboards, ads on the sides of buses, ads on taxi roofs, ads on soccer jerseys, etc. At least Americans don't put Coca-Cola ads on their damn baseball jerseys like Europeans do with their soccer ones.
Im not condoning censorship by France by any means - but America has serious problems of there own with regards to "Free Speech" they should start thinking about...
The main problem with your argument is that these are not really restrictions on free speech. They may make it more difficult to readily acquire something like porn - you cannot turn on public TV any time you want and see porn - but they do not make it completely illegal. What France is doing differs in that it makes it completely illegal - I cannot in France purchase Nazi memorabilia ever, even if I explicitly wish to do so.
Here is my non-exhaustive list of 'breaches of freedom' currently endured by Americans:
The 'war' on drugs - and the illegality of reasonable recreational drugs (marijuana and derivatives)
I'd agree with this, though what is "reasonable" is certainly subjective. Should crack cocaine be legal? What about methamphetamines? Ecstasy? Marijuana? Heroin?
Prostitution is illegal - What are you people thinking?
Only in some cities/states. It's legal in others. It's a local decision.
Censorship of the Internet at Libraries(!)
In my experience this rarely happens (none of the libraries I've been to have censored internet access), and it's an ongoing legal and political fight. We'll see how it ends up.
DeCSS/2600/Judge Kaplan ring a Bell? What about DMCA? What law was Napster really breaking? Humm?
Napster was providing a service which is used mostly for trafficking in pirated music. While it does also allow for legal music, this is a small minority of Napster traffic. Mind you I generally support Napster, but I can easily see how a judge would rule against it. Pirating music is after all illegal.
What about the prison industry? Do you really like being jailed for profit?
I don't see this as a problem with freedom - if you're going to be jailed anyway does it really matter by whom? The main thing is to make sure that certain standards are met in both publically and privately run prisons.
Rights of Same Sex couples.
Backwards Sodomy laws.
These are being addressed - Vermont (I think?) passed a law explicitly giving same sex couples the same rights as opposite sex couples, and sodomy laws are always struck down any time they're actually challenged. Things are slowly changing - I'd put the U.S. in this regard ahead of most countries (with the exception of a few liberal Northern European countries, even most Southern and Eastern European countries are behind here).
The growing 'What about the chiieeeldrreen' sentiment in America (wait for that to finally pop)
This isn't growing, it's been around forever. It's common in all countries, especially European ones as well. Countless times I've heard the argument for socialized medicine from someone who tries to evoke pity for a hypothetical kid who has no health insurance. "What about the children" is an argument used by all sides of pretty much every issue in all countries, it's not a uniquely American thing. I've also heard it used by French people to justify banning American cultural items - "what if our children grow up with no concept of French culture?"
Age limits to drink alcohol.
Most countries have this, IIRC. Isn't it 16 to drink beer in Germany? Greece is 16, though it's rarely enforced, and I'm pretty sure most other countries have at least some limit. I'd agree that 21 is rather high, but there are more important things than getting some booze. If you really want some you can get someone over 21 to buy it for you anyway.
Swearing in front of children is illegal (cant exactly remember the case/details)
This I agree is not good. It's been upheld by one court in one instance, though in general laws against swearing are never enforced.
What about the corporatist control on your Radio/Television airwaves - not much 'freedom' going on there would you say?
Freedom of speech does not include the freedom to broadcast what you want on somebody else's transmitter. They own it, they control it. If you have a problem with that, buy a radio station or publish a newspaper or something.
I seem to remember your not being allowed to visit or trade with the wonderful people of Cuba - why would that be? But China is 'ok'... puhleeze
My point is simply that America very wrongly believes it is 'Free'. That is one of the basic principles exercised by those who seek to control you: "Trust America, Trust Us, We have it the Best, Everyone else doesn't have it as well as we do. Sure we have problems - but just look at these poor fools... ha ha *receives a pat on the back* Now why don't you go down to the Mall and buy a new Tommy Hilfigir Tshirt."
While this may be, this has no bearing on actual freedom. You do not have to go down to the Mall and buy your new Tommy Hillfiger shirt - you could also stay home and watch porn movies, or ride your bike around the neighborhood, or have sex with your inflatable sheep. Freedom doesn't require everyone to behave as you think they should - in fact this would be the opposite of freedom.
Take a look around - what seems normal/reasonable/'ok' to you (because you are so close to 'it') looks like horrible oppression and breaches of your REAL Freedoms. What all the worlds citizens have to realize is that we must band together and protect everyone's rights - and assure that the world is organized for the benefit of all.. both France and America has problems to deal with.* But relatively speaking - who do you think is really 'Free'?
Relatively speaking, I think the Americans are "Free." I don't see how anything you mentioned with the exception of drug prohibition and the instance of prohibited swearing is a breach of real freedoms. Real freedoms do not include the "right" to broadcast your opinion on someone else's TV station, pirate music, etc.
You have to admit that the concept of client/server in X at least SEEMS backwards.
Hrm.. I don't understand what you mean. If you mean that it shouldn't be done this way, and some other way instead, I'm all ears.:)
I think what he's referring to is the X distinction of "client" and "server." The "X server" is the piece of software that runs on the computer you want to display on, and it renders the data coming from the "X client," which you connect to, and which is actually running the program. This seems like backwards terminology to me (and a lot of people apparently). Wouldn't it be more accurate to describe the rendering portion as a "client," since it connects to another computer, requests data, and renders that data, while the portion which accepts connections, runs programs at request, and sends data out should be more accurately called a "server"?
you could run a whole slew of other operating systems under Linux
I'm somewhat confused about what plex86 actually does. On one hand it's mentioned that Windows and Linux are two of the operating systems that can be run under plex86, but a few other people have mentioned running Windows "under Linux" using plex86. Which is it? Do you run Windows and Linux simultaneously under plex86 (in which case Windows is not running "under Linux" any more than Linux is running "under Windows") or do you run Linux natively and then use plex86 to run Windows under Linux? If so, could you reverse it, running Windows natively and using plex86 to run Linux under Windows?
FWIW calling it "GNU/Hurd" is redundant, since Hurd is the kernel of the GNU OS, just like calling Windows "Windows/Win32" would be redundant. Now if you replace the official kernel with another one, then you call it "GNU/Linux" to indicate that it's the GNU OS, but with modifications.
Every GNU program commonly distributed with Linux can be replaced with a non-GNU alternative.
I'm not aware of the existence of a non-GNU Free Software replacement for the GNU C Compiler (gcc). In fact, even a proprietary replacement (which would be clearly unacceptable) wouldn't work, since the Linux kernel only will compile under the GNU C Compiler. Replacing it is impossible without also rewriting the kernel, so I'd consider it a pretty vital part of the system.
I see a certain necessary level of control, but I don't see the necessity (or even benefit) of total control. The goal of a parent should not be brainwashing. If your child disagrees with you politically, does not want to join your religion, or has a different taste in music, that's perfectly fine - it's not your place as a parent to force them into certain viewpoints.
And progress is not intelligently planned
It's the facade of our heritage
The odor of our land
They speak of progress
In red, white and blue
It's the structure of the future
As demise comes seething through
It's progress 'til there's nothing left to gain
As the dearth of new ideas
Makes us wallow in our shame
So before you go to contribute more
To the destruction of this world you adore
Remember life on earth is but a flash of dawn
And we're all part of it as the day rolls on
And progress is a message that we send
One step closer to the future
One inch closer to the end
I say progress is a synonym of time
We are all aware of it but it's nothing we refine
And progress is a debt we all must pay
It's convenience we all cherish
It's pollution we disdain
And the cutting edge is dulling
Too many folks to plow through
Just keep your fuckin' distance
And it can't include you!
-Bad Religion, 1989
His house, his rules. When she attains the
age of majority, and is capable of supporting
herself, then and only then can she expect that
level or privacy. At that point, it will become
her house, her rules.
To put it another way: them's that pays the piper
calls the tune. When you can pay your own way
in the world, that's when you start realizing
freedom.
I'd disagree. The daughter is not capable of supporting herself simply because she is a child. It is not her fault that her father must support her - it is entirely her father's responsibility for having a child, and he must accept that responsibility. Since, supporting the child is a responsibility that comes with having that child, it does not entail any additional rights for the parents - they are not justified in violating their daughter's privacy simply because she does not pay for her own house.
The odd thing is that many republicans were complaining then, and even went so far as to say that Clinton did not have the right to govern the country (in an ethical sense, not a legal sense) since the majority of the American people voted against him. I wonder if they're going to say the same thing about Bush if he wins, or if they'll cook up some hypocrisy instead?
AFAIK they have been added, but it really doesn't matter - the Florida vote is pretty much tied and the Oregon vote won't have more than a few thousand votes difference. Since Gore is leading by 200,000 votes nationally something would have to change significantly for him to not win the popular vote.
I don't see it as just being a choice of examples - he reponded to a question which specifically mentioned atheism, and nowhere in his response even hinted that he might support any rights for atheists. He then replaced the list of examples of minority religions with a list of examples of mainstream religions - which was not the question at all.
That's the first thing I noticed as well. Bush answered a question about atheism and minority religions without mentioning either atheism or minority religions. His examples of religions he would protect are Judaism, Islam, and two sects of Christianity - all mainstream religions. It seems that this is a deceptive way of trying to say "I do not support the rights of atheists or those who are members of minority religions."
Except that it's not pro-choice legislation that's the issue - that wouldn't pass in the first place. It's pro-life legislation that did pass with a majority vote but was then struck down by the Supreme Court.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps that's why the Linux source is a convoluted mess of hacks on top of hacks. When somebody adds a new feature it breaks half the other features in the kernel. That's what OO programming is designed to prevent - you can replace an object without breaking the rest of the program as long as the public interfaces are kept consistent. Apparently Linus et al haven't read anything on good programming habits since around 1970.
"It's short in front and long in back"
Different endings in Greek form their plurals differently, much as in English. So, yes, the plural of -os is -oi, but at least in modern Greek (I don't know ancient Greek) the pural of -i (Octopodi is octopus) is -ia (Octopodia).
10 years ago undergraduates couldn't run Unix in their dorm room, or even have networking. If they wanted to hack they had to come to SIPB. The machines in the office used to be a big draw. That is not so anymore. Unix workstations that we can afford are comparable to freshman's new Intel machine. Our fastest workstations are rivalled by my $800 Linux box.
So in other words, since joining these clubs is no longer necessary in order to obtain access to UNIX machines, more and more students are giving the finger to the elitist assholes who run the clubs and buying their own Linux boxes. Good.
Cool. Now I can have a desktop with anti-aliased fonts, alpha blended icons, and long uptimes. Who would've thunk it.
The slashdot blurb says this could lead to credit card numbers being stolen. The articles linked to did not mention this. Furthermore, since registering for an AIM name does not involve giving a credit card number, I fail to see how this is even plausible. Is slashdot just making up news or is there a factual basis behind this allegation?
Hmm, perhaps it's not slow run in the usual hard-drive-thrashing swapping of memory sense, but it definitely "feels" slow. At the very least it's less responsive than most Windows programs are - moving your mouse around menus, clicking, dragging, etc., should feel like you're performing the actions instantly, not having them lag behind your mouse slightly.
Even if that is the case, you have to provide me with an alternative to IE before I can reasonably be expected to switch. Netscape 4.x is not an alternative, because it crashes far too frequently - I tried to use it as my main browser for several months and finally got fed up and switched to IE. I'm certainly not going back. Both Mozilla nightlies and Netscape 6 are not alternatives for me either, because they load and run incredibly slowly on my Pentium II 266 with 96 MB RAM. I'm left with basically IE and Opera, both of which I use, but Opera doesn't render some of the more eyecandy-heavy pages (or will crash on them occasionally) so I'm forced to use IE for those. Unless Mozilla gets less bloated or I get a faster computer IE it'll stay I suppose.
And how would having the students use the freely-available GCC be any less indoctrination? Instead of trying to force them into using Windows and Microsoft tools you'd be trying to force them into the UNIX mindset (which is often nearly as convoluted and backwards as the Microsoft one).
Errr, some window managers have start menus.
I was speaking in this case specifically about the installation of Gnome included with Red Hat 7. Its interface is nearly identical to Windows 95 - the maximize/minimize/close icons, the start menu, the taskbar, even the clock on the taskbar. And to top it off it's a less responsive GUI than Windows 95 running on the same hardware is (though it gets some points in that it tends to crash less).
Linux, BEOS, Free BSD, even OS And the other up and coming operating systems have done more to foster innovation by forcing Microsoft to adapt and break the fossilization that in the end takes large companies and stops the innovation which made them so successful take .net for example.
Perhaps they can force Microsoft to innovate more by providing competition, and perhaps BeOS has some innovative features, but on the whole I don't see how you can criticize Microsoft for not being innovative and then support Linux. Linux is, and was intended to be, a free reimplementation of UNIX. A reimplementation with some minor tuning is hardly "innovation." A few days ago I saw a friend's Red Hat 7 system, and this was even less innovative - the Gnome desktop it booted to looked exactly like Windows 95. Every window has the minimize/maximize/close icons in the top/right corner (a GUI feature stolen from Windows 95 - Mac OS and even Windows 3.1 didn't have these icons, so it's obvious that Linux here is attempting to copy Windows 95). There's even a goddamn Start menu, another feature unique to Windows 95 which has been "borrowed" by Linux.
The title of the painting is Arrangement in Black and Grey No. 1. Whistler wished to emphasize the actual technical painting rather than its subject matter, so gave it this title. Apparently most people disagreed with him and insist on referring to it by its subject matter however.
Ever turn on your TV and radio? What about the .COM TLD? The whole bloody lot is a flood of marketing and advertising - at least Europeans are talking about reality, history, hurt and other REAL events and not living in some quasi-euphoric state of consumerism and vapid mind control.
I dunno, I've been to Europe quite a few times, and European TV and radio hardly seems better. It's flooded with marketing and advertising just as much as American TV and radio are, not to mention the proliferation of billboards, ads on the sides of buses, ads on taxi roofs, ads on soccer jerseys, etc. At least Americans don't put Coca-Cola ads on their damn baseball jerseys like Europeans do with their soccer ones.
Im not condoning censorship by France by any means - but America has serious problems of there own with regards to "Free Speech" they should start thinking about...
The main problem with your argument is that these are not really restrictions on free speech. They may make it more difficult to readily acquire something like porn - you cannot turn on public TV any time you want and see porn - but they do not make it completely illegal. What France is doing differs in that it makes it completely illegal - I cannot in France purchase Nazi memorabilia ever, even if I explicitly wish to do so.
Here is my non-exhaustive list of 'breaches of freedom' currently endured by Americans:
The 'war' on drugs - and the illegality of reasonable recreational drugs (marijuana and derivatives)
I'd agree with this, though what is "reasonable" is certainly subjective. Should crack cocaine be legal? What about methamphetamines? Ecstasy? Marijuana? Heroin?
Prostitution is illegal - What are you people thinking?
Only in some cities/states. It's legal in others. It's a local decision.
Censorship of the Internet at Libraries(!)
In my experience this rarely happens (none of the libraries I've been to have censored internet access), and it's an ongoing legal and political fight. We'll see how it ends up.
DeCSS/2600/Judge Kaplan ring a Bell? What about DMCA? What law was Napster really breaking? Humm?
Napster was providing a service which is used mostly for trafficking in pirated music. While it does also allow for legal music, this is a small minority of Napster traffic. Mind you I generally support Napster, but I can easily see how a judge would rule against it. Pirating music is after all illegal.
What about the prison industry? Do you really like being jailed for profit?
I don't see this as a problem with freedom - if you're going to be jailed anyway does it really matter by whom? The main thing is to make sure that certain standards are met in both publically and privately run prisons.
Rights of Same Sex couples.
Backwards Sodomy laws.
These are being addressed - Vermont (I think?) passed a law explicitly giving same sex couples the same rights as opposite sex couples, and sodomy laws are always struck down any time they're actually challenged. Things are slowly changing - I'd put the U.S. in this regard ahead of most countries (with the exception of a few liberal Northern European countries, even most Southern and Eastern European countries are behind here).
The growing 'What about the chiieeeldrreen' sentiment in America (wait for that to finally pop)
This isn't growing, it's been around forever. It's common in all countries, especially European ones as well. Countless times I've heard the argument for socialized medicine from someone who tries to evoke pity for a hypothetical kid who has no health insurance. "What about the children" is an argument used by all sides of pretty much every issue in all countries, it's not a uniquely American thing. I've also heard it used by French people to justify banning American cultural items - "what if our children grow up with no concept of French culture?"
Age limits to drink alcohol.
Most countries have this, IIRC. Isn't it 16 to drink beer in Germany? Greece is 16, though it's rarely enforced, and I'm pretty sure most other countries have at least some limit. I'd agree that 21 is rather high, but there are more important things than getting some booze. If you really want some you can get someone over 21 to buy it for you anyway.
Swearing in front of children is illegal (cant exactly remember the case/details)
This I agree is not good. It's been upheld by one court in one instance, though in general laws against swearing are never enforced.
What about the corporatist control on your Radio/Television airwaves - not much 'freedom' going on there would you say?
Freedom of speech does not include the freedom to broadcast what you want on somebody else's transmitter. They own it, they control it. If you have a problem with that, buy a radio station or publish a newspaper or something.
I seem to remember your not being allowed to visit or trade with the wonderful people of Cuba - why would that be? But China is 'ok'... puhleeze
My point is simply that America very wrongly believes it is 'Free'. That is one of the basic principles exercised by those who seek to control you: "Trust America, Trust Us, We have it the Best, Everyone else doesn't have it as well as we do. Sure we have problems - but just look at these poor fools... ha ha *receives a pat on the back* Now why don't you go down to the Mall and buy a new Tommy Hilfigir Tshirt."
While this may be, this has no bearing on actual freedom. You do not have to go down to the Mall and buy your new Tommy Hillfiger shirt - you could also stay home and watch porn movies, or ride your bike around the neighborhood, or have sex with your inflatable sheep. Freedom doesn't require everyone to behave as you think they should - in fact this would be the opposite of freedom.
Take a look around - what seems normal/reasonable/'ok' to you (because you are so close to 'it') looks like horrible oppression and breaches of your REAL Freedoms. What all the worlds citizens have to realize is that we must band together and protect everyone's rights - and assure that the world is organized for the benefit of all.. both France and America has problems to deal with.* But relatively speaking - who do you think is really 'Free'?
Relatively speaking, I think the Americans are "Free." I don't see how anything you mentioned with the exception of drug prohibition and the instance of prohibited swearing is a breach of real freedoms. Real freedoms do not include the "right" to broadcast your opinion on someone else's TV station, pirate music, etc.
You have to admit that the concept of client/server in X at least SEEMS backwards.
:)
Hrm.. I don't understand what you mean. If you mean that it shouldn't be done this way, and some other way instead, I'm all ears.
I think what he's referring to is the X distinction of "client" and "server." The "X server" is the piece of software that runs on the computer you want to display on, and it renders the data coming from the "X client," which you connect to, and which is actually running the program. This seems like backwards terminology to me (and a lot of people apparently). Wouldn't it be more accurate to describe the rendering portion as a "client," since it connects to another computer, requests data, and renders that data, while the portion which accepts connections, runs programs at request, and sends data out should be more accurately called a "server"?
you could run a whole slew of other operating systems under Linux
I'm somewhat confused about what plex86 actually does. On one hand it's mentioned that Windows and Linux are two of the operating systems that can be run under plex86, but a few other people have mentioned running Windows "under Linux" using plex86. Which is it? Do you run Windows and Linux simultaneously under plex86 (in which case Windows is not running "under Linux" any more than Linux is running "under Windows") or do you run Linux natively and then use plex86 to run Windows under Linux? If so, could you reverse it, running Windows natively and using plex86 to run Linux under Windows?
FWIW calling it "GNU/Hurd" is redundant, since Hurd is the kernel of the GNU OS, just like calling Windows "Windows/Win32" would be redundant. Now if you replace the official kernel with another one, then you call it "GNU/Linux" to indicate that it's the GNU OS, but with modifications.
Every GNU program commonly distributed with Linux can be replaced with a non-GNU alternative.
I'm not aware of the existence of a non-GNU Free Software replacement for the GNU C Compiler (gcc). In fact, even a proprietary replacement (which would be clearly unacceptable) wouldn't work, since the Linux kernel only will compile under the GNU C Compiler. Replacing it is impossible without also rewriting the kernel, so I'd consider it a pretty vital part of the system.
I see a certain necessary level of control, but I don't see the necessity (or even benefit) of total control. The goal of a parent should not be brainwashing. If your child disagrees with you politically, does not want to join your religion, or has a different taste in music, that's perfectly fine - it's not your place as a parent to force them into certain viewpoints.
And progress is not intelligently planned
It's the facade of our heritage
The odor of our land
They speak of progress
In red, white and blue
It's the structure of the future
As demise comes seething through
It's progress 'til there's nothing left to gain
As the dearth of new ideas
Makes us wallow in our shame
So before you go to contribute more
To the destruction of this world you adore
Remember life on earth is but a flash of dawn
And we're all part of it as the day rolls on
And progress is a message that we send
One step closer to the future
One inch closer to the end
I say progress is a synonym of time
We are all aware of it but it's nothing we refine
And progress is a debt we all must pay
It's convenience we all cherish
It's pollution we disdain
And the cutting edge is dulling
Too many folks to plow through
Just keep your fuckin' distance
And it can't include you!
-Bad Religion, 1989
His house, his rules. When she attains the
age of majority, and is capable of supporting
herself, then and only then can she expect that
level or privacy. At that point, it will become
her house, her rules.
To put it another way: them's that pays the piper
calls the tune. When you can pay your own way
in the world, that's when you start realizing
freedom.
I'd disagree. The daughter is not capable of supporting herself simply because she is a child. It is not her fault that her father must support her - it is entirely her father's responsibility for having a child, and he must accept that responsibility. Since, supporting the child is a responsibility that comes with having that child, it does not entail any additional rights for the parents - they are not justified in violating their daughter's privacy simply because she does not pay for her own house.
The odd thing is that many republicans were complaining then, and even went so far as to say that Clinton did not have the right to govern the country (in an ethical sense, not a legal sense) since the majority of the American people voted against him. I wonder if they're going to say the same thing about Bush if he wins, or if they'll cook up some hypocrisy instead?
AFAIK they have been added, but it really doesn't matter - the Florida vote is pretty much tied and the Oregon vote won't have more than a few thousand votes difference. Since Gore is leading by 200,000 votes nationally something would have to change significantly for him to not win the popular vote.
I don't see it as just being a choice of examples - he reponded to a question which specifically mentioned atheism, and nowhere in his response even hinted that he might support any rights for atheists. He then replaced the list of examples of minority religions with a list of examples of mainstream religions - which was not the question at all.
That's the first thing I noticed as well. Bush answered a question about atheism and minority religions without mentioning either atheism or minority religions. His examples of religions he would protect are Judaism, Islam, and two sects of Christianity - all mainstream religions. It seems that this is a deceptive way of trying to say "I do not support the rights of atheists or those who are members of minority religions."
Except that it's not pro-choice legislation that's the issue - that wouldn't pass in the first place. It's pro-life legislation that did pass with a majority vote but was then struck down by the Supreme Court.