However, all of the 'emmisary' episodes lost my interest fast.
And since that includes the very FIRST episode, I gave up on the series 30 minutes in.
Too tied to the space station.
They spent tons of time away from it; that wasn't really a problem. In fact, if they'd be MORE tied down, it would've been better. The episodes were generally no more connected to one another than in previous serieses on the USS Enterprise. Orbiting one planet permanently should've been an opportunity to experiment with some continuity.
Kirk would always bend the Federation rules for good moral reasons, the same goes for Picard. It seems like the Archer character will do anything to accomplish his mission, morals be damned.
What rules? As Enterprise was being planned, the theory was that all those rules haven't been written yet... and the reason they WILL be written is to prevent reoccurences of mistakes Archer will make.
As a show with fresh ideas and excellent presentation
I don't see how a TV series that started in 1965 and has run continuously for the past 15 years (sometimes with 2 versions active at once) can have "fresh ideas" left.
The ideas of the X-Files were derivative of many things, but they hadn't been on TV (recently). But I gave up watching Star Trek well before Voyager, because they'd given up pretending to do more than repeat the same 5 plots over and over.
After several years, X-Files repeated itself too- "Oh, another killer mutant. What organ is this one attacking humans for? Liver, stomach, brain, heart, blood, stomach, cancer, epidermis... spleen?"
What about killing the process that had/dev/js0 open?
That has no effect- it's too late.
The problem (apparently) is that the USB system sends a message to the kernel whenever a device is unplugged. If the dev is unused, then the reference count for that module is reduced, and it can be unloaded. But if not, then even after the process closes/dev/js0, the module never re-checks to see if it is now OK to decrement the usage count.
Maybe this is something that the 2.6.x series has fixed; I wouldn't know. And maybe the general problem is that if a module screws up and wrongly decides it's still in use, there's no "rmmod -f" command to force removal.
What the H*LL are you talking about? If there is a driver available, it will certainly be loadable and unloadable without a system reboot.
Wrong. You sound as if the system always works perfectly- but it doesn't. It's easy enough to get a "stuck" Linux module.
For example, I've got a USB joystick. Plugging it in will automatically cause a module called "joydev" to be installed. Unplug the joystick while a process has the/dev/js0 file opened and then you're stuck- the module can never be removed, because "joydev: Device or resource busy". Plug the joystick back in, and it connects to/dev/js1./dev/js0 will never become usable again, until I reboot.
Similarly, I've got a CD-R whose burning failed. Attempting to mount it from Linux will hang up for a few minutes, then print a failure message. From then on, reading/cdrom will give an error, and "umount" will freeze up in a system call (meaning the process will ignore all KILL signals). Again, the cdrom can only be made usable again by rebooting. (And worse, any processes trying to access the disk will be unkillable. So if those processes also have a file open on your hard drive, then that disk can't be umounted either... meaning you can't reboot cleanly, and will have to yank the power cord, then watch an fsck run)
I'm sure that many Linux users never see these problems: either because they never do those sorts of things, or they have a better version of Linux (I last tried 2.4.26), or they're just lucky. But they do happen.
A tabula rasa would require that they had never interacted with a single other living being
Oh, so you've expanded your argument!
Now you're not only claiming that "shared belief" is a redundant expression, but that the very word "shared" should be deleted from the dictionary. I shouldn't say "shared bathroom", because all bathrooms are necessarily the product of millenia of effort from hundreds of progressing human societies, and therefore everything is shared. Alrighty then!
I made some jokes earlier because silliness is most easily refuted the same way. When a claim is completely childish, it would require saintly forbearance not to respond in kind.
you attempted to dismiss an argument based upon a triviality, rather than on its merits
As a refresher, here's the "argument" I dismissed: "'shared belief' is a nonsense phrase, because it implies there is a contrary state". There's no non-trivial merit in there to attack- all it does is suppose an alternate definition for common words, and use that to assail the semantical correctness of a sentence.
Additionally, it has been shown that humans can alter their own genetic code through their experiences in life and that this can be be passed along.
I hope you're referring either to radioactive mutation or mitochondrial population fluctuations- because if not, then you're professing something that hands-on experimentation by Nazi scientists has directly disproved.
What I have in mind when I do talk about God and religion it's yogis.
So the examples you use are completely different from the big majority of religious people (which are Christians and Muslims)
The USA is known for it's commercial and economical achievements. There's a cult widely known as a money. Where the money is the highest worth of life there cannot be not even a drop of religion.
That reinforces my point that if religions are trying to teach a set of humble, generous values, then they aren't doing it very effectively.
I have a nice list here of well-educated people who you have likely heard of who believed in God.
That list proves nothing.
Firstly look at the most recent name: Einstein, although a genius, was not well-educated. Nor did he believe in God; he said "I am agnostic" flat-out.
Of the rest of those men- how can you possibly know what they believed? All you can know is what they said.
And why might a person to say something he doesn't believe? If it's to his benefit to do so. If stating a belief will either gain an advantage or avoid a threat, then a rational man may claim to believe regardless of the truth.
Prior to the 1700s, there was a significant risk of being flat-out killed if you publically proclaimed a disbelief in God. Galileo faced lethal accusations of heresy for simply describing the heliocentric solar system- if he had mentioned actual disbelief in God, then he'd be lucky to escape the torch.
Even as European society improved to the point where heresey wasn't a capital crime, there remained strong biases such that a professed atheist would find his life made much more difficult. An atheist scientist would find himself socially shunned, his experiments sabotaged, and his publications suppressed. (Who knows? Maybe there were smart atheist scientists back then, and we never hear about them because they were crushed by the church?)
So, noting that those men went along with the predominant religious system in their homelands gives us no information as to whether they really approved of it- for what choice did they have?
Compare with a Christian martyr: martyrs are respected because they profess their faith even though they will be punished for it. But one cannot claim that a non-martyr had no faith- only that he valued his physical safety more than the chance to express that belief.
But the dragons from different cultures all look different.
They all look like big lizards or snakes. Dragon skin in Europe and Asia is scaly, while Americans had feathery dragons...
Of course, there is a very obvious answer to the poster's question: Sure man was too late to see live dinosaurs, but not too late to dig up fossils. We can't assume that fossils only started to be excavated 200 years ago. (Especially since we've observed that some cultures like to destroy fossils for magical ingredients)
I beleive that we were created in some one's image, and that the Neanderthals where chosen as the starting point for some unknown reason.
No serious biologist or paleontologist believes that humans are descended from Neanderthals.
Science can't explain out of the billions of permutations that evolution requires why is there only one Intelligent species, Why hasn't another one exsisted?
One has: Neanderthals. They were a separate species from homo sapiens that was also pretty intelligent.
They became extinct, of course- and probably with active help from humanity. And that is science's explanation for the non-existence of other "Intelligent" life on earth: that ecological niche is already filled by a widespread species that will bear no competition.
ould be infected with HIV and I've made a HIV test and it was negative. Say whatever you want but I'll thank the God for negative test's answer
"Thank you, God, for killing those other 10 million people with AIDS, but not me!"
There are many speculations that they are human creations. HIV, SARS etc.. Thank a scientist.
Trying to get yourself passed over as paranoid/credulous, huh? Well it won't work... even if HIV and SARS were artificial diseases (laughable thought), they'd still be God's responsibility.
If you believe in God, then every time you "Thank a scientist", you should "Thank the God" too. But there are many things beyond the power of science- for those things, good or bad, you can still "Thank the God"
How do you know that you're existing?
That's simple, actually. I think I exist, so I do. The circularity of that argument is no weakness. Regardless of what the definition of "existence" might turn out to be, we can show that some things meet it.
In oposite, it teaches us to love every man, every creation in this world.
It does not... the Christian Bible is full of examples of the rightness of killing and vengeance. However, even if I accepted that relgion attempts to teach love for others, a look around will tell you that it has failed. The USA is one of those most heavily Christian places on earth; especially according to its own president; and yet it also maintains the most powerful killing force this planet has ever seen.
Einstein used a non-standard definition of "religious". He meant a sense of glorious wonder about the natural world.
He personally documented his distaste for traditional major religions many times. For example,
"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible- in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him"
Scientists have so far been completely unable to save any person or group of people from death.
More than 30% of the 6 billion humans alive today are still alive only because of the actions of scientists. While you may claim that those people will die eventually, they haven't yet, and thus currently constitute "billions saved from death".
In spite of what some might say, science can't really illuminate our understanding of God very much, because by nature you can't perform an experiment on God.
Sure you can! Ok, you can't perform an experiment to demonstrate the existence of gods in general (which includes Zeus, Loki, etc), but there are simple tests that can be conducted to learn if the Christian God exists (or at least, if He is accurately described by the Bible and church teachings)
First, pick the attributes of God to experimentally measure. I selected a common prayer and choose "good" and "great" (which I interpreted as a synonym for "powerful")
Now for the test: go outside and walk down the street until you encounter an unescorted girl of age 8 or less. Pull her into an alleyway and bludgeon her to death with your fists. Check if God smites you down or otherwise intercedes.
If not, then we have verified that no entity that is both "good" and "powerful" was aware of your actions, or he would've put a stop to it. You've proved that not only was God not observing you, but also that no police officer was within view either (cops are neither as good nor powerful as God, but they are law abiding and carry guns)
The occurence of evil action is experimental evidence disproving the existence of any entity (a) good, (b) knowledgable about the action, and (c) powerful enough to stop it. If God didn't know or couldn't stop the action, then He's not all-powerful. And if he didn't want to stop it, then He's not good.
Religion really isn't about heaven, or hell
Surveys have found that the top 90% (at least) of all faiths completely disagree with you. But it's actually quite possible that you're right, and they're just liars.
my understanding is that these rules apply when you "incorporate" code, not when you "modify" code
Incorporation is basically a subset of modification. If it were somehow possible to incorporate a GPLed project without modifying it, then that would be permissible... but under normal techniques for software development, that is impossible. At least a minor amount of modification is required before incorporation becomes possible.
Another way to look at it is to note that size doesn't matter for copyright law. If I write a 5 line function and you write a 20kloc including it, your whole program is still legally a modification of my previous work.
and to neither increase or decrease anything for any other member of that population
You have entered an infinite loop. You made that same statement two posts up, but have not responded to my response. Anything I could say to that post I've already said.
Still, I'll see if I can find another way to state the same thing without being 100% repetitive.
Consider 3 ways of releasing software: binary-only, BSD, and GPL. To the end-users, binary-only is clearly less free than BSD or GPL, because they have no ability to modify the code for their own needs. The freeness of BSD and GPL is similar, but BSD gives the additional freedom of allowing the modification to be released binary-only. BSD code can become binary-only
But! As already mentioned, binary-only is much less free. So if BSD can become less free, and GPL cannot become less free, then GPL is in some way more free.
Which one is really on top depends on how you count the "freedom to become less free". It can be seen as either a positive or a negative, and there is no frm answer to that question, any more than you can tell me "Can God create a rock to heavy for Him to lift?"
no member of that population would have had my code before, and neither will they have it after.
Do you think the world's programmers would be more or less free if all software was distributed with enclosed source code?
Practical example then. The Linux kernel. There are multiple companies out there that sell routers, PDAs, datacenters, motor-controllers, and TiVos running Linux, and they've all released their source code additions to their customers... making those customers more free. (and then spreading that freedom even to noncustomers)
Would they have done so if Linux was BSD instead of GPL? I doubt it.
In fact, the whole reason that Linux is more popular and successful than the BSD variant operating systems is due to the GPL. Many new features were added which, if the license had been BSD, the authors would've just kept to themselves, rather than opening to the world.
Addtionally, the argument on "Free" software licenses shouldn't be seen as "GPL vs BSD" but "GPL vs PD", where BSD is only a minor variation of PD (Public Domain).
Historically, Richard Stallman was first a PD author, who found that his own projects were being modified by corporations and then sold back to him for profit. Few people would enjoy seeing software that they had given for free commercialized like that.
So RMS had three choices: He could stop publishing source code. Or he could publish source code, but forbid anyone to distribute modified versions. Or, he could find some way to allow modification and redistribution, but only if they agree to allow their users the same rights they are enjoying then.
Obviously, you know which path he took, and you should be able to see that of those 3 choices, that one contributed much more freedom to his users than the others would've.
Many authors, especially corporations, wouldn't release their source code at all if it were possible a corporation would suck it into traditionally proprietary software. The fact that the GPL allows them to give out code without fear makes all of us recieving their software more free.
The full story is that 3 guys were driving around in the M992 when the heater started up and wouldn't stop. So they brought it in to the motor pool for repairs, parked it next to some tanks, and went away to wait for mechanics. Some time later the fires and explosions started, which so totally destroyed the M992 that we'll never know just what the malfunction was.
The human errors inherent in that diaster should be obvious.
I believe the correct US Army term for that is 'GI proofing' the weapon.
"GI proofing" is more about protecting the weapon itself (and it's operator), than other people.
For example, in the original Gulf War, the biggest losses of Abrams tanks was not due to enemy fire, not to friendly fire, but to ammunition detonation after someone had parked and left the heater on.
Yes in fact, but only because the offical psychological threshold of "genius" is embarrassingly low.
To help you out, in English
To help you, compare this with this. Done. Discussion over, I win.
On a more serious note: the connection between sharing of truth as fundamentally being a form of organiSation should be obvious.
No, it's not obvious, because it's not true. (I recently watched an unorganized mob of violent rioters who nonetheless shared emotional energy with each other). But as that point is irrelevant, I'll grant you it.
It doesn't matter because there is nothing about "belief" that implies "sharing", as you stated. Your claim that "organized belief" is redundant (or conversely that "disorganized belief" is an oxymoron) is untrue.
That is trivially demonstrable by a counter-example mental exercise: can you imagine somebody coming to a belief on his own, neither hearing it from someone else, nor relating it to another? If so, this is not "shared", and not (by your own definition) "organised".
You're correct that point 1 is false of "orthodox" Buddhism (which modern Zen is closest to, IMO), but not of the variants that actually became popular. The kinds of Buddhism that spread through China and to Japan and elsewhere were modified forms that had Buddha acting less like a kind of enlighented post-mortal and more like a traditional deity.
(Buddhism adopted paganish features in the same way Catholocism did. The modern versions both feature demigods that can fulfill prayers within their specialty areas, for example, because the masses enjoy targeted supplication)
However point 3 (option b, "below your standing") is highly true of Buddhism, which has a very explicit ranking system. (Modified upon each reincarnation)
Buddhists were recommended to instruct/lead others to their improvement, which is a type of "conversion". And the fact that others can be welcomed sort of reduces the importance of point #2.
Nonetheless, Buddhism is still a fairly unique faith, especially in its purer forms. I suppose it's the largest doctrinally atheist religion, for example...
what you seem to have meant is
A better way to correct his post would be to change it from "all religions" to "successful religions". Because all of the counterexamples you mentioned are small and shrinking.
If that was the definition of "organized", then you might have a point. But it doesn't, so you don't. Then again, you're talking about "organised", which isn't even a word. So the definition can be whatever you feel like making up!
So no -- brzzzt -- not everyone says they're such a great idea.
Well... many people (including a big majority of US citizens) say they're good rules. But they aren't thinking it through as closely as you did. Hey, they probably would have trouble even listing the 10 commandments.
Look at President GW Bush for example. On TV, he said his favorite political philosopher was Jesus. So he says. But do any of his judgemental, warmongering, death-penalizing actions really follow the teachings of Jesus "turn-the-other-cheek" "do-unto-others" "thou-shalt-not-kill" Christ?
Apparently it's much easier to claim faith than to actually let it influence your daily life- probably why the warning about "faith without works" was written.
Slashdot Mirror
However, all of the 'emmisary' episodes lost my interest fast.
And since that includes the very FIRST episode, I gave up on the series 30 minutes in.
Too tied to the space station.
They spent tons of time away from it; that wasn't really a problem. In fact, if they'd be MORE tied down, it would've been better. The episodes were generally no more connected to one another than in previous serieses on the USS Enterprise. Orbiting one planet permanently should've been an opportunity to experiment with some continuity.
Kirk would always bend the Federation rules for good moral reasons, the same goes for Picard. It seems like the Archer character will do anything to accomplish his mission, morals be damned.
What rules? As Enterprise was being planned, the theory was that all those rules haven't been written yet... and the reason they WILL be written is to prevent reoccurences of mistakes Archer will make.
As a show with fresh ideas and excellent presentation
I don't see how a TV series that started in 1965 and has run continuously for the past 15 years (sometimes with 2 versions active at once) can have "fresh ideas" left.
The ideas of the X-Files were derivative of many things, but they hadn't been on TV (recently). But I gave up watching Star Trek well before Voyager, because they'd given up pretending to do more than repeat the same 5 plots over and over.
After several years, X-Files repeated itself too- "Oh, another killer mutant. What organ is this one attacking humans for? Liver, stomach, brain, heart, blood, stomach, cancer, epidermis... spleen?"
What about killing the process that had /dev/js0 open?
/dev/js0, the module never re-checks to see if it is now OK to decrement the usage count.
That has no effect- it's too late.
The problem (apparently) is that the USB system sends a message to the kernel whenever a device is unplugged. If the dev is unused, then the reference count for that module is reduced, and it can be unloaded. But if not, then even after the process closes
Maybe this is something that the 2.6.x series has fixed; I wouldn't know. And maybe the general problem is that if a module screws up and wrongly decides it's still in use, there's no "rmmod -f" command to force removal.
What the H*LL are you talking about? If there
/dev/js0 file opened and then you're stuck- the module can never be removed, because "joydev: Device or resource busy". Plug the joystick back in, and it connects to /dev/js1. /dev/js0 will never become usable again, until I reboot.
/cdrom will give an error, and "umount" will freeze up in a system call (meaning the process will ignore all KILL signals). Again, the cdrom can only be made usable again by rebooting. (And worse, any processes trying to access the disk will be unkillable. So if those processes also have a file open on your hard drive, then that disk can't be umounted either... meaning you can't reboot cleanly, and will have to yank the power cord, then watch an fsck run)
is a driver available, it will certainly be loadable and unloadable without a system reboot.
Wrong. You sound as if the system always works perfectly- but it doesn't. It's easy enough to get a "stuck" Linux module.
For example, I've got a USB joystick. Plugging it in will automatically cause a module called "joydev" to be installed. Unplug the joystick while a process has the
Similarly, I've got a CD-R whose burning failed. Attempting to mount it from Linux will hang up for a few minutes, then print a failure message. From then on, reading
I'm sure that many Linux users never see these problems: either because they never do those sorts of things, or they have a better version of Linux (I last tried 2.4.26), or they're just lucky. But they do happen.
A tabula rasa would require that they had never interacted with a single other living being
Oh, so you've expanded your argument!
Now you're not only claiming that "shared belief" is a redundant expression, but that the very word "shared" should be deleted from the dictionary. I shouldn't say "shared bathroom", because all bathrooms are necessarily the product of millenia of effort from hundreds of progressing human societies, and therefore everything is shared. Alrighty then!
I made some jokes earlier because silliness is most easily refuted the same way. When a claim is completely childish, it would require saintly forbearance not to respond in kind.
you attempted to dismiss an argument based upon a triviality, rather than on its merits
As a refresher, here's the "argument" I dismissed: "'shared belief' is a nonsense phrase, because it implies there is a contrary state". There's no non-trivial merit in there to attack- all it does is suppose an alternate definition for common words, and use that to assail the semantical correctness of a sentence.
Additionally, it has been shown that humans can alter their own genetic code through their experiences in life and that this can be be passed along.
I hope you're referring either to radioactive mutation or mitochondrial population fluctuations- because if not, then you're professing something that hands-on experimentation by Nazi scientists has directly disproved.
What I have in mind when I do talk about God and religion it's yogis.
So the examples you use are completely different from the big majority of religious people (which are Christians and Muslims)
The USA is known for it's commercial and economical achievements. There's a cult widely known as a money. Where the money is the highest worth of life there cannot be not even a drop of religion.
That reinforces my point that if religions are trying to teach a set of humble, generous values, then they aren't doing it very effectively.
I have a nice list here of well-educated people who you have likely heard of who believed in God.
That list proves nothing.
Firstly look at the most recent name: Einstein, although a genius, was not well-educated. Nor did he believe in God; he said "I am agnostic" flat-out.
Of the rest of those men- how can you possibly know what they believed? All you can know is what they said.
And why might a person to say something he doesn't believe? If it's to his benefit to do so. If stating a belief will either gain an advantage or avoid a threat, then a rational man may claim to believe regardless of the truth.
Prior to the 1700s, there was a significant risk of being flat-out killed if you publically proclaimed a disbelief in God. Galileo faced lethal accusations of heresy for simply describing the heliocentric solar system- if he had mentioned actual disbelief in God, then he'd be lucky to escape the torch.
Even as European society improved to the point where heresey wasn't a capital crime, there remained strong biases such that a professed atheist would find his life made much more difficult. An atheist scientist would find himself socially shunned, his experiments sabotaged, and his publications suppressed. (Who knows? Maybe there were smart atheist scientists back then, and we never hear about them because they were crushed by the church?)
So, noting that those men went along with the predominant religious system in their homelands gives us no information as to whether they really approved of it- for what choice did they have?
Compare with a Christian martyr: martyrs are respected because they profess their faith even though they will be punished for it. But one cannot claim that a non-martyr had no faith- only that he valued his physical safety more than the chance to express that belief.
But the dragons from different cultures all look different.
They all look like big lizards or snakes. Dragon skin in Europe and Asia is scaly, while Americans had feathery dragons...
Of course, there is a very obvious answer to the poster's question: Sure man was too late to see live dinosaurs, but not too late to dig up fossils. We can't assume that fossils only started to be excavated 200 years ago. (Especially since we've observed that some cultures like to destroy fossils for magical ingredients)
I beleive that we were created in some one's image, and that the Neanderthals where chosen as the starting point for some unknown reason.
No serious biologist or paleontologist believes that humans are descended from Neanderthals.
Science can't explain out of the billions of permutations that evolution requires why is there only one Intelligent species, Why hasn't another one exsisted?
One has: Neanderthals. They were a separate species from homo sapiens that was also pretty intelligent.
They became extinct, of course- and probably with active help from humanity. And that is science's explanation for the non-existence of other "Intelligent" life on earth: that ecological niche is already filled by a widespread species that will bear no competition.
ould be infected with HIV and I've made a HIV test and it was negative. Say whatever you want but I'll thank the God for negative test's answer
"Thank you, God, for killing those other 10 million people with AIDS, but not me!"
There are many speculations that they are human creations. HIV, SARS etc.. Thank a scientist.
Trying to get yourself passed over as paranoid/credulous, huh? Well it won't work... even if HIV and SARS were artificial diseases (laughable thought), they'd still be God's responsibility.
If you believe in God, then every time you "Thank a scientist", you should "Thank the God" too. But there are many things beyond the power of science- for those things, good or bad, you can still "Thank the God"
How do you know that you're existing?
That's simple, actually. I think I exist, so I do. The circularity of that argument is no weakness. Regardless of what the definition of "existence" might turn out to be, we can show that some things meet it.
In oposite, it teaches us to love every man, every creation in this world.
It does not... the Christian Bible is full of examples of the rightness of killing and vengeance. However, even if I accepted that relgion attempts to teach love for others, a look around will tell you that it has failed. The USA is one of those most heavily Christian places on earth; especially according to its own president; and yet it also maintains the most powerful killing force this planet has ever seen.
Einstein used a non-standard definition of "religious". He meant a sense of glorious wonder about the natural world.
He personally documented his distaste for traditional major religions many times. For example,
Scientists have so far been completely unable to save any person or group of people from death.
More than 30% of the 6 billion humans alive today are still alive only because of the actions of scientists. While you may claim that those people will die eventually, they haven't yet, and thus currently constitute "billions saved from death".
In spite of what some might say, science can't really illuminate our understanding of God very much, because by nature you can't perform an experiment on God.
Sure you can! Ok, you can't perform an experiment to demonstrate the existence of gods in general (which includes Zeus, Loki, etc), but there are simple tests that can be conducted to learn if the Christian God exists (or at least, if He is accurately described by the Bible and church teachings)
First, pick the attributes of God to experimentally measure. I selected a common prayer and choose "good" and "great" (which I interpreted as a synonym for "powerful")
Now for the test: go outside and walk down the street until you encounter an unescorted girl of age 8 or less. Pull her into an alleyway and bludgeon her to death with your fists. Check if God smites you down or otherwise intercedes.
If not, then we have verified that no entity that is both "good" and "powerful" was aware of your actions, or he would've put a stop to it. You've proved that not only was God not observing you, but also that no police officer was within view either (cops are neither as good nor powerful as God, but they are law abiding and carry guns)
The occurence of evil action is experimental evidence disproving the existence of any entity (a) good, (b) knowledgable about the action, and (c) powerful enough to stop it. If God didn't know or couldn't stop the action, then He's not all-powerful. And if he didn't want to stop it, then He's not good.
Religion really isn't about heaven, or hell
Surveys have found that the top 90% (at least) of all faiths completely disagree with you. But it's actually quite possible that you're right, and they're just liars.
my understanding is that these rules apply when you "incorporate" code, not when you "modify" code
Incorporation is basically a subset of modification. If it were somehow possible to incorporate a GPLed project without modifying it, then that would be permissible... but under normal techniques for software development, that is impossible. At least a minor amount of modification is required before incorporation becomes possible.
Another way to look at it is to note that size doesn't matter for copyright law. If I write a 5 line function and you write a 20kloc including it, your whole program is still legally a modification of my previous work.
and to neither increase or decrease anything for any other member of that population
You have entered an infinite loop. You made that same statement two posts up, but have not responded to my response. Anything I could say to that post I've already said.
Still, I'll see if I can find another way to state the same thing without being 100% repetitive.
Consider 3 ways of releasing software: binary-only, BSD, and GPL. To the end-users, binary-only is clearly less free than BSD or GPL, because they have no ability to modify the code for their own needs. The freeness of BSD and GPL is similar, but BSD gives the additional freedom of allowing the modification to be released binary-only. BSD code can become binary-only
But! As already mentioned, binary-only is much less free. So if BSD can become less free, and GPL cannot become less free, then GPL is in some way more free.
Which one is really on top depends on how you count the "freedom to become less free". It can be seen as either a positive or a negative, and there is no frm answer to that question, any more than you can tell me "Can God create a rock to heavy for Him to lift?"
no member of that population would have had my code before, and neither will they have it after.
Do you think the world's programmers would be more or less free if all software was distributed with enclosed source code?
Practical example then. The Linux kernel. There are multiple companies out there that sell routers, PDAs, datacenters, motor-controllers, and TiVos running Linux, and they've all released their source code additions to their customers... making those customers more free. (and then spreading that freedom even to noncustomers)
Would they have done so if Linux was BSD instead of GPL? I doubt it.
In fact, the whole reason that Linux is more popular and successful than the BSD variant operating systems is due to the GPL. Many new features were added which, if the license had been BSD, the authors would've just kept to themselves, rather than opening to the world.
Addtionally, the argument on "Free" software licenses shouldn't be seen as "GPL vs BSD" but "GPL vs PD", where BSD is only a minor variation of PD (Public Domain).
Historically, Richard Stallman was first a PD author, who found that his own projects were being modified by corporations and then sold back to him for profit. Few people would enjoy seeing software that they had given for free commercialized like that.
So RMS had three choices: He could stop publishing source code. Or he could publish source code, but forbid anyone to distribute modified versions. Or, he could find some way to allow modification and redistribution, but only if they agree to allow their users the same rights they are enjoying then.
Obviously, you know which path he took, and you should be able to see that of those 3 choices, that one contributed much more freedom to his users than the others would've.
Many authors, especially corporations, wouldn't release their source code at all if it were possible a corporation would suck it into traditionally proprietary software. The fact that the GPL allows them to give out code without fear makes all of us recieving their software more free.
Nobody "left the heater on", it malfunctioned.
The full story is that 3 guys were driving around in the M992 when the heater started up and wouldn't stop. So they brought it in to the motor pool for repairs, parked it next to some tanks, and went away to wait for mechanics. Some time later the fires and explosions started, which so totally destroyed the M992 that we'll never know just what the malfunction was.
The human errors inherent in that diaster should be obvious.
I believe the correct US Army term for that is 'GI proofing' the weapon.
"GI proofing" is more about protecting the weapon itself (and it's operator), than other people.
For example, in the original Gulf War, the biggest losses of Abrams tanks was not due to enemy fire, not to friendly fire, but to ammunition detonation after someone had parked and left the heater on.
The bulk of which, apart from amateur stuff , happens to be copyrighted.
No. Amateur porn is copyrighted too. Any photograph taken today is automatically copyrighted, unless the creator explicitly declares otherwise.
Hmmm...you must be some kind of genius:
Yes in fact, but only because the offical psychological threshold of "genius" is embarrassingly low.
To help you out, in English
To help you, compare this with this. Done. Discussion over, I win.
On a more serious note: the connection between sharing of truth as fundamentally being a form of organiSation should be obvious.
No, it's not obvious, because it's not true. (I recently watched an unorganized mob of violent rioters who nonetheless shared emotional energy with each other). But as that point is irrelevant, I'll grant you it.
It doesn't matter because there is nothing about "belief" that implies "sharing", as you stated. Your claim that "organized belief" is redundant (or conversely that "disorganized belief" is an oxymoron) is untrue.
That is trivially demonstrable by a counter-example mental exercise: can you imagine somebody coming to a belief on his own, neither hearing it from someone else, nor relating it to another? If so, this is not "shared", and not (by your own definition) "organised".
Except, for example, Buddhism. [1]
You're correct that point 1 is false of "orthodox" Buddhism (which modern Zen is closest to, IMO), but not of the variants that actually became popular. The kinds of Buddhism that spread through China and to Japan and elsewhere were modified forms that had Buddha acting less like a kind of enlighented post-mortal and more like a traditional deity.
(Buddhism adopted paganish features in the same way Catholocism did. The modern versions both feature demigods that can fulfill prayers within their specialty areas, for example, because the masses enjoy targeted supplication)
However point 3 (option b, "below your standing") is highly true of Buddhism, which has a very explicit ranking system. (Modified upon each reincarnation)
Buddhists were recommended to instruct/lead others to their improvement, which is a type of "conversion". And the fact that others can be welcomed sort of reduces the importance of point #2.
Nonetheless, Buddhism is still a fairly unique faith, especially in its purer forms. I suppose it's the largest doctrinally atheist religion, for example...
what you seem to have meant is
A better way to correct his post would be to change it from "all religions" to "successful religions". Because all of the counterexamples you mentioned are small and shrinking.
Why is it concerned acceptable in modern society to preach about God, but questioning God is so offensive?
The same reason no atheist can be elected to Congress.
There is NO REASON whatsoever to believe that Earth is the only creation
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth
So yeah, I suppose the Bible is "NO REASON", eh?
Poof! You are now organised.
If that was the definition of "organized", then you might have a point. But it doesn't, so you don't. Then again, you're talking about "organised", which isn't even a word. So the definition can be whatever you feel like making up!
mexico + UFO
So no -- brzzzt -- not everyone says they're such a great idea.
Well... many people (including a big majority of US citizens) say they're good rules. But they aren't thinking it through as closely as you did. Hey, they probably would have trouble even listing the 10 commandments.
Look at President GW Bush for example. On TV, he said his favorite political philosopher was Jesus. So he says. But do any of his judgemental, warmongering, death-penalizing actions really follow the teachings of Jesus "turn-the-other-cheek" "do-unto-others" "thou-shalt-not-kill" Christ?
Apparently it's much easier to claim faith than to actually let it influence your daily life- probably why the warning about "faith without works" was written.