Get a concentration of those - even if they are "lesser" crimes like vandalism or simple assualt - and you've got "smoke". And where there's "smoke"...
I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you iPod fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of an iPod (30GB) for about 22 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to my iPod. 22 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this iPod, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
In addition, during this file transfer, songs will not play. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even the backlight is straining to keep up as I type this.
I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on this iPod, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen an iPod that has run faster than other music players, despite the iPod's faster chip architecture. My Vic 20 with 16KB of ram runs faster than this iPod at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the iPod is a "superior" music player.
iPod addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use an iPod over other faster, cheaper, more stable players.
Sweet Zombie Jesus! give this man a Nobel prize. Finding ways to goof off with things that were not meant to be goofed off with is IMHO one of the most nobel and pure of all human endeavors.
Just a nit to pick. Nobel is the family which started the prize of the same name. Noble is what you are if you have nobility.
Nice try, but it's no Sidekick (Score:5, Informative)
by ChaoticChaos (603248)* <l3sr-v4cf@sp[ ]x.com ['ame' in gap]>
on Tuesday October 28, @06:14AM (#7327726)
I keep waiting for a device that has the functionality of my T-Mobile Sidekick (IM, email, web browsing, phone, scheduler, notes, etc.) that is as thoughtfully made (screen flips up to reveal a solid thumb-board and every bit of data I enter is automatically backed up on T-Mobile's servers) that is anywhere close to the price point ($300).
I bet this Nokia device is plenty expensive and I could send out an email 10 times faster with my Sidekick thumb-board than you could peck one out with the stylus on this device (if you could find your stylus;-) ).
http://www.t-mobile.com/products/overview.asp?ph on eid=195184
640x320 is pretty good! (Score:5, Interesting)
by jeroenb (125404)
on Tuesday October 28, @06:25AM (#7327812)
(http://slashdot.org/)
First thing I checked was ofcourse the screen's resolution and it turns out it sports 640x320 [nokia.com]. That's very good! Especially since close competitors (like the P900) only have 320x208 [sonyericsson.com]. Even some of the big-screen PDA's currently out like the Palm Tungsten T3 and the clamshell Sony Clie's only have 480x320. Even Sony's latest UX50 has that resolution [clieplaza.com] and if I'm not mistaken so does the latest Zaurus.
640x320 is finally something you can seriously browse the web on!
[
What is the earthly point of a bank having a web site? There are only two reasons I ever set foot anywhere near a bank.
- To pay in a cheque through the hole-in-the-wall. - To draw out some cash from the hole-in-the-wall.
Unless someone has come up with a new killer application that lets me scan a cheque at home and pay it into my account, or print pound notes on my own printer {actually, I have done the very next best thing, but that's another story}, I have absolutely no use for internet banking.
You're kidding, right? Either you're trolling or your bank is still in the stone ages. I pay all my bills online from my bank's website. That's phone, internet, health, credit cards, insurance, etc. Bill comes in the mail, I go online and pay it. I can also schedule payments in advance so that they're made exactly on the due date, or schedule automatic monthly/weekly/whatever payments. I also transfer amounts between accounts (personal and business) online as well. I can pay other people online at no cost, if they are using the same bank as I do.
The earthly point is that I hardly ever set foot near a bank these days, and that's on the odd occasion that I need to deposit a che[ck/que] or money order myself, rather than having it direct deposited. If your bank doesn't offer this, maybe you should look around for a new bank?
your average CCD will detect IR. Don't believe me? Pull out your camcorder and aim a remote at the camcorder. It looks like white light. I know where I live, we have CCD DOT cams at almost every intersection. It would be easy to pick out the car emitting the bright flashes.
Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. In that case, snap away! And charge them $25000 per offense.:)
Why are these devices not illegal? Seems to me that the intersection should take a picture of the vehicle using the device... if there aren't flashing lights, send a ticket in the mail.
The only problem there is how do you know which driver among the 20 approaching the intersection has the device? Sure, if you see someone with their arm out the window pointing a remote at the traffic light it's a no-brainer, but an IR transmitter peeking out of the front grill or behind some trinket on the dash would be impossible to make out.
Just make it some enourmous fine... $25000 per offense or some such figure when the device is used for a non-emergency purpose. That way, the devices themselves aren't illegal (though I agree that they probably should be) but the uses are. You could, conceivably, drive your wife to the hospital when she's about to give birth, but you couldn't use it just because you're late for work.
I went to the hardware store the other day and saw this great new device which I'm sure you'll be interested in. It's a combination saw, laser level, hammer, screwdriver, drill, and has built-in GPS. Now you don't need separate, specialized tools to do all of these things -- one simple device does it all (though not as well).
All of the open source gurus that I've encountered (every single one of them) have been respectful of other OS's. Not one of them is a huge M$ fan, but I believe that it's more because of M$'s business practice than anything else. With the exception of one BIND admin, these are very friendly people who are willing to teach those who are willing to listen, not shove their OS preference down the throats of others. Who the hell are these zealots, Mr. Enderle? What world are you living in?
You haven't visited the BSD section lately, have you?:)
Damn, maybe I've been reading too much Arthur C. Clarke lately, but I was just waiting for the end of the trial where Rothblatt was revealed to be not an attorney, but BINA48 herself. It would have made for a nice sci-fi twist to the mock trial.
It's been tried. In South America, as I recall. It led to a lot of "chain-voting" fraud. Nice thought, though. The problem is: if it's encrypted, or otherwise not normally readable, how does the person know that what the paper says is really what they voted for?
Same thing as they have in Wal-Mart and other stores with the price checkers. You take the item up to a barcode scanner, stick the barcode under, it beeps and shows you the price. This way, you could verify that at least the paper shows you voting for the correct person. You could even have the paper print out your vote twice -- separate the paper along the perforated part and keep one half, stick the other half into a physical box which can then be counted later on.
First, let me say two thing. One, thank you for engaging in a debate with logic and reason. Second, I simply can not keep up writing these dang books as we go back and forth. I think it's pretty clear we're both beating a different drum and we're not going to change each other's mind. Just the same, thanks again.
We may have to agree to disagree, but I've enjoyed this debate and also appreciate that you follow it logically. Well, somewhat logically anyway.;-)
"Actually, taking it out is the cheapest solution."
That was my point exactly!
This is contrary to what you previously stated:
Since it serves no purpose, we might as well leave it be. Notice this is the other side of the coin which you tought, and oddly enough, is the easist and cheapest solution of them all.
Unless I'm stupid (perhaps!) you are claiming that "leaving it be" is the "cheapest solution".
Yes, but America is supposed to be about the majority and not the minority, selfish group over there.
A democracy isn't a democracy in everything. Or do you think that if the majority thinks it's okay to own a slave, that slavery should be legal? Only the selfish minority would be lame idiots and protest slavery, right? Fundamental rights always trump the majority's wishes. If everybody in the US voted to prevent you from speaking, the vote would be for nothing because your right to speak is inalienable.
That's the crux of this whole argument. The constitution says a specific thing concerning religion. There are various ways of interpreting that, as has been made clear. If the interpretation is that the government shouldn't even appear to promote any religion (whether it really is promotion or simply an artwork display) then the will of the majority does not matter. The sole exception to this is that if the majority's will is applied towards changing the constitution to remove the restriction about government and religion.
On the other hand, if the constitution simply says that government shouldn't say "XYZ religion is the official religion of the United States" then let the religous phrases, artwork, etc. stand as is and let the people who are offended just overlook it.
"Catholics (the largest religion in the world) have carved images of Mary, Joseph, Jesus, etc. Do you suggest that in order to be moral and ethical, Catholics should follow that commandment and remove all their carved images? Is keeping those images immoral and unethical?"
Hehe. Well, fist, I don't consider Catholics to be Christians. They are their own cult with their own tenents and secret doctrine. Nonetheless, I'm happy to lump them into the same pot as the other three major religions as they clearly want to be there. Just the same, they believe in the 10c's and it's in their bible. So, I couldn't care less if they are offended by their own religion. Nor could I care if they are offended by breaking doctrine of their own religion even when their leaders are telling them it's okay.
The point here is that you stated that the 10 commandments are a universal set of ethics and morals which all Americans believe in. Regardless of the perceived hypocrisy of any one religion, you have to admit that not all Americans (in fact, I would suggest not even close to a majority) feel that all 10 commandments are universal and apply to everyone.
"As I've demonstrated above, this isn't the case. Most Christians don't even accept at least two of those commandments."
You mean people used their own gray matter and decided they could filter out what they wanted. No....say it ain't so! Case in point. Thank you.
Again, this isn't about filtering or not. This is about your previous statement:
When you compare what's on the 10c against American values (that's everyone), you'll find that, everyone agrees they are a good thing.
Yes, people can filter it out. The majority of peo
The fact that you signed an NDA for XYZ corporation can't be hidden. After all, let's say that Microsoft asked you to sign a non-disclosure. If you refused, you could legally say that Microsoft asked you to sign a non-disclosure.
Given this, they can't prevent you from mentioning who you worked for. The exception to this might be if you worked for a contracting company who then sent you to a specific site. You could then say you worked for the contracting company but perhaps not the end-client.
"However, we don't see this. We see a constitution enacted specifically prohibiting any establishment of religion."
That's not true. It specifically is prohibiting any establishment of religion by government. If it prohibited establishment of regigion in general, the country would be drmatically different.
That is what I meant... by government.
"Does the phrase "In God we trust" apply equally to everyone?"
Actually, it does. I think it says, "In God we trust", and not, "In God we trust, except for group a over there". The only question here is, does everyone *feel* like it applies to them? The answer. No, as clearly there are some religions that don't have the idiom of an all powerful entity.
What I was getting at is does everyone equally believe and trust in a God? Clearly, no. There are people who believe in a multitude of Gods (Hindu I believe is one example) and there are people who don't believe in any kind of higher power or entity at all.
"Why does the money need to refer to a trust in God which a huge number of people do not have?"
Good question. I don't have an answer to. Just the same, over the next many years, new moneies will come into print. Why didn't we see this up roar about it? Simple! It doesn't matter and only dolts and idiots want to fight the lame fight.
Calling people names just because they hold different things important is a rather immature attitude. What's important to you might be completely trivial and lame to someone else. However, as a fellow human being, you have the right to feel that way and nobody should criticize you for it. You should show a little more tolerance towards the views of others.
"I think it should be phased out as it serves no purpose."
I agree. Since it serves no purpose, we might as well leave it be. Notice this is the other side of the coin which you tought, and oddly enough, is the easist and cheapest solution of them all. Leave it f-n alone because it's not hurting, harming, promoting, damaging, or preventing our government from working properly.
Actually, taking it out is the cheapest solution. When coins and notes are minted, they must be stamped into the metal/paper. To do this, dies are cast. Essentially, if you remove the phrase, it saves time as someone doesn't have to design the new coin/note to include it and the die manufacturer doesn't need to carve that on. It's the easiest solution which will offend the least number of people.
"Likewise, we can find many more than 10 things which are terrible about the Christian bible."
That, I have no doubt, however, you've changed the subject. This isn't about bad things being in Christian doctrine.
Ah, but it is. You claim that the 10 commandments are universal and that everybody accepts them as good sound tenets. This is clearly not the case. The first commandment is: "You shall have no other gods before me." The "me" part of this is, of course, none other than the Old Testament God. To any non-Christian/Jew/Muslim, this is highly offensive.
The second commandment is: "You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." Again, this is very offensive. Many people carve images of all sorts of things, such as carving the image of the 10 commandments themselves.:) Catholics (the largest religion in the world) have carved images of Mary, Joseph, Jesus, etc. Do you suggest that in order to be moral and ethical, Catholics should follow that commandment and remove all their carved images? Is keeping those images immoral and unethical?
The third commandment is: "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain." Again, to non-Christian/Jew/Muslim, this is very offensive as it assumes that they worship the Old Testament God.
I agree. Simple fact is, America was established as a Christian country and exclusion of such items were clearly NOT intended by the creators of our countries constitution. As such, the Christian view will be hard to escape in this country. This isn't justification, simply historical fact.
"A country established by Christians" is a hell of a lot different than "established as a Christian country". If the latter is true, we should see the constitution riddled with references to Christianity. However, we don't see this. We see a constitution enacted specifically prohibiting any establishment of religion. And many of the "founding fathers" didn't subscribe to the Christian doctrine either. Take Thomas Jefferson, as one example:
I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Should we remove the religous icons from our money too?
Does the phrase "In God we trust" apply equally to everyone? Why does the money need to refer to a trust in God which a huge number of people do not have? I think it should be phased out as it serves no purpose. No need to spend a lot of money to recall and replace all the currency, but as new coins and notes are produced, don't include the phrase. What is the rationale for including it anyway? To promote Christian doctrine? If so, all the more reason it should be phased out.
How about letting the people decide? In communities where there is a large Hindu population, perhaps the courts can contain Hindu principles. In areas where there's a large Muslim community, Muslim principles can be displayed in the courts. After all, we're all perfectly capable of deciding which tenets are sound.
Excellent point! Very valid! My gut reaction is no, but simply because I profess ignorance about most religions and their tenents. Or rather, ignorance about the tenents contained within most religions. So, since the 10c's don't say something like, "cut your nuts off for looking at the face of they neighbor's wife", I don't have a problem with them. On the other hand, I have no idea what would show up in the other religions you put forth. Having said all that, from a pragmatic point of view, I don't have a problem with what you're saying. From a position of practical ignorance, I fear the possible results. Sad but true. This seemingly double standard (I guess it is), stems from the fact that the 10s are good ideas and very hard to corrupt; last I read them anyways.:) On the other hand, I do know enough about some of the other religions to understand that that some of their "good things" are very harsh, abusive, and horrible by American standards, religion not withstanding.
I'm sure you can find 10 Muslim or Hindu principles which are equally "good things". Likewise, we can find many more than 10 things which are terrible about the Christian bible. For example, if a woman is raped, the bible says that she should be forced to marry her rapist and that they can't get divorced. That sounds rather harsh, abusive, and horrible to me.
I fully understand what the issue is. That's my point. The point is, since you've seemed to of missed it, it's very, very stupid that something as lame and generally meaningless IS receiving so much court time. Basically, it's some small minded dolt saying, "oh, I can't have that...it's all about me". When in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter.
So if it doesn't matter, simply remove the offending religious items and there's no more cont
CA*Net 3 supposedly operates at up to 40Gbps, with CA*Net 4 under development which should be four to eight times faster. It's not clear, however, whether this is an aggregate data rate or if it can be sustained on a single connection.
Regardless, we'll eventually have Tbps data rates and all this will be a moot point. I only hope that a spammer doesn't manage to get one of those connections. How many viagra and penis spams per second is that?:)
Actually, I consider it all to be rather pretty and small minded. Who cares what religion it comes from. You have to be very, very, very small minded to care. Are they good ideas?
There's lots of good ideas out there. Why include only one particular religion's views on what constitutes a good idea?
Do you believe that having sex with your neighbor's wife and killing people make for a healthy society?
-1, Flamebait.:)
In the grand scheme of things, does it really matter who's ideas they are? Are we so small brained these days that we can't decide for our selves which tenents make sense and which ones we each want to believe in? Does it really have to be all or none?
How about letting the people decide? In communities where there is a large Hindu population, perhaps the courts can contain Hindu principles. In areas where there's a large Muslim community, Muslim principles can be displayed in the courts. After all, we're all perfectly capable of deciding which tenets are sound.
If you're agnostic, doesn't that mean you believe they are the words of man anyways? I think this seems to come right back to just how small minded people can be. I don't like that, so they all have to go. Is there any proof that the statue is effecting judements in court? Isn't that what this should hing on? If there isn't any proof that it's effecting the court's ability to properly deliver law, I can't help but think that anyone who cares about this, is a dolt.
Nice of you to think that someone who disagrees with your position is a dolt. Very open minded.:) The issue isn't whether or not a court's judgments are affected. What is an issue is that you have this thing called a constitution which, in a nutshell, says that the government shouldn't be promoting any religion. That's the issue. Heck, if the only criteria is that court judgments aren't affected, someone could donate a statue of a woman being burned alive at the stake because people thought she was a witch. Put a sign on top, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". Or perhaps a list of qualities which make a good woman? Things like a woman shouldn't wear gold jewelry, shouldn't have braided hair, should be in submission to men, should learn in silence, etc. It won't affect any judgments, and people will clearly be able to discern which tenets are sound.
Basically, the argument all seems to boil down to the fact that people believe that as long as a work of art is in the building, judges and jurries are unable to properly perform their duties. Furthermore, they seem to believe that if it goes, everything will suddenly work better. If you believe that, pause a minute while I laugh and point. If you don't believe that, then I think we've reached the end of the conversation. It really is that simple.
That's not it at all. If there exists a law which says that government cannot promote religion, and you then stick a religious piece into a government building, then there's a problem. Either remove the law or remove the religious piece. Don't throw out a red herring about simple performance to cloud the issue. That's not what it's about. Does the constitution make sense? If so, uphold it. If it doesn't make sense, repeal it. To keep the consitution unchanged but yet flaunt it is hypocrisy, and that has no place in a court of law.
Remember that the removal of these items is done through the court process. The judges are not going to change their verdict simply because you think it's petty.
As long as these people are properly and lawfully doing their job, who cares!?!?
The judges did their job and ruled that such religious artifacts in a government building are unconstitutional. You should care about that. Clearly it's not a petty issue, or it wouldn't receive so much time in court.
Slashdot Mirror
... someone gets fired?
I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you iPod fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of an iPod (30GB) for about 22 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to my iPod. 22 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this iPod, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
In addition, during this file transfer, songs will not play. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even the backlight is straining to keep up as I type this.
I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on this iPod, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen an iPod that has run faster than other music players, despite the iPod's faster chip architecture. My Vic 20 with 16KB of ram runs faster than this iPod at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the iPod is a "superior" music player.
iPod addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use an iPod over other faster, cheaper, more stable players.
Sweet Zombie Jesus! give this man a Nobel prize. Finding ways to goof off with things that were not meant to be goofed off with is IMHO one of the most nobel and pure of all human endeavors.
Just a nit to pick. Nobel is the family which started the prize of the same name. Noble is what you are if you have nobility.
Everything in the parent's post has been copied verbatim from that discussion. To wit:
by holygoat (564732) on Tuesday October 28, @06:11AM (#7327703) http://www.infosyncworld.com/news/n/4237.html
Pictures, and running a damn sight faster than Nokia's site for me!
--
-Rich [ Reply to This ]
Nice try, but it's no Sidekick (Score:5, Informative)
;-) ).
by ChaoticChaos (603248) * <l3sr-v4cf@sp[ ]x.com ['ame' in gap]> on Tuesday October 28, @06:14AM (#7327726) I keep waiting for a device that has the functionality of my T-Mobile Sidekick (IM, email, web browsing, phone, scheduler, notes, etc.) that is as thoughtfully made (screen flips up to reveal a solid thumb-board and every bit of data I enter is automatically backed up on T-Mobile's servers) that is anywhere close to the price point ($300).
I bet this Nokia device is plenty expensive and I could send out an email 10 times faster with my Sidekick thumb-board than you could peck one out with the stylus on this device (if you could find your stylus
http://www.t-mobile.com/products/overview.asp?ph on eid=195184
[ Reply to This ]
640x320 is pretty good! (Score:5, Interesting)
by jeroenb (125404) on Tuesday October 28, @06:25AM (#7327812)
(http://slashdot.org/) First thing I checked was ofcourse the screen's resolution and it turns out it sports 640x320 [nokia.com]. That's very good! Especially since close competitors (like the P900) only have 320x208 [sonyericsson.com]. Even some of the big-screen PDA's currently out like the Palm Tungsten T3 and the clamshell Sony Clie's only have 480x320. Even Sony's latest UX50 has that resolution [clieplaza.com] and if I'm not mistaken so does the latest Zaurus.
640x320 is finally something you can seriously browse the web on!
[
My employment doesn't support Direct Deposit. Should I find a new job? I hate going to the bank.
;-)
Oh, definitely! Maybe try working for the bank.
What is the earthly point of a bank having a web site? There are only two reasons I ever set foot anywhere near a bank.
- To pay in a cheque through the hole-in-the-wall.
- To draw out some cash from the hole-in-the-wall.
Unless someone has come up with a new killer application that lets me scan a cheque at home and pay it into my account, or print pound notes on my own printer {actually, I have done the very next best thing, but that's another story}, I have absolutely no use for internet banking.
You're kidding, right? Either you're trolling or your bank is still in the stone ages. I pay all my bills online from my bank's website. That's phone, internet, health, credit cards, insurance, etc. Bill comes in the mail, I go online and pay it. I can also schedule payments in advance so that they're made exactly on the due date, or schedule automatic monthly/weekly/whatever payments. I also transfer amounts between accounts (personal and business) online as well. I can pay other people online at no cost, if they are using the same bank as I do.
The earthly point is that I hardly ever set foot near a bank these days, and that's on the odd occasion that I need to deposit a che[ck/que] or money order myself, rather than having it direct deposited. If your bank doesn't offer this, maybe you should look around for a new bank?
your average CCD will detect IR. Don't believe me? Pull out your camcorder and aim a remote at the camcorder. It looks like white light. I know where I live, we have CCD DOT cams at almost every intersection. It would be easy to pick out the car emitting the bright flashes.
:)
Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. In that case, snap away! And charge them $25000 per offense.
Why are these devices not illegal? Seems to me that the intersection should take a picture of the vehicle using the device... if there aren't flashing lights, send a ticket in the mail.
The only problem there is how do you know which driver among the 20 approaching the intersection has the device? Sure, if you see someone with their arm out the window pointing a remote at the traffic light it's a no-brainer, but an IR transmitter peeking out of the front grill or behind some trinket on the dash would be impossible to make out.
Just make it some enourmous fine... $25000 per offense or some such figure when the device is used for a non-emergency purpose. That way, the devices themselves aren't illegal (though I agree that they probably should be) but the uses are. You could, conceivably, drive your wife to the hospital when she's about to give birth, but you couldn't use it just because you're late for work.
You drive on the left side of the road, around them.
Except where the road is divided by a concrete median. Then you're screwed.
I went to the hardware store the other day and saw this great new device which I'm sure you'll be interested in. It's a combination saw, laser level, hammer, screwdriver, drill, and has built-in GPS. Now you don't need separate, specialized tools to do all of these things -- one simple device does it all (though not as well).
Aren't you impressed?
You can download the software from this page.
What if we call it snoopware? shitware? How about "fucks-up-your-computer-and- makes-it-run-slower-ware"?
Spamware is probably the most appropriate term for this ilk.
All of the open source gurus that I've encountered (every single one of them) have been respectful of other OS's. Not one of them is a huge M$ fan, but I believe that it's more because of M$'s business practice than anything else. With the exception of one BIND admin, these are very friendly people who are willing to teach those who are willing to listen, not shove their OS preference down the throats of others.
:)
Who the hell are these zealots, Mr. Enderle? What world are you living in?
You haven't visited the BSD section lately, have you?
Damn, maybe I've been reading too much Arthur C. Clarke lately, but I was just waiting for the end of the trial where Rothblatt was revealed to be not an attorney, but BINA48 herself. It would have made for a nice sci-fi twist to the mock trial.
It's been tried. In South America, as I recall. It led to a lot of "chain-voting" fraud. Nice thought, though. The problem is: if it's encrypted, or otherwise not normally readable, how does the person know that what the paper says is really what they voted for?
Same thing as they have in Wal-Mart and other stores with the price checkers. You take the item up to a barcode scanner, stick the barcode under, it beeps and shows you the price. This way, you could verify that at least the paper shows you voting for the correct person. You could even have the paper print out your vote twice -- separate the paper along the perforated part and keep one half, stick the other half into a physical box which can then be counted later on.
We may have to agree to disagree, but I've enjoyed this debate and also appreciate that you follow it logically. Well, somewhat logically anyway.
"Actually, taking it out is the cheapest solution."
That was my point exactly!
This is contrary to what you previously stated:
Unless I'm stupid (perhaps!) you are claiming that "leaving it be" is the "cheapest solution".
Yes, but America is supposed to be about the majority and not the minority, selfish group over there.
A democracy isn't a democracy in everything. Or do you think that if the majority thinks it's okay to own a slave, that slavery should be legal? Only the selfish minority would be lame idiots and protest slavery, right? Fundamental rights always trump the majority's wishes. If everybody in the US voted to prevent you from speaking, the vote would be for nothing because your right to speak is inalienable.
That's the crux of this whole argument. The constitution says a specific thing concerning religion. There are various ways of interpreting that, as has been made clear. If the interpretation is that the government shouldn't even appear to promote any religion (whether it really is promotion or simply an artwork display) then the will of the majority does not matter. The sole exception to this is that if the majority's will is applied towards changing the constitution to remove the restriction about government and religion.
On the other hand, if the constitution simply says that government shouldn't say "XYZ religion is the official religion of the United States" then let the religous phrases, artwork, etc. stand as is and let the people who are offended just overlook it.
"Catholics (the largest religion in the world) have carved images of Mary, Joseph, Jesus, etc. Do you suggest that in order to be moral and ethical, Catholics should follow that commandment and remove all their carved images? Is keeping those images immoral and unethical?"
Hehe. Well, fist, I don't consider Catholics to be Christians. They are their own cult with their own tenents and secret doctrine. Nonetheless, I'm happy to lump them into the same pot as the other three major religions as they clearly want to be there. Just the same, they believe in the 10c's and it's in their bible. So, I couldn't care less if they are offended by their own religion. Nor could I care if they are offended by breaking doctrine of their own religion even when their leaders are telling them it's okay.
The point here is that you stated that the 10 commandments are a universal set of ethics and morals which all Americans believe in. Regardless of the perceived hypocrisy of any one religion, you have to admit that not all Americans (in fact, I would suggest not even close to a majority) feel that all 10 commandments are universal and apply to everyone.
"As I've demonstrated above, this isn't the case. Most Christians don't even accept at least two of those commandments."
You mean people used their own gray matter and decided they could filter out what they wanted. No....say it ain't so! Case in point. Thank you.
Again, this isn't about filtering or not. This is about your previous statement:
Yes, people can filter it out. The majority of peo
That's odd. What with all the extensions on copyright expirations, I didn't realize that the Bible was in the public domain.
Given that God has been dead for well over 70 years, it's no surprise that the Bible is now in the public domain.
The real question is how many elephants that cluster weighs.
The fact that you signed an NDA for XYZ corporation can't be hidden. After all, let's say that Microsoft asked you to sign a non-disclosure. If you refused, you could legally say that Microsoft asked you to sign a non-disclosure.
Given this, they can't prevent you from mentioning who you worked for. The exception to this might be if you worked for a contracting company who then sent you to a specific site. You could then say you worked for the contracting company but perhaps not the end-client.
"However, we don't see this. We see a constitution enacted specifically prohibiting any establishment of religion."
:) Catholics (the largest religion in the world) have carved images of Mary, Joseph, Jesus, etc. Do you suggest that in order to be moral and ethical, Catholics should follow that commandment and remove all their carved images? Is keeping those images immoral and unethical?
That's not true. It specifically is prohibiting any establishment of religion by government. If it prohibited establishment of regigion in general, the country would be drmatically different.
That is what I meant... by government.
"Does the phrase "In God we trust" apply equally to everyone?"
Actually, it does. I think it says, "In God we trust", and not, "In God we trust, except for group a over there". The only question here is, does everyone *feel* like it applies to them? The answer. No, as clearly there are some religions that don't have the idiom of an all powerful entity.
What I was getting at is does everyone equally believe and trust in a God? Clearly, no. There are people who believe in a multitude of Gods (Hindu I believe is one example) and there are people who don't believe in any kind of higher power or entity at all.
"Why does the money need to refer to a trust in God which a huge number of people do not have?"
Good question. I don't have an answer to. Just the same, over the next many years, new moneies will come into print. Why didn't we see this up roar about it? Simple! It doesn't matter and only dolts and idiots want to fight the lame fight.
Calling people names just because they hold different things important is a rather immature attitude. What's important to you might be completely trivial and lame to someone else. However, as a fellow human being, you have the right to feel that way and nobody should criticize you for it. You should show a little more tolerance towards the views of others.
"I think it should be phased out as it serves no purpose."
I agree. Since it serves no purpose, we might as well leave it be. Notice this is the other side of the coin which you tought, and oddly enough, is the easist and cheapest solution of them all. Leave it f-n alone because it's not hurting, harming, promoting, damaging, or preventing our government from working properly.
Actually, taking it out is the cheapest solution. When coins and notes are minted, they must be stamped into the metal/paper. To do this, dies are cast. Essentially, if you remove the phrase, it saves time as someone doesn't have to design the new coin/note to include it and the die manufacturer doesn't need to carve that on. It's the easiest solution which will offend the least number of people.
"Likewise, we can find many more than 10 things which are terrible about the Christian bible."
That, I have no doubt, however, you've changed the subject. This isn't about bad things being in Christian doctrine.
Ah, but it is. You claim that the 10 commandments are universal and that everybody accepts them as good sound tenets. This is clearly not the case. The first commandment is: "You shall have no other gods before me." The "me" part of this is, of course, none other than the Old Testament God. To any non-Christian/Jew/Muslim, this is highly offensive.
The second commandment is: "You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." Again, this is very offensive. Many people carve images of all sorts of things, such as carving the image of the 10 commandments themselves.
The third commandment is: "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain." Again, to non-Christian/Jew/Muslim, this is very offensive as it assumes that they worship the Old Testament God.
The fourth commandment is: "Remember the Sabbath
I, for one, thank our genetically inferior overlords for this.
"A country established by Christians" is a hell of a lot different than "established as a Christian country". If the latter is true, we should see the constitution riddled with references to Christianity. However, we don't see this. We see a constitution enacted specifically prohibiting any establishment of religion. And many of the "founding fathers" didn't subscribe to the Christian doctrine either. Take Thomas Jefferson, as one example:
-- Thomas Jefferson
Should we remove the religous icons from our money too?
Does the phrase "In God we trust" apply equally to everyone? Why does the money need to refer to a trust in God which a huge number of people do not have? I think it should be phased out as it serves no purpose. No need to spend a lot of money to recall and replace all the currency, but as new coins and notes are produced, don't include the phrase. What is the rationale for including it anyway? To promote Christian doctrine? If so, all the more reason it should be phased out.
Excellent point! Very valid! My gut reaction is no, but simply because I profess ignorance about most religions and their tenents. Or rather, ignorance about the tenents contained within most religions. So, since the 10c's don't say something like, "cut your nuts off for looking at the face of they neighbor's wife", I don't have a problem with them. On the other hand, I have no idea what would show up in the other religions you put forth. Having said all that, from a pragmatic point of view, I don't have a problem with what you're saying. From a position of practical ignorance, I fear the possible results. Sad but true. This seemingly double standard (I guess it is), stems from the fact that the 10s are good ideas and very hard to corrupt; last I read them anyways. :) On the other hand, I do know enough about some of the other religions to understand that that some of their "good things" are very harsh, abusive, and horrible by American standards, religion not withstanding.
I'm sure you can find 10 Muslim or Hindu principles which are equally "good things". Likewise, we can find many more than 10 things which are terrible about the Christian bible. For example, if a woman is raped, the bible says that she should be forced to marry her rapist and that they can't get divorced. That sounds rather harsh, abusive, and horrible to me.
I fully understand what the issue is. That's my point. The point is, since you've seemed to of missed it, it's very, very stupid that something as lame and generally meaningless IS receiving so much court time. Basically, it's some small minded dolt saying, "oh, I can't have that...it's all about me". When in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter.
So if it doesn't matter, simply remove the offending religious items and there's no more cont
CA*Net 3 supposedly operates at up to 40Gbps, with CA*Net 4 under development which should be four to eight times faster. It's not clear, however, whether this is an aggregate data rate or if it can be sustained on a single connection.
:)
Regardless, we'll eventually have Tbps data rates and all this will be a moot point. I only hope that a spammer doesn't manage to get one of those connections. How many viagra and penis spams per second is that?
Actually, I consider it all to be rather pretty and small minded. Who cares what religion it comes from. You have to be very, very, very small minded to care. Are they good ideas?
:)
:) The issue isn't whether or not a court's judgments are affected. What is an issue is that you have this thing called a constitution which, in a nutshell, says that the government shouldn't be promoting any religion. That's the issue. Heck, if the only criteria is that court judgments aren't affected, someone could donate a statue of a woman being burned alive at the stake because people thought she was a witch. Put a sign on top, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". Or perhaps a list of qualities which make a good woman? Things like a woman shouldn't wear gold jewelry, shouldn't have braided hair, should be in submission to men, should learn in silence, etc. It won't affect any judgments, and people will clearly be able to discern which tenets are sound.
There's lots of good ideas out there. Why include only one particular religion's views on what constitutes a good idea?
Do you believe that having sex with your neighbor's wife and killing people make for a healthy society?
-1, Flamebait.
In the grand scheme of things, does it really matter who's ideas they are? Are we so small brained these days that we can't decide for our selves which tenents make sense and which ones we each want to believe in? Does it really have to be all or none?
How about letting the people decide? In communities where there is a large Hindu population, perhaps the courts can contain Hindu principles. In areas where there's a large Muslim community, Muslim principles can be displayed in the courts. After all, we're all perfectly capable of deciding which tenets are sound.
If you're agnostic, doesn't that mean you believe they are the words of man anyways? I think this seems to come right back to just how small minded people can be. I don't like that, so they all have to go. Is there any proof that the statue is effecting judements in court? Isn't that what this should hing on? If there isn't any proof that it's effecting the court's ability to properly deliver law, I can't help but think that anyone who cares about this, is a dolt.
Nice of you to think that someone who disagrees with your position is a dolt. Very open minded.
Basically, the argument all seems to boil down to the fact that people believe that as long as a work of art is in the building, judges and jurries are unable to properly perform their duties. Furthermore, they seem to believe that if it goes, everything will suddenly work better. If you believe that, pause a minute while I laugh and point. If you don't believe that, then I think we've reached the end of the conversation. It really is that simple.
That's not it at all. If there exists a law which says that government cannot promote religion, and you then stick a religious piece into a government building, then there's a problem. Either remove the law or remove the religious piece. Don't throw out a red herring about simple performance to cloud the issue. That's not what it's about. Does the constitution make sense? If so, uphold it. If it doesn't make sense, repeal it. To keep the consitution unchanged but yet flaunt it is hypocrisy, and that has no place in a court of law.
Remember that the removal of these items is done through the court process. The judges are not going to change their verdict simply because you think it's petty.
As long as these people are properly and lawfully doing their job, who cares!?!?
The judges did their job and ruled that such religious artifacts in a government building are unconstitutional. You should care about that. Clearly it's not a petty issue, or it wouldn't receive so much time in court.
Now to hope that they got everything right for a safe return. Not much chance of making repairs if they didn't.