Nowhere in the Be page does it say that BeOS would be Open Source (truly free). It will be free to use, in binary form. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how it reads.
That's not the sort of freedom we're striving for.
Don't speak for me. I like free beer and free speech. They don't necessarily have to be one and the same.
Would the situation be better if some company could step in, fork the OS, rename it, close the source to that branch, toss a WM on it, and sell it? That's all the GPL prevents.
The GPL can only prevent distribution of a closed-source branch. I could sell a fork of Linux under a different name with a WM on it. It is a common misconception that the GPL prevents this. I could even have closed-source version of Linux as long as it stays in-house.
Re:Stop being an asshole....
on
Free Be
·
· Score: 1
Now you tell me is this not forcing me to pay money for something? Do I not have to pay money for this? If I need an application and the only one there that does anything that I need for what I am doing is a closed source app what happens then? I 'have' to pay for it because the parameters of the taks 'required' (ie were needed in the taks to be completed to do step n+1) it.
Correct, you do not have to pay for it. This is the same scenario as you don't have to agree to the GPL for code reuse. Either way you don't get the program.
They belong to different political parties. Perhaps that is like the difference between being Methodist or Baptist.
But both have to follow the same rules. Clinton changed the rules to fit his own needs.
This is exactly what I'm saying. They were the Church leaders. They WERE the Church. They decided what the Church's beliefs were.
They might have been the Church, but they did not change the rules others had to follow. They just became hypocrites.
People believed what they said. People blindly followed them and set out to murder others.
Not most people. Most thought of that time as horrible. They still do today.
That's one of the biggest problems with many "people of faith." They are taught not to question things.
Well, the priests I have spoken with encourage questions. A blind belief is not healthy.
We're not talking about an individual. We're talking about the leaders of the Church defining the beliefs of millions. That's a lot of power. I find it frightening that they were able to persuade their followers to murder and torture people even though it directly contradicts one of the Commandments, supposedly the direct orders of God.
Those millions did not go around torturing or murdering. Just a small number of them were bad enough to do it. Also, how do you know that the people committing those horrible acts were even religious? They may have just wanted to do those things while actually being atheist, therefore, they signed up for the fun by claiming to be Catholic.
Hell, people used to gather in great crowds
to watch someone be burned for being a heretic.
Sociology: mob theory. You have no idea if those people were religious or not. Or of what religion if they were.
You are blind if you believe that. The Church throws its weight around all the time. Look at the
abortion issue. Does the Church just lay down the rules for its followers and leave it at that? Hell no. They pressure and attack politicians.
No. They don't. They explicitly keep the Church out of the conflict. They might state their stance, but they do not go after a single politician. Why? They do not want to lose their freedom. If they push politicians, laws could go against them restricting them in multiple ways. All churches in the Catholic Church were told explicitly not to get involved. The priest at my church told us. He said we could protest or vote anyway we wanted, but the Church could NOT be the one in charge.
They try to get laws passed that bind EVERYBODY. Not just the followers of that faith. Same thing with other "morality issues."
For the same reason as above, the Church avoids doing any pushing around of politicians. Their non-profit status, for example, would dissappear.
People can push it through as is their right according to the Constitution.
No, the IEEE won't lobby or pressure politicians to pass laws forcing me to use their JAVA standard for any programming I do.
Maybe not the IEEE, but just wait until some standard body does decide to. ISO might decide to lobby Congress for one of their standards over a standard by ASCII. For all I know, it has already been done.
No, I'm quite certain I was talking about the Church. If you think it's FUD, then tell me why you think the Church doesn't use shame and ostracism as tools to coerce people into behaving the way it wants them to.
I assume you are asking the reverse: why the do use those as tools for coercion? The same reason many groups use those as tools; they are effective. Look at how some of those atheists groups (ACLU) are attacking religion and any supporters of it in the political arena. No mercy when it comes to shame and ostracism.
Actually, they probably learn from the example of their parents and other members of their church. Non-Christians are gonna burn in hell, remember? Gay people are abominations. Jewish people killed Jesus, etc. Sure, maybe only a few vocal Christians claim these things, but they have large followings of other Christians that believe them and hold the same feelings.
Well, I was taught that only God knew where you were going. What you have stated are beliefs of many religions. Those beliefs do not say anything about being mean to any of those groups.
It was basically like a mini-inquisition. They would get asked if they believe in God. Say no and get a beating. Makes you wonder if the Church was run for centuries by 16 year olds. Yeah, it was probably just an excuse. Just seems strange that that excuse seemed the most acceptable to them.
They probably would have beat you if you said yes. I heard Georgia just passed or is in the process of passing a law against bullies. Three bullyings and you are kicked out of that school. The first two are suspensions. I like it.
Christians just can't leave other people alone.
That should state People just can't leave other people alone. Look at what the ACLU is doing. They are attacking multiple religions and groups that have morals that are considered religious out of spite. They have gone to attacking a private organization, the Boy Scouts, just because they have a rule WITHIN the group which has not affect on others or the community. While in the Boy Scouts, I had no idea of its existance.
Just yesterday a Christian group was proclaiming that they were going to videotape
customers entering a legal brothel and put their images on the Internet for all to see. All I can say is WTF!? Why is this any of their business? Nobody is making them go there. Nobody is making them do anything they don't want to do. Why can't they leave other people alone???
Unlike the ACLU, they are unable to force people from attending brothels. Therefore, I assume they are using the only legal means they have which is shame. The brothel could be a source of problems within the community they live in. Also, look at what they are doing. They are doing no harm nor preventing people from going. They are just taking pictures and posting them. I am sure the ACLU will take away their rights to take pictures soon enough although it is perfectly legal. If someone took pictures of me going to church, I would not care. Why should the people going to brothel feel any different?
Right. The majority are Christians. And being Christians, they should simply be able to tell their members not to purchase alcohol before noon on a Sunday, right? But no, that isn't enough for them. See, they don't just want to guide church members, they want to control everyone. Therefore instead of just instructing the church members that it's wrong, they seek legislation to prevent ANYONE from doing it, regardless of their religion.
Laws against stealing were probably based on religion. It was not enough to tell church members not to steal, but they had to prevent anyone from doing it, regardless of their religion. People VOTE based on their beliefs. The Church did not write that law; people did. The only way to stop people from voting based on their beliefs is to actually control them. Unless forcing others to do what someone wants comes to pass, this will not change.
Why doesn't it surprise me that you believe that?
Because it is true. Take some psychology courses sometime. Very awakening. A sociology course would also help.
I don't really care what other people believe as long as they don't interfere with my right to behave as I choose without a good reason.
But inside, you want others to agree with you. This is classic psychology.
Wrong. They're not forcing you to get an abortion if you don't want one. They're just making it possible for people to decide for themselves. Christians don't like this. They want to force everyone to conform to their views by making it illegal to do otherwise.
They are attacking my belief that a child still in the womb is sentient and should not be killed against its rights as a human being. My reasons are biological as well as religious. Children are learning while in the womb. They also feel pain and react to it. Those people are just trying to justify killing for convienence. I am also against executions. I must say that partial-birth abortions are just plain sick. Just try to execute someone by sucking his brains out. Not even the ACLU would support that.
Regardless of which religion voted on it, it was a Christian religion and it's typical of their attempts to control others no matter what religion they might be.
This almost convinces me that atheism should be considered a religion and treated as such. Just ban all those with the similar titles together and look at them the same way. This is one of your complaints about how you say religious people treat others.
Made sense, why else would you ban alcohol sales before noon on Sunday?
If it was really religious, it would have been a ban on alcohol for the entire day. Till noon just does not make sense. Indiana has a ban on alcohol for the entire day of Sunday unless you are a restraunt, therefore, the alcohol is considered part of the meal.
hey think it's ok to alienate non-Christian kids by having teachers lead prayers in their classrooms.
No one forced a single teacher to lead a prayer. I come from Indiana. A fairly relgious state. Not a single teacher outside of Catholic school ever said a prayer. We just had a moment of silence.
The problem is not the voting. The problem is the fact that the laws should have to pass a litmus test to determine whether they are based on reason or faith. If you can't give a good reason for something without resorting to religion or vague notions of what's "decent," then the law should not even be voted on.
Then laws against stealing would fail. Why should Bill Gates be allowed to have so much money and no one allowed to take some of it? It is against many religions to steal as well as not being decent. Saying something is your and not their property is just a matter of opinion.
That gives us crap like the Communications Decency Act that would restrict the freedom of all
Americans to view or write things that the majority do not like.
I was against the CDA. It was like writing a blank check to the police. Someone might find swearing when I stub my toe as being indecent. Sorry but I read 1984.
They are nothing of the sort.... Planned Parenthood tries to prevent the government from dictating to us what we can or cannot do with our
bodies. snip Organizations like the ACLU and Planned Parenthood are the last line of defense for the minority against having their rights taken away by the majority.
By using tax money to lobby Congress. Not even the Church can claim that. Abortion will only become more acceptable when the child is asked whether it wants to live or die. Until then, it is not being given a choice.
Who is to say their BELIEFS are correct? Why should their beliefs be written into laws? What about that litmus test you mentioned? There is no valid reason for abortion. It is just a belief concerning freedom for the mother.
Just STOP trying to FORCE the rest of us to abide by YOUR beliefs!
I never have forced anyone. I just want the ACLU and similar groups to stop FORCING people to OBEY THEIR beliefs! If some students want to pray, the ACLU has no right or reason to stop them, but they continue to attack those with opposing beliefs.
Yes, they're all dead, and replaced by those who followed in their footsteps.
Therefore Lincoln and Clinton are the same? Not hardly.
They adhere to the same religion.
They both adhere to the Constitution, but I see many differences between the two.
That adherence did not prevent the Church from committing atrocities then, why should it now? Why are Christians now better than Christians then? Did the rules change?
The rules did not change. They were never supposed to be cruel in the first place. The people changed (replaced through the years).
Well, I certainly don't trust them. They used their religion to justify murdering people. That religion hasn't changed, and I see no reason to ever trust people who try to make others behave according to rules that they accept on faith alone. The Church does this to this day.
Anyone (individual) can justify doing something wrong based on something else, but it still does not make it right. "Depends on what the definition of 'is' is." The Christian religion does not say "Thou shall torture in the name of Christ." They mangled some rules to justify their OWN ends, but it still went against the Church's beliefs and rules.
Look at the highlighted portion. In your own words, you recognize that those involved are individuals. The Church did not do it; the people in charge did it.
That's a joke, right? The Church EXISTS TO CONTROL. That's its entire purpose.
No joke. The purpose of the Church, at least today, is more of a standards board (i.e., IEEE). Setting down guidelines seems to be the most apparent thing it does. I don't have to follow a standards board; I choose to. No control of me involved.
To get people to adhere to its standards and rules. By whatever means necessary.
I guess you will start distrusting IEEE soon. IEEE will want to control JAVA and will use any means necessary to do it.
They have learned to use shame and ostracism quite effectively since killing people in any significant quantity has become counter-productive.
FUD. You were probably thinking about Microsoft.:)
Since there are a large number of Christians in the US, they are able to exert quite a lot of influence.
You do realize that there is a Catholic Church and a U.S. Catholic Church. Besides, Catholicism is a minority even among the Christian churches in the U.S. I believe the Protestant Church is the largest in the U.S.
Since they've managed to work their way into our laws more and more, they are able to alienate and play the people against each other. If you go to school and admit that you don't believe in God, you will likely be shunned and/or attacked by all those good Christian children.
I was beat up in a public school as well as a Catholic school while being a good Catholic. Like the bad people involved in the Inquisition, those children are rewriting the rules to justify the ends.
I've seen it happen in two of the highschools I went to.
I was shunned or beat on at more schools than that. It may have nothing to do with religion. It was more likely an excuse to beat-up the new kid. I went to eight or nine schools before college. Most of those I was beat on without anyone knowing my religion.
It's a religion that seems to preach conformance above tolerance and acceptance.
Many priests push the following message: "Love the sinner, not the sin." I don't have accept something I don't believe in, but I should still not hold anything against the person.
I have not seen any cases of where churches have "managed to work their way into our laws more and more". I do see many fanatics attacking religion. Heck, they are even trying to prevent a school from singing "Jingle Bells" on religious grounds. When did "Jingle Bells" become religious?!?
Personally, I'm tired of seeing laws passed that are basically personal favors to the Church.
Incorrect! Christians may VOTE for something, but the Church had NO say in it.
These morality laws violate the separation of church and state.
Should we allow murder or theft just because a religion is against it? Many laws are written on morals. That is a fact of life.
For example, in the city I live in, it is illegal to buy alcohol before noon on a Sunday. Why do you think that is?
Before noon? I have lived in places that do not sell alcohol on Sundays. Maybe many religious people voted on the law, so there would be alcohol left to buy after that got out of church.
Who do you think wanted that law?
I guess a majority of people in that region wanted it. That is probably why it was passed into law.
Why should those of us who don't attend church or follow any religion in particular be made subject to such laws?
Are you saying that a minority group of people should rule and overturn the majority? That is not very democratic.
Because religious people feel the need to make others conform to their own beliefs, plain and simple...
Now I have to ask if you are joking or not. All people regardless of religion, sex, age, race, or sexual preference want others to believe what they believe. I don't believe in abortion, but there are pro-choicers who want to shove their belief down my throat.
I'd rather they do what they believe is right for themselves and their children and leave the rest of us alone.
Actually, when I think about it, I have not heard from a single Catholic that we are not allowed to drink on Sunday. Of course, I am Irish, so drinking comes naturally for most of my family.:) I bet the alcohol-free Sunday was written and voted on by another religion.
This must be asked: how do you know it was even a religious moral the law was based? There could have been some other reason. I love fortunes. Here is one from my FreeBSD box: "Atlanta makes it against the law to tie a giraffe to a telephone pole or street lamp." Here is another one: "In Corning, Iowa, it's a misdemeanor for a man to ask his wife to ride in any motor vehicle." Which religious morals are these laws based on?
There is one thing I have to point out. When a law in the U.S. is made that is for or seemingly for a religious moral, the Church had nothing to do with it. Religious people, yes. The Church or any church, no. Separation of Church and State means that any church cannot make laws. But people belonging to any church can vote on a law using their own beliefs as do those who are atheist. I am sure you are thinking that a church could influence people to vote a certain way. Yes, it can along with all those other groups with different beliefs. If you ban churches, you better ban NOW, Planned Parenthood, Greenpeace, and many other PAC's as they are just as bad (or worse).
BTW, for a church so set on control, my priest married me and my wife without a hitch. She is not Catholic or even Christian. She is more of an agnostic. This is one of the reasons I don't understand where all this fear of the Catholic Church comes from. Maybe during the time of the Spanish Inquisition I would have been tortured for this. Today, it is not even close.
But it showed us that the Church is not above using lies, intimidation, torture and murder to ensure its survival.
As I stated before, that Church (everyone in it) has long since died. All those attributes you mention are human attributes not an organization's. When you are talking about different people, different attributes come into play.
Did the rules of Christianity change sometime after the Inquisition or other atrocities?
Nope. The Catholic Church has.
Why exactly is the Church to be trusted today?
I did not state they should be trusted, but I do not care to hear arguments about people who died several hundred years ago when we are discussing entirely different people born much later.
Or has it found better ways of enforcing its control?
Or maybe those bad individuals are dead and the ones in charge of the Church do not need to be in control of others?
Have any of your ancestors lied, cheated, stolen, or murdered? If so, we should not trust you because of the relation between them and you. According to your arguments, this would be valid.
Re:too bad they chose GPL
on
Quake 1 GPL'ed
·
· Score: 1
No, the GPL terms apply only when you distribute GPLed code. You can do whatever the hell you want with it otherwise, or at home. You can use gcc to compile Windows if you want. You can use cvs to manage a non GPL source base.
Also keep in mind that you can use GPLed code as a basis for development in more than one way. For instance you can use Linux as a kernel in a proprietary system; you will have to distribute the code to the kernel but not to your software. You can write non GPL-ed front ends to GPL software
I realize all of this. I was speaking of actually writing code which includes GPL code.
It's still sharing, unlike the way most software out there is licensed.
Sharing specific to a group sounds more like hoarding. It rings of being proprietary which the FSF is against. This is almost hypocritical.
The GPL is mainly concerned with freedom of use.
No. It is not. That would be free beer which is why you hear RMS always saying, "think free speech, not free beer."
Most users do not care about adding other code to the programs they use and then sending copies to other people. And of course you can use GPL code with BSD licensed code (providing it does not have the 'advertising clause'), the end result will just be under the GPL.
Which is why the GPL is always being pointed out to be viral in nature.
What rights are you giving up? Do you think you have the inherent 'right' to use other people's code in any way you choose? If so, I suggest you stop thinking about the GPL, and set yourself to the task of getting copyright law overturned.
Are you arguing for me or against me? The GPL's intent is to give people the 'freedom' to use code under the GPL, but they have to submit to the GPL for this benefit. Also, if I recall correctly, RMS would like to see copyright law overturned.
Don't forget that FreeBSD includes stuff like Soft Updates and Vinum, which is under licenses as strict or more strict than the GPL.
I use FreeBSD without these. They are not the default.
I believe that someone should share without strings (GPL license usage) when they claim to be "free"-ly sharing. This is one of my complaints against the GPL. If they were claiming to be sharing within a select group, I would have no grief against it.
Re:too bad they chose GPL
on
Quake 1 GPL'ed
·
· Score: 1
1) What is so terribly wrong with the GPL?
a) Quite a long license.:) b) Doesn't share well with anyone but GPL. c) Zealots (I know everyone has these, but I see more GPL zealots than even Windows) d) More as an answer to number 4.
2) What is the MPL?
Mozilla Public License
3) What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?
I can't compare the GPL and MPL since I have not read the MPL. I prefer the BSD license over the GPL.
4) What is 'immoral' about the GPL?(that just cracks me up, has it been molesting little children and puppies again?? Bad GPL! Down GPL!)
GPL is called the viral license or the hoarding license. Any software development based off of GPL code must be GPL'd. It makes all source it touches GPL'd. This feature is not bad in itself. What is morally bad is claiming that one is sharing the code with everyone by putting code under the GPL license. Unfortunately, this "sharing" is only within the GNU community.
One of the main reasons for the formation of the FSF (Free Software Foundation) was due to the proprietarization of UNIX. I now see that it is happening again with the GPL. I can view GPL code, but I am unable to freely use it in any other licensed code (i.e., BSD). To me, this looks and acts a lot like proprietary code, but it is claimed to be "free".
One last thought: the U.S. Government is always asking us to give up our rights to better protect us. The GPL is similar, but not exactly, to this. Do you want freedom or "freedom"?
Here is a good license to consider for truly sharing code with others: Freedom.
P.S. I used to be a big fan of the GPL until I really saw the truth behind it.
I didn't find them thought provoking. They are an interesting read to see how someone in the 50's saw the future, but I felt like the "Cities" just dragged on.
I much preferred the "Foundation" series (Asimov).
Be careful what you wish for; you just might get it. Many people wanted open source to be well known. Their wish has come true. Unfortunately, there are some side effects ("features":)).
Why are they so interested in tapping my extremely important, encrypted, grocery list?
If everything important or illegal ends up being encrypted without back doors in the encryption method, why will they still want to tap? My guess it is for those not knowledgable enough to encrypt their conversations. Criminals can do some pretty stupid stuff. Just watch America's Dumbest Criminals, if it is still running on the air.
So, therein is my justification of an Open Source licence, but why the GPL? Because it represents my belief in this paradigm. If I were to release under BSD, I would be saying:
"This program is provided, open source, to solve a problem. If you are developing a proprietry app, and you have this problem, I believe I have done a good job of solving it, and you would do well to use my code"
I see the BSD license as such:
"I wrote this program, and I wish all to enjoy it. I do not want to choose who can enjoy; I just want to share."
I see the GPL license as such:
"I wrote this program, and I wish all to enjoy it. I will share with you as long as you share back to the GNU community."
In all actuality, I consider the BSD license to be more about sharing while the GPL license to be more about bartering.
When I write programs, I do it for fun, learning, and/or to help others. I may then wish to share them with others. I realize you can do it with the GPL license, but it still is a form of proprietary software; the software (and its decendants) remain under the GPL flag.
However, and I think that this is a fear which is always in RMS's mind: BSD's software can be moved from open to closed source by such entrepreneurs, who profit from the freely available work of other people - it's the apex of freeloading.
Not to be a troll, but what would you call moving code from BSD to GPL? I am just trying to put into perspective your comment. BSD code can go anywhere. (No! Don't start thinking 'Where do you want to go today?':)) Also, remember that even if a copy of the code is taken by a company for whatever use, your code remains free.
Telling others about the weakness is not immoral. Maybe illegal with all those laws banning security cracking out there, but it is not immoral.
As for what this could be used for in a moral way, would be:
1) Allow viewing of DVD's on alternative OS's (i.e., FreeBSD).
2) Allow viewing of DVD's from different regions. If I want to buy (quite moral) a DVD from a different country, why should I not be allowed to play it in my DVD player or computer (both of which I purchased legally and morally)? Some movies may not even be available in the U.S.. Any moral reason I should not be able to view them?
immoral as any, but sad that the industry will now try another format.
I doubt the industry will try another format. Too many recalls would have to be done to fix the millions--I only know there were over a million players in December 1998--of players out there in the world.
That was the most polite and kind trademark letter I have ever seen on Slashdot or anywhere else. I wish more lawyers were that nice with their 'cease and desist' letters.
I recall having this problem. I think something like this in sblock.ini will fix your problem:
# This allows the JavaScript to be included in the # page but should not allow the image which will # be stopped by other rules. ~ads.weather.com/ ~preferences.com/jscript*
Slashdot Mirror
Nowhere in the Be page does it say that BeOS would be Open Source (truly free). It will be free to use, in binary form. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how it reads.
That's not the sort of freedom we're striving for.
Don't speak for me. I like free beer and free speech. They don't necessarily have to be one and the same.
Would the situation be better if some company could step in, fork the OS, rename it, close the source to that branch, toss a WM on it, and sell it? That's all the GPL prevents.
The GPL can only prevent distribution of a closed-source branch. I could sell a fork of Linux under a different name with a WM on it. It is a common misconception that the GPL prevents this. I could even have closed-source version of Linux as long as it stays in-house.
Now you tell me is this not forcing me to pay money for something? Do I not have to pay money for this? If I need an application and the only one there that does anything that I need for what I am doing is a closed source app what happens then? I 'have' to pay for it because the parameters of the taks 'required' (ie were needed in the taks to be completed to do step n+1) it.
Correct, you do not have to pay for it. This is the same scenario as you don't have to agree to the GPL for code reuse. Either way you don't get the program.
A "fix" also has the possibility of opening up bigger holes.
The fastest fix is to disable that service until a well-tested patch comes out. This is true whether it is closed or open.
They belong to different political parties. Perhaps that is like the difference between being Methodist or Baptist.
.... Planned Parenthood tries to prevent the government from dictating to us what we can or cannot do with our
But both have to follow the same rules. Clinton changed the rules to fit his own needs.
This is exactly what I'm saying. They were the Church leaders. They WERE the Church. They decided what the Church's beliefs were.
They might have been the Church, but they did not change the rules others had to follow. They just became hypocrites.
People believed what they said. People blindly followed them and set out to murder others.
Not most people. Most thought of that time as horrible. They still do today.
That's one of the biggest problems with many "people of faith." They are taught not to question things.
Well, the priests I have spoken with encourage questions. A blind belief is not healthy.
We're not talking about an individual. We're talking about the leaders of the Church defining the beliefs of millions. That's a lot of power. I find it frightening that they were able to persuade their followers to murder and torture people even though it directly contradicts one of the Commandments, supposedly the direct orders of God.
Those millions did not go around torturing or murdering. Just a small number of them were bad enough to do it. Also, how do you know that the people committing those horrible acts were even religious? They may have just wanted to do those things while actually being atheist, therefore, they signed up for the fun by claiming to be Catholic.
Hell, people used to gather in great crowds
to watch someone be burned for being a heretic.
Sociology: mob theory. You have no idea if those people were religious or not. Or of what religion if they were.
You are blind if you believe that. The Church throws its weight around all the time. Look at the
abortion issue. Does the Church just lay down the rules for its followers and leave it at that? Hell no. They pressure and attack politicians.
No. They don't. They explicitly keep the Church out of the conflict. They might state their stance, but they do not go after a single politician. Why? They do not want to lose their freedom. If they push politicians, laws could go against them restricting them in multiple ways. All churches in the Catholic Church were told explicitly not to get involved. The priest at my church told us. He said we could protest or vote anyway we wanted, but the Church could NOT be the one in charge.
They try to get laws passed that bind EVERYBODY. Not just the followers of that faith. Same thing with other "morality issues."
For the same reason as above, the Church avoids doing any pushing around of politicians. Their non-profit status, for example, would dissappear.
People can push it through as is their right according to the Constitution.
No, the IEEE won't lobby or pressure politicians to pass laws forcing me to use their JAVA standard for any programming I do.
Maybe not the IEEE, but just wait until some standard body does decide to. ISO might decide to lobby Congress for one of their standards over a standard by ASCII. For all I know, it has already been done.
No, I'm quite certain I was talking about the Church. If you think it's FUD, then tell me why you think the Church doesn't use shame and ostracism as tools to coerce people into behaving the way it wants them to.
I assume you are asking the reverse: why the do use those as tools for coercion? The same reason many groups use those as tools; they are effective. Look at how some of those atheists groups (ACLU) are attacking religion and any supporters of it in the political arena. No mercy when it comes to shame and ostracism.
Actually, they probably learn from the example of their parents and other members of their church. Non-Christians are gonna burn in hell, remember? Gay people are abominations. Jewish people killed Jesus, etc. Sure, maybe only a few vocal Christians claim these things, but they have large followings of other Christians that believe them and hold the same feelings.
Well, I was taught that only God knew where you were going. What you have stated are beliefs of many religions. Those beliefs do not say anything about being mean to any of those groups.
It was basically like a mini-inquisition. They would get asked if they believe in God. Say no and get a beating. Makes you wonder if the Church was run for centuries by 16 year olds. Yeah, it was probably just an excuse. Just seems strange that that excuse seemed the most acceptable to them.
They probably would have beat you if you said yes. I heard Georgia just passed or is in the process of passing a law against bullies. Three bullyings and you are kicked out of that school. The first two are suspensions. I like it.
Christians just can't leave other people alone.
That should state People just can't leave other people alone. Look at what the ACLU is doing. They are attacking multiple religions and groups that have morals that are considered religious out of spite. They have gone to attacking a private organization, the Boy Scouts, just because they have a rule WITHIN the group which has not affect on others or the community. While in the Boy Scouts, I had no idea of its existance.
Just yesterday a Christian group was proclaiming that they were going to videotape
customers entering a legal brothel and put their images on the Internet for all to see. All I can say is WTF!? Why is this any of their business? Nobody is making them go there. Nobody is making them do anything they don't want to do. Why can't they leave other people alone???
Unlike the ACLU, they are unable to force people from attending brothels. Therefore, I assume they are using the only legal means they have which is shame. The brothel could be a source of problems within the community they live in. Also, look at what they are doing. They are doing no harm nor preventing people from going. They are just taking pictures and posting them. I am sure the ACLU will take away their rights to take pictures soon enough although it is perfectly legal. If someone took pictures of me going to church, I would not care. Why should the people going to brothel feel any different?
Right. The majority are Christians. And being Christians, they should simply be able to tell their members not to purchase alcohol before noon on a Sunday, right? But no, that isn't enough for them. See, they don't just want to guide church members, they want to control everyone. Therefore instead of just instructing the church members that it's wrong, they seek legislation to prevent ANYONE from doing it, regardless of their religion.
Laws against stealing were probably based on religion. It was not enough to tell church members not to steal, but they had to prevent anyone from doing it, regardless of their religion. People VOTE based on their beliefs. The Church did not write that law; people did. The only way to stop people from voting based on their beliefs is to actually control them. Unless forcing others to do what someone wants comes to pass, this will not change.
Why doesn't it surprise me that you believe that?
Because it is true. Take some psychology courses sometime. Very awakening. A sociology course would also help.
I don't really care what other people believe as long as they don't interfere with my right to behave as I choose without a good reason.
But inside, you want others to agree with you. This is classic psychology.
Wrong. They're not forcing you to get an abortion if you don't want one. They're just making it possible for people to decide for themselves. Christians don't like this. They want to force everyone to conform to their views by making it illegal to do otherwise.
They are attacking my belief that a child still in the womb is sentient and should not be killed against its rights as a human being. My reasons are biological as well as religious. Children are learning while in the womb. They also feel pain and react to it. Those people are just trying to justify killing for convienence. I am also against executions. I must say that partial-birth abortions are just plain sick. Just try to execute someone by sucking his brains out. Not even the ACLU would support that.
Regardless of which religion voted on it, it was a Christian religion and it's typical of their attempts to control others no matter what religion they might be.
This almost convinces me that atheism should be considered a religion and treated as such. Just ban all those with the similar titles together and look at them the same way. This is one of your complaints about how you say religious people treat others.
Made sense, why else would you ban alcohol sales before noon on Sunday?
If it was really religious, it would have been a ban on alcohol for the entire day. Till noon just does not make sense. Indiana has a ban on alcohol for the entire day of Sunday unless you are a restraunt, therefore, the alcohol is considered part of the meal.
hey think it's ok to alienate non-Christian kids by having teachers lead prayers in their classrooms.
No one forced a single teacher to lead a prayer. I come from Indiana. A fairly relgious state. Not a single teacher outside of Catholic school ever said a prayer. We just had a moment of silence.
The problem is not the voting. The problem is the fact that the laws should have to pass a litmus test to determine whether they are based on reason or faith. If you can't give a good reason for something without resorting to religion or vague notions of what's "decent," then the law should not even be voted on.
Then laws against stealing would fail. Why should Bill Gates be allowed to have so much money and no one allowed to take some of it? It is against many religions to steal as well as not being decent. Saying something is your and not their property is just a matter of opinion.
That gives us crap like the Communications Decency Act that would restrict the freedom of all
Americans to view or write things that the majority do not like.
I was against the CDA. It was like writing a blank check to the police. Someone might find swearing when I stub my toe as being indecent. Sorry but I read 1984.
They are nothing of the sort
bodies. snip Organizations like the ACLU and Planned Parenthood are the last line of defense for the minority against having their rights taken away by the majority.
By using tax money to lobby Congress. Not even the Church can claim that. Abortion will only become more acceptable when the child is asked whether it wants to live or die. Until then, it is not being given a choice.
Who is to say their BELIEFS are correct? Why should their beliefs be written into laws? What about that litmus test you mentioned? There is no valid reason for abortion. It is just a belief concerning freedom for the mother.
Just STOP trying to FORCE the rest of us to abide by YOUR beliefs!
I never have forced anyone. I just want the ACLU and similar groups to stop FORCING people to OBEY THEIR beliefs! If some students want to pray, the ACLU has no right or reason to stop them, but they continue to attack those with opposing beliefs.
Yes, they're all dead, and replaced by those who followed in their footsteps.
:)
:) I bet the alcohol-free Sunday was written and voted on by another religion.
Therefore Lincoln and Clinton are the same? Not hardly.
They adhere to the same religion.
They both adhere to the Constitution, but I see many differences between the two.
That adherence did not prevent the Church from committing atrocities then, why should it now? Why are Christians now better than Christians then? Did the rules change?
The rules did not change. They were never supposed to be cruel in the first place. The people changed (replaced through the years).
Well, I certainly don't trust them. They used their religion to justify murdering people. That religion hasn't changed, and I see no reason to ever trust people who try to make others behave according to rules that they accept on faith alone. The Church does this to this day.
Anyone (individual) can justify doing something wrong based on something else, but it still does not make it right. "Depends on what the definition of 'is' is." The Christian religion does not say "Thou shall torture in the name of Christ." They mangled some rules to justify their OWN ends, but it still went against the Church's beliefs and rules.
Look at the highlighted portion. In your own words, you recognize that those involved are individuals. The Church did not do it; the people in charge did it.
That's a joke, right? The Church EXISTS TO CONTROL. That's its entire purpose.
No joke. The purpose of the Church, at least today, is more of a standards board (i.e., IEEE). Setting down guidelines seems to be the most apparent thing it does. I don't have to follow a standards board; I choose to. No control of me involved.
To get people to adhere to its standards and rules. By whatever means necessary.
I guess you will start distrusting IEEE soon. IEEE will want to control JAVA and will use any means necessary to do it.
They have learned to use shame and ostracism quite effectively since killing people in any significant quantity has become counter-productive.
FUD. You were probably thinking about Microsoft.
Since there are a large number of Christians in the US, they are able to exert quite a lot of influence.
You do realize that there is a Catholic Church and a U.S. Catholic Church. Besides, Catholicism is a minority even among the Christian churches in the U.S. I believe the Protestant Church is the largest in the U.S.
Since they've managed to work their way into our laws more and more, they are able to alienate and play the people against each other. If you go to school and admit that you don't believe in God, you will likely be shunned and/or attacked by all those good Christian children.
I was beat up in a public school as well as a Catholic school while being a good Catholic. Like the bad people involved in the Inquisition, those children are rewriting the rules to justify the ends.
I've seen it happen in two of the highschools I went to.
I was shunned or beat on at more schools than that. It may have nothing to do with religion. It was more likely an excuse to beat-up the new kid. I went to eight or nine schools before college. Most of those I was beat on without anyone knowing my religion.
It's a religion that seems to preach conformance above tolerance and acceptance.
Many priests push the following message: "Love the sinner, not the sin." I don't have accept something I don't believe in, but I should still not hold anything against the person.
I have not seen any cases of where churches have "managed to work their way into our laws more and more". I do see many fanatics attacking religion. Heck, they are even trying to prevent a school from singing "Jingle Bells" on religious grounds. When did "Jingle Bells" become religious?!?
Personally, I'm tired of seeing laws passed that are basically personal favors to the Church.
Incorrect! Christians may VOTE for something, but the Church had NO say in it.
These morality laws violate the separation of church and state.
Should we allow murder or theft just because a religion is against it? Many laws are written on morals. That is a fact of life.
For example, in the city I live in, it is illegal to buy alcohol before noon on a Sunday. Why do you think that is?
Before noon? I have lived in places that do not sell alcohol on Sundays. Maybe many religious people voted on the law, so there would be alcohol left to buy after that got out of church.
Who do you think wanted that law?
I guess a majority of people in that region wanted it. That is probably why it was passed into law.
Why should those of us who don't attend church or follow any religion in particular be made subject to such laws?
Are you saying that a minority group of people should rule and overturn the majority? That is not very democratic.
Because religious people feel the need to make others conform to their own beliefs, plain and simple...
Now I have to ask if you are joking or not. All people regardless of religion, sex, age, race, or sexual preference want others to believe what they believe. I don't believe in abortion, but there are pro-choicers who want to shove their belief down my throat.
I'd rather they do what they believe is right for themselves and their children and leave the rest of us alone.
Actually, when I think about it, I have not heard from a single Catholic that we are not allowed to drink on Sunday. Of course, I am Irish, so drinking comes naturally for most of my family.
This must be asked: how do you know it was even a religious moral the law was based? There could have been some other reason. I love fortunes. Here is one from my FreeBSD box: "Atlanta makes it against the law to tie a giraffe to a telephone pole or street lamp." Here is another one: "In Corning, Iowa, it's a misdemeanor for a man to ask his wife to ride in any motor vehicle." Which religious morals are these laws based on?
There is one thing I have to point out. When a law in the U.S. is made that is for or seemingly for a religious moral, the Church had nothing to do with it. Religious people, yes. The Church or any church, no. Separation of Church and State means that any church cannot make laws. But people belonging to any church can vote on a law using their own beliefs as do those who are atheist. I am sure you are thinking that a church could influence people to vote a certain way. Yes, it can along with all those other groups with different beliefs. If you ban churches, you better ban NOW, Planned Parenthood, Greenpeace, and many other PAC's as they are just as bad (or worse).
BTW, for a church so set on control, my priest married me and my wife without a hitch. She is not Catholic or even Christian. She is more of an agnostic. This is one of the reasons I don't understand where all this fear of the Catholic Church comes from. Maybe during the time of the Spanish Inquisition I would have been tortured for this. Today, it is not even close.
a linux port of this breathtaking engine would be great!
Even better would be a UNIX port, so everyone could use it.
But it showed us that the Church is not above using lies, intimidation, torture and murder to ensure its survival.
As I stated before, that Church (everyone in it) has long since died. All those attributes you mention are human attributes not an organization's. When you are talking about different people, different attributes come into play.
Did the rules of Christianity change sometime after the Inquisition or other atrocities?
Nope. The Catholic Church has.
Why exactly is the Church to be trusted today?
I did not state they should be trusted, but I do not care to hear arguments about people who died several hundred years ago when we are discussing entirely different people born much later.
Or has it found better ways of enforcing its control?
Or maybe those bad individuals are dead and the ones in charge of the Church do not need to be in control of others?
Have any of your ancestors lied, cheated, stolen, or murdered? If so, we should not trust you because of the relation between them and you. According to your arguments, this would be valid.
No, the GPL terms apply only when you distribute GPLed code. You can do whatever the hell you want with it otherwise, or at home. You can use gcc to compile Windows if you want. You can use cvs to manage a non GPL source base.
Also keep in mind that you can use GPLed code as a basis for development in more than one way. For instance you can use Linux as a kernel in a proprietary system; you will have to distribute the code to the kernel but not to your software.
You can write non GPL-ed front ends to GPL software
I realize all of this. I was speaking of actually writing code which includes GPL code.
It's still sharing, unlike the way most software out there is licensed.
Sharing specific to a group sounds more like hoarding. It rings of being proprietary which the FSF is against. This is almost hypocritical.
The GPL is mainly concerned with freedom of use.
No. It is not. That would be free beer which is why you hear RMS always saying, "think free speech, not free beer."
Most users do not care about adding other code to the programs they use and then sending copies to other people. And of course you can use GPL code with BSD licensed code (providing it does not have the 'advertising clause'), the end result will just be under the GPL.
Which is why the GPL is always being pointed out to be viral in nature.
What rights are you giving up? Do you think you have the inherent 'right' to use other people's code in any way you choose? If so, I suggest you stop thinking about the GPL, and set yourself to the task of getting copyright law overturned.
Are you arguing for me or against me? The GPL's intent is to give people the 'freedom' to use code under the GPL, but they have to submit to the GPL for this benefit. Also, if I recall correctly, RMS would like to see copyright law overturned.
Don't forget that FreeBSD includes stuff like Soft Updates and Vinum, which is under licenses as strict or more strict than the GPL.
I use FreeBSD without these. They are not the default.
I believe that someone should share without strings (GPL license usage) when they claim to be "free"-ly sharing. This is one of my complaints against the GPL. If they were claiming to be sharing within a select group, I would have no grief against it.
1) What is so terribly wrong with the GPL?
:)
a) Quite a long license.
b) Doesn't share well with anyone but GPL.
c) Zealots (I know everyone has these, but I see more GPL zealots than even Windows)
d) More as an answer to number 4.
2) What is the MPL?
Mozilla Public License
3) What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?
I can't compare the GPL and MPL since I have not read the MPL. I prefer the BSD license over the GPL.
4) What is 'immoral' about the GPL?(that just cracks me up, has it been molesting little children and puppies again?? Bad GPL! Down GPL!)
GPL is called the viral license or the hoarding license. Any software development based off of GPL code must be GPL'd. It makes all source it touches GPL'd. This feature is not bad in itself. What is morally bad is claiming that one is sharing the code with everyone by putting code under the GPL license. Unfortunately, this "sharing" is only within the GNU community.
One of the main reasons for the formation of the FSF (Free Software Foundation) was due to the proprietarization of UNIX. I now see that it is happening again with the GPL. I can view GPL code, but I am unable to freely use it in any other licensed code (i.e., BSD). To me, this looks and acts a lot like proprietary code, but it is claimed to be "free".
One last thought: the U.S. Government is always asking us to give up our rights to better protect us. The GPL is similar, but not exactly, to this. Do you want freedom or "freedom"?
Here is a good license to consider for truly sharing code with others: Freedom.
P.S. I used to be a big fan of the GPL until I really saw the truth behind it.
Put this in your prefs file:
user_pref("browser.chrome.disableMyShopping", true);
I didn't find them thought provoking. They are an interesting read to see how someone in the 50's saw the future, but I felt like the "Cities" just dragged on.
:)
I much preferred the "Foundation" series (Asimov).
Disclaimer: my tastes; not necessarily yours.
Be careful what you wish for; you just might get it. Many people wanted open source to be well known. Their wish has come true. Unfortunately, there are some side effects ("features" :)).
Security by obscurity is doomed to fail, as we have seen over and over again, with the DVD encryption being the most recent example.
This is a poor example. DVD encryption was broken because one company forgot to be obscure.
I thought america was supposed to be the land of the free, ...
:)
They have a different definition of the word "free".
They can get a court order to make you turn over your keys
"Sorry your Honor, the drive died and took the keys with it. It also affected the floppy backups in the closet."
Why are they so interested in tapping my extremely important, encrypted, grocery list?
If everything important or illegal ends up being encrypted without back doors in the encryption method, why will they still want to tap? My guess it is for those not knowledgable enough to encrypt their conversations. Criminals can do some pretty stupid stuff. Just watch America's Dumbest Criminals, if it is still running on the air.
I have seen it especially when viewing my profile on SlashDot. I don't recall if it happens when hitting the back button.
So, therein is my justification of an Open Source licence, but why the GPL? Because it represents my belief in this paradigm. If I
were to release under BSD, I would be saying:
"This program is provided, open source, to solve a problem. If you are developing a proprietry app, and you have this problem, I believe I have done a good job of solving it, and you would do well to use my code"
I see the BSD license as such:
"I wrote this program, and I wish all to enjoy it. I do not want to choose who can enjoy; I just want to share."
I see the GPL license as such:
"I wrote this program, and I wish all to enjoy it. I will share with you as long as you share back to the GNU community."
In all actuality, I consider the BSD license to be more about sharing while the GPL license to be more about bartering.
When I write programs, I do it for fun, learning, and/or to help others. I may then wish to share them with others. I realize you can do it with the GPL license, but it still is a form of proprietary software; the software (and its decendants) remain under the GPL flag.
However, and I think that this is a fear which is always in RMS's mind: BSD's software can be moved from open to closed source by such entrepreneurs, who profit from the freely available work of other people - it's the apex of freeloading.
:)) Also, remember that even if a copy of the code is taken by a company for whatever use, your code remains free.
Not to be a troll, but what would you call moving code from BSD to GPL? I am just trying to put into perspective your comment. BSD code can go anywhere. (No! Don't start thinking 'Where do you want to go today?'
Telling others about the weakness is not immoral. Maybe illegal with all those laws banning security cracking out there, but it is not immoral.
As for what this could be used for in a moral way, would be:
1) Allow viewing of DVD's on alternative OS's (i.e., FreeBSD).
2) Allow viewing of DVD's from different regions. If I want to buy (quite moral) a DVD from a different country, why should I not be allowed to play it in my DVD player or computer (both of which I purchased legally and morally)? Some movies may not even be available in the U.S.. Any moral reason I should not be able to view them?
immoral as any, but sad that the industry will now try another format.
I doubt the industry will try another format. Too many recalls would have to be done to fix the millions--I only know there were over a million players in December 1998--of players out there in the world.
That was the most polite and kind trademark letter I have ever seen on Slashdot or anywhere else. I wish more lawyers were that nice with their 'cease and desist' letters.
I hope others have better ways.
I agree with you. I can see them patenting ways of getting to or manipulating DNA, but patenting the DNA itself should not be allowed.
:)
We should just remind them that God invented DNA and those patents have long since expired.
If you're feeling limited by Pine, perhaps you should try [Mutt].
;)
Then why would anyone try Mutt. Besides, Pine is a tree; it has no ass. I guess we can only kick Mutt's ass.
Seriously, I checked out Mutt, but I still prefer Pine.
If MS opens Windows, I will have to assume Hell froze over. :)