...but the peppering of slightly naughty wall posts doesn't hurt either:
...
"Robin likes hope.net and Morning Sex." ...
Robin likes SLEEPING NAKED IS MORE COMFORTABLE. ...
Robin likes Intelligent, classy, well-educated women who say "F*ck" a lot. ...
pesonally, I would say "why outsource to the US when you're already in Canada and the US is outsourcing to you!"...but I guess with the Canadian dollar gaining on ours it might work the other way around in a year or two. still, it seems a bit wierd.
I was just musing this morning that there is a wealth of knowledge in book form that I hardly ever go back to anymore but which is simply not available online. It occured to me that in my university's rather modest library there were reference books that had very in depth information on specific subjects. Example: translations and commentary for early music of, say, the trouveres. Can you find articles about them online? Sure, but the material is spotty. You can't find as many scholarly opinions on the matter or get at really useful information.
The problem is that the content that is readily available online never has the sustained depth that a book on the subject seems to. It's more likely that a scholar setting out with a purpose to explain a lot about a subject publish in book form even now. Unless the book has already been put online you won't find information of that depth...but I'm sure that the majority of books still aren't available online, no?
It's a little ridiculous that this bland kind of rhetoric is construed as a violation of "separation of church and state"
why? because the capitalism, and most of our ideas about what constitutes a constitutional democracy were founded on a basis in "natural law".
Now, I'm not saying these men were strict believers in a Judeo-Christian version God. In many cases they were, in some cases they were merely deists. But...they did hold a firm belief that this version of democracy would not survive if the people under it did not maintain that belief in a creator who endows all human with these "inalienable rights".
Does this constitute a violation of church and state? No, and certainly not in the constitutional framer's mind's either. The separation of church and state is to prevent religious istitutions from having unfair dominance over government. NOT to neuterize our politics or to de-religionize political discourse. Again, capitalism, natural law, and ideas about constitutional democracy were devoloped with the deist/theistic mindset. If you want to be an atheist that's fine, it's certainly allowed for in our version of democracy but it will preclude much of any cohesive views on natural law. Atheists are better off being marxists or nihlists so go sulk somewhere besides America...
It seemed to me that his "sane" comment was really just bitching about the fact that, in general, Americans aren't *quite* as sexually debauched as Europeans.
"Different cultures not only have radically different notions about copyright, but view culture itself very differently. What the United States considers pornographic might be perfectly acceptable in saner countries like Holland or Finland."
well, *clearly* if you're a porn addict then you're going to praise the countries that have all the fun hardcore stuff and you're going to complain when you're home country hasn't wrecked every shred of its own concience with shameful poison.
His article was still pretty cohesive he just needs to deal with his penchant for filth and sexual corruption.
Hope he wises up and actually adds a little credibility to his rants. Then maybe we'll be able to make better allies in the war for freedom of software and information. It's no good being weak if you're going to really get in a fight.
I know that censorship is not an issue to be taken lightly but I can't wonder if the pervasive view popping up around here is that web filtering (usually for porn) is bad and can't possibly be useful to any of us geeks so therefore we should fight all filtering efforts! Let's be reasonable. Yes, I realize that these closed blacklists are bad news. This kind of filtering is dangerous and takes control away from the people...not just taking control from the third parties with a voice to be heard but also from unwitting parents who aren't aware that someone is making choices (typically not always very good choices) for them without their knowledge. Internet filtering (specifically for porn) is not a bad thing in and of itself. I would go so far as to say that when general filtering becomes more advanced and coherent the internet will become much more usable. Don't forget that slashdot would be virtually impossible to navigate without the moderation system. I believe that this is what needs to take place here. open lists are a the first step but the idea of checking boxes for location, type of content to be filtered, opinions of different groups and third parties (political organizations, wathdog groups, perhaps even porn merchants themselves, etc.) is the only thing that can make filtering both ethical/free and useful ('cause really, how effective are these things anyway?) As one congressmen (judge?) said...I don't know how to define pornography but I know it when I see it...we all know what a "first post!," "f1rst p0st!!," etc. looks like and we all know that no one (usually) wants to look at that crap. shouldn't parents have the same right?
One point that seems implicitly obvious here but hasn't yet been explicitly stated is that having the source code not only empowers developing nations to use software but it actually empowers them to better understand and become involved in the development process. I have personally found that this is of great personal benefit as I am a young college student and before I found out about open source I had no idea what a "real" large scale software system was "supposed" to look like. Where else would I have learned to write "clean modular code" if it hadn't been for the GNU coding standards?read-read-read other peoples' source...isn't that the best way to learn?If someone in a third world country were very dedicated all they might need is a an old 386, the linux source and maybe the kernel hacking howto and... *voila*...suddenly a new kernel hacker is born! Even if they never became anything like a hacker guru it'd be better than a life making low grade wing nuts by hand.
This is one of the less mentioned benefits of open source software; the increase in the speed of education. People can not only NOT reinvent the proverbial wheel several times but they can also study that wheel and learn how it works for themselves...eventually building better-faster-smoother-running wheels and sharing the resultant technological growth with the rest of the world.
The very nature of the open source movement allows developing nations to enter the software arena without having to overcome the heavy initial investment already made by the technological terrors of the wealthy west. Don't sell OSS short; having that source code available doesn't just mean we'll have better software than MS; it means we'll actually understand software better than MS. It means we know more than they do. This has got to be the way for third world countries to claim a share in the future.
This is off-topic but wasn't the pentagram used as an early Christian icon prior to it's pagan associations. I know there was a secret Greek society that celbrated the mathematical proportions of the pentagram, specifically the 2:1 "octave" ratios within the lines sub-segments...that group (pythagoreans? I think there was even a Donald Duck movie about this...) developed some important musical theories but then somewhere along the way I think the early Christians picked up the symbol for their own... Ironic how such familiar symbols of "paganism" (I use the term loosely) such as vampirism and the pentagram owe their origins (at least in part) to the distincly anti-pagan 1st century Christians.
...there's interesting mathematical symbolism contained within the five point star in any case.
hey, wasn't the world also supposed to end when all the 64 rings from the original towers of Hanoi problem were moved? Thank goodness it's an O(2^n) problem! ...but don't anybody go writing code to work the moves out; you never know when somebody will get the bright idea of doing a Towers@Home(TM) project to speed up the process and then *poof* there goes all of creation. hmm...Maybe that's why the seti people were making their program run slower: to protect us from...ourselves... Will counting the stars destroy the universe? If we know what's out there will it be our undoing!?
Computers are evil!
Prayer in computers is unconstitutional!
Stop making computers pray!!!
Christian Hackers? Let your light shine!
on
Jesux is a Bad Pun
·
· Score: 3
I am really curious about this now...bad hoaxs aside. How many Christian Hackers are really out there? The person who introduced me to Linux was a Christian and since then several of (almost half) the Linux users I've come into contact with have been Christians...as agents of Love and Truth in the world shouldn't we (Christians) be sharing with others and fostering the freedom of information anyway? I've always felt that Open Source and Christianity easily went hand in hand but many posts here are just batting around the stereotyped picture of (fake) christianity. Those who understand Christ's message should be aware of this; Christianity is about Love, truth, and freedom. (these at the very least) hmm...I wonder if ChristianHackers.org is registered yet? (yikes! It IS registered!!!)
That's really cool and all but... I think the real issue about mascots is how the average person is going to see it...unfortunately to most people the "original" meaning will never have the importance of the percieved meaning. As long as our little "bazaar" keeps growing the less informed masses will tend to overshadow the individuals "in the know"...whether it's Linux or *BSD or whatever, it will be a bustling place of ideas and not quite the "thieves market" (don't misunderstand my meaning...I'm just referring to sense of community) that it may have seemed in the past. Wasn't the point of open source of any kind supposed to be that people would actually use/reuse software...if it's to be succesful then won't some of those user have to be non-programmers and more casual users?
Slashdot Mirror
...but the peppering of slightly naughty wall posts doesn't hurt either:
...
...
...
...
"Robin likes hope.net and Morning Sex."
Robin likes SLEEPING NAKED IS MORE COMFORTABLE.
Robin likes Intelligent, classy, well-educated women who say "F*ck" a lot.
pesonally, I would say "why outsource to the US when you're already in Canada and the US is outsourcing to you!" ...but I guess with the Canadian dollar gaining on ours it might work the other way around in a year or two. still, it seems a bit wierd.
I was just musing this morning that there is a wealth of knowledge in book form that I hardly ever go back to anymore but which is simply not available online. It occured to me that in my university's rather modest library there were reference books that had very in depth information on specific subjects. Example: translations and commentary for early music of, say, the trouveres. Can you find articles about them online? Sure, but the material is spotty. You can't find as many scholarly opinions on the matter or get at really useful information.
The problem is that the content that is readily available online never has the sustained depth that a book on the subject seems to. It's more likely that a scholar setting out with a purpose to explain a lot about a subject publish in book form even now. Unless the book has already been put online you won't find information of that depth...but I'm sure that the majority of books still aren't available online, no?
It's a little ridiculous that this bland kind of rhetoric is construed as a violation of "separation of church and state"
why? because the capitalism, and most of our ideas about what constitutes a constitutional democracy were founded on a basis in "natural law".
Now, I'm not saying these men were strict believers in a Judeo-Christian version God. In many cases they were, in some cases they were merely deists. But...they did hold a firm belief that this version of democracy would not survive if the people under it did not maintain that belief in a creator who endows all human with these "inalienable rights".
Does this constitute a violation of church and state? No, and certainly not in the constitutional framer's mind's either. The separation of church and state is to prevent religious istitutions from having unfair dominance over government. NOT to neuterize our politics or to de-religionize political discourse. Again, capitalism, natural law, and ideas about constitutional democracy were devoloped with the deist/theistic mindset. If you want to be an atheist that's fine, it's certainly allowed for in our version of democracy but it will preclude much of any cohesive views on natural law. Atheists are better off being marxists or nihlists so go sulk somewhere besides America...
It seemed to me that his "sane" comment was really just bitching about the fact that, in general, Americans aren't *quite* as sexually debauched as Europeans.
"Different cultures not only have radically different notions about copyright, but view culture itself very differently. What the United States considers pornographic might be perfectly acceptable in saner countries like Holland or Finland."
well, *clearly* if you're a porn addict then you're going to praise the countries that have all the fun hardcore stuff and you're going to complain when you're home country hasn't wrecked every shred of its own concience with shameful poison.
His article was still pretty cohesive he just needs to deal with his penchant for filth and sexual corruption.
Hope he wises up and actually adds a little credibility to his rants. Then maybe we'll be able to make better allies in the war for freedom of software and information. It's no good being weak if you're going to really get in a fight.
I know that censorship is not an issue to be taken lightly but I can't wonder if the pervasive view popping up around here is that web filtering (usually for porn) is bad and can't possibly be useful to any of us geeks so therefore we should fight all filtering efforts! Let's be reasonable. Yes, I realize that these closed blacklists are bad news. This kind of filtering is dangerous and takes control away from the people...not just taking control from the third parties with a voice to be heard but also from unwitting parents who aren't aware that someone is making choices (typically not always very good choices) for them without their knowledge. Internet filtering (specifically for porn) is not a bad thing in and of itself. I would go so far as to say that when general filtering becomes more advanced and coherent the internet will become much more usable. Don't forget that slashdot would be virtually impossible to navigate without the moderation system. I believe that this is what needs to take place here. open lists are a the first step but the idea of checking boxes for location, type of content to be filtered, opinions of different groups and third parties (political organizations, wathdog groups, perhaps even porn merchants themselves, etc.) is the only thing that can make filtering both ethical/free and useful ('cause really, how effective are these things anyway?) As one congressmen (judge?) said...I don't know how to define pornography but I know it when I see it...we all know what a "first post!," "f1rst p0st!!," etc. looks like and we all know that no one (usually) wants to look at that crap. shouldn't parents have the same right?
One point that seems implicitly obvious here but hasn't yet been explicitly stated is that having the source code not only empowers developing nations to use software but it actually empowers them to better understand and become involved in the development process. I have personally found that this is of great personal benefit as I am a young college student and before I found out about open source I had no idea what a "real" large scale software system was "supposed" to look like. Where else would I have learned to write "clean modular code" if it hadn't been for the GNU coding standards?read-read-read other peoples' source...isn't that the best way to learn?If someone in a third world country were very dedicated all they might need is a an old 386, the linux source and maybe the kernel hacking howto and... *voila*...suddenly a new kernel hacker is born! Even if they never became anything like a hacker guru it'd be better than a life making low grade wing nuts by hand.
This is one of the less mentioned benefits of open source software; the increase in the speed of education. People can not only NOT reinvent the proverbial wheel several times but they can also study that wheel and learn how it works for themselves...eventually building better-faster-smoother-running wheels and sharing the resultant technological growth with the rest of the world.
The very nature of the open source movement allows developing nations to enter the software arena without having to overcome the heavy initial investment already made by the technological terrors of the wealthy west. Don't sell OSS short; having that source code available doesn't just mean we'll have better software than MS; it means we'll actually understand software better than MS. It means we know more than they do. This has got to be the way for third world countries to claim a share in the future.
Knowledge is power.
Hooray for sharing information.
This is off-topic but wasn't the pentagram used as an early Christian icon prior to it's pagan associations. I know there was a secret Greek society that celbrated the mathematical proportions of the pentagram, specifically the 2:1 "octave" ratios within the lines sub-segments...that group (pythagoreans? I think there was even a Donald Duck movie about this...) developed some important musical theories but then somewhere along the way I think the early Christians picked up the symbol for their own...
Ironic how such familiar symbols of "paganism" (I use the term loosely) such as vampirism and the pentagram owe their origins (at least in part) to the distincly anti-pagan 1st century Christians.
...there's interesting mathematical symbolism contained within the five point star in any case.
(...and computers are still evil.)
hey, wasn't the world also supposed to end when all the 64 rings from the original towers of Hanoi problem were moved?
...but don't anybody go writing code to work the moves out; you never know when somebody will get the bright idea of doing a Towers@Home (TM) project to speed up the process and then *poof* there goes all of creation. ...ourselves...
Thank goodness it's an O(2^n) problem!
hmm...Maybe that's why the seti people were making their program run slower: to protect us from
Will counting the stars destroy the universe?
If we know what's out there will it be our undoing!?
Computers are evil!
Prayer in computers is unconstitutional!
Stop making computers pray!!!
I am really curious about this now...bad hoaxs aside. How many Christian Hackers are really out there? The person who introduced me to Linux was a Christian and since then several of (almost half) the Linux users I've come into contact with have been Christians...as agents of Love and Truth in the world shouldn't we (Christians) be sharing with others and fostering the freedom of information anyway? I've always felt that Open Source and Christianity easily went hand in hand but many posts here are just batting around the stereotyped picture of (fake) christianity. Those who understand Christ's message should be aware of this; Christianity is about Love, truth, and freedom. (these at the very least)
hmm...I wonder if ChristianHackers.org is registered yet? (yikes! It IS registered!!!)
That's really cool and all but... ...whether it's Linux or *BSD or whatever, it will be a bustling place of ideas and not quite the "thieves market" (don't misunderstand my meaning...I'm just referring to sense of community) that it may have seemed in the past. Wasn't the point of open source of any kind supposed to be that people would actually use/reuse software...if it's to be succesful then won't some of those user have to be non-programmers and more casual users?
I think the real issue about mascots is how the average person is going to see it...unfortunately to most people the "original" meaning will never have the importance of the percieved meaning.
As long as our little "bazaar" keeps growing the less informed masses will tend to overshadow the individuals "in the know"