Seriously, if you're going to judge all of Christianity by the actions of some unwashed European barbarians, then why can't I judge atheism by the actions of the Soviet Union? Or Shintoism and Bhuddism by the actions of the Japanese in WWII? Or Islam by the actions of the Taliban? Or Judaism by the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians?
The Pope is a fundamentalist. At least according to the dictionary. You see, the word has been so twisted out of its meaning in the rush to use it as a pejorative, that it's become nothing more than tag.
A protestant that believes the Bible to be the inspired word of God, who believes that salvation only comes from Jesus Christ, and who believes in the existance of hell, is called a "fundamentalist." The Pope believes all that, though. So why is he not a "fundamentalist" as well?
This very topic is an example. Page after page of top level comments are labasting Christians. They're "fundies", "extremists", "idiots". Even your post demonstrates this, as it treats all Christians as a homogenous group out to disrespect your beliefs.
You called me a "proselytizer" on the basis of my post, yet there was absolutely no proselytizing in my post. None. It didn't even identify myself as a Christian! Apparently defending Christianity is now the equivalent proselytizing with a persecution complex. I am, and I quote, "annoying as hell" merely because I expressed an opinion in a public forum. Sheesh.
Especially if you're NOT in a coma, like Teri Schiavo isn't. She smiles, is responsive, recognizes her mother, can sit up in a chair. She is brain damaged, to be sure, but she is not in a coma or a permanent vegetative state. She is merely disabled. It's a sad day when not wanting to starve disabled people to death marks you as a religious nut.
Two thousand years? I see you flunked history. While there have been episodes of a particular church in conflict with science, remember that the renaissance and reformation arrived on the scene simultaneously. Science was briefly persecuted because one church was authoritarian. Freedom and science flourished once that church's monopoly on religion was broken. It was protestantism (not atheism) that stopped knowledge from being horded in dank dark monasteries.
how is "an underwater epic about the bizarre creatures that flourish in the hot, sulfurous emanations from vents in the ocean floor" offensive in any way?
It's not "offensive". What is offensive is NYT's (and Slashdot's as well) premise that an extremely tiny minority represent the entirety of a group. I haven't read the article, because it requires a registration, but I can guess what it says, because I have seen similar claims before. Frankly I would be surprised if the claims about this particular movie was an exaggeration of a *single* complaint, most likely by an antisocial loner.
Bible-thumping fundies will just be replaced by some other group of ignorant buffoons
I hear being a irreligous progressive liberal is all the rage these days. It allows you to be closed minded while still feeling smug about being a "free thinker."
Precisely. It's all the rage and fashion now to ascribe to fundamentalists some sort of lock-step mindless adherence to bizarre beliefs. But in reality you're going to find those sorts of people everywhere. In all religions, all philosophies, all politics.
Why is it that prejudice against Christians is the last remaining acceptable prejudice? Could it be that those screaming loudest for tolerance are in fact the least tolerant of differences?
I would prefer a simple file format (not XML) that can be parsed in very few lines of C code in/etc.
My favorite config format is what I jokingly call "Bourne Format." It's a series of "KEY=value" lines, which is read in by the script with a ". app.conf" command. Don't laugh, it works!
FreeBSD puts all third party applications under/usr/local or/usr/X11R6. Most Unix and Unix like systems do this. Only Linux seems to be the exception. It's almost like they never heard of/usr/local.
Except, of course, the requirement that may no longer use any old file system. When you use one inode per key, you're going to quickly run out of inodes. Especially when you've made your root filesystem tiny. You can, of course, use a really small inode size for the root filesystem, but that's going to affect everything else in the filesystem. To avoid wasting huge amounts of space, you're going to have to make your inodes ridiculously tiny. And even after I do that, what's the justification for tuning my filesystem to/etc instead of everything else that resides in the filesystem?
Why not just use multiple keys per file? Like we do today? You idea has been proposed before. And rejected before.
I use FreeBSD, and for all of the files the system dumps in there, there is a manpage.
p.s. With the exception of sendmail. That's because the main configuration files do not have fixed names. I think if sendmail ever got its act together, half the angst over/etc would evaporate.
It's up to the application writers to do this, because they are the ones who ultimately own the software. It would be *nice* if they all used the same file format, but pretending XML is it, it naive. As an admin, I don't have to hand tweak every configuration file. Really I don't. Anyone who says otherwise just doesn't have a life. Granted, I don't run a server, but the ONLY file I tweak in/etc are resolv.conf, sysctl.conf, sudoers and X11/xorg.conf. Moving to Elektra won't mean I can stop tweaking them, only that I will have some gooey clicky front end to use instead of old reliable vi. I will STILL have to know what those tweaks mean.
Isn't this the doing of the courts or the lawmakers who have held that a corporation is a legal person?
The FSF doesn't make the distinction between incorporated and unincorporated businesses. All they care about is that it's a business. Not all businesses are corporations.
Besides which, it doesn't matter. If per-seat licenses are legal, then there's no reason the FSF can't interpret the GPL as applying per-human-being as well.
You seem to have confused Free as in Speech with Free as in Beer...
You could be right. After all, I'm so reactionary that I still can't understand the need for a Free Speech Area at Berkeley, especially when only certain kinds of speech are allowed there anyway. If I can't even understand something that simple, then of course I won't be able to understand the need to enforce restrictions and encumbrances on a Free Software license.
Please note that I am not disputing the *right* to sue unauthorized users and distributors, I'm only disputing the *need* to do so.
Why does the FSF want the GPL to be more free for businesses than to its customers? Why am I being treated as a second class citizen by the FSF? I don't want the restrictions placed on me to apply to businesses, I want the freedoms given to businesses to apply to me!
Re:Our Fearless Leaders at Work
on
Juiced
·
· Score: 1
Personally, I don't want international trade agreement negotiations. When you have more bureaucrats on a negotiating team than SCO has lawyers, it's no longer free trade.
The only purpose for more than four years of congressional experience is to aquire knowledge of "The System". I don't want "The System"!
Re:Our Fearless Leaders at Work
on
Juiced
·
· Score: 1
Our politicians would always be green, learning the ropes. Think about it.
That would be a GOOD thing. How the hell can Congress represent us if they are NOT us? I want to see farmers and teachers and programmers and physicians and salesmen and janitors in congress, instead of it being nearly all lawyers. I want to see someone who has lived in the real world, instead of someone who's been in office since the first time the ran for high school president.
I have the right to a jury of my peers. Why can't I have a right to legislation by my peers as well?
Actually I am a libertarian, but like everyone else, I do have to live in the real world. Actions have consequences. If you stick your hand in a running garbage disposal, you'll pull out a stump. If you use Michael Jackson as a babysitter, you child will get buggered. If you incessantly whine about your right to incessantly whine, someone's going to beat the crap out of you.
As a liberatarian, it won't be me who will be pounding your face into a pulp, but as someone who has to live in the real world, don't expect me to be standing at the head of the line to come to your defense.
Yes, you have the right to be annoying. No, you don't have the right to prevent other people from getting annoyed.
Slashdot Mirror
The crusades anyone?
The Soviet Gulags anyone?
Seriously, if you're going to judge all of Christianity by the actions of some unwashed European barbarians, then why can't I judge atheism by the actions of the Soviet Union? Or Shintoism and Bhuddism by the actions of the Japanese in WWII? Or Islam by the actions of the Taliban? Or Judaism by the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians?
Take a look at your post objectively. You use the term "for the most part" for every group you describe... EXCEPT fundamentalists.
The Pope is a fundamentalist. At least according to the dictionary. You see, the word has been so twisted out of its meaning in the rush to use it as a pejorative, that it's become nothing more than tag.
A protestant that believes the Bible to be the inspired word of God, who believes that salvation only comes from Jesus Christ, and who believes in the existance of hell, is called a "fundamentalist." The Pope believes all that, though. So why is he not a "fundamentalist" as well?
but it can be justified on the grounds that many things that Christians go on about are not a problem for the majority of the population.
Holy crap! You've just justified prejudice against ANY group with a minority opinion!
There is no prejudice against Christians
This very topic is an example. Page after page of top level comments are labasting Christians. They're "fundies", "extremists", "idiots". Even your post demonstrates this, as it treats all Christians as a homogenous group out to disrespect your beliefs.
You called me a "proselytizer" on the basis of my post, yet there was absolutely no proselytizing in my post. None. It didn't even identify myself as a Christian! Apparently defending Christianity is now the equivalent proselytizing with a persecution complex. I am, and I quote, "annoying as hell" merely because I expressed an opinion in a public forum. Sheesh.
Especially if you're NOT in a coma, like Teri Schiavo isn't. She smiles, is responsive, recognizes her mother, can sit up in a chair. She is brain damaged, to be sure, but she is not in a coma or a permanent vegetative state. She is merely disabled. It's a sad day when not wanting to starve disabled people to death marks you as a religious nut.
Two thousand years? I see you flunked history. While there have been episodes of a particular church in conflict with science, remember that the renaissance and reformation arrived on the scene simultaneously. Science was briefly persecuted because one church was authoritarian. Freedom and science flourished once that church's monopoly on religion was broken. It was protestantism (not atheism) that stopped knowledge from being horded in dank dark monasteries.
I am sure a lot of TV sets in the South were not tuned in.
What does the south have to do with it? Was Neil Young on PBS again?
how is "an underwater epic about the bizarre creatures that flourish in the hot, sulfurous emanations from vents in the ocean floor" offensive in any way?
It's not "offensive". What is offensive is NYT's (and Slashdot's as well) premise that an extremely tiny minority represent the entirety of a group. I haven't read the article, because it requires a registration, but I can guess what it says, because I have seen similar claims before. Frankly I would be surprised if the claims about this particular movie was an exaggeration of a *single* complaint, most likely by an antisocial loner.
When I was growing up as a kid, I never thought that Science and the Bible were necessarily in conflict.
Yeah, but then irreligion became a religion and all of that stopped. The extremists are on BOTH sides.
Bible-thumping fundies will just be replaced by some other group of ignorant buffoons
I hear being a irreligous progressive liberal is all the rage these days. It allows you to be closed minded while still feeling smug about being a "free thinker."
Precisely. It's all the rage and fashion now to ascribe to fundamentalists some sort of lock-step mindless adherence to bizarre beliefs. But in reality you're going to find those sorts of people everywhere. In all religions, all philosophies, all politics.
Why is it that prejudice against Christians is the last remaining acceptable prejudice? Could it be that those screaming loudest for tolerance are in fact the least tolerant of differences?
I would prefer a simple file format (not XML) that can be parsed in very few lines of C code in /etc.
My favorite config format is what I jokingly call "Bourne Format." It's a series of "KEY=value" lines, which is read in by the script with a ". app.conf" command. Don't laugh, it works!
FreeBSD puts all third party applications under /usr/local or /usr/X11R6. Most Unix and Unix like systems do this. Only Linux seems to be the exception. It's almost like they never heard of /usr/local.
YOU DO NOT NEED ANYTHING ELSE!
/etc instead of everything else that resides in the filesystem?
Except, of course, the requirement that may no longer use any old file system. When you use one inode per key, you're going to quickly run out of inodes. Especially when you've made your root filesystem tiny. You can, of course, use a really small inode size for the root filesystem, but that's going to affect everything else in the filesystem. To avoid wasting huge amounts of space, you're going to have to make your inodes ridiculously tiny. And even after I do that, what's the justification for tuning my filesystem to
Why not just use multiple keys per file? Like we do today? You idea has been proposed before. And rejected before.
There should be a man page for each file in /etc.
/etc would evaporate.
I use FreeBSD, and for all of the files the system dumps in there, there is a manpage.
p.s. With the exception of sendmail. That's because the main configuration files do not have fixed names. I think if sendmail ever got its act together, half the angst over
It's up to the application writers to do this, because they are the ones who ultimately own the software. It would be *nice* if they all used the same file format, but pretending XML is it, it naive. As an admin, I don't have to hand tweak every configuration file. Really I don't. Anyone who says otherwise just doesn't have a life. Granted, I don't run a server, but the ONLY file I tweak in /etc are resolv.conf, sysctl.conf, sudoers and X11/xorg.conf. Moving to Elektra won't mean I can stop tweaking them, only that I will have some gooey clicky front end to use instead of old reliable vi. I will STILL have to know what those tweaks mean.
I don't know, when you obfuscate perl, does it come out readable?
Hah! I think they should change the Perl motto to "there's more than one way to confuse the heck out of future maintainers."
Isn't this the doing of the courts or the lawmakers who have held that a corporation is a legal person?
The FSF doesn't make the distinction between incorporated and unincorporated businesses. All they care about is that it's a business. Not all businesses are corporations.
Besides which, it doesn't matter. If per-seat licenses are legal, then there's no reason the FSF can't interpret the GPL as applying per-human-being as well.
You seem to have confused Free as in Speech with Free as in Beer...
You could be right. After all, I'm so reactionary that I still can't understand the need for a Free Speech Area at Berkeley, especially when only certain kinds of speech are allowed there anyway. If I can't even understand something that simple, then of course I won't be able to understand the need to enforce restrictions and encumbrances on a Free Software license.
Please note that I am not disputing the *right* to sue unauthorized users and distributors, I'm only disputing the *need* to do so.
Why does the FSF want the GPL to be more free for businesses than to its customers? Why am I being treated as a second class citizen by the FSF? I don't want the restrictions placed on me to apply to businesses, I want the freedoms given to businesses to apply to me!
Personally, I don't want international trade agreement negotiations. When you have more bureaucrats on a negotiating team than SCO has lawyers, it's no longer free trade.
The only purpose for more than four years of congressional experience is to aquire knowledge of "The System". I don't want "The System"!
Our politicians would always be green, learning the ropes. Think about it.
That would be a GOOD thing. How the hell can Congress represent us if they are NOT us? I want to see farmers and teachers and programmers and physicians and salesmen and janitors in congress, instead of it being nearly all lawyers. I want to see someone who has lived in the real world, instead of someone who's been in office since the first time the ran for high school president.
I have the right to a jury of my peers. Why can't I have a right to legislation by my peers as well?
It was the prior poster who did not understand that you could sell BSD code in exactly the same way.
Actually I am a libertarian, but like everyone else, I do have to live in the real world. Actions have consequences. If you stick your hand in a running garbage disposal, you'll pull out a stump. If you use Michael Jackson as a babysitter, you child will get buggered. If you incessantly whine about your right to incessantly whine, someone's going to beat the crap out of you.
As a liberatarian, it won't be me who will be pounding your face into a pulp, but as someone who has to live in the real world, don't expect me to be standing at the head of the line to come to your defense.
Yes, you have the right to be annoying. No, you don't have the right to prevent other people from getting annoyed.