Ok, I'll explain.
Is she forbidden to exercise her religion by wearing the number of the beast? IS there a number of the Beast? What is this beast? Can you name the existing and recognized religion where it is a known and universally accepted fact that that RFID tag is the identification mark of said Beast?
Reading the bible in your own way is not exercising religion. Always doing what the bible says might be exercising religion but do you want me to get into the bible telling people to kill homosexuals?
So using the first amendment I can get out of anything by saying it's my religion?
Is the term so vague?
Regarding the free speech part in the first amendment... If she would have just told people that the rfid tag IS the number of the beast that would have been fine and punishing her for this would have been wrong.
But she chose to act. And that makes her in the position to PROVE she is exercising her relgion, she would need to describe that religion.
Can you please answer these questions before calling me an idiot?
In my opinion having the word religion in the Constitution is tricky and these times it will lead to this. Religious and ignorant people using their imaginary system of beliefs as leverage to bend the socitety around them except the other way around.
You should be free to exercise any religion. But once YOU decide you NEED and WANT to be part of a multicultural and diverse society it's your responsibility to obey those rules, because no one forces you to be a part of it.
If you want in don't force us to bend the already existing rules for your own personal reasons and most of all it should be mandatory that you're not supposed to feel offended in your religious beliefs because of a NON-RELIGIOUS act! You cannot decide by your self what is a religious act. I really don't see how this is discrimination.
The school making you wear RFID tags is not a religious act so you shouldn't be able to bring up that argument. The modern state shouldn't care about people's religion. It's their right, but that shouldn't make the state responsible to tip-toe around 200 million religious views when they decide what colour should roads be, for example.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean the other party you're criticizing has ANY obligation to obey what you say.
Does the first amendment allow you to interpret anything in your own way based on YOUR beliefs and then decide that someone else is evil because they don't follow the same interpretation? This is what I understand from what you're saying.
I agree on the privacy concerns.
Yes, our "society" has "functioned" for ages without basic commodities too.
So possibility of living without a certain comfort or rule doesn't make that rule wrong or that comfort a whim.
Again, did anyone care to look into this school's reasons and rules to implement this program?
I'm not from the US so I don;t know, is this a public or a private school? If it's a public school, were they notified in advance of what will the campus life involve?
Are they free to join another school?
Replying my own post here...
TFA only presents the father's opinion which, I'm sorry to say so, seems to be very subjective. I seriously doubt that the school literally asked the girl to proudly wear the tag around her neck. Something in the way he "sais" it makes me think he's a bit... well, subjective.
Why isn't TFA presenting the schools reasons for implementing this systems, what are it's goals, what was the process by which this solution was chosen, how were the students informed about this etc.
Oh, blogs are not journalism (not that journalism is real journalism this days anyway).
Had she mentioned the invasion of privacy in the first step and the "the number of the beast" maybe they would have listened and people would have given her more credit.
The problem with religion is that people who believe in certain things will always argue that it's their right to belive in something and that the value fo truth of the said religion it's a matter of personal belief, hence it cannot be proved correct or otherwise from outisde nor do they want to listen to those arguments (granted, it's their right to do so).
Then why is some form of authority guilty of infringing those beliefs from outside buy implementing something that one religion interprets in some way inside it's system of beliefs?
Trying to explain, in this case, that the RFID tag is not the number of the beast is a dead-end (and I don't even care if IT IS the number of the beast) but in this way a religion could reject anything.
Some parts of the society can decide that they cannot function unless they implement a certain mechanism and some individuals will decide unidirectionaly that those mechanisms be dropped because some scriptures can be interpreted in such a way. (The Christian church has not decided in it's totality that barcodes and rfid tags are the mark of the beast nor are they unequivocally identified as such in the Bible.)
I always thought that the Get More Coverage option meant that people that have NOT subscribed to my page will get my post, as an ADVERTISEMENT, based on some algorithm where at least they target people with that interest (as my page).
Are you sure you don't mean that facebook will ask for money so that your post stays longer and higher on people's newsfeed?
So now my posts won't reach all my 150 friends you're saying? Is this documented somewhere?
Facebook doesn't inject ads into YOUR facebook page.
The newsfeed is not YOUR page, the PROFILE page is and they are not adding ads to that.
The newsfeed is just what it sais, a list of "news" from the sources you chose, kinda like choosing a tv channel and watching their news. Where they inject ads into your... time spent there.
EdgeRank, really? To determine what posts reach which users?
So you change 2 letters and you're trying to position yourself as a tech company that uses algorithms to better serve your users?
On the other hand either Cuban is overreacting or I'm missing something.
Facebook didn't "asked" for $3000 so that he can message 1mil friends. Facebook proposed that he paid $3000 so that his posts can sit higher on people's newsfeeds, for longer and maybe for people not even on his list. He could have said no and just posted to his 715,237 (I checked) subscribers. Each method has it's ups and downs, the one facebook proposed was just going to be, well, promoted more (with a small text next to it saying "Advertising" or something. ).
I was thinking of the other Q and was wondering just how much of what Q from Star Trek (TNG) could do can you achieve today in real life, aside dressing in a starfleet "pijama".
So the article was a bit disapointing. Plus there were 2 videos about DotCom autoplaying at once on that page.
What distro are you on?
There have been 2 periods some 2 years ago on ubuntu where flash kept crashing but aside those I never had any issues with flash. Except for the youtube "blue people" issue:)
I know, for one who sais he has no flash issues I can list quite a few, but you have to admit flash is fading away. And come on, flash homebanking? I give it 6 months. There's 70-80% chances that they are working on a replacement as we speak.
I'm in web development and we did a lot of flash replacement sites in the past couple of years.
I only aquired mild sysadmin skills while using linux at home and at work for the last 7 years or so and I admit I don't know even 10% of that in the Windows environment and I'm tempted to say that linux can either cover that OR we're already discussing server environments (I'm pretty sure DHCP and Group Policy are not about the desktop issue) but I'll wait for a more knowledgable guy to answer that if anyone wants.
Well, that sounds like a goal that can never be accomplished by any OS that is not win32 compatible and that also makes Mac OS X not ready for the desktop, wouldn't you agree?
The I guess what I'm saying is that Linux IS ready for the small (and maybe medium) busnisess, especially those in or related to IT&C (which right now is a considerable portion of the economy, we're not in the 80's.)
I'm also saying that it COULD be a solution for home users, if those users are able to make an informed and educated decision about their OS.
I'm not in the US and I've never bought a brand PC or a PC with an installed OS. I have always installed my own OS's. So if more people coould do that they wouldn't be in the position to discover that soem.exe file doesn't run on their PC's.
If people would be more literrate regarding PC's they woudl discover linux is ready for the desktop. The web and the browser has a lot to do with this. I'm speculating that people over 40 would successfully use it, since they don't need games or other fancy software, the browser would be enough. Even developers would need to take that into account and provide linux versions (like Skype or others do).
I guess my conclusion is that linux IS ready and all the factors that make it seem not to be are external.
I keep hearing people like you saying linux isn't prepared for the desktop and here I am using it for years.
* I do web development at work and I have everyhting I need on Ubuntu. I've used it on desktop and laptops without issues.
* My wife and my kids use it at home (my kids are 6 and don't even know what Windows and Linux is, or care, they just use the browser for flash games). My wife uses it for browsing and for document editing (at a level where google docs would suffice).
* I use it at home for web development, browsing, soemetimes even RAW image editing (for which I admit I boot to a 3 years old XP install I only need for Lightroom/Photoshop)
What does "the desktop" mean ???
Audio editing, CAD, 3d modelling (blender?), video editing?
Aren't those too "niche"? Not beeing able to run Avid or Maya to build the next Avatar movie disqualifies it as usable for the desktop?
In MY opinion that's not "the desktop", sorry. That's a niche you need specified hardware and software anyway.
Note:
I do run into issues sometimes, but SO DO I ON Windows XP!
Otherwise I'm perfectly able to:
plug my DSLR and download images off it,
i can play dvd's,
I can create dvd's,
I can capture DV video of a handycam,
I can quickly edit images in GIMP (crop, resize, a bit of contrast, etc, light stuff),
i can write documents, I have a choice of great music players/managers and had them when windows had... Winamp 3.x or something,
I can connect to ftp servers
I can use.torrent links/sites
I can write code, debug code, install and use a web server
and most of all I can do ALL these AND OTHERS from the first second I installed Ubuntu. Try all of the above right after installing Windows XP or 7 .
What the fuck is wrong with linux on the desktop?
I can't play games, but then again, I never was a gamer. Is that reason to dismiss it? Are gamers like 80% of the desktop market? If yes, then we're screwed!
Yes, and therein lies the problem, the OS remained designed for ancient mobiles and continued to "demand" ancient level mobiles when the iPhone was at v3.
Why can't something be interesting and considered a breakthrough in any field of science and research still be conducted without it having to solve any type of crisis?
Especially when the connection to that crisis is made artificially in a summary, just to throw some glitter on a piece of scientific news?
You are simplisticly overreacting. No matter what you think about the ios environment it does exist and It is a phenomenon both in market share (a market they arguably created) and fan base. The article is not about technical supremacy but about what will happen to the market amazon had before Apple (presumably) decided to enter into. Discuss.
This is not funny, although it's been modded as such.
What you describe is a system that places no value on skills or merits. This is not the case with TFA. No one was talking about skills not being important. We were discussing whether power is something that needs to be exercised by a few (elected or self-imposed) or by everyone.
Doctors would still have their place and would still be needed, but kings may not, that's all.
Or is this something related to doctors' god-complex?:)
Yes, the idea that we could all take turns to hold various public jobs or position is a great one, however, somewhat sadly, impossible today.
In today's capitalistic market and work environment no one wants to take x months off their current high paying job to go sit a public office. Nor does today's level of specialization (even in public jobs) allow for that.
But I guess a system where I'm taken and used somewhere according to my skills and to my current salary could be investigated.
Another way we could achieve similar results would be to actually vote for every local public function (judges, trade offices staff, customs officers etc) even if that contradicts my original opinion of not voting for every little thing:)
I happen to know a few things about anarchy as an ideology. I admit my phrasing was not the most fortunate, but yes, I tend to equate anarchy with chaos in the end because I don't believe in it as a real solution that actually works.
In the real world anarchy will degrade to chaos.
Funny you should mention Iceland. That didn't turn out so well in the end. Power struggles between individuals ended that.
Plus I'm sure we can find countries that have been NOT anarchies for more than 200 years, right?
And come on, are really discussing the 12th century?
It's somewhat of a sociologically interesting fact that in 99% percent of the cases, where this sort of utopic future communities are described, voting always come up. The fact that there is a network and a mean for people to be "always on" doesn't make people brighter all of a sudden. That sort of democracy can quickly turn into chaos and then anarchy.
From my experience in being part of some passionate amateurs communities I can say that leadership is very important.
Individuals will always have different degrees of involvement, different degrees of the ability to know what is right for the group of a whole, different degrees of objectivity, education, selflessness. And even different agendas. Individuals in a group might sincerely believe that their way is the best.
What I'm trying to say is that voting is not always the best solution, leadership (formal or informal) and fast decision making abilities are more important. Having a vision and seeing "the path" is more important than wasting time and energy (think of how long it takes in a group of people larger than 3 to decide where to eat out and multiply by ten for "important stuff") to vote all the time.
I'm not saying that democracy is overrated but not even democracy supposes that people vote on every single aspect. That's where the idea of a parliament (or similar institution) comes from. You're supposed to have your interests represented by people with knowledge, leadership skills, vision and desire to serve the community.
Then again, we also know how that turns out:)
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, I'll explain.
Is she forbidden to exercise her religion by wearing the number of the beast? IS there a number of the Beast? What is this beast? Can you name the existing and recognized religion where it is a known and universally accepted fact that that RFID tag is the identification mark of said Beast? Reading the bible in your own way is not exercising religion. Always doing what the bible says might be exercising religion but do you want me to get into the bible telling people to kill homosexuals?
So using the first amendment I can get out of anything by saying it's my religion?
Is the term so vague?
Regarding the free speech part in the first amendment... If she would have just told people that the rfid tag IS the number of the beast that would have been fine and punishing her for this would have been wrong.
But she chose to act. And that makes her in the position to PROVE she is exercising her relgion, she would need to describe that religion.
Can you please answer these questions before calling me an idiot?
In my opinion having the word religion in the Constitution is tricky and these times it will lead to this. Religious and ignorant people using their imaginary system of beliefs as leverage to bend the socitety around them except the other way around.
You should be free to exercise any religion. But once YOU decide you NEED and WANT to be part of a multicultural and diverse society it's your responsibility to obey those rules, because no one forces you to be a part of it.
If you want in don't force us to bend the already existing rules for your own personal reasons and most of all it should be mandatory that you're not supposed to feel offended in your religious beliefs because of a
NON-RELIGIOUS act! You cannot decide by your self what is a religious act. I really don't see how this is discrimination.
The school making you wear RFID tags is not a religious act so you shouldn't be able to bring up that argument. The modern state shouldn't care about people's religion. It's their right, but that shouldn't make the state responsible to tip-toe around 200 million religious views when they decide what colour should roads be, for example. Freedom of speech doesn't mean the other party you're criticizing has ANY obligation to obey what you say.
Does the first amendment allow you to interpret anything in your own way based on YOUR beliefs and then decide that someone else is evil because they don't follow the same interpretation? This is what I understand from what you're saying.
I agree on the privacy concerns.
Yes, our "society" has "functioned" for ages without basic commodities too.
So possibility of living without a certain comfort or rule doesn't make that rule wrong or that comfort a whim.
Again, did anyone care to look into this school's reasons and rules to implement this program?
I'm not from the US so I don;t know, is this a public or a private school? If it's a public school, were they notified in advance of what will the campus life involve?
Are they free to join another school?
Replying my own post here... ... well, subjective.
TFA only presents the father's opinion which, I'm sorry to say so, seems to be very subjective. I seriously doubt that the school literally asked the girl to proudly wear the tag around her neck. Something in the way he "sais" it makes me think he's a bit
Why isn't TFA presenting the schools reasons for implementing this systems, what are it's goals, what was the process by which this solution was chosen, how were the students informed about this etc.
Oh, blogs are not journalism (not that journalism is real journalism this days anyway).
Had she mentioned the invasion of privacy in the first step and the "the number of the beast" maybe they would have listened and people would have given her more credit.
The problem with religion is that people who believe in certain things will always argue that it's their right to belive in something and that the value fo truth of the said religion it's a matter of personal belief, hence it cannot be proved correct or otherwise from outisde nor do they want to listen to those arguments (granted, it's their right to do so).
Then why is some form of authority guilty of infringing those beliefs from outside buy implementing something that one religion interprets in some way inside it's system of beliefs?
Trying to explain, in this case, that the RFID tag is not the number of the beast is a dead-end (and I don't even care if IT IS the number of the beast) but in this way a religion could reject anything.
Some parts of the society can decide that they cannot function unless they implement a certain mechanism and some individuals will decide unidirectionaly that those mechanisms be dropped because some scriptures can be interpreted in such a way. (The Christian church has not decided in it's totality that barcodes and rfid tags are the mark of the beast nor are they unequivocally identified as such in the Bible.)
I always thought that the Get More Coverage option meant that people that have NOT subscribed to my page will get my post, as an ADVERTISEMENT, based on some algorithm where at least they target people with that interest (as my page).
Are you sure you don't mean that facebook will ask for money so that your post stays longer and higher on people's newsfeed?
So now my posts won't reach all my 150 friends you're saying? Is this documented somewhere?
Facebook doesn't inject ads into YOUR facebook page.
The newsfeed is not YOUR page, the PROFILE page is and they are not adding ads to that.
The newsfeed is just what it sais, a list of "news" from the sources you chose, kinda like choosing a tv channel and watching their news. Where they inject ads into your... time spent there.
EdgeRank, really? To determine what posts reach which users? So you change 2 letters and you're trying to position yourself as a tech company that uses algorithms to better serve your users?
On the other hand either Cuban is overreacting or I'm missing something.
Facebook didn't "asked" for $3000 so that he can message 1mil friends. Facebook proposed that he paid $3000 so that his posts can sit higher on people's newsfeeds, for longer and maybe for people not even on his list. He could have said no and just posted to his 715,237 (I checked) subscribers. Each method has it's ups and downs, the one facebook proposed was just going to be, well, promoted more (with a small text next to it saying "Advertising" or something. ).
I was thinking of the other Q and was wondering just how much of what Q from Star Trek (TNG) could do can you achieve today in real life, aside dressing in a starfleet "pijama".
So the article was a bit disapointing. Plus there were 2 videos about DotCom autoplaying at once on that page.
That's the Coanda Effect.
This is somewhat of a circular argument, at best. But I'd say it's close to ilogical.
What distro are you on? :)
There have been 2 periods some 2 years ago on ubuntu where flash kept crashing but aside those I never had any issues with flash. Except for the youtube "blue people" issue
I know, for one who sais he has no flash issues I can list quite a few, but you have to admit flash is fading away. And come on, flash homebanking? I give it 6 months. There's 70-80% chances that they are working on a replacement as we speak.
I'm in web development and we did a lot of flash replacement sites in the past couple of years.
I only aquired mild sysadmin skills while using linux at home and at work for the last 7 years or so and I admit I don't know even 10% of that in the Windows environment and I'm tempted to say that linux can either cover that OR we're already discussing server environments (I'm pretty sure DHCP and Group Policy are not about the desktop issue) but I'll wait for a more knowledgable guy to answer that if anyone wants.
Well, that sounds like a goal that can never be accomplished by any OS that is not win32 compatible and that also makes Mac OS X not ready for the desktop, wouldn't you agree?
The I guess what I'm saying is that Linux IS ready for the small (and maybe medium) busnisess, especially those in or related to IT&C (which right now is a considerable portion of the economy, we're not in the 80's.) .exe file doesn't run on their PC's.
I'm also saying that it COULD be a solution for home users, if those users are able to make an informed and educated decision about their OS.
I'm not in the US and I've never bought a brand PC or a PC with an installed OS. I have always installed my own OS's. So if more people coould do that they wouldn't be in the position to discover that soem
If people would be more literrate regarding PC's they woudl discover linux is ready for the desktop. The web and the browser has a lot to do with this. I'm speculating that people over 40 would successfully use it, since they don't need games or other fancy software, the browser would be enough. Even developers would need to take that into account and provide linux versions (like Skype or others do).
I guess my conclusion is that linux IS ready and all the factors that make it seem not to be are external.
What the FUCK is "desktop" anyway?
... Winamp 3.x or something,
.torrent links/sites
I keep hearing people like you saying linux isn't prepared for the desktop and here I am using it for years.
* I do web development at work and I have everyhting I need on Ubuntu. I've used it on desktop and laptops without issues.
* My wife and my kids use it at home (my kids are 6 and don't even know what Windows and Linux is, or care, they just use the browser for flash games). My wife uses it for browsing and for document editing (at a level where google docs would suffice).
* I use it at home for web development, browsing, soemetimes even RAW image editing (for which I admit I boot to a 3 years old XP install I only need for Lightroom/Photoshop)
What does "the desktop" mean ???
Audio editing, CAD, 3d modelling (blender?), video editing?
Aren't those too "niche"? Not beeing able to run Avid or Maya to build the next Avatar movie disqualifies it as usable for the desktop?
In MY opinion that's not "the desktop", sorry. That's a niche you need specified hardware and software anyway.
Note:
I do run into issues sometimes, but SO DO I ON Windows XP!
Otherwise I'm perfectly able to:
plug my DSLR and download images off it,
i can play dvd's,
I can create dvd's,
I can capture DV video of a handycam,
I can quickly edit images in GIMP (crop, resize, a bit of contrast, etc, light stuff),
i can write documents, I have a choice of great music players/managers and had them when windows had
I can connect to ftp servers
I can use
I can write code, debug code, install and use a web server
and most of all I can do ALL these AND OTHERS from the first second I installed Ubuntu. Try all of the above right after installing Windows XP or 7 .
What the fuck is wrong with linux on the desktop?
I can't play games, but then again, I never was a gamer. Is that reason to dismiss it? Are gamers like 80% of the desktop market? If yes, then we're screwed!
Yes, and therein lies the problem, the OS remained designed for ancient mobiles and continued to "demand" ancient level mobiles when the iPhone was at v3.
Why can't something be interesting and considered a breakthrough in any field of science and research still be conducted without it having to solve any type of crisis?
Especially when the connection to that crisis is made artificially in a summary, just to throw some glitter on a piece of scientific news?
You are simplisticly overreacting. No matter what you think about the ios environment it does exist and It is a phenomenon both in market share (a market they arguably created) and fan base. The article is not about technical supremacy but about what will happen to the market amazon had before Apple (presumably) decided to enter into. Discuss.
Huh, it didn't seem that laggy plus it's pre-alpha and we have no hints on the hardware specs, so don't be hatin' !
This is not funny, although it's been modded as such. :)
What you describe is a system that places no value on skills or merits. This is not the case with TFA. No one was talking about skills not being important. We were discussing whether power is something that needs to be exercised by a few (elected or self-imposed) or by everyone.
Doctors would still have their place and would still be needed, but kings may not, that's all.
Or is this something related to doctors' god-complex?
Yes, the idea that we could all take turns to hold various public jobs or position is a great one, however, somewhat sadly, impossible today. In today's capitalistic market and work environment no one wants to take x months off their current high paying job to go sit a public office. Nor does today's level of specialization (even in public jobs) allow for that. :)
But I guess a system where I'm taken and used somewhere according to my skills and to my current salary could be investigated.
Another way we could achieve similar results would be to actually vote for every local public function (judges, trade offices staff, customs officers etc) even if that contradicts my original opinion of not voting for every little thing
I happen to know a few things about anarchy as an ideology. I admit my phrasing was not the most fortunate, but yes, I tend to equate anarchy with chaos in the end because I don't believe in it as a real solution that actually works.
In the real world anarchy will degrade to chaos. Funny you should mention Iceland. That didn't turn out so well in the end. Power struggles between individuals ended that.
Plus I'm sure we can find countries that have been NOT anarchies for more than 200 years, right?
And come on, are really discussing the 12th century?
It's somewhat of a sociologically interesting fact that in 99% percent of the cases, where this sort of utopic future communities are described, voting always come up. The fact that there is a network and a mean for people to be "always on" doesn't make people brighter all of a sudden. That sort of democracy can quickly turn into chaos and then anarchy.
:)
From my experience in being part of some passionate amateurs communities I can say that leadership is very important. Individuals will always have different degrees of involvement, different degrees of the ability to know what is right for the group of a whole, different degrees of objectivity, education, selflessness. And even different agendas. Individuals in a group might sincerely believe that their way is the best.
What I'm trying to say is that voting is not always the best solution, leadership (formal or informal) and fast decision making abilities are more important. Having a vision and seeing "the path" is more important than wasting time and energy (think of how long it takes in a group of people larger than 3 to decide where to eat out and multiply by ten for "important stuff") to vote all the time.
I'm not saying that democracy is overrated but not even democracy supposes that people vote on every single aspect. That's where the idea of a parliament (or similar institution) comes from. You're supposed to have your interests represented by people with knowledge, leadership skills, vision and desire to serve the community.
Then again, we also know how that turns out