IBM has the "Chicklet" keyboard on the XT, which was funny if you like the Adams Gum.
The chiclet keyboard was on the PCjr; the XT had a real keyboard. Moreover, it was a colloquial discriptive term of the time for that sort of crappy keyboard, not an official IBM moniker. See the Wikipedia article.
Sure, you can't 100% guarantee that no-one's code will ever dereference a null pointer or divide by zero, but I don't see that much advantage to having some unexpected "logic error" exception generated in a program running on a virtual machine either. If you thought to catch such an exception at a meaningul level and take some useful recovery action on a virtual machine, couldn't you have asserted that the invalid data shouldn't be there on the way into the module and handled it much the same way in C++, at least the vast majority of the time?
No, simply checking the inputs doesn't guarantee that the module won't encounter an unexpected exception. Bugs in the implementation of a module, by definition, result in errant behavior when provided with valid inputs as per the specification. You need appropriate mechanisms to isolate modules from each other in order to prevent these errors from spreading throughout the whole system.
And of course, on several major platforms, you can configure handlers for such fatal errors when the OS detects them, or even treat them as exceptions within C++ exactly as you would under a VM, although sadly this isn't standardised, nor supported on all platforms.
To some extent, yes, but it's generally not enough to robustly isolate modules. Handler mechanisms such as UNIX signals don't provide structured event handling, so recovering from a call to an errant module is difficult. You can probably combine signals with setjmp/longjmp, but uniform exception support is easier to use and hence more robust. Also, operating systems generally don't protect against one module corrupting another's memory within the same process address space.
I had to laugh when you mentioned about living simply, how can you think people are living simply? People are working hard every day to maintain a meager salary, under constant threat of unemployment, and you think that this is a simple life? (to have a mundane house, drive 20-30 minutes to work/day, a wife/husband who they claim to "love" (but mostly divorce 5 years later), and have children who they raise, but who send them to nursing homes once they are old? Face it: People have to suffer the misery of disease, old age, and death, and you think that's a simple kind of life? Either you're smokin some good pot, or you are severely illusioned, my friend.
I didn't say people in America today are living simply. I said that all this conflict, these complications of having to imbue certain (arbitrary) meaning on things makes it a lot harder to do so! As you pointed out, when people accept on faith how they are "supposed" to live, rather than determining the right course of action based on observations, the results are generally disappointing.
But that word has no real value because it is a bodily designation, and the man is not his body--he is a soul. If people are _seriously_ God-conscious then all such upstanding actions will be performed by default.
This is where we differ. To me, all your talk of souls and gods and all that is just abstract philosphizing that clutters up attempts to live simply. These concepts are just so ill-defined and incomprehensible that in most cases it just muddles the waters and causes conflict.
But I think a lot of these people, deep down, know that God exists, and they're terrified. They're terrified because if there *is* a God, then that means they'll be responsible for their actions. It means they'll have to think before they act.
I don't think people need a concept of a god to be responsible for their actions and think before they act. To me, doing the right thing because you care about other people, the environment, integrity, etc., is more upstanding than acting good because you're afraid of punishment.
I had a death star (IBM deskstar) tear itself apart on me and even though it was one of those old Ukrainian IBM/Hitachi ones, I still shy away from Western Digital who now makes them also.
Sure, you can go around arguing that everything is a religion and systematizing the world under this view, but why? There is a huge distinction between most organized religious movements and atheists and agnostics; by lumping them all together, you're just making the term "religion" more vague, which makes it harder for us to talk about it. Religion says, believe this, believe that; I say, why bother with all that mythological bullshit? it just complicates my life, and does nothing good we couldn't do without it. I'd rather admit that I don't know something, and if it matters, pursue earnest study to better understand it, as opposed just make things up so I can claim I'm right.
I'm not really sure what you were trying to get at regarding subjective morality, but I will point out that frank, open dialog is a lot more effective at establishing a strong, practical moral base than dogmatic assertions all around. Sometimes people like to claim that throwing out religion means anything goes, but you know, it's really quite the opposite: when you think you have a magical man in the sky (or one of his agents here on Earth) telling you what to do, you can justify pretty much anything he wants you to do. Sure, if you dump all sense of care and respect along with religion, you're liable to be a loose cannon, but really that's a symptom of the brittleness of the all-or-nothing one-stop-shopping worldviews imbued by organized religion, far from a credit to their moral value. So let's just cut the crap and get on with living simply, carefully and harmoniously.
There's also something of a feedback loop in evidence here. "Computer geeks" lack the social skill sto interact with the opposite sex because there are often very few learning opportunities for those geeks to have picked up those social skills within the population of their daily interactions.
I certainly agree.
When I was at UofI champaign in the late nineties, the percentage of females in the Comp Sci program was probably hovering around 20% for the freshman classes and then would decay toward 10% by the fourth year.
Unfortunately, the ratio has since further decayed to less than 10% in the incoming freshman class. The numbers aren't publicized, but I've informally heard that that's about where it stands. It's significantly higher for graduate students, due to their mostly international composition.
Now, it's true that the ratio of females at the entire university was closer to parity, and that the "computer geeks" just needed to venture outside of their comfort zones in order to interact and learn those skills of social interaction. It doesn't change the the existence of that particular feedback loop.
Woah... scary idea. Actually, I'm just so busy, and CS is physically isolated at the north end of the engineering quad. Yeah, I know, excuses, excuses.
However, I've noticed that most of the geek guys who have been attracted to me in the past weren't really attracted to me, just some idealized version of me... and when they finally realized that I was just a regular socially-inept and rather unattractive geek girl, they stopped bothering me and found someone more suitable.
So true. A good bit of the idealization probably has to do with them not being used to dealing with girls. Some of them second guess negatively, too, like assuming you don't know what you're doing or that you don't like them. Oh, and after seeing your other post, I'm sure you're exaggerating about your unattractiveness; everyone has their little idiosyncrasies.
Tell me about it. I'm *gasp* an attractive(innate looks, physical supremacy, well groomed and dressed) geek, but also very socially inept. I lead girls on all the time without even noticing until it's too late and the girl's feelings get hurt. I also *always* assume that when a girl is being freindly to me, that's all it is, even though I have been informed otherwise after they get pissed at my obliqueness and tell me. I'm just messed up I suppose. God I hate the fervent normalization element of our society, why can't I be accepted for being different?
Dude, me too! Why is it that no one ever seems to realize our type exists?
It's really sad that we females have to be stuck into a stereo type just to be good at something that is normally reserved for Geeks. In fact, I would have to say that I have met few "Geeks" as defined by Caspian, I have met many handsome, interesting, fun and exciting men who are in the computer field.
I agree, the "geek" stereotype presented is a worst-case situation, far from reality. I, too, would have to say that I am no mutant, and my friends in the computing field generally correspond with the description you've given rather than Caspian's. But the geek stereotype does occasionally occur, just barely often enough to substantiate it as more than a myth. The sad part is that it's most often self-inflicted amongst geeks, as by Caspian above. In my case, this stereotype has singlehandedly resulted in my having zero confidence with women. Sure, guys tell me I'm a real catch, girls tell me I'm cute and intelligent and all that--heck, one very attractive girl was so afraid to admit how much she liked me because she figured I could get any girl and hers was a lost cause--but deep down, I have my doubts, I just feel like people are lying to me, being "nice;" all I believe is the stereotype: that I have no value as a male. Consequently, I don't even try, I just assume the only possible outcomes of asking out a girl I'm interested in would be "no" and "sexual harassment!" (and no, I'm not a misogynist who believes women throw that around lightly, I've just been brainwashed into thinking it would be warranted in my case--"everyone knows no one would want a geek like me!"). I've never had a girlfriend, I've never been the initiator for the handful of dates of I've been on, and it's very difficult to change. I'm sorry for talking about myself so much, but it's very frustrating the way our stereotypes degrade our self-esteem, and I think that has a lot to do with why the computing field can be so tense when it comes to gender relations. I am not asking for pity, I only seek reform for the good of the community as a whole.
anyway regardless of how you like it there is no need to purchase an external keyboard for unix systems (except for the mac which has some funky hardware capslock which prevents switching:(:( )
That's only true of Apple's old ADB keyboards. The USB keyboards they've been using since the iMac have regular software caps lock keys. In fact, OS X 11.4 includes a control panel that allows you to arbitrarily reassign control, caps lock, option/alt, and command/open apple. Some of the laptops lingered on with ADB for a while, but the key swapper works fine on all current offerings (though the caps lock LED may still toggle even when the key is reassigned).
That said, there could still be plenty of reason to replace a computer's keyboard if the hardware just physically sucks. Apple's desktop USB keyboards are a great example of subpar key hardware; I regularly use an iMac with a Sun Type 5 USB keyboard (PC layout, I use the side of my hand to hit control oh so easily). Luckily Apple's laptop keyboards are still pretty good, but when at my desk I use an external monitor and IBM Model M Spacesaver keyboard so I don't have to strain my neck looking down.
Dude, in the standard PC layout you can easily hit the CTRL key with the palm of your hand and still have all your fingers on the home row, making CTRL-A and other combinations involving the left pinky easy.
Ah, finally someone else who types the way I do! I always bring this up in keyboard discussions, and people tend to just look at me funny. You have good taste indeed. For those who aren't accustomed to the palm/side of the hand control tactic, let me just say that when using this technique, it's often easier to hit ^H for backspace and ^M for return rather than using the dedicated keys.
I don't see any athiest organizations on the scale of the salvation army that exist, if so, please correct me.
That's because atheism/agnosticism isn't a religious movement per se, it's a personal reaction against the perceived irrationality of religious movements. Most atheists and agnostics are not trying to push a certain set of beliefs onto people, but rather to prevent others from doing that; the idea is that people should be able to decide for themselves what to believe and what not to believe, and not feel pressured by social institutions. Thus the correct question to ask is what have secular charities done, and indeed, they have done a lot. Three prominent secular charities have already been mentioned in this article: Goodwill, CARE, and the International Committee of the Red Cross (established by the Geneva convention, its symbol is derived from the Swiss flag; while some member chapters may have religious associations, it is not a religious organization at the international level). Medecins Sans Frontiers (MSF; aka Doctors Without Borders) is another secular medical group, which was founded in reaction to the sometimes overly politically correct neutrality of the Red Cross. Oxfam is also a high-profile secular charity. The list goes on and on; indeed, if you subtract volunteer work and donations which only benefit the facilities and employees of religious institutions, secular charities far outpace religious charities in the United States.
You're absolutely right. I think the previous poster just meant that the cost of living is significantly lower in India, which as I understand it is (otherwise we wouldn't have this big outsourcing situation).
Woah, deja vu! I had exactly the same dilemma about a year ago. I ended up going with the Panasonic model where the cord rolls up on a spool in the back. I believe at the time there was an $80 or so model made in Mexico by a German company.
Though I hate Microsoft with a passion, I know plenty of people who work there. Are you a pretty good programmer and do you actually want a job there? If so, I can try to help you out. Just reply if you're interested.
Because evolution is a *theory* and by definition unproven. Being "pro theory" is nonsensical in the realm of science.
You don't know what you're fucking talking about. In science, a "theory" means an explanation which is able to reliably predict empirical phenomena. Nothing in science is ever truly and incontravertibly proven (as compared to an axiomatic system like pure math), since we only have access to a finite number of experiments and do not know the actual complexity of the universe. Nonetheless, you can certainly be "pro theory" in that you advocate a certain theory explains observed events better than any other one.
Is it really that rational to believe that an omnipotent being that wants us to follow its rules is either incapable of expressing those rules clearly, or refuses to?
Dude... so true! That really puts it all in context.
Christianity has nothing to do with compassion it has to do with obediance. The old testament is full of sinners being punished violently by God for failing to obey his divine laws.
You describe a good Christian by calling him "God fearing."
"The Passion of the Christ" (aka Jesus Chainsaw Massacre) is probably the most violent, bloody, disgusting and unwatchably boring movie ever made yet most Christians loved it.
Religion is violence. It's about forcing people to accept pre-determined answers about morality and imprisoning their minds in a cage of dogma.
What is a hypothosis? It is a belief. Should we not teach those?
A hypothesis is not a belief in the same sense as a religious belief. A hypothesis is a possible explanation based on the best models found thus far, but which we are not certain is true and would like to test. We should not and do not teach unsubstantiated hypotheses as true. Religious belief, on the other hand, is simply accepted as true based on faith and faith alone. If you would like to teach religious beliefs as hypotheses, that is understandable; unfortunately, they tend to be crafted in such a way that they cannot be tested, making them generally useless in a scientific context. Overall, it seems to me that religion is a futile attempt to explain that which cannot be explained, making a lot of people angry along the way.
Your argument really is that there is competition between musicians, which I do not dispute and I even gave the examples of competing musicians and competing record labels in my first post, but my claim is that there is no competition in recordings because of exclusive recording deals. You are arguing against something different.
Ok, fine. But as you pointed out, that's clear based on the definition of copyright, so I guess your original statement just wasn't as bold and different as you made it out to be. In the end, copyrights guarantee product differentiation, but everything you can buy with money competes to some degree, more or less.
Slashdot Mirror
IBM has the "Chicklet" keyboard on the XT, which was funny if you like the Adams Gum.
The chiclet keyboard was on the PCjr; the XT had a real keyboard. Moreover, it was a colloquial discriptive term of the time for that sort of crappy keyboard, not an official IBM moniker. See the Wikipedia article.
It's not iMail, not anymore, anyway. It's just called "Mail" on my smackin' tush with 10.4.
Sure, you can't 100% guarantee that no-one's code will ever dereference a null pointer or divide by zero, but I don't see that much advantage to having some unexpected "logic error" exception generated in a program running on a virtual machine either. If you thought to catch such an exception at a meaningul level and take some useful recovery action on a virtual machine, couldn't you have asserted that the invalid data shouldn't be there on the way into the module and handled it much the same way in C++, at least the vast majority of the time?
No, simply checking the inputs doesn't guarantee that the module won't encounter an unexpected exception. Bugs in the implementation of a module, by definition, result in errant behavior when provided with valid inputs as per the specification. You need appropriate mechanisms to isolate modules from each other in order to prevent these errors from spreading throughout the whole system.
And of course, on several major platforms, you can configure handlers for such fatal errors when the OS detects them, or even treat them as exceptions within C++ exactly as you would under a VM, although sadly this isn't standardised, nor supported on all platforms.
To some extent, yes, but it's generally not enough to robustly isolate modules. Handler mechanisms such as UNIX signals don't provide structured event handling, so recovering from a call to an errant module is difficult. You can probably combine signals with setjmp/longjmp, but uniform exception support is easier to use and hence more robust. Also, operating systems generally don't protect against one module corrupting another's memory within the same process address space.
The Cardigans are an excellent Swedish band!
I had to laugh when you mentioned about living simply, how can you think people are living simply? People are working hard every day to maintain a meager salary, under constant threat of unemployment, and you think that this is a simple life? (to have a mundane house, drive 20-30 minutes to work/day, a wife/husband who they claim to "love" (but mostly divorce 5 years later), and have children who they raise, but who send them to nursing homes once they are old? Face it: People have to suffer the misery of disease, old age, and death, and you think that's a simple kind of life? Either you're smokin some good pot, or you are severely illusioned, my friend.
I didn't say people in America today are living simply. I said that all this conflict, these complications of having to imbue certain (arbitrary) meaning on things makes it a lot harder to do so! As you pointed out, when people accept on faith how they are "supposed" to live, rather than determining the right course of action based on observations, the results are generally disappointing.
But that word has no real value because it is a bodily designation, and the man is not his body--he is a soul. If people are _seriously_ God-conscious then all such upstanding actions will be performed by default.
This is where we differ. To me, all your talk of souls and gods and all that is just abstract philosphizing that clutters up attempts to live simply. These concepts are just so ill-defined and incomprehensible that in most cases it just muddles the waters and causes conflict.
But I think a lot of these people, deep down, know that God exists, and they're terrified. They're terrified because if there *is* a God, then that means they'll be responsible for their actions. It means they'll have to think before they act.
I don't think people need a concept of a god to be responsible for their actions and think before they act. To me, doing the right thing because you care about other people, the environment, integrity, etc., is more upstanding than acting good because you're afraid of punishment.
I had a death star (IBM deskstar) tear itself apart on me and even though it was one of those old Ukrainian IBM/Hitachi ones, I still shy away from Western Digital who now makes them also.
Western Digital makes DeskStars? Since when?
Sure, you can go around arguing that everything is a religion and systematizing the world under this view, but why? There is a huge distinction between most organized religious movements and atheists and agnostics; by lumping them all together, you're just making the term "religion" more vague, which makes it harder for us to talk about it. Religion says, believe this, believe that; I say, why bother with all that mythological bullshit? it just complicates my life, and does nothing good we couldn't do without it. I'd rather admit that I don't know something, and if it matters, pursue earnest study to better understand it, as opposed just make things up so I can claim I'm right.
I'm not really sure what you were trying to get at regarding subjective morality, but I will point out that frank, open dialog is a lot more effective at establishing a strong, practical moral base than dogmatic assertions all around. Sometimes people like to claim that throwing out religion means anything goes, but you know, it's really quite the opposite: when you think you have a magical man in the sky (or one of his agents here on Earth) telling you what to do, you can justify pretty much anything he wants you to do. Sure, if you dump all sense of care and respect along with religion, you're liable to be a loose cannon, but really that's a symptom of the brittleness of the all-or-nothing one-stop-shopping worldviews imbued by organized religion, far from a credit to their moral value. So let's just cut the crap and get on with living simply, carefully and harmoniously.
There's also something of a feedback loop in evidence here. "Computer geeks" lack the social skill sto interact with the opposite sex because there are often very few learning opportunities for those geeks to have picked up those social skills within the population of their daily interactions.
I certainly agree.
When I was at UofI champaign in the late nineties, the percentage of females in the Comp Sci program was probably hovering around 20% for the freshman classes and then would decay toward 10% by the fourth year.
Unfortunately, the ratio has since further decayed to less than 10% in the incoming freshman class. The numbers aren't publicized, but I've informally heard that that's about where it stands. It's significantly higher for graduate students, due to their mostly international composition.
Now, it's true that the ratio of females at the entire university was closer to parity, and that the "computer geeks" just needed to venture outside of their comfort zones in order to interact and learn those skills of social interaction. It doesn't change the the existence of that particular feedback loop.
Woah... scary idea. Actually, I'm just so busy, and CS is physically isolated at the north end of the engineering quad. Yeah, I know, excuses, excuses.
However, I've noticed that most of the geek guys who have been attracted to me in the past weren't really attracted to me, just some idealized version of me... and when they finally realized that I was just a regular socially-inept and rather unattractive geek girl, they stopped bothering me and found someone more suitable.
So true. A good bit of the idealization probably has to do with them not being used to dealing with girls. Some of them second guess negatively, too, like assuming you don't know what you're doing or that you don't like them. Oh, and after seeing your other post, I'm sure you're exaggerating about your unattractiveness; everyone has their little idiosyncrasies.
Tell me about it. I'm *gasp* an attractive(innate looks, physical supremacy, well groomed and dressed) geek, but also very socially inept. I lead girls on all the time without even noticing until it's too late and the girl's feelings get hurt. I also *always* assume that when a girl is being freindly to me, that's all it is, even though I have been informed otherwise after they get pissed at my obliqueness and tell me. I'm just messed up I suppose. God I hate the fervent normalization element of our society, why can't I be accepted for being different?
Dude, me too! Why is it that no one ever seems to realize our type exists?
I'm unfamiliar with 11.4, but 10.4 has this feature :)
Oops; so it is, so it is. Guess I'm too used to thinking X11.
It's really sad that we females have to be stuck into a stereo type just to be good at something that is normally reserved for Geeks. In fact, I would have to say that I have met few "Geeks" as defined by Caspian, I have met many handsome, interesting, fun and exciting men who are in the computer field.
I agree, the "geek" stereotype presented is a worst-case situation, far from reality. I, too, would have to say that I am no mutant, and my friends in the computing field generally correspond with the description you've given rather than Caspian's. But the geek stereotype does occasionally occur, just barely often enough to substantiate it as more than a myth. The sad part is that it's most often self-inflicted amongst geeks, as by Caspian above. In my case, this stereotype has singlehandedly resulted in my having zero confidence with women. Sure, guys tell me I'm a real catch, girls tell me I'm cute and intelligent and all that--heck, one very attractive girl was so afraid to admit how much she liked me because she figured I could get any girl and hers was a lost cause--but deep down, I have my doubts, I just feel like people are lying to me, being "nice;" all I believe is the stereotype: that I have no value as a male. Consequently, I don't even try, I just assume the only possible outcomes of asking out a girl I'm interested in would be "no" and "sexual harassment!" (and no, I'm not a misogynist who believes women throw that around lightly, I've just been brainwashed into thinking it would be warranted in my case--"everyone knows no one would want a geek like me!"). I've never had a girlfriend, I've never been the initiator for the handful of dates of I've been on, and it's very difficult to change. I'm sorry for talking about myself so much, but it's very frustrating the way our stereotypes degrade our self-esteem, and I think that has a lot to do with why the computing field can be so tense when it comes to gender relations. I am not asking for pity, I only seek reform for the good of the community as a whole.
anyway regardless of how you like it there is no need to purchase an external keyboard for unix systems (except for the mac which has some funky hardware capslock which prevents switching :( :( )
That's only true of Apple's old ADB keyboards. The USB keyboards they've been using since the iMac have regular software caps lock keys. In fact, OS X 11.4 includes a control panel that allows you to arbitrarily reassign control, caps lock, option/alt, and command/open apple. Some of the laptops lingered on with ADB for a while, but the key swapper works fine on all current offerings (though the caps lock LED may still toggle even when the key is reassigned).
That said, there could still be plenty of reason to replace a computer's keyboard if the hardware just physically sucks. Apple's desktop USB keyboards are a great example of subpar key hardware; I regularly use an iMac with a Sun Type 5 USB keyboard (PC layout, I use the side of my hand to hit control oh so easily). Luckily Apple's laptop keyboards are still pretty good, but when at my desk I use an external monitor and IBM Model M Spacesaver keyboard so I don't have to strain my neck looking down.
Dude, in the standard PC layout you can easily hit the CTRL key with the palm of your hand and still have all your fingers on the home row, making CTRL-A and other combinations involving the left pinky easy.
Ah, finally someone else who types the way I do! I always bring this up in keyboard discussions, and people tend to just look at me funny. You have good taste indeed. For those who aren't accustomed to the palm/side of the hand control tactic, let me just say that when using this technique, it's often easier to hit ^H for backspace and ^M for return rather than using the dedicated keys.
I don't see any athiest organizations on the scale of the salvation army that exist, if so, please correct me.
That's because atheism/agnosticism isn't a religious movement per se, it's a personal reaction against the perceived irrationality of religious movements. Most atheists and agnostics are not trying to push a certain set of beliefs onto people, but rather to prevent others from doing that; the idea is that people should be able to decide for themselves what to believe and what not to believe, and not feel pressured by social institutions. Thus the correct question to ask is what have secular charities done, and indeed, they have done a lot. Three prominent secular charities have already been mentioned in this article: Goodwill, CARE, and the International Committee of the Red Cross (established by the Geneva convention, its symbol is derived from the Swiss flag; while some member chapters may have religious associations, it is not a religious organization at the international level). Medecins Sans Frontiers (MSF; aka Doctors Without Borders) is another secular medical group, which was founded in reaction to the sometimes overly politically correct neutrality of the Red Cross. Oxfam is also a high-profile secular charity. The list goes on and on; indeed, if you subtract volunteer work and donations which only benefit the facilities and employees of religious institutions, secular charities far outpace religious charities in the United States.
You're absolutely right. I think the previous poster just meant that the cost of living is significantly lower in India, which as I understand it is (otherwise we wouldn't have this big outsourcing situation).
Woah, deja vu! I had exactly the same dilemma about a year ago. I ended up going with the Panasonic model where the cord rolls up on a spool in the back. I believe at the time there was an $80 or so model made in Mexico by a German company.
Though I hate Microsoft with a passion, I know plenty of people who work there. Are you a pretty good programmer and do you actually want a job there? If so, I can try to help you out. Just reply if you're interested.
Because evolution is a *theory* and by definition unproven. Being "pro theory" is nonsensical in the realm of science.
You don't know what you're fucking talking about. In science, a "theory" means an explanation which is able to reliably predict empirical phenomena. Nothing in science is ever truly and incontravertibly proven (as compared to an axiomatic system like pure math), since we only have access to a finite number of experiments and do not know the actual complexity of the universe. Nonetheless, you can certainly be "pro theory" in that you advocate a certain theory explains observed events better than any other one.
Is it really that rational to believe that an omnipotent being that wants us to follow its rules is either incapable of expressing those rules clearly, or refuses to?
Dude... so true! That really puts it all in context.
Christianity has nothing to do with compassion it has to do with obediance. The old testament is full of sinners being punished violently by God for failing to obey his divine laws.
You describe a good Christian by calling him "God fearing."
"The Passion of the Christ" (aka Jesus Chainsaw Massacre) is probably the most violent, bloody, disgusting and unwatchably boring movie ever made yet most Christians loved it.
Religion is violence. It's about forcing people to accept pre-determined answers about morality and imprisoning their minds in a cage of dogma.
Well said.
What is a hypothosis? It is a belief. Should we not teach those?
A hypothesis is not a belief in the same sense as a religious belief. A hypothesis is a possible explanation based on the best models found thus far, but which we are not certain is true and would like to test. We should not and do not teach unsubstantiated hypotheses as true. Religious belief, on the other hand, is simply accepted as true based on faith and faith alone. If you would like to teach religious beliefs as hypotheses, that is understandable; unfortunately, they tend to be crafted in such a way that they cannot be tested, making them generally useless in a scientific context. Overall, it seems to me that religion is a futile attempt to explain that which cannot be explained, making a lot of people angry along the way.
Your argument really is that there is competition between musicians, which I do not dispute and I even gave the examples of competing musicians and competing record labels in my first post, but my claim is that there is no competition in recordings because of exclusive recording deals. You are arguing against something different.
Ok, fine. But as you pointed out, that's clear based on the definition of copyright, so I guess your original statement just wasn't as bold and different as you made it out to be. In the end, copyrights guarantee product differentiation, but everything you can buy with money competes to some degree, more or less.