I've brought this up before, and I'll say it again. Our current copyright and patent systems are unconstitutional. According to a strict reading of the constitution, congress only has the power to reserve rights when it promotes science and the useful arts.
I'm not opposed to the idea of copyright and patents for software, but they last way, way too long. They do more harm than good (to science and the useful arts), and that should be measurable.
(I'd post a longer screed, but it's too late at night as it is.)
Various US politicians HAVE called for the execution of Assange.
Spill it. Name names. Provide links and sources. You're vague statements bear no weight. I don't doubt the possibility, only the likelihood. (Yes, there are a few members of Congress that are insane, probably clinically.)
What, do you think people should have to get a special permit from the government to be considered a "journalist"?
No, I'm not one of those people.
me:
Calling him a journalist would be a stretch.
And yes, he is a journalist. He receives information, and publishes it in a forum where anyone can read it.
*Sigh* The definition of "journalist" has become fuzzy. Under the loosest of definitions, sure. John Stewart is also a journalist by that standard, and he openly mocks the idea of being as a news source*. Are you and I journalists for publishing opinion pieces right here in the Slashdot forum? What about meaningful definitions?
I don't even consider half of the established media to be real journalists. Journalism comes with ethics, research, hard work, and creativity. Assange is just a vain parrot.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Anyone with a website can be a journalist if they're publishing information.
Sure. Some birds are white. Not every bird is white, nor is every white thing a bird. Likewise, some bloggers really are journalists. I get that.
Manning was never a journalist... Traitor, maybe, but... I take that term with a grain of salt. Informers are how journalists get information that makes governments uncomfortable.
Touché.
It doesn't change the fact that what he is accused of was reckless, and doubtless endangered lives and unnecessarily damaged foreign relations. He didn't merely notice something amiss and report it. He assumed that something must be amiss and passed along anything and everything he could get his hands on. That's far above and beyond being a whistle blower. He must have assumed that Wikileaks would be ethical journalists. That was a mistake. (To be fair, at that point in time I was still fervently hoping they had integrity.)
Right on point. Note that I was careful to use the term "alleged". I doubt I'll ever know if he was actually guilty. All I can do is hope that real justice prevails.
Interesting. I've not heard these allegations yet. Conspiracy theory or just trolling?
(If you're talking about the wikileaks thing, they're not calling for the execution of Assange. Indeed, I haven't heard more than rumor that they'd attempt to extradite him. Calling him a journalist would be a stretch. Bradly Manning, on the other hand, is a US soldier and accused traitor. They're very different people. Please try to keep up.)
I'm an atheist (= "without religion," not "anti-religion")
I get the distinction. I wish you didn't need to preface your remarks as such, but there are bigots on both sides of the issue (unfortunately).
In fact, I'd prefer that to having your missionaries knocking on my door.
Sorry for the inconvenience. It should be suitably rare, at reasonable hours, and they should leave promptly when you tell them: "not interested". Otherwise, you should feel free to tell them they're doing more harm than good.
I'm also quite happy for the Navajos to make sand paintings for me when I'm dead, and for fire departments to erect crossed ladders.
Me too. Sounds like fun... On second thought, I'd rather not die in such a way that gets the fire department's undivided attention like that!
Look into the GEDCOM file format. That seems to be the de facto standard. If you can't easily merge them now, you'll eventually find a tool that can.
I figured it would feature some mormom "find all my ancestors" button but it looks like it is all manual.
If only... There are pay-for services (much like private investigators), and there are volunteers willing to help. A lot of work is being done to automate the process, but it's much harder than it sounds. For now, all work is leg-work. If you're lucky, someone has already done a huge chunk of work that you can simply tap into. (like your grandparents have started)
(I haven't seen the movie. I have no reason nor desire to.)
Is Tony Kushner one of your detractors?
From that write-up, it sounds like it. Maybe he see's himself as teasing the church on a principle where he disagrees? It's still a rebuke, and one that comes across as unfriendly.
Frankly, it sounds like a play/film about Mormon characters in a decidedly non-mormon universe. Based on this second-hand report, it doesn't even attempt a farcical interpretation of Mormon views. (God, Angels, Devil, Heaven, and Hell all sound more Protestant than Mormon.)
Angels in America—first the play and now the film—is going to be a significant source for how non-Mormons visualize Mormons (much as Fiddler on the Roof is a significant source for how Mormons visualize Jews)... The fact that Kushner finds much about Mormon beliefs and politics abhorrent makes it all the more striking that he found Mormon motifs worthy to be woven into his postmodern mythology.
"Like it or not..." Not. That's going to be clear, and probably close to unanimous. Frankly, I have no desire to be "visualized" by a vast, vast majority of Mormon produced films. "Abhorrent"? Why would I want people judging me by a film produced by this kind of person?
Do you believe that death is the end of existence?
Here's the dilemma: If death is truly the end, you won't be uncomfortable with it in the least. You'll be dead and gone. If your consciousness persists, then maybe you'll decide to change your mind at some point. That is what vicarious work is all about, after all. We don't believe that such baptisms are binding, or that most dead accept them. Until they're accepted on the other side, they remain null and void.
If you believe you're already heaven bound (and I won't dispute the point), then you'll just need to become a guardian angel to protect your progeny from those dastardly Mormons.;)
(Such opt-out programs might conceivably exist in the future, but I doubt it.)
That author's not biased. Not at all. No sir, not one bit...
The wrongful baptism of Jewish dead, which disparages the memory of a deceased person is a brazen act which will obscure the historical record for future generations... We will continue opposing this wrongful act which assimilates our dead to the point where it will not be possible to know who was Jewish in their lifetimes.
...
A commentator on this topic said that anti-Semites who desecrate Jewish cemeteries want to destroy even the memory of Jews by breaking their tombstones and other symbols whereby we honor and remember them. He concluded that baptism of the Jewish dead is just a more sophisticated form of breaking tombstones.
I'd call him an idiot, but I don't think he is. Though his argument lacks all merit, it skillfully manipulates emotion and fights to demonize his admitted adversary. No, I don't believe he's an idiot. I think he's a troll. It's either that, or he pays a lot of attention to them.
Have mistakes been made?* Sure. The only side effects are some accidentally bruised egos and extra ammunition for Mormon haters. Has history been revised? That's ridiculous to the extreme. Nobody's going to claim holocaust victims were Mormon because of vicarious work. Are we going to claim 15th century nobility were Mormon because their work has been done? How about signers of the American Declaration of Independence? What about census records? Do they think that we'll eventually revise history to say that the entire US was Mormon in the 1900's? Will we ever be able to say that every immigrant through Ellis Island was Mormon?
There is no way to look at this that doesn't quickly devolve into the absurd.
*(From published records which shouldn't have been used in the first place. PAF doesn't phone-home or any such.)
Then let me disabuse you of it. PAF has been around for a long time, but it hasn't been updated in quite a while. I think its current form is its final form. The LDS church is embracing centralized servers and web gateways for genealogy.
Aside from your pejorative conclusion, you're spot on. It's even in the theology. A dead guy who doesn't want LDS to "do their temple work" is no more a Mormon after than before... by Mormon standards and teaching.
Baptisms for the dead don't happen unless a family member submits the name for that specific purpose.
I find it humorous that people get so put off by this. If our faith is false, then nothing happens. Absolutely nothing. If our faith is true, then we believe they are given an opportunity to accept it. Nobody is forcing dead people to be Mormon. It's just silly.
And as SuperSlacker64 points out, PAF doesn't upload. It was originally written pre-Internet. Church members use a special web portal to submit names of family members.
If research is what you need, don't overlook Family Search. It works best if you can start with someone long dead. If you want one-on-one assistance (for free), stop by an LDS Family History Center. Yeah, we're "Mormon's", but the family history advisers must not be overtly preachy (if they are, they're not following instructions). Just bring everything you've got.
I agree that the lock the bar has on legal representation aught to be illegal, but I think this is wishful thinking. I think your arguments are interesting, but your prediction will come to naught.
As one example: there are specific sects permitted "conscientious objector" status. They are excused from military service for religious reasons. If your point held, then the draft would be entirely invalid. Any judge would be loath to make a ruling with such far-reaching and unpredictable consequences.
Reverse discrimination suits rarely hold water, and never* on the scale that you propose.
(IANAL, thus I do not hear about all legally interesting cases.)
I read a lot of books growing up, and I filed a few gift books myself in "the local circular file". I wanted something intellectually stimulating, or at least entertaining. Not every kid wants something preachy or sexual. Check with the parents. If you slip it past them, it will make somebody upset with you, possibly the kids themselves.
To generalize the principle: for double digit ages (not just 5-10), then you should give serious thought to "grown up" books. I think I was 12 or 13 when I read "The Cuckoo's egg". It was eye opening.
Give them books you might read to relax. They'll find it a bit less relaxing, and a bit more stimulating.
However: The destination of that data must have its own air gap from the Internet. The media in question must never come in contact with another machine. Yes, it's paranoid, but any system which reasonably benefits from an air gap also benefits from taking it seriously.
I don't see why not. Cities can. If they spend more than they can repay, they will default somehow, whatever you call the mechanism. I don't think the Federal government has any enumerated powers they can play, but it might not stop them from trying...
Slashdot Mirror
I've brought this up before, and I'll say it again. Our current copyright and patent systems are unconstitutional. According to a strict reading of the constitution, congress only has the power to reserve rights when it promotes science and the useful arts.
I'm not opposed to the idea of copyright and patents for software, but they last way, way too long. They do more harm than good (to science and the useful arts), and that should be measurable.
(I'd post a longer screed, but it's too late at night as it is.)
Whoosh?
Various US politicians HAVE called for the execution of Assange.
Spill it. Name names. Provide links and sources. You're vague statements bear no weight. I don't doubt the possibility, only the likelihood. (Yes, there are a few members of Congress that are insane, probably clinically.)
What, do you think people should have to get a special permit from the government to be considered a "journalist"?
No, I'm not one of those people.
me:
Calling him a journalist would be a stretch.
And yes, he is a journalist. He receives information, and publishes it in a forum where anyone can read it.
*Sigh* The definition of "journalist" has become fuzzy. Under the loosest of definitions, sure. John Stewart is also a journalist by that standard, and he openly mocks the idea of being as a news source*. Are you and I journalists for publishing opinion pieces right here in the Slashdot forum? What about meaningful definitions?
I don't even consider half of the established media to be real journalists. Journalism comes with ethics, research, hard work, and creativity. Assange is just a vain parrot.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Anyone with a website can be a journalist if they're publishing information.
Sure. Some birds are white. Not every bird is white, nor is every white thing a bird. Likewise, some bloggers really are journalists. I get that.
Manning was never a journalist... Traitor, maybe, but... I take that term with a grain of salt. Informers are how journalists get information that makes governments uncomfortable.
Touché.
It doesn't change the fact that what he is accused of was reckless, and doubtless endangered lives and unnecessarily damaged foreign relations. He didn't merely notice something amiss and report it. He assumed that something must be amiss and passed along anything and everything he could get his hands on. That's far above and beyond being a whistle blower. He must have assumed that Wikileaks would be ethical journalists. That was a mistake. (To be fair, at that point in time I was still fervently hoping they had integrity.)
*(even though he loves every moment of it)
Right on point. Note that I was careful to use the term "alleged". I doubt I'll ever know if he was actually guilty. All I can do is hope that real justice prevails.
Interesting. I've not heard these allegations yet. Conspiracy theory or just trolling?
(If you're talking about the wikileaks thing, they're not calling for the execution of Assange. Indeed, I haven't heard more than rumor that they'd attempt to extradite him. Calling him a journalist would be a stretch. Bradly Manning, on the other hand, is a US soldier and accused traitor. They're very different people. Please try to keep up.)
... and their journalists are murdered more often than anywhere else...
Really? More often than Mexico? What about the Middle East?
I'm an atheist (= "without religion," not "anti-religion")
I get the distinction. I wish you didn't need to preface your remarks as such, but there are bigots on both sides of the issue (unfortunately).
In fact, I'd prefer that to having your missionaries knocking on my door.
Sorry for the inconvenience. It should be suitably rare, at reasonable hours, and they should leave promptly when you tell them: "not interested". Otherwise, you should feel free to tell them they're doing more harm than good.
I'm also quite happy for the Navajos to make sand paintings for me when I'm dead, and for fire departments to erect crossed ladders.
Me too. Sounds like fun... On second thought, I'd rather not die in such a way that gets the fire department's undivided attention like that!
Look into the GEDCOM file format. That seems to be the de facto standard. If you can't easily merge them now, you'll eventually find a tool that can.
I figured it would feature some mormom "find all my ancestors" button but it looks like it is all manual.
If only... There are pay-for services (much like private investigators), and there are volunteers willing to help. A lot of work is being done to automate the process, but it's much harder than it sounds. For now, all work is leg-work. If you're lucky, someone has already done a huge chunk of work that you can simply tap into. (like your grandparents have started)
(I haven't seen the movie. I have no reason nor desire to.)
Is Tony Kushner one of your detractors?
From that write-up, it sounds like it. Maybe he see's himself as teasing the church on a principle where he disagrees? It's still a rebuke, and one that comes across as unfriendly.
Frankly, it sounds like a play/film about Mormon characters in a decidedly non-mormon universe. Based on this second-hand report, it doesn't even attempt a farcical interpretation of Mormon views. (God, Angels, Devil, Heaven, and Hell all sound more Protestant than Mormon.)
Angels in America—first the play and now the film—is going to be a significant source for how non-Mormons visualize Mormons (much as Fiddler on the Roof is a significant source for how Mormons visualize Jews)... The fact that Kushner finds much about Mormon beliefs and politics abhorrent makes it all the more striking that he found Mormon motifs worthy to be woven into his postmodern mythology.
"Like it or not..." Not. That's going to be clear, and probably close to unanimous. Frankly, I have no desire to be "visualized" by a vast, vast majority of Mormon produced films. "Abhorrent"? Why would I want people judging me by a film produced by this kind of person?
Do you believe that death is the end of existence?
Here's the dilemma: If death is truly the end, you won't be uncomfortable with it in the least. You'll be dead and gone. If your consciousness persists, then maybe you'll decide to change your mind at some point. That is what vicarious work is all about, after all. We don't believe that such baptisms are binding, or that most dead accept them. Until they're accepted on the other side, they remain null and void.
If you believe you're already heaven bound (and I won't dispute the point), then you'll just need to become a guardian angel to protect your progeny from those dastardly Mormons. ;)
(Such opt-out programs might conceivably exist in the future, but I doubt it.)
The wrongful baptism of Jewish dead, which disparages the memory of a deceased person is a brazen act which will obscure the historical record for future generations... We will continue opposing this wrongful act which assimilates our dead to the point where it will not be possible to know who was Jewish in their lifetimes.
...
A commentator on this topic said that anti-Semites who desecrate Jewish cemeteries want to destroy even the memory of Jews by breaking their tombstones and other symbols whereby we honor and remember them. He concluded that baptism of the Jewish dead is just a more sophisticated form of breaking tombstones.
I'd call him an idiot, but I don't think he is. Though his argument lacks all merit, it skillfully manipulates emotion and fights to demonize his admitted adversary. No, I don't believe he's an idiot. I think he's a troll. It's either that, or he pays a lot of attention to them.
Have mistakes been made?* Sure. The only side effects are some accidentally bruised egos and extra ammunition for Mormon haters. Has history been revised? That's ridiculous to the extreme. Nobody's going to claim holocaust victims were Mormon because of vicarious work. Are we going to claim 15th century nobility were Mormon because their work has been done? How about signers of the American Declaration of Independence? What about census records? Do they think that we'll eventually revise history to say that the entire US was Mormon in the 1900's? Will we ever be able to say that every immigrant through Ellis Island was Mormon?
There is no way to look at this that doesn't quickly devolve into the absurd.
*(From published records which shouldn't have been used in the first place. PAF doesn't phone-home or any such.)
Then let me disabuse you of it. PAF has been around for a long time, but it hasn't been updated in quite a while. I think its current form is its final form. The LDS church is embracing centralized servers and web gateways for genealogy.
Aside from your pejorative conclusion, you're spot on. It's even in the theology. A dead guy who doesn't want LDS to "do their temple work" is no more a Mormon after than before... by Mormon standards and teaching.
Baptisms for the dead don't happen unless a family member submits the name for that specific purpose.
I find it humorous that people get so put off by this. If our faith is false, then nothing happens. Absolutely nothing. If our faith is true, then we believe they are given an opportunity to accept it. Nobody is forcing dead people to be Mormon. It's just silly.
And as SuperSlacker64 points out, PAF doesn't upload. It was originally written pre-Internet. Church members use a special web portal to submit names of family members.
PAF is obsolete, but still viable.
If research is what you need, don't overlook Family Search. It works best if you can start with someone long dead. If you want one-on-one assistance (for free), stop by an LDS Family History Center. Yeah, we're "Mormon's", but the family history advisers must not be overtly preachy (if they are, they're not following instructions). Just bring everything you've got.
So, what's to keep the offenders from disabling the GPS and using it for their own non-denominational service?
I would have said secrecy (security through obscurity), but I guess the cat's out of the bag now...
I agree that the lock the bar has on legal representation aught to be illegal, but I think this is wishful thinking. I think your arguments are interesting, but your prediction will come to naught.
As one example: there are specific sects permitted "conscientious objector" status. They are excused from military service for religious reasons. If your point held, then the draft would be entirely invalid. Any judge would be loath to make a ruling with such far-reaching and unpredictable consequences.
Reverse discrimination suits rarely hold water, and never* on the scale that you propose.
(IANAL, thus I do not hear about all legally interesting cases.)
... You may recover some lost face by immediately purchasing or borrowing a copy of The Ultimate Hitchhiker's Guide.
It doesn't count as much, though, unless you get it in the correct format.
The Secret Service is an eclectic bunch. They provide a substantial part of the presidential protection detail.
Comic collections, such as "Calvin and Hobbes", can be great gifts. A bit less intellectually stimulating, perhaps, but some.
I second.
I read a lot of books growing up, and I filed a few gift books myself in "the local circular file". I wanted something intellectually stimulating, or at least entertaining. Not every kid wants something preachy or sexual. Check with the parents. If you slip it past them, it will make somebody upset with you, possibly the kids themselves.
To generalize the principle: for double digit ages (not just 5-10), then you should give serious thought to "grown up" books. I think I was 12 or 13 when I read "The Cuckoo's egg". It was eye opening.
Give them books you might read to relax. They'll find it a bit less relaxing, and a bit more stimulating.
I second. Tape, external HD, RW media, etc.
However: The destination of that data must have its own air gap from the Internet. The media in question must never come in contact with another machine. Yes, it's paranoid, but any system which reasonably benefits from an air gap also benefits from taking it seriously.
You must have meant: Finding inferior quality for less money is rarely a difficulty. It is frequently the problem.
I don't see why not. Cities can. If they spend more than they can repay, they will default somehow, whatever you call the mechanism. I don't think the Federal government has any enumerated powers they can play, but it might not stop them from trying...