Oh man, why don't you fuckin' stop it? Shit, this is too fuckin' big for you, you know that? Who did the big reptiles, who killed the dinosaurs, fuck man! It's a mystery! It's a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma! The fuckin' asteroids don't even know! Don't you get it?
If someone chooses to shorten his own life expectancy by entering my home unbidden, that's his decision.
To be clear, I am a very gentle person. I have no desire to bring anyone harm. Strike that. I have a desire not to bring anyone harm. OTOH and IMNSHO pacifism only enables aggression. My desire to not be victimized is stronger than my desire to not bring anyone harm. Anyone who violates the peace of my home has forced me to choose between these two evils.
The bottom line is that I see it as very little choice. As traumatic as it would be to me to shoot someone, it would be far more traumatic to be hacked to death in my own home.
So, if you can figure out how to get everyone in the world to simultaneously sign on as pacifists I'm all for it. But it only takes one dissenter to ruin the plan.
I'm reminded of a couple of things I've said on my website:
One aspiring tyrant is all that is required to destroy a utopia.
and
Beat your swords into plowshares . . . then beat your knives into iron collars you can wear for your new masters.
I like peace. But history has shown us that you can't buy peace with happy thoughts.*
-Peter
* Please note that I am not in favor of the war in Iraq, and don't particularly support President Bush. I dislike his policies. Particularly: 1. His first proposed budget (which was prior to Sep. 11) was larger than President Clinton's last budget, in spite of the fact that he campaigned on "smaller government." 2. The Patriot Act and a general willingness to disregard the individual rights of Americans. 3. His consummate failure on the Iraq issue. Particularly in light of the fact that he campaigned on getting out of the business of nation building.
I don't worry about my next meal, or being the next meal of a predator.
I never want for clean water.
I have clothes that will protect me from nearly any weather conditions I am likely to encounter.
I have a mode of transportation that can easily take me from place to place at 100 miles per hour, in total comfort.
I expect to live to fully twice the age I would expect absent technology.
In spite of my "unnatural" long life I expect my shelter to last even longer . . . unless the land becomes more valuable than the building on it.
If anyone comes into that shelter to take what I have I can poke.44 inch holes in him without breaking a sweat, then call someone miles away to collect the body without even raising my voice.
I like technology. Makes life much less nasty, brutish, and short.
-Peter
PS: I anxiously await a counter-argument about car accidents, chemical food preservatives, and chemical warfare.
An extra point if you refrain from mentioning President Bush. Half a point if you mention him, but manage to refer to him by a proper name and/or title.
You are confused about what "GPL compatible" means. It does not mean that the FSF likes the license, or thinks it is a good idea. GPL incompatibility does not mean that RMS himself doesn't happily use the program.
If a license is GPL compatible it means that code can be SHARED between codebases without violating the terms of the two licenses in question.
It is also important to note that under the FSF's interpretation of the GPL "sharing code" includes linking (including run-time linking).
The incompatible licenses aer still "free software" according to that page. So what's the problem?
You said this is a rhetorical question, but it is a valid question. It has the same answer as the next one.
Why do all these licenses need to exist if they're compatible with the GPL?
Simple, because they have different terms and the owners of the copyrights of those projects are not satisfied with the terms of the GPL.
That is a bit of a problem . . . and we seem to be closer in views than I thought.
A teacher saying "It is time to pray to Jesus now." is not okay.
OTOH I was in . . . I think the fourth grade when the Challenger accident happened. The teacher called for a "moment of silence." That is okay.
If a kid wants to cross himself and pray over his lunch that is fine.
If a kid wants to lead his football team in a prayer to Jesus, that's fine.
If a teacher wants to set aside five minutes of "quite time" a day that is fine. If the teacher encourages the students to use that time to practice their own faith, that is fine. If the teacher says the students should pray, that is pretty shaky.
Once again, I don't believe in any Gods . . . so I certainly do believe that freedom of religion includes freedom of non-religion. I don't, however, believe that there is a "freedom" of not being exposed to other peoples religion.
And is seems that we aren't that far apart on that either.
The problem with pacifism is that it hands the keys to the kingdom to those who aren't pacifists. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but living as a slave with a clear conscience does not appeal to me.
I think that a reasonable person can at least infer my positions from what I said, but since you are unsatisfied I will gladly directly answer ever direct question you asked. (And quite a bit more at the end, at no extra charge.)
What do you mean exactly?
I mean exactly what I say. No government institution has (or should have) the power to thwart the free exercise of religion. Even, especially on public property.
I'm not maniacal about this. I don't think that students should be allowed to be inordinately disruptive. I don't think they should be allowed to sacrifice chickens in the back of the Science classroom. Banning prayer, however, is clearly a violation of the first amendment.
Again, I am an atheist (note the small "a") so I don't have a pony in the race. OTOH, I can read, and those who interpret the first amendment to offer freedom from religion are self-deluded.
That government-run schools should enforce prayer at schools or that they should not?
I'm not sure what the correct semantics to answer this question are. Any "enforcement" of prayer would amount to the institution of state religion, and therefore would not be permitted under the Constitution.
So I guess; No, yes they should not.
That statement is a little confusing to me. I don't see the banning of school prayer as limiting religious expression.
I couldn't disagree more. How can "banning" something not be "limiting" it? Or do you think that praying doesn't fall under the exercise of religion? I'm baffled by your statement.
School prayer is government *enforcement* of religion and the "moment of silence" is just as bad.
I agree that schools (to include teachers, administrators, etc.) should be banned from ANY "enforcement" of prayer.
I don't see what is bad about a moment of silence. Does silent reflection require a belief in any Gods?
I must also say that the degree of emotional weakness required for a person to be "hurt" by standing in a football stadium where (nearly) everyone else is praying to a god he doesn't believe in is quite beyond my ability to comprehend.
I respect your stance on abortion - but does your respect for human life also extend to capital punishment, the collateral damage incurred in the bombing of Iraq or the starving homeless that line U.S. streets and intersetions? Just curious, because I've found that most anti-abortionists/pro-lifers to make excuses to justify the other ills that are results of disrespect for human life.
I have the utmost respect for human life. That does not mean that I do not believe that a person's life can never be forfeit. I do support capital punishment. I do, in certain cases, support war, in spite of the fact that there is inevitable loss of life, even innocent life. (See this essay for my opinions on the current war.)
I think that anyone who wantonly and actively caused homeless starvation through direct action should be just as culpable as anyone who causes the abortion of a fetus through direct action.
To back away a bit, things have causes. Sometimes those causes are direct and sometimes the are indirect. Some causes are due to action, some to inaction. Some actions are justified, some are not.
Unjustified actions that lead to death are generally considered to be murder.
Unjustified inactions that lead to death are generally held to be manslaughter.
Justified actions that lead to death are tragic.
Justified inactions that lead to death are unfortunate.
It is my opinion that shooting people at a gas station with an AR-15 bushmaster and aborting a fetus fall in the first category.
It is my opinion that bombing the hell out of Berlin fell under the third.
It is my opinion that starving homeless fall under the fourth.
You are, of course, welcome to hold the opinion that any of the above makes me a loon:-)
I am not aligned with the party in that I favor criminalization of abortion at the state level.
Again, given that I believe that a fetus is a human being with rights, I think that it should be criminal to abort a fetus just as I think it should be criminal to shake an 18 month old to death.
I wasn't trolling. The article will appear on my site (hutnick.com) Real Soon Now(TM).
Too bad you got modded troll:-(
I think of myself as libertarian. The Libertarian Party platform is fairly well aligned with my political beliefs.
The party is in an accord that abortion is not a "federal" issue, but is somewhat divided over it morally. There is another party called the Constitution party which is pretty much a carbon copy of the Libs except that they take a stand against abortion, and they have a very Christian tone.
[essay] 3 a : an analytic or interpretative literary composition usually dealing with its subject from a limited or personal point of view
It is not a school assignment.
It is self-evident that I am philosophically opposed to the "solutions" you cite.
I guess I'm not sure what you are driving at. I glean from your posting history that you are fiscally conservative. I am too.
I guess that you are socially conservative (i.e. "law and order.")
I am socially liberal . . . but we might have more in common than you think. I'm strongly pro-second amendment. I don't think that governments should be able to limit religious expression (i.e. school prayer). I think that abortion* should be generally illegal (thought I don't think it is a "federal" issue).
Hell, I'm probably more "conservative" than you on some issues.
I admit readily that I have jumped to some pretty quick conclusions . . . but you didn't give me much to go on;-)
I hope you reply.
-Peter
* I don't think this conflicts with my libertarian world-view. Given that I believe that a fetus is a human being there is no more conflict than there is with a state murder statute.
We seem to sit on opposite ends of the economic spectrum, but socially we are at the same extreme.
From an essay I'm working on:
Anarchy. What images does the word conjure for you? Try to picture "anarchy" in concrete images.
If you are like most people you probably picture images from the news. Depending on your age you might have images from Kent State, the Watts riots, the L.A. riots. Maybe images from Central America or China.
Consider the political environment surrounding those places and times. Was it anarchy? Anarchy is the absence of government. Hardly the case in any of the above examples. In fact the sort of chaos that comes to mind is actually associated with an over-abundance of government, not its absence.
-Peter
Re:This would be in America. right?
on
Cell-Phone Wars
·
· Score: 1
By "much of the rest of the world" you must mean Western Europe. Most of the rest of the world is ocean. A huge part of what is left is China, Africa, Antarctica, Siberia, Mongolia, mountainous or jungle regions of South America, or the far reaches of Canada.
Hell, I doubt there is decent coverage in the inland part of Australia.
That said:
population of Western Europe/landmass of Western Europe=x
population of United States/landmass of United States=y
x>y
Economic implications relating to cell towers are left as an exercise to the reader.
Your post has been bugging me two days. I realized why this morning.
You have confused the word "modern" with the idea of the "Modern Age" or "Modern Period." Your error is even exposed in your own use of capitalization.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh man, why don't you fuckin' stop it? Shit, this is too fuckin' big for you, you know that? Who did the big reptiles, who killed the dinosaurs, fuck man! It's a mystery! It's a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma! The fuckin' asteroids don't even know! Don't you get it?
-Peter
Might make for interesting synchronicity.
-Peter
This MUST either result in such intractable security issues that it will be worthless . . .
. . . or the machines will become sentient and use us (along with a form of fusion) as a plentiful power source.
Damn.
-Peter
That should be /dev/zero. /dev/null is essentially write only.
-Peter
How embarassing. And not in any of my "frequently misused" word lists. :-(
-Peter
Reading Moore seems to illicit an affected and pedantic mode of composition.
Damn, I haven't even read it and I'm doing it!
-Peter
Can you imagine if RMS was standing too close when that happened?
"Don't make me angry, Mr. Raymond, you won't like me when I'm angry."
-Peter
I know this isn't Fark . . .
I guess it isn't common knowledge that he used to be known as The Amazing Larry.
-Peter
If someone chooses to shorten his own life expectancy by entering my home unbidden, that's his decision.
To be clear, I am a very gentle person. I have no desire to bring anyone harm. Strike that. I have a desire not to bring anyone harm. OTOH and IMNSHO pacifism only enables aggression. My desire to not be victimized is stronger than my desire to not bring anyone harm. Anyone who violates the peace of my home has forced me to choose between these two evils.
The bottom line is that I see it as very little choice. As traumatic as it would be to me to shoot someone, it would be far more traumatic to be hacked to death in my own home.
So, if you can figure out how to get everyone in the world to simultaneously sign on as pacifists I'm all for it. But it only takes one dissenter to ruin the plan.
I'm reminded of a couple of things I've said on my website:
I like peace. But history has shown us that you can't buy peace with happy thoughts.*
-Peter
* Please note that I am not in favor of the war in Iraq, and don't particularly support President Bush. I dislike his policies. Particularly: 1. His first proposed budget (which was prior to Sep. 11) was larger than President Clinton's last budget, in spite of the fact that he campaigned on "smaller government." 2. The Patriot Act and a general willingness to disregard the individual rights of Americans. 3. His consummate failure on the Iraq issue. Particularly in light of the fact that he campaigned on getting out of the business of nation building.
I don't worry about my next meal, or being the next meal of a predator.
.44 inch holes in him without breaking a sweat, then call someone miles away to collect the body without even raising my voice.
I never want for clean water.
I have clothes that will protect me from nearly any weather conditions I am likely to encounter.
I have a mode of transportation that can easily take me from place to place at 100 miles per hour, in total comfort.
I expect to live to fully twice the age I would expect absent technology.
In spite of my "unnatural" long life I expect my shelter to last even longer . . . unless the land becomes more valuable than the building on it.
If anyone comes into that shelter to take what I have I can poke
I like technology. Makes life much less nasty, brutish, and short.
-Peter
PS: I anxiously await a counter-argument about car accidents, chemical food preservatives, and chemical warfare.
An extra point if you refrain from mentioning President Bush. Half a point if you mention him, but manage to refer to him by a proper name and/or title.
-P
That's funny, just the other day my dog was trying to convince me that flies cause dog shit.
-Peter
If a license is GPL compatible it means that code can be SHARED between codebases without violating the terms of the two licenses in question.
It is also important to note that under the FSF's interpretation of the GPL "sharing code" includes linking (including run-time linking).
You said this is a rhetorical question, but it is a valid question. It has the same answer as the next one.
Simple, because they have different terms and the owners of the copyrights of those projects are not satisfied with the terms of the GPL.
-Peter
That is a bit of a problem . . . and we seem to be closer in views than I thought.
A teacher saying "It is time to pray to Jesus now." is not okay.
OTOH I was in . . . I think the fourth grade when the Challenger accident happened. The teacher called for a "moment of silence." That is okay.
If a kid wants to cross himself and pray over his lunch that is fine.
If a kid wants to lead his football team in a prayer to Jesus, that's fine.
If a teacher wants to set aside five minutes of "quite time" a day that is fine. If the teacher encourages the students to use that time to practice their own faith, that is fine. If the teacher says the students should pray, that is pretty shaky.
Once again, I don't believe in any Gods . . . so I certainly do believe that freedom of religion includes freedom of non-religion. I don't, however, believe that there is a "freedom" of not being exposed to other peoples religion.
And is seems that we aren't that far apart on that either.
The problem with pacifism is that it hands the keys to the kingdom to those who aren't pacifists. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but living as a slave with a clear conscience does not appeal to me.
Hence the
-Peter
I mean exactly what I say. No government institution has (or should have) the power to thwart the free exercise of religion. Even, especially on public property.
I'm not maniacal about this. I don't think that students should be allowed to be inordinately disruptive. I don't think they should be allowed to sacrifice chickens in the back of the Science classroom. Banning prayer, however, is clearly a violation of the first amendment.
Again, I am an atheist (note the small "a") so I don't have a pony in the race. OTOH, I can read, and those who interpret the first amendment to offer freedom from religion are self-deluded.
I'm not sure what the correct semantics to answer this question are. Any "enforcement" of prayer would amount to the institution of state religion, and therefore would not be permitted under the Constitution.
So I guess; No, yes they should not.
I couldn't disagree more. How can "banning" something not be "limiting" it? Or do you think that praying doesn't fall under the exercise of religion? I'm baffled by your statement.
I agree that schools (to include teachers, administrators, etc.) should be banned from ANY "enforcement" of prayer.
I don't see what is bad about a moment of silence. Does silent reflection require a belief in any Gods?
I must also say that the degree of emotional weakness required for a person to be "hurt" by standing in a football stadium where (nearly) everyone else is praying to a god he doesn't believe in is quite beyond my ability to comprehend.
I have the utmost respect for human life. That does not mean that I do not believe that a person's life can never be forfeit. I do support capital punishment. I do, in certain cases, support war, in spite of the fact that there is inevitable loss of life, even innocent life. (See this essay for my opinions on the current war.)
I think that anyone who wantonly and actively caused homeless starvation through direct action should be just as culpable as anyone who causes the abortion of a fetus through direct action.
To back away a bit, things have causes. Sometimes those causes are direct and sometimes the are indirect. Some causes are due to action, some to inaction. Some actions are justified, some are not.
Unjustified actions that lead to death are generally considered to be murder.
Unjustified inactions that lead to death are generally held to be manslaughter.
Justified actions that lead to death are tragic.
Justified inactions that lead to death are unfortunate.
It is my opinion that shooting people at a gas station with an AR-15 bushmaster and aborting a fetus fall in the first category.
It is my opinion that bombing the hell out of Berlin fell under the third.
It is my opinion that starving homeless fall under the fourth.
You are, of course, welcome to hold the opinion that any of the above makes me a loon
-Peter
The Free Software community is not in the business of making "Open Source" succeed.
;-)
Your bias is evident in your choice of words and implicit goals.
(Mine is evident in that I point yours out
-Peter
See the platform page.
I am not aligned with the party in that I favor criminalization of abortion at the state level.
Again, given that I believe that a fetus is a human being with rights, I think that it should be criminal to abort a fetus just as I think it should be criminal to shake an 18 month old to death.
-Peter
Government should not be able to restrict the free exercise of religion. Even in a public school.
Give a fetus a jury trial and I'll reconsider my positions.
-Peter
I wasn't trolling. The article will appear on my site (hutnick.com) Real Soon Now(TM).
:-(
:-)
Too bad you got modded troll
I think of myself as libertarian. The Libertarian Party platform is fairly well aligned with my political beliefs.
The party is in an accord that abortion is not a "federal" issue, but is somewhat divided over it morally. There is another party called the Constitution party which is pretty much a carbon copy of the Libs except that they take a stand against abortion, and they have a very Christian tone.
Being an athiest I'm somewhat torn
-Peter
It is not a school assignment.
It is self-evident that I am philosophically opposed to the "solutions" you cite.
I guess I'm not sure what you are driving at. I glean from your posting history that you are fiscally conservative. I am too.
I guess that you are socially conservative (i.e. "law and order.")
I am socially liberal . . . but we might have more in common than you think. I'm strongly pro-second amendment. I don't think that governments should be able to limit religious expression (i.e. school prayer). I think that abortion* should be generally illegal (thought I don't think it is a "federal" issue).
Hell, I'm probably more "conservative" than you on some issues.
I admit readily that I have jumped to some pretty quick conclusions . . . but you didn't give me much to go on
I hope you reply.
-Peter
* I don't think this conflicts with my libertarian world-view. Given that I believe that a fetus is a human being there is no more conflict than there is with a state murder statute.
-P
From an essay I'm working on:
-Peter
By "much of the rest of the world" you must mean Western Europe. Most of the rest of the world is ocean. A huge part of what is left is China, Africa, Antarctica, Siberia, Mongolia, mountainous or jungle regions of South America, or the far reaches of Canada.
Hell, I doubt there is decent coverage in the inland part of Australia.
That said:
population of Western Europe/landmass of Western Europe=x
population of United States/landmass of United States=y
x>y
Economic implications relating to cell towers are left as an exercise to the reader.
-Peter
I have only received unemployment in Texas, so that is the only State I know about.
In Texas unemployment benifits are adjusted if a person is self-employed based, on profits.
If he is just starting it is unlikely he is turning a profit.
It is unlikely that there is any confilict.
-Peter
It would be pretty hard for the call cent[er|re]s to pick out all of the English speakers, since it is the single most common language spoken in India.
-Peter
Your post has been bugging me two days. I realized why this morning.
You have confused the word "modern" with the idea of the "Modern Age" or "Modern Period." Your error is even exposed in your own use of capitalization.
See Merriam-Webster or Webster's 1913.
This is, of course, assuming you weren't trying to be funny. If that was, in fact, the case . . . try harder.
-Peter
That journalists are pedophiles.
One bad turn deserves another.
-Peter