The problem is that the statue had LOTS of things on it, not just the Ten Commandments. The statue was celebrating the documents that were responsible for the forming our Constitution. Regardless of what your religious beliefs are, there is no denying that the Ten Commandments played an integral part in the writing of that document. Again, simply read the other writings of our founding fathers.
To be honest, I can't recall specifically what was on the statue, but I do know that there was much more there, and from other religions, than is represented in the media. It wasn't like it was just a huge statue of the Ten Commandments.
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Perhaps you should take another look at this. This simply prevents the government from establishing a religion and from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. In no way does this imply that the church and the state must be seperate, as many interpret this to mean today. In fact, if you go back and read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers you will see very clearly that the two issues were not seperate. Politics is simply a manifestation of what an individual believes, and what individuals believe is very much derived from either their religion or their lack thereof. To say that these two institutions must remain seperate is impossible. If my beliefs about the world directly correlate to my religious beliefs, as is the case for most people, how can we possible hope to seperate those from our belief about the role of government in our lives? This idea has been abused in many cases to even violate the amendment it is supposed be upholding. For example, the posting of the ten commandments in Alabama. Clearly, Judge Moyer was exercising religion, and the state prohibited that. The posting of the commandments is no different than me putting a Buddha on my desk at work. His "office" is just a lot bigger. And yes, I do work for the government, and there are many in my office building with various religious paraphanelia in the cubicles or offices. I'm not trying to open up a can of worms here, and this really wasn't the point of my original post. But "seperation of church and state" is an extremely abused statement, and the original meaning of our founders has been completely lost.
freedom != privacy
We DO NOT live in a democracy. We live in a republic, federalist society where the majority elects legislators that pass laws conforming to their wishes. If the majority wants this brand of security instead of privacy then that's we'll get. Believe it or not, Slashdot-readers do not make up the majority of the population, and there is no such thing as a 'right to privacy' anywhere in the Constitution. As a side not, seperation of church and state is nowhere in the Constitution, either. Funny how those textbooks and the media distort the truth...
I disagree that Linux is, by default, more secure. I am a SANS Local Mentor, and three of the guys in my class currently do nothing at work but secure Windows desktops. They actually go so far as to change Windows 2000 permissions with a Hex editor if you can believe that. There is no doubt in my mind that those machines are more secure than a great many of production Linux servers that I have seen.
The primary difference, I think, is in the amount of effort that it takes to secure the box. I think that, in general, your run-of-the-mill Linux sysadmin will have a much easier time of securing his machine than a run-of-the-mill Windows sysadmin. I think that this is probably for two reasons:
1. Windows is so easy to admin poorly that there are a great number of sysadmins with very little real knowledge of their OS, let alone how to secure it. Linux, by the nature of the way that it works, tends to either require (or promote, depending on your perspective) a deeper level of understanding of your operating system.
2. Many things that are critical in stopping a great deal of the popular trojans/viruses are extremely easy to do in Linux. For example, the built-in firewall. Most Linux distros automatically install and configure a relatively secure firewall for the user. Windows users must first find out that ICF exists (if they're even using XP) and then take the time to figure out how to turn it on. The alternative is installing a Zonealarm or BlackIce-style firewall and having it irritate the hell out of you while it tries to figure out your traffic patterns. I can't tell you how many people that I've convinced to install one of these only to have them uninstall it after a week of answering prompts every few minutes. Another great example is mounting/home read-only. In a multi-user environment, you've just eliminated a prime threat vector for 90% of the viruses out there. If viruses can't automatically execute the code they're SOL in most cases.
The point is that I think that we will see an increase in viruses for *NIX distros, but I don't believe that we will ever see them wreaking the type of havoc that they currently do. Does this mean that I think that Linux is, in all cases, more secure that Windows? Absolutely not. However, I do believe that the trend is for Linux machines to be more secure, for the reasons given above.
Come on now. These people are breaking the law in a country with a system for changing that law, not a Nazi regime. If you don't like the law, get away from your Xbox long enough to change it. You choose to break it...you have to accept the consequences.
Not to mention the fact that file sharers make a conscious decision to break the law, whereas the Jews didn't really have a choice whether or not they were born Jewish. You really have a distorted view of the world don't you? Another "anyone that disagrees with me gets called a Nazi" guy, huh? And you probably voted for Howard Dean...
Exactly. Whether you agree with the what the FBI did here or not (I don't necessarily), the school district should not have been allowing this to go on at all. Their job is to teach our kids the legal system, not how to circumvent it. If schools were being responsible and taking care of copyright infringement taking place on their campuses themselves they could avoid this.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that the statue had LOTS of things on it, not just the Ten Commandments. The statue was celebrating the documents that were responsible for the forming our Constitution. Regardless of what your religious beliefs are, there is no denying that the Ten Commandments played an integral part in the writing of that document. Again, simply read the other writings of our founding fathers.
To be honest, I can't recall specifically what was on the statue, but I do know that there was much more there, and from other religions, than is represented in the media. It wasn't like it was just a huge statue of the Ten Commandments.
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Perhaps you should take another look at this. This simply prevents the government from establishing a religion and from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. In no way does this imply that the church and the state must be seperate, as many interpret this to mean today. In fact, if you go back and read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers you will see very clearly that the two issues were not seperate. Politics is simply a manifestation of what an individual believes, and what individuals believe is very much derived from either their religion or their lack thereof. To say that these two institutions must remain seperate is impossible. If my beliefs about the world directly correlate to my religious beliefs, as is the case for most people, how can we possible hope to seperate those from our belief about the role of government in our lives? This idea has been abused in many cases to even violate the amendment it is supposed be upholding. For example, the posting of the ten commandments in Alabama. Clearly, Judge Moyer was exercising religion, and the state prohibited that. The posting of the commandments is no different than me putting a Buddha on my desk at work. His "office" is just a lot bigger. And yes, I do work for the government, and there are many in my office building with various religious paraphanelia in the cubicles or offices. I'm not trying to open up a can of worms here, and this really wasn't the point of my original post. But "seperation of church and state" is an extremely abused statement, and the original meaning of our founders has been completely lost.
freedom != privacy We DO NOT live in a democracy. We live in a republic, federalist society where the majority elects legislators that pass laws conforming to their wishes. If the majority wants this brand of security instead of privacy then that's we'll get. Believe it or not, Slashdot-readers do not make up the majority of the population, and there is no such thing as a 'right to privacy' anywhere in the Constitution. As a side not, seperation of church and state is nowhere in the Constitution, either. Funny how those textbooks and the media distort the truth...
I disagree that Linux is, by default, more secure. I am a SANS Local Mentor, and three of the guys in my class currently do nothing at work but secure Windows desktops. They actually go so far as to change Windows 2000 permissions with a Hex editor if you can believe that. There is no doubt in my mind that those machines are more secure than a great many of production Linux servers that I have seen.
/home read-only. In a multi-user environment, you've just eliminated a prime threat vector for 90% of the viruses out there. If viruses can't automatically execute the code they're SOL in most cases.
The primary difference, I think, is in the amount of effort that it takes to secure the box. I think that, in general, your run-of-the-mill Linux sysadmin will have a much easier time of securing his machine than a run-of-the-mill Windows sysadmin. I think that this is probably for two reasons:
1. Windows is so easy to admin poorly that there are a great number of sysadmins with very little real knowledge of their OS, let alone how to secure it. Linux, by the nature of the way that it works, tends to either require (or promote, depending on your perspective) a deeper level of understanding of your operating system.
2. Many things that are critical in stopping a great deal of the popular trojans/viruses are extremely easy to do in Linux. For example, the built-in firewall. Most Linux distros automatically install and configure a relatively secure firewall for the user. Windows users must first find out that ICF exists (if they're even using XP) and then take the time to figure out how to turn it on. The alternative is installing a Zonealarm or BlackIce-style firewall and having it irritate the hell out of you while it tries to figure out your traffic patterns. I can't tell you how many people that I've convinced to install one of these only to have them uninstall it after a week of answering prompts every few minutes. Another great example is mounting
The point is that I think that we will see an increase in viruses for *NIX distros, but I don't believe that we will ever see them wreaking the type of havoc that they currently do. Does this mean that I think that Linux is, in all cases, more secure that Windows? Absolutely not. However, I do believe that the trend is for Linux machines to be more secure, for the reasons given above.
Come on now. These people are breaking the law in a country with a system for changing that law, not a Nazi regime. If you don't like the law, get away from your Xbox long enough to change it. You choose to break it...you have to accept the consequences. Not to mention the fact that file sharers make a conscious decision to break the law, whereas the Jews didn't really have a choice whether or not they were born Jewish. You really have a distorted view of the world don't you? Another "anyone that disagrees with me gets called a Nazi" guy, huh? And you probably voted for Howard Dean...
Exactly. Whether you agree with the what the FBI did here or not (I don't necessarily), the school district should not have been allowing this to go on at all. Their job is to teach our kids the legal system, not how to circumvent it. If schools were being responsible and taking care of copyright infringement taking place on their campuses themselves they could avoid this.