So 10% of the Christians want to change your behaviour? OK, if you say so, but then you go on to say it appears that Muslims want to convert everybody. None of the Muslims I have spoken to (even about religion) where trying to convince me to become a Muslim.
I would say that more Christians want me to become a Christian then there are Muslims that want me to become a Muslim. The fact that these people blow themselves up has nothing to do with Muslims. And the "live and let live" IS clearly in their vocabulary. I clearly states in the Koran that you need to repect other peoples belief.
Sure, that is not what the nutcases want you to read. Just like there are contradictions in other books, they exist there as well. Many Muslims have said that killing others because of their belief just shows that you are a bad Muslim. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7046487.ece and http://islam.about.com/cs/currentevents/a/suicide_bomb.htm From the last link: The predominant theme in the Qur'an is forgiveness and peace. Allah (God) is Merciful and Forgiving, and seeks that in His followers. Indeed, most people who spend time on a personal level with ordinary Muslims have found them to be peaceful, honest, hard-working, civic-minded people
And there are a lot of "bad" Muslims who smoke, drink alcohol, eat pork and not pray 5 times a day, just as there are "bad" Christians and "bad" Jews. However your idea seems pretty clear made up as you talk about "they" and "us". Well, I am neither "They" nor "Us" in this case and If you are "Us" then I rather be "They" who seem to be more open minded. And I talk from experience.
The same is true of real life. If someone falls, our first reaction is the need to know whether they are OK or not. If they are uninjured, then we may find it funny. If they are injured, then we do not find it funny
I so wish that were true. Comments at people falling (and sometimes even get killed in accidents) show otherwise. Films of people burning the arms of their friends and then laughing are also not to hard to find.
Also being hurt seems to have a different tone. Not showing all pictures you made (especially not when drunk) used to be the standard, Humiliating people as much as possible seems to be the standard now.
I think there is to much logic in your thoughts. I think it is more like: if we do not see it, it does not exist. This goes for porn, child molesting, murder, abortion,...
There are very different ideas on what privacy is. For one it is everything that is not happening in public. For me it is everything that is happening to me as a person, including walking in a public place.
If you see me, I have no issue with it. However if you record it, then I have. If I do something stupid in a public place some 100 (or perhaps 1000) people might see it. They might even tell others that they saw this person doing some weird stuff. And that will be the end of it.
Record it and put it on a website and everybody, including people who were not there, will be able to see it and it will be haunting me till the end of my life.
See it as a personal copyright, if you will, where I have the right to either opensource or close source my personal image or give it any license I want. That would mean that you would need the consent of each person involved. Great.
Perhaps they can even them out. People playing Pac-Man where not downloading illegal music and thus saving the music and movie industry 27.933.827.727 USD each day.
I should only be guilty if the legal system in my country says so. And even then it should be that legal system says what my punishment is. If I would be a repeatable offender, cutting me off might be a possible punishment.
A private company should NOT been able to tell if I am guilty of whatever to another company and then have the other company act on it. I do not care if they have videotape of me admitting me downloading 10 gazillion songs AND showing them on that tape how I do it AND give them a written statement signed by several witnesses. It will make a weak case for me in court, but that is the ONLY place who should be able to tell if I am guilty or not.
I believe what Ubuntu has done right was the marketing part of it. e.g. sending out free CDs to people. That generated a HUGE amount of people willing to give it a try. Because of the amount of people, community support comes by itself. Next to that running it from a live CD by default was a great idea as well.
I like that unique ID per voter. It can then later be used to, uh, question these people about their choice. Voting from the PC is even better as our, uh, advisors can see that you make no mistakes. You don't have anything to hide, now do you? Also we will be providing the software for the voting.
Voting fraud is a social problem where people are looking for a technical solution. Pen. Paper. Problem solved. 100%? No, but a LOT cheaper and a LOT more secure. Not one point of failure, but so many that cheating is extremely much harder.
Employees get dibs on the money before anybody else. Before the banks and what not. That is however only in case of a complete bankruptcy. So what they do is sell everything, including the buildings and machines and stock and everything else they own. First the people get their money, then the rest.
Most of the time however there is a reduction in staff. And then there will be negations that will determine how much everybody gets. It is not uncommon for a company to give more then standard as that will make the whole process faster and easier.
And no, it is not 100% foolproof. Biggest disadvantage is that you might need to wait long before you see your money after a bankruptcy. People not getting their money might happen in very seldom cases, but those that I heard of where related directly to fraud.
This is a great step in the correct direction. First we had swords with bronze blades, then iron blades. Now we have liquid blades. The next step should be the plasma blade and the ultimate goal will be the lightsaber.
Not sure where you are, but in Belgium that is almost never the case. That is thanks to them communist unions. First to go will have the legal pay (3 months per 5 years. Won't go into all of the legal stuff) while people staying longer will get more or at least the same as less is not possible by law.
It is THEIR show. They can show it to whomever they choose to for whatever amount they see fit. If they like, they don't show it to anybody. There is no social contract.
I have made a show. It is about 10 seconds and I ask 10.000.000EUR for it. I know for sure I have no social contract. I also know it is way to expensive. I have the law of commerce on my side. So now what?
What about shows that just plain aren't available?
You do not get to see them. As far as I understand there is no law that forces show makers to make shows available to you in whatever way possible. I don't think it is covered under any human right.
I have one key. The front door, and my apartment, but not to a second and third hallway. Others will have one key that gives access to the second hallway, front door and their apartment, but not to the second hallway. Then others to the second hallway and front door and their apartment.
The landlord has 1 key that has access to all doors.
When I worked years ago in a hotel, this was the system as well, before cards where used. Some keys only for a certain room, some keys only for a certain floor, some keys for everything.
The issue should not be if he is watching porn. He can watch whatever he wants to. What about the person n (second 12-13) that is texting? What about the two guys in front of him chatting? What about all the others who are not even there?
When I wanted static IPs for my cable connection I asked my cable ISP. They said sure, $5/month/each.
If that is for ADDITIONAL IPs, that would be somewhat logical. If it is for the firs IP, then it is not. Cable modems connections are NOT the same as PSTN connections. Cable (and ADSL) will be likely to be connected all the time.
This means that the provider needs at least the amount of IPs as it has customers. This means to have a fixed IP or a Dynamic IP does not make any difference in the number of IPs needed. Providers however use the excuse that IP adresses are rare as an excuse to charge more money from it. There are even providers that force a different IP on you after a certain time.
In that last URL you see that a provider will pay 5.000EUR for its IPs. And as you can see almost all are in that group. I would say that 5.000EUR is more operational cost then a real cost. It also is a fixed cost. So charging 50EUR for an IP address is a bit of black market to me.
The real world situation is that you do not really have a choice. The choice you have is purely academic one. Sure you can go and live out in the woods, but it is not a realistic one. It is the choice of what knee you want to be shot in.
I would like to have a choice to drive without a seatbelt, so my only "choice" is to not drive a car.
And the thing about a country where you can vote is not to "love it or leave it" but to "Love it or change it". If that is not possible, your vote is not much worth. And with those votes, you should also be able to control the companies and not let them do anything they desire. They are forced to have seat belts. They can also be forced to respect the privacy laws as you think they should be.
Slashdot Mirror
They do not go faster downwind.
Strange. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7046487.ece
And all Muslims who I have spoken to basically are against it.
It is just like the majority of Christians are against molesting children, yet some still are willing to do it.
So 10% of the Christians want to change your behaviour? OK, if you say so, but then you go on to say it appears that Muslims want to convert everybody. None of the Muslims I have spoken to (even about religion) where trying to convince me to become a Muslim.
I would say that more Christians want me to become a Christian then there are Muslims that want me to become a Muslim. The fact that these people blow themselves up has nothing to do with Muslims. And the "live and let live" IS clearly in their vocabulary. I clearly states in the Koran that you need to repect other peoples belief.
Sure, that is not what the nutcases want you to read. Just like there are contradictions in other books, they exist there as well. Many Muslims have said that killing others because of their belief just shows that you are a bad Muslim. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7046487.ece
and http://islam.about.com/cs/currentevents/a/suicide_bomb.htm
From the last link:
The predominant theme in the Qur'an is forgiveness and peace. Allah (God) is Merciful and Forgiving, and seeks that in His followers. Indeed, most people who spend time on a personal level with ordinary Muslims have found them to be peaceful, honest, hard-working, civic-minded people
And there are a lot of "bad" Muslims who smoke, drink alcohol, eat pork and not pray 5 times a day, just as there are "bad" Christians and "bad" Jews. However your idea seems pretty clear made up as you talk about "they" and "us". Well, I am neither "They" nor "Us" in this case and If you are "Us" then I rather be "They" who seem to be more open minded. And I talk from experience.
I so wish that were true. Comments at people falling (and sometimes even get killed in accidents) show otherwise.
Films of people burning the arms of their friends and then laughing are also not to hard to find.
Also being hurt seems to have a different tone. Not showing all pictures you made (especially not when drunk) used to be the standard, Humiliating people as much as possible seems to be the standard now.
I think there is to much logic in your thoughts. I think it is more like: if we do not see it, it does not exist. This goes for porn, child molesting, murder, abortion, ...
A sort of universal Don't ask, don't tell.
There are very different ideas on what privacy is. For one it is everything that is not happening in public. For me it is everything that is happening to me as a person, including walking in a public place.
If you see me, I have no issue with it. However if you record it, then I have. If I do something stupid in a public place some 100 (or perhaps 1000) people might see it. They might even tell others that they saw this person doing some weird stuff. And that will be the end of it.
Record it and put it on a website and everybody, including people who were not there, will be able to see it and it will be haunting me till the end of my life.
See it as a personal copyright, if you will, where I have the right to either opensource or close source my personal image or give it any license I want. That would mean that you would need the consent of each person involved. Great.
Perhaps they can even them out. People playing Pac-Man where not downloading illegal music and thus saving the music and movie industry 27.933.827.727 USD each day.
And a nurse would be drawn as a female. I am curious as to how old the kid is that you can see the difference in sex?
Unfortunately for them that does not mean they can skip the 5th step.
I should only be guilty if the legal system in my country says so. And even then it should be that legal system says what my punishment is. If I would be a repeatable offender, cutting me off might be a possible punishment.
A private company should NOT been able to tell if I am guilty of whatever to another company and then have the other company act on it. I do not care if they have videotape of me admitting me downloading 10 gazillion songs AND showing them on that tape how I do it AND give them a written statement signed by several witnesses. It will make a weak case for me in court, but that is the ONLY place who should be able to tell if I am guilty or not.
SUSE (Not SuSE anymore since 2003) has a basis in Slackware, not RedHat. The fact that it uses RPM does not mean that the origins are at RedHat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUSE_Linux_distributions#The_origins
Seems it is my lawn, not yours, so get of it.
I believe what Ubuntu has done right was the marketing part of it. e.g. sending out free CDs to people. That generated a HUGE amount of people willing to give it a try. Because of the amount of people, community support comes by itself.
Next to that running it from a live CD by default was a great idea as well.
He just used the AOL trick and it worked.
I like that unique ID per voter. It can then later be used to, uh, question these people about their choice. Voting from the PC is even better as our, uh, advisors can see that you make no mistakes. You don't have anything to hide, now do you? Also we will be providing the software for the voting.
Voting fraud is a social problem where people are looking for a technical solution. Pen. Paper. Problem solved. 100%? No, but a LOT cheaper and a LOT more secure. Not one point of failure, but so many that cheating is extremely much harder.
Employees get dibs on the money before anybody else. Before the banks and what not. That is however only in case of a complete bankruptcy. So what they do is sell everything, including the buildings and machines and stock and everything else they own. First the people get their money, then the rest.
Most of the time however there is a reduction in staff. And then there will be negations that will determine how much everybody gets. It is not uncommon for a company to give more then standard as that will make the whole process faster and easier.
And no, it is not 100% foolproof. Biggest disadvantage is that you might need to wait long before you see your money after a bankruptcy. People not getting their money might happen in very seldom cases, but those that I heard of where related directly to fraud.
This is a great step in the correct direction. First we had swords with bronze blades, then iron blades. Now we have liquid blades.
The next step should be the plasma blade and the ultimate goal will be the lightsaber.
Not sure where you are, but in Belgium that is almost never the case. That is thanks to them communist unions. First to go will have the legal pay (3 months per 5 years. Won't go into all of the legal stuff) while people staying longer will get more or at least the same as less is not possible by law.
It is THEIR show. They can show it to whomever they choose to for whatever amount they see fit. If they like, they don't show it to anybody. There is no social contract.
I have made a show. It is about 10 seconds and I ask 10.000.000EUR for it. I know for sure I have no social contract. I also know it is way to expensive. I have the law of commerce on my side. So now what?
Well, the Earth is flat AND round. Like a pizza.
You do not get to see them. As far as I understand there is no law that forces show makers to make shows available to you in whatever way possible. I don't think it is covered under any human right.
I have one key. The front door, and my apartment, but not to a second and third hallway. Others will have one key that gives access to the second hallway, front door and their apartment, but not to the second hallway. Then others to the second hallway and front door and their apartment.
The landlord has 1 key that has access to all doors.
When I worked years ago in a hotel, this was the system as well, before cards where used. Some keys only for a certain room, some keys only for a certain floor, some keys for everything.
Will the solution be mine, his or some company who will charge money for it and say they invested a LOT in it and make profit from it?
The issue should not be if he is watching porn. He can watch whatever he wants to. What about the person n (second 12-13) that is texting? What about the two guys in front of him chatting? What about all the others who are not even there?
That should be the important discussion.
And then there are those who say that having violence on tv (and in games) has no influence whatsoever.
If that is for ADDITIONAL IPs, that would be somewhat logical. If it is for the firs IP, then it is not. Cable modems connections are NOT the same as PSTN connections. Cable (and ADSL) will be likely to be connected all the time.
This means that the provider needs at least the amount of IPs as it has customers. This means to have a fixed IP or a Dynamic IP does not make any difference in the number of IPs needed. Providers however use the excuse that IP adresses are rare as an excuse to charge more money from it. There are even providers that force a different IP on you after a certain time.
But even then there is the question of charging for something that they themselves do not need to pay for. In Belgium the average price for a fixed IP is about 50EUR. The provider pays a fixed price for all his IPs. http://www.ripe.net/info/faq/membership/newlir-billing.html and http://www.ripe.net/membership/billing/procedure.html
In that last URL you see that a provider will pay 5.000EUR for its IPs. And as you can see almost all are in that group. I would say that 5.000EUR is more operational cost then a real cost. It also is a fixed cost. So charging 50EUR for an IP address is a bit of black market to me.
The real world situation is that you do not really have a choice. The choice you have is purely academic one. Sure you can go and live out in the woods, but it is not a realistic one. It is the choice of what knee you want to be shot in.
I would like to have a choice to drive without a seatbelt, so my only "choice" is to not drive a car.
And the thing about a country where you can vote is not to "love it or leave it" but to "Love it or change it". If that is not possible, your vote is not much worth. And with those votes, you should also be able to control the companies and not let them do anything they desire. They are forced to have seat belts. They can also be forced to respect the privacy laws as you think they should be.