the US created the internet, and has freely and openly allowed the rest of the world access to the technology. What moral reason does the world have to gain control?
"Gain control"?
Sorry, it's not the 70s anymore. Those servers you're visiting? They're not just belonging to european companies, they are actually located in a european data center, connected to a european fibre network run by a european ISP. The Internet doesn't belong to the US anymore. You guys started it, but it's since become a joint project. Putting down the first stone does not magically grant you ownership of the whole house. Lots of other people have built on this house as well. Often with the same allowances and sharing.
How about 'the time to punish someone is after they've done something wrong, or when in possession of ample evidence that they are in the process of doing something wrong.'
So you think of this as punishment? That's an interesting view. Gives away this feeling of entitlement that you try to cover up with reason.
You came to run the root DNS by accident, not because you have any "right" to it. But you feel that you've got the right, and TFA expresses that very clearly. Very thin rational argument, very strong emotional persuasion.
The UN? Home of the Human Rights Council lead by Yemen that wants to globally censor any criticism of Islam (see the anti-blasphemy resolution 62/154)? The same UN that elected Sudan, home of the Darfur ethnic cleansing, to a human rights commission?
Also the same UN that has the USA, initiator of the most wars for six decades in a row, in its security council.
It's this arrogance of yours that makes us dirty foreigners want to take control of stuff away from you, even if - so far - you've not abused it. You're abusing enough other stuff, and all the while you seem to think that you should decide what's best for everyone else. If anyone else would show you the same attitude, you'd be furious.
I'm not saying that faith is based on ignorance. I'm saying that the ignorant man (or child) can have as much faith as the knowledgeable man.
As a matter of fact, what studies there are show that it isn't like that. Knowledge and intelligence appear to correlate with agnosticism or atheism. Not very strongly, but statistically significant.
The nature of faith is belief in things not seen (something children do readily), not deductive reasoning
Uh, no? Belief in things not seen is not a good definition of faith. I believe in the existence of my parents, even though I don't see them right now. In fact, I believe in the existence of your parents, even though I've never seen neither them nor you. But if I take it for granted that you are a human being, then you have parents.
The nature of faith is belief in things not unly unseen, but non-provable in principle. Or, from the more scientific POV to speak with Kuhn: Not falsifiable.
Children's "belief" in their made-up friends, etc. does have something in common with religion (in fact, I personally think that the whole "god" thing is just that perfectly normal part of human development run out of control, though the theory outlined in "the breakdown of the bicameral mind" is almost as convincing). But, it is not the same, and most importantly, one does not provide justification for the other. Just because children already belief in silly things doesn't mean it's ok to pour more of that into their heads. And just because ignorant man beliefs in all kind of nonsense it's not ok to turn that nonsense into a major world religion.
That is not to say I think deductive reasoning has no place in religion (systematic theology, for example).
Yeah, the funny thing about that is that it conveniently ignores one of the primary rules of deductive reasoning: If your assumption is false, all your results are worse then false, they're meaningless. I learnt that in logic 101 at my university, but then again I didn't study theology. I doubt it's taught in their logic classes.:-)
a law that demands ISPs and search engines hold onto data long enough to help the cops (but not long enough to cause privacy problems).
Whatever you're smoking, it deserves to be illegal, if it isn't already. "not long enough to cause privacy problems" - excuse me? Storing my entire browsing and search history for six months does not cause privacy problems?
Privacy is not a question of storage durations, never has and never will be. If you keep a record of me visiting, say, "www.alcoholicsanonymous.com" at all, then that's a privacy problem right there. Six months or six hours doesn't make any difference to the fact that there's a privacy problem, only to the size of the problem - with six months you'll probably see more "interesting" URLs than with, say, one month.
If yes to any of the above do you want these as officers?
Yes.
In fact, I would be very suspicious of anyone who claims to have a spot-perfect past with no youthful sins, stupid mistakes or questionable acts at all.
Now I might have my doubts about someone who has both an affair and goes to prostitutes, while being on drugs all the time thanks to all his contacts from his multiple convictions.
Interestingly, all the/. crowd worries about is the amoral parts. For a blackmailing, a medical condition might be a whole lot more dangerous, depending on what it is.
Yeah, while funny in the way parent wrote it, that's the whole point. If the RAF already knows what people could try to blackmail you with, it gives both you and them additional options. For them, it means they can decide that you may better not be trusted with some information. For you it means going to them and putting the cards on the table when you are being blackmailed is easier, since they already know the dirt anyways. Then you can work with them to find a way out, like providing the blackmailers with false information, or simply taking care of them.
The list mentioned in the summary is probably from the topics/questions asked about. That doesn't mean that everyone of the subjects - or even just one of them - has an affirmative answer in all of them. I suspect the truth is rather boring, with one officer having done some drugs in his youth, a different one having an affair, a third one preferring professionals, several with completely clean sheets, someone with a conviction for some minor (but criminal) stuff done before he joined the force, etc.
If you have to lay open your entire history - and background checks work like that - then it's very unlikely that you would find enough people with perfectly white shirts in the entire commonwealth to staff even one airforce base.
For one thing, the novelty of it all wears off rather quickly, I assume. Then it's just pretty difficult living conditions. The other reason is that the ISS doesn't have an observation deck, so aside from the absence of gravity, you're simply in a bunch of big steel tubes.
I disagree. I don't see how children are unthinking automatons, or how they display a lack of having an opinion about something. We can argue about how informed their opinions may be, but informativeness has little to do with the nature of faith.
Oh, really? So what has to do with the nature of faith? Ignorance?
No, children are not "unthinking", but they are until a certain age programmed to believe what their parents tell them, because that's evolutionary advantageous. If father says "don't eat those berries, they're bad for you", it makes sense for the kid to not try to falsify that claim, but simply believe it. Unfortunately, this also translated to an unreflected belief if father says "there's an old man in the sky watching your every move, and he'll burn you for all eternity if you make a picture of him".
Knowledge has everything to do with faith. All the monotheistic faiths share one attribute: A desire for monopoly. They all claim to be the one and only truth, and their god the only god. Knowing that, and having a tiny bit of common sense makes you realize it is impossible that they're all right. In fact, at most one of them could be right. However, it is very possible that they can all be wrong. In either of those cases, you'd have to ask yourself one critical question before you join any of these faiths: "How do I know I'm not in one of the wrong ones? The chance I'm right is 1/3 at best. How can I find out?"
Heck, and that's ignoring church differences, sects and minor religions.
I take it, then, that when you have children, you will refrain from subjecting them to your anti-religious screed so you don't inadvertently "brainwash" them? Hardly.
If I had children, I would make sure that they know about all the major world religions. I'd also tell them the truth about sex as soon as they're old enough to ask. I don't believe in "shielding" anyone from knowledge, especially not children.
Those church events cater to children that are already Christian.
I'm sorry, I can not parse that sentence.
Attributing a faith to people too young to consciously make such a decision is just wrong. We don't grant them the ability to think clearly about fucking, but we think they can weigh the matters of eternal damnation?
Correct would be: Those church events cater to children whose parents are already christians. And one of the explicit purposes of these events is to make sure that the kids grow up to become nice little christians, too. Wouldn't want any deviants in the family, would we?
A good church engages children in a community of their peers, which promotes sociability and good self-esteem.
I'm sure they do. I'm also sure they set it all up in the proper christian context. Which is my point, exactly. You lure the kids in with the fun factor, and put stuff into their brain that they're not yet able to judge properly. To me, that's psychological child abuse.
There's no conspiracy.
Not in the sense that there's a central secret group coordinating everything. The meme theory certainly fits the facts better than the conspiracy theory.
However, there are individual organized parts within the "no conspiracy". Some parts highly organized indeed.
If people believe in their religion, of course they're going to share it with their kids, it's not "evil conspiracy against children", that's a stupid argument, it's just the way things are going to happen.
Yes. But in addition to that, the churches also target children specifically. There are reasons why there are so many "jesus camps" and other church-run spare time activities for children. And the reasons aren't all selfless.
Actually, that's not entirely true. There are various methods of strong "discouragement", including attacks on your social network and even permanent records like notes on the birth certificates of your children.
My mother left the catholic church when she married my father. So I'm talking 2nd hand, but reliable 2nd hand experience here.
There is also the fact that scientology practices thought reform [rickross.com] (brainwashing) and ericsonian hypnosis, something that does not happen in legitimate religions.
If I were you, I wouldn't bet on that. Again, not immediate, but a friend of mine studies theology, and another friend has good connections to a couple soon-to-be priests. These people get years of training in persuasion techniques, mostly the ones that are considered harmless like rhetorics and dialectics, but some of the stuff definitely enters the brainwashing territory.
There are also sects within all the major churches that actively practice strong brainwashing techniques. They call them "exorcisms" or the like. Had a girlfriend that got lost in one of these sects once, and as I know my stuff (I've been trained in ericsonian hypnosis, NLP and a couple other things), I recognize it when someone else uses them.
One thing I've noted is that you don't actually have to pay large sums of money to be a Christian. In fact, I don't know of any mainstream churches that will toss you out or suspend you if you don't put any money in the collection plate.
Yeah, but if you ride on that difference so much, let's not forget the other one: The christian churches are established institutions who have other income channels (many of which are tax money) and simply don't have to use the direct approach anymore. I'm pretty certain that if Scientology were the de-facto state religion, their methods of money collection would change dramatically, too.
What I don't understand is why the Catholic Church hasn't been busted under Rico.
Because it is so well connected, the mafia would be green with envy. In Germany, for example, one of the two major parties was founded with the support of, financed in large parts by, and - sometimes openly, sometimes less so - influenced by the catholic church.
When someone high up in the catholic church decides it's time to call in favours, I'm pretty sure that he's got a very long list to choose from.
I'm sorry, but why does religion get a pass when it comes to promulgating crazy ideas that suck money out of the unwary?
Because there's a cultural taboo in criticising religion. Oh, you can point out all the flaws of a specific demonination, they've been fighting with each other for centuries anyways, people are used to that. But question the idea of religion per se, and you're a lunatic.
Religion gets special breaks practically anywhere. If any of us here goes on a killing spree at a shopping mall, people will be quick to accuse education, computer games, the Internet at large or your taste in music as responsible. After five school shootings with kids who played computer games (which kid doesn't?), the consensus that there's a link is universal. Yet even when hundreds of priests, child care workers and other church employees are known to be child molesters, everything but their religion is blamed. Yes, the truly daring ask if the church might be responsible, but they usually move off to safer terrain soon, when they outline that it's the patriarchial history, the strict hierarchy, or the amount of power the church gives its priests over children. I've not yet seen one mainstream article about priestly child abuse that even dares to ask if, you know, the one thing that links them all together - that they were religious people - just might play a part.
Not sure about your country, but in mine that's largely because they don't need your direct contributions - they are already taking in more than enough from you - indirectly, through tax benefits, lucrative deals with the government (all those church-run child care centers, hospitals, etc. - you ever wondered if they turn a profit? Turns out that as soon as the market is opened anywhere, commercial interests move in like vultures. Looks like it's a hugely profitable area).
In most western countries, no matter what the official state/church policy, the church receives a lot of tax money through these and other indirect channels.
but as difficult as this may be to comprehend, for some of us, theistic belief is nothing but positive, and it doesn't inspire us to go out and rape, murder, or rob anybody either.
HIV also doesn't always kill. There's enough evidence for a direct link between christian faith and child abuse that if it weren't for the culturally-enforced taboo, we'd have closed down all its churches years ago. Checking the latest report from Ireland (2600 pages of documented child abuse by and in christian institutions) gives a good general account.
Plus, following the meme theory, it is just a part of the meme's self-defense system that it appears as "nothing but positive", especially to the infected.
Not necessarily. Some people probably downloaded _then_ buy.
Which is why I called it "hypothetical". This is one of the reasons why the difference is important - in a theft case, the damage the victim sustained is fairly straightforward (value of the stolen good). In an intellectual property case, it is much more difficult to calculate.
Interestingly, the RIAA/MPAA call it "theft" in all their non-legal publications, but they don't calculate their damages as for a theft. So much for honesty.
The primary problem is not that people are stealing, the primary problem is that people don't think they are stealing.
And they aren't. Copyright infringement may be a crime, but it is not the same crime as stealing. The differences are important. There are reasons why the law makes a difference between, say, armed robbery and manslaughter. See, in one case someone ends up dead, in the other just poorer. Same for theft vs. copyright infringement. In the one you are actually deprived of the posession of something, in the other it remains in your posession, but you are out of some hypothetical future profits.
The distinction does serve a purpose, and ignoring it serves no purpose but pro-RIAA rhetorics. That doesn't mean copyright infringement is fine, that's a different argument.
Because, if the 10 Commandments were a "living and breathing document", the "Thou shalt not copy content without owner's permission" would've been found in it long ago.
Err... breathing or not, you are not seriously requesting that we base 21st century law on the ethics and morality of ca. 500 BC? Maybe you should read a little further in that little book, about how it's ok to stone homosexuals to death, or that "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", and all the other stuff that we consider outrageous today?
Though, as a male I find it funny that it's against the 10 if I lay eyes on my neighbour's wife, but apparently not if she has a fancy for me. Dig that.
Don't you guys ever wonder why big-name developers like John Carmack don't post here anymore?
Apparently, you do, but wondering about isn't the same as knowing the reasons. It could just as well be that "back in the days" the/. crowd was essentially half of his customers (or at least the early adopters), whereas nowadays that's no longer true.
Or he's simply taking a break. Look at my UID. Do you really think I've been constantly active all that time? No, there were years where I visited this place maybe twice in the whole year.
Fact is, you don't know and bringing him into the discussion is a fairly obvious rhetorical trick, nothing more.
Slashdot Mirror
the US created the internet, and has freely and openly allowed the rest of the world access to the technology. What moral reason does the world have to gain control?
"Gain control"?
Sorry, it's not the 70s anymore. Those servers you're visiting? They're not just belonging to european companies, they are actually located in a european data center, connected to a european fibre network run by a european ISP. The Internet doesn't belong to the US anymore. You guys started it, but it's since become a joint project. Putting down the first stone does not magically grant you ownership of the whole house. Lots of other people have built on this house as well. Often with the same allowances and sharing.
How about 'the time to punish someone is after they've done something wrong, or when in possession of ample evidence that they are in the process of doing something wrong.'
So you think of this as punishment? That's an interesting view. Gives away this feeling of entitlement that you try to cover up with reason.
You came to run the root DNS by accident, not because you have any "right" to it. But you feel that you've got the right, and TFA expresses that very clearly. Very thin rational argument, very strong emotional persuasion.
The UN? Home of the Human Rights Council lead by Yemen that wants to globally censor any criticism of Islam (see the anti-blasphemy resolution 62/154)? The same UN that elected Sudan, home of the Darfur ethnic cleansing, to a human rights commission?
Also the same UN that has the USA, initiator of the most wars for six decades in a row, in its security council.
It's this arrogance of yours that makes us dirty foreigners want to take control of stuff away from you, even if - so far - you've not abused it. You're abusing enough other stuff, and all the while you seem to think that you should decide what's best for everyone else. If anyone else would show you the same attitude, you'd be furious.
After reading his piece, I have a hard time arguing that it should be handed over to some international body.
After reading this piece, I'm inclined to say "give up the damn DNS already, you egomaniacs".
The entire argument boils down to "we're better than everyone else, so we should rule". And you're surprised nobody likes you anymore?
I'm not saying that faith is based on ignorance. I'm saying that the ignorant man (or child) can have as much faith as the knowledgeable man.
As a matter of fact, what studies there are show that it isn't like that. Knowledge and intelligence appear to correlate with agnosticism or atheism. Not very strongly, but statistically significant.
The nature of faith is belief in things not seen (something children do readily), not deductive reasoning
Uh, no? Belief in things not seen is not a good definition of faith. I believe in the existence of my parents, even though I don't see them right now. In fact, I believe in the existence of your parents, even though I've never seen neither them nor you. But if I take it for granted that you are a human being, then you have parents.
The nature of faith is belief in things not unly unseen, but non-provable in principle. Or, from the more scientific POV to speak with Kuhn: Not falsifiable.
Children's "belief" in their made-up friends, etc. does have something in common with religion (in fact, I personally think that the whole "god" thing is just that perfectly normal part of human development run out of control, though the theory outlined in "the breakdown of the bicameral mind" is almost as convincing).
But, it is not the same, and most importantly, one does not provide justification for the other. Just because children already belief in silly things doesn't mean it's ok to pour more of that into their heads. And just because ignorant man beliefs in all kind of nonsense it's not ok to turn that nonsense into a major world religion.
That is not to say I think deductive reasoning has no place in religion (systematic theology, for example).
Yeah, the funny thing about that is that it conveniently ignores one of the primary rules of deductive reasoning: If your assumption is false, all your results are worse then false, they're meaningless. I learnt that in logic 101 at my university, but then again I didn't study theology. I doubt it's taught in their logic classes. :-)
a law that demands ISPs and search engines hold onto data long enough to help the cops (but not long enough to cause privacy problems).
Whatever you're smoking, it deserves to be illegal, if it isn't already. "not long enough to cause privacy problems" - excuse me? Storing my entire browsing and search history for six months does not cause privacy problems?
Privacy is not a question of storage durations, never has and never will be. If you keep a record of me visiting, say, "www.alcoholicsanonymous.com" at all, then that's a privacy problem right there. Six months or six hours doesn't make any difference to the fact that there's a privacy problem, only to the size of the problem - with six months you'll probably see more "interesting" URLs than with, say, one month.
If yes to any of the above do you want these as officers?
Yes.
In fact, I would be very suspicious of anyone who claims to have a spot-perfect past with no youthful sins, stupid mistakes or questionable acts at all.
Now I might have my doubts about someone who has both an affair and goes to prostitutes, while being on drugs all the time thanks to all his contacts from his multiple convictions.
Interestingly, all the /. crowd worries about is the amoral parts. For a blackmailing, a medical condition might be a whole lot more dangerous, depending on what it is.
Yeah, while funny in the way parent wrote it, that's the whole point. If the RAF already knows what people could try to blackmail you with, it gives both you and them additional options. For them, it means they can decide that you may better not be trusted with some information. For you it means going to them and putting the cards on the table when you are being blackmailed is easier, since they already know the dirt anyways. Then you can work with them to find a way out, like providing the blackmailers with false information, or simply taking care of them.
They're humans just like the rest of us?
The list mentioned in the summary is probably from the topics/questions asked about. That doesn't mean that everyone of the subjects - or even just one of them - has an affirmative answer in all of them. I suspect the truth is rather boring, with one officer having done some drugs in his youth, a different one having an affair, a third one preferring professionals, several with completely clean sheets, someone with a conviction for some minor (but criminal) stuff done before he joined the force, etc.
If you have to lay open your entire history - and background checks work like that - then it's very unlikely that you would find enough people with perfectly white shirts in the entire commonwealth to staff even one airforce base.
For one thing, the novelty of it all wears off rather quickly, I assume. Then it's just pretty difficult living conditions. The other reason is that the ISS doesn't have an observation deck, so aside from the absence of gravity, you're simply in a bunch of big steel tubes.
I disagree. I don't see how children are unthinking automatons, or how they display a lack of having an opinion about something. We can argue about how informed their opinions may be, but informativeness has little to do with the nature of faith.
Oh, really? So what has to do with the nature of faith? Ignorance?
No, children are not "unthinking", but they are until a certain age programmed to believe what their parents tell them, because that's evolutionary advantageous. If father says "don't eat those berries, they're bad for you", it makes sense for the kid to not try to falsify that claim, but simply believe it. Unfortunately, this also translated to an unreflected belief if father says "there's an old man in the sky watching your every move, and he'll burn you for all eternity if you make a picture of him".
Knowledge has everything to do with faith. All the monotheistic faiths share one attribute: A desire for monopoly. They all claim to be the one and only truth, and their god the only god. Knowing that, and having a tiny bit of common sense makes you realize it is impossible that they're all right. In fact, at most one of them could be right. However, it is very possible that they can all be wrong. In either of those cases, you'd have to ask yourself one critical question before you join any of these faiths: "How do I know I'm not in one of the wrong ones? The chance I'm right is 1/3 at best. How can I find out?"
Heck, and that's ignoring church differences, sects and minor religions.
I take it, then, that when you have children, you will refrain from subjecting them to your anti-religious screed so you don't inadvertently "brainwash" them? Hardly.
If I had children, I would make sure that they know about all the major world religions. I'd also tell them the truth about sex as soon as they're old enough to ask. I don't believe in "shielding" anyone from knowledge, especially not children.
Those church events cater to children that are already Christian.
I'm sorry, I can not parse that sentence.
Attributing a faith to people too young to consciously make such a decision is just wrong. We don't grant them the ability to think clearly about fucking, but we think they can weigh the matters of eternal damnation?
Correct would be: Those church events cater to children whose parents are already christians. And one of the explicit purposes of these events is to make sure that the kids grow up to become nice little christians, too. Wouldn't want any deviants in the family, would we?
A good church engages children in a community of their peers, which promotes sociability and good self-esteem.
I'm sure they do. I'm also sure they set it all up in the proper christian context. Which is my point, exactly. You lure the kids in with the fun factor, and put stuff into their brain that they're not yet able to judge properly. To me, that's psychological child abuse.
There's no conspiracy.
Not in the sense that there's a central secret group coordinating everything. The meme theory certainly fits the facts better than the conspiracy theory.
However, there are individual organized parts within the "no conspiracy". Some parts highly organized indeed.
Actually, to be honest, it was founded by a zombie fan. Jesus is not claimed to have founded the church, only provided the inspiration.
But you can call it a zombie fanclub, if you like.
If people believe in their religion, of course they're going to share it with their kids, it's not "evil conspiracy against children", that's a stupid argument, it's just the way things are going to happen.
Yes. But in addition to that, the churches also target children specifically. There are reasons why there are so many "jesus camps" and other church-run spare time activities for children. And the reasons aren't all selfless.
Generally, Christians won't shun you if you leave
Actually, that's not entirely true. There are various methods of strong "discouragement", including attacks on your social network and even permanent records like notes on the birth certificates of your children.
My mother left the catholic church when she married my father. So I'm talking 2nd hand, but reliable 2nd hand experience here.
There is also the fact that scientology practices thought reform [rickross.com] (brainwashing) and ericsonian hypnosis, something that does not happen in legitimate religions.
If I were you, I wouldn't bet on that. Again, not immediate, but a friend of mine studies theology, and another friend has good connections to a couple soon-to-be priests.
These people get years of training in persuasion techniques, mostly the ones that are considered harmless like rhetorics and dialectics, but some of the stuff definitely enters the brainwashing territory.
There are also sects within all the major churches that actively practice strong brainwashing techniques. They call them "exorcisms" or the like. Had a girlfriend that got lost in one of these sects once, and as I know my stuff (I've been trained in ericsonian hypnosis, NLP and a couple other things), I recognize it when someone else uses them.
One thing I've noted is that you don't actually have to pay large sums of money to be a Christian. In fact, I don't know of any mainstream churches that will toss you out or suspend you if you don't put any money in the collection plate.
Yeah, but if you ride on that difference so much, let's not forget the other one: The christian churches are established institutions who have other income channels (many of which are tax money) and simply don't have to use the direct approach anymore. I'm pretty certain that if Scientology were the de-facto state religion, their methods of money collection would change dramatically, too.
France already imprisoned and killed a pope or two,
Yes, but they're some kind of reincarnated zombies. No matter how many you kill, there's usually a new one within a few weeks,
but they never defeated the catholic church itself. You just can't get the mafia or the church out of Italy without first dealing with the other.
Who's for simply sinking the whole of Italy? As it stands, right now they're moving straight ahead into the next dictatorship anyways.
What I don't understand is why the Catholic Church hasn't been busted under Rico.
Because it is so well connected, the mafia would be green with envy. In Germany, for example, one of the two major parties was founded with the support of, financed in large parts by, and - sometimes openly, sometimes less so - influenced by the catholic church.
When someone high up in the catholic church decides it's time to call in favours, I'm pretty sure that he's got a very long list to choose from.
I'm sorry, but why does religion get a pass when it comes to promulgating crazy ideas that suck money out of the unwary?
Because there's a cultural taboo in criticising religion. Oh, you can point out all the flaws of a specific demonination, they've been fighting with each other for centuries anyways, people are used to that. But question the idea of religion per se, and you're a lunatic.
Religion gets special breaks practically anywhere. If any of us here goes on a killing spree at a shopping mall, people will be quick to accuse education, computer games, the Internet at large or your taste in music as responsible. After five school shootings with kids who played computer games (which kid doesn't?), the consensus that there's a link is universal. Yet even when hundreds of priests, child care workers and other church employees are known to be child molesters, everything but their religion is blamed. Yes, the truly daring ask if the church might be responsible, but they usually move off to safer terrain soon, when they outline that it's the patriarchial history, the strict hierarchy, or the amount of power the church gives its priests over children. I've not yet seen one mainstream article about priestly child abuse that even dares to ask if, you know, the one thing that links them all together - that they were religious people - just might play a part.
Not sure about your country, but in mine that's largely because they don't need your direct contributions - they are already taking in more than enough from you - indirectly, through tax benefits, lucrative deals with the government (all those church-run child care centers, hospitals, etc. - you ever wondered if they turn a profit? Turns out that as soon as the market is opened anywhere, commercial interests move in like vultures. Looks like it's a hugely profitable area).
In most western countries, no matter what the official state/church policy, the church receives a lot of tax money through these and other indirect channels.
but as difficult as this may be to comprehend, for some of us, theistic belief is nothing but positive, and it doesn't inspire us to go out and rape, murder, or rob anybody either.
HIV also doesn't always kill. There's enough evidence for a direct link between christian faith and child abuse that if it weren't for the culturally-enforced taboo, we'd have closed down all its churches years ago. Checking the latest report from Ireland (2600 pages of documented child abuse by and in christian institutions) gives a good general account.
Plus, following the meme theory, it is just a part of the meme's self-defense system that it appears as "nothing but positive", especially to the infected.
Not necessarily. Some people probably downloaded _then_ buy.
Which is why I called it "hypothetical". This is one of the reasons why the difference is important - in a theft case, the damage the victim sustained is fairly straightforward (value of the stolen good). In an intellectual property case, it is much more difficult to calculate.
Interestingly, the RIAA/MPAA call it "theft" in all their non-legal publications, but they don't calculate their damages as for a theft. So much for honesty.
The primary problem is not that people are stealing, the primary problem is that people don't think they are stealing.
And they aren't. Copyright infringement may be a crime, but it is not the same crime as stealing. The differences are important. There are reasons why the law makes a difference between, say, armed robbery and manslaughter. See, in one case someone ends up dead, in the other just poorer. Same for theft vs. copyright infringement. In the one you are actually deprived of the posession of something, in the other it remains in your posession, but you are out of some hypothetical future profits.
The distinction does serve a purpose, and ignoring it serves no purpose but pro-RIAA rhetorics. That doesn't mean copyright infringement is fine, that's a different argument.
Because, if the 10 Commandments were a "living and breathing document", the "Thou shalt not copy content without owner's permission" would've been found in it long ago.
Err... breathing or not, you are not seriously requesting that we base 21st century law on the ethics and morality of ca. 500 BC? Maybe you should read a little further in that little book, about how it's ok to stone homosexuals to death, or that "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", and all the other stuff that we consider outrageous today?
Though, as a male I find it funny that it's against the 10 if I lay eyes on my neighbour's wife, but apparently not if she has a fancy for me. Dig that.
Don't you guys ever wonder why big-name developers like John Carmack don't post here anymore?
Apparently, you do, but wondering about isn't the same as knowing the reasons. It could just as well be that "back in the days" the /. crowd was essentially half of his customers (or at least the early adopters), whereas nowadays that's no longer true.
Or he's simply taking a break. Look at my UID. Do you really think I've been constantly active all that time? No, there were years where I visited this place maybe twice in the whole year.
Fact is, you don't know and bringing him into the discussion is a fairly obvious rhetorical trick, nothing more.