> I find it helpful to [...] draw up finite state machines.
Unless his entire code is written in regular expressions (which, albeit, *would* be a total bitch to maintain), I don't think finite state machines are going to be very helfpul.
> Lol. Yeah, I know, those poor pedophiles and terrorists > (both of which by definition imply a law being broken) > are so tormented.
"Pedophile" does not imply that a law has been broken. It is not illegal to be a pedophile, it is illegal to engage in a sexual encounter with a minor. You can fantasise about it all you want.
As far as "terrorist" goes, that is one of the most vague and poorly-defined terms in America. People _are_ getting oppressed by having those terms placed on them and then not having any politician dare take a stand for fear of being ostracised.
> They should be "exterminated".
What, so, you should be killed for your own private thoughts? That's a little harsh, isn't it?
> That's that other part of the Constitution, you remember the > one about double jeopardy. If someone got convicted and sentenced > for lewd behavior, they can't increase the sentence afterward even > if they discover that the person may have committed several > rapes 15 years prior.
Are you bloody serious? Do us all a favour and look up terms before using them. Double jeapordy refers to being tried on the _same charge_ more than once. If you rape someone fifteen years ago and then get charged on some unrelated crime, you can still be charged on the original rape. They were never part of the sentence.
> So then the person goes free with little more than a slap on the wrist > and the public feels they were let down by the Constitution and > the system in general.
This is a much more nebulous statement, but I will dignify it by pointing out that if "the public feels let down by the constitution", that's no reason to break it, that's, at best, a reason to change it.
> This is why we have vigilante justice and people thinking like the GP, > and for good reason. Sorry, I know the founding fathers meant well but > the Constitution doesn't protect us from the real world as it is today.
That's not a reason to ignore it, that's a reason to fix it.
> Currently it serves to protect a criminally insane President and tons of > his cronies but does nothing to protect us from the government itself > so long as we continue to think that little piece of paper in D.C. is our > savior.
Actually, the constitution doesn't protect this "criminally insane President". If anything, it limits his power. Tons of laws passed while he was in office do serve to protect him, but they are unrelated to the constitution and, in some cases, arguably directly infringing on it. And yes, I would like to think of "that little piece of paper in D.C" as my saviour. Or, more accurately, honest judges intelligently interpreting it.
I have to say, you missed the grandfather's point completely. I personally agree that comparing rapists and Jews is stretching it more than somewhat (I am ethnically Jewish, for the record, not that that's especially relevant) but that's all it is -- a bit stretching it. His point was that this is still unconstitutional and a slippery slope. Just because something is democratically decided doesn't make it constitutional. This is, IMHO (and IANAL, etc.) a clear violation of fourth amendment privacy rights, and a dangerous one at that.
What's really quite disturbing about all this is that it hardly stops the problem. Think about it -- what are some of the most "questionable" places on the Internet? IRC and 4chan come to mind as the top examples, and neither require passwords (for the most part). Besides, how are you supposed to know _which_ passwords to hand over? The court won't know about that password you set on your handle on Freenode and they're likely not going to know what to do with it if they had it ("There's no form! Oh noes!"). If these people still pose danger to society, then you should imprison them. All this will accomplish is give the government an easier way of oppressing people.
In a truly free country, all have to be protected, even child molesters (note, by the way, that the main discussion concerns "sex offenders" which is hardly the same thing). The problem is that we have a representative democracy and so the senator that's going to stand up for them is going to get his carreer ruined. With something as delicate as this, it might just be some guy who looked a girl the wrong way.
Though I generally agree, I feel that the notability guidelines are broken for other reasons.
Consider, for instance, a Wikipedia article on basically any random public high school. As long as there is a website, you can make a reasonable (and arguably useful) article, with lots of information regarding classes offered, policies, etc. A public high school is usually going to be the only school in the town, maybe one of a few. The result of this is that the town newspaper is going to mention it. Most towns have newspapers, and as long as it's not *too* rural of a town, the newspaper will be online. That basically meets the criteria (it's mentioned in a printed source, which everyone has access to, and facts included are verifiable).
Is some random high school notable? I'd say not. Now, one can make the other argument that it doesn't matter, because the point is to be a useful source of information. I'd agree with that -- the information is of limited use, but it's going to be useful to the population of that town, which, if only numbering in the couple of thousand, is still substantial. However, it's certainly not "notable".
Do keep in mind that the thing is barely in beta. They're not really releasing it to the public. Besides, it's basically unenforceable, since the code is under a BSD license.
Mickey Mouse is still under copyright (and trademark) because its owner uses it commercially. Its owner is the Walt Disney company, and a company need not die with its founder. My question was regarding the situation in which Walt Disney personally held rights to Mickey. Would it die with him?
Though I agree with you in principle, I don't think that will work, or make sense. Consider, for instance, Microsoft Windows. Who owns the copyright to that? Gates? Ballmer? The guy who stayed overnight making it all work? The fellow who wrote QDOS originally?
Furthermore, even if that question were somehow addressed, the original question remains unanswered. How long can an individual hold a copyright for? If Walt Disney were still alive today, should Mickey Mouse still be under copyright?
It depends on where you live, but there may be a flea market specifically for this sort of stuff that you can give away for free. If you are within traveling distance to Boston, MIT holds an event called the "SwapFest" which is precisely that. You need to pay a small fee to sell, and then can give away stuff for free, or actually take money for the more expensive equipment. More info at http://www.swapfest.us/
This is just FUD, plain and simple. The big problem with this idea is that Verizon, Comcast, and all the other major ISPs aren't the only ones that grant access to the Internet. People in other countries use the 'Net as well, and most of the sites they use are not going to be used by people in the USA. If Verizon and the rest only allow access to a choice few sites, they will be giving millions of customers away to smaller ISPs who would be all too happy to grant unfettered access.
Furthermore, the Internet doesn't work quite in that way. It's a bitch to block all sites except a choice few, especially if even one of those choice few sites is Google. I wouldn't be surprised if Google simply set up a public proxy for everyone to use (i.e. not Google Translate, but a dedicated, easy-to-use proxy server).
Wow, that is fucking insane. I take that back, then.
I've often wondered, actually, why is child pornography illegal (and it should it be)? I understand the whole coercive bit, but if you envision a situation in which a child did consent to it (e.g. they took it themselves), why is that illegal? Who is harmed? Or what if it's child-pornographic Hentai? Is that legal, and if not, then why?
I completely agree with you in principle. If children want to do porn, they should be able to. You need to protect them from manipulative adults, but this clearly isn't the case -- the children are producing and distributing the porn themselves.
However, legally, you're wrong. Every child who in possession of an indecent picture of an underage child (that isn't themselves) is guilty of possession of child porn. Really, that sort of makes sense. The idea is that the child isn't old enough to decide to act as a porn star. Whether he was convinced to do this by an adult or another naive child is irrelevant.
You are absolutely right that if you own any land, it was, at some point, taken by force from someone else. And that's absolutely fine.
That's how life works. The Native Americans occupied much of what is now North America. The British came and took it from them, by force. Perhaps they were wrong in doing that, but that is now irrelevant. Now that the land belongs to the descendants of those British (as well as the descendants of those to whom the British gave it -- immigrants from other countries and such), it isn't any more rightfully the Native Americans' than it is the Irish' or the Blacks'.
You could say wealth & resources are available to anyone who works hard enough. But the amount of wealth available to someone who works hard in the Congo is quite different from the wealth available to someone who works hard in the UK.
If you're willing to accept the benefits bestowed on you by your forefathers, perhaps you should be willing to accept responsibility for previous generations' injustices.
Oh, for heaven's sake, stop dancing around the obvious. Life isn't fair. Someone who lives in the Congo doesn't have the same opportunities as someone in the United Kingdom. So what? Why does that matter?
What do "injustices" have to do with anything? It's a right of conquest. The British came and took the lands of the Native Americans. That isn't unjust, it's war and conquest. It happens, deal with it. It's like Churchill said:
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."
In other words, those who have the guns will get the land and reap its rewards. The same goes with Intellectual Property. Those who have the licenses have the law on their side, and will reap the rewards and get the money from it. The proper solution isn't an anarchic abolition of license. It is an encouragement of free software (or movies or what have you), or having a counter-attack -- getting sympathetic judges, people, etc. It is a democracy after all.
After posting the comment, I realised that nihilistic was in my head because of a completely unrelated conversation. And it was terrorism, if somewhat mild terrorism. My dictionary says that terrorism is ``The practise of coercing governments to accede to political demands by committing violence on civilian targets; any similar use of violence to achieve goals.'' That's precisely what he did!
The difference is irrelevant. All that I meant by saying that I am an ex-Christian, is that I am familiar with Christian teachings. I may not have been a ``true'' Christian, whatever that means, but I am more than familiar with its doctrine, teachings, traditions, etc.
Sure, in that particular instance, no one cast the first stone because the people present all partook in the sin. But the underlying message of the story is that we should not judge others, because we are also guilty ``judge not lest ye be judged''. Also, Abrahamic law clearly states that adulterers should be stoned. Whether or not the other people were guilty is irrelevant; there may be a conflict of interest, but their guilt should not determine her punishment.
As for Jesus enforcing Jewish laws: That is exactly my point! My problem with Jesus is that he takes upon himself to enforce laws, and selectively break them.
You missed the point completely. Do you think you think the saying "people who live in glass houses should not throw stones" is a call to arms for brick house owners? Please.
OK, then, you tell me what is the intended point of the sinless throwing the first stone incident? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always assumed (and been taught) that it means that we should not judge others, because we are ourselves imperfect. This is clearly non-realistic in any organised government, but it's more than just childish and naive -- it's evil. The guilt of one person has nothing to do with the guilt of another. In a representative government, the society protects itself from those who pose a threat to it. The whole thing is rather similar to the absurd ``Why do we kill people who kill others to prove that killing is wrong?'' phenomenon. We kill people who kill others so that they don't kill us (and to give a warning to would-be killers of the consequences). I, myself, don't advocate killing (or, indeed, punishing) adulterers, but if we assume that adultery is an evil crime which should be punished, then not punishing her because we are guilty of some unrelated crime is a very bad philosophy.
What is naive and ridiculous is your grasp of Christianity. You should have paid more attention in Sunday School. The "incident in the temple" had to do with the merchants defiling a holy place. If someone tried to set up a hotdog stand directly on top of your family grave site would you be ok with that? If you asked them politely (yeah right) to relocate would that make you a communist?
That is bullshit and you know it. You are making it out as if the merchants in the temple were an isolated anti-religious group of blasphemers. The temple for the Jews was rather similar to the Forum for the Romans -- it was a meeting ground, a social place, and far more than just a holy shrine. Jesus took it upon himself to commit acts of vandalism and -- for lack of a better word -- terrorism, just to further his own nihilistic philosophy.
Sir (for we all know that there are no women on the Internet), I would be glad to have (and would rather enjoy having) a civilised, enlightening discussion with you, but please, control yourself. There is no need to insult or taunt anyone. Respond to (and, by all means, mercilessly dissect) the argument being made, but leave the one making the argument alone.
I have seen the movie, the trailers and two parodies.
The first point of the movie is that ``Big Science'' is suppressing dissent of Darwanian evolution (specifically, Natural Selection). It says that any scientist who even suggests credibility towards Intelligent Design is getting either fired or in some other way punished.
Looking at both the evidence Stein presents for this, and other evidence not in the movie, I am compelled to agree. However, this is not a bad thing. Intelligent Design is an answer to a scientific question without any scientific evidence, and, more importantly, ignoring scientific evidence that points to the opposite conclusion. Personally, I think any biologist who agrees with Intelligent Design does *not* deserve to be called a biologist. Replace all occurrences with ``Intelligent Design'' with ``Flat Earth hypothesis'' and ``Biologist'' with ``Geologist'' or even ``Physicist'' and what's the difference?
The second point of the movie is that there is a world of difference between Intelligent Design and Creationism. This may be technically true, but at this point, the differences are superficial and irrelevant. Intelligent Design says that an intelligent being, which knew what it was doing created not just us, but the entire world. This is a fundamentally theistic argument, but it goes further -- it attempts to answer scientific questions, and teach it to children.
The third point of the movie is that natural selection is very reminiscent of Nazism (yes, yes, I know Godwin's Law, but the movie does it first). This is true (in the sense that Nazism is based on the Social Darwinism), but by the same token, one could argue that the scientific observation that animals fight out all their conflicts physically implies that humans do the same, and thus that observation is evil or wrong.
The above is a fairly thorough summary of the main points of the film. Two other important observations:
* The movie has an annoying habit of switching to a completely unrelated scene in order to highlight the phrase just uttered (e.g. ``He silenced me!'' cue cut to random 50s film in which some bully is beating up some kid yelling ``Say Uncle!'' -- this particular example didn't occur in the movie, but plenty like it did). * The movie presents the entire argument in the most incredibly biased, almost childish way possible. Richard Dawkins is the best example of this. When he is on screen, the lighting is noticeably dimmer, and there is actual demonic music in the background. There is a scene showing him getting cleaned and having make up put on him, I guess in order to show how much of a phony he is. There is a scene showing him getting out of a limousine. And, my favourite, in the main interview itself:
First of all, Stein arrives late, as evidenced by the fact that he starts out the interview with ``Sorry to keep you waiting so long''. Second, he asks Richard if he believes in any god. When Dawkins says no, and explains why, Stein clarifies by making sure that he believes in neither Jesus nor Yahweh. ``I just told you,'' Dawkins says. He repeats the reasons. ``So you don't believe in *any* god?'' ``No''. ``Do you believe in the Hindu gods?''
Lastly, Stein, in the overvoice, mocks and manipulates the words of distinguished scientists, including Dawkins. When Stein asked Dawkins if he can see any argument for design, the latter says that the only plausible argument from design is one in which some very intelligent and well-developed being from another planet came and designed *us*. He quickly adds that this doesn't solve the problem, because it would still raise the question, as to where the aliens came from. But Stein would have none of it. ``Richard Dawkins believes in aliens?!?!''
I am both a strong atheist and an ex-Christian. From everything I've read, I am compelled to say that Jesus probably did exist, but much of what is said about him is not true (not just the supernatural, but a lot of the events, too).
The reason that someone can dislike that which Jesus teaches (at least, according to the Bible) is plenty:
First of all, he forgives people's sins. This is an incredible concept, and one that I hadn't even considered until reading Christopher Hitchens' incredible book God is not Great (http://www.amazon.com/God-Not-Great-Religion-Everything/dp/0446579807). If you consider the incident with ``let the sinless throw the first stone'', you are advocating a society in which guilt is determined only by those who are not, themselves, guilty. That is ludicrous, particularly if Adam's original sin is taken into account.
Second, Jesus is advocating a quasi-communistic, merchant-less society. This is prevalent throughout all of his writings. ``Go sell all you have'', the incident in the Temple, etc. etc. Again, this is naive and ridiculous.
Third, Jesus is remarkably self-centred. He is saying that we must leave our families and follow him; if any of our friends or family says something against Jesus, we should leave him.
Fourth, Jesus has caused innumerable amounts of death and suffering. Perhaps he did this involuntarily, but it still happened.
There are many other reasons, but I am too tired to list them.
I am more or less a full-time Ubuntu user. When I bought my most recent laptop (the one on which I am working), I decided to go ahead and try one of the Dell Linux-pre-installed machines (The E1505N). Linux has a reputation of not being very good on laptops, and I figured that if it's pre-installed, it might actually Just Work. And it did. It was Feisty back then, and when Gutsy came out, I upgraded. The upgrade wasn't perfect, and some things were broken, or more so than before. But, on the whole, I am satisfied with Gutsy in that some things actually do work better than before (for me, for example, Compiz under Gutsy is working considerably better than Beryl did under Feisty). Sure, some things could be better, but at least it's not as bad as Vista. I honestly see *nothing* that Vista improved upon.
What I meant by ``writing scripts'', though, was like a line in xinitrc that launches ``svn up'' on startup, and SSH keys if he doesn't have them already. If he wants, also a cron job every how-ever long to run ``svn up''
Slashdot Mirror
> I find it helpful to [...] draw up finite state machines.
Unless his entire code is written in regular expressions (which, albeit, *would* be a total bitch to maintain), I don't think finite state machines are going to be very helfpul.
> Lol. Yeah, I know, those poor pedophiles and terrorists
> (both of which by definition imply a law being broken)
> are so tormented.
"Pedophile" does not imply that a law has been broken. It is not illegal to be a pedophile, it is illegal to engage in a sexual encounter with a minor. You can fantasise about it all you want.
As far as "terrorist" goes, that is one of the most vague and poorly-defined terms in America. People _are_ getting oppressed by having those terms placed on them and then not having any politician dare take a stand for fear of being ostracised.
> They should be "exterminated".
What, so, you should be killed for your own private thoughts? That's a little harsh, isn't it?
Right, then.
> That's that other part of the Constitution, you remember the
> one about double jeopardy. If someone got convicted and sentenced
> for lewd behavior, they can't increase the sentence afterward even
> if they discover that the person may have committed several
> rapes 15 years prior.
Are you bloody serious? Do us all a favour and look up terms before using them. Double jeapordy refers to being tried on the _same charge_ more than once. If you rape someone fifteen years ago and then get charged on some unrelated crime, you can still be charged on the original rape. They were never part of the sentence.
> So then the person goes free with little more than a slap on the wrist
> and the public feels they were let down by the Constitution and
> the system in general.
This is a much more nebulous statement, but I will dignify it by pointing out that if "the public feels let down by the constitution", that's no reason to break it, that's, at best, a reason to change it.
> This is why we have vigilante justice and people thinking like the GP,
> and for good reason. Sorry, I know the founding fathers meant well but
> the Constitution doesn't protect us from the real world as it is today.
That's not a reason to ignore it, that's a reason to fix it.
> Currently it serves to protect a criminally insane President and tons of
> his cronies but does nothing to protect us from the government itself
> so long as we continue to think that little piece of paper in D.C. is our
> savior.
Actually, the constitution doesn't protect this "criminally insane President". If anything, it limits his power. Tons of laws passed while he was in office do serve to protect him, but they are unrelated to the constitution and, in some cases, arguably directly infringing on it. And yes, I would like to think of "that little piece of paper in D.C" as my saviour. Or, more accurately, honest judges intelligently interpreting it.
I have to say, you missed the grandfather's point completely. I personally agree that comparing rapists and Jews is stretching it more than somewhat (I am ethnically Jewish, for the record, not that that's especially relevant) but that's all it is -- a bit stretching it. His point was that this is still unconstitutional and a slippery slope. Just because something is democratically decided doesn't make it constitutional. This is, IMHO (and IANAL, etc.) a clear violation of fourth amendment privacy rights, and a dangerous one at that.
What's really quite disturbing about all this is that it hardly stops the problem. Think about it -- what are some of the most "questionable" places on the Internet? IRC and 4chan come to mind as the top examples, and neither require passwords (for the most part). Besides, how are you supposed to know _which_ passwords to hand over? The court won't know about that password you set on your handle on Freenode and they're likely not going to know what to do with it if they had it ("There's no form! Oh noes!"). If these people still pose danger to society, then you should imprison them. All this will accomplish is give the government an easier way of oppressing people.
In a truly free country, all have to be protected, even child molesters (note, by the way, that the main discussion concerns "sex offenders" which is hardly the same thing). The problem is that we have a representative democracy and so the senator that's going to stand up for them is going to get his carreer ruined. With something as delicate as this, it might just be some guy who looked a girl the wrong way.
Wait, I am pretty sure that you're wrong.
You can't photocopy books, whether or not it's for private use. You certainly can't format shift them.
Though I generally agree, I feel that the notability guidelines are broken for other reasons.
Consider, for instance, a Wikipedia article on basically any random public high school. As long as there is a website, you can make a reasonable (and arguably useful) article, with lots of information regarding classes offered, policies, etc. A public high school is usually going to be the only school in the town, maybe one of a few. The result of this is that the town newspaper is going to mention it. Most towns have newspapers, and as long as it's not *too* rural of a town, the newspaper will be online. That basically meets the criteria (it's mentioned in a printed source, which everyone has access to, and facts included are verifiable).
Is some random high school notable? I'd say not. Now, one can make the other argument that it doesn't matter, because the point is to be a useful source of information. I'd agree with that -- the information is of limited use, but it's going to be useful to the population of that town, which, if only numbering in the couple of thousand, is still substantial. However, it's certainly not "notable".
Do keep in mind that the thing is barely in beta. They're not really releasing it to the public. Besides, it's basically unenforceable, since the code is under a BSD license.
Yes, I know, that was precisely the point.
Mickey Mouse is still under copyright (and trademark) because its owner uses it commercially. Its owner is the Walt Disney company, and a company need not die with its founder. My question was regarding the situation in which Walt Disney personally held rights to Mickey. Would it die with him?
Though I agree with you in principle, I don't think that will work, or make sense. Consider, for instance, Microsoft Windows. Who owns the copyright to that? Gates? Ballmer? The guy who stayed overnight making it all work? The fellow who wrote QDOS originally?
Furthermore, even if that question were somehow addressed, the original question remains unanswered. How long can an individual hold a copyright for? If Walt Disney were still alive today, should Mickey Mouse still be under copyright?
It depends on where you live, but there may be a flea market specifically for this sort of stuff that you can give away for free. If you are within traveling distance to Boston, MIT holds an event called the "SwapFest" which is precisely that. You need to pay a small fee to sell, and then can give away stuff for free, or actually take money for the more expensive equipment. More info at http://www.swapfest.us/
Am I the only one who thinks this is rather appalling? I mean, these are beautiful, ancient relics, now completely defaced.
[Citation needed]
This is just FUD, plain and simple. The big problem with this idea is that Verizon, Comcast, and all the other major ISPs aren't the only ones that grant access to the Internet. People in other countries use the 'Net as well, and most of the sites they use are not going to be used by people in the USA. If Verizon and the rest only allow access to a choice few sites, they will be giving millions of customers away to smaller ISPs who would be all too happy to grant unfettered access.
Furthermore, the Internet doesn't work quite in that way. It's a bitch to block all sites except a choice few, especially if even one of those choice few sites is Google. I wouldn't be surprised if Google simply set up a public proxy for everyone to use (i.e. not Google Translate, but a dedicated, easy-to-use proxy server).
Wow, that is fucking insane. I take that back, then.
I've often wondered, actually, why is child pornography illegal (and it should it be)? I understand the whole coercive bit, but if you envision a situation in which a child did consent to it (e.g. they took it themselves), why is that illegal? Who is harmed? Or what if it's child-pornographic Hentai? Is that legal, and if not, then why?
I completely agree with you in principle. If children want to do porn, they should be able to. You need to protect them from manipulative adults, but this clearly isn't the case -- the children are producing and distributing the porn themselves.
However, legally, you're wrong. Every child who in possession of an indecent picture of an underage child (that isn't themselves) is guilty of possession of child porn. Really, that sort of makes sense. The idea is that the child isn't old enough to decide to act as a porn star. Whether he was convinced to do this by an adult or another naive child is irrelevant.
You are absolutely right that if you own any land, it was, at some point, taken by force from someone else. And that's absolutely fine.
That's how life works. The Native Americans occupied much of what is now North America. The British came and took it from them, by force. Perhaps they were wrong in doing that, but that is now irrelevant. Now that the land belongs to the descendants of those British (as well as the descendants of those to whom the British gave it -- immigrants from other countries and such), it isn't any more rightfully the Native Americans' than it is the Irish' or the Blacks'.
Oh, for heaven's sake, stop dancing around the obvious. Life isn't fair. Someone who lives in the Congo doesn't have the same opportunities as someone in the United Kingdom. So what? Why does that matter?
What do "injustices" have to do with anything? It's a right of conquest. The British came and took the lands of the Native Americans. That isn't unjust, it's war and conquest. It happens, deal with it. It's like Churchill said:
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."
In other words, those who have the guns will get the land and reap its rewards. The same goes with Intellectual Property. Those who have the licenses have the law on their side, and will reap the rewards and get the money from it. The proper solution isn't an anarchic abolition of license. It is an encouragement of free software (or movies or what have you), or having a counter-attack -- getting sympathetic judges, people, etc. It is a democracy after all.
After posting the comment, I realised that nihilistic was in my head because of a completely unrelated conversation. And it was terrorism, if somewhat mild terrorism. My dictionary says that terrorism is ``The practise of coercing governments to accede to political demands by committing violence on civilian targets; any similar use of violence to achieve goals.'' That's precisely what he did!
The difference is irrelevant. All that I meant by saying that I am an ex-Christian, is that I am familiar with Christian teachings. I may not have been a ``true'' Christian, whatever that means, but I am more than familiar with its doctrine, teachings, traditions, etc.
Sure, in that particular instance, no one cast the first stone because the people present all partook in the sin. But the underlying message of the story is that we should not judge others, because we are also guilty ``judge not lest ye be judged''. Also, Abrahamic law clearly states that adulterers should be stoned. Whether or not the other people were guilty is irrelevant; there may be a conflict of interest, but their guilt should not determine her punishment.
As for Jesus enforcing Jewish laws: That is exactly my point! My problem with Jesus is that he takes upon himself to enforce laws, and selectively break them.
You missed the point completely. Do you think you think the saying "people who live in glass houses should not throw stones" is a call to arms for brick house owners? Please.
OK, then, you tell me what is the intended point of the sinless throwing the first stone incident? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always assumed (and been taught) that it means that we should not judge others, because we are ourselves imperfect. This is clearly non-realistic in any organised government, but it's more than just childish and naive -- it's evil. The guilt of one person has nothing to do with the guilt of another. In a representative government, the society protects itself from those who pose a threat to it. The whole thing is rather similar to the absurd ``Why do we kill people who kill others to prove that killing is wrong?'' phenomenon. We kill people who kill others so that they don't kill us (and to give a warning to would-be killers of the consequences). I, myself, don't advocate killing (or, indeed, punishing) adulterers, but if we assume that adultery is an evil crime which should be punished, then not punishing her because we are guilty of some unrelated crime is a very bad philosophy.
What is naive and ridiculous is your grasp of Christianity. You should have paid more attention in Sunday School. The "incident in the temple" had to do with the merchants defiling a holy place. If someone tried to set up a hotdog stand directly on top of your family grave site would you be ok with that? If you asked them politely (yeah right) to relocate would that make you a communist?
That is bullshit and you know it. You are making it out as if the merchants in the temple were an isolated anti-religious group of blasphemers. The temple for the Jews was rather similar to the Forum for the Romans -- it was a meeting ground, a social place, and far more than just a holy shrine. Jesus took it upon himself to commit acts of vandalism and -- for lack of a better word -- terrorism, just to further his own nihilistic philosophy.
Sir (for we all know that there are no women on the Internet), I would be glad to have (and would rather enjoy having) a civilised, enlightening discussion with you, but please, control yourself. There is no need to insult or taunt anyone. Respond to (and, by all means, mercilessly dissect) the argument being made, but leave the one making the argument alone.
I have seen the movie, the trailers and two parodies.
The first point of the movie is that ``Big Science'' is suppressing dissent of Darwanian evolution (specifically, Natural Selection). It says that any scientist who even suggests credibility towards Intelligent Design is getting either fired or in some other way punished.
Looking at both the evidence Stein presents for this, and other evidence not in the movie, I am compelled to agree. However, this is not a bad thing. Intelligent Design is an answer to a scientific question without any scientific evidence, and, more importantly, ignoring scientific evidence that points to the opposite conclusion. Personally, I think any biologist who agrees with Intelligent Design does *not* deserve to be called a biologist. Replace all occurrences with ``Intelligent Design'' with ``Flat Earth hypothesis'' and ``Biologist'' with ``Geologist'' or even ``Physicist'' and what's the difference?
The second point of the movie is that there is a world of difference between Intelligent Design and Creationism. This may be technically true, but at this point, the differences are superficial and irrelevant. Intelligent Design says that an intelligent being, which knew what it was doing created not just us, but the entire world. This is a fundamentally theistic argument, but it goes further -- it attempts to answer scientific questions, and teach it to children.
The third point of the movie is that natural selection is very reminiscent of Nazism (yes, yes, I know Godwin's Law, but the movie does it first). This is true (in the sense that Nazism is based on the Social Darwinism), but by the same token, one could argue that the scientific observation that animals fight out all their conflicts physically implies that humans do the same, and thus that observation is evil or wrong.
The above is a fairly thorough summary of the main points of the film. Two other important observations:
* The movie has an annoying habit of switching to a completely unrelated scene in order to highlight the phrase just uttered (e.g. ``He silenced me!'' cue cut to random 50s film in which some bully is beating up some kid yelling ``Say Uncle!'' -- this particular example didn't occur in the movie, but plenty like it did).
* The movie presents the entire argument in the most incredibly biased, almost childish way possible. Richard Dawkins is the best example of this. When he is on screen, the lighting is noticeably dimmer, and there is actual demonic music in the background. There is a scene showing him getting cleaned and having make up put on him, I guess in order to show how much of a phony he is. There is a scene showing him getting out of a limousine. And, my favourite, in the main interview itself:
First of all, Stein arrives late, as evidenced by the fact that he starts out the interview with ``Sorry to keep you waiting so long''. Second, he asks Richard if he believes in any god. When Dawkins says no, and explains why, Stein clarifies by making sure that he believes in neither Jesus nor Yahweh. ``I just told you,'' Dawkins says. He repeats the reasons. ``So you don't believe in *any* god?'' ``No''. ``Do you believe in the Hindu gods?''
Lastly, Stein, in the overvoice, mocks and manipulates the words of distinguished scientists, including Dawkins. When Stein asked Dawkins if he can see any argument for design, the latter says that the only plausible argument from design is one in which some very intelligent and well-developed being from another planet came and designed *us*. He quickly adds that this doesn't solve the problem, because it would still raise the question, as to where the aliens came from. But Stein would have none of it. ``Richard Dawkins believes in aliens?!?!''
Just to set the record straight:
I am both a strong atheist and an ex-Christian. From everything I've read, I am compelled to say that Jesus probably did exist, but much of what is said about him is not true (not just the supernatural, but a lot of the events, too).
The reason that someone can dislike that which Jesus teaches (at least, according to the Bible) is plenty:
First of all, he forgives people's sins. This is an incredible concept, and one that I hadn't even considered until reading Christopher Hitchens' incredible book God is not Great (http://www.amazon.com/God-Not-Great-Religion-Everything/dp/0446579807). If you consider the incident with ``let the sinless throw the first stone'', you are advocating a society in which guilt is determined only by those who are not, themselves, guilty. That is ludicrous, particularly if Adam's original sin is taken into account.
Second, Jesus is advocating a quasi-communistic, merchant-less society. This is prevalent throughout all of his writings. ``Go sell all you have'', the incident in the Temple, etc. etc. Again, this is naive and ridiculous.
Third, Jesus is remarkably self-centred. He is saying that we must leave our families and follow him; if any of our friends or family says something against Jesus, we should leave him.
Fourth, Jesus has caused innumerable amounts of death and suffering. Perhaps he did this involuntarily, but it still happened.
There are many other reasons, but I am too tired to list them.
As soon as I finish this post, I will friend you. You are my hero.
I am more or less a full-time Ubuntu user. When I bought my most recent laptop (the one on which I am working), I decided to go ahead and try one of the Dell Linux-pre-installed machines (The E1505N). Linux has a reputation of not being very good on laptops, and I figured that if it's pre-installed, it might actually Just Work. And it did. It was Feisty back then, and when Gutsy came out, I upgraded. The upgrade wasn't perfect, and some things were broken, or more so than before. But, on the whole, I am satisfied with Gutsy in that some things actually do work better than before (for me, for example, Compiz under Gutsy is working considerably better than Beryl did under Feisty). Sure, some things could be better, but at least it's not as bad as Vista. I honestly see *nothing* that Vista improved upon.
No, you have a good point.
What I meant by ``writing scripts'', though, was like a line in xinitrc that launches ``svn up'' on startup, and SSH keys if he doesn't have them already. If he wants, also a cron job every how-ever long to run ``svn up''