hy pick a guy that appeals to those on the far right
"Far right"? Don't demonize your political adversareis. This causes polarization, hatred, alienation and isolation. It also makes collabortation almost imposssible. Paul Ryan is not "far right" any more than the DEM is "far left".
I.e. if only one out of a hundred shops in the area refuse to service gays/blacks/etc, I don't see it as sufficient grounds for the state to intervene. But if, say, a quarter of them do that, that's a different thing.
There is a huge difference between discriminating by behavior ("we only give kids to married foster couples") and discriminating by race or gender ("whites only").
And if sexual behavior discrimination must be forbidden, then I would use different criteria than yours.
I would monitor not the "percentage of discrimination", but the _size_ of the companies that discriminate. Individuals and tiny companies would not be restricted. There must also be exemptions for religious institutions - forcing a Christian seminary to ordain active homosexuals as priests would be preposterous.
Opus Dei, on the other hand, is an organization, with hierarchy and purpose - so yes, it could reasonably be involved in undercover projects. That its membership is secret is somewhat worrying, and their general aura of secrecy around their activities does not lend them much trust. At the same time, it's what makes it hard to verify any rumors regarding them, so I have to assume that those are just rumors unless and until they actually are substantiated.
This is simply not true. There is a large difference between discreetness and secrecy. It is true that Opus Dei does not publicize a list of their members; but neither does any religious organization that I know. It is also true that Opus Dei members are generally discreet, don't wear Opus Dei t-shirts, etc. Opus Dei schools do not have "Opus Dei" in their name - but they generally link to Opus Dei in their homepage, and mention Opus Dei in their "about" page. See for example http://www.unav.es/servicio/informacion/mission. And if you ask a member , he/she will tell it. So when Joe enters Opus Dei, it takes only a few days for his friends to know about it; then, if he is famous, his Wikipedia page will immediately include it. This is hardly "secret". Second, the Opus Dei teaching is the same as regular Catholic teaching. And the particular "charisma" of Opus Dei is open for all to see: books are available for a small price, and many are available for free over the Internet. See http://www.escrivaworks.org/ Third, Opus Dei is apolitical; and the rare Opus Dei members in political positions are often in centrist or center-left parties.
After Bush, the religion of any American president bothers me. I don't know which will be the next one claiming God spoke to him and told him to do such and such. That said, Santorum bothers me more than Romney in that regard, as I consider him more likely to "hear voices" - his politics seems to be guided by religion much more so than I feel comfortable.
But Catholicism is an extremely stable religion. It is not like the opposition to abortion was invented last year; in fact, the Church prides itself in NOT changing any essential teaching for 2000 years. So you KNOW what a faithful Catholic thinks about social issues (abortion, pornography, etc.); he is not going to "hear voices" and change his mind.
If you mean as a part of valediction, then that depends on whether it's a public or a private school. In a public school, no, since they are not supposed to promote religion, and valediction is effectively a part of the official ceremony rather than a purely personal address. A private school can, of course, set its own rules in that regard.
The 1st Amendment says _Congress shall make no law_ respecting an establishment of religion. So: 1) If the Federal Congress mandated
I've tagged this story "wonderful". This could attract serious gaming investment. I bet it is viable to port the Ouya API to desktop Linux, thus making Linux a viable gaming platform.
This could go a long way in solving the vicious circle - developers don't target Linux because it is a small market, and users don't adopt Linux because it doesn't run the applications they need.
Thing is, I'm actually rather against Islam myself (or really anti-religion in general, just seeing Islam as the most dangerous and aggressive of the bunch at the moment)
How strong is that dislike for religion? Do you agree with churches having an active voice in society (see link 1 below)? Do you agree with the legally-enforced marginalization of Christian viewpoints on family values (see links 2-6)? Do you believe in conspiracy theories involving Jews or Opus Dei? Does Mitt Romney's or Rick Santorum's religion bother you? Do you support the right of a valedictorian to pray?
I found your comments well-balanced, except for this one. I would like to know your opinion on this matter.
If you find 6 links to be too much, please read at least links 1 and 2. I guarantee you will find them informative.
Why is Slashdot so uniformly against Unity? Comments with 4 or 5 mod points are almost entirely anti-Unity.
Yet many of my colleagues accept Unity. Ars Technica has positively reviewed Ubuntu 12.04. In Ubuntu Software center, , the average review is 3-star, but the most recent reviews are, on average, 4-star.
I tagged the story antigoogle. DNT was supposed to be opt-in. Advertisers would likely respect it, because only a small minority of users would enable it. And that paranoid minority does not click on ads in the first place. So the loss for advertisers would be negilgible, and they would get a PR boost.
But because of Microsoft, a significant number of web users, who were likely to click on ads, will have DNT enabled. This makes it very expensive to respect DNT.
Let's hope the advertisers will simply disregard DNT when the UA indicates MSIE 10+.
This action by Microsoft is: 1) **ck Google 2) A PR stunt
Kudos to Microsoft for calling it like it is on this one.
Oh please. It was supposed to be opt-in. Advertisers could very well respect DNT as opt-in, because only a small minority would turn it on. And that minority is unlikely to click on ads in the first place. So the financial impact for advertisers would be negilgible, and they would get a PR boost.
But because of Microsoft, a significant number of web users, who were likely to click on ads, will have DNT by default. This makes it very expensive to respect DNT.
Let's hope the advertisers will simply disregard DNT when the UA indicates MSIE 10+.
This move by Microsoft is: 1) **ck Google 2) A PR stunt
I love Unity. It is beautiful, easy, convenient, fun and save screen real state. I can only think that people who hate it do it simply because it is different.
Wrong. They never cash in their investments, so they never pay that tax. They leverage their assets for cheap loans. Jobs was a master of this, as is Ellison.
Please elaborate on that. As cheap as the loan may be, it still will have an above-inflation interest rate. So they will not profit much from their assets.
BNW is a dystopia; it has widespread violations of human dignity.
Everyone who believes in natural law and universal human rights is shocked by your post.
And the purpose of life is not to be happy through blissful ignorance. This would horrify the ancient Greek philosophers who wrote "The unexamined life is not worth living for a human being."
By the way, maybe we should give up on having a closure for this. Some smart and powerful people are behind SCO. They will continue to enrich themselves, even if the small shareholders get nothing. Paying attention to this will do nothing but depress us.
Just wanted to say thank you. More companies/organizations should do this. Once the money stream from a piece of code becomes thin, donate it to the public. Common sense.
The third world will carry on starving until they have enough education to limit the number of children they have
There is no global overpopulation. Some places (such as Japan) are already experiencing population aging and decline, which is bad in many ways. Other places (such as the USA and specially Europe) already have sub-replacement fertility rates, and their population only grows because of demographic lag and immigration. It is predicted the the European Union population (now at 503M) will reach zero natural population increase by 2015 and zero total population increase in 2035 (at 520M), then start declining.
The USA will grow from 310M in 2010 to 403M in 2050. [1] Asia will increase from 4.2B in 2010 to 5.1B in 2050, then start declining. [2]
The only region that is really growing is Africa. It will increase from 1B in 2010 to 2.2B in 2050. [2] Then its population density will be 73/km2. [3] Compare that to the current population density in Portugal (115/km2), in South Korea (487/km2) and in Taiwan (641/km2). [4]
Global population is predicted to grow from 7B in 2011 to 9B in 2050 and 10B in 2100 [5] and start falling soon after [6].
And according to [7], 40-50% of America-produced food is thrown away. According to [8], 1/3 of the world food is thrown away. And this does not take into account that people eat, just for pleasure, excessive quantities of resource-intensive food (such as meat). If Americans/Europeans want to help the poor, an easy way would be to decrease (say, by 30%) their diet of meat. This will immediately reduce food demand and, for double bonus, the saved money can be donated to charity. And much arable land is wasted on subsidized inefficient corn-based ethanol. You can lobby your government to stop that.
Plus, there does not seem to be a negative correlation between population density and GDP per capita. [9]
African hunger is not caused by overpopulation. It is caused by corrupt and authoritarian governments, and by guerrillas/terrorists motivated by Marxism, theocractic Islamism, ethnic hate or simply greed.
Overpopulation fear-mongering is very old - at least as old as Malthus. One of its more recent incarnations was the 1968 book "The Population Bomb", which predicted mass starvation to occur in the 1970s.
Anyway, for better or for worse, there is already strong action taken by individuals, foundations, and Western governments, to restrict fertility in Africa.
People bash Microsoft because Microsoft used its monopoly to force Windows down the throats of people who did not want it. People bash Microsoft because it dumped MSIE into the market until Netscape died, then let MSIE stagnate for an eternity. Also, because MSIE had awful standars compliance and, because it was dominant, alternative browser makers had to emulate its infinite bugs, which took many years to achieve. People bash Microsoft because of the Halloween Documents.
And, what would happen without Microsoft? Likely, open source would be far more prevalent than it is today.
Now, I agree that Apple has become worse than Microsoft. This suggests that if a company gets too big, it will probably become Microsoft-style harmful. And if Microsoft shrinks, and can become good.
But saying that Microsoft was a benefactor? Oh please.
Slashdot Mirror
"Far right"? Don't demonize your political adversareis. This causes polarization, hatred, alienation and isolation. It also makes collabortation almost imposssible.
Paul Ryan is not "far right" any more than the DEM is "far left".
Do you agree with homeschooling and school choice? I do. See article 26, item 3 at http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/.
There is a huge difference between discriminating by behavior ("we only give kids to married foster couples") and discriminating by race or gender ("whites only").
And if sexual behavior discrimination must be forbidden, then I would use different criteria than yours.
I would monitor not the "percentage of discrimination", but the _size_ of the companies that discriminate. Individuals and tiny companies would not be restricted. There must also be exemptions for religious institutions - forcing a Christian seminary to ordain active homosexuals as priests would be preposterous.
This is simply not true. There is a large difference between discreetness and secrecy. It is true that Opus Dei does not publicize a list of their members; but neither does any religious organization that I know. It is also true that Opus Dei members are generally discreet, don't wear Opus Dei t-shirts, etc. Opus Dei schools do not have "Opus Dei" in their name - but they generally link to Opus Dei in their homepage, and mention Opus Dei in their "about" page. See for example http://www.unav.es/servicio/informacion/mission.
And if you ask a member , he/she will tell it. So when Joe enters Opus Dei, it takes only a few days for his friends to know about it; then, if he is famous, his Wikipedia page will immediately include it. This is hardly "secret".
Second, the Opus Dei teaching is the same as regular Catholic teaching. And the particular "charisma" of Opus Dei is open for all to see: books are available for a small price, and many are available for free over the Internet. See http://www.escrivaworks.org/
Third, Opus Dei is apolitical; and the rare Opus Dei members in political positions are often in centrist or center-left parties.
But Catholicism is an extremely stable religion. It is not like the opposition to abortion was invented last year; in fact, the Church prides itself in NOT changing any essential teaching for 2000 years. So you KNOW what a faithful Catholic thinks about social issues (abortion, pornography, etc.); he is not going to "hear voices" and change his mind.
The 1st Amendment says _Congress shall make no law_ respecting an establishment of religion. So:
1) If the Federal Congress mandated
I've tagged this story "wonderful". This could attract serious gaming investment. I bet it is viable to port the Ouya API to desktop Linux, thus making Linux a viable gaming platform.
This could go a long way in solving the vicious circle - developers don't target Linux because it is a small market, and users don't adopt Linux because it doesn't run the applications they need.
Wonderful.
How strong is that dislike for religion?
Do you agree with churches having an active voice in society (see link 1 below)?
Do you agree with the legally-enforced marginalization of Christian viewpoints on family values (see links 2-6)?
Do you believe in conspiracy theories involving Jews or Opus Dei?
Does Mitt Romney's or Rick Santorum's religion bother you?
Do you support the right of a valedictorian to pray?
I found your comments well-balanced, except for this one. I would like to know your opinion on this matter.
If you find 6 links to be too much, please read at least links 1 and 2. I guarantee you will find them informative.
==Links==
===Church-state balance===
1. "Why Church and State Must Be Separate" by Benedict XVI, http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ratzinger2.html
===Legally-enforced marginalization of Christianity===
2. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html
3. "Christian foster couple lose 'homosexuality views' case", http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-12598896
4. "Last Catholic adoption agency faces closure after Charity Commission ruling"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7952526/Last-Catholic-adoption-agency-faces-closure-after-Charity-Commission-ruling.html
5. "Defining Religious Liberty Down", http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/opinion/sunday/douthat-defining-religious-liberty-down.html
6. "Controversy over Heaven" http://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/controversy-over-heaven
Thank you for that insight.
It separates the help forums.
And I think the main Mint edition (based on Ubuntu) is not fully compatible with Ubuntu repositories (AFAIK).
Why is Slashdot so uniformly against Unity?
Comments with 4 or 5 mod points are almost entirely anti-Unity.
Yet many of my colleagues accept Unity. Ars Technica has positively reviewed Ubuntu 12.04. In Ubuntu Software center, , the average review is 3-star, but the most recent reviews are, on average, 4-star.
So why all the Slashdot hate?
I tagged the story antigoogle.
DNT was supposed to be opt-in. Advertisers would likely respect it, because only a small minority of users would enable it. And that paranoid minority does not click on ads in the first place. So the loss for advertisers would be negilgible, and they would get a PR boost.
But because of Microsoft, a significant number of web users, who were likely to click on ads, will have DNT enabled. This makes it very expensive to respect DNT.
Let's hope the advertisers will simply disregard DNT when the UA indicates MSIE 10+.
This action by Microsoft is:
1) **ck Google
2) A PR stunt
What makes you think Mozilla has a material interest on this?
I trust Mozilla to have good intention.
Oh please. It was supposed to be opt-in. Advertisers could very well respect DNT as opt-in, because only a small minority would turn it on. And that minority is unlikely to click on ads in the first place. So the financial impact for advertisers would be negilgible, and they would get a PR boost.
But because of Microsoft, a significant number of web users, who were likely to click on ads, will have DNT by default. This makes it very expensive to respect DNT.
Let's hope the advertisers will simply disregard DNT when the UA indicates MSIE 10+.
This move by Microsoft is:
1) **ck Google
2) A PR stunt
I imagine most of the water would be used for irrigation, and most of that would go down back to the aquifer.
Who did mod it down? It is absolutely NOT against Slashdot comment guidelines.
It is my genuine view. It is polite and on topic.
Shame on you, moderators! There are _guidelines_ for moderation, you are not supposed to mod down everything you disagree with!
Yes, of course BNW was meant to be a cautionary tale. But look at the post I replied to. The guy says BNW is an utopia!
I love Unity. It is beautiful, easy, convenient, fun and save screen real state.
I can only think that people who hate it do it simply because it is different.
It increases fragmentation. Our community is already tiny; we can't afford to be divided.
I switched from Gentoo to Ubuntu for this reason. I am now better informed to help people fix their Ubuntu problems; everyone benefits.
By the way, Unity is very good. it is beautiful, easy, convenient, fun, and saves screen real state.
Please elaborate on that. As cheap as the loan may be, it still will have an above-inflation interest rate. So they will not profit much from their assets.
BNW is an utopia?
BNW is a dystopia; it has widespread violations of human dignity.
Everyone who believes in natural law and universal human rights is shocked by your post.
And the purpose of life is not to be happy through blissful ignorance. This would horrify the ancient Greek philosophers who wrote
"The unexamined life is not worth living for a human being."
Not precisely a sci-fi, but the saddest story I've ever read. The ending is worse than I could imagine.
I was emotionally traumatized for reading that.
I'm tagging this story "zombie".
By the way, maybe we should give up on having a closure for this. Some smart and powerful people are behind SCO. They will continue to enrich themselves, even if the small shareholders get nothing. Paying attention to this will do nothing but depress us.
Check out:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3026767&cid=40881041
And that guy was modded +4 Insightful!
This is false and you know it.
If Microsoft simply provided proprietary products, we could simply ignore them.
The problem is that they manipulate the market in unethical ways.
Just wanted to say thank you. More companies/organizations should do this.
Once the money stream from a piece of code becomes thin, donate it to the public. Common sense.
Regards
There is no global overpopulation. Some places (such as Japan) are already experiencing population aging and decline, which is bad in many ways. Other places (such as the USA and specially Europe) already have sub-replacement fertility rates, and their population only grows because of demographic lag and immigration. It is predicted the the European Union population (now at 503M) will reach zero natural population increase by 2015 and zero total population increase in 2035 (at 520M), then start declining.
The USA will grow from 310M in 2010 to 403M in 2050. [1]
Asia will increase from 4.2B in 2010 to 5.1B in 2050, then start declining. [2]
The only region that is really growing is Africa. It will increase from 1B in 2010 to 2.2B in 2050. [2] Then its population density will be 73/km2. [3] Compare that to the current population density in Portugal (115/km2), in South Korea (487/km2) and in Taiwan (641/km2). [4]
Global population is predicted to grow from 7B in 2011 to 9B in 2050 and 10B in 2100 [5] and start falling soon after [6].
And according to [7], 40-50% of America-produced food is thrown away. According to [8], 1/3 of the world food is thrown away.
And this does not take into account that people eat, just for pleasure, excessive quantities of resource-intensive food (such as meat). If Americans/Europeans want to help the poor, an easy way would be to decrease (say, by 30%) their diet of meat. This will immediately reduce food demand and, for double bonus, the saved money can be donated to charity. And much arable land is wasted on subsidized inefficient corn-based ethanol. You can lobby your government to stop that.
Plus, there does not seem to be a negative correlation between population density and GDP per capita. [9]
African hunger is not caused by overpopulation. It is caused by corrupt and authoritarian governments, and by guerrillas/terrorists motivated by Marxism, theocractic Islamism, ethnic hate or simply greed.
Overpopulation fear-mongering is very old - at least as old as Malthus. One of its more recent incarnations was the 1968 book "The Population Bomb", which predicted mass starvation to occur in the 1970s.
Anyway, for better or for worse, there is already strong action taken by individuals, foundations, and Western governments, to restrict fertility in Africa.
1 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_11.htm
2 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_2.htm
3 : According to [2], Africa will have 2.2B people in 2050, and according to Google[10] and Wikipedia [11], the area of Africa is 30,221,532 km2
4 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density
5 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_1.htm
6 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_6.htm
7 : http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=56376-us-wastes-half
8 : http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/74192/icode/
9 : http://sanamagan.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/population-population-density-gdp-per-capita-ppp/
10 : https://www.google.com.br/search?q=africa+area
11 :
People bash Microsoft because Microsoft used its monopoly to force Windows down the throats of people who did not want it.
People bash Microsoft because it dumped MSIE into the market until Netscape died, then let MSIE stagnate for an eternity. Also, because MSIE had awful standars compliance and, because it was dominant, alternative browser makers had to emulate its infinite bugs, which took many years to achieve.
People bash Microsoft because of the Halloween Documents.
And, what would happen without Microsoft? Likely, open source would be far more prevalent than it is today.
Now, I agree that Apple has become worse than Microsoft. This suggests that if a company gets too big, it will probably become Microsoft-style harmful. And if Microsoft shrinks, and can become good.
But saying that Microsoft was a benefactor? Oh please.
All I need to say is that someday you must regret this. Encouraging someone to suicide is Nazy-level of evil.