One's right to life, liberty, property, speech, press, freedom of worship and assembly may not be submitted to vote
It is not "freedom of worship", it is "freedom of religion".
"Freedom of worship" is what you have in Iran. Freedom of religion is what is recognized as a Universal Human Right.
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Thank you for defending free speech. Ideological censorship (see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2944086/posts) scares me. The world is heading towards a totalitarian dictatorship, where any politically incorrect idea is persecuted as "hate speech".
Also, "hate speech" can easily be misused for direct political gain. In Brazil, people have already been punished for criticizing the MST (Landless Workers Movement), which is a violent group of vandals with a far-left ideology. Criticizing the MST was considered an act of "prejudice" and "violation of human rights". Of course, this is convenient for the Brazilian government, which is dominated by the PT (Workers' Party), which is partly center-left and partly far-left. If you read Portuguese, you can see for yourself in http://www.mst.org.br/Outdoor-garante-direito-de-resposta-ao-MST-em-Pernambuco (this if from the MST's own mouth!).
I say, restricting free speech and religious freedom is itself a gross violation of human rights.
It could be wrong, but it's not hypocrisy to assert that you have a superior belief system because your beliefs are testable.
Knowledge goes beyond science. Philosophy, including morality, is not science (cannot be tested). So the instant a fellow makes a moral statement - including "religion is evil" - he went beyond science.
I think you agreed with me, but we used different words.
If the government prohibits me from using a megaphone in a residential street at 3 AM, or distributing child porn, or mounting pornographic outdoors, or disrupting a speech, or unreasonably blocking traffic in an important avenue, I can still reasonably express my ideas.
You can call it "regulation of speech" or "restriction of nuisance" or whatever, the idea is the same.
Well, this is a good point. So, can that apply to the Internet as a 'place'?
I think that people should have the legal right to create their own blogs are discuss any idea about philosophy, politics or religion.
Notice I said _idea_. Child pornography is not an idea. Incitement to murder is not an idea.
So, if someone wants to say "there was no Holocaust", he should have that right (and I have the right, and even the duty, to call him a lunatic). But if someone says "Mr David Goldstein is a filthy Jew! He lives in Park Avenue 53, and he is alone on Saturdays. The man who kills him will be an Aryan hero!", then it should be censored.
Anti-theists accuse religious people of feeling superior to others because they believe in the right religion. Then they add: "actually, WE are superior*, because we have the correct materialist belief". Hypocrisy.
* In Dawkins' own words atheists are "brighter" than theists. ** If you want to reply to point out that "not all atheists are greedy", think again. "Materialist" here is about philosophy, not attachment to money.
If you want the right to criticize religion, then, to be consistent, you should be fighting against the "hate speech" bills that intend to "criminalize homophobia" around the world.
That said, the government has been actively (IMHO) violating the first amendment for a while now, the most stark example being the emergence of "Free Speech Zones" when George W. Bush would travel.
Not judging the specific "Free Speech Zones" you speak about, but in general I think the government can regulate, within limits, the manner, place and time of speech.
Otherwise I could go to your street at 3 AM and express my political views with a megaphone. Or I could put an outdoor in front of a public playground, featuring a woman having sex with a goat.
And they are lenient - if you go to a Catholic university, you will find lots of undisturbed Marxist professors. Hell, even in Catholic parishes you can find Marxist priests.
Only for a very narrow definition of "undisturbed."
The definition of "undisturbed" here is "attacks the Faith and no authority complains".
And there is more than one way to force someone out of an organization than take official action.
Be specific.
In fact, even the USCCB issues very progressive statements on immigration, the environment, the death penalty, government welfare and most other issues.
War, capital punishment, poverty: occasional letters. Homosexuality, abortion, contraception: months-long, well-funded, nationwide lobbying campaigns.
1) Because the government is trying to force the Church to pay for abortifacent devices. 2) Because the right to life and family values are part of the deposit of Faith, while those other issues are prudential judgments.
Nobody was ever denied communion for a war vote.
Again, learn what is a prudential judgment. And it is extremely rare for a pro-abortion politician to be denied communion.
They're not "asking" anything; they're sending in bishops to tell them what to do.
The bishops have done nothing so far. And considering the extreme leniency that the Church extends to even worse heretics (such as the Latin American Liberation Theologians who defend Marxist oppression and political murder), I think the Church will be gentle.
And the Church is absolutely right to do this. Claiming to be a Catholic while attacking the Faith is simply dishonest.
I assure you: if the spokesperson of Greenpeace started defending mass deforestation, he would lose this post.
The laity don't get the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (a/k/a the Inquisition)
Hyperbole, flamebait. The Inquisition practiced violence. The Congregatipon for the Doctrine of Faith only affirms what is Catholic teaching and what is not. In extreme cases, they may move a heretic bishop from his see - this is immensely different from what the Inquisition did. And they are lenient - if you go to a Catholic university, you will find lots of undisturbed Marxist professors. Hell, even in Catholic parishes you can find Marxist priests. In fact, even the USCCB issues very progressive statements on immigration, the environment, the death penalty, government welfare and most other issues. John Paul II opposed the Iraq War. The clergy is only "conservative" on the right to life and family values. Saying that the Church clergy are conservatives is an outright fabrication.
coming after them like the Leadership Conference of Women Religious have. The nuns are clearly held to a higher standard when it comes to focusing less on social justice and more on social conservatism.
The Church is not asking the LCWR to "focus less on social justice"; the Church is only asking them to be more Catholic - respect the importance of the Eucharist, stop absorbing New Age beliefs, stop moving "beyond Jesus" (their words)- and that they _also_ start defending integral Church teaching. Oh, and they should also stop publishing books that defend sexual chaos. They don't have to diminish they anti-poverty actions one bit.
My biggest issue with unity is that the open an application button is not in a corner (annoying to hit) , and worse, when I over-shoot it and go to the corner, I close my current application.
Then I suggest you hit Super or, better yet, Super+A
Because its more of a barebones distro. You add only the parts you need and maybe learn a bit in the process as well. Today I don't think you could even begin to configure Ubuntu using only a text editor. On a normal day do you even use 10% of the bundled programs on Ubuntu?
Some bloat is the price for ease to use. And think Ubuntu runs fine even on lousy hardware (not counting very old hardware, but then you have Xubuntu or Lubuntu).
I used to run Gentoo myself, for the fun and the speed-freakery (although throughput was nothing special; only boot time and load times were smaller than a normal distribution). But then I decided to go back to Ubuntu, to help it achieve critical mass.
The Linux market is already very small, and fragmentation makes it worse.
Both users are thrilled! (They are the two remaining developers.)
Actually,
Since the last version, 3.4, approximately 1112 people made about 38302 changes to GNOME. Anyone can get involved in GNOME to help us to improve our software.
I abandoned Ubuntu after it incorporated Unity. My loss of productivity was too big to continue using it. I was used to a functional desktop with Gnome 2. Gnome 3 is bad enough, but Unity? There is no way in hell I'm sticking with that.
This is political and religious flamebait to get Slashdot page views (click-whoring). This is not news for nerds and specially not "stuff that matters".
Linus made the comment on his google plus feed. He also backtracked and apologized the next day so there is nothing to see here, the story should be marked a flamebait. If you really want to know what Linus thinks and says his Google + page is the best place to start.
If slashdot continues posting this trash, I will boycott it.
To slashdot editors: this can get you page views (and maybe ad clicks) in the short run, but it will scare away thoughtful readers/posters in the long run.
I can't audit it. I can't audit any OS. I can't audit my car, my electricity meters, my gas supply... The only time I will ever know something is up is when it goes catastrophically wrong. Therefore, I won't know if Shuttleworth is being good with my data until I see details only found on my CV being used to serve me adverts. Just like everyone else who isn't a C / Assembly dev.
First, I doubt very much that unity-lens-shopping has assembly code. Second, even if you can't audit it, there is a big number of people who can. It only takes one to find a privacy-threatening bug.
What has changed recently is technology. Google and the modern web didn't exist 20 years ago, yet blocking Google today is (1) a significant political act, and (2) easily achievable. If we come to a day when all information resides in the cloud, censorship will be so simple as to be invisible. No public book burnings, no jack-booted thugs breaking down doors and confiscating printing presses. No optics of any sort. Just a few mouse clicks, and the offensive work disappears. A few more, and any story that mentions the disappearance itself disappears.
Yes, I fear that too. Dystopian science fiction focuses on self-aware computers (like Skynet, or the machines in The Matrix). I don't fear this, because I think this will take a _long_ time to happen, assuming it _ever_ happens. But I do think that we can design algorithms that partially understand natural language. That seems feasible. Now combine these algorithms with micro UAVs with cameras and microphones. This could make 1984 real.
Not to mention doomsday devices. We already have biological and nuclear weapons. These two could get more potent in the future. And proliferation. Proliferation scares me. The Soviets, as crazy as they were, still had sufficient reason to not start a nuclear war with the USA. But what happens when some rogue terrorist group gets nuclear weapons? Again, this scares me. And then there is the grey goo scenario.
But what scares me the most is human genetic engineering. Genetic screening is becoming cheaper and safer, and I think people will start to make children with IVF and eugenic selection. After many generations, this could form a race of big, strong, intelligent, powerful beings, who maybe would not even identify as humans.
But there will always be a minority (such as Christians) that will refuse to do this. They would be the naturals. So we would have a Brave New World style of dystopia. Now, you could object that our society already has separated classes: the rich, and the rest. But the rich are a small minority, and they have few votes. So this attenuates their dominance. But in the scenario I described above, the naturals would be a _minority_, and they would be weaker and less intelligent, and also (presumably) poorer. So they would be completely dominated. And since the non-naturals do not even identify as humans (they consider themselves to be another species), they wouldn't feel much empathy towards us... This scares me. The naturals could be treated as animals.
For example, I didn't know that Vatican II had addressed the issue of government censorship. Mostly I thought it dealt with more basic matters of worship (such as eating meat on Friday, that sort of thing).
I unfortunately have never read the Vatican II documents myself, but I know that they defend religious freedom, they condemn antisemitism, and they recognize the value of other religions. Even imperfect religions like Islam have elements of Truth and can lead (inefficiently) to God. Note that the Catholic Church still teaches (and will always teach) that it is the one true religion, the one Church created by God Himself; but it recognizes the freedom to choose one's religion, the freedom to express one's religion and seek converts, and to practice one's religion in private and in public - assuming that religion does not seriously harm the common good (say, by promoting child sacrifice).
Anyway, whether or not you choose to reply, thanks for the convo.
I like debating too. I like to share my crazy ideas.
What am I supposed to do? It seems that every other domain (including important domains like gmodules.com) has acted as an intermediary resulting in further distribution of malware! Should I block them all (excluding some very essential ones)?
And as long as you don't have flash, java or the pdf plugin, you're a long way towards safety.
I leave the flash plugin disabled, and only enable it for youtube videos that don't work with HTML5 (unless I use youtube-dl). I never used PDF plugins; I think it is much better to open PDF files with a dedicated viewer (in my case, evince). I recently disabled Java because of the 0day shenanigans and I only enable it for one (trusted) site that needs it.
By the way, I have realized that I care a lot about computer security, but sometimes I do dangerous things like crossing a street without paying enough attention... If I go on like this, some day I will get killed, but my computers will be clean. O.o
Slashdot Mirror
It is not "freedom of worship", it is "freedom of religion".
"Freedom of worship" is what you have in Iran. Freedom of religion is what is recognized as a Universal Human Right.
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Thank you for defending free speech.
Ideological censorship (see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2944086/posts) scares me. The world is heading towards a totalitarian dictatorship, where any politically incorrect idea is persecuted as "hate speech".
Also, "hate speech" can easily be misused for direct political gain. In Brazil, people have already been punished for criticizing the MST (Landless Workers Movement), which is a violent group of vandals with a far-left ideology.
Criticizing the MST was considered an act of "prejudice" and "violation of human rights". Of course, this is convenient for the Brazilian government, which is dominated by the PT (Workers' Party), which is partly center-left and partly far-left.
If you read Portuguese, you can see for yourself in http://www.mst.org.br/Outdoor-garante-direito-de-resposta-ao-MST-em-Pernambuco (this if from the MST's own mouth!).
I say, restricting free speech and religious freedom is itself a gross violation of human rights.
Give one example where science (alone! No philosophy allowed) decides what is moral.
Knowledge goes beyond science.
Philosophy, including morality, is not science (cannot be tested).
So the instant a fellow makes a moral statement - including "religion is evil" - he went beyond science.
See http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3186197&cid=41659991 and http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3186197&cid=41660253.
I think you agreed with me, but we used different words.
If the government prohibits me from using a megaphone in a residential street at 3 AM, or distributing child porn, or mounting pornographic outdoors, or disrupting a speech, or unreasonably blocking traffic in an important avenue, I can still reasonably express my ideas.
You can call it "regulation of speech" or "restriction of nuisance" or whatever, the idea is the same.
I think that people should have the legal right to create their own blogs are discuss any idea about philosophy, politics or religion.
Notice I said _idea_. Child pornography is not an idea. Incitement to murder is not an idea.
So, if someone wants to say "there was no Holocaust", he should have that right (and I have the right, and even the duty, to call him a lunatic).
But if someone says "Mr David Goldstein is a filthy Jew! He lives in Park Avenue 53, and he is alone on Saturdays. The man who kills him will be an Aryan hero!", then it should be censored.
Anti-theists accuse religious people of feeling superior to others because they believe in the right religion.
Then they add: "actually, WE are superior*, because we have the correct materialist belief".
Hypocrisy.
* In Dawkins' own words atheists are "brighter" than theists.
** If you want to reply to point out that "not all atheists are greedy", think again. "Materialist" here is about philosophy, not attachment to money.
If you want the right to criticize religion, then, to be consistent, you should be fighting against the "hate speech" bills that intend to "criminalize homophobia" around the world.
If you defend free speech, do it consistently.
Do you have any evidence of this great racism in America, or you were just throwing accusations around?
Not judging the specific "Free Speech Zones" you speak about, but in general I think the government can regulate, within limits, the manner, place and time of speech.
Otherwise I could go to your street at 3 AM and express my political views with a megaphone.
Or I could put an outdoor in front of a public playground, featuring a woman having sex with a goat.
The definition of "undisturbed" here is "attacks the Faith and no authority complains".
Be specific.
1) Because the government is trying to force the Church to pay for abortifacent devices.
2) Because the right to life and family values are part of the deposit of Faith, while those other issues are prudential judgments.
Again, learn what is a prudential judgment.
And it is extremely rare for a pro-abortion politician to be denied communion.
The bishops have done nothing so far. And considering the extreme leniency that the Church extends to even worse heretics (such as the Latin American Liberation Theologians who defend Marxist oppression and political murder), I think the Church will be gentle.
And the Church is absolutely right to do this. Claiming to be a Catholic while attacking the Faith is simply dishonest.
I assure you: if the spokesperson of Greenpeace started defending mass deforestation, he would lose this post.
Hyperbole, flamebait. The Inquisition practiced violence. The Congregatipon for the Doctrine of Faith only affirms what is Catholic teaching and what is not. In extreme cases, they may move a heretic bishop from his see - this is immensely different from what the Inquisition did.
And they are lenient - if you go to a Catholic university, you will find lots of undisturbed Marxist professors. Hell, even in Catholic parishes you can find Marxist priests.
In fact, even the USCCB issues very progressive statements on immigration, the environment, the death penalty, government welfare and most other issues. John Paul II opposed the Iraq War. The clergy is only "conservative" on the right to life and family values.
Saying that the Church clergy are conservatives is an outright fabrication.
The Church is not asking the LCWR to "focus less on social justice"; the Church is only asking them to be more Catholic - respect the importance of the Eucharist, stop absorbing New Age beliefs, stop moving "beyond Jesus" (their words)- and that they _also_ start defending integral Church teaching. Oh, and they should also stop publishing books that defend sexual chaos.
They don't have to diminish they anti-poverty actions one bit.
Like the billion+ Catholics who do not break into abortion clinics? How many of those are excommunicated? Zero.
Please don't attack straw men.
Then I suggest you hit Super or, better yet, Super+A
Pardon my ignorance, but don't you have to manually keep track of package dependencies on Slackware?
How exactly do you install (say) Emacs on Slackware?
Some bloat is the price for ease to use. And think Ubuntu runs fine even on lousy hardware (not counting very old hardware, but then you have Xubuntu or Lubuntu).
I used to run Gentoo myself, for the fun and the speed-freakery (although throughput was nothing special; only boot time and load times were smaller than a normal distribution). But then I decided to go back to Ubuntu, to help it achieve critical mass.
The Linux market is already very small, and fragmentation makes it worse.
What advantage does Slackware have that makes up for its inconveniences?
Actually,
Gnome is alive and kicking.
Specifically, what is wrong with Unity?
This is political and religious flamebait to get Slashdot page views (click-whoring). This is not news for nerds and specially not "stuff that matters".
Also see http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3146679&cid=41474071:
If slashdot continues posting this trash, I will boycott it.
To slashdot editors: this can get you page views (and maybe ad clicks) in the short run, but it will scare away thoughtful readers/posters in the long run.
First, I doubt very much that unity-lens-shopping has assembly code.
Second, even if you can't audit it, there is a big number of people who can. It only takes one to find a privacy-threatening bug.
Yes, I fear that too. Dystopian science fiction focuses on self-aware computers (like Skynet, or the machines in The Matrix). I don't fear this, because I think this will take a _long_ time to happen, assuming it _ever_ happens. But I do think that we can design algorithms that partially understand natural language. That seems feasible. Now combine these algorithms with micro UAVs with cameras and microphones. This could make 1984 real.
Not to mention doomsday devices. We already have biological and nuclear weapons. These two could get more potent in the future. And proliferation. Proliferation scares me. The Soviets, as crazy as they were, still had sufficient reason to not start a nuclear war with the USA. But what happens when some rogue terrorist group gets nuclear weapons? Again, this scares me.
And then there is the grey goo scenario.
But what scares me the most is human genetic engineering. Genetic screening is becoming cheaper and safer, and I think people will start to make children with IVF and eugenic selection. After many generations, this could form a race of big, strong, intelligent, powerful beings, who maybe would not even identify as humans.
But there will always be a minority (such as Christians) that will refuse to do this. They would be the naturals. So we would have a Brave New World style of dystopia.
Now, you could object that our society already has separated classes: the rich, and the rest. But the rich are a small minority, and they have few votes. So this attenuates their dominance. But in the scenario I described above, the naturals would be a _minority_, and they would be weaker and less intelligent, and also (presumably) poorer. So they would be completely dominated. And since the non-naturals do not even identify as humans (they consider themselves to be another species), they wouldn't feel much empathy towards us... This scares me. The naturals could be treated as animals.
I unfortunately have never read the Vatican II documents myself, but I know that they defend religious freedom, they condemn antisemitism, and they recognize the value of other religions. Even imperfect religions like Islam have elements of Truth and can lead (inefficiently) to God. Note that the Catholic Church still teaches (and will always teach) that it is the one true religion, the one Church created by God Himself; but it recognizes the freedom to choose one's religion, the freedom to express one's religion and seek converts, and to practice one's religion in private and in public - assuming that religion does not seriously harm the common good (say, by promoting child sacrifice).
I like debating too. I like to share my crazy ideas.
I was auditing my Noscript whitelist. For every domain in the whitelist, I checked the Noscript page on it - such as http://noscript.net/about/test.com;test.com.
I am puzzled by the Google Safe Browsing Diagnostic results. It yields worrying results for a lot of domains that are listed as safe by all the other tools.
For example, see http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=gmodules.com
What am I supposed to do? It seems that every other domain (including important domains like gmodules.com) has acted as an intermediary resulting in further distribution of malware! Should I block them all (excluding some very essential ones)?
I leave the flash plugin disabled, and only enable it for youtube videos that don't work with HTML5 (unless I use youtube-dl).
I never used PDF plugins; I think it is much better to open PDF files with a dedicated viewer (in my case, evince).
I recently disabled Java because of the 0day shenanigans and I only enable it for one (trusted) site that needs it.
By the way, I have realized that I care a lot about computer security, but sometimes I do dangerous things like crossing a street without paying enough attention... If I go on like this, some day I will get killed, but my computers will be clean. O.o