London is outside US jurisdiction, unless Tony Blair is off his medicines again, which raises all kinds of jurisdiction issues. The copying (not storing, copying) would have occurred in England. This is an English company. English law is the only law that can be applied to an alleged civil offense in England.
Actually, British copyrights are enforceable in the US, and vice versa. It's called the Berne Convention
No, it says that you can be v2 or later. If you try and distribute under v3 only, or "v3 or any later version", you are no longer abiding by the original license terms which specifically identify v2 as legit.
I not sure you're correct in this. I'm not fluent in lawyerspeak, but plain english meaning would be you only have to meet one of the "or" conditions. So something licensed as "GPLv2 or later" could be redistributed under GPLv3 only, or "GPLv3 or later". To prevent this, the wording of the original license would have to be "GPLv2 and later". It's the "or" that allows you to distribute it as GPLv3, as it meets the "later" condition.
That's pretty much what "or" does, it allows you to meet either condition, it does not require both conditions.
My own definition of a free software license is one that in addition to Stallman's four freedoms, also:
Actually, your third point:
Places no conditions on redistribution or end use, of any kind.
... subtracts from the GPL, not adds to it. The freedom you describe stops with one "generation" of distribution. So the developer is free with BSD licensed software, but since the software can be distributed as proprietry, the end user does not necessarily get the benefits of any "freeness" of the software. With the GPL, essentially the software itself is kept "Free" and the end user therefore has the benefits of that freedom.
Presumably you are a developer. BSD gives you personally more freedom, but that does not really mean it is more free. It depends on who the intended beneficiary of the freedom is.
What I mean is that the goals of giving away software and maintaining control over it are, at some level, not entirely compatible.
What I mean is that the goals of selling software and maintaining control over it are, at some level, not entirely compatible.
Tell it to MicroSoft. They require more from you just to get the software to use (ie: money and EULA) and they maintain far more control. FSF are not interested in giving away software per se, they are interested in providing Free software. It seems to me they only really aim to control it to the extent of ensuring it remains Free according to their definition and goals.
It's not as though I'm laying down the law here - saying that gifts must be given freely - I'm just talking about my perspective, and how I feel about the license, and the general question of what it really means to give something away while retaining control over it.
The FSF's "gift" of software to you is not because they like you and want to give you a present, it's distributed to further a philosophical mission. It's not worth trying to change their direction on this. It would be easier to change the software you use or the license you use.
For what it's worth, after becoming familiar with various software licenses, I read the GPLv2 when installing the GIMP. After seeing the quality of a few programs, I thought "This will take over". I see no reason to revise my opinion, and I think GPLv3 will take this process further towards its conclusion.
If a piece of GPLv2 software is not owned by a single entity (or had all right assigned to a single entity) it can never become "GPLv3 or any later version.
Well, I'm not experienced in law, but surely it can. The word "or" in "GPLv2 or any later version" would give the rights to distribute the software and/or derivatives licenced under GPLv3 (any later version) without making it available under GPLv2.
Jacob and Leah's daughter, the story is in Genesis 34 (no, I don't have the bible memorised, I have it on my computer). There a quite a few ways that people became married in the bible, as far as I know, none of them considered the definitive way it has to be done. There generally seems to have been a promise to marry, then the actual marriage, but it's easy to find examples different to this, even in the Old Testament law.
I can't believe that she didn't let him touch her for nine months, but suddenly was pregnant.
The book says Mary became pregant when they were betrothed (Luke 1:27), she stayed with Elizabeth for 3 months (Luke 1:56), by the time Jesus was born they were already married. I think it is probably not unusual for a pregnant woman to not have sex, and depending on what era and culture, not unusual for a woman to be a virgin when married.
The path I took and recommend for most people who want to change is to dual boot. I did for a year, then I was competent enough to do everything I needed in Linux, but I hadn't compromised my ability to use my computer in the meantime.
There's no one point along the chain where you can safely point and say 'THIS is practical, but THAT thing right next to it is IMPRACTICAL and sinful'.
I have found that the point people use is "just above my level". I have even heard a multi-millionaire critisize the rich(er). "No-one needs that amount of money."
A lot of the art of persuasion requires the persuader to apply some form of pressure (usually non-physical) onto their intended victim.
The method of persuasion you are referring to is called manipulation and is generally counter productive, especially in longer term associations. For persuasion in longer term relationships: people are more easily persuaded by you if they like and trust you. They like you if you make them feel good. You make them feel good by being nice/considerate to them. You get them to trust you by making sure that they benefit from their interactions with you.
When I write an email I'm able to think about what I say before I say it and rearrange things after the fact if it comes out wrong. Can't do that in conversation, you have to get it right the first time, and know exactly where you're going and how you're going to get there before you start. Been trying for years, but simply can't. What then?
The answer to "What then?" is : learn. You say you've tried, but I suspect you have made the same mistake I did for a long time, which is to assume that you should just somehow know how to deal with people by yourself. The reality is that it is a learned skill, most easily pick up by learning from someone who is already good at it. Books can be a great resource.
Practising is of little value if you don't first have an idea of what specific skill it is you are trying to practice.
As for being prepared, this is also a skill, and quite easy, eg:
1. Start the conversation by letting them know that it's not conclusive. You could say something like "I've got some thoughts on [subject], I'd like to get your input on while I'm still thinking about it....", this gives you an out when they say something you don't expect.
2. When they say something you don't expect "I've never looked at it that way, I'll think it over and get back to you"
3. If they push for a quick desicion "Honestly, what you've said seems pretty important, I think it deserves more consideration than I've got time for right now, I'll get back to you"
I use an ATI radeon 9000 64 Mb with the opensource drivers and it runs the eyecandy fine. Newer radeons are supported by the r300 driver. Not the latest, but newer than mine, up to 9800 or the x800 if I remember correctly.
Why is ethanol so popular these days as an alternative fuel as opposed to other green fuel solutions?
Easy conversion to existing motors and distribution networks. While the oil companies might have trouble getting their desired cut, you could have minor modification to your existing car, minor changes to car assembly lines and go to the same fuel station to buy your fuel, where you put it in your car the same way and then drive the same way.
I'm not saying that these are good reasons, or that ethanol is actually a better choice, just why it is a popular choice.
They have a high level of commitment to Free Software (especially with Fedora).
Putting src.rpm available for public download deserves a mention also. They could be GPL compliant without doing that, yet some people whine because they enforce their trademark. Red Hat make CentOS possible... deliberately.
sell the stock.. give same amount of stock to some charity.. total tax burden=0.
If they give the same amount to a charity, it has the same financial effect (on the billionaire) as a 50% tax rate (except they can also use it as a public relations exercise as well, or in the case of Billy G., can donate software strategically to stregthen MS monopoly position)
The government allows charity giving to be tax deductable according to rules that lessen the burden on the government, such as feeding and housing programs, education etc (exact details depending on your country etc). If a billionaire gives $X to education, it ought to save the government $X+administration costs.
Of course, the system does get gamed (eg: MS software donations for education) but it is quite a good idea in priciple, I think.
Whatever system you set up, the rich work the system, the poor work for the system. The key is to find a (legal) way to work the system, and there are ways to do it.
I don't care that gun ownership prevented a nazi occupation of Switzerland.
I suspect the Swiss do not share your apathy.
I don't care how many wikipedia articles you dredge up to support your off-topic positions, because I was making a very simple point.
Only off-topic because I presented evidence that didn't agree with your point. I find it hard to believe that anyone would think vulerability to invasion or oppressive government is an acceptable price to pay for decreased crime. Tens of millions of people have died at the hands of government soldiers in the last century, comparitively very few, I think, at the hands of criminals. Personal gun ownership has proven very effective at dealing with tyranny/invasion. I don't think it's a cure-all, but I do think it's a vital part of a free society in the long run. But since you think I've been off-topic, why not provide comparitive crime stats for Switzerland and the rest of Europe. If private gun ownership causes violent crime, Switzerland should have a violent crime epidemic. Does it? While you're at it, do you have any reports of happy slappers in Switzerland?
Historical evidence cited by these supporters of gun rights includes the fact that during the Pacific War, Japan rejected the idea of invading the West Coast of the United States due to the prevalence of armed civilians. As noted after the war by one Japanese Admiral, "We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand."
Barely more than half a century ago, the Nazi war machine considered invading Switzerland. It was the sort of nightmare that would make a field marshal of an army of conquest wake up screaming in the middle of the night. Every home a sniper's nest? Mountain roads and bridges all mined, ready to be blown up and made impassable within 24 hours of an invasion? A populace unworried about embargo because every home had a year's supply of food, not to mention a significant supply of ammunition? And why had the German spies reported that every Swiss village had a 300-meter rifle range, busily used by the citizenry every weekend?
It was Invader Motel. "They check in, but they don't check out." Why did field marshals who could not dissuade Adolf Hitler from invading Russia in winter manage to convince him that there was no future in attacking tiny Switzerland? Because some things are so obvious that even raving madmen can understand them.
Even if it could be consistently demonstrated that gun control results in lower murder rates (it can't, you need to be very selective to attempt that) higher violent crime rates would, IMO, be a small price to pay compared to the inability to repel invasion or tyranny from your own government.
The UN is constantly pushing "civil-rights" laws and gun bans that render people defenseless against aggressors.
And yet, who suffers from much more violent crime involving guns? Europe or the USA? Hmm...
When considered that the US right to bear arms is also for the ability to resist tyranny and invasion, perhaps you should compare "violence involving guns" instead of "violent crime involving guns", and so include the USSR, WW1 and WW2. So the answer to your question: Europe. Also, they can't stand up to the "happy slappers" apparently.
... to kill pagans if they don't establish regular prayers, and to require tribute from non-muslims under threat of violence, specifically for the purpose of bringing them low.
I don't see why this is such an issue.
In that case, no further discussion is helpful or necessary.
Think of it this way: All Muslims are given automatic citizenship to the state. Non-citizens have to pay a tax or be expelled or jailed.
No, thinking of it that way is specifically what I refuse to do.
The last option was "be deported"
...from their own land.
anyone who claims that there is any directive anywhere in Islamic law to kill those who don't pay tax is plain wrong.
Sura 9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
Then, according to you, the Quran is just plain wrong. Unless the fighting refered to in Sura 9:29 is really an armwrestling tournament perhaps? Tiddlywinks? Perhaps decades of studying the Quran will make it mean debating?
Who said it was untrue? You did. I said there was no proof.
Fair enough. Nevertheless you said: "I happen to think those beliefs are necessary in certain people." So, if the beliefs are true, you believe that true beliefs are only necessary for certain people, directly implying that for other people, untrue beliefs or lack of knowledge are ok. So how do I know whether you categorize me in the group you believe to require truth or the group that does not?
There's no way you can know what I tell you isn't a lie unless you experience it yourself.
However, IAAM (I am a Muslim), and I can assure you that it is not an instruction to kit up and start shooting the day a treaty expires.
I accept that this is your honest belief, but there seems to be an abundance of Muslims who think it is.
Specifically, if it says you must fight Pagans just because they are Pagans, then I don't see how in the following sentence it can say to grant them asylum and assist their passage into a safe area without forcing their conversion.
Perhaps it is not the consistent and truthful text you have come to believe. I'd be interested to know why you believe the Quran, and how this belief came about. Are you a convert, or a Muslim by birth? I'm not saying this to challenge you, I am actually interested.
Please remember that I am far from a Quranic scholar, there are people who devote decades to this stuff, much of which cross-relates to chapters and verses in other places in the Quran so I may be missing something.
Well, here's a problem I have with the Quran. It says in as many words...
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
... to kill pagans if they don't establish regular prayers, and to require tribute from non-muslims under threat of violence, specifically for the purpose of bringing them low. I hope you can see why non-muslims would have some objection to this. For our freedom, we require to be in a society which never has more than a small minority of muslims.
The fact that someone who has studied the Quran for decades says it doesn't really mean this doesn't help much because there are so many Muslims who think it does. If the Quran can only be understood as not promoting violence under the instruction of such teachers, then surely it should not be available outside classes held by them.
Don't get me wrong, I've worked with Muslims, had business dealings with Muslims, worked together on charitable works with Muslims and none of them ever tried to do me harm. However, I also know a man that is under death sentence in his homeland for "blasphemy". His crime? Preaching Christ. If The legal system of whole countries purportedly under Islamic law passes death sentence on Christians who preach (a requirement of Christianity) then Islamic tolerance may as well be a sham. Maybe it's not true Islam, but it is widespread.
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1§ion=0&article= 86719&d=18&m=9&y=2006: Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Asheikh... said Muhammad had never chosen war as his first option. "He [Muhammad] gave three options: Either accept Islam or surrender or pay tax and they will be allowed to remain in their land, observing their religion under the protection of Muslims,"
Should I not accept Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti as knowledgable about Islam? He seems to say I have three options, convert, pay the dhimmi tax or be killed. The idea of a purely defensive jihad is also hard to reconcile with the phenomenal military expansion of Islam in its first 100 years.
I was told a story by a man who had visited a church in Indonesia: Some Muslims were carrying out a Jihad, and were coming to this church, where 50 families of refugees were being held (may have been 50 refugees, not 50 families) to
Why should I trust you on this? Do you have some experience of being dead? Has a dead person reported their pain status to you in a credible way? Are you certified by a professional body of People Who Know What Death Feels Like?
A quick examination of your post: "I happen to think those beliefs are necessary in certain people." "If they let go of those beliefs and merely admitted there is no proof of anything like a personal God then they would probably have a meltdown."
You admit in your post that you think it is necessary for some people to believe things that are untrue. How can I know that anything you tell me isn't something you know to be untrue but believe to be a beneficial lie for me to accept?
But don't take my word for it, you can find the whole chapter translated here.
To be honest, that doesn't reasure me.
From verse 4 and 5 (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
It seems to be saying that if a Muslim has a treaty with an unbeliever, honor the treaty for the set time, then kill them if they won't convert. One thing for sure, there are Muslims who don't go around killing people for being non-mulsim, and there are Muslims who do. Admittedly I have not made a study of it, but it does seem to me that the ones that do are the ones that have a more literal reading of the Quran.
Slashdot Mirror
London is outside US jurisdiction, unless Tony Blair is off his medicines again, which raises all kinds of jurisdiction issues. The copying (not storing, copying) would have occurred in England. This is an English company. English law is the only law that can be applied to an alleged civil offense in England.
Actually, British copyrights are enforceable in the US, and vice versa. It's called the Berne Convention
No, it says that you can be v2 or later. If you try and distribute under v3 only, or "v3 or any later version", you are no longer abiding by the original license terms which specifically identify v2 as legit.
I not sure you're correct in this. I'm not fluent in lawyerspeak, but plain english meaning would be you only have to meet one of the "or" conditions. So something licensed as "GPLv2 or later" could be redistributed under GPLv3 only, or "GPLv3 or later". To prevent this, the wording of the original license would have to be "GPLv2 and later". It's the "or" that allows you to distribute it as GPLv3, as it meets the "later" condition.
That's pretty much what "or" does, it allows you to meet either condition, it does not require both conditions.
My own definition of a free software license is one that in addition to Stallman's four freedoms, also:
... subtracts from the GPL, not adds to it. The freedom you describe stops with one "generation" of distribution. So the developer is free with BSD licensed software, but since the software can be distributed as proprietry, the end user does not necessarily get the benefits of any "freeness" of the software. With the GPL, essentially the software itself is kept "Free" and the end user therefore has the benefits of that freedom.
Actually, your third point:
Places no conditions on redistribution or end use, of any kind.
Presumably you are a developer. BSD gives you personally more freedom, but that does not really mean it is more free. It depends on who the intended beneficiary of the freedom is.
What I mean is that the goals of giving away software and maintaining control over it are, at some level, not entirely compatible.
What I mean is that the goals of selling software and maintaining control over it are, at some level, not entirely compatible.
Tell it to MicroSoft. They require more from you just to get the software to use (ie: money and EULA) and they maintain far more control. FSF are not interested in giving away software per se, they are interested in providing Free software. It seems to me they only really aim to control it to the extent of ensuring it remains Free according to their definition and goals.
It's not as though I'm laying down the law here - saying that gifts must be given freely - I'm just talking about my perspective, and how I feel about the license, and the general question of what it really means to give something away while retaining control over it.
The FSF's "gift" of software to you is not because they like you and want to give you a present, it's distributed to further a philosophical mission. It's not worth trying to change their direction on this. It would be easier to change the software you use or the license you use.
For what it's worth, after becoming familiar with various software licenses, I read the GPLv2 when installing the GIMP. After seeing the quality of a few programs, I thought "This will take over". I see no reason to revise my opinion, and I think GPLv3 will take this process further towards its conclusion.
If a piece of GPLv2 software is not owned by a single entity (or had all right assigned to a single entity) it can never become "GPLv3 or any later version.
Well, I'm not experienced in law, but surely it can. The word "or" in "GPLv2 or any later version" would give the rights to distribute the software and/or derivatives licenced under GPLv3 (any later version) without making it available under GPLv2.
Jacob and Leah's daughter, the story is in Genesis 34 (no, I don't have the bible memorised, I have it on my computer). There a quite a few ways that people became married in the bible, as far as I know, none of them considered the definitive way it has to be done. There generally seems to have been a promise to marry, then the actual marriage, but it's easy to find examples different to this, even in the Old Testament law.
I can't believe that she didn't let him touch her for nine months, but suddenly was pregnant.
The book says Mary became pregant when they were betrothed (Luke 1:27), she stayed with Elizabeth for 3 months (Luke 1:56), by the time Jesus was born they were already married. I think it is probably not unusual for a pregnant woman to not have sex, and depending on what era and culture, not unusual for a woman to be a virgin when married.
The path I took and recommend for most people who want to change is to dual boot. I did for a year, then I was competent enough to do everything I needed in Linux, but I hadn't compromised my ability to use my computer in the meantime.
There's no one point along the chain where you can safely point and say 'THIS is practical, but THAT thing right next to it is IMPRACTICAL and sinful'.
I have found that the point people use is "just above my level". I have even heard a multi-millionaire critisize the rich(er). "No-one needs that amount of money."
s/inane/insane/
fixed
A lot of the art of persuasion requires the persuader to apply some form of pressure (usually non-physical) onto their intended victim.
The method of persuasion you are referring to is called manipulation and is generally counter productive, especially in longer term associations. For persuasion in longer term relationships: people are more easily persuaded by you if they like and trust you. They like you if you make them feel good. You make them feel good by being nice/considerate to them. You get them to trust you by making sure that they benefit from their interactions with you.
When I write an email I'm able to think about what I say before I say it and rearrange things after the fact if it comes out wrong. Can't do that in conversation, you have to get it right the first time, and know exactly where you're going and how you're going to get there before you start. Been trying for years, but simply can't. What then?
F 8&index=blended&link_code=qs&field-keywords=skill% 20with%20people
The answer to "What then?" is : learn. You say you've tried, but I suspect you have made the same mistake I did for a long time, which is to assume that you should just somehow know how to deal with people by yourself. The reality is that it is a learned skill, most easily pick up by learning from someone who is already good at it. Books can be a great resource.
Practising is of little value if you don't first have an idea of what specific skill it is you are trying to practice.
As for being prepared, this is also a skill, and quite easy, eg:
1. Start the conversation by letting them know that it's not conclusive. You could say something like "I've got some thoughts on [subject], I'd like to get your input on while I'm still thinking about it....", this gives you an out when they say something you don't expect.
2. When they say something you don't expect "I've never looked at it that way, I'll think it over and get back to you"
3. If they push for a quick desicion "Honestly, what you've said seems pretty important, I think it deserves more consideration than I've got time for right now, I'll get back to you"
You can easily develop a few "standard responses" that allow you time to think and take the pressure off. I'm sure you get the idea.
I recommend this book, Skill with People http://www.amazon.com/s/102-6152705-7396905?ie=UT
I use an ATI radeon 9000 64 Mb with the opensource drivers and it runs the eyecandy fine. Newer radeons are supported by the r300 driver. Not the latest, but newer than mine, up to 9800 or the x800 if I remember correctly.
Why is ethanol so popular these days as an alternative fuel as opposed to other green fuel solutions?
Easy conversion to existing motors and distribution networks. While the oil companies might have trouble getting their desired cut, you could have minor modification to your existing car, minor changes to car assembly lines and go to the same fuel station to buy your fuel, where you put it in your car the same way and then drive the same way.
I'm not saying that these are good reasons, or that ethanol is actually a better choice, just why it is a popular choice.
They have a high level of commitment to Free Software (especially with Fedora).
... deliberately.
Putting src.rpm available for public download deserves a mention also. They could be GPL compliant without doing that, yet some people whine because they enforce their trademark. Red Hat make CentOS possible
So, you're saying that I should pay taxes because I'm "working for the man" and these investors shouldn't pay taxes?
Or perhaps the government is suggesting that you consider investing, by giving you a tax incentive to do so.
sell the stock.. give same amount of stock to some charity.. total tax burden=0.
If they give the same amount to a charity, it has the same financial effect (on the billionaire) as a 50% tax rate (except they can also use it as a public relations exercise as well, or in the case of Billy G., can donate software strategically to stregthen MS monopoly position)
The government allows charity giving to be tax deductable according to rules that lessen the burden on the government, such as feeding and housing programs, education etc (exact details depending on your country etc). If a billionaire gives $X to education, it ought to save the government $X+administration costs.
Of course, the system does get gamed (eg: MS software donations for education) but it is quite a good idea in priciple, I think.
Whatever system you set up, the rich work the system, the poor work for the system. The key is to find a (legal) way to work the system, and there are ways to do it.
I don't care that gun ownership prevented a nazi occupation of Switzerland.
I suspect the Swiss do not share your apathy.
I don't care how many wikipedia articles you dredge up to support your off-topic positions, because I was making a very simple point.
Only off-topic because I presented evidence that didn't agree with your point. I find it hard to believe that anyone would think vulerability to invasion or oppressive government is an acceptable price to pay for decreased crime. Tens of millions of people have died at the hands of government soldiers in the last century, comparitively very few, I think, at the hands of criminals. Personal gun ownership has proven very effective at dealing with tyranny/invasion. I don't think it's a cure-all, but I do think it's a vital part of a free society in the long run. But since you think I've been off-topic, why not provide comparitive crime stats for Switzerland and the rest of Europe. If private gun ownership causes violent crime, Switzerland should have a violent crime epidemic. Does it? While you're at it, do you have any reports of happy slappers in Switzerland?
You want to equate domestic crime statistics with war casualties? I have heard some lame pro-gun arguments, but come on. Seriously.
U nited_States
Educate yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_
Historical evidence cited by these supporters of gun rights includes the fact that during the Pacific War, Japan rejected the idea of invading the West Coast of the United States due to the prevalence of armed civilians. As noted after the war by one Japanese Admiral, "We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand."
Which, upon checking the references, I find the quote comes from this page : http://www.realfighting.com/0102/rational.htm
Barely more than half a century ago, the Nazi war machine considered invading Switzerland. It was the sort of nightmare that would make a field marshal of an army of conquest wake up screaming in the middle of the night. Every home a sniper's nest? Mountain roads and bridges all mined, ready to be blown up and made impassable within 24 hours of an invasion? A populace unworried about embargo because every home had a year's supply of food, not to mention a significant supply of ammunition? And why had the German spies reported that every Swiss village had a 300-meter rifle range, busily used by the citizenry every weekend?
It was Invader Motel. "They check in, but they don't check out." Why did field marshals who could not dissuade Adolf Hitler from invading Russia in winter manage to convince him that there was no future in attacking tiny Switzerland? Because some things are so obvious that even raving madmen can understand them.
Even if it could be consistently demonstrated that gun control results in lower murder rates (it can't, you need to be very selective to attempt that) higher violent crime rates would, IMO, be a small price to pay compared to the inability to repel invasion or tyranny from your own government.
When considered that the US right to bear arms is also for the ability to resist tyranny and invasion, perhaps you should compare "violence involving guns" instead of "violent crime involving guns", and so include the USSR, WW1 and WW2. So the answer to your question: Europe. Also, they can't stand up to the "happy slappers" apparently.
In that case, no further discussion is helpful or necessary.
Think of it this way: All Muslims are given automatic citizenship to the state. Non-citizens have to pay a tax or be expelled or jailed.
No, thinking of it that way is specifically what I refuse to do.
The last option was "be deported"
anyone who claims that there is any directive anywhere in Islamic law to kill those who don't pay tax is plain wrong.
Sura 9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
Then, according to you, the Quran is just plain wrong. Unless the fighting refered to in Sura 9:29 is really an armwrestling tournament perhaps? Tiddlywinks? Perhaps decades of studying the Quran will make it mean debating?
Who said it was untrue? You did. I said there was no proof.
Fair enough. Nevertheless you said: "I happen to think those beliefs are necessary in certain people." So, if the beliefs are true, you believe that true beliefs are only necessary for certain people, directly implying that for other people, untrue beliefs or lack of knowledge are ok. So how do I know whether you categorize me in the group you believe to require truth or the group that does not?
There's no way you can know what I tell you isn't a lie unless you experience it yourself.
Making my point very well.
However, IAAM (I am a Muslim), and I can assure you that it is not an instruction to kit up and start shooting the day a treaty expires.
...
... to kill pagans if they don't establish regular prayers, and to require tribute from non-muslims under threat of violence, specifically for the purpose of bringing them low. I hope you can see why non-muslims would have some objection to this. For our freedom, we require to be in a society which never has more than a small minority of muslims.
... said Muhammad had never chosen war as his first option. "He [Muhammad] gave three options: Either accept Islam or surrender or pay tax and they will be allowed to remain in their land, observing their religion under the protection of Muslims,"
I accept that this is your honest belief, but there seems to be an abundance of Muslims who think it is.
Specifically, if it says you must fight Pagans just because they are Pagans, then I don't see how in the following sentence it can say to grant them asylum and assist their passage into a safe area without forcing their conversion.
Perhaps it is not the consistent and truthful text you have come to believe. I'd be interested to know why you believe the Quran, and how this belief came about. Are you a convert, or a Muslim by birth? I'm not saying this to challenge you, I am actually interested.
Please remember that I am far from a Quranic scholar, there are people who devote decades to this stuff, much of which cross-relates to chapters and verses in other places in the Quran so I may be missing something.
Well, here's a problem I have with the Quran. It says in as many words
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
The fact that someone who has studied the Quran for decades says it doesn't really mean this doesn't help much because there are so many Muslims who think it does. If the Quran can only be understood as not promoting violence under the instruction of such teachers, then surely it should not be available outside classes held by them.
Don't get me wrong, I've worked with Muslims, had business dealings with Muslims, worked together on charitable works with Muslims and none of them ever tried to do me harm. However, I also know a man that is under death sentence in his homeland for "blasphemy". His crime? Preaching Christ. If The legal system of whole countries purportedly under Islamic law passes death sentence on Christians who preach (a requirement of Christianity) then Islamic tolerance may as well be a sham. Maybe it's not true Islam, but it is widespread.
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1§ion=0&article= 86719&d=18&m=9&y=2006: Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Asheikh
Should I not accept Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti as knowledgable about Islam? He seems to say I have three options, convert, pay the dhimmi tax or be killed. The idea of a purely defensive jihad is also hard to reconcile with the phenomenal military expansion of Islam in its first 100 years.
I was told a story by a man who had visited a church in Indonesia: Some Muslims were carrying out a Jihad, and were coming to this church, where 50 families of refugees were being held (may have been 50 refugees, not 50 families) to
if you're dead, trust me, you won't feel pain.
Why should I trust you on this? Do you have some experience of being dead? Has a dead person reported their pain status to you in a credible way? Are you certified by a professional body of People Who Know What Death Feels Like?
A quick examination of your post: "I happen to think those beliefs are necessary in certain people." "If they let go of those beliefs and merely admitted there is no proof of anything like a personal God then they would probably have a meltdown."
You admit in your post that you think it is necessary for some people to believe things that are untrue. How can I know that anything you tell me isn't something you know to be untrue but believe to be a beneficial lie for me to accept?
But don't take my word for it, you can find the whole chapter translated here.
To be honest, that doesn't reasure me.
From verse 4 and 5 (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
It seems to be saying that if a Muslim has a treaty with an unbeliever, honor the treaty for the set time, then kill them if they won't convert. One thing for sure, there are Muslims who don't go around killing people for being non-mulsim, and there are Muslims who do. Admittedly I have not made a study of it, but it does seem to me that the ones that do are the ones that have a more literal reading of the Quran.