Despite the weight of replies against this idea, you're not alone on this. As I see it, if I create a computer program, it's 'my program'. If someone makes a copy, that copy does not become 'their program', it's still a copy of 'my' program. Therefore, when they take this copy, they are taking something of mine. And if they're not taking the copy, then the copy must remain with the original, which would seem pretty useless except in the case of creating a backup.
Why? As you put it, they made the copy. Why is it not theirs if they made it? If you make the original, but no copies, and someone else makes a copy, why would you then own the original and a copy, since you only made the original? What do you think of this poster's example of his father's copying furniture?
Don't get me wrong, I'm in favour of copyrights. I think that comparing copyright infringement too closely to theft of physical property (or thinking of it that way) can be grossly misleading though. If someone copies your material, they are not stealing a copy from you, they are usurping your right to control copying.
To think of a comparison between copyright and physical property, I consider my computer. I own it, I have the right to control it's use. If someone gets into my house and uses it without my permission when I'm not home, have they stolen my computer? Obviously not, even thought they've still done wrong and probably broken numerous laws in the process. I would have the right to stop them, but if I say they stole my computer, I would be hard pressed to get a court to agree with me. They would have usurped my rights to my computer, but not stolen it. I don't know if that would be covered by a particular law, but in the case of copyright it is. It's still not theft though. Just as arson, murder, drunk driving and any number of wrong things are not theft.
The CSIRO should be using this patent, and any other patents they have, to lock non-Australian companies out of this market
They COULD do that, but then the companies would make them anyways, and then the market leaders in wireless networking equipment would refuse to ship to Australia, and before long the Aussies will be begging for their wireless back.
Wow. Many people don't read the article. Some don't even read the summary.
You don't even seem to have read the summary title:
I need this question answered: Is Mark Shuttleworth a benevolent dictator in Ubuntu's Development?
Yes. From the article:
"On the critical question of whether Shuttleworth's decision to reject the team's work violated the wishes of the community, Stroep insisted that the Art Team had always understood the Ubuntu sponsor's role as "client" to their "design firm" -- and in the professional design world, you work to the client's vision, not your own."
Ah but Gibson portrayes the Roman Legionare as a doubting Thomas when historically he was known to be sadistic and vindictive. He would of taken pleasure in doing not just watching the whippings and such in the movie.
It could depend on how superstitious he was and how much weight he gave his wife's words "Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him." (KJV) If he gave credibility to such things and the possibility that Jesus was the son of the god of the Jews, he may very well have been very reluctant to participate in Jesus execution.
and yet the chief priests can and did execute blasphemers, adulterers, and others, which kinda makes the 'lacks authority' argument a bit lame. The Romans did it. Crucifiction was a ROMAN execution method.
As I understand it: the Jews did not have legal authority (from the occupying Romans) to execute people, but largely ignored this. This was probably overlooked by the Romans as long as it was Jews killing Jews. When they wanted to kill Jesus, one problem they faced was that Jesus was popular with many people, and considered a prophet. Had they attempted to arrest and kill Jesus as he taught in the temple, they may well have been stoned to death by the crowd. The Romans provided a convenient answer.
...self-proclaimed "chosen people" who are somehow smarter...
After reading your post and some of the replies in the thread, I have difficulty understanding in what way you are different. Sure, you're not knocking on doors, but your stated desire to "round 'em ALL up and put 'em in a sandbox", strip them of public office and do violence to people for talking to you puts you in the same category as the worst of them.
In some posts, you say you think {some,all} people are genius and idiot at the same time in different areas, including yourself. However, you seem to view other peoples idiocy as inherently and dramatically worse than yours. This comes across as very arrogant.
Also though it is slightly off-topic I also think that Java under GPL would not benefit as much because the model of contribution is really not as easily understood as the OS world.
I may misunderstand the issues, but I think GPL Java impacts distribution a lot. It can now be included in Debian, Redhat etc. Contribution/modification will allow it to be ported without the same licencing problems, I think BSD's have had trouble with this in the past. The way in which contribution to the official java is handled will be secondary to this in some ways.
That's exactly the kind on condescension that readers were most complaining about. Yes, we're familiar with complex systems - we deal with them every day. We were hoping to get insight about a system that we're generally unfamiliar with, even if we get the basic gist of it.
Have you ever had to deal with an end users question that didn't make sense because of their lack of understanding? I've certainly heard questions that effectively had no sensible answer without giving the asker some education first.
Also, in this case (lawyers), they may have to ensure that they can't be sued for what they say. Some of the questions, if answered directly, could definitly be construed as legal advice, or possibly even breach of client confidentality.
So is demolition, yet we allow it to be done. My point being that there is a broader context of society to consider. Yes, it destroys one life, but so do cars and lots of other things/activities. If we consider destructive things to be a net benefit, we still do it.
Revenge is the action of damaging somebody to make yourself feel better about something they previously did to you.
Not in the context we are talking about (Punishment, or revenge, being part of a civilised justice system). It's not about the feelings of the people in the justice system, nor are the victims the ones carrying out the punishment. It may, by providing the victim with some emotional satisfaction, help induce them to forgo personal revenge, preventing feuds from developing.
Consider the following scenarios:
1) A Hatfield kills a McCoy. In revenge, a McCoy kills a Hatfield. In revenge, a Hatfield kills a McCoy... etc, etc,
or
2) A Hatfield kills a McCoy. Said Hatfield is executed by the state. McCoys are satisfied, Hatfields decide not to go to war with the state.
or
3) A Hatfield kills a McCoy. State calmly explains to the Hatfield why this was wrong. What happens next? In revenge, a McCoy kills a Hatfield?
In fact, that legendary feud was indeed ended this very way, though apparently illegally.
It's what people used as an informal version of justice before formal justice was available to sort things out. Now that there is a formal system that has replaced revenge, revenge should no longer be used.
What on earth makes you say this? Punishment (revenge) has been a part of formal justice systems for thousands of years. As far as I'm aware, it is only quite recently the concept that punishment is wrong has sprung up. I'm willing to be corrected, but I'd be surprised if you could give an example of a society that popularly endorsed the idea that punishment is wrong from 100+ years ago. Civilisation is (I think) generally thought to have sprung up over 100 years ago. Perhaps Buddhism contains this idea, now I think of it, but did buddhist countries incorporate it into their justice systems?
I think there are good arguements to be made against the death penalty, particularly regarding the death of innocent people, and the fact that the poor are far more likely to be executed than the rich. I do not find the idea that "punishment (state implemented revenge) is wrong" to be one of them.
But killing people is not the only way to stop them from doing things that society can't tolerate.
but it is rather effective (at stopping the executed person from doing said things)
Imprisoning them for life works just as well.
There is no guarantee this would or could happen in this case.
Revenge may be psychologically satisfying on a personal level
I (and most legal systems) think it is not good to allow revenge on a personal level for most things.
but it [revenge] has no place in a civilized legal system.
Why not? I think this is largely why people forsake personal revenge (mob rule, vigilanteism etc) in favour of the rule of law. The desire for revenge is satisfied, but carried out in a (hopefully) impartial way. I don't see why it would detract from a civilized legal system.
In your criticism you miss the point, which is that justice should not be about punishment...
I've heard this, but really, why not? Why should justice not be about punishment? I think that perhaps the element of punishment by the legal system helps persuade people to not take matters into their own hands.
I'm not trying to troll but my God[Jesus] says that the death penalty isn't for anyone.
Romans 13:3,4 (KJV) For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
It seems you have confused your God's instructions to individuals with the role of government. Even secular authorities recognize the difference, ie: If someone attacks me, I may not sentence them to imprisonment and lock them up, but the government can. How do you interpret the rulers bearing the sword as a minister of God if the death penalty is disallowed by God?
You clearly didn't make an in depth study of your quote either because it's wrong.
Well, since I was answering your request: "can you please provide a source for a Muslim state swearing the destruction of Israel."...
And the link you gave states: Ahmadinejad... denounced attempts to normalise relations with Israel, condemning all Muslim leaders who accept the existence of Israel as "acknowledging a surrender and defeat of the Islamic world."
... I fail to see your point. If there is a significant difference between condemning those who accept the existence of Israel and advocating destruction of Israel I do not see it. The reinterpretation of "Israel must be wiped off the map" is not really significant, even if accurate. You have also completely failed to address the point I made (twice) that even if Islamic states don't declare their desire for the destruction of Israel, their apparent reluctance to condemn organisations in their juristiction that do declare intent to destroy Israel indicates support. At least, such actions (or lack of them) would be interpreted that way in the west.
While you're at it though, do you have any creative reinterpretations of Ahmadinejad's comment: "Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation," he said. "The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."
Do you really think he is not advocating the destruction of Israel? Seriously?
Now, I haven't made an in depth study of middle eastern politics, but from what I observe, it seems to me that muslim states generally do not announce a desire for the destruction of Israel, but are highly tolerant/supportive of political groups (usually known as terrorist groups, I am deliberately not using this term) who do have this stated objective (as I outlined in my previous post). They get the diplomatic benefits of seeming moderate, but if western governments were so tolerant of hate groups, they are seen to be supporting them (which no doubt is sometimes the case). The groups that do announce their intention to destroy Israel often have very significant political influence in their countries, even to the extent of being a "state within a state" as Hezbollah, for example, has been referred to.
Israel hasn't sworn to the destruction of any other states or ethnic groups.
And who has exactly?
Hezbollah (defacto government of South Lebanon, supported by Iran, Syria), Hamas (currently forms the majority party of the Palestinian National Authority according to wikipedia). Various muslim organisations, whose governments do not seem to condemn them. Consider that if a political group in the US advocated the destruction of Canada and the government did not condemn it, they would be percieved to support it.
Which of the muslim states would support Israel against such attacks? Any?
An anonymous quote I think is not very far from the truth: If the Arabs (Moslems) put down their weapons today there would be no more violence. If the Israelis put down their weapons today there would be no more Israel.
While you are correct that I haven't read the Israeli newspapers, I have assumed that there would be some Jews that would see things that way. However, it doesn't seem to me to have been the predominant attitude in (Modern) Israel and if I understand correctly, it seems likely that the ones who do think like that would want to remove Palestinians from Israel (even by extermination) and therefore are very unlikely to use nukes in the pursuit of this goal. I don't percieve any such reluctance on the Muslim states part to nuke Israel. Even the radical muslims wouldn't be likely to nuke Jerusalem though, for obvious reasons.
Perhaps my view is not quite so simplistic as you thought?
By it's very definition, the is only ONE anti-christ.
How hard it is to find a christian who will take the bible as their source of doctrine:
I John 2:18 (KJV) Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
II John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
So yes, there are many antichrists, it is a direct statement in the bible. I suggest you consider posting an apology to the person you have so grieviously insulted.
Another thing that a test would allow for is for mothers to terminate such a pregnancy. It'd be a lot better to know for sure than to wonder if your baby is going to die randomly.
You seem to think certain death is better than the possibility of life. Interesting. Strange, but interesting.
We tend (even if we don't think too deeply about it) to reject natural selection as a basis for evaluating our behaviour and forming our values. Most of us find supremely insulting the idea that our genes should be eliminated from the gene pool to improve humanity.
A bit like the people who think the earth is overpopulated, but haven't arranged a mass suicide for themselves.
You can implement DRM in GPLv3, you just have to provide the signing key. So you can have a system that won't run unauthenicated software, for example, but the user must have the ability to sign their modified/recompiled software as authenticated. Which is to say, you can implement DRM in such a way that it increases the users control of their computer. You cannot implement DRM in such a way that it decreases the users control of their computer. GPLv3 doesn't place any restriction on programers to implement features in the licensed software, it just requires that the full functionality is given to the user.
I just disputed that this can be deduced from the fact that most rich americans are first generation.
Point taken. The question I was answering was "You can exercise greater control over your socioeconomic standing?" If most or all rich became rich by inheritance, it would be evidence that you cannot. Most rich americans being first generation allows (but doesn't prove) that you can influence your socioeconomic standing.
I haven't read the article (login required) and "the book" (which book?)
My bad, the first time I looked, from a google link, it didn't require a login. You can get a login here: http://www.bugmenot.com/ . The book is "The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of American's Wealthy", which is why I've used american millionaires as an example. It's well worth a read from what I hear. I've only read the webpage.
First, frugality. I'm sure that has an effect, but why this would be bigger in the US than anywhere else I cannot see.
I agree entirely. I just don't know of a similar book about other countries.
Plus, while frugality will pay off under specific circumstances (possibly the majority), there are many business endeavors where it is bad for you.
I took the frugality to be applied to the personal income rather than a business practise. Don't have a lifestyle of senseless consumption, rather than don't invest in your business.
Dunno what this says about the control one has, but my gut feeling is again that this still does not mean that hard working equals rich any more in the US than in other places.
If we could use the word influence rather than control so we are clear what we are talking about. I think there are many other factors than hard work involved. What I mean is, having influence, but not control is that you don't have a guarantee, but you have a reasonable chance of obtaining the desired outcome. It's not hopelessly futile. Hard work does not guarantee rich, but laziness is pretty close to a guarantee of poor. Hard work is not the key, but it's a key.
There exist however many hard working rice farmers and pest controllers that are not rich. Again, I am not completely convinced.
My question is: are there any significant differences between the ones who do and do not become rich. Specifically, what is different about the rich that someone else could implement in their own lives, which pretty much comes down to habits, attitudes and beliefs.
An honest question: what about failure? Don't you have to take into account when juding about control over your life that in Europe there is a social safety net?
If you don't have control, failure is possible. Learn, start again, don't give up. Or depend on charity I suppose. Get a job. Something. In the end, every country has a 100% fatality rate. If you haven't become part of that statistic yet, do whatever you can. What you can't change, learn to live with. Failing in business or finance is not the end of the road in most cases. Plenty of successful people have failed first. In any case, I'm an aussie, not an american. We have a safety net. Several years ago, my wife and I came to the conclusion that the safety net will probably not survive the retirement of the baby boomers. We decided it was best to learn to live without it now, before everyone else did too. I used to do casual work, taking less than two weeks to find work after a contract finished. After refusing the safety net, I got to the point of finding work usually within 3 hours, not more than 2 days. I find that I become a lot more resourcefull if it is possible for me to fail. Now I have full time employment.
If in the US your business goes wrong in spite of hard work and other good qualities you have (say, you had no health insurance and got sick), what about the influence over your life then?
Indeed, that is exactly what it means to have influe
Slashdot Mirror
Despite the weight of replies against this idea, you're not alone on this. As I see it, if I create a computer program, it's 'my program'. If someone makes a copy, that copy does not become 'their program', it's still a copy of 'my' program. Therefore, when they take this copy, they are taking something of mine. And if they're not taking the copy, then the copy must remain with the original, which would seem pretty useless except in the case of creating a backup.
Why? As you put it, they made the copy. Why is it not theirs if they made it? If you make the original, but no copies, and someone else makes a copy, why would you then own the original and a copy, since you only made the original? What do you think of this poster's example of his father's copying furniture?
Don't get me wrong, I'm in favour of copyrights. I think that comparing copyright infringement too closely to theft of physical property (or thinking of it that way) can be grossly misleading though. If someone copies your material, they are not stealing a copy from you, they are usurping your right to control copying.
To think of a comparison between copyright and physical property, I consider my computer. I own it, I have the right to control it's use. If someone gets into my house and uses it without my permission when I'm not home, have they stolen my computer? Obviously not, even thought they've still done wrong and probably broken numerous laws in the process. I would have the right to stop them, but if I say they stole my computer, I would be hard pressed to get a court to agree with me. They would have usurped my rights to my computer, but not stolen it. I don't know if that would be covered by a particular law, but in the case of copyright it is. It's still not theft though. Just as arson, murder, drunk driving and any number of wrong things are not theft.
If I were in charge, I'd probably drop the Celeron as the low cost alternative and just push AMD's.
You'd want to make sure this move wouldn't make people equate AMD with Celeron performance. I wouldn't want AMD to be seen as a Celeron replacement.
Wow. Many people don't read the article. Some don't even read the summary.
You don't even seem to have read the summary title:
CSIRO Wireless Patent Reaffirmed in US Court
I need this question answered: Is Mark Shuttleworth a benevolent dictator in Ubuntu's Development?
Yes. From the article:
"On the critical question of whether Shuttleworth's decision to reject the team's work violated the wishes of the community, Stroep insisted that the Art Team had always understood the Ubuntu sponsor's role as "client" to their "design firm" -- and in the professional design world, you work to the client's vision, not your own."
Ah but Gibson portrayes the Roman Legionare as a doubting Thomas when historically he was known to be sadistic and vindictive. He would of taken pleasure in doing not just watching the whippings and such in the movie.
It could depend on how superstitious he was and how much weight he gave his wife's words "Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him." (KJV) If he gave credibility to such things and the possibility that Jesus was the son of the god of the Jews, he may very well have been very reluctant to participate in Jesus execution.
and yet the chief priests can and did execute blasphemers, adulterers, and others, which kinda makes the 'lacks authority' argument a bit lame. The Romans did it. Crucifiction was a ROMAN execution method.
As I understand it: the Jews did not have legal authority (from the occupying Romans) to execute people, but largely ignored this. This was probably overlooked by the Romans as long as it was Jews killing Jews. When they wanted to kill Jesus, one problem they faced was that Jesus was popular with many people, and considered a prophet. Had they attempted to arrest and kill Jesus as he taught in the temple, they may well have been stoned to death by the crowd. The Romans provided a convenient answer.
...self-proclaimed "chosen people" who are somehow smarter...
After reading your post and some of the replies in the thread, I have difficulty understanding in what way you are different. Sure, you're not knocking on doors, but your stated desire to "round 'em ALL up and put 'em in a sandbox", strip them of public office and do violence to people for talking to you puts you in the same category as the worst of them.
In some posts, you say you think {some,all} people are genius and idiot at the same time in different areas, including yourself. However, you seem to view other peoples idiocy as inherently and dramatically worse than yours. This comes across as very arrogant.
Also though it is slightly off-topic I also think that Java under GPL would not benefit as much because the model of contribution is really not as easily understood as the OS world.
I may misunderstand the issues, but I think GPL Java impacts distribution a lot. It can now be included in Debian, Redhat etc. Contribution/modification will allow it to be ported without the same licencing problems, I think BSD's have had trouble with this in the past. The way in which contribution to the official java is handled will be secondary to this in some ways.
That's exactly the kind on condescension that readers were most complaining about. Yes, we're familiar with complex systems - we deal with them every day. We were hoping to get insight about a system that we're generally unfamiliar with, even if we get the basic gist of it.
Have you ever had to deal with an end users question that didn't make sense because of their lack of understanding? I've certainly heard questions that effectively had no sensible answer without giving the asker some education first.
Also, in this case (lawyers), they may have to ensure that they can't be sued for what they say. Some of the questions, if answered directly, could definitly be construed as legal advice, or possibly even breach of client confidentality.
Because revenge is a destructive activity.
So is demolition, yet we allow it to be done. My point being that there is a broader context of society to consider. Yes, it destroys one life, but so do cars and lots of other things/activities. If we consider destructive things to be a net benefit, we still do it.
Revenge is the action of damaging somebody to make yourself feel better about something they previously did to you.
Not in the context we are talking about (Punishment, or revenge, being part of a civilised justice system). It's not about the feelings of the people in the justice system, nor are the victims the ones carrying out the punishment. It may, by providing the victim with some emotional satisfaction, help induce them to forgo personal revenge, preventing feuds from developing.
Consider the following scenarios:
1) A Hatfield kills a McCoy. In revenge, a McCoy kills a Hatfield. In revenge, a Hatfield kills a McCoy... etc, etc,
or
2) A Hatfield kills a McCoy. Said Hatfield is executed by the state. McCoys are satisfied, Hatfields decide not to go to war with the state.
or
3) A Hatfield kills a McCoy. State calmly explains to the Hatfield why this was wrong. What happens next? In revenge, a McCoy kills a Hatfield?
In fact, that legendary feud was indeed ended this very way, though apparently illegally.
It's what people used as an informal version of justice before formal justice was available to sort things out. Now that there is a formal system that has replaced revenge, revenge should no longer be used.
What on earth makes you say this? Punishment (revenge) has been a part of formal justice systems for thousands of years. As far as I'm aware, it is only quite recently the concept that punishment is wrong has sprung up. I'm willing to be corrected, but I'd be surprised if you could give an example of a society that popularly endorsed the idea that punishment is wrong from 100+ years ago. Civilisation is (I think) generally thought to have sprung up over 100 years ago. Perhaps Buddhism contains this idea, now I think of it, but did buddhist countries incorporate it into their justice systems?
I think there are good arguements to be made against the death penalty, particularly regarding the death of innocent people, and the fact that the poor are far more likely to be executed than the rich. I do not find the idea that "punishment (state implemented revenge) is wrong" to be one of them.
But killing people is not the only way to stop them from doing things that society can't tolerate.
but it is rather effective (at stopping the executed person from doing said things)
Imprisoning them for life works just as well.
There is no guarantee this would or could happen in this case.
Revenge may be psychologically satisfying on a personal level
I (and most legal systems) think it is not good to allow revenge on a personal level for most things.
but it [revenge] has no place in a civilized legal system.
Why not? I think this is largely why people forsake personal revenge (mob rule, vigilanteism etc) in favour of the rule of law. The desire for revenge is satisfied, but carried out in a (hopefully) impartial way. I don't see why it would detract from a civilized legal system.
In your criticism you miss the point, which is that justice should not be about punishment...
I've heard this, but really, why not? Why should justice not be about punishment? I think that perhaps the element of punishment by the legal system helps persuade people to not take matters into their own hands.
I'm not trying to troll but my God[Jesus] says that the death penalty isn't for anyone.
Romans 13:3,4 (KJV) For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
It seems you have confused your God's instructions to individuals with the role of government. Even secular authorities recognize the difference, ie: If someone attacks me, I may not sentence them to imprisonment and lock them up, but the government can. How do you interpret the rulers bearing the sword as a minister of God if the death penalty is disallowed by God?
You clearly didn't make an in depth study of your quote either because it's wrong.
...
... denounced attempts to normalise relations with Israel, condemning all Muslim leaders who accept the existence of Israel as "acknowledging a surrender and defeat of the Islamic world."
... I fail to see your point. If there is a significant difference between condemning those who accept the existence of Israel and advocating destruction of Israel I do not see it. The reinterpretation of "Israel must be wiped off the map" is not really significant, even if accurate. You have also completely failed to address the point I made (twice) that even if Islamic states don't declare their desire for the destruction of Israel, their apparent reluctance to condemn organisations in their juristiction that do declare intent to destroy Israel indicates support. At least, such actions (or lack of them) would be interpreted that way in the west.
Well, since I was answering your request: "can you please provide a source for a Muslim state swearing the destruction of Israel."
And the link you gave states: Ahmadinejad
While you're at it though, do you have any creative reinterpretations of Ahmadinejad's comment: "Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation," he said. "The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."
Do you really think he is not advocating the destruction of Israel? Seriously?
Interesting, can you please provide a source for a Muslim state swearing the destruction of Israel.
Well, if you read my post, you'll see that I specifically did not state that, but since you asked: At a conference in Tehran on Wednesday entitled "The World without Zionism," President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."
Now, I haven't made an in depth study of middle eastern politics, but from what I observe, it seems to me that muslim states generally do not announce a desire for the destruction of Israel, but are highly tolerant/supportive of political groups (usually known as terrorist groups, I am deliberately not using this term) who do have this stated objective (as I outlined in my previous post). They get the diplomatic benefits of seeming moderate, but if western governments were so tolerant of hate groups, they are seen to be supporting them (which no doubt is sometimes the case). The groups that do announce their intention to destroy Israel often have very significant political influence in their countries, even to the extent of being a "state within a state" as Hezbollah, for example, has been referred to.
Which of the muslim states would support Israel against such attacks? Any?
An anonymous quote I think is not very far from the truth: If the Arabs (Moslems) put down their weapons today there would be no more violence. If the Israelis put down their weapons today there would be no more Israel.
While you are correct that I haven't read the Israeli newspapers, I have assumed that there would be some Jews that would see things that way. However, it doesn't seem to me to have been the predominant attitude in (Modern) Israel and if I understand correctly, it seems likely that the ones who do think like that would want to remove Palestinians from Israel (even by extermination) and therefore are very unlikely to use nukes in the pursuit of this goal. I don't percieve any such reluctance on the Muslim states part to nuke Israel. Even the radical muslims wouldn't be likely to nuke Jerusalem though, for obvious reasons.
Perhaps my view is not quite so simplistic as you thought?
Israel hasn't sworn to the destruction of any other states or ethnic groups.
By it's very definition, the is only ONE anti-christ.
How hard it is to find a christian who will take the bible as their source of doctrine:
I John 2:18 (KJV) Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
II John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
So yes, there are many antichrists, it is a direct statement in the bible. I suggest you consider posting an apology to the person you have so grieviously insulted.
You're your own spelling nartzy!
Another thing that a test would allow for is for mothers to terminate such a pregnancy. It'd be a lot better to know for sure than to wonder if your baby is going to die randomly.
You seem to think certain death is better than the possibility of life. Interesting. Strange, but interesting.
We tend (even if we don't think too deeply about it) to reject natural selection as a basis for evaluating our behaviour and forming our values. Most of us find supremely insulting the idea that our genes should be eliminated from the gene pool to improve humanity.
A bit like the people who think the earth is overpopulated, but haven't arranged a mass suicide for themselves.
rewt66 has a plausible answer to that here. They probably introduced the bug while fixing another bug.
not allowing the use of GPL in DRM is less free.
You can implement DRM in GPLv3, you just have to provide the signing key. So you can have a system that won't run unauthenicated software, for example, but the user must have the ability to sign their modified/recompiled software as authenticated. Which is to say, you can implement DRM in such a way that it increases the users control of their computer. You cannot implement DRM in such a way that it decreases the users control of their computer. GPLv3 doesn't place any restriction on programers to implement features in the licensed software, it just requires that the full functionality is given to the user.
I just disputed that this can be deduced from the fact that most rich americans are first generation.
Point taken. The question I was answering was "You can exercise greater control over your socioeconomic standing?" If most or all rich became rich by inheritance, it would be evidence that you cannot. Most rich americans being first generation allows (but doesn't prove) that you can influence your socioeconomic standing.
I haven't read the article (login required) and "the book" (which book?)
My bad, the first time I looked, from a google link, it didn't require a login. You can get a login here: http://www.bugmenot.com/ . The book is "The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of American's Wealthy", which is why I've used american millionaires as an example. It's well worth a read from what I hear. I've only read the webpage.
First, frugality. I'm sure that has an effect, but why this would be bigger in the US than anywhere else I cannot see.
I agree entirely. I just don't know of a similar book about other countries.
Plus, while frugality will pay off under specific circumstances (possibly the majority), there are many business endeavors where it is bad for you.
I took the frugality to be applied to the personal income rather than a business practise. Don't have a lifestyle of senseless consumption, rather than don't invest in your business.
Dunno what this says about the control one has, but my gut feeling is again that this still does not mean that hard working equals rich any more in the US than in other places.
If we could use the word influence rather than control so we are clear what we are talking about. I think there are many other factors than hard work involved. What I mean is, having influence, but not control is that you don't have a guarantee, but you have a reasonable chance of obtaining the desired outcome. It's not hopelessly futile. Hard work does not guarantee rich, but laziness is pretty close to a guarantee of poor. Hard work is not the key, but it's a key.
There exist however many hard working rice farmers and pest controllers that are not rich. Again, I am not completely convinced.
My question is: are there any significant differences between the ones who do and do not become rich. Specifically, what is different about the rich that someone else could implement in their own lives, which pretty much comes down to habits, attitudes and beliefs.
An honest question: what about failure? Don't you have to take into account when juding about control over your life that in Europe there is a social safety net?
If you don't have control, failure is possible. Learn, start again, don't give up. Or depend on charity I suppose. Get a job. Something. In the end, every country has a 100% fatality rate. If you haven't become part of that statistic yet, do whatever you can. What you can't change, learn to live with. Failing in business or finance is not the end of the road in most cases. Plenty of successful people have failed first. In any case, I'm an aussie, not an american. We have a safety net. Several years ago, my wife and I came to the conclusion that the safety net will probably not survive the retirement of the baby boomers. We decided it was best to learn to live without it now, before everyone else did too. I used to do casual work, taking less than two weeks to find work after a contract finished. After refusing the safety net, I got to the point of finding work usually within 3 hours, not more than 2 days. I find that I become a lot more resourcefull if it is possible for me to fail. Now I have full time employment.
If in the US your business goes wrong in spite of hard work and other good qualities you have (say, you had no health insurance and got sick), what about the influence over your life then?
Indeed, that is exactly what it means to have influe