Hold crap! What are we going to do now? Without open Symbian, whatever will we do! Will Nokia's strangle hold on smart phones never end! Oh, the humanity!
For the record, I was reading/. on a bumpy country road, and I was the driver. I hit my head on the steering wheel, the roof, and the side window. I personally blame/. for the addiction to read it while driving and for the excessive use of bright white backgounds. I'll be contacting my lawyer just as soon as I post this through my mobile and merge onto the freeway.
One of the things to consider is the cost benefit as a whole. But the problem is, what is the true benefit of saving anything. The benefit can be quantified if you turn endangered animals into food and products.
While PETA may not like it, the reason there is an abundance of Bison/buffalo is because of its valuable as food. We would likely see a sharp decline in bovine if McDonald's only sold chicken and if leather went completely out of style. It has been proposed to do the same for Tigers, Pandas, and even Whales.
The idea is, you license ranchers to raise these animals as stock. The idea is simple. Give the ranchers a financial incentive to expand the population of endangered animals, and they will do so out of a desire for profit. They will also actively fight to maintain the necessary habitat for them. It's win-win, and who doesn't want a whale skin hubcaps? I know Dennis Leary does.
Name a successful and active billionaire who isn't an egomaniac. There are certain levels in the game of life where you don't keep succeeding without extra ordinary efforts. I cannot think of a single successful Silicon Valley startup where they didn't expect 12 hour days at a minimum.
But if you find the lazyboy reclining, unmotivated, cheetos eating, and brilliantly successful CEO/Corp, you let us know so we can unlock the best kept secret of all ages. Jobs? No. Gates? No. Richard Branson? No. Page? No. Kevin Rose? No. Larry Elison? No. Buffet? No.
As they say, don't hate the player, hate the game.
I disagree. Most judges are not experts in many fields they preside over. It is the job of each side to properly explain what the situation is, why their position is correct, and why their position being correct should result in a particular judgement.
A judge doesn't need to be an expert on DNA, or know anything about it. It is the obligation of each party to present a verifiable expert who can testify to the validity of the evidence. We need prudent jurists who can handle evidence, not the expertise itself. I'm not saying that a more knowledgeable judge isn't helpful, but it is not a requirement. Otherwise, there would never exist a judge competent enough to sit on SCOTUS. They'd have to be experts in everything. Often times, they each have areas of expertise, and rely on their colleagues, assistants, and the questions to the parties to fill in gaps in their personal knowledge.
I personally rather have experts in law than experts in individual fields sitting on our courts.
DVORAK, the #1 best excuse for not letting anyone else use your computer. DVORAK, the quickest way to deflate geek posers who want to grab your keyboard while your using it to "show you something cool real quick".
DVORAK, trusted by obfuscaters, hated by everyone else who uses your computer. Mac users say, "It's the best thing to foul up 'l33t' poser wannabes since the one button mouse!"
Like child trafficking? Let's say someone buys an old cruise ship, parks it 100 miles off the coast of Florida. They pay kidnappers to go into the US and kidnap children to be sold overseas. (So as not to fool with extradition laws which don't apply here.)
Now, let's assume (because IANAL) that they are in international waters, and that what they are doing are not against international law (actually, I think this IS covered under some type of international slave trade laws or treaties, but this is just an example). What would the US do? They'd probably send in a team of Marines. They are US citizens, and so the US should have a right to get involved internationally over them.
Ok, let's move to something that is actual property. Let's say instead of children, they started stealing art or gold from the US. Well, they are in possession of stolen property. The US will claim the right to go after that which is owned in the US.
What about currency?
Look on your cash. It is property of the US government. I read a copy of "DAMAGE TO PROPERTY (COMPENSATION) ACT, 1923 SECTION 15" (Google for it, the link I found was dead, had to read cache) states wrongful damage as damage to US currency, or even that of another country's currency.
So, the US owns the dollar. They can determine its value. They could, tomorrow, print up a completely different looking bill, and say that the previous bills are all worthless. They can also prosecute your for damaging their money.
So, as the currency is the government's property, then when you play with US currency, you are playing with government property. And, if they say it is illegal to do X with their property, gaining it by ill gotten means, ie - theft, they can and will arrest you the moment you step foot on US soil.
Again, I have not read this law, my explanation may be full of holes. But if currency is the property of the US, then any crime you commit anywhere in the world with that property, you are committing against the US, regardless of where you or those you deal with physically are.
Yeah, that basically means the US is saying, "Any crime you commit using our property, we can try you for."
On the other hand, these guys have no way out of this. I mean, they can't claim diplomatic immunity. Yes, they most certainly are subject to US law once in the US. Now, whether they can successfully argue in court that no crime was committed while they were in the US... I doubt, considering their business was in operation at the time of their arrest. Then, of course, that they have no legal consent clauses in any banking contracts (making them subject to US law) or the legal property of the US issue.
Now, do I agree with this? No. For instance, France, for instance, could make criminal an explicit legal right of another country's citizen. An American who ran a WWII war memorabilia website in the US shouldn't be imprisoned in France because the sale of Nazi articles is illegal there... Then again, this is really the same issue. What if that site owner takes "French property" in exchange for an item illegal there? Does France then have the right to arrest them if they enter French soil? That, in a nutshell is EXACTLY what happened here. Could it happen in that case too?
Quite possibly. And that's why country's rarely fight for citizens who are already on foreign soil unless they see it as a violation of human rights or an attack on their home country.
Why are you listening to the music in the first place? Because you like it? No, because everyone else likes it. Nobody is listening to Limp Bizkit now, are they? But it was the hottest thing, and if it was the hottest thing today, people would be snatching up "Nookie" like there was no tomorrow on iTunes. Was the song THAT good? Would you pay $0.99 today for it? Maybe some would, but not like back then. No, it was not that good. Everyone else just happened to listen to it. They thought it was cool, so you thought it was cool. So you hand over your money so you could look cool playing it in your car. Play it today, and your passenger will likely tell you to put something "new" in.
How about this: Try talking to your elderly neighbors about Stargate SG1.
Wow, hard to make friends with them that way. Guess you have nothing in common with the "old foogies", cause they don't watch the same programs or listen to the same music. They aren't "cool".
What am I missing, really? So I missed every season of American Idol and Survivor. I think anyone that watched American Idol missed out on too many hours of their life. They tuned in and tuned out their families and friends. I missed out on watching cut throat competition and popularity contests. You know, after high school, I have no plans on voluntarily engaging in adult versions of childish games.
I didn't catch the Deal or No Deal craze. Yeah, I've seen it. That has got to be the dumbest premise for entertainment I've ever seen. What could I honestly say by those entertained by it? Obviously, they watch it for a reason. TV has burned a place for low brow entertainment. Hand them a copy of The Time Machine to read and they'll bite at your hand like Morlocks. (If you don't get that, you're probably a big "Deal" fan.)
This is the crap, yes crap, that DRM is being put on. It's pure junk. Junk in, junk out.
But hey, keep paying $0.99 per song. Remember, it has nothing to do with the fact that the real reason you listen is that everyone else is listening to it... no, it's REALLY that good. Yeah, that's what they said about Vanilla Ice.
Maybe it's a boring life to some, but I really enjoy my DRM free life. I have my computer, run Linux, listen to music and watch video. I listen to Christian stations which pay little to no royalties, or are based off local radio stations who have minimal advertising and mostly exist on donations. I get my news online, on radio, and in the newspaper that I read at work.
I have a portable music player. Actually, it's a voice recorder that doubles as a music player. I record my own live music which is royalty and DRM free. I run the sound booth at my church, so I would be the one to determine any DRM. I make DRM free DVDs of services, plays, presentations, etc.
When I want to read, I read a DRM free book, which doesn't even have a copyright, the King James Version of the bible. I can copy it in part or in whole (I have a copy in software also for digital copies, "mixups" aka "topical quoting").
Now, I understand that many of you would find my favorite past time boring, even though my work lets me work with the latest and greatest Linux software. I do web hosting, programming, audio/video processing, etc. Then again, it doesn't take living a devoted Christian life to understand that today's media, well, sucks.
There's nothing that good on TV or on pop radio. And, unlike that media, the media I listen to, create, and distribute brings me in touch with life long friends. I'm sure the same might be true of "Dead Heads" and some other fringe bands, but I doubt most Blink 182 or Britney Spears fans get that close, and no Dead Head ever got as close as we do based solely off their common music. Too many people escape life into their TVs, into their computers, and into their iPods.
I like to think that what I do is escaping into life. I can talk to just about anyone about it.
What do I do in my spare time? It's called a life. I do
Why are you listening to the music in the first place? Because you like it? No, because everyone else likes it. Nobody is listening to Limp Bizkit now, are they? But it was the hottest thing, and if it was the hottest thing today, people would be snatching up "Nookie" like there was no tomorrow on iTunes. Was the song THAT good? Would you pay $0.99 today for it? Maybe some would, but not like back then. No, it was not that good. Everyone else just happened to listen to it. They thought it was cool, so you thought it was cool. So you hand over your money so you could look cool playing it in your car. Play it today, and your passenger will likely tell you to put something "new" in.
How about this: Try talking to your elderly neighbors about Stargate SG1.
Wow, hard to make friends with them that way. Guess you have nothing in common with the "old foogies", cause they don't watch the same programs or listen to the same music. They aren't "cool".
What am I missing, really? So I missed every season of American Idol and Survivor. I think anyone that watched American Idol missed out on too many hours of their life. They tuned in and tuned out their families and friends. I missed out on watching cut throat competition and popularity contests. You know, after high school, I have no plans on voluntarily engaging in adult versions of childish games.
I didn't catch the Deal or No Deal craze. Yeah, I've seen it. That has got to be the dumbest premise for entertainment I've ever seen. What could I honestly say by those entertained by it? Obviously, they watch it for a reason. TV has burned a place for low brow entertainment. Hand them a copy of The Time Machine to read and they'll bite at your hand like Morlocks. (If you don't get that, you're probably a big "Deal" fan.)
This is the crap, yes crap, that DRM is being put on. It's pure junk. Junk in, junk out.
But hey, keep paying $0.99 per song. Remember, it has nothing to do with the fact that the real reason you listen is that everyone else is listening to it... no, it's REALLY that good. Yeah, that's what they said about Vanilla Ice.
Maybe it's a boring life to some, but I really enjoy my DRM free life. I have my computer, run Linux, listen to music and watch video. I listen to Christian stations which pay little to no royalties, or are based off local radio stations who have minimal advertising and mostly exist on donations. I get my news online, on radio, and in the newspaper that I read at work.
I have a portable music player. Actually, it's a voice recorder that doubles as a music player. I record my own live music which is royalty and DRM free. I run the sound booth at my church, so I would be the one to determine any DRM. I make DRM free DVDs of services, plays, presentations, etc.
When I want to read, I read a DRM free book, which doesn't even have a copyright, the King James Version of the bible. I can copy it in part or in whole (I have a copy in software also for digital copies, "mixups" aka "topical quoting").
Now, I understand that many of you would find my favorite past time boring, even though my work lets me work with the latest and greatest Linux software. I do web hosting, programming, audio/video processing, etc. Then again, it doesn't take living a devoted Christian life to understand that today's media, well, sucks.
There's nothing that good on TV or on pop radio. And, unlike that media, the media I listen to, create, and distribute brings me in touch with life long friends. I'm sure the same might be true of "Dead Heads" and some other fringe bands, but I doubt most Blink 182 or Britney Spears fans get that close, and no Dead Head ever got as close as we do based solely off their common music. Too many people escape life into their TVs, into their computers, and into their iPods.
I like to think that what I do is escaping into life. I can talk to just about anyone about it.
What do I do in my spare time? It's called a life. I do my best not to ignore it, but live it. Almost all of my friends are DRM free
True, but there's a way around that as well. Any robot service worth its weight in fiber has more than one IP, and can have multiple subnets. Best way is to dump robots.txt links to a separate subnet, have it check later in the day. If the IP gets banned, it can check by trying to access the main page, see if it starts getting errors. It can then mark "booby-trap" sites on a list, and route around either the specific triggers or actually honor the robots.txt.
You have to have more links than they have IPs to stop a full scan. Of course, if even one link bans, they can just pay a guy to sit on a few major ISP provider accounts and manually check your robot links. Then they don't care if you ban, because you'll have to ban entire regions of the world as they bounce around with multiple dynamic IPs. If you have this as automated subnet banning, you'd actually help them out by allowing them to set your bans across major ISPs... especially if you have any content they deem questionable, you just gave them a way to shut you down remotely.
Of course, the rule here is to never ever automate subnet bans on a public access site... but then you still can't stop them either way.
Well, I'm talking in notions about this theory, of course.
Think of a 2 diminsional plane. A plane is infinite. If the universe is defined this way, this is an inifinite universe.
However, this theory says it mirrors. So, it is more like a computer monitor that either A) reflects the mouse pointer, turning it 180 degrees and as you keep moving up and hit the edge, you start coming back down, even though you keep moving up, and so on. Things just bounce around forever in perfect Newtonian laws. Or B) you can set your monitor up to "wormhole" the mouse from the top to the bottom. When you hit the top edge, the mouse reappears at the bottom and keeps going up again.
Now, what's outside the screen? From the relative view of the screen, it is inifite. But this isn't true. I'm outside the screen. My Pepsi is sitting outside the screen. There are multiple screens around my room, completely unaware of each other. And yet, I sit on the exterior of them. I comprehend them, but they comprehend me not. In their 2 diminsional universe, they haven't the physical capability to comprehend me. I can observe and affect its world, but it cannot observe or affect mine, unless I give it the means to, with something like a webcam.
Now, applying this to our universe, this theory supposes a 4 diminsional model of the universe with the "edges" mirroring (or could worm hole, and have a similar, but opposite effect).
To us, it is infinite in our observations, or limitted if we come to an understanding about what's going on. We may be able to find an edge to define, just like my screen has a pixel at 0,0, and the computer defines this as an edge, that there is no -1, 0 or 0, -1 or -1, -1.
So you are perfectly correct. Outside the universe is undefined. However, if this theory is correct, it still must exist. Otherwise, we come to this conclusion:
We find in the future that the distance between the "mirrors" is X lightyears. Why that size and not another? If it fluxuates at all, it is expanding "into" something or contracting "from" something.
Now, some said that I call the exterior unimaginable. This is not so. I say it is unobservable. We'd have to break through an edge into a place without our laws of time and space. I am, in this case, defining an edge as the limit of time and space, and beyond it either no time and space, or at least, seperate time and space, but the two never meet. But one may affect the other in some way we can't comprehend. Just like the screen I'm typing on cannot comprehend the keyboard that is affecting it as I type.
And so, I'm agreeing with you. There is defined (interior) and undefined (exterior). It is beyond our reality to have the ability to define it. However, I would hold to an infinite "superverse" theory. Our reality, our galaxies, our universe as we know it in 4D time and space (and other possible dimisions we can observe or define) exists as a bubble of some shape, size, and configuration. But it has an exterior that is undefined, which has such a difference from us as to be forever undefined, as we cannot observe it.
I see it this way, and this is just my personal observation on this theory. It's either we are interior/exterior, or we are infinite. If there are bounds, something set those bounds by some law. Either the bounds are inifinite in time for a reason we'll never be able to comprehend, or they are moving to some law.
One might say that the universe, being a giant computer, is expanding those bounds of "undefined" by "solving" and making more of it "defined". But, that still says there is an exterior of undefined.
So, I agree with you. I'm just calling the undefined the exterior. There exists "pixels" we can't define because they exist outside our comprehension, like i.
My entire question, which is more philosophy than science theory is, what exists in the i area. Does it have its own reality? Does it infinitely encompass us. Does it observe and/or affect us
I'll buy one just as soon as you can tell me if I'm inside or outside a Klein bottle.;)
All interiors have an exterior. If you have not one, you have not the other, and vice versa. That which lacks one, lacks both. If the universe has an interior, it has an exterior. If it has no exterior, it has no interior, and vice versa.
The last good explanation of physics involving a surface was, if I remember correctly, Einstein explaining holes in space time (worm holes) using a bent piece of paper and a pencil. I've yet to see any more exact or simpler explanation of astrophysics. Klein bottles hardly explain the universe, though. If the universe is a Klein bottle, then its borders lie at some point, from which you can travel infinitely from. You may as well say a glass Kline bottle is the real universal boundary, because that's exactly what it would be. So, you imagine a bigger and bigger bottle... but relatively speaking from an infinite distance away from those borders, it's still the same size as a glass Klein bottle... a point. That's hardly a border just because you have a Klein bottle on your desk, regardless of its size or shape.
There's a theory out now about actually reading what's inside a Black Hole by studying escaping anti-matter. Kind of harkens back to the old Star Trek episode with the alternate universe where everything seems reversed.
The idea of a multiverse of relational sizes is an interesting one. The only question is how they would relate to each other. A single atom falling into a black hole would have to "reduce", or it would quite literally smash the universe(s) within our universe into pieces. If that's true, a single atom from the universe "above" us could destroy us in an instant. Maybe that would explain Big Bang, haha.
However, I have to think that the theory falls a bit short in a few ways. First, if there is reducing, then it's just simple relativity, and there's not really smaller, but only the observation of small (like someone standing really far away). And, we already can observe that, so it just becomes a normal worm holing effect, and we still have to wonder on the boundaries of the universe in any finite theory.
On the other hand, if there is no reduction, then there's a question of multiplicity. Are there universes so small that they actually fill all of our "empty" space, and make electrons look like galaxies (in a manner of speaking)? If so, do we shake trillions upon trillions of vast empires simply by sneezing? While simple interactions may not actually do that, what about processes like thermonuclear fusion? Atom smashing? Could atomic reactions themselves be destructive forces to ultra-small universes? If so, how would we even come close to defining morality in that since, living on the death of countless universes? And, when will our universe eventually fall into the sun of a larger universe?
Hmmm, no, that theory, to me at least, asks far more questions than it answer. It would have to come a long way before I could personally consider it. Though it does make for great TV, hehe.
Mathematically, then, we are "inside" every Klein bottle in the world. Of the principle, most people don't go around considering themselves inside thousands of bottles. This would be an incorrect assumption of faulty logic.
Just became you can turn your shirt inside out (or twist it into a single curved plane), doesn't mean you have put the world inside your shirt. It means you have a twisted shirt.
A Klein bottle has no interior or exterior, actually. So, no, I'm 100% correct. If you have an interior, you must have an exterior. If you have no exterior, you have no interior.
So, if we are on the interior, there must be an exterior. If not, then the universe is simply infinite as there are no spacial boundaries, but only defined pathways, like a cubical maze. Cubicles don't technically have an interior or exterior. An office, on the other hand, has an interior once the door is close. As soon as the interior is defined, the exterior is defined. They define each other, in fact. They can never be mutually exclusive.
If something has an interior, that to me at least would logically mean there is an exterior. What's on the exterior?
It is something to ponder about. If there is an exterior, and its all mirrored on the interior, then there's no way to look beyond those mirrors. The only way to see the exterior and what may lie beyond it is if what is on the exterior comes into the interior. If the universe has a boundary, then it lies beyond time, space, beyond dark matter, beyond void. It is then, really, infinite of time and space. Without time or space, with no relational "size" or "limit", it is effectively the omnipresent of the exterior. Are we a "soccer ball" in its view, and if so, can it kick us around at will, if it has a will?
And if you think all that is very possible, the only question to ask is, can it penetrate the interior of the universe? What stops it? Could it be the exterior itself, the being its own boundary? Unless there are multiple universes, are we the sole object of its attention, its only interest?
If all that is true, then while we cannot measure or weigh what is outside of us, it can surely measure and weigh what it encompasses. It knows our sum total, and we have no comprehension of its nature. Our science for all its complexity falls short of understanding the universe compared to a single comprehending glance from the outside. A man can't pick himself off the ground using only his own hands anymore than we can comprehend the full view of the universe, interior and exterior using only the things within the universe.
But, nothing exists on the exterior, right. The universe is just a ball floating in void, the void of which we can't even mentally comprehend, because it has no space or time. Then again, I once heard of a theory on the subject...
Instead of providing a very insightful response filled with examples of how GPL programs blow Windows-only programs out of the water, and how Linux has saved me literally tens of thousands of dollars in the audio/video post-production space alone, and how I used to run Windows until it nose dived irrecoverably and I was forced to choose between paying for another install CD and/or support but finally decided it was time to try Linux full time, and how Linux programs benefit MS users by allowing them to run the very same programs, and how you are a daily user of Linux whether you like it or not, but are instead completely blind to the operating systems powering your favorite websites...
I also say "our men". We are family. They are my family, and I am theirs. Why would that stop you reading?
I would write a long post explaining this, but I couldn't even put into words the bond between us. I couldn't even put into words the bond between my wife and me, which is unlike the bond between any couple outside of church. Divorce, adultery, etc are words of a foreign land to us. Children are treated by our churches as if they were our very own. Our women are my sisters. Our men are my brothers. I don't dishonor them by my use of "our", but honor them as being of the family of Christ. We are His; we are the body, and He is the head.
Those on the outside, as I used to be, just don't get it. And usually, it turns into a feminist debate, when in fact there is complete lack of understanding on the outside just how important the women of our church are. We could not be a family without our sisters, nor without our brothers. Our women have a strength in them that if a feminist truly understood, would realize that their arguments do grave injustice to the women of our church. I often compare our women to our backbone, rock solid in their faith, and woe to any man who tries to come along and deceive them. Hell truly hath no comparable fury.;)
You think we (the men) push "dress codes" on our women? First of all, it's not a dress code, but the difference between standards and a dress code is lost on those outside the church. Second of all, it's women who push them! Oh, surprise surprise, it is our women who lead this. It's their glory on top of their own heads, and they will not give it up for any man. And our men will defend them to the letter in it. Our men and our women are not divided on issues, and not because anyone follows blindly. We love each other, in a sense that truly expresses the word love. The whole men vs. women debate is for the world. There simply is no men vs. women debate in our church. There isn't even a context to put such a debate on.
But, some like to think they are "liberating" women by debating the biblical role of women to churches. Our women either find that insulting, misguided, and usually both. And, while there are people out there who do believe women are slaves, or sub-human, we certainly are not them. But don't debate me on this issue, talk to our women about that, who are nationally recognized Evangelists, Healers, Prophets, Teachers, etc., and they will surely and quickly set you straight on the issue, hehe.
...says the anonymous coward. But there are many not afraid to speak openly about this topic, such as myself.
I would be what someone might label as fundamentalist, in that I believe in the infallibility of God's message to us. However, the correct meaning of fundamentalist as used in these conversations is really an extreme legalism (they take things to the extreme on the language, usually failing to realize that the infallible word does not mean someone can't do a biased translation).
I'm an Apostolic Pentecostal of the United Pentecostal Church. We're Oneness (only One, not three in one). We're also classified under the Charismatic, because we practice the gifts of the Holy Spirit. We're separate from them, though, in our Oneness beliefs and also in what are known as standards. Our women don't cut their hair and usually wear dresses and skirts, our men keep their hair cut short and wear long sleeve shirts and full length pants. We generally don't watch TV (which isn't universally practiced, dvds are allowed to an extent, etc... , but is part of our standards bylaws, debate on this issue continues), go out to movies, drink, smoke, or take any other types of drugs.
So, from reading that, you would think we're the far far far right of all issues, especially on science. You would also be furthest from the truth.
The truth is that our church realizes one thing, that science cannot and will not disprove God, if that science is truly logical in basis and not some half baked theory. Evolution remains unproven, but if you were to ask our scholars, they would similarly tell you, every bit of Evolution (or any other scientific area) that is proven fact is fully in line with biblical accounts. On the other hand, we have no faith that science will ever bring humanity even one inch closer to salvation. We simply recognize that many misguided people would use theory and out of context facts to make a case against Christianity, as if there really were some disagreement between science and biblical truth.
Churches are filled with the technologically gifted. Who do you think runs sound booths, cameras, websites, etc.? Churches have massive IT infrastructures. Christians broadcast on tens of thousands of radio stations worldwide and several denominations run entire TV networks. So, before anyone jumps on the "religion is for low IQ people", like the "New Atheism" people do, realize that such a view is mainly based in geographic epicenters revolving around creation and design, not implementation (the programmers, not the professional users).
As such, the "low IQ" bias doesn't hold, considering the proliferation of "media ministries". And we certainly passed our science and math classes with flying colors. Many will also tell you that faith is not blind. Faith is that we've seen enough evidence to be persuaded, which is the actual use of the word faith in the bible. As Jesus did say, if you don't believe because I'm telling you, believe because of the works you've seen me do. (paraphrasing heavily) We recognize that God has never refused a test, though you better be careful not to tempt him. There's a difference between testing and tempting. If you don't believe, you can test. If you believe, but ask anyways for some undeserving reason, you tempt. That's a very simplified explanation, but should get the message to you.
Now, as for this case, this teacher was misguided, and I'm still waiting for the downloaded audio to listen to the context. But I recognize a few things right off the bat. First off, he was setup.
"The following is from Paul L. LaClair, a NYC attorney who lives in Kearny, New Jersey, and is posted with his permission. David Paszkiewicz, the teacher described here engaging in incompetent teaching and dishonesty, is apparently a youth pastor at Kearny Baptist Church in addition to being a public school teacher. LaClair's son Matthew has previously garnered attention for protesting Bush administration activities by refusing to stand for
Do we mean stupid like Muslim clerics being upset that their holy book is put in ringtones which they consider disrespectful?
Who says they want to preserve their language? Seems like an issue of respect, or lack there of... much like calling an entire tribe's beliefs stupid. If MS is going to "support" a language, they should have some concept of that culture, who would be the primary users of that language.
Wait, we did this before, didn't we? Taking things from native tribes that didn't belong to us just because we didn't respect their way of life and had a different concept of ownership? In this case, all they wanted was to be asked permission. But, like the EULA, MS assumes they dictate who gives and who receives permission. If MS can morally support DRM, then yes, a language can be owned by a people. It's their collective creation and part of their identification. A culture's language and the culture itself are so close, they are inseparable. Call it cultural identity theft.
Wow, what a hard concept asking permission. But, that's our culture. Pushing our economic/morality views on all other cultures who have something we want. Welcome to global capitalism, Mapuche.
Everyone gets all GPL-ish over the patent system. First one to cross the line? Yeah, maybe if we're talking about a waffle maker, but not if we're talking about semiconductors. Take away their patents, and they go out of business to cheap knock off companies, with no R&D budget, and innovation dies. Most people forget a key part of companies like IBM:
FTA: "IBM is the world's leading patent holder, spending $6 billion a year in research and development and earning about $1 billion a year in royalties."
If that's not promoting the arts and science, I don't know what is. That's the whole idea behind the patent system. Reward the inventor to encourage invention. 20 years on a patent only seems unreasonable because we're used to Moore's law. If it was invented more than 18 months ago, it should be free now, by some strange leap of logic.
Sounds like IBM puts out a lot more than they get back. Don't know the validity of the patents in question, but considering it was 1980's, electronic catalog shopping wouldn't be obvious (in implementation, not in general idea, which was quite older).
I'm certainly in favor of supporting $6 billion in R&D which we're all benefiting from indirectly by enforcing a patent on another corporate body that makes its fair share of pocket change off said R&D.
Patents drive such high R&D budgets, and nothing else. Take away patents, and take away all the toys. They're in business to make money, not to give out charities. $6 billion a year for IBM isn't like government spending. They can't run up a yearly deficit.
I have to disagree with "The proof is whether they're caught and the mistakes are corrected.". By that logic, proof that the system doesn't work can't even exist. If nothing is caught, then you can't say there is a mistake that isn't corrected... by reporting on a mistake, it will be caught and corrected. Let's say I've caught articles with inaccurate facts, have not reported or corrected it. Is that proof the system doesn't work? Only so long as I don't report on it...
The system is self-reinforcing in its philosophy. It's almost the old paradox of the person that says, "Everything I say is a lie." Only in this case, "Everything Wikipedia gets right is proof that it's a good moderated source. Everything that Wikipedia gets wrong will be corrected and is proof that it's a good moderated source." If that is true, it cannot be proven as a flawed system (speaking generally, but not totally; as a general weakness of the overall basis of moderation, but not necessarily complete weakness).
Do I read Wikipedia? Sure. It's a good for generalized info on a topic I'm not at all familiar with or only slightly familiar with. Would I research using its facts directly? Absolutely NOT. Many "facts" included are bold enough to say "Citation Needed"... if you don't have a citation for something not common knowledge, DON'T include it. That in and of itself is, to me, proof of flawed editorial doctorine utilized by many at wikipedia. It's like reading a translation of a classic novel in a foreign language. You don't quote the translation if you are doing scholarly work unless the target is the general public, you quote the original. Especially don't quote it if it can't even list its source, unless it is claiming original source.
So, possibly I did expose one proof of the major flaw with Wikipedia: Citation Needed. I'll call that self-admitted proof of a flawed system, where editors admit lack of research on their part, lack of input from the public, lack of credibility of fact, or whatever you want to classify the flaw as.
I don't think Wikipedia is broken or beyond repair. It's an interesting system. But like all systems, it has its strengths, limitations, and weaknesses. I think its far too unproven to call a success, regardless of its popularity. I think time will both improve the system as well as lend to it being proven more.
Slashdot Mirror
Hold crap! What are we going to do now? Without open Symbian, whatever will we do! Will Nokia's strangle hold on smart phones never end! Oh, the humanity!
http://thenextweb.com/location/2011/02/08/symbian%E2%80%99s-huge-market-share-looks-to-be-in-play/
For the record, I was reading /. on a bumpy country road, and I was the driver. I hit my head on the steering wheel, the roof, and the side window. I personally blame /. for the addiction to read it while driving and for the excessive use of bright white backgounds. I'll be contacting my lawyer just as soon as I post this through my mobile and merge onto the freeway.
One of the things to consider is the cost benefit as a whole. But the problem is, what is the true benefit of saving anything. The benefit can be quantified if you turn endangered animals into food and products.
While PETA may not like it, the reason there is an abundance of Bison/buffalo is because of its valuable as food. We would likely see a sharp decline in bovine if McDonald's only sold chicken and if leather went completely out of style. It has been proposed to do the same for Tigers, Pandas, and even Whales.
The idea is, you license ranchers to raise these animals as stock. The idea is simple. Give the ranchers a financial incentive to expand the population of endangered animals, and they will do so out of a desire for profit. They will also actively fight to maintain the necessary habitat for them. It's win-win, and who doesn't want a whale skin hubcaps? I know Dennis Leary does.
Name a successful and active billionaire who isn't an egomaniac. There are certain levels in the game of life where you don't keep succeeding without extra ordinary efforts. I cannot think of a single successful Silicon Valley startup where they didn't expect 12 hour days at a minimum.
But if you find the lazyboy reclining, unmotivated, cheetos eating, and brilliantly successful CEO/Corp, you let us know so we can unlock the best kept secret of all ages. Jobs? No. Gates? No. Richard Branson? No. Page? No. Kevin Rose? No. Larry Elison? No. Buffet? No.
As they say, don't hate the player, hate the game.
I disagree. Most judges are not experts in many fields they preside over. It is the job of each side to properly explain what the situation is, why their position is correct, and why their position being correct should result in a particular judgement.
A judge doesn't need to be an expert on DNA, or know anything about it. It is the obligation of each party to present a verifiable expert who can testify to the validity of the evidence. We need prudent jurists who can handle evidence, not the expertise itself. I'm not saying that a more knowledgeable judge isn't helpful, but it is not a requirement. Otherwise, there would never exist a judge competent enough to sit on SCOTUS. They'd have to be experts in everything. Often times, they each have areas of expertise, and rely on their colleagues, assistants, and the questions to the parties to fill in gaps in their personal knowledge.
I personally rather have experts in law than experts in individual fields sitting on our courts.
http://www.piana.eu/search/node/Carlo%20Piana%20is%20an%20asshole
DVORAK, the #1 best excuse for not letting anyone else use your computer. DVORAK, the quickest way to deflate geek posers who want to grab your keyboard while your using it to "show you something cool real quick".
DVORAK, trusted by obfuscaters, hated by everyone else who uses your computer. Mac users say, "It's the best thing to foul up 'l33t' poser wannabes since the one button mouse!"
Like child trafficking? Let's say someone buys an old cruise ship, parks it 100 miles off the coast of Florida. They pay kidnappers to go into the US and kidnap children to be sold overseas. (So as not to fool with extradition laws which don't apply here.)
Now, let's assume (because IANAL) that they are in international waters, and that what they are doing are not against international law (actually, I think this IS covered under some type of international slave trade laws or treaties, but this is just an example). What would the US do? They'd probably send in a team of Marines. They are US citizens, and so the US should have a right to get involved internationally over them.
Ok, let's move to something that is actual property. Let's say instead of children, they started stealing art or gold from the US. Well, they are in possession of stolen property. The US will claim the right to go after that which is owned in the US.
What about currency?
Look on your cash. It is property of the US government. I read a copy of "DAMAGE TO PROPERTY (COMPENSATION) ACT, 1923 SECTION 15" (Google for it, the link I found was dead, had to read cache) states wrongful damage as damage to US currency, or even that of another country's currency.
So, the US owns the dollar. They can determine its value. They could, tomorrow, print up a completely different looking bill, and say that the previous bills are all worthless. They can also prosecute your for damaging their money.
So, as the currency is the government's property, then when you play with US currency, you are playing with government property. And, if they say it is illegal to do X with their property, gaining it by ill gotten means, ie - theft, they can and will arrest you the moment you step foot on US soil.
Again, I have not read this law, my explanation may be full of holes. But if currency is the property of the US, then any crime you commit anywhere in the world with that property, you are committing against the US, regardless of where you or those you deal with physically are.
Yeah, that basically means the US is saying, "Any crime you commit using our property, we can try you for."
On the other hand, these guys have no way out of this. I mean, they can't claim diplomatic immunity. Yes, they most certainly are subject to US law once in the US. Now, whether they can successfully argue in court that no crime was committed while they were in the US... I doubt, considering their business was in operation at the time of their arrest. Then, of course, that they have no legal consent clauses in any banking contracts (making them subject to US law) or the legal property of the US issue.
Now, do I agree with this? No. For instance, France, for instance, could make criminal an explicit legal right of another country's citizen. An American who ran a WWII war memorabilia website in the US shouldn't be imprisoned in France because the sale of Nazi articles is illegal there... Then again, this is really the same issue. What if that site owner takes "French property" in exchange for an item illegal there? Does France then have the right to arrest them if they enter French soil? That, in a nutshell is EXACTLY what happened here. Could it happen in that case too?
Quite possibly. And that's why country's rarely fight for citizens who are already on foreign soil unless they see it as a violation of human rights or an attack on their home country.
Hmmm, think more... "K-Fed". Bad bad visual images... yeah, that's DRM, hehe.
Why are you listening to the music in the first place? Because you like it? No, because everyone else likes it. Nobody is listening to Limp Bizkit now, are they? But it was the hottest thing, and if it was the hottest thing today, people would be snatching up "Nookie" like there was no tomorrow on iTunes. Was the song THAT good? Would you pay $0.99 today for it? Maybe some would, but not like back then. No, it was not that good. Everyone else just happened to listen to it. They thought it was cool, so you thought it was cool. So you hand over your money so you could look cool playing it in your car. Play it today, and your passenger will likely tell you to put something "new" in.
How about this: Try talking to your elderly neighbors about Stargate SG1.
Wow, hard to make friends with them that way. Guess you have nothing in common with the "old foogies", cause they don't watch the same programs or listen to the same music. They aren't "cool".
What am I missing, really? So I missed every season of American Idol and Survivor. I think anyone that watched American Idol missed out on too many hours of their life. They tuned in and tuned out their families and friends. I missed out on watching cut throat competition and popularity contests. You know, after high school, I have no plans on voluntarily engaging in adult versions of childish games.
I didn't catch the Deal or No Deal craze. Yeah, I've seen it. That has got to be the dumbest premise for entertainment I've ever seen. What could I honestly say by those entertained by it? Obviously, they watch it for a reason. TV has burned a place for low brow entertainment. Hand them a copy of The Time Machine to read and they'll bite at your hand like Morlocks. (If you don't get that, you're probably a big "Deal" fan.)
This is the crap, yes crap, that DRM is being put on. It's pure junk. Junk in, junk out.
But hey, keep paying $0.99 per song. Remember, it has nothing to do with the fact that the real reason you listen is that everyone else is listening to it... no, it's REALLY that good. Yeah, that's what they said about Vanilla Ice.
Maybe it's a boring life to some, but I really enjoy my DRM free life. I have my computer, run Linux, listen to music and watch video. I listen to Christian stations which pay little to no royalties, or are based off local radio stations who have minimal advertising and mostly exist on donations. I get my news online, on radio, and in the newspaper that I read at work.
I have a portable music player. Actually, it's a voice recorder that doubles as a music player. I record my own live music which is royalty and DRM free. I run the sound booth at my church, so I would be the one to determine any DRM. I make DRM free DVDs of services, plays, presentations, etc.
When I want to read, I read a DRM free book, which doesn't even have a copyright, the King James Version of the bible. I can copy it in part or in whole (I have a copy in software also for digital copies, "mixups" aka "topical quoting").
Now, I understand that many of you would find my favorite past time boring, even though my work lets me work with the latest and greatest Linux software. I do web hosting, programming, audio/video processing, etc. Then again, it doesn't take living a devoted Christian life to understand that today's media, well, sucks.
There's nothing that good on TV or on pop radio. And, unlike that media, the media I listen to, create, and distribute brings me in touch with life long friends. I'm sure the same might be true of "Dead Heads" and some other fringe bands, but I doubt most Blink 182 or Britney Spears fans get that close, and no Dead Head ever got as close as we do based solely off their common music. Too many people escape life into their TVs, into their computers, and into their iPods.
I like to think that what I do is escaping into life. I can talk to just about anyone about it.
What do I do in my spare time? It's called a life. I do
Why are you listening to the music in the first place? Because you like it? No, because everyone else likes it. Nobody is listening to Limp Bizkit now, are they? But it was the hottest thing, and if it was the hottest thing today, people would be snatching up "Nookie" like there was no tomorrow on iTunes. Was the song THAT good? Would you pay $0.99 today for it? Maybe some would, but not like back then. No, it was not that good. Everyone else just happened to listen to it. They thought it was cool, so you thought it was cool. So you hand over your money so you could look cool playing it in your car. Play it today, and your passenger will likely tell you to put something "new" in. How about this: Try talking to your elderly neighbors about Stargate SG1. Wow, hard to make friends with them that way. Guess you have nothing in common with the "old foogies", cause they don't watch the same programs or listen to the same music. They aren't "cool". What am I missing, really? So I missed every season of American Idol and Survivor. I think anyone that watched American Idol missed out on too many hours of their life. They tuned in and tuned out their families and friends. I missed out on watching cut throat competition and popularity contests. You know, after high school, I have no plans on voluntarily engaging in adult versions of childish games. I didn't catch the Deal or No Deal craze. Yeah, I've seen it. That has got to be the dumbest premise for entertainment I've ever seen. What could I honestly say by those entertained by it? Obviously, they watch it for a reason. TV has burned a place for low brow entertainment. Hand them a copy of The Time Machine to read and they'll bite at your hand like Morlocks. (If you don't get that, you're probably a big "Deal" fan.) This is the crap, yes crap, that DRM is being put on. It's pure junk. Junk in, junk out. But hey, keep paying $0.99 per song. Remember, it has nothing to do with the fact that the real reason you listen is that everyone else is listening to it... no, it's REALLY that good. Yeah, that's what they said about Vanilla Ice. Maybe it's a boring life to some, but I really enjoy my DRM free life. I have my computer, run Linux, listen to music and watch video. I listen to Christian stations which pay little to no royalties, or are based off local radio stations who have minimal advertising and mostly exist on donations. I get my news online, on radio, and in the newspaper that I read at work. I have a portable music player. Actually, it's a voice recorder that doubles as a music player. I record my own live music which is royalty and DRM free. I run the sound booth at my church, so I would be the one to determine any DRM. I make DRM free DVDs of services, plays, presentations, etc. When I want to read, I read a DRM free book, which doesn't even have a copyright, the King James Version of the bible. I can copy it in part or in whole (I have a copy in software also for digital copies, "mixups" aka "topical quoting"). Now, I understand that many of you would find my favorite past time boring, even though my work lets me work with the latest and greatest Linux software. I do web hosting, programming, audio/video processing, etc. Then again, it doesn't take living a devoted Christian life to understand that today's media, well, sucks. There's nothing that good on TV or on pop radio. And, unlike that media, the media I listen to, create, and distribute brings me in touch with life long friends. I'm sure the same might be true of "Dead Heads" and some other fringe bands, but I doubt most Blink 182 or Britney Spears fans get that close, and no Dead Head ever got as close as we do based solely off their common music. Too many people escape life into their TVs, into their computers, and into their iPods. I like to think that what I do is escaping into life. I can talk to just about anyone about it. What do I do in my spare time? It's called a life. I do my best not to ignore it, but live it. Almost all of my friends are DRM free
True, but there's a way around that as well. Any robot service worth its weight in fiber has more than one IP, and can have multiple subnets. Best way is to dump robots.txt links to a separate subnet, have it check later in the day. If the IP gets banned, it can check by trying to access the main page, see if it starts getting errors. It can then mark "booby-trap" sites on a list, and route around either the specific triggers or actually honor the robots.txt.
You have to have more links than they have IPs to stop a full scan. Of course, if even one link bans, they can just pay a guy to sit on a few major ISP provider accounts and manually check your robot links. Then they don't care if you ban, because you'll have to ban entire regions of the world as they bounce around with multiple dynamic IPs. If you have this as automated subnet banning, you'd actually help them out by allowing them to set your bans across major ISPs... especially if you have any content they deem questionable, you just gave them a way to shut you down remotely.
Of course, the rule here is to never ever automate subnet bans on a public access site... but then you still can't stop them either way.
Well, I'm talking in notions about this theory, of course.
Think of a 2 diminsional plane. A plane is infinite. If the universe is defined this way, this is an inifinite universe.
However, this theory says it mirrors. So, it is more like a computer monitor that either A) reflects the mouse pointer, turning it 180 degrees and as you keep moving up and hit the edge, you start coming back down, even though you keep moving up, and so on. Things just bounce around forever in perfect Newtonian laws. Or B) you can set your monitor up to "wormhole" the mouse from the top to the bottom. When you hit the top edge, the mouse reappears at the bottom and keeps going up again.
Now, what's outside the screen? From the relative view of the screen, it is inifite. But this isn't true. I'm outside the screen. My Pepsi is sitting outside the screen. There are multiple screens around my room, completely unaware of each other. And yet, I sit on the exterior of them. I comprehend them, but they comprehend me not. In their 2 diminsional universe, they haven't the physical capability to comprehend me. I can observe and affect its world, but it cannot observe or affect mine, unless I give it the means to, with something like a webcam.
Now, applying this to our universe, this theory supposes a 4 diminsional model of the universe with the "edges" mirroring (or could worm hole, and have a similar, but opposite effect).
To us, it is infinite in our observations, or limitted if we come to an understanding about what's going on. We may be able to find an edge to define, just like my screen has a pixel at 0,0, and the computer defines this as an edge, that there is no -1, 0 or 0, -1 or -1, -1.
So you are perfectly correct. Outside the universe is undefined. However, if this theory is correct, it still must exist. Otherwise, we come to this conclusion:
We find in the future that the distance between the "mirrors" is X lightyears. Why that size and not another? If it fluxuates at all, it is expanding "into" something or contracting "from" something.
Now, some said that I call the exterior unimaginable. This is not so. I say it is unobservable. We'd have to break through an edge into a place without our laws of time and space. I am, in this case, defining an edge as the limit of time and space, and beyond it either no time and space, or at least, seperate time and space, but the two never meet. But one may affect the other in some way we can't comprehend. Just like the screen I'm typing on cannot comprehend the keyboard that is affecting it as I type.
And so, I'm agreeing with you. There is defined (interior) and undefined (exterior). It is beyond our reality to have the ability to define it. However, I would hold to an infinite "superverse" theory. Our reality, our galaxies, our universe as we know it in 4D time and space (and other possible dimisions we can observe or define) exists as a bubble of some shape, size, and configuration. But it has an exterior that is undefined, which has such a difference from us as to be forever undefined, as we cannot observe it.
I see it this way, and this is just my personal observation on this theory. It's either we are interior/exterior, or we are infinite. If there are bounds, something set those bounds by some law. Either the bounds are inifinite in time for a reason we'll never be able to comprehend, or they are moving to some law.
One might say that the universe, being a giant computer, is expanding those bounds of "undefined" by "solving" and making more of it "defined". But, that still says there is an exterior of undefined.
So, I agree with you. I'm just calling the undefined the exterior. There exists "pixels" we can't define because they exist outside our comprehension, like i.
My entire question, which is more philosophy than science theory is, what exists in the i area. Does it have its own reality? Does it infinitely encompass us. Does it observe and/or affect us
I'll buy one just as soon as you can tell me if I'm inside or outside a Klein bottle. ;)
All interiors have an exterior. If you have not one, you have not the other, and vice versa. That which lacks one, lacks both. If the universe has an interior, it has an exterior. If it has no exterior, it has no interior, and vice versa.
The last good explanation of physics involving a surface was, if I remember correctly, Einstein explaining holes in space time (worm holes) using a bent piece of paper and a pencil. I've yet to see any more exact or simpler explanation of astrophysics. Klein bottles hardly explain the universe, though. If the universe is a Klein bottle, then its borders lie at some point, from which you can travel infinitely from. You may as well say a glass Kline bottle is the real universal boundary, because that's exactly what it would be. So, you imagine a bigger and bigger bottle... but relatively speaking from an infinite distance away from those borders, it's still the same size as a glass Klein bottle... a point. That's hardly a border just because you have a Klein bottle on your desk, regardless of its size or shape.
How many interiors does a moebius strip have?
There's a theory out now about actually reading what's inside a Black Hole by studying escaping anti-matter. Kind of harkens back to the old Star Trek episode with the alternate universe where everything seems reversed. The idea of a multiverse of relational sizes is an interesting one. The only question is how they would relate to each other. A single atom falling into a black hole would have to "reduce", or it would quite literally smash the universe(s) within our universe into pieces. If that's true, a single atom from the universe "above" us could destroy us in an instant. Maybe that would explain Big Bang, haha. However, I have to think that the theory falls a bit short in a few ways. First, if there is reducing, then it's just simple relativity, and there's not really smaller, but only the observation of small (like someone standing really far away). And, we already can observe that, so it just becomes a normal worm holing effect, and we still have to wonder on the boundaries of the universe in any finite theory. On the other hand, if there is no reduction, then there's a question of multiplicity. Are there universes so small that they actually fill all of our "empty" space, and make electrons look like galaxies (in a manner of speaking)? If so, do we shake trillions upon trillions of vast empires simply by sneezing? While simple interactions may not actually do that, what about processes like thermonuclear fusion? Atom smashing? Could atomic reactions themselves be destructive forces to ultra-small universes? If so, how would we even come close to defining morality in that since, living on the death of countless universes? And, when will our universe eventually fall into the sun of a larger universe? Hmmm, no, that theory, to me at least, asks far more questions than it answer. It would have to come a long way before I could personally consider it. Though it does make for great TV, hehe.
Mathematically, then, we are "inside" every Klein bottle in the world. Of the principle, most people don't go around considering themselves inside thousands of bottles. This would be an incorrect assumption of faulty logic.
Just became you can turn your shirt inside out (or twist it into a single curved plane), doesn't mean you have put the world inside your shirt. It means you have a twisted shirt.
A Klein bottle has no interior or exterior, actually. So, no, I'm 100% correct. If you have an interior, you must have an exterior. If you have no exterior, you have no interior.
So, if we are on the interior, there must be an exterior. If not, then the universe is simply infinite as there are no spacial boundaries, but only defined pathways, like a cubical maze. Cubicles don't technically have an interior or exterior. An office, on the other hand, has an interior once the door is close. As soon as the interior is defined, the exterior is defined. They define each other, in fact. They can never be mutually exclusive.
If something has an interior, that to me at least would logically mean there is an exterior. What's on the exterior?
It is something to ponder about. If there is an exterior, and its all mirrored on the interior, then there's no way to look beyond those mirrors. The only way to see the exterior and what may lie beyond it is if what is on the exterior comes into the interior. If the universe has a boundary, then it lies beyond time, space, beyond dark matter, beyond void. It is then, really, infinite of time and space. Without time or space, with no relational "size" or "limit", it is effectively the omnipresent of the exterior. Are we a "soccer ball" in its view, and if so, can it kick us around at will, if it has a will?
And if you think all that is very possible, the only question to ask is, can it penetrate the interior of the universe? What stops it? Could it be the exterior itself, the being its own boundary? Unless there are multiple universes, are we the sole object of its attention, its only interest?
If all that is true, then while we cannot measure or weigh what is outside of us, it can surely measure and weigh what it encompasses. It knows our sum total, and we have no comprehension of its nature. Our science for all its complexity falls short of understanding the universe compared to a single comprehending glance from the outside. A man can't pick himself off the ground using only his own hands anymore than we can comprehend the full view of the universe, interior and exterior using only the things within the universe.
But, nothing exists on the exterior, right. The universe is just a ball floating in void, the void of which we can't even mentally comprehend, because it has no space or time. Then again, I once heard of a theory on the subject...
Instead of providing a very insightful response filled with examples of how GPL programs blow Windows-only programs out of the water, and how Linux has saved me literally tens of thousands of dollars in the audio/video post-production space alone, and how I used to run Windows until it nose dived irrecoverably and I was forced to choose between paying for another install CD and/or support but finally decided it was time to try Linux full time, and how Linux programs benefit MS users by allowing them to run the very same programs, and how you are a daily user of Linux whether you like it or not, but are instead completely blind to the operating systems powering your favorite websites...
Instead of all that, I'll just say...
O RLY?
I also say "our men". We are family. They are my family, and I am theirs. Why would that stop you reading?
;)
I would write a long post explaining this, but I couldn't even put into words the bond between us. I couldn't even put into words the bond between my wife and me, which is unlike the bond between any couple outside of church. Divorce, adultery, etc are words of a foreign land to us. Children are treated by our churches as if they were our very own. Our women are my sisters. Our men are my brothers. I don't dishonor them by my use of "our", but honor them as being of the family of Christ. We are His; we are the body, and He is the head.
Those on the outside, as I used to be, just don't get it. And usually, it turns into a feminist debate, when in fact there is complete lack of understanding on the outside just how important the women of our church are. We could not be a family without our sisters, nor without our brothers. Our women have a strength in them that if a feminist truly understood, would realize that their arguments do grave injustice to the women of our church. I often compare our women to our backbone, rock solid in their faith, and woe to any man who tries to come along and deceive them. Hell truly hath no comparable fury.
You think we (the men) push "dress codes" on our women? First of all, it's not a dress code, but the difference between standards and a dress code is lost on those outside the church. Second of all, it's women who push them! Oh, surprise surprise, it is our women who lead this. It's their glory on top of their own heads, and they will not give it up for any man. And our men will defend them to the letter in it. Our men and our women are not divided on issues, and not because anyone follows blindly. We love each other, in a sense that truly expresses the word love. The whole men vs. women debate is for the world. There simply is no men vs. women debate in our church. There isn't even a context to put such a debate on.
But, some like to think they are "liberating" women by debating the biblical role of women to churches. Our women either find that insulting, misguided, and usually both. And, while there are people out there who do believe women are slaves, or sub-human, we certainly are not them. But don't debate me on this issue, talk to our women about that, who are nationally recognized Evangelists, Healers, Prophets, Teachers, etc., and they will surely and quickly set you straight on the issue, hehe.
...says the anonymous coward. But there are many not afraid to speak openly about this topic, such as myself.
I would be what someone might label as fundamentalist, in that I believe in the infallibility of God's message to us. However, the correct meaning of fundamentalist as used in these conversations is really an extreme legalism (they take things to the extreme on the language, usually failing to realize that the infallible word does not mean someone can't do a biased translation).
I'm an Apostolic Pentecostal of the United Pentecostal Church. We're Oneness (only One, not three in one). We're also classified under the Charismatic, because we practice the gifts of the Holy Spirit. We're separate from them, though, in our Oneness beliefs and also in what are known as standards. Our women don't cut their hair and usually wear dresses and skirts, our men keep their hair cut short and wear long sleeve shirts and full length pants. We generally don't watch TV (which isn't universally practiced, dvds are allowed to an extent, etc... , but is part of our standards bylaws, debate on this issue continues), go out to movies, drink, smoke, or take any other types of drugs.
So, from reading that, you would think we're the far far far right of all issues, especially on science. You would also be furthest from the truth.
The truth is that our church realizes one thing, that science cannot and will not disprove God, if that science is truly logical in basis and not some half baked theory. Evolution remains unproven, but if you were to ask our scholars, they would similarly tell you, every bit of Evolution (or any other scientific area) that is proven fact is fully in line with biblical accounts. On the other hand, we have no faith that science will ever bring humanity even one inch closer to salvation. We simply recognize that many misguided people would use theory and out of context facts to make a case against Christianity, as if there really were some disagreement between science and biblical truth.
Churches are filled with the technologically gifted. Who do you think runs sound booths, cameras, websites, etc.? Churches have massive IT infrastructures. Christians broadcast on tens of thousands of radio stations worldwide and several denominations run entire TV networks. So, before anyone jumps on the "religion is for low IQ people", like the "New Atheism" people do, realize that such a view is mainly based in geographic epicenters revolving around creation and design, not implementation (the programmers, not the professional users).
As such, the "low IQ" bias doesn't hold, considering the proliferation of "media ministries". And we certainly passed our science and math classes with flying colors. Many will also tell you that faith is not blind. Faith is that we've seen enough evidence to be persuaded, which is the actual use of the word faith in the bible. As Jesus did say, if you don't believe because I'm telling you, believe because of the works you've seen me do. (paraphrasing heavily) We recognize that God has never refused a test, though you better be careful not to tempt him. There's a difference between testing and tempting. If you don't believe, you can test. If you believe, but ask anyways for some undeserving reason, you tempt. That's a very simplified explanation, but should get the message to you.
Now, as for this case, this teacher was misguided, and I'm still waiting for the downloaded audio to listen to the context. But I recognize a few things right off the bat. First off, he was setup.
"The following is from Paul L. LaClair, a NYC attorney who lives in Kearny, New Jersey, and is posted with his permission. David Paszkiewicz, the teacher described here engaging in incompetent teaching and dishonesty, is apparently a youth pastor at Kearny Baptist Church in addition to being a public school teacher. LaClair's son Matthew has previously garnered attention for protesting Bush administration activities by refusing to stand for
Do we mean stupid like Muslim clerics being upset that their holy book is put in ringtones which they consider disrespectful?
Who says they want to preserve their language? Seems like an issue of respect, or lack there of... much like calling an entire tribe's beliefs stupid. If MS is going to "support" a language, they should have some concept of that culture, who would be the primary users of that language.
Wait, we did this before, didn't we? Taking things from native tribes that didn't belong to us just because we didn't respect their way of life and had a different concept of ownership? In this case, all they wanted was to be asked permission. But, like the EULA, MS assumes they dictate who gives and who receives permission. If MS can morally support DRM, then yes, a language can be owned by a people. It's their collective creation and part of their identification. A culture's language and the culture itself are so close, they are inseparable. Call it cultural identity theft.
Wow, what a hard concept asking permission. But, that's our culture. Pushing our economic/morality views on all other cultures who have something we want. Welcome to global capitalism, Mapuche.
Everyone gets all GPL-ish over the patent system. First one to cross the line? Yeah, maybe if we're talking about a waffle maker, but not if we're talking about semiconductors. Take away their patents, and they go out of business to cheap knock off companies, with no R&D budget, and innovation dies. Most people forget a key part of companies like IBM:
FTA: "IBM is the world's leading patent holder, spending $6 billion a year in research and development and earning about $1 billion a year in royalties."
If that's not promoting the arts and science, I don't know what is. That's the whole idea behind the patent system. Reward the inventor to encourage invention. 20 years on a patent only seems unreasonable because we're used to Moore's law. If it was invented more than 18 months ago, it should be free now, by some strange leap of logic.
Sounds like IBM puts out a lot more than they get back. Don't know the validity of the patents in question, but considering it was 1980's, electronic catalog shopping wouldn't be obvious (in implementation, not in general idea, which was quite older).
I'm certainly in favor of supporting $6 billion in R&D which we're all benefiting from indirectly by enforcing a patent on another corporate body that makes its fair share of pocket change off said R&D.
Patents drive such high R&D budgets, and nothing else. Take away patents, and take away all the toys. They're in business to make money, not to give out charities. $6 billion a year for IBM isn't like government spending. They can't run up a yearly deficit.
I have to disagree with "The proof is whether they're caught and the mistakes are corrected.". By that logic, proof that the system doesn't work can't even exist. If nothing is caught, then you can't say there is a mistake that isn't corrected... by reporting on a mistake, it will be caught and corrected. Let's say I've caught articles with inaccurate facts, have not reported or corrected it. Is that proof the system doesn't work? Only so long as I don't report on it...
The system is self-reinforcing in its philosophy. It's almost the old paradox of the person that says, "Everything I say is a lie." Only in this case, "Everything Wikipedia gets right is proof that it's a good moderated source. Everything that Wikipedia gets wrong will be corrected and is proof that it's a good moderated source." If that is true, it cannot be proven as a flawed system (speaking generally, but not totally; as a general weakness of the overall basis of moderation, but not necessarily complete weakness).
Do I read Wikipedia? Sure. It's a good for generalized info on a topic I'm not at all familiar with or only slightly familiar with. Would I research using its facts directly? Absolutely NOT. Many "facts" included are bold enough to say "Citation Needed"... if you don't have a citation for something not common knowledge, DON'T include it. That in and of itself is, to me, proof of flawed editorial doctorine utilized by many at wikipedia. It's like reading a translation of a classic novel in a foreign language. You don't quote the translation if you are doing scholarly work unless the target is the general public, you quote the original. Especially don't quote it if it can't even list its source, unless it is claiming original source.
So, possibly I did expose one proof of the major flaw with Wikipedia: Citation Needed. I'll call that self-admitted proof of a flawed system, where editors admit lack of research on their part, lack of input from the public, lack of credibility of fact, or whatever you want to classify the flaw as.
I don't think Wikipedia is broken or beyond repair. It's an interesting system. But like all systems, it has its strengths, limitations, and weaknesses. I think its far too unproven to call a success, regardless of its popularity. I think time will both improve the system as well as lend to it being proven more.
Yeah, I found the data here, just click to read all about the odds of visiting an exploiting site.
d ie/boom.html
http://12.34.56.78/hacks/exploits/im/a/script/kid