Companies doing business on the web have curtailed the functionality of email correspondence, and often tell consumers the only safe method is to visit their site and log in. Acquiring software isn't much different, get it from the source. Personally, I find the incessant requirement of plug-ins to be breaking the web when no alternative (text) is offered./Get off my lawn!
So, as a secular and multi-cultural nation, why should we allow a primarily religious notion to inject discrimination in what is functionally a legal and financial contract between two people?
If you are familiar with the saying "your right to swing your fists around ends where my nose begins", then "your right to 'a legal and financial contract between two people' ends when I have to subsidize it."
Frankly I'm surprised by the type of responses to my original post, which provided 3 examples, the 1st of which was the nerd one (free software). I figured Slashdot would be discussing that one, but more likely, most of Slashdot agrees with the free software, and gun examples, but a few have wished to discuss homosexual marriage. I'm happy to oblige of course, but it is somewhat discouraging to see my effort to answer questions be rewarded as troll scores, perhaps like Patry, I should just delete all my posts and give up.
1) Select the lowest cost computer you can find.
2) Write educational software for it.
3) market the hardware+software solution to schools and poor families in developing countries.
4) Profit! but while making the world a better place too.
I simply don't have the time to attempt to write all that would be needed to address your questions, but I will take the time to show I'm sincere and hopefully point you in the direction that you can take on your own.
Most of your concern on the topic of 'spirit of the law' versus 'letter of the law' appears to linked to homosexuality, so I will use their symbol as a metaphor. Imagine I described the their symbol (a rainbow) by saying it was composed of many colors. You interpret my colors as not being black, so you assume I must be saying rainbows are white. Please, if you cannot understand how a rainbow could be anything more than black or white, much like how a gun could be anything more than good or evil, then please just leave your mind open in the future. Perhaps after you have a little more experience, the world will make more sense.
Woah!! Did you just try to pull out the marriage is for procreation argument? Puhlease. History is against you on that one.
I guess it's just a coincidence (or crazy random happenstance - DrHorrible) that both marriage and procreation require a man and woman. What are the chances of that?
And I guess every young man wants nothing more than to make a commitment, for life, to one woman. It's just a natural feeling all young men have, and absolutely nothing to do with societal pressures to provide a stable home for children.
1) He never claimed Stallman changed position. He's claiming Stallman's starting point was a redefinition of 'free'.
So, he was "claiming Stallman's starting point" was 'free as in beer' before he later "redefined it" to 'free as in freedom'?
2) That doesn't say self defence anywhere. In fact, it explicitly says "security of a free State," which is rather different. Not getting into rights or wrongs of gun control (I really couldn't give a toss), just sayin' you quoted something that doesn't actually back up your position.
Heh, I quoted the 2cd Amendment. But to give you the benefit of the doubt which of these best defines your position:
1) The security of a free State is ensured by hunting deer with guns.
2) The security of a free State is ensured by owning a large gun collection.
3) The security of a free State is ensured by defending oneself (with a gun) against those threatening you.
4) Ok, I can't think of a 4th thing to do with a gun.:)
3) So you're completely unbiased. We'll take that as truth; do you object to gay marriage, and if so why?
As I said before, I encourage people to change laws the 'proper' way (education, proposal, vote) and 'object' to discarding democracy in order to implement one's own agenda. Oh, and calling people names like Homophobe, Faggot, or Bigot (like the parent poster did) isn't a reasoned debate strategy for winning, but for losing.
Had Stallman not tried to redefine "free" in the first place, there wouldn't have been a problem. "Open Source" is not only a _vastly_ more accurate and relevant terminology, but also avoids the politics that Stallman tried to inject.
We can agree to disagree on which is 'vastly' better, but claiming Stallman's purpose and motivation has changed really doesn't hold up against the plethora of his writings dating back quite a few years.
I'm not American, but I'm pretty sure that self-defence was not the primary objective of the Second Amendment.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
There are only three types of people who are bothered by homosexual marriage:
1. People that are just set in their ways. They grumble and mutter under their breath, but at the end of the day, are prepared to live and let live.
2. Bigots who want to see their particular set of morals enshrined in law.
3. Bigots who want to see their particular set of morals enshrined in law, but try to disguise it using a smokescreen of either other broken laws (welfare seems to be a favourite) or slippery slope fallacies ("legal bestiality" seems to be a favourite) as justification.
You have convinced me to abandon my methods, as your method (calling people Bigots) sounds like a sure-fire way to convince people to change their minds and hearts. I now understand why reasoned debate like mine gets ignored, because reporters would rather quote someone like you, and then like at a playground fight chant fight fight fight./sigh
The thing is, most such laws originally on the books don't explicitly specify man and woman to begin with - note the bazillion local movements to pass new laws that do explicitly specify one man and one woman. Those new laws would not be necessary if the original laws had been explicit to begin with.
Are you a lawyer?
I suppose a lawyer might argue that it's ok to censor a blog because it's on the internet, and your right to free speech (written in the 18th century) doesn't 'explicitly' say internet. But the 'spirit of the law' is that the government may not abridge your free speech whether it be on a soap box, newspaper, radio, tv, internet blog, or any future method. It is not possible to be infinitely 'explicit'.
Are you a troll?
Let's be reasonable, civilizations worldwide haven't had a problem with the definition for thousands of years, but you do? Just how 'explicit' would you require it to be? Full color pictures of a penis entering a vagina with an internal camera to explicitly show conception? Please read my parent post again on the 'proper' way to change laws and the world.
Answering paper or plastic isn't as inconvenient as having to carry around an identification card for every store I shop at. Why don't they just combine all the cards into a single ID. Yeah, and while they're at it, pulling that one card out of my pocket sounds inconvenient too, so why not just permanently affix it to my right hand or forehead. I'm so lucky that everyone wants to help me./sarcasm off
Patry's warnings and frustration with the current fusillade on fair-use protections appears to me as a piece of a larger picture. A theme not uncommon in contemporary sciencefiction stories is of a planet where lawyers rule and litigation is omnipresent. Anyone who has read the US Constitution can tell you how short and succinct it is, and while some of the contributors were lawyers they certainly weren't 'slip n fall' lawyers that spelled out every little eventuality. Perhaps they felt that if men would not honor the 'Spirit of the Law' then they wouldn't honor the 'Letter of the Law' either. Here are a few examples off the top of my head:
Richard Stallman's defense of the idea of 'free software' which stresses freedom of use, versus its 'redefining' as 'open source' which
Microsoft appears to be all too comfortable with embracing to the 'Letter of the Law'.
The 2cd Amendment right to bear arms in the 'Spirt of the Law' defines your right to protect your self, your family, and your home. But is
slowly being 'redefined' to include restrictions like it must be unloaded, and must be trigger locked, etc. which makes one virtually
useless but is keeping with the 'Letter of the Law'.
In many places, judges are 'redefining' marriage from Husband & Wife, to Partner A & Partner B. If you just felt a knee-jerk reaction on
this one, take a second to think about it. If you really cared about homosexual marriage, then you should go about it in the correct manner. The same is true of a law you don't like, where you work to eliminate that law from the books, with education, proposals, and finally a vote of the people. Too many people just want to get their 'gang' in power, and grab the reigns, and 'make' things happen in spite of the will of the people.
We shouldn't let 'fair use' be 'redefined' either, but you don't get to be a hypocrite. You have to consistently vote in officials that will respect laws, and not try to 'muscle' and 'redefine' them to your side's political position. That's not a government of the people, but a regime of a single party.
Having a contingency plan in case of emergency is not only smart, but required by law in many areas. There are plans for many emergencies like an earthquake, fire, hurricane, building evacuation, chemical spill, conventional war, cyber war, hijacked plane, running out of coffee, etc. Just because Lessig has legitimate concerns about any particular act, does not mean the Illuminati is just waiting around for the right moment to spring their Global World Domination Plan (tm).
For instance, plans for invading Iraq were required of the Pentagon after Clinton reviewed the investigation report of the 1st World Trade Center bombing back in the early 90s. Bush was still just a governor at the time, but 'popular' history will remember it as his idea. Idiocracy anyone.
The original article has since been updated with a picture, a map, and even a video. But the 800 degree temperature still lacks a -°-F designation IMO. Here was my original submission:
Ground temperatures exceeding 800 degrees (C? F? HOT!) are being
recorded
at the Los Padres Forest in Ventura County, California. Geologists are uncertain why, but a popular theory is that hydrocarbons in some form (petroleum, gas, coal) are being exposed to air through cracks formed in dry ground. (Fuel + Oxygen + Heat =
Fire Triangle)
The last thing California needs are forest fires from below, after so recently fighting off forest fires from
lightning above, so fire fighters are closely monitoring the area.
...and will only hand them over to the governor. Seriously though, if you can blame a network guy for poor management and get away with it, why not blame a COBOL guy when violating your oath of office. The majority of voters in California aren't computer literate, hell, they aren't even English literate. If ballots are printed in every language so you don't have to educate yourself, why would you bother?
You're right, but that hasn't stopped others (MPAA) from trying.
press release - "Since filing a criminal complaint in Sweden in November
2004, the film industry has worked vigorously with Swedish and U.S. government
officials in Sweden to shut this illegal site down."
If the DMCA refers only to individuals, and not to organizations like a company or government, then shouldn't Google's YouTube be in the clear against Viacom? or the ThePirateBay in the clear from... everyone?
Something here is off, or the DMCA just got castrated with this new precedent.
A Diablo III representative defended design choices against 'dark & desaturated' versus 'brighter & colored'. While admiting that a single screen shot could look cooler when 'dark & destaurated', they concluded, after much playtesting, that 'brighter & colored' 1) offered greater visual playability when many creatures and players are on the screen, and 2) made the game more intersting because different game areas actually looked different.
I've noticed that stories regarding Microsoft or Apple have difficultly cultivating constructive debate. For example...
Apple topic - The iPod design is amazing, I really want one, but am concerned about DRM. (Score:-1, Flamebait) Microsoft topic - vista suxors!!11!!1 (Score:5, Insightful)
Would it be possible for Slashdot to have two sections? One for discussion of topics, that present conclusions based upon stated facts and assumptions. And a second section for free expression of angst, like 'Bill Gates is the Borg-Devil' or 'I want to have Steve Jobs iBaby!'.
Imagine trying to buy a beer from a corner store, and the 16 year old clerk refuses to sell it to you without presenting your drivers license. It's ironic because you (assuming you are of legal age) are at least five years older than him, and he (the person in possession of the alcohol) is requiring proof of age from you, which he himself lacks.
[rhetorical answer to hightlight "missed irony" abuse.]:)
If Yahoo can block a request for an email from a specific domain, can my ISP (AT&T-Yahoo) decide to block search requests from a specific domain? Of course, Google would probably skip the blogging/Slashdot steps, and go straight for lawyer/courthouse steps.
Side issue, but I assumed that defining spam was training your personal filter, and not applied to the accounts of other people. Much like a spell-checker will highlight a persons name, and you select 'add it' so it won't get highlighted again. You are training a computer program to behave in a more sophisticated and intelligent manner.
True. And one way to fight racism, and those race-baiters, is to call them on it. (like you just did) Too many people are afraid of being attacked and labeled themselves, with terms like Racist, Homo-phobe, Islamo-phobe, or in the case of anonymous Slashdot moderation... Troll.
I was going to mod you up until you began bitching about Bill Gates, racist motives and the lack of balls.
Thanks, I appreciate specific feedback more than anonymous score or karma. I too feel a bit queasy about/. posts that bash Mr.Gates frequently, so I thought (perhaps mistakenly) the familiar theme would be well served in what I consider an important moral situation.
How you could possibly shift the blame onto Gates is beyond me.
As I pointed out, it was his foundation that instigated this situation, that targeted a people based upon their race. Without his funding, it would not have happened. When you say 'shift' are you implying someone else is more responsible? If you would, whom?
Have we reached the point where access to the internet is more important than electricty and running water? Really? 18,000 Navajo families live without electricity, and use kerosene lamps at night, but they can't live without the internet? *
Out of all the grief/. gives Bill Gates, this one you can honestly blame him for. His foundation was the funding instigator of this technolgical leap-froging, and the racist motivation is obvious, as no one would believe he's that ignorant. I don't know why, maybe he can't say no to someone pressuring him to do these things, a guilt trip maybe, who knows, but if he isn't man enough to say no at his age that's even more pathetic than being ignorant.
Slashdot Mirror
Companies doing business on the web have curtailed the functionality of email correspondence, and often tell consumers the only safe method is to visit their site and log in. Acquiring software isn't much different, get it from the source. Personally, I find the incessant requirement of plug-ins to be breaking the web when no alternative (text) is offered. /Get off my lawn!
So, as a secular and multi-cultural nation, why should we allow a primarily religious notion to inject discrimination in what is functionally a legal and financial contract between two people?
If you are familiar with the saying "your right to swing your fists around ends where my nose begins", then "your right to 'a legal and financial contract between two people' ends when I have to subsidize it."
Frankly I'm surprised by the type of responses to my original post, which provided 3 examples, the 1st of which was the nerd one (free software). I figured Slashdot would be discussing that one, but more likely, most of Slashdot agrees with the free software, and gun examples, but a few have wished to discuss homosexual marriage. I'm happy to oblige of course, but it is somewhat discouraging to see my effort to answer questions be rewarded as troll scores, perhaps like Patry, I should just delete all my posts and give up.
I'm not certain, but I think their plan is:
1) Select the lowest cost computer you can find.
2) Write educational software for it.
3) market the hardware+software solution to schools and poor families in developing countries.
4) Profit! but while making the world a better place too.
Since /. was adding pictures, Farking them is only a natural extension of expression. Supercomputer Dialysis Machine
I simply don't have the time to attempt to write all that would be needed to address your questions, but I will take the time to show I'm sincere and hopefully point you in the direction that you can take on your own.
Most of your concern on the topic of 'spirit of the law' versus 'letter of the law' appears to linked to homosexuality, so I will use their symbol as a metaphor. Imagine I described the their symbol (a rainbow) by saying it was composed of many colors. You interpret my colors as not being black, so you assume I must be saying rainbows are white. Please, if you cannot understand how a rainbow could be anything more than black or white, much like how a gun could be anything more than good or evil, then please just leave your mind open in the future. Perhaps after you have a little more experience, the world will make more sense.
Woah!! Did you just try to pull out the marriage is for procreation argument? Puhlease. History is against you on that one.
I guess it's just a coincidence (or crazy random happenstance - DrHorrible) that both marriage and procreation require a man and woman. What are the chances of that?
And I guess every young man wants nothing more than to make a commitment, for life, to one woman. It's just a natural feeling all young men have, and absolutely nothing to do with societal pressures to provide a stable home for children.
Dude, you are insane. seriously.
I'm certain one of is. :)
1) He never claimed Stallman changed position. He's claiming Stallman's starting point was a redefinition of 'free'.
So, he was "claiming Stallman's starting point" was 'free as in beer' before he later "redefined it" to 'free as in freedom'?
2) That doesn't say self defence anywhere. In fact, it explicitly says "security of a free State," which is rather different. Not getting into rights or wrongs of gun control (I really couldn't give a toss), just sayin' you quoted something that doesn't actually back up your position.
Heh, I quoted the 2cd Amendment. But to give you the benefit of the doubt which of these best defines your position: :)
1) The security of a free State is ensured by hunting deer with guns.
2) The security of a free State is ensured by owning a large gun collection.
3) The security of a free State is ensured by defending oneself (with a gun) against those threatening you.
4) Ok, I can't think of a 4th thing to do with a gun.
3) So you're completely unbiased. We'll take that as truth; do you object to gay marriage, and if so why?
As I said before, I encourage people to change laws the 'proper' way (education, proposal, vote) and 'object' to discarding democracy in order to implement one's own agenda. Oh, and calling people names like Homophobe, Faggot, or Bigot (like the parent poster did) isn't a reasoned debate strategy for winning, but for losing.
Had Stallman not tried to redefine "free" in the first place, there wouldn't have been a problem. "Open Source" is not only a _vastly_ more accurate and relevant terminology, but also avoids the politics that Stallman tried to inject.
We can agree to disagree on which is 'vastly' better, but claiming Stallman's purpose and motivation has changed really doesn't hold up against the plethora of his writings dating back quite a few years.
I'm not American, but I'm pretty sure that self-defence was not the primary objective of the Second Amendment.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
There are only three types of people who are bothered by homosexual marriage:
1. People that are just set in their ways. They grumble and mutter under their breath, but at the end of the day, are prepared to live and let live.
2. Bigots who want to see their particular set of morals enshrined in law.
3. Bigots who want to see their particular set of morals enshrined in law, but try to disguise it using a smokescreen of either other broken laws (welfare seems to be a favourite) or slippery slope fallacies ("legal bestiality" seems to be a favourite) as justification.
You have convinced me to abandon my methods, as your method (calling people Bigots) sounds like a sure-fire way to convince people to change their minds and hearts. I now understand why reasoned debate like mine gets ignored, because reporters would rather quote someone like you, and then like at a playground fight chant fight fight fight. /sigh
The thing is, most such laws originally on the books don't explicitly specify man and woman to begin with - note the bazillion local movements to pass new laws that do explicitly specify one man and one woman. Those new laws would not be necessary if the original laws had been explicit to begin with.
Are you a lawyer?
I suppose a lawyer might argue that it's ok to censor a blog because it's on the internet, and your right to free speech (written in the 18th century) doesn't 'explicitly' say internet. But the 'spirit of the law' is that the government may not abridge your free speech whether it be on a soap box, newspaper, radio, tv, internet blog, or any future method. It is not possible to be infinitely 'explicit'.
Are you a troll?
Let's be reasonable, civilizations worldwide haven't had a problem with the definition for thousands of years, but you do? Just how 'explicit' would you require it to be? Full color pictures of a penis entering a vagina with an internal camera to explicitly show conception? Please read my parent post again on the 'proper' way to change laws and the world.
Answering paper or plastic isn't as inconvenient as having to carry around an identification card for every store I shop at. Why don't they just combine all the cards into a single ID. Yeah, and while they're at it, pulling that one card out of my pocket sounds inconvenient too, so why not just permanently affix it to my right hand or forehead. I'm so lucky that everyone wants to help me. /sarcasm off
We shouldn't let 'fair use' be 'redefined' either, but you don't get to be a hypocrite. You have to consistently vote in officials that will respect laws, and not try to 'muscle' and 'redefine' them to your side's political position. That's not a government of the people, but a regime of a single party.
Having a contingency plan in case of emergency is not only smart, but required by law in many areas. There are plans for many emergencies like an earthquake, fire, hurricane, building evacuation, chemical spill, conventional war, cyber war, hijacked plane, running out of coffee, etc. Just because Lessig has legitimate concerns about any particular act, does not mean the Illuminati is just waiting around for the right moment to spring their Global World Domination Plan (tm).
For instance, plans for invading Iraq were required of the Pentagon after Clinton reviewed the investigation report of the 1st World Trade Center bombing back in the early 90s. Bush was still just a governor at the time, but 'popular' history will remember it as his idea. Idiocracy anyone.
The original article has since been updated with a picture, a map, and even a video. But the 800 degree temperature still lacks a -°-F designation IMO. Here was my original submission:
Ground temperatures exceeding 800 degrees (C? F? HOT!) are being recorded at the Los Padres Forest in Ventura County, California. Geologists are uncertain why, but a popular theory is that hydrocarbons in some form (petroleum, gas, coal) are being exposed to air through cracks formed in dry ground. (Fuel + Oxygen + Heat = Fire Triangle) The last thing California needs are forest fires from below, after so recently fighting off forest fires from lightning above, so fire fighters are closely monitoring the area.
...and will only hand them over to the governor. Seriously though, if you can blame a network guy for poor management and get away with it, why not blame a COBOL guy when violating your oath of office. The majority of voters in California aren't computer literate, hell, they aren't even English literate. If ballots are printed in every language so you don't have to educate yourself, why would you bother?
You're right, but that hasn't stopped others (MPAA) from trying.
press release - "Since filing a criminal complaint in Sweden in November 2004, the film industry has worked vigorously with Swedish and U.S. government officials in Sweden to shut this illegal site down."
If the DMCA refers only to individuals, and not to organizations like a company or government, then shouldn't Google's YouTube be in the clear against Viacom? or the ThePirateBay in the clear from... everyone?
Something here is off, or the DMCA just got castrated with this new precedent.
A Diablo III representative defended design choices against 'dark & desaturated' versus 'brighter & colored'. While admiting that a single screen shot could look cooler when 'dark & destaurated', they concluded, after much playtesting, that 'brighter & colored' 1) offered greater visual playability when many creatures and players are on the screen, and 2) made the game more intersting because different game areas actually looked different.
I've noticed that stories regarding Microsoft or Apple have difficultly cultivating constructive debate. For example...
Apple topic - The iPod design is amazing, I really want one, but am concerned about DRM. (Score:-1, Flamebait)
Microsoft topic - vista suxors!!11!!1 (Score:5, Insightful)
Would it be possible for Slashdot to have two sections? One for discussion of topics, that present conclusions based upon stated facts and assumptions. And a second section for free expression of angst, like 'Bill Gates is the Borg-Devil' or 'I want to have Steve Jobs iBaby!'.
Imagine trying to buy a beer from a corner store, and the 16 year old clerk refuses to sell it to you without presenting your drivers license. It's ironic because you (assuming you are of legal age) are at least five years older than him, and he (the person in possession of the alcohol) is requiring proof of age from you, which he himself lacks.
:)
[rhetorical answer to hightlight "missed irony" abuse.]
If Yahoo can block a request for an email from a specific domain, can my ISP (AT&T-Yahoo) decide to block search requests from a specific domain? Of course, Google would probably skip the blogging/Slashdot steps, and go straight for lawyer/courthouse steps.
Side issue, but I assumed that defining spam was training your personal filter, and not applied to the accounts of other people. Much like a spell-checker will highlight a persons name, and you select 'add it' so it won't get highlighted again. You are training a computer program to behave in a more sophisticated and intelligent manner.
1) Ban 1000s of websites
2) Unban 3 of them
3) Claim the ban is lifted, as the other sites are only inaccessible
4) Fail!!!
Note: for those not familiar with the pun - For Dummies
I would moderate your post up as 'interesting', the current score of '1' seems really low.
True. And one way to fight racism, and those race-baiters, is to call them on it. (like you just did) Too many people are afraid of being attacked and labeled themselves, with terms like Racist, Homo-phobe, Islamo-phobe, or in the case of anonymous Slashdot moderation... Troll.
Thanks, I appreciate specific feedback more than anonymous score or karma. I too feel a bit queasy about /. posts that bash Mr.Gates frequently, so I thought (perhaps mistakenly) the familiar theme would be well served in what I consider an important moral situation.
As I pointed out, it was his foundation that instigated this situation, that targeted a people based upon their race. Without his funding, it would not have happened. When you say 'shift' are you implying someone else is more responsible? If you would, whom?
Have we reached the point where access to the internet is more important than electricty and running water? Really? 18,000 Navajo families live without electricity, and use kerosene lamps at night, but they can't live without the internet? *
/. gives Bill Gates, this one you can honestly blame him for. His foundation was the funding instigator of this technolgical leap-froging, and the racist motivation is obvious, as no one would believe he's that ignorant. I don't know why, maybe he can't say no to someone pressuring him to do these things, a guilt trip maybe, who knows, but if he isn't man enough to say no at his age that's even more pathetic than being ignorant.
Out of all the grief