I would never blame a computer for a programmer's error. How do we blame a person for its hardware and programming?
Quite right but it doesn't mean that you shouldn't punish them if punishment and/or the threat of punishment keeps them from offending and makes things safer and more pleasant for everyone else.
I can't see how we can do anything other than behave according to what we are and what we perceive around us. However, excusing bad behaviour on the basis of that is changing the environment around us and is likely to make more of behave badly.
Just because it happened historically doesn't mean that it's still happening, or that it was the main thrust of the functioning of that religion in the past.
The Catholic church's genocidal position on condom use is happening right now and is a core part of the religion.
The net censorship in Australia is driven by religious ideology. Bad ideas are religion's gift that just keeps on giving.
was actually a quality journalist whose actions helped to bring attention of the gross mismanagement of Australian troops in the first world war.
He passed on the news limited shares that Rupert used to build the empire. So arguably there was a quality journalist among the Murdoch media empire membership.
Mmmm. "naked women" shows up images largely of just that but "naked japanese women" shows up pretty much everything but what you'd expect.
Bing also failed me in my quest for "naked italian women" but it did turn up a picture of someone underwater which could possibly have been a naked Italian woman under the Santa suit.
Either Microsoft feel that it's not appropriate for me to choose the ethnicity of my naked women or they've got some tuning left to do.
I've never actually installed Oracle so I'm genuinely curious as to why installing something that's "Enterprise" oriented should be difficult.
I appreciate that more work might go into tuning your hardware/OS to make it hum, but "sensible defaults" seem to work elsewhere. Why not provide an easy install that you then optimize?
Ok, in all seriousness. What evidence do you have for making the claim that your laws are based on Christian morality?
It makes no more sense than saying that the rules on the school bus are based on Christian Morality.
No sticking your arms out the window Because God doesn't like it
No sticking chewing gum under the seats Because Jesus died for your sins
but you might remember "Thou shalt not commit murder"
The reason that there's a law against killing people is because people don't like being killed. They don't need a deity to tell them that if they don't discourage killing people that they're more likely to be killed themselves.
Laws against sodomy are definately based on Christian morality.
Any laws against sodomy your country has almost certainly stem from religious bigotry. Unsurprisingly, they're among the most useless and harmful.
If one managed to censor 100% of all child pornography without affecting anything else, there wouldn't be much complaint.
Well there should be. If one managed to prevent the production of such material then I would not complain.
You seem to be buying into the idea that this is about protecting children. Or at least the bizarre idea that it's ok for children to be abused as long as we don't accidentally tune into it.
What's becoming increasingly clear is that it is not about protecting children. It is about enforcing views and most of those views appear to stem from theological rather than rational origins.
Any society that feel the need to implement censorship in order to 'function' is already badly broken and censorship will only prolong the suffering and delay the inevitable, making it unavoidable.
Whilst I completely agree with you, you've just given me an insight into what it must be like to be an Iranian or a citizen of Oklahoma.
I doubt that most Australians agree with this legislation. Actually, I think that most haven't thought about it enough to see the seriousness of it. But that's really the point. The filter in its current form has not been put to the electorate for a vote.
I have copies of Bolt and Quantum of Solace. Neither are out on DVD yet. Yes, I admit that they are pirated copies acquired through less than noble means. I had no intention of ever seeing either movie
Do you only download movies that you have no intention of seeing?
Don't bother to respond. I only ask questions if I don't care what the answer is.
If these people want to pay for the kind of research they support, well, they should pay for it explicitly. Otherwise they are only trying to steal from people who don't share their view, like so many statists.
By that logic, government shouldn't spend money on anything that any tax payer opposes because it would be stealing.
I see now that sarcasm may not be the best vehicle for making my point - thankyou. I'll try again.
My point was simply that individuals in Silicon Valley and Hollywood are already paying taxes.
A reasonable answer to "what prevented them from pulling out their checkbooks" would be simply that they felt they already had and now wanted to see the money spent appropriately.
If beneficial therapies do result from the stem-cell research that you argued against publicly funding and in favor of funding by "donation" would you have the good grace not to use them?
If people wanted this so bad, what prevented them from pulling out their checkbooks? Hello, there, Silicon Valley. There's lots of rich people there. How about a donation? You, too, Hollywood, if this is such a big issue.
Hell yeah! And if you want a road built or a law enforced how 'bout you pay for that yourself too.
Or you want a war fought or a private bank bailed out...oh no wait, we have got money for that.
That science, which is the systematic and empirical study of the natural world, can prove the non-existence of a supernatural entity. ("Supernatural" being, by definition, outside of the purview of science.)
He said that did he?
If you're looking for quotes to back up your claim, you might find something in Dawkin's book "The God Delusion" in chapter 4 "Why there Almost Certainly is no God".
Slashdot Mirror
I would never blame a computer for a programmer's error. How do we blame a person for its hardware and programming?
Quite right but it doesn't mean that you shouldn't punish them if punishment and/or the threat of punishment keeps them from offending and makes things safer and more pleasant for everyone else.
I can't see how we can do anything other than behave according to what we are and what we perceive around us. However, excusing bad behaviour on the basis of that is changing the environment around us and is likely to make more of behave badly.
So, would Cloud Avenue's business model not be threatened if they hosted the databases on their own physical servers?
You get a document sent to you by a cow orker. It's in Word format.
Well, what do you expect from someone who orks cows?
Just because it happened historically doesn't mean that it's still happening, or that it was the main thrust of the functioning of that religion in the past.
The Catholic church's genocidal position on condom use is happening right now and is a core part of the religion.
The net censorship in Australia is driven by religious ideology. Bad ideas are religion's gift that just keeps on giving.
Separation of Church and State
Bwaaaahahahaha!! Golden. Never grows old.
No they don't tax religious organizations in Australia and I would have modded parent insightful rather than funny.
Since when has any member of the Murdoch media empire ever engaged in "Quality journalism".
My understanding is that his father Keith Murdoch
was actually a quality journalist whose actions helped to bring attention of the gross mismanagement of Australian troops in the first world war.
He passed on the news limited shares that Rupert used to build the empire. So arguably there was a quality journalist among the Murdoch media empire membership.
Mmmm. "naked women" shows up images largely of just that but "naked japanese women" shows up pretty much everything but what you'd expect.
Bing also failed me in my quest for "naked italian women" but it did turn up a picture of someone underwater which could possibly have been a naked Italian woman under the Santa suit.
Either Microsoft feel that it's not appropriate for me to choose the ethnicity of my naked women or they've got some tuning left to do.
I've never actually installed Oracle so I'm genuinely curious as to why installing something that's "Enterprise" oriented should be difficult.
I appreciate that more work might go into tuning your hardware/OS to make it hum, but "sensible defaults" seem to work elsewhere. Why not provide an easy install that you then optimize?
The existing music industry infrastructure is dying. Music won't.
So, if I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying "You can't stop the music." Can nobody stop the music?
Ok, in all seriousness. What evidence do you have for making the claim that your laws are based on Christian morality?
It makes no more sense than saying that the rules on the school bus are based on Christian Morality.
Because God doesn't like it
Because Jesus died for your sins
but you might remember "Thou shalt not commit murder"
The reason that there's a law against killing people is because people don't like being killed. They don't need a deity to tell them that if they don't discourage killing people that they're more likely to be killed themselves.
Laws against sodomy are definately based on Christian morality.
Any laws against sodomy your country has almost certainly stem from religious bigotry. Unsurprisingly, they're among the most useless and harmful.
Our entire legal system is based upon Christian morality.
Yeah, from memory Christ was particular down on pirating MP3s but came out strongly in favor of software patents.
Pull your head from your ass.
I think you mean pull thy head from thy neighbor's ass.
If one managed to censor 100% of all child pornography without affecting anything else, there wouldn't be much complaint.
Well there should be. If one managed to prevent the production of such material then I would not complain.
You seem to be buying into the idea that this is about protecting children. Or at least the bizarre idea that it's ok for children to be abused as long as we don't accidentally tune into it.
What's becoming increasingly clear is that it is not about protecting children. It is about enforcing views and most of those views appear to stem from theological rather than rational origins.
The quantity of killing in a video game is often better than the act of hunting down one person.
Even if that one person is a game reviewer?
Any society that feel the need to implement censorship in order to 'function' is already badly broken and censorship will only prolong the suffering and delay the inevitable, making it unavoidable.
Whilst I completely agree with you, you've just given me an insight into what it must be like to be an Iranian or a citizen of Oklahoma.
I doubt that most Australians agree with this legislation. Actually, I think that most haven't thought about it enough to see the seriousness of it. But that's really the point. The filter in its current form has not been put to the electorate for a vote.
I tried it. I started a game of Killzone 2, I did nothing and I died.
I have copies of Bolt and Quantum of Solace. Neither are out on DVD yet. Yes, I admit that they are pirated copies acquired through less than noble means. I had no intention of ever seeing either movie
Do you only download movies that you have no intention of seeing?
Don't bother to respond. I only ask questions if I don't care what the answer is.
If these people want to pay for the kind of research they support, well, they should pay for it explicitly. Otherwise they are only trying to steal from people who don't share their view, like so many statists.
By that logic, government shouldn't spend money on anything that any tax payer opposes because it would be stealing.
I see now that sarcasm may not be the best vehicle for making my point - thankyou. I'll try again.
My point was simply that individuals in Silicon Valley and Hollywood are already paying taxes.
A reasonable answer to "what prevented them from pulling out their checkbooks" would be simply that they felt they already had and now wanted to see the money spent appropriately.
If beneficial therapies do result from the stem-cell research that you argued against publicly funding and in favor of funding by "donation" would you have the good grace not to use them?
...for the Best Buy video game. I'm pre-ordering that bad-boy!
If people wanted this so bad, what prevented them from pulling out their checkbooks? Hello, there, Silicon Valley. There's lots of rich people there. How about a donation? You, too, Hollywood, if this is such a big issue.
Hell yeah! And if you want a road built or a law enforced how 'bout you pay for that yourself too.
Or you want a war fought or a private bank bailed out...oh no wait, we have got money for that.
That science, which is the systematic and empirical study of the natural world, can prove the non-existence of a supernatural entity. ("Supernatural" being, by definition, outside of the purview of science.)
He said that did he?
If you're looking for quotes to back up your claim, you might find something in Dawkin's book "The God Delusion" in chapter 4 "Why there Almost Certainly is no God".
Now that you mention it, Duke Nukem 3D was an awesome game. I wonder if they've thought about making a sequel.