Looking at an original painting is completely different from looking at a print or digital copy on a screen...
As for the entrance prices, they are often necessary to pay for the maintenance and restoration of existing and new exhibits.
That said, not being british or american, I completely side with US law on this one. A photo of a painting is a copy, no matter how you look at it, and shouldn't be subject to copyright.
I was writing from the standpoint of the small website owner, who is not on a local area network. The parent said he doesn't even manage his own server, so I am assuming he's an individual with a direct internet connection and a shared webspace account (and not a corporate user).
You'll be fine if you take care of your own computer (which you do indeed manage). This article states that FTP is insecure, but that is based on the assumption that everyone's computer is infected periodically. So if your server is secure and your computer runs a secure OS, or at least a good firewall, a good antivirus, all security patches and is periodically scanned for malware, I don't see what harm the evil spammers can possibly cause.
Personally I barely follow a half of that advice, and yet I am never infected. If you know what you're doing, all it takes is some common sense to keep you safe. Such as not downloading and running suspicious programs, keeping your web browser(s) fully patched and making sure they are not vulnerable (VERY important) and a strong firewall (even if you get infected, it can stop your pet trojan from sending your passwords away).
QBasic Bomberman?
Exactly! Personally I'd never use it, but it doesn't bother me that it's there. Why would it? No one is forcing me or anyone else to use it at all. They're probably smart enough to include a "number of seconds played automatically" meter so people who truly beat the game can brag to their friends with evidence
You'll need plenty of tall-nuts too
The dishonest one here is you.
When we start long bloody wars or we burn heretics, then come and talk.
Until then you are just spouting mindless hyperbole.
I think you should have re-read your first sentence before writing the second.
Also, religious people do not have a monopoly on starting long bloody wars as you seem to be implying. If you really think that, you are seriously deluded.
You are using a fundementally dishonest approach by trying to characterize
the pillars of Xian society in decades and centuries gone by as "criminals".
I never heard of that "Xian society" of yours. Is that in China?
You are twisting my words by subtly implying that I am specifically referring to the pillars of my society. Those who I am calling criminals are those who commited crimes. Sometimes they were important, even central people. Sometimes they weren't. We all know there have been corrupt and bloodthirsty religious leaders. When they were responsible for the deaths or torture of large amounts of people, they were criminals.
Your apparent need to disavow your forebears is something that you should
find even more disturbing than we do.
If you consider christians, for instance, they are following the doctrine preached by Jesus, which boils down to "love each other and God that created you" (he said so himself). They are not following the doctrine preached by pope XYZ a thousand years later that boiled down to "travel a thousand kilometres and massacre the entire population of a country". Am I really dishonest for accepting the first and rejecting the second? I don't think so. I have absolutely nothing to do with Pope XYZ, and he has nothing to do with me. Do not stereotype us all together.
and that's why myths should not be the guiding principle in any form of government.
That may be so, but it has nothing to do with what I wrote! I am not denying that specific part of the OP's rant.
There are many examples, I merely picked a few.
The most famous religious muslim scientist I can recall (and he was in fact Persian, that is, Iranian) is Avicenna, one of the forefathers of modern medicine.
I'm glad there are still people capable of rational thought around here!
The funny thing is that I also agree with most of what the OP wrote. The mad mullahs of Iran are definitely mad. And I condemn any kind of violence or opression, especially when commited in name or religion.
But the OP is basically stating that *everyone* who is religious doesn't deserve any of the benefits of science, and that includes (and always included throughout history) millions of reasonable, tolerant people, famous philosophers, philantropists, mathematicians, sociologists, scientists and, heck, even good leaders. Hate evil people, don't hate people you classified based on an arbitrary criteria just because some of them are/were batshit insane, murderous fanatics.
And so do I, and everyone else here, I suspect. But there have been and still are thousands of religious people in history who did not oppress anyone, and instead left us a legacy of knowledge and/or charity. The original parent (I don't know if that you or not, since you're posting as an anonymous coward) is hatefully denying the merit of these people's work based on a completely unrelated disagreement, which I find completely unfair.
I replied to the original post, a troll posted anonymously, with a rational, example-supported rebuke in which I recommended tolerance and open-mindedness, and I'm the one who is modded troll and flamebait?
Some of you people who are moderating this discussion are definitely not right in the head.
Did any of these people, or I, start a long bloody war or burn anyone?
Can you explain to me how, exactly, sharing a belief with criminals who live far away or lived hundreds of years ago and who I never met makes me one?
If you like yoghurt and so did Hitler, can I reproach you for that? (I know, I know, Godwin.)
See Mersenne, who I mentioned in my previous post. He was a friend and defender of Galileo, mentioned by the OP. Galileo was persecuted by the inquisition, but defended by this theologian. Does it really make sense to stereotype them all into evil monsters? I don't think so.
You fanatic atheists are just as bad, if not worse, than fanatic religious believers. Your baseless hatred and uninformed blunders don't lend you a lot of credibility, you know?
True scientists are open minded. Fortunately for the world, both the people you mentioned and the people I mentioned were not like you.
If you read my post more carefully, you may notice it mentions USERS.
See, if I write a CMS for (let's say) a microchip factory, there is going to be a LOT less people using IE6 than if I make a website for, for example, a gardening store. In this second case, all my client cares about is that his users, who are his source of income, cannot view the website properly without taking action to change their browser first, and they will consider the website "broken".
The real problem here is that people doing the right thing may lose touch with part of their customer base.
But it's none of my business anyway, because I do NOT write nonstandard websites or IE6 hacks
No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.
