|
|
You can think and believe whatever you want to think and believe. I have no problem with that.
The problem comes when you try to hijack the U.S. legislative system to force people who are not members of your religion to follow your religious strictures.
A church should be able to determine under which conditions it's own members get married in (as long as they still have freedom of religion to leave the church if they choose.) It should NOT be able to determine whether non-members of the church can get married.
How would you like it if your marriage was annulled because, say, the Catholics didn't approve of it?
My point is that techies gab gab gab without making it simple to understand and digest. People want to learn and understand, but they need to be explained in simple terms. I find financial calculations a piece of cake and have no problem creating the derivatives that are causing problems. Yet most people consider this stuff mumbo jumbo and fake. (BTW its not!)
I ran out of Mod points yesterday.
I've found that people are actually quite interested in understanding things, when I explain them well in a way that makes it clear how it affects them. (When I just blab on about a pet topic, not so much. But taking the time to figure out what needs to be conveyed, and conveying it well in an engaging manner can work wonders.)
Worse, if you come into it with the attitude that the person that you're talking to is dumb for not already getting it? They will pick up on that whether you actually say it or not. And it will not make them inclined to really hear your point.
Thats why he said "are colloquially assumed to be instantaneous" instead of "are instantaneous"
I have no words. Easily one of the best comments in a while! And due to your complaints, Verizon has decided that next month they will only take your appendix. I mean, it's useless, right?
Actually, I've read that for about the first 20 years of your life, your appendix helps train your immune system. It collects nasty gunk, and uses it to build anti-bodies against whatever trace elements of pathogens are in the nasty gunk. So it's propensity for collecting nasty gunk and letting it sit there actually has a valid purpose.
How the bloody hell did you get that past slashdot's filters?
the entities would have included lower-case characters.
I agree that they shouldn't have used "censorship". Not even "censorship-like". But if you get past that and realize what they are saying is (or should be), "How can we get the BEST results to rise to the top, instead of just the most popular results (since the two are often not the same)?" then you have an interesting (and more accurate) discussion.
However, while using loaded words like "censorship" gets peoples' attention, when the word is misapplied, you're going to have a hard time drawing people away from the word to the subject at hand
Thus, instead of a productive conversation about how good information can get lost in the flood, we're instead going to discuss why that doesn't constitute censorship. Good opportunity wasted by the misuse of a loaded word.
What about all those companies that paid those don't-sue-us fees to SCO back in 2002? Are they going to step forward and demand their money back, now that the entire basis for this shakedown has been invalidated?
Blood. Turnip.
Doesn't do a lot of good to go to the effort of suing someone who doesn't have a dime to give you for your efforts-- they'd be in line behind the people who SCO has already been ordered to pay, and SCO is already insolvent.
Writing about music is like dancing about architecture. -- Frank Zappa