Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
FWIW, I think those are perfectly plausible explanations. I mainly meant wanted to frame the GP's own opinion as a formal test case; that's a copy-and-paste of what he wrote.
If your charity is providing shelter for the homeless, but they have to pay 10 bucks per night for the bunk-bed, you are not non-profit.
That test fails. What if it costs $50 per night for the bunk-bed and the rest is subsidized through external donations?
If your mega-church is providing "healing for the sick", but they have to pay $200 to enter, you are not a non-profit.
And if that $200 turns into renting clinic space and buying supplies to provide free medical care to poor children?
My point is that the answer to these questions is never simple, and if you think you've found a simple definition that neatly covers everything, it suggests you're likely missing something.
How else do you explain WindowsME and Vista?
I don't, and neither can anyone else.
but if a megachurch can afford a huge all-glass cathedral, $ multi-million salaries for the charismatic preacher begging for more donations, and toys like private jets and limos, nope, that's a for-profit enterprise, even if you cook the books so there's no money left over at the end of the day.
I'm not disagreeing with you, because I think that stuff is disgusting. But. As a programmer, how would you write a function that returns a boolean value: "is this church a legitimate non-profit?" Because that's ultimately what you're asking, and I'm having a hard time formulating such a thing.
* A small-town church with a pastor who has four different congregations: True
* A huge all-glass cathedral, $ multi-million salaries for the charismatic preacher begging for more donations, and toys like private jets and limos: False
* A small local all-volunteer charity that feeds the homeless: True
* A small, all-volunteer, poorly run charity who means well but sucks at their mission: True
* A large national charity with a well-paid CEO who effectively uses their resources to do amazing things: True
* A large national charity with a well-paid CEO who isn't very effective, but everyone agrees means well: True?
* A large national charity with a well-paid CEO who doesn't effectively uses their resources: Um...
Step one: agree on the test cases. Step two: specific the input parameters that lets you distinguish between outcomes. Step three: non-profit?
Why oh why would you put the parsing of HTTP at the kernel level?
They probably saw that FreeBSD has been doing it for 15 years and thought it might be a good idea.
This is the kind of stuff which needs to be in userspace, not the friggin OS.
Apparently not everyone agrees with that.
I'm in no way a Microsoft apologist, but it's not like a senior engineer rolled out of bed one morning, smoked some crack, and yelled "hey, let's break some crap today!" Lots of stuff is done in kernel mode in Linux and the BSDs - like all kinds of graphical mischief - and MS probably does the same things for the same reasons.
That guy is going to be pissed when we don't get cold supercomputers with billions of times more power than the brain using reversible computing.
Kurzweil may or may not be nuts, but the data seems to be going his way so far.
"We are assured that rapid progress will soon bring self-driving electric cars,
individually tailored cancer cures,
and instant three-dimensional printing of hearts and kidneys.
We are even told it will pave the world's transition from fossil fuels to renewable energies,"
Could there have been worse examples of "LOL those crazy promises!"?
I wouldn't say very old.
That makes what they do known.
Additionally, that only works if the company has the keys and they aren't locked in a HSM.
I haven't seen any bigotry in these comments, and I think it's disingenuous for you to say so.
Arguing that we should have the right not to do business with groups we dislike, which was precisely the excuse given in the 60's by people who didn't blacks in their restaurant, is not-so-thinly veiled bigotry. It's painful listening to those who don't know history trying to repeat it, desperately hoping that this time it will be different and they'll be allowed to show "those people" who's in charge.
For the record, I'm not black, gay, or liberal. But things like this are exactly the reason why I'm no longer a Republican. I just can't go along willingly with the Attempt Of The Week to make this a hyperconservative theocracy. When someone inevitably comes along and wants to deny my right to fully participate in society, I hope we'll have built the momentum to shut it down.
Then you think that no law should be based on religious belief; when in fact all law is.
I cannot keep up with the contortion of intellectual dishonesty required to type that sentence with a straight face. I don't think you're lying to me and that you really believe this, but I equally believe that you're lying to yourself. Have a nice day and best of luck in your future endeavors.
"Separation of church and state", as a specific quote or concept, is nowhere in the founding legal documents of the United States.
It was no less than Thomas Jefferson who said:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.
Next, your strawman:
It's use did not create prohibition against religious expression.
Correct. Still doesn't. You're legally entitled to say "blacks are of the devil" (or whites for that matter). Go ahead! No government agency will stop you. However, you're not allowed to discriminate based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce (court-upheld interpretation: pretty much anywhere).
No one believes that any of our rights are unlimited. You can speak your opinion, but you can't yell fire in a theater. You can bear arms, but don't expect to own a nuclear bomb. You can sincerely believe that whites are a superior species to blacks, but you don't get to own, kill, intimidate, lynch, or otherwise harm a black guy, regardless of your vile beliefs. This isn't something I'm making up out of whole cloth, but well-established and widely accepted interpretation of Federal law.
Documents which govern the FEDERAL government do not necessarily apply to State or Local governments.
Read your Constitution, son. The 14th amendment says:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This codified previous Constitutional supremacy thoughts by explicitly stating that States don't get to write laws violating the Constitution or selectively affording privileges to one group and not another.