
Slashback: Licensure, Restriction, Cometry 249
Because not everything is as simple as who signs your paycheck ... cetan writes: "As a follow up to being laid off by AOL from Netscape, Mitchell Baker posted an article on Mozillazine discussing her role within Mozilla.org."
Can you think of a title to help her replace "Chief Lizard Wrangler"? All that wrangling has been a good thing, though, as recent builds make clear. I'd like to suggest "Reptilian Ambassador."
Sometimes, you just have to play. t0qer writes: "This is an update to this story. Originally I said kaillera was a net enabled version of mame, it's actually a free SDK to enable any emulator to have netplay. It was written by Christophe Thibault, of winamp fame. Contrary to some comments that the code was ripped from netmame, it was actually borged from jnetlib which was written by his boss and buddy Justin Frankel. So far kaillera has been adopted by 10 different emulators.
Speaking of games, iphayd writes: "Graeme Devine updated his plan , and released a version of Return to Castle Wolfenstein. While this isn't interesting in itself, he's claiming that he is getting 3x the frame rate on a dual 800 G4 system than his dual P3 800 system."
You shall not convert the news headlines in the MSNBC component into an audio format. MarkedMan writes: "There has been some confusion over Microsoft's Frontpage EULA, with some claiming it prohibited using the software to produce works disparaging Microsoft and some saying it simply prohibited the use of the Frontpage logo on such sites. (The logo restriction actually seemed reasonable to me.) After some searching I found that some versions of the EULA do indeed limit use of the program itself. This from Northwestern University's Microsoft User License: Check out page 2, section 2. http://www.tss.northwestern.edu/select/mspur.pdf"
We have come to terms. bkuhn writes: "The FSF and FSMLabs have an agreement on a GPL-compliant version of the RTLinux Open Patent License. You can read our statement and related press release on the matter."
It's cool to see this sort of conflict work be met and resolved.
Not quite a date with a star. Troodon writes "A brief reminder, JPL and BBCnews report that this Saturday (22/SEP/2001) at 2230 Universal time (3:30 p.m. PDT) Deep Space 1 has a date with the Comet Borrelly"
Infinate Justice? (Score:1)
Re:Infinate Justice? (Score:1)
Re:Infinate Justice? (Score:1)
As earlier posts have pointed out, in the Koran, only Allah has infinite justice, probably the U.S. military using this as a name would definately piss off some Taliban leaders.
kinda funny though, some of those people don't
worship Allah, some people worship Bin-Laden
Secondly, In my own opinion it's also a stupid title for a military operation, the justice isn't going to be so infinite if we get our asses kicked
I have alot of faith in the military, but I know they're not invincible.
Re:Infinate Justice? (Score:1)
Military operations have nothing to do with justice. American kids trying to serve their country will die to kill Afghan kids trying to defend their country. There is no evidence, so far, that Osama bin Laden is actually responsible for the attacks on NY and DC. The purpose of the war seems to be to make US politicians more popular with the US electorate. It worked for Clinton. It will probably work for GWB.
Re:Infinate Justice? (Score:1)
How about 'Operation knee-jerk reaction'?
Re:Infinate Justice? (Score:1)
You mean besides the guy who was involved and told the FBI that they were working for bin Laden? Never mind the fact that we should have gone after him after the first WTC bombing, or failing that certainly after the US embassy bombings, to say nothing of the USS Cole.
As for military operations having nothing to do with justice, that's just silly. Look at World War II for an example. Or how about Kosovo? I don't really think the US had much selfish intent there. Sorry. I just don't buy it. Yes, people die in wars. And sometimes they're innocent people. That is a tragedy, but it is sometimes a necessary one. I have some very close friends in the military, and they took oaths to defend this country and her interests even at the expense of their own lives. That was a decision they made when they entered military service. As for the Afghan kids, if they were conscripted I feel sorry for them. But that just makes me believe even more strongly that the Taliban needs to fall.
As for your "purpose of the war", I think that's just silly. I am as cynical about politicians as anybody, but if you think that Bush is taking the country into this war as a popularity stunt then you are absolutely insane. He as much as said last night that Americans would die in the war. And every politician knows that Americans in body bags hurts popularity. As he said, this is not going to be like the Gulf War or Kosovo. We'll have to fight a ground war, and that means casualties. So no, it probably won't work to increase long-term popularity for GWB. I believe that he's doing what he perceives to be the Right Thing. I happen to agree with him. He has shown himself to be a strong president. God help us if Gore had been in office. "Sure, Osama, I'll bend over and take it up the ass for you." The only reason we even have to deal with this now is that Clinton didn't have the balls to do anything about it when he should have.
Re:Infinate Justice? (Score:2)
http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/jsexton/NewsWatch/
Re:Infinate Justice? (Score:2)
Not saying that the operation may not be for the best, but this is probably wy they chose the name: it limited potential criticism.
F-bacher
Re:Infinate Justice? (Score:1)
Re:Infinate Justice? (Score:1)
But what I really like is his "sidekick" Royal Marshall's idea: Operation Roach in the Corner.
:)
Re:Infinate Justice? (Score:1)
Re:Infinate Justice? (Score:2)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/index.html
Joint Guardian
Allied Force / Noble Anvil
Determined Force
Cobalt Flash
Shining Hope
Sustain Hope / Allied Harbour
Provide Refuge
Nomad Vigil
Nomad Endeavor
Deny Flight
Decisive Endeavor / Decisive Edge
Decisive Guard / Deliberate Guard
Deliberate Forge
Those are just a few.
Re:Infinate Justice? (Score:1)
I've heard that lately they use a computer program to come up with some of these ideas.
OT: Infinite Justice (Score:1)
On second thoughts that's a bad idea; someone's already got the game rights to that already !!
When is someone going to release a Quake/Half Life addon pack with Bin Laden lookalike terrorist enemies ?
Operation LAME NAME (Score:1)
Sorry for the stupid post. It's late.
Re:Operation LAME NAME (Score:2)
How do you tell a mother her son was killed during "Operation Spaghetti & Meatballs"? That's why they have these kind of names, you can't just use something silly, it has to at least sound like it's worth dying for.
Re:Operation LAME NAME (Score:1)
sorry, lame joke, but when a thread has gone this far without it being made I had to, for closure you know.
How about 'Secretary of Homeland Security'? (Score:1)
Re:How about 'Secretary of Homeland Security'? (Score:1)
The name has a very "1984" feel to it - I was expecting the next sentence to be about the establishment of the "Ministry of Truth".
Welcome to Micronistan ! (Score:1)
More interesting : you may not use it and infringe ANY state, federal, international laws ! Woooah, given that it's nearly impossible not infringe any law somewhere, that would be a real feat !
Last but not least : you may not promote pr0n ! Yeah, sure, what do you think most porn site webmasters are using ?
Re:Welcome to Micronistan ! (Score:1)
Erm, paper towels?
Re:Welcome to Micronistan ! (Score:2)
Actually, PHP is quite popular in the net-pr0n world. It makes sense, too. It's cheap and quick, like the content. It's low maintenance, as well.
I was watching a show one time (I forget what it was called, some business show, I think) that had a story about Danni Ashe (sp?). She said that she started her popular site on a Linux box in her bedroom and did the administration herself. I thought that was pretty cool...
ObStandardDisclaimer: Oh, and I know all of this because, er, a friend told me, yeah!
Re:Welcome to Micronistan ! (Score:2)
Dude, you forgot the links! If you ever wanted to get modded up as informative, this was the posting to include the relevant links :-)
Re:Welcome to Micronistan ! (Score:1)
Did you even read the EULA? (Score:4, Informative)
The first paragraph in that section reads So basically MSFT doesn't want you using their COM objects on sites that perform illegal activities or diss MSFT subsidiaries. This is very different from stating that if you build your site with Front Page then you must conform to those restrictions. As for "active links", these refer to URLs that components may contaion that lead back to MSFT, for instance MSIE ships with links to Hotmail, Windows Update, and Windows Media Player while Netscape ships with links to AOL and Real. All that section is saying is that if you reuse their components then you shouldn't change the links, seems straight forward enough to me.
Re:Welcome to Micronistan ! (Score:1)
1. I want to make a hardcore anti MS page full of illegal comments (slander, libel, whatever), make it with FrontPage, put the Made my Frontpage logo on it and then send a link to MS stating "HI, I found a web page disparriaging MS and it was made with FrontPage.. and I think I made it."
2. I want to make a web site with FrontPage praising the business practices of MS as quite fair, hippy-esque, etc. BUT trash their software as pure garbage, second rate, etc. Then of course, report it to MS.
I wonder how long a cease and desist letter would take to arrive in the mail?
FrontPage web components (Score:2)
From the section referred to in the article:
Not having used FrontPage in general and any of these "web components" in particular, I don't want to draw any conclusions, but it doesn't seem like the restrictions covered in the section would come into play if you just use FrontPage as a WYSIWYG editor to design your site.
Re:FrontPage web components (Score:1)
Re:FrontPage web components (Score:1)
It seems like that's fairly standard for any company. I doubt you can use the Coca-Cola logo on a site which disparages Coca-Cola, either. Using the FrontPage web components explicitly named in the EULA would be exactly the same thing, and IMO Microsoft - or any other company - has the right to protect its property. Besides, if you want to make a site which disparages a company, why would you want to use their components in the first place?
The restriction in the EULA about not using those components on sites which violate laws makes sense as well. What company would not want to have such language to fall back on if its very identifiable property were to be featured on a site promoting illegal or unsavory activity?
Imagine that (for example) Red Hat's snappy logo were to show up on, say, Stormfront. Big huge "This White Nationalist website brought to you by Red Hat Linux!" Imagine that Red Hat didn't want to be associated with Stormfront. If there were no legal language to fall back on which stated that using the logo would be a violation of the license for the distribution, there would be no way other than politely asking to remove the logo from the site. Admittedly, a logo is not a "Web component", but notice that only those web components which would directly connect to Microsoft content -- thereby associating the site on which they appeared with Microsoft -- are explicitly referenced.
Re:FrontPage web components (Score:1)
Satire?
Re:FrontPage web components (Score:1)
Besides, if you want to make a site which disparages a company, why would you want to use their components in the first place?
A news site, run by pro-M$ people in general cannot use these componenets as they occasionally need to run a story that's not so pro-M$ as can be.
Re:FrontPage web components (Score:1)
FrontPage Web components refer to 'widgets' of fununtionality that can be dropped into a site.
They do not refer to front page itself
IE, In front page you can INSERT => Web Component => MSNBC News.
This gives you a part in your web page that actually displays HTML content from the MSNBC site!
Surely it is fair that if you are using MSNBC dynamic content you page, you can't go along and defame the same content.
Re:FrontPage web components (Score:2)
Surely it is fair that if you are using MSNBC dynamic content you page, you can't go along and defame the same content.
You are full of crap. This is known as criticism, which is well-accepted in the world by almost anyone who is not receiving it.
Re:FrontPage web components (Score:2)
Enough already (Score:2)
This Microsoft cr*p is ridiculous.
It is now the time for anyone and everyone who spends a significant amount of money on Microsoft products to seriously evaluate their options (i.e. consider open-source and related software products).
From product activation to (fill in the blank) to this latest EULA fiasco, I think most people have had just about enough.
Re:Enough already (Score:2)
Make that people on slashdot have had just about enough. The vast majority of the population don't notice or care about Microsoft's abuses, and if you think otherwise, you've been hanging around geeks too much. Sad but true.
- j
Re:Enough already (Score:1)
And sheep don't care about the fact that they are eventually going to be slaughtered and eaten because they just don't know it's going to happen. They're perfectly content to munch on the nice green grass of today.
Re:Enough already (Score:1)
Governments dont seem to mind shelling out big bucks everytime a new version on MS Office comes out. Companies have to try to make a profit and can't afford to do this. Governments dont have to make any kind of profit and seem to care much less about where the money goes. They spend the public's money, not theirs -- why should they care?
Hopefully more will wake up and start using alternatives.
Re:Enough already (Score:1)
For once, Gartner agrees with your average /.er [cnet.com].
Re:Enough already (Score:1)
Just a thought, not a sermon.
Re:Enough already (Score:1)
Cryptnotic
Re:Enough already (Score:1)
Re:Enough already (Score:1)
"indian giver" (note: not related to Native Americans)
OK, so I'm nitpicking. And by the way, I'm not trying to slam you. But people should know that anytime you use the phrase "indian giver", you are referring to Native Americans whether you want to or not. The term arises from "White Man's" total lack of understanding about how the Native American system of ownership worked. They thought they were buying land with worthless beads. When they occupied the land and wouldn't let any of the "indians" on it, they assumed that the natives were going back on the bargain. What they didn't realize is that Native Americans did not feel that the land could be owned by anyone (no concept of ownership). They interpreted the beads (and other goodies) as a gesture of peace and friendship. When they were no longer allowed to use they land, it was interpreted as an act of war. Native Americans were willing to share. White Man was not.
-- Proud to be Cherokee
Re:Enough already (Score:2)
Why does Stallman demand tacking GNU in front software names? Seems like advertising, hmm?
I've only heard him do it for Linux, and his reasons are sound: he's filling a need (distinguishing the *kernel* "Linux" from the *operating system* "GNU/Linux"). I fail to see a problem with that, especially since he's stated his preference, not imposed it legally on others.
Microsoft bankrupt as Porn sites go Open Source (Score:2)
Hmmm, I wonder if the porn shops will soon have more openings for Linux folks... My wife wouldn't like it, but I think it would be a great work environment ;-)
Re:Microsoft bankrupt as Porn sites go Open Source (Score:1)
Sigh. You're quite wrong. Let me list the ways:
You're simply jerking your knee. The original story is now hours old, and many of the comments have made it abundantly clear that this is not a restriction on the usage of FrontPage as an IDE, or IIS as a web server, or Windows 2000 as a server, or whatever other Slashdot-ism you want to bring up.
Re:Microsoft bankrupt as Porn sites go Open Source (Score:1)
"I only read it for the articles".
Re:Microsoft bankrupt as Porn sites go Open Source (Score:2)
I suppose it depends on what you deem to be "the Web components." This provision is very vaguely worded, probably on purpose. Microsoft says that it includes the MSN Stock Ticker, the MSNBC headlines, Expedia maps, and so on. However, where do you draw this line? Perhaps FrontPage extensions such as the Forms component (which displays HTML forms and then e-mails their contents to a specified e-mail address without writing any code), could be construed as being a "Web Component." Microsoft's definition of Web components does not specifically state what this includes and what this excludes, again, probably on purpose.
Re:Microsoft bankrupt as Porn sites go Open Source (Score:2)
You haven't heard of Naked News [nakednews.com]? (Warning: nudity -- I'm not sure how bad the main page is, since I'm using lynx at the moment. But it's not a hoax.) It's big enough that it actually got regular television news coverage when they were looking for male anchors to balance out the cast.
Re:Microsoft bankrupt as Porn sites go Open Source (Score:1)
Re:Microsoft bankrupt as Porn sites go Open Source (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft bankrupt as Porn sites go Open Source (Score:1)
Whatever happened to quickies? (Score:2)
Anybody know why they have ceased to exist? Taco, hemos, et al you out there?
Just use what I use for quickies! (Score:1, Offtopic)
(Damn the subject line sounds a bit... well, dirty!)
For a daily dose of quickies, hit: Memepool.com [memepool.com] Most of the time it's better than what Slashdot's quickies were back when they posted them :-)
Quickies should be weekly (Score:1, Offtopic)
multiplayer mame sucks (Score:2)
More direct .plan links (Score:2)
Re:More direct .plan links (Score:1)
Kaillera and Mame (Score:1)
Kaillera is a closed-source SDK for Windows only, therefore it has a much more limited appeal/application than MAME itself.
Microsoft can do this (Score:2)
And frontpage is nowhere near a monopoly, and there are tons of alternatives, so the ability to have speech is not limited through a medium, just one avenew out of several similiar avenews for expressing free speech in one medium is limited.
Restrictions like this should make a lot of people consider using alternatives. The more people that move away from microsoft products, the better. And if microsoft is going to give people good reason to switch, I'm not going to complain.
F-bacher
This is why we need the "Bigot" license. (Score:1)
Or perhaps we could have the "no developers" license? You can only use this peice of software if you've never written a program longer than 2000 lines of code. (This would be for the purpose of stopping reverse engineering of course...)
Re:This is why we need the "Bigot" license. (Score:2)
And hey, if companies want to start making bigoted licenses, I'm all for it! Think of all the people would migrate from Microsoft to even half-assed alternatives if Microsoft admitted openly that they discriminate on the basis of sex. I think we've gotten to the point that big companies will have trouble getting away with such open discrimination without an economiuc hit. It's the smaller businesses that are more likely to not have their racists practices uncovered and blared on every major network news station.
F-bacher
Re:Microsoft can do this (Score:2)
However, if EULA are already on shaky ground, putting something like this in is even shakier. This clause has far-reaching implications for the user -- where other such clauses are directly attached to the product, such as not allowing benchmarks, this relates to content which is probably not created by the same people (or even companies) that chose and installed the software. While such a clause might be enforceable in another situation, I can't imagine the legal system is so fucked up that it would be enforcable because someone clicked "I agree".
Of course, legal enforcement is probably not on the minds of the MS lawyers anyway. This clause gives them an opportunity to harrass.
Re: "Reptilian Ambassador" (Score:1)
You wouldn't want anyone confusing Mitchell Baker with a M$ sales rep.
Re: "Reptilian Ambassador" (Score:1)
MS Censorship Issue? (Score:1)
I seem to recall something about if you apply restrictions to the content of what passes through your channels, than you are giving what passes through the nod.
In the case of MS, by prohibiting particular content being made and published using their product, then they are leaving themselves open to aiding people who make, say, porn or hate pages, using Frontpage. And because their licences prohibit some content, then they are party to what is let through.
Hmmm - just a thought ....
No. (Score:2)
Related MS conditions of use. (Score:1)
This is probably fair enough for Hotmail, and Frontpage too -- how many Slashdotters would like the see the
However, as for any content generated by the program in question... strip out the META tags and M$ junk it includes in HTML files, and voila! "Could've been any program that done this, guv'ner..."
Re:Related MS conditions of use. (Score:2)
You can't say "I really like Hotmail - it's a great service [logo with link] - but not all MS products are as tasty - Frontpage, quite frankly sucks - it produces big, bloated HTML that doesn't work right in any browser but MSIE." -- even though the two products are unrelated in your conjecture, other than the fact they're made by the same company - the EULA prevents you from saying things like this if you use the logo, even if that use is legitimate.
(note: I don't like Hotmail - it's a spambed - I just used it as an example - I should have used their mice as the example instead - they're the one thing MS seems to be able to do RIGHT)
Re:Related MS conditions of use. (Score:1)
Hey, wait a minute...are any of MS's sites closely tied enough to their illegal monopolistic activities that they violated their own license terms? That would be hilarious.
Hmm... (Score:3, Interesting)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Win2K come with a program called Narrator that converts text into an audio format. I wonder if we could sue MS for violating the DMCA (circumvention device) using their own software? Thoughts?
Re:Hmm... (Score:1)
No, but you probably could for violating ADA.
Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
> I have no toleranse for stupidity.
Please tell me that was meant to be ironic.
What Frontpage EULA restrictions? Read Here... (Score:2)
I like what one poster made fun of [slashdot.org] -- what is Microsoft thinking? Can't make pr0n sites with frontpage? No links that promote racism or hatred?
This seems a bit much... I dont condone hate groups, nor do I condone racists... but I respect the right they have to have their views. Microsoft is seeming to be letting idealogies determine what a person can do with their product... to ask yourself if this can be done -- think: do you think its ok and legal to sell a product to make web pages with the EULA that "You can not use this to make any page that does not have only the words 'Microsoft is Cool' on it" and advertise it otherwise? Someone buys this product (for example) for the sole purpose to let other people know what a complete and total idiotic racist that they are, and then they find that the EULA that they did not see until after they installed the product prohibited it. They can't return it -- (open box software), and they cant use...
What can we do?
Don't look to Apple (Score:2)
At least MS is coming outright and tell users what they can't do, as opposed to picking on certain groups because it might upset the herd.
Most americans couldn't care less about free speech and the corporations know this, and now they're exploiting it.
Re:Don't look to Apple (Score:1)
They tried their damndest to get the Church of Satan to remove "Made with a Mac" or an apple logo removed from their pages. [churchofsatan.com]
I guess MegaCorps just "invest" so much money into "building brand image" (infecting our culture with distorted perceptions) that anything that "damages"/exposes that "image"/distortion, is a threat to their bottom line. But we already know this.
I mean, they can't have people walking into a store and asking, "say, where's your Satan Machine..err...Apple computers, please?"
But while sales are good for business and the economy, advertising is basically a "lie" to alter your perceptions into making you buy something you don't need... I mean, if you needed it, you would just buy it, right? I mean, we could just have a "what's new" page, listing new products, and that would be it. No bare flesh, no scenic landscapes...
But I don't mind the adverts. If people want to buy an Apple so they can feel "Different", then fine, they've just paid to buy themselves into an association with a distorted image... ie. they've paid to "become" the advert lifestyle (maybe in the future, all films will be adverts, populated by people who buy the product, along with a few stars... "Buy a Clio and win a trip on location with the French woman, as she drives you to a scenic spot in her Clio...")
What sickens me, and you, is when business thinks it has the right to interfere with my opinions and rights to voice those opinions.
If business wants to build it's whole strategy to rely heavily on it's fragile brand image, then that's it's own fault. And if that image gets "damaged" by accidental association with the "wrong" things, then that's just too bad.
I mean, you don't look at a Wolkswagen and think, "bast*rd evil german nazi car", do you? Instead you try to find out about the reliability, the build quality, mileage, etc.
Companies *should* be encouraging consumers to understand quality issues, so that we'll demand quality and workers can have a better sense of satisfaction in their productive labours.
Re:What Frontpage EULA restrictions? Read Here... (Score:2)
Well, maybe it's okay as long as you are just showing pornography. This isn't promotion, after all. So "Come See Barely Legal Chicks" sites would be banned, but just no-frill hardcore porn pages would be A-OK.
Similarly, maybe this means it's okay to make a site saying "I hate, I am racist, and here's a picture of me naked", as long as you aren't saying that other people should feel the same.
I've wondered about going through the entire purchase-refuse-EULA-get-return-denied process, and then go ahead and find something interesting in the EULA that I can then break (since they haven't held up their end of the contract, I thus wouldn't be bound).Maybe I should purchase a copy of FrontPage, try to return it, fail, and then make a particularly offensive page with it, with a big "made with FrontPage" logo on it.
The other way would be civil disobedience -- buy this sort of software on a credit card, and when you can't return it get the credit card company to stop payment. I've never done that sort of thing with a credit card, so I don't konw how hard it is. Admittedly you wouldn't be going into the transaction in good faith either. I'd be curious if someone else has tried such a thing.
It's true! (Score:2)
I'm normally not a MS basher. Hell, I've been an MCSE for over 2 years (both the NT4 and recently the 2K track)...but this kind of stuff makes me happy that I'm making the switch to Linux and open source.
--SC
Re:It's true! (Score:1)
IANAL but I don't think that EULA would be enforcable. (Any Lawyers - help here) I may not agree with a particular porn site but the guy has a right to create it and the other guy has a right to browse the site. (So long as the models are of legal age).
People, mainly here in the USA, are tooooo accepting of someone infringing on people's right as long as they aren't affected.
I'm not trying to do a Dennis Miller but, they infringe on Smoker's rights - it's okay because I don't smoke.
Infringe on a gun owner's rights - it's okay because I don't want a gun and nobody should have a gun (Until only the criminals and police have them).
They tell you an unborn child isn't a person but kill a pregnant woman and you get charged with 2 murders.
When do WE say ENOUGH!
Sorry I didn't mean to get on a rant *grin*
The point is: Think of the effect on others not just yourself before forming an opinion of right and wrong
My letter to the President -- Comments Please (Score:2)
...
Dear President,
Given that you have resolved to take actions against Afghanistan and that our Congress has passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force, I humbly offer a few suggestions which I hope you will consider.
0. We need more compassionate talk about those innocent refugees who are ravaged by war in Afghanistan. Identify with them and the Arabic world will follow you. Give these people hope and help them rebuild their society. Only then will terrorists be unwelcome.
1. Make it clear that we are temporary guests who are visiting to restore basic freedoms of speech, assembly, religion, and self-determination. Clearly point out how Muslims, Christians, and Jews peacefully practice their religions in our country due to the separation of church and state.
2. For every military dollar, spend two dollars on relief efforts in Afghanistan and other "at risk" areas where dissent is evident. To really fight terrorism, we must give hope back to the citizens of Afghanistan. Use this to rally the Arabic peoples of other nations to support us so that the terrorism does not just move to another country.
3. Declare an American media style 'war on mines'. Rally the Arabic world to help rid Afghanistan of its millions of mines. Let this be a known goal of our "invasion". Promise on our nation's flag that we will not leave mines when we go.
4. While "war against terrorism" rages, carry on a separate 'war on illiteracy' in the Refugee camps. Build schools. Teach them Math. Teach them Science. Teach them Humanities (esp. Middle-Eastern History). Teach them Business. Teach them Agriculture.
5. Help rebuild their cities by providing knowledge, food, housing, supplies, and encouragement. Help them rebuild their countryside by exploring what crops work best in their climate and how to build an agricultural system to support their peoples.
6. Help them form a democratic government. Be clear that we are not Imperialistic. Afghanistan is their country, and will remain their country.
7. Above all, make it known to the Afghan people and the whole world that we are there to remove terrorists and the government which harbors those terrorists. Make it clear we will eventually leave. And make it clear that when we do leave, their country will be in better condition than when we arrive.
I close with the recently spoken words of the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II:
"I pray that this inhuman act will awaken in the hearts of all the world's peoples a firm resolve to reject the ways of violence, to combat everything that sows hatred and division within the human family."
"[May God] help all to resist the temptation to hatred and violence, and to dedicate themselves to the service of justice and peace."
Sincerely Yours,
Clark C. Evans
Re:My letter to the President -- Comments Please (Score:1)
It is traditional, anyway, for us to do something like that after we whack a country. Usually we have the war first, then rebuild the economy. (ref. Germany, Japan) Maybe this time we could just skip the war and go right on to the re-building.
Wow.. microsoft has morals! (Score:1)
You may not use the Software in connection with any site that disparages Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia or their products or services, infringe any intellectual property or other rights of these parties, violate any state, federal or international law, or promote racism, hatred , or pornography
That's just obtuse.
FrontPage!!!! (Score:1)
Dont complain about FrontPages licensing issues, just dont use it and dont buy it...
Anyway, anything, under any platform is better than FrontPage (and InterDev is pretty sucky too)...
Bummer. . . (Score:1)
Basically they're saying that you can't use Frontpage to build frontpagesucks.com. . .
Re:Capitulation (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:Pope's Words of Restraint (Score:1, Offtopic)
Atheism is a religion, too. It is a concrete belief that is held without any conclusive proof one way or another. Some atheists are more dogmatic and hate-filled than your average churchgoer. Ask Russians what life is like under an 'enlightened' atheistic government. Belief or disbelief in universal principles is no guarantee of morality.
You need to draw a distinction between the positive philosophies espoused by most major religions and the self-serving hypocrisy of those who would use noble concepts to their own ends.
Just because you don't 'need' the myths of organised religion doesn't give you the right to get pointlessly aggressive with those who do. In a lot of ways, the myths of eternal life or reincarnation/karma are a lot like parents using Santa Claus as a way of teaching children the benefits of being good. It is explained to the immature in language they can understand and identify with. By the time they are old enough to see through the stories, the value of the underlying message will hopefully have made some impact on them. The fact that a lot of people misinterpret the message and stay stuck in a juvenile fantasy world indicates that it is not a foolproof methodology, but secular humanism doesn't have a 100% strike rate either.
Perhaps you should examine your own belligerent tone of phrase before you start accusing others of intolerance.
For the record, I consider myself an agnostic.
Re:Pope's Words of Restraint (Score:1, Offtopic)
Atheism is not a religion. It is the rejection of "faith" -- which is the term for believing in something without real evidence. If you are unwilling to reject the notion of "God", why would you reject the notion of the Easter bunny, Santa Claus, or the tooth fairy?
Actually, the other guy is right. The only intellectually pure stance is Agnosticism, when you believe that the existence of God can neither be proven or disproven. Atheism takes it as an article of faith that God doesn't exist, without any proof. Certainly you can make intellectual cases for the non-existence, but you can also make the same cases for the existence.
As for Santa Claus et al, it's actually not the same. We have evidence for the non-existence of Santa Claus, since we can trace the myth and see where it came from. As for God, he's been around since the dawn of writing, particularly the Judeo-Christian God (at least 8000 years, I believe). Not to mention that there is at least some "documented" evidence (the resurrection of Christ).
Anyway, if you want to intellectually clean, pick Agnosticism. :)
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:Pope's Words of Restraint (Score:1)
Atheism means "without religious beliefs." It does not mean an absolute conviction that it is impossible for God to exist.
According to the dictionary [dictionary.com], Atheism actively denies the existence of God, which I think regardless of the etymological derivation of the word, is pretty much the modern usage. Just check out alt.atheism if you don't believe me. There are some might strident folks in there. :)
I agree that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. Neither can the existence of ghosts, the Loch Ness Monster, the tooth fairy, or Bigfoot be proven,
Ghosts, the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot could all be proven to exist given one example. The Tooth Fairy, on the other hand, is in the same class as Santa Claus where we can actively trace the myth and determine that it was human created.
Just as there is "documented evidence" of the Greek gods, the Roman gods, and the Norse gods? Evidence is more than something written anonymously in a book.
The Greek gods, Roman gods and Norse gods are all steeped in clear mythical literature. In other words, there were never any claims that the literature was true. The difference is that the bible is claimed to be based on eyewitness accounts.
Trust me, I'm with you for the most part. I think the chance of God existing, at least as the Judeo-Christian faiths define God, is pretty close to zero. My only point is that when it comes to the question of whether there is a Supreme Being running the universe (independent of whether that being is described Judeo Christian beliefs), it's best to stay agnostic about it. Like I said, one visit to the looney bin known as alt.atheism should convince anyone that those people cling to their beliefs as tightly as the most rabid religious nut. They won't even consider that there might be "more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in their philosophy". :)
Personally, I think we should just define God as "that which created the universe", and be done with it. Then we can all believe in God, and never fight another religious war.
Re:Pope's Words of Restraint (Score:2)
Re:Pope's Words of Restraint (Score:1, Offtopic)
You have faith that your disbelief is true. Any logical system is built on unprovable axioms that must be believed in despite being unprovable.
A totally specious line of reasoning. Just because someone believes one thing, they are not compelled to believe in everything.
And all those whose societies are still too immature to deal with that can just implode for all you care. Perhaps they need to eveolve toward enlightenment by being shown positive examples of how to live without God. Insulting them will do that admirably, of course.
Actually, there was. Landless nobles used the crusade as an excuse to steal land from other Christians, not just Moslems or Jews. The calling of the Western crusade was misguided, but was at least partially in response to the foreign threat to the like-minded Byzantine Empire. It can be viewed as a political decision. How is it different to the formation of a Western coalition to fight Communism in Vietnam?
Or it can be used to teach 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. The vast majority of religious bvelievers are peaceful, if occasionally misguided. It's often a few bad apples that spoil the whole barrel.
Yes, you did:
That's an implicit assumption of intolerance.
Perhaps because you have an overly simplistic view of one of the most (if not the most) influential elements of human thought over the course of recorded history.
Religion has both good and bad elements. It is a notion that we are (in my opinion) evolving away from, but to scapegoat it for all the bad things that humanity has done ignores the fact that it is often a hypocritical excuse for bad behaviour rather than a cause.
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pope's Words of Restraint (Score:1)
no, you sir are completely incorrect. an atheist has no belief in god, period. that does NOT mean they believe there is no god. pay attention to the difference. one who actively believes there is no god is more accurately described as a hard atheist.
please stop spreading incorrect information.
Re:Look it up, smartarse (Score:1)
found off the very link you so kindly provided. nice of you to prove my point for me.
agnosticism and atheism are two completely independant descriptors. as someone else pointed out, there are agnostic atheists and agnostic theists.
picturing things as an atheist -- agnostic -- theist spectrum does everyone a disservice.
most people use improper grammar from time to time, that doesn't make it suddenly correct. most people say irregardless time to time, but it's still not a word.
the fact remains that atheist literally means "without god" and agnostic literally means "without knowledge of the spiritual" and are therefore NOT mutually exclusive, but are in fact describing different facets of one's belief system.
Re:Pope's Words of Restraint (Score:1)
Nobody in my parish ever killed somebody because they were protestant, or buddhist, or hindu, or muslim, or jewish, or for that matter athiest. The people who do such things are likely to have been bad people with or without religion, as they've already twisted their faith into something it's not. They weren't taught to do these things by their faith. All of the religions I mentioned above espouse peace, love, support, tolerance.
You've every right to your opinion; but is it necessary to criticize me for mine?
Finally, what do you expect from the Pope? Wouldn't you be a little disappointed if the Pope, the leader of Catholicism, the man we call the "Holy Father" said "Nuke 'em. Stomp 'em. Kill as many of them as you can?" I would. Even if I felt that way, I'd be disappointed to hear the Pope say that.
Re:Pope's Words of Restraint (Score:1)
Actually lots of Popes in history have uttered almost exactly those words, especially about Islam [Crusades, Protestants, alternative Catholic church, Inquisition etc]; it's only in recent times that religions in general have started to frown on such things.
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: Your Lack of Restraint (Score:1)
Or you could just continue to be smug in your ignorance. At least until the day of your death.
Re:w00t! (Score:1, Offtopic)
F-bacher