Entries by Kurt

So it looks like Conservapedia suffered a database crash. Guess it was because they were kind and tolerant of homosex— ermm... wait no. Maybe it was because God hates liberal— oh wait... no.... Perhaps it was because they supported evolu— hmm.

I guess that's what happens when computer "science" teaches both sides of the issue, because clearly constant data backups aren't needed, as God will watch over your data.

Let us not forget, though, that when data corruption happens and/or hard drives fail, it's only God testing your sysadmins...

... riiiight.

I was recently skimming over the Wikipedia article on Scientology controversies and came across a particularly interesting bit of text:

The Church maintains strict control over the use of its symbols, names and religious texts. It holds copyright and trademark ownership over its cross and has taken legal action against individuals and organizations who have quoted short paragraphs of Scientology texts in print or on Web sites, in some cases asserting their scriptures constitute "trade secrets." Individuals or groups who practice Scientology without affiliation with the Church have been sued for violation of copyright and trademark law.

I thought this was kind of interesting. Arguably, the point of copyright law is to protect businesses (including sole proprietorships) from other businesses trying to make pure profit off of the former. That is, copyright law is there so that should Joe Schmoe want to create a book called Joe Schmoe's Guide to Modern Cults, another profiteer by the name of Jane Doe couldn't come along and copy, verbatim, Joe's Guide to Modern Cults and claim it as her own work while making pure profit.

So, when I see Scientology trying to delve into laws made to protect businesses, a red flag is raised in my head: they're a church— not a business. By definition, they're technically a 501(c)(3) non-profit religious organization. Therefore, I have but one question: why should they be covered by copyright law if the fundamental goal of the organization, legally, is not to turn a profit, but instead to benefit mankind? More importantly, is it valid to use patent/trademark law in matters of religion to begin with?

Above all, if the legal protections designed to protect profit-oriented activities of businesses and individuals are allowed to be applied to churches, then how, exactly, could you even legally distinguish a religion from a business? This one's fairly intriguing, because if the only method for doing so are the tax reporting and exemption statuses delegated by the IRS/states, then we have, in effect, created the largest loophole to a tax code ever known by man. Not only is a religious organization tax-exempt, but unlike every other non-profit organization, it also does not have to report its income to the IRS. Therefore, if religious organizations like Scientology are afforded the same luxury protections as businesses, they are essentially tax-free/tax-reporting-free businesses.

Now, can you imagine how profitable (and dangerous) a business would be if: it never had to pay taxes; it never had to tell the IRS where it's getting its money from; it never had to tell the IRS how it's spending its money; and, it could sue anyone who said anything bad about them? Yikes.

If religious organizations are allowed to be covered by copyright law, and they're allowed to trademark their religion's name, and, on top of that, they can actively bring suit against people who use the name when the religion doesn't want them to, then they are demonstrating business behavior. Essentially, they sue in order to "protect" the corporate image of their "brand name." That makes them even more indistinguishable from businesses. Using the power of the government, they can proactively suppress political dissent, preying directly upon the financial disparity between them, a multi-million dollar organization, and their target, a multi-hundred dollar citizen.

As a followup to my blog on why Christian rock sucks, it appears that God agrees:

More than 40 people were taken to hospital — three with serious injuries — after the floor caved in at a packed concert in an Abbotsford, B.C, church late Friday night.
...
The sold-out event featured contemporary Christian rock band Starfield. A couple of warm-up bands were playing their music when the accident happened, Thiessen said.

Glad to know the big guy shares my opinions. Sucks people had to get injured in the process. If only they had read my blog, this whole thing could have been averted.

Okay, so I joke. Realistically, God didn't do it because even if he exists, he certainly wouldn't give a shit about some crap music and some silly teenagers— regardless of their faith. I suppose, though, that it's really more the end result of putting too little faith in science. Oh well. Perhaps this serves as a warning against future mindlessness.

... or not. After all, chances are they'll simply say it was "God testing them" or something, but the next time a gay soldier dies, they'll say it's because God hates him. Funny how they get to have it both ways. Funny— but mainly just plain pathetic.

Cheers.

I think that it's time that as a society we sit down and agree of one phrase that says succinctly the following:

Trust me, I know exactly what I want, or at least have a good idea, and judging by the way this is going, don't ask why, don't take it personally, but you and I would never work out. It's not you, and it's not me— it's the fact that if we were both in the same equation, it would perpetually be imbalanced, and we would waste a year of our lives trying to rebalance it, only to fail miserably. You're nice, but you've got issues with which simply I won't be able to reconcile. There's someone out there for you, but it's not me. Sorry. You might be a good friend, but it would never be more than that. Ever.

Simple as that. Just one phrase. It needs to be unambiguous and simple to recognize. Perhaps "Zappy the clownbattery" would work. It just sucks when someone tries to talk to you, and makes really shitty small talk to the point where you know, definitely, that the person is either too stupid or too simplistic to ever be able to tolerate for more than 30 minutes— much less date. On top of that, you know with certainty that they'd never be able to tolerate you. So, the only way to convey that is to invoke the Zappy clause.

And, it sucks, because people take it personally and wonder how they can "change" and whatnot, when in all reality they can't. Even if there were some magic personality changing device, it's unlikely that it would have any effect on the already-formed opinions by one person on another.

Anyway, we just need to leave it at that. Someone says hi, someone else detects that you might be hitting on them by the sharp pain in their stomach and the wincing of their eye. Subsequently, they say "Zappy the clownbattery," and then it's mutually understood that that's as far as it goes. No awkward pause or silence; no backstabbing; just pure and simple. Think of all of the broken hearts that would be prevented.

Cheers. :P

Yep, that's right, Wikimedia has hit its 10 millionth article across all 250 languages. Apparently, it was an article about Nicholas Hilliard, an Elizabethan era portrait painter, on the Hungarian language Wikipedia. Pretty cool, eh?

Not only do we have articles about various historical people— we also have them in lots of languages. From alexa's rankings, the various Wikipedias are in the top 10 visited sites for 14 countries, and in the top 20 for 9 more on top of that. And, only around 15% of our users come from the United States. To give even more perspective, our daily reach exceeds MySpace, Facebook, and blows Britannica out of the water. That means that on a daily basis, more people will make their way to Wikipedia than any of the other sites listed. Eat that, Britannica. Of course, google is still kicking our ass, but their time will come... muahahahah.

Wanna jump on the bandwagon? Go make an account on the English Wikipedia... or don't. It's totally up to you. After all, we don't require you to create an account to edit, but if you want credit for your work, it's easier to keep track of it by making one.

Some little-known niches of Wikipedia:

• The reference desk — have a question in need of someone who knows a certain topic well? Ask there and you'll likely have a response within a couple of hours or less.


• Commons — Need pictures or other media but don't wanna pay for it? Look no further. Commons hosts royal-free, free-to-use-and-modify content, so instead of paying ridiculous sums for stock photos, look on commons first. Simply looking for a new wallpaper? Check out the quality images category and you won't be disappointed. I never am. :P


• How we pwn Britannica — We maintain a running list of things that Encyclopedia Britannica screwed up and we've since corrected. Unlike other encyclopedias, we actually respond to our readers' complaints, and, if we don't, we invite them to fix it themselves :P

Anyway. yay us. I'll be the one celebrating, dancing naked on our admin chat channel on IRC if anyone needs me. ;)

Cheers. :P