Gypsies are nomadic people living in caravans. They move from place to place. Few have houses. This people is rejected because they are different of oxidental culture. Some say they don’t work, they don’t go to school, they steal etc… Sometimes this fact is exagerated sometimes it is true.
Then I discover Kendji Girac.
Is this man a christian as I saw him singing few christian songs on youtube.
Sure he grew up in a christian family. In France many Gypsies are christian. Personaly the first real christian I knew was Gypsie whis Mission Vie et Lumière. First time in my life I saw people talking about the Bible about Miracle and Jesus.
Looking for more information about his faith I notice that he is only a nominal christian. According to Libération he believe but is not baptized because he think that baptized people are not allowed to go to paries. I think he misunderstand christian life. Nevertheless he respect faith as he grew up in christian family and sometimes he sings christian songs.
Last sunday was a nice sunny day. I wanted to walk a in the snow. Then I decided to go to Brenet Lake.
Just put your car near the Train Station of Le Pont. You have a path all around the lake. You can count 1 hour as it is 5 km. An easy and pleasant walk.
At the northern tip of Lac de Joux, a yellow sign indicates the tour of Lac Brenet. Departure from the Pont station for a 4 km loop (1 hour, no difference in altitude). The itinerary is punctuated by a dozen panels on the history of the glaciers and the region.
200 m northeast of Lac de Joux, Lac Brenet is a small jewel, with its 1.5 km length, 500 m wide. We go around in about an hour, ideal for a Sunday walk! Its small shaded beaches are also appreciated by swimmers.
Like its vast neighbor, Lac Brenet completely freezes in winter, it is forbidden to walk or skate on this lake on the contrary of Lac de Joux which allows both activities. Its ice has had various uses in the past, as shown by one of the 16th explanatory panels installed on its shores, tracing the human activities around Lac Brenet.
The famous natural ice of the Lac Brenet was in fact exploited by ice makers during sixty years. Since 1879, the horses’ chariots have transported the blocks of ice to Croy station, where the large ice cubes are loaded on trains destined for the large Swiss cities, but especially for Paris. Finally, the line of railway came into being between Le Pont and Vallorbe, in order to facilitate transportation.
Я стремлюсь к Тебе стремлюсь к Тебе Spiritual evolution
With all my soul
I long only for You
I call out
With all my heart
And I cry
To Thee, O Lord
Grace and glory
♪ that can ♪
Compared to Thee, Lord
I, I long for You
Like a deer to water
I long for you
Oh, my God
I give my life to You
Call to You and I will follow
I give my life to You
Here I am Take me the God of Zion
Жажду лишь Тебя
Тебе о Бог
Милость и славу
Сравниться с Тобою Господь
Я, я стремлюсь к Тебе
Словно лань к воде
Жажду лишь Тебя
О Бог мой
Отдаю свою жизнь Тебе
Позови за Собой и я пойду
Отдаю свою жизнь Тебе
Вот я возьми меня Бог Сиона
Today in 2021 everybody use Whatsapp. It create a vendor lock-in. It means the ability to switch service is too hard because it requires convincing every contact to move to a new service.
When Whatsapp announce they will change the condition to use their service many people start trying orther application. What is the best according to the Free Software foundation
We recommend you to choose any federated system or peer-to-peer messenger according to your use-case so that you get full control of your communications, freedom and privacy. It is very important to reject proprietary services like WhatsApp which takes freedom away from the user. FSF India, FSCI or other volunteer-run organization in India would be glad to extend support to anyone needing more details on undergoing such a shift.
Many people start using Signal or Telegram some Matrix. Is it the good choise ?
Telegram is better than Whatsapp. Signal is better than Telegram. Xmpp is better than Signal. Matrix is better than xmpp. Tox or Briar or jami is better than Matrix.
WhatsApp app is a non-free software which does not respect user’s freedom and privacy. WhatsApp does not provide its users the access to its source code and actively bans anyone creating a Free Software app that can connect to WhatsApp service. They claim their app provides end-to-end encryption, but we cannot verify if they actually implemented end-to-end encryption without any backdoors (access of app remotely without user’s permission) or loopholes. Being non-free app is enough to reject WhatsApp so we are not going to talk about other bad things about WhatsApp.
There are three broad categories of messaging systems with Free Software apps – Centralized services, Federated services and Peer-to-Peer systems.
A. Centralized services
A centralized service is one in which every one is forced to use the same provider. Setups such as this has many disadvantages such as vendor lock-in, being more susceptible to back-doors by government, the whole world getting dependent on a single organization for their communications. Centralized services also have a single point of failure.
Telegram Compared to WhatsApp, Telegram provides Free Software app which means end-to-end encryption can be verified to be working as claimed. Free software app is often not enough to provide full control over your communications. For example, Telegram’s apps (Android, desktop, iOS) are free software but still the service is centralized like WhatsApp. So only Telegram’s app respects your freedom but not the service.
There is no end-to-end encryption by default in Telegram and messages in groups are not encrypted.
Needs phone number for signing up.
Signal Signal app is Free Software like Telegram, and in comparison to Telegram it offers server software also as Free Software which makes it better than Telegram.End to end encryption is enabled by default and groups chats are also encrypted. Even though you are allowed to setup Signal service yourself, the users of your service will not be able to talk to users of official Signal server, making it practically a vendor lock-in.
Needs phone number for signing up.
Summary: Signal is better than WhatsApp and Telegram.
B. Federated services
A federated system is a collection of independent service providers which can communicate with each other. Federation is important to take full control of your communications. You can choose a trusted provider or be a service provider yourself. No single entity can force their terms on users. Examples of federated systems are mobile phones, emails, matrix , XMPP etc. For example, you can buy a SIM card from any mobile service provider and talk or send SMS to subscribers of other providers.
XMPP : XMPP is good because you can communicate with the whole xmpp system. You need to find a provide. XMPP host
Matrix Matrix is like xmpp. You have to find a provider and it is better with audio or video phone. But it is not widely used yet
C. Peer-to-Peer (P2P) systems
Peer-to-peer instant messengers can talk directly without requiring any servers. Examples are Briar, Tox and GNU Jami, etc. The messages are end-to-encrypted and are stored only locally in the devices since there are no servers involved. There are no servers that could intercept your communications, so it gives you the ultimate privacy and freedom. To exchange messages, both peers need to be online, which might be a bit inconvenient.
In Switzerland it is forbidden to ask for money even when you are hungry. Beggars can be fined … and you will be fined.
A person who asks for money logically has no money. How to pay a fine when you have no money. By begging? This law should limit begging except that to pay the fine it encourages it, otherwise it is prison.
In 2011 Ms Lăcătuş, who was unable to find work, began asking for charity in Geneva. On 22 July 2011 she was ordered to pay an initial fine of CHF 100 (approximately EUR 93) under section 11A of the Geneva Criminal Law Act, which makes it an offence to beg in public places. A sum of CHF 16.75 (approximately EUR 15.50) was confiscated from her on that occasion after a body search by the police. Over the next two years Ms Lăcătuşwas issued with summary penalty orders requiring her to pay eight further fines of the same amount, and was twice taken into police custody for three hours.Each of the fines could be replaced by a one-day custodial sentence in the event of non-payment.
Ms Lăcătuş appealed against the penalty orders. In a judgment of 14 January 2014 the Police Court of the Canton of Geneva found her guilty of begging. The court ordered her to pay a fine of CHF 500, to be replaced by a five-day custodial sentence in the event of non-payment, and upheld the confiscation of CHF 16.75. An appeal lodged by the applicant with the Criminal Appeals and Review Division of the 2 Court of Justice of the Canton of Geneva was dismissed on 4 April 2014. Ms Lăcătuşappealed to the Federal Court against that decision, but her appeal was dismissed on 10 September 2014.
From 24 to 28 March 2015 Ms Lăcătuşwas detained in Champ-Dollon Remand Prison for failure to pay the fine.
Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), theapplicant alleged that the prohibition on begging in public places constituted unacceptable interference with her private life as it had deprived her of her means of subsistence. Under Article 10 (freedom of expression), she maintained that the prohibition on begging had prevented her from conveying her plight by asking for charity. Relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) read in conjunction with Article 8, the applicant alleged that she had been the victim of discrimination on account of her social and financial situation and her origins.
The Court observed that the applicant came from an extremely poor family, was illiterate, had no work and was not in receipt of social benefits. Begging constituted a means of survival for her. The Court considered that, being in a clearly vulnerable situation, the applicant had had the right, inherent in human dignity, to be able to convey her plight and attempt to meet her basic needs by begging.Regarding the nature and severity of the penalty, the Court observed that the applicant had been ordered to pay a fine of CHF 500, to be replaced by a five-day custodial sentence in the event of non-payment. As she had been incapable of paying this sum, the applicant had in fact served a custodial 3sentence in prison. The Court observed that this was a severe sanction. A measure of this kind had to be justified by sound reasons in the public interest, which had not been present in this case.As to whether less stringent measures could have achieved a comparable result, the Court noted that in its judgment of 9 May 2008 the Federal Court had found that less restrictive legislation would beineffective, referring to the findings of law made in its previous judgments.A comparative-law survey of legislation on begging showed that the majority of Council of Europe member States imposed more nuanced restrictions than the blanket ban under section 11A of theGeneva Criminal Law Act. Even though the State had some margin of appreciation in that regard, compliance with Article 8 required the domestic courts to examine thoroughly the particular situation in the case before them. Accordingly, the Court could not subscribe to the Federal Court’s argument that less restrictive measures would not have achieved a comparable result.The Court considered that the penalty imposed on the applicant had not been proportionate either to the aim of combating organised crime or to the aim of protecting the rights of passers-by, residents and shopkeepers. The applicant was an extremely vulnerable person who had been punished for her actions in a situation in which she had in all likelihood had no choice other than to beg in order to survive. In the Court’s view, the penalty imposed had infringed the applicant’s human dignity and impaired the very essence of the rights protected by Article 8, and the State had thus overstepped its margin of appreciation in the present case.
The Court held that Switzerland was to pay the applicant 922 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.