Unfortunately though, you can't give credit for that line to Kubrick.
"My Rifle" is a poem much older than FMJ. Don't know who wrote it, but the USMC has been having recruits learn it for decades. I'm post FMJ, but they sure made me learn it... I've forgotten the listed author.
I'd guess putting it in the film was Ermie's idea.
As were most of the best lines. Part of the genius of Kubrick... he'd found that his (former DI) consultant could just rattle off amazing rants at the drop of a hat. Not only that, but he scared the hell out the actors. So he gave him the part, and told him to let it rip.:)
>I'm ashamed to read of other discharged military people believing we need to obliterate our rights in order to "protect" our society. I believe this idea stems from being in the service.
I don't think this idea comes from being in the service. In fact, it boggles my mind that some in prominent posistions who have been in the service think that way. They've forgotten that oath you refer to.
The whole point of military service is to offer yourself to the rest of a country as a person who will defend their freedoms and liberties for them. (While giving up some of your own temporarily in order to perform that job well.)
To reject that idea and turn to your fellow citizens to tell them to give those freedoms... ?That's damn near treason in my mind.
I'm proud to have served in the Marine Corps. I'm disgusted with this current administration for trying to take away some of our freedoms, for which I gave up a number of years of my life in order to defend.
US Lawyers might be able to handle Cthulhu, but they'd be more likely to find a shoggoth underneath this frozen wasteland. Let's see them deal with that!
Uh, wait a minute...
US Lawyers have more in common with shoggoths than anything else I've ever heard of. They'd probably get along great. Hell, they'd probably start mating. EEEEEWW.
Shoggoth lawyers from Pluto? The entire universe is doomed...
Of course not... but it's sure a pleasure to work with hardware that consistently doesn't fail.:)
>So, on to logs and backups. Yes, you could delete >your history logs daily. But I think you'd have >some very unhappy librarians to deal with if you >did. It would probably come up just about the >time they tried to generate their monthly >circulation statistics. No automation software >history logs, no stats.
Not neccessarily. Depends on how your system tracks statistics. All of the ones I've worked with so far either have dedicated statistics tracking in the database or ticker data (count/date) actually stored with item or patron records. The only purpose of the log is as a log... what is going on and when... and as a way to roll in transactions occuring since the latest backup if neccessary.
>Every library system I have worked in has >reported circulation and other types of stats.
Definitely.
>Usually monthly, quarterly and yearly. (Weekly >and daily is probably going overboard - even for >libraries...)
Actually, not overkill at all. Our last system had not only daily stats, but hourlies... in a nice standard report. It was found to be very valuable for scheduling... both staffing and open hours. (When you are very busy, you want more staff in the building. And if no patrons are ever in the building after 7pm on a tuesday, perhaps the hours should be changed to shorten that day and lengthen another. And so on.) The one we have now doesn't give that much detail in the database. But we still get daily stats from (you guessed it) the log files. A script parses the log every night to get/print stats from the previous open day. Then it is rotated out and held onto (just in case) until I feel like cleaning out the archived logs. And if I don't get around to it myself, they get dumped after a month anyway.
--But they are in the backups!--
> You're more likely to need to keep those logs >around for a year, rather than a day. It all >depends on how far back the system wants to be >able to generate those numbers.
In addition to the daily stats we get from the logfiles, the system itself tracks all other stats we need. (Without matching patrons to items.) There are both monthly and yearly counters, which are reset every month/year by a script that resets the counters.
Every month we generate a full range of reports and statistics... everything we'll ever need. These are kept forever. We've got them clear back as far as one wants to check. But they're just numbers.:)
>Of course, that assumes that you include the >automation software history logs as part of your >system backups. You know, on the off-chance that >you'd need to reload everything. (There's my >paranoia sneaking in again.:) )
Yes they're on the backups. But the daily snapshot of the database means only a day's worth of logs is neccessary for reloading transactions.
The rotation is monthly... the primary purpose is for a current system restore, so that's as far back as we need. The last full backup would restore the system... each incremental includes a db snapshot from the night before, and then you'd need the logs from that day.
So even with logfiles and db snapshots they'd only get back a month here, if they wanted to bother.:)
>It's more likely that they would approach the >library and say "we need the circulation history >for person xyz" and make the library come up with >the data.
Which to our knowledge does not exist beyond what they currently have out. "Maybe our vendor will know how to get it out of the system. Talk to them and get your data. Oh... you want us to do it? Excuse me while I call our local media to inform them of our closure until we are finished assisting with an FBI investigation."
>Like I said, it would be a chore, but it is >possible. What I really wanted to do was point >out that just because you returned the book does >not mean that no one could ever find out you >checked it out. How possible that is depends on >the policies of the library system.
Exactly... I just want to point out that vulnerability of ones privacy in this regard is up to your library. It is perfectly possible to limit information retention as much as possible while still maintaining disaster recovery procedures and proper statistics and reporting.
>Nonetheless, this is very chilling. What would be >interesting would be if libraries started to >protest this by not keeping their history logs >past what they'd need to recover the system.
Exactly.
>Stats would go out the window but that would be >quite a statement.
Again, depends on how/when they are generated, and how the system retains the information neccessary to generate them. Not all rely on the logs for that.
>As for the value of someone's reading history I'm >with you all the way. I never meant to imply that >they're on the right track by demanding reading >that information. I just wanted people to know >that the demands they make are not always >impossible.
Agreed. And I feel it is part of my job to make sure that it is as close to impossible as possible. We don't want that info for ourselves, and our patrons certainly don't want it kept. So we don't. We'd comply fully with any serious investigation, but we honestly wouldn't have much info to give them. And I think there are better avenues of investigating then coming to us to snoop on their reading habits. They can go to someone's residence with a proper warrant, and look at the bookshelfs themselves if they want that.
>I could be wrong (I only know about the systems >I've worked with), but I think most, if not all, >automated systems log the charges made in that >library system. It's done so that circulation >history (read: statistics) can be recovered when >there is a failure in the computer system.
Yep. They do log everything. But with a backup system/rotation in place, the length of time neccessary to keep the log for disaster recovery isn't very large. (In fact, would only be neccessary to keep the log since the latest backup... usually daily.) So in theory you could chuck it after a day. Of course, no one does that.:)
>Yes, I meant to say 'when.':)
Geez, what are you running?:)
In the 10+ year history of this system, I can pretty much count up all of the downtime... even scheduled downtime... none required any recovery.
3 1 1 1 8 1 2
I think three times to upgrade hardware for more capacity or horsepower. Once to install a network card. One to replace a dead tape drive. Twice during power failures that lasted longer than the UPS. Once to change platforms/automation systems. Once for a major wiring/physical layout overhaul. About 4 times for OS and 4 more for application upgrades. I guess that makes about 14 planned and 3 unplanned downtimes in 10 years... not too shabby if you ask me.:)
Of course for most of that history it was an HP 3000 running MPE. Twas a beautiful old tank!
>It would be a chore, but you can figure out who >checked out what pretty much from the time the >library went live with that system. Unless the >library deletes their history logs. That may or >may not be a good thing to do.
I've known a few that don't but most do. I rotate them out on a regular frequent basis, but retentio n beyond that is totally random. So they're either gone, or I may have just happened to clean them up just then... what a coincidence! Better just try our backups and see whatcha can do with them!
Either way, that's a lot of trouble to get a reading history which is of pretty dubious usefulness IMHO. I doubt they'd bother.:)
To get single (accurate) patrons history going back a year they'd have to do a restore for EVERY SINGLE DAY (or close to it) and look at the results each time.
365 restorations of a large database snapshot file with a single query on patron holdings after each one (most of which will come up empty) would be a pretty major undertaking. And an insane waste of time considering the non-usefulness (and ambiguous nature) of the information compared to the work required to extract it.
Between those and Dynix, that covers a LOT of systems. All this talk of law enforcement trying to subpeona "patron history" might be wishful thinking. We just don't track that data, and neither do most everyone else.:)
Our system (and others I've seen) simply records a "circulation" like a tick mark. The only thing retained for statistics is the ability to see how often something has circulated within a given range of time. No names or card numbers.
As far as weeding goes... it's probably one of the toughest jobs they do. Circulation stats do have an impact, but are far from the only thing evaluated. They have to determine how much space they have, and how best to serve their population with it. Which is going to be a balance between what is popular, and what should be held onto regardless of popularity as to not have "holes" or "gaps" in covered material. Covering every subject and genre as well as possible, while at the same time assuring people will come in and USE it. (Popular stuff can be a hook, but having other stuff available will always be neccessary.)
Possible reasons for discarding your book:
1. Replacement has been ordered or even arrived... just not processed yet.
2. Other reference books cover the subject sufficiently. (Duplication of subject, not exact item.)
3. Other resources cover the subject sufficiently. (Online databases, etc.)
4. No demand for material or subject, and space at a premium. Will order replacement or place interlibrary loan to fulfill need if anyone needs/asks about it.
>Plus we would all be annihilated if we revolted >because we wouldn't have the army's support.
Former Marine speaking here...
That is (thankfully) complete bull. Loyalty to ones country and the people in it (as opposed to current leadership and orders) is even more ingrained in the military population than obedience to orders is.
In fact the UCMJ specifically allows disobedience of direct orders that a reasonable person would determine as unlawful, completely wrong, or insane. (My words, not the UCMJ.) I can't think of anything more likely to evoke a response of "No freaking way... and I'm holding the gun here" than being ordered to fire on AMERICAN CIVILIANS.
>The freedom to bear arms thing ends at tanks and >nuclear weapons. We really couldn't put up much >of a struggle.
As if the people driving the tanks and pushing the buttons aren't human beings that would refuse. (Those are politicians, not soldiers. There may not be much distinction at the multi-star general level, but there's a hell of a big difference below that.)
Hell, even the Chineese military often has a hard time with stuff like that. (Remember that tank in the square? It stopped, didn't it? And tried to go around the guy. Because a human being was driving it. And to do otherwise just wouldn't be fair or right.)
I'm not saying that these kinds of morals always hold. Or that there aren't scumbags without them. Or even how one can have a sense of morality killing a person in one situation but not another. (Since war does in fact kill people. They know it better than anyone else, in fact.)
I'm saying that our military is not just some big freaking robotic machine of death and destruction. All of that crap is useless without people to run it. Do you think Johnny Smith is going to lead a charge through a cornfield in Nebraska to kill some farmers?
Questionable police paramilitary action on individuals and small groups happens. But full-scale war against the American populus? That is insane. (Civil wars happen, but the causes and mechanics are different... and I don't see this stuff coming close to anything like that.)
Bottom line... the army is not going to come marching in against American people to kill them. If ordered to, you'd see mass refusal.
There's even enough examples of this sort of thing happening in history that we have specific words for them:
insurrection n. The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government.
(Note: The military is NOT a civil authority.)
And even more specifically:
mutiny n. Open rebellion against constituted authority, especially rebellion of sailors against superior officers.
>wait... doesn't Mormonism teach that Jesus and Satan were brothers and that we will all become gods? That seems to pretty clearly contradict the Bible to me.
But here's the thing... people say it contradicts the Bible, but usually don't say where, or at the very least paraphrase what they are remembering.
The Mormon belief is that we are all (including Jesus, Satan, the Angels, and all of the "demons"... fallen spirits) God's children. Everything does come from God, so it is kind of hard to argue with that. Else, where did Satan come from? And if we are all his children, then we'd all be brothers. As far as becoming "gods" goes, that's pretty fuzzy. But what happens after all this is over, and we're up there hanging out with God & Jesus? No one really knows. I figure this is just another guess at what might be the end result... we become "like him". Whether one should interpret that as "we'll be gods!" is another matter. It's quite sensational and brings to mind notions of blasphemy, so it is always stated in that manner when one wishes to pick on Mormon theology.
>Not that all Mormons believe that (they probably don't), and I'm not saying that a Mormon can't be a saved Christian (there are almost certainly some that are). But from what I've heard of the official teachings of the Mormon church, I can't possibly call it Christian.
But here we are back to the definition of Christian. They follow Christ, and his teachings. I can't see how one cannot call them Christians. (That's what the word means, right?) On the other hand, they are definitely not orthodox. Or Catholic (the origin of the term catholic being "normal"). And not protestant. (Meaning of direct lineage theologically, but broken away from the official Catholic church.)
>Trinity: sure it's an interpretation, but a VERY safe one.
Yes. I'm just not sure the other is not just as safe. Only very different.
>Jesus and the Holy Spirit are definitely from God.
Yep. So far, no conflict at all.
>John 3:16 of course states that Jesus is a unique "son" of God -- not created, like all other beings were.
Still no conflict. The term is "begotten", which is used for a direct father-son relationship. More specifically referring to the act of birth, and physical incarnation.
The Mormans agree with this special difference, but that it is talking about his physical nature. That we are all his children spiritually, but Jesus was the only one incarnate directly from God, while the rest of us got them through normal Mom+Dad heredity.
>He is literally irreplaceable to God. They are all 3 parts of God with different missions. The Bible clearly speaks of all 3.
And they agree... but that they are separate personages. If you think about it, it isn't all that much different. Pretty much the exact same overall philosophy there, but more explicit with some details.
Think about how marriage is referred to... the "two shall be become one" and all of that. Yet my wife and I are still clearly two diffent people. But one could still say we are "one". That's how the bible says it is, anyway. Chew on that for a bit.:)
>I assume you see the problem there. If God can be both free and never want to do evil, then it isn't a logical contradiction to have "free beings that didn't want to [do] evil".
That's not quite what I'm saying. What I'm saying is God is both free and doesn't want to do evil, because that just happens to be what he chooses. No-one created God as "not wanting to do evil".
But to create another being "that doesn't want to do evil" doesn't give the being the opportunity to make that choice on their own. Which means they aren't free. So if God creates many free beings, it's very probable that some will choose differently then God does.
>Like 1 Samuel 15:3 [gospelcom.net] and Joshua 10:40 [gospelcom.net], I agree. Note that if you agree with this, then your professed agreement with the "experiment" hypothesis in the next response is puzzling,
I don't think so, really.
>since there would definitely be a possibility for God to, at least once in a while, be wrong on a question of ethics and morals.
I think it is a little more complicated then that. I don't think he would ever be wrong in those questions. It's more that often evils and wrongs are neccessary. Especially to teach lessons. Things that would ordinarily be "wrong" and look that way on their face, but are actually more "right" in the long run. Or bring about a more encompassing "right". There is a great chapter in an analysys of the Lord of the Rings (written before the Silmarillion, even) that discusses this seeming paradox. How the defeat of the great evil would not have come about without (and was actually greatly helped by) a lot of the bad things that happened along the way. It's worth a read... if I could only remember the title. It is at home.
>"I know God exists, and He's smarter than you, so there must be something wrong with what you said, even though I personally can't think of it or point it out." Sorry, but that's how that comes across.
LOL! Sorry, that's not what I meant at all, but I see your reading of it.:) I was being unneccessarily facetious leading into the next paragraph, and didn't tie it in very well.
What I was aiming at in the following paragraph was the idea that for good to exist, evil has to be there too. The whole ying/yang deal. And that the relationship between good and evil isn't always completely black&white, as mentioned above. Your logic game (if-then/else statements, etc... don't be offended by me calling it a game; I do it all the time myself and just happen to call it that) seemed oversimplified and didn't account for that very well. This was me trying to poke fun at that, but missing.:)
"God must be an automaton, because if he had free will he would have created free beings that couldn't choose to do bad." That's how it reads to me.:)
Not to mention that this particular question... "doesn't that make things NOT monotheistic?" was one of the big ones back when that was all standardized.
One of the arguments in favor of the Trinity was that anything else would be confusing to the population... that there was one God, but then there are these other guys, too. So are we monotheistic or not?
I'll be replying to both of you at once. It might even help.:)
>Well actually I was referring to people who come to my church, sit on the pews every Sunday and are only Christian for about an hour every week. Their actions, their morals, etc. don't reflect Christ's teachings.
I hear that. But the ones that really bug me are the ones that don't know their own theology very well.
>I'm a Mormon (who *are* Christian, contrary to what your preacher told you)
That's cool. And I don't disagree with you one iota on that. (I'm very familiar with it... even baptised back when I was younger. I still agree mostly on theology issues, too. I consider myself mostly non-denominational at this point, and go mostly to an Episcipal church with my wife.)
> and routinely hear this silliness from born-agains and other myopic new testament believers, and frankly, I am sick and tired of hearing it. May I ask, what do you think the word means?
I agree, which is one reason I'm speaking up here.
>Well I was never thinking of Mormans but since you bring the issue up I do have some questions. As I understand it Mormanism directly contracts the Bible.
I'm pretty familiar with the Bible. And pretty familiar with Mormon beliefs. I've never seen any contradiction with the Bible. I've seen contradictions with interpretations of what people read in the Bible, but if you go and read it you can definitely see it's pretty much just a matter of different interpretation. There is also the fact that most churches have a tendency to focus on some parts of scriptures more than others... read the whole Bible, not just highlights that normally get pointed out to you.
> For instance, Mormans do not believe in the trinity (one God in three persons) but rather that the father and son are seperate beings.
The interesting thing about this is that if you look back into church history, they are far from the first to interpret the relationship between God/Jesus/Holy Spirit differently than what is now the traditional view. Because that relationship is by no means perfectly clear if you read the bible. The trinity is simply an interpretation.
In fact, there used to be many different ideas floating around. Some were pretty far-fetched, but most didn't conflict with what the Bible said. It was at the point the church turned into a political animal that an emperor decided that Christianity needed to be clarified and standardized. (Real history buffs please forgive me... I know I'm oversimplifying this.) Do you know the Niocene and Apostles creeds? Those declarations of belief are the results of decisions made (presumably with divine inspiration) in church councils with the goal of standardization. The concept of the trinity was the winner of the "relationship between God, Jesus, and Holy Ghost" category.
Afterward, many people and even congregations were killed or tortured because they disagreed with some of those conclusions. The church as a political power attempted to eliminate them all as heretics.
> They also believe God was once flesh,
This is a belief, but one of the fuzzier ones. I could say the same for many other brands. The Catholic purgatory (though Mormons have a comparable state), the Trinity, the fundies "flaming hades", etc.
But is there any particular reason God could not have been once flesh, or even still have a form like that. We're supposedly in his image, right? I can't limit the possibilities of God in my own mind, and I can't find them in the Bible either. So I won't. Maybe he was, maybe not. Doesn't matter much to me.
> that Jesus was his literal son,
Jesus did call him "father". And who was he talking to while getting babtized, and while dying on the cross?
Another one of those fuzzy areas, not 100% clear in the Bible, and open to interpretation. I have to admit that I always had a hard time wrapping my head around the trinity concept. (And I even know non-Mormon priests that do too.) The Mormon view one always made some sort of sense to me.
Mormons also believe that we are ALL children of God. Jesus is simply the eldest. (BTW, lucifer being the second.) Get a little deep into classic christian theology, and look at the war in heaven and the falling of lucifer, etc, etc. Lots of it goes hand in hand with the Mormon version, really. Not the subjects typical covered in church because they're mostly pure interpretation and conjecture. But interestingly similar nonetheless.
> and that we will all day become just like (read: equal) to God.
> Now perhaps some of this is misunderstanding but many "anti-Morman" books and websites state this as official Morman teachings.
Yes. The best way to bash something is to take stuff that is true, pluck it out of context, and get on with a show&tell of misunderstanding.
> I cannot say for myself since I have not looked into it first hand.
I'm a history nut, and find church history fascinating. I believe if most Christians would expand their view of their own church and where certain ideas came from (and how they evolved over time) that they wouldn't give the non-traditional ones (like the Mormons) such a hard time.
> Potentially. But if your beliefs directly contradict the Bible then how can they be true christianity?
Here's my point... they don't contradict the Bible. They contradict certain traditional beliefs. But the degree that those beliefs can be held to be "what the Bible says" varies wildly. They are often taken for granted nowadays, but read it and look for yourself... it might be suprising.
> I'm not talking whether you will be saved or not (as you probably will) but rather what it means to be christian.
I definitely think this, and it's probably one of the ways in which I differ from traditional Mormon views. (And lean toward a pretty liberal Episcopal view.)
>Like I said, many people give Christianity a bad name. Just watch some of these evangelists sometime.
No kidding! Amen to that!
>Christ himself said, take my name upon you. That is what I've done, and I am Christian, no matter what you say.
Yep.
> Yes but He also said beware of false teachings and to follow him. And for me, that means looking primarily to what He said and what his disciples said.
Exaclty. Me too. That's why I skip right over what the preacher tells me in church, and what the various creeds say. And go straight to the Bible to think it out for myself. (This doesn't mean priests are full of it... it just means that they and the church are truly human institutions however inspired, and can make mistakes sometimes.)
> If something disagrees with what they said, then its wrong.
And I agree. But just because a certain view was the one agreed upon in a semi-political debate 1500 odd years ago doesn't mean it IS what the Bible says, and any other interpretation is false.
> The Old Testament is as much a part of the Bible as the New.
And much more entertaining, if reading for pleasure. (I reccommend trying it sometime... not a replacement for study, but it helps to see the overall picture, and give context to individual studies. Read the darn thing straight through beginning to end. But skim over the streams begat-begat geneaology, or it'll take forever and kill the pace of the story.:)
> Although you may think that the "faith" side of the faith vs works debate is the obvious and correct side, many folks around the world don't agree with you, but that doesn't make them non-Christian.
> Well actually it does. Just go read what Jesus, the disciples, and Paul said.
Go read the entire New Testament beginning to end, (not just snippets) and see if you still have that impression. In particular, pay attention to the book of James. Many protestant churches tend to steer somewhat clear of it, or touch it only lightly.
> True, and Jesus will throw out our sentence if we believe in him. He will say "not guilty."
OK, now go back and read a particular line in James where he says that "faith without works is dead".
To me this means that if you truly have faith, you will be doing good works. And if you aren't, your faith is just is an empty shell and a facade... a fake. So it might not hold up in court as well as you think.
Remember your heart and soul will be exposed. Including any and all thoughts of "I'll be fine, and get away with whatever. I'll just repent and beg for forgiveness right before I die". I would certainly hope it would be seen as the hypocritical fraud that it is.:)
Anyway, cheers. Hope that clears up any questions you had. Have a good weekend!
This whole conversation is missing something that might be of interest.
Think of it this way... God can do evil. God can do anything. But god prefers good.
>God has free will,
OK
> in which case there is no problem with a being both having free will and yet never wanting to do evil.
OK
> Therefore, God would have created free beings that didn't want to evil.
Whoah, there. Your logic just took a major blind leap. Use "might" instead of "would", and you'd be doing better. But that means he "might not" have, which kills this argument, doesn't it?
If there is a God, who are you (or I) to assume what his decisions would be in a given circumstance, and what intent might be behind them? We don't know, we can only try to make good guesses.
> After all, God dislikes evil and doesn't want it around.
Perhaps... but more likely it's because God is probably a little stronger in matters of philosophy than you are. What is good? What is evil? In the total absense of one, is the other truely possible? Maybe for there to be a state considered "good", there has to be a contrasting state of "evil". Combined with a free will to choose either.
And think about what you just said for even a split second... "created free beings that didn't want to evil".
If they were created hardwired to "not want evil", then they have no choice in the matter of decisions between one or the other. But without choice, how does one exercise free will? And if one cannot exercise free will, is one really a free being?
> But It didn't, so we have a contradiction.
No, it didn't, but there is no contradiction in that. However, I believe I just pointed out yours.
Consider this... during David's rule in Jerusalem, God got really extremely pissed at David for disobeying the rules he set down for conducting a census. To punish him, God sent a plague raging through the land, killing thousands.
David begged pleaded with him to stop... saying that why would he punish and kill innocent people, when he was the one who did wrong. And that he should be punished instead. His fury waned, and decided that David was right. And he stopped.
This God doesn't sound like an automaton to me. It doesn't sound like one incabable of doing things some might consider evil, either. (Which throws a big wrench in the arguement that evil is always the opposite of god's will, which is always good. But that's not my argument.:)
Now that I think of it, that means I believe both you and the person you are arguing with are wrong. Which should also prove that trying to pigeonhole "Christianity" into a single dogma or way of thinking is impossible.
Unless you are God, which I'm going to assume you most definitely are not, since you are arguing that he doesn't exist. If you WERE God, you'd succeed (because he CAN do anything), and probably dissappear with a puff of logic just like Douglas Adams described once.:)
Don't get me wrong... I do get what you are saying. (My real intent was simply to compare the layout of the filesystem, which does have some logic to it which even full-time windows users I've talked to about it have thought was pretty neat.)
There is logic in some aspects of the windows layout, but in others it is not as nice and clean.
>While you say 'dig through to the control panel'. >I think 'Follow the logical progression from my >desktop to my settings area and from there click >on the services applet, and this gives me a handy >list of all services and some easy to understand >buttons and settings with names like "Start" & >"Stop"'
If one needs this, I believe most distributions include a tool like this. I'd say if one is running services they should understand them. And are perfectly capable of remembering
>Now I have to use both Windows and *nix based >systems every day at work (Solaris if you're >interested)
Well, no wonder. I thought we were talking about linux.:) I have to dig in Solaris from time to time, and unless someone has put some effort into making it more friendly, it isn't. (Things like consistent flags, man pages being available, more user friendly verstions of basic utilities, etc.)
>immeasurably un-userfriendly 'vi' to do my >editing.
For crying out loud, install something easier then. Try joe or pico. Yes, you can stick them on Solaris. (As I do, when forced to deal with them. I can do vi, but usually don't need the power nor the pain.)
>But man! Stop using it for a month or two
OK, you're switching arenas on me again.:)
I don't know many windows users that stop using it to use something else for a month, then come back on a regular basis. FWIW, I have a hell of a time working on win9x and variants, from dealing with NT, Win2K, and XP (and various *nix and MPE even) all the time. Because I rarely do it, and everything seems to be in strange places.
> do you think I can remember the flags for >Tar'ing up some files for instance?
Um... right click in Nautilus or Konq and choose to archive them? Are we talking desktop or sysadmin, here?
>Stop trying to say that Unix and its varients is >'easy' to use...
I don't think I said that.
> 'more logical' etc. It's not...
I did say that, I believe it is in many ways. Perhaps not for desktop user, but for an admin. I believe they could do a much better job of making it logical for BOTH. (Retaining everything you mentioned, while fixing everything I find lacking.)
FWIW, I'm speaking as a (mostly) windows admin that prefers *nix where possible (but doesn't always get to make that call). I'm required to make these things work right, and it'd be a heck of a lot easier if they'd adapt some *nixisms... which they are slowly doing over time. Unfortunately they also add a bunch of crap at the same time they get better.
Thank god for linux (Debian), so we can have advancements without simultaneous degradation.
(What happens when it reaches similar desktop functionality, without all of the added crap?:)
They just might have a subscription to something called "Mitchell's auto-repair database". It's very expensive, but has just about everything you'd want to know, including full text of TSB's. I'd have to double-check to make sure Honda is in there, but I'd bet it is. (It is marketed to auto-repair shops, not owners/consumers.)
The difference is, that there is some consistancy. And the layout is easier to do things with.
Yes, there are a couple of basics to learn, but it only takes a couple of minutes.
/home/user = user home directory /home/user/.program = user level configs for a program
/etc = system-wide configurations and scripts /etc/program = system level configs for a program
For start/stop services in windows... dig through to the control panel, then open the services applet. Or in other versions, go through CP, then "admin applet", then services. (Or the NET commands, if you know them.)
In linux (roughly):
/etc/init.d/ = scripts for controling services are in here. Tell them to stop, start, reload, etc.
/etc/rc = startup scripts. (they may be numbered separately right there, or under a subdir.)
/var = "variable"... stuff that changes a lot. logs and "published" things are in there.
/bin = programs needed to boot go here /lib = shared libraries needed to boot go there /boot = OS kernel and related things in there
/usr = all other programs and everything they need are in there. Which means... /usr/bin /usr/lib
Is that everything, or even 100% accurate all the time? Nope. But should be enough to get you started. Now, how long did it take to read that? How hard can it possibly be?
(I agree that any distro should at least tell you the basic layout in documentation.)
No, I didn't forget you guys.:) You're listed down there under "very specific needs". I actually thought about a specific mention, but then I'd have to get into Navy Seals, Marine Recon, Green Berets, and all the others.
But then again... how much firepower can you get there in 18 hours or less? (I'm sure it's a lot, but... tanks? LAVs? Artillery? Choppers? Serious question... I don't know. How big are typical deployment units, and how big can they get when neccessary? Who to pick probably depends on where it is and how much one needs.)
And are you positive you can get actually get there first? 18 Hours doesn't seem too tough to me.:)
There just may be an Marine Preposition Supply (MPS) ship (looking like a merchant ship) cruising around the neighborhood already, just in case. They could be all over the place, actually. And a ship packing an MEU probably wouldn't be all that far away, either.
You still might be able to get there a little quicker (although counting by hours, for everything short of an entire MEF), but we probably scale better. A MAGTAF could show up in any size. A small platoon, a whole battalion... or an entire division. Each of which would include a matching component of air power and support staff and the whole think is a a completely self-contained operating force. And very well may include heavy duty stuff like tanks, artillery, armor.)
Different job, different purpose, really. We're probably overkill for stuff you guys are perfect for. And vice-versa.
(On that note, don't forget we saved your butts in Greneda, when you did get there first and it wasn't enough.:P)
But that's enough rivalry BS for now. Go have a beer, and pretend I bought it for ya. It's all good. Ooh-rah!
You guys gotta be pissed that regular Army gets berets now. That just doesn't seem right to me somehow.:)
OK, OK... I know. Of course the Air Force do that too now. (And I'm sure they do it quite well. I figured someone would call me on that. No offense intended.:)
BUT... the Corps DID invent the idea and most tactics in the first place. Starting during the Banana Wars and getting really good at it during the Island hopping campaign of WWII. Near the end, even Army units in the Pacific were demanding Marine air support if they could get it.
This was back when there was no Air Force. There was the Army Air Corps, and they seemed to think planes were only good for recon and bombs. And taking out enemy planes and AA, to protect the recon and bombers.
We still have the Air Wings, and that is pretty much their entire purpose and design... ground support for Marines and anyone else down in the dirt.
Oh, and you Army peeps... we were doing the helicopter thing first, too.:)
Rank and job make no difference. You may all be pulled from regular duties to to go kick booty.
At least, that's what they always TOLD me.:)
(Good point though... hadn't thought about that before.)
I almost take offense at Roblimo referring to other services as inferior... but I won't. (You know, that's ALMOST a troll. And a good one at that.) I mean, he's an Army dog for chrissakes. He probably doesn't know any better.;-P
Hell, I thought fellow Marines were the arrogant ones!
Anyway, remember, we've all got our purpose and things we're good at. We all save each other's asses all the time.
Want something bombed? A lot? Air Force. Want the skies cleared? Air Force. Need something moved fast? Air Force. Need troops moved fast? Air Force.
Need an embargo or blockade? Navy. Want the ocean safe? Navy. Want an major intimidating display? Navy. Need a LOT of stuff moved? Navy. Need a LOT of troops moved? Navy. Need a mobile base with some air power? Navy.
Need lots of guys with big guns? Army Need tanks and artillery? Army. Need to march in and take the place? Army. Need a massive invasion? Army. (Marine assist.) Need airborne gunships? Army. Gonna be in the area for a while? Army. Need a fine-combed search and destroy? Army. -- whoops... I mean "sweep and clear".:)
Need a security team? Marines. Need to distract attention from your main force? Marines. Need an invasion? Marines. (Follow with Army.) Need direct air support for ground troops? Marines. Need everything everyone else has, but need it there RIGHT NOW? Marines. Need everything, but on a smaller scale? Marines.
Have very specific needs? All have special forces units for special jobs of varying types. Pick your poison.
Slashdot Mirror
Wonderful movie, wonderful director.
:)
Unfortunately though, you can't give credit for that line to Kubrick.
"My Rifle" is a poem much older than FMJ. Don't know who wrote it, but the USMC has been having recruits learn it for decades. I'm post FMJ, but they sure made me learn it... I've forgotten the listed author.
I'd guess putting it in the film was Ermie's idea.
As were most of the best lines. Part of the genius of Kubrick... he'd found that his (former DI) consultant could just rattle off amazing rants at the drop of a hat. Not only that, but he scared the hell out the actors. So he gave him the part, and told him to let it rip.
YOU in trouble?
How about me and everyone else named MILLER?
I guess if it comes down to it, there's probably enough of us to take them on.
Perhaps visit the brewery, drink it dry (blech), and smash it into dust in a drunken rage. Then pee on it, forming a sort of urinary concrete.
That's right, turning Milwaulkie into a giant yellow parking lot.
>I'm ashamed to read of other discharged military people believing we need to obliterate our rights in order to "protect" our society. I believe this idea stems from being in the service.
I don't think this idea comes from being in the service. In fact, it boggles my mind that some in prominent posistions who have been in the service think that way. They've forgotten that oath you refer to.
The whole point of military service is to offer yourself to the rest of a country as a person who will defend their freedoms and liberties for them. (While giving up some of your own temporarily in order to perform that job well.)
To reject that idea and turn to your fellow citizens to tell them to give those freedoms... ?That's damn near treason in my mind.
I'm proud to have served in the Marine Corps. I'm disgusted with this current administration for trying to take away some of our freedoms, for which I gave up a number of years of my life in order to defend.
Makes me want to spit.
US Lawyers might be able to handle Cthulhu, but they'd be more likely to find a shoggoth underneath this frozen wasteland. Let's see them deal with that!
Uh, wait a minute...
US Lawyers have more in common with shoggoths than anything else I've ever heard of. They'd probably get along great. Hell, they'd probably start mating. EEEEEWW.
Shoggoth lawyers from Pluto? The entire universe is doomed...
>I don't trust hardware to not fail. :)
:)
:)
:) )
:)
Of course not... but it's sure a pleasure to work with hardware that consistently doesn't fail.
>So, on to logs and backups. Yes, you could delete >your history logs daily. But I think you'd have >some very unhappy librarians to deal with if you >did. It would probably come up just about the >time they tried to generate their monthly >circulation statistics. No automation software >history logs, no stats.
Not neccessarily. Depends on how your system tracks statistics. All of the ones I've worked with so far either have dedicated statistics tracking in the database or ticker data (count/date) actually stored with item or patron records. The only purpose of the log is as a log... what is going on and when... and as a way to roll in transactions occuring since the latest backup if neccessary.
>Every library system I have worked in has >reported circulation and other types of stats.
Definitely.
>Usually monthly, quarterly and yearly. (Weekly >and daily is probably going overboard - even for >libraries...)
Actually, not overkill at all. Our last system had not only daily stats, but hourlies... in a nice standard report. It was found to be very valuable for scheduling... both staffing and open hours. (When you are very busy, you want more staff in the building. And if no patrons are ever in the building after 7pm on a tuesday, perhaps the hours should be changed to shorten that day and lengthen another. And so on.) The one we have now doesn't give that much detail in the database. But we still get daily stats from (you guessed it) the log files. A script parses the log every night to get/print stats from the previous open day. Then it is rotated out and held onto (just in case) until I feel like cleaning out the archived logs. And if I don't get around to it myself, they get dumped after a month anyway.
--But they are in the backups!--
> You're more likely to need to keep those logs >around for a year, rather than a day. It all >depends on how far back the system wants to be >able to generate those numbers.
In addition to the daily stats we get from the logfiles, the system itself tracks all other stats we need. (Without matching patrons to items.) There are both monthly and yearly counters, which are reset every month/year by a script that resets the counters.
Every month we generate a full range of reports and statistics... everything we'll ever need. These are kept forever. We've got them clear back as far as one wants to check. But they're just numbers.
>Of course, that assumes that you include the >automation software history logs as part of your >system backups. You know, on the off-chance that >you'd need to reload everything. (There's my >paranoia sneaking in again.
Yes they're on the backups. But the daily snapshot of the database means only a day's worth of logs is neccessary for reloading transactions.
The rotation is monthly... the primary purpose is for a current system restore, so that's as far back as we need. The last full backup would restore the system... each incremental includes a db snapshot from the night before, and then you'd need the logs from that day.
So even with logfiles and db snapshots they'd only get back a month here, if they wanted to bother.
>It's more likely that they would approach the >library and say "we need the circulation history >for person xyz" and make the library come up with >the data.
Which to our knowledge does not exist beyond what they currently have out. "Maybe our vendor will know how to get it out of the system. Talk to them and get your data. Oh... you want us to do it? Excuse me while I call our local media to inform them of our closure until we are finished assisting with an FBI investigation."
>Like I said, it would be a chore, but it is >possible. What I really wanted to do was point >out that just because you returned the book does >not mean that no one could ever find out you >checked it out. How possible that is depends on >the policies of the library system.
Exactly... I just want to point out that vulnerability of ones privacy in this regard is up to your library. It is perfectly possible to limit information retention as much as possible while still maintaining disaster recovery procedures and proper statistics and reporting.
>Nonetheless, this is very chilling. What would be >interesting would be if libraries started to >protest this by not keeping their history logs >past what they'd need to recover the system.
Exactly.
>Stats would go out the window but that would be >quite a statement.
Again, depends on how/when they are generated, and how the system retains the information neccessary to generate them. Not all rely on the logs for that.
>As for the value of someone's reading history I'm >with you all the way. I never meant to imply that >they're on the right track by demanding reading >that information. I just wanted people to know >that the demands they make are not always >impossible.
Agreed. And I feel it is part of my job to make sure that it is as close to impossible as possible. We don't want that info for ourselves, and our patrons certainly don't want it kept. So we don't. We'd comply fully with any serious investigation, but we honestly wouldn't have much info to give them. And I think there are better avenues of investigating then coming to us to snoop on their reading habits. They can go to someone's residence with a proper warrant, and look at the bookshelfs themselves if they want that.
>I could be wrong (I only know about the systems >I've worked with), but I think most, if not all, >automated systems log the charges made in that >library system. It's done so that circulation >history (read: statistics) can be recovered when >there is a failure in the computer system.
:)
:)
:)
:)
:)
Yep. They do log everything. But with a backup system/rotation in place, the length of time neccessary to keep the log for disaster recovery isn't very large. (In fact, would only be neccessary to keep the log since the latest backup... usually daily.) So in theory you could chuck it after a day. Of course, no one does that.
>Yes, I meant to say 'when.'
Geez, what are you running?
In the 10+ year history of this system, I can pretty much count up all of the downtime... even scheduled downtime... none required any recovery.
3 1 1 1 8
1 2
I think three times to upgrade hardware for more capacity or horsepower. Once to install a network card. One to replace a dead tape drive. Twice during power failures that lasted longer than the UPS. Once to change platforms/automation systems. Once for a major wiring/physical layout overhaul. About 4 times for OS and 4 more for application upgrades. I guess that makes about 14 planned and 3 unplanned downtimes in 10 years... not too shabby if you ask me.
Of course for most of that history it was an HP 3000 running MPE. Twas a beautiful old tank!
>It would be a chore, but you can figure out who >checked out what pretty much from the time the >library went live with that system. Unless the >library deletes their history logs. That may or >may not be a good thing to do.
I've known a few that don't but most do. I rotate them out on a regular frequent basis, but retentio n beyond that is totally random. So they're either gone, or I may have just happened to clean them up just then... what a coincidence! Better just try our backups and see whatcha can do with them!
Either way, that's a lot of trouble to get a reading history which is of pretty dubious usefulness IMHO. I doubt they'd bother.
Even if so...
To get single (accurate) patrons history going back a year they'd have to do a restore for EVERY SINGLE DAY (or close to it) and look at the results each time.
365 restorations of a large database snapshot file with a single query on patron holdings after each one (most of which will come up empty) would be a pretty major undertaking. And an insane waste of time considering the non-usefulness (and ambiguous nature) of the information compared to the work required to extract it.
Ditto for the ones I'm familiar with.
:)
Inlex
Taos
DRA
Sirsi (Unicorn)
Between those and Dynix, that covers a LOT of systems. All this talk of law enforcement trying to subpeona "patron history" might be wishful thinking. We just don't track that data, and neither do most everyone else.
Our system (and others I've seen) simply records a "circulation" like a tick mark. The only thing retained for statistics is the ability to see how often something has circulated within a given range of time. No names or card numbers.
As far as weeding goes... it's probably one of the toughest jobs they do. Circulation stats do have an impact, but are far from the only thing evaluated. They have to determine how much space they have, and how best to serve their population with it. Which is going to be a balance between what is popular, and what should be held onto regardless of popularity as to not have "holes" or "gaps" in covered material. Covering every subject and genre as well as possible, while at the same time assuring people will come in and USE it. (Popular stuff can be a hook, but having other stuff available will always be neccessary.)
Possible reasons for discarding your book:
1. Replacement has been ordered or even arrived... just not processed yet.
2. Other reference books cover the subject sufficiently. (Duplication of subject, not exact item.)
3. Other resources cover the subject sufficiently. (Online databases, etc.)
4. No demand for material or subject, and space at a premium. Will order replacement or place interlibrary loan to fulfill need if anyone needs/asks about it.
>Plus we would all be annihilated if we revolted >because we wouldn't have the army's support.
Former Marine speaking here...
That is (thankfully) complete bull. Loyalty to ones country and the people in it (as opposed to current leadership and orders) is even more ingrained in the military population than obedience to orders is.
In fact the UCMJ specifically allows disobedience of direct orders that a reasonable person would determine as unlawful, completely wrong, or insane. (My words, not the UCMJ.) I can't think of anything more likely to evoke a response of "No freaking way... and I'm holding the gun here" than being ordered to fire on AMERICAN CIVILIANS.
>The freedom to bear arms thing ends at tanks and >nuclear weapons. We really couldn't put up much >of a struggle.
As if the people driving the tanks and pushing the buttons aren't human beings that would refuse. (Those are politicians, not soldiers. There may not be much distinction at the multi-star general level, but there's a hell of a big difference below that.)
Hell, even the Chineese military often has a hard time with stuff like that. (Remember that tank in the square? It stopped, didn't it? And tried to go around the guy. Because a human being was driving it. And to do otherwise just wouldn't be fair or right.)
I'm not saying that these kinds of morals always hold. Or that there aren't scumbags without them. Or even how one can have a sense of morality killing a person in one situation but not another. (Since war does in fact kill people. They know it better than anyone else, in fact.)
I'm saying that our military is not just some big freaking robotic machine of death and destruction. All of that crap is useless without people to run it. Do you think Johnny Smith is going to lead a charge through a cornfield in Nebraska to kill some farmers?
Questionable police paramilitary action on individuals and small groups happens. But full-scale war against the American populus? That is insane. (Civil wars happen, but the causes and mechanics are different... and I don't see this stuff coming close to anything like that.)
Bottom line... the army is not going to come marching in against American people to kill them. If ordered to, you'd see mass refusal.
There's even enough examples of this sort of thing happening in history that we have specific words for them:
insurrection n. The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government.
(Note: The military is NOT a civil authority.)
And even more specifically:
mutiny n. Open rebellion against constituted authority, especially rebellion of sailors against superior officers.
(Note: Not restricted to sailors by any means.)
>wait... doesn't Mormonism teach that Jesus and Satan were brothers and that we will all become gods? That seems to pretty clearly contradict the Bible to me.
:)
But here's the thing... people say it contradicts the Bible, but usually don't say where, or at the very least paraphrase what they are remembering.
The Mormon belief is that we are all (including Jesus, Satan, the Angels, and all of the "demons"... fallen spirits) God's children. Everything does come from God, so it is kind of hard to argue with that. Else, where did Satan come from? And if we are all his children, then we'd all be brothers. As far as becoming "gods" goes, that's pretty fuzzy. But what happens after all this is over, and we're up there hanging out with God & Jesus? No one really knows. I figure this is just another guess at what might be the end result... we become "like him". Whether one should interpret that as "we'll be gods!" is another matter. It's quite sensational and brings to mind notions of blasphemy, so it is always stated in that manner when one wishes to pick on Mormon theology.
>Not that all Mormons believe that (they probably don't), and I'm not saying that a Mormon can't be a saved Christian (there are almost certainly some that are). But from what I've heard of the official teachings of the Mormon church, I can't possibly call it Christian.
But here we are back to the definition of Christian. They follow Christ, and his teachings. I can't see how one cannot call them Christians. (That's what the word means, right?) On the other hand, they are definitely not orthodox. Or Catholic (the origin of the term catholic being "normal"). And not protestant. (Meaning of direct lineage theologically, but broken away from the official Catholic church.)
>Trinity: sure it's an interpretation, but a VERY safe one.
Yes. I'm just not sure the other is not just as safe. Only very different.
>Jesus and the Holy Spirit are definitely from God.
Yep. So far, no conflict at all.
>John 3:16 of course states that Jesus is a unique "son" of God -- not created, like all other beings were.
Still no conflict. The term is "begotten", which is used for a direct father-son relationship. More specifically referring to the act of birth, and physical incarnation.
The Mormans agree with this special difference, but that it is talking about his physical nature. That we are all his children spiritually, but Jesus was the only one incarnate directly from God, while the rest of us got them through normal Mom+Dad heredity.
>He is literally irreplaceable to God. They are all 3 parts of God with different missions. The Bible clearly speaks of all 3.
And they agree... but that they are separate personages. If you think about it, it isn't all that much different. Pretty much the exact same overall philosophy there, but more explicit with some details.
Think about how marriage is referred to... the "two shall be become one" and all of that. Yet my wife and I are still clearly two diffent people. But one could still say we are "one". That's how the bible says it is, anyway. Chew on that for a bit.
>I assume you see the problem there. If God can be both free and never want to do evil, then it isn't a logical contradiction to have "free beings that didn't want to [do] evil".
:) I was being unneccessarily facetious leading into the next paragraph, and didn't tie it in very well.
:)
:)
That's not quite what I'm saying. What I'm saying is God is both free and doesn't want to do evil, because that just happens to be what he chooses. No-one created God as "not wanting to do evil".
But to create another being "that doesn't want to do evil" doesn't give the being the opportunity to make that choice on their own. Which means they aren't free. So if God creates many free beings, it's very probable that some will choose differently then God does.
>Like 1 Samuel 15:3 [gospelcom.net] and Joshua 10:40 [gospelcom.net], I agree. Note that if you agree with this, then your professed agreement with the "experiment" hypothesis in the next response is puzzling,
I don't think so, really.
>since there would definitely be a possibility for God to, at least once in a while, be wrong on a question of ethics and morals.
I think it is a little more complicated then that. I don't think he would ever be wrong in those questions. It's more that often evils and wrongs are neccessary. Especially to teach lessons. Things that would ordinarily be "wrong" and look that way on their face, but are actually more "right" in the long run. Or bring about a more encompassing "right". There is a great chapter in an analysys of the Lord of the Rings (written before the Silmarillion, even) that discusses this seeming paradox. How the defeat of the great evil would not have come about without (and was actually greatly helped by) a lot of the bad things that happened along the way. It's worth a read... if I could only remember the title. It is at home.
>"I know God exists, and He's smarter than you, so there must be something wrong with what you said, even though I personally can't think of it or point it out." Sorry, but that's how that comes across.
LOL! Sorry, that's not what I meant at all, but I see your reading of it.
What I was aiming at in the following paragraph was the idea that for good to exist, evil has to be there too. The whole ying/yang deal. And that the relationship between good and evil isn't always completely black&white, as mentioned above. Your logic game (if-then/else statements, etc... don't be offended by me calling it a game; I do it all the time myself and just happen to call it that) seemed oversimplified and didn't account for that very well. This was me trying to poke fun at that, but missing.
"God must be an automaton, because if he had free will he would have created free beings that couldn't choose to do bad." That's how it reads to me.
Not to mention that this particular question... "doesn't that make things NOT monotheistic?" was one of the big ones back when that was all standardized.
One of the arguments in favor of the Trinity was that anything else would be confusing to the population... that there was one God, but then there are these other guys, too. So are we monotheistic or not?
Pretty darn cool summary. I share much of this philosophy myself, but doubt I could've put it that clearly.
I'll be replying to both of you at once. It might even help. :)
:)
:)
>Well actually I was referring to people who come to my church, sit on the pews every Sunday and are only Christian for about an hour every week. Their actions, their morals, etc. don't reflect Christ's teachings.
I hear that. But the ones that really bug me are the ones that don't know their own theology very well.
>I'm a Mormon (who *are* Christian, contrary to what your preacher told you)
That's cool. And I don't disagree with you one iota on that. (I'm very familiar with it... even baptised back when I was younger. I still agree mostly on theology issues, too. I consider myself mostly non-denominational at this point, and go mostly to an Episcipal church with my wife.)
> and routinely hear this silliness from born-agains and other myopic new testament believers, and frankly, I am sick and tired of hearing it. May I ask, what do you think the word means?
I agree, which is one reason I'm speaking up here.
>Well I was never thinking of Mormans but since you bring the issue up I do have some questions. As I understand it Mormanism directly contracts the Bible.
I'm pretty familiar with the Bible. And pretty familiar with Mormon beliefs. I've never seen any contradiction with the Bible. I've seen contradictions with interpretations of what people read in the Bible, but if you go and read it you can definitely see it's pretty much just a matter of different interpretation. There is also the fact that most churches have a tendency to focus on some parts of scriptures more than others... read the whole Bible, not just highlights that normally get pointed out to you.
> For instance, Mormans do not believe in the trinity (one God in three persons) but rather that the father and son are seperate beings.
The interesting thing about this is that if you look back into church history, they are far from the first to interpret the relationship between God/Jesus/Holy Spirit differently than what is now the traditional view. Because that relationship is by no means perfectly clear if you read the bible. The trinity is simply an interpretation.
In fact, there used to be many different ideas floating around. Some were pretty far-fetched, but most didn't conflict with what the Bible said. It was at the point the church turned into a political animal that an emperor decided that Christianity needed to be clarified and standardized. (Real history buffs please forgive me... I know I'm oversimplifying this.) Do you know the Niocene and Apostles creeds? Those declarations of belief are the results of decisions made (presumably with divine inspiration) in church councils with the goal of standardization. The concept of the trinity was the winner of the "relationship between God, Jesus, and Holy Ghost" category.
Afterward, many people and even congregations were killed or tortured because they disagreed with some of those conclusions. The church as a political power attempted to eliminate them all as heretics.
> They also believe God was once flesh,
This is a belief, but one of the fuzzier ones. I could say the same for many other brands. The
Catholic purgatory (though Mormons have a comparable state), the Trinity, the fundies "flaming hades", etc.
But is there any particular reason God could not have been once flesh, or even still have a form like that. We're supposedly in his image, right? I can't limit the possibilities of God in my own mind, and I can't find them in the Bible either. So I won't. Maybe he was, maybe not. Doesn't matter much to me.
> that Jesus was his literal son,
Jesus did call him "father". And who was he talking to while getting babtized, and while dying on the cross?
Another one of those fuzzy areas, not 100% clear in the Bible, and open to interpretation. I have to admit that I always had a hard time wrapping my head around the trinity concept. (And I even know non-Mormon priests that do too.) The Mormon view one always made some sort of sense to me.
Mormons also believe that we are ALL children of God. Jesus is simply the eldest. (BTW, lucifer being the second.) Get a little deep into classic christian theology, and look at the war in heaven and the falling of lucifer, etc, etc. Lots of it goes hand in hand with the Mormon version, really. Not the subjects typical covered in church because they're mostly pure interpretation and conjecture. But interestingly similar nonetheless.
> and that we will all day become just like (read: equal) to God.
> Now perhaps some of this is misunderstanding but many "anti-Morman" books and websites state this as official Morman teachings.
Yes. The best way to bash something is to take stuff that is true, pluck it out of context, and get on with a show&tell of misunderstanding.
> I cannot say for myself since I have not looked into it first hand.
I'm a history nut, and find church history fascinating. I believe if most Christians would expand their view of their own church and where certain ideas came from (and how they evolved over time) that they wouldn't give the non-traditional ones (like the Mormons) such a hard time.
> Potentially. But if your beliefs directly contradict the Bible then how can they be true christianity?
Here's my point... they don't contradict the Bible. They contradict certain traditional beliefs. But the degree that those beliefs can be held to be "what the Bible says" varies wildly. They are often taken for granted nowadays, but read it and look for yourself... it might be suprising.
> I'm not talking whether you will be saved or not (as you probably will) but rather what it means to be christian.
I definitely think this, and it's probably one of the ways in which I differ from traditional Mormon views. (And lean toward a pretty liberal Episcopal view.)
>Like I said, many people give Christianity a bad name. Just watch some of these evangelists sometime.
No kidding! Amen to that!
>Christ himself said, take my name upon you. That is what I've done, and I am Christian, no matter what you say.
Yep.
> Yes but He also said beware of false teachings and to follow him. And for me, that means looking primarily to what He said and what his disciples said.
Exaclty. Me too. That's why I skip right over what the preacher tells me in church, and what the various creeds say. And go straight to the Bible to think it out for myself. (This doesn't mean priests are full of it... it just means that they and the church are truly human institutions however inspired, and can make mistakes sometimes.)
> If something disagrees with what they said, then its wrong.
And I agree. But just because a certain view was the one agreed upon in a semi-political debate 1500 odd years ago doesn't mean it IS what the Bible says, and any other interpretation is false.
> The Old Testament is as much a part of the Bible as the New.
And much more entertaining, if reading for pleasure. (I reccommend trying it sometime... not a replacement for study, but it helps to see the overall picture, and give context to individual studies. Read the darn thing straight through beginning to end. But skim over the streams begat-begat geneaology, or it'll take forever and kill the pace of the story.
> Although you may think that the "faith" side of the faith vs works debate is the obvious and correct side, many folks around the world don't agree with you, but that doesn't make them non-Christian.
> Well actually it does. Just go read what Jesus, the disciples, and Paul said.
Go read the entire New Testament beginning to end, (not just snippets) and see if you still have that impression. In particular, pay attention to the book of James. Many protestant churches tend to steer somewhat clear of it, or touch it only lightly.
> True, and Jesus will throw out our sentence if we believe in him. He will say "not guilty."
OK, now go back and read a particular line in James where he says that "faith without works is dead".
To me this means that if you truly have faith, you will be doing good works. And if you aren't, your faith is just is an empty shell and a facade... a fake. So it might not hold up in court as well as you think.
Remember your heart and soul will be exposed. Including any and all thoughts of "I'll be fine, and get away with whatever. I'll just repent and beg for forgiveness right before I die". I would certainly hope it would be seen as the hypocritical fraud that it is.
Anyway, cheers. Hope that clears up any questions you had. Have a good weekend!
This whole conversation is missing something that might be of interest.
:)
:)
Think of it this way... God can do evil. God can do anything. But god prefers good.
>God has free will,
OK
> in which case there is no problem with a being both having free will and yet never wanting to do evil.
OK
> Therefore, God would have created free beings that didn't want to evil.
Whoah, there. Your logic just took a major blind leap. Use "might" instead of "would", and you'd be doing better. But that means he "might not" have, which kills this argument, doesn't it?
If there is a God, who are you (or I) to assume what his decisions would be in a given circumstance, and what intent might be behind them? We don't know, we can only try to make good guesses.
> After all, God dislikes evil and doesn't want it around.
Perhaps... but more likely it's because God is probably a little stronger in matters of philosophy than you are. What is good? What is evil? In the total absense of one, is the other truely possible? Maybe for there to be a state considered "good", there has to be a contrasting state of "evil". Combined with a free will to choose either.
And think about what you just said for even a split second... "created free beings that didn't want to evil".
If they were created hardwired to "not want evil", then they have no choice in the matter of decisions between one or the other. But without choice, how does one exercise free will? And if one cannot exercise free will, is one really a free being?
> But It didn't, so we have a contradiction.
No, it didn't, but there is no contradiction in that. However, I believe I just pointed out yours.
Consider this... during David's rule in Jerusalem, God got really extremely pissed at David for disobeying the rules he set down for conducting a census. To punish him, God sent a plague raging through the land, killing thousands.
David begged pleaded with him to stop... saying that why would he punish and kill innocent people, when he was the one who did wrong. And that he should be punished instead. His fury waned, and decided that David was right. And he stopped.
This God doesn't sound like an automaton to me. It doesn't sound like one incabable of doing things some might consider evil, either. (Which throws a big wrench in the arguement that evil is always the opposite of god's will, which is always good. But that's not my argument.
Now that I think of it, that means I believe both you and the person you are arguing with are wrong. Which should also prove that trying to pigeonhole "Christianity" into a single dogma or way of thinking is impossible.
Unless you are God, which I'm going to assume you most definitely are not, since you are arguing that he doesn't exist. If you WERE God, you'd succeed (because he CAN do anything), and probably dissappear with a puff of logic just like Douglas Adams described once.
> What keeps Tux from getting hot/bored and going home?
Well, he IS a penguin. Wouldn't he just hop in the ice water for a nice smim? He'd need it to survive a hot anyway... might as well share it.
As long as you don't mind him lounging in the water once in a while, sounds like a win-win to me.
Don't get me wrong... I do get what you are saying. (My real intent was simply to compare the layout of the filesystem, which does have some logic to it which even full-time windows users I've talked to about it have thought was pretty neat.)
:) I have to dig in Solaris from time to time, and unless someone has put some effort into making it more friendly, it isn't. (Things like consistent flags, man pages being available, more user friendly verstions of basic utilities, etc.)
:)
:)
There is logic in some aspects of the windows layout, but in others it is not as nice and clean.
>While you say 'dig through to the control panel'. >I think 'Follow the logical progression from my >desktop to my settings area and from there click >on the services applet, and this gives me a handy >list of all services and some easy to understand >buttons and settings with names like "Start" & >"Stop"'
If one needs this, I believe most distributions include a tool like this. I'd say if one is running services they should understand them. And are perfectly capable of remembering
/etc/init.d/service stop
/etc/init.d/service start
/etc/init.d/service restart
>Now I have to use both Windows and *nix based >systems every day at work (Solaris if you're >interested)
Well, no wonder. I thought we were talking about linux.
>immeasurably un-userfriendly 'vi' to do my >editing.
For crying out loud, install something easier then. Try joe or pico. Yes, you can stick them on Solaris. (As I do, when forced to deal with them. I can do vi, but usually don't need the power nor the pain.)
>But man! Stop using it for a month or two
OK, you're switching arenas on me again.
I don't know many windows users that stop using it to use something else for a month, then come back on a regular basis. FWIW, I have a hell of a time working on win9x and variants, from dealing with NT, Win2K, and XP (and various *nix and MPE even) all the time. Because I rarely do it, and everything seems to be in strange places.
> do you think I can remember the flags for >Tar'ing up some files for instance?
Um... right click in Nautilus or Konq and choose to archive them? Are we talking desktop or sysadmin, here?
>Stop trying to say that Unix and its varients is >'easy' to use...
I don't think I said that.
> 'more logical' etc. It's not...
I did say that, I believe it is in many ways. Perhaps not for desktop user, but for an admin. I believe they could do a much better job of making it logical for BOTH. (Retaining everything you mentioned, while fixing everything I find lacking.)
FWIW, I'm speaking as a (mostly) windows admin that prefers *nix where possible (but doesn't always get to make that call). I'm required to make these things work right, and it'd be a heck of a lot easier if they'd adapt some *nixisms... which they are slowly doing over time. Unfortunately they also add a bunch of crap at the same time they get better.
Thank god for linux (Debian), so we can have advancements without simultaneous degradation.
(What happens when it reaches similar desktop functionality, without all of the added crap?
check out your local library...
They just might have a subscription to something called "Mitchell's auto-repair database". It's very expensive, but has just about everything you'd want to know, including full text of TSB's. I'd have to double-check to make sure Honda is in there, but I'd bet it is. (It is marketed to auto-repair shops, not owners/consumers.)
The difference is, that there is some consistancy. And the layout is easier to do things with.
Yes, there are a couple of basics to learn, but it only takes a couple of minutes.
/home/user = user home directory
/home/user/.program = user level configs for a program
/etc = system-wide configurations and scripts
/etc/program = system level configs for a program
For start/stop services in windows... dig through to the control panel, then open the services applet. Or in other versions, go through CP, then "admin applet", then services. (Or the NET commands, if you know them.)
In linux (roughly):
/etc/init.d/ = scripts for controling services are in here. Tell them to stop, start, reload, etc.
/etc/rc = startup scripts. (they may be numbered separately right there, or under a subdir.)
/var = "variable"... stuff that changes a lot. logs and "published" things are in there.
/bin = programs needed to boot go here
/lib = shared libraries needed to boot go there
/boot = OS kernel and related things in there
/usr = all other programs and everything they need are in there. Which means...
/usr/bin
/usr/lib
Is that everything, or even 100% accurate all the time? Nope. But should be enough to get you started. Now, how long did it take to read that? How hard can it possibly be?
(I agree that any distro should at least tell you the basic layout in documentation.)
I figured as much. (Note I said you'd need to bring something else along.)
You're right, it would be a major fuel saver. (I just wanted to bring attention to the fact that it wouldn't be a total solution by itself.)
Something doesn't sound quite right...
:)
-snip-
>alternative to space travel
-snip-
>The air would get so hot that it would "ignite"
-snip-
How does firing a laser to ignite the *air* keep you going once you leave our atmosphere? (Which is sort of required to consider this "space travel".)
OK, so maybe it moves you fast enough to escape our gravity and just keep going. But then what?
Unless you're packing something else along, this is a one-way ticket straight off to who-knows-where. Any volunteers?
No, I didn't forget you guys. :) You're listed down there under "very specific needs". I actually thought about a specific mention, but then I'd have to get into Navy Seals, Marine Recon, Green Berets, and all the others.
:)
:P)
:)
But then again... how much firepower can you get there in 18 hours or less? (I'm sure it's a lot, but... tanks? LAVs? Artillery? Choppers? Serious question... I don't know. How big are typical deployment units, and how big can they get when neccessary? Who to pick probably depends on where it is and how much one needs.)
And are you positive you can get actually get there first? 18 Hours doesn't seem too tough to me.
There just may be an Marine Preposition Supply (MPS) ship (looking like a merchant ship) cruising around the neighborhood already, just in case. They could be all over the place, actually. And a ship packing an MEU probably wouldn't be all that far away, either.
You still might be able to get there a little quicker (although counting by hours, for everything short of an entire MEF), but we probably scale better. A MAGTAF could show up in any size. A small platoon, a whole battalion... or an entire division. Each of which would include a matching component of air power and support staff and the whole think is a a completely self-contained operating force. And very well may include heavy duty stuff like tanks, artillery, armor.)
Different job, different purpose, really. We're probably overkill for stuff you guys are perfect for. And vice-versa.
(On that note, don't forget we saved your butts in Greneda, when you did get there first and it wasn't enough.
But that's enough rivalry BS for now. Go have a beer, and pretend I bought it for ya. It's all good. Ooh-rah!
You guys gotta be pissed that regular Army gets berets now. That just doesn't seem right to me somehow.
OK, OK... I know. Of course the Air Force do that too now. (And I'm sure they do it quite well. I figured someone would call me on that. No offense intended. :)
:)
BUT... the Corps DID invent the idea and most tactics in the first place. Starting during the Banana Wars and getting really good at it during the Island hopping campaign of WWII. Near the end, even Army units in the Pacific were demanding Marine air support if they could get it.
This was back when there was no Air Force. There was the Army Air Corps, and they seemed to think planes were only good for recon and bombs. And taking out enemy planes and AA, to protect the recon and bombers.
We still have the Air Wings, and that is pretty much their entire purpose and design... ground support for Marines and anyone else down in the dirt.
Oh, and you Army peeps... we were doing the helicopter thing first, too.
Almost...
:)
;-P
:)
In the Marine Corps, you ALL go in to fight.
Rank and job make no difference. You may all be pulled from regular duties to to go kick booty.
At least, that's what they always TOLD me.
(Good point though... hadn't thought about that before.)
I almost take offense at Roblimo referring to other services as inferior... but I won't. (You know, that's ALMOST a troll. And a good one at that.) I mean, he's an Army dog for chrissakes. He probably doesn't know any better.
Hell, I thought fellow Marines were the arrogant ones!
Anyway, remember, we've all got our purpose and things we're good at. We all save each other's asses all the time.
Want something bombed? A lot? Air Force.
Want the skies cleared? Air Force.
Need something moved fast? Air Force.
Need troops moved fast? Air Force.
Need an embargo or blockade? Navy.
Want the ocean safe? Navy.
Want an major intimidating display? Navy.
Need a LOT of stuff moved? Navy.
Need a LOT of troops moved? Navy.
Need a mobile base with some air power? Navy.
Need lots of guys with big guns? Army
Need tanks and artillery? Army.
Need to march in and take the place? Army.
Need a massive invasion? Army. (Marine assist.)
Need airborne gunships? Army.
Gonna be in the area for a while? Army.
Need a fine-combed search and destroy? Army.
-- whoops... I mean "sweep and clear".
Need a security team? Marines.
Need to distract attention from your main force? Marines.
Need an invasion? Marines. (Follow with Army.)
Need direct air support for ground troops? Marines.
Need everything everyone else has, but need it there RIGHT NOW? Marines.
Need everything, but on a smaller scale? Marines.
Have very specific needs? All have special forces units for special jobs of varying types. Pick your poison.