The problem with this idea is that it is trivial to modify digital images in a way which is imperceptible to the human eye, but which completely changes the hash code. Some examples: you could crop one row of pixels off the bottom of the image. Or you could change the background from #FFFFFF to #FEFEFE. Or you could save the image in a different format. In all these cases it would look the same, however you would get a completely different hash.
How about all the trucks run by Coca Cola to get their product from their factories to the warehouses and from the warehouses to retailers? I suspect the NET CO2 output is well in the positive. Maccas would be in similar situation - they have to get the ingredients to stores somehow.
Most Protestants would believe those 5 fundamentals you list, and I suggest most Christians (although I'm not very familiar with the Orthodox church so may be wrong there).
1) The Bible is directly created with the aid of the Holy Spirit and is without error and free of contradiction.
I think the vast majority of Christians (not just Protestants or Fundamentalists) would agree with at least the first half of this statement. I'll explain the "without error and free of contradiction" below.
2) Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus.
I also think you'd be hard pressed to find many Christians of any denomination who disagree with this point. Catholics would certainly be big proponents of the virgin birth, so it certainly isn't peculiar to fundamentalism.
3) Jesus's death was for atonement of our sins.
4) The Resurrection
Jesus' death as atonement for sins and his resurrection is the core of Christian belief, and I think almost Christians would agree with these statements. If you don't believe Jesus being the Christ I daresay you're not a Christian (note the similarity in the words).
5) Jesus's miracles were a historical reality.
I'm not sure on this one, but again I think the majority of Christians would believe this is true. The reason being that the gospel writers use the miracles as proof of Jesus' divinity, which is central to Christianity.
Back on topic: the vocal minority of Fundamentalists that believe in young earth creationism get the belief from a strict adherence to the 2nd half of your first point, that "[Scripture] is without error and free of contradiction". They take this to mean that the Bible should therefore be read literally, so when it says things like "God created the earth in 7 days" that means 7 * 24hours to them. If the book of Revelation talks about some sort of beast, it means a creature like that will really, literally come to Earth at some point in the future.
The problem with the literal reading is that it doesn't take into account the purpose of scripture (to teach about God). Nor does it take into account the genre of certain passages of the Bible e.g. about 40% of it is told in stories. Are all stories meant to be taken literally? What about poems? What about dreams (e.g. Revelation)?
Applying this to Genesis 1-3 we see that its in the form of a story. Also if its purpose is to teach about God then what it says about the "How" isn't important (and Chapters 1&2 contradict each other on this anyway), and it certainly wasn't intended a scientific textbook.
You're right, the flamebait mod isn't deserved. TROLL would have been a better mod as your post was tangential to the topic at hand and written entirely to provoke a predictable response.
As much as I dislike Fielding, he got into the senate fair and square. The 1000 votes comment is a lie. He personally got over 2000 votes (i.e. people voting below the line) and his Family first party got 53000 of the primary votes in voting above the line.
He did still get in courtesy of Labor and Liberal (conservative for non-Australian readers) party preferences though, because the Greens got around 243000 primary votes in Victoria and didn't get one of the six senate spots. If you vote above the line your preferences get allocated according to what the party you voted for wants. I bet Labor are wishing they did their usual preference swap with the Greens in the 04 election (Fielding has blocked some of the government's legislation in the past few days).
Leaves the firmware. There is so much room for customizability in firmware that I don't even know where to begin with that. I'll just point to DD-WRT and its ilk as great examples of what can be done when a device can be completely customized in terms of internal behavior.
No longer would I be limited by whatever shutter time presets are in the firmware.. if it offers nothing inbetween 1/750 and 1/1000, I'll just load firmware that gives me 1/800, 1/850, 1/900 and 1/950 as well.
Why would you want these shutter speeds? 1/750 to 1/1000 is 1/2 a stop (1 stop = twice as much light). My DSLR operates in 1/3 stops, which is more than enough control. I can see no point to 1/10 stop adjustments, you'd be constantly spinning the shutter dial to get almost no change in exposure.
If the auto exposure mode currently favors closing the aperture over shortening the exposure time, and I want it the other way around, I would no longer be SOL - I'd just load the firmware that gives me that.
Read about Program mode in your manual. It sets aperture and shutter speed automatically and lets you adjust the ratio. I have a film SLR from the 80s with this feature so it isn't exactly new.
If I want to reprogram the various modes on the dial so that I can quickly switch between 3 common setups I use so that I no longer have to enter manual mode and adjust 3-4 options myself (aperture, shutter time, ISO, white balance), then I -could-.
I'd suggest an SLR isn't for you if you don't like having complete artistic control. Having said that, it isn't hard to adjust these if the UI is good. On my dSLR I can adjust ISO and White Balance in pretty much all modes except for full auto (ick). I find with these controls that once set you can generally just leave them that way as long as you don't change location (e.g. shooting in a factory with Fluorescent lights you just leave WB on fluoro the whole time). As for aperture and shutter time you can use a mode such as program, aperture priority or shutter priority where you set one of these and the camera works out the other setting for you.
Better rhetorical questions:
* Do you complain we need more male nurses?
* Do you complain we need more male teachers?
* Do you complain we need more female garbage collectors?
Gender equality is not the same as having a 50/50 male/female split in every field.
How about that UN school they fired a tank shell at during the recent invasion? Killed around 30-40 people and between 0 and 2 were insurgents (depending on reports).
I remember reading about a recent study (google it yourself you lazy slob!) which showed that 15mins of exercise per fortnight was enough to make a difference in health. The exercise was done once a week in an intense 7.5 minute burst.
Re:The real problem...
on
Why TV Lost
·
· Score: 1
While we're throwing quotes around, how about this one: "Video killed the Radio star".
I think "Internet killed the TV star" is about equally likely to come true.
The free market approach also breaks when shareholder votes are non-binding (hint: they are) and the company just ignores the no vote and pays the CEO the huge salary anyway.
The previous government did exactly that. They bought a ton of licenses for some client-based filtering software and set it up so the Australian people could download it for free. Almost nobody took up the offer which should speak volumes about what the general public thinks of filtering.
I've seen print articles on the topic of filtering. A fair number were opinion pieces (but the way weekend papers are heading this should be no surprise). Almost all were against the filters. The angle taken varied from the parent post's "While childporn is bad, and it would be awesome to be able to get rid of it, this filter thing is just stupid" to "I like porn and don't want it blocked" (I'm serious. Helen Razor in the Sydney Morning Herald a couple of months ago). I think several articles also mentioned the threats to free speech inherent in filtering.
Unlike the USA Australian media doesn't just act as a mouthpiece for one of our major parties. The media companies certainly have their own agendas, and certainly some of the reporters/journalists do and this sometimes creeps in, but by and large I think the media does a reasonable job here. Regulations about how much of the media can be owned by any one company probably helps too.
Parent post is an obvious troll. For a lot of people their religious beliefs are something they take seriously, probably as seriously as they do their sexual preference. To say that "hounding" someone based on one of these is to be encouraged and that the other is to be condemned is hypocritical.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with this idea is that it is trivial to modify digital images in a way which is imperceptible to the human eye, but which completely changes the hash code. Some examples: you could crop one row of pixels off the bottom of the image. Or you could change the background from #FFFFFF to #FEFEFE. Or you could save the image in a different format. In all these cases it would look the same, however you would get a completely different hash.
How about all the trucks run by Coca Cola to get their product from their factories to the warehouses and from the warehouses to retailers? I suspect the NET CO2 output is well in the positive. Maccas would be in similar situation - they have to get the ingredients to stores somehow.
Diplomacy the game is banned amongst my friends, because we decided that we wanted to stay friends.
It read more like Bastard Operator from Hell if you ask me.
How productive are you first thing in the morning? I'll give you a hint, I just got into the office and I'm reading /.
You Yanks and your old-fashioned measurements. The rest of the world has moved to the metric system's "Libraries of Alexandria" unit.
I think the vast majority of Christians (not just Protestants or Fundamentalists) would agree with at least the first half of this statement. I'll explain the "without error and free of contradiction" below.
I also think you'd be hard pressed to find many Christians of any denomination who disagree with this point. Catholics would certainly be big proponents of the virgin birth, so it certainly isn't peculiar to fundamentalism.
Jesus' death as atonement for sins and his resurrection is the core of Christian belief, and I think almost Christians would agree with these statements. If you don't believe Jesus being the Christ I daresay you're not a Christian (note the similarity in the words).
I'm not sure on this one, but again I think the majority of Christians would believe this is true. The reason being that the gospel writers use the miracles as proof of Jesus' divinity, which is central to Christianity.
Back on topic: the vocal minority of Fundamentalists that believe in young earth creationism get the belief from a strict adherence to the 2nd half of your first point, that "[Scripture] is without error and free of contradiction". They take this to mean that the Bible should therefore be read literally, so when it says things like "God created the earth in 7 days" that means 7 * 24hours to them. If the book of Revelation talks about some sort of beast, it means a creature like that will really, literally come to Earth at some point in the future.
The problem with the literal reading is that it doesn't take into account the purpose of scripture (to teach about God). Nor does it take into account the genre of certain passages of the Bible e.g. about 40% of it is told in stories. Are all stories meant to be taken literally? What about poems? What about dreams (e.g. Revelation)?
Applying this to Genesis 1-3 we see that its in the form of a story. Also if its purpose is to teach about God then what it says about the "How" isn't important (and Chapters 1&2 contradict each other on this anyway), and it certainly wasn't intended a scientific textbook.
You're right, the flamebait mod isn't deserved. TROLL would have been a better mod as your post was tangential to the topic at hand and written entirely to provoke a predictable response.
As much as I dislike Fielding, he got into the senate fair and square. The 1000 votes comment is a lie. He personally got over 2000 votes (i.e. people voting below the line) and his Family first party got 53000 of the primary votes in voting above the line.
He did still get in courtesy of Labor and Liberal (conservative for non-Australian readers) party preferences though, because the Greens got around 243000 primary votes in Victoria and didn't get one of the six senate spots. If you vote above the line your preferences get allocated according to what the party you voted for wants. I bet Labor are wishing they did their usual preference swap with the Greens in the 04 election (Fielding has blocked some of the government's legislation in the past few days).
Last I heard there are still some books which are banned. For example, I think one of Dr. Nitschke's Euthanasia books is banned here.
I have a simpler solution for them right here:
RFC 3514
"The love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."
Why would you want these shutter speeds? 1/750 to 1/1000 is 1/2 a stop (1 stop = twice as much light). My DSLR operates in 1/3 stops, which is more than enough control. I can see no point to 1/10 stop adjustments, you'd be constantly spinning the shutter dial to get almost no change in exposure.
Read about Program mode in your manual. It sets aperture and shutter speed automatically and lets you adjust the ratio. I have a film SLR from the 80s with this feature so it isn't exactly new.
I'd suggest an SLR isn't for you if you don't like having complete artistic control. Having said that, it isn't hard to adjust these if the UI is good. On my dSLR I can adjust ISO and White Balance in pretty much all modes except for full auto (ick). I find with these controls that once set you can generally just leave them that way as long as you don't change location (e.g. shooting in a factory with Fluorescent lights you just leave WB on fluoro the whole time). As for aperture and shutter time you can use a mode such as program, aperture priority or shutter priority where you set one of these and the camera works out the other setting for you.
You must be talking about a different DP Review to the one I'm familiar with. DP Reviewers are to photography as audiophiles are to music.
Better rhetorical questions:
* Do you complain we need more male nurses?
* Do you complain we need more male teachers?
* Do you complain we need more female garbage collectors?
Gender equality is not the same as having a 50/50 male/female split in every field.
They still teach Computer Science in countries where university is free or priced at much more affordable fees than in the USA.
My thoughts exactly. The macho factor of having a concealed carry weapon is canceled out by the use of a fannypack to carry it.
How about that UN school they fired a tank shell at during the recent invasion? Killed around 30-40 people and between 0 and 2 were insurgents (depending on reports).
Or more likely (according to parent's Wikipedia link) it was added in a gnostic version because they also thought he could have used a love interest.
I remember reading about a recent study (google it yourself you lazy slob!) which showed that 15mins of exercise per fortnight was enough to make a difference in health. The exercise was done once a week in an intense 7.5 minute burst.
While we're throwing quotes around, how about this one: "Video killed the Radio star".
I think "Internet killed the TV star" is about equally likely to come true.
The free market approach also breaks when shareholder votes are non-binding (hint: they are) and the company just ignores the no vote and pays the CEO the huge salary anyway.
The previous government did exactly that. They bought a ton of licenses for some client-based filtering software and set it up so the Australian people could download it for free. Almost nobody took up the offer which should speak volumes about what the general public thinks of filtering.
I've seen print articles on the topic of filtering. A fair number were opinion pieces (but the way weekend papers are heading this should be no surprise). Almost all were against the filters. The angle taken varied from the parent post's "While childporn is bad, and it would be awesome to be able to get rid of it, this filter thing is just stupid" to "I like porn and don't want it blocked" (I'm serious. Helen Razor in the Sydney Morning Herald a couple of months ago). I think several articles also mentioned the threats to free speech inherent in filtering.
Unlike the USA Australian media doesn't just act as a mouthpiece for one of our major parties. The media companies certainly have their own agendas, and certainly some of the reporters/journalists do and this sometimes creeps in, but by and large I think the media does a reasonable job here. Regulations about how much of the media can be owned by any one company probably helps too.
Parent post is an obvious troll. For a lot of people their religious beliefs are something they take seriously, probably as seriously as they do their sexual preference. To say that "hounding" someone based on one of these is to be encouraged and that the other is to be condemned is hypocritical.