Sounds like you didn't read the refutation. Many of the parts of that system do exist in other beetles.
Actually, it sounds like you didn't read his post which starts out with the sentence...
Its not that all of the chemicals and mechanisms exist that is amazing about the bombadier beetle, it is the fact that they all appeared together to form a chemical reaction on command.
"Irreducible complexity" is a myth creationists invented because the big words made their ranting sound scientific.
Wrong. When Darwin came up with the concept of evolution, it was based on a notion of gradual changes from simple to complex. He went to great lengths to explain things like an eye it terms of levels of increasing complexity, all the while (to put it simply) acknowledging that a system that cannot by flowed through such lines would be a refutation of his theory.
These systems usually need a multiple of specific and complex mutations to happen simultaneously, since any reduction by simple single mutations would mean death of the animal.
If the films are distributed under a GPL style license, everbody has the right to edit them and re-distribute. But I dont think they are.
Theres two ways to take that, and they are both correct.
1) If the films were GPL you could distribute edited versions.
2) If the films were distributed you would need a liscence like the GPL.
In either case, your answer is still correct "I don't think they are". They are not GPL, and they are not distributed.
What this people is doing has nothing to to with copyright, but with censorship.
Correct, since they are not "copying". However I'd have to challenge the accusation that this is censorship as you seem to mean it; which is deciding what other people see on a governmental scale. You'll note that these people decide as individuals what they well see for themselves, not for their neighbors, friends, or the populace at large.
When someone censors parts of an artistic work, its changing the meaning of what the artist tried to express.
That is debatable, but the pros and cons of changing what an artist tried to express are not important here. I will mention that I saw once a version of Shakespears "Twelvth Night" done in "Rocky Horror Picture Show" drag, and that is far closer to the vice you describe then having someone edit the video tape I bought. I wound up walking out after the first act, was that censorship?
But what I do find important is that I don't care what the director was trying to express, if he has to resort to certain measures to "express" it then I shouldn't be subjected to them. In this case forcing people to watch such expression is more censorship then allowing them to watch what they want to watch.
Your post is tripe. Its simply self-contradictory, false, and in parts its unparsable.
they are distributing and making money from editing other people's work.
There are three different events in that sentence. They are distributing it, they are making money, and they are editing other people's work.
The "distributing it" accusation is simply false (or falsly simple). No re-distribution is involved, or even an effort to compete with the duely liscenced distributors. I don't copy anyones works, I purchase a copy of it. I don't sell the work "the way I think it always should have been" but I allow people to decide what they want to see, and not see what they don't want to see.
Simply put, the second act of "making money" is not evil.
"Editing other people's work" is also not evil but you knew that since you said, "If you want a kid-friendly version either edit it yourself". Beyond that, you can even hire someone else to edit it.
The last part is unparsable, maybe you can help me with it.
don't put on their shoulders the responsibility for your creation
Are you saying that they are responsible some how for what I didn't see? Or are you saying that I'm responsible for the distorted views in life that come from editing out scenes of people having sex? Are you saying that taking responsibility for what I watch unfairly burdens the creators? I just don't understand.
I think to be on the air you need at least a Class 3 commercial radio liscence from the FCC. I'm not sure but it may be easier if it is a lower power station.
To get a frequency, you'll also need to talk to the FCC, but if there are that few a stations there then it shouldn't be difficult.
You can start pretty small, 25 watts could cover the campus (if you are in Rexburg) but getting a sender centrally located would be hard. But the equipment could be had for under $10,000 I'm guessing with land leasing for (if rexburg) under $1000 a year.
"And the evening and morning were the day" is mentioned for all of them.
Very true, relative to whatever light source God was using of course.
YOu can't be saved by works. Only if you accept Jesus Christ (am I allowed to say that on a public forum?:p) as your savior.
Yeah, I agree fully with that although you agree that mearly the act of confessing Christ could be classified as a "work" and even worse "lip service". Without the intervention of a infinite power, we'd be doomed all of us. Nothing we could do without that help.
Good works follow them that believe, and if you choose to follow Christ I can see where that means you'd choose good works too, and be saved but not by those works (its impossible!).
That site by the way is off of the AiG site, but I can't seem to navigate around in it any more. It is a very good site all in all. Some of the sites they link to are not as good though.
Anyways its good talking with you. Any questions you have about "strange Mormon beliefs" feel free to shoot them my way. (for now michael at myricanet dot company will do.) Honestly, some of what I've seen published is strange.
Hmm, your explanation of "beginning" seems self-contradictory since events before "time" can't happen if time a requisite parameter of an event. It may be true in a "God can do anything" kind of way, but even then it doesn't make sense scripturaly. I think it means something much more plain and simple, and people are just getting way to "cosmic" about it.
I read a site once "How to talk creation to a Jehovah's Witness" that was pointed to from the AiG people. They brought up a good point, that if the day was 1000 years then why did God create plants and then wait a thousand years before creating the insects to polinate them?
But that doesn't matter much to me since I personally think that the 1000 years time thing sufferes from the same problem as the 24hour thing (i.e. the sun hadn't been made yet). So I never subscribed to that view anyway.
I just take the Bible for face value.
I don't think plants being around on the third day discredits it either, since light existed on the first day, before the sun came around. And since light was present from the first day, there is no reason that you can't have plants.
People just think its the sun, becuase it is such a common light to us here on earth, but not becuase they read Genisis very well. Don't worry, not until a few years ago did I realize the "light" in the first verse wasn't the sun either. The sun is just way to prevelant in our lives for us not to think it is.
But I motice that God points out clearly in those verses that his first light and day was something different then what we are used to.
Here's the verses again... 14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
It seems pretty clear to me that the "sun" is the greatest light during the day and he made it the fourth day. He also says that "days" didn't happen in some sence or other until the fourth day, along with seasons and years. Its all just straight forward and plain to me.
If AiG realized that, I think they'd realize it corresponds with AiG's other positions a lot better also, like starting with a small select group of "types" of animals becoming the many species we have seen since the Fall rather then populating the earth him/herself. God did things in stages, you need water, light and earth before vegetation and begetation before animals...etc. I think it started out small in the garden and things were told to "multiply and replenish the earth."
Actually I digress. I actually came to a simular conclusion as them on many respects independantly before I read them, which is why I liked their site so much. And when they tied it all together with the Fall it made a lot of sense with what I already believed.
If i instead read several verses that say the same thing, then I can be sure of it. This is where JW's and Mormons etc. have their problems.
Actually, the JW's and Mormons would probably argue that you are only taking verses that sound the same, and ignoring the ones that may not point where you want it to.
One of them being God's reproval of Job where he says...
"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"
Honestly, I think Job was an anti-deluvian work. probably the only one book except the Book of Enoch that survived the flood. But that is just my theory. Either way, I think that laying the foundation of the earth was either before the "beginning" or during the first two days, yet we already have "all the sons of God" or all the players to go on to the stage. To me "Beginning" or "The beginning" means the start of some particular stage in God's plan, specifically relating to us. It could be the start of the whole universe or "time" but I don't find anything beyond it being the start of a stage in God's plan.
Also, since the "days" weren't created until the fourth day (in God's time) that makes the "Ancient of Days" Adam rather then God (which makes sence since God's throne doesn't have wheels which show God giving power to move). I don't agree with the JW's or anyone else who thinks Adam was a bad guy, since Christ is called the "second Adam" and "last Adam" at different times. Christ wouldn't be considered an "adam" if "Adam" wasn't a good guy.
Speaking of crazy beliefs, I've been perplexed how Christians say "you can't be saved by your works" and then tell people "you will be saved if you do this..." which is usually a very specific and prescribed "work" they have to do (like praying, acknowledging, etc...) That sure sounds an awful lot like they are being saved because of something they are doing.
Anti-cliche of a lone band of outlaws who are actually "good guys" and find a girl in a box who winds up being the most empowered woman in the universe is sooo cliche. All I want is goodstory telling, even if it is a rehashed fomula.
That being said, can anyone send me a VCD of it? I don't have Tivo, and I'll be away from my TV tonight attending a wedding.
If you assume that a "day" really means "day" in the Bible for the first 7 days (and why wouldn't you?) and then add up all the ages of the people listed from generation to generation, you get a fairly conclusive age for the universe according to the Bible.
That is your interpretation that the Bible's creation story represents the creation of the Universe.
"In the beginning" it starts. But the beginning of what? To say it is the universe is probably not accurate, considering the scripture that points to events "before the beginning".
"...God created the heaven and earth"
Heaven is somewhat ambigous also, and probably better translated as "firmament" which is closer to sky or atmosphere then universe in my book. But it can be used to mean everything in the universe that isn't matter. But later when it discusses seperating the waters from the waters suggests "atmosphere" to me more then "universe".
Verse 14 sheds an interesting cast on this debate also...
"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years"
However, the direct context of day is established earlier when the seperating of light and dark made for the "morning and the evening of the first day." So we see clearly that the 24 hour day as we know it from the periodic solar occulting of the earth wasn't established until the fourth day. And for the next few days, you I see nothing to give the impression that God adapted the earth's time table as he mentions creating seasons and generations of animals.
But then if you start saying that words in the Bible mean different things than what we normally attribute words for, then you're allowing yourself to make up whatever you want to believe in and interpret the Bible however you want.
I remember Larry Wall's assertion to an atheist on Slashdot recently where he mentioned that the atheist was "actively disbelieving" where Larry was "actively believing" in a God.
To illustrate how this happens, lets take your quote which describes someone who is actively believing in God, and see how it works the other way also.
"But then if you start saying that words in the Bible mean different things than what we normally attribute words for in their context, then you're allowing yourself to make up whatever you want to disbelieve in and interpret the Bible however you want."
I'll add in the name of "Science" warning that to impose your every-day definitions of terms created in the context of your own situation on words used in a situation completely different, is a bad practice.
I picked up a CD four years ago with 360 handwriting fonts alone for $5. I'm sure theres thousands of abandonware fonts out there that would make a good base to start from.
And why wouldn't [fair use] apply to Linux as well?
Actually fair use does apply. I can (and do) have a modified kernel code that I have not distributed or shown to anyone. But the difference has something to do with...
"license" [means] that... YOU DON"T OWN [the copyright]. it is LICENCED TO YOU
However when you purchase a tape you do not have liscence to sell copies you make of it, but you do own the tape to do whatever you like with it (and even resell it afterwards).
I would have to download a new original for each edited copy I sold
This is another difference, downloading is copying which is why putting it on your FTP server is considered "distribution".
I'll admit I am playing the devils advocate here.
Indeed, you seem to be saying that one can't be allowed purchase a movie, they can only be liscenced to view it. That is a very strong RIAA position and a deliberate grab for IP power. Such a strong grab they are attacking libraries.
Just to point out that it is the much maligned concept of intellectual property rights that makes GPL style licenses and open source possible.
Rather, the GPL acts as a interface or buffer between ideals of a gift economy or guild socialism and the current "property and purchase" economy. The GPL lives on without a "much maligned concept of intellectual property rights".
Slashdotters often take such an expansive view of Fair Use as to make those rights a dead letter.
You'd have to point out how you feel slashdotters are advocating expanding the view of fair use. For now I see them as bunkering down to protect what is already there.
1) "L" in the beginning of "LGPL" means just what I said. It sounds reasonable to me that you do not know anything of it, becuase it does allow you to make a binary only distribution of your code. 2) "L" at the end of GPL still doesn't mean "limited". 3) I've been around here for a while and I'd hate to be on the agree side of a "Slashdot is a board" debate.
Your still showing all the adeptness and understanding of the GPL as a RIAA mongrel, stabbing in the dark with allusions to typical Slashdot talking points but not knowing anything about them. You may not be in all actuality be one but you'd never know it from your posts.
The GPL is all about redistribution and change to suit your needs. In code, your given the source to make a new program, and that is a service to you. You can then make copies and allow others to make copies.
With "fair use", you can edit and even sell the movie you edited as long as you establish that you've edited it. But you are not allowed to make a copy and sell it. You can break the DVD into pieces and sell them individually to people as long as they know they are only pieces, for all anyone cares.
In the context of this arguement "fair use" which allows you to edit (or ask as a service) for someone to edit a movie for content you do not like. Its pretty clear that these laws to not intersect, FUD mongering like "say good bye to the GPL" just doesn't make sense. To even try is, honestly, embarassing.
But only with the creators permission and limited by terms set by the creator (thus the "L" in GPL).
How does "lesser" or "library" (depending on whos interpretation you subscribe to) have anything to do with this? I really think your shooting in the dark here hoping to hit something.
He owned a few Hollywood Videos in town, but not the whole chain according to my brother in the same ward. But then again it was confusing how he put it so maybe not.
3. They're afraid that multiple versions of a tape may cause consumer confusion that weakens demand for videos in general.
I thought about that for a bit and came up with the question, "How many versions of Star Wars, ET, Close and Counters, and LoTR are there already?" I admit that the confusion does make me stear clear in some respects. But in many others, I sometimes like the taylored fit of the one done just right for me.
RIAA mongrel. You don't even understand fair use or GPL.
GPL 101: The GPL is all about allowing and enhancing ones ability to alter and redistributable works.
I for one am not upset about this. I know people who have used services like this, and I know of many production companies who do it themselves. I also know of a chip that bleeps out certain words, and cuts through bad scenes that you can attach to your TV.
What they are providing is a service, one where there is market demand. What reason is there to ask for legislative pressures to halt this? Is this fraud where people not know these are altered? Is this where they are crusadingly replacing the movies world wide as some for of censorship? Is there a reason I'm missing?
You watch TV I assume. Do they not edit content for time, violence, sex, and formatted to your screen? I find it hard to find a precident for your views.
This may help in your tricky situation. I haven't personaly used their services but I know people who have. You explicetly do not re-purchase it from them you purchase the tape and a service.
At least the service I know was used, it was understood that they are not reselling it. You buy the tape, ship it to them and they edit it and ship it back. I believe you may be able to purchase the tape from them, and save the shipping process. But if you buy the tape from them, what you pay is an additional service charge for them to alter it.
There was an episode where a "Nielsen Family" came before the judge for some violation. The judge asked why they were afraid to leave their house and if they had any time to do fun things away from the TV.
Husband: "Oh no, we used to read before we went to bed occasionaly but not any more."
Judge: "Why?"
Husband: "We missed a few episodes of Webster, so they cancelled it."
Judge: "So do you ever get out? You know, see a movie, go for a drive?"
Husband: "Uh uh, Yeah! About four years ago we thought we would go catch a movie" (wife sobbs)
I should write a Slashdot primer sometime for people just entering the community. I'll put as the number one thing to understand is "For some reason people think that the words `that sucks' coming out of their mouths enhances what people think about them."
V was a pretty good movie.
Insurrection was a pretty good movie.
Here's how I rate them without appology. On the scale, ***** being the best of star trek, * being the worst.
Five and insurrection were pretty good in my book. No need to appologize for it. I watched them, liked them, and would watch again when the casual opportunity arises.
Listening to it, the "in depth analysis" I read here is no better then any other topic stimulating group of geeks to slap their tongues against the roofs of their mouths.
All we need to complete this chest pounding is someone to brag about their SAT score.
In the end, as has been said about Bond movies, I find bad Star Trek better then your average movie anyway.
Technically this isn't a panopticon. A panopticon was a structure meant to allow a central authority (like a jail warden or teacher) to view and be viewed by the populus (like inmates or students) without letting the populus view each other. The populus was isolated in individual cells, precluding contact with one another, and have an open side pointing to the panopticon's focal point.
A more apt technological analogy to the panopticon is the TV industry where people get a full view of a central source, yet are isolated from seeing each other in their own homes.
Google could be considered more like a panopticon with a large mirror in the middle of the building, but that directly violates the purpose of the panopticon in the first place.
Hah, I still think back fondly on the scene where automan's lamborghini made a 90degree turn (like it always does.)
The army jeep in pursuit, with their lives *and* careers on the line watch in awe as the car defies physics.
One officer turns to the other, seemingly forgetting the reason for the pursuit, or is just getting bored with it, turns to the other and says "If he can do it we can do it".
He procedes to incapacitate his vehicle, breaking the ordered chase as he slams into a bilboard on the other side of the road.
Thats just cool. Looking back it was like a proto-Simpsons gag.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it sounds like you didn't read his post which starts out with the sentence...
"Irreducible complexity" is a myth creationists invented because the big words made their ranting sound scientific.
Wrong. When Darwin came up with the concept of evolution, it was based on a notion of gradual changes from simple to complex. He went to great lengths to explain things like an eye it terms of levels of increasing complexity, all the while (to put it simply) acknowledging that a system that cannot by flowed through such lines would be a refutation of his theory.
These systems usually need a multiple of specific and complex mutations to happen simultaneously, since any reduction by simple single mutations would mean death of the animal.
If the films are distributed under a GPL style license, everbody has the right to edit them and re-distribute. But I dont think they are.
Theres two ways to take that, and they are both correct.
1) If the films were GPL you could distribute edited versions.
2) If the films were distributed you would need a liscence like the GPL.
In either case, your answer is still correct "I don't think they are". They are not GPL, and they are not distributed.
What this people is doing has nothing to to with copyright, but with censorship.
Correct, since they are not "copying". However I'd have to challenge the accusation that this is censorship as you seem to mean it; which is deciding what other people see on a governmental scale. You'll note that these people decide as individuals what they well see for themselves, not for their neighbors, friends, or the populace at large.
When someone censors parts of an artistic work, its changing the meaning of what the artist tried to express.
That is debatable, but the pros and cons of changing what an artist tried to express are not important here. I will mention that I saw once a version of Shakespears "Twelvth Night" done in "Rocky Horror Picture Show" drag, and that is far closer to the vice you describe then having someone edit the video tape I bought. I wound up walking out after the first act, was that censorship?
But what I do find important is that I don't care what the director was trying to express, if he has to resort to certain measures to "express" it then I shouldn't be subjected to them. In this case forcing people to watch such expression is more censorship then allowing them to watch what they want to watch.
Your post is tripe. Its simply self-contradictory, false, and in parts its unparsable.
they are distributing and making money from editing other people's work.
There are three different events in that sentence. They are distributing it, they are making money, and they are editing other people's work.
The "distributing it" accusation is simply false (or falsly simple). No re-distribution is involved, or even an effort to compete with the duely liscenced distributors. I don't copy anyones works, I purchase a copy of it. I don't sell the work "the way I think it always should have been" but I allow people to decide what they want to see, and not see what they don't want to see.
Simply put, the second act of "making money" is not evil.
"Editing other people's work" is also not evil but you knew that since you said, "If you want a kid-friendly version either edit it yourself". Beyond that, you can even hire someone else to edit it.
The last part is unparsable, maybe you can help me with it.
don't put on their shoulders the responsibility for your creation
Are you saying that they are responsible some how for what I didn't see? Or are you saying that I'm responsible for the distorted views in life that come from editing out scenes of people having sex? Are you saying that taking responsibility for what I watch unfairly burdens the creators? I just don't understand.
Are you in Rexburg?
I think to be on the air you need at least a Class 3 commercial radio liscence from the FCC. I'm not sure but it may be easier if it is a lower power station.
To get a frequency, you'll also need to talk to the FCC, but if there are that few a stations there then it shouldn't be difficult.
You can start pretty small, 25 watts could cover the campus (if you are in Rexburg) but getting a sender centrally located would be hard. But the equipment could be had for under $10,000 I'm guessing with land leasing for (if rexburg) under $1000 a year.
Perhaps you can do shortwave?
In this house, cable TV is a myth.
"And the evening and morning were the day" is mentioned for all of them.
:p) as your savior.
Very true, relative to whatever light source God was using of course.
YOu can't be saved by works. Only if you accept Jesus Christ (am I allowed to say that on a public forum?
Yeah, I agree fully with that although you agree that mearly the act of confessing Christ could be classified as a "work" and even worse "lip service". Without the intervention of a infinite power, we'd be doomed all of us. Nothing we could do without that help.
Good works follow them that believe, and if you choose to follow Christ I can see where that means you'd choose good works too, and be saved but not by those works (its impossible!).
That site by the way is off of the AiG site, but I can't seem to navigate around in it any more. It is a very good site all in all. Some of the sites they link to are not as good though.
Anyways its good talking with you. Any questions you have about "strange Mormon beliefs" feel free to shoot them my way. (for now michael at myricanet dot company will do.) Honestly, some of what I've seen published is strange.
Hmm, your explanation of "beginning" seems self-contradictory since events before "time" can't happen if time a requisite parameter of an event. It may be true in a "God can do anything" kind of way, but even then it doesn't make sense scripturaly. I think it means something much more plain and simple, and people are just getting way to "cosmic" about it.
I read a site once "How to talk creation to a Jehovah's Witness" that was pointed to from the AiG people. They brought up a good point, that if the day was 1000 years then why did God create plants and then wait a thousand years before creating the insects to polinate them?
But that doesn't matter much to me since I personally think that the 1000 years time thing sufferes from the same problem as the 24hour thing (i.e. the sun hadn't been made yet). So I never subscribed to that view anyway.
I just take the Bible for face value.
I don't think plants being around on the third day discredits it either, since light existed on the first day, before the sun came around. And since light was present from the first day, there is no reason that you can't have plants.
People just think its the sun, becuase it is such a common light to us here on earth, but not becuase they read Genisis very well. Don't worry, not until a few years ago did I realize the "light" in the first verse wasn't the sun either. The sun is just way to prevelant in our lives for us not to think it is.
But I motice that God points out clearly in those verses that his first light and day was something different then what we are used to.
Here's the verses again...
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
It seems pretty clear to me that the "sun" is the greatest light during the day and he made it the fourth day. He also says that "days" didn't happen in some sence or other until the fourth day, along with seasons and years. Its all just straight forward and plain to me.
If AiG realized that, I think they'd realize it corresponds with AiG's other positions a lot better also, like starting with a small select group of "types" of animals becoming the many species we have seen since the Fall rather then populating the earth him/herself. God did things in stages, you need water, light and earth before vegetation and begetation before animals...etc. I think it started out small in the garden and things were told to "multiply and replenish the earth."
Actually I digress. I actually came to a simular conclusion as them on many respects independantly before I read them, which is why I liked their site so much. And when they tied it all together with the Fall it made a lot of sense with what I already believed.
If i instead read several verses that say the same thing, then I can be sure of it. This is where JW's and Mormons etc. have their problems.
Actually, the JW's and Mormons would probably argue that you are only taking verses that sound the same, and ignoring the ones that may not point where you want it to.
One of them being God's reproval of Job where he says...
"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"
Honestly, I think Job was an anti-deluvian work. probably the only one book except the Book of Enoch that survived the flood. But that is just my theory. Either way, I think that laying the foundation of the earth was either before the "beginning" or during the first two days, yet we already have "all the sons of God" or all the players to go on to the stage. To me "Beginning" or "The beginning" means the start of some particular stage in God's plan, specifically relating to us. It could be the start of the whole universe or "time" but I don't find anything beyond it being the start of a stage in God's plan.
Also, since the "days" weren't created until the fourth day (in God's time) that makes the "Ancient of Days" Adam rather then God (which makes sence since God's throne doesn't have wheels which show God giving power to move). I don't agree with the JW's or anyone else who thinks Adam was a bad guy, since Christ is called the "second Adam" and "last Adam" at different times. Christ wouldn't be considered an "adam" if "Adam" wasn't a good guy.
Speaking of crazy beliefs, I've been perplexed how Christians say "you can't be saved by your works" and then tell people "you will be saved if you do this..." which is usually a very specific and prescribed "work" they have to do (like praying, acknowledging, etc...) That sure sounds an awful lot like they are being saved because of something they are doing.
Anti-cliche of a lone band of outlaws who are actually "good guys" and find a girl in a box who winds up being the most empowered woman in the universe is sooo cliche. All I want is good story telling, even if it is a rehashed fomula.
That being said, can anyone send me a VCD of it? I don't have Tivo, and I'll be away from my TV tonight attending a wedding.
If you assume that a "day" really means "day" in the Bible for the first 7 days (and why wouldn't you?) and then add up all the ages of the people listed from generation to generation, you get a fairly conclusive age for the universe according to the Bible.
That is your interpretation that the Bible's creation story represents the creation of the Universe.
"In the beginning" it starts. But the beginning of what? To say it is the universe is probably not accurate, considering the scripture that points to events "before the beginning".
"...God created the heaven and earth"
Heaven is somewhat ambigous also, and probably better translated as "firmament" which is closer to sky or atmosphere then universe in my book. But it can be used to mean everything in the universe that isn't matter. But later when it discusses seperating the waters from the waters suggests "atmosphere" to me more then "universe".
Verse 14 sheds an interesting cast on this debate also...
"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years"
However, the direct context of day is established earlier when the seperating of light and dark made for the "morning and the evening of the first day." So we see clearly that the 24 hour day as we know it from the periodic solar occulting of the earth wasn't established until the fourth day. And for the next few days, you I see nothing to give the impression that God adapted the earth's time table as he mentions creating seasons and generations of animals.
But then if you start saying that words in the Bible mean different things than what we normally attribute words for, then you're allowing yourself to make up whatever you want to believe in and interpret the Bible however you want.
I remember Larry Wall's assertion to an atheist on Slashdot recently where he mentioned that the atheist was "actively disbelieving" where Larry was "actively believing" in a God.
To illustrate how this happens, lets take your quote which describes someone who is actively believing in God, and see how it works the other way also.
"But then if you start saying that words in the Bible mean different things than what we normally attribute words for in their context, then you're allowing yourself to make up whatever you want to disbelieve in and interpret the Bible however you want."
I'll add in the name of "Science" warning that to impose your every-day definitions of terms created in the context of your own situation on words used in a situation completely different, is a bad practice.
C'mon Dave, 2000 years and no one yet has fit the bill?
In theory yes. However, for some reason Outlook 2000 cannot read Outlook 2002 iCal cards, and neither can read Evolution iCal cards.
I picked up a CD four years ago with 360 handwriting fonts alone for $5. I'm sure theres thousands of abandonware fonts out there that would make a good base to start from.
Actually fair use does apply. I can (and do) have a modified kernel code that I have not distributed or shown to anyone. But the difference has something to do with...
However when you purchase a tape you do not have liscence to sell copies you make of it, but you do own the tape to do whatever you like with it (and even resell it afterwards).
This is another difference, downloading is copying which is why putting it on your FTP server is considered "distribution".
Indeed, you seem to be saying that one can't be allowed purchase a movie, they can only be liscenced to view it. That is a very strong RIAA position and a deliberate grab for IP power. Such a strong grab they are attacking libraries.
Rather, the GPL acts as a interface or buffer between ideals of a gift economy or guild socialism and the current "property and purchase" economy. The GPL lives on without a "much maligned concept of intellectual property rights".
You'd have to point out how you feel slashdotters are advocating expanding the view of fair use. For now I see them as bunkering down to protect what is already there.
1) "L" in the beginning of "LGPL" means just what I said. It sounds reasonable to me that you do not know anything of it, becuase it does allow you to make a binary only distribution of your code.
2) "L" at the end of GPL still doesn't mean "limited".
3) I've been around here for a while and I'd hate to be on the agree side of a "Slashdot is a board" debate.
Your still showing all the adeptness and understanding of the GPL as a RIAA mongrel, stabbing in the dark with allusions to typical Slashdot talking points but not knowing anything about them. You may not be in all actuality be one but you'd never know it from your posts.
The GPL is all about redistribution and change to suit your needs. In code, your given the source to make a new program, and that is a service to you. You can then make copies and allow others to make copies.
With "fair use", you can edit and even sell the movie you edited as long as you establish that you've edited it. But you are not allowed to make a copy and sell it. You can break the DVD into pieces and sell them individually to people as long as they know they are only pieces, for all anyone cares.
In the context of this arguement "fair use" which allows you to edit (or ask as a service) for someone to edit a movie for content you do not like. Its pretty clear that these laws to not intersect, FUD mongering like "say good bye to the GPL" just doesn't make sense. To even try is, honestly, embarassing.
But only with the creators permission and limited by terms set by the creator (thus the "L" in GPL).
How does "lesser" or "library" (depending on whos interpretation you subscribe to) have anything to do with this? I really think your shooting in the dark here hoping to hit something.
He owned a few Hollywood Videos in town, but not the whole chain according to my brother in the same ward. But then again it was confusing how he put it so maybe not.
3. They're afraid that multiple versions of a tape may cause consumer confusion that weakens demand for videos in general.
I thought about that for a bit and came up with the question, "How many versions of Star Wars, ET, Close and Counters, and LoTR are there already?" I admit that the confusion does make me stear clear in some respects. But in many others, I sometimes like the taylored fit of the one done just right for me.
RIAA mongrel. You don't even understand fair use or GPL.
GPL 101: The GPL is all about allowing and enhancing ones ability to alter and redistributable works.
I for one am not upset about this. I know people who have used services like this, and I know of many production companies who do it themselves. I also know of a chip that bleeps out certain words, and cuts through bad scenes that you can attach to your TV.
What they are providing is a service, one where there is market demand. What reason is there to ask for legislative pressures to halt this? Is this fraud where people not know these are altered? Is this where they are crusadingly replacing the movies world wide as some for of censorship? Is there a reason I'm missing?
You watch TV I assume. Do they not edit content for time, violence, sex, and formatted to your screen? I find it hard to find a precident for your views.
This may help in your tricky situation. I haven't personaly used their services but I know people who have. You explicetly do not re-purchase it from them you purchase the tape and a service.
At least the service I know was used, it was understood that they are not reselling it. You buy the tape, ship it to them and they edit it and ship it back. I believe you may be able to purchase the tape from them, and save the shipping process. But if you buy the tape from them, what you pay is an additional service charge for them to alter it.
You missed it.
There was an episode where a "Nielsen Family" came before the judge for some violation. The judge asked why they were afraid to leave their house and if they had any time to do fun things away from the TV.
Husband: "Oh no, we used to read before we went to bed occasionaly but not any more."
Judge: "Why?"
Husband: "We missed a few episodes of Webster, so they cancelled it."
Judge: "So do you ever get out? You know, see a movie, go for a drive?"
Husband: "Uh uh, Yeah! About four years ago we thought we would go catch a movie" (wife sobbs)
Judge: "Yeah? And what happened?"
Wife (sobbing hysterically): "We lost Punky!!!"
(appologies if I didn't remember it right).
I should write a Slashdot primer sometime for people just entering the community. I'll put as the number one thing to understand is "For some reason people think that the words `that sucks' coming out of their mouths enhances what people think about them."
V was a pretty good movie.
Insurrection was a pretty good movie.
Here's how I rate them without appology. On the scale, ***** being the best of star trek, * being the worst.
1 ***
2 *****
3 ***
4 *****
5 ****
6 **
7 *
8 ****
9 ****
Five and insurrection were pretty good in my book. No need to appologize for it. I watched them, liked them, and would watch again when the casual opportunity arises.
Listening to it, the "in depth analysis" I read here is no better then any other topic stimulating group of geeks to slap their tongues against the roofs of their mouths.
All we need to complete this chest pounding is someone to brag about their SAT score.
In the end, as has been said about Bond movies, I find bad Star Trek better then your average movie anyway.
Technically this isn't a panopticon. A panopticon was a structure meant to allow a central authority (like a jail warden or teacher) to view and be viewed by the populus (like inmates or students) without letting the populus view each other. The populus was isolated in individual cells, precluding contact with one another, and have an open side pointing to the panopticon's focal point.
A more apt technological analogy to the panopticon is the TV industry where people get a full view of a central source, yet are isolated from seeing each other in their own homes.
Google could be considered more like a panopticon with a large mirror in the middle of the building, but that directly violates the purpose of the panopticon in the first place.
Hah, I still think back fondly on the scene where automan's lamborghini made a 90degree turn (like it always does.)
The army jeep in pursuit, with their lives *and* careers on the line watch in awe as the car defies physics.
One officer turns to the other, seemingly forgetting the reason for the pursuit, or is just getting bored with it, turns to the other and says "If he can do it we can do it".
He procedes to incapacitate his vehicle, breaking the ordered chase as he slams into a bilboard on the other side of the road.
Thats just cool. Looking back it was like a proto-Simpsons gag.
The previous poster was talking about how Lucas breaks the mold into new territory.
As far as general "video game" like high speed obstical courses there have been an average of two a movie.
But as a genre, specifically, the astroid chase is way over done. I can't find much pioneering in Lucas's work after American Grafitti, honestly.