Please explain to me what about my beliefs is unchristian?
Explain what, exactly, is unchristian about this:
"And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins." (2 Nephi 25:26)
The definition of "Christian" is "of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ". The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is most definitely based on the teachings of Jesus Christ in every way, and looks to Christ and no other for salvation, and is therefore Christian.
Notice that nowhere in the definition of "Christian" does it say "agrees with the Catholic [or Lutheran or Baptist etc] Church on all (or even any) points of doctrine". A lack of agreement on some doctrinal issues does not mean I'm Christian and a Catholic is not, or vice versa.
If by "well-documented" you mean "hearsay and other stuff not admissible in any court of law", then you might be right. The supposed evidence that he was a fraudster is entirely composed of accounts from people who hated him and hated what he taught. Of course they would seek to discredit him. I challenge you to find an account by an impartial third party who documented Joseph Smith's supposed fraud.
As others have said, the FLDS church is not the same as the LDS church. The LDS church does not practice polygamy, and any members who are found to be practicing polygamy are promptly excommunicated. To equate the FLDS church with the LDS church is either deliberate misinformation or complete ignorance.
As I just posted up above (so of course you wouldn't have seen it yet) I don't think it's about hiding anything, I think it's about enforcing copyright.
The LDS Church owns the copyright to its handbook of instructions, and the Church is well within its rights to enforce that copyright.
It would be impossible to do, but somehow I doubt that the LDS Church is actually attempting to "gag the Internet".
It seems to me that anyone who owns copyrighted material has the right to prevent that material from being published by an unauthorized third party. If this were Tor suing WikiLeaks for publishing an online copy of a new sci-fi novel, we'd probably all be siding with Tor instead of WikiLeaks.
The handbook in question is, in fact, copyrighted by the LDS Church; WikiLeaks' publishing of that material is a violation of that copyright.
Now I'm all in favor of openness in religions but copyright should be respected. In my opinion this move by the LDS Church is more about maintaining and enforcing its copyright than anything else.
(Disclaimer - I am a member of the LDS Church. I've read much of the Church Handbook of Instructions and I can't think of anything the Church would want to hide.)
There is, in fact, a reason for this requirement. My school has had problems with people sending spams from internal IP addresses (since external ones don't work for school mailing lists) and other malicious activities. Requiring logins is one (fairly effective) deterrent since it makes people more or less identifiable.
Technically they would not be committing a crime doing so, since they own the songs they'd be downloading. For example, it would not be illegal for Microsoft to download an ISO of a Windows XP cd, since Microsoft owns Windows XP.
When I was 13 or so I was in my bedroom getting ready for school or something when I felt a tiny little shake, so small it was hard to believe it wasn't my imagination, but I was pretty sure it wasn't... and noone believed me until my dad got home from work and said he heard on the news there had been a small quake.
Nothing big, and likely not worth mentioning except in this context (and maybe not at all)... but it's the only time I've ever felt an earthquake (such as it was).
Supposedly there's going to be a "big one" here in Utah someday. Eventually.
How many of us, the ones posting on slashdot, are actually doing anything to help? Talking about the earthquake does nothing to help them; talking about the human rights issues might get more people to try to do something about it. We can't do anything about the earthquake, we can do something about the human rights issues.
To change your analogies a bit, it's more like someone has a gun to your head, then someone else comes along and cuts your foot off. Just because your foot is cut off doesn't mean the mugger will take the gun from your head...
I don't like that commercial because it claims that Apple makes all their hardware themselves.
(That is obviously not the case; they simply pick out which hardware to sell, which is a far cry from making it themselves.)
I know what they meant to say - that they control the hardware and the software, so their OS is more stable - but what they say and what they mean are not the same.
I haven't had any issues with SP3... except that now Visual Studio 2008 completely freezes once in a while (somewhere in its intellisense component), and Counter-Strike: Source crashes far more often.
If you left your windows machine running (which is when you'd use this thumb drive according to the article) then the disk decryption is transparent to a Windows user and thus transparent to the forensics officer or the criminal who is using the device to gain access to your machine.
Is this possible even if there are no FireWire drivers running in the Linux kernel? (I didn't bother compiling in FireWire drivers because I have no FireWire devices.)
Obviously you didn't read the article. The whole benefit of the device is that it can plug in to a machine and gather evidence without having to unplug the machine from the network or a power source (to move it). The article also specifically describes the device as a USB thumb drive.
The device contains 150 commands that can dramatically cut the time it takes to gather digital evidence [...] It can decrypt passwords and analyze a computer's Internet activity, as well as data stored in the computer. I assume these 150 commands are specific to Windows' internal undocumented APIs that only Microsoft would be aware of.
I meant that to claim you should always, without fail, use a boost::shared_ptr or whatever, rather than managing memory by yourself, is incorrect. Your point is a good one, of course, but it would be a mistake to claim "good programmers never use delete". There are always instances where direct memory management is needed (especially when speed is paramount).
std::vector can be significantly slower than a directly allocated array in some cases; the problem is compounded when you're looking at 2-dimensional or 3-dimensional matrices.
I'd guess std::vector probably uses new[] somewhere deep down inside, so no, you couldn't remove new[] and delete[] from C++ with no harm done. Remember, it needs to call the constructors of the objects it contains; malloc won't do that, and new[] is probably faster than calling malloc and then doing in-place construction in a loop.
The STL is usually The Right Way... but not always.
Prototyping is always useful, and doubly so when the prototype itself is a functional implementation. The trick is to decide whether it matters to the end-user if it's eight times faster. In the case of the sub-100-ms range, it probably doesn't matter; but if you're dealing with a difference between 30 seconds and four seconds, it's something to give you pause.
So you're saying that any C++ program that finds a need to use the 'delete' operator is Doing It Wrong?
There are ways to avoid using the delete operator, such as the standard library's auto_ptr or boost's shared_ptr, but it's often not necessary (or not wanted). To claim these types of things are necessary and should always be used is blind ignorance.
Slashdot Mirror
Please explain to me what about my beliefs is unchristian?
Explain what, exactly, is unchristian about this:
"And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins." (2 Nephi 25:26)
The definition of "Christian" is "of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ". The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is most definitely based on the teachings of Jesus Christ in every way, and looks to Christ and no other for salvation, and is therefore Christian.
Notice that nowhere in the definition of "Christian" does it say "agrees with the Catholic [or Lutheran or Baptist etc] Church on all (or even any) points of doctrine". A lack of agreement on some doctrinal issues does not mean I'm Christian and a Catholic is not, or vice versa.
If by "well-documented" you mean "hearsay and other stuff not admissible in any court of law", then you might be right. The supposed evidence that he was a fraudster is entirely composed of accounts from people who hated him and hated what he taught. Of course they would seek to discredit him. I challenge you to find an account by an impartial third party who documented Joseph Smith's supposed fraud.
As others have said, the FLDS church is not the same as the LDS church. The LDS church does not practice polygamy, and any members who are found to be practicing polygamy are promptly excommunicated. To equate the FLDS church with the LDS church is either deliberate misinformation or complete ignorance.
Until that is the case, any entity has the right to enforce any and all copyrights it owns.
As I just posted up above (so of course you wouldn't have seen it yet) I don't think it's about hiding anything, I think it's about enforcing copyright.
The LDS Church owns the copyright to its handbook of instructions, and the Church is well within its rights to enforce that copyright.
FLDS != LDS.
Better luck next time.
It would be impossible to do, but somehow I doubt that the LDS Church is actually attempting to "gag the Internet".
It seems to me that anyone who owns copyrighted material has the right to prevent that material from being published by an unauthorized third party. If this were Tor suing WikiLeaks for publishing an online copy of a new sci-fi novel, we'd probably all be siding with Tor instead of WikiLeaks.
The handbook in question is, in fact, copyrighted by the LDS Church; WikiLeaks' publishing of that material is a violation of that copyright.
Now I'm all in favor of openness in religions but copyright should be respected. In my opinion this move by the LDS Church is more about maintaining and enforcing its copyright than anything else.
(Disclaimer - I am a member of the LDS Church. I've read much of the Church Handbook of Instructions and I can't think of anything the Church would want to hide.)
I seem to remember a Madonna track that consisted of Madonna cursing at the person who downloaded the track. I might be remembering wrong though.
There is, in fact, a reason for this requirement. My school has had problems with people sending spams from internal IP addresses (since external ones don't work for school mailing lists) and other malicious activities. Requiring logins is one (fairly effective) deterrent since it makes people more or less identifiable.
Technically they would not be committing a crime doing so, since they own the songs they'd be downloading. For example, it would not be illegal for Microsoft to download an ISO of a Windows XP cd, since Microsoft owns Windows XP.
When I was 13 or so I was in my bedroom getting ready for school or something when I felt a tiny little shake, so small it was hard to believe it wasn't my imagination, but I was pretty sure it wasn't... and noone believed me until my dad got home from work and said he heard on the news there had been a small quake.
Nothing big, and likely not worth mentioning except in this context (and maybe not at all)... but it's the only time I've ever felt an earthquake (such as it was).
Supposedly there's going to be a "big one" here in Utah someday. Eventually.
How many of us, the ones posting on slashdot, are actually doing anything to help? Talking about the earthquake does nothing to help them; talking about the human rights issues might get more people to try to do something about it. We can't do anything about the earthquake, we can do something about the human rights issues.
To change your analogies a bit, it's more like someone has a gun to your head, then someone else comes along and cuts your foot off. Just because your foot is cut off doesn't mean the mugger will take the gun from your head...
I mod you +1 Interesting/Insightful in spirit, since I don't have mod points.
How'd you do that? (I'm genuinely curious, here...)
I don't like that commercial because it claims that Apple makes all their hardware themselves.
(That is obviously not the case; they simply pick out which hardware to sell, which is a far cry from making it themselves.)
I know what they meant to say - that they control the hardware and the software, so their OS is more stable - but what they say and what they mean are not the same.
I haven't had any issues with SP3... except that now Visual Studio 2008 completely freezes once in a while (somewhere in its intellisense component), and Counter-Strike: Source crashes far more often.
I second the motion for +Insightful. A very good comment indeed.
And by "dramatically cut the time it takes" they mean "it's a batch file so someone doesn't have to type it in by hand"... fun.
If you left your windows machine running (which is when you'd use this thumb drive according to the article) then the disk decryption is transparent to a Windows user and thus transparent to the forensics officer or the criminal who is using the device to gain access to your machine.
Is this possible even if there are no FireWire drivers running in the Linux kernel? (I didn't bother compiling in FireWire drivers because I have no FireWire devices.)
I meant that to claim you should always, without fail, use a boost::shared_ptr or whatever, rather than managing memory by yourself, is incorrect. Your point is a good one, of course, but it would be a mistake to claim "good programmers never use delete". There are always instances where direct memory management is needed (especially when speed is paramount).
std::vector can be significantly slower than a directly allocated array in some cases; the problem is compounded when you're looking at 2-dimensional or 3-dimensional matrices.
I'd guess std::vector probably uses new[] somewhere deep down inside, so no, you couldn't remove new[] and delete[] from C++ with no harm done. Remember, it needs to call the constructors of the objects it contains; malloc won't do that, and new[] is probably faster than calling malloc and then doing in-place construction in a loop.
The STL is usually The Right Way... but not always.
Grammar school called. You missed class again.
so my 10x figure wasn't too far off? ;)
Prototyping is always useful, and doubly so when the prototype itself is a functional implementation. The trick is to decide whether it matters to the end-user if it's eight times faster. In the case of the sub-100-ms range, it probably doesn't matter; but if you're dealing with a difference between 30 seconds and four seconds, it's something to give you pause.
So you're saying that any C++ program that finds a need to use the 'delete' operator is Doing It Wrong?
There are ways to avoid using the delete operator, such as the standard library's auto_ptr or boost's shared_ptr, but it's often not necessary (or not wanted). To claim these types of things are necessary and should always be used is blind ignorance.