The God referenced in the bible does, in fact, have a name.
The Tetragrammaton is the usual reference to the Hebrew name for God, which is spelled (in the Hebrew alphabet): (yodh) (heh) (vav) (heh) or (reading right to left = YHVH, or with the Biblical Hebrew pronunciation, YHWH). It is the distinctive personal name of the God of Israel.
In Judaism, the Tetragrammaton is the ineffable Name of God, and is therefore not to be spoken, except by the High Priest within the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle and Temple in Jerusalem on Yom Kippur. In the reading aloud of the scripture or in prayer, it is replaced with Adonai ("My Lords", commonly rendered as "The LORD" in most modern English translations) or occasionally replaced with "Elohim" (GOD).
Various English spellings of the Tetragrammaton include Iehouah [AD 1530], Iehovah [1611], and Jehovah [1769]. Yahweh, Yehovah, and Y'hovah are also used.
The following works, either always or sometimes, transcribe the Tetragrammaton as Jehovah:
-- The King James (Authorised) Version, 1611: i.e. four times as the personal name of God, and three times in combination names: Gen 22:14; Exodus 17:15; Judges 6:24 -- The American Standard Version, 1901 edition, consistently renders the Tetragrammaton as Je-ho'vah in all 6,823 places where it occurs in the Old Testament. -- The New English Bible, published by Oxford University Press, 1970, e.g. Gen 22:14; Exodus 3:15,16; 6:3; 17:15; Judges 6:24 -- The Living Bible, published by Tyndale House Publishers, IIlinois 1971, e.g. Gen 22:14, Exodus 4:1-27; 17:15; Lev 19:1-36; Deut 4: 29, 39; 5:5, 6; Judges 6:16, 24; Ps 83:18; 110:1; Isaiah 45:1, 18; Amos 5:8; 6:8; 9:6 -- The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, all editions, consistently renders the Tetragrammaton as Jehovah in all 6,823 places where it occurs in the Old Testament.
1. Linking to a site (hyperlinking) is different than feeding an image or other content from someone elses site and displaying it on yours (hotlinking).
2. I don't recall criticizing anyone for linking (either hyper or hot) to anything, simply posting feedback and commentary on another article relating to this story.
I especially love how the opening line refers to this prank as "a new weapon in campaign digital media warfare", then the article goes on to use phrases such as "McCain didn't give him credit and Davidson sought retribution" and buzzwords like "The Internet battlefield".
I find Mr. Rasiej's comment that "This just goes to show that the Internet is an entirely new battlefield for many of these candidates and they are going to have to develop sophisticated new responses to deal with them" very interesting, since the "sophisticated new response" to this would have been to show some creativity, design your own image, and not leach someone else's bandwidth with an image that has nothing to do with your message. McCain's incompetent Web designer couldn't even be bothered to notice that the image in question said "No requests for design help please". I don't think I'll be asking McCain or any of his peoplefor design help, especially now!
The article also goes on to compare this incident with such things as a genuinely serious security flaw discovered in Rudy Giuliani's website and to Phil de Velis's Clinton/Obama mock political ad. And just to stir in a little more controversy, they had to add that de Velis "formerly lived with a current Obama staffer". Big deal!
Typical mainstream media sensationalistic BS hype! Hopefully nothing bad comes of this.
Hmmm... something like this might work, since the *AA seems to simply ping IP addresses they suspect of having copyright materials with a list of hash requests, then if it gets responses they send out DMCA cease and desist letters and/or settlement aggreements.
Also would this method not be considered a DoS attack. Several times I have had my broadband router go down, thus breaking my network and denying me service (both Internet and local network access, since the router also contains wireless access point and wired switch), when I was pinged with several hundred hash requests from an IP owned by Paramount in a span of about 5 seconds. Another basis for lawsuits?
Wikipedia appears to me to be the most unbiased and reliable source of information on the internet. I suppose we should Google it instead then sift through the tidal wave of crappy results for reliable information rather than turn to a source that provides well-written and generally expert-written, fairly unbiased articles on the exact topic we want. Not to mention that Wikipedia, combined with the usually provided footnotes and references, combined with a bit of additional searching on anything that sounds outrageous ar doesn't make sense will provide excellent results. I begin every search for information with a trip to Wikipedia to get a summary of information for continued research.
Sorry about the rant, mod -1 Offtopic . . .
Slashdot Mirror
The God referenced in the bible does, in fact, have a name.
The Tetragrammaton is the usual reference to the Hebrew name for God, which is spelled (in the Hebrew alphabet): (yodh) (heh) (vav) (heh) or (reading right to left = YHVH, or with the Biblical Hebrew pronunciation, YHWH). It is the distinctive personal name of the God of Israel.
In Judaism, the Tetragrammaton is the ineffable Name of God, and is therefore not to be spoken, except by the High Priest within the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle and Temple in Jerusalem on Yom Kippur. In the reading aloud of the scripture or in prayer, it is replaced with Adonai ("My Lords", commonly rendered as "The LORD" in most modern English translations) or occasionally replaced with "Elohim" (GOD).
Various English spellings of the Tetragrammaton include Iehouah [AD 1530], Iehovah [1611], and Jehovah [1769]. Yahweh, Yehovah, and Y'hovah are also used.
The following works, either always or sometimes, transcribe the Tetragrammaton as Jehovah:
-- The King James (Authorised) Version, 1611: i.e. four times as the personal name of God, and three times in combination names: Gen 22:14; Exodus 17:15; Judges 6:24
-- The American Standard Version, 1901 edition, consistently renders the Tetragrammaton as Je-ho'vah in all 6,823 places where it occurs in the Old Testament.
-- The New English Bible, published by Oxford University Press, 1970, e.g. Gen 22:14; Exodus 3:15,16; 6:3; 17:15; Judges 6:24
-- The Living Bible, published by Tyndale House Publishers, IIlinois 1971, e.g. Gen 22:14, Exodus 4:1-27; 17:15; Lev 19:1-36; Deut 4: 29, 39; 5:5, 6; Judges 6:16, 24; Ps 83:18; 110:1; Isaiah 45:1, 18; Amos 5:8; 6:8; 9:6
-- The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, all editions, consistently renders the Tetragrammaton as Jehovah in all 6,823 places where it occurs in the Old Testament.
1. Linking to a site (hyperlinking) is different than feeding an image or other content from someone elses site and displaying it on yours (hotlinking).
2. I don't recall criticizing anyone for linking (either hyper or hot) to anything, simply posting feedback and commentary on another article relating to this story.
ABC News has an "interesting" http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/03/mc cains_myspace.htmlarticle about this that shows mainstream media's typical sensationalist hype of things and also shows most people's lack of knowledge and general disregard of technology.
I especially love how the opening line refers to this prank as "a new weapon in campaign digital media warfare", then the article goes on to use phrases such as "McCain didn't give him credit and Davidson sought retribution" and buzzwords like "The Internet battlefield".
I find Mr. Rasiej's comment that "This just goes to show that the Internet is an entirely new battlefield for many of these candidates and they are going to have to develop sophisticated new responses to deal with them" very interesting, since the "sophisticated new response" to this would have been to show some creativity, design your own image, and not leach someone else's bandwidth with an image that has nothing to do with your message. McCain's incompetent Web designer couldn't even be bothered to notice that the image in question said "No requests for design help please". I don't think I'll be asking McCain or any of his peoplefor design help, especially now!
The article also goes on to compare this incident with such things as a genuinely serious security flaw discovered in Rudy Giuliani's website and to Phil de Velis's Clinton/Obama mock political ad. And just to stir in a little more controversy, they had to add that de Velis "formerly lived with a current Obama staffer". Big deal!
Typical mainstream media sensationalistic BS hype! Hopefully nothing bad comes of this.
Hmmm ... something like this might work, since the *AA seems to simply ping IP addresses they suspect of having copyright materials with a list of hash requests, then if it gets responses they send out DMCA cease and desist letters and/or settlement aggreements.
Also would this method not be considered a DoS attack. Several times I have had my broadband router go down, thus breaking my network and denying me service (both Internet and local network access, since the router also contains wireless access point and wired switch), when I was pinged with several hundred hash requests from an IP owned by Paramount in a span of about 5 seconds. Another basis for lawsuits?
Wikipedia appears to me to be the most unbiased and reliable source of information on the internet. I suppose we should Google it instead then sift through the tidal wave of crappy results for reliable information rather than turn to a source that provides well-written and generally expert-written, fairly unbiased articles on the exact topic we want. Not to mention that Wikipedia, combined with the usually provided footnotes and references, combined with a bit of additional searching on anything that sounds outrageous ar doesn't make sense will provide excellent results. I begin every search for information with a trip to Wikipedia to get a summary of information for continued research. Sorry about the rant, mod -1 Offtopic . . .