That someone could imply that "how wealthy you are" should increase your level of punishment indicates how just how warped the perception of the judicial system has become.
Im just glad that 99% of the folks on slashdot arent lawyers or judges, or we'd be in real trouble.
Deterrence is only one part of the role of the law.
Theres this quaint thought that theres also a retributive side, whereby someone who commits a wrong is punished because they actually deserve it.
The role of the justice system isnt to provide a source of laborers to "do something useful", its to provide a way of dealing with those who break society's laws.
That happens in China, not the US. If you want to claim otherwise, provide the terms and / or some proof, because that would be pretty major news which noone has reported on yet.
Like China and Russia, the United States has political prisoners... Barrett Brown.
From wikipedia... On December 7, 2012, Brown was indicted on an additional 12 federal charges stemming from the December 25, 2011 hack of Austin-based private intelligence company Stratfor. Brown faces up to 15 years in federal prison So not 100 years, and however bogus the charges may be theyre not due to "blogging", theyre due to involvement in leaking hacked info. Two completely different things. Im not justifying it, but its really sad that you dont grasp the difference between a country where you may get the hammer dropped on you for being involved with hacker groups, and being arrested for simply posting on a political position. We simply do not have that here, as evidenced by the third party debates and the existence of conspiracy theories around the president. Heck, even calling for a presidental impeachment is allowed here, where similar actions in China result in your disappearance.
If you want to live in conspiracy fantasyland, you can, I just hope for your sake you never have the chance to go to china and make similar accusations. At least as a non-citizen of China you would only be kicked out of the country....
As far as I can see I simply quoted your exact words. If youre not willing to back up what you said, dont say it, and dont accuse others of confirmation bias.
Yes, Im sure that the Jews were trying to defend the Christian faith when they remarked about Yeshua being hanged on a tree on the night of passover.
Your traditional beliefs are sacrosanct, inviolable history despite being supported by dubious evidence at best,
Im not sure you understand how piecemeal a lot of history is. Reading an intro to a translation of Eusebius, one of the things that jumped out at me was how much of his works have been lost. Eusebius himself noted how little of christian history had been recorded (~300AD) aside from a few sources. The Bible is generally seen as a remarkably accurate historical record, preserved in a way that few other historical records are.
I find it amazing that some people (such apparently as yourself) will insist that the bible-- the 4 accounts in the gospel and Acts-- does not suffice as any sort of evidence. OK, i say, lets use the Talmud, Tacitus, Eusebius, Josephus. "Not good enough!" comes the response, we need eyewitnesses, and not from the Bible! What other historical figures are subject to such scrutiny? Is the rosetta stone thrown out since we only have the one copy of it? Do we doubt the existence of King Narmer because we only have a few records of him? Since when are several corroborating accounts from historical figures who claim to be eyewitnesses, along with several later compiled histories about said figures, considered to be "traditional belief" rather than "historical evidence"?
I wasn't actually contending Jesus didn't exist,
Not so fast--your exact words were and any historians confirming the existence of Jesus are religious people engaged in confirmation bias Which is utter nonsense. I challenge you to find a single reputable historian who denies the historicity of Jesus.
The line clearly a synthesis drawn from misrepresenting the lack of affirmative denial as the same as supporting the Historical Jesus hypothesis
From Wikipedia, the full sentence which starts a new paragraph: Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[1][2][3][4] and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[5][6][7] I think saying "theories which say he did not exist are generally agreed to be wrong" is the same as saying "it is generally agreed that a correct theory will say that he existed". not(A.exists)==$false ==> A.exists==$true
Youre welcome to reference an article on Jstor or some other journal that denies this, if you like.
and the long term consensus is that any change is too contentious to make, even if that the statement isn't perfectly accurate.
OK, name me some reputable scholars who deny the existence of Jesus, and on what grounds they discard all the evidence we have.
So, how much longer until China realizes that all they need to do to fully replicate western society is to give their citizens a right to vote every 4 years between 'thing 1' and 'thing 2'.
* And get freedom of speech
* And the right to assemble / protest
* And freedom of religion
* And right to an attorney
* And an 8th amendment
* And 4th amendment rights
* And 2nd amendment rights
But yea, theyre totally the same. Seriously, do you know anything about China, or are you just trolling? Whens the last time someone in the US got carted off to a labor camp for being a political blogger? Whens the last time the Great US Firewall blocked facebook or disconnected you from google for searching for "Obama conspiracy" or something?
And as an atheist, I have no problem saying your entire religion is bogus, and any historians confirming the existence of Jesus are religious people engaged in confirmation bias, because the actual presentable evidence is pretty substandard.
I like how youre willing to throw away dozens of eyewitness and historical accounts of Jesus existance, for the sake of a complete LACK of evidence that he was a myth.
So Clement, Josephus, Luke, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, all full of nonsense? Paul, a completely mythical figure? Why does the Jewish Talmud confirm that Jesus lived and died? Why does Lucian confirm his existence?
Even Wikipedia notes that
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed
But apparently only religious people are capable of putting their blinders on and denying reality to support their presuppositions, right?
Thats probably because you neither know your history nor much about contemporary missionary work.
There are a great deal more than 1.2 thousand people "willing to die for their cause"; China has 60 million people who claim to be christian, in a country that will arrest you for proseletyzing and bar you from public office for claiming Christ. Im not sure how many practicing Jews were killed during the holocaust, but Im sure it was more than 1.2 thousand. Even during the first 4 centuries, particularly 200-350AD, im sure more than 1.2 thousand christians were deprived of property, judicial rights, and even their lives due to refusing to give up their faith.
So call poppycock all you like; if youd ever like to join reality, I suggest you read about the persecutions in China, under Diocletian, in many parts of southeast Asia, in the Middle East, and in Africa for people who refuse to give up their faith.
You are correct of course, that 1.2billion is probably the official, inflated number, but there really isnt a better number that Im aware of, and technically "calling yourself catholic" is to make the claim that you hold the Pope's words to have some degree of authority; its not my place to say "they lie", nor is it yours.
Its not entirely a myth. UDP is faster because
A) it never needs to wait for ACKs -- if it has data to send, it just sends it
B) it never doesnt need to wait for a connection to be made-- "connection" is made simply by sending data
C) A and B mean that theres less extraneous traffic on the wire and more room for actual payload
D) With applications that have built in retransmits (IPSec VPN, etc), TCP will generate a good deal of extra traffic. Imagine that a VPN packet is lost; TCP layer will detect it, and trigger a retransmit, and the VPN will also detect it and possibly trigger its own retransmit; now you have two copies of the packet on the wire (a retransmit of the old packet, and a new packet with the old payload).
I also imagine it is less load on the firewall as it doesnt have to track a "connection", which depending on load could make things faster as well.
I stand corrected regarding checksum-- didnt bother fact-checking, and forgot that UDP still needs a way to detect and discard invalid packets.
UDP isnt just faster because of retransmissions, btw, it also doesnt have any round-trips to worry about. TCP cant just stream endless data without acknowledgements from the other end, whereas UDP can-- flow control etc is done at an application level. TCP also needs a good deal of back and forth before it can begin sending data (the handshake) and at the end (FINs), while UDP can make the "connection" simply by starting to send data, and cut the "connection" simply by ceasing transmission.
And as far as ex-cathedra and all that, again, Peter was an *Apostle*, that's going to outrank any bishop and likely he effectively spoke ex-cathedra without calling it that. It's just a name for a concept, it's not supposed to be something that anyone believes Jesus specifically said.
Apostle is the only reason we recognize his and Paul's words as scripture, and is not unique to Peter.
The thing is, when all the Apostles have met their martyrdoms, who takes over?
Elders and deacons, just as Paul described. Bishops, regionally. Christ, at a hierarchical level, is the head of the church; there was never laid out any requirement that there be an earthly representative of him, as if anyone could actually fill that role.
Im not taking it out of context-- at least not intentionally; the only real account that comes to mind of interaction between the apostles after Jesus' death is when Paul recounts (galatians?) of Peter committing a wrong regarding favoritism, and Paul having to correct him; and of Peter remarking that Paul's writing can be hard to understand at times but that it is nevertheless good.
The problem I (and protestants historically) have is that "God's word" as an authority is well established throughout both testaments. What is NEVER established is the authority of tradition; in fact a lot of Jesus earthly ministry was centered around attacking tradition when it is placed above scripture or "used to nullify the word of God". And throughout history there has been a constant internal fight in the Catholic church against corruption, most notably with the sale of indulgences (which have never really been condemned despite having zero scriptural basis and really calling one back to Jesus in the temple)-- but also with the intermingling of politics in the catholic church (ie, the 3 popes / antipopes, the birth of the anglican church, etc).
There are about a million other issues that I have with the catholic church doctrinally, but as an organization they have always had a problem explaining why they deserve special authority to create doctrine and modify the word of God.
Sniffers are passive. They recieve data that goes by them, much as my tape recorder in the park captures broadcast (public) noise. If the sniffer is capturing data, that data was never private (assuming of course you are not using other active methods, like deauths or arp poisoning or rogue APs).
As a protestant I have no problem saying that I believe the catholic tradition to be incorrect (in a number of ways). As I said, Peter did not acknowledge a unique role among the apostles, nor did the other apostles acknowledge him having a unique role. The term Pope would not be used for several hundred years, and the role of Pope did not exist for longer still.
That would be like saying that King John of England was the head of the Anglican church, though that church would not exist for several hundred years, simply because his title would eventually be shared with the head of that church.
When you are actually the head of the Apostles, you don't need to explain to people why you are in charge.
I see nowhere in the new testament the other apostles making reference to Peter being their leader, nor anything from peter to indicate that he expected that.
Slashdot Mirror
You apparently missed the part where he hasnt actually been sentenced to 30 years.
He hasnt gotten 30 years though, and I somehow doubt he will serve 30 years; Im really not sure what all the wild hysteria is about.
That someone could imply that "how wealthy you are" should increase your level of punishment indicates how just how warped the perception of the judicial system has become.
Im just glad that 99% of the folks on slashdot arent lawyers or judges, or we'd be in real trouble.
Deterrence is only one part of the role of the law.
Theres this quaint thought that theres also a retributive side, whereby someone who commits a wrong is punished because they actually deserve it.
The role of the justice system isnt to provide a source of laborers to "do something useful", its to provide a way of dealing with those who break society's laws.
Apparently there is, or nVidia, Broadcom, and a whole host of others would be doing just that.
Because everyone else uses skype.
People who dont get this are the same people who dont understand why facebook is more popular than Diaspora.
Since when has "knowing what youre talking about" been a requirement to post on slashdot?
That happens in China, not the US. If you want to claim otherwise, provide the terms and / or some proof, because that would be pretty major news which noone has reported on yet.
Like China and Russia, the United States has political prisoners... Barrett Brown.
From wikipedia...
On December 7, 2012, Brown was indicted on an additional 12 federal charges stemming from the December 25, 2011 hack of Austin-based private intelligence company Stratfor.
Brown faces up to 15 years in federal prison
So not 100 years, and however bogus the charges may be theyre not due to "blogging", theyre due to involvement in leaking hacked info. Two completely different things.
Im not justifying it, but its really sad that you dont grasp the difference between a country where you may get the hammer dropped on you for being involved with hacker groups, and being arrested for simply posting on a political position. We simply do not have that here, as evidenced by the third party debates and the existence of conspiracy theories around the president. Heck, even calling for a presidental impeachment is allowed here, where similar actions in China result in your disappearance.
If you want to live in conspiracy fantasyland, you can, I just hope for your sake you never have the chance to go to china and make similar accusations. At least as a non-citizen of China you would only be kicked out of the country....
As far as I can see I simply quoted your exact words. If youre not willing to back up what you said, dont say it, and dont accuse others of confirmation bias.
Yes, Im sure that the Jews were trying to defend the Christian faith when they remarked about Yeshua being hanged on a tree on the night of passover.
Your traditional beliefs are sacrosanct, inviolable history despite being supported by dubious evidence at best,
Im not sure you understand how piecemeal a lot of history is. Reading an intro to a translation of Eusebius, one of the things that jumped out at me was how much of his works have been lost. Eusebius himself noted how little of christian history had been recorded (~300AD) aside from a few sources. The Bible is generally seen as a remarkably accurate historical record, preserved in a way that few other historical records are.
I find it amazing that some people (such apparently as yourself) will insist that the bible-- the 4 accounts in the gospel and Acts-- does not suffice as any sort of evidence. OK, i say, lets use the Talmud, Tacitus, Eusebius, Josephus. "Not good enough!" comes the response, we need eyewitnesses, and not from the Bible! What other historical figures are subject to such scrutiny? Is the rosetta stone thrown out since we only have the one copy of it? Do we doubt the existence of King Narmer because we only have a few records of him? Since when are several corroborating accounts from historical figures who claim to be eyewitnesses, along with several later compiled histories about said figures, considered to be "traditional belief" rather than "historical evidence"?
I wasn't actually contending Jesus didn't exist,
Not so fast--your exact words were
and any historians confirming the existence of Jesus are religious people engaged in confirmation bias
Which is utter nonsense. I challenge you to find a single reputable historian who denies the historicity of Jesus.
The line clearly a synthesis drawn from misrepresenting the lack of affirmative denial as the same as supporting the Historical Jesus hypothesis
From Wikipedia, the full sentence which starts a new paragraph:
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[1][2][3][4] and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[5][6][7]
I think saying "theories which say he did not exist are generally agreed to be wrong" is the same as saying "it is generally agreed that a correct theory will say that he existed".
not(A.exists)==$false ==> A.exists==$true
Youre welcome to reference an article on Jstor or some other journal that denies this, if you like.
and the long term consensus is that any change is too contentious to make, even if that the statement isn't perfectly accurate.
OK, name me some reputable scholars who deny the existence of Jesus, and on what grounds they discard all the evidence we have.
Phase out vulnerable client software?
So in your opinion China is a democracy, is it?
So, how much longer until China realizes that all they need to do to fully replicate western society is to give their citizens a right to vote every 4 years between 'thing 1' and 'thing 2'.
* And get freedom of speech
* And the right to assemble / protest
* And freedom of religion
* And right to an attorney
* And an 8th amendment
* And 4th amendment rights
* And 2nd amendment rights
But yea, theyre totally the same. Seriously, do you know anything about China, or are you just trolling? Whens the last time someone in the US got carted off to a labor camp for being a political blogger? Whens the last time the Great US Firewall blocked facebook or disconnected you from google for searching for "Obama conspiracy" or something?
As far as is possible with app stores, it forced some choices there that I'm sure Google didn't in any way want.
Yea, Im sure it was completely by accident that they left in the ability to load apps from third parties.
And as an atheist, I have no problem saying your entire religion is bogus, and any historians confirming the existence of Jesus are religious people engaged in confirmation bias, because the actual presentable evidence is pretty substandard.
I like how youre willing to throw away dozens of eyewitness and historical accounts of Jesus existance, for the sake of a complete LACK of evidence that he was a myth.
So Clement, Josephus, Luke, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, all full of nonsense? Paul, a completely mythical figure? Why does the Jewish Talmud confirm that Jesus lived and died? Why does Lucian confirm his existence?
Even Wikipedia notes that
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed
But apparently only religious people are capable of putting their blinders on and denying reality to support their presuppositions, right?
I call poppycock on this so called "belief"
Thats probably because you neither know your history nor much about contemporary missionary work.
There are a great deal more than 1.2 thousand people "willing to die for their cause"; China has 60 million people who claim to be christian, in a country that will arrest you for proseletyzing and bar you from public office for claiming Christ. Im not sure how many practicing Jews were killed during the holocaust, but Im sure it was more than 1.2 thousand. Even during the first 4 centuries, particularly 200-350AD, im sure more than 1.2 thousand christians were deprived of property, judicial rights, and even their lives due to refusing to give up their faith.
So call poppycock all you like; if youd ever like to join reality, I suggest you read about the persecutions in China, under Diocletian, in many parts of southeast Asia, in the Middle East, and in Africa for people who refuse to give up their faith.
You are correct of course, that 1.2billion is probably the official, inflated number, but there really isnt a better number that Im aware of, and technically "calling yourself catholic" is to make the claim that you hold the Pope's words to have some degree of authority; its not my place to say "they lie", nor is it yours.
Its not entirely a myth. UDP is faster because
A) it never needs to wait for ACKs -- if it has data to send, it just sends it
B) it never doesnt need to wait for a connection to be made-- "connection" is made simply by sending data
C) A and B mean that theres less extraneous traffic on the wire and more room for actual payload
D) With applications that have built in retransmits (IPSec VPN, etc), TCP will generate a good deal of extra traffic. Imagine that a VPN packet is lost; TCP layer will detect it, and trigger a retransmit, and the VPN will also detect it and possibly trigger its own retransmit; now you have two copies of the packet on the wire (a retransmit of the old packet, and a new packet with the old payload).
I also imagine it is less load on the firewall as it doesnt have to track a "connection", which depending on load could make things faster as well.
I stand corrected regarding checksum-- didnt bother fact-checking, and forgot that UDP still needs a way to detect and discard invalid packets.
UDP isnt just faster because of retransmissions, btw, it also doesnt have any round-trips to worry about. TCP cant just stream endless data without acknowledgements from the other end, whereas UDP can-- flow control etc is done at an application level. TCP also needs a good deal of back and forth before it can begin sending data (the handshake) and at the end (FINs), while UDP can make the "connection" simply by starting to send data, and cut the "connection" simply by ceasing transmission.
Its also famous for making sure you can get your data and get out.
http://www.dataliberation.org/
Any company can drop products. Google has consistently managed to not be a jerk about it.
And as far as ex-cathedra and all that, again, Peter was an *Apostle*, that's going to outrank any bishop and likely he effectively spoke ex-cathedra without calling it that. It's just a name for a concept, it's not supposed to be something that anyone believes Jesus specifically said.
Apostle is the only reason we recognize his and Paul's words as scripture, and is not unique to Peter.
The thing is, when all the Apostles have met their martyrdoms, who takes over?
Elders and deacons, just as Paul described. Bishops, regionally. Christ, at a hierarchical level, is the head of the church; there was never laid out any requirement that there be an earthly representative of him, as if anyone could actually fill that role.
Im not taking it out of context-- at least not intentionally; the only real account that comes to mind of interaction between the apostles after Jesus' death is when Paul recounts (galatians?) of Peter committing a wrong regarding favoritism, and Paul having to correct him; and of Peter remarking that Paul's writing can be hard to understand at times but that it is nevertheless good.
The problem I (and protestants historically) have is that "God's word" as an authority is well established throughout both testaments. What is NEVER established is the authority of tradition; in fact a lot of Jesus earthly ministry was centered around attacking tradition when it is placed above scripture or "used to nullify the word of God". And throughout history there has been a constant internal fight in the Catholic church against corruption, most notably with the sale of indulgences (which have never really been condemned despite having zero scriptural basis and really calling one back to Jesus in the temple)-- but also with the intermingling of politics in the catholic church (ie, the 3 popes / antipopes, the birth of the anglican church, etc).
There are about a million other issues that I have with the catholic church doctrinally, but as an organization they have always had a problem explaining why they deserve special authority to create doctrine and modify the word of God.
Sniffers are passive. They recieve data that goes by them, much as my tape recorder in the park captures broadcast (public) noise. If the sniffer is capturing data, that data was never private (assuming of course you are not using other active methods, like deauths or arp poisoning or rogue APs).
As a protestant I have no problem saying that I believe the catholic tradition to be incorrect (in a number of ways). As I said, Peter did not acknowledge a unique role among the apostles, nor did the other apostles acknowledge him having a unique role. The term Pope would not be used for several hundred years, and the role of Pope did not exist for longer still.
That would be like saying that King John of England was the head of the Anglican church, though that church would not exist for several hundred years, simply because his title would eventually be shared with the head of that church.
When you are actually the head of the Apostles, you don't need to explain to people why you are in charge.
I see nowhere in the new testament the other apostles making reference to Peter being their leader, nor anything from peter to indicate that he expected that.
I used a poor choice of words, but was using it in the sense of "inherited" (not necessarily from family).