Jesus death is recorded in the NT; there were no scriptures for several hundred years between the OT and NT, so its kind of hard to muddy the disctinction.
Im not discounting the OT either, just remarking that it is a mistake to assume that everything that applied to Israel as a covenant nation applies to gentiles across the earth (it does not).
Moreover, the only supernatural being that appears in the NT is Satan.
Thats not true, and even if it were true...
Therefore if you exclude the OT, you are a satanist.
that does not logically follow. Even if we were to assume that there are no other supernatural beings in the NT -- if we were to ignore the angel outside the tomb, the risen Christ, the holy spirit in dove form, the demon called leigon -- simply ignoring the OT would not imply an allegiance to Satan. Not only that, Satanists dont actually worship Satan.
But if you drop the OT,
Which I dont, but even if I did.....
then you have no divinity in christ
Mark 14:60-62 And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?”g 61But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” 62And Jesus said, “I AM, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” I dont know, that seems like a pretty clear declaration of his divinity. The Christ? The Son of the Blessed? The evocative "I AM" (compare with Exodus, where the Lord identifies Himself as "I AM who I AM")?
I have found it to generally be true that people who think Christ's divinity is not spoken of in the New Testament, have not read the New Testament. Even if you wanted to skip the gospels (John 1 for example) I could point you at the entire book of Hebrews (devoted to proving that Jesus is divine, and superior to all priests, kings, and angels), Galatians, Acts, and so on.
The passages you quote are referring to OT israel. You'll note that there's basically no regime I can call to mind in the past 2000 years that applied those passages the way you are trying to interpret them.
The senate is democrat controlled. The house is republican controlled. How the heck are you pinning this on republicans?
And I'd note that the NSA is an executive branch department directly accountable to the democrat president. Unlike a lot of the other things the president is doing, it would actually be one of his constitutional rights-- in fact, his duty, by the oath he swore-- to keep the NSA in check.
Is the entire world insane? How are you gonna pin this on republicans?
Hold on a second, I just want to be clear here. Is this Freedom Act the same one that passed the house, with far more Nays (proportionally) from democrats than from republicans? http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201...
Would this be the act to limit the NSA's power, the NSA being an executive branch department which certainly the president can take executive action to reign in, as thats actually one of his constitutionally enumerated powers? I mean, if the President has the power to override congress by refusing to carry out legislation (ie, with immigration), then CERTAINLY he has the power to tell the NSA to stop collecting whatever he tells them.
And you say it failed in the senate-- just to be clear, this would be the senate that is majority controlled by democrats, correct?
I just want to be sure we're on the same page here.
VMWare's fault tolerance mechanism is limited to a VM with one vCPU, but the ability to restart a VM if the physical machine is dead is a good one. Same with Hyper-V
This is not correct.
VMWare' Fault Tolerance is indeed limited, but it has nothing to do with the ability to restart a VM on a dead host. FT prevents a machine from ever going down in the first place by keeping 2 identical VMs on 2 different hosts in sync, CPU state and all.
High Availability is the feature you refer to regarding rebooting a downed VM, and it has no vCPU restrictions.
"It was this massive bundle of fibers, visible in every brain I examined," said Jason Yeatman, a research scientist at the University of Washington's Institute for Learning & Brain Sciences. "... As far as I could tell, it was absent from the literature and from all major neuroanatomy textbooks.'
got statistically significant results (just about) and made an intereesting post detailing the methodology.
Unknown and likely self-selecting demographic? Check. Financial incentive to vote often, rather than honestly? Check. Low sample size? Check. Weighted choices in poll (photos in different circumstances, with different baggage associated with them unrelated to actual poll subject)-- check. Unknown margin of error? Check,
He phrases it that way to remind the reader that there might still be significant difference, but if there is, it's smaller than the margin of error for his poll.
An actual weakness here is that he didn't establish a margin of error.
Ah, OK. That IS helpful. So we know that the difference is either less than 100%, or 100%, but certainly not more than 100%.
For such a small sample, that's not enough to definitively say whether the small difference is due to random chance, or due to small differences in opinion in the population being surveyed. What it does show, even with such a small sample, is that in the underlying population there's almost certainly no huge gap between people's opinions of black women vs. white women breastfeeding in photos.
No, what it shows is that there not enough information to draw any conclusion, whatsoever.
This one, on the other hand, I actually find interesting.
Except for the fact that its attempting to create a controversy where, as far as I am aware, there was none. Until today I had not been aware of this hypothetical controversy over the race of a breastfeeding mother, and whether the private or public-ness of said breastfeeding had an impact on people's opinion of it (hint: it does).
Because he thinks hes far more of an expert than he is, on everything. He has the answers for Burning Man's problems, he is a legal scholar qualified to question hundreds of years of legal thought on the 4th and 5th amendments, he can definitively say that network filtering is never appropriate, and so on.
If someone asks a question in humility, no harm no foul.
If someone were to say "I've never studied quantum physics before, but this weekend I picked up a book on it... read on for my thoughts on the state of quantum physics in 2014...", then, well you'd have a Bennett Haselton post.
This is unfortunately true for most certification programs.
Thats really not true. Actual Cisco certs like the CCNA / CCNP / etc are about Cisco equipment, but they test pretty heavily your understanding of basic networking protocols.
And keep in mind that a lot of these certs ARE centered around a particular vendor; a RHCP or MCSE are going to focus on Red Hat and Microsoft-- but that doesnt make them pushovers.
Id like to see you go into a VCP cert and BS your way through by picking the answer that favors VMWare, for example.
Its actually not, supported by ample evidence, but whatever. Quality control is a huge huge problem in china, whether or not you consider it "Politically correct" to say so.
Can you get NFC tags working in IOS? Is there an app to cut the pricetag from "absurd" to reasonable, given that I can do far more with a Nexus 5 than an iPhone5, at roughly 1/2 the price?
And people who want something like OTG USB, NTFS support, general NFC support, wider device choice, lower price, wireless charging....
There are a lot of user groups that like android. Tinkerers tend to be one-- theres a lot of freedom with android that just isnt there with IOS. Everything Apple is doing in IOS8 was generally being done in android first. Some of us like the cutting edge.
I think its kind of irrelevant to remark on the subject of the slave trade, "well, imagine all of the OTHER horrors that would have happened to them if we had not inflicted our brand of horror!"
If the african tribes would have enslaved or brutalized each other, that would be wrong in its own right; but as they did not have the opportunity we cannot blame them for said hypothetical savagery. What we can blame is those who did actually inflict a brand of savagery on them by tearing the families apart and subjecting them to slavery. Trying to shift the conversation like that is pretty deeply inappropriate, sort of like asking at the trial of a murderer whether his crime saved his victims from various other hardships in life.
Not to be pedantic, but neither you nor the OP have posted tautologies.
A tautology is something that is true in every scenario, and cannot not be true. An example is, "Either we will fix the system, or we will not fix the system." Or else, "If I am not here, then I am not here." Under no possible scenario, in no hypothetical universe, can you create a scenario where those statements are falsified, or anything other than logically true.
I think OP was looking for "adage", and you wanted "prayer".
. I understand it is sometimes harder to play by ethical rules than legal rules
This is a false dilemma. It really isnt. It takes conscious effort to cheat, it does not happen automatically.
I can blame my good upbringing that the thought of cheating is infathomable to me, but because of that I can note that it hasnt been something I've had to take conscious effort to avoid.
Yes, this means I have flunked classes before. Life moves on, and you learn from it. But lets not minimize cheating down to "well, its kind of hard to avoid" as if it were something that just lands on your life.
Slashdot Mirror
Jesus death is recorded in the NT; there were no scriptures for several hundred years between the OT and NT, so its kind of hard to muddy the disctinction.
Im not discounting the OT either, just remarking that it is a mistake to assume that everything that applied to Israel as a covenant nation applies to gentiles across the earth (it does not).
Moreover, the only supernatural being that appears in the NT is Satan.
Thats not true, and even if it were true...
Therefore if you exclude the OT, you are a satanist.
that does not logically follow. Even if we were to assume that there are no other supernatural beings in the NT -- if we were to ignore the angel outside the tomb, the risen Christ, the holy spirit in dove form, the demon called leigon -- simply ignoring the OT would not imply an allegiance to Satan. Not only that, Satanists dont actually worship Satan.
But if you drop the OT,
Which I dont, but even if I did.....
then you have no divinity in christ
Mark 14:60-62
And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?”g 61But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” 62And Jesus said, “I AM, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”
I dont know, that seems like a pretty clear declaration of his divinity. The Christ? The Son of the Blessed? The evocative "I AM" (compare with Exodus, where the Lord identifies Himself as "I AM who I AM")?
I have found it to generally be true that people who think Christ's divinity is not spoken of in the New Testament, have not read the New Testament. Even if you wanted to skip the gospels (John 1 for example) I could point you at the entire book of Hebrews (devoted to proving that Jesus is divine, and superior to all priests, kings, and angels), Galatians, Acts, and so on.
The passages you quote are referring to OT israel. You'll note that there's basically no regime I can call to mind in the past 2000 years that applied those passages the way you are trying to interpret them.
The senate is democrat controlled. The house is republican controlled. How the heck are you pinning this on republicans?
And I'd note that the NSA is an executive branch department directly accountable to the democrat president. Unlike a lot of the other things the president is doing, it would actually be one of his constitutional rights-- in fact, his duty, by the oath he swore-- to keep the NSA in check.
Is the entire world insane? How are you gonna pin this on republicans?
Hold on a second, I just want to be clear here. Is this Freedom Act the same one that passed the house, with far more Nays (proportionally) from democrats than from republicans?
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201...
Would this be the act to limit the NSA's power, the NSA being an executive branch department which certainly the president can take executive action to reign in, as thats actually one of his constitutionally enumerated powers? I mean, if the President has the power to override congress by refusing to carry out legislation (ie, with immigration), then CERTAINLY he has the power to tell the NSA to stop collecting whatever he tells them.
And you say it failed in the senate-- just to be clear, this would be the senate that is majority controlled by democrats, correct?
I just want to be sure we're on the same page here.
VMWare's fault tolerance mechanism is limited to a VM with one vCPU, but the ability to restart a VM if the physical machine is dead is a good one. Same with Hyper-V
This is not correct.
VMWare' Fault Tolerance is indeed limited, but it has nothing to do with the ability to restart a VM on a dead host. FT prevents a machine from ever going down in the first place by keeping 2 identical VMs on 2 different hosts in sync, CPU state and all.
High Availability is the feature you refer to regarding rebooting a downed VM, and it has no vCPU restrictions.
"It was this massive bundle of fibers, visible in every brain I examined," said Jason Yeatman, a research scientist at the University of Washington's Institute for Learning & Brain Sciences. "... As far as I could tell, it was absent from the literature and from all major neuroanatomy textbooks.'
Google's dark fiber really is everywhere.
You have no way of verifying either the identity or the country of the mechanical Turks. They could be on a VPN for all you know.
got statistically significant results (just about) and made an intereesting post detailing the methodology.
Unknown and likely self-selecting demographic? Check.
Financial incentive to vote often, rather than honestly? Check.
Low sample size? Check.
Weighted choices in poll (photos in different circumstances, with different baggage associated with them unrelated to actual poll subject)-- check.
Unknown margin of error? Check,
Yep, thats statistically relevant alright.
He phrases it that way to remind the reader that there might still be significant difference, but if there is, it's smaller than the margin of error for his poll.
An actual weakness here is that he didn't establish a margin of error.
Ah, OK. That IS helpful. So we know that the difference is either less than 100%, or 100%, but certainly not more than 100%.
Thats great, but its not relevant to a poll. The lack of a wedding band in the pictures here IS relevant to the poll.
For such a small sample, that's not enough to definitively say whether the small difference is due to random chance, or due to small differences in opinion in the population being surveyed. What it does show, even with such a small sample, is that in the underlying population there's almost certainly no huge gap between people's opinions of black women vs. white women breastfeeding in photos.
No, what it shows is that there not enough information to draw any conclusion, whatsoever.
This one, on the other hand, I actually find interesting.
Except for the fact that its attempting to create a controversy where, as far as I am aware, there was none. Until today I had not been aware of this hypothetical controversy over the race of a breastfeeding mother, and whether the private or public-ness of said breastfeeding had an impact on people's opinion of it (hint: it does).
Because he thinks hes far more of an expert than he is, on everything. He has the answers for Burning Man's problems, he is a legal scholar qualified to question hundreds of years of legal thought on the 4th and 5th amendments, he can definitively say that network filtering is never appropriate, and so on.
If someone asks a question in humility, no harm no foul.
If someone were to say "I've never studied quantum physics before, but this weekend I picked up a book on it... read on for my thoughts on the state of quantum physics in 2014...", then, well you'd have a Bennett Haselton post.
This is unfortunately true for most certification programs.
Thats really not true. Actual Cisco certs like the CCNA / CCNP / etc are about Cisco equipment, but they test pretty heavily your understanding of basic networking protocols.
And keep in mind that a lot of these certs ARE centered around a particular vendor; a RHCP or MCSE are going to focus on Red Hat and Microsoft-- but that doesnt make them pushovers.
Id like to see you go into a VCP cert and BS your way through by picking the answer that favors VMWare, for example.
Its actually not, supported by ample evidence, but whatever. Quality control is a huge huge problem in china, whether or not you consider it "Politically correct" to say so.
Then they dont have to use those seeds, and can use the free stuff. What, exactly, is the issue here?
Then whats the problem? Farmers dont have to use GMO.
When will Android ask me about an App trying to access my contact list?
Is this a trick question? "Now".
Can you get NFC tags working in IOS? Is there an app to cut the pricetag from "absurd" to reasonable, given that I can do far more with a Nexus 5 than an iPhone5, at roughly 1/2 the price?
And people who want something like OTG USB, NTFS support, general NFC support, wider device choice, lower price, wireless charging....
There are a lot of user groups that like android. Tinkerers tend to be one-- theres a lot of freedom with android that just isnt there with IOS. Everything Apple is doing in IOS8 was generally being done in android first. Some of us like the cutting edge.
I think its kind of irrelevant to remark on the subject of the slave trade, "well, imagine all of the OTHER horrors that would have happened to them if we had not inflicted our brand of horror!"
If the african tribes would have enslaved or brutalized each other, that would be wrong in its own right; but as they did not have the opportunity we cannot blame them for said hypothetical savagery. What we can blame is those who did actually inflict a brand of savagery on them by tearing the families apart and subjecting them to slavery. Trying to shift the conversation like that is pretty deeply inappropriate, sort of like asking at the trial of a murderer whether his crime saved his victims from various other hardships in life.
Not to be pedantic, but neither you nor the OP have posted tautologies.
A tautology is something that is true in every scenario, and cannot not be true. An example is, "Either we will fix the system, or we will not fix the system." Or else, "If I am not here, then I am not here." Under no possible scenario, in no hypothetical universe, can you create a scenario where those statements are falsified, or anything other than logically true.
I think OP was looking for "adage", and you wanted "prayer".
. I understand it is sometimes harder to play by ethical rules than legal rules
This is a false dilemma. It really isnt. It takes conscious effort to cheat, it does not happen automatically.
I can blame my good upbringing that the thought of cheating is infathomable to me, but because of that I can note that it hasnt been something I've had to take conscious effort to avoid.
Yes, this means I have flunked classes before. Life moves on, and you learn from it. But lets not minimize cheating down to "well, its kind of hard to avoid" as if it were something that just lands on your life.
Or you could say, "Apple has a grossly oversized ego and thinks the world centers around them."
Gnome2, AmaroK, Songbird...
Yea, OSS just isnt the miracle elixir people like to pretend it is, and "Just fork it" isnt an effective incantation.