Wikileaks isnt in the US, and (as slashdotters love to remind everyone) isnt a person (its an entity); thus the claim that it has first amendment protections is a little dubious.
Its sort of like claiming that Baidu has first amendment protections-- nonsensical and false.
Its been a long while since ive been in 1/2 Samuel, but from reading the context it appears that this is happening after Saul is dead and David is king, and that there was yet another battle with the Philistines with yet another person named Goliath. And actually, the first few "supposing"s are directly supported by the text (hence the "war again", and a verse or so back mention of David as king).
Is there any reason that a Philistine possibly related to Goliath might not have been given the name of Goliath and ended up being large like his relative? Or is there any particular reason that some new champion of the Philistines might not have been given the "title" or nickname of Goliath?
The word "brother" was not in the original hebrew, incidentally, and Im not aware of evangelicals statistically prefering the KJV. I understand that to be the stereotype, but I have not seen it myself (ESV and NIV seem to be far more common in the churches Ive seen); and as an evangelical I could list a few reasons why the KJV is a less-than-ideal translation to be using.
Your post implies that if we look at a different translation we get a different killer of Goliath. From the ESV:
1Sa 17:49 And David put his hand in his bag and took out a stone and slung it and struck the Philistine on his forehead. The stone sank into his forehead, and he fell on his face to the ground. 1Sa 17:50 So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and struck the Philistine and killed him.
Care to give a source to your statements? Or would you prefer to rest on vague accusations that cant be fully disproven (because of their vagueness)?
Calling it a law of gravity implies that we understand it to the smallest detail and can explain how it works in detail.
My understanding is that not only is that not the case, but it is suspected that it can never be explicitly proven (AFAIK if gravitons exist it is speculated that they are so infinitesimal that they would be impractical to detect with any technology we might reasonably come up with).
So again are you implying that this view was unique to Christians, and that the atheists had the moral highground here?
Ive heard accusations like these regarding for example slavery (" So and so was a Christian and a slaveowner! Clearly all Christians supported slavery!"), but they by and large make several mistakes: * They ignore those Christians who did cry out about whatever wrong is being discussed (there was for example a large contingent of Christians who fought hard against slavery) * They assume that because one Christian holds a stance, he must be speaking for all Christians across time * They ignore that Christians remain human, and remain influenced by the context and culture surrounding them. You can find several men who would otherwise be called great pastors who had tragic flaws, who supported things that they should have confronted instead.
And apparently this isnt a new response. Here's Adam Clarke's take on the passage, out of the early 1800's:
Going upon all four - May signify no more than walking regularly or progressively, foot after foot as quadrupeds do; for it cannot be applied to insects literally, as they have in general six feet, many of them more, some reputed to have a hundred, hence called centipedes; and some a thousand, hence called millipedes; words which often signify no more than that such insects have a great number of feet.
That passage references insects with a pair of legs above their 4 feet. It doesnt say that they have 4 legs, and its a little absurd to try to imagine that people who were in the practice of eating these things would be unaware of the number of appendages they have. Look at a picture of a grasshopper and then tell me that its reasonable for someone familiar with it to not see 6 appendages.
It warms my heart to see that everyone saw that key phrase and pointed it out rather than descending to a frenzy of fanboism and irrational argument over platforms.
The interesting thing is that both ancient and modern organized Christianity tend to see murderous suicide as a sin, but just plain murder as fine so long as the people you're murdering aren't Christian (and sometimes even just the wrong kind of Christian).
Keep in mind that a lot of the 16th and 17th century battles over the reformation were as much political as anything else. Its been said before: people dont need religion as an excuse to kill each other; it just happens to be a good excuse at various times and places.
Many Christians also applauded when Christian Europeans were slaughtering American Indians
Is this anecdotal, or are you asserting that this is a widely shared sentiment? I could probably find atheists who applauded too; would it be fair for me to say "see, atheists are all bloodthirsty killers!" Cause that appears to be the argument you are making.
Demetrius of Thessaloniki
Defending your city from an invasion is murder? Or a bad thing? What???
Heck, many modern American Christians are quite overjoyed at the fact that US soldiers are killing Muslims.
Um, wow. Im a christian, and I dont applaud; does that contradict your questionable assertion?
Tell you what, why dont you read up on weasel words since your post is chock full of them. The single solitary example you gave doesnt even fit with your argument, and all the others are so vague they cant even be refuted.
You'd think "Thou shalt not kill" would be easy enough to follow, but very few of the religions that claim to believe in that rule have ever come close to actually following that (notable exceptions: Quakers, Jainists).
Except as you seem to be well aware, the word refers to a specific type of killing ("murder"), hence why capital punishment had been prescribed as part of the law (otherwise, how could they fulfill it?)
Batch has for loops, and goto can be used well. What, praytell, is the difference between using a defined function() call, vs a goto:function in a language that otherwise lacks function declaration?
In response to point 3, Combofix (basically the best virus / rootkit removal tool out there) is a collection of compiled programs strung together by several thousand lines of batch.
It can be maintainable the same as any other language, if you go to the trouble to make it maintainable. Theres nothing magical about C++ that makes it maintain or document itself.
And apparently one of them is the inability of folks to complete a simple task and follow a simple instruction that involves giving up their toys for a brief period of time.
I would think that Boeing did a piss-poor job of protecting the aircraft against interference.
Which isnt really relevant, unless you're arguing that airlines need to go around and re-RF proof their aircraft so that passengers can continue to be disdainful of instructions issued by the captain and crew.
Everything I could find indicates that NLA has nothing to do with encryption: It is just to prevent the server from having to do a lot of processing prior to logon (reduce DDOS possibilities) and to allow single-sign-on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Level_Authentication
There are separate settings for encryption level, which AFAIK is enabled by default since 6.0.
Slashdot Mirror
Wikileaks isnt in the US, and (as slashdotters love to remind everyone) isnt a person (its an entity); thus the claim that it has first amendment protections is a little dubious.
Its sort of like claiming that Baidu has first amendment protections-- nonsensical and false.
Which isnt illegal at all, actually.
Care to try again?
Its been a long while since ive been in 1/2 Samuel, but from reading the context it appears that this is happening after Saul is dead and David is king, and that there was yet another battle with the Philistines with yet another person named Goliath. And actually, the first few "supposing"s are directly supported by the text (hence the "war again", and a verse or so back mention of David as king).
Is there any reason that a Philistine possibly related to Goliath might not have been given the name of Goliath and ended up being large like his relative? Or is there any particular reason that some new champion of the Philistines might not have been given the "title" or nickname of Goliath?
The word "brother" was not in the original hebrew, incidentally, and Im not aware of evangelicals statistically prefering the KJV. I understand that to be the stereotype, but I have not seen it myself (ESV and NIV seem to be far more common in the churches Ive seen); and as an evangelical I could list a few reasons why the KJV is a less-than-ideal translation to be using.
If Adam and Eve were the first humans, then who wrote the biblical story?
Genesis? Traditionally understood to be authored by Moses. Its a narrative, not a first person account.
Whats with all the questions / accusations that are answered with about 5 seconds of google- or wiki-fu?
Your post implies that if we look at a different translation we get a different killer of Goliath. From the ESV:
1Sa 17:49 And David put his hand in his bag and took out a stone and slung it and struck the Philistine on his forehead. The stone sank into his forehead, and he fell on his face to the ground.
1Sa 17:50 So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and struck the Philistine and killed him.
Care to give a source to your statements? Or would you prefer to rest on vague accusations that cant be fully disproven (because of their vagueness)?
Calling it a law of gravity implies that we understand it to the smallest detail and can explain how it works in detail.
My understanding is that not only is that not the case, but it is suspected that it can never be explicitly proven (AFAIK if gravitons exist it is speculated that they are so infinitesimal that they would be impractical to detect with any technology we might reasonably come up with).
So again are you implying that this view was unique to Christians, and that the atheists had the moral highground here?
Ive heard accusations like these regarding for example slavery (" So and so was a Christian and a slaveowner! Clearly all Christians supported slavery!"), but they by and large make several mistakes:
* They ignore those Christians who did cry out about whatever wrong is being discussed (there was for example a large contingent of Christians who fought hard against slavery)
* They assume that because one Christian holds a stance, he must be speaking for all Christians across time
* They ignore that Christians remain human, and remain influenced by the context and culture surrounding them. You can find several men who would otherwise be called great pastors who had tragic flaws, who supported things that they should have confronted instead.
It might surprise you that the founders were not in universal agreement on all things, especially religion, especially Jefferson.
And apparently this isnt a new response. Here's Adam Clarke's take on the passage, out of the early 1800's:
Going upon all four - May signify no more than walking regularly or progressively, foot after foot as quadrupeds do; for it cannot be applied to insects literally, as they have in general six feet, many of them more, some reputed to have a hundred, hence called centipedes; and some a thousand, hence called millipedes; words which often signify no more than that such insects have a great number of feet.
That passage references insects with a pair of legs above their 4 feet. It doesnt say that they have 4 legs, and its a little absurd to try to imagine that people who were in the practice of eating these things would be unaware of the number of appendages they have. Look at a picture of a grasshopper and then tell me that its reasonable for someone familiar with it to not see 6 appendages.
What do Watson and Crick have to do with evolution?
IIRC from bio 101, their fame is from imaging DNA, and possibly something with transcription. Wikipedia doesnt offer any clues as to the link.
Can you clarify please?
It warms my heart to see that everyone saw that key phrase and pointed it out rather than descending to a frenzy of fanboism and irrational argument over platforms.
Generally you use goto :eof, which returns to where you were.
Its been a very long while since I made a script complex enough to need gotos, but you certainly can use them like functions.
Not disagreeing about while loops.
The interesting thing is that both ancient and modern organized Christianity tend to see murderous suicide as a sin, but just plain murder as fine so long as the people you're murdering aren't Christian (and sometimes even just the wrong kind of Christian).
Keep in mind that a lot of the 16th and 17th century battles over the reformation were as much political as anything else. Its been said before: people dont need religion as an excuse to kill each other; it just happens to be a good excuse at various times and places.
Many Christians also applauded when Christian Europeans were slaughtering American Indians
Is this anecdotal, or are you asserting that this is a widely shared sentiment? I could probably find atheists who applauded too; would it be fair for me to say "see, atheists are all bloodthirsty killers!" Cause that appears to be the argument you are making.
Demetrius of Thessaloniki
Defending your city from an invasion is murder? Or a bad thing? What???
Heck, many modern American Christians are quite overjoyed at the fact that US soldiers are killing Muslims.
Um, wow. Im a christian, and I dont applaud; does that contradict your questionable assertion?
Tell you what, why dont you read up on weasel words since your post is chock full of them. The single solitary example you gave doesnt even fit with your argument, and all the others are so vague they cant even be refuted.
You'd think "Thou shalt not kill" would be easy enough to follow, but very few of the religions that claim to believe in that rule have ever come close to actually following that (notable exceptions: Quakers, Jainists).
Except as you seem to be well aware, the word refers to a specific type of killing ("murder"), hence why capital punishment had been prescribed as part of the law (otherwise, how could they fulfill it?)
Christian ideals see murderous suicide as a sin, which cannot be forgiven because you are dead, thus sending you to Hell.
Much as your attempt to simmer down his false rhetoric is appreciated, your statement isnt much more accurate than his.
I suppose possibly some catholics might take that stance, but by and large protestants dont take the stance you gave.
Batch has for loops, and goto can be used well. What, praytell, is the difference between using a defined function() call, vs a goto :function in a language that otherwise lacks function declaration?
In response to point 3, Combofix (basically the best virus / rootkit removal tool out there) is a collection of compiled programs strung together by several thousand lines of batch.
It can be maintainable the same as any other language, if you go to the trouble to make it maintainable. Theres nothing magical about C++ that makes it maintain or document itself.
So why then all the hate when Mozilla follows the same release mentality?
And apparently one of them is the inability of folks to complete a simple task and follow a simple instruction that involves giving up their toys for a brief period of time.
I would think that Boeing did a piss-poor job of protecting the aircraft against interference.
Which isnt really relevant, unless you're arguing that airlines need to go around and re-RF proof their aircraft so that passengers can continue to be disdainful of instructions issued by the captain and crew.
The point of a good zone-based firewall is that you can specify that VPN traffic has access only to very specific servers on very specific ports.
Everything I could find indicates that NLA has nothing to do with encryption: It is just to prevent the server from having to do a lot of processing prior to logon (reduce DDOS possibilities) and to allow single-sign-on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Level_Authentication
There are separate settings for encryption level, which AFAIK is enabled by default since 6.0.
....Or you could use a TS gateway....
Any particular reason why a SSH tunnel is inherently more secure than a TS gateway?
Tell that to sony and their ever-so-popular launch ps3.
Sounds right on except for the prices. Last time someone tried for a "standard" @ $500, it didnt work so well.