The good news is you can minimize the Ribbon: right click n the tab-bar, and click "minimize ribbon". Enjoy your real estate. It will un-minimize when you click one of the tabs, and disappear again when you mouse back to the content window.
....Which is why Im going with the Wikipedia explaination that it hearkens back to the idea of a paradise tree. Its a LOT more plausible than that some christians decided to ignore all the zillions of condemnations for idolatrous trees in the OT.
In other cases it's more sinister, like with Nintendo -- the company is trying to control the market by identifying its brand with the product alone.
When you say "IS", you mean "was, 25 years ago when the Nintendo Entertainment System came out"? And I think you ascribe way too complicated motives to them. Atari's system was nicknamed simply "atari", and could easily have become the generic, if the NES hadnt been so successful.
and now firmly entrenched as a coniferous altar of Mammon for youth of all ages and faiths, is patently absurd.
Not everyone celebrates it the same way, but thats not really the point. The tree itself IS a christian symbol, and regardless of whether you agree with THAT historical data it represents a custom in christian societies. North Korea wants nothing to do with foreign religions, cultures, or traditions, which is why they are reacting like this.
Wikipedia, as well as a recent talk on this that I heard, disagree with the Linus's origin of the trees. The christmas tree apparently originated in Germany (or perhaps eastern Europe), and has either unknown or distinctly christian meaning-- for the Germans, it was apparently related to the story of Adam and Eve (paradise tree).
Apparently, the Germans brought it over to the US in the latter half of the 19th century, where it took root (haha) and became an "american tradition".
I assume what you are referring to would be "sacred oaks" or "asherah poles", which almost certainly would NOT have been fir, and I highly doubt that christians would have embraced THOSE for christmas given the clear biblical attacks on such concepts. It IS true, however, that Christmas was not really celebrated until the 4th century, and is more a Catholic tradition than it is a Biblical event: Christ's day of birth is neither recorded nor celebrated until then, and thus noone really knows what his day of birth was (Ive heard "probably mid-september").
Mostly agree with Linus however, that the meaning of Christmas is already heavily obscured, and has for the most part become either a celebration of togetherness or of consumerism, depending the family. For many Christians, the 'original' meaning (to celebrate Christ's birth) is still celebrated in various ways-- hence Christmas services, carols, and other religious activities.
Yes. Even numbers are by definition divisible by 2. Thus, If X is even, Then X is divisible by 2. If a number is divisible by two, and is not itself two, it cannot be prime. Ergo, if X is even, it cannot be prime.
Avoiding the subject. Please grow up. Are you denying there are religious groups in the US that try to dictate aspects of public eductation?
You should look up what "begging the question" is, and why both questions you asked on this subject are such bad questions. In the first place, there are a ZILLION groups, both secular and religious, who have a stake and an axe to grind in the area of education. In the second place, religious folks pushing for what they regard as truth to be taught in school is only an issue if they are wrong, which is why what you ask is begging the question. In NO sense is them excercising their democratic right to lobby for an issue a misdeed.
Please try again. What is written and what is done are separate issues.
I will refer you back to the post you were in theory answering (as you yourself quoted it):
At the end of the day, you would be hard pressed to show me a belief in the Torah or Bible that actually encourages bad behavior, especially the Christian understanding of the bible. You can show me men professing faith who commit bad deeds, but that is nothing unusual for ANY belief system.
So far, you have proven my second point, and not disproved my first.
The Qu'ran legitimizes killing of non-believers, and the christian church has done so too. Never heard of the inquisition or crusades?
If you would like, I can pull up the Quran's prohibitions on murder, and also Muhammed himself demonstrating that unbelief is not sufficient to warrant the death penalty. Additionally, if you would actually check your facts, you would learn that NOWHERE in the Quran is a death penalty for even apostasy mentioned: that is in the hadith, which is not the same as the Quran. Suffice it to say, you do not know what you are talking about. If you would like to disprove me, please pull up the reference from the Quran, and make sure you update that Wikipedia article while youre at it: they would appreciate the correction.
As for the inquisition, apparently you have already forgotten what you were responding to. It is included above in italics for your easy reference. It wasnt to show that people calling themselves christian can do bad things, it was to show that the religion itself taught such misdeeds, which you have so far not done.
Laughable. Please continue, you're funny. So, your best defense against current (American) religious groups
In fact, no, it isnt, it was merely my response to the absurd idea that Christianity is somehow anti science or anti knowledge, when it was the basis for most intellectual endeavor in europe for about a millenia.
What religious people are doing has often been distinctly "anti-religion" as it appears in their Book.
Then why did you begin by disputing my point, when you seem to agree with me that just because someone claims a religion does not make them an adherent?
It must be wonderful, basing your life on a text that is so ambiguous that every action, even opposing ones, can be defended with a choice quote, isn't it?
If you think it it is "so ambiguous" that opposing actions can both be justified, either you lack basic eighth grade reading skills, or you have not read it. I suspect the latter, as that seems to be the most common: otherwise intelligent people make gross assumptions based on word of mouth about the bible. It tends to make you look ignorant, so in general I would recommend doing basic fact-checking before making an accusation towards a religion you are unfamiliar with. For example, you could have done a quick search on "apostasy death penalty Quran" and quickly realized that your assumptions were wrong. Just a heads up.
must be wonderful, basing your life on a text that is so ambiguous that every action, even opposing ones, can be defended with a choice quote, isn't it?
Yea, I dont think you or anyone can quantify the relative chances of those two; how would you even begin to quantify the "likelihood" of a deity?
Protestants and catholics have a fundamental disagreement on what defines christianity. I suppose that gives away which side Im on.
Regardless, I would challenge you-- nay, dare you-- to find an iota of support in either the Bible or the Torah for banning books. I seem to recall a lot of reinforcement for the value of truth, but none for censorship.
You will recall that the other big disagreement between catholics and protestants is on whether the Bible is the sole authority, which is why they have so many extra "traditions" and practices which are utterly absent from the Bible.
I would be very surprised if these artists are exceptions to the rule.
In other words, all we have is speculation on an article from a clearly biased source who has only spoken to one of the parties involved, and gotten several others to comment, speculatively, on what it might hypothetically mean.
Pol Pot, Hitler, and Stalin didn't do what they did in the name (or support of) Atheism.
But they DID do them in the name of some secular ideology or another-- whether it be for freedom, or prosperity, or nationalism.
When the people professing faith who commit bad deeds can cite chapter and verse from the bible supporting their bad deeds, there's something bad in that book...
Hitler himself would try to justify himself using principles of morality; that doesnt mean theres anything to it. Likewise, people will claim any number of things are justified in the Constitution; that doesnt make it true.
Begging the question: Please desist. Rather than worrying about what others teach, you should yourself read up on logical discussion and how to avoid fallacies.
Banning books
Neither histoically (AFAIK) a christian issue, nor (as I DO know) something that is taught in the bible, torah, or quran, anywhere.
Anti abortion laws (not to mention murdering doctors)
Begging the question, again. Also, murder is specifically verboten in the Bible, Quran, and Torah.
Crusading against scientific endeavours that religions do not approve of
Someone doesnt know their history, and is building a strawman. Most of the old Universities in Europe have some relation with religion-- Christianity is not the witch you are making it out to be. What you describe is also distinctly "anti-christian" as it appears in the Bible: truth is seen to be an attribute of God, and it is taught that all truth is God's truth. There is a reason you see so many historical christians who focused strongly on rational argumentation and inductive reasoning.
No sex ed in schools
Not spoken of at all in any religious text I am aware of. Further, this is not just a religious issue; whether the government is the one to have that discussion with my kids touches on a large number of issues.
These are not things that people do, they are things that religions do.
And yet you were not able to mention a single example that those religions do not specifically decry as against God's will-- aside from the examples that were begging the question (of whether God exists).
It does not follow from Occams razor. Your posited situation involves many many many steps to arrive at what we have now. In theory, the hypothesis "everything that is just appeared, yesterday, as you see it now" is much "simpler" than your simple system going through a bazillion steps to arrive at the current system.
Regardless, trying to bring statistical liklihood into "how the universe formed" doesnt make any sense, nor is it relevant: Reality is as it is regardless of what you think the "likelihood" to be, so it really doesnt tell you anything. Its like asking "what are the CHANCES that we exist as we do in this corner of the universe?" Depending on who you ask, the answer might range from "1.0" to "10^-37", but it has no bearing on the reality we experience.
Ill save statistical odds for things I can quantify, like poker, thanks.
Once again, the definitions of "universse" I am aware of mean that you cannot get "out" of it, or get information "out" of it. It is defined by that limit, AFAIK.
It's more invasive to some people while being less invasive to the rest. Your 80 year old grandma who can barely stand up from her wheelchair is not likely to get groped.
Pretty shakey ground. You find constitutional issues with the current searches, but youre fine having some people's rights completely violated so that some of us can keep our rights?
Gotta be consistent in your thinking, and you dont want to start down a path of thinking that compromising your principles is OK so long as you do it in small doses.
I should have actually checked the video link: It does NOT say "terms of use violation", it says "Copyright claim by UMG". According to the EFF, if they HAD filed a counter-claim (which they do indeed say they did), youtube would have restored the video 10 days later unless UMG had filed a lawsuit. Account cancelation (as is being claimed by torrentfreak) only occurs after 3 strikes, with a strike being a DMCA claim that was not countered.
That is, only by NOT filing a counter-claim would the account have been suspended. Im calling bull, unless some evidence of a counterclaim is pulled up. All of this information, btw, is from the EFF-- you can hardly call them "sympathetic to the labels".
Unfortunately, that does not invalidate whatever contracts the artist had with UMG. If they signed over their copyrights to UMG, UMG absolutely has the right to do a DMCA takedown.
Noone seems to have actually read the links. The guy recording them isnt the creator of the " original expression in the creative work", the author is. The links above also seem to leave open some room for multiple holders of copyright for such a performance, depending on who contributed to the "original expression in the creative work".
Um, who wrote those songs? Do you have any reason to believe it was anyone other than the people who sang it?
Your entire argument was that the camera-man was somehow the owner of the copyright. How are you now trying to turn this into you being right despite the copyright law saying "youre utterly wrong"?
Slashdot Mirror
The good news is you can minimize the Ribbon: right click n the tab-bar, and click "minimize ribbon". Enjoy your real estate. It will un-minimize when you click one of the tabs, and disappear again when you mouse back to the content window.
....Which is why Im going with the Wikipedia explaination that it hearkens back to the idea of a paradise tree. Its a LOT more plausible than that some christians decided to ignore all the zillions of condemnations for idolatrous trees in the OT.
In other cases it's more sinister, like with Nintendo -- the company is trying to control the market by identifying its brand with the product alone.
When you say "IS", you mean "was, 25 years ago when the Nintendo Entertainment System came out"? And I think you ascribe way too complicated motives to them. Atari's system was nicknamed simply "atari", and could easily have become the generic, if the NES hadnt been so successful.
Im fairly certain Kim Jong Il would oppose that just as adamantly.
and now firmly entrenched as a coniferous altar of Mammon for youth of all ages and faiths, is patently absurd.
Not everyone celebrates it the same way, but thats not really the point. The tree itself IS a christian symbol, and regardless of whether you agree with THAT historical data it represents a custom in christian societies. North Korea wants nothing to do with foreign religions, cultures, or traditions, which is why they are reacting like this.
Wikipedia, as well as a recent talk on this that I heard, disagree with the Linus's origin of the trees. The christmas tree apparently originated in Germany (or perhaps eastern Europe), and has either unknown or distinctly christian meaning-- for the Germans, it was apparently related to the story of Adam and Eve (paradise tree).
Apparently, the Germans brought it over to the US in the latter half of the 19th century, where it took root (haha) and became an "american tradition".
I assume what you are referring to would be "sacred oaks" or "asherah poles", which almost certainly would NOT have been fir, and I highly doubt that christians would have embraced THOSE for christmas given the clear biblical attacks on such concepts. It IS true, however, that Christmas was not really celebrated until the 4th century, and is more a Catholic tradition than it is a Biblical event: Christ's day of birth is neither recorded nor celebrated until then, and thus noone really knows what his day of birth was (Ive heard "probably mid-september").
Mostly agree with Linus however, that the meaning of Christmas is already heavily obscured, and has for the most part become either a celebration of togetherness or of consumerism, depending the family. For many Christians, the 'original' meaning (to celebrate Christ's birth) is still celebrated in various ways-- hence Christmas services, carols, and other religious activities.
Someone doesnt remember Santa's 1972 armed invasion of Greenland and the resulting worldwide backlash.
Yes. Even numbers are by definition divisible by 2.
Thus,
If X is even, Then X is divisible by 2.
If a number is divisible by two, and is not itself two, it cannot be prime.
Ergo, if X is even, it cannot be prime.
Avoiding the subject. Please grow up. Are you denying there are religious groups in the US that try to dictate aspects of public eductation?
You should look up what "begging the question" is, and why both questions you asked on this subject are such bad questions. In the first place, there are a ZILLION groups, both secular and religious, who have a stake and an axe to grind in the area of education. In the second place, religious folks pushing for what they regard as truth to be taught in school is only an issue if they are wrong, which is why what you ask is begging the question. In NO sense is them excercising their democratic right to lobby for an issue a misdeed.
Please try again. What is written and what is done are separate issues.
I will refer you back to the post you were in theory answering (as you yourself quoted it):
At the end of the day, you would be hard pressed to show me a belief in the Torah or Bible that actually encourages bad behavior, especially the Christian understanding of the bible. You can show me men professing faith who commit bad deeds, but that is nothing unusual for ANY belief system.
So far, you have proven my second point, and not disproved my first.
The Qu'ran legitimizes killing of non-believers, and the christian church has done so too. Never heard of the inquisition or crusades?
If you would like, I can pull up the Quran's prohibitions on murder, and also Muhammed himself demonstrating that unbelief is not sufficient to warrant the death penalty. Additionally, if you would actually check your facts, you would learn that NOWHERE in the Quran is a death penalty for even apostasy mentioned: that is in the hadith, which is not the same as the Quran. Suffice it to say, you do not know what you are talking about. If you would like to disprove me, please pull up the reference from the Quran, and make sure you update that Wikipedia article while youre at it: they would appreciate the correction.
As for the inquisition, apparently you have already forgotten what you were responding to. It is included above in italics for your easy reference. It wasnt to show that people calling themselves christian can do bad things, it was to show that the religion itself taught such misdeeds, which you have so far not done.
Laughable. Please continue, you're funny. So, your best defense against current (American) religious groups
In fact, no, it isnt, it was merely my response to the absurd idea that Christianity is somehow anti science or anti knowledge, when it was the basis for most intellectual endeavor in europe for about a millenia.
What religious people are doing has often been distinctly "anti-religion" as it appears in their Book.
Then why did you begin by disputing my point, when you seem to agree with me that just because someone claims a religion does not make them an adherent?
It must be wonderful, basing your life on a text that is so ambiguous that every action, even opposing ones, can be defended with a choice quote, isn't it?
If you think it it is "so ambiguous" that opposing actions can both be justified, either you lack basic eighth grade reading skills, or you have not read it. I suspect the latter, as that seems to be the most common: otherwise intelligent people make gross assumptions based on word of mouth about the bible. It tends to make you look ignorant, so in general I would recommend doing basic fact-checking before making an accusation towards a religion you are unfamiliar with. For example, you could have done a quick search on "apostasy death penalty Quran" and quickly realized that your assumptions were wrong. Just a heads up.
must be wonderful, basing your life on a text that is so ambiguous that every action, even opposing ones, can be defended with a choice quote, isn't it?
Yea, I dont think you or anyone can quantify the relative chances of those two; how would you even begin to quantify the "likelihood" of a deity?
Protestants and catholics have a fundamental disagreement on what defines christianity. I suppose that gives away which side Im on.
Regardless, I would challenge you-- nay, dare you-- to find an iota of support in either the Bible or the Torah for banning books. I seem to recall a lot of reinforcement for the value of truth, but none for censorship.
You will recall that the other big disagreement between catholics and protestants is on whether the Bible is the sole authority, which is why they have so many extra "traditions" and practices which are utterly absent from the Bible.
I would be very surprised if these artists are exceptions to the rule.
In other words, all we have is speculation on an article from a clearly biased source who has only spoken to one of the parties involved, and gotten several others to comment, speculatively, on what it might hypothetically mean.
What an utter waste of time.
Pol Pot, Hitler, and Stalin didn't do what they did in the name (or support of) Atheism.
But they DID do them in the name of some secular ideology or another-- whether it be for freedom, or prosperity, or nationalism.
When the people professing faith who commit bad deeds can cite chapter and verse from the bible supporting their bad deeds, there's something bad in that book...
Hitler himself would try to justify himself using principles of morality; that doesnt mean theres anything to it. Likewise, people will claim any number of things are justified in the Constitution; that doesnt make it true.
Teaching kids creationism
Begging the question: Please desist. Rather than worrying about what others teach, you should yourself read up on logical discussion and how to avoid fallacies.
Banning books
Neither histoically (AFAIK) a christian issue, nor (as I DO know) something that is taught in the bible, torah, or quran, anywhere.
Anti abortion laws (not to mention murdering doctors)
Begging the question, again. Also, murder is specifically verboten in the Bible, Quran, and Torah.
Crusading against scientific endeavours that religions do not approve of
Someone doesnt know their history, and is building a strawman. Most of the old Universities in Europe have some relation with religion-- Christianity is not the witch you are making it out to be. What you describe is also distinctly "anti-christian" as it appears in the Bible: truth is seen to be an attribute of God, and it is taught that all truth is God's truth. There is a reason you see so many historical christians who focused strongly on rational argumentation and inductive reasoning.
No sex ed in schools
Not spoken of at all in any religious text I am aware of. Further, this is not just a religious issue; whether the government is the one to have that discussion with my kids touches on a large number of issues.
These are not things that people do, they are things that religions do.
And yet you were not able to mention a single example that those religions do not specifically decry as against God's will-- aside from the examples that were begging the question (of whether God exists).
It does not follow from Occams razor. Your posited situation involves many many many steps to arrive at what we have now. In theory, the hypothesis "everything that is just appeared, yesterday, as you see it now" is much "simpler" than your simple system going through a bazillion steps to arrive at the current system.
Regardless, trying to bring statistical liklihood into "how the universe formed" doesnt make any sense, nor is it relevant: Reality is as it is regardless of what you think the "likelihood" to be, so it really doesnt tell you anything. Its like asking "what are the CHANCES that we exist as we do in this corner of the universe?" Depending on who you ask, the answer might range from "1.0" to "10^-37", but it has no bearing on the reality we experience.
Ill save statistical odds for things I can quantify, like poker, thanks.
Once again, the definitions of "universse" I am aware of mean that you cannot get "out" of it, or get information "out" of it. It is defined by that limit, AFAIK.
I was merely demonstrating a principle: just because there is an infinite sample size does not mean every possibility is a reality.
It's more invasive to some people while being less invasive to the rest. Your 80 year old grandma who can barely stand up from her wheelchair is not likely to get groped.
Pretty shakey ground. You find constitutional issues with the current searches, but youre fine having some people's rights completely violated so that some of us can keep our rights?
Gotta be consistent in your thinking, and you dont want to start down a path of thinking that compromising your principles is OK so long as you do it in small doses.
And apparently my soldering iron too.
I was kind of apathetic about the millimeter wave scanning, but Im kind of pissed that they took my soldering iron.
That one hasnt been in office for 8 years, though he DID get a Nobel Prize for "inconsequential shit".
I should have actually checked the video link: It does NOT say "terms of use violation", it says "Copyright claim by UMG". According to the EFF, if they HAD filed a counter-claim (which they do indeed say they did), youtube would have restored the video 10 days later unless UMG had filed a lawsuit. Account cancelation (as is being claimed by torrentfreak) only occurs after 3 strikes, with a strike being a DMCA claim that was not countered.
That is, only by NOT filing a counter-claim would the account have been suspended. Im calling bull, unless some evidence of a counterclaim is pulled up. All of this information, btw, is from the EFF-- you can hardly call them "sympathetic to the labels".
Unfortunately, that does not invalidate whatever contracts the artist had with UMG. If they signed over their copyrights to UMG, UMG absolutely has the right to do a DMCA takedown.
Noone seems to have actually read the links. The guy recording them isnt the creator of the " original expression in the creative work", the author is. The links above also seem to leave open some room for multiple holders of copyright for such a performance, depending on who contributed to the "original expression in the creative work".
Um, who wrote those songs? Do you have any reason to believe it was anyone other than the people who sang it?
Your entire argument was that the camera-man was somehow the owner of the copyright. How are you now trying to turn this into you being right despite the copyright law saying "youre utterly wrong"?
Depends whether you can secure the services of MacGyver...