Yes, thats what it clearly says in 1 Corin 7:4. But I guess you must have stopped reading mid sentence: The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.
For the rest of it, as ShakaUVM says, theres more going on in the OT than you seem to realize; but it is rather hard to understand that unless you actually read the OT sequentially. Without getting too mired in detail, Israel did have a special role, so unrighteousness was treated rather harshly in the OT. Their purpose was to be a nation that reflected God, and stood out as being "righteous" and "holy" (set apart, sanctified, separate). Thus, the law was given, and it can be broken down for the most part into laws that reflect absolute moral truths (treatment of the poor; sexual immorality-- and this is NOT just talking about homosexuality, which should put a kibosh on the "hate speech" mentality; etc), and laws designed to "set Israel apart" (strict diet, etc); and laws which were designed to demonstrate Israel's holiness (if the laws had been fulfilled), and to demonstrate man's falliability (when Israel of course did not fulfill them). Christ came and fulfilled that second part, but the first set of laws dont "go away" because right and wrong have not changed (though parts of the law may have).
This raises the question-- how does one tell the difference? Well, you have to read the passage, and its context, and you have to look at the reasons given. For example, does it say "Dont do x; it is an abomination", or does it simply give a "you shall not"? Is there later or earlier scripture that clarifies it? Is the law in question referencing a biblically established principle?
All those rubrics are how we determine whether something is an absolute moral value or a law that was "fulfilled" in Christ.
But we really need to get back to the good book as a source of moral authority.
Absolutely, but only if you are willing and able to examine what the passage is actually saying, rather than looking for the easiest way to make a strawman out of its words.
Not sure if youre trolling or sincere, but I will assume the latter.
The next time a woman is stoned to death for adultery,
Yes, thats clearly what Christ intended when he said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" (John 8:1-7). And if you reject that passage as being canonical (as it is questionably John's), you can simply look to all the other places where it is made clear that our role is to forgive, the government's is to enforce law, and it is God's to judge.
a child is driven to suicide for being gay
Though I believe homosexuality to be counter to God's design and a sin, I do not think that excuses hateful behavior to a homosexual. I find it rather hard to reconcile hate crimes with Christ's commands, and with the attitude of the Bible; if God wants that person judged He will do so. "Love your neighbor as yourself" seems to preclude driving someone to suicide.
a man is murdered for "sorcery"
See above.
or a family is destroyed for being apostates
I assume at this point you are not talking specifically about christianity, as that would be a pretty big stretch. More often than not, Christians are disowned for being Christian (be it by atheists-- and I know several of these cases-- or Hindi, or Muslims, or Scientologists, etc).
[sarcasm] I'll be sure to cheerfully remind every involved that it doesn't matter what you believe, and that we should value this diversity.[/sarcasm]
Well, Id agree with that. It absolutely matters what you believe, and the whole "the diversity is whats important" attitude is completely ridiculous. No, its not, and thats not why I try to live a Christian life; if it were merely for the "diversity", why not live it up here and now, and nuts to diversity.
NB-- I know your post was phrased in a general manner, not worded specifically at one particular group, but this is Slashdot, and several of these accusations are commonly enough leveled at Christianity, which is why I felt it necessary to respond.
Religion is simply your own personal reason that you do X.
Except when it lays down historical facts, and tells you that no, moral relativism DOESNT work and ISNT ok. Your statement may hold true for some religions, but certainly not for the big 3.
I cant speak to the Quran, but of the Jewish and Christian literature, about 80% of the pre-messianic scripture is regarding historical details, future predictions, wisdom literature, and prayers. Maybe 20% of it is "the reason that you do X" (and its pretty clear that its not a personal reason).
Religion is kinda like an operating system... it doesn't really matter which one you run.
No matter how you look at it, that statement cannot be true. If one of the religions is true, it absolutely matters-- it is in fact more important than anything else in your life. If they are all false (and if we exempt "atheism" from the category), then you are wasting your life ("If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.", 1 Corin 15:19). In fact, if they are all false, the "religion" of hedonism would very clearly be the best one to follow.
Unless youre implying that Internet Explorer now compiles and executes C code embedded in a webpage, it sounds like you agree that 99% of these expoits have NOTHING to do with the "underlying software architecture", except in so far as it presents obstacles to infection (DEP, ASLR, blacklists, etc).
Office is a completely separate product that costs several hundred dollars on top of the OS, is not bundled, and is available for both Mac and Windows.
Calling Office vulnerabilities Windows vulnerabilities is disingenuous.
Of course, the client most known for doing such things is pretty intimately tied to one particular OS.
Comments like yours just piss me off. Not because there isnt perhaps some merit to your sentiment, or that you could have dragged a meaningful point out of your post; no, its the fact that you were unable to make a point without the most extreme kinds of hyperbole, which just drags the entire conversation down.
Not to mention how insulting it is for people in one of the freer examples of society in human history complaining that they have NO rights. If you had "no rights", you wouldnt be on slashdot complaining about the government. Im sure Liu Xiaobo would be THRILLED to think you have it as bad as it gets.
If you want to make a point about the erosion of rights, or the dangers of government powers with no oversight, do so. Dont go off the deep end spouting hyperbole nonsense.
Bullshit. If you have to do nothing but CLICK on the email, there is something wrong.
Id say something is wrong with the email client then, not the OS. And Id be interested to know what email client (certainly not any Outlook since Outlook 2003 sp1) you are using that is executing arbitrary code simply by clicking an email.
I HAVE seen examples of rather piss poor email clients on Mac OSX, but thats really neither here nor there, as the quality of the email client has nothing to do with the OS.
What on earth do you think HTML, JavaScript, Flash, PDF, and Java do if not execute arbitrary code on the client machine?
If there is a bug in Thunderbird, or Safari, or Acrobat, you absolutely can get a virus from browsing, no matter what platform you are using. People thinking Mac are immune to this sort of thing really arent qualified to be discussing computer security.
It makes sense from a marketing perspective, obviously; and that makes the outrage even stronger. FF was a damn good browser; and it's painful to see it going in that direction.
In what direction? The new version is claimed (and reported) to be much faster and less memory intensive than prior ones. Is your chief beef with the direction of Firefox that they add different numbers to the end of it than you wanted? Does the number 4.3 make firefox a better browser somehow?
http://slashdot.org/pollBooth.pl?qid=1886&aid=-1 According to a poll on slashdot-- which seems to heap FAR more scorn on the awesomebar than anyone I have ever heard IRL-- 38% of people find some value to the awesome bar, 22% had no issue turning it off, and 6% had actual issues with it.
I cant find a general-purpose poll, but given all the work that goes into TestPilot, Telemetery, and all the other telemetric addons that they ship with firefox, Id be really suprised if you knew more about what firefox users want than the devs with access to that info.
Its actually built into Windows Vista and 7-- check your services. Also, they provide Security Essentials, though they dont build it in (not sure that would be legal-- see Internet Explorer anti-trust suit). Finally, every so often when updates are applied, the Malicious Software Removal tool runs, which is basically a targetted virus detection and removal suite.
ANyways, Im not sure I see the big value of a built-in antivirus-- if Security Essentials came with every windows PC, every single virus would come with a method of bypassing it (which is likewise why Im not super reassured by Mac having it built in-- would-be viruses will all have to have a bypass method before they are pushed into the wild).
At the risk of erring (as I dont have time to check each vulnerability), I would hazard that most-if-not-all of those are XP vulns; you might as well compare it to some linux 2.4 distro (since thats the era XP comes from).
And MOST of the exploits that XP has been hit with are through 3rd party apps, that just so happen to be cross platform (Quicktime plugins, Java plugins, Flash plugin s, Acrobat plugins), and most of the remainder are browser exploits. Unless you go back to Code Red or Sasser days (or an out of date XP install-- and lets be fair here, all OSes have remote exploits that have since been patched), you will see precious few viruses that actually do infections on Vista or 7 through an OS exploit.
Oh yes, I see. Clearly it is unacceptable to have most of the work I do, as well as most of my clients, rely on sub-1000ms latency getting to the internet.
Honestly, who do you know who would put up with 1second skype latency, or 25 seconds to load any modern webpage (which will ping several domains, as well as do AJAXy requests, all incurring massive latency on a mesh network)? Do you have any idea just how bad the internet would be if everything you do incurred large fractions of a second in latency? Do you understand how awful slashdot would be on such a network?
Of course, once they realized that some fool of an intern ordered a Denon AKDL1 link cable (see first review)-- which of course unleashes all sorts of problematic physics-- everything became clear.
Once they replaced it with a link cable from best buy, the results were as expected.
Its kind of sad that that would ever be considered a sane defense. One of the arguments against getting drunk is that you might do stupid things; it doesnt excuse you from the consequences of your actions.
It doesnt work that way. Microwave ovens are designed to block microwave radiation at the wavelength they produce; sticking a completely different EM source inside it and noting that the radiation isnt blocked doesnt show you anything. Wavelength plays a big part in it.
Microwaves have never been shown to have any link whatsoever with cancer, nor has there ever been demonstrated any means by which they might cause it. The radiation is non-ionizing, and the effects we've seen it cause can be summed up as thermal (heats up water molecules really well), and electric (can induce arcing on metal).
If you can think up some reason microwaves are more likely to cause cancer than infrared, visibile light, and radio waves, Im sure the listening scientific community would love to hear it.
Im not sure the solution to "capitalism drives people to ridiculous measures to make penny profits" is "give the government more money". And practically speaking, it would mean that the government would have a vested interest in pushing this type of behavior.
Is or is not Microsoft to blame for executable content that a user double clicks? Because if we had a clear "no" to that, I think the entire "Windows security vs OSX security" discussion would basically be over.
Without your admin password it can still do quite a bit; it could skim your iMail account, access your browser saved passwords, etc-- anything else that YOU have access to without typing a password.
Slashdot Mirror
- Women are their husband's property.
Yes, thats what it clearly says in 1 Corin 7:4. But I guess you must have stopped reading mid sentence:
The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.
For the rest of it, as ShakaUVM says, theres more going on in the OT than you seem to realize; but it is rather hard to understand that unless you actually read the OT sequentially.
Without getting too mired in detail, Israel did have a special role, so unrighteousness was treated rather harshly in the OT. Their purpose was to be a nation that reflected God, and stood out as being "righteous" and "holy" (set apart, sanctified, separate). Thus, the law was given, and it can be broken down for the most part into laws that reflect absolute moral truths (treatment of the poor; sexual immorality-- and this is NOT just talking about homosexuality, which should put a kibosh on the "hate speech" mentality; etc), and laws designed to "set Israel apart" (strict diet, etc); and laws which were designed to demonstrate Israel's holiness (if the laws had been fulfilled), and to demonstrate man's falliability (when Israel of course did not fulfill them). Christ came and fulfilled that second part, but the first set of laws dont "go away" because right and wrong have not changed (though parts of the law may have).
This raises the question-- how does one tell the difference? Well, you have to read the passage, and its context, and you have to look at the reasons given. For example, does it say "Dont do x; it is an abomination", or does it simply give a "you shall not"? Is there later or earlier scripture that clarifies it? Is the law in question referencing a biblically established principle?
All those rubrics are how we determine whether something is an absolute moral value or a law that was "fulfilled" in Christ.
But we really need to get back to the good book as a source of moral authority.
Absolutely, but only if you are willing and able to examine what the passage is actually saying, rather than looking for the easiest way to make a strawman out of its words.
Not sure if youre trolling or sincere, but I will assume the latter.
The next time a woman is stoned to death for adultery,
Yes, thats clearly what Christ intended when he said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" (John 8:1-7). And if you reject that passage as being canonical (as it is questionably John's), you can simply look to all the other places where it is made clear that our role is to forgive, the government's is to enforce law, and it is God's to judge.
a child is driven to suicide for being gay
Though I believe homosexuality to be counter to God's design and a sin, I do not think that excuses hateful behavior to a homosexual. I find it rather hard to reconcile hate crimes with Christ's commands, and with the attitude of the Bible; if God wants that person judged He will do so. "Love your neighbor as yourself" seems to preclude driving someone to suicide.
a man is murdered for "sorcery"
See above.
or a family is destroyed for being apostates
I assume at this point you are not talking specifically about christianity, as that would be a pretty big stretch. More often than not, Christians are disowned for being Christian (be it by atheists-- and I know several of these cases-- or Hindi, or Muslims, or Scientologists, etc).
[sarcasm] I'll be sure to cheerfully remind every involved that it doesn't matter what you believe, and that we should value this diversity.[/sarcasm]
Well, Id agree with that. It absolutely matters what you believe, and the whole "the diversity is whats important" attitude is completely ridiculous. No, its not, and thats not why I try to live a Christian life; if it were merely for the "diversity", why not live it up here and now, and nuts to diversity.
NB-- I know your post was phrased in a general manner, not worded specifically at one particular group, but this is Slashdot, and several of these accusations are commonly enough leveled at Christianity, which is why I felt it necessary to respond.
Religion is simply your own personal reason that you do X.
Except when it lays down historical facts, and tells you that no, moral relativism DOESNT work and ISNT ok. Your statement may hold true for some religions, but certainly not for the big 3.
I cant speak to the Quran, but of the Jewish and Christian literature, about 80% of the pre-messianic scripture is regarding historical details, future predictions, wisdom literature, and prayers. Maybe 20% of it is "the reason that you do X" (and its pretty clear that its not a personal reason).
Religion is kinda like an operating system... it doesn't really matter which one you run.
No matter how you look at it, that statement cannot be true. If one of the religions is true, it absolutely matters-- it is in fact more important than anything else in your life. If they are all false (and if we exempt "atheism" from the category), then you are wasting your life ("If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.", 1 Corin 15:19). In fact, if they are all false, the "religion" of hedonism would very clearly be the best one to follow.
Unless youre implying that Internet Explorer now compiles and executes C code embedded in a webpage, it sounds like you agree that 99% of these expoits have NOTHING to do with the "underlying software architecture", except in so far as it presents obstacles to infection (DEP, ASLR, blacklists, etc).
Office is a completely separate product that costs several hundred dollars on top of the OS, is not bundled, and is available for both Mac and Windows.
Calling Office vulnerabilities Windows vulnerabilities is disingenuous.
Of course, the client most known for doing such things is pretty intimately tied to one particular OS.
You mean Office 2011 for Mac OSX?
Comments like yours just piss me off. Not because there isnt perhaps some merit to your sentiment, or that you could have dragged a meaningful point out of your post; no, its the fact that you were unable to make a point without the most extreme kinds of hyperbole, which just drags the entire conversation down.
Not to mention how insulting it is for people in one of the freer examples of society in human history complaining that they have NO rights. If you had "no rights", you wouldnt be on slashdot complaining about the government. Im sure Liu Xiaobo would be THRILLED to think you have it as bad as it gets.
If you want to make a point about the erosion of rights, or the dangers of government powers with no oversight, do so. Dont go off the deep end spouting hyperbole nonsense.
Bullshit. If you have to do nothing but CLICK on the email, there is something wrong.
Id say something is wrong with the email client then, not the OS. And Id be interested to know what email client (certainly not any Outlook since Outlook 2003 sp1) you are using that is executing arbitrary code simply by clicking an email.
I HAVE seen examples of rather piss poor email clients on Mac OSX, but thats really neither here nor there, as the quality of the email client has nothing to do with the OS.
What on earth do you think HTML, JavaScript, Flash, PDF, and Java do if not execute arbitrary code on the client machine?
If there is a bug in Thunderbird, or Safari, or Acrobat, you absolutely can get a virus from browsing, no matter what platform you are using. People thinking Mac are immune to this sort of thing really arent qualified to be discussing computer security.
in b4 Macs dont have trojans or exploits.
It makes sense from a marketing perspective, obviously; and that makes the outrage even stronger. FF was a damn good browser; and it's painful to see it going in that direction.
In what direction? The new version is claimed (and reported) to be much faster and less memory intensive than prior ones. Is your chief beef with the direction of Firefox that they add different numbers to the end of it than you wanted? Does the number 4.3 make firefox a better browser somehow?
http://slashdot.org/pollBooth.pl?qid=1886&aid=-1
According to a poll on slashdot-- which seems to heap FAR more scorn on the awesomebar than anyone I have ever heard IRL-- 38% of people find some value to the awesome bar, 22% had no issue turning it off, and 6% had actual issues with it.
I cant find a general-purpose poll, but given all the work that goes into TestPilot, Telemetery, and all the other telemetric addons that they ship with firefox, Id be really suprised if you knew more about what firefox users want than the devs with access to that info.
Its actually built into Windows Vista and 7-- check your services. Also, they provide Security Essentials, though they dont build it in (not sure that would be legal-- see Internet Explorer anti-trust suit). Finally, every so often when updates are applied, the Malicious Software Removal tool runs, which is basically a targetted virus detection and removal suite.
ANyways, Im not sure I see the big value of a built-in antivirus-- if Security Essentials came with every windows PC, every single virus would come with a method of bypassing it (which is likewise why Im not super reassured by Mac having it built in-- would-be viruses will all have to have a bypass method before they are pushed into the wild).
At the risk of erring (as I dont have time to check each vulnerability), I would hazard that most-if-not-all of those are XP vulns; you might as well compare it to some linux 2.4 distro (since thats the era XP comes from).
And MOST of the exploits that XP has been hit with are through 3rd party apps, that just so happen to be cross platform (Quicktime plugins, Java plugins, Flash plugin s, Acrobat plugins), and most of the remainder are browser exploits. Unless you go back to Code Red or Sasser days (or an out of date XP install-- and lets be fair here, all OSes have remote exploits that have since been patched), you will see precious few viruses that actually do infections on Vista or 7 through an OS exploit.
Fucking corporate asslicker idiot.
Oh yes, I see. Clearly it is unacceptable to have most of the work I do, as well as most of my clients, rely on sub-1000ms latency getting to the internet.
Honestly, who do you know who would put up with 1second skype latency, or 25 seconds to load any modern webpage (which will ping several domains, as well as do AJAXy requests, all incurring massive latency on a mesh network)? Do you have any idea just how bad the internet would be if everything you do incurred large fractions of a second in latency? Do you understand how awful slashdot would be on such a network?
Of course, once they realized that some fool of an intern ordered a Denon AKDL1 link cable (see first review)-- which of course unleashes all sorts of problematic physics-- everything became clear.
Once they replaced it with a link cable from best buy, the results were as expected.
Ive seen hard drives installed that failed after 27 years in service. Can that be said or even assumed for SSDs?
aka mac mail, whatever that default mail application is.
Its kind of sad that that would ever be considered a sane defense. One of the arguments against getting drunk is that you might do stupid things; it doesnt excuse you from the consequences of your actions.
It doesnt work that way. Microwave ovens are designed to block microwave radiation at the wavelength they produce; sticking a completely different EM source inside it and noting that the radiation isnt blocked doesnt show you anything. Wavelength plays a big part in it.
Microwaves have never been shown to have any link whatsoever with cancer, nor has there ever been demonstrated any means by which they might cause it. The radiation is non-ionizing, and the effects we've seen it cause can be summed up as thermal (heats up water molecules really well), and electric (can induce arcing on metal).
If you can think up some reason microwaves are more likely to cause cancer than infrared, visibile light, and radio waves, Im sure the listening scientific community would love to hear it.
In this ideal world of yours, what incentive is there for ISPs to maintain their networks, as you have effectively cut them out of the loop?
You do realize that you would need a backbone SOMEWHERE unless you wanted horrific latency, for example to get traffic from coast to coast?
Im not sure the solution to "capitalism drives people to ridiculous measures to make penny profits" is "give the government more money". And practically speaking, it would mean that the government would have a vested interest in pushing this type of behavior.
Lets be clear here, then.
Is or is not Microsoft to blame for executable content that a user double clicks? Because if we had a clear "no" to that, I think the entire "Windows security vs OSX security" discussion would basically be over.
WIndows 1.1 also has less malware volume and variety of malware than Windows XP So does BeOS. That doesnt mean its more secure.
Without your admin password it can still do quite a bit; it could skim your iMail account, access your browser saved passwords, etc-- anything else that YOU have access to without typing a password.