There are a few problems here. First read the context of what I stated. If one is to argue in either direction there is an argument BOTH ways and evidence to support such either through direct evidence or direct omission.
If as I said there are no direct condemnations of polygamy then one can argue that by omission polygamy is allowed.
For instance one could argue that the scriptures you bring up do nothing to OMIT polygamy. The scriptures more specifically relate to greed - for example David covetting another man's wife to the point of sending that man to his death. He was seeking his own gain. Likewise Solomon's problems could be used to IMPLY that polygamy is wrong but they could more easily point again to greed and an extension of David's sin (the sins of the father repeated by the son). God had also commanded that you not intermarry foreign women because they would turn you from the Lord - no statement of the amount of women was made just the origin. Most of the rest of what you say is implication as opposed to outright specific condemnation:
Taking the whore as a sign of corruption and bowing to the pagan ways not against the evils of polygamy, Jesus condemning divorce not polygamy, not taking a second wife to spite your current one or as a replacement - puting away your first wife (crude way of divorce). And on and on. Again the argument of A man and A woman is argued in the context of divorce not what might be considered 'legitimate' polygamy. Likewise the creation of Adam and Eve is a story in context. Adam initially was to be alone but God saw his loneliness and created him a help mate. Was it necessary in that story for God to create multiple help-mates, no. So he made one but didn't exclude Adam from taking another. Noah took two of every living thing but the bible doesn't state that cattle are monogomous or that we should keep them as such.
My point is that I tire of people arguing things as absolute fact based on the bible when things are not necessarily as clean cut. The bible requires prayer thought and descernment not regurgitation. One should know the law and live it not memorize and regurgitate it at will. Additionally one should not use statements in a manner to imply absolute truths.
Do you feel that the bible tells you not to comit polygamy - excellent
Re:ADD Version
on
The Red Queen
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I dunno about this paraphrasing. In it we're assumed to equate marriage as equal to sexual coupling for the purpose of procreation with the assumption that it's a 1 to 1 relationship (1 man - 1 woman). Evolution does not enforce this paradigm. In all levels of animal life (including humans) monogomy is not an absolute. Some studies have shown that as much as 75% of married couples have had some instance of infadelity. So Evolution could as easily reinforce the concept of polygamy.
Additionally it's difficult to argue that "Creation" or more specifically "Biblical principles" define marriage solely in the context of 1 man - 1 woman. The bible is littered with references to polygamy and not once that I've read is that condemned. Therefore one could assume that based on biblical principles polygamy (1 man - X woman) is just as right and as good.
A secondary note is that marriage may be equated to sexual coupling for the purpose of procreation but that sexual coupling is not limited to purpose. Coupling can be seen among same sex partners which in fact excludes procreation as well as opposite sex partners for the purpose of pleasure. This is seen time and time again across species. Some of these bonds could be seen as monogamous. How then do we define this behavior within the context of marriage?
As a web developer I can tell you that maybe you should read up a little and come out of the 90's. Go check some place like Human Factors, some of the other usability sites, the W3 WAI, Bobby site, Gov. 508 guidlines, or try to find a site with some good information about disabilities in the US and worldwide.
It's not incredibly difficult to explain to corporations. I just got through explaining to our business users the benefits of accessibility for our internal web application. It means that we can now hire people with disabilities to jobs that they weren't previously capable of performing and with an absolute minimum of cost. Why, because we're not using tables, transparent spacing images, or any of that other NS4/IE4 crap code. We've created a framework of XML-XSLT --> XHTML/CSS pages that display well in IE5+/Opera/Moz/NS6+ and degrade down easily while remaining usable in older browsers. It's actually decreased our bandwidth, lowered our roll out costs, shortened our development cycle and allowed us to do realtime working screen mockups with our clients.
How you sell accessibility is by showing that it benefits not only the disabled person but also those without disabilities. Which it does.
What businesses and other web developers often fail to take into account is it's not the number of disabled online today but the ones that could come online for product purchases and other services should they make their sites accessible. They also discount or fail to see the fact that these same disabled people may be potential candidates for job placement within their company should their internal applications be accessible. Additionally they fail to take into account the accessibility needs of the aging a growing portion of the group defined as disabled. As the 40-50-60 something crowd grows online and ages will we as web developers write them off when their eyesite begins to worsen or when their motor coordination makes it harder for them to navigate a site.
You're looking at it solely from the BLIND issue. Not all visually impaired people are BLIND. There are varying degrees of vision impairments.
Additionally accessibility isn't just about the visually impaired you might be designing a site that's difficult for people with screen pokes to use, or people with missing appendages or any number of other disabilities and accessibility needs.
Marginalizing the number of people who may/may not visit the site with a particular impairment does nothing to help those people interact in any decent way.
<label for="rb3" accesskey="f">
<img src="fish.gif" alt="Image of a Fish" longdesc="This is an image of a fish"/> </label>
If you've set up the page to tab through elements properly the user will go down the list it will tell them to pick the image of the fish, then they'll tab/arrow down the images getting each image description read off to them and they can then select that image using the keyboard.
It's not rocket science for website developers. Most don't even think about website accessibility though since it's only about 8% of the population they stand to alienate. They don't understand that there are other losses associated with not having accessible sites.
I understand that basically this is a tool to help with current copyright issues. Maybe getting some currently copyrighted works into the public domain... but... If you're going to go through all the effort why not just do it right and think about the future of copyright also.
My economic stimulous plan is to push copyright to 14 years renewable one time for another 14 years for a fee. Berne Convention or not! Most companies should easily be able to make a profit off of their works/work for hire within a 14-28 year period. If not what in the hell are they doing in business - learn how to balance your books.
My thought is that if you have a fairly short expire date for those profits to be reduced then the companies will work harder to produce new works which means new sales to maintain profits. New works will be easier to churn out because there's plenty of newly released fodder from the expired copyrights.
Companies that can't innovate in that market don't deserve to be in business and shouldn't be able to legislate themselves into staying in business.
The easiest way to address the problem for the music companies is to look at the root cause of the supposed piracy. The root cause of course is that people want to choose the music they listen to. They want more choice, easier ways to get it, lower prices, and more flexibility in how they listen to it. The media companies solution is to forget what the market and their customer is saying promote less choice, specialty distribution channels, hike prices, and reduce the number and types of devices that are allowed to play the media.
The premise should be "do what the market wants" the RIAA and MPAA are not doing that.
Actually both the Recording Industry and the Movie industry HAVE talked about getting the hardware manufacturers "inline" so that when "pirated" copyrighted material was played on hardware the hardware would self disable or could be sent a signal to disable PERMANENTLY. This isn't something Hatch just pulled out of his ass to scare people with. They (RIAA/MPAA) wanted to chip every fucking machine that carried a digital signal in order to prevent copyright. The government (with a little nudging from the Hardware sector) said no let's go a different route. Of course you still have jackasses like Hatch who think it's a good idea and would be willing to let his big corporate buddies have access to the kill switch - because, of course, they're so trust worthy.
Anyone remember seeing the programming language called Whitespace. It uses a similar methodology where indentation and heirarchy are the key to the language.:)
I don't think that that's necessarily fact. Any company with a driven CEO could have stepped into that area. Look at Ellison he's just as evil, power hungry and willing to do anything to squash the competition. I don't think Gates holds the keys to hell in this regard.
You know you've got to wonder about an alternate reality where Bill Gates and MS didn't exist. Would it be this utopian society where software was cheap and there were plenty of interoperable products and platforms? Or would software be just as expensive, we'd still be arguing PC/MAC, and someone else would be standing there in the void maybe Jobs or Ellison or maybe IBM would be the one we'd be complaining about. Or would it be even worse, more expensive software, more fragmentation and just a bunch of small time jack asses running around being pains in the ass to the community.
Today who made their carreer because of Microsoft? In the absence of MS who would rise to power? I shudder to think if it were Ellison in Gates position or Steve Case....
It reminds me of a story I read where someone travels back in time to avert a disaster and each time a bigger disaster results from the intervention until finally the person goes back and allows the first disaster to take place. Lesser of two evils I guess.
No they came to steal water and FOOD? Remember they were shipping ships full of humans back home. Water was just an excuse - yes they needed it but food was more important.
From the way it's presented it sounds as if they are basing the new story line off of where the MINI-Series left off and excluding the TV-Series timeline. This is both good and bad. It's good because we can ditch the whole Star Child prophesy hoohah. It's bad for the people who enjoyed the TV-Series and liked the character build up and events that took place in it.
Of course a whole new batch of hotties are going to have to be brought in since the old hotties are pushing 50. And of course the good thing is it also means costume redesigns:).
Re:Very informative article, glad to have read it
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 1
"der" also very relevant.
Re:Very informative article, glad to have read it
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 4, Funny
It's not about anonymous P2P'ing it's about small colaborative networks (think BUSINESS). For example it would be great for a small OSS team to use to collaborate, share files, etc without needing to rely on the commercial (AIM, YAHOO, MSN, ICQ) messaging. Plus it adds a level of security not found in other products.
Not everything on the internet is about anonymity. As I remember it there's no constitutional guarantee of anonymity, why people keep assuming that if they're on the net they're entitled to that right I don't know.
I forgot to add - after a while he noticed the cold dead hard drive fucker and decided to just play it off as a cool case mod he could share with the rest of the world.
Nope just a squirrel lured in through an open window by what it thought was the mating call of another squirrel --- click, click, click, tick, tick, click, click, tick. The geek didn't notice the burnt hair smell or the smell of death because of his own hygene habbits.
Yes the people and the press are the only ones guaranteed freedom of speech. Read the constitution and constitutional law. Corporations have been stopped several times from "free speech". And yes I understand the idea that the PRESS is owned by a corporation... DUH. Not all corporations own a press outlet. Whether or not they have a "printing press" doesn't necessarily identify them as a press entity.
and there the hell does this come from? " guess we could ban all news dissemenation that doesn't travel over a peer-to-peer common carrier form of medium. OR Journalism could be taught at the 4th grade level, since it would become a core knowledge thing, and not a 'profession.'"
I don't thinkt that I implied in any way that news/media should be shut down. I fairly simply stated that if a candidate needed to spend millions of dollars in advertising that they were probably not doing a good enough job to get FREE PRESS (via word of mouth, journalistic reporting, et al).
So what you're saying is that it's ridiculous to dream and want better than what we have right now. Don't you think your apathy is a little ridiculous? It's just a dumb idea to think that we can hold people to a higher standard and expect some simple rules right? It's nothing utopian or high minded it's just a simple set of rules that could be enforced if it didn't effect the senators pocket books so gravely.
I think the real point should be that we shouldn't have questions about conflict of interest with our senators. We shouldn't be concerned with the $14,000 of "hard money" and the $X,XXX,XXX of "soft money" and the "favors" that the senator receives from a company and the "networking" that takes place.
The reason we shouldn't be concerned about this is because it shouldn't exist. Under our constitution the People and The PRESS were the only entities afforded freedom of speech. A multinational and "diverse" corporation was not given this freedom. So even if you falsely assume that signing a check is some form of freedom of speech, corporations can be (and should be) limited in this regard.
The ONLY people giving money to campaign finance should be the PEOPLE. If Joe CEO of Corporation X likes Mr. Smith for senator then he should give some money to help get that candidate some visibility. If the individual employees of the Corporation also like the same candidate then hey more power to them. But Corporation X should not be the one signing the check, the UNION for Corporation X should also not be the one signing the check, it should be the individuals within that corporation/union who feel strongly enough about candidate Smith to help him become visible to people outside his normal sphere of influence.
I get tired of hearing about how much it costs to get air time and flights and booking conference halls. All crap. If you do a good job at a local level then your reputation will get spread easily enough. If you need to spend millions and millions of dollars to campaign then it might just be that you're doing something wrong.
While Lockheed might not gain "significantly" to shareholders gain is gain. If the shuttle gets shut down and Lockheed gets more contracts for private space flight, foreign contracts, and/or shuttle redesign contracts - it's all gain no matter how small. While they lose out on one thing they gain in other ways. Hence people look to the money trail and question every little statement that a senator makes - no matter how heartfelt, honest, or thoughtful it may be.
Just about everyone I talk to mistrusts the senators and it's usually for the same reason. The Money Trail.
Unfortunately it would also fill up the garbage for you and empty it fifty times a day. The wind from the door constantly swinging open and closed would be a decent replacement for any fans in your home.
Slashdot Mirror
There are a few problems here. First read the context of what I stated. If one is to argue in either direction there is an argument BOTH ways and evidence to support such either through direct evidence or direct omission.
If as I said there are no direct condemnations of polygamy then one can argue that by omission polygamy is allowed.
For instance one could argue that the scriptures you bring up do nothing to OMIT polygamy. The scriptures more specifically relate to greed - for example David covetting another man's wife to the point of sending that man to his death. He was seeking his own gain. Likewise Solomon's problems could be used to IMPLY that polygamy is wrong but they could more easily point again to greed and an extension of David's sin (the sins of the father repeated by the son). God had also commanded that you not intermarry foreign women because they would turn you from the Lord - no statement of the amount of women was made just the origin. Most of the rest of what you say is implication as opposed to outright specific condemnation:
Taking the whore as a sign of corruption and bowing to the pagan ways not against the evils of polygamy, Jesus condemning divorce not polygamy, not taking a second wife to spite your current one or as a replacement - puting away your first wife (crude way of divorce). And on and on. Again the argument of A man and A woman is argued in the context of divorce not what might be considered 'legitimate' polygamy. Likewise the creation of Adam and Eve is a story in context. Adam initially was to be alone but God saw his loneliness and created him a help mate. Was it necessary in that story for God to create multiple help-mates, no. So he made one but didn't exclude Adam from taking another. Noah took two of every living thing but the bible doesn't state that cattle are monogomous or that we should keep them as such.
My point is that I tire of people arguing things as absolute fact based on the bible when things are not necessarily as clean cut. The bible requires prayer thought and descernment not regurgitation. One should know the law and live it not memorize and regurgitate it at will. Additionally one should not use statements in a manner to imply absolute truths.
Do you feel that the bible tells you not to comit polygamy - excellent
Give this man a prize for thinking!
I dunno about this paraphrasing. In it we're assumed to equate marriage as equal to sexual coupling for the purpose of procreation with the assumption that it's a 1 to 1 relationship (1 man - 1 woman). Evolution does not enforce this paradigm. In all levels of animal life (including humans) monogomy is not an absolute. Some studies have shown that as much as 75% of married couples have had some instance of infadelity. So Evolution could as easily reinforce the concept of polygamy.
Additionally it's difficult to argue that "Creation" or more specifically "Biblical principles" define marriage solely in the context of 1 man - 1 woman. The bible is littered with references to polygamy and not once that I've read is that condemned. Therefore one could assume that based on biblical principles polygamy (1 man - X woman) is just as right and as good.
A secondary note is that marriage may be equated to sexual coupling for the purpose of procreation but that sexual coupling is not limited to purpose. Coupling can be seen among same sex partners which in fact excludes procreation as well as opposite sex partners for the purpose of pleasure. This is seen time and time again across species. Some of these bonds could be seen as monogamous. How then do we define this behavior within the context of marriage?
As a web developer I can tell you that maybe you should read up a little and come out of the 90's. Go check some place like Human Factors, some of the other usability sites, the W3 WAI, Bobby site, Gov. 508 guidlines, or try to find a site with some good information about disabilities in the US and worldwide.
It's not incredibly difficult to explain to corporations. I just got through explaining to our business users the benefits of accessibility for our internal web application. It means that we can now hire people with disabilities to jobs that they weren't previously capable of performing and with an absolute minimum of cost. Why, because we're not using tables, transparent spacing images, or any of that other NS4/IE4 crap code. We've created a framework of XML-XSLT --> XHTML/CSS pages that display well in IE5+/Opera/Moz/NS6+ and degrade down easily while remaining usable in older browsers. It's actually decreased our bandwidth, lowered our roll out costs, shortened our development cycle and allowed us to do realtime working screen mockups with our clients.
How you sell accessibility is by showing that it benefits not only the disabled person but also those without disabilities. Which it does.
What businesses and other web developers often fail to take into account is it's not the number of disabled online today but the ones that could come online for product purchases and other services should they make their sites accessible. They also discount or fail to see the fact that these same disabled people may be potential candidates for job placement within their company should their internal applications be accessible. Additionally they fail to take into account the accessibility needs of the aging a growing portion of the group defined as disabled. As the 40-50-60 something crowd grows online and ages will we as web developers write them off when their eyesite begins to worsen or when their motor coordination makes it harder for them to navigate a site.
You're looking at it solely from the BLIND issue. Not all visually impaired people are BLIND. There are varying degrees of vision impairments.
Additionally accessibility isn't just about the visually impaired you might be designing a site that's difficult for people with screen pokes to use, or people with missing appendages or any number of other disabilities and accessibility needs.
Marginalizing the number of people who may/may not visit the site with a particular impairment does nothing to help those people interact in any decent way.
It's pretty simple.
/>
<label for="rb3" accesskey="f">
<img src="fish.gif" alt="Image of a Fish" longdesc="This is an image of a fish"
</label>
If you've set up the page to tab through elements properly the user will go down the list it will tell them to pick the image of the fish, then they'll tab/arrow down the images getting each image description read off to them and they can then select that image using the keyboard.
It's not rocket science for website developers. Most don't even think about website accessibility though since it's only about 8% of the population they stand to alienate. They don't understand that there are other losses associated with not having accessible sites.
I understand that basically this is a tool to help with current copyright issues. Maybe getting some currently copyrighted works into the public domain... but... If you're going to go through all the effort why not just do it right and think about the future of copyright also.
My economic stimulous plan is to push copyright to 14 years renewable one time for another 14 years for a fee. Berne Convention or not! Most companies should easily be able to make a profit off of their works/work for hire within a 14-28 year period. If not what in the hell are they doing in business - learn how to balance your books.
My thought is that if you have a fairly short expire date for those profits to be reduced then the companies will work harder to produce new works which means new sales to maintain profits. New works will be easier to churn out because there's plenty of newly released fodder from the expired copyrights.
Companies that can't innovate in that market don't deserve to be in business and shouldn't be able to legislate themselves into staying in business.
The easiest way to address the problem for the music companies is to look at the root cause of the supposed piracy. The root cause of course is that people want to choose the music they listen to. They want more choice, easier ways to get it, lower prices, and more flexibility in how they listen to it. The media companies solution is to forget what the market and their customer is saying promote less choice, specialty distribution channels, hike prices, and reduce the number and types of devices that are allowed to play the media.
The premise should be "do what the market wants" the RIAA and MPAA are not doing that.
Actually both the Recording Industry and the Movie industry HAVE talked about getting the hardware manufacturers "inline" so that when "pirated" copyrighted material was played on hardware the hardware would self disable or could be sent a signal to disable PERMANENTLY. This isn't something Hatch just pulled out of his ass to scare people with. They (RIAA/MPAA) wanted to chip every fucking machine that carried a digital signal in order to prevent copyright. The government (with a little nudging from the Hardware sector) said no let's go a different route. Of course you still have jackasses like Hatch who think it's a good idea and would be willing to let his big corporate buddies have access to the kill switch - because, of course, they're so trust worthy.
Anyone remember seeing the programming language called Whitespace. It uses a similar methodology where indentation and heirarchy are the key to the language. :)
I don't think that that's necessarily fact. Any company with a driven CEO could have stepped into that area. Look at Ellison he's just as evil, power hungry and willing to do anything to squash the competition. I don't think Gates holds the keys to hell in this regard.
You know you've got to wonder about an alternate reality where Bill Gates and MS didn't exist. Would it be this utopian society where software was cheap and there were plenty of interoperable products and platforms? Or would software be just as expensive, we'd still be arguing PC/MAC, and someone else would be standing there in the void maybe Jobs or Ellison or maybe IBM would be the one we'd be complaining about. Or would it be even worse, more expensive software, more fragmentation and just a bunch of small time jack asses running around being pains in the ass to the community.
Today who made their carreer because of Microsoft? In the absence of MS who would rise to power? I shudder to think if it were Ellison in Gates position or Steve Case....
It reminds me of a story I read where someone travels back in time to avert a disaster and each time a bigger disaster results from the intervention until finally the person goes back and allows the first disaster to take place. Lesser of two evils I guess.
They couldn't afford the ill-tempered mutation and were forced to pick up the lower priced passive-agressive trait.
But SCO has a pool full of deadly mutant bass.
No they came to steal water and FOOD? Remember they were shipping ships full of humans back home. Water was just an excuse - yes they needed it but food was more important.
From the way it's presented it sounds as if they are basing the new story line off of where the MINI-Series left off and excluding the TV-Series timeline. This is both good and bad. It's good because we can ditch the whole Star Child prophesy hoohah. It's bad for the people who enjoyed the TV-Series and liked the character build up and events that took place in it.
:).
Of course a whole new batch of hotties are going to have to be brought in since the old hotties are pushing 50. And of course the good thing is it also means costume redesigns
"der" also very relevant.
all I saw was 'die SCO' and it made me smile.
Don't most of the browsers now have a "fast load" option that does exactly the same thing that IE was doing that was so bad?
It's not about anonymous P2P'ing it's about small colaborative networks (think BUSINESS). For example it would be great for a small OSS team to use to collaborate, share files, etc without needing to rely on the commercial (AIM, YAHOO, MSN, ICQ) messaging. Plus it adds a level of security not found in other products.
Not everything on the internet is about anonymity. As I remember it there's no constitutional guarantee of anonymity, why people keep assuming that if they're on the net they're entitled to that right I don't know.
I forgot to add - after a while he noticed the cold dead hard drive fucker and decided to just play it off as a cool case mod he could share with the rest of the world.
Nope just a squirrel lured in through an open window by what it thought was the mating call of another squirrel --- click, click, click, tick, tick, click, click, tick.
The geek didn't notice the burnt hair smell or the smell of death because of his own hygene habbits.
Yes the people and the press are the only ones guaranteed freedom of speech. Read the constitution and constitutional law. Corporations have been stopped several times from "free speech". And yes I understand the idea that the PRESS is owned by a corporation... DUH. Not all corporations own a press outlet. Whether or not they have a "printing press" doesn't necessarily identify them as a press entity.
and there the hell does this come from? " guess we could ban all news dissemenation that doesn't travel over a peer-to-peer common carrier form of medium.
OR
Journalism could be taught at the 4th grade level, since it would become a core knowledge thing, and not a 'profession.'"
I don't thinkt that I implied in any way that news/media should be shut down. I fairly simply stated that if a candidate needed to spend millions of dollars in advertising that they were probably not doing a good enough job to get FREE PRESS (via word of mouth, journalistic reporting, et al).
So what you're saying is that it's ridiculous to dream and want better than what we have right now. Don't you think your apathy is a little ridiculous? It's just a dumb idea to think that we can hold people to a higher standard and expect some simple rules right? It's nothing utopian or high minded it's just a simple set of rules that could be enforced if it didn't effect the senators pocket books so gravely.
I think the real point should be that we shouldn't have questions about conflict of interest with our senators. We shouldn't be concerned with the $14,000 of "hard money" and the $X,XXX,XXX of "soft money" and the "favors" that the senator receives from a company and the "networking" that takes place.
The reason we shouldn't be concerned about this is because it shouldn't exist. Under our constitution the People and The PRESS were the only entities afforded freedom of speech. A multinational and "diverse" corporation was not given this freedom. So even if you falsely assume that signing a check is some form of freedom of speech, corporations can be (and should be) limited in this regard.
The ONLY people giving money to campaign finance should be the PEOPLE. If Joe CEO of Corporation X likes Mr. Smith for senator then he should give some money to help get that candidate some visibility. If the individual employees of the Corporation also like the same candidate then hey more power to them. But Corporation X should not be the one signing the check, the UNION for Corporation X should also not be the one signing the check, it should be the individuals within that corporation/union who feel strongly enough about candidate Smith to help him become visible to people outside his normal sphere of influence.
I get tired of hearing about how much it costs to get air time and flights and booking conference halls. All crap. If you do a good job at a local level then your reputation will get spread easily enough. If you need to spend millions and millions of dollars to campaign then it might just be that you're doing something wrong.
While Lockheed might not gain "significantly" to shareholders gain is gain. If the shuttle gets shut down and Lockheed gets more contracts for private space flight, foreign contracts, and/or shuttle redesign contracts - it's all gain no matter how small. While they lose out on one thing they gain in other ways. Hence people look to the money trail and question every little statement that a senator makes - no matter how heartfelt, honest, or thoughtful it may be.
Just about everyone I talk to mistrusts the senators and it's usually for the same reason. The Money Trail.
Unfortunately it would also fill up the garbage for you and empty it fifty times a day. The wind from the door constantly swinging open and closed would be a decent replacement for any fans in your home.