Well, I can only really speak about the Anglo-Saxons on this, but you need to remember that books were scarce, and literacy was by no means universal. There's no guarantee someone would have had access to the whole Bible at any one time, or could read it even if they did. Add to this the fact that there was a great distrust of Jews - I doubt most Anglo-Saxon thinkers would have accepted that Christianity "included" Jewish scriptures and proscriptions; they would say that Christianity fulfilled the Hebrew scriptures and re-interpreted them in light of the teachings of Christ. Add to this an almost total ignorance of actual Jewish practice (i.e. anything outside the Hebrew scriptures themselves, which I think don't allow us to calculate Passover accurately on their own), and it's not surprising that a Christian king would have absolutely no idea how to date Passover or Easter.
Perhaps. Certainly you're right when it comes to instructional books and so on. But I think people would still pay for those.
The more fundamental question here is about art. Traditionally, artists write or create music or paint because they have a talent and/or they love to do it. If they make money, that's a bonus. I sing a lot. Sometimes I get paid for it. Mostly I do it because I enjoy it - it's not a waste of time because it's something I enjoy and that makes me feel fulfilled. The first English poets didn't get paid for their work - that didn't stop someone from composing Beowulf. T. S. Eliot worked for a living all his life - as a teacher and then a publisher - and still produced astoundingly beautiful and well-crafted literature.
So, you know, I can't say I'm that upset if you give up your novel because it'll only make you a few grand. If you're not driven to finish that story without financial incentive, why do you imagine it'll grip your readers?
I know it's a holiday and therefore news is slow. But really. When we discussed this a few days ago it wasn't news. It isn't news now. Maybe it would fit on Idle.
"I approve of people of all religions getting their panties in a twist and trying to blow each other to smithereens."
Elsewhere in comments on this post, it's been argued that Islam deserves condemnation because the majority of Muslims approve violence and the death of those who disagree with them. Either your views are no better than those you oppose, or you're being ironic. I sincerely hope it's the latter.
I disagree. Science tells us that, if we don't eat in a certain way, we will die prematurely. It tells us that we must recycle more plastic in order to save the planet. It tells us that the cure for depression is medication. And when we've done all those things (because we'd be stupid, lazy, immoral if we didn't) a whole new lot of science comes along and proves that the opposite is true.
A good scientific education may teach you how to think, but for most people science is something that dictates government policy, legislation, and lifestyle choices without their actually having to understand any of the details or processes. For most people, science becomes a faith. I'd bet that the average American or Briton does more things based on the latest scientific evidence than s/he does based on religious belief.
OK, you have every right to talk from experience. But when you say "most Muslims" it sounds as though you're referring to a majority of all Muslims, not just a majority of the ones you've encountered. I also wonder how objective your judgement of someone's "look of satisfaction" is. Have you personally discussed their reactions to American/Danish/Israeli deaths with these people?
I'm sorry you've had a bad experience of Muslim people. I've met quite a few Muslims whom I have liked and respected. I respect your right to speak as you find, but I hope that someday you will meet some people who will be able to give you a more positive view of Muslims.
I did read what you wrote. You said: "Ask most moderate or 'peaceful' Islamists how they feel about the Americans or Danes getting killed, and they'll typically have a look of satisfaction. I'd consider it an overwhelming majority that are not against violence, as long as it's perpetrated against non-muslims."
"they'll typically have a look of satisfaction" - how do you know? Have you had the chance to ask most moderate Muslims? Of course not - there are thousands of them. So you are stating how a lot of people you don't know will definitely react. To my mind, that is equal to speaking for them.
"I consider it an overwhelming majority..." - what gives you the authority to make this judgement? If you said "I imagine it might be an overwhelming majority", you're just expressing your opinion and that's your right. But the way you phrase it, right after a positive assertion that Muslims are satisfied with American/Danish deaths, suggests that you are stating a fact, not a totally unfounded opinion.
The problem with using Israeli examples to illustrate Jewish religious terrorism is that Israel is not a religious state, and not all Jews are religious. To compare like with like, you must compare violent acts by Muslims and Christians with violent acts by religious Jewish groups, not just by Jewish or Israeli people.
Last time I saw religion discussed on/., the Bible wasn't considered a work of historical fact by most people.
I actually agree with the argument that people acting in the name of Christianity have caused huge amounts of deaths, on a par with or even exceeding those caused by people acting in the name of Islam. But what's the point of backing up this argument using sources whose contents (even many Christians agree on this) are often mythic, legendary or metaphorical?
Many Christians are incredibly aggressive about converting friends, neighbours, co-workers, total strangers. This isn't a trait specific to Muslims.
The Muslim people I've spoken to have been horrified by Islamic extremist violence. It seems to me that it's unlikely you personally know many Muslim people. What qualifies you to speak for the majority of Muslims?
The point is not that bright lighting necessarily deters criminals (there is apparently strong evidence to support either side of that argument), but that it gives them fewer places to hide. If I can see right down the street and into doorways, I can avoid being taken by surprise. I'm not talking about crime such as burglaries, car thefts, and so on. I'm talking about personal attacks and rape, which are often surprise attacks and therefore can be better guarded against if the potential victim can see their general surroundings clearly (unlike torchlight, which illuminates a strip or pool of light and makes the surrounding area even less visible by comparison.) I would rather see us finding more sustainable and efficient technologies rather than turning off late-night streetlighting. But I see that we also desperately need to consider the environmental effects. It's not an easy problem to address.
Seriously, do you assume that all Christians are no-brain idiots who think dinosaur skeletons are an atheist conspiracy? Donald Knuth is a Lutheran, Gregor Mendel was an Augustinian monk, Copernicus was a priest, as was Georges Lemaitre. Lord Kelvin and Max Planck were committed Christians, Arthur Stanley Eddington was a Quaker... There are more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science (Not all of those in this list were Christians throughout their lives, but the ones I've named were/are.)
Absolutely - the Anglo-Saxons had a lot to say about the dating of Easter. See http://faculty.virginia.edu/OldEnglish/aelfric/detemp.html for an original text on the subject if you're wildly interested. Melvyn Bragg's novel "Credo" dramatises the Synod of Whitby and gives a sense of exactly how serious an issue this was for people. Since Easter is the major Christian feast, it was a matter of orthodoxy to date it correctly. Interesting to think that being bad at math could make you a heretic!
What none of the comments here take into account is that I wasn't referring to visibility but to safety. Probably because you're all assuming I'm a man (no women on the internet, right?):)
Anyway, yes, I could use a pocket torch, or let my eyes adjust, or whatever, but that wouldn't change the fact that unlit streets and stretches of road are not safe for women walking on their own. They probably hold some dangers for men, too, but no sensible woman goes walking in the dark alone.
Because our social structures have changed hugely in the last 50 years. Walking home from a friend's house at 1 a.m. is nothing unusual for me, or for lots of other people. But I wouldn't be able to do it if there weren't decent street lighting.
Thanks - that was the kind of thing I was trying to get at, but you actually put it in the right words!
I like that you identify the arbitrariness of the division between a "trait" and a "disorder". I also think it's important to note that the fact that a majority of people think that their health would be affected by a certain type of behavior doesn't mean that those of us who behave that way aren't perfectly happy and productive. For example, not eating when I'm working on something difficult focuses my mind, and once the problem is solved I'll shove down a couple of pizzas and be fine. Nobody quibbles when sports-people go on nutty diets before a big race; an athlete is "single-minded" and "focused", whereas a computer programmer or mathematician is "obsessive" and "antisocial" - i.e. desirable traits become disorders at the flip of a coin.
I have to admit that I'll go without food and sleep for ages when I'm interested in something on the computer, whether it's teh internets or doing some coding, or whatever.
But, the thing is, I'm like that when I get hold of a good novel, too. I'll sometimes forget to eat for a day if I'm reading something great, and will even cancel social engagements if the book's really good. I don't think I'm alone in this.
So, do we also need a category of book addiction? Or do we just need to get a reality check, and accept that people in a relatively affluent society are lucky to have the luxury to give up on sleep or food for a little while in order to pursue an interest? After all, we know that we're not going to starve, so what does it matter if we miss a meal in order to iron out a persistent bug or follow a fascinating click-trail through Wikipedia? I think there are too many people out there who want us all to follow norms and have a vested interest in making us feel weird and wrong when we don't.
OK, that's interesting. Thanks. For me, this just confirms what I've always thought - that this type of legislation is opportunistic rather than economically necessary for the companies. It doesn't change the fact that, if you're in a country where downloading copyright-infringing material is illegal, you're breaking the law by doing so, and thus enabling the companies to point to figures of these "crimes" against them and justify legislating to stop it.
OK, I take your point. (And note that I don't usually broadcast my gender when I post.) But the thing is, by anonymizing themselves, women don't become gender-neutral, they become male. (Unless I state otherwise, people on/. generally assume I'm a guy.) This just bolsters the perception that there aren't many geek women around, which makes those women whose gender is evident from their usernames more likely to be homed in on by "OMG Girl"! comments.
That said, I don't have much time or sympathy for women who can't play with the big boys (no innuendo intended). So maybe I should just have left well alone here!
Okay, I walked into that one:) But seriously, when you make a comment and half the responses are about your gender rather than your ideas, it can be a bit wearing.
And this tool would allow you to do that, right? Seems like it could be very useful to those of us who want to know how the other side thinks - whatever that "other side" is. Of course, it would also handily package up the news for those who only want to hear from their own side, but at least it might get them reading more than one source. It's safe to stick to, say, Fox or CNN if you know that's what you like to hear, but if someone were to give you a list of other sites that would probably also suit your perspective it might encourage you to branch out a little more.
Surely they've lost the revenue that they should have gained from the content you downloaded? They've at least lost the right to control the distribution of the content they own? Help me out here - I'm not trying to be difficult, I really do want to understand all the sides of this issue, and at the moment I don't really understand your side.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I can only really speak about the Anglo-Saxons on this, but you need to remember that books were scarce, and literacy was by no means universal. There's no guarantee someone would have had access to the whole Bible at any one time, or could read it even if they did. Add to this the fact that there was a great distrust of Jews - I doubt most Anglo-Saxon thinkers would have accepted that Christianity "included" Jewish scriptures and proscriptions; they would say that Christianity fulfilled the Hebrew scriptures and re-interpreted them in light of the teachings of Christ. Add to this an almost total ignorance of actual Jewish practice (i.e. anything outside the Hebrew scriptures themselves, which I think don't allow us to calculate Passover accurately on their own), and it's not surprising that a Christian king would have absolutely no idea how to date Passover or Easter.
Perhaps. Certainly you're right when it comes to instructional books and so on. But I think people would still pay for those.
The more fundamental question here is about art. Traditionally, artists write or create music or paint because they have a talent and/or they love to do it. If they make money, that's a bonus. I sing a lot. Sometimes I get paid for it. Mostly I do it because I enjoy it - it's not a waste of time because it's something I enjoy and that makes me feel fulfilled. The first English poets didn't get paid for their work - that didn't stop someone from composing Beowulf. T. S. Eliot worked for a living all his life - as a teacher and then a publisher - and still produced astoundingly beautiful and well-crafted literature.
So, you know, I can't say I'm that upset if you give up your novel because it'll only make you a few grand. If you're not driven to finish that story without financial incentive, why do you imagine it'll grip your readers?
I know it's a holiday and therefore news is slow. But really. When we discussed this a few days ago it wasn't news. It isn't news now. Maybe it would fit on Idle.
"I approve of people of all religions getting their panties in a twist and trying to blow each other to smithereens."
Elsewhere in comments on this post, it's been argued that Islam deserves condemnation because the majority of Muslims approve violence and the death of those who disagree with them. Either your views are no better than those you oppose, or you're being ironic. I sincerely hope it's the latter.
Copernicus: 1473-1543 Mendel: 1822-1884 Kelvin: 1824-1907 Planck: 1858-1947 Eddington: 1882-1944 Lemaitre: 1894-1966 Knuth: 1938-
So, Copernicus may have been a Christian for the sake of convenience, but I think the others had/have other choices!
I disagree. Science tells us that, if we don't eat in a certain way, we will die prematurely. It tells us that we must recycle more plastic in order to save the planet. It tells us that the cure for depression is medication. And when we've done all those things (because we'd be stupid, lazy, immoral if we didn't) a whole new lot of science comes along and proves that the opposite is true.
A good scientific education may teach you how to think, but for most people science is something that dictates government policy, legislation, and lifestyle choices without their actually having to understand any of the details or processes. For most people, science becomes a faith. I'd bet that the average American or Briton does more things based on the latest scientific evidence than s/he does based on religious belief.
OK, you have every right to talk from experience. But when you say "most Muslims" it sounds as though you're referring to a majority of all Muslims, not just a majority of the ones you've encountered. I also wonder how objective your judgement of someone's "look of satisfaction" is. Have you personally discussed their reactions to American/Danish/Israeli deaths with these people?
I'm sorry you've had a bad experience of Muslim people. I've met quite a few Muslims whom I have liked and respected. I respect your right to speak as you find, but I hope that someday you will meet some people who will be able to give you a more positive view of Muslims.
I did read what you wrote. You said: "Ask most moderate or 'peaceful' Islamists how they feel about the Americans or Danes getting killed, and they'll typically have a look of satisfaction. I'd consider it an overwhelming majority that are not against violence, as long as it's perpetrated against non-muslims."
"they'll typically have a look of satisfaction" - how do you know? Have you had the chance to ask most moderate Muslims? Of course not - there are thousands of them. So you are stating how a lot of people you don't know will definitely react. To my mind, that is equal to speaking for them.
"I consider it an overwhelming majority..." - what gives you the authority to make this judgement? If you said "I imagine it might be an overwhelming majority", you're just expressing your opinion and that's your right. But the way you phrase it, right after a positive assertion that Muslims are satisfied with American/Danish deaths, suggests that you are stating a fact, not a totally unfounded opinion.
The problem with using Israeli examples to illustrate Jewish religious terrorism is that Israel is not a religious state, and not all Jews are religious. To compare like with like, you must compare violent acts by Muslims and Christians with violent acts by religious Jewish groups, not just by Jewish or Israeli people.
Last time I saw religion discussed on /., the Bible wasn't considered a work of historical fact by most people.
I actually agree with the argument that people acting in the name of Christianity have caused huge amounts of deaths, on a par with or even exceeding those caused by people acting in the name of Islam. But what's the point of backing up this argument using sources whose contents (even many Christians agree on this) are often mythic, legendary or metaphorical?
Many Christians are incredibly aggressive about converting friends, neighbours, co-workers, total strangers. This isn't a trait specific to Muslims.
The Muslim people I've spoken to have been horrified by Islamic extremist violence. It seems to me that it's unlikely you personally know many Muslim people. What qualifies you to speak for the majority of Muslims?
The point is not that bright lighting necessarily deters criminals (there is apparently strong evidence to support either side of that argument), but that it gives them fewer places to hide. If I can see right down the street and into doorways, I can avoid being taken by surprise. I'm not talking about crime such as burglaries, car thefts, and so on. I'm talking about personal attacks and rape, which are often surprise attacks and therefore can be better guarded against if the potential victim can see their general surroundings clearly (unlike torchlight, which illuminates a strip or pool of light and makes the surrounding area even less visible by comparison.) I would rather see us finding more sustainable and efficient technologies rather than turning off late-night streetlighting. But I see that we also desperately need to consider the environmental effects. It's not an easy problem to address.
Even worse... there are Christian women on /.
Seriously, do you assume that all Christians are no-brain idiots who think dinosaur skeletons are an atheist conspiracy? Donald Knuth is a Lutheran, Gregor Mendel was an Augustinian monk, Copernicus was a priest, as was Georges Lemaitre. Lord Kelvin and Max Planck were committed Christians, Arthur Stanley Eddington was a Quaker... There are more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science (Not all of those in this list were Christians throughout their lives, but the ones I've named were/are.)
Absolutely - the Anglo-Saxons had a lot to say about the dating of Easter. See http://faculty.virginia.edu/OldEnglish/aelfric/detemp.html for an original text on the subject if you're wildly interested. Melvyn Bragg's novel "Credo" dramatises the Synod of Whitby and gives a sense of exactly how serious an issue this was for people. Since Easter is the major Christian feast, it was a matter of orthodoxy to date it correctly. Interesting to think that being bad at math could make you a heretic!
What none of the comments here take into account is that I wasn't referring to visibility but to safety. Probably because you're all assuming I'm a man (no women on the internet, right?) :)
Anyway, yes, I could use a pocket torch, or let my eyes adjust, or whatever, but that wouldn't change the fact that unlit streets and stretches of road are not safe for women walking on their own. They probably hold some dangers for men, too, but no sensible woman goes walking in the dark alone.
Because our social structures have changed hugely in the last 50 years. Walking home from a friend's house at 1 a.m. is nothing unusual for me, or for lots of other people. But I wouldn't be able to do it if there weren't decent street lighting.
Clearly you've never read Neal Stephenson's "Cryptonomicon". Not recommended unless your social life is up to taking a severe blow ;)
I like that you identify the arbitrariness of the division between a "trait" and a "disorder". I also think it's important to note that the fact that a majority of people think that their health would be affected by a certain type of behavior doesn't mean that those of us who behave that way aren't perfectly happy and productive. For example, not eating when I'm working on something difficult focuses my mind, and once the problem is solved I'll shove down a couple of pizzas and be fine. Nobody quibbles when sports-people go on nutty diets before a big race; an athlete is "single-minded" and "focused", whereas a computer programmer or mathematician is "obsessive" and "antisocial" - i.e. desirable traits become disorders at the flip of a coin.
But, the thing is, I'm like that when I get hold of a good novel, too. I'll sometimes forget to eat for a day if I'm reading something great, and will even cancel social engagements if the book's really good. I don't think I'm alone in this.
So, do we also need a category of book addiction? Or do we just need to get a reality check, and accept that people in a relatively affluent society are lucky to have the luxury to give up on sleep or food for a little while in order to pursue an interest? After all, we know that we're not going to starve, so what does it matter if we miss a meal in order to iron out a persistent bug or follow a fascinating click-trail through Wikipedia? I think there are too many people out there who want us all to follow norms and have a vested interest in making us feel weird and wrong when we don't.
OK, that's interesting. Thanks. For me, this just confirms what I've always thought - that this type of legislation is opportunistic rather than economically necessary for the companies. It doesn't change the fact that, if you're in a country where downloading copyright-infringing material is illegal, you're breaking the law by doing so, and thus enabling the companies to point to figures of these "crimes" against them and justify legislating to stop it.
OK, I take your point. (And note that I don't usually broadcast my gender when I post.) But the thing is, by anonymizing themselves, women don't become gender-neutral, they become male. (Unless I state otherwise, people on /. generally assume I'm a guy.) This just bolsters the perception that there aren't many geek women around, which makes those women whose gender is evident from their usernames more likely to be homed in on by "OMG Girl"! comments.
That said, I don't have much time or sympathy for women who can't play with the big boys (no innuendo intended). So maybe I should just have left well alone here!
Okay, I walked into that one :) But seriously, when you make a comment and half the responses are about your gender rather than your ideas, it can be a bit wearing.
And this tool would allow you to do that, right? Seems like it could be very useful to those of us who want to know how the other side thinks - whatever that "other side" is. Of course, it would also handily package up the news for those who only want to hear from their own side, but at least it might get them reading more than one source. It's safe to stick to, say, Fox or CNN if you know that's what you like to hear, but if someone were to give you a list of other sites that would probably also suit your perspective it might encourage you to branch out a little more.
Please, please don't do that. Treat us as real people and react to what we're saying instead of the potential that we have breasts. Please?
Surely they've lost the revenue that they should have gained from the content you downloaded? They've at least lost the right to control the distribution of the content they own? Help me out here - I'm not trying to be difficult, I really do want to understand all the sides of this issue, and at the moment I don't really understand your side.