We don't have the original texts, but if that was a criterion then we would have to discard nearly every manuscript from antiquity.
Oh yeah, and almost every manuscript from antiquity is regarded with a healthy dose of skepticism because of the likelihood of point-modifications by previous copies.
The more politically polarizing the text, the less it is treated as direct reference and the more is assumed about what might have been changed in the process. That's pretty standard anthropology.
But, of course, the KJV bible is the unaltered word of Jeebus.
First of all, there are no "contradictions" in the Bible that have not been addressed by theologians
ROFL.
I think we were just talking about "interpretation", weren't we?
I find it highly ironic that there are at least a dozen different sects (or uhm, denominations) where there are pretty vast differences in interpretation, all with "scripture" reference.
The fact that the bible specifically condones slavery and stoning might fly for Muslims, but not so much for Christians. I'm sure your particular sect's opinion is that some newer text says that these things don't apply anymore. I'm not quite sure how this justifies a variety of absurd crap like avoiding red meat on fridays during a certain month, but some believe that too.
Half of the world's Christian population buys the Lev 18:22 view of homosexuality but 99% of them reject the 11:22 view of unholy shellfish.
Srsly?
I won't even go into technicalities of translations, except that there are clearly a variety of issues that have been pointed out over the years, not the least of which is the fact that the "gospels" were written between 50 and 150 years after the events took place, after the authors had been traveling together preaching the story for their entire life as a means of livelihood. The fact that they are textually identical in a number of accounts (75-100 years after the fact?) simply reinforces the probability that it was all a carefully chosen fabrication from the authors, unless, of course, you choose to believe it was all divinely inspired, which really makes one question the areas of the four gospels that textually DISAGREE about certain events.
pfft.
I won't even go into some of the other same-era scrolls that have been found that directly contradict (like some of the Dead Sea scrolls, etc).
Just the whole stupid arc and flood story.. yeesh.
And God put dinosaur bones in the ground just to fool us, did he?
Or perhaps he was just being metaphorical when he was talking about creating things in 6 days?
I just don't get what sort of "research" is required here.
I'd recommend trying some blind faith if you're really interested in debating these kinds of topics.
Google has job postings all over advertising looking for infrastructure architects with ARM experience and solid state drives, with an aim of reducing power consumption.
I'd have to guess that was a server play, though maybe it's a handheld one....
Because "the book" is thousands of pages and has massive internal contradictions, all of "what it says" is an interpretation.
Not to mention that we're actually talking about a middle-ages translation of an ancient text, combined with a collection of a number of after-the-fact letters written about events, which, in many cases, were third hand accounts of events where the original author likely was not even present, which were hand-selected hundreds of years later by a pseudo-political organization, likely modified during dictation and then subjected to multiple translations from several archaic languages.
While I would agree with the assessment you made about drunk driving, I think it's at least worth pointing out that one is a passive activity and the other is active.
In other words, it's entirely possible that every single person in america has driven "over the limit" at least once in their life (I'm not saying they HAVE, just that it's possible), and a small fraction have gone on to crash and injure someone.
In fact, hasn't it been shown that driving whilst tired, or while staring at a phone, or while reading, are equally dangerous activities and (in most states) aren't regulated at all.
In fact, having anger control issues is probably a greater risk for accident than speeding in most cases. Driving a car with crap-ass suspension (while totally legal) is much more dangerous than a "california stop" at a stop sign with clear visibility of no other cars in the intersection (which is not legal) and being hopped up on "Rockstar" energy drinks must have at least as much effect as a 0.04 alcohol level toward being a danger toward others.
When does the small chance of killing someone warrant a steep punishment? After all, simply being a "bad driver" is apt to cause injury or death in some rare cases. Simply looking at the outcome of a single drunk driving accident yeilds an emotional response of "OH MY GOD THIS MUST BE STOPPED", but does it warrant what people do as a result?
I'm sorry, but I'd be royally pissed of MS was trying to remove third party software from a machine without asking me.
Malware or not.
It's not the right place. A very appropriate solution would be to prompt the user
"A root kit has been detected, please visit the following website for more information and a link to a tool to attempt to fix the issue. This update will not be installed until the issue has been resolved."
If I saw that message, I would be shocked and amazed at the appropriate response demonstrated. If that happened, I would say MS went above and beyond to accommodate the customer and the security best practice.
The taxation of property was deemed untenable and dubiously aristocratic by the revolutionaries around 225 years ago (dunno where 300 came from?)
But clearly, our government has changed its mind and the people have basically gone along with it.
But at the time, the government decided that certain colors of skin were perfectly fine to own as property and to execute without trial.
But then like 100 years ago, we decided that one gender should be able to have equal voting rights to the other gender. I'm sure that's an "unalienable right" but the government didn't recognize it until relatively recently.
Don't you see the absurdity of the concept "unalienable rights"?
All rights are granted by the government. You can surely argue that taking 40-50% of someone's income directly out of their paycheck is a crime. That's what the original US government said, when the Brits tried to come in and tax them, but they decided they were going to put an end to it and they did it with bullets.
The only way to overrule the government is to overthrow the government, especially when the government essentially perpetuates itself, rather than being an element of the people's discretion- as it is in a limited sense within the framework of the constitutional republic of the USA.
More nuanced discussion and a deeper consideration of a broad scope of political history and social anthropology might help the understanding of the topic.
debating stuff like the ethics of stem cell research
I think we were talking about the history of science funded research, before the fundies took over the popular culture with voodoo predictions of certain moral doom... at least in the scientific realm.
There were fundies back in the day that thought going to the moon would bring down the wrath of god, but they were (rightly) laughed off the podium.
Implementing the "take away your ethernet cable" punishment seems more effective than kludging together some hybrid Active Directory OpenWRT API-based webpage that's may or may not be easy to circumvent and requires specialized knowledge and lots of time to administer and check up on.
I can see it now... Parent hits "shut down now" but then runs into the bedroom to see if it's working...
At which point, the power button is only inches away....:-P
This single parent is going to spend 10 hours per week troubleshooting administrative tools, when the computers he's trying to administer are like 10 feet away from him.
The guy was carrying a camera, not a gun and the van that tried to rescue him was a family with kids in the back seat. In fact, there were no guns in the area.
I think, in the majority of states, both teens involved can be charged as rapists, regardless of how "consensual" it was, if they're under that magical number.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess you would get a "giPad" which sounds like something much more smelly...
We don't have the original texts, but if that was a criterion then we would have to discard nearly every manuscript from antiquity.
Oh yeah, and almost every manuscript from antiquity is regarded with a healthy dose of skepticism because of the likelihood of point-modifications by previous copies.
The more politically polarizing the text, the less it is treated as direct reference and the more is assumed about what might have been changed in the process. That's pretty standard anthropology.
But, of course, the KJV bible is the unaltered word of Jeebus.
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/fight.html#fight2
Yep.
First of all, there are no "contradictions" in the Bible that have not been addressed by theologians
ROFL.
I think we were just talking about "interpretation", weren't we?
I find it highly ironic that there are at least a dozen different sects (or uhm, denominations) where there are pretty vast differences in interpretation, all with "scripture" reference.
The fact that the bible specifically condones slavery and stoning might fly for Muslims, but not so much for Christians. I'm sure your particular sect's opinion is that some newer text says that these things don't apply anymore. I'm not quite sure how this justifies a variety of absurd crap like avoiding red meat on fridays during a certain month, but some believe that too.
Half of the world's Christian population buys the Lev 18:22 view of homosexuality but 99% of them reject the 11:22 view of unholy shellfish.
Srsly?
I won't even go into technicalities of translations, except that there are clearly a variety of issues that have been pointed out over the years, not the least of which is the fact that the "gospels" were written between 50 and 150 years after the events took place, after the authors had been traveling together preaching the story for their entire life as a means of livelihood. The fact that they are textually identical in a number of accounts (75-100 years after the fact?) simply reinforces the probability that it was all a carefully chosen fabrication from the authors, unless, of course, you choose to believe it was all divinely inspired, which really makes one question the areas of the four gospels that textually DISAGREE about certain events.
pfft.
I won't even go into some of the other same-era scrolls that have been found that directly contradict (like some of the Dead Sea scrolls, etc).
Just the whole stupid arc and flood story.. yeesh.
And God put dinosaur bones in the ground just to fool us, did he?
Or perhaps he was just being metaphorical when he was talking about creating things in 6 days?
I just don't get what sort of "research" is required here.
I'd recommend trying some blind faith if you're really interested in debating these kinds of topics.
There, I fixed that for you.
uhm...
I think it would be "empowerment"
I'm can't think of any verbs that can't be nounded, but maybe my imagination is failing me. LOL
There are plenty of nous that can't be verbed easily. (such as noun and verb and door, etc)
They are.
Google has job postings all over advertising looking for infrastructure architects with ARM experience and solid state drives, with an aim of reducing power consumption.
I'd have to guess that was a server play, though maybe it's a handheld one....
Sounds like an interesting sex toy!
I just looked and the Oxford dictionary recognizes it, and points to archived letters from Keats in 1813 using the word as a verb.
It was considered an "overly formal" usage for awhile, but I think the use in computer-speak has brought it back toward mainstream.
Because "the book" is thousands of pages and has massive internal contradictions, all of "what it says" is an interpretation.
Not to mention that we're actually talking about a middle-ages translation of an ancient text, combined with a collection of a number of after-the-fact letters written about events, which, in many cases, were third hand accounts of events where the original author likely was not even present, which were hand-selected hundreds of years later by a pseudo-political organization, likely modified during dictation and then subjected to multiple translations from several archaic languages.
Yeah "just what it says".
Derp
Doesn't manslaughter imply that the killing was accidental, but still your fault?
While I would agree with the assessment you made about drunk driving, I think it's at least worth pointing out that one is a passive activity and the other is active.
In other words, it's entirely possible that every single person in america has driven "over the limit" at least once in their life (I'm not saying they HAVE, just that it's possible), and a small fraction have gone on to crash and injure someone.
In fact, hasn't it been shown that driving whilst tired, or while staring at a phone, or while reading, are equally dangerous activities and (in most states) aren't regulated at all.
In fact, having anger control issues is probably a greater risk for accident than speeding in most cases. Driving a car with crap-ass suspension (while totally legal) is much more dangerous than a "california stop" at a stop sign with clear visibility of no other cars in the intersection (which is not legal) and being hopped up on "Rockstar" energy drinks must have at least as much effect as a 0.04 alcohol level toward being a danger toward others.
When does the small chance of killing someone warrant a steep punishment? After all, simply being a "bad driver" is apt to cause injury or death in some rare cases. Simply looking at the outcome of a single drunk driving accident yeilds an emotional response of "OH MY GOD THIS MUST BE STOPPED", but does it warrant what people do as a result?
Devils advocate. :-)
Canada humbly requests your permission to suck ass.
Get it right.
actually, Canada is pretty cool. :-P They're fun to tease. Like that Vancouver episode of simpsons.
Hiya! My name is Milhoose. I just about popped from laughing.
It's a compound word which in the local language basically means "Eyja Mountain Glacier". Eyjamountainglacier.
There pronounce that. :-)
Especially a high-pressure turbojet.
Frankly, the auto engine's filter will handle the worst of it...
Uhm, I think it has more to do with the jetstream, which spreads the ash cloud over Britain.
It's not intercontinental flights that are shut down. It's ALL air traffic over northwest Europe.
In some jurisdictions, a condition of being able to carry one is to have been shot by one once.
It's most definitely a requirement for most SWAT officers and certain military personnel.
Yes, and finer print "only tested indoors, on first-time meth user sheep, in perfect health, who were sedated". :-)
Lot of qualifiers there.
Sure, but not in XP. :-P
But it IS almost 9 years old already.
Sheesh. Seems like a lot of people are pretty critical given the situation...
I'm sorry, but I'd be royally pissed of MS was trying to remove third party software from a machine without asking me.
Malware or not.
It's not the right place. A very appropriate solution would be to prompt the user
"A root kit has been detected, please visit the following website for more information and a link to a tool to attempt to fix the issue. This update will not be installed until the issue has been resolved."
If I saw that message, I would be shocked and amazed at the appropriate response demonstrated. If that happened, I would say MS went above and beyond to accommodate the customer and the security best practice.
The taxation of property was deemed untenable and dubiously aristocratic by the revolutionaries around 225 years ago (dunno where 300 came from?)
But clearly, our government has changed its mind and the people have basically gone along with it.
But at the time, the government decided that certain colors of skin were perfectly fine to own as property and to execute without trial.
But then like 100 years ago, we decided that one gender should be able to have equal voting rights to the other gender. I'm sure that's an "unalienable right" but the government didn't recognize it until relatively recently.
Don't you see the absurdity of the concept "unalienable rights"?
All rights are granted by the government. You can surely argue that taking 40-50% of someone's income directly out of their paycheck is a crime. That's what the original US government said, when the Brits tried to come in and tax them, but they decided they were going to put an end to it and they did it with bullets.
The only way to overrule the government is to overthrow the government, especially when the government essentially perpetuates itself, rather than being an element of the people's discretion- as it is in a limited sense within the framework of the constitutional republic of the USA.
More nuanced discussion and a deeper consideration of a broad scope of political history and social anthropology might help the understanding of the topic.
debating stuff like the ethics of stem cell research
I think we were talking about the history of science funded research, before the fundies took over the popular culture with voodoo predictions of certain moral doom... at least in the scientific realm.
There were fundies back in the day that thought going to the moon would bring down the wrath of god, but they were (rightly) laughed off the podium.
Not today, alas.
Implementing the "take away your ethernet cable" punishment seems more effective than kludging together some hybrid Active Directory OpenWRT API-based webpage that's may or may not be easy to circumvent and requires specialized knowledge and lots of time to administer and check up on.
I can see it now... Parent hits "shut down now" but then runs into the bedroom to see if it's working...
At which point, the power button is only inches away.... :-P
Agreed.
This single parent is going to spend 10 hours per week troubleshooting administrative tools, when the computers he's trying to administer are like 10 feet away from him.
WTF?
Do you know how long it's been since "tin foil" actually used tin? :-)
The guy was carrying a camera, not a gun and the van that tried to rescue him was a family with kids in the back seat. In fact, there were no guns in the area.
Which part of this was a good decision?
I think, in the majority of states, both teens involved can be charged as rapists, regardless of how "consensual" it was, if they're under that magical number.