Read your Bible. Satan seemed to believe that Jesus was the Son of God ("divine presence on earth"). And I don't mean hypothetically. Satan spent personal time working to derail Jesus.
By your definition, Satan would be a Christian.
I just think there's no "faith" of proper humility that isn't essentially a "strong" agnostic's stance: we aren't divine, we can't directly know the divine, but we can use conscience and a measure of faith to try to find our way.
But when you start talking "conscience" and "faith" then you get into the realm of psychosis. Is murdering innocent children "good" as long as you have "faith" that you're doing God's Will and a clear conscience?
How is their approach any different from what you've stated?
One of the largest problems I see in agnostics and atheists today is the failure to grasp the simple truth that life is not a particularly desirable state. It some how fails to penetrate their skulls that when you believe in heaven, the Earth doesn't look that great in comparison.
I don't know about others, but I do understand it. It just makes no sense to me. Again, statistically, there is no difference between "good" and "bad" things happening to "good" and "bad" people while they're alive.
Your belief is that this is "god's" will and that Heaven is so much better and lasts so much longer.
Now, take a look at the religious beliefs of most suicide bombers. Hmmmm, they have very similar beliefs. They go straight to Heaven for all eternity.
Now, if you really believe what you say you believe, then those suicide bombers are doing "good" things by sending people to Heaven, even if they're going to Hell for their beliefs.
Go ahead and say that. Say that you support suicide bombers killing "good" people because those "good" people are better off in Heaven now.
It's one thing to discuss it in the abstract, it's an entirely different thing to state, publicly, that you support killing innocent men, women and children.
The critical point is... don't define the action as "good" or "bad"... define the actors.
A "good" man is NOT one who does not kill.
A "good" man is one who believes in "god" and kills according to his belief as to whom "god" wants killed (as long as the rest of the winning society believes the same).
A "psychotic" man is one who believes in "god" and kills according to his belief as to whom "god" wants killed (but the rest of the winning society does not believe the same).
A "bad" man is one who refuses to kill as "god" dictates OR who kills the "good" people because he is fighting for the wrong "god".
Witness wars and executions for real world examples of the above.
Statistically, there is no difference between good things happening to "good" people and good things happening to "bad" people.
Nor is there a difference between bad things happening to "good"/"bad" people.
So, how does a religion explain why a "good" family can be killed by a "bad" person when "god" is all powerful and loving and so on and so forth? Which results in the process you've noted.
You answered your own question. Because there are an infinite number of situations and deserved punishments, ten laws (or your proposed ONE law) will not work.
Which is why we have different crimes such as manslaughter and 1st degree murder.
With ONE law, how do you set the punishment/rehabilitation for the offender? Does stealing a loaf of bread merit the same punishment as killing an entire family?
If not, then you get into ranking the punishments based upon the crime which requires you to define the crime which means that your ONE law is now a thousand specific cases and we're right back where we started.
If it is the same, you need to re-evaluate you moral structure.
If anyone can write a word processor that has 100% compatibility with the format Microsoft uses... then what's to keep people using MSOffice?
People don't buy MSOffice because they love it or because it's the best or because it's the cheapest. They buy it because everyone else uses it and that means that everyone else uses that document format.
Crack the format lock-in and you've cracked the office suite.
Crack the office suite and you've cracked the desktop monopoly.
Crack the desktop monopoly and you've cracked Microsoft.
For Microsoft, an open document format means one thing, the end of their era. Of course they're going to fight this any way they can. Their revenues are going to plummet.
# 1. Even if you do everything correct, if you do it in the wrong order, it's still wrong. KNOW the sequence.
# 2. You take precautions BEFORE you take risks. There's no "just reboot" to fix a problem of 1,000 scattered cards.
Punch cards were great for really grinding those two lessons into your soul. If you can learn them & live them on your own then don't be too concerned about the old geezers' bragging.
Firefox was supposed to be more secure than IE. But exploits for both browsers are close in numbers
But because FireFox is not "integrated" with the OS, the vulnerabilities aren't as severe as those found in IE.
Finding 1,000 different "vulnerabilities" that cause the app to crash does not equal 1 vulnerability that gives remote admin access to the machine.
And that story only shows FireFox's adoption rate to be slowing. You can interpret that any way you want to. But if your interpretation is correct, then why is Microsoft introducing FireFox-like features in the next release of IE?
It's okay for Republicans to declare they are anti-Bush now, he's done his two terms and can't run again.
Now watch how many of them will vote for someone else, Republican, who says the exact same things Bush said (and will do the exact same things Bush did).
Bush didn't do all of that himself. He had a fully compliant House and Senate and any one of those elected representatives could have voted against his policies... but did not.
Killing someone is a one time deal. Ten years later, people might not even remember the name or crime.
Prison is forever. Every day you have the jailers looking at the thoughtcriminals.
The thoughtcriminal can repent of his thoughtcrime and be media'd to show society how wrong he was and how just society is for preventing the spread of his thoughtcrimes and for bringing him back to the fold.
I guess I still don't consider than sci-fi because it makes no broad implications on how science and technology affect society.
Did you miss the intro to most of the shows?
Does the name "The Village" mean anything to you?
Maybe you should take some time and re-watch "The Chimes of Big Ben".
EVERYTHING in that series was tied back to society and how many of the people in charge were directly tied to the people running The Village.
You should also re-watch the first episode so you can listen for the phrase "serve my new masters".
In that series, society was shaped by the people who used the technology to convert/control other people who then moved into positions of authority in regular society.
Federico Biancuzzi recently contacted RMS, founder of the Free Software Movement and initial developer of the GNU system (the G in "GLAMP"), to talk about the past, the present, and the future of the GNU GPL.
The average US civilian is more likely to be killed by someone in his/her own family than by a terrorist.
ANY US citizen is more likely to be killed in a car crash than by a terrorist.
But terrorism is the current boogyman that various governments are using to extend their control. Check out the "Red Scare" and Joe McCarthy to see what we went through before.
And anyone talking about how other people would say that the cops were wrong if they didn't stop a terrorist is and idiot who has no understanding of security or statistics.
# 1. The cops catch the people after they have committed a crime because the person was filmed?
Or...
# 2. The cops stop a crime from being committed because someone is watching a camera and gets the alert out in time?
Only 2 will help you in a terrorist attack. If you're talking about 1 then your point isn't valid. Film can help catch crooks, but it does nothing when dealing with a suicide bomber.
What did this guy do that was "clearly suspicious"?
If you had read the article, you'd see that the cops grabbed him because of him using a cell phone then pulling out a piece of paper and a lap top while he was wearing a jacket and a ruck sack.
This is what is known a "stupidity" because the next round of terrorist attacks will involve guys dressed in suits and carrying briefcases. That way, they will get past the idiots doing the "profiling" who don't have any idea how to profile correctly.
It is easier to get past a badly done profiling system than it is to get past a system of random checks.
If I were that guy, I'd do a quick test and wear the same outfit to a different station, do the same things BUT wear thick glasses and a yarmulke and see if he gets picked up again.
If he does, then the cops are being consistent (even if they're doing it wrong).
If he does not then the cops aren't providing ANY protection against ANY attack.
The ultra-slim one where we use satellite guided missles to destroy enemy strongholds, then immediately blanket the area with EMP so they won't know what or who's been hit and send in a dozen troops in copters to pick up any wounded and bring them back for interrogation.
Fast and "surgical".
And... useless. We won't be fighting an enemy that will collapse when their leader's bunker is destroyed. This is next generation weaponry for fighting the last generation's war.
It's the fantasy that is getting everyone's dick hard for this. The reality is that we will never use these and the money would be better spent on improving troop training and equipment.
Jamming effectiveness decreases with distance. A satellite can jam another satellite, but it isn't much good on the ground (unless it takes out whole regions in which case everyone is without communications).
China's troops would switch to tactical FM and small unit operations. Sure, it would take longer and cost more, but the end result would be the same.
The rest of the world has more people than we do... which means they have more troops than we do... so our half of the world's military budget needs to be bigger than their half so we can offset their troop advantage.
Slashdot Mirror
By your definition, Satan would be a Christian.But when you start talking "conscience" and "faith" then you get into the realm of psychosis. Is murdering innocent children "good" as long as you have "faith" that you're doing God's Will and a clear conscience?
How is their approach any different from what you've stated?I don't know about others, but I do understand it. It just makes no sense to me. Again, statistically, there is no difference between "good" and "bad" things happening to "good" and "bad" people while they're alive.
Your belief is that this is "god's" will and that Heaven is so much better and lasts so much longer.
Now, take a look at the religious beliefs of most suicide bombers. Hmmmm, they have very similar beliefs. They go straight to Heaven for all eternity.
Now, if you really believe what you say you believe, then those suicide bombers are doing "good" things by sending people to Heaven, even if they're going to Hell for their beliefs.
Go ahead and say that. Say that you support suicide bombers killing "good" people because those "good" people are better off in Heaven now.
It's one thing to discuss it in the abstract, it's an entirely different thing to state, publicly, that you support killing innocent men, women and children.
"Christians" have, over the ages, held slaves, killed innocent people via "witch trials", and even gone to war with other "christians".
In order to be defined as "christian", what is the core belief(s) that distinguishes one from a non-"christian"?
When they kill us, they're sinning heathens.
... don't define the action as "good" or "bad" ... define the actors.
The critical point is
A "good" man is NOT one who does not kill.
A "good" man is one who believes in "god" and kills according to his belief as to whom "god" wants killed (as long as the rest of the winning society believes the same).
A "psychotic" man is one who believes in "god" and kills according to his belief as to whom "god" wants killed (but the rest of the winning society does not believe the same).
A "bad" man is one who refuses to kill as "god" dictates OR who kills the "good" people because he is fighting for the wrong "god".
Witness wars and executions for real world examples of the above.
Statistically, there is no difference between good things happening to "good" people and good things happening to "bad" people.
Nor is there a difference between bad things happening to "good"/"bad" people.
So, how does a religion explain why a "good" family can be killed by a "bad" person when "god" is all powerful and loving and so on and so forth? Which results in the process you've noted.
Allowing "users" to setup their own box, on your network, outside your firewall, using your IP address IS a breach of security.
You answered your own question. Because there are an infinite number of situations and deserved punishments, ten laws (or your proposed ONE law) will not work.
Which is why we have different crimes such as manslaughter and 1st degree murder.
With ONE law, how do you set the punishment/rehabilitation for the offender? Does stealing a loaf of bread merit the same punishment as killing an entire family?
If not, then you get into ranking the punishments based upon the crime which requires you to define the crime which means that your ONE law is now a thousand specific cases and we're right back where we started.
If it is the same, you need to re-evaluate you moral structure.
Dear Ask Slashdot,
I have a website that I've owned for years. Now some guy is trying to take it away from me by claiming it is his business name (non-trademarked).
How can I cheaply defend myself from his actions and keep my domain name?
People don't like when other people have higher moral/ethical/work standards than they do.
So, if you choose the considerate option, you're some kind of moralizing freak or tree-hugging anti-american socialist.
The only thing they can accept is when the option you choose has the better appeal to the basest instincts, money, sex, power, etc.
If anyone can write a word processor that has 100% compatibility with the format Microsoft uses ... then what's to keep people using MSOffice?
People don't buy MSOffice because they love it or because it's the best or because it's the cheapest. They buy it because everyone else uses it and that means that everyone else uses that document format.
Crack the format lock-in and you've cracked the office suite.
Crack the office suite and you've cracked the desktop monopoly.
Crack the desktop monopoly and you've cracked Microsoft.
For Microsoft, an open document format means one thing, the end of their era. Of course they're going to fight this any way they can. Their revenues are going to plummet.
# 1. Even if you do everything correct, if you do it in the wrong order, it's still wrong. KNOW the sequence.
# 2. You take precautions BEFORE you take risks. There's no "just reboot" to fix a problem of 1,000 scattered cards.
Punch cards were great for really grinding those two lessons into your soul. If you can learn them & live them on your own then don't be too concerned about the old geezers' bragging.
Finding 1,000 different "vulnerabilities" that cause the app to crash does not equal 1 vulnerability that gives remote admin access to the machine.
And that story only shows FireFox's adoption rate to be slowing. You can interpret that any way you want to. But if your interpretation is correct, then why is Microsoft introducing FireFox-like features in the next release of IE?
http://www.truthinjustice.org/inside-labs.htm
Picking up a fingerprint is fairly easy.
DNA samples have to be handled more carefully. That means more money.
If I was cynical, I'd say to follow the money to see which DNA labs out there are supporting this with campaign contributions to which officials.
It's okay for Republicans to declare they are anti-Bush now, he's done his two terms and can't run again.
... but did not.
Now watch how many of them will vote for someone else, Republican, who says the exact same things Bush said (and will do the exact same things Bush did).
Bush didn't do all of that himself. He had a fully compliant House and Senate and any one of those elected representatives could have voted against his policies
Killing someone is a one time deal. Ten years later, people might not even remember the name or crime.
Prison is forever. Every day you have the jailers looking at the thoughtcriminals.
The thoughtcriminal can repent of his thoughtcrime and be media'd to show society how wrong he was and how just society is for preventing the spread of his thoughtcrimes and for bringing him back to the fold.
Does the name "The Village" mean anything to you?
Maybe you should take some time and re-watch "The Chimes of Big Ben".
EVERYTHING in that series was tied back to society and how many of the people in charge were directly tied to the people running The Village.
You should also re-watch the first episode so you can listen for the phrase "serve my new masters".
In that series, society was shaped by the people who used the technology to convert/control other people who then moved into positions of authority in regular society.
The average US civilian is more likely to be killed by someone in his/her own family than by a terrorist.
ANY US citizen is more likely to be killed in a car crash than by a terrorist.
But terrorism is the current boogyman that various governments are using to extend their control. Check out the "Red Scare" and Joe McCarthy to see what we went through before.
And anyone talking about how other people would say that the cops were wrong if they didn't stop a terrorist is and idiot who has no understanding of security or statistics.
# 1. The cops catch the people after they have committed a crime because the person was filmed?
...
Or
# 2. The cops stop a crime from being committed because someone is watching a camera and gets the alert out in time?
Only 2 will help you in a terrorist attack. If you're talking about 1 then your point isn't valid. Film can help catch crooks, but it does nothing when dealing with a suicide bomber.
It's easy to extend your authority by claiming that you're protecting people from "evil".
Once people lose a right, it is very difficult to regain it.
Once people become used to "random" searches and such for "suspicious" people, it's just a matter of extending the definition of "suspicious".
In the end, it's all about contol of the population. Power is very addictive.
What did this guy do that was "clearly suspicious"?
If you had read the article, you'd see that the cops grabbed him because of him using a cell phone then pulling out a piece of paper and a lap top while he was wearing a jacket and a ruck sack.
This is what is known a "stupidity" because the next round of terrorist attacks will involve guys dressed in suits and carrying briefcases. That way, they will get past the idiots doing the "profiling" who don't have any idea how to profile correctly.
It is easier to get past a badly done profiling system than it is to get past a system of random checks.
If I were that guy, I'd do a quick test and wear the same outfit to a different station, do the same things BUT wear thick glasses and a yarmulke and see if he gets picked up again.
If he does, then the cops are being consistent (even if they're doing it wrong).
If he does not then the cops aren't providing ANY protection against ANY attack.
The ultra-slim one where we use satellite guided missles to destroy enemy strongholds, then immediately blanket the area with EMP so they won't know what or who's been hit and send in a dozen troops in copters to pick up any wounded and bring them back for interrogation.
... useless. We won't be fighting an enemy that will collapse when their leader's bunker is destroyed. This is next generation weaponry for fighting the last generation's war.
Fast and "surgical".
And
It's the fantasy that is getting everyone's dick hard for this. The reality is that we will never use these and the money would be better spent on improving troop training and equipment.
They stopped being a problem back in the 20th century. Now we have their old satellite countries trying to join NATO.
China won't invade us. They're BUYING our bonds right now (lending us money).
Why would we use this against Russia and China?
Jamming effectiveness decreases with distance. A satellite can jam another satellite, but it isn't much good on the ground (unless it takes out whole regions in which case everyone is without communications).
China's troops would switch to tactical FM and small unit operations. Sure, it would take longer and cost more, but the end result would be the same.
The rest of the world has more people than we do ... which means they have more troops than we do ... so our half of the world's military budget needs to be bigger than their half so we can offset their troop advantage.