A soldier would rather not be doing his job and while they think they have to kill they do not think they are going to heaven because they are doing it. A suicide bomber believes that by *intentionally* killing a bus of women, kids, and elderly they are earning heaven.
The Afgan Weddings, while tragic were not intentional, the pilot did not wake up that morning and prepare himself to kill a bunch of civi's. The suicide bomber meticulously goes though ceremony preparing himself, selects the busiest bus, the most crowded market, or the most painful target thats a huge difference than the soldier.
"This is to manage the international drugs syndicate monopoly on Opium - which has grown EXPONENTIALLY since Karzai was installed as the mayor of Kabul.This is the worst thing to happen since Stalin."
WOW, just wow your hate blinds you.. Yes there are huge problems in Afghanistan right now and it would have been a million times better for all concerned (Iraq / US / Afgans) if we had stayed the hell out of Iraq so we could have then focused on helping Afghanistan stabalize, ill give you all that..
But to say that things in Afghanistan were *better* under the Taliban is either a pathetic F'ing joke, or proof you've jumped the shark. They (the Taliban) made shows of shooting women in soccer stadiums for daring to learn to read, or earning money,... They banned speech, music, and every other freedom you can imagine but hey at least there were no drug problems right..
"the free market is based on consumers' self interest, and their making decisions that are best for themselves."
bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, wrong answer but thanks for trying.. The free market is based on two things one of which is consumers self interest and the other is private property you know like say, a business!
"Apple removes consumer choice through restrictive agreements with telecoms, and controlling the market for software on its devices."
At the time the iPhone was released there were features that could only work well through AT&T and even they had to upgrade for those services so a contract was signed.
"Similarly, they can't choose both the best browser and phone, if they like the phone but not Safari. Their decision will be suboptimal by default."
Yes they can but apple does *not* have to support there choice! Apple did not take any legal action against iBrick owners..
"your argument seemed to be that no interference is good."
Thats a flat out distortion as I said if apple were a monopoly interference would be warranted but there is so much choice in that industry that providing an end to end solution does not hurt consumers.
"I am not demanding, I am criticizing. I thought that was still allowed under the free market, or is it now unpatriotic?"
No its just hypocritical, for you to say its a stupid model, or an unfair one would be reasonable criticism, but cry from the roofs that because Apple is using a model *you* dont like they are against the free market (you know the free market that you really only believe in if you use a preset number of business models as defined by some on/.)...
"As for governments limiting business models, it's done all the time in the name of consumer protection."
And governments send people to gitmo, arrest people for selling ww2 memorabilia, certain religious practices that dont impact the rights of others,...,... but because the government does it I guess that means its ok..
"In this case, I doubt most Apple customers are aware of the implications when they buy the product."
Really? hell when I went to buy an i-pod I decided to get the iPhone instead in case I ever needed it, I asked to buy it without a service contract and they said no... I dont know what else apple could have done to inform me of the 'implications'.. Yea governments send people to gitmo as well so I guess thats all well and good, right?
If you did you would not get your panties in such a not over a private, free market company providing an and to end computing solution.
"Before anyone points out that in a free market Apple can do whatever it wants, keep in mind that this doesn't prevent it from violating the spirit of said market."
Nor it seems does it prevent *you* from violating the spirit of the market by limiting business models used by private companies which in no way effect your fundamental rights. Were apple anywhere near a monopoly could probably be swayed that they need to open up their platform a bit but as it is the consumer is in no way damaged.
BTW you are free to figure out a way to install whatever you want on your iPhone (contract or not) you just cant demand apple make it easy or support your shiny new brick.
I you are a libertarian you will realize that apple is a privately owned business and has a right to control what software gets sold through their service. You might also realize that many apple users (like my elderly mother for example) use the product because of its stability, and service. If apple allowed just anyone to write anything for their systems they would take a big hit in that sphere of their product offering.
"Reader jafo adds, "Pardon me if I have little confidence that an organization that loses a sensitive laptop for 9 days is able to tell if it was compromised.""
Jafo my friend, even if they could tell it was or was not compromised the public answer is going to be the same either way... now *that* some slashdot level cynicism
Aggravation, in law, is "any circumstance attending the commission of a crime or tort which increases its guilt or enormity or adds to its injurious consequences, but which is above and beyond the essential constituents of the crime or tort itself."[1]
For which you have provided no scriptural evidence, Jesus never admonished group worship. Public, self congratulatory worship sure, but not group worship.
"I'm also tired of old people telling me that I'm going to Hell because I don't go to church. I'm going to Hell because I eat meat on Fridays, damnit!"
You going to hell has nothing to do with Church it has to do with unrepentant sin, and the meat on Friday thing is a sham, Ill join you for wings;)
What you could do is obtain a low balanced secure credit card for things you do on-line. A secured balance of say 500 to 1,000$ would be enough for most people and would be the most you could lose.
guys like this get caught, this is why I seldom do anything important off wire, even on my own wireless network...
"The indictment alleges that during the course of the sophisticated conspiracy, Gonzalez and his co-conspirators obtained the credit and debit card numbers by "wardriving" and hacking into the wireless computer networks of major retailers - including TJX Companies, BJ's Wholesale Club, OfficeMax, Boston Market, Barnes & Noble, Sports Authority, Forever 21 and DSW."
If your going to offer a service for the love of God do at least something to make it safe, wide open wireless as a 'perk' is like led tainted lemon aid.
If were talking about things like Chemo, Pacemakers, Transplants, and Mental health its impossible to argue against the government making sure all Americans have equal access. If were talking about truly elective procedures I'm not so certain. And in no way should we go away from allowing private insurance to supplement what the government offers..
LOL as opposed to the dems plan which is to take oil from the SOR during election season... The democrats used their power as the majority to ignore an issue that is hurting americans because a significant number of them (democratic lawmakers) are either of the opinion we should drill or are in districts that are of the opinion we should drill... Pelosi put politics in front of people.
This was needed... We keep hearing that there is an 'energy crisis' many lawmakers are using it in their campaign rhetoric and yet they decided to take a 5 week vacation (after their three week vacation last month) without even having proper floor debate on the subject, let alone a vote.
Pelosi is ruling against the wishing of the majority of Americans and the majority of congress-critters. Leaving without doing your damn job... not *thats* immature..
Funny you would site the epistles to say there should be no churches as many were written specifically for groups of worshipers ( a.k.a *CHURCHES* ) in the Roman provinces. These churches were in structure most similar to the presbyterian churches which sprang up after the schism but they were most certainly churches.
My church, though bot a presbyterian one, is run by elected Elders who have the final say in just about everything.
Ive got no beef with you bashing money harvesting mega churches, pastors in thousand dollar suits spending as much time lobbying politicians as they do preaching the gospel. These things are not good for Christianity but these do *not* embody all churches.. But people who were trying to play twister so they could pull 'no churches' out of the bible did not limit the scope of their thoughts..
The concept of an individual lighting to the world and sharing time of worship with those of the same faith are not in anyway mutually exclusive ideas. Both can be true, this verse is an admonishing against Sunday Christians. Christ himself teaching in front of vast crowds and his apostles forming churches in the ancient world are both pretty strong evidence that churches are, in fact, biblical.
"It's pretty clear he's using metaphor, since he can hardly build a physical church on a belief or a person, miracles aside."
I would agree, but the catholic point of view is not that Peter would literally be the foundation of his church but merely the founder of his church on this earth.
"I am completely unfamiliar with the specifics of the Bible, but that particular example pretty much supports the idea of private religion, since Jesus' church here is quite blatantly philosophical."
reading one verse and saying, well is obvious that A is pretty irresponsible, especially when ones own bias is against that particular faith, suffice it to say I don't believe in a 'private faith' as Christ said to let your lamp shine but that lamp is his Glory and not your own 'goodness' And I have never seen any scripture which in full context means you should hide your faith from the world, merely to know that *you* are not the author of your faith nor can you be the author of anyone elses.
why the addition of (i.e in a church) and why the curious lack of context around the quote youre using to say a church is not biblical?
Matthew 6:
" 2"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."
On can, and should keep their offerings private, nobody in my Church save the one person who does the church finances has a clue what I give. This provision can clearly be followed within the environment of a church.
" 5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him."
In the Time of Christ the Judaism was a temple based faith and the synagog was the center of daily life in their communities, some would stand in the center and show how holy and great they were by loud prayers in what was effectively the town center, they would then go home and do nothing of the sort. Christian need to find time alone to pray but prayer within a group setting is not prohibited. Christ several times mentions 'the church' and his apostles who knew him better than you or I founded many, many churches throughout Asia and Greece in their lifetimes.
16"When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 17But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
This is not a prohibition on fasting, this is a provision on fasting to glorify yourself, just like the above versus are not a prohibition on public prayer, merely public prayer meant to set yourself apart.
By church I was talking about the leadership of the church (the ones who decide what to do with the money)...
FWIW I don't like 'rich' churches in the catholic tradition or the modern mega churches with latte bars but the initial uptake was 'church with money=bad' which is only true if the money is used unwisely or selfishly. Note in the parable of the talents the men who wisly use and increase that which they are given are rewarded but not until they give it back to the master.
Slashdot Mirror
No they are not,
A soldier would rather not be doing his job and while they think they have to kill they do not think they are going to heaven because they are doing it. A suicide bomber believes that by *intentionally* killing a bus of women, kids, and elderly they are earning heaven.
The Afgan Weddings, while tragic were not intentional, the pilot did not wake up that morning and prepare himself to kill a bunch of civi's. The suicide bomber meticulously goes though ceremony preparing himself, selects the busiest bus, the most crowded market, or the most painful target thats a huge difference than the soldier.
"This is to manage the international drugs syndicate monopoly on Opium - which has grown EXPONENTIALLY since Karzai was installed as the mayor of Kabul.This is the worst thing to happen since Stalin."
WOW, just wow your hate blinds you.. Yes there are huge problems in Afghanistan right now and it would have been a million times better for all concerned (Iraq / US / Afgans) if we had stayed the hell out of Iraq so we could have then focused on helping Afghanistan stabalize, ill give you all that..
But to say that things in Afghanistan were *better* under the Taliban is either a pathetic F'ing joke, or proof you've jumped the shark. They (the Taliban) made shows of shooting women in soccer stadiums for daring to learn to read, or earning money, ... They banned speech, music, and every other freedom you can imagine but hey at least there were no drug problems right..
Not nearly as bad as the kind who gets themselves paradise by killing themselves and any near by kids with a bomb vest..
"the free market is based on consumers' self interest, and their making decisions that are best for themselves."
bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, wrong answer but thanks for trying.. The free market is based on two things one of which is consumers self interest and the other is private property you know like say, a business!
"Apple removes consumer choice through restrictive agreements with telecoms, and controlling the market for software on its devices."
At the time the iPhone was released there were features that could only work well through AT&T and even they had to upgrade for those services so a contract was signed.
"Similarly, they can't choose both the best browser and phone, if they like the phone but not Safari. Their decision will be suboptimal by default."
Yes they can but apple does *not* have to support there choice! Apple did not take any legal action against iBrick owners..
"your argument seemed to be that no interference is good."
Thats a flat out distortion as I said if apple were a monopoly interference would be warranted but there is so much choice in that industry that providing an end to end solution does not hurt consumers.
"I am not demanding, I am criticizing. I thought that was still allowed under the free market, or is it now unpatriotic?"
No its just hypocritical, for you to say its a stupid model, or an unfair one would be reasonable criticism, but cry from the roofs that because Apple is using a model *you* dont like they are against the free market (you know the free market that you really only believe in if you use a preset number of business models as defined by some on /.)...
"As for governments limiting business models, it's done all the time in the name of consumer protection."
And governments send people to gitmo, arrest people for selling ww2 memorabilia, certain religious practices that dont impact the rights of others, ..., ... but because the government does it I guess that means its ok..
"In this case, I doubt most Apple customers are aware of the implications when they buy the product."
Really? hell when I went to buy an i-pod I decided to get the iPhone instead in case I ever needed it, I asked to buy it without a service contract and they said no... I dont know what else apple could have done to inform me of the 'implications'..
Yea governments send people to gitmo as well so I guess thats all well and good, right?
If you did you would not get your panties in such a not over a private, free market company providing an and to end computing solution.
"Before anyone points out that in a free market Apple can do whatever it wants, keep in mind that this doesn't prevent it from violating the spirit of said market."
Nor it seems does it prevent *you* from violating the spirit of the market by limiting business models used by private companies which in no way effect your fundamental rights. Were apple anywhere near a monopoly could probably be swayed that they need to open up their platform a bit but as it is the consumer is in no way damaged.
BTW you are free to figure out a way to install whatever you want on your iPhone (contract or not) you just cant demand apple make it easy or support your shiny new brick.
Companies should have to sell a product that mocks them?
Apple has a real problem with people thinking its 'elitist' and the 'Im rich app' would only feed that.
I you are a libertarian you will realize that apple is a privately owned business and has a right to control what software gets sold through their service. You might also realize that many apple users (like my elderly mother for example) use the product because of its stability, and service. If apple allowed just anyone to write anything for their systems they would take a big hit in that sphere of their product offering.
I mean Im guess his hourly rate for that app was well over $500 an hour, but you have to agree with apple for yanking it..
"Reader jafo adds, "Pardon me if I have little confidence that an organization that loses a sensitive laptop for 9 days is able to tell if it was compromised.""
Jafo my friend, even if they could tell it was or was not compromised the public answer is going to be the same either way... now *that* some slashdot level cynicism
The Titanium is not consumed in this process (merely a catalyst) so it might very well be worth it in the long run..
How dare you question a tsa bashing post... no karma for you!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggravation_(legal_concept)
Aggravation, in law, is "any circumstance attending the commission of a crime or tort which increases its guilt or enormity or adds to its injurious consequences, but which is above and beyond the essential constituents of the crime or tort itself."[1]
"simply that Jesus didn't particularly want them"
For which you have provided no scriptural evidence, Jesus never admonished group worship. Public, self congratulatory worship sure, but not group worship.
"I'm also tired of old people telling me that I'm going to Hell because I don't go to church. I'm going to Hell because I eat meat on Fridays, damnit!"
You going to hell has nothing to do with Church it has to do with unrepentant sin, and the meat on Friday thing is a sham, Ill join you for wings ;)
What you could do is obtain a low balanced secure credit card for things you do on-line. A secured balance of say 500 to 1,000$ would be enough for most people and would be the most you could lose.
guys like this get caught, this is why I seldom do anything important off wire, even on my own wireless network...
"The indictment alleges that during the course of the sophisticated conspiracy, Gonzalez and his co-conspirators obtained the credit and debit card numbers by "wardriving" and hacking into the wireless computer networks of major retailers - including TJX Companies, BJ's Wholesale Club, OfficeMax, Boston Market, Barnes & Noble, Sports Authority, Forever 21 and DSW."
If your going to offer a service for the love of God do at least something to make it safe, wide open wireless as a 'perk' is like led tainted lemon aid.
It all depends on the extent..
If were talking about things like Chemo, Pacemakers, Transplants, and Mental health its impossible to argue against the government making sure all Americans have equal access. If were talking about truly elective procedures I'm not so certain. And in no way should we go away from allowing private insurance to supplement what the government offers..
"You do know that shale oil is incredibly difficult and expensive to process, right?"
Profitable at anything over 50-75$ a barrel, whats the current cost?
"private businesses exist to make money, not ensure the safety of anyone"
And politicians and governments exist to take power, not to ensure the safety of everyone.
"Remember the Pinto"
As compared to the osprey?
LOL as opposed to the dems plan which is to take oil from the SOR during election season... The democrats used their power as the majority to ignore an issue that is hurting americans because a significant number of them (democratic lawmakers) are either of the opinion we should drill or are in districts that are of the opinion we should drill... Pelosi put politics in front of people.
This was needed... We keep hearing that there is an 'energy crisis' many lawmakers are using it in their campaign rhetoric and yet they decided to take a 5 week vacation (after their three week vacation last month) without even having proper floor debate on the subject, let alone a vote.
Pelosi is ruling against the wishing of the majority of Americans and the majority of congress-critters. Leaving without doing your damn job... not *thats* immature..
Funny you would site the epistles to say there should be no churches as many were written specifically for groups of worshipers ( a.k.a *CHURCHES* ) in the Roman provinces. These churches were in structure most similar to the presbyterian churches which sprang up after the schism but they were most certainly churches.
My church, though bot a presbyterian one, is run by elected Elders who have the final say in just about everything.
Ive got no beef with you bashing money harvesting mega churches, pastors in thousand dollar suits spending as much time lobbying politicians as they do preaching the gospel. These things are not good for Christianity but these do *not* embody all churches.. But people who were trying to play twister so they could pull 'no churches' out of the bible did not limit the scope of their thoughts..
Talk about stretching it..
The concept of an individual lighting to the world and sharing time of worship with those of the same faith are not in anyway mutually exclusive ideas. Both can be true, this verse is an admonishing against Sunday Christians. Christ himself teaching in front of vast crowds and his apostles forming churches in the ancient world are both pretty strong evidence that churches are, in fact, biblical.
"It's pretty clear he's using metaphor, since he can hardly build a physical church on a belief or a person, miracles aside."
I would agree, but the catholic point of view is not that Peter would literally be the foundation of his church but merely the founder of his church on this earth.
"I am completely unfamiliar with the specifics of the Bible, but that particular example pretty much supports the idea of private religion, since Jesus' church here is quite blatantly philosophical."
reading one verse and saying, well is obvious that A is pretty irresponsible, especially when ones own bias is against that particular faith, suffice it to say I don't believe in a 'private faith' as Christ said to let your lamp shine but that lamp is his Glory and not your own 'goodness' And I have never seen any scripture which in full context means you should hide your faith from the world, merely to know that *you* are not the author of your faith nor can you be the author of anyone elses.
why the addition of (i.e in a church) and why the curious lack of context around the quote youre using to say a church is not biblical?
Matthew 6:
" 2"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."
On can, and should keep their offerings private, nobody in my Church save the one person who does the church finances has a clue what I give. This provision can clearly be followed within the environment of a church.
" 5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him."
In the Time of Christ the Judaism was a temple based faith and the synagog was the center of daily life in their communities, some would stand in the center and show how holy and great they were by loud prayers in what was effectively the town center, they would then go home and do nothing of the sort. Christian need to find time alone to pray but prayer within a group setting is not prohibited. Christ several times mentions 'the church' and his apostles who knew him better than you or I founded many, many churches throughout Asia and Greece in their lifetimes.
16"When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 17But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
This is not a prohibition on fasting, this is a provision on fasting to glorify yourself, just like the above versus are not a prohibition on public prayer, merely public prayer meant to set yourself apart.
By church I was talking about the leadership of the church (the ones who decide what to do with the money)...
FWIW I don't like 'rich' churches in the catholic tradition or the modern mega churches with latte bars but the initial uptake was 'church with money=bad' which is only true if the money is used unwisely or selfishly. Note in the parable of the talents the men who wisly use and increase that which they are given are rewarded but not until they give it back to the master.