You see this as a bad thing, and personally, I agree. However, it's probably time to face reality. In this long September, the internet has taken a new shape: a hive mentality. Gone are the days where we just grab whatever information we come across because it is unique and exciting.
The net has simply become too large for that. These days, people seek features to cut down the signal to noise ratio. This in itself isn't a bad thing, but it's based on taste, and the taste is that of the majority who only care about the latest cute hampster video or what happened on American Idol. It's only natural that some of that "noise" will be useful information. I was on a torrent site the other day looking for programming texts. I was lucky if I could find more than a handful of seeders.
The key is to encourage people in our own niche group to participate in sharing information. Let the masses have Facebook and Twitter, but we must take part in distributed file sharing while there is time.
Personally, I resent people calling people like this hackers. There is a big difference from being curious to learn something new and being an idiot. This guy is being a jerk. Hackers learn an innovate. How much brain power does it take to post on Twitter? However, there is a part of me that wants to say that people should really check their sources and not believe something they read on a social networking site.
I miss the day when computers were for people who could think. I fondly remember that very brief period where businesses hadn't learned how to exploit the web. For the most part, it was a novelty to them and the left it to the nerds. Sure, at that point the web was a lot of top 10 lists and novelty polls, and most pages had a guest book to sign and a view counter, but that's how we liked it. I'm sure it's all through rose colored glasses, but at least I don't believe we had lawsuits like this.
Reporting vulnerabilities is a lot different than making software to exploit them. Certainly, finding vulnerabilities is whitehat work, but there is a process to go through to make a reasonable attempt to make product vendors aware of flaws before releasing tools to exploit them. My point, however, is that rather than just presenting him as an ordinary guy, they chose to portray him as a "Whitehat Hacker". With all the misinformation on what a Hacker is, I think we should use a little more discretion. I propose that it may be his travel that sparks interest, and not just his vocation.
It seems to me that the "whitehat" lable is simply to make people feel sorry for him. This might work a little for a slashdot article, but if writing software to crack SSL was "whitehat" then that just helps to prove the case against most "hackers" (so-called by the media). Furthermore, he was being searched by customs after returning from a know drug smuggling point. This kind of thing is just muddying the waters when it comes to a much needed honest debate about security vs. privacy. It only makes my side (the pro privacy side) look week.
Nevertheless, I am still opposed to all of the misguided screenings from the government. I can see why customs might want to physically look through his laptop, but I strongly oppose them attempting to look at the data. I'm not sure what contraband they think could be in the data comming into the states. As for the TSA screenings being talked about lately, my concern is that when they do catch a terrorist, they let them go. IIRC, the underware bomber didn't even have his own passport and was allowed to board. Recently, we see a known war criminal tried and almost aquitted in a civil court. The way I see it, the governemnt doesn't care if we are safe, they just want more power to control.
I've never used Gentoo personally, but I feel that I don't have much of a reason. For learning and tinkering there is LFS, which to a greater extent is impractical for real work. That's where Arch comes in. It's customisable enough to do anything that I want while still having a great package manager. For a more typical instalation I use Fedora.
Basically, Gentoo seems to occupy that end of the spectrum between LFS and Arch that I don't seem to need or want. However, I'm still tempted to try it at least once.
I'll admit that I was tired when I posted, but the points still stand. First, as for homosexuality, it is wrong, the same as stealing or any other sin, in the new testament as well as the old (Romans, etc). A homosexual man has every right to marry a woman the same as any other man does. Marriage is not about fulfilling sexual lusts. The question is why would somebody who doesn't care about the Bible want to get married. Why not just have a civil union rather than redefine marriage?
Your point does stand, though, that there's plenty of things that people do wrong that are just as damning since breaking one law breaks them all. The point of the law as a school master is to show people what righteousness is and that none of us are good and in need of salvation. Although we should strive to follow it, we are all worthy of death. The gospel is that even people who have done wrong can be forgiven, but that doesn't make the wrong right. Loving a sinner doesn't mean accepting their sin. How much love is it to lie to somebody?
If you will read that passage in Deut 22, you will find that the rape (lay hold on) is not excused, but that the remedy is that the man be forced to marry her. In fact, a few verses earlier in a case where a man raped (force) an engaged woman, the man would be put to death. Yes, I think that we would be better as a nation under the OT law, but since we aren't I don't think that we should legislate morality. I wouldn't support a law prohibiting homosexuals from sin, only I don't want to be legally required to recognise it.
The "bride of Christ" is the church (all born again believers) whether or not thy are married. Marriage is a picture of that divine union which is why it is so important to defend its sanctity.
I'm not aware of any scripture declaring that life begins with a breath. If you know of such, please share it as that would be important. I do know that there are penalties for harming a pregnant woman if harm come to the child.
For a moment, I had started to write to defend American culture, but then a quick moment of thought revealed that you are correct. That wasn't the way in my grandparents' time (from what I hear), but it certainly is the case these day. In the U.S. we live in a culture of the squeaky wheel getting the grease. On top of that we have a political system where common sense takes a back seat to party squables and a media that looks only for the sensational. That's why political ads here focus on the negative: people would rather vote "against" somebody than for somebody.
I do disagree with your explination for the problem. I say that it's not a matter of too little ambiguity, but too much. There should be a sharply defined line that one should not cross. In this case, I don't see how the man would have crossed it. What crime did he commit? It's only since it is left to ambiguity that a judge could rule him a criminal. Traditionally, we were a nation of laws in America, and I think that worked well. That has changed with more and more unconstitutional "legislating from the bench" making us more like a common law system. Don't like the law banning homosexual "marriage"? Just ask a judge to remove that law for you. Want to kill a baby? Don't worry, a few judges is all it takes to make the law go away. I believe that it is exactly this that leads people to sensationalism. They've learned that if you make something emotional enough (e.g. "Think fo the children!") then that rigid line can disappear.
It's interesting that you assume that it would be Republicans and conservatives trying to enforce copyrights. I'll grant that most Republicans and conservatives dislike the spread of immorality, but I tend to think of the copyright crowd as the Democrats. Republicans are more pro business (many are free market, though), so I can see your confusion. Democrats are about big government and want congress to control everything from what we eat to what we believe. Also, at least here in th U.S., the big media companies (excluding Fox News) are almost exclusively left leaning. I think the Republicans would say "I think porn is awful, but as long as we don't have to watch it, I'd fight for their right to make it."
Physically speaking, procrastination is entirely a mental problem. In a greater sense, it is a spiritual problem. The article is correct that procrastination is a basic human (i.e. carnal) impulse. It arises from the inability to choose properly between tasks. The time factor is simply applied to the value of a task throughout different points in time. This choice can be between an important but unpleasant task, and a pleasant but not as important task. Less often, it could be a choice of similar tasks, such as in Buridan's Ass. Either case is the result of an incomplete method of heuristics. This is because without a proper world view, it is hard to determine which course of action is most beneficial. Even with a solid world view, the future cannot be seen. In reality, only one course is most beneficial.
The solution is simple, even if it is hard to apply. One must submit their own will to God and be led by his Word and His Spirit. If we commit our works to the Lord, He will establish our thoughts (Proverbs 16:3). As we seek God's will, our own pleasure seems less important and therefore less likely to sway us from important tasks. Furthermore, with divine promptings from the Law, secular authority, and the Holy Spirit, we can be guided into the actions which ultimately are most beneficial without having to use our own heuristics. This does not guarantee that a person is correct, but as one draws nigh to God, the tendency to procrastinate is lessened.
That's assuming that fossil fuel costs must go up. There is currently such a great supply of fossil fuel that it would be far cheaper to lobby the governments to allow it's use/production. As I see it, even if the world does last longer than the supply of oil, coal, etc, we would likely have changed how we think of energy. Perhpas we will be more effecient with it. Also, the "fixed" installation cost might lower by then from more effecient production.
I don't think that this particular technology will make much impact. However, it furthers research that may have a big impact over time, so it is still worth the effort.
Or perhaps, this is some math geek's way of getting back at the jocks by making them run in silly circles and loose the game. If we ever get a scientific report that the best route is in fact skipping from base to base, then we'll know for sure.
..but wouldn't that mess up the whole idea of a completely theoretical model? For instance, how many people who, having rounded three bases would really be in a hury to get to home, seeing how they have probably hit a home run. Also, they specifically mentioned that they didn't take into account that humans don't accelerate as fast in a curve.
I guess that for me, it's not just the increased number of ads that we see these days, it's the resulting decreased signal to noise ratio. I remember when I was younger, there seemed to be fewer commercials and they didn't seem to bother me as much. Now, by default I tune out any commercial, or use them to help me decide to not buy a product. There have been some improvements in TV anyway. For instance, car commercials were really dry (though I still wouldn't buy a car because of a commercial). Also, we now have Geico commercials.
With new technology came new forms of trash, but I can filter that. I don't open or respond to junk email, and I surf the web with ads turned off. TV is not watchable for all the commercials, not to mention the ads that pop up on the bottom of the screen while you watch, so I find the only suitable way to watch shows would be to download them from someplace.
I guess that junk snail mail is the one way that I can't avoid spam completely. However, I do tend to check my mail less every year. Junk mail, even for products that I might like, goes in the trash.
This makes for an interesting case with an even more interesting solution. I'll give an example substituting adultery for homosexuality. The reason is that the punishment is the same.
This same problem was inquired of Jesus in John 8:1-11 when a woman was caught in the act of adultery. The Pharisees brought the woman to Jesus and asked if he would command them to stone her. When he did answer their question, he said that the one without sin should cast the first stone. Notice that he did not say that the woman should not be stoned. When the crowd realised that if they accused the woman, they also could be accused, they chose to leave. Jesus asked the woman for her accusers, but there were none. By law, two or more witnesses were required to put her to death, so Jesus was not enough. Therefore, the law stood, but the woman was set free by grace.
Think of it like a person convicted of murder, but given a parole.
Seperation doesn't mean staying away from the world, just not doing things that you shouldn't. For me, that means not hanging out in night clubs and such. I tried to live that way once, and I know how it causes me to stumble; YMMV. I am weak, and jump right into sin when given the chance. I have yet to meet the person who wouldn't. When I do wrong things, I find it impossible to be truly kind and peaceful to others.
That doesn't mean that I, or any Christian, should turn their nose up and reject a sinner. I know that I'm no better, but have been given something that I don't deserve. I'd gladly sit down with them and help them any way I could, the same as God helped me. I just won't have a beer with them.
You are all absolutely correct. There are so many people who call themselves Christians who don't believe or even know the Bible. Jesus had this to say about that:
Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
Matt 5:13
The truth is that all people sin, and the saved are not exempt. The gospel is that God's son took the punishment for us if we recieve it and become God's children. However, he also said "If ye love me, keep my commandments".
While it is true that homosexuality is wrong, so also is lusting after a member of the opposite sex to whom you are not married. Christ died for the homosexual as much as he died for anybody. Paul reminds Christians that "such were some of you". The reason that real Christians live seperated lives is that it helps keep down the tendency to sin.
I don't know many people who are opposed to the idea of 3D itself, since most such films can also be seen in 2D. The problem with 3D and other new technology is that there is a tendency to use it as a gimmick to sell an otherwise pointless film, or to use it at a point in the film where older technology would be better. This isn't always the case, such as Citizen Kane. It is credited with using many innovations, but tastefully. However, in today's market it seems that every movie tends to be a gimmick of some kind. That makes it tempting to be at least a little skeptical initially.
I disagree. It isn't that MS has poor security, it's the fact that the MS design philosophy lends itself well to getting a computer infected. Even assuming that the people who run Linux were book smart, but virus dumb, getting a virus to run reliably an any given Linux system while being able to propagate itself would be a logistics nightmare. I wouldn't say that it couldn't happen, or that MS is necessarily worse because of it. It's the very things that make MS user friendly that make it such an easy target.
Without reading TFA, I can imagine that Microsoft is suing on the grounds that it should have the copyright on malware. There have actually been similar patents that MS has taken out before. I wouldn't be too surprised.
I don't think you could stretch it to self defense, but when I first saw the article, my thought was "This belongs in idle. Just shoot the badgers." However, looking at the responses here, I see that I am in the vast minority. Suggestions seem to range from "It's just human remains, let the kids play with them." to "We can find better ways to get rid of the bodies". Sure, I know that once a person is dead, the body is an empty shell, but I'm still of a mind that it trumps some animal. I guess this is why sometimes I feel like I've entered the Twilight Zone.
I certainly don't think that the fire department is responsible for the house or the fire, so they shouldn't have to put it out. However, I would say they should have put out the fire, and then charged the owner the full cost of the service (and if possible an additional fee), assuming that the home owner was willing to comply. They were already there and not putting it out would likely risk other damage to surrounding areas that they might be required to deal with.
Seeing as how I've actually been to TEA party rallies and support Libertarian ideas, and have not come across a single example of a libertarian push for government control of anything, I must ask you to cite your sources. Ron Paul is a great example (though technically, he is a Republican). He is opposed to abortion, etc., but instead of making a law to ban them, he simply proposed one that would cause the Supreme Court to be unable to hear such cases one way or the other.
There are nut jobs on all sides. I tend to tune out anything that Jesse Ventura has to say though he appears at some rallies. Also, there are some laws that even Libertarians support, such as laws against murder, and perhaps laws to enforce voluntary contracts. Keep in mind that many people are quite against things which they support being legal. There are many who would allow flag burning to be legal, yet never tolerate it on their own lawn.
Now i'm not saying you in particular feel the need to push your viewpoint on others but there are plenty of Libertarians who do. They want to control the internet so that it fits their idea of morality.
So, please cite your sources, particularly on the matter of Libertarian support for control of the internet. If you speak the truth, perhaps there are "plenty of Libertarians" that I need to not support.
Slashdot Mirror
You see this as a bad thing, and personally, I agree. However, it's probably time to face reality. In this long September, the internet has taken a new shape: a hive mentality. Gone are the days where we just grab whatever information we come across because it is unique and exciting.
The net has simply become too large for that. These days, people seek features to cut down the signal to noise ratio. This in itself isn't a bad thing, but it's based on taste, and the taste is that of the majority who only care about the latest cute hampster video or what happened on American Idol. It's only natural that some of that "noise" will be useful information. I was on a torrent site the other day looking for programming texts. I was lucky if I could find more than a handful of seeders.
The key is to encourage people in our own niche group to participate in sharing information. Let the masses have Facebook and Twitter, but we must take part in distributed file sharing while there is time.
Personally, I resent people calling people like this hackers. There is a big difference from being curious to learn something new and being an idiot. This guy is being a jerk. Hackers learn an innovate. How much brain power does it take to post on Twitter? However, there is a part of me that wants to say that people should really check their sources and not believe something they read on a social networking site.
I miss the day when computers were for people who could think. I fondly remember that very brief period where businesses hadn't learned how to exploit the web. For the most part, it was a novelty to them and the left it to the nerds. Sure, at that point the web was a lot of top 10 lists and novelty polls, and most pages had a guest book to sign and a view counter, but that's how we liked it. I'm sure it's all through rose colored glasses, but at least I don't believe we had lawsuits like this.
Reporting vulnerabilities is a lot different than making software to exploit them. Certainly, finding vulnerabilities is whitehat work, but there is a process to go through to make a reasonable attempt to make product vendors aware of flaws before releasing tools to exploit them. My point, however, is that rather than just presenting him as an ordinary guy, they chose to portray him as a "Whitehat Hacker". With all the misinformation on what a Hacker is, I think we should use a little more discretion. I propose that it may be his travel that sparks interest, and not just his vocation.
It seems to me that the "whitehat" lable is simply to make people feel sorry for him. This might work a little for a slashdot article, but if writing software to crack SSL was "whitehat" then that just helps to prove the case against most "hackers" (so-called by the media). Furthermore, he was being searched by customs after returning from a know drug smuggling point. This kind of thing is just muddying the waters when it comes to a much needed honest debate about security vs. privacy. It only makes my side (the pro privacy side) look week.
Nevertheless, I am still opposed to all of the misguided screenings from the government. I can see why customs might want to physically look through his laptop, but I strongly oppose them attempting to look at the data. I'm not sure what contraband they think could be in the data comming into the states. As for the TSA screenings being talked about lately, my concern is that when they do catch a terrorist, they let them go. IIRC, the underware bomber didn't even have his own passport and was allowed to board. Recently, we see a known war criminal tried and almost aquitted in a civil court. The way I see it, the governemnt doesn't care if we are safe, they just want more power to control.
I've never used Gentoo personally, but I feel that I don't have much of a reason. For learning and tinkering there is LFS, which to a greater extent is impractical for real work. That's where Arch comes in. It's customisable enough to do anything that I want while still having a great package manager. For a more typical instalation I use Fedora.
Basically, Gentoo seems to occupy that end of the spectrum between LFS and Arch that I don't seem to need or want. However, I'm still tempted to try it at least once.
What do you mean? Gentoo is so much faster than Linux From Scratch, or so I've been told. I still don't have the CD burner working in LFS yet.
I'll admit that I was tired when I posted, but the points still stand. First, as for homosexuality, it is wrong, the same as stealing or any other sin, in the new testament as well as the old (Romans, etc). A homosexual man has every right to marry a woman the same as any other man does. Marriage is not about fulfilling sexual lusts. The question is why would somebody who doesn't care about the Bible want to get married. Why not just have a civil union rather than redefine marriage?
Your point does stand, though, that there's plenty of things that people do wrong that are just as damning since breaking one law breaks them all. The point of the law as a school master is to show people what righteousness is and that none of us are good and in need of salvation. Although we should strive to follow it, we are all worthy of death. The gospel is that even people who have done wrong can be forgiven, but that doesn't make the wrong right. Loving a sinner doesn't mean accepting their sin. How much love is it to lie to somebody?
If you will read that passage in Deut 22, you will find that the rape (lay hold on) is not excused, but that the remedy is that the man be forced to marry her. In fact, a few verses earlier in a case where a man raped (force) an engaged woman, the man would be put to death. Yes, I think that we would be better as a nation under the OT law, but since we aren't I don't think that we should legislate morality. I wouldn't support a law prohibiting homosexuals from sin, only I don't want to be legally required to recognise it.
The "bride of Christ" is the church (all born again believers) whether or not thy are married. Marriage is a picture of that divine union which is why it is so important to defend its sanctity.
I'm not aware of any scripture declaring that life begins with a breath. If you know of such, please share it as that would be important. I do know that there are penalties for harming a pregnant woman if harm come to the child.
For a moment, I had started to write to defend American culture, but then a quick moment of thought revealed that you are correct. That wasn't the way in my grandparents' time (from what I hear), but it certainly is the case these day. In the U.S. we live in a culture of the squeaky wheel getting the grease. On top of that we have a political system where common sense takes a back seat to party squables and a media that looks only for the sensational. That's why political ads here focus on the negative: people would rather vote "against" somebody than for somebody.
I do disagree with your explination for the problem. I say that it's not a matter of too little ambiguity, but too much. There should be a sharply defined line that one should not cross. In this case, I don't see how the man would have crossed it. What crime did he commit? It's only since it is left to ambiguity that a judge could rule him a criminal. Traditionally, we were a nation of laws in America, and I think that worked well. That has changed with more and more unconstitutional "legislating from the bench" making us more like a common law system. Don't like the law banning homosexual "marriage"? Just ask a judge to remove that law for you. Want to kill a baby? Don't worry, a few judges is all it takes to make the law go away. I believe that it is exactly this that leads people to sensationalism. They've learned that if you make something emotional enough (e.g. "Think fo the children!") then that rigid line can disappear.
It's interesting that you assume that it would be Republicans and conservatives trying to enforce copyrights. I'll grant that most Republicans and conservatives dislike the spread of immorality, but I tend to think of the copyright crowd as the Democrats. Republicans are more pro business (many are free market, though), so I can see your confusion. Democrats are about big government and want congress to control everything from what we eat to what we believe. Also, at least here in th U.S., the big media companies (excluding Fox News) are almost exclusively left leaning. I think the Republicans would say "I think porn is awful, but as long as we don't have to watch it, I'd fight for their right to make it."
Physically speaking, procrastination is entirely a mental problem. In a greater sense, it is a spiritual problem. The article is correct that procrastination is a basic human (i.e. carnal) impulse. It arises from the inability to choose properly between tasks. The time factor is simply applied to the value of a task throughout different points in time. This choice can be between an important but unpleasant task, and a pleasant but not as important task. Less often, it could be a choice of similar tasks, such as in Buridan's Ass. Either case is the result of an incomplete method of heuristics. This is because without a proper world view, it is hard to determine which course of action is most beneficial. Even with a solid world view, the future cannot be seen. In reality, only one course is most beneficial.
The solution is simple, even if it is hard to apply. One must submit their own will to God and be led by his Word and His Spirit. If we commit our works to the Lord, He will establish our thoughts (Proverbs 16:3). As we seek God's will, our own pleasure seems less important and therefore less likely to sway us from important tasks. Furthermore, with divine promptings from the Law, secular authority, and the Holy Spirit, we can be guided into the actions which ultimately are most beneficial without having to use our own heuristics. This does not guarantee that a person is correct, but as one draws nigh to God, the tendency to procrastinate is lessened.
That's assuming that fossil fuel costs must go up. There is currently such a great supply of fossil fuel that it would be far cheaper to lobby the governments to allow it's use/production. As I see it, even if the world does last longer than the supply of oil, coal, etc, we would likely have changed how we think of energy. Perhpas we will be more effecient with it. Also, the "fixed" installation cost might lower by then from more effecient production.
I don't think that this particular technology will make much impact. However, it furthers research that may have a big impact over time, so it is still worth the effort.
Or perhaps, this is some math geek's way of getting back at the jocks by making them run in silly circles and loose the game. If we ever get a scientific report that the best route is in fact skipping from base to base, then we'll know for sure.
..but wouldn't that mess up the whole idea of a completely theoretical model? For instance, how many people who, having rounded three bases would really be in a hury to get to home, seeing how they have probably hit a home run. Also, they specifically mentioned that they didn't take into account that humans don't accelerate as fast in a curve.
I guess that for me, it's not just the increased number of ads that we see these days, it's the resulting decreased signal to noise ratio. I remember when I was younger, there seemed to be fewer commercials and they didn't seem to bother me as much. Now, by default I tune out any commercial, or use them to help me decide to not buy a product. There have been some improvements in TV anyway. For instance, car commercials were really dry (though I still wouldn't buy a car because of a commercial). Also, we now have Geico commercials.
With new technology came new forms of trash, but I can filter that. I don't open or respond to junk email, and I surf the web with ads turned off. TV is not watchable for all the commercials, not to mention the ads that pop up on the bottom of the screen while you watch, so I find the only suitable way to watch shows would be to download them from someplace.
I guess that junk snail mail is the one way that I can't avoid spam completely. However, I do tend to check my mail less every year. Junk mail, even for products that I might like, goes in the trash.
download esword and the hebrew package
I prefer Xiphos. It's FOSS. Esword will work in Wine though.
This makes for an interesting case with an even more interesting solution. I'll give an example substituting adultery for homosexuality. The reason is that the punishment is the same.
This same problem was inquired of Jesus in John 8:1-11 when a woman was caught in the act of adultery. The Pharisees brought the woman to Jesus and asked if he would command them to stone her. When he did answer their question, he said that the one without sin should cast the first stone. Notice that he did not say that the woman should not be stoned. When the crowd realised that if they accused the woman, they also could be accused, they chose to leave. Jesus asked the woman for her accusers, but there were none. By law, two or more witnesses were required to put her to death, so Jesus was not enough. Therefore, the law stood, but the woman was set free by grace.
Think of it like a person convicted of murder, but given a parole.
Seperation doesn't mean staying away from the world, just not doing things that you shouldn't. For me, that means not hanging out in night clubs and such. I tried to live that way once, and I know how it causes me to stumble; YMMV. I am weak, and jump right into sin when given the chance. I have yet to meet the person who wouldn't. When I do wrong things, I find it impossible to be truly kind and peaceful to others.
That doesn't mean that I, or any Christian, should turn their nose up and reject a sinner. I know that I'm no better, but have been given something that I don't deserve. I'd gladly sit down with them and help them any way I could, the same as God helped me. I just won't have a beer with them.
You are all absolutely correct. There are so many people who call themselves Christians who don't believe or even know the Bible. Jesus had this to say about that:
Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Matt 5:13
The truth is that all people sin, and the saved are not exempt. The gospel is that God's son took the punishment for us if we recieve it and become God's children. However, he also said "If ye love me, keep my commandments".
While it is true that homosexuality is wrong, so also is lusting after a member of the opposite sex to whom you are not married. Christ died for the homosexual as much as he died for anybody. Paul reminds Christians that "such were some of you". The reason that real Christians live seperated lives is that it helps keep down the tendency to sin.
I don't know many people who are opposed to the idea of 3D itself, since most such films can also be seen in 2D. The problem with 3D and other new technology is that there is a tendency to use it as a gimmick to sell an otherwise pointless film, or to use it at a point in the film where older technology would be better. This isn't always the case, such as Citizen Kane. It is credited with using many innovations, but tastefully. However, in today's market it seems that every movie tends to be a gimmick of some kind. That makes it tempting to be at least a little skeptical initially.
I disagree. It isn't that MS has poor security, it's the fact that the MS design philosophy lends itself well to getting a computer infected. Even assuming that the people who run Linux were book smart, but virus dumb, getting a virus to run reliably an any given Linux system while being able to propagate itself would be a logistics nightmare. I wouldn't say that it couldn't happen, or that MS is necessarily worse because of it. It's the very things that make MS user friendly that make it such an easy target.
Without reading TFA, I can imagine that Microsoft is suing on the grounds that it should have the copyright on malware. There have actually been similar patents that MS has taken out before. I wouldn't be too surprised.
I don't think you could stretch it to self defense, but when I first saw the article, my thought was "This belongs in idle. Just shoot the badgers." However, looking at the responses here, I see that I am in the vast minority. Suggestions seem to range from "It's just human remains, let the kids play with them." to "We can find better ways to get rid of the bodies". Sure, I know that once a person is dead, the body is an empty shell, but I'm still of a mind that it trumps some animal. I guess this is why sometimes I feel like I've entered the Twilight Zone.
I certainly don't think that the fire department is responsible for the house or the fire, so they shouldn't have to put it out. However, I would say they should have put out the fire, and then charged the owner the full cost of the service (and if possible an additional fee), assuming that the home owner was willing to comply. They were already there and not putting it out would likely risk other damage to surrounding areas that they might be required to deal with.
Seeing as how I've actually been to TEA party rallies and support Libertarian ideas, and have not come across a single example of a libertarian push for government control of anything, I must ask you to cite your sources. Ron Paul is a great example (though technically, he is a Republican). He is opposed to abortion, etc., but instead of making a law to ban them, he simply proposed one that would cause the Supreme Court to be unable to hear such cases one way or the other.
There are nut jobs on all sides. I tend to tune out anything that Jesse Ventura has to say though he appears at some rallies. Also, there are some laws that even Libertarians support, such as laws against murder, and perhaps laws to enforce voluntary contracts. Keep in mind that many people are quite against things which they support being legal. There are many who would allow flag burning to be legal, yet never tolerate it on their own lawn.
Now i'm not saying you in particular feel the need to push your viewpoint on others but there are plenty of Libertarians who do. They want to control the internet so that it fits their idea of morality.
So, please cite your sources, particularly on the matter of Libertarian support for control of the internet. If you speak the truth, perhaps there are "plenty of Libertarians" that I need to not support.