I don't know of any Jews who actively refuted the Kabbalah, that is consider it false and have a different theology. I do know of Jews that believe Judaism shouldn't take those sorts of theological positions. And in that sense they become very similar to Muslims and totally dissimilar to Christians which gets to the whole point that the Gods have different properties.
All Christians hold that Jesus is the messiah. They just redefine the word messiah so that it means essentially nothing like the current Jewish concept. There were however Jewish sects in the 200 BCE - 200 CE period that used messiah in the Christian sense.
The issue is if you think of Judaism as a forking graph, the branches that became Christianity forked really early (around 200 BCE) from the branches that became Rabbinic Judaism. It would be like the relationship between a heretical group of Mormons and Greek Orthodox.
Again lots of gnostics did not believe Christ was incarnate. I'd argue the majority of the 2nd century Gnostics rejected the incarnation. As for Logos, there certainly were groups that would have rejected that sort of Philo based language. Sethians until much later in the 2nd century for example would never have used Logos Theology.
Both Arianism and Nestorianism rejected the Trinity. They did believe in Jesus was the logos. There were Nestorians and Arians that rejected the incarnation as well.
Before that, the orthodox faith and the various heresies agreed on more than they disputed.
Really? I think that comes from you excluding whole classes of Christian groups: Marcionities, Sethians, Carpocratians...
You mean people should become ineligible for extradition if they flee to a country where their act is legal? If someone has underage sex in the U.S. he can then flee to a country where the act would be legal, and he would be in the clear?
Actually many extradition treaties do say this, that a person can only be extradited for something that would be a crime in the extraditing country. That's why, using your example, there is a special treaty just covering sex tourism.
The killing of Mao and Stalin were mainly to consolidate small farms into large farms to make industrial farming practical and thereby free up labor without having to go through a several generation process.
The killing of Hitler, were either a) The conquest of territory to create both surplus labor and natural resources for a German industrial base b) Ethnic purification
The killings in the inquisitions were to maintain a pure faith, there were fundamentally idealogical.
Crusades are too non specific, different crusades had different reasons.
Sort of, the Muslims de-personified him however. In Judaism you can make positive statements about God, like "God is just", "God is holy", "God loves children". You can't in Islam (with the exception of "God is great" which I don't understand). You can talk about the will of Allah but not about Allah. Allah is transcendent and unknowable. The Jewish God has 10 major properties:
The word used is retzach. Which is a verb meaning to slay or break. However, culturally it gets connected to the notion of bloodguilt. This is broader than murder for example the bible uses this term for someone who fails to build a railing on their roof (essentially an upper deck) and then someone falls and dies. On the other hand in a situation where there is no bloodguilt (like war) it wouldn't apply. It also wouldn't apply to a situation where you are rightfully avenging, while murder would apply there in our understanding. X can still "murder" someone who killed his wife, he can't be gulity of a bloodguilt.
If I were translating I'd use bloodguilt, an article elsewhere in the bible and footnote ever use of the word to the article. Murder is probably the best English language translation if you don't want to explain the differences.
I'm not entirely sure about that. I think the three religions claim that to be the case but I'm not sure as an objective observer it is in fact true. The three respective invisible wizards have substantially different and in the Christian/Muslim case incompatible properties.
I don't agree with your assessment of Mohammed in the slightest. I think the reason Islam spread as quickly as it did was because of its essentially humanity on the issue of slavery and the issue of debt. Both where it won and where it lost, it helped to create a more equitable society. Further as military monotheistic religions go, Mohammed was rather well above average. Certainly as contrasted with the old testament prophets.
That being said, there are plenty of liberal muslims, many of whom live in the United States opposed to the idea of these hate laws. In 1960 the vast majority of muslim governments were pro liberalization, especially on women's issue, and had broad public support in doing so. And we still see muslim leaders today who focus on liberalization and modernization like the Jordanian goverment. So the idea that Islam and modernization are fundamentally incompatible is just fase.
Granted to all. But that's a lot of money. Assume the article was a typical situation and we are talking something like a $4b swing for the artists. Even if that were divided between 100,000 artists equally it would still be $40,000 each.
One alternative would be that Apple purchases a license for resale every time a sale occurs. Johnny X buys the song for $.99. Apple buys the song from the publisher for $.70.
Another would be that Apple doesn't have a license. That they have these songs on consignment. Apple is granted 1m licenses for X on consignment. Johnny X buys the song for $.99 and now Apple only has 999,999 licenses. Apple also owes the publisher their cut, $.70.
The European situation shows a greater scarcity. The argument was that the scarcity was being artificially created by collusion. If there is even more scarcity without collusion then yes that is evidence.
United States v. Paramount Pictures addresses the problems of movie studios owning theater chains and extended a "monopoly" on their specific pictures. That would be the situation of record companies owning music stores. I think a good analogy today might be something like the apple store.
I would agree completely that the Internet is undermining the oligopoly aspects of the record business. But even granting the oligopoly I'm not following your claims. In the traditional model, the record companies get a certain percentage of all albums sold and all albums cost roughly the same. Further I'm not sure why mega-stardom is to the advantage of record companies over just regular stardom. Their goal wouldn't be to create "mega-stars" but to increase total sales. They would seek to influence customer behavior.
Further a "mega star" might be effectively self promoting, which cuts out one of their biggest costs. Give me the equations you are claiming for this model.
I agree the internet creates an effectively unlimited number of slots to get some level of play. But 40 years ago you could argue there was an effectively unlimited number of bars with live music. The problem in both cases is that is not a sufficient level of exposure to "be a star".
The primary purposes of the record labels was to spend a fortune on marketing during the current years in exchange for the long term profits generated by sales of albums both immediately and over many years. For most groups this was a losing proposition for the record labels, but there were some groups on which is was moderately profitable and there was occasional group that made several hugely successful albums that sold for many years and funded this whole process. Look at 1980s videos and think about the fact that no one made a nickel off video sales then, if anything you had to pay to get your video played.
The secondary purpose was the mechanics involving hiring the printer to pressing / burn a CD, distribute to record stores, accounting. Also things like album artwork. There is a lot of mechanics to selling music. Think about the iOS store and the fact that on software, people are still gladly paying Apple 30% for their support and service channel.
The tertiary purpose was the additional value adds associated with touring. This can cross over to band management. But record companies could help with coordinating with local teeshirts vendors to make sure there were enough shirts on hand or negotiating what percentage of concessions sales the band is going to get. The internet does not deliver and sell beer, and even on teeshirts it pretty much is still not much different than it was 2 generations ago.
What we are seeing today is a situation where the record companies have been cut out, and their are just less slots than there were 25 years ago. The only company I can think of doing a good job developing their talent is Disney.
I'll check again. If it is me that has it backwards then I'd be shocked this didn't come up sooner. There has already been about $20b that's changed hands in digital music.
I would argue the scarcity is natural. How is the RIAA creating an artificial scarcity? What are they doing to create star culture? And if it is the RIAA why do we see a similar culture in: books, movies, television dramas, journalism, sports... that the RIAA has nothing to do with?
Most likely without the music publishers, and their marketing music sales would be lower, and this would be more of a middle class occupation. That incidentally is what you see in Europe, the "stars" still don't do incredible numbers and everyone appeals to niche audiences.
No, that sounds intuitive but you have this backwards in terms of copyright. Lets talk about the original album.
I band sold their copyright to the music company. When you purchase a CD you get a license along with the physical media.
The music company sold sell the band's contract to another company. The music company could licene a large music wholesaler (like Columbia or BMG) to print and distribute 50,000 copies of the album.
Under that theory, what rights did they sell to iTunes? They didn't give iTunes a right to redistribute since Apple pays them 30% per copy and in fact that's the only money changing hands.
Oh I see. And then they argue that the 30% that iTunes pays the label was the sales cost and.... Gotcha. OK that makes some sense. BTW you have that the other way around. It is falling under license you are arguing it could technically fall under sale.
To be honest though I see iTunes as the store under this model getting the album/song on consignment. iTunes is the channel it isn't providing the channel.
There are tons of groups that would like a shot of making it. There are a limited number of slots available. The cost to get one of those slots is being willing to bid a large percentage of your future rights.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know of any Jews who actively refuted the Kabbalah, that is consider it false and have a different theology. I do know of Jews that believe Judaism shouldn't take those sorts of theological positions. And in that sense they become very similar to Muslims and totally dissimilar to Christians which gets to the whole point that the Gods have different properties.
All Christians hold that Jesus is the messiah. They just redefine the word messiah so that it means essentially nothing like the current Jewish concept. There were however Jewish sects in the 200 BCE - 200 CE period that used messiah in the Christian sense.
The issue is if you think of Judaism as a forking graph, the branches that became Christianity forked really early (around 200 BCE) from the branches that became Rabbinic Judaism. It would be like the relationship between a heretical group of Mormons and Greek Orthodox.
Again lots of gnostics did not believe Christ was incarnate. I'd argue the majority of the 2nd century Gnostics rejected the incarnation. As for Logos, there certainly were groups that would have rejected that sort of Philo based language. Sethians until much later in the 2nd century for example would never have used Logos Theology.
Both Arianism and Nestorianism rejected the Trinity. They did believe in Jesus was the logos. There were Nestorians and Arians that rejected the incarnation as well.
Really? I think that comes from you excluding whole classes of Christian groups: Marcionities, Sethians, Carpocratians...
In context it was clear it was talking about Mohammed. Saudi Arabia punishes apostasy from Islam with death.
Actually many extradition treaties do say this, that a person can only be extradited for something that would be a crime in the extraditing country. That's why, using your example, there is a special treaty just covering sex tourism.
The killing of Mao and Stalin were mainly to consolidate small farms into large farms to make industrial farming practical and thereby free up labor without having to go through a several generation process.
The killing of Hitler, were either
a) The conquest of territory to create both surplus labor and natural resources for a German industrial base
b) Ethnic purification
The killings in the inquisitions were to maintain a pure faith, there were fundamentally idealogical.
Crusades are too non specific, different crusades had different reasons.
So how are they similar?
Sort of, the Muslims de-personified him however. In Judaism you can make positive statements about God, like "God is just", "God is holy", "God loves children". You can't in Islam (with the exception of "God is great" which I don't understand). You can talk about the will of Allah but not about Allah. Allah is transcendent and unknowable. The Jewish God has 10 major properties:
1 Keter-"Crown"
2 Chokhmah-"Wisdom"
3 Binah-"Understanding"
4 Chesed-"Kindness"
5 Gevurah-"Severity"
6 Tiferet-"Beauty"
7 Netzach-"Eternity"
8 Hod-"Splendor"
9 Yesod-"Foundation"
10 Malkuth-"Kingship"
Actually that is an awesome analogy, and All Star, Red Son and Old School have different properties.
Nice job!
The word used is retzach. Which is a verb meaning to slay or break. However, culturally it gets connected to the notion of bloodguilt. This is broader than murder for example the bible uses this term for someone who fails to build a railing on their roof (essentially an upper deck) and then someone falls and dies. On the other hand in a situation where there is no bloodguilt (like war) it wouldn't apply. It also wouldn't apply to a situation where you are rightfully avenging, while murder would apply there in our understanding. X can still "murder" someone who killed his wife, he can't be gulity of a bloodguilt.
If I were translating I'd use bloodguilt, an article elsewhere in the bible and footnote ever use of the word to the article. Murder is probably the best English language translation if you don't want to explain the differences.
"god of Abraham" is just one property. If I were to claim that Vishnu were the God of Abraham would make Krishna into Jesus?
I'm not entirely sure about that. I think the three religions claim that to be the case but I'm not sure as an objective observer it is in fact true. The three respective invisible wizards have substantially different and in the Christian/Muslim case incompatible properties.
I don't agree with your assessment of Mohammed in the slightest. I think the reason Islam spread as quickly as it did was because of its essentially humanity on the issue of slavery and the issue of debt. Both where it won and where it lost, it helped to create a more equitable society. Further as military monotheistic religions go, Mohammed was rather well above average. Certainly as contrasted with the old testament prophets.
That being said, there are plenty of liberal muslims, many of whom live in the United States opposed to the idea of these hate laws. In 1960 the vast majority of muslim governments were pro liberalization, especially on women's issue, and had broad public support in doing so. And we still see muslim leaders today who focus on liberalization and modernization like the Jordanian goverment. So the idea that Islam and modernization are fundamentally incompatible is just fase.
Granted to all. But that's a lot of money. Assume the article was a typical situation and we are talking something like a $4b swing for the artists. Even if that were divided between 100,000 artists equally it would still be $40,000 each.
One alternative would be that Apple purchases a license for resale every time a sale occurs.
Johnny X buys the song for $.99. Apple buys the song from the publisher for $.70.
Another would be that Apple doesn't have a license. That they have these songs on consignment.
Apple is granted 1m licenses for X on consignment. Johnny X buys the song for $.99 and now Apple only has 999,999 licenses. Apple also owes the publisher their cut, $.70.
The European situation shows a greater scarcity. The argument was that the scarcity was being artificially created by collusion. If there is even more scarcity without collusion then yes that is evidence.
United States v. Paramount Pictures addresses the problems of movie studios owning theater chains and extended a "monopoly" on their specific pictures. That would be the situation of record companies owning music stores. I think a good analogy today might be something like the apple store.
I would agree completely that the Internet is undermining the oligopoly aspects of the record business. But even granting the oligopoly I'm not following your claims. In the traditional model, the record companies get a certain percentage of all albums sold and all albums cost roughly the same. Further I'm not sure why mega-stardom is to the advantage of record companies over just regular stardom. Their goal wouldn't be to create "mega-stars" but to increase total sales. They would seek to influence customer behavior.
Further a "mega star" might be effectively self promoting, which cuts out one of their biggest costs. Give me the equations you are claiming for this model.
I agree the internet creates an effectively unlimited number of slots to get some level of play. But 40 years ago you could argue there was an effectively unlimited number of bars with live music. The problem in both cases is that is not a sufficient level of exposure to "be a star".
The primary purposes of the record labels was to spend a fortune on marketing during the current years in exchange for the long term profits generated by sales of albums both immediately and over many years. For most groups this was a losing proposition for the record labels, but there were some groups on which is was moderately profitable and there was occasional group that made several hugely successful albums that sold for many years and funded this whole process. Look at 1980s videos and think about the fact that no one made a nickel off video sales then, if anything you had to pay to get your video played.
The secondary purpose was the mechanics involving hiring the printer to pressing / burn a CD, distribute to record stores, accounting. Also things like album artwork. There is a lot of mechanics to selling music. Think about the iOS store and the fact that on software, people are still gladly paying Apple 30% for their support and service channel.
The tertiary purpose was the additional value adds associated with touring. This can cross over to band management. But record companies could help with coordinating with local teeshirts vendors to make sure there were enough shirts on hand or negotiating what percentage of concessions sales the band is going to get. The internet does not deliver and sell beer, and even on teeshirts it pretty much is still not much different than it was 2 generations ago.
What we are seeing today is a situation where the record companies have been cut out, and their are just less slots than there were 25 years ago. The only company I can think of doing a good job developing their talent is Disney.
That wasn't the intent. Besides pirated torrents could just as easily be from ripping CDs.
I'll check again. If it is me that has it backwards then I'd be shocked this didn't come up sooner. There has already been about $20b that's changed hands in digital music.
I would argue the scarcity is natural. How is the RIAA creating an artificial scarcity? What are they doing to create star culture? And if it is the RIAA why do we see a similar culture in: books, movies, television dramas, journalism, sports... that the RIAA has nothing to do with?
Most likely without the music publishers, and their marketing music sales would be lower, and this would be more of a middle class occupation. That incidentally is what you see in Europe, the "stars" still don't do incredible numbers and everyone appeals to niche audiences.
No, that sounds intuitive but you have this backwards in terms of copyright. Lets talk about the original album.
I band sold their copyright to the music company.
When you purchase a CD you get a license along with the physical media.
The music company sold sell the band's contract to another company.
The music company could licene a large music wholesaler (like Columbia or BMG) to print and distribute 50,000 copies of the album.
Under that theory, what rights did they sell to iTunes? They didn't give iTunes a right to redistribute since Apple pays them 30% per copy and in fact that's the only money changing hands.
Oh I see. And then they argue that the 30% that iTunes pays the label was the sales cost and.... Gotcha. OK that makes some sense. BTW you have that the other way around. It is falling under license you are arguing it could technically fall under sale.
To be honest though I see iTunes as the store under this model getting the album/song on consignment. iTunes is the channel it isn't providing the channel.
Supply and demand.
There are tons of groups that would like a shot of making it.
There are a limited number of slots available.
The cost to get one of those slots is being willing to bid a large percentage of your future rights.