The language evolves according to usage by people. Only the core grammar/10 rules remain fixed.
Sure, so much fixed that it hasn't accepted any change, not even changes by its own commission who recommended modifications to make it a better language. That better language was named Ido. But the Esperanto zealots rejected it. Read the Wikipedia page about it.
What I don't like in Esperanto, mainly:
Its use of specially accented letters which are non standard (look at difficulties people have to post on/. in Esperanto!)
Its over-use of negations. So much that many words only exist in their negatively-constructed form (good -> "bona", bad -> "mal-bona"). This is counter-intuitive, why would I think negatively for 50% of words?
Not really used in any useful places
To summarize, Esperanto is a (successful, compared to Ido) fork of the main line which changed it name to Ido.
[troll mode off]
You are revising your statement from pretending to know ALL(sic) that the Bible is good for, to observing that the Bible includes false terms. I would not have challenged your competence to make that revised statement.
Moreover, finding false terms in the Bible is straightforward and does not require anything as far fetched as saying that the weapon of the crime plays no role when determining guilt in a murder trial.
"all these old laws attack the symptoms and not the root problem."
"it's too bad people today don't realize that that's ALL it's good for."
Your first sweeping statement could have been avoided had you taken the time to read the passage instead of speculating about its contents. This is a passage about intent. The only role the instrument plays in the passage is when it can help shed light on the intent. This is still true today in contemporary courtrooms. I gave both sword and hammer as instances of "metal instrument" but the distinction I was demonstrating was between accidentally dropping and deliberately striking.
Your 2nd sweeping statement is beyond the scope of the assistance I'm offering you here, but suffice to say that you have yet to display sufficient knowledge of the Bible and its heritage to be qualified to make that statement.
The distinction between murder and acceptable killing is based on what the weapon was made of???
Um, no.
That particular passage (did you look it up?) happens to be about distinguishing between a case where the killing was an accident and a case where the killing was deliberate - so it's about intent. You can't say "I struck him with a sword, but I didn't mean for him to die". but you can say "I was working on the roof and dropped that hammer" or "I struck him with this soft object, I didn't expect him to die".
This is not the only passage that deals with defining unlawful killing, it's just one example.
To your more general point: Yeah, the Bible was written thousands of years ago, it is addressing a society far less sophisticated than the one we live in today. Religions that follow the Bible as if it was addressed to 21st century society are rare. The idea of providing a safe place for killers to hide in until the circumstances of the killing is determined was revolutionary for that time, but it would have been unfortunate if modern day judicial systems had not evolved in that spirit into somehting more sophisticated and refined.
if it does unambiguously say "thou shalt not murder" then it opens up another problem - being that the defintion of murder as unlawful killing, and the 10 commandments as being the law of god according to the mytholgy, renders that commandment into a useless tautology
While the 10 commandments don't define what killing is lawful and what killing is unlawful, the Bible goes into great detail in defining murder (RZH).
Since you are wise enough not to take a stranger's word for it, I can give you a concrete example - Numbers 35 - I quote from the Revised, Standard version, but feel free to look up the original Hebrew or the translation of your choice:
[11] then you shall select cities to be cities of refuge for you, that the manslayer who kills any person without intent may flee there.
[12] The cities shall be for you a refuge from the avenger, that the manslayer may not die until he stands before the congregation for judgment. ...
[16] But if he struck him down with an instrument of iron, so that he died, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death.
[17] And if he struck him down with a stone in the hand, by which a man may die, and he died, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death.
I said it's written form doesn't record the vowel sounds. Is this not true?
Yes, it is true that short vowels (and some of the long vowels) are not recorded in the original scrolls and were added later on, and there are cases where there is dispute about whether or not the choice of vowels is correct.
A famous example is the second word of Genesis: Is it the past tense: "bara" yielding: "In the beginning God created..." or is it the infinitive "bro", yielding "In the begining of the creation of..."
The commandment in question is not such a case, since the root itself is different.
It is indeed apparent that you don't know Hebrew, because your anology above is wrong.
Not only is Hebrew not "completely phonetic", but the difference between the root R.Z.H (to murder, as is used in the 10 commandments) and the root H.R.G (to kill) is by no means a phonetic one - these roots have nothing in common, and their use throughout the Bible is consistantly different. There is nothing "ambiguous" about the distinction between to murder and to kill in Hebrew, and there is no way to interpret the commandment as referring to mere killing.
I read too fast the text. There will be no keysize limitation when the law will be voted. But meanwhile, the maximum keysize will go from 40 to 128 bits...
Slashdot Mirror
The language evolves according to usage by people. Only the core grammar/10 rules remain fixed.
Sure, so much fixed that it hasn't accepted any change, not even changes by its own commission who recommended modifications to make it a better language. That better language was named Ido. But the Esperanto zealots rejected it. Read the Wikipedia page about it.
What I don't like in Esperanto, mainly:
To summarize, Esperanto is a (successful, compared to Ido) fork of the main line which changed it name to Ido. [troll mode off]
You are revising your statement from pretending to know ALL(sic) that the Bible is good for, to observing that the Bible includes false terms. I would not have challenged your competence to make that revised statement.
Moreover, finding false terms in the Bible is straightforward and does not require anything as far fetched as saying that the weapon of the crime plays no role when determining guilt in a murder trial.
"all these old laws attack the symptoms and not the root problem."
"it's too bad people today don't realize that that's ALL it's good for."
Your first sweeping statement could have been avoided had you taken the time to read the passage instead of speculating about its contents. This is a passage about intent. The only role the instrument plays in the passage is when it can help shed light on the intent. This is still true today in contemporary courtrooms. I gave both sword and hammer as instances of "metal instrument" but the distinction I was demonstrating was between accidentally dropping and deliberately striking.
Your 2nd sweeping statement is beyond the scope of the assistance I'm offering you here, but suffice to say that you have yet to display sufficient knowledge of the Bible and its heritage to be qualified to make that statement.
The distinction between murder and acceptable killing is based on what the weapon was made of???
Um, no.
That particular passage (did you look it up?) happens to be about distinguishing between a case where the killing was an accident and a case where the killing was deliberate - so it's about intent. You can't say "I struck him with a sword, but I didn't mean for him to die". but you can say "I was working on the roof and dropped that hammer" or "I struck him with this soft object, I didn't expect him to die".
This is not the only passage that deals with defining unlawful killing, it's just one example.
To your more general point: Yeah, the Bible was written thousands of years ago, it is addressing a society far less sophisticated than the one we live in today. Religions that follow the Bible as if it was addressed to 21st century society are rare. The idea of providing a safe place for killers to hide in until the circumstances of the killing is determined was revolutionary for that time, but it would have been unfortunate if modern day judicial systems had not evolved in that spirit into somehting more sophisticated and refined.
if it does unambiguously say "thou shalt not murder" then it opens up another problem - being that the defintion of murder as unlawful killing, and the 10 commandments as being the law of god according to the mytholgy, renders that commandment into a useless tautology
While the 10 commandments don't define what killing is lawful and what killing is unlawful, the Bible goes into great detail in defining murder (RZH). Since you are wise enough not to take a stranger's word for it, I can give you a concrete example - Numbers 35 - I quote from the Revised, Standard version, but feel free to look up the original Hebrew or the translation of your choice:
I said it's written form doesn't record the vowel sounds. Is this not true?
Yes, it is true that short vowels (and some of the long vowels) are not recorded in the original scrolls and were added later on, and there are cases where there is dispute about whether or not the choice of vowels is correct. A famous example is the second word of Genesis: Is it the past tense: "bara" yielding: "In the beginning God created..." or is it the infinitive "bro", yielding "In the begining of the creation of..." The commandment in question is not such a case, since the root itself is different.
It is indeed apparent that you don't know Hebrew, because your anology above is wrong.
Not only is Hebrew not "completely phonetic", but the difference between the root R.Z.H (to murder, as is used in the 10 commandments) and the root H.R.G (to kill) is by no means a phonetic one - these roots have nothing in common, and their use throughout the Bible is consistantly different. There is nothing "ambiguous" about the distinction between to murder and to kill in Hebrew, and there is no way to interpret the commandment as referring to mere killing.
Anybody knows a wireless USB device working with :-(
Linux ? I couldn't find any
I read too fast the text. There will be no keysize
limitation when the law will be voted. But
meanwhile, the maximum keysize will go from 40 to 128 bits...
Luc