If it's proper for an ISP to block email that has questionable or unwanted content (eg, spam), why is it not proper for that same ISP to block Websites that also have questionable or unwanted content (eg, phishing sites)? Just because AboveNet and TeleGlobe, or more accurately MAPS, went overboard and blacklisted innocent sites, doesn't mean the principle is invalid.
The real issue here isn't that ISPs were blocking access to Websites, it's that the reputation service they were using to judge which sites should be blocked used questionable methods to determine eligibility for blocking. Given my experience with Spamhaus in fighting spam, I would have no problem if my ISP used them to block access to possible phishing or scam sites, in addition to combating spam.
I was talking about court martialing them over what allegedly happened to the journalists, sorry for the confusion.
I can't really put a lot of stock into the Afghans protesting. People in poor nations can be whipped up into a frenzy by people pretty easily, it seems. Just because a mass of them were possibly mislead doesn't prove the veracity of the original claims. Or maybe I'm just too cynical.
And don't forget that life insurance, while not taxable itself, also contributes to the size of your estate, and therefore indirectly influences how much your heirs have to fork over to Uncle Sugar upon your (un)timely demise.
The best way to avoid the estate tax is to place a chunk of your belongings in a trust and leave the trust to your heirs. That's how the truly rich do it, and it's why people like John Kerry are so in favor of a death tax (he knows his heirs won't be affected by one). See an estate attorney or financial advisor for more details.
Nope, hadn't heard of that. Thanks for the links. If it's true, the soldiers involved deserve to be court martialed, no question about that. Unfortunately, there really isn't any credible evidence that this really happened. All we've got is a couple of freelancers saying an anonymous US soldier did this to them. No name, no rank, nothing that would pick this guy out of a crowd, if he exists. So color me skeptical on this one. It might have happened, but I'm not going to bet my paycheck on it.
After reading through all the linked articles, it looks like they're all sourced from the same original report with no new investigation among the various "sources" you linked. And given the AP's history of publishing, er, questionable material from local stringers, I'm actually quite a bit more than skeptical about this, I think the reporters involved are probably lying about it and the event never took place. If they can come up with some credible evidence, I'll happily revise that belief, but for now I still think this story is as likely to have happened as my "report" on your road rage incident.
If it was ordinary private citizens in Iraq with the arms, things probably wouldn't be as bad as they are. Instead, the guns are being used by militias who are loyal to their capo, and terrorist groups who are loyal to theirs. So they end up fighting each other, and the Iraqis cops and army and the US army, with innocents caught in the crossfire.
Yeah yeah yeah, absolute statements are always wrong, anecdotal evidence is not reliable data (except for that one time, when my uncle had a great anecdote), blah blah blah.
And most importantly, absurd statements that seem completely wrong or frivolous on the surface never have a deeper meaning to those willing to think for a few seconds.
What about teaching in a private school? Maybe you could find one that teaches in the method you've described, sounds similar to the Montessori method.
Quick anecdote to illustrate the point: last summer, some friends and I were at a lake having a picnic. At one point, we started playing MadLibs. When my turn came, I was prompted for an adverb. I offered "speedily".
The woman to my left immediately interjected with "That's not a word. And I'm an English teacher, so I know."
All the evidence I need to know that English teachers have zero command of the language.
Anyway, does the source of global warming actually matter much?
Yes, it does, actually. If global warming is caused by something outside of man's control, there's no point to spending trillions of dollars on futile efforts to stop it which will only damage the global economy. OTOH, if man is indeed causing global warming, then it would make sense to spend those trillions now, rather than waiting until it's too late (disregarding if it already is, for the moment) and it would end up costing more in either lives or treasure. If we do the wrong thing based on a misunderstanding of the problem, we could end up causing an even worse catastrophe later.
The sad fact is, most people are so poorly educated that even politicians have no problem not only espousing obvious logical fallacies
You say that as though there isn't a direct, causal, link from one to the other. Here's a hint: who writes the checks to pay for public schools in the US? And what does that group of people have in common with the politicians you mentioned?
I was going to put in a link to Wiktionary's definition of trust that would allow for "unverified trust", even if I had to edit the page to allow for it. But I'm feeling rather lazy this morning, so just pretend that link exists and laugh accordingly.
1) "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and his messenger" You can be a non-believer, but a peaceful one. You won't be killed. But for example, if a non-believer mocked God or prophet Mohammad, then those should be FOUGHT. (not killed)
Is the reference to non-believers being fought in a different section? Because if it's part of the one that says to wage war on them, I find it difficult to imagine a war where people aren't killed.
By the way, Allah fucks Mohammad in the ass. Does that mean you should "fight" me, or what? (I'm using an absurd and very insulting statement to make a point, it's called "hyperbole".)
3) This means that God helps his followers & believers during their wars and assign Angels to aid them.
It seems to exhort Muhammadans to kill people ("smite them above their necks"). 2) "then we destroy them utterly" By "we" God means himself, not by God's followers.
I find that difficult to believe. Allah is referred to in the third person in that sentence, it doesn't read like he's the one who's going to destroy anyone. Rather, it sounds like the Muhammadans are the ones who will be doing the destroying.
So someone changed the Bible to make sound less cruel???
I'm going to assume you don't know the difference between the Old and New Testaments, so here's a quick primer: the Old Testament is the Jewish Bible, and is a combination of the Law and the Prophets. In includes all of the books from Genesis to (at least) Malachi (some Christian churches include other books, too, hence the "at least"). The Old Testament is primarily concerned with the nation of Israel (ancient, not modern), and how it started from a group of shepherds to an full fledged nation (and pretty much again, after they were conquered a few too many times). In it, there are times when God tells the Hebrews to kill certain groups of people, and there are other times when God does it Himself. There's an active debate about how these incidents should be viewed today, but generally it's agreed that, if God commanded people to kill others, it was a special, one-time-only, kind of thing, and it doesn't give anyone license to do so today.
The New Testament, on the other hand, is the Gospel that teaches about the life and teachings of Jesus Christ when He was on earth, and the ministry of the apostles after He returned to Heaven. Explaining the differences between the two parts of the Christian Bible would take too long in this forum, but suffice to say that Christ's message was one of love and compassion for your fellow man, and love and devotion to God. No part of the New Testament encourages, or even allows, individuals to kill others.
So to answer your question, no, no one changed it. God just clarified His message when He was on the earth.
At no point in the Koran does it say killing non-believers is acceptable.
You're either misinformed or lying. I'm going to assume you're misinformed. Here are some quotes from the Koran to help enlighten you.
"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and his messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be to be killed or crucified, or to have their hands and feet chopped off on opposite sides, or to be expelled out of the land. Such will be their humiliation in the world, and in the next world they will face an awful horror." (Koran, 5:33-34)
"When we decide to destroy a population, we send a definite order to them who have the good things in life and yet sin. So that Allah's word is proven true against them, then we destroy them utterly." (Koran, 17:16-17)
"Remember Allah inspired the angels: I am with you. Give firmness to the believers. I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: you smite them above their necks and smite all their fingertips off of them." (Koran, 8:12)
While it's also true that you can find commands from God to kill people in the Bible, all of those quotes are in the Old Testament. The New Testament does not contain any commands to kill, though it does give warnings to people who reject God. But their punishment will be meted out by God in the next life, at no point are Christians told to exact that punishment themselves. In fact, they're specifically told not to do it.
The idea of landing a man on the moon was initial conceived in 1960. Kennedy made his famous speech in 1961. By 1969, NASA had launched and recovered Apollo 11.
Flash forward to 2007. Presumably, we know how to get to the moon, since we've done it before. Computing and aerospace technology have both advanced considerably in the intervening 46 years. But now, instead of getting there in less than 10 years, they want to take 13?
Nice idea, but it seems in many of the places I've worked it was Legal that caused most of the problems with document retention to begin with (except when it was HR creating a hostile work environment, of course).
and then you wait 10.5 years for the answer to come back at the speed of light
A little OT, but I wonder how practical it is to assume a probe could even communicate with us once it got that far away. Epsilon Eridani isn't the brightest star in the sky, and it pumps out incredible amounts of energy. Far more than any human built space craft, robotic or otherwise, could hope to. Granted, that energy is going in all directions, but there'd still have to be a fairly wide cone of dispersion from the source to have any certainty that it would hit the Earth. Then it still has to be strong enough not to be scrambled by magnetosphere of at least two stars and background cosmic radiation.
Any radio experts around who can calculate how much energy would be needed to generate a signal of that magnitude?
Slashdot Mirror
If it's proper for an ISP to block email that has questionable or unwanted content (eg, spam), why is it not proper for that same ISP to block Websites that also have questionable or unwanted content (eg, phishing sites)? Just because AboveNet and TeleGlobe, or more accurately MAPS, went overboard and blacklisted innocent sites, doesn't mean the principle is invalid.
The real issue here isn't that ISPs were blocking access to Websites, it's that the reputation service they were using to judge which sites should be blocked used questionable methods to determine eligibility for blocking. Given my experience with Spamhaus in fighting spam, I would have no problem if my ISP used them to block access to possible phishing or scam sites, in addition to combating spam.
the military has been forced to bottom feed...those of us who are better educated have no desire to [fight our nation's wars]
You vote Democrat, don't you?
Americans are so easily manipulated.
I will be if you say so.
There is no such thing as an authoritative source.
Well, since you said it, I'll believe you.
I was talking about court martialing them over what allegedly happened to the journalists, sorry for the confusion.
I can't really put a lot of stock into the Afghans protesting. People in poor nations can be whipped up into a frenzy by people pretty easily, it seems. Just because a mass of them were possibly mislead doesn't prove the veracity of the original claims. Or maybe I'm just too cynical.
The robot sounds a lot like my ex-wife.
And don't forget that life insurance, while not taxable itself, also contributes to the size of your estate, and therefore indirectly influences how much your heirs have to fork over to Uncle Sugar upon your (un)timely demise.
The best way to avoid the estate tax is to place a chunk of your belongings in a trust and leave the trust to your heirs. That's how the truly rich do it, and it's why people like John Kerry are so in favor of a death tax (he knows his heirs won't be affected by one). See an estate attorney or financial advisor for more details.
Nope, hadn't heard of that. Thanks for the links. If it's true, the soldiers involved deserve to be court martialed, no question about that. Unfortunately, there really isn't any credible evidence that this really happened. All we've got is a couple of freelancers saying an anonymous US soldier did this to them. No name, no rank, nothing that would pick this guy out of a crowd, if he exists. So color me skeptical on this one. It might have happened, but I'm not going to bet my paycheck on it.
After reading through all the linked articles, it looks like they're all sourced from the same original report with no new investigation among the various "sources" you linked. And given the AP's history of publishing, er, questionable material from local stringers, I'm actually quite a bit more than skeptical about this, I think the reporters involved are probably lying about it and the event never took place. If they can come up with some credible evidence, I'll happily revise that belief, but for now I still think this story is as likely to have happened as my "report" on your road rage incident.
If it was ordinary private citizens in Iraq with the arms, things probably wouldn't be as bad as they are. Instead, the guns are being used by militias who are loyal to their capo, and terrorist groups who are loyal to theirs. So they end up fighting each other, and the Iraqis cops and army and the US army, with innocents caught in the crossfire.
Wait, I'm confused, what happened to the tubes?
Yesterday, a car cut off lixee on the highway. When lixee pulled up alongside, he riddled the car with bullets from an AK-47.
See, I can make up outrageous claims with no source to back them up, too.
Yeah yeah yeah, absolute statements are always wrong, anecdotal evidence is not reliable data (except for that one time, when my uncle had a great anecdote), blah blah blah.
And most importantly, absurd statements that seem completely wrong or frivolous on the surface never have a deeper meaning to those willing to think for a few seconds.
What about teaching in a private school? Maybe you could find one that teaches in the method you've described, sounds similar to the Montessori method.
Quick anecdote to illustrate the point: last summer, some friends and I were at a lake having a picnic. At one point, we started playing MadLibs. When my turn came, I was prompted for an adverb. I offered "speedily".
The woman to my left immediately interjected with "That's not a word. And I'm an English teacher, so I know."
All the evidence I need to know that English teachers have zero command of the language.
Anyway, does the source of global warming actually matter much?
Yes, it does, actually. If global warming is caused by something outside of man's control, there's no point to spending trillions of dollars on futile efforts to stop it which will only damage the global economy. OTOH, if man is indeed causing global warming, then it would make sense to spend those trillions now, rather than waiting until it's too late (disregarding if it already is, for the moment) and it would end up costing more in either lives or treasure. If we do the wrong thing based on a misunderstanding of the problem, we could end up causing an even worse catastrophe later.
The sad fact is, most people are so poorly educated that even politicians have no problem not only espousing obvious logical fallacies
You say that as though there isn't a direct, causal, link from one to the other. Here's a hint: who writes the checks to pay for public schools in the US? And what does that group of people have in common with the politicians you mentioned?
I was going to put in a link to Wiktionary's definition of trust that would allow for "unverified trust", even if I had to edit the page to allow for it. But I'm feeling rather lazy this morning, so just pretend that link exists and laugh accordingly.
All of those quotes are references to actions taken in a defense.
Really? Prove it.
1) "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and his messenger"
You can be a non-believer, but a peaceful one. You won't be killed.
But for example, if a non-believer mocked God or prophet Mohammad, then those should be FOUGHT. (not killed)
Is the reference to non-believers being fought in a different section? Because if it's part of the one that says to wage war on them, I find it difficult to imagine a war where people aren't killed.
By the way, Allah fucks Mohammad in the ass. Does that mean you should "fight" me, or what? (I'm using an absurd and very insulting statement to make a point, it's called "hyperbole".)
3) This means that God helps his followers & believers during their wars and assign Angels to aid them.
It seems to exhort Muhammadans to kill people ("smite them above their necks").
2) "then we destroy them utterly"
By "we" God means himself, not by God's followers.
I find that difficult to believe. Allah is referred to in the third person in that sentence, it doesn't read like he's the one who's going to destroy anyone. Rather, it sounds like the Muhammadans are the ones who will be doing the destroying.
So someone changed the Bible to make sound less cruel???
I'm going to assume you don't know the difference between the Old and New Testaments, so here's a quick primer: the Old Testament is the Jewish Bible, and is a combination of the Law and the Prophets. In includes all of the books from Genesis to (at least) Malachi (some Christian churches include other books, too, hence the "at least"). The Old Testament is primarily concerned with the nation of Israel (ancient, not modern), and how it started from a group of shepherds to an full fledged nation (and pretty much again, after they were conquered a few too many times). In it, there are times when God tells the Hebrews to kill certain groups of people, and there are other times when God does it Himself. There's an active debate about how these incidents should be viewed today, but generally it's agreed that, if God commanded people to kill others, it was a special, one-time-only, kind of thing, and it doesn't give anyone license to do so today.
The New Testament, on the other hand, is the Gospel that teaches about the life and teachings of Jesus Christ when He was on earth, and the ministry of the apostles after He returned to Heaven. Explaining the differences between the two parts of the Christian Bible would take too long in this forum, but suffice to say that Christ's message was one of love and compassion for your fellow man, and love and devotion to God. No part of the New Testament encourages, or even allows, individuals to kill others.
So to answer your question, no, no one changed it. God just clarified His message when He was on the earth.
At no point in the Koran does it say killing non-believers is acceptable.
You're either misinformed or lying. I'm going to assume you're misinformed. Here are some quotes from the Koran to help enlighten you.
"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and his messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be to be killed or crucified, or to have their hands and feet chopped off on opposite sides, or to be expelled out of the land. Such will be their humiliation in the world, and in the next world they will face an awful horror." (Koran, 5:33-34)
"When we decide to destroy a population, we send a definite order to them who have the good things in life and yet sin. So that Allah's word is proven true against them, then we destroy them utterly." (Koran, 17:16-17)
"Remember Allah inspired the angels: I am with you. Give firmness to the believers. I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: you smite them above their necks and smite all their fingertips off of them." (Koran, 8:12)
While it's also true that you can find commands from God to kill people in the Bible, all of those quotes are in the Old Testament. The New Testament does not contain any commands to kill, though it does give warnings to people who reject God. But their punishment will be meted out by God in the next life, at no point are Christians told to exact that punishment themselves. In fact, they're specifically told not to do it.
Ya know, the Constitution has more than just the one Amendment. You might want to read up on #14.
The idea of landing a man on the moon was initial conceived in 1960. Kennedy made his famous speech in 1961. By 1969, NASA had launched and recovered Apollo 11.
Flash forward to 2007. Presumably, we know how to get to the moon, since we've done it before. Computing and aerospace technology have both advanced considerably in the intervening 46 years. But now, instead of getting there in less than 10 years, they want to take 13?
Something is seriously wrong with this situation.
Nice idea, but it seems in many of the places I've worked it was Legal that caused most of the problems with document retention to begin with (except when it was HR creating a hostile work environment, of course).
Why is data so unsecured that the receptionist who plugs in her iPod can somehow get access to identity/medical histories?
Because it's an important plot device so the hero can save his family. Duh.
and then you wait 10.5 years for the answer to come back at the speed of light
A little OT, but I wonder how practical it is to assume a probe could even communicate with us once it got that far away. Epsilon Eridani isn't the brightest star in the sky, and it pumps out incredible amounts of energy. Far more than any human built space craft, robotic or otherwise, could hope to. Granted, that energy is going in all directions, but there'd still have to be a fairly wide cone of dispersion from the source to have any certainty that it would hit the Earth. Then it still has to be strong enough not to be scrambled by magnetosphere of at least two stars and background cosmic radiation.
Any radio experts around who can calculate how much energy would be needed to generate a signal of that magnitude?