5 Bytes? And they call this secure? 5 Bytes is 40 bits, which means there are 2^40 possible keys. Although I don't know how much CPU is required to test a key, I tend to think a good computer could probably sniff them all out in a matter of days.
On another note... I wouldn't like to be Xing/Real Networks right now. I think the MPIA could make a really good case for them being libel for a massive amount of money due to their negligence.
Adding this to my list of oxymorons:
Military Intelligence, Jumbo Shimp
Hey... That's k00l. Here's my list of "Oxymorons":
Galileo.
Newton
Pascal
Darwin (believe it or not).
Copernicus (Monk)
Kepler (I think he was a monk too.)
I'm sure you could find some more Oxymorons if you tried. If you haven't heard of any of them, just ask.
Incidentally, Einstein had some distinct religious tendencies, although they were not Christian. I'm not sure how Jewish they were though -- will have to research him for my list! Do non-Christian men of faith count too?
I don't think you can really call the New York Madonna Incident (NYMI) an "enforcement" by Christians. I would call it one of the few triumphs of good taste in the past decade.
Until fairly recently, art was the creation of beauty, not social commentary except in a very few instances. In fact, it seems to me that art has become social commentary only since it has become government subsidized: possibly because few people are willing to pay for social commentary and literature generally does a better job of it.
I realize you could make a case for literature being art, but it seems to me that it is really in a different category from the visual, tactile, and performing arts. In fact, it still seems that visual and tactile arts rely far more on government subsidy (at the professional level) than the performing arts and literature, so I guess I'm not too far off base in drawing a line here.
IANAAHP (I Am Not An Art History Professor), but that's the way it looks to me. Or, in the words of Robert Heinlein, "A government subsidized artist is an incompetent whore".
It is irrelevant whether you can find verses to condemn slavery. People have great fun condemning Christians based on behaviours undertaken by a few who called themselves Christians, even though their actions were not at all biblical.
It is an historic fact that the abolition movement was lead by Christians, specifically Quakers. Read up and learn. If we are to be held responsible for wickedness done in the name of Christianity even though it was not Biblically based, should we not get the credit for good done in the name of Christianity even though it was not Biblically based?
I really, really, really wish that those who try to criticize Christianity on the basis of its history would learn some history first.
That's a legitimate point. But you see, I have evidence that my beliefs are true. Just not objective or irrefutable evidence.
For whatever reason, God wants us to freely worship him. He wants us to follow his ways out of love, not fear. And the felt prescense of God in anything but the most mitigated way would overwhealm us.
A lot of otherwise rational people believe in God. And I think you will find that the ones who take God very seriously at all are all judeo-islamo-christian. Really, the only differences between these systems theodicy is the approach to atonement.
Besides, believing in God makes me happy. Why shouldn't I? Remember, I do not try to force you to believe, I just ask that you give me the freedom to believe without slandering or harrassing me.
That's Christianity. You don't have to like it, or agree. But that is the basic gospel message.
That God, after humanity spent thousands of years denying him, killing and abusing his prophets, and killing him (as Jesus Christ) saved us from death. You can say its "Just fucking stupid", but I guess you are the same AC who claims to understand Christianity? If you don't understand that, you don't understand Christianity.
And if you are that particular AC, what right do you as a non-believer have to tell me what I believe? How the hell do you know? In fact, judging by your language, I can say with some comfort that you are probably not a Christian. So, I ask again: what right do you have to tell me what I believe?
People around here need to stop reacting to what their addled brains have led them to think Christians beleive and start reacting to what we actually believe.
Read my original post. My point is that anywhere you look, regardless of religious context, these kinds of atrocities happen.
His counter-argument was what about "all the usual suspects" (crusades, etc.), with an assertion that these somehow showed that Christians were worse than others. I replied with counter-examples of equal atrocities in just about every area of the world.
The point is that people suck. And I cannot regard a "politicized" Christianity as Christianity at all. But insofar as those committing these atrocities were the result of a Christian culture, they were no worse than atrocities found in other parts of the world.
Oh yeah... You or someone took issue with me not holding the spaniards responsible for wiping out whole tribes of Indians (by disease). Repeast after me: Louis Pasteur didn't come along till the 19th century!
I didn't say that people of christian culture were to be excused. Read what I said and try again.
I said that the depredations suffered under regimes of Christian cultures were no worse and might be a bit better than those seen under other religious systems. I mean, there are religious systems out there that practice human sacrifice! Today!
Jeesh. Please answer what I said, not your own foolish nonsense.
Why do you assume that Christianity is not based in reality and results? There are many, many people with changed lives to disagree with you.
And, I'm sorry to say this but I must, you don't understand Christianity. If you can say, for an instant, that God is "just can't wait to throw you into hell" then you don't understand it.
Look at it this way: Hell is the natural consequence of your actions. Seriously: separation from God is totally natural to something that is sinful. How could a sinful man handle a perfect God? But God went to great lengths (he died under torture according to Christians) so that you might be saved from sin.
Analogous to what God did would be if I saved your life, losing my own, after you held me up at gun point and raped my wife and child. That's God's love revealed, and thats why any Christian belief that denies the resurrection Just Doesn't Get It.
Sin is really its own punishment, believe it or not.
I will listen to your complaint as soon as you show me how two conflicting beliefs can both be true. You don't want tolerance, you want me to conceed that any belief is equally true. That is superficially and obviously false. The closest you can come is that all beliefs are false, but I don't buy that.
DO I refuse you your right to believe them? No. God gave you the right to believe them, who am I to take it away? But I will never, ever agree to a lie to assuage your notions of politeness. You, sir, are the one who is trying to make me give up my faith.
That's nice. But what if you are flawed? I will challenge anyone to produce any evidence whatsoever that mankind is perfect. Yet perfection is exactly what's called for.
I think that's what many new-ager types miss: we aren't called to 51% good. We're called to be perfect. To err is human, but it is not divine. That's why we need His help.
It's not about guilt. I don't really acknowledge guilt (here I differ from many Chrisitans). It's about Christ's power to make me better than I am so that I can do good.
Crusades: Compare to the Islamic Jihads. Probably milder than the Jihads actually.
Inquisition: It's highly overrated in the popular imagination. But take a look at what Nero did to those who refused to call him God.
Burning people at stake: Why don't you take a look at what the Germanic cultures did before Christianity came along. It even grossed the Romans out. (The Romans whose preferred method was letting people die of exposure).
Genocide is really quite common in history. Consider what the atheists in Russia did to the Hebrews. I can't remember all the details, but there were some genocidal activities in East Asia too. Oh, by the way: the Spanish were not really responsible; most of the natives were killed by disease, not the Spaniards.
It has been up-moderated twice. Down-moderate three times. So, which is it? OffTopic? Flamebait? Troll? Overrated? Underrated? Interesting?
The fool below who claims that Christians enjoy no persecution in our society has been moderated directly up.
Oh yeah. For all you who whine about the evils of the religious right: THEY ARE NOT THE MAINBODY OF CHRISTIANITY! And stop your whining: have you people any idea what has been done to Christians in the past and in other countries? Our religious started out with its founder executed. As far as I know, at least 5 of the original twelve apostles were killed by the government of the time.
Why? Because people suck and power corrupts! And whatever group is in power will abuse it. So, you have gross abuse of power by atheists (think Stalin), including abuse of Christians. The Jews are documented to have done some pretty unpleasant things to their enemies (looked in Israel lately and the way they treat the palestinian Christians). Even Eastern faiths are not immune: look at the ethnic conflicts in India/Pakistan sometime. Or consider that the pacific half of WWII was caused by Shinto (the Japanese national religion) racism in addition to its obvious, secular causes. And you have gross abuse of power by putative Christians throughout history, but its probably nothing to compare to what has been done by non-Christians.
I can't speak for any other faith system, but calling yourself a Christian does not make you a Christian! Christ himself said so:
"Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, `I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
Mark 7:23
Of course, the trick is telling who is and who isn't a "real" Christian. The answer is that you can't. But if you devote yourself first to God then, like numerous Christians who stood up against injustice from the church (notably Dietrich Bonhoeffer in WWII, but also many, many others) you will know what God is calling you to do. Or, as the verse above continues:
"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.
matt 7:24
But, I guess I'm speaking to people who won't listen.
Listen people: I don't slam you. I have in fact walked out of churches when they became to vehement in condemning people of other faiths (not because people of other faiths are right: universalism is an absurdity, but because I can respect them as other peoples attempts to pursue God even when they are wrong). All I ask is that you exercise some care to get your facts straight before you slander me and my brothers.
Oh yeah: for being such repressers, I find it interesting that Christian sentiment was what led most abolitionists to want to abolish slavery.
I think you've find that, in this case as in many others, possession is nine tenths of the law. After all, if you went there and declared autonomy, who would come stop you?
Slashdot Mirror
5 Bytes? And they call this secure? 5 Bytes is 40 bits, which means there are 2^40 possible keys. Although I don't know how much CPU is required to test a key, I tend to think a good computer could probably sniff them all out in a matter of days.
On another note... I wouldn't like to be Xing/Real Networks right now. I think the MPIA could make a really good case for them being libel for a massive amount of money due to their negligence.
See the "Plausible Deniability: Denied!" project here. The goal is to /. Intuit, and count the requests.
I note that any post expressing a Christian theme is rapidly down-checked. Do I see a pattern here?
- Galileo.
- Newton
- Pascal
- Darwin (believe it or not).
- Copernicus (Monk)
- Kepler (I think he was a monk too.)
I'm sure you could find some more Oxymorons if you tried. If you haven't heard of any of them, just ask.Incidentally, Einstein had some distinct religious tendencies, although they were not Christian. I'm not sure how Jewish they were though -- will have to research him for my list! Do non-Christian men of faith count too?
I'm glad those Christians haven't repressed him yet! Let's join arms to stand against them!
Negative One, Here I Come! (I can spare the karma)
I don't think you can really call the New York Madonna Incident (NYMI) an "enforcement" by Christians. I would call it one of the few triumphs of good taste in the past decade.
Until fairly recently, art was the creation of beauty, not social commentary except in a very few instances. In fact, it seems to me that art has become social commentary only since it has become government subsidized: possibly because few people are willing to pay for social commentary and literature generally does a better job of it.
I realize you could make a case for literature being art, but it seems to me that it is really in a different category from the visual, tactile, and performing arts. In fact, it still seems that visual and tactile arts rely far more on government subsidy (at the professional level) than the performing arts and literature, so I guess I'm not too far off base in drawing a line here.
IANAAHP (I Am Not An Art History Professor), but that's the way it looks to me. Or, in the words of Robert Heinlein, "A government subsidized artist is an incompetent whore".
You're right. But that was the point I was trying to make. Unfortunately, religious belief is often abused for sociological and political purposes.
It is irrelevant whether you can find verses to condemn slavery. People have great fun condemning Christians based on behaviours undertaken by a few who called themselves Christians, even though their actions were not at all biblical.
It is an historic fact that the abolition movement was lead by Christians, specifically Quakers. Read up and learn. If we are to be held responsible for wickedness done in the name of Christianity even though it was not Biblically based, should we not get the credit for good done in the name of Christianity even though it was not Biblically based?
I really, really, really wish that those who try to criticize Christianity on the basis of its history would learn some history first.
I love you too man.
For whatever reason, God wants us to freely worship him. He wants us to follow his ways out of love, not fear. And the felt prescense of God in anything but the most mitigated way would overwhealm us.
A lot of otherwise rational people believe in God. And I think you will find that the ones who take God very seriously at all are all judeo-islamo-christian. Really, the only differences between these systems theodicy is the approach to atonement.
Besides, believing in God makes me happy. Why shouldn't I? Remember, I do not try to force you to believe, I just ask that you give me the freedom to believe without slandering or harrassing me.
That's Christianity. You don't have to like it, or agree. But that is the basic gospel message.
That God, after humanity spent thousands of years denying him, killing and abusing his prophets, and killing him (as Jesus Christ) saved us from death. You can say its "Just fucking stupid", but I guess you are the same AC who claims to understand Christianity? If you don't understand that, you don't understand Christianity.
And if you are that particular AC, what right do you as a non-believer have to tell me what I believe? How the hell do you know? In fact, judging by your language, I can say with some comfort that you are probably not a Christian. So, I ask again: what right do you have to tell me what I believe?
People around here need to stop reacting to what their addled brains have led them to think Christians beleive and start reacting to what we actually believe.
Read my original post. My point is that anywhere you look, regardless of religious context, these kinds of atrocities happen.
His counter-argument was what about "all the usual suspects" (crusades, etc.), with an assertion that these somehow showed that Christians were worse than others. I replied with counter-examples of equal atrocities in just about every area of the world.
The point is that people suck. And I cannot regard a "politicized" Christianity as Christianity at all. But insofar as those committing these atrocities were the result of a Christian culture, they were no worse than atrocities found in other parts of the world.
Oh yeah... You or someone took issue with me not holding the spaniards responsible for wiping out whole tribes of Indians (by disease). Repeast after me: Louis Pasteur didn't come along till the 19th century!
I didn't say that people of christian culture were to be excused. Read what I said and try again.
I said that the depredations suffered under regimes of Christian cultures were no worse and might be a bit better than those seen under other religious systems. I mean, there are religious systems out there that practice human sacrifice! Today!
Jeesh. Please answer what I said, not your own foolish nonsense.
And, I'm sorry to say this but I must, you don't understand Christianity. If you can say, for an instant, that God is "just can't wait to throw you into hell" then you don't understand it.
Look at it this way: Hell is the natural consequence of your actions. Seriously: separation from God is totally natural to something that is sinful. How could a sinful man handle a perfect God? But God went to great lengths (he died under torture according to Christians) so that you might be saved from sin.
Analogous to what God did would be if I saved your life, losing my own, after you held me up at gun point and raped my wife and child. That's God's love revealed, and thats why any Christian belief that denies the resurrection Just Doesn't Get It.
Sin is really its own punishment, believe it or not.
I will listen to your complaint as soon as you show me how two conflicting beliefs can both be true. You don't want tolerance, you want me to conceed that any belief is equally true. That is superficially and obviously false. The closest you can come is that all beliefs are false, but I don't buy that.
DO I refuse you your right to believe them? No. God gave you the right to believe them, who am I to take it away? But I will never, ever agree to a lie to assuage your notions of politeness. You, sir, are the one who is trying to make me give up my faith.
I think that's what many new-ager types miss: we aren't called to 51% good. We're called to be perfect. To err is human, but it is not divine. That's why we need His help.
It's not about guilt. I don't really acknowledge guilt (here I differ from many Chrisitans). It's about Christ's power to make me better than I am so that I can do good.
Crusades: Compare to the Islamic Jihads. Probably milder than the Jihads actually.
Inquisition: It's highly overrated in the popular imagination. But take a look at what Nero did to those who refused to call him God.
Burning people at stake: Why don't you take a look at what the Germanic cultures did before Christianity came along. It even grossed the Romans out. (The Romans whose preferred method was letting people die of exposure).
Genocide is really quite common in history. Consider what the atheists in Russia did to the Hebrews. I can't remember all the details, but there were some genocidal activities in East Asia too. Oh, by the way: the Spanish were not really responsible; most of the natives were killed by disease, not the Spaniards.
In other words, learn some history bubba.
He's one of those slimey Christian types: he'll probably try to repress you!
<apology>
I'm sorry, but Katz's repeated slams of Christians have really annoyed me pretty badly. Expect bitterness for a while.
</apology>
Need I say more?
The fool below who claims that Christians enjoy no persecution in our society has been moderated directly up.
Oh yeah. For all you who whine about the evils of the religious right: THEY ARE NOT THE MAINBODY OF CHRISTIANITY! And stop your whining: have you people any idea what has been done to Christians in the past and in other countries? Our religious started out with its founder executed. As far as I know, at least 5 of the original twelve apostles were killed by the government of the time.
Why? Because people suck and power corrupts! And whatever group is in power will abuse it. So, you have gross abuse of power by atheists (think Stalin), including abuse of Christians. The Jews are documented to have done some pretty unpleasant things to their enemies (looked in Israel lately and the way they treat the palestinian Christians). Even Eastern faiths are not immune: look at the ethnic conflicts in India/Pakistan sometime. Or consider that the pacific half of WWII was caused by Shinto (the Japanese national religion) racism in addition to its obvious, secular causes. And you have gross abuse of power by putative Christians throughout history, but its probably nothing to compare to what has been done by non-Christians.
I can't speak for any other faith system, but calling yourself a Christian does not make you a Christian! Christ himself said so:
Of course, the trick is telling who is and who isn't a "real" Christian. The answer is that you can't. But if you devote yourself first to God then, like numerous Christians who stood up against injustice from the church (notably Dietrich Bonhoeffer in WWII, but also many, many others) you will know what God is calling you to do. Or, as the verse above continues: But, I guess I'm speaking to people who won't listen.Listen people: I don't slam you. I have in fact walked out of churches when they became to vehement in condemning people of other faiths (not because people of other faiths are right: universalism is an absurdity, but because I can respect them as other peoples attempts to pursue God even when they are wrong). All I ask is that you exercise some care to get your facts straight before you slander me and my brothers.
Oh yeah: for being such repressers, I find it interesting that Christian sentiment was what led most abolitionists to want to abolish slavery.
<apology
I'm sorry, but Katz's repeated slams of Christians have really annoyed me pretty badly. Expect bitterness for a while.
</apology
I think you've find that, in this case as in many others, possession is nine tenths of the law. After all, if you went there and declared autonomy, who would come stop you?