But why would you use such an outdated and non-free codec in the first place, when there are enough alternatives.
Compatibility. Next to nothing uses Theora and Vorbis, and Matroska and Ogg are very obscure container formats that require codec packs to be installed AND only work on a handful of platforms. For example, Matroska only works properly on Windows.
Performance. H.264 and Divx/Xvid are relatively CPU intensive, especially H.264. So if you want to play your video on older hardware or handhelds, these codecs are right out. I still encode stuff in MPEG 1 for this reason.
The other, she does spurge on here horses, but she actually competes in her retirement.
Pet horses are the very definition of "expensive toys". I have a pretty good idea what stabling, vet, etc. costs and she spends a lot more on horses than her cars. Probably as much as her house(s).
I'm sure you could hold "competitions" for these dolphin things too. Horseriding competitions are an even bigger waste of time and money than pet horses.
"The Millionaire Next Door" explains much better.
The term "millionaire" dates back to the time when if you had a million dollars in ASSETS you were considered obscenely rich. Nowadays that's the cost of one nice house. I don't think 20-30% of American homeowners are obscenely rich.
If you have a few million in assets in the USA you're solidly middle class. If you have an ANNUAL INCOME of a million dollars or more, you're a millionaire.
And people with annual incomes of over 1 million do piss away money on stuff like this, largely for their kids.
Re:Firefox Damage Control Is More Than Enough
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 1
Basically, I use tabs and session memory instead of bookmarks, and for stuff not in an open tab, I just rely on the auto-complete history in the title bar. It's weird when I write it out, but thats the path of least resistence for me.
I didn't use bookmarks a lot until I got Google Browser sync. Having the same bookmarks and browsing history on all my browsers is fscking awesome. It's the reason I haven't upgraded to FireFox 3. For you, it would be perfect since it syncs the auto-complete and session history. Sadly, Google has discontinued it and I'll have to switch to something else. Maybe Weave when it's ready (it's in closed alpha right now).
Firefox right now had 3 rows of tabs, but I'm also running 1920x1080 in a 17" laptop screen. It's not really big enough for that resolution and my eyesight, but browser zoome is my friend.:)
Stop coding on a luggable (that's what a "laptop" with a 17" screen is). Your fingers and eyes hate you. Buy a desktop PC, or at least an external keyboard and monitor.
Right now I'd imagine that DVDs are cheaper to produce than flash drive. I have nothing to back that up with other than cost,
And common sense. A pressed plastic disc is a lot cheaper to make than ICs. The total cost of manufacturing a DVD in bulk is about $0.5. Blu-Ray doubles that to $1 or even $2 in some cases. It will be decades at least before flash memory comes close to this pricing. IMHO, flash will never be cheaper than DVD, Blu-Ray, or whatever follows Blu-Ray.
I dare say BD is there now given our current viewing technologies.
No, it's not even close. The problem is that there is very little content that comes close to pushing the limits of BD and it is very, likely things are going to stay that way.
The problem is that the cost of properly mastering BD is very high.
The cost to properly master a VHS tape was around $50-100,000 adjusted dollars.
The cost to properly master a DVD disc is around $1,000,000 to $3,000,000 adjusted dollars.
The cost to properly master a Blu-Ray disc is in the $25,000,000 range. Really.
To take advantage of BD you need recent High Definition film or video cameras (these alone are hideously expensive), access to HD editing equipment (millions), access to a studio with 7.1 recording capability (I believe there are a total of THREE in the USA), studio time (millions), etc.
Basically you can rule out anything other than certain big-budget Hollywood summer action films released in the last few years. At absolute best you can expect to see 10 discs per year that actually take advantage of the resolution and features of Blu-Ray.
The trend is actually in the opposite direction, with low-bitrate "High Definition" downloads becoming the "standard".
You will have to refute Jesus' own description of Himself, or challenge the writings that make that statement and the authors thereof.
No he doesn't. The burden of evidence is on the claimant and the more extraordinary the claim, the more evidence is needed.
If I claimed that I saw a black cat in my backyard, you would probably take my word for it as it's an ordinary claim.
If I claimed that I saw a black spaceship from Alpha Centauri in my backyard you would probably be much more skeptical.
Claiming that a 1st century Jewish peasant is the still-living incarnation of the Creator of the Universe is pretty extraordinary. Where is your evidence?
You are, you know, challenging the veracity of men who went to their deaths to defend that point.
Jim Jones proved that you can talk people into anything. And I could point to lots of other martyrs from lots of other religions as well.
But to then challenge His actions according to your interpretation of who and what you think He should be isn't intellectually honest, to me.
"God works in mysterious ways" isn't much of an argument. Theists always put forward this argument to explain why their god acts in a nonsensical fashion.
Fine, I'll concede this "argument". Given this reality, that humans can't adequately understand God's will, what is the point in trying to conform at all? For example, what is the point of the Christian prohibition against homosexuality if we KNOW (according to you) that we can't trust that interpretation of God's will? Shouldn't we logically discount ALL teachings by ALL prophets as they're inherently unreliable?
You don't get to have it both ways. Either God is mysterious and the teachings he transmits to prophets are unreliable OR God CAN communicate clearly and his teachings SHOULD be consistent and understandable.
Be a believer or not, but don't pick out the parts you like and toss the rest you have a difficult time with.
"Picking the parts you like" is the very definition of Christianity. Do you know anything about the development of the Canon?
1) The Ghostbusters video game, based on the original movie, is set to be released October 31. So this may be part of that hype.
2) This is likely a piracy experiment. They've embedded a watermark in the copy of Ghostbusters on the key, which they've protected with over-the-top DRM. The DRM is eventually cracked, and the watermarked copy of Ghostbusters is uploaded to P2P web sites, which the vendor then tracks. Basically, I think they're trying to measure the "spread" of piracy here.
So if researchers can detect these things with apparent reliability in their process, why can't ISPs detect them the same way and cut the bastards off?
They do. Comcast has guys that go after botnets full time, usually by going after the IRC servers. They don't go after the bots themselves because it's pointless. They'd just end up with thousands of users complaining that their Internet was down and they wouldn't patch the systems. So it's either let the bots go, or lose thousands of customers. I suppose they could require some sort of bloated client like AOL that checked for vulnerabilities, but they'd get even more complaints about that.
Speaking as someone that regularly works on number processing and real-time applications, I've given up on Windows machines.
Shockingly, you've given up on using Windows for the tasks Windows is least suited for.
I just assume every Windows box is running ample code that is outside my control, and that code will make the machine much slower for any mathematically intensive computations, especially if they involve disk access or network access.
Yes, it's called a "full-featured operating system". You want some kind of minimalist or purpose-built system. Look into Embedded Windows, where you can carefully pick and choose which elements you want, or any number of Linux variants. I know there are variants of Linux entirely dedicated to scientific computing.
The modern "good" vs. "bad" arms race is resulting in anti-virus software that is so slow that it is strangling the Windows platform with endless code bloat.
So don't run AV. If you properly lock down the system you shouldn't need it. If you must have AV, use NOD32. It gets good ratings and is notably less resource intensive that other AV applications. Or you can take regular Ghost images of the system. Resource intensive, but the images will allow you to roll back any changes to the system, including "rooting". The Ghost images would work to protect the Linux system against rooting as well.
Wireshark shims the network stack so you can see outgoing traffic. Do you see mysterious traffic that you can't account for? Congratulations, you've got a troyjan.
Having said that, most "casual" users aren't equipped to do TCP traffic analysis. They're better off with tools like rootkit revealer.
And I would say that putting it into a law explicitly removes the copyright.
Yes, I am asserting that legislators can place ANY document of any sort into the public domain by incorporating it into a law or the legislative record. Legislators do this all the time to dodge copyright claims against whistleblowers.
I'm sorry, but the Book of Mormon as originally published in 1820 has been drastically edited since that time. There are over 3000 documentable changes between the originally published edition and the current one, some of which go far beyond typographical errors and stylistic adjustments. In fact, all of the Standard Works of the LDS church (BoM, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price) have been revised since their original publications.
My understanding was that the BoM was largely unchanged from it's original publication. I stand corrected.
But there exist copies of letters from the Egyptian governors of Canaan, requesting assistance from the Pharoah, to combat an invasion of the Habiru tribes around 1400 BC.
"Habiru" probably did not refer to a specific tribe or group but was the Egyptian equivalent of "barbarians". The letter you refer to has nothing to do with Jews or Exodus.
And even if it did, how does that letter support the Exodus? It DOESN'T. Nobody doubts that the Jews lived in Canaan or that at various points Canaan was an Egyptian territory. What people doubt is the Exodus narrative. The "Jews", as a distinct tribe, were never slaves in Egypt. They never left Egypt en masse. They didn't wander through the Sinai for 40 years. They almost certainly didn't conquer Canaan and massacre the existing population.
First, the Synoptic Gospels are Matthew, Mark, and Luke. They cover much the same ground in much the same way, with Matthew and Luke apparently drawing material from Mark and all three possibly referencing a hypothetical document called "Q". "Q" is supposedly a collection of sayings of Jesus, but no such early collection has ever been found.
Most scholars consider Mark independent from "Q". You're the first I've heard say that Mark was based on "Q".
John is separate from the Synoptics, and while some parallel passages exist, John includes mostly primary material which is not found in the other three. It is NOT a revision of Mark, although Matthew and Luke could be described that way.
John clearly embellishes elements of Mark and the Synoptics and it definitely came later, so it's appropriate to call it a revision. John is where the virgin birth and other Hellenistic elements of the Jesus story are introduced.
There are other issues surrounding the Judeo-Christian scriptures, such as the process of selection of canonical books, and interpretation of the meaning of the text. But the text we have today can be trusted to be essentially the same as the original.
I'm not sure I agree with this. Some elements of the Gospels, like the genealogies of Jesus and the Hellenistic elements of John, seem pretty tacked-on to me.
Since we know without a shadow of a doubt that early Christian copyists were forgers (see Testimonium Flavianum) we really can't rule anything out.
That theory is completely theoretical and has absolutely no proof whatsoever.
The "proof" is that Cyrus the Great was a follower of Zoroaster and conquered Judea during this period.
Are you going to argue that the Jews were always monotheistic? They had to transition for polytheism at some point and Cyrus the Great seems the most likely catalyst.
You have a fixed target. Hackers do not. You are being paid to waste time. Hackers are not. You (probably) are not lazy. Hackers are lazy.
REAL hackers fall into three categories:
1) Paid professional hackers, usually involved in corporate or government espionage. These people have guys with guns backing them up and/or huge budgets. Most commercial outfits can't do a thing to protect against these guys.
2) Organized crime looking for easy marks. These people do broad scans and give up quickly since they aren't being paid to beat on a system all day.
3) Stupid kids. The ONLY people that might be willing to waste this kind of time.
After a bit of googling, I came up with the names and email addresses of a few developers (some of whom no longer worked for the company). Googling those email addies, I found posts on various forums for MsSQL administration, ASP coding, and cisco routers.
So your saying if he hadn't posted in the webforums you NEVER would have discovered the problem and your penetration testing would have failed? I don't think you're really saying that.
I located and compromised that application with no prior knowledge in less than an hour.
What you're saying is that the online postings SPED UP the process, I suspect your would have found the vulnerabilities anyway. But, as I said above, that only applies to YOU. Real hackers usually don't have a fixed target so they won't know what to look for online, and if they DO have a fixed target and they're professionals you're probably fucked anyway.
Since we're talking about time: How much time do you think was saved by the engineers looking for help with problems online vs. just trying to figure it all out themselves? How much additional time do you think it took to repair the vulnerabilities exposed by your testing? Would you, as a developer, be willing the accept the tradeoff of having your app slightly more secure if you can NEVER ask for help online developing it?
I think they might also have been doing billing for ringtones and crap like that which is why the billing bandwith was so high. Even so, just looking at the traffic it seemed like the billing for SMS ate up more than SMS itself. This has probably changed with more bulk plans.
I ask because I know that many services use store and forward, that most SMS and MMS services use SMTP to transfer messages, that the ICS I work for does a lot of billing for all their customers.
Who do YOU work for? I assume you're not saying for the same reason I'm not. I worked for two ICS companies as a contractor. I built databases and did infrastructure so I don't know the nitty-gritty of how they transferred messages around. What I do know is what I said, the bandwidth for the billing greatly exceeded the bandwidth for the actual text messages and they had nowhere near the storage capacity necessary to cache SMS (MMS wasn't very big back then) messages for any length of time. "Store and forward" maybe, but store for 5 minutes. At best.
The documents are old and fragile, despite how well they have been preserved. I suspect they will take forever to scan for the same reasons that valuable paintings take forever to restore.
You really think it would take over 60 years?
It doesn't matter, you're just wrong. For most of the past 60 years, very little work has been done. Most of the work is done in fits and starts. The largest book was translated in less than 2 years when people actually were allowed to work on it.
Jesus was aware of the Essenes and he mentions that the way of the Essenes was not his way.
The Essenes were completely unknown before the discovery of the DSS. I challenge you to find one citation, by any author anywhere, that mentions the Essenes BY NAME before the 1930s.
John the Baptist and Jesus we not related. Perversely, you make this claim based on the genealogies of the Gospels which purport to show that Jesus was descended from King David through JOSEPH. John the Baptist was also supposedly a descendant of David, which makes them "cousins". Except that Jesus supposedly had a virgin birth which means that he DIDN'T descend from David which means that he and John weren't "cousins".
How is this trolling? It's TRUE. Chrome is using the same engine as Safari. The point I was making is that he might not have to test against Chrome separately as long as he tests against Safari.
Let's face it, the human species just doesn't have the DNA for huge penises, nor a vagina design which would require one.
Human males have HUGE penes relative to most other mammals. Large penes are associated with promiscuity in mammals.
Even most of the male porn stars with huge "tools", had surgery to that end.
No they didn't. Many male porn stars take viagra or similar drugs to maintain erections, but very few have surgical enhancements because they do not work. It's basically impossible to get a plastic surgeon to do "size enhancement" in the USA. The only plastic surgery of this type that you see is a "scrotum lift" where the scrotum is trimmed and evened out (if one testicle hangs lower than the other). Really.
I mean, seriously, when and how did the penis size obsession get started anyway?
Women want them, regardless of what they say. If you look at gross physical attributes, and if you can't come up with a good evolutionary reason for having an attribute, it's probably sex-selected. The peacock's tail is the classic example. Peacocks have large tail displays because peahens selected males with the largest displays. Humans have large penes because women selected men with the largest penes.
It's not okay to kill embryos, or anything human, in order to learn.
So you oppose biopsies?
Human embryos are intelligent enough... to attempt fight the scissors that are inserted to "implement" the abortion. Every gynaecologist knows this, for they've seen it. [2] are known to have won this fight, and manage somehow to induce labour, ending in them taking their first breath.
A fetus has never had a hand-to-hand battle in utero with a doctor. The whole notion is silly.
They certainly don't protest in a court of law
Let me ask you a question: Do you think random strangers should be able to determine the custody of YOUR children? By this I mean that a random person could walk by your home and complain to the police that he "doesn't like the way you're raising your kids" and your children would be assigned to another family or even imprisoned or executed. Do you agree with this?
Many such folk think nothing of destroying human embryos to advance science, just as they think nothing of aborting a fetus if the mother doesn't want it. I suspect many wouldn't even object to allowing a living baby to die of neglect if the mother intended him to be aborted anyway;
Maybe, unlike you, they actually want to reduce abortion.
Pro-lifers are FOR abortion. Pro-choicers are AGAINST abortion. The most effective way to prevent abortion, without a SHADOW OF A DOUBT, is access to birth control and comprehensive sex education, preferably free access. Most pro-lifers oppose birth control, especially free birth control for teenagers, therefore they support abortion and want more abortions.
Y'know, I hear that a lot, but have just never seen any version of FireFox use all that much memory.
I can get over 600 MB of utilization with a single window with a single line of HTML or even a blank page. You just have to leave the window open long enough. Yes Virgina, Firefox has huge memory leaks.
Slashdot Mirror
But why would you use such an outdated and non-free codec in the first place, when there are enough alternatives.
Compatibility. Next to nothing uses Theora and Vorbis, and Matroska and Ogg are very obscure container formats that require codec packs to be installed AND only work on a handful of platforms. For example, Matroska only works properly on Windows.
Performance. H.264 and Divx/Xvid are relatively CPU intensive, especially H.264. So if you want to play your video on older hardware or handhelds, these codecs are right out. I still encode stuff in MPEG 1 for this reason.
The other, she does spurge on here horses, but she actually competes in her retirement.
Pet horses are the very definition of "expensive toys". I have a pretty good idea what stabling, vet, etc. costs and she spends a lot more on horses than her cars. Probably as much as her house(s).
I'm sure you could hold "competitions" for these dolphin things too. Horseriding competitions are an even bigger waste of time and money than pet horses.
"The Millionaire Next Door" explains much better.
The term "millionaire" dates back to the time when if you had a million dollars in ASSETS you were considered obscenely rich. Nowadays that's the cost of one nice house. I don't think 20-30% of American homeowners are obscenely rich.
If you have a few million in assets in the USA you're solidly middle class. If you have an ANNUAL INCOME of a million dollars or more, you're a millionaire.
And people with annual incomes of over 1 million do piss away money on stuff like this, largely for their kids.
Basically, I use tabs and session memory instead of bookmarks, and for stuff not in an open tab, I just rely on the auto-complete history in the title bar. It's weird when I write it out, but thats the path of least resistence for me.
I didn't use bookmarks a lot until I got Google Browser sync. Having the same bookmarks and browsing history on all my browsers is fscking awesome. It's the reason I haven't upgraded to FireFox 3. For you, it would be perfect since it syncs the auto-complete and session history. Sadly, Google has discontinued it and I'll have to switch to something else. Maybe Weave when it's ready (it's in closed alpha right now).
Firefox right now had 3 rows of tabs, but I'm also running 1920x1080 in a 17" laptop screen. It's not really big enough for that resolution and my eyesight, but browser zoome is my friend. :)
Stop coding on a luggable (that's what a "laptop" with a 17" screen is). Your fingers and eyes hate you. Buy a desktop PC, or at least an external keyboard and monitor.
Right now I'd imagine that DVDs are cheaper to produce than flash drive. I have nothing to back that up with other than cost,
And common sense. A pressed plastic disc is a lot cheaper to make than ICs. The total cost of manufacturing a DVD in bulk is about $0.5. Blu-Ray doubles that to $1 or even $2 in some cases. It will be decades at least before flash memory comes close to this pricing. IMHO, flash will never be cheaper than DVD, Blu-Ray, or whatever follows Blu-Ray.
I dare say BD is there now given our current viewing technologies.
No, it's not even close. The problem is that there is very little content that comes close to pushing the limits of BD and it is very, likely things are going to stay that way.
The problem is that the cost of properly mastering BD is very high.
The cost to properly master a VHS tape was around $50-100,000 adjusted dollars.
The cost to properly master a DVD disc is around $1,000,000 to $3,000,000 adjusted dollars.
The cost to properly master a Blu-Ray disc is in the $25,000,000 range. Really.
To take advantage of BD you need recent High Definition film or video cameras (these alone are hideously expensive), access to HD editing equipment (millions), access to a studio with 7.1 recording capability (I believe there are a total of THREE in the USA), studio time (millions), etc.
Basically you can rule out anything other than certain big-budget Hollywood summer action films released in the last few years. At absolute best you can expect to see 10 discs per year that actually take advantage of the resolution and features of Blu-Ray.
The trend is actually in the opposite direction, with low-bitrate "High Definition" downloads becoming the "standard".
You will have to refute Jesus' own description of Himself, or challenge the writings that make that statement and the authors thereof.
No he doesn't. The burden of evidence is on the claimant and the more extraordinary the claim, the more evidence is needed.
If I claimed that I saw a black cat in my backyard, you would probably take my word for it as it's an ordinary claim.
If I claimed that I saw a black spaceship from Alpha Centauri in my backyard you would probably be much more skeptical.
Claiming that a 1st century Jewish peasant is the still-living incarnation of the Creator of the Universe is pretty extraordinary. Where is your evidence?
You are, you know, challenging the veracity of men who went to their deaths to defend that point.
Jim Jones proved that you can talk people into anything. And I could point to lots of other martyrs from lots of other religions as well.
But to then challenge His actions according to your interpretation of who and what you think He should be isn't intellectually honest, to me.
"God works in mysterious ways" isn't much of an argument. Theists always put forward this argument to explain why their god acts in a nonsensical fashion.
Fine, I'll concede this "argument". Given this reality, that humans can't adequately understand God's will, what is the point in trying to conform at all? For example, what is the point of the Christian prohibition against homosexuality if we KNOW (according to you) that we can't trust that interpretation of God's will? Shouldn't we logically discount ALL teachings by ALL prophets as they're inherently unreliable?
You don't get to have it both ways. Either God is mysterious and the teachings he transmits to prophets are unreliable OR God CAN communicate clearly and his teachings SHOULD be consistent and understandable.
Be a believer or not, but don't pick out the parts you like and toss the rest you have a difficult time with.
"Picking the parts you like" is the very definition of Christianity. Do you know anything about the development of the Canon?
I guess the truth hurts.
Two points
1) The Ghostbusters video game, based on the original movie, is set to be released October 31. So this may be part of that hype.
2) This is likely a piracy experiment. They've embedded a watermark in the copy of Ghostbusters on the key, which they've protected with over-the-top DRM. The DRM is eventually cracked, and the watermarked copy of Ghostbusters is uploaded to P2P web sites, which the vendor then tracks. Basically, I think they're trying to measure the "spread" of piracy here.
So if researchers can detect these things with apparent reliability in their process, why can't ISPs detect them the same way and cut the bastards off?
They do. Comcast has guys that go after botnets full time, usually by going after the IRC servers. They don't go after the bots themselves because it's pointless. They'd just end up with thousands of users complaining that their Internet was down and they wouldn't patch the systems. So it's either let the bots go, or lose thousands of customers. I suppose they could require some sort of bloated client like AOL that checked for vulnerabilities, but they'd get even more complaints about that.
Speaking as someone that regularly works on number processing and real-time applications, I've given up on Windows machines.
Shockingly, you've given up on using Windows for the tasks Windows is least suited for.
I just assume every Windows box is running ample code that is outside my control, and that code will make the machine much slower for any mathematically intensive computations, especially if they involve disk access or network access.
Yes, it's called a "full-featured operating system". You want some kind of minimalist or purpose-built system. Look into Embedded Windows, where you can carefully pick and choose which elements you want, or any number of Linux variants. I know there are variants of Linux entirely dedicated to scientific computing.
The modern "good" vs. "bad" arms race is resulting in anti-virus software that is so slow that it is strangling the Windows platform with endless code bloat.
So don't run AV. If you properly lock down the system you shouldn't need it. If you must have AV, use NOD32. It gets good ratings and is notably less resource intensive that other AV applications. Or you can take regular Ghost images of the system. Resource intensive, but the images will allow you to roll back any changes to the system, including "rooting". The Ghost images would work to protect the Linux system against rooting as well.
Wireshark shims the network stack so you can see outgoing traffic. Do you see mysterious traffic that you can't account for? Congratulations, you've got a troyjan.
Having said that, most "casual" users aren't equipped to do TCP traffic analysis. They're better off with tools like rootkit revealer.
And I would say that putting it into a law explicitly removes the copyright.
Yes, I am asserting that legislators can place ANY document of any sort into the public domain by incorporating it into a law or the legislative record. Legislators do this all the time to dodge copyright claims against whistleblowers.
I'm sorry, but the Book of Mormon as originally published in 1820 has been drastically edited since that time. There are over 3000 documentable changes between the originally published edition and the current one, some of which go far beyond typographical errors and stylistic adjustments. In fact, all of the Standard Works of the LDS church (BoM, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price) have been revised since their original publications.
My understanding was that the BoM was largely unchanged from it's original publication. I stand corrected.
But there exist copies of letters from the Egyptian governors of Canaan, requesting assistance from the Pharoah, to combat an invasion of the Habiru tribes around 1400 BC.
"Habiru" probably did not refer to a specific tribe or group but was the Egyptian equivalent of "barbarians". The letter you refer to has nothing to do with Jews or Exodus.
And even if it did, how does that letter support the Exodus? It DOESN'T. Nobody doubts that the Jews lived in Canaan or that at various points Canaan was an Egyptian territory. What people doubt is the Exodus narrative. The "Jews", as a distinct tribe, were never slaves in Egypt. They never left Egypt en masse. They didn't wander through the Sinai for 40 years. They almost certainly didn't conquer Canaan and massacre the existing population.
First, the Synoptic Gospels are Matthew, Mark, and Luke. They cover much the same ground in much the same way, with Matthew and Luke apparently drawing material from Mark and all three possibly referencing a hypothetical document called "Q". "Q" is supposedly a collection of sayings of Jesus, but no such early collection has ever been found.
Most scholars consider Mark independent from "Q". You're the first I've heard say that Mark was based on "Q".
John is separate from the Synoptics, and while some parallel passages exist, John includes mostly primary material which is not found in the other three. It is NOT a revision of Mark, although Matthew and Luke could be described that way.
John clearly embellishes elements of Mark and the Synoptics and it definitely came later, so it's appropriate to call it a revision. John is where the virgin birth and other Hellenistic elements of the Jesus story are introduced.
There are other issues surrounding the Judeo-Christian scriptures, such as the process of selection of canonical books, and interpretation of the meaning of the text. But the text we have today can be trusted to be essentially the same as the original.
I'm not sure I agree with this. Some elements of the Gospels, like the genealogies of Jesus and the Hellenistic elements of John, seem pretty tacked-on to me.
Since we know without a shadow of a doubt that early Christian copyists were forgers (see Testimonium Flavianum) we really can't rule anything out.
That theory is completely theoretical and has absolutely no proof whatsoever.
The "proof" is that Cyrus the Great was a follower of Zoroaster and conquered Judea during this period.
Are you going to argue that the Jews were always monotheistic? They had to transition for polytheism at some point and Cyrus the Great seems the most likely catalyst.
I am a penetration tester by trade.
You're not a hacker.
You have a fixed target. Hackers do not.
You are being paid to waste time. Hackers are not.
You (probably) are not lazy. Hackers are lazy.
REAL hackers fall into three categories:
1) Paid professional hackers, usually involved in corporate or government espionage. These people have guys with guns backing them up and/or huge budgets. Most commercial outfits can't do a thing to protect against these guys.
2) Organized crime looking for easy marks. These people do broad scans and give up quickly since they aren't being paid to beat on a system all day.
3) Stupid kids. The ONLY people that might be willing to waste this kind of time.
After a bit of googling, I came up with the names and email addresses of a few developers (some of whom no longer worked for the company). Googling those email addies, I found posts on various forums for MsSQL administration, ASP coding, and cisco routers.
So your saying if he hadn't posted in the webforums you NEVER would have discovered the problem and your penetration testing would have failed? I don't think you're really saying that.
I located and compromised that application with no prior knowledge in less than an hour.
What you're saying is that the online postings SPED UP the process, I suspect your would have found the vulnerabilities anyway. But, as I said above, that only applies to YOU. Real hackers usually don't have a fixed target so they won't know what to look for online, and if they DO have a fixed target and they're professionals you're probably fucked anyway.
Since we're talking about time: How much time do you think was saved by the engineers looking for help with problems online vs. just trying to figure it all out themselves? How much additional time do you think it took to repair the vulnerabilities exposed by your testing? Would you, as a developer, be willing the accept the tradeoff of having your app slightly more secure if you can NEVER ask for help online developing it?
I think they might also have been doing billing for ringtones and crap like that which is why the billing bandwith was so high. Even so, just looking at the traffic it seemed like the billing for SMS ate up more than SMS itself. This has probably changed with more bulk plans.
I ask because I know that many services use store and forward, that most SMS and MMS services use SMTP to transfer messages, that the ICS I work for does a lot of billing for all their customers.
Who do YOU work for? I assume you're not saying for the same reason I'm not. I worked for two ICS companies as a contractor. I built databases and did infrastructure so I don't know the nitty-gritty of how they transferred messages around. What I do know is what I said, the bandwidth for the billing greatly exceeded the bandwidth for the actual text messages and they had nowhere near the storage capacity necessary to cache SMS (MMS wasn't very big back then) messages for any length of time. "Store and forward" maybe, but store for 5 minutes. At best.
The documents are old and fragile, despite how well they have been preserved. I suspect they will take forever to scan for the same reasons that valuable paintings take forever to restore.
You really think it would take over 60 years?
It doesn't matter, you're just wrong. For most of the past 60 years, very little work has been done. Most of the work is done in fits and starts. The largest book was translated in less than 2 years when people actually were allowed to work on it.
Jesus was aware of the Essenes and he mentions that the way of the Essenes was not his way.
The Essenes were completely unknown before the discovery of the DSS. I challenge you to find one citation, by any author anywhere, that mentions the Essenes BY NAME before the 1930s.
John the Baptist and Jesus we not related. Perversely, you make this claim based on the genealogies of the Gospels which purport to show that Jesus was descended from King David through JOSEPH. John the Baptist was also supposedly a descendant of David, which makes them "cousins". Except that Jesus supposedly had a virgin birth which means that he DIDN'T descend from David which means that he and John weren't "cousins".
How is this trolling? It's TRUE. Chrome is using the same engine as Safari. The point I was making is that he might not have to test against Chrome separately as long as he tests against Safari.
Let's face it, the human species just doesn't have the DNA for huge penises, nor a vagina design which would require one.
Human males have HUGE penes relative to most other mammals. Large penes are associated with promiscuity in mammals.
Even most of the male porn stars with huge "tools", had surgery to that end.
No they didn't. Many male porn stars take viagra or similar drugs to maintain erections, but very few have surgical enhancements because they do not work. It's basically impossible to get a plastic surgeon to do "size enhancement" in the USA. The only plastic surgery of this type that you see is a "scrotum lift" where the scrotum is trimmed and evened out (if one testicle hangs lower than the other). Really.
I mean, seriously, when and how did the penis size obsession get started anyway?
Women want them, regardless of what they say. If you look at gross physical attributes, and if you can't come up with a good evolutionary reason for having an attribute, it's probably sex-selected. The peacock's tail is the classic example. Peacocks have large tail displays because peahens selected males with the largest displays. Humans have large penes because women selected men with the largest penes.
It's not okay to kill embryos, or anything human, in order to learn.
So you oppose biopsies?
Human embryos are intelligent enough ... to attempt fight the scissors that are inserted to "implement" the abortion. Every gynaecologist knows this, for they've seen it. [2] are known to have won this fight, and manage somehow to induce labour, ending in them taking their first breath.
A fetus has never had a hand-to-hand battle in utero with a doctor. The whole notion is silly.
They certainly don't protest in a court of law
Let me ask you a question: Do you think random strangers should be able to determine the custody of YOUR children? By this I mean that a random person could walk by your home and complain to the police that he "doesn't like the way you're raising your kids" and your children would be assigned to another family or even imprisoned or executed. Do you agree with this?
Many such folk think nothing of destroying human embryos to advance science, just as they think nothing of aborting a fetus if the mother doesn't want it. I suspect many wouldn't even object to allowing a living baby to die of neglect if the mother intended him to be aborted anyway;
Maybe, unlike you, they actually want to reduce abortion.
Pro-lifers are FOR abortion. Pro-choicers are AGAINST abortion. The most effective way to prevent abortion, without a SHADOW OF A DOUBT, is access to birth control and comprehensive sex education, preferably free access. Most pro-lifers oppose birth control, especially free birth control for teenagers, therefore they support abortion and want more abortions.
Y'know, I hear that a lot, but have just never seen any version of FireFox use all that much memory.
I can get over 600 MB of utilization with a single window with a single line of HTML or even a blank page. You just have to leave the window open long enough. Yes Virgina, Firefox has huge memory leaks.