He did not teach that we were to go on religious crusades, hold inquisitions, torture, persecute, or really anything but love each other. The "church" has done those things, but there are no sayings of Christ in any known "scripture" (canon or not) to back up those deeds. In the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas, Jesus personally tortures nonbelievers. Numerous passages in the Canonical Gospels imply that violence against nonbelievers is acceptable and desirable. I you wish to call the Canonical Gospels the "words of Jesus", then Jesus does call for violence against nonbelievers.
Christ taught non-violence, if you think Paul did not, fine, but Paul does not quote Christ in his letters, not once. (As I remember. I could of course be wrong about that.) It is highly unlikely that Paul ever read the Canonical Gospels since they probably did not exist during his ministry. However, he did claim to personally speak to (a vision of) Jesus.
Well, uh, yes, actually. So why do YOU give more historical weight to the Canonical Gospels than the non-Canonical Gospels, or the Tao Te Ching, or The Torah, or the Illiad and Odyssey, or etc.? If you don't accept the authority of, as you put it, "dead bishops in Asia Minor" from where do you derive your claims of historical accuracy? Why should you, 2000 years separated from events speaking a completely different language and of a complete different culture, be a more accurate judge of Jesus' intent than his contemporaries?
And being that you consider apocrypha to be worth of study: Have you considered the possibility that NONE of Jesus' "real" teachings survived?
supposed to be "calls for violence" (not one of them is of course) That is YOUR spin, distinct from that of the mainstream catholic church.
The rumor within MS is that Microsoft would announce another VERSION of the XBOX 360 with PVR capabilities and Cablecard support. It is my understanding that this hinged on getting at least one of the major cable companies (TimeWarner and Comcast) on board. This apparently did not happen. Therefore, there will be no 360 PVR.
It's not cynical to point out that any major revision of copyright laws would have to start with an armed revolution to depose the current government of the United States. Once you've got THAT accomplished, revising copyright law is a relatively trivial matter. Any other position is hopelessly naive.
I've never done this, but what the anon poster is describing is easy because they DO NOT SCAN the boarding passes at security. Most boarding passes are now single-page printouts printed AT HOME by the passenger. All you have to do is mock up a fake boarding pass in Word or something with information that matches your fake ID and you're done. You can walk right through airport security. You can't get on a plane with that fake boarding pass, so you'd have to steal someone else's boarding pass and put THEIR barcode on your fake boarding pass (ideally you would keep that person from boarding as well). Since they don't check IDs during boarding, it doesn't matter if your fake ID doesn't match.
None of this helps you get a weapon or bomb on a plane, but it will get you on a plane with a false identity.
Highly unlikely. VC game releases are almost certainly determined by access to IP and compatibility with their emulators. If Nintendo can't contact the game's owner and work out a deal, it's not going to be on the VC. It's my understanding that Nintendo will only give game owners (except 1st party of course) about $0.25 per sale which is causing some publishers to shy away from the VC.
I could swear I mentioned this part. Now a murder is an extreme act - I was thinking more along the lines of tossing executives into jail/prison for stuff like violating EPA, fair practice laws. I even mentioned enforcing a sort of military justice - no knowledge is not necessarily a defense(it was your position, your job, your duty to know). I don't think there is much public benefit in extending civil liability to executives. Quite the contrary, I think companies would use it to dodge paying fines. I bet they could even get volunteers to accept that liability. i.e. "The government is going to levy a $10 million fine against us. We'll transfer the liability to you (you take sole responsibility), you go bankrupt, and then we pay you $5 million."
You're right, the Synoptic Gospels give the clearest examples of Christ's nonviolent teachings.
And I thought it was pretty clear that I was referring to the teachings of Christ. There is no meaningful distinction between "teachings of Christ" and "teachings of early Christian leaders". Since it was early church leaders who determined which texts and theology were "legitimate", in practice they decided what Jesus supposedly taught. I would argue that the Epistles of Paul should be considered FAR more authoritative than the Gospels because both the authorship and the authenticity of the Gospels is in serious doubt, unlike the Epistles of Paul. Paul was definitely a real person, and he probably wrote most of what was attributed to him. We don't know who wrote the Gospels, but we do know it was DEFINITELY NOT Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. Early church leaders like Terullian and St. John were also real people who shaped the nascent NT. Fundamentally, it is THEIR opinions that matter because it was THEM that determined what "Christianity" WAS, not the anonymous authors of the Gospels.
There is no reason to believe that Paul's letters or a speech given by Peter in Acts is infallible truth falling from the lips of God. If you don't believe the EDITORS and AUTHORS of the Bible were infallible (at least in their production of the Bible), how could you logically argue that the Bible is infallible? In order to believe in orthodox Christianity you must believe that God guided Constantine and the Council of Nicaea to make infallible decisions, including their commands to execute heretics. If you reject the Council of Nicaea, how do you determine canon? Personal opinion?
Christ was a complete pacifist in every way. "Turn the other cheek" and "he who seeks to save his life will lose it" spell out a very clear message of non-violence, even for self-defense. Well, no. This is correct only if you accept ONLY the Gospel of Mark as authoritative and toss out the rest of the NT. Acts calls for violence against non-Christians. The Epistles of Paul call for the death penalty for various crimes and imply that violence in self-defense is appropriate, as does the Gospel of John in several places.
There is also Church tradition. Is the tradition of the catholic church (note the small "c", I'm talking pre-Schism here) relevant? Early church fathers proscribed the death penalty for heretics and strongly advocated spreading Christianity through the sword.
"Thou shalt not kill" is unambiguous. Um, no. The most accurate translation would be "You should not murder fellow Jews." God repeatedly orders the Jews to kill others IN THE SAME BOOK, and proscribes the death penalty for numerous crimes, so there is no reasonable way to interpret this as a complete prohibition on killing.
Read my other posts. RTGs are pretty inefficient, but not a much as many other alternative power sources. And I've seen small-scale reactors that were pretty easy to use. Yes, they use HEU, but so what? I have great confidence in the ability of the US' armed forces to protect our nuclear plants from attack. We're spending all this money on homeland security, might as well give them something to guard.
They certainly are NOT described that way. Far from it. Ubuntu is widely pushed as a mainstream desktop distribution. Both Fedora and OpenSUSE are also promoted as mainstream desktop distributions, though somewhat less so than Ubuntu.
Really, these arguments make about as much sense as if back when Vista was still in beta/RC But OpenSUSE, Ubuntu and Fedora aren't IN beta. It's often claimed that "Linux" is more reliable than Windows, and this is simply NOT TRUE for the reasons you specified. OpenSUSE, Ubuntu and Fedora ARE buggy and unstable, far more so than the release of Vista, which has been widely criticized for being buggy. I use Gentoo extensively, but I don't pretend that it's more stable than Windows, especially since I stick it on weird hardware. I fundamentally see Linux as a server/specialty OS and I don't think opinion is going to change anytime soon.
This is totally unfair. If you've every actually touched one of these machines, they FEEL cheap. It has no PCI Express slots, though it does have two PCI slots. The CPU is basically non-upgradable. The use a hack of Ubuntu with lots of bugs. For $200 more you can get a PC that's twice as fast, with a DVD burner, built-in WiFi, etc.
There may be good Linux desktops out there. This isn't one of them.
How many people are we talking about here? If using Groove is too much hassle, you've got problems. Groove is easy to implement and can scale. Google apps can't. Why? Fucking bandwidth people. Are you going to drop a DS3 for your small office? No, you've got a T1 which you're probably already saturating just with email.
A home user on broadband has a lot of dedicated bandwidth for himself, so he can use online apps at a fairly good clip. Small offices have to SHARE a T1 or DSL line which will be absolutely slammed by Google apps. I'm not just singling out Google apps here, this is a major problem for most "software as a service" like Salesforce.com.
There is also the massive security risk of the offsite, all-eggs-in-one-basket, approach. Take Salesforce.com. They are a massive database of customer information that is CONSTANTLY being hammered by attackers since it is such a juicy target. Even if you had absolutely no security on your network you might be better off than using Salesforce because you're a much smaller target.
Which is the whole point. All-in-ones basically fuck you. The idea is to force you to upgrade your expensive mo0nitor at the same time you upgrade your PC, which makes Apple a lot more money. My experience is that you typically want to upgrade your PC every 2-3 years and your monitor every 5 years. An iMac is a disposable PC and I HATE that. It's specifically designed to make it as difficult as possible to reuse any part of it. For example, you can't use an iMac as a monitor for another PC once the hardware is out-of-date.
As many people have pointed out, there is a glaring gap in Apple's product line: A desktop PC with upgrade slots that isn't outrageously expensive like the Mac Pro. I'm a huge fan of the Shuttle XPCs and similar form factors, I don't quite understand why Apple does not come out with a similar product. Well, that's not true, I DO know why, and it has to do with Apple's half-assed tech support.
I was giving you too much credit. Do you seriously believe the world's CURRENT energy needs can be met with an combination of solar, wind and hydro? Hydro is already maxed out. Solar and wind are fantastically inefficient and don't produce anywhere near the power density necessary. Geothermal is the only really viable power source you mentioned, and yes, it's largely limited to a handful of islands. Show me a list of viable geothermal sites. You failed to mention tidal BTW, which has the same problems as geothermal.
The scale of hydro power you are discussing will not provide enough power to light a single home, what's the point? And Stirling engines with the efficiency you describe do not exist. Stirling engines also require exotic materials, which is why they are not widely used. They were invented in the early 19th century, if they solved all the world's power problems you'd expect to see them widely deployed by now.
"Shaped" in this context means sending TCP rsts to any connections above an arbitrary threshold from a particular IP on a particular node. The boxes they use are deployed be node. This is VERY crude "traffic shaping". And it won't work. You guys are just begging the Bittorrent developers to switch to UDP and flood your network. Keep pushing, and they'll just have it spoof DNS requests. Going to block that?
It's very simple, Bittorent is here to stay. The solution to Bittorent traffic on your network is to HELP it, not to hinder it. Set up Bittorent reflection servers on port 6881 that prioritize traffic within your network and throttle traffic outside your network. For most torrents users will see a net gain in download speeds so must users will use your reflection servers rather than going around them. Users get faster downloads, you get less traffic on your upstream pipes. Win-win.
As for the content providers, DON'T TELL THEM. This is all "proprietary company information".
Previously, if a company went belly up in a really bad way, the creditors could go after everybody who owned some of the company, even if they had nothing to do with the affairs of the company.
Um, no. Corporations are more properly called Limited Liability Corporations, or LLCs. The idea is that you only have liability for the MONEY YOU INVEST IN THE COMPANY, nothing else. If the company tanks, creditors CAN NOT do after the shareholders. That's the whole point.
This does not extend to criminal liability. If a Corporation orders someone murdered, everyone involved in that decision has personal criminal liability PLUS the company faces civil liability. Corporations very much like to argue otherwise, that the corporation is a "person" and holds sole liability. This view is wrong.
You want to get rid of him, but, since being CEO for this sort of company is an intrinsically high-paying job, he obviously resists getting the boot. Assuming you don't have anything strong enough to outright fire the CEO, This part I don't get. Most employees of most companies can be fired at a whim with no severance. Why should CEOs be treated any different? If the board signs contracts with the CEO agreeing to this crap, so what? Break 'em. The company can fight this for years at it would take a long time to get up to 161 million in legal fees.
Bullshit. OpenBSD is demonstrably more secure than most other operating systems. It really isn't that difficult to tell which operating systems are paying attention to security. Windows Server 2003 pays attention, Red Had Enterprise Server (especially with SELinux) pays attention. Ubuntu does not. OS X does not. Windows XP does not.
Ask these questions:
What services are turned on by default? What potentially vulnerable applications does the OS ship with (the fewer the better)? What sort of ACLs are in place? What is the capability for two-factor authentication?
You should go and reread what he said. He's talking about nuclear reactors, not RTGs like what you are talking about. Fine. I've seen DESKTOP BWRs (boiling water reactors). They had one at Berkley. It was about as big as a mini-fridge. Admittedly this was a research reactor, but it put out substantial power. The neat thing was that it was basically self-contained, all you needed to do was hook it up to a water line and then steam, power, and neutrons came out. I think it came from Lawrence Livermore and it had all kinds of nasty warnings about how if you opened it bad things would happen. They did anyway and you could see the little control rods above the core glowing in it's little chamber of boiling water. It was kinda cute actually. They hauled it around from place to place, I'm sure in violation of all sorts of safety regs.
I don't conspire with anyone to hide his porn, nor am I being asked by a customer to explicitly not "see" certain things. According to what you said earlier, it does. You said that if you accidentally ran across child porn on the computer, you would "... have to ignore it. I never saw it." According to the law in many states the moment you saw the CP, you HAD to report it or you are guilty of a felony. If your contract REQUIRES IN WRITING that you not report anything you may find on the computer to authorities under any circumstance, it's illegal.
What's worse is that in this case, all the evidence found is quite likely worthless. I doubt the employees there have the necessary certificates to give that evidence the necessary weight in court. You'd be wrong. I'd bet large sums of money that Richert did not have his forensics certificates (otherwise he wouldn't be working at Circuit City) and made no serious attempts to preserve the evidence. I made this very point in another post. The judge in this case (and I suspect future cases) ruled that Richert's improper handling of evidence didn't matter. Child porn is special, the courts WILL bend or break the written law to bust child pornographers. This crap would never fly in a tax evasion case.
"A Chinese court has ruled that Chinese companies do not like competition from American companies so they are going to tar Alibaba.com with the "pirate" brush until Yahoo! divests the company. Then they'll ignore the complaints against Alibaba.com."
The government maintains the roads, so it makes perfect sense to place restrictions on them. There is a difference between restrictions and licensing. Requiring lighted turn signals on vehicles is a reasonable restrictions. Not allowing anyone to use the road AT ALL unless they go through a laborious application procedure is not.
Driver's licenses are meant to show that you have the training needed to operate a motor vehicle on public roads (in reality, they don't, but that's another argument). It's this that I object to. You should not have to demonstrate that you can drive to the government in order to drive on the public roads. I have no objection to enjoining dangerous individuals from driving, but it's the blanket restriction on EVERYONE that I'm objecting to. The legal position of licensing makes it very easy for the government to remove a license, which is economically devastating for most Americans. Making it clear that driving was a RIGHT, would raise the government's burden in restricting that right. For example, You can lose your driver's license for not paying child support.
And this comes from someone who doesn't drive and is very anti-car in general. It really galls on me that I can travel more freely on public transportation than I can in a personal vehicle. "Terrorism" paranoia is getting rid of that though.
I consider travel a RIGHT, and I keenly understand that restricting travel has always been used to crush dissent. For example, Many of the people on the "do not fly" list, like Senator Edward Kennedy, Cat Stevens, and Medea Benjamin (head of the Code Pink protest group) are there for political reasons. Medea Benjamin has also been denied a passport.
You just advocated universal healthcare before, where the government forces you to pay for others' healthcare, but now you're saying that you think there's too many restrictions on road usage? This seems rather schizophrenic to me. Universal healthcare does not imply prior restraint. In fact, I consider the current situation with private insurance very similar to driver's licenses, though worse. You have to go through a laborious and arbitrary application process to get coverage, the difference being that coverage is denied far more often than driver's licenses. Universal healthcare implies healthcare NO MATTER WHAT. You can't get tossed because of a "preexisting condition" or because you get too sick. Universal healthcare engenders MORE freedom, not less.
I think the key difference is that I hold my personal freedoms far more dear than my money. If it costs me a chunk of my paycheck to go where I want and do what I want, so be it.
Slashdot Mirror
Did Kotaku provide a source for their rumors? I'm not going to either.
Ever seen a CableCARD-ready set-top box? No? That will tell you why they need the support of the cable companies.
And being that you consider apocrypha to be worth of study: Have you considered the possibility that NONE of Jesus' "real" teachings survived? supposed to be "calls for violence" (not one of them is of course) That is YOUR spin, distinct from that of the mainstream catholic church.
This simply isn't happening.
The rumor within MS is that Microsoft would announce another VERSION of the XBOX 360 with PVR capabilities and Cablecard support. It is my understanding that this hinged on getting at least one of the major cable companies (TimeWarner and Comcast) on board. This apparently did not happen. Therefore, there will be no 360 PVR.
It's not cynical to point out that any major revision of copyright laws would have to start with an armed revolution to depose the current government of the United States. Once you've got THAT accomplished, revising copyright law is a relatively trivial matter. Any other position is hopelessly naive.
I've never done this, but what the anon poster is describing is easy because they DO NOT SCAN the boarding passes at security. Most boarding passes are now single-page printouts printed AT HOME by the passenger. All you have to do is mock up a fake boarding pass in Word or something with information that matches your fake ID and you're done. You can walk right through airport security. You can't get on a plane with that fake boarding pass, so you'd have to steal someone else's boarding pass and put THEIR barcode on your fake boarding pass (ideally you would keep that person from boarding as well). Since they don't check IDs during boarding, it doesn't matter if your fake ID doesn't match.
None of this helps you get a weapon or bomb on a plane, but it will get you on a plane with a false identity.
Highly unlikely. VC game releases are almost certainly determined by access to IP and compatibility with their emulators. If Nintendo can't contact the game's owner and work out a deal, it's not going to be on the VC. It's my understanding that Nintendo will only give game owners (except 1st party of course) about $0.25 per sale which is causing some publishers to shy away from the VC.
Council of Nicaea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea I'd be interested all the same. Calls for violence in the NT:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt.html
Violence in the early church:
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blfaq_viol_early.htm
There is also Church tradition. Is the tradition of the catholic church (note the small "c", I'm talking pre-Schism here) relevant? Early church fathers proscribed the death penalty for heretics and strongly advocated spreading Christianity through the sword.
Read my other posts. RTGs are pretty inefficient, but not a much as many other alternative power sources. And I've seen small-scale reactors that were pretty easy to use. Yes, they use HEU, but so what? I have great confidence in the ability of the US' armed forces to protect our nuclear plants from attack. We're spending all this money on homeland security, might as well give them something to guard.
They certainly are NOT described that way. Far from it. Ubuntu is widely pushed as a mainstream desktop distribution. Both Fedora and OpenSUSE are also promoted as mainstream desktop distributions, though somewhat less so than Ubuntu.
This is totally unfair. If you've every actually touched one of these machines, they FEEL cheap. It has no PCI Express slots, though it does have two PCI slots. The CPU is basically non-upgradable. The use a hack of Ubuntu with lots of bugs. For $200 more you can get a PC that's twice as fast, with a DVD burner, built-in WiFi, etc.
There may be good Linux desktops out there. This isn't one of them.
How many people are we talking about here? If using Groove is too much hassle, you've got problems. Groove is easy to implement and can scale. Google apps can't. Why? Fucking bandwidth people. Are you going to drop a DS3 for your small office? No, you've got a T1 which you're probably already saturating just with email.
A home user on broadband has a lot of dedicated bandwidth for himself, so he can use online apps at a fairly good clip. Small offices have to SHARE a T1 or DSL line which will be absolutely slammed by Google apps. I'm not just singling out Google apps here, this is a major problem for most "software as a service" like Salesforce.com.
There is also the massive security risk of the offsite, all-eggs-in-one-basket, approach. Take Salesforce.com. They are a massive database of customer information that is CONSTANTLY being hammered by attackers since it is such a juicy target. Even if you had absolutely no security on your network you might be better off than using Salesforce because you're a much smaller target.
Which is the whole point. All-in-ones basically fuck you. The idea is to force you to upgrade your expensive mo0nitor at the same time you upgrade your PC, which makes Apple a lot more money. My experience is that you typically want to upgrade your PC every 2-3 years and your monitor every 5 years. An iMac is a disposable PC and I HATE that. It's specifically designed to make it as difficult as possible to reuse any part of it. For example, you can't use an iMac as a monitor for another PC once the hardware is out-of-date.
As many people have pointed out, there is a glaring gap in Apple's product line: A desktop PC with upgrade slots that isn't outrageously expensive like the Mac Pro. I'm a huge fan of the Shuttle XPCs and similar form factors, I don't quite understand why Apple does not come out with a similar product. Well, that's not true, I DO know why, and it has to do with Apple's half-assed tech support.
I was giving you too much credit. Do you seriously believe the world's CURRENT energy needs can be met with an combination of solar, wind and hydro? Hydro is already maxed out. Solar and wind are fantastically inefficient and don't produce anywhere near the power density necessary. Geothermal is the only really viable power source you mentioned, and yes, it's largely limited to a handful of islands. Show me a list of viable geothermal sites. You failed to mention tidal BTW, which has the same problems as geothermal.
The scale of hydro power you are discussing will not provide enough power to light a single home, what's the point? And Stirling engines with the efficiency you describe do not exist. Stirling engines also require exotic materials, which is why they are not widely used. They were invented in the early 19th century, if they solved all the world's power problems you'd expect to see them widely deployed by now.
"Shaped" in this context means sending TCP rsts to any connections above an arbitrary threshold from a particular IP on a particular node. The boxes they use are deployed be node. This is VERY crude "traffic shaping". And it won't work. You guys are just begging the Bittorrent developers to switch to UDP and flood your network. Keep pushing, and they'll just have it spoof DNS requests. Going to block that?
It's very simple, Bittorent is here to stay. The solution to Bittorent traffic on your network is to HELP it, not to hinder it. Set up Bittorent reflection servers on port 6881 that prioritize traffic within your network and throttle traffic outside your network. For most torrents users will see a net gain in download speeds so must users will use your reflection servers rather than going around them. Users get faster downloads, you get less traffic on your upstream pipes. Win-win.
As for the content providers, DON'T TELL THEM. This is all "proprietary company information".
Previously, if a company went belly up in a really bad way, the creditors could go after everybody who owned some of the company, even if they had nothing to do with the affairs of the company.
Um, no. Corporations are more properly called Limited Liability Corporations, or LLCs. The idea is that you only have liability for the MONEY YOU INVEST IN THE COMPANY, nothing else. If the company tanks, creditors CAN NOT do after the shareholders. That's the whole point.
This does not extend to criminal liability. If a Corporation orders someone murdered, everyone involved in that decision has personal criminal liability PLUS the company faces civil liability. Corporations very much like to argue otherwise, that the corporation is a "person" and holds sole liability. This view is wrong.
Bullshit. OpenBSD is demonstrably more secure than most other operating systems. It really isn't that difficult to tell which operating systems are paying attention to security. Windows Server 2003 pays attention, Red Had Enterprise Server (especially with SELinux) pays attention. Ubuntu does not. OS X does not. Windows XP does not.
Ask these questions:
What services are turned on by default?
What potentially vulnerable applications does the OS ship with (the fewer the better)?
What sort of ACLs are in place?
What is the capability for two-factor authentication?
"A Chinese court has ruled that Chinese companies do not like competition from American companies so they are going to tar Alibaba.com with the "pirate" brush until Yahoo! divests the company. Then they'll ignore the complaints against Alibaba.com."
And this comes from someone who doesn't drive and is very anti-car in general. It really galls on me that I can travel more freely on public transportation than I can in a personal vehicle. "Terrorism" paranoia is getting rid of that though.
I consider travel a RIGHT, and I keenly understand that restricting travel has always been used to crush dissent. For example, Many of the people on the "do not fly" list, like Senator Edward Kennedy, Cat Stevens, and Medea Benjamin (head of the Code Pink protest group) are there for political reasons. Medea Benjamin has also been denied a passport. You just advocated universal healthcare before, where the government forces you to pay for others' healthcare, but now you're saying that you think there's too many restrictions on road usage? This seems rather schizophrenic to me. Universal healthcare does not imply prior restraint. In fact, I consider the current situation with private insurance very similar to driver's licenses, though worse. You have to go through a laborious and arbitrary application process to get coverage, the difference being that coverage is denied far more often than driver's licenses. Universal healthcare implies healthcare NO MATTER WHAT. You can't get tossed because of a "preexisting condition" or because you get too sick. Universal healthcare engenders MORE freedom, not less.
I think the key difference is that I hold my personal freedoms far more dear than my money. If it costs me a chunk of my paycheck to go where I want and do what I want, so be it.