I work in a dual platform environment and I have DOZENS of PCs in our repair area. I might have one or two Macs a month with a software problem, and maybe a Mac ever other month with an actual hardware problem. And the best part is we have way more Macs in our organization than PCs.
Where do you work and what are you doing? I suspect you work at either a design studio or higher education (the only places I've heard of large Apple installs are education and graphics shops).
In the case of the former, you're dealing with a base of technically-savvy users who are attached to MacOS and who also turn up their nose at standard business tasks. I suspect it's all the designers that have the Macs. The PCs are old, battered, and being run in the "back office" for routine business tasks like HR and accounting. These users are NOT technically-savvy and they're almost certainly using outdated hardware to run a few key apps that won't run on the IT-favored Macs. As they're the red-headed stepchild of your organization, it doesn't surprise me that you have lots of problems.
It's worth noting that most organizations are the exact opposite. They're primarily Windows shops which have a handful of Macs for the graphic designers who are attached to them. The Mac users (especially in the last few years) don't complain very much because they know that IT is looking for excuses to get rid of the Macs. How many problems the Macs cause usually depends on how much the organization uses Exchange and, in my experience, how concerned the organization is with security. It is usually security that ends up pushing the Macs out the door.
In a corporate network environment, the flexibility of Linux desktops is unparalleled. You can optimize your storage needs (and not pay for 300 copies of an OS sitting on 300 hard drives, for example), and you can move applications around the network seamlessly without the users even noticing (useful when one app server gets overloaded). Sure there is a learning curve for the IT department, but on the desktop side, just make sure that for the less techie people, that everything is easily accessible. In fact, I have never found the learning curve to be an obstacle ("we depend on Quickbooks and their support" is a bigger one). In short, an intelligent Athena-style deployment of Linux systems (along with a move to diskless workstations wherever possible) could save a company a bundle on IT and improve productivity. The big issue is that the migration takes time.
Linux has a dearth of useful business desktop applications (Quickbooks is just one example). I used to think differently, but I am now convinced that this is NEVER going to change. The whole software industry is moving towards browser-based applications (Quicken for example) which are to a large extent "OS neutral". The problem is that many of these apps require Internet Explorer, which is only available on Windows. So RIGHT NOW whether your using desktop apps or web apps on Linux you have a shortage of applications meaning that thin-client Linux workstations aren't really an option. Migration from an existing Windows/Office system would be basically impossible unless you wanted to lose MOST of the functionality you already have.
Frankly, I wouldn't go Linux for these sorts of tasks because there is no GOOD replacement for Active Directory in Linux. As far as I'm concerned, Active Directory is a godsend for IT managers and any Linux solution with have to be AT LEAST as good, with the same level of integration, as Active Directory. And be relatively easy to implement. Linus is currently lightyears away from this sort of functionality.
A small screen with a high resolution hasn't been tried before not due to technical issues, but because it creates tiny unusable icons and menus and tiny unreadable text. I can't think of any conceivable way to solve this issue in Windows other than increasing the "size" of screen elements, which completely defeats the purpose. Yes, you COULD have a "magnifying glass" but that also defeats the purpose if you have to use it constantly.
So yeah, if you don't mind destroying you eyes reading tiny print the high screen resolution is a great idea.
They were very expensive LIMITED lobotomized devices relative to the cost of a FULLY FUNCTIONAL laptop. Given the choice, people chose more function at less cost. This is a fully functional PC in a small form factor, with a FULL RESOLUTION (1024 dot horizontal) screen.
You're just reinforcing what I said. The FlipStart is definitely "lobotomized" compared to current $2000 laptops. It's got a 1GHz CPU, 40GB hard drive (less than 1/2 what you would see on that laptop), no ExpressCard so no expansion, limited ports, I suspect very slow video, small screen, low resolution, etc.
And I seriously question the interface. The keyboard is too small to touch-type for anyone without extremely small hands. Despite the incredible expense of this thing, it DOES NOT HAVE A TOUCHSCREEN. Point is done with either a thumbstick or a tiny touchpad (at least I think that's what that blue square is).
And finally, it's got competition, like the OQO. The OQO has been around for years and never caught on, mainly because people complained about the price. This thing is extremely similar and costs MORE, something that was pointed out in the article.
And you criticize the keyboard of this new device, missing the point of SMALL. Small is not compatible with "good keyboard".
Nonsense. Ever heard of the NEC MobileProhttp://www.mobiletechreview.com/NECMobile Pro900.htm? These things had great keyboards and they were only slightly larger than this device. The form factor (called Handheld PC) died out not because people didn't like them (they did, especially journalists) but because they were very expensive relative to the cost of laptops. The exact same problem the FlipStart has.
Luggable is like the old style "portable" computer, a big-ass destkop with a built in keyboard and a handle. Designed to be moved around, but not something you'll take on an airplane. For this reason you rarely see it anymore, though you could say that some of the bigger "desktop replacement" machines fall in this category.
These are still around. In practice, Small Form Factor computers like the Shuttle XPC and other systems marketed for the "lanparty" or "home theatre PC" market. The Mac Mini is a good example. It's a narrow market for those that need both power and/or expansion combined with small size and portablity. With a relatively small flat-panel monitor these systems are far more portable than the "luggables" ever were.
Exactly. iTunes, despite all the hype, isn't a major source of music in the United States. Nor is any downloadable music store. And one of the big reasons many people I talk to reject iTunes (and the Windows Media stores) is the fear that Apple, etc. could remotely "turn off" access to music they've purchased. That's why "exporting" is such a bug issue for iTunes users.
Of course, it doesn't have to be this way. What iTunes SHOULD be is an account on a server somewhere with ALL vital information linked to that account and a custom encryption key. The individual track in locked to that key which is locked to that account (which has your credit card information, so hopefully you won't give the tracks and key away). With such a system even if your computer was completely destroyed you could re-download ALL of the music you've purchased.
I don't have to speculate about this system, I've worked on it. It was called Liquid Audio. Your tracks were tied to a "Passport" (basically a keyfile) that was tied to your credit card and account information. In your account a complete record of every track you purchased was kept, so if for some reason you wanted to re-download a track at any time, you could do so. As long as you remembered your login (and even if you didn't, customer support staff would help you) you could get complete data recovery. Users raved about this feature.
The only reason iTunes does it differently is to fuck people over and force them to repurchase tracks.
And no, we couldn't turn off the tracks. The tracks were tied to the Passport, which didn't expire. This was by design. The labels wanted "self-destructing" tracks, like you see in iTunes. If you leave a system with Apple DRM-protected tracks disconnected from the Internet long enough (I think it's a year) your tracks will automatically break.
He meant a single dongle for the computer, that is used by all discs
And I attacked this very concept later in the post. If you give people what amounts to a flashable "key vault" that holds all the hardware keys for a vast range of media you've created a very attractive target for hacking. All people have to do is hack the dongle ONCE and now they've all been hacked. Even if you somehow made it impossible to tamper with existing keys, the pirates can custom-make "pirate keys". Would you rather pay for media or pay $50 for a "pirate key" and get all the media for free? If you're questioning the viability of this, look into pirate satellite TV cards.
Huh? You don't have to open your box when you plug a usb stick do you? He talked about two data channels - "connected directly" - that means there's a separate bus for the dongle output - doesn't mean the connector is inside the computer.
This shows a lack of understanding of the internal design of PCs. You can't just "cut into" the video data path on PCs. Special, very sensitive, interfaces like PCI Express X16 that have trace length limitations and signaling limitations are required to handle the huge amount of bandwidth required for video applications.
Sure, you could put a pass-through dongle on the DVI port so that all video coming out of the DVI port is protected. This has also already been implemented through the "protected path" widely-discussed for Vista. And has already been cracked. Microsoft tech support will even tell you how to do it if you ask nicely.
Wake up, man. Solar power isn't exacly "bleeding edge" technology. It's about half a century old.
Internal combustion engines are even older. You're essentially claiming that you've developed a car that gets 150 miles per gallon.
If you've actually developed patentable technology, why have you not applied?
Well, it's obvious you've never STARTED a company (though with your employee-like attitude, you may very well have worked for one--after their press release and unveiling of their technology in order to satiate your aversity to risk). You may have heard about our pre-announced $650M in funding, and if that's not "signicant" to you, well.....Bill? Warren? Is that you?
I did not hear about the "pre-announced" (What does that mean anyway? I bet it means you haven't gotten the money.) funding of 650 million. Next question: Who gave you this investment?
I am neither Bill Gates nor Warren Buffet, assuming those are the people you're referring to. My name is neither Bill or Warren.
Again, DO YOUR HOMEWORK! MLM is a $120B business. The world's largest cosmestics company is MLM. Many Fortune 100 companies (does it get any more REAL than them?) have and continue to use MLM. Warren Buffet bought the controlling interest of Pampered Chef, an MLM, in 2005. He said it was a brilliant business model. Who are you to argue?
Life insurance is a multi-billion dollar business and that's a scam. Timeshares are a billion dollar (at least) business and they're a scam. Lotteries are scams, but thhey make billions in annual revenue. Psychics are all frauds, but they rake in millions. I don't know how big the fake penis pill market is, but they're making millions too. I'm sure I could come up with dozens of examples. Amazingly, you CAN make large sums of money scamming people.
And yeah, I am going to argue because I'm smart enough to know a scam when I see one. All you've proved is that Warren Buffet has terrible ethics (shock!).
i Want to see ludicrous? Read what you wrote. Posters like yourself like to think they are saying something of substance, but unsubstantiated claims do not qualify as substance. Your intention is transparent. People here can see that.
What intention is that? To point out that your head of marketing is a con artist, previously involved with numerous major scams? That's just a fact.
Making statements like you have is generally never a good idea in public, especially when the people you are making statements about are people you do not know.
Why? Why is it bad to warn people about professional criminals? Why is your company not in the wrong for involving itself with professional criminals?
Yes, we are a technology start-up with information we are not publicly disclosing at this time--what's new about that?
You are claiming a technology revolution similar to a flying car or cold fusion without a working prototype, any legal filings, and without major funding. And they funding you DO have is secret. REAL techonology startup produce prototypes and file patents. REAL technology startups have significant funding and are happy to talk about their sources of funding to anyone who asks (to encourage more funding). REAL technology startups do not engage in multi-level marketing, which is a scam.
More recently, he's been involved in another multilevel marketing operation that sells skin patches promising the wearer improved health and vigor through the magic of nanotechnology.
That's all that needs to be said about this. Rob Styler is a professional con artist and fraudster and he is the main force behind this scam. The claims of this company are beyond ludicrous, like developing a solar system 100's of times as efficient as existing systems). Their funding is also secret (read: organized crime).
Anyone who gets involved with this is a fool.
Re:key in memory - on some PCs yes
on
AACS Device Key Found
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Within 5-10 years, if DRM is still popular, you will need to have a dongle that does the decrypting of DRM'd materials.
First off, this isn't even remotely new. Dongles for copy protection are as old as the concept of copy protection. AutoCAD used a dongle. I'm sure there are dozens of other examples. But they haven't been widely implemented for the same reason this won't be. Cost.
It's too expensive to ship a sophisticated $20 part with a pressed disc that costs $1 to make and you're selling for $20. Dongles have only really been used in very expensive software packages for this reason.
Also, the whole content industry is moving to a "download over the Internet" model. Bill Gates was right when he said this is likely to be the last physical format war. Any solution that is not software only is a non-starter in this context.
The dongle will decrypt data from the media source, or possibly ordinary RAM. In some cases, will be done with the aid of software tokens purchased from rights owners. In others, it will merely verify region, time-expiration, and other restrictions embedded in the media are complied with. In some cases, part of the key will be downloaded from the Internet in real time, or a time-bombed key will be renewed at regular intervals.
If you're going to require an internet connection, what's the point of the dongle? Just make the user verify the key in real time against the server for every play. This would already have been implemented if they thought users would stand for it. They won't.
The dongle will re-encrypt the data so the playback hardware can play it, but memory-snoopers can't access it.
This makes no sense. The playback hardware presumably doesn't have encryption capability. If it does, and it has the encryption hardware built in, what is the point of the dongle? You're also expecting a DONGLE to decrypt, encrypt, and transfer HD video in full resolution all in real-time. That's a pretty beefy dongle. See above for the cost issues.
I think it's worth expanding on this point. Do you really understand how sophisticated the dongle you're talking about would have to be? It would have to include a CPU, memory, and storage to do the encryption. And how they're totally useless unless you ship a SEPERATE one attached to EACH video you want to play? The keys have to be individual for each "disc" (or instance of video) and ROM-burned, not flashable. The idea of some sort of "dongle vault" or multikey that allows you to used multiple stored keys is fatally flawed for a vast number of reasons. The most basic being that it would make hacking the dongles extremely attractive.
Now if you're thinking of "embedding" this dongle into the computer itself, it's been done. This is the whole concept of the TPM chip and concerns about it being used for DRM. This solution is also not feasible for any number of reasons.
I don't know if these dongles will be USB dongles
No, it will have to be a proprietary interface. USB is too easy to sniff.
maybe even connected directly to the video playback circuitry.
So users are going to have to crack their case open every time they want to play a video? I think not.
Mark this post, it may prove useful in challenging future dongle patents.
You might not be so flattered if you realized it meant you could no longer pay your rent or feed your family.
Then this loser needs to get another job. Nobody has a god-given right to make money. If you can't make money ethically, and within the law, you should get another job. Or at the very least, you shouldn't piss and moan about your unethical behavior. And you shouldn't be surprised if pissed-off customers and the police come knocking at your door.
If the guy can't make money to feed his family selling (by many accounts) his poorly written software then he can always flip burgers. They even give you free food.
What research do you suggest I do? The software is proprietary, runs on only one system, and it's owned by Google who is notoriously protective of their trade secrets. I looked all over Google's site and could find no information on security period, and certainly nothing on Docs and Spreadsheets. I know people that work at Google, but none of them work on D&S, nor were they willing to dig into it for me, but all of them thought (again, without doing their own internal research) that there was likely nothing but the login. They all said "it's still beta" or something similar several times.
Also, if you look at the address bar when logging into Google Docs or Gmail, you'll notice those pages are https.
Only the login page has encryption. Mail.google.com and docs.google.com have no encryption. And while lots of people do it to save money, just encrypting the login page is usually considered bad practice.
Why would exploits in Gmail automatically affect Docs because "they use the same login"?
So far, all of the most serious exploits in GMail have involved hacking the login to gain access to email stores. Most of these exploits involved hacking OTHER beta applications, like Google Video, to gain access to the login. Since you are now LOGGED IN, you have access to email stores in GMail. Technically GMail itself wasn't hacked. D&S was not around during this exploit but if it had been IT WOULD HAVE BEEN COMPROMISED AS WELL. As long as Google uses a central login for all services a weakness that allows you login access for ONE application allows access to ALL applications.
I am not an expert on the second council, but from what I've read it seems to be more of a PR move than anything else--the church didn't turn around and say "All Christians are created equal!" so much as say "ok, we share this stuff in common, let's start talking to each other and try to be constructive and stuff." Their desire to be friendly in no way indicates an acceptance of other church's teachings beyond the basics, NOR HAVE THEY EVER SAID THAT THOSE BASICS ARE SUFFICIENT FOR SALVATION.
Considering it is now formal Roman Catholic teaching that "good" people in general don't go to hell, even non-Christians, I don't think they're condemning large numbers of Christians. For example, Ghandi isn't going to hell according to the Catholic Church. It's called "salvation through works". It's only a minority of Protestant sects (like many Southern Baptists) that reject salvation through works and ecumenicism. And they represent a minority of Protestants even in America, let alone globally. A handful of "fire and brimstone" nuts that hate Disney does not constitute the catholic church.
I direct your attention to the fact that the Catholic church (and Eastern Orthodox, and probably the others as well) still use excommunications.
Rarely nowadays. Excommunication was and is a punishment reserved primarily for the clergy, and it was usually assigned for heresy. Now you'd be right in thinking that there are a lot of heretical Catholic priests out there (like the ones with wives), and you might be right in that an earlier time they would be excommunicated, but given the current dearth of Catholic priests (particularly in the US and Europe) they can't afford to let anyone go for relatively minor heresy (and yeah, breaking the chastity oaths is pretty minor in the big picture).
Regardless of the importance you (and many others, I admit) place on the Nicene Creed, whether Jesus is exactly the same as God or was merely created by God or somehow ascended to God is really a minor issue compared to whether or not you believe in (for example) glossolalia or laying-of-hands healing or polytheism (saints) or the morality of sex (and abortion.)
I disagree. Whether or not Jesus was the divine being who created the universe or merely another creation goes to the very heart of the Christian faith. Christianity is supposed to be something more than petty rules of morality. It's supposed to describe the fundamental nature of the universe and our role in it. As Jesus is "half-man", his status in the universe directly reflects on us. So if Jesus, a "half-god" is part of the Trinity and part of the essence of God then, in a sense, humans in general are part of God. From a theological perspective, this makes Jesus the "conduit" to God. Through worship of Jesus AS GOD one gains a "personal relationship and understanding" with "Jesus as God". This is distinct from the notion that God is separate and unknowable, and such communion isn't possible, that we see in Judaism and Islam.
I find that the trinity arguments are pretty asinine--like arguing whether God's powers are magical or psionic (e.g. using the Dungeons & Dragons definitions) in nature.
The D&D definitions make no sense. D&D does not in any way meaningfully articulate the difference between "magic" and "psionics" in terms of operation (how they actually work) and origin. In 3.0 and 3.5 they are formally interchangeable with each other in terms of game effects. The only practical difference has always been in terms of mechanics, magic uses spell slots, psionics uses power points. That's really it. In the Real World, "psionics", "psi", and "psychic" are literally exactly the same thing as magical powers and claims, perhaps with a bit less ceremony and a lot more "modern" terminology. But it's the same tricks.
"The big challenge is to make a game that was designed solely for the console, to take advantage of every last little corner of that console, to fill every little crack and run as many threads as we could and do as much to exploit the power of that machine, and make it run well on enough PCs to be worth releasing. That's a challenge."
This is a bunch of crap. This is easy. You just stall.
The cutting edge of PC graphical and computing power is constantly moving forward, at a pace far faster than consoles (new video cards come out every 6 MONTHS instead of 6 YEARS). This has traditionally meant that console ports, given the 18 to 24 months usually taken to port, are always widely playable on "gamer" PCs at the time of release.
Take Halo for example. XBOX version released in Nov 2001, PC version released Sep 2003, about 2 years later. What were the minimum system requirements?
System: 733MHz or equivalent RAM: 128 MB Video Memory: 32 MB
These requirements exceed the system capabilities of the XBOX (and they're directly comparable as the XBOX is basically a PC), but were met even by entry-level PCs at the time. Of course it ran better (higher resolutions, etc.) on faster hardware, but "gamer" PCs were considerably faster than 733mhz at the time and they're usually the target market for console ports. Certainly this is the target market for Gears of War.
Honestly, I've known Christians who claim just that... ie that they are Jews.
And they would technically be correct. Christians ARE Jews, they just don't follow the Law and accept a radically different (trinitarian) view of God. Most Jews would disagree with this and the doctrinal issues are pretty profound. Hence, a different term for Christ-following Jews.
A Christian is simply a follower of Christ and Mormons follow Christ.
Which is wrong. Non-trinitarian Christians haven't been recognized as "Christian" for 1600 years. It's not my opinion, it's the opinion of catholic church authorities. Joseph Smith obviously needed more help from real religious scholars when writing his works (not to mention real archaeologists).
It's also quite interesting that you bring up the idea of heretics. There was a point in history where Protestants were viewed as heretics and were persecuted for their beliefs.
Really, when? The Protestant reform movement was quite violent. Martin Luther led angry mobs to murder priests and nuns and to burn monasteries and convents. Henry VIII killed plenty of clergy himself. Calvin wasn't as violent, but he was harldy "persecuted".
Now it's true that the Roman Catholic Church had persecuted many earlier heretics, as in "slaughtered every last man, woman, and child", but by the time of the Protestant Reformation the Church not longer held such a grip. If they had, the Reformation never would have gotten off the ground.
Muslims don't believe in and worship Jesus Christ as the Savior of all mankind, as the Son of God and as the only perfect man who ever lived.
The analogy is rough. My point is that Mormon doctrine is different enough from Christian doctrine that is is inappropriate for them to share the same label. From my perspective, Mormons are basically taking the label to add legitimacy to what is fundamentally a new religion. Mormons might not like the idea that their religion is novel, but it is. And consequently Mormons should adopt a new term for themselves. Like "Mormon", followers of "Mormonism" or whatever.
Um, out of curiosity, where exactly did you get the term "Univeral Catholic Church" from? According to the Roman Catholics, all followers of the Eastern Orthodox and Protestants are going to hell (and more than a few Protestants believe that Catholics are going to hell) so I don't see the point of grouping them together in one overarching label.
You're wrong. The Eastern Orthodox Church, The Catholic Church, The Coptic Church, The Anglican Church, many Protestant churches, and many that I've probably forgotten about are in "communion", they accept the basic validity of each other and don't preach that the others are all going to hell. This general consensus makes up the "universal catholic church".
The Arians (no, not the *Aryans*) rejected the Nicene creed even more strongly, but they are still widely referred to as "Christians."
No, they're not. They're referred to as "Arians" for exactly that reason. And we're talking about them in the past tense because they were wiped out centuries ago BECAUSE they were heretics. There used to be Gnostic Christians too, but we call them "Gnostic Christians" because they AREN'T orthodox Christians.
This discussion is about terminology. And it's my opinion that in the 21st Century the term "Christian" refers mainly to orthodox Christians. If you're not an orthodox Christian, you should use a different term to distinguish yourself.
So how exactly do you believe they violate the Nicene Creed?
They believe in them as seperate beings, not as a unified trinity. They also believe that the Father was once a mortal that "ascended" to godhood. This is a big deal, as Christianity teaches that the Father is eternal and unchanging.
Just to delve into this a bit, this is the major theological difference between Jewish/Islamic thought and Christian thought. Jews/Muslims see God as absolutely perfect, eternal, and unchanging. The notion of the Son "splitting off" from the Father breaks this idea. The idea of a "imperfect" or "changing" God, or even worse, a FINITE God (as the Mormons propose) breaks many of the philosophical underpinnings of Christian thought.
why did Christianity took several centuries to take root in the Roman empire and the rest of Europe while it took Islam less than three centuries to spread throughout North Africa
This is a fair question. Because Christianity preached values (like poverty and peace) that were both stupid and anathema to the dominant Roman culture. It was not until they abandoned these values that Christianity gained widespread acceptance in the Roman world. In other words: Christians were initially resistant to spreading their religion through violence, it was only after they accepted violence that Christianity really began to spread. Mohammad preached martial values early on, following the established pattern of Christianity, and therefore his religion spread much faster. I'd also argue that Islam was much better organized with a single key prophet whose works were well understood and a relatively straightforward message early on. Christianity was much more confused with various competing sects. It was only after those sects unified (largely through violence, see above) that Christianity became big.
Islam and muslim is not a race
Since a bunch of people have posted on this and nobody has seen fit to correct them:
The ignorant idiots posting the kind of videos I describe usually aren't sophisticated enough to make a meaningful distinction between "Muslim" and "Arab". Therefore, the kinds of videos they post often intersperse attacks on Arab Muslims with Muslims generally, presumably because the poster regards them as equivalent. Therefore, many of these "anti-Muslim" videos also contain anti-Arab racist attacks.
I would also point out that those posters that picked this particular nit are just trying to justify anti-Muslim slurs. Another poster pointed out that whenever Christians are killing people (ex. USA invading Iraq) it's NEVER because they're Christian, but when Muslims are killing people (ex. Palestinians in Israel), it is ALWAYS because they are Muslim.
So I certainly COULD put together a montage of Christians killing lots of people (start with the Holocaust), intersperse it with Bible quotes calling for the death of unbelievers, and then use it to claim that Christianity is an evil religion.
I COULD do that, but it would be bullshit. Just like these anti-Islam videos are.
No one was ever killed for their religious belief before 1AD? Are you fucking serious?
No, that's not what I said. What I said was: Christians INVENTED the concept of "heresy". What is "heresy"? Heresy is the crime if "incorrect specific belief" as opposed to "incorrect belief" in general. The catholic church does not deny that heretics are CHRISTIAN per se, but that they are "false" Christians. The reason why heresy is a crime worthy of death is the idea that by spreading a "false" versions of Christianty they are damaging the reputation of "real" Christianity and leading converts into incorrect belief which could jepordise their salvation. As far as I'm aware, this is a novel concept to Christianity as earlier religions didn't have such a refined concept of salvation or of "correct" belief. Nor did they have the problems with legitimacy Christianity faced in it's early days.
Remember, that killing people who refuse to convert or pay homage to another religion is NOT killing people for "heresy".
I'm sure I was engaging in a bit of hyperbole though. You might be able to dig up some obscure Athenian cult that killed a priest for not performing a sacrifice correctly or something similar (and that would technically meet my above definition). But I would still argue that the concept was hardly widespread in the Western world before Christianity.
I know of know differences in translation that make any significant differences to doctrine between mainstream Christian sects.
Certainly it's less contentious now than it was in the past (I think I implied that), but there are a number of issues regarding abortion, homosexuality, women in the church, etc. that are partially embedded in translation issues to this day.
The only remotely substantive issue I'm aware of regarding translation accuracy in the New Testament is Paul's use of "malakoi" (or "malakee") and "arsenokoitai" in I Cor 6:9-10, which are sometimes translated to mean "homosexual"
Case in point.
I can understand Islamic scholars wanting to work with the Arabic text, just as I can understand NT scholars wanting to work with the Greek texts. But that is completely unrelated to the question of translation or translatability. If the Koran cannot be translated acceptably into English it can only be because the original text is not meaningful in any language. And the fact that every single time anyone ever mentions the meaning of any part of the Koran on any topic someone claims that the part in question is untranslatable or incorrectly translated can only lead a thinking person to one of two possible conclusions, neither of which is very pretty.
Well, you are simply wrong. Introducing translation DOES have the capacity for causing or exacerbating doctrinal differences in any religion, Islam being no exception. Muslim scholars are "playing it safe" because they are unwilling to risk potentially "corrupting" doctrine through translation. You are probably right in that it is unlikely that translation would cause many problems, but it's not your religion that is being risked. Anyway, I can clearly understand the scholarly reasons they're resistant to study in translation.
The average white (caucasian) male American between 15 and 55 is the most discriminated and censored group in the US. Sure, there might be a majority in numbers, but they are being treated as the minority in anything we do making us the oppressed group. And the main culprit seems to be scares of lawsuits because of discrimination (there is a typical law that handles such situations here in the States).
You do understand that you're exactly quoting the rhetoric of white power groups like the KKK and Christian Identity, right?
I notice that despite of all the "discrimination" against white males, they are still managing to cling to near total control of business, media, politics, and religion. Or maybe I'm just imagining the fact the virtually all significant business, media, political, and religious figures in the United States are white men. Or that whites control the vast majority of the wealth in America. Or that 90% of the Congress are white males.
Mormons believe in and worship Jesus Christ as the Savior of all mankind, as the Son of God and as the only perfect man who ever lived.
What more does it take to be called Christian? Christians are followers of Christ and Mormons follow Christ.
"Orthodox" Christians are Trinitarian and follow the Nicene Creed. Mormons do not, therefore they are not "orthodox" Christians but heretics as defined be the universal catholic church (by this I mean the Roman Catholic Church, the Coptic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Anglican Church, and most Protestants). Mormons follow a prophet and holy texts that contradict large sections of the New Testament and who are specifically rejected by the universal catholic church as frauds.
In fact, from a doctrinal point of view, the Mormon faith sits in a very similar position as Islam. Muslims accept the validity of Jesus as a prophet, but reject the Trinity and instead follow a later prophet and his holy texts.
So Mormons are Christian pretty much in the same way that Muslims are Christian.
Slashdot Mirror
I work in a dual platform environment and I have DOZENS of PCs in our repair area. I might have one or two Macs a month with a software problem, and maybe a Mac ever other month with an actual hardware problem. And the best part is we have way more Macs in our organization than PCs.
Where do you work and what are you doing? I suspect you work at either a design studio or higher education (the only places I've heard of large Apple installs are education and graphics shops).
In the case of the former, you're dealing with a base of technically-savvy users who are attached to MacOS and who also turn up their nose at standard business tasks. I suspect it's all the designers that have the Macs. The PCs are old, battered, and being run in the "back office" for routine business tasks like HR and accounting. These users are NOT technically-savvy and they're almost certainly using outdated hardware to run a few key apps that won't run on the IT-favored Macs. As they're the red-headed stepchild of your organization, it doesn't surprise me that you have lots of problems.
It's worth noting that most organizations are the exact opposite. They're primarily Windows shops which have a handful of Macs for the graphic designers who are attached to them. The Mac users (especially in the last few years) don't complain very much because they know that IT is looking for excuses to get rid of the Macs. How many problems the Macs cause usually depends on how much the organization uses Exchange and, in my experience, how concerned the organization is with security. It is usually security that ends up pushing the Macs out the door.
In a corporate network environment, the flexibility of Linux desktops is unparalleled. You can optimize your storage needs (and not pay for 300 copies of an OS sitting on 300 hard drives, for example), and you can move applications around the network seamlessly without the users even noticing (useful when one app server gets overloaded). Sure there is a learning curve for the IT department, but on the desktop side, just make sure that for the less techie people, that everything is easily accessible. In fact, I have never found the learning curve to be an obstacle ("we depend on Quickbooks and their support" is a bigger one). In short, an intelligent Athena-style deployment of Linux systems (along with a move to diskless workstations wherever possible) could save a company a bundle on IT and improve productivity. The big issue is that the migration takes time.
Linux has a dearth of useful business desktop applications (Quickbooks is just one example). I used to think differently, but I am now convinced that this is NEVER going to change. The whole software industry is moving towards browser-based applications (Quicken for example) which are to a large extent "OS neutral". The problem is that many of these apps require Internet Explorer, which is only available on Windows. So RIGHT NOW whether your using desktop apps or web apps on Linux you have a shortage of applications meaning that thin-client Linux workstations aren't really an option. Migration from an existing Windows/Office system would be basically impossible unless you wanted to lose MOST of the functionality you already have.
Frankly, I wouldn't go Linux for these sorts of tasks because there is no GOOD replacement for Active Directory in Linux. As far as I'm concerned, Active Directory is a godsend for IT managers and any Linux solution with have to be AT LEAST as good, with the same level of integration, as Active Directory. And be relatively easy to implement. Linus is currently lightyears away from this sort of functionality.
One other thing...
A small screen with a high resolution hasn't been tried before not due to technical issues, but because it creates tiny unusable icons and menus and tiny unreadable text. I can't think of any conceivable way to solve this issue in Windows other than increasing the "size" of screen elements, which completely defeats the purpose. Yes, you COULD have a "magnifying glass" but that also defeats the purpose if you have to use it constantly.
So yeah, if you don't mind destroying you eyes reading tiny print the high screen resolution is a great idea.
They were very expensive LIMITED lobotomized devices relative to the cost of a FULLY FUNCTIONAL laptop. Given the choice, people chose more function at less cost. This is a fully functional PC in a small form factor, with a FULL RESOLUTION (1024 dot horizontal) screen.
You're just reinforcing what I said. The FlipStart is definitely "lobotomized" compared to current $2000 laptops. It's got a 1GHz CPU, 40GB hard drive (less than 1/2 what you would see on that laptop), no ExpressCard so no expansion, limited ports, I suspect very slow video, small screen, low resolution, etc.
And I seriously question the interface. The keyboard is too small to touch-type for anyone without extremely small hands. Despite the incredible expense of this thing, it DOES NOT HAVE A TOUCHSCREEN. Point is done with either a thumbstick or a tiny touchpad (at least I think that's what that blue square is).
And finally, it's got competition, like the OQO. The OQO has been around for years and never caught on, mainly because people complained about the price. This thing is extremely similar and costs MORE, something that was pointed out in the article.
And you criticize the keyboard of this new device, missing the point of SMALL. Small is not compatible with "good keyboard".
e Pro900.htm? These things had great keyboards and they were only slightly larger than this device. The form factor (called Handheld PC) died out not because people didn't like them (they did, especially journalists) but because they were very expensive relative to the cost of laptops. The exact same problem the FlipStart has.
Nonsense. Ever heard of the NEC MobileProhttp://www.mobiletechreview.com/NECMobil
Luggable is like the old style "portable" computer, a big-ass destkop with a built in keyboard and a handle. Designed to be moved around, but not something you'll take on an airplane. For this reason you rarely see it anymore, though you could say that some of the bigger "desktop replacement" machines fall in this category.
These are still around. In practice, Small Form Factor computers like the Shuttle XPC and other systems marketed for the "lanparty" or "home theatre PC" market. The Mac Mini is a good example. It's a narrow market for those that need both power and/or expansion combined with small size and portablity. With a relatively small flat-panel monitor these systems are far more portable than the "luggables" ever were.
uhhh... iTunes?
Exactly. iTunes, despite all the hype, isn't a major source of music in the United States. Nor is any downloadable music store. And one of the big reasons many people I talk to reject iTunes (and the Windows Media stores) is the fear that Apple, etc. could remotely "turn off" access to music they've purchased. That's why "exporting" is such a bug issue for iTunes users.
Of course, it doesn't have to be this way. What iTunes SHOULD be is an account on a server somewhere with ALL vital information linked to that account and a custom encryption key. The individual track in locked to that key which is locked to that account (which has your credit card information, so hopefully you won't give the tracks and key away). With such a system even if your computer was completely destroyed you could re-download ALL of the music you've purchased.
I don't have to speculate about this system, I've worked on it. It was called Liquid Audio. Your tracks were tied to a "Passport" (basically a keyfile) that was tied to your credit card and account information. In your account a complete record of every track you purchased was kept, so if for some reason you wanted to re-download a track at any time, you could do so. As long as you remembered your login (and even if you didn't, customer support staff would help you) you could get complete data recovery. Users raved about this feature.
The only reason iTunes does it differently is to fuck people over and force them to repurchase tracks.
And no, we couldn't turn off the tracks. The tracks were tied to the Passport, which didn't expire. This was by design. The labels wanted "self-destructing" tracks, like you see in iTunes. If you leave a system with Apple DRM-protected tracks disconnected from the Internet long enough (I think it's a year) your tracks will automatically break.
He meant a single dongle for the computer, that is used by all discs
And I attacked this very concept later in the post. If you give people what amounts to a flashable "key vault" that holds all the hardware keys for a vast range of media you've created a very attractive target for hacking. All people have to do is hack the dongle ONCE and now they've all been hacked. Even if you somehow made it impossible to tamper with existing keys, the pirates can custom-make "pirate keys". Would you rather pay for media or pay $50 for a "pirate key" and get all the media for free? If you're questioning the viability of this, look into pirate satellite TV cards.
Huh? You don't have to open your box when you plug a usb stick do you? He talked about two data channels - "connected directly" - that means there's a separate bus for the dongle output - doesn't mean the connector is inside the computer.
This shows a lack of understanding of the internal design of PCs. You can't just "cut into" the video data path on PCs. Special, very sensitive, interfaces like PCI Express X16 that have trace length limitations and signaling limitations are required to handle the huge amount of bandwidth required for video applications.
Sure, you could put a pass-through dongle on the DVI port so that all video coming out of the DVI port is protected. This has also already been implemented through the "protected path" widely-discussed for Vista. And has already been cracked. Microsoft tech support will even tell you how to do it if you ask nicely.
Wake up, man. Solar power isn't exacly "bleeding edge" technology. It's about half a century old.
Internal combustion engines are even older. You're essentially claiming that you've developed a car that gets 150 miles per gallon.
If you've actually developed patentable technology, why have you not applied?
Well, it's obvious you've never STARTED a company (though with your employee-like attitude, you may very well have worked for one--after their press release and unveiling of their technology in order to satiate your aversity to risk). You may have heard about our pre-announced $650M in funding, and if that's not "signicant" to you, well.....Bill? Warren? Is that you?
I did not hear about the "pre-announced" (What does that mean anyway? I bet it means you haven't gotten the money.) funding of 650 million. Next question: Who gave you this investment?
I am neither Bill Gates nor Warren Buffet, assuming those are the people you're referring to. My name is neither Bill or Warren.
Again, DO YOUR HOMEWORK! MLM is a $120B business. The world's largest cosmestics company is MLM. Many Fortune 100 companies (does it get any more REAL than them?) have and continue to use MLM. Warren Buffet bought the controlling interest of Pampered Chef, an MLM, in 2005. He said it was a brilliant business model. Who are you to argue?
Life insurance is a multi-billion dollar business and that's a scam. Timeshares are a billion dollar (at least) business and they're a scam. Lotteries are scams, but thhey make billions in annual revenue. Psychics are all frauds, but they rake in millions. I don't know how big the fake penis pill market is, but they're making millions too. I'm sure I could come up with dozens of examples. Amazingly, you CAN make large sums of money scamming people.
And yeah, I am going to argue because I'm smart enough to know a scam when I see one. All you've proved is that Warren Buffet has terrible ethics (shock!).
i Want to see ludicrous? Read what you wrote. Posters like yourself like to think they are saying something of substance, but unsubstantiated claims do not qualify as substance. Your intention is transparent. People here can see that.
What intention is that? To point out that your head of marketing is a con artist, previously involved with numerous major scams? That's just a fact.
Making statements like you have is generally never a good idea in public, especially when the people you are making statements about are people you do not know.
Why? Why is it bad to warn people about professional criminals? Why is your company not in the wrong for involving itself with professional criminals?
Yes, we are a technology start-up with information we are not publicly disclosing at this time--what's new about that?
You are claiming a technology revolution similar to a flying car or cold fusion without a working prototype, any legal filings, and without major funding. And they funding you DO have is secret. REAL techonology startup produce prototypes and file patents. REAL technology startups have significant funding and are happy to talk about their sources of funding to anyone who asks (to encourage more funding). REAL technology startups do not engage in multi-level marketing, which is a scam.
From the article:
More recently, he's been involved in another multilevel marketing operation that sells skin patches promising the wearer improved health and vigor through the magic of nanotechnology.
That's all that needs to be said about this. Rob Styler is a professional con artist and fraudster and he is the main force behind this scam. The claims of this company are beyond ludicrous, like developing a solar system 100's of times as efficient as existing systems). Their funding is also secret (read: organized crime).
Anyone who gets involved with this is a fool.
Within 5-10 years, if DRM is still popular, you will need to have a dongle that does the decrypting of DRM'd materials.
First off, this isn't even remotely new. Dongles for copy protection are as old as the concept of copy protection. AutoCAD used a dongle. I'm sure there are dozens of other examples. But they haven't been widely implemented for the same reason this won't be. Cost.
It's too expensive to ship a sophisticated $20 part with a pressed disc that costs $1 to make and you're selling for $20. Dongles have only really been used in very expensive software packages for this reason.
Also, the whole content industry is moving to a "download over the Internet" model. Bill Gates was right when he said this is likely to be the last physical format war. Any solution that is not software only is a non-starter in this context.
The dongle will decrypt data from the media source, or possibly ordinary RAM. In some cases, will be done with the aid of software tokens purchased from rights owners. In others, it will merely verify region, time-expiration, and other restrictions embedded in the media are complied with. In some cases, part of the key will be downloaded from the Internet in real time, or a time-bombed key will be renewed at regular intervals.
If you're going to require an internet connection, what's the point of the dongle? Just make the user verify the key in real time against the server for every play. This would already have been implemented if they thought users would stand for it. They won't.
The dongle will re-encrypt the data so the playback hardware can play it, but memory-snoopers can't access it.
This makes no sense. The playback hardware presumably doesn't have encryption capability. If it does, and it has the encryption hardware built in, what is the point of the dongle? You're also expecting a DONGLE to decrypt, encrypt, and transfer HD video in full resolution all in real-time. That's a pretty beefy dongle. See above for the cost issues.
I think it's worth expanding on this point. Do you really understand how sophisticated the dongle you're talking about would have to be? It would have to include a CPU, memory, and storage to do the encryption. And how they're totally useless unless you ship a SEPERATE one attached to EACH video you want to play? The keys have to be individual for each "disc" (or instance of video) and ROM-burned, not flashable. The idea of some sort of "dongle vault" or multikey that allows you to used multiple stored keys is fatally flawed for a vast number of reasons. The most basic being that it would make hacking the dongles extremely attractive.
Now if you're thinking of "embedding" this dongle into the computer itself, it's been done. This is the whole concept of the TPM chip and concerns about it being used for DRM. This solution is also not feasible for any number of reasons.
I don't know if these dongles will be USB dongles
No, it will have to be a proprietary interface. USB is too easy to sniff.
maybe even connected directly to the video playback circuitry.
So users are going to have to crack their case open every time they want to play a video? I think not.
Mark this post, it may prove useful in challenging future dongle patents.
None of this is either novel or practical.
You might not be so flattered if you realized it meant you could no longer pay your rent or feed your family.
Then this loser needs to get another job. Nobody has a god-given right to make money. If you can't make money ethically, and within the law, you should get another job. Or at the very least, you shouldn't piss and moan about your unethical behavior. And you shouldn't be surprised if pissed-off customers and the police come knocking at your door.
If the guy can't make money to feed his family selling (by many accounts) his poorly written software then he can always flip burgers. They even give you free food.
Have you researched the security systems in place
What research do you suggest I do? The software is proprietary, runs on only one system, and it's owned by Google who is notoriously protective of their trade secrets. I looked all over Google's site and could find no information on security period, and certainly nothing on Docs and Spreadsheets. I know people that work at Google, but none of them work on D&S, nor were they willing to dig into it for me, but all of them thought (again, without doing their own internal research) that there was likely nothing but the login. They all said "it's still beta" or something similar several times.
Also, if you look at the address bar when logging into Google Docs or Gmail, you'll notice those pages are https.
Only the login page has encryption. Mail.google.com and docs.google.com have no encryption. And while lots of people do it to save money, just encrypting the login page is usually considered bad practice.
Why would exploits in Gmail automatically affect Docs because "they use the same login"?
So far, all of the most serious exploits in GMail have involved hacking the login to gain access to email stores. Most of these exploits involved hacking OTHER beta applications, like Google Video, to gain access to the login. Since you are now LOGGED IN, you have access to email stores in GMail. Technically GMail itself wasn't hacked. D&S was not around during this exploit but if it had been IT WOULD HAVE BEEN COMPROMISED AS WELL. As long as Google uses a central login for all services a weakness that allows you login access for ONE application allows access to ALL applications.
I am not an expert on the second council, but from what I've read it seems to be more of a PR move than anything else--the church didn't turn around and say "All Christians are created equal!" so much as say "ok, we share this stuff in common, let's start talking to each other and try to be constructive and stuff." Their desire to be friendly in no way indicates an acceptance of other church's teachings beyond the basics, NOR HAVE THEY EVER SAID THAT THOSE BASICS ARE SUFFICIENT FOR SALVATION.
Considering it is now formal Roman Catholic teaching that "good" people in general don't go to hell, even non-Christians, I don't think they're condemning large numbers of Christians. For example, Ghandi isn't going to hell according to the Catholic Church. It's called "salvation through works". It's only a minority of Protestant sects (like many Southern Baptists) that reject salvation through works and ecumenicism. And they represent a minority of Protestants even in America, let alone globally. A handful of "fire and brimstone" nuts that hate Disney does not constitute the catholic church.
I direct your attention to the fact that the Catholic church (and Eastern Orthodox, and probably the others as well) still use excommunications.
Rarely nowadays. Excommunication was and is a punishment reserved primarily for the clergy, and it was usually assigned for heresy. Now you'd be right in thinking that there are a lot of heretical Catholic priests out there (like the ones with wives), and you might be right in that an earlier time they would be excommunicated, but given the current dearth of Catholic priests (particularly in the US and Europe) they can't afford to let anyone go for relatively minor heresy (and yeah, breaking the chastity oaths is pretty minor in the big picture).
Regardless of the importance you (and many others, I admit) place on the Nicene Creed, whether Jesus is exactly the same as God or was merely created by God or somehow ascended to God is really a minor issue compared to whether or not you believe in (for example) glossolalia or laying-of-hands healing or polytheism (saints) or the morality of sex (and abortion.)
I disagree. Whether or not Jesus was the divine being who created the universe or merely another creation goes to the very heart of the Christian faith. Christianity is supposed to be something more than petty rules of morality. It's supposed to describe the fundamental nature of the universe and our role in it. As Jesus is "half-man", his status in the universe directly reflects on us. So if Jesus, a "half-god" is part of the Trinity and part of the essence of God then, in a sense, humans in general are part of God. From a theological perspective, this makes Jesus the "conduit" to God. Through worship of Jesus AS GOD one gains a "personal relationship and understanding" with "Jesus as God". This is distinct from the notion that God is separate and unknowable, and such communion isn't possible, that we see in Judaism and Islam.
I find that the trinity arguments are pretty asinine--like arguing whether God's powers are magical or psionic (e.g. using the Dungeons & Dragons definitions) in nature.
The D&D definitions make no sense. D&D does not in any way meaningfully articulate the difference between "magic" and "psionics" in terms of operation (how they actually work) and origin. In 3.0 and 3.5 they are formally interchangeable with each other in terms of game effects. The only practical difference has always been in terms of mechanics, magic uses spell slots, psionics uses power points. That's really it. In the Real World, "psionics", "psi", and "psychic" are literally exactly the same thing as magical powers and claims, perhaps with a bit less ceremony and a lot more "modern" terminology. But it's the same tricks.
"The big challenge is to make a game that was designed solely for the console, to take advantage of every last little corner of that console, to fill every little crack and run as many threads as we could and do as much to exploit the power of that machine, and make it run well on enough PCs to be worth releasing. That's a challenge."
This is a bunch of crap. This is easy. You just stall.
The cutting edge of PC graphical and computing power is constantly moving forward, at a pace far faster than consoles (new video cards come out every 6 MONTHS instead of 6 YEARS). This has traditionally meant that console ports, given the 18 to 24 months usually taken to port, are always widely playable on "gamer" PCs at the time of release.
Take Halo for example. XBOX version released in Nov 2001, PC version released Sep 2003, about 2 years later. What were the minimum system requirements?
System: 733MHz or equivalent
RAM: 128 MB
Video Memory: 32 MB
These requirements exceed the system capabilities of the XBOX (and they're directly comparable as the XBOX is basically a PC), but were met even by entry-level PCs at the time. Of course it ran better (higher resolutions, etc.) on faster hardware, but "gamer" PCs were considerably faster than 733mhz at the time and they're usually the target market for console ports. Certainly this is the target market for Gears of War.
And as much as Christianity is a sect of Judaism.
Honestly, I've known Christians who claim just that... ie that they are Jews.
And they would technically be correct. Christians ARE Jews, they just don't follow the Law and accept a radically different (trinitarian) view of God. Most Jews would disagree with this and the doctrinal issues are pretty profound. Hence, a different term for Christ-following Jews.
A Christian is simply a follower of Christ and Mormons follow Christ.
Which is wrong. Non-trinitarian Christians haven't been recognized as "Christian" for 1600 years. It's not my opinion, it's the opinion of catholic church authorities. Joseph Smith obviously needed more help from real religious scholars when writing his works (not to mention real archaeologists).
It's also quite interesting that you bring up the idea of heretics. There was a point in history where Protestants were viewed as heretics and were persecuted for their beliefs.
Really, when? The Protestant reform movement was quite violent. Martin Luther led angry mobs to murder priests and nuns and to burn monasteries and convents. Henry VIII killed plenty of clergy himself. Calvin wasn't as violent, but he was harldy "persecuted".
Now it's true that the Roman Catholic Church had persecuted many earlier heretics, as in "slaughtered every last man, woman, and child", but by the time of the Protestant Reformation the Church not longer held such a grip. If they had, the Reformation never would have gotten off the ground.
Muslims don't believe in and worship Jesus Christ as the Savior of all mankind, as the Son of God and as the only perfect man who ever lived.
The analogy is rough. My point is that Mormon doctrine is different enough from Christian doctrine that is is inappropriate for them to share the same label. From my perspective, Mormons are basically taking the label to add legitimacy to what is fundamentally a new religion. Mormons might not like the idea that their religion is novel, but it is. And consequently Mormons should adopt a new term for themselves. Like "Mormon", followers of "Mormonism" or whatever.
Um, out of curiosity, where exactly did you get the term "Univeral Catholic Church" from? According to the Roman Catholics, all followers of the Eastern Orthodox and Protestants are going to hell (and more than a few Protestants believe that Catholics are going to hell) so I don't see the point of grouping them together in one overarching label.
You're wrong. The Eastern Orthodox Church, The Catholic Church, The Coptic Church, The Anglican Church, many Protestant churches, and many that I've probably forgotten about are in "communion", they accept the basic validity of each other and don't preach that the others are all going to hell. This general consensus makes up the "universal catholic church".
The Arians (no, not the *Aryans*) rejected the Nicene creed even more strongly, but they are still widely referred to as "Christians."
No, they're not. They're referred to as "Arians" for exactly that reason. And we're talking about them in the past tense because they were wiped out centuries ago BECAUSE they were heretics. There used to be Gnostic Christians too, but we call them "Gnostic Christians" because they AREN'T orthodox Christians.
This discussion is about terminology. And it's my opinion that in the 21st Century the term "Christian" refers mainly to orthodox Christians. If you're not an orthodox Christian, you should use a different term to distinguish yourself.
So how exactly do you believe they violate the Nicene Creed?
They believe in them as seperate beings, not as a unified trinity. They also believe that the Father was once a mortal that "ascended" to godhood. This is a big deal, as Christianity teaches that the Father is eternal and unchanging.
Just to delve into this a bit, this is the major theological difference between Jewish/Islamic thought and Christian thought. Jews/Muslims see God as absolutely perfect, eternal, and unchanging. The notion of the Son "splitting off" from the Father breaks this idea. The idea of a "imperfect" or "changing" God, or even worse, a FINITE God (as the Mormons propose) breaks many of the philosophical underpinnings of Christian thought.
why did Christianity took several centuries to take root in the Roman empire and the rest of Europe while it took Islam less than three centuries to spread throughout North Africa
This is a fair question. Because Christianity preached values (like poverty and peace) that were both stupid and anathema to the dominant Roman culture. It was not until they abandoned these values that Christianity gained widespread acceptance in the Roman world. In other words: Christians were initially resistant to spreading their religion through violence, it was only after they accepted violence that Christianity really began to spread. Mohammad preached martial values early on, following the established pattern of Christianity, and therefore his religion spread much faster. I'd also argue that Islam was much better organized with a single key prophet whose works were well understood and a relatively straightforward message early on. Christianity was much more confused with various competing sects. It was only after those sects unified (largely through violence, see above) that Christianity became big.
Islam and muslim is not a race
Since a bunch of people have posted on this and nobody has seen fit to correct them:
The ignorant idiots posting the kind of videos I describe usually aren't sophisticated enough to make a meaningful distinction between "Muslim" and "Arab". Therefore, the kinds of videos they post often intersperse attacks on Arab Muslims with Muslims generally, presumably because the poster regards them as equivalent. Therefore, many of these "anti-Muslim" videos also contain anti-Arab racist attacks.
I would also point out that those posters that picked this particular nit are just trying to justify anti-Muslim slurs. Another poster pointed out that whenever Christians are killing people (ex. USA invading Iraq) it's NEVER because they're Christian, but when Muslims are killing people (ex. Palestinians in Israel), it is ALWAYS because they are Muslim.
So I certainly COULD put together a montage of Christians killing lots of people (start with the Holocaust), intersperse it with Bible quotes calling for the death of unbelievers, and then use it to claim that Christianity is an evil religion.
I COULD do that, but it would be bullshit. Just like these anti-Islam videos are.
No one was ever killed for their religious belief before 1AD? Are you fucking serious?
No, that's not what I said. What I said was: Christians INVENTED the concept of "heresy". What is "heresy"? Heresy is the crime if "incorrect specific belief" as opposed to "incorrect belief" in general. The catholic church does not deny that heretics are CHRISTIAN per se, but that they are "false" Christians. The reason why heresy is a crime worthy of death is the idea that by spreading a "false" versions of Christianty they are damaging the reputation of "real" Christianity and leading converts into incorrect belief which could jepordise their salvation. As far as I'm aware, this is a novel concept to Christianity as earlier religions didn't have such a refined concept of salvation or of "correct" belief. Nor did they have the problems with legitimacy Christianity faced in it's early days.
Remember, that killing people who refuse to convert or pay homage to another religion is NOT killing people for "heresy".
I'm sure I was engaging in a bit of hyperbole though. You might be able to dig up some obscure Athenian cult that killed a priest for not performing a sacrifice correctly or something similar (and that would technically meet my above definition). But I would still argue that the concept was hardly widespread in the Western world before Christianity.
I know of know differences in translation that make any significant differences to doctrine between mainstream Christian sects.
Certainly it's less contentious now than it was in the past (I think I implied that), but there are a number of issues regarding abortion, homosexuality, women in the church, etc. that are partially embedded in translation issues to this day.
The only remotely substantive issue I'm aware of regarding translation accuracy in the New Testament is Paul's use of "malakoi" (or "malakee") and "arsenokoitai" in I Cor 6:9-10, which are sometimes translated to mean "homosexual"
Case in point.
I can understand Islamic scholars wanting to work with the Arabic text, just as I can understand NT scholars wanting to work with the Greek texts. But that is completely unrelated to the question of translation or translatability. If the Koran cannot be translated acceptably into English it can only be because the original text is not meaningful in any language. And the fact that every single time anyone ever mentions the meaning of any part of the Koran on any topic someone claims that the part in question is untranslatable or incorrectly translated can only lead a thinking person to one of two possible conclusions, neither of which is very pretty.
Well, you are simply wrong. Introducing translation DOES have the capacity for causing or exacerbating doctrinal differences in any religion, Islam being no exception. Muslim scholars are "playing it safe" because they are unwilling to risk potentially "corrupting" doctrine through translation. You are probably right in that it is unlikely that translation would cause many problems, but it's not your religion that is being risked. Anyway, I can clearly understand the scholarly reasons they're resistant to study in translation.
My bad. I meant to say Torah. That's what happens when you type a little too quickly.
The average white (caucasian) male American between 15 and 55 is the most discriminated and censored group in the US. Sure, there might be a majority in numbers, but they are being treated as the minority in anything we do making us the oppressed group. And the main culprit seems to be scares of lawsuits because of discrimination (there is a typical law that handles such situations here in the States).
You do understand that you're exactly quoting the rhetoric of white power groups like the KKK and Christian Identity, right?
I notice that despite of all the "discrimination" against white males, they are still managing to cling to near total control of business, media, politics, and religion. Or maybe I'm just imagining the fact the virtually all significant business, media, political, and religious figures in the United States are white men. Or that whites control the vast majority of the wealth in America. Or that 90% of the Congress are white males.
Mormons believe in and worship Jesus Christ as the Savior of all mankind, as the Son of God and as the only perfect man who ever lived.
What more does it take to be called Christian? Christians are followers of Christ and Mormons follow Christ.
"Orthodox" Christians are Trinitarian and follow the Nicene Creed. Mormons do not, therefore they are not "orthodox" Christians but heretics as defined be the universal catholic church (by this I mean the Roman Catholic Church, the Coptic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Anglican Church, and most Protestants). Mormons follow a prophet and holy texts that contradict large sections of the New Testament and who are specifically rejected by the universal catholic church as frauds.
In fact, from a doctrinal point of view, the Mormon faith sits in a very similar position as Islam. Muslims accept the validity of Jesus as a prophet, but reject the Trinity and instead follow a later prophet and his holy texts.
So Mormons are Christian pretty much in the same way that Muslims are Christian.