What when half a century earlier they were asking Copernicus to publish his works and others to speak on the subject? Heck, the commissioned Galileo to study heliocentrism in the first place!
The FBI e-mailed the fake news story via a link to a suspect's MySpace account. When the suspect clicked on the link, FBI software revealed his location and IP address to agents working the case. A juvenile suspect, who was not named by The Seattle Times, was arrested on June 14, 2007.
Apologies, wires were crossed when I picked Keanu Reeves and Edward Scissorhands.
He'd get royalties of the movie sales, etc. But, that's whatever is specified in his contract. It's not because he owns the copyright to Edward Scissorhands as depicted in the movie. If the studios decided to make a sequel to the movie, then they could even though Johnny Depp doesn't want to do it. They could hire some other schmuck to play the part.
If it's observable indirectly, it's still technically observable though. I find what directly contradicts this axiom to be dark matter and dark energy. Both have never been observed, so how can they exist. If science is supposed to function based on what is observable, then how can we extrapolate theories and universal models that have unobservable things in them?
I understand your point here, but if he wasn't actually found guilty of whatever they're trying to prosecute him with, he's still innocent until proven guilty. To do what you suggest, would allow the government to prevent a plaintiff from seeking legal recourse because they're awaiting prosecution of an unrelated issue.
It seems obvious to me that the person who came up with the idea and directed it's creation is the copyright holder. Does Keanu Reeves own the copyright for Edward Scissorhands? No. Even though he used his creative talent to actually create the character for its audience. Likewise, if I hire someone to take wedding photos, then the photo copyrights are mine, as I commissioned the person to take them.
I never understood why they changed this... used to be, okay my connection sucks. Let me just wait for the video to load and I'll watch it. Now it's, well my connection sucks, I can't watch youtube videos; or watching them becomes a chore.
Yeah, but where does the money we're paying them go to? Aren't there youtubers that rely on adsense profits? If the ads are gone from the videos, how are they making money? I can't possibly see how Google would divvy up the profits of the subscriptions to the youtube channels making money off their videos.
No not really. To apologize for trying Galileo for heresy is not say that they disagreed with the heliocentric theory nor that they now agree with it. Trying someone for heresy is to try someone for practicing or evangelizing a belief that is contradictory to Church doctrine. The church obviously had no problem with heliocentrism, if they a) didn't persecute Copernicus and in fact an arch-bishop from Rome encouraged him to publish a full version of his theory; and b) didn't persecute Johann Albrecht Widmannstetter who gave a lecture in Rome about it, and who was heard with interest by the Pope and several Cardinals. What happened to Galileo was political shenanigans. Look at the time period he was in, the Protestant reformation was at it's height. The Church at that time was hypersensitive to anyone or anything that challenged their authority. Galileo kind of challenged the Pope's authority while espousing the heliocentric theory. And that's why the Church apologized (however late) for trying him for heresy. It was an overreaction on their part.
I was typing and going to say that my worry is that someone is going to peg this as when the Church finally agreed with this stuff, and then I'd have to (hopefully calmly explain) the Church as never been dismissive of the theories...but I realized...I already do this all the time...
Let me rephrase this and make this even more accurate...
The quote is: ""The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
The commonality that I'm talking is being strictly qualified right there in the passage. Angels and God both know of good and evil. That's the commonality that humans now possess along with Angels and God.
As is being quoted, "like one of us." Angels and God are both immortal, therefore if humans become immortal too, then humans would be "like one of us." That statement in no way implies that Angels and God are the same type of thing. It's like if I was talking to a chimp and said, "if dogs grow opposable thumbs then they'll be like one of us."
Hmm, I feel like the one complements the other. The Christian God is an omnipotent and omniscient deity. In order to be such a deity, said deity would more than likely have to be the "prime mover." The Jews believed that God created existence well before having a lot of interaction with Greek philosophy.
Agree pretty much. Maybe I'm splitting hairs, or maybe I'm projecting the arguments of others with regards to this subject. But it seems to me that his conclusion would mean that the Pope is and was never infallible. Whereas, given the correct information, the correct statement is, the Pope is sometimes infallible.
I guess you can say I misspoke. I thought the qualifier was obvious given the context of the discussion. We're talking about the church being anti-science and persecuting people espousing scientific theories. So the qualifier I should've added was, "...that could be said to be persecuted because of their scientific theory." Persecution of heretics, i.e. Christians who have a different interpretation of Christianity, and of those with differing religious beliefs, would not be a part of what I was talking about.
That's all well and good, but if something can't exist that's unobservable; then the assumption must be made that our ability to observe the universe is absolute.
Catholics don't get to interpret religious doctrines on their own. That's the WHOLE point of the Protestant schism! The Pope can say 2+2 = fish all day long, but if he's not speaking Ex Cathedra, no Catholic is going to think he's undeniably correct.
As for the second point, you're mostly right. The most the Pope would've ever done in history was excommunicate you. Though some nations would've put you on trial and burned you after the Church had their heresy trial. But that's more about what you're saying, not who you're talking about.
The AC posited a question, but it was a rhetorical question. As he attempted to answer it right afterwards, saying in essence that the Pope is not infallible.
Galileo is pretty much the only person in the history of the Church's reign over the Western world that could be said to be persecuted. But here's the inconvenient truth of the matter, the Church had no issues with the underlying theory itself. And the kicker is, it was his own academic colleagues that pushed for him being punished. They all were students of Ptolemy's geocentric worldview.
It's just that he uses compartmentalized thinking to avoid applying those principles to certain cherished beliefs. Unfortunately, this sort of thinking is fairly common, even among those who understand science and skepticism, and it's not limited to religious thought.
At which point, his argument becomes irrelevant. But if I can add to this, I don't think whether the Pope or Catholics have "compartmentalized thinking" is really relevant. You use the scientific method when you want to prove or disprove natural events or processes. I don't see why you'd use it to determine if X belief is heretical to Catholicism. In the same way, you wouldn't use the scientific method to determine if X law is unconstitutional. The Constitution are your axioms that are used to logically derive your laws. The Catholic church clearly uses the scientific method when it comes to natural events. They use it when studying the stars, biology, etc. And they use it when determining if someone requires an Exorcism or if a miracle is real. Granted they may not be AS thorough and not seek to find a natural explanation for one of those events once they've exhausted what modern science can tell us. But their not going: "you say she's frothing at the mouth and convulsing? Throw some holy water on her." No they're going: "[same situation]? Take her to a doctor first and let's see if there's a medical issue here before we start shouting Bible passages and throwing holy water on her."
Slashdot Mirror
What when half a century earlier they were asking Copernicus to publish his works and others to speak on the subject? Heck, the commissioned Galileo to study heliocentrism in the first place!
How is it entrapment? They guy already did the crime. The FBI was trying to figure out who exactly he was. They didn't induce him to commit a crime.
They only emailed it to one person. FTFA:
The FBI e-mailed the fake news story via a link to a suspect's MySpace account. When the suspect clicked on the link, FBI software revealed his location and IP address to agents working the case. A juvenile suspect, who was not named by The Seattle Times, was arrested on June 14, 2007.
They also hadn't (quoting from pla), "'willfully' intended to trade on the owner's reputation or to cause dilution of the famous mark..."
Apologies, wires were crossed when I picked Keanu Reeves and Edward Scissorhands.
He'd get royalties of the movie sales, etc. But, that's whatever is specified in his contract. It's not because he owns the copyright to Edward Scissorhands as depicted in the movie. If the studios decided to make a sequel to the movie, then they could even though Johnny Depp doesn't want to do it. They could hire some other schmuck to play the part.
Bah, I was thinking Matrix at first and then the Tim Burton movie popped in my head. Sorry, Johnny Depp.
If it's observable indirectly, it's still technically observable though. I find what directly contradicts this axiom to be dark matter and dark energy. Both have never been observed, so how can they exist. If science is supposed to function based on what is observable, then how can we extrapolate theories and universal models that have unobservable things in them?
No, since 1927 when the theory was proposed by a Catholic priest.
I understand your point here, but if he wasn't actually found guilty of whatever they're trying to prosecute him with, he's still innocent until proven guilty. To do what you suggest, would allow the government to prevent a plaintiff from seeking legal recourse because they're awaiting prosecution of an unrelated issue.
It seems obvious to me that the person who came up with the idea and directed it's creation is the copyright holder. Does Keanu Reeves own the copyright for Edward Scissorhands? No. Even though he used his creative talent to actually create the character for its audience. Likewise, if I hire someone to take wedding photos, then the photo copyrights are mine, as I commissioned the person to take them.
I never understood why they changed this... used to be, okay my connection sucks. Let me just wait for the video to load and I'll watch it. Now it's, well my connection sucks, I can't watch youtube videos; or watching them becomes a chore.
Yeah, but where does the money we're paying them go to? Aren't there youtubers that rely on adsense profits? If the ads are gone from the videos, how are they making money? I can't possibly see how Google would divvy up the profits of the subscriptions to the youtube channels making money off their videos.
If I may, a more apt metaphor may be...this question seems like asking a cave man if we should invent flame throwers.
No not really. To apologize for trying Galileo for heresy is not say that they disagreed with the heliocentric theory nor that they now agree with it. Trying someone for heresy is to try someone for practicing or evangelizing a belief that is contradictory to Church doctrine. The church obviously had no problem with heliocentrism, if they a) didn't persecute Copernicus and in fact an arch-bishop from Rome encouraged him to publish a full version of his theory; and b) didn't persecute Johann Albrecht Widmannstetter who gave a lecture in Rome about it, and who was heard with interest by the Pope and several Cardinals. What happened to Galileo was political shenanigans. Look at the time period he was in, the Protestant reformation was at it's height. The Church at that time was hypersensitive to anyone or anything that challenged their authority. Galileo kind of challenged the Pope's authority while espousing the heliocentric theory. And that's why the Church apologized (however late) for trying him for heresy. It was an overreaction on their part.
I was typing and going to say that my worry is that someone is going to peg this as when the Church finally agreed with this stuff, and then I'd have to (hopefully calmly explain) the Church as never been dismissive of the theories...but I realized...I already do this all the time...
Let me rephrase this and make this even more accurate...
The quote is: ""The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
The commonality that I'm talking is being strictly qualified right there in the passage. Angels and God both know of good and evil. That's the commonality that humans now possess along with Angels and God.
As is being quoted, "like one of us." Angels and God are both immortal, therefore if humans become immortal too, then humans would be "like one of us." That statement in no way implies that Angels and God are the same type of thing. It's like if I was talking to a chimp and said, "if dogs grow opposable thumbs then they'll be like one of us."
Hmm, I feel like the one complements the other. The Christian God is an omnipotent and omniscient deity. In order to be such a deity, said deity would more than likely have to be the "prime mover." The Jews believed that God created existence well before having a lot of interaction with Greek philosophy.
Agree pretty much. Maybe I'm splitting hairs, or maybe I'm projecting the arguments of others with regards to this subject. But it seems to me that his conclusion would mean that the Pope is and was never infallible. Whereas, given the correct information, the correct statement is, the Pope is sometimes infallible.
I guess you can say I misspoke. I thought the qualifier was obvious given the context of the discussion. We're talking about the church being anti-science and persecuting people espousing scientific theories. So the qualifier I should've added was, "...that could be said to be persecuted because of their scientific theory." Persecution of heretics, i.e. Christians who have a different interpretation of Christianity, and of those with differing religious beliefs, would not be a part of what I was talking about.
That's all well and good, but if something can't exist that's unobservable; then the assumption must be made that our ability to observe the universe is absolute.
Catholics don't get to interpret religious doctrines on their own. That's the WHOLE point of the Protestant schism! The Pope can say 2+2 = fish all day long, but if he's not speaking Ex Cathedra, no Catholic is going to think he's undeniably correct.
As for the second point, you're mostly right. The most the Pope would've ever done in history was excommunicate you. Though some nations would've put you on trial and burned you after the Church had their heresy trial. But that's more about what you're saying, not who you're talking about.
The AC posited a question, but it was a rhetorical question. As he attempted to answer it right afterwards, saying in essence that the Pope is not infallible.
Galileo is pretty much the only person in the history of the Church's reign over the Western world that could be said to be persecuted. But here's the inconvenient truth of the matter, the Church had no issues with the underlying theory itself. And the kicker is, it was his own academic colleagues that pushed for him being punished. They all were students of Ptolemy's geocentric worldview.
It's just that he uses compartmentalized thinking to avoid applying those principles to certain cherished beliefs. Unfortunately, this sort of thinking is fairly common, even among those who understand science and skepticism, and it's not limited to religious thought.
At which point, his argument becomes irrelevant. But if I can add to this, I don't think whether the Pope or Catholics have "compartmentalized thinking" is really relevant. You use the scientific method when you want to prove or disprove natural events or processes. I don't see why you'd use it to determine if X belief is heretical to Catholicism. In the same way, you wouldn't use the scientific method to determine if X law is unconstitutional. The Constitution are your axioms that are used to logically derive your laws. The Catholic church clearly uses the scientific method when it comes to natural events. They use it when studying the stars, biology, etc. And they use it when determining if someone requires an Exorcism or if a miracle is real. Granted they may not be AS thorough and not seek to find a natural explanation for one of those events once they've exhausted what modern science can tell us. But their not going: "you say she's frothing at the mouth and convulsing? Throw some holy water on her." No they're going: "[same situation]? Take her to a doctor first and let's see if there's a medical issue here before we start shouting Bible passages and throwing holy water on her."