Amen. I just cannot ever see myself making a conscious decision to lay my bike down. I'd rather stay upright, on the rubber, on the clutch and on the front brake as much as possible to bleed off speed. In the average urban accident scenario, a rider has two seconds to react. In that time I can go from 35mph to 0 without skidding (and yes I practice regularly).
Today's tyre compounds have way more friction than your fairings, you're in control right up until the point of impact (if any) and twin caliper front brakes are insanely good on modern machines.
You're dead right that as soon as you lay your bike down, all bets are off about stopping distance and control.
Or did you manage to usefully run X11 on a 486 PC with 8 MB of RAM?
Very usefully. I had a Cirrus Logic card and Slackware ran X with fvwm without problems in 1994. I had a big virtual desktop and remember running various X apps including lander, eyes, roach, the xv image viewer, emacs, some ancient mpeg player and loads of others.
Thanks for the heads up - looks like sha256 for me from here on in just to be safe. That having been said, in our courts someone would have to demonstrate how to perform such a plant with successful collision to be taken seriously. Hand-waving in the face of odds to the order of one in a few quintillion doesn't cut it.
Ouch dude, sorry to hear that - I've done more than my fair share of computer evidence seizures and the procedure in my country leaves no room for planting evidence anywhere.
1. md5sum the suspect drive image 2. dd it to an acquisition drive 3. md5 the acquired image and the checksums must match 4. All of this with you and your lawyer and the plaintiff's lawyer (if applicable) present so that you can make notes of the md5sum, the size of the image, the drive serial number and so on.
The acquired image is left with the police and any analysis must be done on an exact copy. Any planting of evidence by any party would show up in court.
How the heck should I know if they were frightened. You want to state their beliefs as fact simply because Nero gave it attention?
The growth of early Christianity is a powerful piece of evidence that can't be explained away easily. It took from the mid 30s AD to the mid 60s AD for this new movement to not only spread from an obscure province of the Roman Empire to Rome itself, but attract enough attention that the emperor - the most powerful man in the world then - could use followers as a scapegoat.
Hmmm.... Okay. Maybe then if Bill Gates acknowledged the Tooth Fairy she would be real.... simply because a bunch of people started saying it and he noticed it. I am sure pragmatism had nothing to do with anything back then.
Really? Eyewitness accounts? From 2,000 years ago? Well Golly Gee Willickers! I stand corrected.
Well don't take my word for it. Go away and do years of study on textual criticism, ancient near east history, archaeology, Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic and associated literature from that time and you'll be properly equipped to determine whether the NT documents are eyewitness accounts or not.
Trying saying that out loud a couple times and then think about it some more. There is no forensic proof. Loyalty has nothing to do with Faith. Faithfulness can be synonymous with Loyalty, but Loyalty does not automatically imply faith.
The opposite of my definition would be belief based on factual material evidence and logical proof. A word for that might be reason.
That is a problem with people in religion. They like to confuse words to support their own faith. Faith, Belief, Reason, Skepticism (spelled correctly), Logic, etc. are all words that we should use correctly when communicating our ideas. The original point of my post.
Indeed. So when I read the word "faith" in the original language of the documents on which I base my belief, I went back to see how it would have been understood by the original audience. And the word "pistis" in Greek means either forensic evidence or assurance sometimes, faithfulness sometimes or loyalty to a patron sometimes. It does _not_ mean blind belief in nonsense or something that you know ain't so. In fact the authors keep telling their readers to go check things out for themselves and to use their eyes and ears and minds.
BTW, I'm not from the US - sceptic is how I spell it.
You C A N N O T prove that god exists, or more accurately, change your sets of beliefs from being based on intangible and irrational assumptions TO proven and repeatable results from experiments derived from logical theories about material evidence being presented.
Two things here: it is _reasonable_ to conclude from every piece of evidence we have (and we have a great deal: testimonies from both friendly and hostile sources, archaeology and history) that a man Jesus who claimed to be divine rose from the dead, thus vindicating what he claimed before he was executed. I prefer to base my beliefs on events in space-time history not intangible and irrational assumptions.
Second thing: proven and repeatable results from experiments from logical theories about material evidence being presented don't apply to _any_ historical event at all, so your point is moot. Do we know Abraham Lincoln existed? Sure - there's historical evidence of what he did, there are four biographies written about him by eyewitnesses, each with a different slant although some bits are clearly using the same sources (sound familiar?) and there's other references to him in recorded works of the day. Perhaps you'd like to construct an experiment to _prove_ Abe existed.
God does not have an email address, you can't find him in a Starbucks sipping a Frappachino, and he will not be visiting orphans tomorr
None of them are based on any factual evidence at all. That is what faith means. Belief in the absence of logical proof, and material evidence.
No factual evidence at all - riiight. A handful of frightened men just suddenly started a movement that was large enough to attract the attention of Nero within a generation? And those thousands of copies of eyewitness accounts just sprang from nowhere I suppose?
Besides, faith in the New Testament documents means either forensic proof, loyalty or faithfulness - just the opposite of your definition. Do I believe William Ramsay who spent a lifetime digging up the Middle East verifying the accuracy of the NT documents or some random slashdotter? Choices, choices...
If this is what passes for reasoned scepticism these days, then bring it on.
Pure genius and probably the first time I've laughed out loud at something to do with regexes. Hats off to you sir.
For those of you who don't know the reference: Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll use regular expressions." Now they have two problems. --Jamie Zawinski, in comp.lang.emacs
I'm going to undo my mods to answer this (sorry Naughty Bob). The Qur'an has no context at all and people who have bothered to read it realise that immediately. If you want to make some sense of the sayings in it you need to plough through several thousand other documents which purport to offer the historial context for it.
This is why Christians who have done their homework are unimpressed with the claims of the Qur'an. The crucifiction of Jesus is the most widely attested event in ancient history by any standard. It is described within the new testament documents using historical eyewitness methods and cross-referenced by several hostile sources. The NT documents contain the historial context within them - the Qur'an has none. But the author of the Qur'an pops up more than half a millenium later and says "nope, it didn't happen. You all thought it did but it didn't."
That's not good enough, sorry. I could claim right here and now that I was an eyewitness to the fact that Leonardo da Vinci was secretly a Japanese samurai - with about the same credibility because we're also separated by 500+ years.
Now it's entirely possible that the kernel developers never heard of this obscure nuance of the Intel processor.
Far from being an obscure nuance, CLD and STD are just ordinary instructions which tell the processor which direction the next SCAS, LODS or STOS intruction must go. They are explained very early on in most assembly tutorials that I've come across.
A kernel developer who's never heard of the processor's direction flag has no business writing kernel code.
Not that idealised. Steve Yegge's blog contains a delightful story about Amazon's original customer service system which ran under emacs and was written in elisp, mainly (I think) by him. He says he was cornered at a reunion by some secretaries who preferred the old emacs system because it was so easy to customise.
People program stuff all the time quite happily if they don't know it's programming:)
Couldn't agree with you more. But many critics think they're being insightful by calling the NT documents fiction or fairy tales or unreliable, entirely without credentials or evidence.
If you want fiction, there's quite a wide range to choose from on the subject of the New Testament documents. Apparently people don't like what they have to say and so prefer to jump through all sorts of hoops to show they're anything other than sober cross-referenced eyewitness accounts.
I think that reaction tells me all I need to know about how good a use of my time it would be to try to correct the author. He's all about playing word-games: taking a dictionary definition of pistis as "pledge, guarantee" in a legal context, and stretching that to claim it is primarily about evidence and proof -- in a philosophical context.
Sorry but what philosophical context would that be? When Peter, a simple fisherman, uses the word in Acts 17 it means assurance - the empty tomb, cross-referenced eyewitness kind of assurance that comes from evidence that can be checked out. He's not discussing philosophy.
I'll be happy to try to explain Greek to people who actually want to know, but in this case... life's too short.
I'm all ears - seriously. If you've got Malina's credentials or better then I'd love to hear the counter-argument. I think you would need to show how a) the christian's relationship with God was _not_ understood as a client-patron relationship in the NT and b) how and where pistis means the blind faith thing. I have a couple of years of studying Wenham under my belt so I'm not completely ignorant.
I teach ancient Greek. Everything that author claims is founded solely on internal evidence from four texts using words in unusual contexts.
By all means correct him then. J.P. Holding loves nothing more than someone pointing out where he's wrong. Someone's already tried though and this is his answer:
My article contained solid data from parallel uses of pistis in the Greco-Roman world; data from scholars who were specialists in ancient anthropology of the Mediterranean (Malina, Neyrey, deSilva) -- and Gleeson is saying that this is a matter of it being "not in line with my own Biblical interpretation"? It's as simple as this: either the "standard view" is right, or I (and Malina, Neyrey, etc) are right, and the other is wrong, or both are wrong. Gleeson doesn't even mention in his article that there are parallel definitions in Quintillian and Aristotle, or the context of the Greco-Roman client-patron relationship,
You say: About the only claims there that are consistent with non-biblical usage are (1) that pisteuo means "to rely on, trust in", which does not support the general argument;
But that's exactly the point. The NT is full of adherents of this new movement telling people to go check it out, use their eyes and ears and confirm the evidence for themselves. Faith is an action based on reaction to this evidence.
(2) when he cites someone else to assert that "faith" can usefully be thought of as "framed in terms of an ancient client-patron relationship". There is no necessary connection with proof or evidence,
Uh huh. I suppose if my patron beat and abused me then it would be blind faith indeed to trust him as a good master.
The word translated as "faith" in the biblical documents means assurance based on a track record or forensic proof i.e. just the opposite of belief without proof. See here for a longer explanation.
Christians need to spend more time studying what those original authors meant.
A little-known modification of this trick is to do it in deep lava. Most of the time you would take out the people standing next to it. Worked like a charm in crowded DM4 games if you needed a few easy frags but wasn't 100% reliable so you looked like a real muppet when it didn't come off.
I know it seems strange but there is a very good reason why I use emacs and that's because I'm learning Common Lisp. I tried sticking with Vim but the problem is that there is no natural integration between Vim and any lisp - it's a real hack to communicate between the two. Very good programmers have tried and failed to solve this problem.
Emacs on the other hand integrates very naturally with most lisps because it is written in a dialect of Lisp itself. The combination of emacs + SLIME + Steel Bank Common Lisp is a formidable development environment. But the Vim keys are in my DNA now after using them for so long, hence the use of vimpulse. I can navigate and edit as I've always done but in a very Lisp friendly environment.
Here is another explanation done by one of the developers whose Vim tools I was using.
If only this were true. The Brits basically hollowed out the IRA from the inside by infesting it with double agents. The Provos military leadership pretty much collapsed once no-one could be trusted. It was a dirty, vicious and highly effective campaign. Google Stakeknife and Kevin Fulton for more info.
Paranoia not required, just a sober look at Microsoft's history of first supporting then abandoning what few apps it's bothered to port to other platforms.
Slashdot Mirror
Amen. I just cannot ever see myself making a conscious decision to lay my bike down. I'd rather stay upright, on the rubber, on the clutch and on the front brake as much as possible to bleed off speed. In the average urban accident scenario, a rider has two seconds to react. In that time I can go from 35mph to 0 without skidding (and yes I practice regularly).
Today's tyre compounds have way more friction than your fairings, you're in control right up until the point of impact (if any) and twin caliper front brakes are insanely good on modern machines.
You're dead right that as soon as you lay your bike down, all bets are off about stopping distance and control.
Although there's still an inch of water sloshing around in the bottom of the case and two books on why you should remove hard drives...
Or did you manage to usefully run X11 on a 486 PC with 8 MB of RAM?
Very usefully. I had a Cirrus Logic card and Slackware ran X with fvwm without problems in 1994. I had a big virtual desktop and remember running various X apps including lander, eyes, roach, the xv image viewer, emacs, some ancient mpeg player and loads of others.
Thanks for the heads up - looks like sha256 for me from here on in just to be safe. That having been said, in our courts someone would have to demonstrate how to perform such a plant with successful collision to be taken seriously. Hand-waving in the face of odds to the order of one in a few quintillion doesn't cut it.
Ouch dude, sorry to hear that - I've done more than my fair share of computer evidence seizures and the procedure in my country leaves no room for planting evidence anywhere.
1. md5sum the suspect drive image
2. dd it to an acquisition drive
3. md5 the acquired image and the checksums must match
4. All of this with you and your lawyer and the plaintiff's lawyer (if applicable) present so that you can make notes of the md5sum, the size of the image, the drive serial number and so on.
The acquired image is left with the police and any analysis must be done on an exact copy. Any planting of evidence by any party would show up in court.
How the heck should I know if they were frightened. You want to state their beliefs as fact simply because Nero gave it attention?
The growth of early Christianity is a powerful piece of evidence that can't be explained away easily. It took from the mid 30s AD to the mid 60s AD for this new movement to not only spread from an obscure province of the Roman Empire to Rome itself, but attract enough attention that the emperor - the most powerful man in the world then - could use followers as a scapegoat.
Hmmm.... Okay. Maybe then if Bill Gates acknowledged the Tooth Fairy she would be real.... simply because a bunch of people started saying it and he noticed it. I am sure pragmatism had nothing to do with anything back then.
Actually, it was the most sceptical, disbelieving and hostile environment for a new religion possible. See here:
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html
Really? Eyewitness accounts? From 2,000 years ago? Well Golly Gee Willickers! I stand corrected.
Well don't take my word for it. Go away and do years of study on textual criticism, ancient near east history, archaeology, Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic and associated literature from that time and you'll be properly equipped to determine whether the NT documents are eyewitness accounts or not.
Trying saying that out loud a couple times and then think about it some more. There is no forensic proof. Loyalty has nothing to do with Faith. Faithfulness can be synonymous with Loyalty, but Loyalty does not automatically imply faith.
The opposite of my definition would be belief based on factual material evidence and logical proof. A word for that might be reason.
That is a problem with people in religion. They like to confuse words to support their own faith. Faith, Belief, Reason, Skepticism (spelled correctly), Logic, etc. are all words that we should use correctly when communicating our ideas. The original point of my post.
Indeed. So when I read the word "faith" in the original language of the documents on which I base my belief, I went back to see how it would have been understood by the original audience. And the word "pistis" in Greek means either forensic evidence or assurance sometimes, faithfulness sometimes or loyalty to a patron sometimes. It does _not_ mean blind belief in nonsense or something that you know ain't so. In fact the authors keep telling their readers to go check things out for themselves and to use their eyes and ears and minds.
BTW, I'm not from the US - sceptic is how I spell it.
You C A N N O T prove that god exists, or more accurately, change your sets of beliefs from being based on intangible and irrational assumptions TO proven and repeatable results from experiments derived from logical theories about material evidence being presented.
Two things here: it is _reasonable_ to conclude from every piece of evidence we have (and we have a great deal: testimonies from both friendly and hostile sources, archaeology and history) that a man Jesus who claimed to be divine rose from the dead, thus vindicating what he claimed before he was executed. I prefer to base my beliefs on events in space-time history not intangible and irrational assumptions.
Second thing: proven and repeatable results from experiments from logical theories about material evidence being presented don't apply to _any_ historical event at all, so your point is moot. Do we know Abraham Lincoln existed? Sure - there's historical evidence of what he did, there are four biographies written about him by eyewitnesses, each with a different slant although some bits are clearly using the same sources (sound familiar?) and there's other references to him in recorded works of the day. Perhaps you'd like to construct an experiment to _prove_ Abe existed.
God does not have an email address, you can't find him in a Starbucks sipping a Frappachino, and he will not be visiting orphans tomorr
None of them are based on any factual evidence at all. That is what faith means. Belief in the absence of logical proof, and material evidence.
No factual evidence at all - riiight. A handful of frightened men just suddenly started a movement that was large enough to attract the attention of Nero within a generation? And those thousands of copies of eyewitness accounts just sprang from nowhere I suppose?
Besides, faith in the New Testament documents means either forensic proof, loyalty or faithfulness - just the opposite of your definition. Do I believe William Ramsay who spent a lifetime digging up the Middle East verifying the accuracy of the NT documents or some random slashdotter? Choices, choices...
If this is what passes for reasoned scepticism these days, then bring it on.
Pure genius and probably the first time I've laughed out loud at something to do with regexes. Hats off to you sir.
For those of you who don't know the reference:
Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll use regular expressions."
Now they have two problems. --Jamie Zawinski, in comp.lang.emacs
I'm going to undo my mods to answer this (sorry Naughty Bob). The Qur'an has no context at all and people who have bothered to read it realise that immediately. If you want to make some sense of the sayings in it you need to plough through several thousand other documents which purport to offer the historial context for it.
This is why Christians who have done their homework are unimpressed with the claims of the Qur'an. The crucifiction of Jesus is the most widely attested event in ancient history by any standard. It is described within the new testament documents using historical eyewitness methods and cross-referenced by several hostile sources. The NT documents contain the historial context within them - the Qur'an has none. But the author of the Qur'an pops up more than half a millenium later and says "nope, it didn't happen. You all thought it did but it didn't."
That's not good enough, sorry. I could claim right here and now that I was an eyewitness to the fact that Leonardo da Vinci was secretly a Japanese samurai - with about the same credibility because we're also separated by 500+ years.
Fair enough. I'm sure we'll be kept abreast of progress by Groklaw and the like.
:)
Oh yeah, and thanks for Docvert
Hey Matthew - care to name the Microsoft employee who slandered you? Grant Thomas's reply just says
To: [name]@microsoft.com
Now it's entirely possible that the kernel developers never heard of this obscure nuance of the Intel processor.
Far from being an obscure nuance, CLD and STD are just ordinary instructions which tell the processor which direction the next SCAS, LODS or STOS intruction must go. They are explained very early on in most assembly tutorials that I've come across.
A kernel developer who's never heard of the processor's direction flag has no business writing kernel code.
Not that idealised. Steve Yegge's blog contains a delightful story about Amazon's original customer service system which ran under emacs and was written in elisp, mainly (I think) by him. He says he was cornered at a reunion by some secretaries who preferred the old emacs system because it was so easy to customise.
:)
People program stuff all the time quite happily if they don't know it's programming
Couldn't agree with you more. But many critics think they're being insightful by calling the NT documents fiction or fairy tales or unreliable, entirely without credentials or evidence.
If you want fiction, there's quite a wide range to choose from on the subject of the New Testament documents. Apparently people don't like what they have to say and so prefer to jump through all sorts of hoops to show they're anything other than sober cross-referenced eyewitness accounts.
I think that reaction tells me all I need to know about how good a use of my time it would be to try to correct the author. He's all about playing word-games: taking a dictionary definition of pistis as "pledge, guarantee" in a legal context, and stretching that to claim it is primarily about evidence and proof -- in a philosophical context.
... life's too short.
Sorry but what philosophical context would that be? When Peter, a simple fisherman, uses the word in Acts 17 it means assurance - the empty tomb, cross-referenced eyewitness kind of assurance that comes from evidence that can be checked out. He's not discussing philosophy.
I'll be happy to try to explain Greek to people who actually want to know, but in this case
I'm all ears - seriously. If you've got Malina's credentials or better then I'd love to hear the counter-argument. I think you would need to show how a) the christian's relationship with God was _not_ understood as a client-patron relationship in the NT and b) how and where pistis means the blind faith thing. I have a couple of years of studying Wenham under my belt so I'm not completely ignorant.
I teach ancient Greek. Everything that author claims is founded solely on internal evidence from four texts using words in unusual contexts.
By all means correct him then. J.P. Holding loves nothing more than someone pointing out where he's wrong. Someone's already tried though and this is his answer:
My article contained solid data from parallel uses of pistis in the Greco-Roman world; data from scholars who were specialists in ancient anthropology of the Mediterranean (Malina, Neyrey, deSilva) -- and Gleeson is saying that this is a matter of it being "not in line with my own Biblical interpretation"? It's as simple as this: either the "standard view" is right, or I (and Malina, Neyrey, etc) are right, and the other is wrong, or both are wrong. Gleeson doesn't even mention in his article that there are parallel definitions in Quintillian and Aristotle, or the context of the Greco-Roman client-patron relationship,
From here.
You say:
About the only claims there that are consistent with non-biblical usage are (1) that pisteuo means "to rely on, trust in", which does not support the general argument;
But that's exactly the point. The NT is full of adherents of this new movement telling people to go check it out, use their eyes and ears and confirm the evidence for themselves. Faith is an action based on reaction to this evidence.
(2) when he cites someone else to assert that "faith" can usefully be thought of as "framed in terms of an ancient client-patron relationship". There is no necessary connection with proof or evidence,
Uh huh. I suppose if my patron beat and abused me then it would be blind faith indeed to trust him as a good master.
Belief without proof is faith.
The word translated as "faith" in the biblical documents means assurance based on a track record or forensic proof i.e. just the opposite of belief without proof. See here for a longer explanation.
Christians need to spend more time studying what those original authors meant.
A little-known modification of this trick is to do it in deep lava. Most of the time you would take out the people standing next to it. Worked like a charm in crowded DM4 games if you needed a few easy frags but wasn't 100% reliable so you looked like a real muppet when it didn't come off.
Weird that 2 almost always involves 3, just not in a geological sense.
I know it seems strange but there is a very good reason why I use emacs and that's because I'm learning Common Lisp. I tried sticking with Vim but the problem is that there is no natural integration between Vim and any lisp - it's a real hack to communicate between the two. Very good programmers have tried and failed to solve this problem.
Emacs on the other hand integrates very naturally with most lisps because it is written in a dialect of Lisp itself. The combination of emacs + SLIME + Steel Bank Common Lisp is a formidable development environment. But the Vim keys are in my DNA now after using them for so long, hence the use of vimpulse. I can navigate and edit as I've always done but in a very Lisp friendly environment.
Here is another explanation done by one of the developers whose Vim tools I was using.
And there's a good VIM emulator as well in vimpulse. It supports visual mode too the lack of which was a show-stopper for me when I first tried viper.
So is crossing the streams good or bad?
If only this were true. The Brits basically hollowed out the IRA from the inside by infesting it with double agents. The Provos military leadership pretty much collapsed once no-one could be trusted. It was a dirty, vicious and highly effective campaign. Google Stakeknife and Kevin Fulton for more info.
Paranoia not required, just a sober look at Microsoft's history of first supporting then abandoning what few apps it's bothered to port to other platforms.