It's very easy to take things out of context, the liberal media does this a lot.
Regarding Matt.19:29, Jesus is talking about a young man who is a ruler. Jesus aserts that in order for him to be a true disciple, he must not only pledge himself to Jesus, but also give up his "family". But it's not about any person giving up each person's family, but this one guy who has a family history of wealth and greed to give up that life, the life preached to him by his father, for a better one with Christ. This is actually a similar point in Luke.14:26, the idea is to give up the teachings of your father, the wealth and greed associated with that culture, and change.
I can basically sit here all day explaining the full context of each passage, but that takes a lot of time I really do not have. Besides, you may not be willing to listen (well, you aren't willing to listen), so the effort is pointless. I am also not an "expert" in the Bible, but I know how to read around the text to understand the full meaning. Unlike yourself who obviously pasted that from some other site you googled.
But yes, there are certainly some things in the Bible that seem unusual to us today, but in the times of Jesus, they were relevant, such as slavery. At the time, slavery was common, but in the example you mention in Luke.12:42-8, it's about obeying and doing what is proper and appropriate. In this particular case, the trusted slave which is the subject of the parable, chooses to disobey his master by beating the other slaves and eats their food and drinks their water. When looking at it, this would seem to greatly compare to work situations today for which a person works for someone else, disobeys them, and how they should be treated ( maybe a lashing is out of question in a corporate world, but the equivalent buttkicking ).
Hey, this sure seems to me that the only reason this story was posted and accepted by the/. zealots is to once again bash Christianity. Otherwise, this isn't news.
In any case, the Catholic church has been in a weird position for several years. Although they tend to be the most "up front" politically when it comes to such things as baby killing, baby replicating, and contraception (or lack thereof), they are surely not the only Christian organization to have opinions on such things. The Orthodox church, for instance, has welcomed science as a part of our lives. The idea we believe is that there are philosophical differences with what science will teach us. In the most common point of view, and the one espoused by the liberal nut jobs who frequent this forum, is that science will disprove God and religion. On the other hand, there are a fairly decent sized group of us within the Orthodox church that believe science will prove there is, indeed, a God.
I know the nut jobs will point to books like Genesis with responses like, "OMFG HOW CAN THE EARTH BE CREATED IN ONLY 7 DAYS ROFL THAT'S SILLY YOU STUPID CHRISTIAN", they fail to see the bigger picture and story of the book of Genesis, which is not necessarily about the creation of Heaven and Earth, but the creation of the relationship between God and man.
In any case, I'm sure you're fuming by now, so flame on! Ready?! GO!
1) OSS coders would be responsible for their code, and if a security bug was found that, oh, caused some big disclosure of personal information under some law like HIPAA, then the coders could/would be sued by a corporation that ran the software. Thus, coders would NOT contribute to OSS, thus killing OSS.
or
2) OSS software would be exempt from such a rule, meaning that implementation of OSS software by a company would mean it would become liable for it's misuse due a flaw that was coded by someone else. If I was in the shoes of any VP who analyzes risk, I would be like, "STAY AWAY FROM OSS", thus killing OSS. For those companies that do decide to implement OSS Knowing the risks, they will increase their prices, driving their customers to cheaper vendors, taking said company out of business... thus kiling OSS.
Democrats (assembly, governor and senators). Although, the number has been around for some time, and I can not be sure who was governor when it was enacted (although it was still a democratic assembly).
Yes, I know people who have called up the police on others who have attempted to drive while drunk. Why? To save a lief (or two or twenty). I have also witnessed people calling in traffic offenses, and in New Jersey, they even established a seperate 800 number for people to complain to (866-4-SAFE-NJ I belief is the number).
Ever hear of "citizen's arrest" ?? Yes, that's people taking responsibility and not relying on the government to do everything. It's part of being a RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN and caring about what happens in your community / state / country.
What do you think a witness is? Someone spying on someone else doing something! How do you think prosecutors actually convict murderers? There isn't always a police officer around when someone's getting shot. Usually it's a witness who was "spying" and turning someone in. What about when police officers get caught on video tape beating someone they just pulled out of a car? That was "spying", right? With a video camera nonetheless! To catch a crime, in the act, by a responsible citizen!
What difference is it about how much data we collect? Or how much the NSA collects? If my company had significantly more data to mine, we'd hire mrore people to mine it. I'm sure the NSA and FBI would do the same thing. Signature based analysis of data is still a real good solution for analyzing it in a quick manner, sifting out any irregularities, and analyzing them. To date, there is no better method for analyzing such a large amount of data.
You make too many assumptions. How do we know this system is not tested? Probably classified. In fact, based on general knowledge of the NSA, they have better methods of performing these tasks than the private section (and more computing power). You assume the system is not testing and does not work. Therefore, your assumption leads you to believe that the system has not been tweaked, enhanced, re-examined and updated with new and better signatures that provide more accurate results.
Finally, your assumption is that this activity is illegal (although I wanted to keep this part of the discussion out of my posts, some people just cant keep politics out of the technological discussion), and as of right now, this activity is legal until a judge rules otherwise. So while you may not like it, it's not illegal. I don't like welfare, but that doesn't make it illegal.
Basically, what it comes down to, your political point of views are clouding your judgement about the viability of the solution to solve the problem. That's why I wanted to leave politics out of the discussion, but you bringing it up proves your opinion of the technological merits of the discussion are clouded.
Dismissing the legality and morality of doing this...
Let's look how most Network Intrusion Detection Systems work today, including the OSS favorite Snort.
We start off with a bunch if signatures. These signatures are analyzed against including network traffic. A signature is matched, an alert is sent out (syslog, mysql, whatever) and my little console displays the alert. I analyze, determine it's a "false alert". I try to tune it out, maybe, depending on frequency and annoyance, and continue on to the next (false?) alert. If the alert is deemed true, I determine if we were hacked or if something more serious is going on. Usually, I get other people involved.
Sounds like the NSA's system is very similar to the job of our favorite IDS operator. In fact, it's exactly the same thing. Some softwatre looks for patterns in telephone network traffic. Once these patterns are found, they do a quick check (basic analysis) to confirm the pattern has matched. Then, the alert is passed on to a different team to investigate whether there is a more serious event or not.
Are there false positives? Yes. Are there false negatives? Yes. Does this mean the method is ineffective? No. Does this mean it should be shut down? No. If it did, why am I, and thousands of others, getting paid for everyday?
I'm going to sue the New Zealand government to force them to re-examine the citizenship of Peter Calveley after his poor acting performance when he approached me posing as a woman outside of a bar in Auckland.
This is the perfect example of what happens when OSS fails itself. The OpenSSH source is open to anyone, and under the BSD license, anyone can use it for any reason. So what's happening? You have a great software product used by millions of people and they are running into financial hardships. This could result in this great software product being at risk of being undeveloped and unsupported in the near future.
Would it be too much for OpenSSH to go to a model that requires people to spend a meer $1 per server installation per year? That's at least $1 million in anual income which is more than enough to cover expenses and development.
I seem to remember the same arguement about Mono vs Stereo, but I think this guy's argument is similar to the "who would need a computer in their home?" and "we only will ever need 640K of memory" arguments made in the computer industry.
I work for a healthcare company, and we have already attempted to block Google Desktop at our proxies. There are HIPAA concerns with allowing users to transfer personal data between their work machines and . But we're not the only ones, banks and other healthcare companies will eventually do the same.
Hopefully this will be sufficient. If not, we will need to block access to all of Google, which would seriously upset many people within the company, and of course this will cascade to other organizations. Will Google be happy it's pissing off a bunch of Fortune 50 companies?
I just called Apple and confirmed that all 1.67 orders will be upgraded to 1.83 and all 1.83 orders will be upgraded to 2.0. You should receive an email about the changes with any revised shipping date within the next day or two.
I had the same question, I had ordered the 1.83ghz and didn't want to get screwed by this little change in plans.
That's definately an unfair assessment. Long before the government decided to take over housing for the homeless and housing for parentless children, it was the Catholic church. Not only did it take them in, it educated them.
Christians donate to their churches, and let their churches decide how the money is best spent. Homes for the homeless and parentless children was one such example.
In my church, I donate money and clothing to the chruch, and then the church turns around the donates to other organizations, one of which being a facility to help the mentally challenged.
If I did not donate to any other agency, would you judge me?
What's interesting is that you judge Christians, yet can you say you're without sin? So do you have the right to judge anyone, even if they are not Christian? No.
Plus, judging all Christians by an act of a few is called prejudiced. Imagine if you were talking about African Americans or Jews.
Actually, if you click the little link for the graphic that actually shows the questions asked, the actual question was:
After 9/11, President Bush authorized government wiretaps on some phone calls in the U.S. without getting court warrants, saying it was necessary to reduce the threat of terrorism. Do you approve or disapprove of this?
The only logical conclusion, now, is that the NYTimes are inaccurately reporting their own polls. Heck, they inaccurately report a lot of things, why not their own polls.
Not to mention, the poll questions do not reflect reality, or at least do not fully represent the actual usage of the wiretaps. The poll question should have been:
After 9/11, President Bush authorized government wiretaps on some phone calls between the U.S. and specific foreign countries without getting court warrants, saying it was necessary to reduce the threat of terrorism. Do you approve or disapprove of this?
That would be more accurate, as the truth is that even according to the original NY Times article, this is what the wiretaps were used for. In seems that has graduated to "domestic wiretapping" for the NY Times, Clinto News Network (CNN), etc. It does not represent reality.
The only reason I can figure this is on slashdot is to give the anti-religion fiends more blood to drink. There is no eason this should be on slashdot, at all. We already know most people here don't like religion and don't support religious teachings in public schools, so do we need to have ANOTHER post about it?
Sure, Britons believe in ID and creationism. Guess what? MOST OF THE WORLD DOES! Yes, most of the world is, indeed, religious in one way or another, and of everyone that is religious, the top 5 religions, all believe in God or many Gods.
But Dark Matter is not the same level of made-up-ness than the christian God.
Actually, it's the EXACT SAME THING. Here's why.
Some 5000 or 10,000 or however long ago, people needed to explain their existance. They did this by inventing a "super being" which most people refer to as a God today. The super being explained why they existed. Although there is no *proof* of the existance of such a being, people believed it anyway because it explained why something was true.
Today, we use Dark Matter to explain why our calculations on gravity are true. We can't prove or disprove it's existance, we have no proof it's out there. Yet, physicists use dark matter in a similar way that people 5,000 years ago used God... it explains the answers to questions they can not scientifically answer.
NO! You cannot prove the existance of one thing by saying it's needed to prove something else. That is FLAWED SCIENCE! One does not say something exists because it's needed to prove something else. One says something exists and then shows how it impacts the world around it.
Oh and by the way, no church I have ever been to promised me anything or granted me anything for going there, so I don't know what kind of propaganda you've received about church.
Well, with all these theories flying around to try to figure out why science can't explain everything, I think we can fall back to the old reason.... God!
Dark matter theoretical... Graviton... theoretical.... God... theoretical!
Since we can't prove the exist of any of them, and in the words of some really smart guy I don't remember the name of, oh yeah, Sherlock Holmes, "When you eliminate all other possibilities, what remains, no matter how improbable, is the answer."... which has since been modified to "When the simplest explaination works, there is no need to look any further."
Uhm you link to Bose and Sennheiser... why? Bose makes a 'SoundDock' which connects to an iPod, but what portable music player do they make? And Sennheiser? They make headphones... and not portable music players.
As for the other two, they are indeed "lesser" and "inferior"./flaimbait
Acording to this article it seems Windows XP does indeed install on the Intel-based Macs. Apple has indicated they did not cripple the possibility. Why the discussion? I think this has more to do with people who dislike Apple than with actual facts.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux users also don't unzip and pull it out, which explain the yellow spots on their tighty-whiteys instead of their laptops.
It's very easy to take things out of context, the liberal media does this a lot.
Regarding Matt.19:29, Jesus is talking about a young man who is a ruler. Jesus aserts that in order for him to be a true disciple, he must not only pledge himself to Jesus, but also give up his "family". But it's not about any person giving up each person's family, but this one guy who has a family history of wealth and greed to give up that life, the life preached to him by his father, for a better one with Christ. This is actually a similar point in Luke.14:26, the idea is to give up the teachings of your father, the wealth and greed associated with that culture, and change.
I can basically sit here all day explaining the full context of each passage, but that takes a lot of time I really do not have. Besides, you may not be willing to listen (well, you aren't willing to listen), so the effort is pointless. I am also not an "expert" in the Bible, but I know how to read around the text to understand the full meaning. Unlike yourself who obviously pasted that from some other site you googled.
But yes, there are certainly some things in the Bible that seem unusual to us today, but in the times of Jesus, they were relevant, such as slavery. At the time, slavery was common, but in the example you mention in Luke.12:42-8, it's about obeying and doing what is proper and appropriate. In this particular case, the trusted slave which is the subject of the parable, chooses to disobey his master by beating the other slaves and eats their food and drinks their water. When looking at it, this would seem to greatly compare to work situations today for which a person works for someone else, disobeys them, and how they should be treated ( maybe a lashing is out of question in a corporate world, but the equivalent buttkicking ).
Hey, this sure seems to me that the only reason this story was posted and accepted by the /. zealots is to once again bash Christianity. Otherwise, this isn't news.
In any case, the Catholic church has been in a weird position for several years. Although they tend to be the most "up front" politically when it comes to such things as baby killing, baby replicating, and contraception (or lack thereof), they are surely not the only Christian organization to have opinions on such things. The Orthodox church, for instance, has welcomed science as a part of our lives. The idea we believe is that there are philosophical differences with what science will teach us. In the most common point of view, and the one espoused by the liberal nut jobs who frequent this forum, is that science will disprove God and religion. On the other hand, there are a fairly decent sized group of us within the Orthodox church that believe science will prove there is, indeed, a God.
I know the nut jobs will point to books like Genesis with responses like, "OMFG HOW CAN THE EARTH BE CREATED IN ONLY 7 DAYS ROFL THAT'S SILLY YOU STUPID CHRISTIAN", they fail to see the bigger picture and story of the book of Genesis, which is not necessarily about the creation of Heaven and Earth, but the creation of the relationship between God and man.
In any case, I'm sure you're fuming by now, so flame on! Ready?! GO!
This also occurs when you have a scratched CD or a memory problem. I would swap out your memory and try again.
Well, such a proposal has two possible outcomes:
1) OSS coders would be responsible for their code, and if a security bug was found that, oh, caused some big disclosure of personal information under some law like HIPAA, then the coders could/would be sued by a corporation that ran the software. Thus, coders would NOT contribute to OSS, thus killing OSS.
or
2) OSS software would be exempt from such a rule, meaning that implementation of OSS software by a company would mean it would become liable for it's misuse due a flaw that was coded by someone else. If I was in the shoes of any VP who analyzes risk, I would be like, "STAY AWAY FROM OSS", thus killing OSS. For those companies that do decide to implement OSS Knowing the risks, they will increase their prices, driving their customers to cheaper vendors, taking said company out of business... thus kiling OSS.
It's a lose-lose situation!
Democrats (assembly, governor and senators). Although, the number has been around for some time, and I can not be sure who was governor when it was enacted (although it was still a democratic assembly).
It's called being a responsible citizen.
Yes, I know people who have called up the police on others who have attempted to drive while drunk. Why? To save a lief (or two or twenty). I have also witnessed people calling in traffic offenses, and in New Jersey, they even established a seperate 800 number for people to complain to (866-4-SAFE-NJ I belief is the number).
Ever hear of "citizen's arrest" ?? Yes, that's people taking responsibility and not relying on the government to do everything. It's part of being a RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN and caring about what happens in your community / state / country.
What do you think a witness is? Someone spying on someone else doing something! How do you think prosecutors actually convict murderers? There isn't always a police officer around when someone's getting shot. Usually it's a witness who was "spying" and turning someone in. What about when police officers get caught on video tape beating someone they just pulled out of a car? That was "spying", right? With a video camera nonetheless! To catch a crime, in the act, by a responsible citizen!
God you liberals make me sick.
What difference is it about how much data we collect? Or how much the NSA collects? If my company had significantly more data to mine, we'd hire mrore people to mine it. I'm sure the NSA and FBI would do the same thing. Signature based analysis of data is still a real good solution for analyzing it in a quick manner, sifting out any irregularities, and analyzing them. To date, there is no better method for analyzing such a large amount of data.
You make too many assumptions. How do we know this system is not tested? Probably classified. In fact, based on general knowledge of the NSA, they have better methods of performing these tasks than the private section (and more computing power). You assume the system is not testing and does not work. Therefore, your assumption leads you to believe that the system has not been tweaked, enhanced, re-examined and updated with new and better signatures that provide more accurate results.
Finally, your assumption is that this activity is illegal (although I wanted to keep this part of the discussion out of my posts, some people just cant keep politics out of the technological discussion), and as of right now, this activity is legal until a judge rules otherwise. So while you may not like it, it's not illegal. I don't like welfare, but that doesn't make it illegal.
Basically, what it comes down to, your political point of views are clouding your judgement about the viability of the solution to solve the problem. That's why I wanted to leave politics out of the discussion, but you bringing it up proves your opinion of the technological merits of the discussion are clouded.
Dismissing the legality and morality of doing this...
Let's look how most Network Intrusion Detection Systems work today, including the OSS favorite Snort.
We start off with a bunch if signatures. These signatures are analyzed against including network traffic. A signature is matched, an alert is sent out (syslog, mysql, whatever) and my little console displays the alert. I analyze, determine it's a "false alert". I try to tune it out, maybe, depending on frequency and annoyance, and continue on to the next (false?) alert. If the alert is deemed true, I determine if we were hacked or if something more serious is going on. Usually, I get other people involved.
Sounds like the NSA's system is very similar to the job of our favorite IDS operator. In fact, it's exactly the same thing. Some softwatre looks for patterns in telephone network traffic. Once these patterns are found, they do a quick check (basic analysis) to confirm the pattern has matched. Then, the alert is passed on to a different team to investigate whether there is a more serious event or not.
Are there false positives? Yes. Are there false negatives? Yes. Does this mean the method is ineffective? No. Does this mean it should be shut down? No. If it did, why am I, and thousands of others, getting paid for everyday?
I'm going to sue the New Zealand government to force them to re-examine the citizenship of Peter Calveley after his poor acting performance when he approached me posing as a woman outside of a bar in Auckland.
Sure, I backed my hard drive up, first, but I had no issues. The biggest pain was getting my copy of XP updated to XP SP2 for the install.
Although, I haven't really found a use for XP on my macbook yet, but it's there... taking up 15GB of valuable hard drive space.
This is the perfect example of what happens when OSS fails itself. The OpenSSH source is open to anyone, and under the BSD license, anyone can use it for any reason. So what's happening? You have a great software product used by millions of people and they are running into financial hardships. This could result in this great software product being at risk of being undeveloped and unsupported in the near future.
Would it be too much for OpenSSH to go to a model that requires people to spend a meer $1 per server installation per year? That's at least $1 million in anual income which is more than enough to cover expenses and development.
I seem to remember the same arguement about Mono vs Stereo, but I think this guy's argument is similar to the "who would need a computer in their home?" and "we only will ever need 640K of memory" arguments made in the computer industry.
I work for a healthcare company, and we have already attempted to block Google Desktop at our proxies. There are HIPAA concerns with allowing users to transfer personal data between their work machines and . But we're not the only ones, banks and other healthcare companies will eventually do the same.
Hopefully this will be sufficient. If not, we will need to block access to all of Google, which would seriously upset many people within the company, and of course this will cascade to other organizations. Will Google be happy it's pissing off a bunch of Fortune 50 companies?
I just called Apple and confirmed that all 1.67 orders will be upgraded to 1.83 and all 1.83 orders will be upgraded to 2.0. You should receive an email about the changes with any revised shipping date within the next day or two.
I had the same question, I had ordered the 1.83ghz and didn't want to get screwed by this little change in plans.
That's definately an unfair assessment. Long before the government decided to take over housing for the homeless and housing for parentless children, it was the Catholic church. Not only did it take them in, it educated them.
Christians donate to their churches, and let their churches decide how the money is best spent. Homes for the homeless and parentless children was one such example.
In my church, I donate money and clothing to the chruch, and then the church turns around the donates to other organizations, one of which being a facility to help the mentally challenged.
If I did not donate to any other agency, would you judge me?
What's interesting is that you judge Christians, yet can you say you're without sin? So do you have the right to judge anyone, even if they are not Christian? No.
Plus, judging all Christians by an act of a few is called prejudiced. Imagine if you were talking about African Americans or Jews.
The only logical conclusion, now, is that the NYTimes are inaccurately reporting their own polls. Heck, they inaccurately report a lot of things, why not their own polls.
Not to mention, the poll questions do not reflect reality, or at least do not fully represent the actual usage of the wiretaps. The poll question should have been:
That would be more accurate, as the truth is that even according to the original NY Times article, this is what the wiretaps were used for. In seems that has graduated to "domestic wiretapping" for the NY Times, Clinto News Network (CNN), etc. It does not represent reality.
StallmanCommunist? As in Richard Stallman? Secret hidden messages, eh?
Nothing to see her people, move along...
The only reason I can figure this is on slashdot is to give the anti-religion fiends more blood to drink. There is no eason this should be on slashdot, at all. We already know most people here don't like religion and don't support religious teachings in public schools, so do we need to have ANOTHER post about it?
Sure, Britons believe in ID and creationism. Guess what? MOST OF THE WORLD DOES! Yes, most of the world is, indeed, religious in one way or another, and of everyone that is religious, the top 5 religions, all believe in God or many Gods.
So, like I said, move along...
But Dark Matter is not the same level of made-up-ness than the christian God.
Actually, it's the EXACT SAME THING. Here's why.
Some 5000 or 10,000 or however long ago, people needed to explain their existance. They did this by inventing a "super being" which most people refer to as a God today. The super being explained why they existed. Although there is no *proof* of the existance of such a being, people believed it anyway because it explained why something was true.
Today, we use Dark Matter to explain why our calculations on gravity are true. We can't prove or disprove it's existance, we have no proof it's out there. Yet, physicists use dark matter in a similar way that people 5,000 years ago used God... it explains the answers to questions they can not scientifically answer.
Same shit, different millennia.
God is a 'belief' that is 'followed' as the basis of 'action', or how people live their lives.
So, seems to be, that God is a theory.
NO! You cannot prove the existance of one thing by saying it's needed to prove something else. That is FLAWED SCIENCE! One does not say something exists because it's needed to prove something else. One says something exists and then shows how it impacts the world around it.
Oh and by the way, no church I have ever been to promised me anything or granted me anything for going there, so I don't know what kind of propaganda you've received about church.
Well, with all these theories flying around to try to figure out why science can't explain everything, I think we can fall back to the old reason.... God!
... which has since been modified to "When the simplest explaination works, there is no need to look any further."
Dark matter theoretical...
Graviton... theoretical....
God... theoretical!
Since we can't prove the exist of any of them, and in the words of some really smart guy I don't remember the name of, oh yeah, Sherlock Holmes, "When you eliminate all other possibilities, what remains, no matter how improbable, is the answer."
OK, this is more flamebait! Bring it on!
Uhm you link to Bose and Sennheiser... why? Bose makes a 'SoundDock' which connects to an iPod, but what portable music player do they make? And Sennheiser? They make headphones... and not portable music players.
/flaimbait
As for the other two, they are indeed "lesser" and "inferior".
Acording to this article it seems Windows XP does indeed install on the Intel-based Macs. Apple has indicated they did not cripple the possibility. Why the discussion? I think this has more to do with people who dislike Apple than with actual facts.