Selective disclosure benefits the people they proclaim are benefiting from full disclosure. Selective disclosure benefits anti-virus companies - it gives them time to react, and make more money, rather than put pressure on the OS vendor to FIX the f*ing problem.
They're either stupid, liars, or useful tools. Or all 3.
Selective disclosure is the same as security through obscurity - never worked, outdated, and too prone to abuse and gaming the system.
I wrote "follow the money and see who benefits" because in this case it's one and the same.
Also, "useful tool", as per the Urban Dictionary definition of "tool"
"One who lacks the mental capacity to know he is being used. A fool. A cretin. Characterized by low intelligence and/or self-steem."
someone who is a complete idiot/ one who is used by other people, and usually dosen't even realize it/ someone who can't think for themselves/ an asshat.
So no, the term "idiot" in "useful idiot" doesn't go far enough. They're tools.
... but they ARE in favour of people p0wning sites - which requires disclosure of vulnerabilities - something they're against. Kind of contradictory...
They're just a bunch of assholes, same as the punks who key cars.
"My mom sent an email to the whole family with my high school graduation pictures using ImageShack to host them, but something went wrong and all my relatives saw goatse.cx pictures instead."
Since you're posting anonymously, it was probably an improvement.
Now, back on-topic... rule #1 - "follow the money and see who benefits". Who else is against full disclosure? Malware vendors, anti-virus companies, Microsoft, the Russian Business Network, click-fraudsters, bot-netters - they're ALL against full disclosure. They ALL would rather that vulnerability information be closely held, so that they can either ignore it or exploit it to their economic advantage.
I'm not saying Anti-Sec is working with them - they may also fit the definition of "useful fool." But either way, they ARE acting like a bunch of tools, in the Urban Dictionary sense of the word.
I agree that Bush isn't the "alpha and omega" of government waste and stupidity... Obama is continuing many of the failed practices, including Reaganomics, with the "trickle-down" bailout of Wall Street, the banks, and GM.
ne problem with this list is that it largely depends size. That is why it is relatively easy for a country such as Iceland to move up. Particularly when they can just fund their advancement on the financial bubble. Which, by the way works great until someone has to pay for it. I doubt for instance that despite Iceland being at #1 anyone wants to move there at the moment
I doubt for instance that despite Iceland being at #1 anyone wants to move there at the moment
Iceland is #176 in terms of size. Let's look at an example you might be more familiar with - Canada, the 2nd-largest country in the world in terms of land mass, and #36 in terms of population...
Canada does pretty good on most world lists, (#1 in terms of bank stability, for example) and it didn't have a financial bubble - to the contrary, the current situation was possible because of the large cutbacks in government entitlement programs and the introduction of the GST (a VAT-like tax) during the 1991 recession, to break the back of the deficit. Canada then went on to record a decade-and-a-half of federal surpluses, and managed to pay down the debt - until this global recession, Canada was expected to be debt-free in another 20 years.
Since Canada doesn't have to bail out its' banks, and doesn't allow 100% financing on homes, there's more room to fund stimulus packages and/or protect workers from the worst effects of the recession.
The lesson is simple - you can't have an ever-rising debt spiral without consequences, but that if you take the painful steps necessary (cutbacks and tax increases), you'll be better off in the long term. In the short term everyone will be screaming bloody murder, burn you in effigy, and demonize you, but the first time you record even a small surplus all is forgiven. Hey, it worked for Clinton (albeit it wasn't a real surplus, being at least partially based on sleight-of-hand accounting, but it was a start).
Look at the wave action you would need to actually pump significant volumes - the energy to do this pumping isn't "free". You'd have to be in a storm to achieve anything - and by then, it's too late.
some cloud cover you would lose would be insignificant heat shielding.
ALL the energy that drives tropical storms comes from the sun. 100%. It's far from insignificant - it's the #1 source of energy on this planet.
once you do manage to pump enough heat and vapor from the air
You're not pumping air... and all that extra sunlight because of the lack of cloud cover would just allow more sunlight to heat the water surface, generating more water vapour, so you end up pretty much back where you started, except that now you're warming up the oceans at depth. Warm water expands . . . say bye-bye to Florida as the oceans rise.
Absolutely not true. We have NO originals, and no true copies of the originals. Additionally, by the 3rd century CE it was such a mess that they had to do an overhaul - and even then, there have been a lot of forks.
This is simply not true and is indicative of your ignorance of the bible.
Unlike you, I actually studied this shit in seminary. The oldest texts we have are fragments form the book of Esther, dating to ~1500 BC - and even that was lost for a loooong time. For most of christianity's history, the oldest texts could only trace their lineage to the 9th century. Even the dead sea scrolls (which are nowhere near complete), aren't "original material", and were only found in the last century.
There is NO original text anywhere or any part of the Bible, OT or NT.
When science finds a way to create life as complex as a living animal from nothing, I will prove to you that god doesn't have to exist.
We already have that way - it's called time + raw materials = evolution.
you can't disprove a God and I can't prove it.
Sure I can - simple logic (which is something religion refuses to acknowledge). If god created everything, how did god come into existence? IE: Who created god? Answer that, or admit that god did not create everything, that the genesis account is full of horse manure (which shouldn't be too hard - you already admit that the biblical accounts are exaggerations and so we can dismiss all the so-called "miracles").
Alternatively - if god created the universe, then god is separate from the universe. So, god is not part of this universe. Not being part of this universe, god cannot interact with it (which would explain why we don't see any physical manifestations of god) - therefore god could not have created it. In this universe, there is no god - and being a practical person, I'm only concerned with this universe. In this universe, the bible is a myth.
Many people who believe in a god do so because of spiritual revelations revealed to them and there is no way you can disprove it happened or not.
"spiritual revelations" - in other words, they believe because they believe. Not because of any physical proof. Because of a "need" to believe. Same as a lot of people believed that blacks were just animals, and it was okay to keep them as slaves - because it was against their financial interests to believe otherwise. Same as a lot of people are against equal rights for gays and lesbians when it comes to marriage - because it offends their prejudices, and meens acknowledging that others are equal to them, instead of sitting back and smuggly going "we're not sinners like THOSE people" - in other words, not because of any logic or a concern for equal rights or simple "do unto others" decency.
That's why it's so easy to make fun of hypocrites like Sarah Palin and the whole "family values" farce - wouldn't it be ironic if she quit because of another teen pregnancy? Letterman would have a field day! Never mind the whole "I'm quitting because I'm not a quitter!" crap.
In summary - you admit the bible isn't accurate ("hyperbole"). Therefore, only a fool would trust it as a basis for any beliefs.
"I cracked my own network in minutes using this method [lifehacker.com]. Can someone point me to a less complicated method?"
Look for the PostIt on the bottom of the router. Or try the password on the PostIt on the underside of the keyboard - but only if the password on the PostIt on the monitor doesn't work.
t was passed down meticulously to other generations,
Absolutely not true. We have NO originals, and no true copies of the originals. Additionally, by the 3rd century CE it was such a mess that they had to do an overhaul - and even then, there have been a lot of forks.
As for the lies - just check out the populations of the armies in the old testament - impossible, and even the rabbis today admit they are wild exaggerations.
You cite 12 people and claim truth because of that - there were thousands who believed a different faith at that time, and made lots of claims of being witness to various other "proofs"... like christianity, they had their popularity, then they fell by the wayside. Why do you settle for superstition, if not because you NEED to believe? And why do you NEED to believe? For most, it's a character flaw, for some, it's culture, for some it's a power trip, and for some (religious and political leaders) it's cynical posturing.
what makes your position interesting is that you seem to find it neccesary to assert your belief over others.
It's called "do unto others as they have done unto you"... part of game theory, which has proven that the best way to deal with liars is not to ignore them, because they take it as license, but to tell them that they are full of shit.
In other words, provide some PROOF that god exists, or admit that it's all based on believing what someone else said, and that tere is no more reason to believe them than to believe the UFO freaks, and those whoworshiped the Norse gods, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or "The Force". After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and nobody has offered any experiment that we can do to provide even the slightest justification of the existence of any god.
Besides, I don't like liars. There are 3 classes of lies - the ones you tell others, the ones others tell you, and the ones you tell yourself. So far, everyone claiming that god exists is a liar, because NONE of them has offered any proof. They just lie to themselves, and then try to bolster their shitty position by spreading the same lies to others.
Come on - ONE piece of proof. ONE scientifically-testable fact. After all, if you're going to be basing your life on it, you should have SOME proof kicking about.
the last gov. org I was in refused to write down what the expectations were and what they did to meet them;
That is as it should be. Government orgs don't have missions - they have mandates, for which they receive funding. Once their mandate is either completed or is determined to be impossible to perform, they should be chopped, rather than trying to justify their continued existence with some shitty "mission statement."
For-profit businesses have one mandate - make life easier for the shareholders. In other words, MONEY. They can shift their "mission" depending on what is the best use of their capital, physical plant, and other property - but again, no mission statement is needed and is superfluous puffery.
Individuals also don't need a mission statement - you do what you want, and you suffer the consequences. Therefore, it behooves you to think about trade-offs in deciding what you really want.
"Mission statement" is as full of narcissistic shit-puffery as "road warrior".
It's still a lousy idea. Stop a hurricane, you reduce the amount of cloud cover, which results in -guess what - warmer surface waters, and even more intense hurricanes.
Also, to pump a significant amount of water, you'd have have the ships sitting in a tropical storm to begin with. Otherwise, you've better off just towing a few iceberds from the arctic - good luck with THAT. This might work in your bathtub, but, like Windows, it doesn't scale, is pretty shitty in real life, and it's not even original.
Plus, you'd have to already have hurricane conditions to extract enough energy to pump enough warm surface water below to make a difference, so again, it;s a loser idea.
Nature's already found a way to deal with the excess energy via hurricanes. The mechanism works just fine. What doesn't work is idiots (re-)building on flood and surge plains. Plus, without the added reflectivity of the storm fronts, even more solar energy is absorbed, contributing both to global warming and warm waters favourable to hurricanes. This "weather control" idea is a fail.
The cold water is at depth for a reason - it's heavier. It'll take a lot of energy (more heat, more greenhouse gases, etc) to pump cold water to the surface
The cold water isn't going to float on the surface for the same reason - it's heavier.
Ah, but now atheism is the fastest-growing belief, even in the U.S. of A. Look at the nut cases religion attracts - people like Sarah Palin, with her near-hysterical wide-eyed ignorance-is-bliss positions on all things.
If their god is so powerful, and prayer works, let them waste their breath praying me to death. At least it will keep some of those knuckle-draggers off the stree... NO_CARRIER.
Mission statements are, and always have been, bullshit. There's only one true mission statement for any for-profit business - "We're in it for the money. We give our customers what they want, they give us money."
When Shakespeare said "First, we gather up all the lawyers", MBAs didn't exist.
"But we need a mission statement for our brochure-ware web site!" Wankers. I blame it on the Internet.
You can't argue that your beliefs are true because you believe your beliefs are true... and that is exactly what the bible does... it's a total failure of critical thinking.
OK, so who convinced them that something not true was true? And why was that person not recorded in the same history stories that they were recorded with?
They convinced themselves - same as nutcases always have throughout history.
What I do care about is you using half baked assumptions that are grounded more in your mind then life or reality to argue against something that you are purposely overlooking the details of.
And that is my beef with religion - it's all in your mind. There is no proof that the bible is true, and a LOT of proof that it's false. As for the "witness" of the apostles, they had a vested interest in convincing themselves that it was true - you missed my point entirely. They were religious nuts. Jesus was the worst of the bunch - he believed that God would save him on the cross - the motherfucker found out he was wrong in his beliefs - hence "my god, why hast thou forsaken me?" People who have a need to believe something will continue to believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, and will fabricate evidence to back up their beliefs. The apostles were self-deluded - the worst type of liars - they lied to themselves. Psychos will go to their grave believing their delusions - nothing new there.
Thinking people want proof. Not fairy tales from a book that is just a combination of even older tales.
If you don't mind me asking, why do you feel the need to insert newlines yourself rather than using the browser's built in word-wrapping?
Are you sure you're not "management material"? Think for two seconds - there's more than one posting mode... Plain Old Text, HTML Formatted, Extrans, Code... to state the obvious (for the benefit of management types) it's right before the preview and submit buttons...
Now Waco and Jamestown doesn't really connect here because they weren't working under the assumption that they were following a lie. They were convinced that the lie was the truth.
You missed my point completely - wackos like Jesus, Paul, John, Abraham, Moses, David and the rest., were also convinced that the lie was the truth. There is NO evidence to support their superstitions, and plenty of evidence that the universe doesn't work the way they believed. Christianity is just one in a long line of syncretic religions - a pastiche of fables taken from earlier myths.
They were so psychologically invested in their narcissistic version of their "special place" in the world order that they could never admit to reality - easier to die. That's to be expected - they were nuts. And like many nuts and demagogues, they attracted a following, same as Hitler, and with the same disastrous results - the creation of "us" and "not us", with "us" being "special", whether it's "saved" or "racially pure" or "god's faithful" or "special knowledge" , it's about power and control and getting others to suspend their critical thinking by panderng to their egos and insecurities.
Same as Waco and Jonestown and the Solar Temple and the Raliens and Scientologists and Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses and Baptists and Catholics and Muslims and Pentecostals and Hindus and Jews and every other willfully-deluded person who believes in one or more gods and other childish superstitions. All religions are cults. Just some are bigger than others. Even the main-stream ones marginalize their followers.
Check out the Jonestown Massacre - people killed their own kids and then committed suicide because of their stupid beliefs...
They were mentally ill - same as the followers of Jesus (and Jesus himself)...hearing voices, seeing things nobody else saw, claiming that god was working through them (or in Jesus' case, that he was god).
Well, since God doesn't exist (we had to invent him - and we did, over and over and over), the contrast is pretty start.
IF god actually existed and was anything like the jerks in the bible, I certainly would not want to be "reunited" with him - a genocidal asswipe like that? Being "reunited with god" would be hell!
except in enhancement of those qualities in this life
... God as V14GR4 spam... well, why not - the whole church tithing thing is a Nigerian 419 scam: "I represent god and he wants to give you something of immense value, but first you must give us money".
..Yet why would many of the followers of Christ before that time go to their deaths believing it if it were a lie?
People believe lies all the time... just look at Hitler in the last century, Reaganomics and "trickle down", Bush and his "mission accomplished" and "Iraq has WMDs", Obama re-implementing Raeganomic "trickle down" policy via bail-outs, ANYTHING coming out of Sarah Palin's mouth, OJ's innocence, MJ's innocence, "housing prices never go down", "Yes, I'll still love you in the morning and no, I won't come in your mouth, and the check is in the mail"...
Paul did what he did because he wanted power and influence - better a big fish in a small pond - same as what motivates most religious leaders today...
I have never seen a performance penalty for writes with RAID1 over SATA even using motherboard RAID. Both drives are written to concurrently, not consecutively. Is this something learned from the days of having two drives on one cable perhaps?
there's a penalty compared to writing different data on different drives. Example, if your log files are on one drive, and your web server files on another, and your database on a third, you have a lot less head movement. You also are using 3 independent caches, instead of filling the 3 caches with the same data.
'70's-era Chevy Malibu, 6-pack, aluminium everything, less than 300 produced with that engine (just enough to qualify as a production vehicle). What happened was that he was getting married, and had saved up enough to buy a house for cash, but hadn't told his fiancee. They always went on dates by taxi or bus or walked, and he kept up the pretense that he was a poor mensch, still living at home with his parents,
So she tells him that, while she loves him, her mother thinks she can do better. He says "no problem, just both of you be outside in an hour, I just want to say goodbye to both of you."
He goes home, takes his caddy out of his parents' garage, drives by (with the roof down), and says "F*** you both!" So he has this wad of money sitting in his pocket, and he decided to do something grazy - buy a race car. He bought it, had it de-rated so it would only produce 550 - 650 hp, and he would take it out once or twice a year.
A tune-up every 350 miles, and a complete tear-down every 1,500.00. He was an engineer living at home with his parents, it's not like he had anything else to spend it on.
A decade or so later he got married, and sold the car. It had a bit more than 10,000 miles on it.
If you can afford $550,000 for the bike, you aren't worried about groceries - you can always eat out. Or, if you've blown the budget on this thing, just harvest the road kill from your 300mph cruises (though if you hit a moose, you're dead anyway).
Slashdot Mirror
Selective disclosure benefits the people they proclaim are benefiting from full disclosure. Selective disclosure benefits anti-virus companies - it gives them time to react, and make more money, rather than put pressure on the OS vendor to FIX the f*ing problem.
They're either stupid, liars, or useful tools. Or all 3.
Selective disclosure is the same as security through obscurity - never worked, outdated, and too prone to abuse and gaming the system.
I wrote "follow the money and see who benefits" because in this case it's one and the same.
Also, "useful tool", as per the Urban Dictionary definition of "tool"
Just follow the money ...
They're just a bunch of assholes, same as the punks who key cars.
"My mom sent an email to the whole family with my high school graduation pictures using ImageShack to host them, but something went wrong and all my relatives saw goatse.cx pictures instead."
Since you're posting anonymously, it was probably an improvement.
Now, back on-topic ... rule #1 - "follow the money and see who benefits". Who else is against full disclosure? Malware vendors, anti-virus companies, Microsoft, the Russian Business Network, click-fraudsters, bot-netters - they're ALL against full disclosure. They ALL would rather that vulnerability information be closely held, so that they can either ignore it or exploit it to their economic advantage.
I'm not saying Anti-Sec is working with them - they may also fit the definition of "useful fool." But either way, they ARE acting like a bunch of tools, in the Urban Dictionary sense of the word.
I agree that Bush isn't the "alpha and omega" of government waste and stupidity ... Obama is continuing many of the failed practices, including Reaganomics, with the "trickle-down" bailout of Wall Street, the banks, and GM.
Iceland is #176 in terms of size. Let's look at an example you might be more familiar with - Canada, the 2nd-largest country in the world in terms of land mass, and #36 in terms of population ...
Canada does pretty good on most world lists, (#1 in terms of bank stability, for example) and it didn't have a financial bubble - to the contrary, the current situation was possible because of the large cutbacks in government entitlement programs and the introduction of the GST (a VAT-like tax) during the 1991 recession, to break the back of the deficit. Canada then went on to record a decade-and-a-half of federal surpluses, and managed to pay down the debt - until this global recession, Canada was expected to be debt-free in another 20 years.
Since Canada doesn't have to bail out its' banks, and doesn't allow 100% financing on homes, there's more room to fund stimulus packages and/or protect workers from the worst effects of the recession.
The lesson is simple - you can't have an ever-rising debt spiral without consequences, but that if you take the painful steps necessary (cutbacks and tax increases), you'll be better off in the long term. In the short term everyone will be screaming bloody murder, burn you in effigy, and demonize you, but the first time you record even a small surplus all is forgiven. Hey, it worked for Clinton (albeit it wasn't a real surplus, being at least partially based on sleight-of-hand accounting, but it was a start).
Look at the wave action you would need to actually pump significant volumes - the energy to do this pumping isn't "free". You'd have to be in a storm to achieve anything - and by then, it's too late.
ALL the energy that drives tropical storms comes from the sun. 100%. It's far from insignificant - it's the #1 source of energy on this planet.
You're not pumping air ... and all that extra sunlight because of the lack of cloud cover would just allow more sunlight to heat the water surface, generating more water vapour, so you end up pretty much back where you started, except that now you're warming up the oceans at depth. Warm water expands . . . say bye-bye to Florida as the oceans rise.
Unlike you, I actually studied this shit in seminary. The oldest texts we have are fragments form the book of Esther, dating to ~1500 BC - and even that was lost for a loooong time. For most of christianity's history, the oldest texts could only trace their lineage to the 9th century. Even the dead sea scrolls (which are nowhere near complete), aren't "original material", and were only found in the last century.
There is NO original text anywhere or any part of the Bible, OT or NT.
"I cracked my own network in minutes using this method [lifehacker.com]. Can someone point me to a less complicated method?"
Look for the PostIt on the bottom of the router. Or try the password on the PostIt on the underside of the keyboard - but only if the password on the PostIt on the monitor doesn't work.
Absolutely not true. We have NO originals, and no true copies of the originals. Additionally, by the 3rd century CE it was such a mess that they had to do an overhaul - and even then, there have been a lot of forks.
As for the lies - just check out the populations of the armies in the old testament - impossible, and even the rabbis today admit they are wild exaggerations.
You cite 12 people and claim truth because of that - there were thousands who believed a different faith at that time, and made lots of claims of being witness to various other "proofs" ... like christianity, they had their popularity, then they fell by the wayside. Why do you settle for superstition, if not because you NEED to believe? And why do you NEED to believe? For most, it's a character flaw, for some, it's culture, for some it's a power trip, and for some (religious and political leaders) it's cynical posturing.
It's called "do unto others as they have done unto you" ... part of game theory, which has proven that the best way to deal with liars is not to ignore them, because they take it as license, but to tell them that they are full of shit.
In other words, provide some PROOF that god exists, or admit that it's all based on believing what someone else said, and that tere is no more reason to believe them than to believe the UFO freaks, and those whoworshiped the Norse gods, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or "The Force". After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and nobody has offered any experiment that we can do to provide even the slightest justification of the existence of any god.
Besides, I don't like liars. There are 3 classes of lies - the ones you tell others, the ones others tell you, and the ones you tell yourself. So far, everyone claiming that god exists is a liar, because NONE of them has offered any proof. They just lie to themselves, and then try to bolster their shitty position by spreading the same lies to others.
Come on - ONE piece of proof. ONE scientifically-testable fact. After all, if you're going to be basing your life on it, you should have SOME proof kicking about.
That is as it should be. Government orgs don't have missions - they have mandates, for which they receive funding. Once their mandate is either completed or is determined to be impossible to perform, they should be chopped, rather than trying to justify their continued existence with some shitty "mission statement."
For-profit businesses have one mandate - make life easier for the shareholders. In other words, MONEY. They can shift their "mission" depending on what is the best use of their capital, physical plant, and other property - but again, no mission statement is needed and is superfluous puffery.
Individuals also don't need a mission statement - you do what you want, and you suffer the consequences. Therefore, it behooves you to think about trade-offs in deciding what you really want.
"Mission statement" is as full of narcissistic shit-puffery as "road warrior".
It's still a lousy idea. Stop a hurricane, you reduce the amount of cloud cover, which results in -guess what - warmer surface waters, and even more intense hurricanes.
Also, to pump a significant amount of water, you'd have have the ships sitting in a tropical storm to begin with. Otherwise, you've better off just towing a few iceberds from the arctic - good luck with THAT. This might work in your bathtub, but, like Windows, it doesn't scale, is pretty shitty in real life, and it's not even original.
Same diff - warm water rises, cold water sinks.
Plus, you'd have to already have hurricane conditions to extract enough energy to pump enough warm surface water below to make a difference, so again, it;s a loser idea.
Nature's already found a way to deal with the excess energy via hurricanes. The mechanism works just fine. What doesn't work is idiots (re-)building on flood and surge plains. Plus, without the added reflectivity of the storm fronts, even more solar energy is absorbed, contributing both to global warming and warm waters favourable to hurricanes. This "weather control" idea is a fail.
Ah, but now atheism is the fastest-growing belief, even in the U.S. of A. Look at the nut cases religion attracts - people like Sarah Palin, with her near-hysterical wide-eyed ignorance-is-bliss positions on all things.
If their god is so powerful, and prayer works, let them waste their breath praying me to death. At least it will keep some of those knuckle-draggers off the stree... NO_CARRIER.
Jesus - "I will survive".
Run!
Mission statements are, and always have been, bullshit. There's only one true mission statement for any for-profit business - "We're in it for the money. We give our customers what they want, they give us money."
When Shakespeare said "First, we gather up all the lawyers", MBAs didn't exist.
"But we need a mission statement for our brochure-ware web site!" Wankers. I blame it on the Internet.
You can't argue that your beliefs are true because you believe your beliefs are true ... and that is exactly what the bible does ... it's a total failure of critical thinking.
They convinced themselves - same as nutcases always have throughout history.
And that is my beef with religion - it's all in your mind. There is no proof that the bible is true, and a LOT of proof that it's false. As for the "witness" of the apostles, they had a vested interest in convincing themselves that it was true - you missed my point entirely. They were religious nuts. Jesus was the worst of the bunch - he believed that God would save him on the cross - the motherfucker found out he was wrong in his beliefs - hence "my god, why hast thou forsaken me?" People who have a need to believe something will continue to believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, and will fabricate evidence to back up their beliefs. The apostles were self-deluded - the worst type of liars - they lied to themselves. Psychos will go to their grave believing their delusions - nothing new there.
Thinking people want proof. Not fairy tales from a book that is just a combination of even older tales.
Are you sure you're not "management material"? Think for two seconds - there's more than one posting mode ... Plain Old Text, HTML Formatted, Extrans, Code ... to state the obvious (for the benefit of management types) it's right before the preview and submit buttons ...
You missed my point completely - wackos like Jesus, Paul, John, Abraham, Moses, David and the rest., were also convinced that the lie was the truth. There is NO evidence to support their superstitions, and plenty of evidence that the universe doesn't work the way they believed. Christianity is just one in a long line of syncretic religions - a pastiche of fables taken from earlier myths.
They were so psychologically invested in their narcissistic version of their "special place" in the world order that they could never admit to reality - easier to die. That's to be expected - they were nuts. And like many nuts and demagogues, they attracted a following, same as Hitler, and with the same disastrous results - the creation of "us" and "not us", with "us" being "special", whether it's "saved" or "racially pure" or "god's faithful" or "special knowledge" , it's about power and control and getting others to suspend their critical thinking by panderng to their egos and insecurities.
Same as Waco and Jonestown and the Solar Temple and the Raliens and Scientologists and Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses and Baptists and Catholics and Muslims and Pentecostals and Hindus and Jews and every other willfully-deluded person who believes in one or more gods and other childish superstitions. All religions are cults. Just some are bigger than others. Even the main-stream ones marginalize their followers.
Check out the Jonestown Massacre - people killed their own kids and then committed suicide because of their stupid beliefs ...
They were mentally ill - same as the followers of Jesus (and Jesus himself) ...hearing voices, seeing things nobody else saw, claiming that god was working through them (or in Jesus' case, that he was god).
Well, since God doesn't exist (we had to invent him - and we did, over and over and over), the contrast is pretty start.
IF god actually existed and was anything like the jerks in the bible, I certainly would not want to be "reunited" with him - a genocidal asswipe like that? Being "reunited with god" would be hell!
Holy Ghost? Ohh I'm soooooo scared!
People believe lies all the time ... just look at Hitler in the last century, Reaganomics and "trickle down", Bush and his "mission accomplished" and "Iraq has WMDs", Obama re-implementing Raeganomic "trickle down" policy via bail-outs, ANYTHING coming out of Sarah Palin's mouth, OJ's innocence, MJ's innocence, "housing prices never go down", "Yes, I'll still love you in the morning and no, I won't come in your mouth, and the check is in the mail" ...
Paul did what he did because he wanted power and influence - better a big fish in a small pond - same as what motivates most religious leaders today ...
there's a penalty compared to writing different data on different drives. Example, if your log files are on one drive, and your web server files on another, and your database on a third, you have a lot less head movement. You also are using 3 independent caches, instead of filling the 3 caches with the same data.
Same benefits for reads.
'70's-era Chevy Malibu, 6-pack, aluminium everything, less than 300 produced with that engine (just enough to qualify as a production vehicle). What happened was that he was getting married, and had saved up enough to buy a house for cash, but hadn't told his fiancee. They always went on dates by taxi or bus or walked, and he kept up the pretense that he was a poor mensch, still living at home with his parents,
So she tells him that, while she loves him, her mother thinks she can do better. He says "no problem, just both of you be outside in an hour, I just want to say goodbye to both of you."
He goes home, takes his caddy out of his parents' garage, drives by (with the roof down), and says "F*** you both!" So he has this wad of money sitting in his pocket, and he decided to do something grazy - buy a race car. He bought it, had it de-rated so it would only produce 550 - 650 hp, and he would take it out once or twice a year.
A tune-up every 350 miles, and a complete tear-down every 1,500.00. He was an engineer living at home with his parents, it's not like he had anything else to spend it on.
A decade or so later he got married, and sold the car. It had a bit more than 10,000 miles on it.
If you can afford $550,000 for the bike, you aren't worried about groceries - you can always eat out. Or, if you've blown the budget on this thing, just harvest the road kill from your 300mph cruises (though if you hit a moose, you're dead anyway).