God commanded others to kill in his name. Was that one of the commandments; to kill in his name? No, therefore it is a sin. Believe me, I know the bible fairly well. I was raised in the Methodist church in the deep south, where EVERYONE is a christian. I know the bible. I also know that there is a difference in old testiment laws, and the laws set forth for all to follow, for all time.
I am confronted almost weekly by someone telling me that I will burn in hell because my arms are covered in tattoos, which they believe to be a sin. The bible never says not to tattoo yourself. I believe the exact words are something very close to "put no markings of other gods on your body". I do not have tattoos of any religous dieity, or imblem anywhere on my body. I just laugh and remind them that that was Moses's Law while he wandered in the desert for 40 years, and that the very next law was not to eat red meat. Is eating a stake a sin? no!
There is a difference in the laws of then, and the laws set forth then, for now. We are told to follow only two sets of laws. We are not to break the 10 commandments given to Moses, nor are we to give in to the 7 deadly sins. All other laws were used to govern and populate the earth, not to rule it forever. So God telling people to kill at one point has no bearing on our lives now.
No, the bible says "thou shalt not kill." It does not say murder. The bible also tells you not to change the words of the bible. It is up to you on how you want to take the meaning of the word "kill", but the bible still clearly says not to kill. It does not give any reasons where it is ok to kill, it just says not to.
Personaly, I agree with you that murder is not acceptable, though I personally believe that even God would allow self defense. I just wish people would at least get the bible correct when they try to represent it.
Last I checked, the Nazis were an ofset of christians. Salem Witch trials? The western settelment of this country. We forced, sometimes at gunpoint, indians to change their belifs to christian belifs...
Not saying christians are all bad, but there have surely been a few rough spots in our past.
By far though, I just have one point to make that will shut all christians up every time. Jesus, our savior, was a jew.
You'd be suprised. Millions of people already pay him for servers, shouldn't they include security? My guess is millions of those same people, will pay him for "security".
It's not because he's lousy ad admining Windows, it's because Windows is just so complicated to admin. I once took a course on Windows 2K servers in college, and it was one of the most pointless courses I have ever taken. Windows is just not a server OS.
Micorsoft should have just stayed out of the server market all together. They just can't compete with the power of a *nix box. With the advent of Webmin linux became just about the easiest server to admin. I can set just about anyone with even minimal server use in front of a machine running apache, phpnuke, and webmin; and they can host just about as many websites as they want. Security isn't even an issue here, Linux has Microsoft beat hands down. Bill Gates himself admits that. He once said something to the point of "Windows is not designed to be very secure". How much does that say for the OS?
Yes, I am a linux zelot, and for very good reason I believe. Linux is just better in my opinion.
That's my $0.03 (because my opinion is worth more than yours!)
I agree for most posta. If a Windows user posts and lists reasons why he prefers windows to linux, that isn't always a troll. If he comes out and gives reasons why linux sucks, then there is reason to mod down that post.
I feel that the whole modding system on Slashdot has become a way to promote Linux and to dismiss Windows. I haven't ever seen a pro-windows post that was modded up. Slashdot keeps giving the same people mod points when it should instead give different people those points. Instead of giving 20 people 5 points each, maybe 100 people should be given 1 point each. More people= more points of view.
Mod me down, I don't freaking care. I'm not a Karma Whore, I'm just a whore.
They may have had an earlier start, but unfortunatly, we have not only cought up, but we have surpassed them. Look at the number of Linux viruses compared to Windows viruses. Look at the number of kernel level holes Linux has as compaired to Microsoft? M$ just can't compare...
Go buy a Zakk Wylde album, or an old Slayer album, and then tell me who can play their instruments. Sambora hasn't has a fresh lick in a decade... Zakk Wylde's been playing just as long, and can still solo better than the majority of people on earth.
Too bad that Sam Jackson's carreer has gotten to where it's at. It's a shame that he no longer gets leading roles in movies. He is such a great actor, and it's such a waste for him to pittle his time away on parts as supporting acts. He should be up there with Robyn Williams (One of the best actors on earth. He's a believable comic, as well as a believable murderer...)
Tattoos are in the 3rd and 4th layer of skin, so to respond to a blacklight, they must be exposed to a light that can penetrate both the first and second layers (for some reason, it's easier for light to come OUT rather than go IN skin {don't ask me why, all I know is that it IS.}), so you need a really strong black light. And even then, it's usualy not much reaction.
I'm not saying that these inks are dangerous, don't mistake me. All I was trying to say is that I don't know that they are safe. In my shop, I will not use anything that I do not know that it is safe, and have documentation to prove that it is, indeed, safe.
The flourescent inks in use today by many artists are not "glow-in-the-dark", they are blacklight responsive inks. There are no inks to my knoledge that truely glow in the dark. Those I know for a fact to be unsafe for use in tattooing.
The inks that they are talking about using for diabetics are not the same inks that are being used in these trendy "glowing" tattoos. I have not fully read the article, but I do not believe that this ink is out on the market yet. If I read that it is, in fact, safe, I will stock that ink, and will use it. But not until it passes givernment tests (anything developed for use on Diabetics would have to pass FDA and state medical board tests to be used. Much like cosmetic inks used to cover scars after surgerys.)
Then again, I'm not most tattoo shops. I actually care about my coustomers, if they weren't there, I wouldn't have a job. I have a very large, and very devoted clientel, who have come to know me as a very safe, clean, and professional artist.
No, I don't think that tattooing has only been around since the 20th century. It is the second oldest profession on earth (next to prostitution.), and I realize that. What you fail to see is that like everything else, even tattooing changes and evolves with technology.
A "self-serving government regulatory agency" had absolutly nothing to do with the 20 pages of paperwork, and documentation that comes with my ink. That is the invention of the ink company that I use. There are no rules that say the inks even have to be tested, that I know of, and yet the company that I use not only tests their inks, they also provide artists with documentation of those tests, so show the artist that the inks are safe.
How are the inks in use today dull? They are brighter than any other inks ever before, they will NEVER fade (with the exception of white, yellow, and red, which will fade in sunlight), and are safer than they have ever been.
Final words:
Tattoos are about rebelion, sure, I'll give you that. But it's hard to rebel anymore when you die from skin cancer...
Slashdot Mirror
God commanded others to kill in his name. Was that one of the commandments; to kill in his name? No, therefore it is a sin. Believe me, I know the bible fairly well. I was raised in the Methodist church in the deep south, where EVERYONE is a christian. I know the bible. I also know that there is a difference in old testiment laws, and the laws set forth for all to follow, for all time. I am confronted almost weekly by someone telling me that I will burn in hell because my arms are covered in tattoos, which they believe to be a sin. The bible never says not to tattoo yourself. I believe the exact words are something very close to "put no markings of other gods on your body". I do not have tattoos of any religous dieity, or imblem anywhere on my body. I just laugh and remind them that that was Moses's Law while he wandered in the desert for 40 years, and that the very next law was not to eat red meat. Is eating a stake a sin? no! There is a difference in the laws of then, and the laws set forth then, for now. We are told to follow only two sets of laws. We are not to break the 10 commandments given to Moses, nor are we to give in to the 7 deadly sins. All other laws were used to govern and populate the earth, not to rule it forever. So God telling people to kill at one point has no bearing on our lives now.
No, the bible says "thou shalt not kill." It does not say murder. The bible also tells you not to change the words of the bible. It is up to you on how you want to take the meaning of the word "kill", but the bible still clearly says not to kill. It does not give any reasons where it is ok to kill, it just says not to. Personaly, I agree with you that murder is not acceptable, though I personally believe that even God would allow self defense. I just wish people would at least get the bible correct when they try to represent it.
Last I checked, the Nazis were an ofset of christians. Salem Witch trials? The western settelment of this country. We forced, sometimes at gunpoint, indians to change their belifs to christian belifs... Not saying christians are all bad, but there have surely been a few rough spots in our past. By far though, I just have one point to make that will shut all christians up every time. Jesus, our savior, was a jew.
Ctrl+Alt+Del
How hard can it be to use live animals? They did it with trees in Evil Dead.
You'd be suprised. Millions of people already pay him for servers, shouldn't they include security? My guess is millions of those same people, will pay him for "security".
I got one of those about a year ago. It was called the Mandrake Linux patch, and was free from http://www.linux-mandrake.com/en/
Microsoft is charging for something that should be free? When did this start?
It's not because he's lousy ad admining Windows, it's because Windows is just so complicated to admin. I once took a course on Windows 2K servers in college, and it was one of the most pointless courses I have ever taken. Windows is just not a server OS. Micorsoft should have just stayed out of the server market all together. They just can't compete with the power of a *nix box. With the advent of Webmin linux became just about the easiest server to admin. I can set just about anyone with even minimal server use in front of a machine running apache, phpnuke, and webmin; and they can host just about as many websites as they want. Security isn't even an issue here, Linux has Microsoft beat hands down. Bill Gates himself admits that. He once said something to the point of "Windows is not designed to be very secure". How much does that say for the OS? Yes, I am a linux zelot, and for very good reason I believe. Linux is just better in my opinion. That's my $0.03 (because my opinion is worth more than yours!)
yes.
Why, those cost too much money sometimes. I have my MP3 server on an ancient Compaq Portable.
I agree for most posta. If a Windows user posts and lists reasons why he prefers windows to linux, that isn't always a troll. If he comes out and gives reasons why linux sucks, then there is reason to mod down that post. I feel that the whole modding system on Slashdot has become a way to promote Linux and to dismiss Windows. I haven't ever seen a pro-windows post that was modded up. Slashdot keeps giving the same people mod points when it should instead give different people those points. Instead of giving 20 people 5 points each, maybe 100 people should be given 1 point each. More people= more points of view. Mod me down, I don't freaking care. I'm not a Karma Whore, I'm just a whore.
They may have had an earlier start, but unfortunatly, we have not only cought up, but we have surpassed them. Look at the number of Linux viruses compared to Windows viruses. Look at the number of kernel level holes Linux has as compaired to Microsoft? M$ just can't compare...
Go buy a Zakk Wylde album, or an old Slayer album, and then tell me who can play their instruments. Sambora hasn't has a fresh lick in a decade... Zakk Wylde's been playing just as long, and can still solo better than the majority of people on earth.
Mario 3 is still one of my favorite games ever. That and Bird Hunter, I still play that game quite frequently...
fp?
Too bad that Sam Jackson's carreer has gotten to where it's at. It's a shame that he no longer gets leading roles in movies. He is such a great actor, and it's such a waste for him to pittle his time away on parts as supporting acts. He should be up there with Robyn Williams (One of the best actors on earth. He's a believable comic, as well as a believable murderer...)
Green wouldn't work. He still has to fit in with the rest of the world as Clark Kent, and I doubt that a green Kent would be at all believable?
Just get Crossover Office. I watch Quicktime files with Quicktime through that.
then purchase it. You own the company, you are in charge of purchasing things for the company... While you're at it, I want one too.
Then just watch the edited versions.
Slashdot readers who know Jay-Z lyrics just scare me for some reason. What next? Gang members creating websites? wait...
Tattoos are in the 3rd and 4th layer of skin, so to respond to a blacklight, they must be exposed to a light that can penetrate both the first and second layers (for some reason, it's easier for light to come OUT rather than go IN skin {don't ask me why, all I know is that it IS.}), so you need a really strong black light. And even then, it's usualy not much reaction.
The flourescent inks in use today by many artists are not "glow-in-the-dark", they are blacklight responsive inks. There are no inks to my knoledge that truely glow in the dark. Those I know for a fact to be unsafe for use in tattooing.
The inks that they are talking about using for diabetics are not the same inks that are being used in these trendy "glowing" tattoos. I have not fully read the article, but I do not believe that this ink is out on the market yet. If I read that it is, in fact, safe, I will stock that ink, and will use it. But not until it passes givernment tests (anything developed for use on Diabetics would have to pass FDA and state medical board tests to be used. Much like cosmetic inks used to cover scars after surgerys.)
Then again, I'm not most tattoo shops. I actually care about my coustomers, if they weren't there, I wouldn't have a job. I have a very large, and very devoted clientel, who have come to know me as a very safe, clean, and professional artist.
A "self-serving government regulatory agency" had absolutly nothing to do with the 20 pages of paperwork, and documentation that comes with my ink. That is the invention of the ink company that I use. There are no rules that say the inks even have to be tested, that I know of, and yet the company that I use not only tests their inks, they also provide artists with documentation of those tests, so show the artist that the inks are safe.
How are the inks in use today dull? They are brighter than any other inks ever before, they will NEVER fade (with the exception of white, yellow, and red, which will fade in sunlight), and are safer than they have ever been.
Final words:
Tattoos are about rebelion, sure, I'll give you that. But it's hard to rebel anymore when you die from skin cancer...