what if I went to Suck.com? not a porn sight, but what do you think the reciepients of me email will think? and of course, god forbid you go to a site and click ona link that doesn't go where you think it goes. goat.cx for example.
Which is another reason something like this is preferable to a government or other third-party system; call him, let him know what suck.com is, or let him know that you accedentally clicked a link.
When my firend told me about this, he said "there's no way to get around it," and I replied "yes, there is."
It's a computer. There is a way around it. If I really, really wanted to, I'd set up a proxy-type program and tunnel through that, and all they'd see in the email is a bunch of requests to my campuse's main server.
As I said, though, there programs tie into or replace WINSOC, which would make bypassing them, for all but the uber-geeks, impossible.
Not all pornography needs to be explitative (please be nice to their poor server!), you know?
Pornography habits tend to escalate. Softcore tends to lead to hardcore, tends to lead to expoitative, if one has access. And, to be completely honest, I think it is all exploitative; sexuality is not a commodity, nor are women.
I think you have been watching too much "Sex in the City". My wife and I regularly enjoy pornography *together* and I sincerly doubt that it has any potential to ruin our marriage.
You and your wife both enjoy/appreciate pronography. I'll have to admit that I have a fairly hard time seeing through your eyes, but such is life. And I'm not suggesting that it isn't stimulating or gratifying; simply that it violates the emotional contract of marriage.
Consider, though, that many women, especially religious women, don't share that viewpoint. I've seen too many women crushed by their husband's viewing habits, or shamed when he suggested that they view porn together.
I view sex as something that was meant to be shared between a husband and wife, not a husband, wife, and VCR. This software is designed to help such people.
This guy clearly has his head in the sand. There is no way this idea could ever succeed, you know why? Because there is no hard and fast rulebook for defining pornography. So no matter how "religious" you are, there is someone who is going to have a more restrictive viewpoint than you. When you discuss movies with friends who are "religious" you can see exactly what I'm talking about.
Which is exactly why something like this will work, but a centralized "don't let them see this it's dirty" filtering system won't.
These programs email your suriong habits to a friend or pastor, someone who knows you and can agree on what you should and should not be looking for. For example, someone shopping for a valentine's gift for his wife would have a fairly good reason for visiting victoria's secret, but an unmarried man wouldn't.
These programs are about defining your own standards, and having someone help you hold to them.
My pastors actually say that something can be sinful for one person and not another. If a man has a problem with violence, he shouldn't be watching violent movies, but for a man without that problem, the Matrix is nothing but a fun movie. For a man with an alcohol addiction, a glass of wine is a bad idea, but for a man without that problem, it's simply something that goes well with the fish.
This has got to be about the stupidest thing I've heard of in a long time. "...The idea, according to Cotter, is that people will choose not to visit "sinful" websites if they know a close friend or family member will be aware of their actions..." Further proof that people who worry about "sin" and "sinful" are getting just exactly what they deserve: a big, fat neurosis --
NEWS FLASH: Lowest common denominator continues to plummet!
Why, do you think, does the lowest common denominator continue to plummet? Perhaps because people no longer have moral convictions, but pragmatic guidelines? Because people no longer hold themselves accountable?
The Bible says that believers are free indeed. Interesting, since we hold ourselves to a stricter set of rules than most people, as this software illustrates. What kind of freedom do we have?
We have the freedom of knowing that our friends aren't talking about us behinde our back. We have the freedom of knowing that our marriages are going to be among the 20-30 percent that make it. We have the freedom of knowing that our children are going to be respectful, hard-working, and moral. We have the freedom of knowing that, when we screw up, we have a place to go to, and people that will help us, instead of judge us or take advantege of the situation.
Too many people think that freedom is going to a bar, getting drunk, sleeping with anyone that is willing, and forgetting about it the next day, or, failing that, entering "natalie portman hot grits" and seeing what google serves up. Alway looking for the next fix, the latest high, that truly meaningful one night stand. Been there, done that.
I try to live a moral life. It hasn't given me a neurosis. It has, however, given me a greater respect for myself, and for others. It's given me the freedom that comes from knowing that I don't have to hide what I am, because people see it every day.
why would someone willingly subject themselves to this? I mean, we're all human, we all have urges, and if any of us have gone out and looked at pr0n somewhere, how does that make us a bad person?
First off, there is the standard religious view that lust is bad. One of the best, if not only, ways of dealing with lust is to stop feeding it. The internet makes it very easy to feed lust; this makes it much easier to resist it.
Secondly, take a walk through google sometime and look for the various studies on porn and psychology. Pornography addictions tend to create feelings of unworthiness, self-hatred, "dirtiness," etc. There are many, many people who generally want to stop using pornography, but cannot. Accountability is key in these situations. The point of these programs is not to catch someone red-handed, but to help them stay accountable, and to improve themselves.
Also, consider the emotional and relationship issues. I've talked with seveal women who found out that their husbands were using, or even addicted to, pornography. To the person, they felt that they were not attractive enough to please their husbands, that they had done something wrong, that they couldn't trust their spouse... pornography has the potential to do great harm to an otherwise healthy marriage.
Finally, consider that a great deal of the women invloved in the porn industry have histories of sexual abuse, and the emotioanl problems that entails... do you really want to take advantage of that situation for a few moments of pleasure?
Friends of mine actually use software like this; I would, as well, if I had a net connection at home.
The basic idea is "Install this when you are clear-headed and have moral convictions, and let it guide you in the moments of passion." Or something like that.
The programs that I have seen tie into or replace WINSOC, so there really isn't a convinient way to bork the system. Yeah, for those of us in the know, we could get around it, but the average guy can't, and even the average computer guy would have to put some serious effort into it.
The programs automatically generate and send a report on a regular basis, and this is transparent to the user. There is no "Click here to let your firemds know that you've been browsing younglove.com," it just quietly sends an email.
Actually, I think you will find a number of church officials requiering that those in their employ install such software. Couldn't hurt.
I basically prefer tabs to MDI because it makes my browser feel better behaved. I put Moz where I want it, and every page I look at thereafter is the same size, and in the same place. No "minimise this page so I can search around for that one I was looking at a few minutes ago," no "ok, was that page an icon somewhere, or is it hidden behinde another window?" All the tabs are right there, and when I view a page, it's in the same place as the last one. Less hunting around, faster browsing.
Last time I used Opera, I loved the MDI interface they had; now that I've used tabs, though, I vastly prefer them.
Also, with a browser, I rarely want to look at two pages side-by-side. MDI is more important for things like text editing, where there is often a need to compare two files. Even then, I prefer emacs- or jedit- style sliding panels, as opposed to Office-style multpile internal frames. I like to use as much screen space as possible, and I don't generally like things to overlap. Finally, I've run text editors that used tabs to organise documents, and hated them.
ctrl-a, ctrl-space or ctrl-a, alt-space in my editor. Exapnd tabs, collapse spaces. Or run it through astlye. I'm actually beginning to think that that should be automitically triggered when you check in a file.
I used to say "Don't worry... there's no way anyone will take this seriously."
Except that they are. Ebay, Amazon, etc are licensing these patents. Why? Because it's easier than fighting in court.
But I still used to say "Don't worry... eventually, this will get bad enough, and real reform will come."
Except the people with the money to change things are also benifiting from this situation. See Amazon's "one click" patent.
So now I say, "start worrying." I get the very bad impression that things will get much worse before they get better.
So, what needs to change?
1. The legal system makes it more affordable to lie down and take it than to stand up to those who more than likely have no legal leg to stand on. This has to change.
2. Patents protect just about everything possible. If you can do it with a computer, chances are someone, somewhere, has a copyright that you are infringing. I once saw a patent on nested for lops, for crying out loud. Software and business practices shouldn't be patentable.
3. Lobbyists have got to go. People buy legislation. That is not democracy, and it is not right.
4. Parties. "Go ahead, waste your vote on a third party candidate. Muahaha!" We should not have to choose between Republicrates, Democans, and Hopeless.
Run through my decoder ring, I got "In order to filter based on content, you must first download the message, so you are saving only time and attention, not bandwidth.
Re:More than 1.1 billion pigs are killed worldwide
on
Plan for Spam, Version 2
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Pigs would be pretty rare if we never killed them.
Actually, there is a bit of truth to this. There are a lot of cows in America. Why? Because they taste good, or so I'm told, and they make nice clothes.
There are more trees in America now than when Columbus landed. Why? Because we can make all kinds of nifty things out of them, so people grow and sell them, and replant what they sell.
Simmilarly, hunting "culls the herd" a bit, controlling a population that would otherwise likely starve to death.
I buy a printer once every two years or so, if even that. I would have no problem ponying up a little extra money for something that is worth the cost.
I print very regularly, though, and there is no way on God's green earth that there is $50.00 worth of ink in the last cartidge I just bought. It's getting to the point where it is almost cheaper to buy a new printer than it is to buy replacement ink. You can get a bottom-line printer for $60.00, and to fill it back up again, you need to spend $40-50. Insane.
Apostlic Christianity is more along the lines of what is present today. A hierarchy within a church structure. Example -- I believe (don't quote me) that Catholics have a Pope, then Cardinals, then Bishops, Deacons, etc. with power decreasing further down the line.
There are actually very few places today where Apostolic Christianity is practiced. In the early church, there were Apostles, Prophets, Evangalists, Pastors, and Teachers, the whole of which is refered to as the "five-fold ministry." The Pope -> Cardinal -> Bishop -> Priest -> Decon thing was an invention of the Roman church, after it became to oficial state religion.
Also, the hierarchy of the early church was much, much looser than is common today. The first Christians lived in an esentially communist environment, each sharing what they had with the rest. The Revelation also quotes Jesus as saying that he hates the Nicolatians; "Nicolatians" comes from the Greek words "to overthrow" and "the common people," the idea that there was a strong division between laity and clergy, and that clergy should rule over the common people, was anthema to Christ and His church.
"The Jews were, well, jewish folk who lived as jews but thought that Jesus was the Messiah (sorta like "Jews for Jesus.")" Yep, and thats exactly what makes them christian. Today's modern "Jews for Jesus" or "JJ" as most true-to-life Jews (persons that actually practice Judaism) refer to them, these JJ's are not jews, they're christians. It's really that simple.
Well, not really.
In many flavors of Christianity today, it's popular to sed through the Bible and replace "Israel" with "the Church." There are a great deal of people that believe that, when the Jews rejected Jesus, God rejected the Jews. That is simply not the case.
I don't have a whole lot of time to get into this, but take a look at Romans 9-11. Paul writes that the Jews have not yet fulfilled their place in God's plan, and that they are still His choosen people. God has made the Gentile Christians heirs to the promises made to Abraham because of their faith, but the Jewish Christians were born into it. Also, since Christianity started as an offshoot of Judaism, I believe that the Messianic Jews have a much better understanding of what Christianity is really all about than many people who are Christian but don't have the deep understanding of the Hebrew scripture.
When the Apostles preached, they always went to the Jews first; it was only after they had explained the gospel in the synagogs that they would preach to the others. As time goes on, I believe we are going to see an uptick in jews who are becoming Christians; it's mentioned specifically in the Revelation.
In the early days of Christianity, there were three major sects--the Christians, the Jews, and the Gnostics. Not quite, there were Jews and Gentiles and Jewish and Gentile Christians. Gentiles were everyone not Jewish.
I think he meant there were three groups within Christianity itself; better names would have been Messianic Jews, Genitle Chirstians, and Gnostics, who weren't really Christian at all.
In the very early church, there were three groups: Jews, Jews who claimed Jesus as the Messiah, and the Gentiles (everyone else). Eventually, though, Paul started wandering around the world, and more and more Gentiles were converted to the faith, and the Bible tells us that these Gentiles, because of their faith, are heirs to the promises made to the Jews by God.
Eventually, the the Messianic Jews began to loose their association with Judaism; they no longer worshiped in the Jewish temple, or observed the Jewish feasts, and everyone went by the simple title "Christian."
Nowadays, the Gentiles vastly outnumber the Jewish Christians, but if you ever meet a Messianic Jew (or Jew For Jesus, or whatever name they happen to go by), they are probably much closer to to the first Christians than many people who go by that label today.
Well, the part at the top of the header file that says "Distributed according to the GNU GPL" is a good place to start.
Under copyright law, you can't use my header files, since they are a copyrighted, published work.
Under the GPL, that changes; the GPL gives you the right to use my header file, as long as you meet the terms set by the GPL.
The GPL says, basically, if you incorporate GPLed work into your own work, that work too becomes GPLed. If you don't like that, we are back to original copyright law, which says you cannot use my header file.
Here's my take on it: If I need your code/library on my machine for my code to compile, it is a derivative work. This is excluding, for instance, the gcc compiler, since the output of a program is explicitly not covered by the GPL.
1. If I create a GPL'd plugin for WinAmp, does that make WinAmp GPL? I think most reasonable people think the answer is no.
Does WinAmp need the GPLed plugin code to compile? No, therefore it is not a derivitive work, and not covered by the GPL.
2. If I create a GPL'd media player, and a third party makes a proprietary plug in, is this illegal? This is really the case that's up in the air here... the answer only depends on whether the plug in is legally a "derivative work" or not.
Do I need your GPLed code on my machine to compile my plugin? Most likely, yes, at least a header file. If I need to incorporate your GPLed work into my program, my program must be licensed under the GPL. If, however, your plugin interface is declared in a file that is not GPLed, say public domain, then my plugin can be licensed in any way I want.
3. But if it is... then what happens if I create a GPL'd media player that can use WinAmp plugins? Do all proprietary WinAmp plugins become GPL? Well, of course not, but doesn't this make case two problematic?
Not really. If a plugin needs WinAmp code to compile, it must be licensed according to the terms of the WinAmp license. Since the plugin will compile happily without your GPLed media player, it is not a derivitive work, and not covered byt he GPL.
If a contract (or portion thereof) is unclear, it becomes unenforceable. IANAL, but in my mind, that would mean that, if reasonable people can't figure out what "linking" means, the responsibilities associated with linking (publish your source code) go out the window...but so do the rights (using/linkingto their code).
If the GPL doesn't hold up, wouldn't we just revert back to normal copyright law? Either what you are doing with GPLed code is explicitly allowed by the license, or you have no right to use that code.
PNG in 8-bit mode, with single bit transparency, works in all browsers. That's everything gif does (except animation which is available in.mng).
Perhaps it's a problem with GIMP, then; last time I displayed a transparent PNG in IE, the transparent color was drawn as light grey.
And, it's very possible to make a CSS site that works in IE5+, Mozilla and Opera 6+. Sure, you have to code around quirks in IE and Opera, but it can be done.
It can be done, but I am not going to waste my time doing it. I spend enough of my time trying to work around the quirks in C++. I don't want to have to maintain two different stylesheets, or two branches of javascript, just to do something that I can do with a nested table. Tables are well-supported, well-understood, and consistant. When I've got time on the weekend, I'll play around with CSS positioning, et al, but when I'm realeasing something for general consumption, it is going to be something that I know, and that I know will work.
Slashdot Mirror
what if I went to Suck.com? not a porn sight, but what do you think the reciepients of me email will think?
and of course, god forbid you go to a site and click ona link that doesn't go where you think it goes. goat.cx for example.
Which is another reason something like this is preferable to a government or other third-party system; call him, let him know what suck.com is, or let him know that you accedentally clicked a link.
When my firend told me about this, he said "there's no way to get around it," and I replied "yes, there is."
It's a computer. There is a way around it. If I really, really wanted to, I'd set up a proxy-type program and tunnel through that, and all they'd see in the email is a bunch of requests to my campuse's main server.
As I said, though, there programs tie into or replace WINSOC, which would make bypassing them, for all but the uber-geeks, impossible.
Not all pornography needs to be explitative (please be nice to their poor server!), you know?
Pornography habits tend to escalate. Softcore tends to lead to hardcore, tends to lead to expoitative, if one has access. And, to be completely honest, I think it is all exploitative; sexuality is not a commodity, nor are women.
I think you have been watching too much "Sex in the City". My wife and I regularly enjoy pornography *together* and I sincerly doubt that it has any potential to ruin our marriage.
You and your wife both enjoy/appreciate pronography. I'll have to admit that I have a fairly hard time seeing through your eyes, but such is life. And I'm not suggesting that it isn't stimulating or gratifying; simply that it violates the emotional contract of marriage.
Consider, though, that many women, especially religious women, don't share that viewpoint. I've seen too many women crushed by their husband's viewing habits, or shamed when he suggested that they view porn together.
I view sex as something that was meant to be shared between a husband and wife, not a husband, wife, and VCR. This software is designed to help such people.
This guy clearly has his head in the sand. There is no way this idea could ever succeed, you know why? Because there is no hard and fast rulebook for defining pornography. So no matter how "religious" you are, there is someone who is going to have a more restrictive viewpoint than you. When you discuss movies with friends who are "religious" you can see exactly what I'm talking about.
Which is exactly why something like this will work, but a centralized "don't let them see this it's dirty" filtering system won't.
These programs email your suriong habits to a friend or pastor, someone who knows you and can agree on what you should and should not be looking for. For example, someone shopping for a valentine's gift for his wife would have a fairly good reason for visiting victoria's secret, but an unmarried man wouldn't.
These programs are about defining your own standards, and having someone help you hold to them.
My pastors actually say that something can be sinful for one person and not another. If a man has a problem with violence, he shouldn't be watching violent movies, but for a man without that problem, the Matrix is nothing but a fun movie. For a man with an alcohol addiction, a glass of wine is a bad idea, but for a man without that problem, it's simply something that goes well with the fish.
This has got to be about the stupidest thing I've heard of in a long time.
"...The idea, according to Cotter, is that people will choose not to visit "sinful" websites if they know a close friend or family member will be aware of their actions..."
Further proof that people who worry about "sin" and "sinful" are getting just exactly what they deserve: a big, fat neurosis
--
NEWS FLASH: Lowest common denominator continues to plummet!
Why, do you think, does the lowest common denominator continue to plummet? Perhaps because people no longer have moral convictions, but pragmatic guidelines? Because people no longer hold themselves accountable?
The Bible says that believers are free indeed. Interesting, since we hold ourselves to a stricter set of rules than most people, as this software illustrates. What kind of freedom do we have?
We have the freedom of knowing that our friends aren't talking about us behinde our back. We have the freedom of knowing that our marriages are going to be among the 20-30 percent that make it. We have the freedom of knowing that our children are going to be respectful, hard-working, and moral. We have the freedom of knowing that, when we screw up, we have a place to go to, and people that will help us, instead of judge us or take advantege of the situation.
Too many people think that freedom is going to a bar, getting drunk, sleeping with anyone that is willing, and forgetting about it the next day, or, failing that, entering "natalie portman hot grits" and seeing what google serves up. Alway looking for the next fix, the latest high, that truly meaningful one night stand. Been there, done that.
I try to live a moral life. It hasn't given me a neurosis. It has, however, given me a greater respect for myself, and for others. It's given me the freedom that comes from knowing that I don't have to hide what I am, because people see it every day.
Perhaps it's not for everyone. C'est la vie.
why would someone willingly subject themselves to this? I mean, we're all human, we all have urges, and if any of us have gone out and looked at pr0n somewhere, how does that make us a bad person?
First off, there is the standard religious view that lust is bad. One of the best, if not only, ways of dealing with lust is to stop feeding it. The internet makes it very easy to feed lust; this makes it much easier to resist it.
Secondly, take a walk through google sometime and look for the various studies on porn and psychology. Pornography addictions tend to create feelings of unworthiness, self-hatred, "dirtiness," etc. There are many, many people who generally want to stop using pornography, but cannot. Accountability is key in these situations. The point of these programs is not to catch someone red-handed, but to help them stay accountable, and to improve themselves.
Also, consider the emotional and relationship issues. I've talked with seveal women who found out that their husbands were using, or even addicted to, pornography. To the person, they felt that they were not attractive enough to please their husbands, that they had done something wrong, that they couldn't trust their spouse... pornography has the potential to do great harm to an otherwise healthy marriage.
Finally, consider that a great deal of the women invloved in the porn industry have histories of sexual abuse, and the emotioanl problems that entails... do you really want to take advantage of that situation for a few moments of pleasure?
Friends of mine actually use software like this; I would, as well, if I had a net connection at home.
The basic idea is "Install this when you are clear-headed and have moral convictions, and let it guide you in the moments of passion." Or something like that.
The programs that I have seen tie into or replace WINSOC, so there really isn't a convinient way to bork the system. Yeah, for those of us in the know, we could get around it, but the average guy can't, and even the average computer guy would have to put some serious effort into it.
The programs automatically generate and send a report on a regular basis, and this is transparent to the user. There is no "Click here to let your firemds know that you've been browsing younglove.com," it just quietly sends an email.
Actually, I think you will find a number of church officials requiering that those in their employ install such software. Couldn't hurt.
I basically prefer tabs to MDI because it makes my browser feel better behaved. I put Moz where I want it, and every page I look at thereafter is the same size, and in the same place. No "minimise this page so I can search around for that one I was looking at a few minutes ago," no "ok, was that page an icon somewhere, or is it hidden behinde another window?" All the tabs are right there, and when I view a page, it's in the same place as the last one. Less hunting around, faster browsing.
Last time I used Opera, I loved the MDI interface they had; now that I've used tabs, though, I vastly prefer them.
Also, with a browser, I rarely want to look at two pages side-by-side. MDI is more important for things like text editing, where there is often a need to compare two files. Even then, I prefer emacs- or jedit- style sliding panels, as opposed to Office-style multpile internal frames. I like to use as much screen space as possible, and I don't generally like things to overlap. Finally, I've run text editors that used tabs to organise documents, and hated them.
ctrl-a, ctrl-space or ctrl-a, alt-space in my editor. Exapnd tabs, collapse spaces. Or run it through astlye. I'm actually beginning to think that that should be automitically triggered when you check in a file.
Hmm... I didn't know or think of that. Very interesting. In any event, that's another symptom of the broken system.
I used to say "Don't worry... there's no way anyone will take this seriously."
Except that they are. Ebay, Amazon, etc are licensing these patents. Why? Because it's easier than fighting in court.
But I still used to say "Don't worry... eventually, this will get bad enough, and real reform will come."
Except the people with the money to change things are also benifiting from this situation. See Amazon's "one click" patent.
So now I say, "start worrying." I get the very bad impression that things will get much worse before they get better.
So, what needs to change?
1. The legal system makes it more affordable to lie down and take it than to stand up to those who more than likely have no legal leg to stand on. This has to change.
2. Patents protect just about everything possible. If you can do it with a computer, chances are someone, somewhere, has a copyright that you are infringing. I once saw a patent on nested for lops, for crying out loud. Software and business practices shouldn't be patentable.
3. Lobbyists have got to go. People buy legislation. That is not democracy, and it is not right.
4. Parties. "Go ahead, waste your vote on a third party candidate. Muahaha!" We should not have to choose between Republicrates, Democans, and Hopeless.
This realm is one of the coolest places in physics because it has it's own special rules that change when you look at them. :)
Just like American Copyright Law.
Your message makes no sense
Run through my decoder ring, I got "In order to filter based on content, you must first download the message, so you are saving only time and attention, not bandwidth.
Pigs would be pretty rare if we never killed them.
Actually, there is a bit of truth to this. There are a lot of cows in America. Why? Because they taste good, or so I'm told, and they make nice clothes.
There are more trees in America now than when Columbus landed. Why? Because we can make all kinds of nifty things out of them, so people grow and sell them, and replant what they sell.
Simmilarly, hunting "culls the herd" a bit, controlling a population that would otherwise likely starve to death.
And, for what it's worth, I'm a vegitarian.
I buy a printer once every two years or so, if even that. I would have no problem ponying up a little extra money for something that is worth the cost.
I print very regularly, though, and there is no way on God's green earth that there is $50.00 worth of ink in the last cartidge I just bought. It's getting to the point where it is almost cheaper to buy a new printer than it is to buy replacement ink. You can get a bottom-line printer for $60.00, and to fill it back up again, you need to spend $40-50. Insane.
Apostlic Christianity is more along the lines of what is present today. A hierarchy within a church structure. Example -- I believe (don't quote me) that Catholics have a Pope, then Cardinals, then Bishops, Deacons, etc. with power decreasing further down the line.
There are actually very few places today where Apostolic Christianity is practiced. In the early church, there were Apostles, Prophets, Evangalists, Pastors, and Teachers, the whole of which is refered to as the "five-fold ministry." The Pope -> Cardinal -> Bishop -> Priest -> Decon thing was an invention of the Roman church, after it became to oficial state religion.
Also, the hierarchy of the early church was much, much looser than is common today. The first Christians lived in an esentially communist environment, each sharing what they had with the rest. The Revelation also quotes Jesus as saying that he hates the Nicolatians; "Nicolatians" comes from the Greek words "to overthrow" and "the common people," the idea that there was a strong division between laity and clergy, and that clergy should rule over the common people, was anthema to Christ and His church.
Don't confuse Christianity with church.
More to the point, don't confuse the Church (group of people who believe) with the CHURCH (tm), $5.00 cover.
Damn straight, anything with a disembodied pulsating brain as a villian is good with me!
mmm...metroid
"The Jews were, well, jewish folk who lived as jews but thought that Jesus was the Messiah (sorta like "Jews for Jesus.")"
Yep, and thats exactly what makes them christian. Today's modern "Jews for Jesus" or "JJ" as most true-to-life Jews (persons that actually practice Judaism) refer to them, these JJ's are not jews, they're christians. It's really that simple.
Well, not really.
In many flavors of Christianity today, it's popular to sed through the Bible and replace "Israel" with "the Church." There are a great deal of people that believe that, when the Jews rejected Jesus, God rejected the Jews. That is simply not the case.
I don't have a whole lot of time to get into this, but take a look at Romans 9-11. Paul writes that the Jews have not yet fulfilled their place in God's plan, and that they are still His choosen people. God has made the Gentile Christians heirs to the promises made to Abraham because of their faith, but the Jewish Christians were born into it. Also, since Christianity started as an offshoot of Judaism, I believe that the Messianic Jews have a much better understanding of what Christianity is really all about than many people who are Christian but don't have the deep understanding of the Hebrew scripture.
When the Apostles preached, they always went to the Jews first; it was only after they had explained the gospel in the synagogs that they would preach to the others. As time goes on, I believe we are going to see an uptick in jews who are becoming Christians; it's mentioned specifically in the Revelation.
In the early days of Christianity, there were three major sects--the Christians, the Jews, and the Gnostics.
Not quite, there were Jews and Gentiles and Jewish and Gentile Christians. Gentiles were everyone not Jewish.
I think he meant there were three groups within Christianity itself; better names would have been Messianic Jews, Genitle Chirstians, and Gnostics, who weren't really Christian at all.
In the very early church, there were three groups: Jews, Jews who claimed Jesus as the Messiah, and the Gentiles (everyone else). Eventually, though, Paul started wandering around the world, and more and more Gentiles were converted to the faith, and the Bible tells us that these Gentiles, because of their faith, are heirs to the promises made to the Jews by God.
Eventually, the the Messianic Jews began to loose their association with Judaism; they no longer worshiped in the Jewish temple, or observed the Jewish feasts, and everyone went by the simple title "Christian."
Nowadays, the Gentiles vastly outnumber the Jewish Christians, but if you ever meet a Messianic Jew (or Jew For Jesus, or whatever name they happen to go by), they are probably much closer to to the first Christians than many people who go by that label today.
Well, the part at the top of the header file that says "Distributed according to the GNU GPL" is a good place to start.
Under copyright law, you can't use my header files, since they are a copyrighted, published work.
Under the GPL, that changes; the GPL gives you the right to use my header file, as long as you meet the terms set by the GPL.
The GPL says, basically, if you incorporate GPLed work into your own work, that work too becomes GPLed. If you don't like that, we are back to original copyright law, which says you cannot use my header file.
1. Compile Linux to a library
2. int main() { linux.main(); }
3. Profit!!!
Here's my take on it: If I need your code/library on my machine for my code to compile, it is a derivative work. This is excluding, for instance, the gcc compiler, since the output of a program is explicitly not covered by the GPL.
1. If I create a GPL'd plugin for WinAmp, does that make WinAmp GPL? I think most reasonable people think the answer is no.
Does WinAmp need the GPLed plugin code to compile? No, therefore it is not a derivitive work, and not covered by the GPL.
2. If I create a GPL'd media player, and a third party makes a proprietary plug in, is this illegal? This is really the case that's up in the air here... the answer only depends on whether the plug in is legally a "derivative work" or not.
Do I need your GPLed code on my machine to compile my plugin? Most likely, yes, at least a header file. If I need to incorporate your GPLed work into my program, my program must be licensed under the GPL. If, however, your plugin interface is declared in a file that is not GPLed, say public domain, then my plugin can be licensed in any way I want.
3. But if it is... then what happens if I create a GPL'd media player that can use WinAmp plugins? Do all proprietary WinAmp plugins become GPL? Well, of course not, but doesn't this make case two problematic?
Not really. If a plugin needs WinAmp code to compile, it must be licensed according to the terms of the WinAmp license. Since the plugin will compile happily without your GPLed media player, it is not a derivitive work, and not covered byt he GPL.
If a contract (or portion thereof) is unclear, it becomes unenforceable. IANAL, but in my mind, that would mean that, if reasonable people can't figure out what "linking" means, the responsibilities associated with linking (publish your source code) go out the window...but so do the rights (using/linkingto their code).
If the GPL doesn't hold up, wouldn't we just revert back to normal copyright law? Either what you are doing with GPLed code is explicitly allowed by the license, or you have no right to use that code.
PNG in 8-bit mode, with single bit transparency, works in all browsers. That's everything gif does (except animation which is available in .mng).
Perhaps it's a problem with GIMP, then; last time I displayed a transparent PNG in IE, the transparent color was drawn as light grey.
And, it's very possible to make a CSS site that works in IE5+, Mozilla and Opera 6+. Sure, you have to code around quirks in IE and Opera, but it can be done.
It can be done, but I am not going to waste my time doing it. I spend enough of my time trying to work around the quirks in C++. I don't want to have to maintain two different stylesheets, or two branches of javascript, just to do something that I can do with a nested table. Tables are well-supported, well-understood, and consistant. When I've got time on the weekend, I'll play around with CSS positioning, et al, but when I'm realeasing something for general consumption, it is going to be something that I know, and that I know will work.