This case, however I do support and would like to see the DMCA dismantled piece by piece.
Most likely, that is how it will have to be done. Very rarely does something change overnight in this country, especially when all of the lawmakers are being paid off. But slowly, gradually, so that no one really notices, we can start getting our freedoms back.
To consider yourself a real civil libertarian, I think you have to support ALL free speech ("Fire" not withstanding). As soon as you draw a line for yourself saying "I support free speech, but those guys at NAMBLA are too repulsive" then you're making a distinction of speech based on taste.
Not at all...the decision to not support NAMBLA is tacitly no different than the decision not to support someone's right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater; both pose a clear and present danger to the safety of others, which is the test for free speach.
NAMBLA's position is that homosexual relations between underage boys and adult men is not only acceptable, but may prove benificial to the development of the child. While I, and many others, do find this "in bad taste," it also flys in the face of sociology and psychology. NAMBLA, in short, advocates and assists in the rape of young boys. This is not protected speach.
Im sure that they would have default statements as well, when no network is present do this "RED,GREEN,RED,GREEN", I dont know why people get so excited about this dooms day hype.
Or just sit there and wait for the friendly cop with a stop sign...like when the power goes out.
Why, exactly, would you need either WinForms or ADO.Net to accomplish those tasks? It's fairly easy to tie into any available interfaces written for C/C++ with C#, you could use many of the same GUI toolkits and database interfaces which already exist in Linux/*BSD/*nix. In fact, when I started working with C#, one of the first things I had to do was write an interface to an existing DLL to get a low-level interface with a piece of hardware because the.Net framework didn't have the low-level I/O routines normally used in C/C++ apps to communicate with this particular piece of hardware. All you need to add the functionality you're looking for is a library which you can either rewrite or create a wrapper to interface. Considering the number of different GUI toolkits used in Linux apps, I'd say it should be fairly easy to find one you can get the proper functionality from.
The.NET framework is supposed to be cross-platform, but if you have to link into native toolkits for something as basic as building the user interface, that cross-platform nature is worthless.
I'll compare it to Java: The Java VM and java.* packages are roughly comperable to the.NET framework; both give you the ability to carry out most basic programming tasks. The javax.swing.* packages are extensions to the core Java platform. The APIs for Swing are open, and have been implemented by bodies other than Sun, so you can program in a third party Java environment and not loose the ability to create a UI. In.NET, however, this is not the case...the only part of.NET that is standard is the very basic "this is how you do arithmetic in C#" kind of thing. The true power of the.NET platform can only be leveraged if you use a Microsoft implementation.
The simple example would be the swf file having in it the *way to make* a red circle rather than N many red pixels encoded in a certain way to be rendered as a circle...
That is almost the exact definition of vector graphics, which Flash uses. You can save a lot of storage space, but you loose out in display efficiency...the computer has to figure out where each pixel goes, instead of just being told. All in all, it is a very good format for some things...I wonder when the patent will come out...
Releasing OSX for x86 is completely moronic. Apple is a computer company, not a software company. They sell computers first, software second. If OSX ran on 'open' PC hardware, nobody would buy Apple computers-- they'd buy cheap hardware and OSX.
Not necessarily. Many people would, of course, but those who can afford the Mac hardware and value its styling would continue to buy 17'' Imacs.
I believe that many of the Mac faithful would shy away from OS-X86 simply because "it's not a Mac, dammit," while those who want to give OS X a try would be attracted to a version that they could run on their PC. I see releasing an x86 version of OS X as a way to gain market share, not loose it. And, as Microsoft has proven, the money is in the software, not the hardware.
Pit any software against Microsoft, and expect Microsoft to attempt to kill it. Apple is doing well because they cooperate with Microsoft. If OSX were released for commodity PC hardware, and Microsoft will dump Office/Mac, and basically shut OSX out of the market (as it did with Netscape).
That might not necissarily be true. While Microsoft would of course want to kill OS-X86, with all the anti-trust attention they have been getting recently, I don't think that they could do it overtly.
Office is currently available, and will be for at least a little while longer. Not having Office for the platform would basically kill it for business use, but I don't think it would hurt the home market that badly, and the fact that OS X is a vastly superior operating system with a shiney new GUI for the kids to play with would go a long way towards speeding adoption. If adoption is quick enough, there will come a point where Microsoft will have no choice but to keep Office for OSX, if they want to stay in the game.
Linux is a better product that Windows, if you know how to use it. OS X is a better product than Windows, and you don't have to know how to use it. If people don't believe that OS X can compete with MS, I don't see how Linux or BSD could ever stand a chance.
Not really...they will screw a few small compaines, compaines which cannot afford large teams of lawyers, make as much money as they can, and then run from the big guns.
I'd like to write my congressman, but I'm not sure I could do it without being profane...
"Allah is a ballish moon god" A muslim would consider this a direct insult to Yaweh and Your Christian God. The crescent moon is a symbol of Islam because they go by the Lunar calendar, nothing more.
A muslim can consider it whatever they want, but the fact is that Allah is one of several pagan dieties that were worshiped by Muhammed's people. The fact that Muhammed "promoted" him to the "One True God," and claimed that he was the same god as the Chirstians and the Jews, does not make it true, nor does it change history. If you look through the religious artifacts and records of his time for Allah or his symbols, you will see that his was their god of the moon, and one of several that were worshiped.
Islam states that upon judgement day, Muhammed & Jesus Christ will come back together.
As I said, they consider Jesus a prophet.
Just pointing out some facts that they teach us in World History 101. I advise you look into getting a college/university education rather than a church one your parents adopted you into.
I actually have a college education. I also have the sense to look beyonde what they taught me in World History 101. Religion is an important topic to me, and I choose to get more in depth than an intro course.
Also, little of what I have written this week comes from my church. I have only been a christian for 10 months or so, and I do not belong to the church of my parents...what I write is not what I have been indoctrinated with, but what I have studied and found to be true.
It therefore follows that public (re: government-run) schools are not suitable institutions for education, because forces external to educators (and families of students) are restricting freedom of speech and expression. The time has come to do away with the public education system. The education of children, like the feeding of children, should be 100% the responsibility of the parents anyway. Parents who fail to provide an education for their children should be found guilty of neglect. Education funding for impoverished families should be handled via AFDC and charity, rather than through a department of education. Quality control of schools could be handled just like the universities are regulated today, only acredited schools could award valid diplomas.
Well, given the SCOTUS ruling that vouchers to private schools are legal, I don't think it will have to go that far; parents will hopefully now be given the choice to send their children, and their tax money, to whatever schools they feel do the best job. The underperforming schools will simply dry up and go away. Capitalism at work.
Be offended by a suprise left hook you receive while you're buying your morning coffee at Starbuck$! Be offended by turning on you television and seeing murder and corruption on the evening news! Be offended by having YOUR tax dollars spent on arguing a trivial issue, such as this one, in a court of law!
We have these things, by and large, because of the secularization of our country. God-fearing folk don't do these sorts of things.
Judeo-Christian? There is no such thing. Christianity comes from almost purely pagan sources.
Roman Christianity; that is, the Christianity that evolved after it became the official state religion, does indeed have many pagan influences. The Catholic church was also rather fond of co-opting pagan holidays and rituals, to "ease conversion." So, in a sense, you are right; what most people consider "Christianity" has a great deal of un-christian influence. Real Christianity, however, is based simply on what the Bible says.
Christmas and Easter are pagan.
The dates are, as is the origin of the Easter's name. The meaning behinde these holdiays, however, is purely Christain (well, that and capitalist, but I'm not going to go off on that one.) Not a whole lot of pagan societies were celebrating the birth or resurection of the Messiah.
Christians don't observe any jewish days, not the sabbath, not even passover.
Good Friday is our passover. Jesus said "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.(Mark 2:27)," so we do look at the Sabbath as legalistically as the Jewish people, but the bible also says "Dont forsake gathering together, as some have done(Hebrews 10:24)." We tend to gather on Sunday instead of Saturday because that is the day of our Lord's ressurection.
If calling something Judeo-Christian is legit, why not Judeo-Christo-Islamic? Islam also claims jewish ancestry and the jewish God. Why doesn't anyone say Judeo-Christo-Islamic?
Because it would be innacurate. The link between Judaism and Christianity can be traced through the both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. Their holy books form our Old Testament, and in these scriptures are a fair number of prophecies relating to the coming Messiah. Jesus said that he and the Father (Yahweh, the Jewish God) were one, and that anyone who had seen Him had seen the Father(John 14:9). Furthermore, we are told to give glory to God through His son, Jesus Christ (1 Peter 4:11). Esentially, Christians are Jews who have acknowledged the Messiah, and are therefore no longer bound by the law of Hebrew scripture, but by the law of God written on our hearts (Romans 2:15). We worship the same God, but the Bible tells us that because Jesus was rejected by the Jews, the Gentiles (that'd be everyon else) have the opportunity to be saved. The Bible says "Now if some of the branches were broken off, and you, though a wild olive branch, were grafted in among them, and have come to share in the rich root of the cultivated olive tree(Romans 11:17)." The Olive Tree is the Jewish nation, and the gentiles are the branches that have been graphted into their faith. This section is also a wonderful treatise against anti-semitism.
Islam can claim none of this. Allah is a Ballish moon god, one of many worshiped in Muhammed's homeland, which is why the cresent moon is considered an Islamic symbol. Islam also teaches that the Hebrew scriptures have been corrupted, and that the Koran is the only "true" revelation of god. The claim Jesus was a prophet, but not "The Prophet," a title held by Muhammed. Further, the law of the Koran is considerable harsher than the law of the Bible; we are told to seperate ourselves from the world; they are told to kill all those pagans who will not convert, and all Jews and Christians who will not pay an infidel tax (it's ok to be a heritic, as long as you pay up?).
It will be a great day for the world when everyone realizes the "workers" are NOT the people that get things done. It's the "organizers" of the workers that are the most valuable to society.
If all of us Code Jocks took off tomorrow, the managment could sit around and organize all they want, but nothing would get done.
On the other hand, if you simply throw a herd of code jocks at a problem of any real size, the development effort will likely fall apart.
We are starting to see real numbers indicating that proper managment actually makes employees more productive, but "proper" can be a sticky issue. I would claim that it will be a great day for the world when everyone realizes that the best result is obtained when the managers indicate what needs to be done to the people who know how to do it, and then get out of the way.
Even if other retailers never get to sell the copy that the producer *wanted* to make? That every other retailer gets the 'Walmart' approved copy, and that those who create these things must sacrifice their intentions at the behest of one private entity?
People choose to shop at WalMart, making them the most powerful retailer, and implicitly giving weight to their opinions as to what is appropriate and what is not.
WalMart only has as much power as we give to them. Publishers are welcome to distribute through other means, people are welcome to shop at other stores. If no one does so, it is on their heads.
But no. WalMart is to blame for taking a moral stand. Those rat bastards! How dare they conduct their business in a way that will let them sleep better at night!
You really shouldn't talk like you do, in a country which claims free speech (both the right to be free of censorship, and the right to be free of undue pressures to self-censor.) is one of its founding principals.
Freedom from government censorship, yes. The ability to say "This is the message I want to put out, and you are hearby forced to help me do so," no.
The guy who owns Wal-Mart is a born again Christian, and he has decided that his morals are more important than the profits that could be earned from selling morally offensive matterial. I applaud him for that. He is also making a ton of money, and I applaud him for that, as well.
You really have a problem when you get one of the 300 pound monsters that knows how to hit, throw, and grapple...outside of shooting them, there isn't a whole lot you are going to do to stop them.
And that's the point where you can outrun them, such heavy people can't run as fast as you can and as far as you can. There's no point in fighting if you're sure to lose the fight. Also, there's no point in attacking, if your art is purely defensive (eg. aikido).
My senior year in high school, I was 235 lbs, could bench press 250, and was a half-way decent sprinter and distance runner. There were a couple of guys running around, especially from the bigger schools, that would have handed me my ass, too. Sometimes you just can't run; that's when x-jutst takes over from nike-do.
I don't know what you practice, but I was talking about real-life live situations which can happen everywhere (well, in theory at least, you can avoid most of that kind of stuff by just watching what neighbourhood you're walking in). I wasn't talking about fighting tournees or such (why would an aikido practitioner take part in those!!).
Judo, until I got dropped on my shoulder, which is now a few inches lower than it should be, with a little kickboxing/karate tossed in. I was talking about real life, too...in a tournament, I'd never go against someone less than 200 lbs, and no one at 150 lbs would go against someone my size.
uke rolls like that to keep from having his wrist broken, which is what should happen if Aikido is used on the street.
And again, a true aikika would never break anyone's wrist like that...
Then he'd get seriously hurt.
The more arts you know, the more movements you know, the more you know about the motions and limits of joints and limbs of the human body, the more you can improvise based on your knowledge. At least that's what I think.
To a point you are right, but I think it is more practical to study carefully the few moves that are proven most effective, and employing them in all manner of situations.
The only factor in determining whether an area is desert is the amount of rainfall. Not nessicarily the warmth of the place.
That I knew...some parts of Alaska and Antarctica are deserts. But I thought the sandy ones were typically hot during the day and cold during the night. Ah well.
No, "balance" must mean that the dark side is no more. It is not a balance between the light and dark side, but a balance in the universe, where the light side must rule.
I agree. If 'balance' meant wiping out the Jedi, I don't think the councel would be so gung-ho about it.
Also, you can see in Ep II how the Jedi are starting to fall from grace...they are loosing their sensitivity, foresite, etc. The whole thing with Vader and Luke seems to me more like a reboot...let Luke start all over again, and see if he cn bring the Jedi back to their rightful place.
I don't think that people object to Yoda fighting, it was the way in which he fought. Movies have somehow perpetuated the idiotic notion that martial arts is about jumps and flips.
Well, this isn't so idiotic. There are chinese styles that are very, very jumping-heavy. From what I understand, there are some northern styles where a fighting person spends more time in the air then on the ground. (This is supposed to be derived from fighting on ice, where the air is actually a more stable place than the ground is.)
The chinese styles that are very, very jumping-heavy tend to lose a lot. The good fighters we see today are a mix of wrestling, grappling, and kickboxing, in that order.
That aisde, I've never heard the ice thing before...interesting if it's true. I'll have to look around some.
Given that Yoda probably couldn't even reach Dooku's chest with his light saber, how did you want him to fight? By constantly attacking Dooku's ankles?
I sure would. It wouldn't look as cool on screen, but it'd probably save your rear end.
Yeah, I agree, it would of been great: as an avid Akido student, I would of loved a scene with actual technique employed, instead we get this mesquito-on-speed-flippy scene, where no actual skill is utilized.
At least in this movie there was a good reason for it; all the kick-spin-jump-kiYAH! stuff is is attributable to the Force. In most movies, we're just expected to believe that people can do that stuff. Ugh.
Improvise.. Besides, the point is that unless someone attacks you, you're better off not doing anything (ie. only defend, don't attack). If someone attacks you and they get close &"enough", and you know your shit, then you can push them around a bit to make them fall.
If you're just going to improvise anyway, why bother training?
Many of the good fighters, especially the little guys, will hang back for a while to feel out their opponent, throwing strikes as appropriate. The guys who tend to win, though, soon close the gap, clinch, and start grappeling. A good throw will take out most guys, and if it doesn't, the average street punk isn't real good on the ground. It's not as simple as "make them fall" sounds, though. One of the great myths in the martial arts is "effortless attack." Kano (the guy who founded Judo, a distance cousing of Aikido) told his students to go for efficiency, not ease. Fighting a good oponent is hard, even if you've been training for years. The only match or fight I have been in where I wasn't sweating profusly at the end was one where the guy was nice enough to actually stick his neck out for me to strangle when he tried to tackle me.
A lot of fighting style depends on size and disposition. A 150 pound guy isn't going to last long is a striking contest, but if trained are usually hell on the floor. These guys usually play it safe and wait for the opponent to make a mistake. A 300 pound monster, on the other hand, might just be able to get by on size and power. These guys usually push the attack, and are successful more often than not.
You really have a problem when you get one of the 300 pound monsters that knows how to hit, throw, and grapple...outside of shooting them, there isn't a whole lot you are going to do to stop them.
Seeing only the form "right wrist stuck out" without the actual process taking place (easier to visualize the direction of motion with a stuck out hand) won't do you much good.
The whole "look, I grabbed his wrist and he flew through the air" thing is not how it's supposed to work in real life; uke rolls like that to keep from having his wrist broken, which is what should happen if Aikido is used on the street.
All that being said, most of the Martial Arts Masters (TM) I've seen, Aikido or otherwise, were soundly beaten by a decent boxer, kickboxer, or JuiJuitsuka. Still, a guy with a lightsaver would mince 'em all.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
This case, however I do support and would like to see the DMCA dismantled piece by piece.
Most likely, that is how it will have to be done. Very rarely does something change overnight in this country, especially when all of the lawmakers are being paid off. But slowly, gradually, so that no one really notices, we can start getting our freedoms back.
To consider yourself a real civil libertarian, I think you have to support ALL free speech ("Fire" not withstanding). As soon as you draw a line for yourself saying "I support free speech, but those guys at NAMBLA are too repulsive" then you're making a distinction of speech based on taste.
Not at all...the decision to not support NAMBLA is tacitly no different than the decision not to support someone's right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater; both pose a clear and present danger to the safety of others, which is the test for free speach.
NAMBLA's position is that homosexual relations between underage boys and adult men is not only acceptable, but may prove benificial to the development of the child. While I, and many others, do find this "in bad taste," it also flys in the face of sociology and psychology. NAMBLA, in short, advocates and assists in the rape of young boys. This is not protected speach.
Im sure that they would have default statements as well, when no network is present do this "RED,GREEN,RED,GREEN", I dont know why people get so excited about this dooms day hype.
Or just sit there and wait for the friendly cop with a stop sign...like when the power goes out.
Why, exactly, would you need either WinForms or ADO.Net to accomplish those tasks? It's fairly easy to tie into any available interfaces written for C/C++ with C#, you could use many of the same GUI toolkits and database interfaces which already exist in Linux/*BSD/*nix. In fact, when I started working with C#, one of the first things I had to do was write an interface to an existing DLL to get a low-level interface with a piece of hardware because the .Net framework didn't have the low-level I/O routines normally used in C/C++ apps to communicate with this particular piece of hardware. All you need to add the functionality you're looking for is a library which you can either rewrite or create a wrapper to interface. Considering the number of different GUI toolkits used in Linux apps, I'd say it should be fairly easy to find one you can get the proper functionality from.
.NET framework is supposed to be cross-platform, but if you have to link into native toolkits for something as basic as building the user interface, that cross-platform nature is worthless.
.NET framework; both give you the ability to carry out most basic programming tasks. The javax.swing.* packages are extensions to the core Java platform. The APIs for Swing are open, and have been implemented by bodies other than Sun, so you can program in a third party Java environment and not loose the ability to create a UI. In .NET, however, this is not the case...the only part of .NET that is standard is the very basic "this is how you do arithmetic in C#" kind of thing. The true power of the .NET platform can only be leveraged if you use a Microsoft implementation.
The
I'll compare it to Java: The Java VM and java.* packages are roughly comperable to the
...developers could use Apache for the stuff that HAS to work and they could use IIS for the stuff that doesn't...
"Let's use this free, modifiable, just-about-rock-solid server, that has free bug fixes every couple of months, for the important stuff."
"OK, boss, but what about this junky stuff over here?"
"Oh, let's spend thousands of dollars to get a crappy server for it. We've got cash laying around..."
The simple example would be the swf file having in it the *way to make* a red circle rather than N many red pixels encoded in a certain way to be rendered as a circle...
That is almost the exact definition of vector graphics, which Flash uses. You can save a lot of storage space, but you loose out in display efficiency...the computer has to figure out where each pixel goes, instead of just being told. All in all, it is a very good format for some things...I wonder when the patent will come out...
Releasing OSX for x86 is completely moronic. Apple is a computer company, not a software company. They sell computers first, software second. If OSX ran on 'open' PC hardware, nobody would buy Apple computers-- they'd buy cheap hardware and OSX.
Not necessarily. Many people would, of course, but those who can afford the Mac hardware and value its styling would continue to buy 17'' Imacs.
I believe that many of the Mac faithful would shy away from OS-X86 simply because "it's not a Mac, dammit," while those who want to give OS X a try would be attracted to a version that they could run on their PC. I see releasing an x86 version of OS X as a way to gain market share, not loose it. And, as Microsoft has proven, the money is in the software, not the hardware.
Pit any software against Microsoft, and expect Microsoft to attempt to kill it. Apple is doing well because they cooperate with Microsoft. If OSX were released for commodity PC hardware, and Microsoft will dump Office/Mac, and basically shut OSX out of the market (as it did with Netscape).
That might not necissarily be true. While Microsoft would of course want to kill OS-X86, with all the anti-trust attention they have been getting recently, I don't think that they could do it overtly.
Office is currently available, and will be for at least a little while longer. Not having Office for the platform would basically kill it for business use, but I don't think it would hurt the home market that badly, and the fact that OS X is a vastly superior operating system with a shiney new GUI for the kids to play with would go a long way towards speeding adoption. If adoption is quick enough, there will come a point where Microsoft will have no choice but to keep Office for OSX, if they want to stay in the game.
Linux is a better product that Windows, if you know how to use it. OS X is a better product than Windows, and you don't have to know how to use it. If people don't believe that OS X can compete with MS, I don't see how Linux or BSD could ever stand a chance.
SOB... They just screwed an entire industry...
Not really...they will screw a few small compaines, compaines which cannot afford large teams of lawyers, make as much money as they can, and then run from the big guns.
I'd like to write my congressman, but I'm not sure I could do it without being profane...
"Allah is a ballish moon god" A muslim would consider this a direct insult to Yaweh and Your Christian God. The crescent moon is a symbol of Islam because they go by the Lunar calendar, nothing more.
A muslim can consider it whatever they want, but the fact is that Allah is one of several pagan dieties that were worshiped by Muhammed's people. The fact that Muhammed "promoted" him to the "One True God," and claimed that he was the same god as the Chirstians and the Jews, does not make it true, nor does it change history. If you look through the religious artifacts and records of his time for Allah or his symbols, you will see that his was their god of the moon, and one of several that were worshiped.
Islam states that upon judgement day, Muhammed & Jesus Christ will come back together.
As I said, they consider Jesus a prophet.
Just pointing out some facts that they teach us in World History 101. I advise you look into getting a college/university education rather than a church one your parents adopted you into.
I actually have a college education. I also have the sense to look beyonde what they taught me in World History 101. Religion is an important topic to me, and I choose to get more in depth than an intro course.
Also, little of what I have written this week comes from my church. I have only been a christian for 10 months or so, and I do not belong to the church of my parents...what I write is not what I have been indoctrinated with, but what I have studied and found to be true.
It therefore follows that public (re: government-run) schools are not suitable institutions for education, because forces external to educators (and families of students) are restricting freedom of speech and expression. The time has come to do away with the public education system. The education of children, like the feeding of children, should be 100% the responsibility of the parents anyway. Parents who fail to provide an education for their children should be found guilty of neglect. Education funding for impoverished families should be handled via AFDC and charity, rather than through a department of education. Quality control of schools could be handled just like the universities are regulated today, only acredited schools could award valid diplomas.
Well, given the SCOTUS ruling that vouchers to private schools are legal, I don't think it will have to go that far; parents will hopefully now be given the choice to send their children, and their tax money, to whatever schools they feel do the best job. The underperforming schools will simply dry up and go away. Capitalism at work.
Be offended by a suprise left hook you receive while you're buying your morning coffee at Starbuck$! Be offended by turning on you television and seeing murder and corruption on the evening news! Be offended by having YOUR tax dollars spent on arguing a trivial issue, such as this one, in a court of law!
We have these things, by and large, because of the secularization of our country. God-fearing folk don't do these sorts of things.
Judeo-Christian? There is no such thing. Christianity comes from almost purely pagan sources.
Roman Christianity; that is, the Christianity that evolved after it became the official state religion, does indeed have many pagan influences. The Catholic church was also rather fond of co-opting pagan holidays and rituals, to "ease conversion." So, in a sense, you are right; what most people consider "Christianity" has a great deal of un-christian influence. Real Christianity, however, is based simply on what the Bible says.
Christmas and Easter are pagan.
The dates are, as is the origin of the Easter's name. The meaning behinde these holdiays, however, is purely Christain (well, that and capitalist, but I'm not going to go off on that one.) Not a whole lot of pagan societies were celebrating the birth or resurection of the Messiah.
Christians don't observe any jewish days, not the sabbath, not even passover.
Good Friday is our passover. Jesus said "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.(Mark 2:27)," so we do look at the Sabbath as legalistically as the Jewish people, but the bible also says "Dont forsake gathering together, as some have done(Hebrews 10:24)." We tend to gather on Sunday instead of Saturday because that is the day of our Lord's ressurection.
If calling something Judeo-Christian is legit, why not Judeo-Christo-Islamic? Islam also claims jewish ancestry and the jewish God. Why doesn't anyone say Judeo-Christo-Islamic?
Because it would be innacurate. The link between Judaism and Christianity can be traced through the both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. Their holy books form our Old Testament, and in these scriptures are a fair number of prophecies relating to the coming Messiah. Jesus said that he and the Father (Yahweh, the Jewish God) were one, and that anyone who had seen Him had seen the Father(John 14:9). Furthermore, we are told to give glory to God through His son, Jesus Christ (1 Peter 4:11). Esentially, Christians are Jews who have acknowledged the Messiah, and are therefore no longer bound by the law of Hebrew scripture, but by the law of God written on our hearts (Romans 2:15). We worship the same God, but the Bible tells us that because Jesus was rejected by the Jews, the Gentiles (that'd be everyon else) have the opportunity to be saved. The Bible says "Now if some of the branches were broken off, and you, though a wild olive branch, were grafted in among them, and have come to share in the rich root of the cultivated olive tree(Romans 11:17)." The Olive Tree is the Jewish nation, and the gentiles are the branches that have been graphted into their faith. This section is also a wonderful treatise against anti-semitism.
Islam can claim none of this. Allah is a Ballish moon god, one of many worshiped in Muhammed's homeland, which is why the cresent moon is considered an Islamic symbol. Islam also teaches that the Hebrew scriptures have been corrupted, and that the Koran is the only "true" revelation of god. The claim Jesus was a prophet, but not "The Prophet," a title held by Muhammed. Further, the law of the Koran is considerable harsher than the law of the Bible; we are told to seperate ourselves from the world; they are told to kill all those pagans who will not convert, and all Jews and Christians who will not pay an infidel tax (it's ok to be a heritic, as long as you pay up?).
True, it will require a new system, but I'm pretty sure that one will appear if this actually gets through.
Which, since it would be designed to evade copyright protection, would be illegal under the DMCA.
It will be a great day for the world when everyone realizes the "workers" are NOT the people that get things done. It's the "organizers" of the workers that are the most valuable to society.
If all of us Code Jocks took off tomorrow, the managment could sit around and organize all they want, but nothing would get done.
On the other hand, if you simply throw a herd of code jocks at a problem of any real size, the development effort will likely fall apart.
We are starting to see real numbers indicating that proper managment actually makes employees more productive, but "proper" can be a sticky issue. I would claim that it will be a great day for the world when everyone realizes that the best result is obtained when the managers indicate what needs to be done to the people who know how to do it, and then get out of the way.
The real issue here, for John Q. Sixpack, is convenience.
/. had me thinking that the real issure for John Q. Sizpack was whether or not it would run Deer Hunter III. ;-)
And here
Sorry to butt in, but the problem is not
//call a few subroutines
x = "foo"
y = x + 2
it's
x = "foo"
y = x + 2
In which case, you have no idea what x is.
Even if other retailers never get to sell the copy that the producer *wanted* to make? That every other retailer gets the 'Walmart' approved copy, and that those who create these things must sacrifice their intentions at the behest of one private entity?
People choose to shop at WalMart, making them the most powerful retailer, and implicitly giving weight to their opinions as to what is appropriate and what is not.
WalMart only has as much power as we give to them. Publishers are welcome to distribute through other means, people are welcome to shop at other stores. If no one does so, it is on their heads.
But no. WalMart is to blame for taking a moral stand. Those rat bastards! How dare they conduct their business in a way that will let them sleep better at night!
You really shouldn't talk like you do, in a country which claims free speech (both the right to be free of censorship, and the right to be free of undue pressures to self-censor.) is one of its founding principals.
Freedom from government censorship, yes. The ability to say "This is the message I want to put out, and you are hearby forced to help me do so," no.
The guy who owns Wal-Mart is a born again Christian, and he has decided that his morals are more important than the profits that could be earned from selling morally offensive matterial. I applaud him for that. He is also making a ton of money, and I applaud him for that, as well.
You really have a problem when you get one of the 300 pound monsters that knows how to hit, throw, and grapple...outside of shooting them, there isn't a whole lot you are going to do to stop them.
And that's the point where you can outrun them, such heavy people can't run as fast as you can and as far as you can. There's no point in fighting if you're sure to lose the fight. Also, there's no point in attacking, if your art is purely defensive (eg. aikido).
My senior year in high school, I was 235 lbs, could bench press 250, and was a half-way decent sprinter and distance runner. There were a couple of guys running around, especially from the bigger schools, that would have handed me my ass, too. Sometimes you just can't run; that's when x-jutst takes over from nike-do.
I don't know what you practice, but I was talking about real-life live situations which can happen everywhere (well, in theory at least, you can avoid most of that kind of stuff by just watching what neighbourhood you're walking in). I wasn't talking about fighting tournees or such (why would an aikido practitioner take part in those!!).
Judo, until I got dropped on my shoulder, which is now a few inches lower than it should be, with a little kickboxing/karate tossed in. I was talking about real life, too...in a tournament, I'd never go against someone less than 200 lbs, and no one at 150 lbs would go against someone my size.
uke rolls like that to keep from having his wrist broken, which is what should happen if Aikido is used on the street.
And again, a true aikika would never break anyone's wrist like that...
Then he'd get seriously hurt.
The more arts you know, the more movements you know, the more you know about the motions and limits of joints and limbs of the human body, the more you can improvise based on your knowledge. At least that's what I think.
To a point you are right, but I think it is more practical to study carefully the few moves that are proven most effective, and employing them in all manner of situations.
The only factor in determining whether an area is desert is the amount of rainfall. Not nessicarily the warmth of the place.
That I knew...some parts of Alaska and Antarctica are deserts. But I thought the sandy ones were typically hot during the day and cold during the night. Ah well.
No, "balance" must mean that the dark side is no more. It is not a balance between the light and dark side, but a balance in the universe, where the light side must rule.
I agree. If 'balance' meant wiping out the Jedi, I don't think the councel would be so gung-ho about it.
Also, you can see in Ep II how the Jedi are starting to fall from grace...they are loosing their sensitivity, foresite, etc. The whole thing with Vader and Luke seems to me more like a reboot...let Luke start all over again, and see if he cn bring the Jedi back to their rightful place.
I don't think that people object to Yoda fighting, it was the way in which he fought. Movies have somehow perpetuated the idiotic notion that martial arts is about jumps and flips.
Well, this isn't so idiotic. There are chinese styles that are very, very jumping-heavy. From what I understand, there are some northern styles where a fighting person spends more time in the air then on the ground. (This is supposed to be derived from fighting on ice, where the air is actually a more stable place than the ground is.)
The chinese styles that are very, very jumping-heavy tend to lose a lot. The good fighters we see today are a mix of wrestling, grappling, and kickboxing, in that order.
That aisde, I've never heard the ice thing before...interesting if it's true. I'll have to look around some.
Given that Yoda probably couldn't even reach Dooku's chest with his light saber, how did you want him to fight? By constantly attacking Dooku's ankles?
I sure would. It wouldn't look as cool on screen, but it'd probably save your rear end.
Yeah, I agree, it would of been great: as an avid Akido student, I would of loved a scene with actual technique employed, instead we get this mesquito-on-speed-flippy scene, where no actual skill is utilized.
At least in this movie there was a good reason for it; all the kick-spin-jump-kiYAH! stuff is is attributable to the Force. In most movies, we're just expected to believe that people can do that stuff. Ugh.
Improvise.. Besides, the point is that unless someone attacks you, you're better off not doing anything (ie. only defend, don't attack). If someone attacks you and they get close &"enough", and you know your shit, then you can push them around a bit to make them fall.
:-)
If you're just going to improvise anyway, why bother training?
Many of the good fighters, especially the little guys, will hang back for a while to feel out their opponent, throwing strikes as appropriate. The guys who tend to win, though, soon close the gap, clinch, and start grappeling. A good throw will take out most guys, and if it doesn't, the average street punk isn't real good on the ground. It's not as simple as "make them fall" sounds, though. One of the great myths in the martial arts is "effortless attack." Kano (the guy who founded Judo, a distance cousing of Aikido) told his students to go for efficiency, not ease. Fighting a good oponent is hard, even if you've been training for years. The only match or fight I have been in where I wasn't sweating profusly at the end was one where the guy was nice enough to actually stick his neck out for me to strangle when he tried to tackle me.
A lot of fighting style depends on size and disposition. A 150 pound guy isn't going to last long is a striking contest, but if trained are usually hell on the floor. These guys usually play it safe and wait for the opponent to make a mistake. A 300 pound monster, on the other hand, might just be able to get by on size and power. These guys usually push the attack, and are successful more often than not.
You really have a problem when you get one of the 300 pound monsters that knows how to hit, throw, and grapple...outside of shooting them, there isn't a whole lot you are going to do to stop them.
Seeing only the form "right wrist stuck out" without the actual process taking place (easier to visualize the direction of motion with a stuck out hand) won't do you much good.
The whole "look, I grabbed his wrist and he flew through the air" thing is not how it's supposed to work in real life; uke rolls like that to keep from having his wrist broken, which is what should happen if Aikido is used on the street.
All that being said, most of the Martial Arts Masters (TM) I've seen, Aikido or otherwise, were soundly beaten by a decent boxer, kickboxer, or JuiJuitsuka. Still, a guy with a lightsaver would mince 'em all.
I thought that only happened at night...