Well said. The only thing I would add is that we need to hold the sack of Jerusalem within its historical context. By the standards of the day, it was bloody but by no means unprecedented.
The crusades were in their own way an example of the "good" in Christianity. A thousand years prior, Roman culture would have just plundered the Middle East for mercantilist gain, and felt no real need for an excuse. Christians felt like they needed an excuse, because Latin Christianity in the person of St. Augustine had stated very clear rules for when a Christian could morally participate in a war (the so-called "Just War Theory") and "plunder" wasn't on the list. Also, you seem to be proceeding on the assumption that Islam posed no real threat to Europe, and that a "flanking campaign" was illegitimate. The reality, if you go back and read the writings of people like Bernard of Clairvaux, is that they (a) felt that by attacking the Byzantines, the Muslims had attacked them (b) were acutely conscious of the fact that Byzantium might fall and that they would then have no buffer from the Saracens and (c) they were scared to death of Muslim aggression because Muslims had already conquered chunks of formerly "Christian" territory (i.e. Spain.)
The whole crusades as a criticism of Christianity thing simply doesn't hold up to much scrutiny, but that doesn't stop devotees by proxy of Bertrand Russell from repeating it to the point of nausea. What I wish such people would do is actually learn some real history and stop flapping their gums until they do.
Sources: Ph.D. in New Testament and early Christianity, active interest in subsequent church history.
By the way, NAMBLA was only kicked out because the other "gay rights activists" didn't want to take the heat for being affiliated with NAMBLA. Read the Wikipedia article sometime; very educational.
This sounds suspiciously like "Hate the sin, love the sinner"
And that is a bad thing because... ?
Rosa Parks wasn't arrested for what she "was". She was arrested for what she did, namely, sitting in the front of a bus, then rubbing the Police's nose in the fact that she was violating the (then-current) law. She may not have been able to "choose" whether or not she was black, but she was certainly able to choose whether she obeyed the law and sat in the back of the bus.
Rosa Parks was arrested because she did something that was otherwise perfectly legal (sitting on any available seat on the bus) while being black. And if anyone attempts to pass legislation (or any private organization, especially the church) attempts to say that someone who is attracted to people of their own gender has to sit in the back of something, every decent person anywhere should oppose them. But being tempted to something does not entitle you to indulge that temptation.
Do you really believe that Turing should have become celibate because his sexual preferences were illegal?
"Do you really believe that someone should resist the temptation to rob a bank just because it's illegal?" Or, better: "Do you really believe that someone should resist the compulsion to shoot up just because it's illegal?"
In a word, yes, I do. Or, at least, if one wants any sympathy, one should have the sense not to tell the police all about it.
But, pedophilia is consensual in some cases. Numerous adults have been convicted for having consensual sex with very young girls (Roman Polanski would be a recent, prominent example). This is not an arbitrary example. NAMBLA was an active part of the gay rights movement, affiliated with larger "alliances" of gay rights organizations, etc. until they were kicked out. The whole foundation of the "pedophile rights" movement is to argue that "consensual" relationships with children are actively beneficial to the children. This is not, on the face of it, an absurd point of view -- such "beneficial" relationships between an adult male and a young boy were staples in the ancient world.
And, where do you draw the line on "consensual" anyway? I am aware of a case where a five year old child was sexually abused (giving a man fellatio) and he thought it was no big deal (until adults found out) because he just wanted the chocolate syrup! The problem is that, once sexualized, children tend to sexually abuse other children and grow into pedophiles themselves.
Once you accept the notion that sexual desire is irresistible, then where does it end? "What about all those poor, repressed pedophiles having to think about young boys while making love to their wives? Wouldn't it be better to legalize so you have some control of the inevitable failure of self-control?" This is exactly the same argument used in support of legitimizing homosexual behavior.
Are you seriously trying to claim that people have no control over whether they dress up as a member of the opposite gender and attempt to fool people into thinking that they are that gender?
And what's with all this "being" language, anyway?
Turing wasn't convicted for what he "was". He was convicted for what he did -- namely, invited another man whom he didn't really know to live at his apartment, getting robbed, then rubbing the Police's nose in the fact that he was violating the (then-current) law. He may not have been able to "choose" whether or not he was attracted to men, but he was certainly able to choose whether he invited a random sociopath into his home and got robbed on account of it. Moreover, he was able to choose whether to act out sexually in ways that he knew to be illegal. Contrary to much contemporary prejudice, when one is unable to enjoy sex due to social conventions (be they a prohibition of rape, a prohibition of pedophilia, or whatever) celibacy really is an option that many people have practiced throughout history and continue to practice today.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think that homosexual behavior should be illegal in a free and democratic society. But that doesn't mean that one is convicted for "being" anything. And I can visualize a multitude of laws that might tend to criminalize GLBT behavior that are not unduly discriminatory (for example, a law prohibiting cross-dressing as a means of disguise, much like laws forbidding adults to wear masks in stores.)
It's high time that people stopped characterizing sexuality as something we "are". We are NOT our sexuality any more than we "are" our circumstances -- we are what we do with our sexuality.
>Ummm... no. An emergency room is required to stabilize you or transfer you to a more appropriate facility. They are not required to "treat" you. They can, do, and will refuse many life-saving treatments if you can't pay. Just pray you don't get laid off and get cancer a couple of months later, because under the current situation if you do you're screwed.
My problem isn't that my boss asks for my code, wanting to implement features themselves. My problem is that my boss doesn't know what code is, nor do they care to know. They regard what I do as deeply mysterious, dark magic, and are just glad it works. This might sound like heaven, but it's really kind of a PITA when I need them to go to bat for me with another department and they don't understand the issues involved.
You say, "it's just a game." But, it's not just a game, it's also a story. And stories help us form our worldview and our culture, and we spend countless hours immersed in them. Do we want a culture built on stories of blowing up everything in sight for no good reason (too many to name, really), raping "ho's" and stealing their "shit" (GTA), or building a civilization? I'll take building a great civilization, thank you.
I'm pretty much convinced that Lipitor is a scam, along with the whole "cholesterol" theory. This will just lead to more drug-laden zombies, and more overprescription for perfectly healthy people.
Information Science is a basic science, like any other, and in our world has a lot more immediate practical applications. It should be taught. Why can my son, very bright, in the 8th grade, tell me the layers of the atmosphere and the earths crust and evolution and basic physics, but can't tell me the difference between a bit and a byte? That's crazy.
I too worried about the free software movement when I wrote that. I think maybe if you set some sort of damage cap at "how much profit provider earns from software, directly or indirectly." Granted, in cases like iTunes or Internet Explorer, which are given away as "premiums" (kind of like banks used to give away toasters) this could be hard to calculate, but surely large company's have some sort of accounting basis for justifying how much they spend on these packages?
The point is that, in my observation, until you give company's a fiduciary motive to do something, they will <b>never</b> do it. So, if we want more secure software, we're going to have to give them a fiduciary motive. Not that software will be perfect, even then -- car manufacturers have always been liable for negligence, and there are still safety problems with cars. But there aren't nearly so many.
There's really only one solution: hold software makers libel for security vulnerabilities. Until every exploit hits the vendor in the pocketbook, we'll never see real management attention paid to information security.
Computer: "Sears tool desk, can I HELP you?" Me: "Operator." Computer: "I'm sorry, I didn't understand that. Did you say, screwdrivers?" Me: "Salesman" Computer: "I'm sorry, I didn't understand that. Did you say, salepaper?" Me: "Cashier." Computer: "I'm sorry, I didn't understand that. Did you say, chainsaw?" Me: "NOW I want a chainsaw! I'm coming down there and #!*(%$!*%^(!" Computer: "I understood that! Calling 911."
I am the OP. I've spent moderate amounts of time in other largish cities, including Washington DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Atlanta, and I live and work in the Washington suburbs and probably visit DC proper about once a month (although I will admit to being a "country boy" at heart and I grew up in rural Virginia in a town so small we were excited about our first (and still only!) stoplight). Granted, none of these cities has quite the population density that Manhattan has, but I have never seen the sort of police surveilance that I saw in Manhattan, even in downtown Washington around the Capitol -- which has at least as many tourists, if not more.
I had the opportunity of visiting occupy wall st. a couple of weeks ago for a couple of hours. I don't claim that this makes me some sort of deep expert, but I did get to see it and formed a few impressions.
First impressions were of Manhattan, which I had never visited before. Frankly, my impressions were that the place is a police state. I visited areas of Manhattan far away from #occupy, and there's pretty much a copy on ever street corner. There are also signs everywhere about how you are under video surveillance by the police. When I took the Staten Island Ferry into Battery Park, it was escorted by a literal gun boat. Now, I'm a Southern Boy, and I found myself thinking... "okay, if I were in Beijing or even London, I wouldn't be surprised. But this is America! What the hell is going on in this place?" It seems to me that New Yorkers have traded there "eternal liberties" for "termporary safety", and they need to take them back.
So, I more or less wandered into #occupy without even knowing that that was where I was heading. Everyone could certainly tell that this old, fat, tired, bald guy with bad clothes was from out of town, but everybody was very courteous to me and eager to tell me about their particular issue(s). Emphasis on their particular and the (s), because there was not one, unified issue driving the place unless it was the feeling that "those in power aren't listening to us." I was approached by people whose primary concern was corporate power, tax reform, fracking, and gay rights in the hour or so I was there.
If I thought the police presence in Manhattan was over the top, around Zuchotti park it was completely over the top. I'm talking cops every ten feet, a portable observation tower with people-tracking radar... you name it. But, here's the thing. So, near the kitchen, there's a sign that says, "X00 people have been arrested since #occupy began. There will be a meeting to discuss legal strategy at 8:00PM." And, 10 feet from the sign, and 20 feet from a cop, there's a couple of guys smoking pot right in front of God and everybody. Good old southern country boy that I am, all I can think is, "we at least closed the barn door when we did that!" I also wondered, were those umpteen-hundred protesters arrested being persecuted for "sticking it to the man", or were they arrested for smoking pot in front of a cop? Probably impossible to sort out.
So, I hung around for a while, sang a few Bob Dylan and Woody Guthrie songs, grabbed a half-dozen copies of the "Occupy Wall Street Times", and left." All in all, an interesting experience, and the Occupy Wall Street Times might be worth something someday if this turns out to be the start of an "Arab Spring" kind of movement in the US (although I doubt it.)
The original SCO was in Santa Cruz, and was actually, believe it or not, a Microsoft spinoff. They sold their unix assets and name to Caldera (a Linux company just off a.com IPO) around 1999. After the bust, Caldera changed mgmt and decided to start suing people, a model they used successfully in the 90s by suing Microsift over DRDOS.
This. SCOx is bankrupt, and the trustee is obligated to conserve their assets. Arguably, this would include pursuing this case into the ground, so long as there's ANY chance if settlement, especially since the legal fees are (maybe) already covered.
I suggest you watch the video. As I suggested in a previous post, Jerry Coyne is rather childish and launches a horrible, sneering, ad hominem argument. Haught's argument is much better reasoned and much better -- regardless of who "won."
There's a thriving industry in religious literature for both Academic and non-Academic audiences... in fact, most of the time if the true numbers were known, the real "best sellers" would be Christian books. Unfortunately, things like the NY Times best-seller list are so constructed as to obscure this fact (they only survey secular bookstores and entirely ignore Christian outlets.)
As far as "new" ideas, there's a old saying: "there's no such thing as a new heresy." It's very true. Nine hundred ninety-nine times out of a thousand, you've heard it before. In fact, sometimes when you know enough historical theology the hard part becomes distinguishing the guy saying something today from the guy 500 years ago who said almost exactly the same thing, and said a bunch of other things that this guy will probably eventually say, but hasn't yet thought his way around to. So, you find yourself telling people, "that's X and Y, and you'll end up at Z," and they say, "but I never said Z," and then it's really frustrating because you know, with great certainty, that everytime someone says "X and Y", they eventually get to "Z". The classic example would be an Augustinian doctrine of Election by Predestination. You almost can't take that doctrine without, eventually, landing at double predestination (which Augustine desperately tried to deny) -- and, again and again, as soon as people go down that path, they eventually end up at double predestination. It's depressing sometimes.
Anyway, so what do you write about? You pretty much hit the nail on the head when you said "applying things to current times." There are scholars (that 0.1%) who are able to come up with something genuinely fresh, without just being completely out of the ball park (I mean, I could tell you that Jesus was a green space alien with a purple dog named Toto -- it would be fresh and different, but not very likely or interesting). N.T. Wright would be the best example I'm aware of right now. But most of us just recycle the same old themes and try to apply them in new and interesting ways, and try to deal with people's misconceptions.
You sound like an arrogant douchebag here.
There are two kinds of biblical scholars: young ones and atheists.
If someone came up to you and told you the sky was green, would you believe them? The first time, you might look. The second time, you might look. After the 3rd, 4th, and 5th time, it would just become a joke. You sound like a foolish young man who knows precisely nothing about the sources, methods, and standards of New Testaments studies, but who thinks that because he's read a few entries in a few blogs, he has a grasp of the field. Tell me, how's your Greek? Syriac? Aramaic? In other words, I may be an arrogant douchebag, but my arrogance is justified. I'd rather be an arrogant douchbag than an ignorant douchebag.
There are two kinds of biblical scholars: young ones and atheists.
So... what do you call:
Richard Hays. Turned New Testament studies on its ear with his doctoral dissertation in the seventies, at Yale IIRC. Devout United Methodist, currently Dean of Duke. Currently in his 60's or possibly 70's.
N.T. Wright. Currently at St. Andrews in the UK. Formerly of McGill and Oxford. Doctorate from Oxford. In his 60's. Bishop of the Church of England. Probably the best New Testament scholar writing today.
Father Raymond Brown. Sadly deceased, but undeniably the premier Johannine scholar of our age. Roman Catholic priest. Got in hot water from time to time for his views, but remained faithful to the church and has been commended by Pope Benedict XVI.
Douglas Moo. Teaches at Wheaton, prior to that at Trinity Evangelical Divinity school, but was vigorously and publicly courted by Yale some years ago. Wrote the definitive commentary on Romans. PhD from St. Andrews.
I. Howard Marshall. Particularly interested in the book of Luke/Acts, on which he wrote the definitive commentary. Established the NT program at U of Aberdeen, which is probably the strongest in England.
All of the above could be termed "conservative" in the sense that they affirm basically orthodox beliefs about God. Now all of them are Evangelicals (I count 2 and a half out of five.) But that's just off the top of my head. I could multiply examples if I chose to dig, or if I chose to appeal to "liberal" scholars who affirm the existence of God but not necessarily orthodox (i.e. Nicene) beliefs about God.
In other words, sir, you know absolutely nothing about this field, and shouldn't be talking about it. If you'd like to learn, I'd suggest you start with "Simply Jesus" by N.T. Wright. Just finished it last night -- it's at a popular level, and it's simply fantastic.
Are you suggesting that the New Testament is equivalent to a mythical little green man with a funny hat? Or stories of a little mythical green man with a funny hat? Hmm... at the very least, even the most strident skeptics concede that there was a man Jesus at the core of the gospels, there was an historical Paul, Peter, etc. Note that the "Jesus Myth" theories (as put forward by primarily self-published authors like G.A. Wells and Earl Doherty, on the Internet nowadays) are a joke to those who know anything about the sources, and are pretty much laughed at.
Slashdot Mirror
Well said. The only thing I would add is that we need to hold the sack of Jerusalem within its historical context. By the standards of the day, it was bloody but by no means unprecedented.
The crusades were in their own way an example of the "good" in Christianity. A thousand years prior, Roman culture would have just plundered the Middle East for mercantilist gain, and felt no real need for an excuse. Christians felt like they needed an excuse, because Latin Christianity in the person of St. Augustine had stated very clear rules for when a Christian could morally participate in a war (the so-called "Just War Theory") and "plunder" wasn't on the list. Also, you seem to be proceeding on the assumption that Islam posed no real threat to Europe, and that a "flanking campaign" was illegitimate. The reality, if you go back and read the writings of people like Bernard of Clairvaux, is that they (a) felt that by attacking the Byzantines, the Muslims had attacked them (b) were acutely conscious of the fact that Byzantium might fall and that they would then have no buffer from the Saracens and (c) they were scared to death of Muslim aggression because Muslims had already conquered chunks of formerly "Christian" territory (i.e. Spain.)
The whole crusades as a criticism of Christianity thing simply doesn't hold up to much scrutiny, but that doesn't stop devotees by proxy of Bertrand Russell from repeating it to the point of nausea. What I wish such people would do is actually learn some real history and stop flapping their gums until they do.
Sources: Ph.D. in New Testament and early Christianity, active interest in subsequent church history.
By the way, NAMBLA was only kicked out because the other "gay rights activists" didn't want to take the heat for being affiliated with NAMBLA. Read the Wikipedia article sometime; very educational.
This sounds suspiciously like "Hate the sin, love the sinner"
And that is a bad thing because... ?
Rosa Parks wasn't arrested for what she "was". She was arrested for what she did, namely, sitting in the front of a bus, then rubbing the Police's nose in the fact that she was violating the (then-current) law. She may not have been able to "choose" whether or not she was black, but she was certainly able to choose whether she obeyed the law and sat in the back of the bus.
Rosa Parks was arrested because she did something that was otherwise perfectly legal (sitting on any available seat on the bus) while being black. And if anyone attempts to pass legislation (or any private organization, especially the church) attempts to say that someone who is attracted to people of their own gender has to sit in the back of something, every decent person anywhere should oppose them. But being tempted to something does not entitle you to indulge that temptation.
Do you really believe that Turing should have become celibate because his sexual preferences were illegal?
"Do you really believe that someone should resist the temptation to rob a bank just because it's illegal?" Or, better: "Do you really believe that someone should resist the compulsion to shoot up just because it's illegal?"
In a word, yes, I do. Or, at least, if one wants any sympathy, one should have the sense not to tell the police all about it.
But, pedophilia is consensual in some cases. Numerous adults have been convicted for having consensual sex with very young girls (Roman Polanski would be a recent, prominent example). This is not an arbitrary example. NAMBLA was an active part of the gay rights movement, affiliated with larger "alliances" of gay rights organizations, etc. until they were kicked out. The whole foundation of the "pedophile rights" movement is to argue that "consensual" relationships with children are actively beneficial to the children. This is not, on the face of it, an absurd point of view -- such "beneficial" relationships between an adult male and a young boy were staples in the ancient world.
And, where do you draw the line on "consensual" anyway? I am aware of a case where a five year old child was sexually abused (giving a man fellatio) and he thought it was no big deal (until adults found out) because he just wanted the chocolate syrup! The problem is that, once sexualized, children tend to sexually abuse other children and grow into pedophiles themselves.
Once you accept the notion that sexual desire is irresistible, then where does it end? "What about all those poor, repressed pedophiles having to think about young boys while making love to their wives? Wouldn't it be better to legalize so you have some control of the inevitable failure of self-control?" This is exactly the same argument used in support of legitimizing homosexual behavior.
Being "trans" is not a choice!?
Are you seriously trying to claim that people have no control over whether they dress up as a member of the opposite gender and attempt to fool people into thinking that they are that gender?
And what's with all this "being" language, anyway?
Turing wasn't convicted for what he "was". He was convicted for what he did -- namely, invited another man whom he didn't really know to live at his apartment, getting robbed, then rubbing the Police's nose in the fact that he was violating the (then-current) law. He may not have been able to "choose" whether or not he was attracted to men, but he was certainly able to choose whether he invited a random sociopath into his home and got robbed on account of it. Moreover, he was able to choose whether to act out sexually in ways that he knew to be illegal. Contrary to much contemporary prejudice, when one is unable to enjoy sex due to social conventions (be they a prohibition of rape, a prohibition of pedophilia, or whatever) celibacy really is an option that many people have practiced throughout history and continue to practice today.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think that homosexual behavior should be illegal in a free and democratic society. But that doesn't mean that one is convicted for "being" anything. And I can visualize a multitude of laws that might tend to criminalize GLBT behavior that are not unduly discriminatory (for example, a law prohibiting cross-dressing as a means of disguise, much like laws forbidding adults to wear masks in stores.)
It's high time that people stopped characterizing sexuality as something we "are". We are NOT our sexuality any more than we "are" our circumstances -- we are what we do with our sexuality.
So, your theory is that terrorists aren't deranged?!??
>Ummm... no. An emergency room is required to stabilize you or transfer you to a more appropriate facility. They are not required to "treat" you. They can, do, and will refuse many life-saving treatments if you can't pay. Just pray you don't get laid off and get cancer a couple of months later, because under the current situation if you do you're screwed.
My problem isn't that my boss asks for my code, wanting to implement features themselves. My problem is that my boss doesn't know what code is, nor do they care to know. They regard what I do as deeply mysterious, dark magic, and are just glad it works. This might sound like heaven, but it's really kind of a PITA when I need them to go to bat for me with another department and they don't understand the issues involved.
You say, "it's just a game." But, it's not just a game, it's also a story. And stories help us form our worldview and our culture, and we spend countless hours immersed in them. Do we want a culture built on stories of blowing up everything in sight for no good reason (too many to name, really), raping "ho's" and stealing their "shit" (GTA), or building a civilization? I'll take building a great civilization, thank you.
Ha. Childs play. Oracle are guaranteeing binary compatibility all the way back to SunOS 5.6, which IIRC was released in 1997 or so?
http://www.oracle.com/us/products/servers-storage/solaris/binary-app-guarantee-080255.pdf
As a practical matter, I <strong>think</strong> you can still run SunOS 4 binaries, but I'm not sure, haven't tried it in many years.
I'm pretty much convinced that Lipitor is a scam, along with the whole "cholesterol" theory. This will just lead to more drug-laden zombies, and more overprescription for perfectly healthy people.
Information Science is a basic science, like any other, and in our world has a lot more immediate practical applications. It should be taught. Why can my son, very bright, in the 8th grade, tell me the layers of the atmosphere and the earths crust and evolution and basic physics, but can't tell me the difference between a bit and a byte? That's crazy.
OP.
I too worried about the free software movement when I wrote that. I think maybe if you set some sort of damage cap at "how much profit provider earns from software, directly or indirectly." Granted, in cases like iTunes or Internet Explorer, which are given away as "premiums" (kind of like banks used to give away toasters) this could be hard to calculate, but surely large company's have some sort of accounting basis for justifying how much they spend on these packages?
The point is that, in my observation, until you give company's a fiduciary motive to do something, they will <b>never</b> do it. So, if we want more secure software, we're going to have to give them a fiduciary motive. Not that software will be perfect, even then -- car manufacturers have always been liable for negligence, and there are still safety problems with cars. But there aren't nearly so many.
There's really only one solution: hold software makers libel for security vulnerabilities. Until every exploit hits the vendor in the pocketbook, we'll never see real management attention paid to information security.
Four billion to cover "accounting costs"?
.... wow, no wonder they're going under.
Can I be their accountants? I mean
Computer: "Sears tool desk, can I HELP you?"
Me: "Operator."
Computer: "I'm sorry, I didn't understand that. Did you say, screwdrivers?"
Me: "Salesman"
Computer: "I'm sorry, I didn't understand that. Did you say, salepaper?"
Me: "Cashier."
Computer: "I'm sorry, I didn't understand that. Did you say, chainsaw?"
Me: "NOW I want a chainsaw! I'm coming down there and #!*(%$!*%^(!"
Computer: "I understood that! Calling 911."
I am the OP. I've spent moderate amounts of time in other largish cities, including Washington DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Atlanta, and I live and work in the Washington suburbs and probably visit DC proper about once a month (although I will admit to being a "country boy" at heart and I grew up in rural Virginia in a town so small we were excited about our first (and still only!) stoplight). Granted, none of these cities has quite the population density that Manhattan has, but I have never seen the sort of police surveilance that I saw in Manhattan, even in downtown Washington around the Capitol -- which has at least as many tourists, if not more.
I had the opportunity of visiting occupy wall st. a couple of weeks ago for a couple of hours. I don't claim that this makes me some sort of deep expert, but I did get to see it and formed a few impressions.
First impressions were of Manhattan, which I had never visited before. Frankly, my impressions were that the place is a police state. I visited areas of Manhattan far away from #occupy, and there's pretty much a copy on ever street corner. There are also signs everywhere about how you are under video surveillance by the police. When I took the Staten Island Ferry into Battery Park, it was escorted by a literal gun boat. Now, I'm a Southern Boy, and I found myself thinking ... "okay, if I were in Beijing or even London, I wouldn't be surprised. But this is America! What the hell is going on in this place?" It seems to me that New Yorkers have traded there "eternal liberties" for "termporary safety", and they need to take them back.
So, I more or less wandered into #occupy without even knowing that that was where I was heading. Everyone could certainly tell that this old, fat, tired, bald guy with bad clothes was from out of town, but everybody was very courteous to me and eager to tell me about their particular issue(s). Emphasis on their particular and the (s), because there was not one, unified issue driving the place unless it was the feeling that "those in power aren't listening to us." I was approached by people whose primary concern was corporate power, tax reform, fracking, and gay rights in the hour or so I was there.
If I thought the police presence in Manhattan was over the top, around Zuchotti park it was completely over the top. I'm talking cops every ten feet, a portable observation tower with people-tracking radar ... you name it. But, here's the thing. So, near the kitchen, there's a sign that says, "X00 people have been arrested since #occupy began. There will be a meeting to discuss legal strategy at 8:00PM." And, 10 feet from the sign, and 20 feet from a cop, there's a couple of guys smoking pot right in front of God and everybody. Good old southern country boy that I am, all I can think is, "we at least closed the barn door when we did that!" I also wondered, were those umpteen-hundred protesters arrested being persecuted for "sticking it to the man", or were they arrested for smoking pot in front of a cop? Probably impossible to sort out.
So, I hung around for a while, sang a few Bob Dylan and Woody Guthrie songs, grabbed a half-dozen copies of the "Occupy Wall Street Times", and left." All in all, an interesting experience, and the Occupy Wall Street Times might be worth something someday if this turns out to be the start of an "Arab Spring" kind of movement in the US (although I doubt it.)
The original SCO was in Santa Cruz, and was actually, believe it or not, a Microsoft spinoff. They sold their unix assets and name to Caldera (a Linux company just off a .com IPO) around 1999. After the bust, Caldera changed mgmt and decided to start suing people, a model they used successfully in the 90s by suing Microsift over DRDOS.
This. SCOx is bankrupt, and the trustee is obligated to conserve their assets. Arguably, this would include pursuing this case into the ground, so long as there's ANY chance if settlement, especially since the legal fees are (maybe) already covered.
I suggest you watch the video. As I suggested in a previous post, Jerry Coyne is rather childish and launches a horrible, sneering, ad hominem argument. Haught's argument is much better reasoned and much better -- regardless of who "won."
There's a thriving industry in religious literature for both Academic and non-Academic audiences... in fact, most of the time if the true numbers were known, the real "best sellers" would be Christian books. Unfortunately, things like the NY Times best-seller list are so constructed as to obscure this fact (they only survey secular bookstores and entirely ignore Christian outlets.)
As far as "new" ideas, there's a old saying: "there's no such thing as a new heresy." It's very true. Nine hundred ninety-nine times out of a thousand, you've heard it before. In fact, sometimes when you know enough historical theology the hard part becomes distinguishing the guy saying something today from the guy 500 years ago who said almost exactly the same thing, and said a bunch of other things that this guy will probably eventually say, but hasn't yet thought his way around to. So, you find yourself telling people, "that's X and Y, and you'll end up at Z," and they say, "but I never said Z," and then it's really frustrating because you know, with great certainty, that everytime someone says "X and Y", they eventually get to "Z". The classic example would be an Augustinian doctrine of Election by Predestination. You almost can't take that doctrine without, eventually, landing at double predestination (which Augustine desperately tried to deny) -- and, again and again, as soon as people go down that path, they eventually end up at double predestination. It's depressing sometimes.
Anyway, so what do you write about? You pretty much hit the nail on the head when you said "applying things to current times." There are scholars (that 0.1%) who are able to come up with something genuinely fresh, without just being completely out of the ball park (I mean, I could tell you that Jesus was a green space alien with a purple dog named Toto -- it would be fresh and different, but not very likely or interesting). N.T. Wright would be the best example I'm aware of right now. But most of us just recycle the same old themes and try to apply them in new and interesting ways, and try to deal with people's misconceptions.
If someone came up to you and told you the sky was green, would you believe them? The first time, you might look. The second time, you might look. After the 3rd, 4th, and 5th time, it would just become a joke. You sound like a foolish young man who knows precisely nothing about the sources, methods, and standards of New Testaments studies, but who thinks that because he's read a few entries in a few blogs, he has a grasp of the field. Tell me, how's your Greek? Syriac? Aramaic? In other words, I may be an arrogant douchebag, but my arrogance is justified. I'd rather be an arrogant douchbag than an ignorant douchebag.
So ... what do you call:
All of the above could be termed "conservative" in the sense that they affirm basically orthodox beliefs about God. Now all of them are Evangelicals (I count 2 and a half out of five.) But that's just off the top of my head. I could multiply examples if I chose to dig, or if I chose to appeal to "liberal" scholars who affirm the existence of God but not necessarily orthodox (i.e. Nicene) beliefs about God.
In other words, sir, you know absolutely nothing about this field, and shouldn't be talking about it. If you'd like to learn, I'd suggest you start with "Simply Jesus" by N.T. Wright. Just finished it last night -- it's at a popular level, and it's simply fantastic.
Are you suggesting that the New Testament is equivalent to a mythical little green man with a funny hat? Or stories of a little mythical green man with a funny hat? Hmm... at the very least, even the most strident skeptics concede that there was a man Jesus at the core of the gospels, there was an historical Paul, Peter, etc. Note that the "Jesus Myth" theories (as put forward by primarily self-published authors like G.A. Wells and Earl Doherty, on the Internet nowadays) are a joke to those who know anything about the sources, and are pretty much laughed at.