Like it or not, SKU has a specific, useful, and hard-to-express meaning. Come up with a better way of saying it that's just as succinct as "SKU", and I (and presumably others) will gladly use your word instead of business-morons' term.
Not to mention the fact that since he SAID the translation was wrong, he obviously was not one of the subset of Christians who believe that the KJV is inspired. Asking a question to which the answer is obvious can also easily be seen as derision.
No, you didn't, so that's by definition already irony, almost sarcasm, and not a question at all. "Do you not believe that the translation is inspired?" is a question. A false statement is not.
Well?
This has a question mark, but is more of a taunt than a question. If you choose to rebut, please give instances of "Well?" in a context where it obviously does not indicate impatience of or derision by the speaker.
Was god wrong when he did the translation?
Here we have a question, but this question assumes the answer to the question you didn't ask in your first sentence. Assuming the answer to the question you're addressing is blatantly derisive.
So no, sir, you did plenty for me to assume you were being sarcastic. I apologize for using the term "shove it in someone's face" if you were not intentionally doing so. I will apologize for my entire assumption when you show me with examples how you could feasibly be interpreted any other way, or when you show me medical records establishing that you have Asperger's Syndrome or any other illness that causes oblivious social misbehavior.
Well, I'm having a hard time coming up with hard numbers, but the Wikipedia page lists some denominations taking any KJV-only position, and the really big ones (Catholic (of course), Southern Baptist, United Methodist) are absent, and the bigger ones there all have disclaimers saying most or not all congregations are KJV-only.
Not only that, but the article also says that within KJV-onlyers, the KJV-inspireders are a minority. So we have no huge denominations listed, a disclaimer on all the denominations that are listed, and some small fraction of all the churches we haven't eliminated yet. Not a very significant number, and not at all enough to assume that your average Slashdot fundamentalist is going to believe that the KJV is inspired.
"asking a question but really making a sarcastic statement" way that is so common around here
What the fuck is wrong with you
You answered your own question before you asked it.:P
That belief is held by such an insignificant minority of Christians that it's absolutely ridiculous for you to shove it in someone's face without particular knowledge that they hold that belief, no matter how simple-minded they might be.
If the parent is anywhere close to accurate, that's the most, er, "insightformative" post I've seen on Slashdot in a year.
But I'm in no position to verify its accuracy or validity or non-Swiss cheese-ness.
I am wondering whether most of musicians' money now, in the old business model, comes from recording sales or ticket sales. Because it seems feasible to me that your average, non-blockbuster band might see hardly any of recording sales, but that the recordings are actually just promotional material for the concerts.
I basically don't know whether the parent or myself (or each of us) is talking out of our butts. Anyone care to enlighten me? <.<;;
Ehhhnhh, okay, I guess you're probably right. I knew I wasn't in true behavior-analysis territory with my original post, but it just seemed like it made sense.
It's less effective than other schedules at evoking the behavior under new antecedent conditions, yes.
But I'm not talking about teaching them to do the gadget-behaviors, I'm talking about teaching them to do completely unrelated stuff when the schedule they're used to is continuous. I don't know if there's any behavior analysis terms for it, but it seems to me that a constant exposure to continuous reinforcement might impair their ability to be brought under the control of new operants in less gratifying situations.
Part --- not all, but part --- of the reason for more kids sucking in school is that when they go home, they've got all these gadgets that put them on a continuous reinforcement schedule. They get IMMEDIATE reinforcement on every click of the mouse, every push of a button, every touch of the stylus.
It's been a while since I took Ed Psych, so I can't use too many more big behavior-analysis words, but when you saturate children with immediate reinforcement and then drop them into a classroom, it's pretty obvious that a good percentage of them will become zombie children. Human teachers just can't provide the reinforcement schedule that they've become accustomed to.
"Random occasions?" Have you ever been to a math class on any grade level?
Two of your three "random occasions" don't change the number. Numbers don't change when you multiply or divide by one, remember? So there's no reason to expect the rendering to change when the underlying number doesn't change.
Your first "random occasion" still obviously yields a number in the "close to 65,535" range, which is what triggers the bug in the first place.
The grandparent post may not have been strictly correct in all circumstances, but you knew (or should have known) what he meant, and your statement that the bug presents "randomly" shows a complete lack of understanding of the bug and possibly of basic math (or else you just didn't read what you pasted).
Re:Copyright notice and Creative Commons licenses?
on
GPL Lawsuit May Not Settle
·
· Score: 2, Informative
People have been using their iPhone for weeks without realizing that there is a difference between sleep/wake and power-off. That's really pretty interesting. iPhone is not different from other devices in maintaining this distinction, PalmOS devices have it, for example.
True, if by "have it" you mean "omit power-off entirely". I've had three Palm OS devices, and the only way to achieve true power off is to let the battery die or take it out.
Yeah, a modern Catholic Bishop has a whole lot more going on than that. Plus, in the New Testament, Bishops/Elders/Pastors/Overseers (all the same thing in the NT) are only over a single congregation. There's no big hierarchy combining multiple congregations, and in fact no mention of any relationship between any two congregations, except occasionally one single congregation sending another single congregation funds for the latter's benefit.
As far as I know, the only sects adhering strictly to the NT definition of, um, "personnel" are churches of Christ and the Christian Church people. There may be more.
Baptists come kinda sorta close to that as well, as their hierarchical groups don't have authority over individual congregations, nor do a congregation's representatives to said groups. But they ascribe different stuff to pastors than the NT does; to them a pastor is elder + chief evangelist, whereas there's nothing in the Bible that gives special recognition to or even talks about a congregation's chief evangelist.
Funny, I don't see any words there that indicate a long line of popes with occasional infallibility. I see some words that make Peter the head Apostle, but nothing much more.
To understand the "rock" that Christ is building his church on, you have to look at the preceding verse or two. Yes, "Peter" means "rock," but what made Jesus name him "Rock"? Why, it was Peter's preceding statement that ""You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
That statement is the rock that Peter was named after, and that statement is the rock that Jesus built his church on.
There is no, zip, zero distinction between priests and laity in the Bible. All Christians are referred to as priests and as a "holy priesthood;" the only two "positions" referred to in the Bible are elders (== bishops == overseers == pastors) and deacons.
And if you think the Catholic version of a Bishop is to be found anywhere in the Bible, you are majorly, sadly misinformed.
Okay, you got me on the political science*, but I think I'm doing better than you in the semantics department. See above.
* (Although I daresay that when most laymen talk about "socialism" they are talking about something coercive and not something voluntary, and it was that laymen's definition I (thought I) was addressing.)
He's not picking and choosing; you're misinterpreting in several places.
You say that Acts 4:32 precludes private ownership. But that verse begins with a figurative sentence, so it's reasonable to interpret the rest of the verse as mild hyperbole. It in fact is reasonable to interpret it as mild hyperbole even without the figurative sentence, since it's an ethereal statement about the general state of things meant to convey an atmosphere, not intended to be taken completely literally.
You say the end of Acts 4 indicates an "expectation" that all proceeds will be offered to the community, but the verses say nothing about such an expectation. They merely say that it happened a lot. Acts 4:34 especially indicates that it was not a requirement, since it says that "From time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them...". If it were a requirement, all the land- and house-selling would happen at once, instead of occasionally.
You say that we're picking and choosing in focusing on verse 4 rather than verse 3, when in fact we are interpreting verse 3 based on the following context of verse 4. If all you read was verse 3, you would think that the sin was in fact the withholding of funds. But verse 4,
where Peter says "And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal?", absolutely precludes this interpretation. If the money was at Ananias's disposal, then it was not required for him to offer all the money, much less sinful for him not to.
You say " 'You have not lied to men but to God.' really throws a hydrospanner in the works," but this is because of your lack of understanding of figurative speech. There is a very strong, obvious, implied "You think you have lied to men," before that statement. Peter was saying that their lie, which they thought was directed toward men, was in fact directed toward God because of the nature of the thing they were lying about.
The definition of "picking and choosing" is interpreting a single verse or two without considering the other verses that address the same question, whether they're in the immediate context or halfway across the Bible. In narrowly focusing on 5:3, without letting your interpretation of 5:3 be guided by what 5:4 overtly says, you're the one who's picking and choosing.
If you call what the early Christians had "socialism," then you must also think open source software is socialism*.
Repeat after me: "Socialism isn't voluntary. If it's voluntary, it's not socialism."
* (Which, by the way, instantly makes you unpopular around here, which I'm sure is the opposite of what you intended when you publically misinterpreted the Bible here.)
Slashdot Mirror
Like it or not, SKU has a specific, useful, and hard-to-express meaning. Come up with a better way of saying it that's just as succinct as "SKU", and I (and presumably others) will gladly use your word instead of business-morons' term.
Not to mention the fact that since he SAID the translation was wrong, he obviously was not one of the subset of Christians who believe that the KJV is inspired. Asking a question to which the answer is obvious can also easily be seen as derision.
Okay, fine, if it has to be like this:
No, you didn't, so that's by definition already irony, almost sarcasm, and not a question at all. "Do you not believe that the translation is inspired?" is a question. A false statement is not.
This has a question mark, but is more of a taunt than a question. If you choose to rebut, please give instances of "Well?" in a context where it obviously does not indicate impatience of or derision by the speaker.
Here we have a question, but this question assumes the answer to the question you didn't ask in your first sentence. Assuming the answer to the question you're addressing is blatantly derisive.
So no, sir, you did plenty for me to assume you were being sarcastic. I apologize for using the term "shove it in someone's face" if you were not intentionally doing so. I will apologize for my entire assumption when you show me with examples how you could feasibly be interpreted any other way, or when you show me medical records establishing that you have Asperger's Syndrome or any other illness that causes oblivious social misbehavior.
Well, I'm having a hard time coming up with hard numbers, but the Wikipedia page lists some denominations taking any KJV-only position, and the really big ones (Catholic (of course), Southern Baptist, United Methodist) are absent, and the bigger ones there all have disclaimers saying most or not all congregations are KJV-only.
Not only that, but the article also says that within KJV-onlyers, the KJV-inspireders are a minority. So we have no huge denominations listed, a disclaimer on all the denominations that are listed, and some small fraction of all the churches we haven't eliminated yet. Not a very significant number, and not at all enough to assume that your average Slashdot fundamentalist is going to believe that the KJV is inspired.
You answered your own question before you asked it. :P
That belief is held by such an insignificant minority of Christians that it's absolutely ridiculous for you to shove it in someone's face without particular knowledge that they hold that belief, no matter how simple-minded they might be.
If the parent is anywhere close to accurate, that's the most, er, "insightformative" post I've seen on Slashdot in a year.
But I'm in no position to verify its accuracy or validity or non-Swiss cheese-ness.
I am wondering whether most of musicians' money now, in the old business model, comes from recording sales or ticket sales. Because it seems feasible to me that your average, non-blockbuster band might see hardly any of recording sales, but that the recordings are actually just promotional material for the concerts.
I basically don't know whether the parent or myself (or each of us) is talking out of our butts. Anyone care to enlighten me? <.<;;
TMI! TMI! I don't want to know who gently serialized Adams' Dirk! Not from Slashdot, anyway!
Ehhhnhh, okay, I guess you're probably right. I knew I wasn't in true behavior-analysis territory with my original post, but it just seemed like it made sense.
It's less effective than other schedules at evoking the behavior under new antecedent conditions, yes.
But I'm not talking about teaching them to do the gadget-behaviors, I'm talking about teaching them to do completely unrelated stuff when the schedule they're used to is continuous. I don't know if there's any behavior analysis terms for it, but it seems to me that a constant exposure to continuous reinforcement might impair their ability to be brought under the control of new operants in less gratifying situations.
*BANG*
Part --- not all, but part --- of the reason for more kids sucking in school is that when they go home, they've got all these gadgets that put them on a continuous reinforcement schedule. They get IMMEDIATE reinforcement on every click of the mouse, every push of a button, every touch of the stylus.
It's been a while since I took Ed Psych, so I can't use too many more big behavior-analysis words, but when you saturate children with immediate reinforcement and then drop them into a classroom, it's pretty obvious that a good percentage of them will become zombie children. Human teachers just can't provide the reinforcement schedule that they've become accustomed to.
"Less descriptive"?? Hardly.
"Random occasions?" Have you ever been to a math class on any grade level?
Two of your three "random occasions" don't change the number. Numbers don't change when you multiply or divide by one, remember? So there's no reason to expect the rendering to change when the underlying number doesn't change.
Your first "random occasion" still obviously yields a number in the "close to 65,535" range, which is what triggers the bug in the first place.
The grandparent post may not have been strictly correct in all circumstances, but you knew (or should have known) what he meant, and your statement that the bug presents "randomly" shows a complete lack of understanding of the bug and possibly of basic math (or else you just didn't read what you pasted).
Nice non sequitur. Creative Commons licenses are not software licenses at all .
In context, he's obviously referring to Textpattern.
True, if by "have it" you mean "omit power-off entirely". I've had three Palm OS devices, and the only way to achieve true power off is to let the battery die or take it out.
I didn't get it in as a first post, but perhaps you'd care to respond to my recent journal post on "SKU" whiners.
The gist: SKU may be businessese, but it has a real, specific meaning that's hard to express any other way.
Yeah, a modern Catholic Bishop has a whole lot more going on than that. Plus, in the New Testament, Bishops/Elders/Pastors/Overseers (all the same thing in the NT) are only over a single congregation. There's no big hierarchy combining multiple congregations, and in fact no mention of any relationship between any two congregations, except occasionally one single congregation sending another single congregation funds for the latter's benefit.
As far as I know, the only sects adhering strictly to the NT definition of, um, "personnel" are churches of Christ and the Christian Church people. There may be more.
Baptists come kinda sorta close to that as well, as their hierarchical groups don't have authority over individual congregations, nor do a congregation's representatives to said groups. But they ascribe different stuff to pastors than the NT does; to them a pastor is elder + chief evangelist, whereas there's nothing in the Bible that gives special recognition to or even talks about a congregation's chief evangelist.
And point me to any instance of the Catholic Church using the aforementioned book. XD
Funny, I don't see any words there that indicate a long line of popes with occasional infallibility. I see some words that make Peter the head Apostle, but nothing much more.
To understand the "rock" that Christ is building his church on, you have to look at the preceding verse or two. Yes, "Peter" means "rock," but what made Jesus name him "Rock"? Why, it was Peter's preceding statement that ""You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
That statement is the rock that Peter was named after, and that statement is the rock that Jesus built his church on.
Context FTW!
There is no, zip, zero distinction between priests and laity in the Bible. All Christians are referred to as priests and as a "holy priesthood;" the only two "positions" referred to in the Bible are elders (== bishops == overseers == pastors) and deacons.
And if you think the Catholic version of a Bishop is to be found anywhere in the Bible, you are majorly, sadly misinformed.
Okay, you got me on the political science*, but I think I'm doing better than you in the semantics department. See above.
* (Although I daresay that when most laymen talk about "socialism" they are talking about something coercive and not something voluntary, and it was that laymen's definition I (thought I) was addressing.)
He's not picking and choosing; you're misinterpreting in several places.
- You say that Acts 4:32 precludes private ownership. But that verse begins with a figurative sentence, so it's reasonable to interpret the rest of the verse as mild hyperbole. It in fact is reasonable to interpret it as mild hyperbole even without the figurative sentence, since it's an ethereal statement about the general state of things meant to convey an atmosphere, not intended to be taken completely literally.
- You say the end of Acts 4 indicates an "expectation" that all proceeds will be offered to the community, but the verses say nothing about such an expectation. They merely say that it happened a lot. Acts 4:34 especially indicates that it was not a requirement, since it says that "From time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them...". If it were a requirement, all the land- and house-selling would happen at once, instead of occasionally.
- You say that we're picking and choosing in focusing on verse 4 rather than verse 3, when in fact we are interpreting verse 3 based on the following context of verse 4. If all you read was verse 3, you would think that the sin was in fact the withholding of funds. But verse 4,
where Peter says "And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal?", absolutely precludes this interpretation. If the money was at Ananias's disposal, then it was not required for him to offer all the money, much less sinful for him not to.
- You say " 'You have not lied to men but to God.' really throws a hydrospanner in the works," but this is because of your lack of understanding of figurative speech. There is a very strong, obvious, implied "You think you have lied to men," before that statement. Peter was saying that their lie, which they thought was directed toward men, was in fact directed toward God because of the nature of the thing they were lying about.
The definition of "picking and choosing" is interpreting a single verse or two without considering the other verses that address the same question, whether they're in the immediate context or halfway across the Bible. In narrowly focusing on 5:3, without letting your interpretation of 5:3 be guided by what 5:4 overtly says, you're the one who's picking and choosing.If you call what the early Christians had "socialism," then you must also think open source software is socialism*.
Repeat after me: "Socialism isn't voluntary. If it's voluntary, it's not socialism."
* (Which, by the way, instantly makes you unpopular around here, which I'm sure is the opposite of what you intended when you publically misinterpreted the Bible here.)
Sorry for the redundant post; I was using Internet Explorer (at work) with Discussion2 turned on, which is a very confusing experience.