On the whole, religion has killed more people than all forms of revolution and all wars over money, gold or resources
Your statement is true from the standpoint that there are people that use the guise of religion as a reason for violence. But there are those also that use atheism for exact same purpose and reason.
So is concept of religion the problem or is it man's falable nature the problem?
Does a person's convictions and beliefs in "loving their neighbor" cause them to attack their neighbor? Or is it really the opposite, that they in fact do not have a true religion and actually desire to not obey commands like "thou shalt not kill".
Muslems, Jews and Christians all claim they are religious, all claim the same roots (Abraham) yet, if they do not obey their own religious doctrines, how can their actions be blaimed on religion?
Those that choose to be an atheist decide for themselves what is right and wrong, without a basis of a higher power directing them. But if you look at what is naturally considered "good", you will find these ideas mirror closely what is considered "good" by the standards of the root (Abraham) of the 3 major religions. Perhaps this is just a coincidence, but loving your neighbor or not loving your neighbor is a personal choice that if not done cannot be blamed on the concept, but only on a person's actions.
amazon, google, msn, yahoo, etc are all web pages. something you can easily bookmark or even set as your home page. Programs are a whole different story. why should I run this firefox thing?
What's a bookmark? What's a webpage? What's an application? If people think the internet is inside of a blue "e" none of these kinds of issues matter, they just need to know where to click.
It's name recognition, that's all. Once they know that if you click on the pretty fox icon instead of the blue "e", that's all the matters. If the general public can learn that a big blue "e" means the internet, then they can learn another way, especially after the 3rd time of bringing their box to Best Buy and paying $150 to some techno-snobish teen to clean off the spyware and viruses.
Getting these people to download and install Firefox, that is the real challenge.
How in the nine hells are they supposed to know what "Firefox" is (most of them do not read the times). Firefox is not an intuitive name. It gives the average person absolutely no idea what it does by just looking at what the name is.
Amazon
yahoo
msn
google
etc...
None of these mean anything but they are all sucessful none the less. It's just a marketing issue.
"HEY GRANDMA!!! Try the NEW and _improved_ internet! It's called Firefox, blazing hot internet!!":P
Besides whenever the 'internet' comes up in a conversation I point people to mozilla.org, not only for their sanity but also their security. They will do the same after they experience no popups and no spyware. Word of mouth will make this spread to the next generation. Maybe the grandma's won't use it but in ten years, that will be a whole new ballgame.
Has anyone noticed that now with gmail you are no longer at gmail.com but at gmail.google.com? Not to be a conspiracy nut here, but what's to stop google from collecting cookies that connect your gmail account to your searches?...I don't like it...
If they do proceed anyway, you complain to ICANN and they will be stripped of their accreditation and go out of business.
So the _only_ protection from being hijacked by a registrar is that threat?
There's no physical limitations? So in theory one registrar could request transfers for all the domains in the world and the loosing registars simply have to assume the gaining registrar has permission (from the owner of the domains) to do this?
The protocol specifies that the gaining registrar has to get confirmation of the identity of the domain owner making the request before initiating the transfer.
Ok, this may sound like a dumb question, but...
What method of protection is used to _guarantee_ that the gaining registrar has actually got _your_ ok to ask for a transfer?
What is stopping any registrar from just transfering domains to themselves without my ok?
I read this story just out of curiosity. I have never used Linux but I am willing to put in the effort to get a box going for the sake of a good storage system. Is there any tutorials you would recommend online for setting up a system like this guy has and doing it right?
yep, I guess so. Your description was very brief, so perhaps my mind didn't make the mental image of the same thing I had seen, as this was the first thing I thought of when I saw the title of the article...:P
This isn't actually news, you can go to Toy-R-Us right now and buy an actual atari controller that has the entire unit in the controller, power switch, everything. And a number of games.
There is a nintendo one I saw at a mall like this with thousands of games, right inside the controller. It seems Atari is trying to just catch up to the generic game systems out there... and the sue them into oblivion?
at least Flash does not try to lock you into a single operating system.
No, they lock you into their own software. The biggest issue I have now is their EULA, which requires that you let them spy on you and that they can "audit" your use of their software whenever and however they choose.
I called Macromedia about this a couple times, I had to yell and fight to talk to anyone with a brain there. Finally I got to a supervisor for "activation/spyware" devision and he just lied to my ears... it was such a joke. I asked him over and over "you say there are benefits to software activation for the client (me) what are they?" He could not come up with one answer, I was just disgusted... He was just a corporate whipping boy trained to spew retarded logic.
Please, anyone who is locked into Macromedia software (yes their products are good, but software activation has turned me off, I will start looking for alternatives now) call Macromedia's activation support line and complain about the spyware they force on you, search Google, there's tons of other issues (what happens when you need to reinstall and their servers are down? What happens when they no longer support your version? etc....)
minimal improvements on gas milage can vastly affect our foreign oil dependency.
We have bigger problems than dependency on foreign oil. If US oil companies would end their criminal behavior, we probably wouldn't need _any_ foreign oil. (of course efficiency is always a benefit)
Fortunately, flying insects are more likely to creep on all _sixes_, so we don't have to abominate them. I guess the bloke who wrote Leviticus couldn't count (or maybe the god who was dictating it into his ear couldn't).
Leviticus 11:23
'But all other winged insects which are four-footed are detestable to you. '
The words of the Bible are meant for the entire earth, not just the scientifically taught of the last 100 years or so. From this perspective, and a small amount of visual research...
NIV:
Leviticus 11:20 " 'All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you.
New American Standard Bible
Leviticus 11:20 'All the winged insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you.
Amplified Bible
Leviticus 11:20 All winged insects that go upon all fours are to be an abomination to you;
New King James Bible
Leviticus 11:20 "All flying insects that creep on all fours shall be an abomination to you.
etc...
Out of 16 translations, The only translation that uses the word "fowls" instead of "insect" is the King James Bible, which was written in Old English.
Psalms 93:1...the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.
Really? Anyone with any astronomy knowledge (eg, a 5 year old), knows the Earth rotates around the Sun, which it's self rotates around the centre of the Milky Way, which it's self is jetting through space at huge speeds. Want to get geological? Very well, the average movement of the current tectonic plates around the Earth thanks to the top cooled convection induced by the rapid cooling of oceanic crust is approximately 3cm/yr (reference).
It says that the earth "cannot be moved" it does _not_ say "the earth is not moving". Being moved and actually moving are two totally different things. The whole ocean moves, but you couldn't move the whole ocean.
These are 2 questions. 1) why would God change his covenant. and 2) What took him so long? (I am guessing you mean send Jesus to "change the covenant")
There seems to be an assumption that there was a change, and that God later decided to send Jesus as a sacrifice because his first plan wasn't working. But in fact, he had planned on sending him from the beginning. First, we need to state what the covenant was before we can determine if it was changed or not.
Genesis 15:18
On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your descendants I have given this land, From the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates"
So one aspect of the first covenant was Abraham and his decendents was to get land. Did this change in the new testament?
Matthew 5:5
"Blessed are the [humble, meek], for they shall inherit the earth."
So the land aspect hasn't changed, perhaps the scope between these two scriptures does, but other's point out that the entire earth was promised before as well. (For example, Adam and Noah)
Genesis 17:2
"I will establish My covenant between Me and you, And I will multiply you exceedingly."
This didn't change either, and was in fact fulfilled by the time the New Testament was written.
Hebrews 6:13-15
For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself, saying, "I WILL SURELY BLESS YOU AND I WILL SURELY MULTIPLY YOU." And so, having patiently waited, he obtained the promise.
This covenant was passed onto Abrahams son Issac (Genesis 17:21) and later to his son Jacob (Israel). The covenant was added to when Moses lead the people of Israel.
Exodus 24:12
Now the LORD said to Moses, "Come up to Me on the mountain and remain there, and I will give you the stone tablets with the law and the commandment which I have written for their instruction."
Exodus 34 (aspects of the covenant)
Exodus 34:27 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel...And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments."
Exodus 31:16
'So the sons of Israel shall observe the sabbath, to celebrate the sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant.'
So now the covenant contains a bunch of rules from Exodus 34 and the Ten Commandments. Also, the Sabbath is declared to be "perpetual", not just temporary until Jesus get's here. Did Jesus change any of the laws of the covenant?
Matthew 5:17
"Do not think that I came to abolish the (1) Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill."
Matthew 5:18
"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
So it seems the only real issue that changed is that Christ was sacrificed for our sins instead of a goat. How soon in the Bible was it known that Jesus would have to come and be sacrificed for our sins?
Isaiah 52:13-15, predicts Jesus's suffering.
Psalm 22 is a first hand account from David of Christ's crucifixtion, many years before it happened.
But there is something far sooner than this. The aspect of living forever with God was offered to Adam right away.
Genesis 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us,(Jesus and God the father) knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"
As soon as he sinned, a sacrifice was needed, this is shown later when Cain and Able were giving sacrifices t
If he's supposed to be perfect, why would God change his covenant with humanity?
He didn't, he fulfilled the requirements of the "Old Testament Law" by a permanent sacrifice, Jesus, instead of periodic animal sacrifices.(God required death for any sin) The covenant, or agreement, God made with his people was about loving eachother and obeying God. God predicted a time in the Old Testament where one day he would "write the law on our hearts". And that you would no longer go to a temple or need a physical priest to worship God, but could personally "boldly approach the throne of God."
That time came when Christ fulfilled the sacrifice that is made every year at Passover, that the "second death may not have power over you." (eternal death). As Christ sacrificed himself as the passover lamb of the old testament, and now is our high priest (which used to be a man) and stands at the right hand of God, and pleads with God on our behalf. All of which used to be done physically.
There was no "new testament" when Christ was teaching, Christ taught that the "laws and the prophets" were enough for salvation, as they taught of a road to repentance of sins. Also note, Christ _never_ did away with God's laws, only the laws of men (mainly the Pharisees). He didn't say it's ok to commit adultry, in fact he said the opposite, he said "if you even look on a woman to lust after her you have committed adultry in your heart."
Believe it or not, loving God and God loving us back is an _Old Testament_ idea, that was simply reiterated by Jesus, _not_ started by him.
How did God say we should live in the Old Testament? Was it "do as I say" or fire and brimstone?
Micah 6:8
He has told you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God?
Was God a cruel master in the Old Testament like many would love to claim? One way to examine this is to see what his laws were for. Read Leviticus, it says all kinds of wonderful things that you should do for other people, also what your punishments will be for doing wrong (this is where people tend to say God was cruel), but what most people don't see in the Bible is that God created life for a purpose, and part of that is to have a people that "love God and love their neighbors" If God said what a punishment was, why didn't he _always_ exact punishment on people?
Read the account of David taking Bathsheba to be his wife and killing her husband, what was David's own judgement against himself?
2 Samuel 12: 5 Then David's anger burned greatly against the man, and he said to Nathan, "As the LORD lives, surely the man who has done this deserves to die."
Now if you believe that the Old Testament God was a harsh, uncaring, uncompassionate, unforgiving God, then surely David should have been struck dead right then and there. But this did not happen, as when David was finally faced with his sin, he repented. Repentance is claimed also as only a "New Testament" concept, which is also a general untruth that is popular.
So who was the God of the Old Testament? Jesus claimed he was the God of the Old Testament. Prove this to yourself, it gives the Bible a whole new meaning. Here Christ makes this claim.
John 8: 58
Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."
The term "I am" is the same word the Jews used for the God of the Old Testament, that is why they immediately picked up stones to through at him.
And if different times call for different rules, how do you know the rules in 2004 are still the same?
You really do have to read the whole Bible to understand, or at least a good portion of it. The _only_ "rules" God changed after Christ came is the sacrificial law, because Christ fulfilled the need to shed blood for your sins, as Christ did thi
Why do people think that the command line [osnews.com] is *not* "user friendly"?
I am very computer literate, I work on computers daily, from my perspective, the number one reason is this:
I can't see all the options I have at my disposal for any particular application unless I request it and then it is only temporarily available.
I perceive you use only one application where I literally use 30+ applications, about 10 different ones at least every day. I am only extremely profficient in 5 apps where I know all the keyboard short cuts (which require NO TYPING) Typing is REALLY REALLY SLOOOOW compared to a keyboard shortcut or even a menu click.
I can make 30 - 40 clicks for your 3 command line sentences and get a tremendous amount of visual or auditor feedback on the information and more options (that don't dissappear because of scrolling text in a command window)
Not only that, but because of uniformity of GUI's now days, I can pick up and use another application _instantly_ having never touched it before or reading anything about it. I hardly think you would be so lucky that command line commands would be similar in applications differing from graphics manipulations to video editing to HTML editor.
Also, data returned via text is almost never as consice or informative as many graphical representations of data (take graphs, 3d applications, etc...)
The LD_50 of caffeine (that is the lethal dosage reported to kill 50% of the population) is estimated at 10 grams for oral administration. As it is usually the case, lethal dosage varies from individual to individual according to weight. Ingestion of 150mg/kg of caffeine seems to be the LD_50 for all people. That is, people weighting 50 kilos have an LD_50 of approx. 7.5 grams, people weighting 80 kilos have an LD_50 of about 12 grams.
In Mountain Dew the LD_50 is about 200 12 ounce cans or about 50 vivarins (200mg each).
-----
Keep in mind death could happen quicker because caffeine is in a bunch of other items you may have already eaten...
On a side issue, if you are depressed, don't do it, ask for some help. I took about 16 vivarin in one day (200mg x 16 = 3.2g) when I was in high school (very depressed) and it was one of the worst days of my life, not the going up, as I had to keep popping them to stop from crashing, but the last half of the day I was screaming and pulling my hair and twitching and running all over the place. And considering this, a death this way would utterly suck.
well, to clarify (probably a waste of time I suppose) MS, basically donates $12 Million to schools as software donations, we all know it's a couple hundred dollars of CD's and nothing more, but they claim a value of $12 million, (my numbers are off, but you get the idea)
So google "says" you get a "gig" (if this is all true, but I did read this also on CNN.com, so who knows) but what I see as a gig could be defined as "a gig of data stored" _not_ a gig of harddrive space to store data.
therefore, all your 500,000 emails that would fill up a gig of space is neatly stored in 20 mb or so, maybe even less, and since most users will never fill that up in the next couple years, by the time they do, space storage will get even cheaper... these guys are smart.
So it get's posted to slashdot to see what genius has the answer, ok I will bight...
First off you say, "no images" will be stored longer than 1 day, check email often.
Attachments will be pooled, meaning that all viruses that are the same will be put in one central location (obviously some logic needed here to match up proper viruses) this way if 30,000 users get the same virus G**gle only has to store one actual file, and then a pointer for all the emails.
Next they pull a Micro$0ft, they say you get 1 gig of data, but they actually compress your TEXT emails into a speck of crap that takes 2 bits to store, but they call it a gig... duh, like it's a feature and stuff...
I'll let the rest of the geniuses here figure the rest out... (I know I spelt bite bight... havin a bad day)
Please define in "legal" terms of what piracy is. I make copyrighted works, and I also was sued (frivalously) by my first client after I graduated from college. So I am concerned about this from both perspectives.
I have to say though that 2 million people could "steal" my copyrighted works and WILL NOT hurt me one bit.
But the stupid lawsuit (which thankfully the judge saw right through as well as my attorney) cost me thousands of dollars, many, many days of lost work due to extreme stress and wasted time defending myself over an entire year, for nothing.
Now consider _all_ of the suits against music file sharer's by the RIAA in the last year, I have to say that even though they had more of a case against people who shared thousands of songs, but ask yourself this, was the damages they were seeking even remotely close to what the real damages were?
I would have to say the real damages in each individual case was, _zero_. Just the same in every case that is someone were to take my works and share them, I'd loose nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
Your statement is true from the standpoint that there are people that use the guise of religion as a reason for violence. But there are those also that use atheism for exact same purpose and reason.
So is concept of religion the problem or is it man's falable nature the problem?
Does a person's convictions and beliefs in "loving their neighbor" cause them to attack their neighbor? Or is it really the opposite, that they in fact do not have a true religion and actually desire to not obey commands like "thou shalt not kill".
Muslems, Jews and Christians all claim they are religious, all claim the same roots (Abraham) yet, if they do not obey their own religious doctrines, how can their actions be blaimed on religion?
Those that choose to be an atheist decide for themselves what is right and wrong, without a basis of a higher power directing them. But if you look at what is naturally considered "good", you will find these ideas mirror closely what is considered "good" by the standards of the root (Abraham) of the 3 major religions. Perhaps this is just a coincidence, but loving your neighbor or not loving your neighbor is a personal choice that if not done cannot be blamed on the concept, but only on a person's actions.
What's a bookmark? What's a webpage? What's an application? If people think the internet is inside of a blue "e" none of these kinds of issues matter, they just need to know where to click.
It's name recognition, that's all. Once they know that if you click on the pretty fox icon instead of the blue "e", that's all the matters. If the general public can learn that a big blue "e" means the internet, then they can learn another way, especially after the 3rd time of bringing their box to Best Buy and paying $150 to some techno-snobish teen to clean off the spyware and viruses.
Getting these people to download and install Firefox, that is the real challenge.
Amazon
yahoo
msn
google
etc...
None of these mean anything but they are all sucessful none the less. It's just a marketing issue.
"HEY GRANDMA!!! Try the NEW and _improved_ internet! It's called Firefox, blazing hot internet!!" :P
Besides whenever the 'internet' comes up in a conversation I point people to mozilla.org, not only for their sanity but also their security. They will do the same after they experience no popups and no spyware. Word of mouth will make this spread to the next generation. Maybe the grandma's won't use it but in ten years, that will be a whole new ballgame.
Has anyone noticed that now with gmail you are no longer at gmail.com but at gmail.google.com? Not to be a conspiracy nut here, but what's to stop google from collecting cookies that connect your gmail account to your searches? ...I don't like it...
So the _only_ protection from being hijacked by a registrar is that threat?
There's no physical limitations? So in theory one registrar could request transfers for all the domains in the world and the loosing registars simply have to assume the gaining registrar has permission (from the owner of the domains) to do this?
-v
Ok, this may sound like a dumb question, but...
What method of protection is used to _guarantee_ that the gaining registrar has actually got _your_ ok to ask for a transfer?
What is stopping any registrar from just transfering domains to themselves without my ok?
-v
I read this story just out of curiosity. I have never used Linux but I am willing to put in the effort to get a box going for the sake of a good storage system. Is there any tutorials you would recommend online for setting up a system like this guy has and doing it right?
Thanks!
-v
yep, I guess so. Your description was very brief, so perhaps my mind didn't make the mental image of the same thing I had seen, as this was the first thing I thought of when I saw the title of the article... :P
This isn't actually news, you can go to Toy-R-Us right now and buy an actual atari controller that has the entire unit in the controller, power switch, everything. And a number of games.
There is a nintendo one I saw at a mall like this with thousands of games, right inside the controller. It seems Atari is trying to just catch up to the generic game systems out there... and the sue them into oblivion?
No, they lock you into their own software. The biggest issue I have now is their EULA, which requires that you let them spy on you and that they can "audit" your use of their software whenever and however they choose.
I called Macromedia about this a couple times, I had to yell and fight to talk to anyone with a brain there. Finally I got to a supervisor for "activation/spyware" devision and he just lied to my ears... it was such a joke. I asked him over and over "you say there are benefits to software activation for the client (me) what are they?" He could not come up with one answer, I was just disgusted... He was just a corporate whipping boy trained to spew retarded logic.
Please, anyone who is locked into Macromedia software (yes their products are good, but software activation has turned me off, I will start looking for alternatives now) call Macromedia's activation support line and complain about the spyware they force on you, search Google, there's tons of other issues (what happens when you need to reinstall and their servers are down? What happens when they no longer support your version? etc....)
Thanks for clarifing that for me. :)
We have bigger problems than dependency on foreign oil. If US oil companies would end their criminal behavior, we probably wouldn't need _any_ foreign oil. (of course efficiency is always a benefit)
http://www.thememoryhole.org/corp/gas-prices.htm
Leviticus 11:23
'But all other winged insects which are four-footed are detestable to you. '
The words of the Bible are meant for the entire earth, not just the scientifically taught of the last 100 years or so. From this perspective, and a small amount of visual research...
Grasshoppers have 4 legs and 2 arms.
http://myplace.westnet.com.au/images/potw/photos/g rasshopper-220403.jpg
r s.htm
o s/grasshopper.jpg
http://www.uidaho.edu/so-id/entomology/grasshoppe
http://www.petsdoc.com/pics/funpages/wildlifephot
http://www.debbieharry.net/blkphotos.html
Which would make sense to everyone down through history, except us.
"the world is firmly established, it will not be moved."
Feel free to argue how the earth could be moved.
Leviticus 11:20 " 'All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you.
New American Standard Bible
Leviticus 11:20 'All the winged insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you.
Amplified Bible
Leviticus 11:20 All winged insects that go upon all fours are to be an abomination to you;
New King James Bible
Leviticus 11:20 "All flying insects that creep on all fours shall be an abomination to you.
etc...
Out of 16 translations, The only translation that uses the word "fowls" instead of "insect" is the King James Bible, which was written in Old English.
It says that the earth "cannot be moved" it does _not_ say "the earth is not moving". Being moved and actually moving are two totally different things. The whole ocean moves, but you couldn't move the whole ocean.
There seems to be an assumption that there was a change, and that God later decided to send Jesus as a sacrifice because his first plan wasn't working. But in fact, he had planned on sending him from the beginning. First, we need to state what the covenant was before we can determine if it was changed or not.
So one aspect of the first covenant was Abraham and his decendents was to get land. Did this change in the new testament?
So the land aspect hasn't changed, perhaps the scope between these two scriptures does, but other's point out that the entire earth was promised before as well. (For example, Adam and Noah)
This didn't change either, and was in fact fulfilled by the time the New Testament was written.
This covenant was passed onto Abrahams son Issac (Genesis 17:21) and later to his son Jacob (Israel). The covenant was added to when Moses lead the people of Israel.
So now the covenant contains a bunch of rules from Exodus 34 and the Ten Commandments. Also, the Sabbath is declared to be "perpetual", not just temporary until Jesus get's here. Did Jesus change any of the laws of the covenant?
So it seems the only real issue that changed is that Christ was sacrificed for our sins instead of a goat. How soon in the Bible was it known that Jesus would have to come and be sacrificed for our sins?
Isaiah 52:13-15, predicts Jesus's suffering.
Psalm 22 is a first hand account from David of Christ's crucifixtion, many years before it happened.
But there is something far sooner than this. The aspect of living forever with God was offered to Adam right away.
As soon as he sinned, a sacrifice was needed, this is shown later when Cain and Able were giving sacrifices t
He didn't, he fulfilled the requirements of the "Old Testament Law" by a permanent sacrifice, Jesus, instead of periodic animal sacrifices.(God required death for any sin) The covenant, or agreement, God made with his people was about loving eachother and obeying God. God predicted a time in the Old Testament where one day he would "write the law on our hearts". And that you would no longer go to a temple or need a physical priest to worship God, but could personally "boldly approach the throne of God."
That time came when Christ fulfilled the sacrifice that is made every year at Passover, that the "second death may not have power over you." (eternal death). As Christ sacrificed himself as the passover lamb of the old testament, and now is our high priest (which used to be a man) and stands at the right hand of God, and pleads with God on our behalf. All of which used to be done physically.
There was no "new testament" when Christ was teaching, Christ taught that the "laws and the prophets" were enough for salvation, as they taught of a road to repentance of sins. Also note, Christ _never_ did away with God's laws, only the laws of men (mainly the Pharisees). He didn't say it's ok to commit adultry, in fact he said the opposite, he said "if you even look on a woman to lust after her you have committed adultry in your heart."
Believe it or not, loving God and God loving us back is an _Old Testament_ idea, that was simply reiterated by Jesus, _not_ started by him.
Leviticus 19:34, Deuteronomy 6:5, 7:9, 10:12, 11:1,11:13, Joshua 22:5, 23:11, 1 Kings 10:9
How did God say we should live in the Old Testament? Was it "do as I say" or fire and brimstone?
Micah 6:8
He has told you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God?
Was God a cruel master in the Old Testament like many would love to claim? One way to examine this is to see what his laws were for. Read Leviticus, it says all kinds of wonderful things that you should do for other people, also what your punishments will be for doing wrong (this is where people tend to say God was cruel), but what most people don't see in the Bible is that God created life for a purpose, and part of that is to have a people that "love God and love their neighbors" If God said what a punishment was, why didn't he _always_ exact punishment on people?
Read the account of David taking Bathsheba to be his wife and killing her husband, what was David's own judgement against himself?
2 Samuel 12: 5 Then David's anger burned greatly against the man, and he said to Nathan, "As the LORD lives, surely the man who has done this deserves to die."
Now if you believe that the Old Testament God was a harsh, uncaring, uncompassionate, unforgiving God, then surely David should have been struck dead right then and there. But this did not happen, as when David was finally faced with his sin, he repented. Repentance is claimed also as only a "New Testament" concept, which is also a general untruth that is popular.
So who was the God of the Old Testament? Jesus claimed he was the God of the Old Testament. Prove this to yourself, it gives the Bible a whole new meaning. Here Christ makes this claim.
John 8: 58
Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."
The term "I am" is the same word the Jews used for the God of the Old Testament, that is why they immediately picked up stones to through at him.
And if different times call for different rules, how do you know the rules in 2004 are still the same?
You really do have to read the whole Bible to understand, or at least a good portion of it. The _only_ "rules" God changed after Christ came is the sacrificial law, because Christ fulfilled the need to shed blood for your sins, as Christ did thi
You want to substantiate your statement?
Is this the bug you are refering to?
If so, it's two years old and already fixed, unless there's a different upload bug...
I am very computer literate, I work on computers daily, from my perspective, the number one reason is this:
I can't see all the options I have at my disposal for any particular application unless I request it and then it is only temporarily available.
I perceive you use only one application where I literally use 30+ applications, about 10 different ones at least every day. I am only extremely profficient in 5 apps where I know all the keyboard short cuts (which require NO TYPING) Typing is REALLY REALLY SLOOOOW compared to a keyboard shortcut or even a menu click.
I can make 30 - 40 clicks for your 3 command line sentences and get a tremendous amount of visual or auditor feedback on the information and more options (that don't dissappear because of scrolling text in a command window)
Not only that, but because of uniformity of GUI's now days, I can pick up and use another application _instantly_ having never touched it before or reading anything about it. I hardly think you would be so lucky that command line commands would be similar in applications differing from graphics manipulations to video editing to HTML editor.
Also, data returned via text is almost never as consice or informative as many graphical representations of data (take graphs, 3d applications, etc...)
A really odd way to commit suicide.
100 cups could very well do the trick (cause death), and if not, give you an entirely rotten day.
This excerpt is from here: http://members.aol.com/seanborg/mtdew/caffeine.htm #2
----
The LD_50 of caffeine (that is the lethal dosage reported to kill 50% of the population) is estimated at 10 grams for oral administration. As it is usually the case, lethal dosage varies from individual to individual according to weight. Ingestion of 150mg/kg of caffeine seems to be the LD_50 for all people. That is, people weighting 50 kilos have an LD_50 of approx. 7.5 grams, people weighting 80 kilos have an LD_50 of about 12 grams.
In Mountain Dew the LD_50 is about 200 12 ounce cans or about 50 vivarins (200mg each).
-----
Keep in mind death could happen quicker because caffeine is in a bunch of other items you may have already eaten...
http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~udani/caffeine.html
http://www.dietsite.com/NutritionFacts/Caffeine%20 Content%20of%20Selected%20Foods.htm
On a side issue, if you are depressed, don't do it, ask for some help. I took about 16 vivarin in one day (200mg x 16 = 3.2g) when I was in high school (very depressed) and it was one of the worst days of my life, not the going up, as I had to keep popping them to stop from crashing, but the last half of the day I was screaming and pulling my hair and twitching and running all over the place. And considering this, a death this way would utterly suck.
well, to clarify (probably a waste of time I suppose) MS, basically donates $12 Million to schools as software donations, we all know it's a couple hundred dollars of CD's and nothing more, but they claim a value of $12 million, (my numbers are off, but you get the idea)
So google "says" you get a "gig" (if this is all true, but I did read this also on CNN.com, so who knows) but what I see as a gig could be defined as "a gig of data stored" _not_ a gig of harddrive space to store data.
therefore, all your 500,000 emails that would fill up a gig of space is neatly stored in 20 mb or so, maybe even less, and since most users will never fill that up in the next couple years, by the time they do, space storage will get even cheaper... these guys are smart.
So it get's posted to slashdot to see what genius has the answer, ok I will bight...
First off you say, "no images" will be stored longer than 1 day, check email often.
Attachments will be pooled, meaning that all viruses that are the same will be put in one central location (obviously some logic needed here to match up proper viruses) this way if 30,000 users get the same virus G**gle only has to store one actual file, and then a pointer for all the emails.
Next they pull a Micro$0ft, they say you get 1 gig of data, but they actually compress your TEXT emails into a speck of crap that takes 2 bits to store, but they call it a gig... duh, like it's a feature and stuff...
I'll let the rest of the geniuses here figure the rest out... (I know I spelt bite bight... havin a bad day)
Real life?
*sigh*
Please define in "legal" terms of what piracy is. I make copyrighted works, and I also was sued (frivalously) by my first client after I graduated from college. So I am concerned about this from both perspectives.
I have to say though that 2 million people could "steal" my copyrighted works and WILL NOT hurt me one bit.
But the stupid lawsuit (which thankfully the judge saw right through as well as my attorney) cost me thousands of dollars, many, many days of lost work due to extreme stress and wasted time defending myself over an entire year, for nothing.
Now consider _all_ of the suits against music file sharer's by the RIAA in the last year, I have to say that even though they had more of a case against people who shared thousands of songs, but ask yourself this, was the damages they were seeking even remotely close to what the real damages were?
I would have to say the real damages in each individual case was, _zero_. Just the same in every case that is someone were to take my works and share them, I'd loose nothing.