...at that time India will still be a third world country by far.
How exactly does one define what a "third world country" is these days? The original terms were referring to sides in the cold war, but it seems now that "third world" is becoming synonymous with poverty. What's the modern definition of "third world" that India would have to transcend to be a success?
Also, if ALL Skype users are behind firewall, then all of them gets screwed because they will never be able to connect to each other. Period.
True. But until the whole world is NATted, and the whole world is too ignorant to open ports through their NAT, then Skype's technique will work (albeit bloody slowly if there's only one un-NATted computer out there). It doesn "fix" NAT, it circumvents NAT.
Superheroes (at least in comics) are different from fantasy too. Most good fantasy at least tries to be internally consistent; that is, fantasy world may operate under different physical laws than the real world, but they try to maintain consistency in regard to those rules. Comics seem to not have such hard-and-fast rules, which is why they often contain ret-con.
(i) knowingly, or having reasonable grounds to know, circumvents without authority any effective technological measure that controls access to a protected work, performance, or phonogram, or other subject matter;
If it's a measure designed to control access to a protected work, and it's circumvented, it is not effective and therefore not covered.
6. Screwing with the assumption that devices are routable, and that you can reach me at the same place you see me coming from is not a good idea
This is a very academic argument with virtually no practical relevance. First off, if you haven't specifically asked for it (that, set up a server on your computer or requested the traffic by, say, going to a webpage), then no, you shouldn't be able to reach me.
Actually, no its not. Its a very practical arguments. One of the features touted by Skype when it was released was that it "just worked" no matter if it was behind NAT. Any P2P technology will need to be able to listen on ports. Even non-P2P, non-server software like, for instance, many IM protocols need to listen on ports when received files. Then you run into problems if more than one person behind your NAT is running MSN - you can only forward the port to one client. NAT has screwed up a basic assumption of the underlying protocol of the internet, and as a result, software applications are harder to get to work, or are much more complicated to code, and screw up the other protocols in an attempt to work around NAT (like Skype).
He talks sense. This push is simply trying to do what slashdotters always say they want: hold activities performed online to the same standard as activities performed on traditional media.
You obviously have no idea what the opposition leader at the time of the elections was like. He later left politics, and was convicted of theft and destruction of property for punching a reporter, stealing his camera, taking it home and laying into it with a hammer when the photographer took a photo of him and his sons in a public place.
We elected the right leader, its just there wasn't a huge range to pick from.
Have you ever stopped and think that maybe NAT, not the protocol that is the problem? The sooner we get rid of the cludge that NAT is and always was, the better it will be for all net users (hint: IPv6 + stateful firewall => better than NAT cludge)
Great, but until then, software needs to work in the real world. What do you suggest, Skype just hold off on offering a product until the whole world adopts IPv6 and they can do it nicely? Yes, NAT is a hack, but it's so widespread it has to be dealt with when developing a product. You can't just code to standards and ship it when the real world isn't obeying the standards.
o/t is fun. Yeah, you're right that it was used for that, but it was also used to recruit crusaders. "Come kill these people, and get in good with God".
Yeah, I've seen that set for sale before, and it is a shonky one. The problem is, I was actually tempted, because that box set has been available for years, whereas legitimate, Region 4 copies of Miyazaki's films were only released here a year or so back, and some on that set still haven't been released. When you create an artificial monopoly, then sit back and refuse to sell the product to consumers who want it, then you essentially create the black market yourself.
Note that I'm not saying it isn't illegal, and I actually never bought the set. I'm still waiting for Ocean Waves to be released out here though.
The other thing to note about subs (although this is more fansubs than the shonky chinese subs) is that they are generally of higher quality. I'm not talking about the video - although that is pretty high these days - but about the actual subtitles. I don't speak Japanese so I can't comment on the translation, but having seen both legit and fansub copies of many series, they seem to get a similar meaning. But I've picked up numerous grammatical/spelling errors in licensed anime, whereas fansubs, if they do make that mistake, re-release it with the fix. Also, the better anime groups tend to also translate the OP/ED lyrics into both English and Romaji, and add cultural notes regarding some obscure references. I still buy the licensed versions, but in many ways, the fans do a better job than the companies distributing them.
No, you are still committing piracy even if they aren't licensed in the US. The only difference is the company who the offense is made against is in another country, and because it's not offering a product to US markets (their DVDs are region locked to Japan), it doesn't particularly care. Note that (AFAIK) individual copyright violation is still a civil offence, so unless the copyright holder intitiates proceedings, nothing's going to happen. A Japanese company isn't going to try and sue a foreign citizen in a market they're not even targetting. You're still technically liable, just your chances of being held accountable are astronomically low.
Paul talks a little bit about the structure of the church in his letters - what sort of qualities a man should have to be considered as a deacon/overseer. But you're right, the Bible doesn't give much of a structure for the church. What I consider this to mean, is that it doesn't matter. You can have a pope and a whole hierarchy, or a loose group of elders, and it doesn't make a difference. What matters is how the church acts, and what it endorses. If it acts in a way consistent with the principles outlined in the Bible, then it is a Biblical church. Of course, no church is perfect, so you have to look also at how it deals with itself when it stuffs up.
Ummm, no. The whole deity part was added much much later than the alleged time of Jesus.
Heh, looks like someone's been reading the Da Vinci Code. The New Testament makes it perfectly clear that Jesus considered himself divine. The only question that comes close to the question of Jesus divinity at the Council of Nicea was raised by Arius. He contested that Jesus was born a man, and became divine later. He didn't content that Jesus was never divine. Even so, the council voted against his view, 316-2. The Council of Nicea was called 325, around 300 years after the death of Jesus, and by then the view that Jesus was divine was firmly entrenched, as shown by the results of the vote mentioned above. If, as you claim, the deity part was added later, it wasn't added much later.
The fact that there is *no* legitimate evidence that there ever was a Jesus at all is a completely separate fact.
There's plenty of documentary evidence supporting the existence of Jesus. However, you just disregard it all as illegitimate because it was written by a Christian. Of course it was, who else would bother writing about a guy executed in a minor Roman province? And even if they did, chances are their writing would be lost beyond recovery. The only ancient writings we have access to are the big ones - ones that were produced in large enough quantity that some of them have a chance at standing the test of time.
If you're going to buy in to a religion, at least have the decency to research it a bit first. I mean seriously, you're claiming to speak for god and you can't even bother to look into what he did or didn't say?!?
From John 10: "I and the Father are one." and later "'We are not stoning you for any of these,' replied the Jews, 'but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.'"
If you're going to disparage a religion on a public forum, at least have the decency to research it a bit first.
I'm not hugely familiar with the history of Norway. According to this article though, most of the conversion was done by missionaries pursuading people to convert. If that's the case, it's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking more along the lines of "you will believe this or you will die" - stuff like the Spanish Inquisition, the oppression of Catholics in England during the reign of the Tudors, even the persecution of the early church. I think it's part of the human psyche that when someone tries to force you to change your mind, you cling even more tenaciously to your original belief.
Well, anything that fits the definition of church in the Bible is "church", anything that doesn't is human fallibility. Whether you consider that good or bad depends on how you consider the Bible.
Firstly, accuracy is not a function of age. If you have many independant documents that say the same thing, and one that dissents, it is more likely that the many agreeing documents are more accurate, regardless of chronology.
Secondly, the Gospel of Thomas is not necessarily the earliest Gospel. The site you linked references it's date of authorship as somewhere between 50-140 AD, with a confidence of 60%. The Gospel of Mark it lists as between 65-80 AD, with a confidence of 80%. Note also that the Gospel of Thomas is based on three fragments, and one complete text. The complete text is dated at around 350 AD. Compare this to the canon, where we have whole New Testament manuscripts dating from circa 200 AD.
Thirdly, most protestant Christians would agree with you that a church (as in, the physical building) is not sacred. Have a look at the effects of the protestant reformation in England. In protestant theology, the word "church" is used to refer to the body of believers, rather than the building in which you meet.
Fourthly, how has the New Testament been "modified throughout time"? As I stated previously, we have complete manuscripts of the New Testament dating from the third century. Despite what some people seem to believe, the modern translations of the Bible aren't translations upon translations. The NIV is not a translation of the King James. Each translation is a translation from the original Biblical language, from whatever source was most reliable at the time. If you claim that this "editing throughout history" was done in the two-hundred years or so between the event and the authorship of the oldest manuscript, then that accusation can just as easily be levelled at any other text from the period you care to name, including the Gospel of St Thomas.
Christianity became a successful religion only because of its follower's willingness to use violence to capture, torture and kill their opponents. By infiltrating the halls of power and gaining influence over the secular means of repression they were able to extend their reach even further.
You have it around the wrong way. Christianity in general spread first to a region, then ambitious political men rode it to try and achieve their own agendas. Trying to force religion on a population against their will is an act of futility. Most of the violence you're talking about (the notable incidents are the various crusades and the Spanish inquisition) were fueled by politics, with a Christian sugar-coating to stop people complaining about them.
Also, assuming the current records of Jesus' words are reasonably accurate (and if you have any that are more accurate I'd like to know) it's certain that he did not see himself as a prophet to the Jewish people. In Matthew, for instance, in what is known as the Great Commission, Jesus tells his disciples "therefore go and make disciples of all nations". His dealings with other people (say, the Samaritan woman at the well) also make it clear that his message is not exlusively for Jews, although his personal ministry was generally in Israel, and hence, he had a largely Jewish audience.
Read up on the history of the Crusades, and you'll find a different picture. Yes, some of the crusaders thought they were doing the right thing. Most were doing it because crusaders got benefits in this world (like indulgences for any sin committed while crusading). But beyong the actual crusaders, look at the people who actually called the crusades. They were all called for political reasons, not theological. The important thing to remember when considering the Roman Catholic Church, particularly during the time of the Holy Roman Empire, is that it is not a religious body, it is a religious body and a political one, possibly the most powerful political body of its time.
As the original poster said, many use Jesus' name to support their agendas, but their agendas rarely follow his teaching (see also the England/Ireland dispute; a political sovereignty dispute that many people now use as an example of how religion causes nothing but trouble).
I'd say it depends on the app. There are plenty of other choices out there for Office Suites, and Linux users are more likely to use Open Office or Abi Word. If you're offering a product in a market with a number of already-established players, then you need to really have something special to offer, especially if your competition is free to download. While the same might be said of the PC Office market, a tiny slice of that market is much bigger than a proportionate slice of the Linux market.
However, if you had an innovative app, one that scratched an itch that wasn't already being scratched by multiple other apps, then Linux would be a valid market for a desktop app, IMO.
And if you're not a pirate, but a legitimate user of Windows, then you just have to put up with Microsoft having the power to remotely shutdown your computer whenever they feel like it. Because, after all, Microsoft would never abuse power.
Nepotism isn't really too much of a problem, if you buy into the premise of this sort of capitalism. The idea is that if society is totally based around results, if you start giving cushy jobs to your relatives, your business will suffer and eventually fail. Of course, in reality, this doesn't work, because big businesses have such huge cash reserves, it takes more than a couple of incompetant managers to burn through a significant amount, and it's easier to fire a couple of low-level workers than till the owner's son he sucks and is out of a job.
That'd never work. For one, it'd be too unpopular, and any politician who wanted in to office could offer to repeal that law in return for votes. Second, people would just put most of their estate into the hands of their children before they died - obviously, that wouldn't work for people who died suddenly or unexpectedly, but those are often situations where inheritance is most often needed (for instance, if a couple dies in a car crash and leaves three young children behind).
That's the main problem I see with capitalism in its purest form, as espoused by people like Ayn Rand. Money is equivelant to work only when there's no way to pass it on to people who didn't earn it.
Slashdot Mirror
...at that time India will still be a third world country by far.
How exactly does one define what a "third world country" is these days? The original terms were referring to sides in the cold war, but it seems now that "third world" is becoming synonymous with poverty. What's the modern definition of "third world" that India would have to transcend to be a success?
Also, if ALL Skype users are behind firewall, then all of them gets screwed because they will never be able to connect to each other. Period.
True. But until the whole world is NATted, and the whole world is too ignorant to open ports through their NAT, then Skype's technique will work (albeit bloody slowly if there's only one un-NATted computer out there). It doesn "fix" NAT, it circumvents NAT.
Superheroes (at least in comics) are different from fantasy too. Most good fantasy at least tries to be internally consistent; that is, fantasy world may operate under different physical laws than the real world, but they try to maintain consistency in regard to those rules. Comics seem to not have such hard-and-fast rules, which is why they often contain ret-con.
(i) knowingly, or having reasonable grounds to know, circumvents without authority any effective technological measure that controls access to a protected work, performance, or phonogram, or other subject matter;
If it's a measure designed to control access to a protected work, and it's circumvented, it is not effective and therefore not covered.
I didn't say good, I said right. Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say "better"
6. Screwing with the assumption that devices are routable, and that you can reach me at the same place you see me coming from is not a good idea
This is a very academic argument with virtually no practical relevance. First off, if you haven't specifically asked for it (that, set up a server on your computer or requested the traffic by, say, going to a webpage), then no, you shouldn't be able to reach me.
Actually, no its not. Its a very practical arguments. One of the features touted by Skype when it was released was that it "just worked" no matter if it was behind NAT. Any P2P technology will need to be able to listen on ports. Even non-P2P, non-server software like, for instance, many IM protocols need to listen on ports when received files. Then you run into problems if more than one person behind your NAT is running MSN - you can only forward the port to one client. NAT has screwed up a basic assumption of the underlying protocol of the internet, and as a result, software applications are harder to get to work, or are much more complicated to code, and screw up the other protocols in an attempt to work around NAT (like Skype).
He talks sense. This push is simply trying to do what slashdotters always say they want: hold activities performed online to the same standard as activities performed on traditional media.
You obviously have no idea what the opposition leader at the time of the elections was like. He later left politics, and was convicted of theft and destruction of property for punching a reporter, stealing his camera, taking it home and laying into it with a hammer when the photographer took a photo of him and his sons in a public place.
We elected the right leader, its just there wasn't a huge range to pick from.
Have you ever stopped and think that maybe NAT, not the protocol that is the problem? The sooner we get rid of the cludge that NAT is and always was, the better it will be for all net users (hint: IPv6 + stateful firewall => better than NAT cludge)
Great, but until then, software needs to work in the real world. What do you suggest, Skype just hold off on offering a product until the whole world adopts IPv6 and they can do it nicely? Yes, NAT is a hack, but it's so widespread it has to be dealt with when developing a product. You can't just code to standards and ship it when the real world isn't obeying the standards.
o/t is fun. Yeah, you're right that it was used for that, but it was also used to recruit crusaders. "Come kill these people, and get in good with God".
A contradiction, sort of like a person who has a grammar nazi post in their sig, but can't spell contradiction?
Yeah, I've seen that set for sale before, and it is a shonky one. The problem is, I was actually tempted, because that box set has been available for years, whereas legitimate, Region 4 copies of Miyazaki's films were only released here a year or so back, and some on that set still haven't been released. When you create an artificial monopoly, then sit back and refuse to sell the product to consumers who want it, then you essentially create the black market yourself.
Note that I'm not saying it isn't illegal, and I actually never bought the set. I'm still waiting for Ocean Waves to be released out here though.
The other thing to note about subs (although this is more fansubs than the shonky chinese subs) is that they are generally of higher quality. I'm not talking about the video - although that is pretty high these days - but about the actual subtitles. I don't speak Japanese so I can't comment on the translation, but having seen both legit and fansub copies of many series, they seem to get a similar meaning. But I've picked up numerous grammatical/spelling errors in licensed anime, whereas fansubs, if they do make that mistake, re-release it with the fix. Also, the better anime groups tend to also translate the OP/ED lyrics into both English and Romaji, and add cultural notes regarding some obscure references. I still buy the licensed versions, but in many ways, the fans do a better job than the companies distributing them.
No, you are still committing piracy even if they aren't licensed in the US. The only difference is the company who the offense is made against is in another country, and because it's not offering a product to US markets (their DVDs are region locked to Japan), it doesn't particularly care. Note that (AFAIK) individual copyright violation is still a civil offence, so unless the copyright holder intitiates proceedings, nothing's going to happen. A Japanese company isn't going to try and sue a foreign citizen in a market they're not even targetting. You're still technically liable, just your chances of being held accountable are astronomically low.
Paul talks a little bit about the structure of the church in his letters - what sort of qualities a man should have to be considered as a deacon/overseer. But you're right, the Bible doesn't give much of a structure for the church. What I consider this to mean, is that it doesn't matter. You can have a pope and a whole hierarchy, or a loose group of elders, and it doesn't make a difference. What matters is how the church acts, and what it endorses. If it acts in a way consistent with the principles outlined in the Bible, then it is a Biblical church. Of course, no church is perfect, so you have to look also at how it deals with itself when it stuffs up.
Ummm, no. The whole deity part was added much much later than the alleged time of Jesus.
Heh, looks like someone's been reading the Da Vinci Code. The New Testament makes it perfectly clear that Jesus considered himself divine. The only question that comes close to the question of Jesus divinity at the Council of Nicea was raised by Arius. He contested that Jesus was born a man, and became divine later. He didn't content that Jesus was never divine. Even so, the council voted against his view, 316-2. The Council of Nicea was called 325, around 300 years after the death of Jesus, and by then the view that Jesus was divine was firmly entrenched, as shown by the results of the vote mentioned above. If, as you claim, the deity part was added later, it wasn't added much later.
The fact that there is *no* legitimate evidence that there ever was a Jesus at all is a completely separate fact.
There's plenty of documentary evidence supporting the existence of Jesus. However, you just disregard it all as illegitimate because it was written by a Christian. Of course it was, who else would bother writing about a guy executed in a minor Roman province? And even if they did, chances are their writing would be lost beyond recovery. The only ancient writings we have access to are the big ones - ones that were produced in large enough quantity that some of them have a chance at standing the test of time.
If you're going to buy in to a religion, at least have the decency to research it a bit first. I mean seriously, you're claiming to speak for god and you can't even bother to look into what he did or didn't say?!?
From John 10: "I and the Father are one." and later "'We are not stoning you for any of these,' replied the Jews, 'but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.'"
If you're going to disparage a religion on a public forum, at least have the decency to research it a bit first.
I'm not hugely familiar with the history of Norway. According to this article though, most of the conversion was done by missionaries pursuading people to convert. If that's the case, it's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking more along the lines of "you will believe this or you will die" - stuff like the Spanish Inquisition, the oppression of Catholics in England during the reign of the Tudors, even the persecution of the early church. I think it's part of the human psyche that when someone tries to force you to change your mind, you cling even more tenaciously to your original belief.
Well, anything that fits the definition of church in the Bible is "church", anything that doesn't is human fallibility. Whether you consider that good or bad depends on how you consider the Bible.
Firstly, accuracy is not a function of age. If you have many independant documents that say the same thing, and one that dissents, it is more likely that the many agreeing documents are more accurate, regardless of chronology.
Secondly, the Gospel of Thomas is not necessarily the earliest Gospel. The site you linked references it's date of authorship as somewhere between 50-140 AD, with a confidence of 60%. The Gospel of Mark it lists as between 65-80 AD, with a confidence of 80%. Note also that the Gospel of Thomas is based on three fragments, and one complete text. The complete text is dated at around 350 AD. Compare this to the canon, where we have whole New Testament manuscripts dating from circa 200 AD.
Thirdly, most protestant Christians would agree with you that a church (as in, the physical building) is not sacred. Have a look at the effects of the protestant reformation in England. In protestant theology, the word "church" is used to refer to the body of believers, rather than the building in which you meet.
Fourthly, how has the New Testament been "modified throughout time"? As I stated previously, we have complete manuscripts of the New Testament dating from the third century. Despite what some people seem to believe, the modern translations of the Bible aren't translations upon translations. The NIV is not a translation of the King James. Each translation is a translation from the original Biblical language, from whatever source was most reliable at the time. If you claim that this "editing throughout history" was done in the two-hundred years or so between the event and the authorship of the oldest manuscript, then that accusation can just as easily be levelled at any other text from the period you care to name, including the Gospel of St Thomas.
By who?
Christianity became a successful religion only because of its follower's willingness to use violence to capture, torture and kill their opponents. By infiltrating the halls of power and gaining influence over the secular means of repression they were able to extend their reach even further.
You have it around the wrong way. Christianity in general spread first to a region, then ambitious political men rode it to try and achieve their own agendas. Trying to force religion on a population against their will is an act of futility. Most of the violence you're talking about (the notable incidents are the various crusades and the Spanish inquisition) were fueled by politics, with a Christian sugar-coating to stop people complaining about them.
Also, assuming the current records of Jesus' words are reasonably accurate (and if you have any that are more accurate I'd like to know) it's certain that he did not see himself as a prophet to the Jewish people. In Matthew, for instance, in what is known as the Great Commission, Jesus tells his disciples "therefore go and make disciples of all nations". His dealings with other people (say, the Samaritan woman at the well) also make it clear that his message is not exlusively for Jews, although his personal ministry was generally in Israel, and hence, he had a largely Jewish audience.
Read up on the history of the Crusades, and you'll find a different picture. Yes, some of the crusaders thought they were doing the right thing. Most were doing it because crusaders got benefits in this world (like indulgences for any sin committed while crusading). But beyong the actual crusaders, look at the people who actually called the crusades. They were all called for political reasons, not theological. The important thing to remember when considering the Roman Catholic Church, particularly during the time of the Holy Roman Empire, is that it is not a religious body, it is a religious body and a political one, possibly the most powerful political body of its time.
As the original poster said, many use Jesus' name to support their agendas, but their agendas rarely follow his teaching (see also the England/Ireland dispute; a political sovereignty dispute that many people now use as an example of how religion causes nothing but trouble).
I'd say it depends on the app. There are plenty of other choices out there for Office Suites, and Linux users are more likely to use Open Office or Abi Word. If you're offering a product in a market with a number of already-established players, then you need to really have something special to offer, especially if your competition is free to download. While the same might be said of the PC Office market, a tiny slice of that market is much bigger than a proportionate slice of the Linux market.
However, if you had an innovative app, one that scratched an itch that wasn't already being scratched by multiple other apps, then Linux would be a valid market for a desktop app, IMO.
And if you're not a pirate, but a legitimate user of Windows, then you just have to put up with Microsoft having the power to remotely shutdown your computer whenever they feel like it. Because, after all, Microsoft would never abuse power.
Nepotism isn't really too much of a problem, if you buy into the premise of this sort of capitalism. The idea is that if society is totally based around results, if you start giving cushy jobs to your relatives, your business will suffer and eventually fail. Of course, in reality, this doesn't work, because big businesses have such huge cash reserves, it takes more than a couple of incompetant managers to burn through a significant amount, and it's easier to fire a couple of low-level workers than till the owner's son he sucks and is out of a job.
That'd never work. For one, it'd be too unpopular, and any politician who wanted in to office could offer to repeal that law in return for votes. Second, people would just put most of their estate into the hands of their children before they died - obviously, that wouldn't work for people who died suddenly or unexpectedly, but those are often situations where inheritance is most often needed (for instance, if a couple dies in a car crash and leaves three young children behind).
That's the main problem I see with capitalism in its purest form, as espoused by people like Ayn Rand. Money is equivelant to work only when there's no way to pass it on to people who didn't earn it.