Didn't read the article, did ya? The protagonists in Avatar are all scientists. They go on to win the day. Ergo, kid scientists. The movie doesn't need to be about lab tests and submitting papers to have the desired effect...
I'm not impugning anyone's honor, per se. I have no evidence to do so. Nor should my opinion be capable of damaging such a person as would have use for such honor.
I'm merely pointing out that my chain of events makes more sense than theirs does - with what information we have at hand.
There's no veracity to this, and it could easily be proven false. These are the limits of armchair speculation. Rather as I predict what the weather will actually be like tomorrow, I'm going with my gut here.
And I'm completely open to opinions to the contrary. Got any?
Yeah, and I highly doubt that such a link actually exists. Everything about Wikileaks and Assange's 'rubberhose' or whatnot absolutely SCREAMS anonymity. The odds of such a person, capable of such concepts to the point of actively enabling them through software and websites, actually being traced back to the leak is very nearly absurd.
The majority of Christians ARE control freaks. That's why a gay man or woman cannot get married - because Christians refuse to let them have the freedom to do so (just as they'd like to see abortion outlawed).
Note that you are only talking about some Christians here. Many Christians do not fit your description.
Indeed. I suspect Christ would favor gay marriage, at least outside of the church. Or for certain he'd preach that we accept and love them no matter whether or not they were gay. The church takes the pre-Christian position of shunning them by preference, I'd say. Not by any actual doctrine that ought to be in current use.
However, on abortion, I'm confident that Christ would oppose it. He stressed generosity to those in need, and would have been against the killing of the unborn. The pro-choice folks always focus on the rights of the mother, but I think Christ would favor the rights of the child-to-be.
Hey, irrational fairytales are not inherently harmful to innocent bystanders. Of course, brainwashing young children by indoctrinating them through use of those irrational fairytales is unconscionable, but making it illegal is problematic and unenforceable.
Even were these fairytales completely false, they'd still have extensive value as parables. Take, for example, the Tooth Fairy. I don't see you banning her use, presumably because you can see the good relative to the harm. We use magical explanations to help children cope with the loss of teeth, to help them practice good dental hygiene, etc. I don't see you going to war with people putting dollars under people's pillows.
I assume it's because you're not 'atheist'. You're 'antitheist'. You hate the notion of God, separate from fairytales, but unprovability is your one chosen weapon to wield, so you drum on about it...
You do incidentally have a slight confusion about the nature of proof. I do not have to prove that you are irrational; you have to prove you are rational. Prove that a god exists.
Is that really so much to ask?
God and I speak every day. He aids me frequently. He protects my family in times of need, and has done a rather fine job of getting me through life thus far. That's not proof enough for you, and that's just fine. But it's good enough for me, and thanks to the very design of our nation, I'll never have to fear you getting your way in dictating what I am allowed to believe.
Further, 'unprovable' is a depressingly low metric. Prove that love exists. Prove that I exist. You could be trapped on a Romulan Holodeck at this very moment, interfacing with a simulation in the hopes that you will reveal the Federation's defense codes. And you'll NEVER, EVER be able to prove otherwise. Enjoy your status of 'unprovable' existence.
Others have pointed out the first flaw in your position, so I'll take up the second:
You are exemplifying what you claim to oppose.
Pause and reflect on your position for a moment. You're determining that people should not be allowed to believe something that cannot be supported by empirical evidence.
That's religion, as opposed to faith, vis-a-vis the post above yours.
Clone's got it right, and discounting it as impossible is a meta-argument, as he correctly posts adjacent to this one.
However, there exists an equally unpalatable alternative:
Make marriages about offspring, and unions about everything else. Which, by the way, is how the original intent of the laws play out. Otherwise, what's the explanation for the notion of consummation?
So there you have TWO viable alternatives to the current paradigm of combining unions with ritual/religious marriage.
17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
As I read it, Christ was supportive of the host government, and encourages us to pay our taxes accordingly. Do note, though, that this is outside of God's tribute, which is considered an additional duty to be paid.
You've identified the key issue that Christianity will need to overcome if it is to survive the next 100 years or so:
The modern church is decidedly anti-Christian.
They dig way too deep into the Old Testament to find passages that support their prejudices and preach far more hate than Christ would ever tolerate. Have you seen the mega-churches with the Starbucks inside? Christ would positively kick ass were he to walk into one of those, and yet they flourish.
Since I'm not an active participant in any part of this process, my freedom to draw my own conclusions is completely unimpugned. I can speculate wildly and you can either agree or disagree as you see fit.
Now were I bringing charges, or stating that I know such and such to be a fact then I'd be expected to present some evidence. As I'm doing neither, I'm using the appropriate labels throughout all my conversations, as you have clearly noticed.
Like I said, it's healthcare reform all over again, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that the government take-over talking points that have emerged on the Right are coming straight from the telcos, just like the government take-over talking point on the public option came directly from the insurance industry.
This is actually cuttingly salient, even though the author doesn't realize it. Remember how we were told that there would be no government take-over of healthcare due to the reform bill? Remember how that turned out to be a lie? As a matter of fact, only government-approved healthcare plans are presently available. You cannot get child-only coverage at all in many places. You did not get to 'keep your doctor' nor 'keep your current plan' because your employer makes those choices and simply would never, ever have paid those increased costs out of pocket. Note, too, how the major employers will SAVE MONEY by DROPPING COVERAGE altogether once the exchanges come up.
I just find it ironic that even now, after we can see everything that's going wrong with the newly-minted power of the Federal government to ration out health insurance - even NOW do we yearn to give them more power over the internet. What could possibly go wrong???
You pro-government guys are probably certifiable at this point, and yet you call us anti-government guys crazy. Go figure.
Wired doesn't need to make excuses until they're legally compelled to release the information with a subpoena or a court order.
Indeed. And even then, they could likely refuse to testify against themselves. But then again we're discussing the court of public opinion at this point, not a court of law.
Oh, I'm not confusing them. I'm recognizing how entities farm things out to one another in order to obfuscate the true actors in their crimes.
Lamo was a puppet of Wired and Wired was a puppet of the DOJ.
This explains the non-story they printed back in May about Lamo. Not that anyone would have noticed or cared that Poulson spent the weekend with him in San Diego. But they ran a cover story anyway...
This is merely my suspicion, but I feel that the entirety of the content of those logs would reveal that Manning was caught in a sting by the DOJ. That the story of Manning finding someone, anyone to brag to was false and that Lamo sought direct contact to solicit the confession. This is the most-likely scenario, as I suspect it:
1) DOJ contacts Wired via Rasch informing him of this 'lead' about one of the biggest cyber-crimes of all time. Chances are the military knows that Manning has leaked something, but they can't prove it. They need a confession before they can attempt to put the genie back in the bottle.
2) Poulsen hires Lamo for the job. Note the non-story Poulsen wrote about Lamo in May. This was likely a cover to hide their extended contact at that time.
3) Lamo contacts Manning using information given to him by the DOJ and violates his civil rights in order to solicit a confession that otherwise would not hold up in court.
4) Manning is arrested and those logs are secured from the public's eyes under the guise of 'national security'.
That's how I see it. It just makes more sense than the story we're being told. Please do poke holes in it if you can, because where I sit right now, Wired is a fairly disgusting entity deserving some charges being brought of their own.
Wired's duty to protect their sources is more important to the nation -- the people -- than helping the government to prosecute those sources. Democracy demands freedom of the press.
Unless those sources are the government, due to Wired's being employed by the DOJ to solicit Manning's confession.
I don't see why this article is coming down on Kevin Poulsen - compared to Manning, Lamo, and the FBI, Poulsen is an innocent bystander, making editorial and ethical decisions that seem to be pretty much by the journalistic integrity book.
Because it appears that Poulsen is on the job as well. In fact, I've never believed that the May trip to visit Lamo was legit. I've always suspected that this particular non-article was to cover Poulsen's visit to Lamo in which they collaborated on the Manning story. Likely, even, while Lamo was still chatting with Manning.
That's why Apple succeeds: it makes the things people WANT
Incomplete. Better put:
That's why Apple succeeds: it makes people WANT the things they make
Mom got an ipad from the oldest bro for Christmas. She doesn't want it. Doesn't even have the slightest idea what she'd so with such a thing, and upon learning that it costs $500 (she had estimated less than $100) she's fighting like hell to find a way to justify her son spending so much money on it.
This is clearly a response to Google's Android. They're going to launch an 'Apple Search' and host it here. Undercutting Google's bread-and-butter will curtail their ability to lose money on free software.
Has there really been no one who guessed this thus far??
It is also only fair to point out that English is riddled with exceptions and weird little rules that make it quite difficult to master (and as evidence, I point to the constant stream of errors here on slashdot, where, supposedly anyway, the membership is well educated.
The digital age is correcting this gap quickly. Words like 'lol' are becoming canon. Those weird little rules will soon all fall as far away as those 'obsolete graphs'. Does anyone here remember when typesetters used to interchange 's' with 'f'? No. Because English is changing over time, too.
The big advantage for English (or other easily written languages Korean hangul) is the speed with which it can be typed into a digital context; but with stroke-aware input systems coming online, that advantage isn't likely to last a lot longer.
Um, I doubt it. People abandoned handwriting letters and whatnot long ago. Ten fingers are better.
The phrase 'stupid gwailo' is a racial slur. Just FYI. In a post espousing cultural adaptation, calling us all 'chinks' isn't a great way to communicate.
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't read the article, did ya? The protagonists in Avatar are all scientists. They go on to win the day. Ergo, kid scientists. The movie doesn't need to be about lab tests and submitting papers to have the desired effect...
I'm not impugning anyone's honor, per se. I have no evidence to do so. Nor should my opinion be capable of damaging such a person as would have use for such honor.
I'm merely pointing out that my chain of events makes more sense than theirs does - with what information we have at hand.
There's no veracity to this, and it could easily be proven false. These are the limits of armchair speculation. Rather as I predict what the weather will actually be like tomorrow, I'm going with my gut here.
And I'm completely open to opinions to the contrary. Got any?
Yeah, and I highly doubt that such a link actually exists. Everything about Wikileaks and Assange's 'rubberhose' or whatnot absolutely SCREAMS anonymity. The odds of such a person, capable of such concepts to the point of actively enabling them through software and websites, actually being traced back to the leak is very nearly absurd.
There's a further suspicion that Lamo presented himself as a journalist, and extended confidence under California's shield law.
The majority of Christians ARE control freaks.
That's why a gay man or woman cannot get married - because Christians refuse to let them have the freedom to do so (just as they'd like to see abortion outlawed).
Note that you are only talking about some Christians here. Many Christians do not fit your description.
Indeed. I suspect Christ would favor gay marriage, at least outside of the church. Or for certain he'd preach that we accept and love them no matter whether or not they were gay. The church takes the pre-Christian position of shunning them by preference, I'd say. Not by any actual doctrine that ought to be in current use.
However, on abortion, I'm confident that Christ would oppose it. He stressed generosity to those in need, and would have been against the killing of the unborn. The pro-choice folks always focus on the rights of the mother, but I think Christ would favor the rights of the child-to-be.
Hey, irrational fairytales are not inherently harmful to innocent bystanders. Of course, brainwashing young children by indoctrinating them through use of those irrational fairytales is unconscionable, but making it illegal is problematic and unenforceable.
Even were these fairytales completely false, they'd still have extensive value as parables. Take, for example, the Tooth Fairy. I don't see you banning her use, presumably because you can see the good relative to the harm. We use magical explanations to help children cope with the loss of teeth, to help them practice good dental hygiene, etc. I don't see you going to war with people putting dollars under people's pillows.
I assume it's because you're not 'atheist'. You're 'antitheist'. You hate the notion of God, separate from fairytales, but unprovability is your one chosen weapon to wield, so you drum on about it...
You do incidentally have a slight confusion about the nature of proof. I do not have to prove that you are irrational; you have to prove you are rational. Prove that a god exists.
Is that really so much to ask?
God and I speak every day. He aids me frequently. He protects my family in times of need, and has done a rather fine job of getting me through life thus far. That's not proof enough for you, and that's just fine. But it's good enough for me, and thanks to the very design of our nation, I'll never have to fear you getting your way in dictating what I am allowed to believe.
Further, 'unprovable' is a depressingly low metric. Prove that love exists. Prove that I exist. You could be trapped on a Romulan Holodeck at this very moment, interfacing with a simulation in the hopes that you will reveal the Federation's defense codes. And you'll NEVER, EVER be able to prove otherwise. Enjoy your status of 'unprovable' existence.
Others have pointed out the first flaw in your position, so I'll take up the second:
You are exemplifying what you claim to oppose.
Pause and reflect on your position for a moment. You're determining that people should not be allowed to believe something that cannot be supported by empirical evidence.
That's religion, as opposed to faith, vis-a-vis the post above yours.
Clone's got it right, and discounting it as impossible is a meta-argument, as he correctly posts adjacent to this one.
However, there exists an equally unpalatable alternative:
Make marriages about offspring, and unions about everything else. Which, by the way, is how the original intent of the laws play out. Otherwise, what's the explanation for the notion of consummation?
So there you have TWO viable alternatives to the current paradigm of combining unions with ritual/religious marriage.
17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
As I read it, Christ was supportive of the host government, and encourages us to pay our taxes accordingly. Do note, though, that this is outside of God's tribute, which is considered an additional duty to be paid.
You've identified the key issue that Christianity will need to overcome if it is to survive the next 100 years or so:
The modern church is decidedly anti-Christian.
They dig way too deep into the Old Testament to find passages that support their prejudices and preach far more hate than Christ would ever tolerate. Have you seen the mega-churches with the Starbucks inside? Christ would positively kick ass were he to walk into one of those, and yet they flourish.
Yeah, that's possible, but it doesn't seem quite as likely. Hard to say though. Very good point.
Just because I don't think jam will kill me doesn't mean it isn't poisoned either.
There exists a notion of 'likelihood'.
Since I'm not an active participant in any part of this process, my freedom to draw my own conclusions is completely unimpugned. I can speculate wildly and you can either agree or disagree as you see fit.
Now were I bringing charges, or stating that I know such and such to be a fact then I'd be expected to present some evidence. As I'm doing neither, I'm using the appropriate labels throughout all my conversations, as you have clearly noticed.
Seeing the full logs would settle it, I'd think.
Like I said, it's healthcare reform all over again, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that the government take-over talking points that have emerged on the Right are coming straight from the telcos, just like the government take-over talking point on the public option came directly from the insurance industry.
This is actually cuttingly salient, even though the author doesn't realize it. Remember how we were told that there would be no government take-over of healthcare due to the reform bill? Remember how that turned out to be a lie? As a matter of fact, only government-approved healthcare plans are presently available. You cannot get child-only coverage at all in many places. You did not get to 'keep your doctor' nor 'keep your current plan' because your employer makes those choices and simply would never, ever have paid those increased costs out of pocket. Note, too, how the major employers will SAVE MONEY by DROPPING COVERAGE altogether once the exchanges come up.
I just find it ironic that even now, after we can see everything that's going wrong with the newly-minted power of the Federal government to ration out health insurance - even NOW do we yearn to give them more power over the internet. What could possibly go wrong???
You pro-government guys are probably certifiable at this point, and yet you call us anti-government guys crazy. Go figure.
Wired doesn't need to make excuses until they're legally compelled to release the information with a subpoena or a court order.
Indeed. And even then, they could likely refuse to testify against themselves. But then again we're discussing the court of public opinion at this point, not a court of law.
Oh, I'm not confusing them. I'm recognizing how entities farm things out to one another in order to obfuscate the true actors in their crimes.
Lamo was a puppet of Wired and Wired was a puppet of the DOJ.
This explains the non-story they printed back in May about Lamo. Not that anyone would have noticed or cared that Poulson spent the weekend with him in San Diego. But they ran a cover story anyway...
Well, actually, we can really say. How many have been arrested and placed into 23-hour-a-day confinement? Exactly one. Mystery solved.
This is merely my suspicion, but I feel that the entirety of the content of those logs would reveal that Manning was caught in a sting by the DOJ. That the story of Manning finding someone, anyone to brag to was false and that Lamo sought direct contact to solicit the confession. This is the most-likely scenario, as I suspect it:
1) DOJ contacts Wired via Rasch informing him of this 'lead' about one of the biggest cyber-crimes of all time. Chances are the military knows that Manning has leaked something, but they can't prove it. They need a confession before they can attempt to put the genie back in the bottle.
2) Poulsen hires Lamo for the job. Note the non-story Poulsen wrote about Lamo in May. This was likely a cover to hide their extended contact at that time.
3) Lamo contacts Manning using information given to him by the DOJ and violates his civil rights in order to solicit a confession that otherwise would not hold up in court.
4) Manning is arrested and those logs are secured from the public's eyes under the guise of 'national security'.
That's how I see it. It just makes more sense than the story we're being told. Please do poke holes in it if you can, because where I sit right now, Wired is a fairly disgusting entity deserving some charges being brought of their own.
Wired's duty to protect their sources is more important to the nation -- the people -- than helping the government to prosecute those sources. Democracy demands freedom of the press.
Unless those sources are the government, due to Wired's being employed by the DOJ to solicit Manning's confession.
I don't see why this article is coming down on Kevin Poulsen - compared to Manning, Lamo, and the FBI, Poulsen is an innocent bystander, making editorial and ethical decisions that seem to be pretty much by the journalistic integrity book.
Because it appears that Poulsen is on the job as well. In fact, I've never believed that the May trip to visit Lamo was legit. I've always suspected that this particular non-article was to cover Poulsen's visit to Lamo in which they collaborated on the Manning story. Likely, even, while Lamo was still chatting with Manning.
Unclean hands...
Compromising which source, exactly? Lamo? Manning? Or the DOJ?
None of these seem to be anonymous at this point.
That's why Apple succeeds: it makes the things people WANT
Incomplete. Better put:
That's why Apple succeeds: it makes people WANT the things they make
Mom got an ipad from the oldest bro for Christmas. She doesn't want it. Doesn't even have the slightest idea what she'd so with such a thing, and upon learning that it costs $500 (she had estimated less than $100) she's fighting like hell to find a way to justify her son spending so much money on it.
This is clearly a response to Google's Android. They're going to launch an 'Apple Search' and host it here. Undercutting Google's bread-and-butter will curtail their ability to lose money on free software.
Has there really been no one who guessed this thus far??
It is also only fair to point out that English is riddled with exceptions and weird little rules that make it quite difficult to master (and as evidence, I point to the constant stream of errors here on slashdot, where, supposedly anyway, the membership is well educated.
The digital age is correcting this gap quickly. Words like 'lol' are becoming canon. Those weird little rules will soon all fall as far away as those 'obsolete graphs'. Does anyone here remember when typesetters used to interchange 's' with 'f'? No. Because English is changing over time, too.
The big advantage for English (or other easily written languages Korean hangul) is the speed with which it can be typed into a digital context; but with stroke-aware input systems coming online, that advantage isn't likely to last a lot longer.
Um, I doubt it. People abandoned handwriting letters and whatnot long ago. Ten fingers are better.
You might start by learning the difference between Kanji and Hanzi.
Lesson two is how not to be a stupid gwailo and tattoo yourself with it.
The phrase 'stupid gwailo' is a racial slur. Just FYI. In a post espousing cultural adaptation, calling us all 'chinks' isn't a great way to communicate.