How, exactly, one right destroys another right?
If there is a correlation, it would be quite the opposite: more rights for the minories means more rights (and more fights for rights) for everyone.
Your argument looks like a terrible fallacy.
Are you serious that dense? Seriously? What were you doing to safeguard your actual "important" freedoms? Do you have a reading disability? Have you been living under a rock and not noticed how your freedoms were eroded bit by bit?
You fell for the rouse hook line and sinker. Are you too much of an ideology to not see that you were being fooled and distracted by a message of "hope and change"?
Tell me honestly, which would you rather have? The status quo of the 90's and 80's or the lack of freedoms you have now?
You don't get it, as soon as you make the constitution open for interpretation, the government takes that opening and rips everyone a new one. Seriously congrats for still not seeing the big picture. Anytime you open up a law or a contract for renegotiation you are putting your existing position at risk.
Continue ignoring the bigger problems citizen. Just worry about gay marriage, what is wearing, sports scores and other completely irrelevant popular culture crap. Freedom of speech? Freedom of the Press? Freedom of association? Freedom of religion? Who cares as long you get to watch the latest reality show about a gay gypsy weddding on TLC am I right? *SARCASM*
Again, nobody was bleeding to death and nobody was being imprisoned for not having a legal gay ceremony. I would think that there are more serious problems in society that need fixing like child poverty, homelessness, illiteracy and access to education but what do I know? Apparently fixing social problems that affect people of every race, gender and preference is less important than some dude being able to have a party to give a ring to another dude.
Obviously, my concern for the most vulnerable in society is wrong and that I should care more about some of the most affluent wanting to have a celebration and get a piece of paper instead.
So to hell with the constitution? To hell with freedom of the press? Is that want you want me to think?
There is so much irony on so many levels. For one, the reason why nobody in the US noticed their rights being striped away was because of the "wag the dog" scenario with the gay rights activists fighting for "gay marriage". In the grand scheme of things, gay marriage should not have garnered so much attention from either opponents or supporters. It was not necessary for anyone's survival.
Everyone was asleep at the wheel while the NSA and their co-horts stole all of your rights and freedoms. Congrats to you gays with your victories in the courts. They are a hollow victory since now everybody is screwed. Now you who pushed so hard for it can see where it really was supposed to fit in your priority list. United we stand and divided we fall. Our society was too busy being divided on smaller issues to not notice what the government was doing behind our backs in the name of "security".
Step 1: remove iMac, keyboard, mouse and power cable from the box.
Step 2: plug in power cable into back of iMac and wall socket.
Step 3. plug in keyboard and mouse.
Step 4. plug phone cord into phone socket in back of iMac and wall.
Step 5. Turn on iMac
Step 6. Launch AOL.
Step 7: Find out AOL doesn't work in your area (or country).
Step 8: Try to find a modem that's compatible with OS X.
Step 10: buy a very expensive modem as the cheap ones only worked with Windows XP.
Step 11: Find out no production software runs on an iMac.
Step 12: Throw out iMac, buy a PC which you should have done in the first place if you wanted to get work done.
A few problems with your rebuttal.
1. The iMac came with a builtin model.
2. The CRT iMac was released in 1998 so there was no OS X yet.
3. XP did not exist yet so you had to deal with either Windows 95c or Windows 98.
4. Microsoft Office for Mac did indeed exist.
5. PC's of that era where actually slower than macs running off the G3 processor for many tasks including Photoshop.
Oh, screw you. How were we supposed to know he was going to pull this crap, and how would voting for the other asshole have been any better?
Tony Blair, leader of the "Labour" party increased the cameras in London along with other surveillance when his party came to power. Look at any big increases in big brother and you will see people who pretend to be populist. They are also typically on the "LEFT" of everyone else in their country's politics.
You should have seen it coming. Some of us saw it coming from a mile away.
>> playing/recording/performing music would be one use case.
OK, I guess I could see that at the high end. I really only use (local) mp3s or free music services to play back music on my Android devices, so I never notice any performance issues. (I also don't use the devices to record sound or video - I have a separate camera and microphone setup for that; I edit footage on a desktop of course.)
You are "consuming" media, musicians are "creating" media on their iPads whether it be recording in the studio or as part of an adhoc performance piece. In the realm of music and other performance art, Android devices are toys by comparison. Android lacks support for low latency audio among other things.
OK, I'll bite. Without using brand names, please tell me what you can do (e.g., use cases) with an iOS device that you can't do with an Android device of equal or lessor price?
1. Connect to all of the collaborative/meeting/remote access services large Fortune 500 companies use to host meetings or collaborate.
2. Access all of the games and apps only available on iOS.
3. Test iOS apps that earn you money from people who are willing to "pay" for them.
Android users are constantly asking "why" there is no Android version of "x" app. Besides the issue of fragmentation and a less complete framework than iOS, most Android users are too cheap to pay for apps and services. Developers simply do not want to reinvent the wheel for services that are provided for "free" with the Cocoa framework just to have feature parity on Android. Why should devs have to work harder for less money?
Steve knew something everyone else never quite got - there are people who will spend a lot of money on an image product. His first Macs were nothing special, performance-wise, but set a new style benchmark. PC clones were ugly, beige, cumbersome and suddenly there was this Bang & Olufsen sort of style which looked great on a desktop. Every product since was about materials and style.
Performance benchmarks are for nerds to masturbate to, being able to get stuff done is what normal people care about. If you were to compare the speed at which you could take one of those colorful CRT iMacs out of the box and be on the internet compared with unboxing a PC and connecting to the internet, the iMac would win by hours.
You can talk about how you think image was the only reason why people bought them but in reality regular people just wanted a machine that worked and let them get on the internet without having to consult a nerd. The CRT iMac was that machine which is why it put Apple back into the black again.
Getting on the internet on those iMac
Step 1: remove iMac, keyboard, mouse and power cable from the box.
Step 2: plug in power cable into back of iMac and wall socket.
Step 3. plug in keyboard and mouse.
Step 4. plug phone cord into phone socket in back of iMac and wall.
Step 5. Turn on iMac
Step 6. Launch AOL.
And there is no reason a MAC address should not randomize itself in between network connections.
No reason other than that the MAC address exists to uniquely identify the device connecting to the network. You seem to have missed the point of the MAC address. Some networks lock down access by MAC address as it is supposed to identify specific devices.
How to know when someone doesn't understand Russia? Of all the human rights problems to list, they choose the (favorite hipster issue of) Pussy Riot. You don't think killing journalists or fixing elections is a little more worthy of note?
Maybe because that is exactly what happens in the US too? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hastings_(journalist) death seems suspicious to his wife. Apparently, he was about to break a really big story on the CIA just before his fiery high speed single vehicle car crash. According to a colleague, he was working on a story and had said that he was trying to stay off the grid as much as possible.
End user here. I love having the code. You fucking programmers get bored and go do something else, leaving everyone who needs to use your software up shit creek. At least if there is code in the wild, there is still hope!
You are not an end user. If you can code then you are a developer who happens to use other people's software. End users "use" the software. When it stops serving their need they find something else.
BSD gives more freedom to a developer or a company, but not to users you idiot.
Users don't code you idiot. Typical end users have no interest in having the code. They would rather pay for software that hire someone else to make changes.
GPL isn't about sharing, it's about forcing others to share.
Right, the GPL is like socialism where the state owns everything and forces everyone to share in the labour whereas BSD is like communism where the community can share or not share freely because there is no "state" and people share when it benefits everyone in the group to do so.
You publish your code. It might get used. Deal with it.
Ah, then by that logic, we can ignore all copyright laws. Eureka!
I have a question for you. Why is it that you can take literary works and sample from them without violating copyright but GPL'ed code is viral? If they are both based on copyright, why can't you take small samples of code and incorporate it into non-gpl'ed code? Isn't that hypocritical of you? Why is is that you create a derived work from a literary work and by just rewriting it, you have to pay no royalties and yet GPL advocates want the original author to be able to "steal" all of the derived works even it it almost completely refactored into a new codebase? Why is it that you can sample sounds from a song to create a derived work without paying royalties? Why is is that you can create a parody without paying royalties?
What makes GPL'ed code so special? Is it based on copyright or not? In my opinion, if you publish code on a webpage inlined with the text of an article, it cannot be GPL'ed because the reader never had the opportunity to agree before reading the code and it cannot be unseen. In that case, the author is trying to retroactively license it after effectively releasing it in the public domain.
Ezekiel 33:8 - When I say unto the wicked, O wicked [man], thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked [man] shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
Context is everything. God is speaking about the wages of sin which is death. We all die because of original sin. God is telling Ezekiel that if he does not warn the wicked to turn from their sin and repent then their bloody will be on his hands.
Deuteronomy 17:12 - Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death.
This is talking about contempt of court. God was not interested in the Israelites setting up large jails and prisons for criminals because they are just a graduate school for making better criminals. The verse following it suggests that without such a harsh punishment, the people will not respect the authority of the courts.
Chronicles 15:12-13 - They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.
This is from second chronicles. It talks about a time when the nation of Israel returned to worship of the LORD and destroyed their idols. King Asa enacted that decree as a way of showing his dedication and repentance. They have previously been worshiping idols and had killed many of the prophets god had sent.
Leviticus 24:10-16 - Anyone who blasphemes the LORD's name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel. Any Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the LORD's name will surely die.
They were not big believers in jails but probably had the following punishments. 1. Corporal punishment with whips, death by stoning and banishment. Like I said before, modern jails are training grounds for making better criminals and cost society a lot of money. No debt is repaid by jail time because it is society that pays money for the jail time. It is a big make work project for prison guards and police. Jail == more crime in the future. Basically, using god's name in vain or as a swear was considered the same as burning the flag. It was simply not something you ever did and they did not want to lock up people who obviously would never change their ways so they killed them instead.
Isaiah 14:21 - Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers;
It was a prophesy against Babylon which was an enemy state of Israel. Israel are god's chosen people. It talks about a future war.
Isaiah 13:15-18 - Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.
Again that was a prophesy about a future war with Babylon. Context is everything.
etc.
right back at ya
So basically, you did not even bother looking at the context. The first one was talking about how the blood of a wicked man would be on Ezekiel if he did not bother to warn that man of his impending doom and try to get him to repent.
The last two were about a prophesy of a future war. The ones in the middle were about their legal system or an entire nation returning back to god and the necessity of getting rid of the dissenters.
Basically, the Israelites did not believe in taking prisoners either in wartime or for crimes. You either begged for forgiveness and promised to never do
I am sick of this "we cannot profile" crap. The israelis profile based on "behaviour" as their main focus. I don't care how "trained" a terrorist is, they will always have a "tell" and they will always be nervous. Stop irradiating people and stop with this random violation of human rights in the name of political correctness. I am sorry but I am not interested in playing russian roulette with my life. That is exactly what this is because it is based on the premise that they can randomly find the terrorist.
Enough is enough. We have to start profiling based on behaviour and background checks and allow law abiding citizens and visitors to travel relatively unmolested. If we continue not profiling then the terrorists have won. Find and prosecute the terrorists and attempted terrorists and leave people who want to visit peacefully and spend money in your countries alone.
Oh for crying out loud, you do realize that "American Carol" along with the "Christian Extremists" movie within it was satire and making fun of people like you who tryi to equate christianity with violence? Ted Kaczynski was a criminal? Are you going to start looking at every damn criminal and see what their background is? David Koresh was a cult leader which precludes him being a christian (see the ten commandments) and the IRA was an armed struggle against british imperialism. The fact that most of the IRA were catholic had something to do with the long history of the british discriminating against catholics. Examples of this would include Quebec and England itself. The British used religion as an excuse.
But again, I would challenge you to show me examples of people that would be classified as terrorists bombing public places like an airport or other terminal in the name of christ. I would also challenge you to find scripture to support such a thing. There is no such text but there is plenty of examples in the Koran by their prophet himself about committing violence the name of their faith.
If you follow the example of Christ as a fundamentalist, you will not commit violence but if you follow the example of Mohammed as a fundamentalist then you will kill in the name of your religion even if it means committing suicide. Suicide is considered a terrible sin in Christianity so that would preclude a suicide christian bomber.
Going back to David Koresh, he and his followers basically self-imulated themselves in their own compound. I would hardly compare that to a bomber attacking a public place.
I think there's definitely a place in the market for a MSFT tablet device. Seamless integration with Exchange, Office, Sharepoint, Skype, etc? These devices would be showing up in meeting rooms everywhere. But rather than building on MSFT's powerful pre-existing infrastructure they are just another "me too" platform.
Right because, iPads don't integrate with Exchange, have apps that read/write office documents, have Skype, offer remoting apps like Joinme, Citrix Webex, Citrix receiver or that online desktop streaming app?
OS X has had a Mac App Store for a while, and 10.8 added Gatekeeper with a default configuration not to run anything that hasn't been digitally signed with a code signing certificate purchased from Apple's CA.
Right but you can sign apps that are not published inside the Apple Mac App store. All it does it ensure that the app is from the author it claims to be. You can also run unsigned apps by navigating to the app on your harddisk and running it manually from there. It will then ask if you want to run it.
Both the voters and the candidates are playing the game according to the rules of the game.
Change the rules of game. That's the problem. The first-past-the-post elections are part of the problem, but there are several others.
BULLSHIT. Defeatist attitudes and worrying about "wasting" your vote are the problem. You cannot having anything other than first past the post for a presidential election. Even if you have a "run off", you are still having a first past the post only you are doing it more than once.
If everyone who did not like either the Democrat or Republican party candidate instead voting for a "reformer", that might actually have a chance of breaking the old two party system to pieces.
The only wasted vote is a vote for someone you don't like because you dislike their opponent even more.
magic maverick is an NSA/CIA mole. He is knowing a well known tactic of sounding like he is critical of the the current establishment, then dismissing any viable alternatives as being "just as bad" as if he had a crystal ball to see all possible futures and then ending off with a completely untenable suggesting of saying "fuck authority" and to go it alone. Obviously, nobody is going to go for "no authority" and after that post, the readers are fooled into the "devil you do versus the devil you don't mentality". That was the intent of that post.
Now, I am probably going to come home to find a bunch of men in in black ski masks shipping me off to Gitmo after the post but at least I won't have to work for the beast anymore.
The fact of the matter is that atheist killer regimes need to base their killing in reason. Of course even atheists can be assholes and say 'kill em all because they are enemies', but they cannot resort to 'they must die because it is the will of [deity] and we must obey if we want to go to [good afterlife]'.
Notice how even your Wikipedia-link says this: "it led a concerted effort telling Soviet citizens that religious beliefs and practices were "wrong" and "harmful", and that "good" citizens ought to embrace a scientific, atheistic worldview" (my emphasis)
Religion can make a plethora of irrational 'reasons' for wishing other people dead perfectly valid to its followers. It also has pretty effective fear-mongering strategies: eternal burning and suffering sounds pretty uncomfortable. If you can avoid that by torching a few heretics, why even think twice?
Atheists can only make you fear things that could actually exist and even then, they have to work to make you believe that those things have a non-negligible chance of happening.
Single example? There was a list of multiple regimes. I stopped reading your message at that point. You never bothered to follow the links so why should any more bother to read what you say?
Slashdot Mirror
How, exactly, one right destroys another right? If there is a correlation, it would be quite the opposite: more rights for the minories means more rights (and more fights for rights) for everyone.
Your argument looks like a terrible fallacy.
Are you serious that dense? Seriously? What were you doing to safeguard your actual "important" freedoms? Do you have a reading disability? Have you been living under a rock and not noticed how your freedoms were eroded bit by bit?
You fell for the rouse hook line and sinker. Are you too much of an ideology to not see that you were being fooled and distracted by a message of "hope and change"?
Tell me honestly, which would you rather have? The status quo of the 90's and 80's or the lack of freedoms you have now?
You don't get it, as soon as you make the constitution open for interpretation, the government takes that opening and rips everyone a new one. Seriously congrats for still not seeing the big picture. Anytime you open up a law or a contract for renegotiation you are putting your existing position at risk.
Continue ignoring the bigger problems citizen. Just worry about gay marriage, what is wearing, sports scores and other completely irrelevant popular culture crap. Freedom of speech? Freedom of the Press? Freedom of association? Freedom of religion? Who cares as long you get to watch the latest reality show about a gay gypsy weddding on TLC am I right? *SARCASM*
Again, nobody was bleeding to death and nobody was being imprisoned for not having a legal gay ceremony. I would think that there are more serious problems in society that need fixing like child poverty, homelessness, illiteracy and access to education but what do I know? Apparently fixing social problems that affect people of every race, gender and preference is less important than some dude being able to have a party to give a ring to another dude.
Obviously, my concern for the most vulnerable in society is wrong and that I should care more about some of the most affluent wanting to have a celebration and get a piece of paper instead.
So to hell with the constitution? To hell with freedom of the press? Is that want you want me to think?
Everyone was asleep at the wheel while the NSA and their co-horts stole all of your rights and freedoms. Congrats to you gays with your victories in the courts. They are a hollow victory since now everybody is screwed. Now you who pushed so hard for it can see where it really was supposed to fit in your priority list. United we stand and divided we fall. Our society was too busy being divided on smaller issues to not notice what the government was doing behind our backs in the name of "security".
Liberty is more important than a celebration.
Step 1: remove iMac, keyboard, mouse and power cable from the box. Step 2: plug in power cable into back of iMac and wall socket. Step 3. plug in keyboard and mouse. Step 4. plug phone cord into phone socket in back of iMac and wall. Step 5. Turn on iMac Step 6. Launch AOL.
Step 7: Find out AOL doesn't work in your area (or country). Step 8: Try to find a modem that's compatible with OS X. Step 10: buy a very expensive modem as the cheap ones only worked with Windows XP. Step 11: Find out no production software runs on an iMac. Step 12: Throw out iMac, buy a PC which you should have done in the first place if you wanted to get work done.
A few problems with your rebuttal.
1. The iMac came with a builtin model.
2. The CRT iMac was released in 1998 so there was no OS X yet.
3. XP did not exist yet so you had to deal with either Windows 95c or Windows 98.
4. Microsoft Office for Mac did indeed exist.
5. PC's of that era where actually slower than macs running off the G3 processor for many tasks including Photoshop.
Maybe you need to read more slowly next time?
Oh, screw you. How were we supposed to know he was going to pull this crap, and how would voting for the other asshole have been any better?
Tony Blair, leader of the "Labour" party increased the cameras in London along with other surveillance when his party came to power. Look at any big increases in big brother and you will see people who pretend to be populist. They are also typically on the "LEFT" of everyone else in their country's politics.
You should have seen it coming. Some of us saw it coming from a mile away.
>> playing/recording/performing music would be one use case.
OK, I guess I could see that at the high end. I really only use (local) mp3s or free music services to play back music on my Android devices, so I never notice any performance issues. (I also don't use the devices to record sound or video - I have a separate camera and microphone setup for that; I edit footage on a desktop of course.)
You are "consuming" media, musicians are "creating" media on their iPads whether it be recording in the studio or as part of an adhoc performance piece. In the realm of music and other performance art, Android devices are toys by comparison. Android lacks support for low latency audio among other things.
OK, I'll bite. Without using brand names, please tell me what you can do (e.g., use cases) with an iOS device that you can't do with an Android device of equal or lessor price?
1. Connect to all of the collaborative/meeting/remote access services large Fortune 500 companies use to host meetings or collaborate.
2. Access all of the games and apps only available on iOS.
3. Test iOS apps that earn you money from people who are willing to "pay" for them.
Android users are constantly asking "why" there is no Android version of "x" app. Besides the issue of fragmentation and a less complete framework than iOS, most Android users are too cheap to pay for apps and services. Developers simply do not want to reinvent the wheel for services that are provided for "free" with the Cocoa framework just to have feature parity on Android. Why should devs have to work harder for less money?
Steve knew something everyone else never quite got - there are people who will spend a lot of money on an image product. His first Macs were nothing special, performance-wise, but set a new style benchmark. PC clones were ugly, beige, cumbersome and suddenly there was this Bang & Olufsen sort of style which looked great on a desktop. Every product since was about materials and style.
Performance benchmarks are for nerds to masturbate to, being able to get stuff done is what normal people care about. If you were to compare the speed at which you could take one of those colorful CRT iMacs out of the box and be on the internet compared with unboxing a PC and connecting to the internet, the iMac would win by hours.
You can talk about how you think image was the only reason why people bought them but in reality regular people just wanted a machine that worked and let them get on the internet without having to consult a nerd. The CRT iMac was that machine which is why it put Apple back into the black again.
Getting on the internet on those iMac
Step 1: remove iMac, keyboard, mouse and power cable from the box.
Step 2: plug in power cable into back of iMac and wall socket.
Step 3. plug in keyboard and mouse.
Step 4. plug phone cord into phone socket in back of iMac and wall.
Step 5. Turn on iMac
Step 6. Launch AOL.
Maybe they should have a contract with the bakery in Canada that makes them. As they don't seem to have problems with production.
The Canadian licensee never went bankrupt so the production never ended here.
And there is no reason a MAC address should not randomize itself in between network connections.
No reason other than that the MAC address exists to uniquely identify the device connecting to the network. You seem to have missed the point of the MAC address. Some networks lock down access by MAC address as it is supposed to identify specific devices.
Vs what Mittens might have done about it, eh?
Strawman or do you have a crystal ball?
How to know when someone doesn't understand Russia? Of all the human rights problems to list, they choose the (favorite hipster issue of) Pussy Riot. You don't think killing journalists or fixing elections is a little more worthy of note?
Maybe because that is exactly what happens in the US too? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hastings_(journalist) death seems suspicious to his wife. Apparently, he was about to break a really big story on the CIA just before his fiery high speed single vehicle car crash. According to a colleague, he was working on a story and had said that he was trying to stay off the grid as much as possible.
End user here. I love having the code. You fucking programmers get bored and go do something else, leaving everyone who needs to use your software up shit creek. At least if there is code in the wild, there is still hope!
You are not an end user. If you can code then you are a developer who happens to use other people's software. End users "use" the software. When it stops serving their need they find something else.
BSD gives more freedom to a developer or a company, but not to users you idiot.
Users don't code you idiot. Typical end users have no interest in having the code. They would rather pay for software that hire someone else to make changes.
GPL isn't about sharing, it's about forcing others to share.
Right, the GPL is like socialism where the state owns everything and forces everyone to share in the labour whereas BSD is like communism where the community can share or not share freely because there is no "state" and people share when it benefits everyone in the group to do so.
You publish your code. It might get used. Deal with it.
Ah, then by that logic, we can ignore all copyright laws. Eureka!
I have a question for you. Why is it that you can take literary works and sample from them without violating copyright but GPL'ed code is viral? If they are both based on copyright, why can't you take small samples of code and incorporate it into non-gpl'ed code? Isn't that hypocritical of you? Why is is that you create a derived work from a literary work and by just rewriting it, you have to pay no royalties and yet GPL advocates want the original author to be able to "steal" all of the derived works even it it almost completely refactored into a new codebase? Why is it that you can sample sounds from a song to create a derived work without paying royalties? Why is is that you can create a parody without paying royalties?
What makes GPL'ed code so special? Is it based on copyright or not? In my opinion, if you publish code on a webpage inlined with the text of an article, it cannot be GPL'ed because the reader never had the opportunity to agree before reading the code and it cannot be unseen. In that case, the author is trying to retroactively license it after effectively releasing it in the public domain.
I think you need to revisit history. The muslim crusades started by their prophet over time have killed many more than the catholics every did.
Ezekiel 33:8 - When I say unto the wicked, O wicked [man], thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked [man] shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
Context is everything. God is speaking about the wages of sin which is death. We all die because of original sin. God is telling Ezekiel that if he does not warn the wicked to turn from their sin and repent then their bloody will be on his hands.
Deuteronomy 17:12 - Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death.
This is talking about contempt of court. God was not interested in the Israelites setting up large jails and prisons for criminals because they are just a graduate school for making better criminals. The verse following it suggests that without such a harsh punishment, the people will not respect the authority of the courts.
Chronicles 15:12-13 - They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.
This is from second chronicles. It talks about a time when the nation of Israel returned to worship of the LORD and destroyed their idols. King Asa enacted that decree as a way of showing his dedication and repentance. They have previously been worshiping idols and had killed many of the prophets god had sent.
Leviticus 24:10-16 - Anyone who blasphemes the LORD's name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel. Any Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the LORD's name will surely die.
They were not big believers in jails but probably had the following punishments. 1. Corporal punishment with whips, death by stoning and banishment. Like I said before, modern jails are training grounds for making better criminals and cost society a lot of money. No debt is repaid by jail time because it is society that pays money for the jail time. It is a big make work project for prison guards and police. Jail == more crime in the future. Basically, using god's name in vain or as a swear was considered the same as burning the flag. It was simply not something you ever did and they did not want to lock up people who obviously would never change their ways so they killed them instead.
Isaiah 14:21 - Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers;
It was a prophesy against Babylon which was an enemy state of Israel. Israel are god's chosen people. It talks about a future war.
Isaiah 13:15-18 - Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.
Again that was a prophesy about a future war with Babylon. Context is everything.
etc.
right back at ya
So basically, you did not even bother looking at the context. The first one was talking about how the blood of a wicked man would be on Ezekiel if he did not bother to warn that man of his impending doom and try to get him to repent.
The last two were about a prophesy of a future war. The ones in the middle were about their legal system or an entire nation returning back to god and the necessity of getting rid of the dissenters.
Basically, the Israelites did not believe in taking prisoners either in wartime or for crimes. You either begged for forgiveness and promised to never do
Enough is enough. We have to start profiling based on behaviour and background checks and allow law abiding citizens and visitors to travel relatively unmolested. If we continue not profiling then the terrorists have won. Find and prosecute the terrorists and attempted terrorists and leave people who want to visit peacefully and spend money in your countries alone.
But again, I would challenge you to show me examples of people that would be classified as terrorists bombing public places like an airport or other terminal in the name of christ. I would also challenge you to find scripture to support such a thing. There is no such text but there is plenty of examples in the Koran by their prophet himself about committing violence the name of their faith.
If you follow the example of Christ as a fundamentalist, you will not commit violence but if you follow the example of Mohammed as a fundamentalist then you will kill in the name of your religion even if it means committing suicide. Suicide is considered a terrible sin in Christianity so that would preclude a suicide christian bomber.
Going back to David Koresh, he and his followers basically self-imulated themselves in their own compound. I would hardly compare that to a bomber attacking a public place.
Zip functionality is in the core System namespace with .NET.
Most apps don't require special native functionality.
Unless if things have changed, that is actually gzip, not Zip functionality.
I think there's definitely a place in the market for a MSFT tablet device. Seamless integration with Exchange, Office, Sharepoint, Skype, etc? These devices would be showing up in meeting rooms everywhere. But rather than building on MSFT's powerful pre-existing infrastructure they are just another "me too" platform.
Right because, iPads don't integrate with Exchange, have apps that read/write office documents, have Skype, offer remoting apps like Joinme, Citrix Webex, Citrix receiver or that online desktop streaming app?
and apple doesnt do it on OS/X
OS X has had a Mac App Store for a while, and 10.8 added Gatekeeper with a default configuration not to run anything that hasn't been digitally signed with a code signing certificate purchased from Apple's CA.
Right but you can sign apps that are not published inside the Apple Mac App store. All it does it ensure that the app is from the author it claims to be. You can also run unsigned apps by navigating to the app on your harddisk and running it manually from there. It will then ask if you want to run it.
Both the voters and the candidates are playing the game according to the rules of the game.
Change the rules of game. That's the problem. The first-past-the-post elections are part of the problem, but there are several others.
BULLSHIT. Defeatist attitudes and worrying about "wasting" your vote are the problem. You cannot having anything other than first past the post for a presidential election. Even if you have a "run off", you are still having a first past the post only you are doing it more than once.
If everyone who did not like either the Democrat or Republican party candidate instead voting for a "reformer", that might actually have a chance of breaking the old two party system to pieces.
The only wasted vote is a vote for someone you don't like because you dislike their opponent even more.
Now, I am probably going to come home to find a bunch of men in in black ski masks shipping me off to Gitmo after the post but at least I won't have to work for the beast anymore.
Your single example isn't proving much.
The fact of the matter is that atheist killer regimes need to base their killing in reason. Of course even atheists can be assholes and say 'kill em all because they are enemies', but they cannot resort to 'they must die because it is the will of [deity] and we must obey if we want to go to [good afterlife]'.
Notice how even your Wikipedia-link says this: "it led a concerted effort telling Soviet citizens that religious beliefs and practices were "wrong" and "harmful", and that "good" citizens ought to embrace a scientific, atheistic worldview" (my emphasis)
Religion can make a plethora of irrational 'reasons' for wishing other people dead perfectly valid to its followers. It also has pretty effective fear-mongering strategies: eternal burning and suffering sounds pretty uncomfortable. If you can avoid that by torching a few heretics, why even think twice? Atheists can only make you fear things that could actually exist and even then, they have to work to make you believe that those things have a non-negligible chance of happening.
Single example? There was a list of multiple regimes. I stopped reading your message at that point. You never bothered to follow the links so why should any more bother to read what you say?