The legality of a specific action is determined prior to you doing the act. You are only LEGALLY GUILTY of doing something illegal if you are convicted but not being convicted doesn't make you innocent. Actual guilt or innocence is determined by your actions not a jury of your peers.
The legality of any action is determined by the elected officials
With all of that said, I wouldn't find any problem with downloading the e-book after purchasing a legitimate copy of the work. To me that constitutes fair use.
If you walked into a deli and they informed you that your meal would take 10 minutes, because they wanted to make sure the meat had not gone bad, would you still eat there? I can't say that I would. I appreciate the candid statement but it would probably kill my appetite. It doesn't kill the appetite of a Sony fanboy though.
No matter what happens, massive amounts of people will buy the PS3. Even now the fanboys are coming out of the woodwork to defend the honor of their precious PS3. Sony could announce that it doesn't work at all and they could still push out units.
I can't say if the PS3 will be the product Sony says it will be. Sony does make some good products though I try to avoid them if I can. Their goodness isn't worth the cost in most cases. That and I can't stand Sony as a company. Perhaps I am still bitter about that minor rootkit issue. oh well.
Cheep points? Perhaps but I doubt it. Of course all of this is just my opinion. I am sure that some politicians find China's political and social climate atrocious and they would love to do something about it. How else would you like them to deal with such things. I am sure you wouldn't want a military solution but you have a problem with an economic one as well?
I understand the thought that we should mind our own business. The Chinese should be able to run China. I would agree with such sentiment to a point. Ultimately when we speak of human rights we are probably wearing or using something that came from a Chinese sweatshop where we have paid to support those things we would never put up with in the United States. If we ignore that fact we loose our moral footing. We can yell at the top of our lounges about human rights and dignity but we are probably speaking through a microphone made by a group of individuals being denied those things. If we were true to ourselves we would be talking about American rights and American dignity because at the end of the day many Americans don't care about kids all the way in China as long as their conveniences are still available at 'reasonable" prices.
So why go after technology instead of places like Wal-Mart / K-Mart? Any profit or reliance within that particular sector has not been fully realized yet. Politicians could never propose banning China made products. Middle class America has become far too reliant on what the Chinese sweatshops can provide. Americans morals, unfortunately, tend to falter when the price tag gets too high. Don't think I am excluding myself from this group. I don't agree with how China treats its people but I also know I have a lot of stuff that came from those ill treated people and in return they have quite a bit of what I have earned over the years.
So, as a politician, how do you make a moral point regarding China's horrible human rights record without destroying your chances of being reelected?
"Special liability of seller of product for physical harm to user or consumer"
How does this apply? I don't remember anyone being physically harmed by these defective units so I don't quite understand this direction.
Perhaps you can inform us what the law says about defective products that don't cause "harm to user or consumer". I would be interested to know. I would hope it would say that money grabbing nitwits go home with a replacement Xbox 360 and a hefty lawyer and court bill.
You quoted a factual statement from my post and called me a Troll. I merely asked for you to back up your statement with facts explaining your opinion. You quoted me yet never clearly explain why. Perhaps you could have provided an argument about what you disagreed with and why with. You could have provided factual information obtained from research but what you chose to do was respond with more baseless attacks. Your statements lack any value within this discussion. They don't benefit the conversation nor do they benefit those that participate in the conversation. If you look at the definition of a troll you will find that you are the only one within this thread that meets those criteria. If you have any meaningful questions or statements regarding this topic I would love to hear it otherwise I hope you the best of luck in your future endeavors.
If you are going to make an accusation please also follow it up with some sort of factual information as to how my post was intentionally incorrect. I get my facts from books. If a mistake was made within my post, please feel free to correct me with some facts of your own. If you can back up your claim that I intentionally misstated the facts I would love to hear it. If you could show some text that showed that my facts were wrong to begin with that would be a great start. If you can't I am sorry but you would be the troll in this case. A troll for attempting to cast doubt on my post which is based on information gathered in published books without any facts to back up your opinion. I have no problem with people disagreeing with my position or showing me where I am wrong but to post your opinion that I am a troll without any corroborating evidence to substantiate the claim show whose position is correct. I state that my position is correct and you state that my position is false. Additionally you state that my position is intentionally false. Prove it. Show me the money. Otherwise you are just flame bait.
Bruce, F.F The Books and the Parchments: how We Got Our English Bible. Old Tappan, N.J.
Geisler, Norman L. and William E. Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible. Chicago
Zacharias, Ravi. Can Man Live Without God? Dallas
McDowell, Josh The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Dallas
No need for name calling. Let's discuss the facts. Where did you get your information from? The information you used to conclude that I was a Troll.
Why would God be any less careful when choosing His human representative on Earth (the Pope if you're Catholic) than he was when he wrote/dictated/inspired the Bible?
Christ's representation here on earth is His people. The Pope is appointed by men. He represents the leader of the Catholic Church but if he doesn't have a heart for Christ he doesn't represent Christ. I don't intend to bash the Pope. I don't know the Pope or his heart. I just know that neither a position nor a title makes you any more of a follower of Christ. There have been some horrible Popes throughout history and I guarantee you that they didn't represent Christ. They used to position to empower and enrich themselves. I wish that everyone within church leadership had a desire to follow Christ but unfortunately that just isn't the case.
One of the fundamentals of the Christian faith is that the Bible is an inspired document. God used men to create the document but in the end it is God's book. I do not need to trust the men that wrote the book to trust the God that inspired it.
Even if you really believed that the men who wrote the original text were definitely writing the word of God directly, there have been countless other intermediaries since then. Enumerable opportunities for one person or another to change what was written, either for bad reasons or by honest mistake.
The New Testament alone was preserved in a vast number of copies. You are correct that people can make mistakes or change words or phrases to fit their needs but the vast amount of copies of the scriptures testifies to the documents accuracy. If you had only one copy of the text transferred down through history that might have been a real problem, but there are 5,686 Greek New Testament manuscripts alone. Additionally, there are around 10,000 copies of the Latin Vulgate and more than 9,300 other translations. The enormous number of early documents makes it extremely easy to identify any possible errors. To put this in perspective the next highest number of manuscripts for an ancient text is Homer's Iliad at 643 copies and no one questions its accuracy or historical integrity. In fact we only have 7 copies of Plato's works and they date more than 700 years from the original. No one questions its integrity. What standard would you use to prove the accuracy of an historical document?
If you know something didn't come from God, then surely you use your reason to determine if it makes sense or not. This is a good test.
For quite some time people used their reasoning skills and determined that the earth was flat. This of course was a good test for them. Then along came the radical idea that the earth was round. Both groups of individuals were using their reasoning skills to determine truth. Who was right?
Here's an idea: Trust your brain and nothing else.
Those that thought the earth was flat had no problems trusting their brain but did they hold the truth because of it? If you use reason and find truth you are reasoning correctly but just because you use your reasoning doesn't mean what you find is truth. Look at the mind of a child. Children will use reasoning, though parents are constantly amazed at what that child comes up with. Knowledge, skill, and experience all play a role in how effectively we reason. I contend that if we reason without God in the picture we can not gain a full understanding of the world or how it works. He is the author of all truth so how can we understand truth without Him?
That is a good point. So don't subjectively dismiss things. Try being objective instead.
So if we are being objective, by what objective standard are we going to test? What is the source of this objective standard?
God's truth is real. There is a real objective standard, a standard set by God. All other standards are made by man and changed by man. I have no problem examining evidence myself. The evidence isn't the problem.
This posting is not meant to be controversial or mean spirited. As a "fundy" I thought I would try to explain my point of view.
1. Non-denominational churches choose to be that way for many different reasons but not the one you stated, at least any of the churches that I am aware of. A denomination is just a conglomeration of people who have similar beliefs. These denominations have a hierarchy similar to that of the Catholic Church. Each church within the denominations has to teach specific things that are agreed to by the leaders of the denomination. Non-denominational churches are simply those churches that choose not to associate themselves with a specific group.
2. I believe one of the worst idea's to come out of the Catholic Church is that the Pope determines what is heretical and not God and His scriptures. History has shown that men can be corrupted so I have difficulty putting so much trust in a man. Do I believe that you can be a Christian and believe in evolution? Yes, but that doesn't make the belief correct. I think that your walk could be crippled by such belief however; belief in creation isn't a prerequisite for being a Christian.
My beliefs do not come from elected men in man made hierarchies of power. My beliefs come from and are supported by the scriptures. That is not to say that I don't find these men and structures helpful. My pastor and church elders have helped me out tremendously but they are constantly pointing to scripture. There is only one infallible man and He is the only one I can put full faith in. You are free to put your eternal fate in the hands of the Pope. Many people do it but I personally find my eternal condition a little too valuable to trust in the hands of anyone but Christ himself.
If you can subjectively dismiss any part of the Bible because it doesn't agree with your beliefs or agenda then why would any of it be true? If one passage states that God created the heavens and the earth in seven days and another states that Christ died on the cross for your sins why would you dismiss one and embrace the other? Why not embrace creation and dismiss the saving work of Christ? What is the algorithm used to determine which passages are fact and what is fiction? Is it mere opinion? How can something be true yet not accurate? If it is inspired by God it is perfectly conceived unless God isn't perfect. If it isn't perfectly conceived how can any of it be trustworthy? We could attempt to explain it away as a conundrum similar to God being fully man and fully God but I don't think that would do it justice. In one case we are talking about a state of God and the other the words he has divinely given to us so that we may know Him. If scripture itself is a conundrum then it wouldn't serve the purpose it itself states it should be used for. Teaching and learning about God and His ways.
I don't wear my differences as a badge of honor. The differences I have with the Catholic Church are sometimes trivial and other times unfortunate. Never are the differences a reason to honor myself. I am no better than anyone else.
At some point we are all going to stand before God and I can only hope, because I don't know you, that you and those that read this will be found blameless through Christ's work. That will not be determined by your belief in evolution or the proclamations of the Pope but your faith and trust in Christ. Do you know Christ? I truly hope the answer is yes but only you and Christ know for sure.
I agree with you on this point but I think that initial loyalty must be to those that pay your paycheck. I think that if something would cause drastic harm to society your duty to society would override any loyalty you should have to your employer but I think this should only be in extreme circumstances. I honestly believe in being loyal to your employer.
What idiots modded this thread informative?
Probably the same idiots that modded yours "Insightful".
The following is off the IIS webpage.
About Internet Security Systems
Internet Security Systems, Inc. (ISS) was founded in 1994 by Christopher W. Klaus and made its initial public offering on the NASDAQ on March 23, 1998.
Profile
The company provides security products and services that preemptively protect enterprise organizations against Internet threats.
ISS celebrated its 10th anniversary in 2004 and has commanded the leading edge of security innovation, inventing cornerstone technologies such as vulnerability assessment and intrusion detection/prevention.
The company continues to set standards in the security space with its Proventia Enterprise Security Platform (ESP), offering enterprise-wide preemptive protection that is tightly integrated with existing IT business processes.
X-Force Research
The foundation of ISS' preemptive approach to Internet security is its X-Force research and development team. ISS can stop more threats because it knows more: by discovering, researching and testing software vulnerabilities and collaborating with government agencies, industry consortiums and software developers.
This is not a donation business. Companies and governments pay these people to provide products and services.
In response to:
Lynn did NOT work for Cisco, nor does ISS work "for / with" them.
I want you to read the following line very carefully ok!
The injunctions filed against him state that ISS and Cisco had been working together on the flaw for the past four months, and that up until earlier this week, a Cisco executive was slated to co-present the findings with Lynn at Black Hat.
Here is another one just in case you didn't like that one
We appreciate the cooperation we have received from ISS in this matter. We are working with ISS to continue our joint research in the area of security vulnerabilities."
Wow, joint research.
The court injunctions stated that they had worked with each other for months on this specific issue. Cisco states that they were doing joint research on security vulnerabilities. I can't believe people are making this big of a deal over this one point. The two companies worked with each other. I do not know if Cisco was a client of IIS but they at least worked with each other. It is hard for me to believe that IIS volunteered their time working with Cisco. I am sure a little money changed hands but that doesn't matter.
I can't prove that someone has not used this exploit; however I can indicate that no case has been found. Nothing has been reported. With that in mind what are the odds?
Let's look at a few things. While the exploit was a secret the only people who were likely to identify the exploit were people who could reverse engineer the Cisco OS like Lynn supposedly did. Not many people are able to do that. Fewer yet want to. Even if several people did go through that process there is no guarantee that they would identify the exploit and then we have to assume that those individuals that did make such a discovery would act maliciously. What is the likely hood that a problem will crop up under those circumstances?
Next we have Lynn (Your Buddy) making a public display of how to exploit the Cisco OS. Now what is the likelihood that a problem will crop up? Did the chances that the exploit would be used go up or down genius?
Did Lynn serve the public interest by going public against the wishes of Cisco and IIS? I think not. You are free to disagree. You are even free to be pricks about it.
About Internet Security Systems
Internet Security Systems, Inc. (ISS) was founded in 1994 by Christopher W. Klaus and made its initial public offering on the NASDAQ on March 23, 1998.
Profile
The company provides security products and services that preemptively protect enterprise organizations against Internet threats.
ISS celebrated its 10th anniversary in 2004 and has commanded the leading edge of security innovation, inventing cornerstone technologies such as vulnerability assessment and intrusion detection/prevention.
The company continues to set standards in the security space with its Proventia Enterprise Security Platform (ESP), offering enterprise-wide preemptive protection that is tightly integrated with existing IT business processes.
X-Force Research
The foundation of ISS' preemptive approach to Internet security is its X-Force research and development team. ISS can stop more threats because it knows more: by discovering, researching and testing software vulnerabilities and collaborating with government agencies, industry consortiums and software developers.
This is not a donation business. Companies and governments pay these people to provide products and services. Are you telling me that you know for certain that Cisco wasn't a client of IIS? That IIS on their own decided to hack the Cisco OS? It isn't out of the realm of possibility. I will admit that I do not know the relationship between IIS and Cisco. I did assume it was a business relationship and I could be wrong. It does change my mind regarding Lynn though. Both IIS and Cisco are standing against his actions. I think Lynn made a very large error in judgment and he will probably end up paying for that error.
And I do appreciate the fact that you are not a coward.
Lynn worked for Cisco. He did not work for the public. His loyalty should have been with protecting the interests of Cisco. With that said I think that the interest of Cisco would be served best by protecting its customers. That includes pushing for a fix to this.
With any large company the bureaucracy tends to slow down progress on everything. This isn't to say that fixing the problem wasn't a priority at Cisco. I honestly couldn't tell you. I also don't know exactly what is involved in fixing the problem and testing the fix so that other problems don't pop up. Microsoft has, in several cases, released a fix quickly only to find out that it causes more problems than it repaired. Then they are stuck in the embarrassing situation of having to fix the fix. People have a fit when this occurs but if someone were to take a little time they want to complain about that too.
Did Lynn do his job? Did Lynn protect Cisco and Cisco's customers? I would vote that he did not. I think he betrayed both. That may not have been his intent but I feel that is the case just the same. I think he got frustrated at how things were being handled and elevated the situation by making a Cisco vulnerability public knowledge but did that help out. One glaring problem I see is that his job did not include making strategy decisions for the company. That was someone else's job. I don't see anything in his qualifications to determine that he is the best person to determine how best to handle situations of this type. Lynn may or may not have had valid concerns but I can not imagine an instance where his actions could be justified.
Cisco may have been taking a long time to fix the problem but they had the time to spend. Now they don't. Now we can only hope that they are close to having a properly tested repair almost ready to deploy.
Handing over they keys to those that wish to hurt your companies customers is NEVER looking out for their best interests.
I wouldn't call myself a Microsoft fan though I don't hate Microsoft. They are trying to run a business. I don't blame them for doing that. I am sure that many would say, if given that kind of world market share, they would be more giving and gracious to their competitors but I doubt it. Where is their graciousness now? Microsoft is a convenient money tree for countries and companies that can not compete with them. If you can't create a competitive product sue Microsoft to keep yourself out of the red. I suppose people seem to think that Microsoft should just give away its market share without fighting back.
I don't hear anyone being honest about these ridiculous lawsuits. Please be honest, most of the people I have read in this thread would love to see Microsoft hurt. They don't care what lengths people have to go through to hurt them. They just want to see the great Microsoft topple. That way all their favorite little companies will be able to grab a little market share. If any one of them found themselves in Microsoft's position, they would be exactly like them! They don't care what lengths they need to go through to topple Microsoft and Microsoft doesn't care what lengths they have to do to stay on top. If they really hated what Microsoft stood for they wouldn't be rolling around in the same mud.
Right now Linux is doing well. It still doesn't have a huge market share but it is improving and I have confidence that it will continue to do so. I am really excited about how much easier it is becoming to use. It will be difficult to overcome Microsoft but I honestly think that time will find Linux as a competitive product. The problem that needs to be overcome isn't Microsoft. It's the people and software development. People are not really caught up on Microsoft's operating system as they are the products that are made for it. I could care less what operating system I am running on my PC as long as I can play my games and other favorite software applications without a hassle. That is all I want. I am a customer. Fulfill my needs. Do people buy a game console because the console is cool or because they like the games? Give me my software and you have my business!
I am sure I will get plenty of hate responses about this and that is ok. A little flame won't bother me.
I would love to see Linux as a competitor to Microsoft but I would much rather it be because it had superior ideas. Not because a mass of people who just hated the largest software company felt they needed to file suite after suite to bring down the "evil" company.
Agree or disagree?
Creep73
Please re-read the article. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The power was not delegated to the United States to make a judgment about abortion so that right was left up to the states. If the Roe vs. Wade case overruled a state law then it was a unconstitutional and illegal use of judicial power.
I am not even giving my opinion on if I agree with abortion or not. The simple fact is that it is a state issue.
People being light on criminals are a HUGE problem in the United States. We have a guy here who is attacking our children within their own home. This guy is entering our homes and showing our children pornographic material. He is making money off the suffering of our families and all you feel he deserves is a fine? We can't even calculate the damage this guy has done to children who have wandered on his redirects and all people can think of is fining him the amount he has made off the suffering of others. What type of punishment is that? If I rob a bank are you just going to fine me what I stole? Are you delusional enough to think that this will prevent me from robbing more banks? This guy is scum and needs to be removed from society and taught that such attacks are not acceptable and punishment will be severe! You can say I am overly harsh but I don't believe so. I think I am taking the threat seriously. Instead of thinking about the poor criminal I am thinking about the poor victims. I am thinking, "How can we prevent this from happening again?" People who defend this guy are no better than he is!
He said that the law against nudity was unjust and people should stand up to unjust laws. So, within the confines of the topic, he was indeed defining an unjust law
Declaring a law unjust and defining an unjust law are not the same. If I were to say that the law against spitting on the sidewalk was unjust that does not define the reasoning why that law was unjust. I just stated my opinion. I am asking for a definition or reasoning. Instead, people coming out of the woodwork to attack my mannerisms.
Even if he hadn't, the principle of fighting an unjust law is a good one
You are just not getting it. I have not once bashed the concept of fighting against an unjust law. I have bashed its use in this case. You and your friends have done nothing to but say that public nudity laws are unjust. You have not shown ANY cogent reasoning as to why it is unjust.
Saying that unless you define "unjust" you're somehow claiming all laws are unjust is an absurdity.
I have said nothing of the kind. I have said that just because you say things are unjust doesn't make them unjust. You must qualify what you are saying which you have not done. You must believe that you and your friends here are part of some exclusive club where every subjective thing you say is perceived and accepted as truth.
Let me ask you this question again.
Question:
If a rapist believes that rape laws are unjust is it his duty to rape women in protest of that law?
Answer:
No! An unjust law is more than just one mans opinion. Something must qualify a law to be deemed unjust.
Question:
What is that qualifier?
I have asked many questions in order to get you all to think about what you are saying and it just doesn't seem to be working. Arbitrarily calling a law unjust does not give one license to break the law without consequence.
She broke the law. She should be punished. Deal with it.
You calling something a fundamental right does not make it so.
You calling something unjust does not make it so.
Think some of this through a little bit.
I apologize if I come across harshly. I would concede to an intelligent argument against my position if it made more sense than my own position however at least here such an argument cannot be found.
He was trying to make the argument that it is our duty to disobey an unjust law however he failed to define what an unjust law was. A rapist may trully feel that rape laws are unjust. Under this same thought is it his duty to rape people because he feels the rape laws are unjust?
Who defines what is just and unjust?
Do you?
Does the rapist?
Does the government?
Who?
You just pop into the thread and make a little comment without trying to understand my point.
You seem to want to defend the fundamental right to "not" wear clothing so please explain the basis for this right. Where does this right come from? What makes it fundamental?
To be honest I didn't get your Ashcroft jab though I don't pay much attention to the actions of Ashcroft so. I hope it entertained those that know him better.
considering the fact that driving is a rather simple mental process
Not if you are doing everything correctly. Your eyes should be moving about identifying possible problems and you should be constantly working out how you would handle those problems. You should be glancing at mirrors to identify traffic and keeping track of people around you.
Putting your foot on the gas and keeping between the lines is driving but it isn't proper driving (as I have learned it).
I see horrible drivers daily and they are horrible because they are self-centered and they believe that driving is simple.
I do not ask that everyone take driving as seriously as I do. I rarely play music in my car because I think it is a distraction. I do however feel that you should respect the fact that if you don't pay attention and identify those hazards that are on the road you and your family have a much greater possibility of getting harmed by those hazards. Yes in most cases an individual driving mindlessly down the road doesn't cause allot of problems but we do not normally have an individual doing that. We have a large group of people driving mindlessly and that causes accidents daily.
With that said, I believe that this law goes overboard. Laptops and such are valuable if properly used. The problem they are trying to prevent is the inevitable misuse due to people thinking they can do multiple things at once because driving is simple.
And yes books and newspapers should not be read during your morning commute into work unless you take a plane or train.
Slashdot Mirror
ummm...
The legality of a specific action is determined prior to you doing the act. You are only LEGALLY GUILTY of doing something illegal if you are convicted but not being convicted doesn't make you innocent. Actual guilt or innocence is determined by your actions not a jury of your peers.
The legality of any action is determined by the elected officials
With all of that said, I wouldn't find any problem with downloading the e-book after purchasing a legitimate copy of the work. To me that constitutes fair use.
The article states that Ford claimed ownership of all pictures taken of Ford vehicles in addition to the Black Mustang Club logo.
If you walked into a deli and they informed you that your meal would take 10 minutes, because they wanted to make sure the meat had not gone bad, would you still eat there? I can't say that I would. I appreciate the candid statement but it would probably kill my appetite. It doesn't kill the appetite of a Sony fanboy though.
No matter what happens, massive amounts of people will buy the PS3. Even now the fanboys are coming out of the woodwork to defend the honor of their precious PS3. Sony could announce that it doesn't work at all and they could still push out units.
I can't say if the PS3 will be the product Sony says it will be. Sony does make some good products though I try to avoid them if I can. Their goodness isn't worth the cost in most cases. That and I can't stand Sony as a company. Perhaps I am still bitter about that minor rootkit issue. oh well.
Misspelling.. lounges to lungs. :)
Cheep points? Perhaps but I doubt it. Of course all of this is just my opinion. I am sure that some politicians find China's political and social climate atrocious and they would love to do something about it. How else would you like them to deal with such things. I am sure you wouldn't want a military solution but you have a problem with an economic one as well?
I understand the thought that we should mind our own business. The Chinese should be able to run China. I would agree with such sentiment to a point. Ultimately when we speak of human rights we are probably wearing or using something that came from a Chinese sweatshop where we have paid to support those things we would never put up with in the United States. If we ignore that fact we loose our moral footing. We can yell at the top of our lounges about human rights and dignity but we are probably speaking through a microphone made by a group of individuals being denied those things. If we were true to ourselves we would be talking about American rights and American dignity because at the end of the day many Americans don't care about kids all the way in China as long as their conveniences are still available at 'reasonable" prices.
So why go after technology instead of places like Wal-Mart / K-Mart? Any profit or reliance within that particular sector has not been fully realized yet. Politicians could never propose banning China made products. Middle class America has become far too reliant on what the Chinese sweatshops can provide. Americans morals, unfortunately, tend to falter when the price tag gets too high. Don't think I am excluding myself from this group. I don't agree with how China treats its people but I also know I have a lot of stuff that came from those ill treated people and in return they have quite a bit of what I have earned over the years.
So, as a politician, how do you make a moral point regarding China's horrible human rights record without destroying your chances of being reelected?
"Special liability of seller of product for physical harm to user or consumer"
How does this apply? I don't remember anyone being physically harmed by these defective units so I don't quite understand this direction.
Perhaps you can inform us what the law says about defective products that don't cause "harm to user or consumer". I would be interested to know. I would hope it would say that money grabbing nitwits go home with a replacement Xbox 360 and a hefty lawyer and court bill.
You quoted a factual statement from my post and called me a Troll. I merely asked for you to back up your statement with facts explaining your opinion. You quoted me yet never clearly explain why. Perhaps you could have provided an argument about what you disagreed with and why with. You could have provided factual information obtained from research but what you chose to do was respond with more baseless attacks. Your statements lack any value within this discussion. They don't benefit the conversation nor do they benefit those that participate in the conversation. If you look at the definition of a troll you will find that you are the only one within this thread that meets those criteria. If you have any meaningful questions or statements regarding this topic I would love to hear it otherwise I hope you the best of luck in your future endeavors.
God Bless
No need for name calling. Let's discuss the facts. Where did you get your information from? The information you used to conclude that I was a Troll.
Hope that answers your question adequately.
Thanks
Thanks for the site. I will read through it.
The New Testament alone was preserved in a vast number of copies. You are correct that people can make mistakes or change words or phrases to fit their needs but the vast amount of copies of the scriptures testifies to the documents accuracy. If you had only one copy of the text transferred down through history that might have been a real problem, but there are 5,686 Greek New Testament manuscripts alone. Additionally, there are around 10,000 copies of the Latin Vulgate and more than 9,300 other translations. The enormous number of early documents makes it extremely easy to identify any possible errors. To put this in perspective the next highest number of manuscripts for an ancient text is Homer's Iliad at 643 copies and no one questions its accuracy or historical integrity. In fact we only have 7 copies of Plato's works and they date more than 700 years from the original. No one questions its integrity. What standard would you use to prove the accuracy of an historical document?
For quite some time people used their reasoning skills and determined that the earth was flat. This of course was a good test for them. Then along came the radical idea that the earth was round. Both groups of individuals were using their reasoning skills to determine truth. Who was right?
Those that thought the earth was flat had no problems trusting their brain but did they hold the truth because of it? If you use reason and find truth you are reasoning correctly but just because you use your reasoning doesn't mean what you find is truth. Look at the mind of a child. Children will use reasoning, though parents are constantly amazed at what that child comes up with. Knowledge, skill, and experience all play a role in how effectively we reason. I contend that if we reason without God in the picture we can not gain a full understanding of the world or how it works. He is the author of all truth so how can we understand truth without Him?
So if we are being objective, by what objective standard are we going to test? What is the source of this objective standard?
God's truth is real. There is a real objective standard, a standard set by God. All other standards are made by man and changed by man. I have no problem examining evidence myself. The evidence isn't the problem.
I appreciate your post.
This posting is not meant to be controversial or mean spirited. As a "fundy" I thought I would try to explain my point of view.
1. Non-denominational churches choose to be that way for many different reasons but not the one you stated, at least any of the churches that I am aware of. A denomination is just a conglomeration of people who have similar beliefs. These denominations have a hierarchy similar to that of the Catholic Church. Each church within the denominations has to teach specific things that are agreed to by the leaders of the denomination. Non-denominational churches are simply those churches that choose not to associate themselves with a specific group.
2. I believe one of the worst idea's to come out of the Catholic Church is that the Pope determines what is heretical and not God and His scriptures. History has shown that men can be corrupted so I have difficulty putting so much trust in a man. Do I believe that you can be a Christian and believe in evolution? Yes, but that doesn't make the belief correct. I think that your walk could be crippled by such belief however; belief in creation isn't a prerequisite for being a Christian.
My beliefs do not come from elected men in man made hierarchies of power. My beliefs come from and are supported by the scriptures. That is not to say that I don't find these men and structures helpful. My pastor and church elders have helped me out tremendously but they are constantly pointing to scripture. There is only one infallible man and He is the only one I can put full faith in. You are free to put your eternal fate in the hands of the Pope. Many people do it but I personally find my eternal condition a little too valuable to trust in the hands of anyone but Christ himself.
If you can subjectively dismiss any part of the Bible because it doesn't agree with your beliefs or agenda then why would any of it be true? If one passage states that God created the heavens and the earth in seven days and another states that Christ died on the cross for your sins why would you dismiss one and embrace the other? Why not embrace creation and dismiss the saving work of Christ? What is the algorithm used to determine which passages are fact and what is fiction? Is it mere opinion? How can something be true yet not accurate? If it is inspired by God it is perfectly conceived unless God isn't perfect. If it isn't perfectly conceived how can any of it be trustworthy? We could attempt to explain it away as a conundrum similar to God being fully man and fully God but I don't think that would do it justice. In one case we are talking about a state of God and the other the words he has divinely given to us so that we may know Him. If scripture itself is a conundrum then it wouldn't serve the purpose it itself states it should be used for. Teaching and learning about God and His ways.
I don't wear my differences as a badge of honor. The differences I have with the Catholic Church are sometimes trivial and other times unfortunate. Never are the differences a reason to honor myself. I am no better than anyone else.
At some point we are all going to stand before God and I can only hope, because I don't know you, that you and those that read this will be found blameless through Christ's work. That will not be determined by your belief in evolution or the proclamations of the Pope but your faith and trust in Christ. Do you know Christ? I truly hope the answer is yes but only you and Christ know for sure.
God Bless and let the flaming begin.
Very well said.
I agree with you on this point but I think that initial loyalty must be to those that pay your paycheck. I think that if something would cause drastic harm to society your duty to society would override any loyalty you should have to your employer but I think this should only be in extreme circumstances. I honestly believe in being loyal to your employer.
What idiots modded this thread informative?
Probably the same idiots that modded yours "Insightful".
The following is off the IIS webpage.
About Internet Security Systems
Internet Security Systems, Inc. (ISS) was founded in 1994 by Christopher W. Klaus and made its initial public offering on the NASDAQ on March 23, 1998.
Profile The company provides security products and services that preemptively protect enterprise organizations against Internet threats.
ISS celebrated its 10th anniversary in 2004 and has commanded the leading edge of security innovation, inventing cornerstone technologies such as vulnerability assessment and intrusion detection/prevention.
The company continues to set standards in the security space with its Proventia Enterprise Security Platform (ESP), offering enterprise-wide preemptive protection that is tightly integrated with existing IT business processes.
X-Force Research The foundation of ISS' preemptive approach to Internet security is its X-Force research and development team. ISS can stop more threats because it knows more: by discovering, researching and testing software vulnerabilities and collaborating with government agencies, industry consortiums and software developers.
This is not a donation business. Companies and governments pay these people to provide products and services.
In response to:
Lynn did NOT work for Cisco, nor does ISS work "for / with" them.
I want you to read the following line very carefully ok!
The injunctions filed against him state that ISS and Cisco had been working together on the flaw for the past four months, and that up until earlier this week, a Cisco executive was slated to co-present the findings with Lynn at Black Hat.
This came from the washington post
Here is another one just in case you didn't like that one
We appreciate the cooperation we have received from ISS in this matter. We are working with ISS to continue our joint research in the area of security vulnerabilities."
Wow, joint research.
The court injunctions stated that they had worked with each other for months on this specific issue. Cisco states that they were doing joint research on security vulnerabilities. I can't believe people are making this big of a deal over this one point. The two companies worked with each other. I do not know if Cisco was a client of IIS but they at least worked with each other. It is hard for me to believe that IIS volunteered their time working with Cisco. I am sure a little money changed hands but that doesn't matter.
I can't prove that someone has not used this exploit; however I can indicate that no case has been found. Nothing has been reported. With that in mind what are the odds?
Let's look at a few things. While the exploit was a secret the only people who were likely to identify the exploit were people who could reverse engineer the Cisco OS like Lynn supposedly did. Not many people are able to do that. Fewer yet want to.
Even if several people did go through that process there is no guarantee that they would identify the exploit and then we have to assume that those individuals that did make such a discovery would act maliciously. What is the likely hood that a problem will crop up under those circumstances?
Next we have Lynn (Your Buddy) making a public display of how to exploit the Cisco OS. Now what is the likelihood that a problem will crop up? Did the chances that the exploit would be used go up or down genius?
Did Lynn serve the public interest by going public against the wishes of Cisco and IIS? I think not. You are free to disagree. You are even free to be pricks about it.
The following is off the IIS webpage.
About Internet Security Systems
Internet Security Systems, Inc. (ISS) was founded in 1994 by Christopher W. Klaus and made its initial public offering on the NASDAQ on March 23, 1998.
Profile The company provides security products and services that preemptively protect enterprise organizations against Internet threats.
ISS celebrated its 10th anniversary in 2004 and has commanded the leading edge of security innovation, inventing cornerstone technologies such as vulnerability assessment and intrusion detection/prevention.
The company continues to set standards in the security space with its Proventia Enterprise Security Platform (ESP), offering enterprise-wide preemptive protection that is tightly integrated with existing IT business processes.
X-Force Research The foundation of ISS' preemptive approach to Internet security is its X-Force research and development team. ISS can stop more threats because it knows more: by discovering, researching and testing software vulnerabilities and collaborating with government agencies, industry consortiums and software developers.
This is not a donation business. Companies and governments pay these people to provide products and services. Are you telling me that you know for certain that Cisco wasn't a client of IIS? That IIS on their own decided to hack the Cisco OS? It isn't out of the realm of possibility. I will admit that I do not know the relationship between IIS and Cisco. I did assume it was a business relationship and I could be wrong. It does change my mind regarding Lynn though. Both IIS and Cisco are standing against his actions. I think Lynn made a very large error in judgment and he will probably end up paying for that error.
And I do appreciate the fact that you are not a coward.
Who worked for / with Cisco so the net effect is the same. You have got to love those Cowards! I new one of them would comment on that.
Lynn worked for Cisco. He did not work for the public. His loyalty should have been with protecting the interests of Cisco. With that said I think that the interest of Cisco would be served best by protecting its customers. That includes pushing for a fix to this.
With any large company the bureaucracy tends to slow down progress on everything. This isn't to say that fixing the problem wasn't a priority at Cisco. I honestly couldn't tell you. I also don't know exactly what is involved in fixing the problem and testing the fix so that other problems don't pop up. Microsoft has, in several cases, released a fix quickly only to find out that it causes more problems than it repaired. Then they are stuck in the embarrassing situation of having to fix the fix. People have a fit when this occurs but if someone were to take a little time they want to complain about that too.
Did Lynn do his job? Did Lynn protect Cisco and Cisco's customers? I would vote that he did not. I think he betrayed both. That may not have been his intent but I feel that is the case just the same. I think he got frustrated at how things were being handled and elevated the situation by making a Cisco vulnerability public knowledge but did that help out. One glaring problem I see is that his job did not include making strategy decisions for the company. That was someone else's job. I don't see anything in his qualifications to determine that he is the best person to determine how best to handle situations of this type. Lynn may or may not have had valid concerns but I can not imagine an instance where his actions could be justified.
Cisco may have been taking a long time to fix the problem but they had the time to spend. Now they don't. Now we can only hope that they are close to having a properly tested repair almost ready to deploy.
Handing over they keys to those that wish to hurt your companies customers is NEVER looking out for their best interests.
I wouldn't call myself a Microsoft fan though I don't hate Microsoft. They are trying to run a business. I don't blame them for doing that. I am sure that many would say, if given that kind of world market share, they would be more giving and gracious to their competitors but I doubt it. Where is their graciousness now? Microsoft is a convenient money tree for countries and companies that can not compete with them. If you can't create a competitive product sue Microsoft to keep yourself out of the red. I suppose people seem to think that Microsoft should just give away its market share without fighting back. I don't hear anyone being honest about these ridiculous lawsuits. Please be honest, most of the people I have read in this thread would love to see Microsoft hurt. They don't care what lengths people have to go through to hurt them. They just want to see the great Microsoft topple. That way all their favorite little companies will be able to grab a little market share. If any one of them found themselves in Microsoft's position, they would be exactly like them! They don't care what lengths they need to go through to topple Microsoft and Microsoft doesn't care what lengths they have to do to stay on top. If they really hated what Microsoft stood for they wouldn't be rolling around in the same mud. Right now Linux is doing well. It still doesn't have a huge market share but it is improving and I have confidence that it will continue to do so. I am really excited about how much easier it is becoming to use. It will be difficult to overcome Microsoft but I honestly think that time will find Linux as a competitive product. The problem that needs to be overcome isn't Microsoft. It's the people and software development. People are not really caught up on Microsoft's operating system as they are the products that are made for it. I could care less what operating system I am running on my PC as long as I can play my games and other favorite software applications without a hassle. That is all I want. I am a customer. Fulfill my needs. Do people buy a game console because the console is cool or because they like the games? Give me my software and you have my business! I am sure I will get plenty of hate responses about this and that is ok. A little flame won't bother me. I would love to see Linux as a competitor to Microsoft but I would much rather it be because it had superior ideas. Not because a mass of people who just hated the largest software company felt they needed to file suite after suite to bring down the "evil" company. Agree or disagree? Creep73
Please re-read the article.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The power was not delegated to the United States to make a judgment about abortion so that right was left up to the states. If the Roe vs. Wade case overruled a state law then it was a unconstitutional and illegal use of judicial power.
I am not even giving my opinion on if I agree with abortion or not. The simple fact is that it is a state issue.
There is nothing like a pathetic Anonymous Coward to compare distributing pornography to children to speeding and other nonsense laws!
People being light on criminals are a HUGE problem in the United States. We have a guy here who is attacking our children within their own home. This guy is entering our homes and showing our children pornographic material. He is making money off the suffering of our families and all you feel he deserves is a fine? We can't even calculate the damage this guy has done to children who have wandered on his redirects and all people can think of is fining him the amount he has made off the suffering of others. What type of punishment is that? If I rob a bank are you just going to fine me what I stole? Are you delusional enough to think that this will prevent me from robbing more banks? This guy is scum and needs to be removed from society and taught that such attacks are not acceptable and punishment will be severe! You can say I am overly harsh but I don't believe so. I think I am taking the threat seriously. Instead of thinking about the poor criminal I am thinking about the poor victims. I am thinking, "How can we prevent this from happening again?" People who defend this guy are no better than he is!
He said that the law against nudity was unjust and people should stand up to unjust laws. So, within the confines of the topic, he was indeed defining an unjust law
Declaring a law unjust and defining an unjust law are not the same. If I were to say that the law against spitting on the sidewalk was unjust that does not define the reasoning why that law was unjust. I just stated my opinion. I am asking for a definition or reasoning. Instead, people coming out of the woodwork to attack my mannerisms.
Even if he hadn't, the principle of fighting an unjust law is a good one
You are just not getting it. I have not once bashed the concept of fighting against an unjust law. I have bashed its use in this case. You and your friends have done nothing to but say that public nudity laws are unjust. You have not shown ANY cogent reasoning as to why it is unjust.
Saying that unless you define "unjust" you're somehow claiming all laws are unjust is an absurdity.
I have said nothing of the kind. I have said that just because you say things are unjust doesn't make them unjust. You must qualify what you are saying which you have not done. You must believe that you and your friends here are part of some exclusive club where every subjective thing you say is perceived and accepted as truth.
Let me ask you this question again.
Question:
If a rapist believes that rape laws are unjust is it his duty to rape women in protest of that law?
Answer:
No! An unjust law is more than just one mans opinion. Something must qualify a law to be deemed unjust.
Question:
What is that qualifier?
I have asked many questions in order to get you all to think about what you are saying and it just doesn't seem to be working. Arbitrarily calling a law unjust does not give one license to break the law without consequence.
She broke the law. She should be punished. Deal with it.
You calling something a fundamental right does not make it so. You calling something unjust does not make it so.
Think some of this through a little bit.
I apologize if I come across harshly. I would concede to an intelligent argument against my position if it made more sense than my own position however at least here such an argument cannot be found.
Try reading the entire thread please.
He was trying to make the argument that it is our duty to disobey an unjust law however he failed to define what an unjust law was. A rapist may trully feel that rape laws are unjust. Under this same thought is it his duty to rape people because he feels the rape laws are unjust?
Who defines what is just and unjust?
Do you?
Does the rapist?
Does the government?
Who?
You just pop into the thread and make a little comment without trying to understand my point.
You seem to want to defend the fundamental right to "not" wear clothing so please explain the basis for this right. Where does this right come from? What makes it fundamental?
To be honest I didn't get your Ashcroft jab though I don't pay much attention to the actions of Ashcroft so.
I hope it entertained those that know him better.
considering the fact that driving is a rather simple mental process
Not if you are doing everything correctly. Your eyes should be moving about identifying possible problems and you should be constantly working out how you would handle those problems. You should be glancing at mirrors to identify traffic and keeping track of people around you.
Putting your foot on the gas and keeping between the lines is driving but it isn't proper driving (as I have learned it).
I see horrible drivers daily and they are horrible because they are self-centered and they believe that driving is simple.
I do not ask that everyone take driving as seriously as I do. I rarely play music in my car because I think it is a distraction. I do however feel that you should respect the fact that if you don't pay attention and identify those hazards that are on the road you and your family have a much greater possibility of getting harmed by those hazards. Yes in most cases an individual driving mindlessly down the road doesn't cause allot of problems but we do not normally have an individual doing that. We have a large group of people driving mindlessly and that causes accidents daily.
With that said, I believe that this law goes overboard. Laptops and such are valuable if properly used. The problem they are trying to prevent is the inevitable misuse due to people thinking they can do multiple things at once because driving is simple.
And yes books and newspapers should not be read during your morning commute into work unless you take a plane or train.