The roman-catholic church, however, is still the same institution. Continuity dictates that is is responsible for the actions it did two hundred years ago. Note: The institution, not the people. Except where they continue those actions today (which is plenty).
Is it though? I have no love lost for the Catholic Church (just putting that out there) but even from a theological perspective, the same church declared Luther a heretic in one generation and at this point has removed that designation and the Church now agrees with most of the points of the thesis he nailed to the church in Wittenburg.
Judging a group or an individual is very complex. Do I judge the Catholic Church for their handling of allegations of clergy abuse this century? Certainly. If they improved the situation, would I still hold them accountable? of course. Do I for their past sins? yes. Should present parish members and clergy be held responsible directly however? Not if they weren't involved.
Person, yes. But I'm judging the faith, not the persons holding it, or rather only in regards to their faith.
As a person of faith, I can assure you that there are people of my beliefs who've done moronic things in the name of my beliefs which are patently against my beliefs. People are stupid. People do stupid things. People interpret some things poorly.
Think of the person who has a hard time grasping calculus or physics in school, now consider a similar brain fart with absorbing good theology in a Christian. It happens. They listen, they hear, and then they go kill someone (hypothetically), when that was never the point.
Again, if it was done by clergy or higher members, they should be appropriately judged, of course, no question. They, personally.
You haven't actually studied formal logic, have you?
You made attempted derogatory comments about Christianity where your comments could be directed at most groups of people in the world. I simply re-created them with a random other subset of society with great success.
That is to say, while the content of your statements is possibly true, their implied effect is invalid -- making your argument a fallacy, in fact.
Call me names all you like -- it doesn't help your point much.
People who believe otherwise usually forget that its possible all the people who disagree with their 'right and wrong' may end up with the power to make their own actions illegal.
While good strong moral behaviour has its benefits, it is not the purview of the legal system, and should not be.
Personally you're right. However, they patented every car with Bluetooth enabled.
My Tomtom GPS looks up the weather for me online using a bluetooth connection to my cell phone for its Internet access. That's what they're going after here.
Virtual keyboard = no buy. Swing out or otherwise hideable keyboard, sure. But I'm a touch typist and I refuse to be slowed down by stupid fake keyboards.
Actually, you might want to check your historical documents better. Specifically the one England drew up giving half the land to each the Palestinians and Israel. When you're done, you can look up the historical wars that were fought for that land, and how Israel still gave them weapons to form their own police force.
Never mind, obviously history isn't your strong suit.
Using history as a measure of judicial decision would imprison most white people in the United States, would it not?
You committed an egregious error in logic yourself, claiming that the history of Christianity somehow gives one the right to judge the legality of modern Christianity, or in fact has any bearing at all on it.
While prejudice like yours against a group of people is easy to come by, and sometimes seems logical (as it has historically), it is still an invalid reason to judge people.
Each person deserves to be judged on their own merits, and that's all, according to western laws.
Mind you, personally, as a Christian, I believe people should be treated mercifully and not judged by me at all.
As opposed to society which states that anyone who doesn't believe in its rules shall be imprisoned? As opposed to society which continually tries to pretend bigotry and hatred don't exist? As opposed to society which has and still does kill people who don't conform to its rules? As opposed to society which encourages lying, stealing and cheating on everything from taxes to speeding.
Americans in general ignore that they created modern Cuba, modern Afghanistan, the Iraq/Iran conflict, were involved in Columbia, Venezuela, Panama and a host of other semi-clandestine American projects.
Someone who doesn't deserve to be named got a Nobel Peace Prize for the way things were handled back then, can't see how or why. I understand the people wanting him tried for war crimes much more.
So the breastfeeding mother on the side of the road bore responsibility for the tank that helped take over her block? Her responsibility was what, exactly? To be a human shield (and die, so we wouldn't kill her later, taking the city back) or maybe to throw rocks?
There's a reason we believe in a distinction between warriors and civilians.
Wow, you're a piece of work. You want to define Afghanistan as 'the people in power' to make your point, and ignore that the effect is to make miserable 'the people of the country' who have nothing to do with it.
PS, I believe in the war in Afghanistan, but the tactics used in some cases have been extremely dubious in value and have high civilian casualty rates.
There are other people groups in history who used facts and solid arguments to justify the seclusion and destruction of entire religions and people groups too.
Are you for or against China's destruction of the thousand schools of thought? How about Tibet? Genocide? Most of these were well justified by logical thinking within their own demographic.
I don't care how logical you think it is, when you get to the point of calling someone's belief system criminal (and he does), then you're off the rails I'm willing to follow.
I love how the summary is supposed to make me agree with it. Richard Dawkins does in fact "demonstrate an intolerance for cultural diversity and diversity of thinking." His comments are very hostile to certain ways of thinking or belief systems, and that hostility has no place in a tolerant society.
If for some reason you believe science is incapable of error and the future as predicted by most sci-fi you've ever read or watched is never going to happen and that we will never regret our lack of tolerance or realize we've made mistakes, then go ahead and slam them for saying it.
If on the other hand you have a basic knowledge of history or some common-sense or better yet, a little wisdom, you'd realize his acidic tone toward Christians and their beliefs is both unnecessary and dangerous, no matter how much you may agree with his beliefs or perspective.
Licensing a patent so that you can use and/or distribute GPL'd software in no way restricts others' use of that same software, and therefore has nothing in my opinion to do with the GPLv2. The GPLv3 was written with this in mind, and explicit entries were added to deal with patents and other such nonsense.
The kernel is not GPLv3, but GPLv2 and unless Tomtom tries to in some way restrict access to the source for the software it distributes, they are in no way violating the GPLv2 in spirit or in fact.
Okay, so you know what about manufacturing exactly? As lots of others have pointed out, making a $100 PS3 wouldn't be as hard as you think it is, given the natural evolution of hardware and Sony's experience in the game. Even Microsoft admitted before the 360 came out that Sony had the advantage in constantly improving their hardware manufacturing (as they did with the 10+ generations of PS2) and lowering costs over Microsoft.
As for games, you're obviously out of touch. Please name me an excellent true 720p or 1080p game for the 360. Go play some Gran Turismo 5 Prologue if you don't think the PS3 really can produce 1080p 60fps graphics (it does).
I'm playing Killzone 2 at 1080i right now, and thoroughly enjoying it. Nothing, and I mean nothing looks this good. Nothing compared to Drake's Fortune when it came out either, nor Ratchet and Clank when it was released, and their developers are at least a year behind on development compared to the experience 360 developers have under their belts.
Sony sells PS1 games on the PSN Store, XBLA has some simply ancient games for sale that would've worked on my old 386, and there's a similar set of retro games on the Wii.
People aren't against playing "old" looking or styled games, if they're good, so how "quaint" the PS3 will look isn't nearly as important as how much longevity it had as an investment. Personally, I hope they make a version of the PS3 that fits into a stereo cabinet so I can sell them to people who need a BD and network media player and don't want a "game console" at all.
I know this is hard to understand for 16-22 year olds with huge spending budgets compared to their debt load and monthly bills, but buying a $600 machine that works forever is a better investment than buying a dozen little $200 ones.
Nobody was comparing game styles, but the capabilities of the system in terms of raw power.
And aside from Gears, I have to say those games are all terrible examples of what the 360 can do, even as a huge Rare fan.
IMHO, each of the games on the PS3 I mentioned wipes the walls with the games you mentioned in terms of graphics, performance (fps/resolution) and sheer graphical and audio beauty.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it though? I have no love lost for the Catholic Church (just putting that out there) but even from a theological perspective, the same church declared Luther a heretic in one generation and at this point has removed that designation and the Church now agrees with most of the points of the thesis he nailed to the church in Wittenburg.
Judging a group or an individual is very complex. Do I judge the Catholic Church for their handling of allegations of clergy abuse this century? Certainly. If they improved the situation, would I still hold them accountable? of course. Do I for their past sins? yes. Should present parish members and clergy be held responsible directly however? Not if they weren't involved.
As a person of faith, I can assure you that there are people of my beliefs who've done moronic things in the name of my beliefs which are patently against my beliefs. People are stupid. People do stupid things. People interpret some things poorly.
Think of the person who has a hard time grasping calculus or physics in school, now consider a similar brain fart with absorbing good theology in a Christian. It happens. They listen, they hear, and then they go kill someone (hypothetically), when that was never the point.
Again, if it was done by clergy or higher members, they should be appropriately judged, of course, no question. They, personally.
You haven't actually studied formal logic, have you?
You made attempted derogatory comments about Christianity where your comments could be directed at most groups of people in the world. I simply re-created them with a random other subset of society with great success.
That is to say, while the content of your statements is possibly true, their implied effect is invalid -- making your argument a fallacy, in fact.
Call me names all you like -- it doesn't help your point much.
People who believe otherwise usually forget that its possible all the people who disagree with their 'right and wrong' may end up with the power to make their own actions illegal.
While good strong moral behaviour has its benefits, it is not the purview of the legal system, and should not be.
There's also UDF. Its universally supported and it even works on Microsoft platforms. Its just that nobody uses it.
Personally you're right. However, they patented every car with Bluetooth enabled.
My Tomtom GPS looks up the weather for me online using a bluetooth connection to my cell phone for its Internet access. That's what they're going after here.
Virtual keyboard = no buy. Swing out or otherwise hideable keyboard, sure. But I'm a touch typist and I refuse to be slowed down by stupid fake keyboards.
What he said.
Move along, its just a troll.
Actually, you might want to check your historical documents better. Specifically the one England drew up giving half the land to each the Palestinians and Israel. When you're done, you can look up the historical wars that were fought for that land, and how Israel still gave them weapons to form their own police force.
Never mind, obviously history isn't your strong suit.
Using history as a measure of judicial decision would imprison most white people in the United States, would it not?
You committed an egregious error in logic yourself, claiming that the history of Christianity somehow gives one the right to judge the legality of modern Christianity, or in fact has any bearing at all on it.
While prejudice like yours against a group of people is easy to come by, and sometimes seems logical (as it has historically), it is still an invalid reason to judge people.
Each person deserves to be judged on their own merits, and that's all, according to western laws.
Mind you, personally, as a Christian, I believe people should be treated mercifully and not judged by me at all.
As opposed to society which states that anyone who doesn't believe in its rules shall be imprisoned?
As opposed to society which continually tries to pretend bigotry and hatred don't exist?
As opposed to society which has and still does kill people who don't conform to its rules?
As opposed to society which encourages lying, stealing and cheating on everything from taxes to speeding.
Your statements are fallacious. Have a nice day.
Didn't Bush get congressional approval for the use of low-yield nuclear devices in the Iraq conflict?
It doesn't mean they were used, but it was approved, as I recall.
So its acceptable if they miss?
I dare you to claim that a SINGLE volley of rockets fired from Mexico to the United States wouldn't warrant a full military response.
Americans in general ignore that they created modern Cuba, modern Afghanistan, the Iraq/Iran conflict, were involved in Columbia, Venezuela, Panama and a host of other semi-clandestine American projects.
Someone who doesn't deserve to be named got a Nobel Peace Prize for the way things were handled back then, can't see how or why. I understand the people wanting him tried for war crimes much more.
So the breastfeeding mother on the side of the road bore responsibility for the tank that helped take over her block? Her responsibility was what, exactly? To be a human shield (and die, so we wouldn't kill her later, taking the city back) or maybe to throw rocks?
There's a reason we believe in a distinction between warriors and civilians.
Wow, you're a piece of work. You want to define Afghanistan as 'the people in power' to make your point, and ignore that the effect is to make miserable 'the people of the country' who have nothing to do with it.
PS, I believe in the war in Afghanistan, but the tactics used in some cases have been extremely dubious in value and have high civilian casualty rates.
There are other people groups in history who used facts and solid arguments to justify the seclusion and destruction of entire religions and people groups too.
Are you for or against China's destruction of the thousand schools of thought? How about Tibet? Genocide? Most of these were well justified by logical thinking within their own demographic.
I don't care how logical you think it is, when you get to the point of calling someone's belief system criminal (and he does), then you're off the rails I'm willing to follow.
I love how the summary is supposed to make me agree with it. Richard Dawkins does in fact "demonstrate an intolerance for cultural diversity and diversity of thinking." His comments are very hostile to certain ways of thinking or belief systems, and that hostility has no place in a tolerant society.
If for some reason you believe science is incapable of error and the future as predicted by most sci-fi you've ever read or watched is never going to happen and that we will never regret our lack of tolerance or realize we've made mistakes, then go ahead and slam them for saying it.
If on the other hand you have a basic knowledge of history or some common-sense or better yet, a little wisdom, you'd realize his acidic tone toward Christians and their beliefs is both unnecessary and dangerous, no matter how much you may agree with his beliefs or perspective.
Shhh ...
$ nget /metallica/
Whoops :)
Licensing a patent so that you can use and/or distribute GPL'd software in no way restricts others' use of that same software, and therefore has nothing in my opinion to do with the GPLv2. The GPLv3 was written with this in mind, and explicit entries were added to deal with patents and other such nonsense.
The kernel is not GPLv3, but GPLv2 and unless Tomtom tries to in some way restrict access to the source for the software it distributes, they are in no way violating the GPLv2 in spirit or in fact.
UDF never did catch on for removable memory but I wish it would have. It has some obvious advantages, and its universally supported as well.
Okay, so you know what about manufacturing exactly? As lots of others have pointed out, making a $100 PS3 wouldn't be as hard as you think it is, given the natural evolution of hardware and Sony's experience in the game. Even Microsoft admitted before the 360 came out that Sony had the advantage in constantly improving their hardware manufacturing (as they did with the 10+ generations of PS2) and lowering costs over Microsoft.
Seriously, go look at the hardware revisions for the PS2 and think about how Sony evolved that platform.
As for games, you're obviously out of touch. Please name me an excellent true 720p or 1080p game for the 360. Go play some Gran Turismo 5 Prologue if you don't think the PS3 really can produce 1080p 60fps graphics (it does).
I'm playing Killzone 2 at 1080i right now, and thoroughly enjoying it. Nothing, and I mean nothing looks this good. Nothing compared to Drake's Fortune when it came out either, nor Ratchet and Clank when it was released, and their developers are at least a year behind on development compared to the experience 360 developers have under their belts.
Thanks for coming out.
Sony sells PS1 games on the PSN Store, XBLA has some simply ancient games for sale that would've worked on my old 386, and there's a similar set of retro games on the Wii.
People aren't against playing "old" looking or styled games, if they're good, so how "quaint" the PS3 will look isn't nearly as important as how much longevity it had as an investment. Personally, I hope they make a version of the PS3 that fits into a stereo cabinet so I can sell them to people who need a BD and network media player and don't want a "game console" at all.
I know this is hard to understand for 16-22 year olds with huge spending budgets compared to their debt load and monthly bills, but buying a $600 machine that works forever is a better investment than buying a dozen little $200 ones.
Nobody was comparing game styles, but the capabilities of the system in terms of raw power.
And aside from Gears, I have to say those games are all terrible examples of what the 360 can do, even as a huge Rare fan.
IMHO, each of the games on the PS3 I mentioned wipes the walls with the games you mentioned in terms of graphics, performance (fps/resolution) and sheer graphical and audio beauty.
Ahh, the joys of posting AC.
Tell you what, I'll buy buy the games from people who are awesome, and you can buy the other games.
I like awesome programmers. You don't have to.