Some people (Look up Torrey in the book of revelations wikipedia article) analyzed the book which is indeed Greek and think it could be a translation from Aramaic, so it would be nice to see if the distinction you make is valid there too.
>...insistent of reading references to the present...
You mean the future: there should be a catastrophe involving a reactor (not a bomb, unless a nuclear explosion resemble a star at some point) causing massive nuclear poisoning of water. Presently the passage does not describe anything I am aware of.
I agree but I also think we are advanced enough to statistically ponder if a succession of event and a succession of prediction match by mere chance. There is also the problem of multiple interpretations for each passage. All of this, my original post included, is just speculation until things start happening, it's trivial to speculate we are not even done with the third seal, right?
1. and 2. fusion AND fission are both nuclear reactions, you could have a point if you can come up with a better symbol for a fusion/nuclear reactor that is familiar to a guy from 2000 years ago.
3. Your premise that the tale is fictional is kinda strong, and I simply put out a possible interpretation among others without making anything out of it. It's interesting to do that because if something like that happens, I can't be accused of doing a retroactive rationalization by linking the event with ancient texts.
I wonder why I must be searched at the airport for some explosive in shoes while somebody else plans to produce radioactive waste that will still be dangerous when the grand-grandson of osama bin laden will need to check his prostate.
If anybody has some unbiased cost projection for atomic energy that comprises the cost of storing and keeping an eye on waste till it's not dangerous anymore with the same attention that we have in the increasing surveillance towards average citizens, I'll be willing to reconsider my opinion.
And if you're Italian recall that here the mafia is already trafficking with radioactive stuff, that Caorso nuclear reactor closed in the 80s has finished disposing of the waste only a year ago and that the reactor itself isn't decommissioned yet. Not that your opinion or mine will matter, since our Great Leader is pushing for nuclear without popular vote (after a popular vote had banned nuclear in the late 80s) so He won't listen anyway.
For the sake of going OT: everytime I hear about nuclear and water I recall the wormwood=chernobyl reference and the fact that a star is basically a nuclear reactor.
Rev 8:10-11 "And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters; And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter."
- It Doesn't really apply to a star that is already under the sea. River and fountain of waters is well related to land nuclear sites though. - A single plant can't do damage to 1/3rd of the waters. If the damage was systemic (lots of incidents covered up for convenience) it could happen. And, leaving religion aside, if the writer wrote down a vision and there were a way to "dream about the future", the symbolism would fit enough.
What use is a phone call if you are unable to speak? -- 93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
I dunno, maybe you can do a data call with the faxmodem, input some morse code with an harmonica, or use a voice synth.
Besides, you were going to breath heavily on the phone and say nothing anyway.
Funny distribution of approval on the linked blog's comments there (I hope not to have violated the rule of not RTFA I just read the comments there I swear). First 10 comments, 2 negative. Last 10 (around n.50 as I write) 9 negative.
> In the absence of evidence that there are areas outside those we define with logic and science, claiming such areas exist is a logical fallicy called special pleading.
You maybe don't realize the problem: the concept of "evidence", "absence", "existence", are not necessarily defined outside the physical world. Like the concept of cell is surely not defined outside a conway's game of life as it is inside. And the relationship between cellular automata and the world is much closer than the one that could be between this world and something supernatural.
Claiming ghosts exist is a logic error, claiming they don't is the same logic error. Not special pleading, it's a matter of scope.
If you want to be correct, what the guy is trying to do is to find if ghosts "super-exist" and all he can do is to collect some data to make more or less people Believe or Not. Proof is impossible as per my older post.
Asking for scientific evidence of supernatural things is a logic error. Until we have discovered all laws and interactions of all aspects of what we call reality we are unable to determine what phenomenons are impossible. So you'd be asking for a sign you'd not be able to parse correctly anyway.
It is safe to say: I see no evidence therefore I don't believe it exists, it's foolish to think that science and logic can be arbitrarily extended outside the system that defined them, yet I see lot's of reasoning suffering from such a fundamental flaw, on both believers' and unbelievers' sides.
There is only one side. Bright says the move is against openness because h264 was developed in the open. I posit that that's irrelevant if the source is open if patents prevent you to doing anything to it. Developing patent encumbered projects in the open is a great idea because: 1. more eyes means more testing. 2. more eyes means that it's easier to sue competitors who might or might not have looked up the source because the source is freely available.
So software patents, which were born for the main reason of letting big corps use for software market the same tactics they employ in real markets , have the added bonus to make open source more evil than closed source.
The only questions that matter are: is that software free or encumbered? - If it's encumbered is it worth the hassle? In the case of h264 you have: - big market share - current market share being irrelevant in two years' turnaround time - minor advantage in efficiency - minor disadvantage in decoding efficiency against theora when dedicated hardware is not present - being tied for the rest of your material's life to MPEG LA decisions:"The [street-smart] people at MPEG-LA have made sure that from the moment we use a camera or camcorder to shoot an mpeg2 (e.g. HDV cams) or h.264 video (e.g. digicams, HD dSLRs, AVCHD cams), we owe them royalties, even if the final video distributed was not encoded using their codecs!" source
The last point kills it for me, and after SCO trial I think that being paranoid on these issues is not a bad idea. YMMV.
If the actions of few violent men are able to taint the entire movement, then i ask you what are you? you surely can't be christian, atheist, left, right... You can't even follow gandhi, since murders occurred even in that occasion.
People suggesting actions that hurt other people are dangerous, but if you can't say aloud your government sucks you are not really in charge because your servant (the government) have become your master. Not that freedom of expression has any worth without independence and we are getting into a too interdependent world, but I digress...
I think the system is bigger than the government. A complete government change with honest people, which would be a succesful revolution, would have to exit the global financial system to be really independent and able to manage itself, so the system would react with sanctions, cold war, psychological war, possibly outright war.
I'm not saying resistence is futile, just don't mistake one step for the whole walk.
Italy has gun control. The latest shooting occurred this morning in Liguria, man shoots wife, then goes to the bar shoots two people then gets back home and now he'll talking with police. He either obtained a gun or at one point of his life he was deemed apt to keep one. Even if you restricted guns to the police, members of the police go nuts and shoot, it happened.
Gun control doesn't stop teen criminals who rob shops - one shot down in Naples a few days ago by a police officer after he started shooting in a shop).
Gun control CAN be effective if it balances the right to defend oneself with the right of society do defend itself from nutcases (but then, why do gratuitous violence pervades the media even here?).
> So wait...now I'm supposed to play with myself in public bathrooms? Welcome to the wonderful world of Italian slang http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sega
Now, now. We could also edit the existence of religion out of history. That would be interesting. I'd love to set up an isolated control group (composed of orphan babies and robot nannies), give them a fabricated history of humanity and see if religion spontaneously redevelops,
Or we could rule out the hypothesis that all religions has been communicated by some gods and decide that religion has already spontaneously developed- problem is that until you reverse engineered the universe you can't tell if any such religion is purely a construct of the mind or a different way to sense things that gets rationalized. What I'd rule out is the strangely common assertion that religion is born out of fear of death since many religions have no post death salvation.
LOL which religion has a man in the sky inciting people to blissfully ignore bad things? I ask because the "religion book" in my shelf has lots of crimes described in sufficient detail in the first part, and "I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves." in the second part.
Since it hasn`t worked for all the crimes in their first time (the first genocide occurred without prior art) why would it work now, and how do you propose to stop baddies tocommunicate their ideas to their peers?
Ok you want basically to introduce a form of newspeak. Which reminds me of the B-movie parody `Dottor Jekyll e gentile signora`(spoiler alert, even if the original version is not a masterpiece and the english dub is likely a trainwreck): in this movie the potion makes people good. Once the bad guys get hold of it they flood people with it so everyone but them becomes good sheeple. Therefore they rule the world.
In other words this idea won`t work unless we are all good. If we do,we don`t need it. And yes I think you were trolling.
web 1.0 was a protocol among others in an internet made of protocols web 2.0 is application functionality built into the browser and a handful of big site that are monopolizing content and consumers. Add to this ridiculous asymmetry in the capabilities for transmission vs reception. I read this as the powerful people having realized how to best control the net.
It's just yet another "internet law" that simply cannot be executed, designed by people who do not have the slightest hint of an idea how the internet works.
Those unenforceable laws are those who end up selectively enforced. Incompetence of malice, the result is the same.
The discussion is already complete with parent post. I add a couple things. If you had a look at recent italian tv programming you would probably suspect that the random youtube post is a competitor even without copyright infringement. Finally, if you simple google for berlusconi and leggi [laws] ad personam you will find that laws touching directly Berlusconi interests are common.
I have nothing against paywalled content as long as it is always paywalled. Once you promote a song on the radio and tv and new marketing scams, you should not be able to demand royalties when it becomes popular and it's used non commercially. This is akin to a submarine patent.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember to often change the water in the bowl, just in case.
This is a valid point.
Some people (Look up Torrey in the book of revelations wikipedia article) analyzed the book which is indeed Greek and think it could be a translation from Aramaic, so it would be nice to see if the distinction you make is valid there too.
> ...insistent of reading references to the present...
You mean the future: there should be a catastrophe involving a reactor (not a bomb, unless a nuclear explosion resemble a star at some point) causing massive nuclear poisoning of water. Presently the passage does not describe anything I am aware of.
I agree but I also think we are advanced enough to statistically ponder if a succession of event and a succession of prediction match by mere chance. There is also the problem of multiple interpretations for each passage.
All of this, my original post included, is just speculation until things start happening, it's trivial to speculate we are not even done with the third seal, right?
1. and 2. fusion AND fission are both nuclear reactions, you could have a point if you can come up with a better symbol for a fusion/nuclear reactor that is familiar to a guy from 2000 years ago.
3. Your premise that the tale is fictional is kinda strong, and I simply put out a possible interpretation among others without making anything out of it. It's interesting to do that because if something like that happens, I can't be accused of doing a retroactive rationalization by linking the event with ancient texts.
I wonder why I must be searched at the airport for some explosive in shoes while somebody else plans to produce radioactive waste that will still be dangerous when the grand-grandson of osama bin laden will need to check his prostate.
If anybody has some unbiased cost projection for atomic energy that comprises the cost of storing and keeping an eye on waste till it's not dangerous anymore with the same attention that we have in the increasing surveillance towards average citizens, I'll be willing to reconsider my opinion.
And if you're Italian recall that here the mafia is already trafficking with radioactive stuff, that Caorso nuclear reactor closed in the 80s has finished disposing of the waste only a year ago and that the reactor itself isn't decommissioned yet. Not that your opinion or mine will matter, since our Great Leader is pushing for nuclear without popular vote (after a popular vote had banned nuclear in the late 80s) so He won't listen anyway.
> What could possibly go wrong?
For the sake of going OT: everytime I hear about nuclear and water I recall the wormwood=chernobyl reference and the fact that a star is basically a nuclear reactor.
Rev 8:10-11 "And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters; And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter."
- It Doesn't really apply to a star that is already under the sea. River and fountain of waters is well related to land nuclear sites though.
- A single plant can't do damage to 1/3rd of the waters. If the damage was systemic (lots of incidents covered up for convenience) it could happen.
And, leaving religion aside, if the writer wrote down a vision and there were a way to "dream about the future", the symbolism would fit enough.
I dunno, maybe you can do a data call with the faxmodem, input some morse code with an harmonica, or use a voice synth.
Besides, you were going to breath heavily on the phone and say nothing anyway.
Funny distribution of approval on the linked blog's comments there (I hope not to have violated the rule of not RTFA I just read the comments there I swear).
First 10 comments, 2 negative. Last 10 (around n.50 as I write) 9 negative.
> In the absence of evidence that there are areas outside those we define with logic and science, claiming such areas exist is a logical fallicy called special pleading.
You maybe don't realize the problem: the concept of "evidence", "absence", "existence", are not necessarily defined outside the physical world. Like the concept of cell is surely not defined outside a conway's game of life as it is inside. And the relationship between cellular automata and the world is much closer than the one that could be between this world and something supernatural.
Claiming ghosts exist is a logic error, claiming they don't is the same logic error. Not special pleading, it's a matter of scope.
If you want to be correct, what the guy is trying to do is to find if ghosts "super-exist" and all he can do is to collect some data to make more or less people Believe or Not.
Proof is impossible as per my older post.
Asking for scientific evidence of supernatural things is a logic error. Until we have discovered all laws and interactions of all aspects of what we call reality we are unable to determine what phenomenons are impossible. So you'd be asking for a sign you'd not be able to parse correctly anyway.
It is safe to say: I see no evidence therefore I don't believe it exists, it's foolish to think that science and logic can be arbitrarily extended outside the system that defined them, yet I see lot's of reasoning suffering from such a fundamental flaw, on both believers' and unbelievers' sides.
There is only one side.
Bright says the move is against openness because h264 was developed in the open.
I posit that that's irrelevant if the source is open if patents prevent you to doing anything to it.
Developing patent encumbered projects in the open is a great idea because: 1. more eyes means more testing. 2. more eyes means that it's easier to sue competitors who might or might not have looked up the source because the source is freely available.
So software patents, which were born for the main reason of letting big corps use for software market the same tactics they employ in real markets , have the added bonus to make open source more evil than closed source.
The only questions that matter are: is that software free or encumbered? - If it's encumbered is it worth the hassle? :"The [street-smart] people at MPEG-LA have made sure that from the moment we use a camera or camcorder to shoot an mpeg2 (e.g. HDV cams) or h.264 video (e.g. digicams, HD dSLRs, AVCHD cams), we owe them royalties, even if the final video distributed was not encoded using their codecs!" source
In the case of h264 you have:
- big market share
- current market share being irrelevant in two years' turnaround time
- minor advantage in efficiency
- minor disadvantage in decoding efficiency against theora when dedicated hardware is not present
- being tied for the rest of your material's life to MPEG LA decisions
The last point kills it for me, and after SCO trial I think that being paranoid on these issues is not a bad idea. YMMV.
Treaties might surely have a role. But Grandparent post misses the obvious:
Where are Twitter customers?
If the actions of few violent men are able to taint the entire movement, then i ask you what are you? you surely can't be christian, atheist, left, right... You can't even follow gandhi, since murders occurred even in that occasion.
People suggesting actions that hurt other people are dangerous, but if you can't say aloud your government sucks you are not really in charge because your servant (the government) have become your master. Not that freedom of expression has any worth without independence and we are getting into a too interdependent world, but I digress...
I think the system is bigger than the government. A complete government change with honest people, which would be a succesful revolution, would have to exit the global financial system to be really independent and able to manage itself, so the system would react with sanctions, cold war, psychological war, possibly outright war.
I'm not saying resistence is futile, just don't mistake one step for the whole walk.
Italy has gun control. The latest shooting occurred this morning in Liguria, man shoots wife, then goes to the bar shoots two people then gets back home and now he'll talking with police. He either obtained a gun or at one point of his life he was deemed apt to keep one. Even if you restricted guns to the police, members of the police go nuts and shoot, it happened.
Gun control doesn't stop teen criminals who rob shops - one shot down in Naples a few days ago by a police officer after he started shooting in a shop).
Gun control CAN be effective if it balances the right to defend oneself with the right of society do defend itself from nutcases (but then, why do gratuitous violence pervades the media even here?).
But reality disagrees with your assertion.
> So wait...now I'm supposed to play with myself in public bathrooms?
Welcome to the wonderful world of Italian slang
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sega
Or we could rule out the hypothesis that all religions has been communicated by some gods and decide that religion has already spontaneously developed- problem is that until you reverse engineered the universe you can't tell if any such religion is purely a construct of the mind or a different way to sense things that gets rationalized.
What I'd rule out is the strangely common assertion that religion is born out of fear of death since many religions have no post death salvation.
LOL which religion has a man in the sky inciting people to blissfully ignore bad things? I ask because the "religion book" in my shelf has lots of crimes described in sufficient detail in the first part, and "I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves." in the second part.
Since it hasn`t worked for all the crimes in their first time (the first genocide occurred without prior art) why would it work now, and how do you propose to stop baddies tocommunicate their ideas to their peers?
Ok you want basically to introduce a form of newspeak.
Which reminds me of the B-movie parody `Dottor Jekyll e gentile signora`(spoiler alert, even if the original version is not a masterpiece and the english dub is likely a trainwreck): in this movie the potion makes people good. Once the bad guys get hold of it they flood people with it so everyone but them becomes good sheeple. Therefore they rule the world.
In other words this idea won`t work unless we are all good. If we do,we don`t need it. And yes I think you were trolling.
web 1.0 was a protocol among others in an internet made of protocols
web 2.0 is application functionality built into the browser and a handful of big site that are monopolizing content and consumers. Add to this ridiculous asymmetry in the capabilities for transmission vs reception. I read this as the powerful people having realized how to best control the net.
As an Italian I completely agree. Google should pull the plug and make our status of a banana republic official.
Those unenforceable laws are those who end up selectively enforced. Incompetence of malice, the result is the same.
The discussion is already complete with parent post. I add a couple things.
If you had a look at recent italian tv programming you would probably suspect that the random youtube post is a competitor even without copyright infringement.
Finally, if you simple google for berlusconi and leggi [laws] ad personam you will find that laws touching directly Berlusconi interests are common.
I have nothing against paywalled content as long as it is always paywalled. Once you promote a song on the radio and tv and new marketing scams, you should not be able to demand royalties when it becomes popular and it's used non commercially. This is akin to a submarine patent.