I never said it was 'okay' to steal, but if I must choose between stealing a bread to feed my kids or watching them die, I will choose the first; I think most people will.
You have setup a straw man argument here where the only two options are stealing food or your children dieing. In reality this is never true, there are always other options and stealing is not a good one.
The whole point I was trying to make is that the term 'criminal' is very subjective. Just making a law that says you cannot do X and calling people that do X criminals is newspeak to mislead the masses. All criminals should be in jail, right?
I did not disagree with you on this point, nor did I even address it. I am merely addressing the "stealing food to feed your family" fallacy.
Is someone who steals a bread from a wealthy comglomerate of bakeries to prevent his family from starvation really a criminal?
YES, yes he is, and he is morally wrong to do it as well. This is an oft repeated fallacy, and is primarily an emotional appeal more than anything else. Depriving others of their rightfully owned property can not be condoned regardless of the circumstances, it is a cornerstone upon which nearly all societies are based. Many people are starving, yet only a very few resort to thievery. Thievery is never the only solution, nor is it ever even a good one. Further, stealing is not even a long term solution. Stealing food will feed you one day, but you will be hungry the next and be right back where you started, except now you will have hurt others.
What does this have to do with copyright infringement and cam recording? Nothing, but the whole "stealing food to feed a starving family is okay" line really bugs me.
Thus far, they haven't really "embraced and extended" BSD code-- but they do use BSD's command-line FTP client code, and I believe BSD's TCP/IP stack?
Um, how do you know Microsoft hasn't used more BSD code? Since their code is closed you really have no idea what's in it or how much BSD code it could contain. The TCP/IP stack & FTP client are just things which we happen to know about.
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
In this case all the main characters are robots, so I believe that the more flat intonation "robotic" voices was exactly what the film maker was going for.
Actually, I thought that scene was terrible from a story telling perspective. Although it was very cool to see Yoda fight, when he started bouncing around going psycho I just started laughing. Watching him go was just hilarious! Only problem was, this was the big dramatic fight scene at the end, and laughing completely destroyed any sort of tension.
I know it's a bit too much analysis, but why didn't Vader every hunt down Yoda, wouldn't a Jedi of such power been easily located?
If the entire Jedi counsel can stand next to Senator Palpatine and not have the slightest clue that he's force sensitive, let alone a Sith Master, Vader not locating Yoda doesn't really rank up there in the hard to believe catagory.
There is no such thing as "near infinite", there is only infinite and finite. Although there is a very large amount of matter in the universe, it is still a finite amount.
But a priori, whether a fundamentalist, i.e. somebody who takes the fundaments on which something is built or based very seriously, is a good thing or not depends on what that fundament actually is. And that varies a lot across doctrines. For example, in Christianity, the fundament is the principle of love of God and your neighbour as embodied in the (first two of the) ten commandments. This is the core of Christian orthodoxy
This is wrong, your quote doesn't even include anything from the New Testament! The core of Christian orthodoxy is that we are all sinners (this goes back to the Fall) and deserving of death, and that you cannot be saved except through Jesus Christ. This is the absolute bare minimum that you must believe in order to be a Chrisitian.
For example, let's start with the following axioms: God exists, God created the universe, God loves all humans.
I sure hope you're not talking about the Judeo-Chrisitna God. Let's examine your "axioms:"
God exists
Okay, Christians certainly believe that.
God created the universe
In seven days, acording to Christianity. This does not jive with observation, and so is demonstratably false. Here's a simple observational test, go outside and look at the stars. If you can see any stars which are more than a few thousand light years away (hint, most of them) then the universe is more than a few thousand years old.
God loves all humans
Oh, now I know you're not talking about the Judeo-Christian God. Read the Old Testament sometime, try searching for Caanites or some other non-Hebrew tribe.
It's the same deal for everyone. Free forgiveness. You're just playing word games here.
Wrong. Non-believers do not receive forgiveness, in order to receive Christ's forgiveness you must accept him as Lord and Savior. Are you debating this point?
Paul answered this, in Romans, I believe. In summary, his answer was "No".
But YOU said that a Christian does not have to follow the law. Also, what are the penalties for a Chrisitan who sins? As long as you repent and ask for forgiveness you will be forgiven. So basicaly, Christians are not "supposed" to sin, but incur zero penalties as a reslt of doing so.
You don't need the symbol when you have the real thing.
Where did I say you needed it, and how does that affect it's validity anyway? Is it okay to sacrafice animals to forgive sins? What if I just prefer to slaughter a few bulls instead of going to church, is this acceptable? If not, when was this changed?
Why did you skip over definition 1? "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing."
Okay, use any definition you want, but the point is that religion is based upon faith and beliefs, not upon proof. Confident belief != proof! This is the entire idea around religion, and is mentioned numerous times in the bible that followers "must have faith." Surely you know this.
There is only one instance that God wrote anything in the bible. Everything else, it was either the observation, opinion, or God dictating to someone. If you have ever taken dictation or given dictation and latter reviewed it, you will realize that we do not get everythiing correct. Ever queried eyewitnesses? Each peerson colors their recollection of events. The Bible is not perfect because Man wrote it.
While I may agree with you this is NOT the official stance of the Christian church, nor is it what is taught in said churches and believed by the majority of Christians.
I still can't see what your issue is with people voluntarily professing their love to God.
Oh, I have absolutely no issue with people worshipping God. My point was simply that worshipping God is a central part of Christianity. Can you be a Christian if you don't worship God? I don't think so, although I don't feel like digging up any verses to support this at the moment. Please note, there is nothing wrong with this. I was merely responding to the OP who said that "ass-kissing is not required," I responded that worship IS required if you want to be considered a Christian. Of course, ass-kissing and worship can be different things, I was mostly playing devil's advocate.
I suppose it's either/or, then. Either obey the Law perfectly, or trust Jesus. That's the requirement.
So non-Christians have to obey the Christian laws, while Chrisitnas do not? Seems just and fair. Does this mean that it's okay for Christians to sin? Can you be a Christian homosexual as long as you ask forgiveness every week? BTW, what about sacraficing clean animals to gain forgiveness for sins, why doesn't that work anymore?
I don't know, but trust God to be merciful about it.
Once again, please re-read the Old Testament before commenting on God's mercy.
Now THAT is quite the parenthetical. Centuries of apologetics, theology and philosophy, brushed aside in just four words (six if you expand the acronym).
Apparently you are confused by the definition of faith. Try definition 2: "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
Almost everything written in the bible came from humans. So disregard the Ten Commandments and you have something one has to realize that it has some flaws introduced by Man's fallible nature.
You utter this like it is a fact when it is most certainly not. Many, if not most, Christians believe that the bible is the literal Word of God and is infallible. I was certainly taught this in Church. When the bible says "God said" this or "Jesus said" that Christians believe that God or Jesus actually uttered those words, and most of the Old Testament laws come directly from the mouth of God.
Lastly, the New Testament supercedes the Old Testament. So there are no theological problems with Christians eating Bacon Cheeseburgers.
I agree that Christ nullified the kosher laws and a few others, but Christ did not supercede the vast majority of the Old Testament laws. I would assume that anything not specifically retracted by Jesus is still in effect. Of course, this also raises the question, why did God create the laws to begin with if they weren't important? Remember, violating any of God's laws is a sin, and the wages of sin is death. How can something be worthy of eternal damnation in one century but not in another?
Now there are theological problems with having a mortgage or car loan, but most of us ignore that.
How very convenient. How do you decide which of God's laws to follow and which you do not? Are God's laws absolute or not?
Worship is not quite the right term but many do choose to use worship to show thier devotion.
Worship IS the correct term and is used multiple times in the bible.
The apparent contradictions in the Bible result from Man's own incomplete understanding and fallibility.
So when the bible "apparently" contradicts itself, how do you decide which side is correct? For some cases it doesn't matter anyway, but for others, such as the salvation by faith or works issue, the price for being wrong is nothing less than your eternal soul. Have a nice day!
Is it ass-kissing when a husband praises his wife, and professes his adoration and devotion to her? Do you not know the difference between vain flattery and professions of love?
Does it still sound so selfless when it is required by the relegion? Of course everyone is doing it willingly, otherwise they wouldn't be Christians. The point stands that worshiping God (or ass-kissing, not my words BTW) is a central part of Christianity, whether or not the Chrisitians enjoy doing it.
A good part of the New Testament is devoted to answering this very question. In a nutshell, the Old Testament (the Law) is there just to show us how big of a problem we have. But the Law is not the solution to the problem, Jesus is.
Wow, way to dance around the question. Are we required to follow the laws of the Old Testament or not?
God's forgiveness is absolute, too. No amount of sin can overcome Christ's sacrifice. That goes for gay, straight, everyone.
Once again you did not even address my questions! Are God's laws absolute or not? Please re-read the Old Testament if you feel that the biblical God is a kind and forgiving God. Also, no Christians I have heard of profess that Christ's forgiveness extends beyond death. So you have maybe 70 years or so (some times MUCH less) to choose the one true religion (with no proof BTW) then an eternity to suffer if you choose wrong. Doesn't seem like absolute forgiveness to me.
I think my point is that genocide/murder/torture HAVE always been morally reprehensible regardless of even a majority thinking otherwise.
I could be wrong, but I do believe that genocide was condoned in the Old Testament. Didn't God destroy several other races, at the very least weren't several othr races identified as "evil"? I can't remeber specific examples, I leave that as an exercise for the reader. BTW, Slavery was also condoned by the Old Testament and practiced regularly, yet is considered morally reprehensible to most people today.
Seriously, have you read the Old Testament? The God described there is incredibly cruel and bloody. Using Him as a source for moral absolutes does not seem like a good idea IMHO. Also, what is the source for moral absolutes? Most Christians do not follow all the laws in the bible (i.e. the kosher laws as an example). Are some laws more absolute than others? How do we decide which laws are absolute and which are not? If we must decide then they are no longer quite so absolute, are they?
To someone who believes religion forms the very essence of who they are. Most of the true believers can not be dissuaded from believing regardless of how strong your argument against God is. But ofcourse that is the whole point of faith, it is belief beyond reason.
"My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts!" -- Unknown
No, according to the Bible, works ("living a good life" in your words) don't count, no matter how great and wonderful you think you're being. Faith, and only faith gets the job done.
There seems to be some confusion on this issue. Both views are taught by different segments of the church. Some believe that salvation is not by faith alone but also by works, others believe that faith alone is sufficient.
There's no ass-kissing involved.
Aren't Christians required to worship God? Isn't that what they are doing during "worship" services on Sunday? Ass-kissing is a less flatering term for this of course.
There's no difficult list of rules, either.
Then why is the Old Testament still included in the bible, and still quoted frequently? Are you saying that we are no longer sinning if we don't follow the rules in the Old Testament? Are you saying that it just doesn't matter anymore? Are you saying that the laws are no longer relevant? If so, why did God create them in the first place? I thought that Christians belived in absolutes for good and evil (i.e. homosexuality is wrong because God said so). Are some of God's laws more absolute than others?
As simple as the list of Ten Commandments seems, have you kept them? Everyone says what an excellent set of rules they are, but I don't know anyone that has managed to keep them.
I thought that this was the whole point of Christianity, that we are all sinners and therefore need salvation through Christ. You seem to be saying that since no one can follow the laws, they don't matter anymore! This is certanly not a Christian perspective. BTW, the bible is also uncertain whether or not anyone has managed to follow all the laws. This is part of what makes the bible such a great religeous text, it has so many contradictions that you can almost always find some quote or another to support your view!
Wow, way to be a jerk, and way to attack something I never said. Where in my post did I say that Linux never has vulnerabilities? You specifically said viruses ("I could have it boot Knoppix from a protected read only partition, then virii couldn't cause any harm!") , I replied that Linux doesn't have any viruses to speak of. I stand by this statement, if you can name any significant Linux viruses please tell me, I genuinely want to know. There is a big difference between virus and worm attacks and a hacker(cracker) attack. NO system is invulnerable from a concentrated attack from a serious and skilled hacker, and I never claimed as such.
Neat idea! Is it possible to set up a boot partition on the hard disk and protect it as READ ONLY?
I could have it boot Knoppix from a protected read only partition, then virii couldn't cause any harm!
You seem a bit confused, or at least a bit ignorant of Linux. Under Linux it is certainly possible to make your boot partition read-only, you can even make your root partition read-only if you don't plan on installing any software (this is most frequently done in isolated systems like routers). I believe that certain partitions like/var have to be read-write so the system can write logs and such (I may be wrong about this). However, this really shouldn't be necessary to prevent Granny from installing programs, since only root has write access to the root partition anyway. Also, Linux doesn't have any viruses to speak of, so this shouldn't even be a concern.
Slashdot Mirror
You have setup a straw man argument here where the only two options are stealing food or your children dieing. In reality this is never true, there are always other options and stealing is not a good one.
The whole point I was trying to make is that the term 'criminal' is very subjective. Just making a law that says you cannot do X and calling people that do X criminals is newspeak to mislead the masses. All criminals should be in jail, right?
I did not disagree with you on this point, nor did I even address it. I am merely addressing the "stealing food to feed your family" fallacy.
YES, yes he is, and he is morally wrong to do it as well. This is an oft repeated fallacy, and is primarily an emotional appeal more than anything else. Depriving others of their rightfully owned property can not be condoned regardless of the circumstances, it is a cornerstone upon which nearly all societies are based. Many people are starving, yet only a very few resort to thievery. Thievery is never the only solution, nor is it ever even a good one. Further, stealing is not even a long term solution. Stealing food will feed you one day, but you will be hungry the next and be right back where you started, except now you will have hurt others.
What does this have to do with copyright infringement and cam recording? Nothing, but the whole "stealing food to feed a starving family is okay" line really bugs me.
Um, how do you know Microsoft hasn't used more BSD code? Since their code is closed you really have no idea what's in it or how much BSD code it could contain. The TCP/IP stack & FTP client are just things which we happen to know about.
It's not a ruling, it's specifically spelled out in copyright law, TITLE 17, CHAPTER 1, Sec. 117 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs. Here's the relevant section:
"Too many connections!" says the download page. Can anyone post torrents?
In this case all the main characters are robots, so I believe that the more flat intonation "robotic" voices was exactly what the film maker was going for.
Actually, I thought that scene was terrible from a story telling perspective. Although it was very cool to see Yoda fight, when he started bouncing around going psycho I just started laughing. Watching him go was just hilarious! Only problem was, this was the big dramatic fight scene at the end, and laughing completely destroyed any sort of tension.
If the entire Jedi counsel can stand next to Senator Palpatine and not have the slightest clue that he's force sensitive, let alone a Sith Master, Vader not locating Yoda doesn't really rank up there in the hard to believe catagory.
There is no such thing as "near infinite", there is only infinite and finite. Although there is a very large amount of matter in the universe, it is still a finite amount.
How can anything possibly go faster than c?
This is wrong, your quote doesn't even include anything from the New Testament! The core of Christian orthodoxy is that we are all sinners (this goes back to the Fall) and deserving of death, and that you cannot be saved except through Jesus Christ. This is the absolute bare minimum that you must believe in order to be a Chrisitian.
I sure hope you're not talking about the Judeo-Chrisitna God. Let's examine your "axioms:"
God exists
Okay, Christians certainly believe that.
God created the universe
In seven days, acording to Christianity. This does not jive with observation, and so is demonstratably false. Here's a simple observational test, go outside and look at the stars. If you can see any stars which are more than a few thousand light years away (hint, most of them) then the universe is more than a few thousand years old.
God loves all humans
Oh, now I know you're not talking about the Judeo-Christian God. Read the Old Testament sometime, try searching for Caanites or some other non-Hebrew tribe.
Wrong. Non-believers do not receive forgiveness, in order to receive Christ's forgiveness you must accept him as Lord and Savior. Are you debating this point?
Paul answered this, in Romans, I believe. In summary, his answer was "No".
But YOU said that a Christian does not have to follow the law. Also, what are the penalties for a Chrisitan who sins? As long as you repent and ask for forgiveness you will be forgiven. So basicaly, Christians are not "supposed" to sin, but incur zero penalties as a reslt of doing so.
You don't need the symbol when you have the real thing.
Where did I say you needed it, and how does that affect it's validity anyway? Is it okay to sacrafice animals to forgive sins? What if I just prefer to slaughter a few bulls instead of going to church, is this acceptable? If not, when was this changed?
Why did you skip over definition 1? "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing."
Okay, use any definition you want, but the point is that religion is based upon faith and beliefs, not upon proof. Confident belief != proof! This is the entire idea around religion, and is mentioned numerous times in the bible that followers "must have faith." Surely you know this.
While I may agree with you this is NOT the official stance of the Christian church, nor is it what is taught in said churches and believed by the majority of Christians.
Oh, I have absolutely no issue with people worshipping God. My point was simply that worshipping God is a central part of Christianity. Can you be a Christian if you don't worship God? I don't think so, although I don't feel like digging up any verses to support this at the moment. Please note, there is nothing wrong with this. I was merely responding to the OP who said that "ass-kissing is not required," I responded that worship IS required if you want to be considered a Christian. Of course, ass-kissing and worship can be different things, I was mostly playing devil's advocate.
I suppose it's either/or, then. Either obey the Law perfectly, or trust Jesus. That's the requirement.
So non-Christians have to obey the Christian laws, while Chrisitnas do not? Seems just and fair. Does this mean that it's okay for Christians to sin? Can you be a Christian homosexual as long as you ask forgiveness every week? BTW, what about sacraficing clean animals to gain forgiveness for sins, why doesn't that work anymore?
I don't know, but trust God to be merciful about it.
Once again, please re-read the Old Testament before commenting on God's mercy.
Now THAT is quite the parenthetical. Centuries of apologetics, theology and philosophy, brushed aside in just four words (six if you expand the acronym).
Apparently you are confused by the definition of faith. Try definition 2: "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
Peace be with you,
And also with you. Go in peace, serve the Lord. ;)
You utter this like it is a fact when it is most certainly not. Many, if not most, Christians believe that the bible is the literal Word of God and is infallible. I was certainly taught this in Church. When the bible says "God said" this or "Jesus said" that Christians believe that God or Jesus actually uttered those words, and most of the Old Testament laws come directly from the mouth of God.
Lastly, the New Testament supercedes the Old Testament. So there are no theological problems with Christians eating Bacon Cheeseburgers.
I agree that Christ nullified the kosher laws and a few others, but Christ did not supercede the vast majority of the Old Testament laws. I would assume that anything not specifically retracted by Jesus is still in effect. Of course, this also raises the question, why did God create the laws to begin with if they weren't important? Remember, violating any of God's laws is a sin, and the wages of sin is death. How can something be worthy of eternal damnation in one century but not in another?
Now there are theological problems with having a mortgage or car loan, but most of us ignore that.
How very convenient. How do you decide which of God's laws to follow and which you do not? Are God's laws absolute or not?
Worship is not quite the right term but many do choose to use worship to show thier devotion.
Worship IS the correct term and is used multiple times in the bible.
The apparent contradictions in the Bible result from Man's own incomplete understanding and fallibility.
So when the bible "apparently" contradicts itself, how do you decide which side is correct? For some cases it doesn't matter anyway, but for others, such as the salvation by faith or works issue, the price for being wrong is nothing less than your eternal soul. Have a nice day!
Does it still sound so selfless when it is required by the relegion? Of course everyone is doing it willingly, otherwise they wouldn't be Christians. The point stands that worshiping God (or ass-kissing, not my words BTW) is a central part of Christianity, whether or not the Chrisitians enjoy doing it.
A good part of the New Testament is devoted to answering this very question. In a nutshell, the Old Testament (the Law) is there just to show us how big of a problem we have. But the Law is not the solution to the problem, Jesus is.
Wow, way to dance around the question. Are we required to follow the laws of the Old Testament or not?
God's forgiveness is absolute, too. No amount of sin can overcome Christ's sacrifice. That goes for gay, straight, everyone.
Once again you did not even address my questions! Are God's laws absolute or not? Please re-read the Old Testament if you feel that the biblical God is a kind and forgiving God. Also, no Christians I have heard of profess that Christ's forgiveness extends beyond death. So you have maybe 70 years or so (some times MUCH less) to choose the one true religion (with no proof BTW) then an eternity to suffer if you choose wrong. Doesn't seem like absolute forgiveness to me.
I could be wrong, but I do believe that genocide was condoned in the Old Testament. Didn't God destroy several other races, at the very least weren't several othr races identified as "evil"? I can't remeber specific examples, I leave that as an exercise for the reader. BTW, Slavery was also condoned by the Old Testament and practiced regularly, yet is considered morally reprehensible to most people today.
Seriously, have you read the Old Testament? The God described there is incredibly cruel and bloody. Using Him as a source for moral absolutes does not seem like a good idea IMHO. Also, what is the source for moral absolutes? Most Christians do not follow all the laws in the bible (i.e. the kosher laws as an example). Are some laws more absolute than others? How do we decide which laws are absolute and which are not? If we must decide then they are no longer quite so absolute, are they?
That is not a bad thing!
You DO know that proving a negative is a logical impossibility, right?
"My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts!" -- Unknown
There seems to be some confusion on this issue. Both views are taught by different segments of the church. Some believe that salvation is not by faith alone but also by works, others believe that faith alone is sufficient.
There's no ass-kissing involved.
Aren't Christians required to worship God? Isn't that what they are doing during "worship" services on Sunday? Ass-kissing is a less flatering term for this of course.
There's no difficult list of rules, either.
Then why is the Old Testament still included in the bible, and still quoted frequently? Are you saying that we are no longer sinning if we don't follow the rules in the Old Testament? Are you saying that it just doesn't matter anymore? Are you saying that the laws are no longer relevant? If so, why did God create them in the first place? I thought that Christians belived in absolutes for good and evil (i.e. homosexuality is wrong because God said so). Are some of God's laws more absolute than others?
As simple as the list of Ten Commandments seems, have you kept them? Everyone says what an excellent set of rules they are, but I don't know anyone that has managed to keep them.
I thought that this was the whole point of Christianity, that we are all sinners and therefore need salvation through Christ. You seem to be saying that since no one can follow the laws, they don't matter anymore! This is certanly not a Christian perspective. BTW, the bible is also uncertain whether or not anyone has managed to follow all the laws. This is part of what makes the bible such a great religeous text, it has so many contradictions that you can almost always find some quote or another to support your view!
Not that I can find. ;)
Wow, way to be a jerk, and way to attack something I never said. Where in my post did I say that Linux never has vulnerabilities? You specifically said viruses ("I could have it boot Knoppix from a protected read only partition, then virii couldn't cause any harm!") , I replied that Linux doesn't have any viruses to speak of. I stand by this statement, if you can name any significant Linux viruses please tell me, I genuinely want to know. There is a big difference between virus and worm attacks and a hacker(cracker) attack. NO system is invulnerable from a concentrated attack from a serious and skilled hacker, and I never claimed as such.
You seem a bit confused, or at least a bit ignorant of Linux. Under Linux it is certainly possible to make your boot partition read-only, you can even make your root partition read-only if you don't plan on installing any software (this is most frequently done in isolated systems like routers). I believe that certain partitions like /var have to be read-write so the system can write logs and such (I may be wrong about this). However, this really shouldn't be necessary to prevent Granny from installing programs, since only root has write access to the root partition anyway. Also, Linux doesn't have any viruses to speak of, so this shouldn't even be a concern.