Lot of sheer unbacked conjecture here. Probably of the kind you prefer that can always be narrowed in its scope to infinitesimal differences, which you will then present as probably differences overturning the entirety of the content, and given that possibility of individual-verse nuance, the actual overall content could be any imaginable thing.
I'll suggest two things here:
1. Read the actual methodology translators use. They are generally given in the preface to any given translation. None do a "translation of a translation of a translation"--none say "Hey, we have the KJV, so let's just refer exclusively to that, it'll save us time" and another group later saying "Hey, we have the NKJV, so we'll just refer to that alone for our translation". They refer to all available historical documents, every time, to produce their best-efforts to translating to the current language and vernacular. And no, subtle nuances in words do not potentially overturn the book's meaning, particularly when the entire rest of the bible is available as clarifying context, -as well as- all the historical versions for anyone who wishes to investigate the potential nuances of the original languages.
2. Apply your exact same analysis to whether we can comprehend meaningfully Plato's Republic. If you can get more than two sentences in without your stance being clarified as absurd, once the self-induced "think of anything that will help me reject this" is removed from your thought process, I'll congratulate you.
There is, however, nothing I can say that will convince you it is the "verbatim word of God", because you don't know what that even means, beyond something that sounds like it can be narrowed in specificity as far as you need to, to reach your pre-established goal of rejecting the content.
There is not a single thing anywhere in existence that makes the first form objectively preferable, much less mandatory. You have accepted an arbitrary construct, and you believe it to be "the truth". It is not "the way things really are", it is "a system of categories some people made up and subsequently people use".
Break it down, then. Tell me, specifically, what you feel in objective reality justifies the first rendering of the categories over the second. Trace your own thoughts step-by-step here, and from where they originate.
Your analysis is based on the notion that you can viably change the interpretation of one verse and the content of the rest of the bible turns on that. This is false.
As is the case for every other text, there are reiterations of meaning throughout the text. There are "parity bits" throughout the text, by analogy. You cannot change the meaning of one word merely because it is a word with multiple possible definitional meaning, and thus alter every other reference within the text to have the entirety now suddenly mean what it clearly does not. As is the case for every text, if a word is ambiguous to you, you can go ahead and refer to content of the rest of the document for resolution of the apparent ambiguity. No need to maintain that the bible is a special case in this sense relative to what you do every day with every other book in existence.
You aren't forming an alternate viable translation. You are attempting to form a contradiction. Those are two different attacks along two different paths. Pick one.
No, because you can't remove that, and have a viable translation. You can remove it for the purposes of saying the bible is inconsistent, thus form an argument that it is invalid, but you cannot remove it to form an alternate functional translation.
This is quite simply a case of your translation being wrong, in the light of the context of the rest of the bible. The bible reiterates its core points quite consistently. Don't equivocate on this, you have no intention of, nor ability to, form what you are claiming. You are forming something else, an intentionally non-viable translation, and claiming it is an alternate viable translation. It isn't.
Given the cultural norms of the time, we can assume she was a virgin, or at minimum, the text was presenting someone who would in fact have a virgin for such a significant religious role, even if we stipulated your contention it referred to a different event. Yes, I've been over this many times. "Behold, a young woman shall conceive!" makes no sense in terms of an extraordinary event being presented, and the text is clearly intended to convey an exceptional event. To claim otherwise is just being pointlessly contrarian.
But, really, you haven't addressed the question at all. In what sense would this make some fundamental difference to the message, i.e. resurrection, salvation, the nature of God, etc.?
"It would indicate a possible difference in interpretation" does not meet the criteria of an actually-significant difference in the overall content as received.
I'm a little puzzled though. Why would I consider your position "rude" to me? You're the animal.
Since we both agree on that point, I'm not entirely sure what your fundamental motivation is to attempting to enforce on me a category you yourself say would be "artificial".
You seem to be confusing the issue of your worldview lacking any reason to have a distinct category of "human", with my non-necessity of categorizing them as a subset of "animal".
They share attributes, that is true. However, much as I don't have to categorize a "car" as a "truck" because they both have engines, drivetrains, etc., I in fact do not have to categorize "human" as a subset of "animal".
There really is no epistemological, scientific, or other force on Earth compelling this categorization. You have an arbitrary, if widely-held, construct, which you assent to largely for the reasons stated. You've been, quite simply, effectively hypnotized by repetition into considering it "self-evident".
And, yes, there is a great deal of evidence we have qualitatively unique traits (though, indeed, from your worldview you are indeed incapable of producing any). Simply none you'll accept as evidence. Fortunately, your non-acceptance of evidence, in no way lessens the fact of it being evidence.
Show me a case in the bible, or any competent translation of any text, where the translation meaningfully changes the conclusions you would draw as to its overall meaning from reading it.
And please don't tell me you've never even thought about applying this first step to intellectual honesty on this issue, given all those other texts (which, oddly, seem to get a pass based on the sole criterion that they are non-religious) surrounding you.
We are nefesh chaya, the implications of which I won't get into here, as you won't be interested and evolution will inevitably sort you out anyway.
However, I will not argue with your self-categorization as an animal. Particularly since you do so because somebody made a chart with authoritative-sounding Latin names and put them in a tree-shaped chart and all.
I'll get back with you on the implications for yourself sometime after Cladistics destroys the mess of systemic arbitrariness of Linnean Taxonomy.
Good to hear. I'll consider all these Arguments From A Void that try to point out how relatively bad the results of theism are compared to an undefined non-position of a non-demographic, that non-associatable with anyone, to be cases in point.
But then, former NSA Technical Director Bill Binney has stated that nothing remotely equivalent to the capacity of Utah is needed for the NSA's stated mission. Perhaps you missed his interview.
Nor did I say it was the only reason that "matters", nor am I the only person who considers systemic violations of the Constitution something worthy of being "pissed off" about.
You seem to have a bit of cognitive dissonance here. Splitting the issues into "good" and "bad" and categorizing individual things individually, regardless of what other things an organization may do, and advocating for more "good" and less "bad", would probably clarify.
In terms of the technology involved, it pretty-much does.
But that's irrelevant. As I said, I expect any given country to follow suit (and they have done so historically)--just that Internet-scraping gives a vastly more-efficient mechanism for it, a fact which the NSA is well aware. It's an issue of principle, and it applies regardless of who is doing it. The scale just increases the potential damage.
...that industrial espionage, not "terrorism", is the real purpose for storage capacity of the magnitude of the NSA's Utah facility.
Not that any other government that can, won't. Eventually business will be sorted into those who have "government connections", and those who don't--the former collecting the latter's innovations and work product en masse (thus, essentially, their lives), and putting them out of business.
Corporatism (alternately, fascism), with turbo boost.
That's the Declaration of Independence, a declaration to a Christian nation and potentate. Using a generic term like "creator" seems a reasonable compromise to convey the idea. The argument isn't rooted in Christian theology at all, it is self-evident, and the "creator" might just refer to deism, not Christianity.
Not really compatible with Deism, unless one is arguing men were given rights from "the beginning", that is, before they existed. But you seem to be arguing what you're uncomfortable with, rather than the argument at hand. I said "theism", that is the case. Christianity would be one form. There is no form that makes your argument with respect to rights coherent.
Because evolution happens at the level of species, and a priori, chimps are a species that we are in competition with (of course, they lost long ago). Human social structures, empathy, justice, and morality in human relationships are built into all of us through evolution (our "creator") because they are useful. So, if you want to extend notions of human justice and morality to other species, you need to make a utilitarian argument for that.
Not really. I can instead that that utilitarianism isn't a valid basis for anything regarding answering whether or not rights exists in human or non-human, for or against. Nor, really, a basis for any usable ethics, and devoid of any connection to a metaphysics by which to justify it. Why would a utilitarian answer, even potentially, be the objectively valid one? Nor, is the fact we feel something as an evolutionary byproduct any justification for its validity. Nor, is there any question that "Creator", capitalized, does not refer to non-sentient processes of evolution.
That's wrong. Chimps, for example, are a different species; chimps and humans can't have offspring. Their brains are obviously quite different. They are also vicious and aggressive animals.
How is that... remotely relevant? The fact they are different has nothing to do with one set of attributes requiring an inference of "rights", and another set of attributes requiring an inference of "no rights". Is there the vaguest connection there in your own mind, or is it a total non-sequitur?
US laws are based on Enlightenment philosophy, not religion.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
Seems clear enough. But if you prefer to argue it in terms of Enlightenment philosophy, I'm game. Show your direct connection between empirical reality and "rights". I think you'll find rights were in fact presumed, and the history of philosophy during that time is largely unproductive arguing about whose subjective, unanchored secular notion of them was best.
So, then, we need to put a "rights exist" guy and and "rights don't exist" guy in a cage match to the death, and whoever wins, that's how we know what's true.
There is no justification for a separate status for one type of hominid over another within the context of Naturalism.
It will be interesting to see how the courts address this from a secular standpoint, since the rationale for "rights" is grounded in a wholly theistic construct, at least in the U.S.
Search all you like with scientific instruments, you will find no material signature indicating the actual existence of "rights".
Jesus said: If they say to you: Whence have you come?, say to them: We have come from the light, the place where the light came into being of itself. It [established itself], and it revealed itself in their image. If they say to you: Who are you?, say: We are his sons, and we are the elect of the living Father. If they ask you: What is the sign of your Father in you?, say to them: It is movement and rest.
The reason is because there's a straw-man of what I said?
...how it works out depends on the details of the key...
Indeed. And note I said the details should be -arbitrary-, for instance, "Type a passphrase of arbitrary length" for the encryptor. This is not analogous to the "XOR with the last byte also" of the question presented. At minimum one would have to determine the -length- of the passphrase to know when the next block begins. I suggest this is a much greater challenge than the suggested implementation you've linked, and further that the attacks on the Vigenere cipher are not applicable, as that cipher creates repeating sequences in the ciphertext, whereas a chained XOR would not.
Agreed, however, that using the same passphrase across multiple files would be potentially insecure. The fix to remedy that is trivially obvious, though...
Slashdot Mirror
Nice navel-gazing ad hominem with a little psychic projection.
Move on to an argument whenever you are ready.
So, essentially, -you personally- feel the categorization is insufficient, and therefore wish to drag me to it.
Considering myself best categorized as "human" makes a claim for unique superiority?
What nonsense. Your metaphysics is incoherent. Deal with it.
That is no argument at all. State specifics, and how they mandate a particular conceptual hierarchy.
Lot of sheer unbacked conjecture here. Probably of the kind you prefer that can always be narrowed in its scope to infinitesimal differences, which you will then present as probably differences overturning the entirety of the content, and given that possibility of individual-verse nuance, the actual overall content could be any imaginable thing.
I'll suggest two things here:
1. Read the actual methodology translators use. They are generally given in the preface to any given translation. None do a "translation of a translation of a translation"--none say "Hey, we have the KJV, so let's just refer exclusively to that, it'll save us time" and another group later saying "Hey, we have the NKJV, so we'll just refer to that alone for our translation". They refer to all available historical documents, every time, to produce their best-efforts to translating to the current language and vernacular. And no, subtle nuances in words do not potentially overturn the book's meaning, particularly when the entire rest of the bible is available as clarifying context, -as well as- all the historical versions for anyone who wishes to investigate the potential nuances of the original languages.
2. Apply your exact same analysis to whether we can comprehend meaningfully Plato's Republic. If you can get more than two sentences in without your stance being clarified as absurd, once the self-induced "think of anything that will help me reject this" is removed from your thought process, I'll congratulate you.
There is, however, nothing I can say that will convince you it is the "verbatim word of God", because you don't know what that even means, beyond something that sounds like it can be narrowed in specificity as far as you need to, to reach your pre-established goal of rejecting the content.
No, it doesn't "equate" to that in particular.
You have a conceptual hierarchy that is:
1. Animals
1.1. Humans
1.2. Other animals
I have a hierarchy that is:
1. Living beings
1.1. Humans
1.2. Animals
There is not a single thing anywhere in existence that makes the first form objectively preferable, much less mandatory. You have accepted an arbitrary construct, and you believe it to be "the truth". It is not "the way things really are", it is "a system of categories some people made up and subsequently people use".
Break it down, then. Tell me, specifically, what you feel in objective reality justifies the first rendering of the categories over the second. Trace your own thoughts step-by-step here, and from where they originate.
Jesus said: I shall choose you, one out of a thousand and two out of ten thousand, and they shall stand as a single one.
--Thomas
Relevance is left as an exercise for the appropriate reader.
Your analysis is based on the notion that you can viably change the interpretation of one verse and the content of the rest of the bible turns on that. This is false.
As is the case for every other text, there are reiterations of meaning throughout the text. There are "parity bits" throughout the text, by analogy. You cannot change the meaning of one word merely because it is a word with multiple possible definitional meaning, and thus alter every other reference within the text to have the entirety now suddenly mean what it clearly does not. As is the case for every text, if a word is ambiguous to you, you can go ahead and refer to content of the rest of the document for resolution of the apparent ambiguity. No need to maintain that the bible is a special case in this sense relative to what you do every day with every other book in existence.
You aren't forming an alternate viable translation. You are attempting to form a contradiction. Those are two different attacks along two different paths. Pick one.
No, because you can't remove that, and have a viable translation. You can remove it for the purposes of saying the bible is inconsistent, thus form an argument that it is invalid, but you cannot remove it to form an alternate functional translation.
This is quite simply a case of your translation being wrong, in the light of the context of the rest of the bible. The bible reiterates its core points quite consistently. Don't equivocate on this, you have no intention of, nor ability to, form what you are claiming. You are forming something else, an intentionally non-viable translation, and claiming it is an alternate viable translation. It isn't.
How so?
See above.
Given the cultural norms of the time, we can assume she was a virgin, or at minimum, the text was presenting someone who would in fact have a virgin for such a significant religious role, even if we stipulated your contention it referred to a different event. Yes, I've been over this many times. "Behold, a young woman shall conceive!" makes no sense in terms of an extraordinary event being presented, and the text is clearly intended to convey an exceptional event. To claim otherwise is just being pointlessly contrarian.
But, really, you haven't addressed the question at all. In what sense would this make some fundamental difference to the message, i.e. resurrection, salvation, the nature of God, etc.?
"It would indicate a possible difference in interpretation" does not meet the criteria of an actually-significant difference in the overall content as received.
Fair enough.
I'm a little puzzled though. Why would I consider your position "rude" to me? You're the animal.
Since we both agree on that point, I'm not entirely sure what your fundamental motivation is to attempting to enforce on me a category you yourself say would be "artificial".
Do you?
You seem to be confusing the issue of your worldview lacking any reason to have a distinct category of "human", with my non-necessity of categorizing them as a subset of "animal".
They share attributes, that is true. However, much as I don't have to categorize a "car" as a "truck" because they both have engines, drivetrains, etc., I in fact do not have to categorize "human" as a subset of "animal".
There really is no epistemological, scientific, or other force on Earth compelling this categorization. You have an arbitrary, if widely-held, construct, which you assent to largely for the reasons stated. You've been, quite simply, effectively hypnotized by repetition into considering it "self-evident".
And, yes, there is a great deal of evidence we have qualitatively unique traits (though, indeed, from your worldview you are indeed incapable of producing any). Simply none you'll accept as evidence. Fortunately, your non-acceptance of evidence, in no way lessens the fact of it being evidence.
Show me a case in the bible, or any competent translation of any text, where the translation meaningfully changes the conclusions you would draw as to its overall meaning from reading it.
And please don't tell me you've never even thought about applying this first step to intellectual honesty on this issue, given all those other texts (which, oddly, seem to get a pass based on the sole criterion that they are non-religious) surrounding you.
I decline your category offer.
We are nefesh chaya, the implications of which I won't get into here, as you won't be interested and evolution will inevitably sort you out anyway.
However, I will not argue with your self-categorization as an animal. Particularly since you do so because somebody made a chart with authoritative-sounding Latin names and put them in a tree-shaped chart and all.
I'll get back with you on the implications for yourself sometime after Cladistics destroys the mess of systemic arbitrariness of Linnean Taxonomy.
Particularly given it doesn't even offer a solution to the Halting Problem.
Good to hear. I'll consider all these Arguments From A Void that try to point out how relatively bad the results of theism are compared to an undefined non-position of a non-demographic, that non-associatable with anyone, to be cases in point.
But then, former NSA Technical Director Bill Binney has stated that nothing remotely equivalent to the capacity of Utah is needed for the NSA's stated mission. Perhaps you missed his interview.
Nor did I say it was the only reason that "matters", nor am I the only person who considers systemic violations of the Constitution something worthy of being "pissed off" about.
You seem to have a bit of cognitive dissonance here. Splitting the issues into "good" and "bad" and categorizing individual things individually, regardless of what other things an organization may do, and advocating for more "good" and less "bad", would probably clarify.
In terms of the technology involved, it pretty-much does.
But that's irrelevant. As I said, I expect any given country to follow suit (and they have done so historically)--just that Internet-scraping gives a vastly more-efficient mechanism for it, a fact which the NSA is well aware. It's an issue of principle, and it applies regardless of who is doing it. The scale just increases the potential damage.
...that industrial espionage, not "terrorism", is the real purpose for storage capacity of the magnitude of the NSA's Utah facility.
Not that any other government that can, won't. Eventually business will be sorted into those who have "government connections", and those who don't--the former collecting the latter's innovations and work product en masse (thus, essentially, their lives), and putting them out of business.
Corporatism (alternately, fascism), with turbo boost.
That's the Declaration of Independence, a declaration to a Christian nation and potentate. Using a generic term like "creator" seems a reasonable compromise to convey the idea. The argument isn't rooted in Christian theology at all, it is self-evident, and the "creator" might just refer to deism, not Christianity.
Not really compatible with Deism, unless one is arguing men were given rights from "the beginning", that is, before they existed. But you seem to be arguing what you're uncomfortable with, rather than the argument at hand. I said "theism", that is the case. Christianity would be one form. There is no form that makes your argument with respect to rights coherent.
Because evolution happens at the level of species, and a priori, chimps are a species that we are in competition with (of course, they lost long ago). Human social structures, empathy, justice, and morality in human relationships are built into all of us through evolution (our "creator") because they are useful. So, if you want to extend notions of human justice and morality to other species, you need to make a utilitarian argument for that.
Not really. I can instead that that utilitarianism isn't a valid basis for anything regarding answering whether or not rights exists in human or non-human, for or against. Nor, really, a basis for any usable ethics, and devoid of any connection to a metaphysics by which to justify it. Why would a utilitarian answer, even potentially, be the objectively valid one? Nor, is the fact we feel something as an evolutionary byproduct any justification for its validity. Nor, is there any question that "Creator", capitalized, does not refer to non-sentient processes of evolution.
That's wrong. Chimps, for example, are a different species; chimps and humans can't have offspring. Their brains are obviously quite different. They are also vicious and aggressive animals.
How is that... remotely relevant? The fact they are different has nothing to do with one set of attributes requiring an inference of "rights", and another set of attributes requiring an inference of "no rights". Is there the vaguest connection there in your own mind, or is it a total non-sequitur?
US laws are based on Enlightenment philosophy, not religion.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
Seems clear enough. But if you prefer to argue it in terms of Enlightenment philosophy, I'm game. Show your direct connection between empirical reality and "rights". I think you'll find rights were in fact presumed, and the history of philosophy during that time is largely unproductive arguing about whose subjective, unanchored secular notion of them was best.
So, then, we need to put a "rights exist" guy and and "rights don't exist" guy in a cage match to the death, and whoever wins, that's how we know what's true.
Right?
There is no justification for a separate status for one type of hominid over another within the context of Naturalism.
It will be interesting to see how the courts address this from a secular standpoint, since the rationale for "rights" is grounded in a wholly theistic construct, at least in the U.S.
Search all you like with scientific instruments, you will find no material signature indicating the actual existence of "rights".
Jesus said: If they say to you: Whence have you come?, say to them: We have come from the light, the place where the light came into being of itself. It [established itself], and it revealed itself in their image. If they say to you: Who are you?, say: We are his sons, and we are the elect of the living Father. If they ask you: What is the sign of your Father in you?, say to them: It is movement and rest.
--Thomas
Sometimes, this is almost too easy.
The reason is because there's a straw-man of what I said?
...how it works out depends on the details of the key...
Indeed. And note I said the details should be -arbitrary-, for instance, "Type a passphrase of arbitrary length" for the encryptor. This is not analogous to the "XOR with the last byte also" of the question presented. At minimum one would have to determine the -length- of the passphrase to know when the next block begins. I suggest this is a much greater challenge than the suggested implementation you've linked, and further that the attacks on the Vigenere cipher are not applicable, as that cipher creates repeating sequences in the ciphertext, whereas a chained XOR would not.
Agreed, however, that using the same passphrase across multiple files would be potentially insecure. The fix to remedy that is trivially obvious, though...