As a Roman Catholic who is divorced, I just don't see this one. So what if I can't get married in the church (without applying for an annulment at least). It doesn't mean I can't date or even (OMG!) remarry. It isn't like premarital sex is any bigger deal than lying in the church.
Some people take the religious dogma too far though.
Yes, it most certainly does mean that you can neither date nor remarry - at least if you are in any way serious about Catholicism. When you're next at confession, tell your confessor that you're a divorcee out having sex with other women. Don't expect a hearty slap on the back. Catholicism is dogma, not a series of helpful suggestions.
"Clever" acronyms and overly dramatic names are what I like about American bills. It's like they're being named by over-excited twelve year old kids. Patriot Act and The Defence of Marriage Act are among the best.
Having 21 systems could well harm survivability by needlessly increasing complexity. A far smaller number would make more sense. If survivability was a goal then I reckon they screwed up. I'm guessing though it's more likely due to a lack of management across the department. I se the same thing happening in the corporate world when a department decides to reinvent the wheel.
Saying its not quite as flexible as Siri is something of an understatement like saying that wordpad is not quite as flexible as Office; they are completely different types of products. The only thing they have in common is a voice interface. It'd be like me "shocking" a Facebook user by pointing out that before Facebook we had Twitter for communicating status updates. Seriously, look properly when you make comparisons, or be abused by companies who've managed to find the weakness that'll turn you in to the apologist who'll overlook flaws and assume that a lack of marketing is the main difference between their favourite and the thing that's more popular. No company or project deserves this kind of blinkered loyalty.
He surely must be taking back-handers from Murdoch. The only half-sane reason to suggest these "black boxes" would be so The Sun can run the headline "Barmy Brussels Big Brother Bill".
Who's data is it? While it may be your phone number and your birthday, it is really just the data of the user who entered it. You gave it to the person without restrictions.
Nope the data do not belong to the provider (at least in the EU). It comes down to who's being personally identified by that data. If I upload your contact details to Facebook, they will be obliged to disclose that to you if you should make a subject access request. They're obviously they are not required to tell you who owns the address book in which your details are found. In theory you could even ask that your details be removed from my account. Of course removal may be refused, but Facebook would be obliged to explain why, and risk legal action if they can't provide a good reason for why they would need to retain your data.
I'm not sure how this works across Europe, but even data given to individuals may be subject to protections. Restrictions could be based either on a legal agreement or the expected norm for the use of the data. For example, if I post my data on your Facebook Wall it would then be difficult to argue that I wanted it kept secret. If on the other hand I send it privately I would have more of a basis for a complaint if you should then post it on your wall. Data protection gets kind of murky at the individual level or when the data controller is little more than some guy running a forum.
I'm not a lawyer and I welcome corrections here. It's based on some limited exposure I've had to data protection compliance in the EU.
We the people don't want to 'steal', otherwise KMART would have uzis at the door instead of some bored chick. Give the people an easy way to download everything at a reasonable price ($5 new release , $1 for back catalouge), and most of piracy will go away overnight. Making war against the consumer of your product is not a long term business strategy. Unfortunatley, most of the MPAxx's of the world seem to be run by retards.
The physical shop is a poor analogue for piracy. Most people know that stealing an object is wrong, and through good character or fear of consequences they don't steal. Downloading is different. I wouldn't dream of stealing from a shop, even if I knew I could get away clean; I do however occasionally grab a torrent.
Making stuff conveniently available and cheap (seriously, 10 euro for a 10 year old album?) will help but will not eliminate most piracy. The major downloaders I know have decent jobs, and could easily buy the shit cheaply in town or via iTunes; they just choose not to. These are otherwise ethical people who see no consequences or serious issues in downloading. Yes, record companies completely mismanaged to transition away from physical media. Through their refusal to make their goods available in formats their customers want, they have driven them to illegality. It's bullshit that the DVD I pay money for is deliberately designed to not be ripped and played on my Apple TV or my iPhone, when I could instead fine a free torrent that will be a far better product. If I have to go download a rip because my DVD is copy protected then is it any wonder that some people skip step 1?
Well, that's complicated. If they have it posted that "No Photographs are allowed" then technically the pictures are THEIR property, not yours, and the same laws would apply which cover them being able to search, let's just say, a backpack which you've placed stolen items into.
This is so painfully wrong, legally and logically, that I'm just going to respond by listing some animals.
I'd agree that he was writing for his time, not least of all because he expected to see the return of Christ in his own lifetime. Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher, so each generation of Christians finds their own Christianity. Im yet to hear of a generation of Christians that didnt consider Christ's return to be imminent. Yeah, the Catholic aversion to allowing its priests and nuns to raise families is damaging and odd in that bringing children in to the world and raising them according to the tenets of the faith should surely be one of the best things a believer could do.
Oh, maybe we would be posting on Slashdot, but Slashdot would be a news server where the summary was the first message posted to each new group. Links would of course be manual, i.e. a description of how to get at the article.
Good post. I would have posted before you if my ISP had licensed the AppleTalk to IPX bridge that would have allowed me to view Slashdot from my connection at home. Fortunately at work we have can afford to buy a browser that supports the mark-up used by Slashdot. I may be late responding to replies; the email clients here don't support the protocol my ISP uses.
It'd be more akin to Pope claiming that the human race would have been more successful if everyone back in the 2nd century had followed Paul's advice to remain childless. Remaining true to an ideology is one thing; asserting ideology in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is an entirely different matter.
As far as the levitical laws, for the most part we actually follow them today.
So what? There are parts of Hammurabi's Code that could be argued to still be in use. We mist certainly do not follow most of the Levitical laws. A good chunk of the book is given over to sacrificial ceremonies. Hygiene is mentioned, along with a lot of other junk. Curing leprosy through some aquatic bird killing ceremony is commonly practiced today? Plenty of other cultures somehow survived eating pork, and somehow these days Denmark has survived the pork apocalypse. I don't claim that the Pentateuch is full of useless and outdated information - I'm saying that much of it is superstitious and anachronistic nonsense when applied to modern times.
So what if homosexuality isn't mentioned on every page? Where it us mentioned it is viciously condemned. People today face discrimination, and in some cases are killed, using these fetid verses as support.
The canon does indeed lack some books that fill in gaps - the infancy gospel of Thomas is one interesting example. Even if we assemble a line of books to show a perfectly consistent narrative then so what? What we establish is that writers are able to read prior works before writing their own. Paul wrote with a specific agenda, and in that instance you are correct. He was building a church, including the gentiles, while he awaited Christ's return. The Jesus of the gospels clearly evolved as writers added their books to the pile. I can accept that the writers had their own agendas, which is quite apparent from how they portrayed Christ.
On the subject of variances in modern sects, it goes beyond earthly representation of God. Faith versus works is one big area of contention, the ordination of women another, and how about dominionists versus Catholics. The YEC literalist is a world away from the fuzzy British Anglican. It doesn't take a genius to notice that something is wrong when there are so many denominations - all with their variations. It's just not clear.
Yeah, parts are kind of observed today. Crop rotation though is a stretch. Leviticus prohibited the sowing if mixed seeds and required a field be left fallow every seven years. Modern techniques have far surpassed this.
Roaming seems to be the closest thing in Europe to paying to receiving calls. If I'm from Scotland, on holiday in Greece, you'll pay for calling me in Scotlsnd while I pay for the cost of a call from Scotland to Greece. When my contract expires I'll be ditching 02 contracts. Its not cheap, and despite being on bill pay (not the basic package) I still pay whenever I collect voicemail. Easier for me to go for pay as you go, what with Skype and all that.
I'd be a lot more impressed with the idea of an universal handed down from God morality if it actually held up, instead of everybody having their own reading of every verse.
Yeah, just look at the difficulty we have interpreting relatively modern documents - such as the United States Constitution. With modern laws we have an army of lawyers and judges to provide interpretations of them - sometimes nuanced, sometimes drastically different. We cannot point to ancient laws and morals and claim them to be in any worthwhile and applicable to modern life unless we apply the same scrutiny we would to any comparable contemporary document.
Look at the bible as a whole. Mankind starts in a very mean state. He was violent, agressive and not very social. In this situation, if God is to respect free will, he is limited in what he can command his people to do. As man develops God moves from Kill everyone to guard the land to Turn the other cheek to charity is all important.
The 'evil' we see in the bible is more due to the limits of human society that the goals of god.
So it'd be a violation of free will for God to have instructed the Israelites to behave more in a manner more palatable to modern understandings of social justice and morality? Scripture does not support this. God micro-managed the Israelites to the point of absurdity. He sent then off on conquests, told them what to eat, defined their marital relationships, and in general spent a lot of time interacting directly with them. Were Soddom and Gomorrah destroyed while preserving free will? Did God execute Onan because he did not respect the societal norms of the Israelites?
It makes far more sense to observe that God's imperatives and actions reflected society of the time because gods are created by man. You only have to read the gospels to see that the Jesus of Mark, John and Paul varies in some pretty substantial ways. The God of the Israelites was a brutal and stern figure because he is a product of their culture. Even in modern times we can note that the Catholic god does not match the god of the universalists or the baptists.
Perhaps it's better to rephrase this. Religion can be the basis if monstrous behavior, as can any ideology drilled in to heads of its adherents. A child raised to believe that blacks are sub-human is likely to apply thus belief to their interactions with blacks. The belief may be nuanced, by preaching a paternal approach towards blacks, or it could demand that they be eradicated. Some will question the ideology, others will not. We need morality to be based on empathy and rationality. I do not want my sister to be raped, so I support a society in which rape is taboo. I can't see a rational reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry, so I support them. It may be rational to euthanize the disabled to save money, but compassion overrides this notion.
We cannot establish a truly equitable morality while we blindly pick and choose verses from ancient books of questionable origins. Secular morality is subjective, and the same is true if religiously inspired morals. With the former though people have to actually argue a position - not just point to cherry-picked ancient verses as the arbiter.
Thats a mainstream view of religion. No where in the Torah or the Bible does it talk about "burning in H".
Mainstream Christianity *is* Christianity - at least the benchmark by which Christianity is measured. Regarding Hell; you're correct with regards to the Torah, but certainly not the New Testament. Mark 9:43, 2 Peter 2:4, Acts 2:31, Matthew 5:30. Either Hell was a real place to these people - a conclusion scriptural analysis supports, or we have some pretty major use of metaphors. Either way, if most Christians posit Hell as being a place of fiery torment then that is what it is. The Bible is by no means a clear-cut blueprint for Christianity.
Slashdot Mirror
It's more the drama implied by the name, as if every married couple will be assigned a couple of marines for their own protection.
As a Roman Catholic who is divorced, I just don't see this one. So what if I can't get married in the church (without applying for an annulment at least). It doesn't mean I can't date or even (OMG!) remarry. It isn't like premarital sex is any bigger deal than lying in the church.
Some people take the religious dogma too far though.
Yes, it most certainly does mean that you can neither date nor remarry - at least if you are in any way serious about Catholicism. When you're next at confession, tell your confessor that you're a divorcee out having sex with other women. Don't expect a hearty slap on the back. Catholicism is dogma, not a series of helpful suggestions.
"Clever" acronyms and overly dramatic names are what I like about American bills. It's like they're being named by over-excited twelve year old kids. Patriot Act and The Defence of Marriage Act are among the best.
Having 21 systems could well harm survivability by needlessly increasing complexity. A far smaller number would make more sense. If survivability was a goal then I reckon they screwed up. I'm guessing though it's more likely due to a lack of management across the department. I se the same thing happening in the corporate world when a department decides to reinvent the wheel.
Saying its not quite as flexible as Siri is something of an understatement like saying that wordpad is not quite as flexible as Office; they are completely different types of products. The only thing they have in common is a voice interface. It'd be like me "shocking" a Facebook user by pointing out that before Facebook we had Twitter for communicating status updates. Seriously, look properly when you make comparisons, or be abused by companies who've managed to find the weakness that'll turn you in to the apologist who'll overlook flaws and assume that a lack of marketing is the main difference between their favourite and the thing that's more popular. No company or project deserves this kind of blinkered loyalty.
You obviously didn't ask her to first remove her dentures; an entirely different league of action.
I would like to say "Fuck the Queen" while I still can
That's not libel. It would be libelous if you were to falsely claim in writing to have spent a night receiving grade-A blowjobs from her majesty.
He surely must be taking back-handers from Murdoch. The only half-sane reason to suggest these "black boxes" would be so The Sun can run the headline "Barmy Brussels Big Brother Bill".
Who's data is it? While it may be your phone number and your birthday, it is really just the data of the user who entered it. You gave it to the person without restrictions.
Nope the data do not belong to the provider (at least in the EU). It comes down to who's being personally identified by that data. If I upload your contact details to Facebook, they will be obliged to disclose that to you if you should make a subject access request. They're obviously they are not required to tell you who owns the address book in which your details are found. In theory you could even ask that your details be removed from my account. Of course removal may be refused, but Facebook would be obliged to explain why, and risk legal action if they can't provide a good reason for why they would need to retain your data.
I'm not sure how this works across Europe, but even data given to individuals may be subject to protections. Restrictions could be based either on a legal agreement or the expected norm for the use of the data. For example, if I post my data on your Facebook Wall it would then be difficult to argue that I wanted it kept secret. If on the other hand I send it privately I would have more of a basis for a complaint if you should then post it on your wall. Data protection gets kind of murky at the individual level or when the data controller is little more than some guy running a forum.
I'm not a lawyer and I welcome corrections here. It's based on some limited exposure I've had to data protection compliance in the EU.
We the people don't want to 'steal', otherwise KMART would have uzis at the door instead of some bored chick.
Give the people an easy way to download everything at a reasonable price ($5 new release , $1 for back catalouge), and most of piracy will go away overnight.
Making war against the consumer of your product is not a long term business strategy.
Unfortunatley, most of the MPAxx's of the world seem to be run by retards.
The physical shop is a poor analogue for piracy. Most people know that stealing an object is wrong, and through good character or fear of consequences they don't steal. Downloading is different. I wouldn't dream of stealing from a shop, even if I knew I could get away clean; I do however occasionally grab a torrent.
Making stuff conveniently available and cheap (seriously, 10 euro for a 10 year old album?) will help but will not eliminate most piracy. The major downloaders I know have decent jobs, and could easily buy the shit cheaply in town or via iTunes; they just choose not to. These are otherwise ethical people who see no consequences or serious issues in downloading. Yes, record companies completely mismanaged to transition away from physical media. Through their refusal to make their goods available in formats their customers want, they have driven them to illegality. It's bullshit that the DVD I pay money for is deliberately designed to not be ripped and played on my Apple TV or my iPhone, when I could instead fine a free torrent that will be a far better product. If I have to go download a rip because my DVD is copy protected then is it any wonder that some people skip step 1?
Well, that's complicated. If they have it posted that "No Photographs are allowed" then technically the pictures are THEIR property, not yours, and the same laws would apply which cover them being able to search, let's just say, a backpack which you've placed stolen items into.
This is so painfully wrong, legally and logically, that I'm just going to respond by listing some animals.
Dog, cat, rabbit, zebra.
I'd agree that he was writing for his time, not least of all because he expected to see the return of Christ in his own lifetime. Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher, so each generation of Christians finds their own Christianity. Im yet to hear of a generation of Christians that didnt consider Christ's return to be imminent. Yeah, the Catholic aversion to allowing its priests and nuns to raise families is damaging and odd in that bringing children in to the world and raising them according to the tenets of the faith should surely be one of the best things a believer could do.
Oh, maybe we would be posting on Slashdot, but Slashdot would be a news server where the summary was the first message posted to each new group. Links would of course be manual, i.e. a description of how to get at the article.
Good post. I would have posted before you if my ISP had licensed the AppleTalk to IPX bridge that would have allowed me to view Slashdot from my connection at home. Fortunately at work we have can afford to buy a browser that supports the mark-up used by Slashdot. I may be late responding to replies; the email clients here don't support the protocol my ISP uses.
It'd be more akin to Pope claiming that the human race would have been more successful if everyone back in the 2nd century had followed Paul's advice to remain childless. Remaining true to an ideology is one thing; asserting ideology in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is an entirely different matter.
Maybe they can attract Catholics that way. After all, now they are also a trinity. :-)
NAMBLA, if they had a French office, would appear a better option for Catholics looking to form a coalition.
Run, Anon. I'll CC Star Wars boy!
*casts entangling roots on ByOhTek*
I play PC games. Give me a call when you make a decent one. That is what phones are for.
Bull! PCs are for balancing check books and storing recipes. Buy Pong or head to your local arcade if you want games.
As far as the levitical laws, for the most part we actually follow them today.
So what? There are parts of Hammurabi's Code that could be argued to still be in use. We mist certainly do not follow most of the Levitical laws. A good chunk of the book is given over to sacrificial ceremonies. Hygiene is mentioned, along with a lot of other junk. Curing leprosy through some aquatic bird killing ceremony is commonly practiced today? Plenty of other cultures somehow survived eating pork, and somehow these days Denmark has survived the pork apocalypse. I don't claim that the Pentateuch is full of useless and outdated information - I'm saying that much of it is superstitious and anachronistic nonsense when applied to modern times.
So what if homosexuality isn't mentioned on every page? Where it us mentioned it is viciously condemned. People today face discrimination, and in some cases are killed, using these fetid verses as support.
The canon does indeed lack some books that fill in gaps - the infancy gospel of Thomas is one interesting example. Even if we assemble a line of books to show a perfectly consistent narrative then so what? What we establish is that writers are able to read prior works before writing their own. Paul wrote with a specific agenda, and in that instance you are correct. He was building a church, including the gentiles, while he awaited Christ's return. The Jesus of the gospels clearly evolved as writers added their books to the pile. I can accept that the writers had their own agendas, which is quite apparent from how they portrayed Christ.
On the subject of variances in modern sects, it goes beyond earthly representation of God. Faith versus works is one big area of contention, the ordination of women another, and how about dominionists versus Catholics. The YEC literalist is a world away from the fuzzy British Anglican. It doesn't take a genius to notice that something is wrong when there are so many denominations - all with their variations. It's just not clear.
Yeah, parts are kind of observed today. Crop rotation though is a stretch. Leviticus prohibited the sowing if mixed seeds and required a field be left fallow every seven years. Modern techniques have far surpassed this.
Become a Mormon! If you can max out your worship points you'll get to become the GM of your own planet/server.
Roaming seems to be the closest thing in Europe to paying to receiving calls. If I'm from Scotland, on holiday in Greece, you'll pay for calling me in Scotlsnd while I pay for the cost of a call from Scotland to Greece. When my contract expires I'll be ditching 02 contracts. Its not cheap, and despite being on bill pay (not the basic package) I still pay whenever I collect voicemail. Easier for me to go for pay as you go, what with Skype and all that.
I'd be a lot more impressed with the idea of an universal handed down from God morality if it actually held up, instead of everybody having their own reading of every verse.
Yeah, just look at the difficulty we have interpreting relatively modern documents - such as the United States Constitution. With modern laws we have an army of lawyers and judges to provide interpretations of them - sometimes nuanced, sometimes drastically different. We cannot point to ancient laws and morals and claim them to be in any worthwhile and applicable to modern life unless we apply the same scrutiny we would to any comparable contemporary document.
Look at the bible as a whole. Mankind starts in a very mean state. He was violent, agressive and not very social. In this situation, if God is to respect free will, he is limited in what he can command his people to do. As man develops God moves from Kill everyone to guard the land to Turn the other cheek to charity is all important.
The 'evil' we see in the bible is more due to the limits of human society that the goals of god.
So it'd be a violation of free will for God to have instructed the Israelites to behave more in a manner more palatable to modern understandings of social justice and morality? Scripture does not support this. God micro-managed the Israelites to the point of absurdity. He sent then off on conquests, told them what to eat, defined their marital relationships, and in general spent a lot of time interacting directly with them. Were Soddom and Gomorrah destroyed while preserving free will? Did God execute Onan because he did not respect the societal norms of the Israelites?
It makes far more sense to observe that God's imperatives and actions reflected society of the time because gods are created by man. You only have to read the gospels to see that the Jesus of Mark, John and Paul varies in some pretty substantial ways. The God of the Israelites was a brutal and stern figure because he is a product of their culture. Even in modern times we can note that the Catholic god does not match the god of the universalists or the baptists.
Perhaps it's better to rephrase this. Religion can be the basis if monstrous behavior, as can any ideology drilled in to heads of its adherents. A child raised to believe that blacks are sub-human is likely to apply thus belief to their interactions with blacks. The belief may be nuanced, by preaching a paternal approach towards blacks, or it could demand that they be eradicated. Some will question the ideology, others will not. We need morality to be based on empathy and rationality. I do not want my sister to be raped, so I support a society in which rape is taboo. I can't see a rational reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry, so I support them. It may be rational to euthanize the disabled to save money, but compassion overrides this notion.
We cannot establish a truly equitable morality while we blindly pick and choose verses from ancient books of questionable origins. Secular morality is subjective, and the same is true if religiously inspired morals. With the former though people have to actually argue a position - not just point to cherry-picked ancient verses as the arbiter.
He's not lying. Sex with his wife is great!
Thats a mainstream view of religion. No where in the Torah or the Bible does it talk about "burning in H".
Mainstream Christianity *is* Christianity - at least the benchmark by which Christianity is measured. Regarding Hell; you're correct with regards to the Torah, but certainly not the New Testament. Mark 9:43, 2 Peter 2:4, Acts 2:31, Matthew 5:30. Either Hell was a real place to these people - a conclusion scriptural analysis supports, or we have some pretty major use of metaphors. Either way, if most Christians posit Hell as being a place of fiery torment then that is what it is. The Bible is by no means a clear-cut blueprint for Christianity.