> In all actuality the bible has very little on abortion and should not be a basis on the idea of abortion. The bible would go as far to label a 1 month old to be the same as a fetus and gives it no value.
"And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver." -- Leviticus 27:6
In my original reply, I said that you can make the Bible say anything you want it to when you take a passage out of context. I believe the parent to my previous reply made an honest mistake, just misunderstood what was there because of some poor translation. You, however, are either illiterate or maliciously trying to distort the Truth. Based on your chosen Slashdot nickname, I'm going to guess that you are really just a troll, but I will respond anyway, simply because I don't want people to think that you magically found the answer.
You ripped that verse out of context so badly--it has nothing to do with the value of a fetus or human life at all. If you start from Leviticus 27:1, you will see that the values listed for each type of person (i.e. men over 20, females over 60, infants/toddlers from 1 month to 5 years, etc.) is not the value of their life. You already know that the Law is "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and a life for a life." The value listed for a grown man in this section is 50 shekels. This does not mean you can redeem yourself for 50 shekels after you kill a man. These passages have nothing to do with redemption in that sense.
Leviticus 27:2 says, "When a man makes a special votive offering based on the conversion value of persons to the Lord..." The key here is the votive offering. Even if you don't know what a votive offering is, you can tell (in plain English) that it is not recompense for murder. The votive offering has to do with making a vow. If you make a vow on yourself or someone else, you pay the conversion value to the temple. It could also just be a special sacrifice. In today's churches many infants are baptized or dedicated. The parallel for an Israelite would be to give a votive offering (5 or 3 shekels) to the temple for their child.
By the way, I think the King James translation of Exodus 21:22 is just fine. You might not know what "her fruit depart from her" means, but when you include the context of verse 23, I think it becomes clear, and you don't have to worry about translation errors.
> The Exodus passage in the literal Hebrew interpretation is confusing at best though.
I will agree with you here; the translation notes I provided even mentioned that there has been debate about the meaning of the verses. I personally think that given the two possiblities, the context makes it clear--that's been my whole point. Saying the interpretation is confusion is a (sort of) valid point if you want to debate the merits of a theological view of when life begins. Don't just leave it there though. Really try to understand it, look at all the sides and try to come up with the best conclusion you can. Don't say, "it's confusing, so let's just ignore it now." And definitely don't make crap up like you started to do.
> I can't imagine that there needed to be a law written about people fighting forcing a birth.
You can't imagine because you haven't read through all of the Old Law and you don't understand its purpose. There are a phenominal number of laws, a lot of the boring or irrelavent to us, and that's why so many people have trouble reading through the Old Testament. The point of the Old Law is to show that you cannot follow the Law on your own; you will stumble at some point. And that's why we need a Mediator--someone to take the penalty of breaking the Law and to fulfill the Law for us. That was the whole point of Christ coming.
Look, if you really want to have a fruitful, interesting debate on when life begins, that's great--I'd love to as wel
What's remarkable is that the religious right and the policicians who cater to them take such an unbiblical view of these issues. According to the Holy Word of God, personhod is established by breath. The Bible explicitely excludes causing the death of a fetus from the "life for life" punishment system. A man who assaults a pregnant woman and destroys the fetus, as long as no other injury to the woman ensues, at most pays a fine. Therefore the fetus is not a human life. But what the Bible says God wants has nothing to do with how the religious pursue political power.
Unbelievable. I can't stand it when people talk about something they know nothing about and spread misinformation. The passage you are talking about is Exodus 21:22. I can't find this translation online, but my Bible says "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant worman causing her to miscarry... [he] shall surely be fined..." That's what you read and think, "Aha! Even their God doesn't value the life of a fetus." First, you don't understand Hebrew, so you don't know exactly what that passage is saying, and second, you can still figure it out from context if you would read a bit beyond what you want to hear. The very next verse says, "But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life..." Again, there is some lousy translation work here, but "further injury" refers to both mother and child (all the translations I have seen make it sound like it refers to just the mother).
Here is another version that will help you understand what miscarriage means in this context:
"If men fight and hit a pregnant woman and her child is born prematurely, but there is no serious injury, he will surely be punished in accordance with what the womans husband demands of him, and he will pay what the court decides. But if there is serious injury, then you will give a life for a life."
What this all means is that if the baby is born early but is still alive, then only a fine is paid. If the man kills the baby in the process of striking the mother, then his life is to be taken. Under "life for a life" this equates the unborn child's life with the fully-grown man's life.
Here are some translation notes from the Net Bible about these verses (emphasis mine):
This line has occasioned a good deal of discussion. It may indicate that the child was killed, as in a miscarriage; or it may mean that there was a premature birth. The latter view is taken here because of the way the whole section is written: (1) her children come out reflects a birth and not the loss of children, (2) there is no serious damage, and (3) payment is to be set for any remuneration. The word (ason) is translated serious damage. The word was taken in Mekilta to mean death. U. Cassuto says the point of the phrase is that neither the woman or the children that are born die (Exodus, 275). But see among the literature on this: M. G. Kline, Lex Talionis and the Human Fetus, JETS 20 (1977): 193-201; W. House, Miscarriage or Premature Birth: Additional Thoughts on Exodus 21:22-25, WTJ 41 (1978): 108-23; S. E. Loewenstamm, Exodus XXI 22-25, VT 27 (1977): 352-60.
If you want to have a good debate about it, I'm game, but please do not speak as you are the authority when you are just repeating something you once heard someone else say. The Bible taken out of context can say anything you want it to say. You can only understand it fully when you also understand the full context. Here's an example relating to the Qur'an. I have always heard growing up that Muslims are supposed to "kill all the infidels." As far as I know that is actually in the Qur'an, but I haven't looked it up as much as you haven't looked up Exodus 21:22. However, with a little bit of research, it lookes like the context of "kill all the infidels" relates to showing hostility towards Musl
... are both running articles comparing Adolf Hitler and Harry Truman, not for their political achievements but for their humanitarian involvement. I am curious to see what you are thinking about the issue. What is more important, be an atom bomb dropping commander-in-chief like Truman or a patriotic missionaire like Hitler? And even more important: Is it important that apples remain public or oranges stay private?"
That gives [GOOG] a P/E ratio of around 88 or 89. [MSFT's] P/E is in the low 20's.
Sorry, but sometimes I feel like P/E ratio is one of the mose asinine measurements. The current P/Es don't take splits into account. Based on splits and adjustments, MSFT's P/E is really 276.66. GOOG hasn't split or given dividends since it IPOed, so it still has its P/E of 90. Now GOOG's P/E doesn't look so bad, does it?
Re:Who owns the information?
on
Myware and Spyware
·
· Score: 3, Informative
One question I ask myself is if I can copyright my personal data. And when I see the information being misused, can I then sue for copyright infringement?
That's a really good idea, but I am pretty sure that your personal data would be classified as fact and therefore not "copyrightable." Although, watch for the lawsuits against MLB and the MLBPA for the licensing of player statistics. If the MLB wins, then I think you have a good case for copyrighting your personal data.
First, I want to thank you for taking the time to post about and discuss the issues that a lot of Slashdotters complain about. I think that if you and the other editors take the time to learn what the community wants, you'll be able to make Slashdot many times better.
You wrote in the article:
Now let us talk about one of my secondary concerns: spelling and grammar. Let me be clear. As you are probably well aware, I don't think these are as important as the things I mentioned above.
You wrote in a reply:
Where we simply disagree is on style. I think Slashdot is informal, and therefore typos don't matter that much. Obviously a good number of readers disagree. They print out pages and mark them out with red pens and post in the forums that we are awful. But I don't think that a stylistic decision like that is really that important in the grand scheme of things.
I just finished reading this whole discussion at +4. It seems to me that about half of those comments were asking (or telling) in some way that you should fix grammar and spelling. I won't discuss the same things that the other posts did regarding professionalism and complexity of the issue--I think they do a fine job.
Instead, I want to try and show you the big picture. Several posters (not to mention a lot of moderators) feel that spelling and grammar are important. I know that you feel these are secondary issues, and you are entitled to your opinion--especially when it is your board. However, I would like to mention that it looks like it's an important issue to a lot of people here: not just the complainers, not just the lurkers, but actual participants and even subscribers. I think that your level of professionalism can easily sway the number of subscribers, and I would be willing to bet that in years to come, Slashdot will come to rely on subscribers more than advertising.
All I am asking is that you evaluate your concerns and preferences carefully with what the community also thinks is important. You don't have to change anything (obviously, it's your website), but I do ask that you at least give it some good thought.
I lift a little handle on the side of my case and the whole thing flops open and I have access to clean the entire machine.
I have always been an x86 guy (though I'll be getting my first mac mini soon), and that is one feature of the Apple boxes that I have always admired. I have looked for an ATX case that copies this features. I have found nothing in all my years of looking.
I've even come close to purchasing a G4 or G5 case and modding it to work with ATX. While it doesn't look too difficult, Apple cases still sell for a premium on eBay!
Have you (or anybody for that matter), ever seen an ATX case with the ability to swing down for easy access to the motherboard?
This law only applies to harassment done anonymously. As much as the statements made by politicians can be harrasing or even "annoying", I'm pretty sure they all make them publically (or at least attribute what they say to themselves).
They already create antimatter here in the US. At FermiLab, they routinely create antimatter (antiprotons) for smashing with regular matter. This is how they found all of the quarks they did.
Also, I don't know if antimatter is the ultimate energy source. They use way more energy to produce the antiprotons than they get out of them smashing them with regular protons. It's the same problem that we see with hydrogen fuel cells. You still have to put the energy into the system before you can get it back out. If you can find a plentiful source of pure hydrogen or pure antimatter, then you do have a great energy source. Also, antimatter is difficult to store (a lot more difficult than hydrogen gas).
If you're ever near Batavia, IL, go through their tour at Fermi, or contact me and I'll help you hook up with one of their top physicists (though I have to warn you, I feel like this guy can be a bit demeaning at time).
Some of these features are by request from our user community, so feel free to add your own requests.
One feature I got hooked on back in the day was auto-URL completion by using Ctrl. So you type in "google" into the address bar, hit Ctrl+Enter, and the url would automagically become http://www.google.com/ . Firefox took this a step further and have made Shift+Ctrl+Enter.org, and Shift+Enter.net. Naturally, I habitually did this in Opera when I tried it out, and it would not auto-complete, it would fail and then try.com, and by the time it got around to getting the url right, I could just type it in by hand. I think it would be nice to at least be able to turn this feature on.
The real reason I moved back to Firefox after I tried Opera (and I gave it a good month) was because one day, Gmail just stopped working. On different days, both at work and at home, I could not log back into Gmail no matter what I did (short of reinstalling Opera, because I'm just too lazy to do that). This also happened to a coworker; he switched back too.
I have mod points, and I really wish some comments could be moderated +6--yours deserves it.
I hate that publishers that own rights to something can just squat on not only that "intellectual" property but any derivative work.
How on earth does this sort of thing Promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts?!
I know that the ideals of copyright were basically thrown out when it was extended the first time, but this sounds like a built in feature, and I just don't see it helping anyone, including the publisher.
Raise price to apply for patent to $10,000 - while it may seem to screw the "little guy" it actually will kill corporations trying to patent every little thing. Even a little operation will be able to afford to patent 1 worthwhile application, but will corporate America still be able to afford to apply for 10's of thousands of trivial patents?
First, I'd like to point out the humor in you having two number 2s.
Second, I like most of your idea above, except this point. I think it does screw everyone over except large corporations. Right now, I think a patent application is about $450 if you submit it yourself. Everyone I have talked to about this does not recommend it though, as it would be very easy to screw yourself over using the wrong language in the patent. However, if I do my research and due diligence, I believe that I could write my own patent. The recommended way of creating a patent is to hire a patent lawyer to transcribe what you really mean. On average, a patent costs ~$3,000 by going this route (they also check for prior art in addition to writing the legalese).
I can afford to spend $450 if I was so inclined to give it a shot. I would say $3,000 is kind of a high barrier for an average guy such as myself, but if I really thought I had a killer idea, I would still be able to pull that off. If the patent application is $10,000, there is no way in bloody hell that I'm going to patent anything. But it only costs corporations 3-4x more than now. That might mean that they will patent 3-4x less things, but I have a feeling that patent portfolios of major corporations are such a minor budget line item that it wouldn't make a difference.
Now this is an interesting idea that you bring up.
Right now, I think the studio execs know that they're sitting on a profit curve, and they probably think that in general, they're on the lower end of that curve. What I mean by this is that if you priced a song at $0.01, you would sell a million copies (netting $10,000), if you price a song at $1.00, you sell 50,000 copies (netting $50,000) and if you price it at $5.00, you sell 2,000 copies (netting $10,000). Of course these examples are contrived, but I think the general premise holds. I think the execs want to sell at what they perceive as a 'sweet spot' (say, $1.49 per song, if it's popular, selling 40,000 for a profit of $59,600).
That's what they call stock market/commodity pricing, maximizing their profit curve. But I like what you mentioned. What if you, as an iTunes buyer were allowed to sell your copy of a song you purchased on an iTunes auction market. It's DRMed, so if you did go through the iTunes marketplace, Apple should be able to enforce the proper rights on the song and transfer them to the new owner (please ignore the burning to CD loophole for a second, this is merely an academic exercise). This could have several potential benefits. If you bought a song for $0.99 and you discover that you hate it, you can sell it on the marketplace (probably for a slight loss of a few cents in most cases). If you happened to buy a song, as you said, that was a bit obscure for $0.99 but then it became a classic hit worth $3.50, you could then sell it for a profit. You could have a speculative market!
I think if Apple gave in to the execs and went with 'market prices', then it would only work well if people were allowed to sell their songs back. That way the studio is kept in check from raising their prices too high, because if it gets rediculous, the allure of a nice profit will keep supply high (and therefore lower market prices).
I'm sure everyone will point out tons of flaws (like the fact that a studio will probably only start songs at high prices and slowly lower them, thus defeating any potential profit for speculators, or as I mentioned before, the DRM loophole), but regardless, I still think it's a very interesting idea.
Makes me wish I went into law rather than computer science.
I strongly considered this right after receiving my computer science degree. I actually have a friend who is going down this road. Nevertheless, I interned in the IT department of a smallish (but hugely successful) law firm one summer in college and befriended many of the lawyers in the office, including one of the founders.
Every single one of them recommended staying out of law if you desire to have any sort of life. It is very difficult to be married and try to practice law (at least private law where you're trying your darndest to acquire clients and win their cases). I think it really depends what you want. These lawyers were all making millions per year (the partners were splitting 8-figure profits every year). They were also working at least 80 hours per week.
I have a job I love right now, and while I'm not making that kind of buck, I get to spend a lot of time with my family (and I just had a baby girl, so I love to be home!). I'm not getting an ulcer or going crazy from sleep deprevation, and that has to be worth something.
Again, it all depends on your goals. But if you want that lifestyle, get into it now, because if you don't do it now you'll probably never have a chance to switch later.
I want to see at least a solid 5-10 years of profitability before I'd consider investing a dime, personally.
It all depends on your investment goals, naturally, but doing this as you say is a great way to see your money stagnate. You need to find a company that has a great idea that is undervalued in your opinion. For instance, Microsoft has had many, many years of profitability, but their stock has done nothing interesting in the last year+. I would bet there are a lot of geeks on this board who feel that RedHat is undervalued because the business market doesn't yet understand the power of Linux (especially as a server), and RedHat stands to profit a lot from any growth in that segment. If you were to buy RedHat now, and they became that solid, proven profit-making machine you're looking for in the next 5-10 years, you'll easily double your money. The only way to make money is if you take some risk.
Again, I want to stress that all of this is based on personal opinion (as you said at the end of your post, 'personally'), and I have no idea if RedHat's stock is going to go up or down. To everybody that reads this--do not make any investment or trading decisions based on this post; if you do you're foolish. This is not an offer to buy or sell any security, and you should obviously talk to any investment professional before you make any trading decisions (yada, yada).
Why does there have to be an Online Freedom of Speech Act? Why does there have to be anything other than the First Amendment? I am tired of how much our "free speech" has become regulated since the founding of this country.
The other thing that bothers me is the two party political system. Why wouldn't democrats want to protect our speech online? It seems all they're interested in is opposing the republicans these days (I used to be a republican, but I don't think they stand for conservatism anymore, so I'm libertarian/independent/non-incumbant now).
We need politicians that will bring us back to the freedoms our country enjoyed two hundred years ago, but everyone is interested in towing the party line--it seems even the voters. If you are of voting age, and in the US, please consider third-party candidates in the '06 congressional elections. I want to be part of a larger group than 0.5% of the population.
Another interesting quote that sounds like the 640k one:
He (Gates) predicted that the HD DVD will be "the last physical media format there will ever be." To help make that happen, Gates said he will need a lot more software engineers.
You know, I'm not sure that's the same attitude he's looking at HD DVD with. I don't think that he believes that [n] GB (or TB, or EB, etc) will be enough at any point in time. I think that he wants physical media dead. There is too much liability (i.e. too much freedom) if the user holds the physical data. If Microsoft and the media companies want to control (obviously through DRM, Trusted Computing) how data is moved around, then they have to remove distribution of content by CD and DVD.
I doubt he's right about it, of course, but I think that's the way he envisions the future--everyone a slave to Microsoft Windows.
It also provides true object representation of the virtual world, so you can touch what you see. It has the benefits of letting you open doors, or shake someone's hand.
I guess the only downside is the one-sided bloodbath you'd be involved in during a Zelda game if you weren't able to defend yourself properly (watch your back!).
If you believe that Jesus really is the Christ, the Son of God (in other words, if you are a Christian), then you believe that His words are not fallible. In fact, if you read through everything He ever said, you can see great wisdom and discernment.
Your Catholic friend is right. The Bible does use the term Son of God and Son of Man (almost interchangeably). The Son of God reference is to show the relationship of the Trinity-the difference between God the Father and God the Son. The Son of Man phrase is a reference to the prophet Daniel in Daniel 7:13. When Jesus uses that term He is showing that He is the one the prophets foretold, but its also shows an element of His humanity.
Back to your first question, just because He was a man does not mean that He was imperfect. In fact, that was the whole point of Him coming to earth. We have a debt before God that we _cannot_ pay, and only the sacrifice of the perfect man can atone for our sin debt and make us right with God again. That is why Christ had to come (the Jewish sacrificial system was the old covenant and meant only to be a picture of payment of the Christ to come-it didnt have the power to truly reconcile man to God).
I dont expect you to believe all of this. Very few do these days, but I will gladly explain anything you dont understand so that any decision you make is based on a good understanding, and not just what you have absorbed by cultural osmosis.
But you're *supposed* to judge people. Jesus wants you not to consort with disbelievers.
C'mon, you call yourself a Christian with this belief? Firstly, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged" (Matthew 7:1). That is from the mouth of Jesus himself.
Second, Jesus does not want you to consort with disbelievers?! Look at his whole life. He spent most of His time with "sinners and tax gatherers." Jesus wants us to be like Himself, so how can we do that and judge people? There are two possibilities, one is that Jesus contradicts Himself here, or you don't know what you're talking about.
Seeing as I have provided some context and you have not, I will leave this exercise up to the reader.
If you were one of the customers that received a letter from Ameritrade, you would know that the data on the tape _was_ encrypted.
I think you should learn all of the facts before you spout nonsense.
Re:having taken quantum mechanics courses...
on
100 Years of Einstein
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Here is the real quote from your paraphrase:
"Quantum mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory yields a lot, but it hardly brings us any closer to the secret of the Old One. In any case I am convinced that He doesn't play dice."
-Einstein
I think this is one of the most misunderstood quotes. Einstein is saying that yes, the models we have for understanding QM are incredibly accurate, but he doesn't feel like the models we have derived are 'the answer.' He is saying that just because the best we can do to predict QM events is with a probabalistic model does not mean that God does not know what is going to happen to each subatomic particle.
Also, on a side note, I feel that uncertainty is necessary for there to be a God. QM uncertainty is the physical means to a free will which allows us the ability to accept or reject God.
I'll never understand how they can get off and say things like "oh the Olsen twins are worth 20 million dollars"... um to who? They're a pair of uneducated no-talent actors who ride their "being twins and decently good looks".
Look, I'm right there with you in thinking actors get paid way too much, though it's all a free market system, so actors are going to get paid what the market thinks they should be paid.
Also, you should lay off the ad hominems. You called the Olsen twins a pair of uneducated no-talent actors. While talent is a matter of subjectivity (if you don't like them, don't watch their shows/movies, but someone else may want to), you are off-base in saying they are uneducated. They both got a 1600 on their SATs, and they both got into an Ivy League college. Let me ask, who is more educated, the Olsen twins, or you, tomstdenis?
I don't see how a rant with such fallicies get modded insightful, this sounded more like a troll to me...
"An attack would require a user to visit the attacker's Web site first, and any type of Web browser could make a user vulnerable."
It seems like most non-email Internet attacks require you to visit an attacker's website before the payload can be delivered (there are some good articles about this at ISC). I would tend to think that unpatched browsers (<cough>IE<cough>) would still cause more problems that this.
Don't misunderstand me, though; I am not trying to excuse Google from the flaw, but the good news is that it's already fixed, and I'm sure the scum of the Internet are going to focus on these other (exciting, money-making) opportunities.
PS. I know Seth Fogarty, does that give me some sort of karma bonus;-)
Slashdot Mirror
In my original reply, I said that you can make the Bible say anything you want it to when you take a passage out of context. I believe the parent to my previous reply made an honest mistake, just misunderstood what was there because of some poor translation. You, however, are either illiterate or maliciously trying to distort the Truth. Based on your chosen Slashdot nickname, I'm going to guess that you are really just a troll, but I will respond anyway, simply because I don't want people to think that you magically found the answer.
You ripped that verse out of context so badly--it has nothing to do with the value of a fetus or human life at all. If you start from Leviticus 27:1, you will see that the values listed for each type of person (i.e. men over 20, females over 60, infants/toddlers from 1 month to 5 years, etc.) is not the value of their life. You already know that the Law is "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and a life for a life." The value listed for a grown man in this section is 50 shekels. This does not mean you can redeem yourself for 50 shekels after you kill a man. These passages have nothing to do with redemption in that sense.
Leviticus 27:2 says, "When a man makes a special votive offering based on the conversion value of persons to the Lord..." The key here is the votive offering. Even if you don't know what a votive offering is, you can tell (in plain English) that it is not recompense for murder. The votive offering has to do with making a vow. If you make a vow on yourself or someone else, you pay the conversion value to the temple. It could also just be a special sacrifice. In today's churches many infants are baptized or dedicated. The parallel for an Israelite would be to give a votive offering (5 or 3 shekels) to the temple for their child.
By the way, I think the King James translation of Exodus 21:22 is just fine. You might not know what "her fruit depart from her" means, but when you include the context of verse 23, I think it becomes clear, and you don't have to worry about translation errors.
> The Exodus passage in the literal Hebrew interpretation is confusing at best though.
I will agree with you here; the translation notes I provided even mentioned that there has been debate about the meaning of the verses. I personally think that given the two possiblities, the context makes it clear--that's been my whole point. Saying the interpretation is confusion is a (sort of) valid point if you want to debate the merits of a theological view of when life begins. Don't just leave it there though. Really try to understand it, look at all the sides and try to come up with the best conclusion you can. Don't say, "it's confusing, so let's just ignore it now." And definitely don't make crap up like you started to do.
> I can't imagine that there needed to be a law written about people fighting forcing a birth.
You can't imagine because you haven't read through all of the Old Law and you don't understand its purpose. There are a phenominal number of laws, a lot of the boring or irrelavent to us, and that's why so many people have trouble reading through the Old Testament. The point of the Old Law is to show that you cannot follow the Law on your own; you will stumble at some point. And that's why we need a Mediator--someone to take the penalty of breaking the Law and to fulfill the Law for us. That was the whole point of Christ coming.
Look, if you really want to have a fruitful, interesting debate on when life begins, that's great--I'd love to as wel
Unbelievable. I can't stand it when people talk about something they know nothing about and spread misinformation. The passage you are talking about is Exodus 21:22. I can't find this translation online, but my Bible says "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant worman causing her to miscarry ... [he] shall surely be fined ..." That's what you read and think, "Aha! Even their God doesn't value the life of a fetus." First, you don't understand Hebrew, so you don't know exactly what that passage is saying, and second, you can still figure it out from context if you would read a bit beyond what you want to hear. The very next verse says, "But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life..." Again, there is some lousy translation work here, but "further injury" refers to both mother and child (all the translations I have seen make it sound like it refers to just the mother).
Here is another version that will help you understand what miscarriage means in this context:
What this all means is that if the baby is born early but is still alive, then only a fine is paid. If the man kills the baby in the process of striking the mother, then his life is to be taken. Under "life for a life" this equates the unborn child's life with the fully-grown man's life.
Here are some translation notes from the Net Bible about these verses (emphasis mine):
If you want to have a good debate about it, I'm game, but please do not speak as you are the authority when you are just repeating something you once heard someone else say. The Bible taken out of context can say anything you want it to say. You can only understand it fully when you also understand the full context. Here's an example relating to the Qur'an. I have always heard growing up that Muslims are supposed to "kill all the infidels." As far as I know that is actually in the Qur'an, but I haven't looked it up as much as you haven't looked up Exodus 21:22. However, with a little bit of research, it lookes like the context of "kill all the infidels" relates to showing hostility towards Musl
... are both running articles comparing Adolf Hitler and Harry Truman, not for their political achievements but for their humanitarian involvement. I am curious to see what you are thinking about the issue. What is more important, be an atom bomb dropping commander-in-chief like Truman or a patriotic missionaire like Hitler? And even more important: Is it important that apples remain public or oranges stay private?"
No, that wasn't loaded question of an article.
A Slashdotter Can Dream
Stuff You Already Know (but is likely wrong now)
Hey, This one actually has a computer reference
You Have Them All Memorized, Right?
Yes, The Creators of This Website Are Morons
Sorry, but sometimes I feel like P/E ratio is one of the mose asinine measurements. The current P/Es don't take splits into account. Based on splits and adjustments, MSFT's P/E is really 276.66. GOOG hasn't split or given dividends since it IPOed, so it still has its P/E of 90. Now GOOG's P/E doesn't look so bad, does it?
That's a really good idea, but I am pretty sure that your personal data would be classified as fact and therefore not "copyrightable." Although, watch for the lawsuits against MLB and the MLBPA for the licensing of player statistics. If the MLB wins, then I think you have a good case for copyrighting your personal data.
First, I want to thank you for taking the time to post about and discuss the issues that a lot of Slashdotters complain about. I think that if you and the other editors take the time to learn what the community wants, you'll be able to make Slashdot many times better.
You wrote in the article: Now let us talk about one of my secondary concerns: spelling and grammar. Let me be clear. As you are probably well aware, I don't think these are as important as the things I mentioned above.
You wrote in a reply: Where we simply disagree is on style. I think Slashdot is informal, and therefore typos don't matter that much. Obviously a good number of readers disagree. They print out pages and mark them out with red pens and post in the forums that we are awful. But I don't think that a stylistic decision like that is really that important in the grand scheme of things.
I just finished reading this whole discussion at +4. It seems to me that about half of those comments were asking (or telling) in some way that you should fix grammar and spelling. I won't discuss the same things that the other posts did regarding professionalism and complexity of the issue--I think they do a fine job.
Instead, I want to try and show you the big picture. Several posters (not to mention a lot of moderators) feel that spelling and grammar are important. I know that you feel these are secondary issues, and you are entitled to your opinion--especially when it is your board. However, I would like to mention that it looks like it's an important issue to a lot of people here: not just the complainers, not just the lurkers, but actual participants and even subscribers. I think that your level of professionalism can easily sway the number of subscribers, and I would be willing to bet that in years to come, Slashdot will come to rely on subscribers more than advertising.
All I am asking is that you evaluate your concerns and preferences carefully with what the community also thinks is important. You don't have to change anything (obviously, it's your website), but I do ask that you at least give it some good thought.
I have always been an x86 guy (though I'll be getting my first mac mini soon), and that is one feature of the Apple boxes that I have always admired. I have looked for an ATX case that copies this features. I have found nothing in all my years of looking.
I've even come close to purchasing a G4 or G5 case and modding it to work with ATX. While it doesn't look too difficult, Apple cases still sell for a premium on eBay!
Have you (or anybody for that matter), ever seen an ATX case with the ability to swing down for easy access to the motherboard?
This law only applies to harassment done anonymously. As much as the statements made by politicians can be harrasing or even "annoying", I'm pretty sure they all make them publically (or at least attribute what they say to themselves).
They already create antimatter here in the US. At FermiLab, they routinely create antimatter (antiprotons) for smashing with regular matter. This is how they found all of the quarks they did.
/ index.html
See: http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/matter/smallest
Also, I don't know if antimatter is the ultimate energy source. They use way more energy to produce the antiprotons than they get out of them smashing them with regular protons. It's the same problem that we see with hydrogen fuel cells. You still have to put the energy into the system before you can get it back out. If you can find a plentiful source of pure hydrogen or pure antimatter, then you do have a great energy source. Also, antimatter is difficult to store (a lot more difficult than hydrogen gas).
If you're ever near Batavia, IL, go through their tour at Fermi, or contact me and I'll help you hook up with one of their top physicists (though I have to warn you, I feel like this guy can be a bit demeaning at time).
One feature I got hooked on back in the day was auto-URL completion by using Ctrl. So you type in "google" into the address bar, hit Ctrl+Enter, and the url would automagically become http://www.google.com/ . Firefox took this a step further and have made Shift+Ctrl+Enter .org, and Shift+Enter .net. Naturally, I habitually did this in Opera when I tried it out, and it would not auto-complete, it would fail and then try .com, and by the time it got around to getting the url right, I could just type it in by hand. I think it would be nice to at least be able to turn this feature on.
The real reason I moved back to Firefox after I tried Opera (and I gave it a good month) was because one day, Gmail just stopped working. On different days, both at work and at home, I could not log back into Gmail no matter what I did (short of reinstalling Opera, because I'm just too lazy to do that). This also happened to a coworker; he switched back too.
I hate that publishers that own rights to something can just squat on not only that "intellectual" property but any derivative work.
How on earth does this sort of thing Promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts?!
I know that the ideals of copyright were basically thrown out when it was extended the first time, but this sounds like a built in feature, and I just don't see it helping anyone, including the publisher.
First, I'd like to point out the humor in you having two number 2s.
Second, I like most of your idea above, except this point. I think it does screw everyone over except large corporations. Right now, I think a patent application is about $450 if you submit it yourself. Everyone I have talked to about this does not recommend it though, as it would be very easy to screw yourself over using the wrong language in the patent. However, if I do my research and due diligence, I believe that I could write my own patent. The recommended way of creating a patent is to hire a patent lawyer to transcribe what you really mean. On average, a patent costs ~$3,000 by going this route (they also check for prior art in addition to writing the legalese).
I can afford to spend $450 if I was so inclined to give it a shot. I would say $3,000 is kind of a high barrier for an average guy such as myself, but if I really thought I had a killer idea, I would still be able to pull that off. If the patent application is $10,000, there is no way in bloody hell that I'm going to patent anything. But it only costs corporations 3-4x more than now. That might mean that they will patent 3-4x less things, but I have a feeling that patent portfolios of major corporations are such a minor budget line item that it wouldn't make a difference.
Right now, I think the studio execs know that they're sitting on a profit curve, and they probably think that in general, they're on the lower end of that curve. What I mean by this is that if you priced a song at $0.01, you would sell a million copies (netting $10,000), if you price a song at $1.00, you sell 50,000 copies (netting $50,000) and if you price it at $5.00, you sell 2,000 copies (netting $10,000). Of course these examples are contrived, but I think the general premise holds. I think the execs want to sell at what they perceive as a 'sweet spot' (say, $1.49 per song, if it's popular, selling 40,000 for a profit of $59,600).
That's what they call stock market/commodity pricing, maximizing their profit curve. But I like what you mentioned. What if you, as an iTunes buyer were allowed to sell your copy of a song you purchased on an iTunes auction market. It's DRMed, so if you did go through the iTunes marketplace, Apple should be able to enforce the proper rights on the song and transfer them to the new owner (please ignore the burning to CD loophole for a second, this is merely an academic exercise). This could have several potential benefits. If you bought a song for $0.99 and you discover that you hate it, you can sell it on the marketplace (probably for a slight loss of a few cents in most cases). If you happened to buy a song, as you said, that was a bit obscure for $0.99 but then it became a classic hit worth $3.50, you could then sell it for a profit. You could have a speculative market!
I think if Apple gave in to the execs and went with 'market prices', then it would only work well if people were allowed to sell their songs back. That way the studio is kept in check from raising their prices too high, because if it gets rediculous, the allure of a nice profit will keep supply high (and therefore lower market prices).
I'm sure everyone will point out tons of flaws (like the fact that a studio will probably only start songs at high prices and slowly lower them, thus defeating any potential profit for speculators, or as I mentioned before, the DRM loophole), but regardless, I still think it's a very interesting idea.
I strongly considered this right after receiving my computer science degree. I actually have a friend who is going down this road. Nevertheless, I interned in the IT department of a smallish (but hugely successful) law firm one summer in college and befriended many of the lawyers in the office, including one of the founders.
Every single one of them recommended staying out of law if you desire to have any sort of life. It is very difficult to be married and try to practice law (at least private law where you're trying your darndest to acquire clients and win their cases). I think it really depends what you want. These lawyers were all making millions per year (the partners were splitting 8-figure profits every year). They were also working at least 80 hours per week.
I have a job I love right now, and while I'm not making that kind of buck, I get to spend a lot of time with my family (and I just had a baby girl, so I love to be home!). I'm not getting an ulcer or going crazy from sleep deprevation, and that has to be worth something.
Again, it all depends on your goals. But if you want that lifestyle, get into it now, because if you don't do it now you'll probably never have a chance to switch later.
I want to see at least a solid 5-10 years of profitability before I'd consider investing a dime, personally.
It all depends on your investment goals, naturally, but doing this as you say is a great way to see your money stagnate. You need to find a company that has a great idea that is undervalued in your opinion. For instance, Microsoft has had many, many years of profitability, but their stock has done nothing interesting in the last year+. I would bet there are a lot of geeks on this board who feel that RedHat is undervalued because the business market doesn't yet understand the power of Linux (especially as a server), and RedHat stands to profit a lot from any growth in that segment. If you were to buy RedHat now, and they became that solid, proven profit-making machine you're looking for in the next 5-10 years, you'll easily double your money. The only way to make money is if you take some risk.
Again, I want to stress that all of this is based on personal opinion (as you said at the end of your post, 'personally'), and I have no idea if RedHat's stock is going to go up or down. To everybody that reads this--do not make any investment or trading decisions based on this post; if you do you're foolish. This is not an offer to buy or sell any security, and you should obviously talk to any investment professional before you make any trading decisions (yada, yada).
Why does there have to be an Online Freedom of Speech Act? Why does there have to be anything other than the First Amendment? I am tired of how much our "free speech" has become regulated since the founding of this country.
The other thing that bothers me is the two party political system. Why wouldn't democrats want to protect our speech online? It seems all they're interested in is opposing the republicans these days (I used to be a republican, but I don't think they stand for conservatism anymore, so I'm libertarian/independent/non-incumbant now).
We need politicians that will bring us back to the freedoms our country enjoyed two hundred years ago, but everyone is interested in towing the party line--it seems even the voters. If you are of voting age, and in the US, please consider third-party candidates in the '06 congressional elections. I want to be part of a larger group than 0.5% of the population.
Another interesting quote that sounds like the 640k one:
He (Gates) predicted that the HD DVD will be "the last physical media format there will ever be." To help make that happen, Gates said he will need a lot more software engineers.
You know, I'm not sure that's the same attitude he's looking at HD DVD with. I don't think that he believes that [n] GB (or TB, or EB, etc) will be enough at any point in time. I think that he wants physical media dead. There is too much liability (i.e. too much freedom) if the user holds the physical data. If Microsoft and the media companies want to control (obviously through DRM, Trusted Computing) how data is moved around, then they have to remove distribution of content by CD and DVD.
I doubt he's right about it, of course, but I think that's the way he envisions the future--everyone a slave to Microsoft Windows.
It also provides true object representation of the virtual world, so you can touch what you see. It has the benefits of letting you open doors, or shake someone's hand.
I guess the only downside is the one-sided bloodbath you'd be involved in during a Zelda game if you weren't able to defend yourself properly (watch your back!).
If you believe that Jesus really is the Christ, the Son of God (in other words, if you are a Christian), then you believe that His words are not fallible. In fact, if you read through everything He ever said, you can see great wisdom and discernment.
Your Catholic friend is right. The Bible does use the term Son of God and Son of Man (almost interchangeably). The Son of God reference is to show the relationship of the Trinity-the difference between God the Father and God the Son. The Son of Man phrase is a reference to the prophet Daniel in Daniel 7:13. When Jesus uses that term He is showing that He is the one the prophets foretold, but its also shows an element of His humanity.
Back to your first question, just because He was a man does not mean that He was imperfect. In fact, that was the whole point of Him coming to earth. We have a debt before God that we _cannot_ pay, and only the sacrifice of the perfect man can atone for our sin debt and make us right with God again. That is why Christ had to come (the Jewish sacrificial system was the old covenant and meant only to be a picture of payment of the Christ to come-it didnt have the power to truly reconcile man to God).
I dont expect you to believe all of this. Very few do these days, but I will gladly explain anything you dont understand so that any decision you make is based on a good understanding, and not just what you have absorbed by cultural osmosis.
But you're *supposed* to judge people. Jesus wants you not to consort with disbelievers.
C'mon, you call yourself a Christian with this belief? Firstly, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged" (Matthew 7:1). That is from the mouth of Jesus himself.
Second, Jesus does not want you to consort with disbelievers?! Look at his whole life. He spent most of His time with "sinners and tax gatherers." Jesus wants us to be like Himself, so how can we do that and judge people? There are two possibilities, one is that Jesus contradicts Himself here, or you don't know what you're talking about.
Seeing as I have provided some context and you have not, I will leave this exercise up to the reader.
If you were one of the customers that received a letter from Ameritrade, you would know that the data on the tape _was_ encrypted. I think you should learn all of the facts before you spout nonsense.
Here is the real quote from your paraphrase:
"Quantum mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory yields a lot, but it hardly brings us any closer to the secret of the Old One. In any case I am convinced that He doesn't play dice."
-Einstein
I think this is one of the most misunderstood quotes. Einstein is saying that yes, the models we have for understanding QM are incredibly accurate, but he doesn't feel like the models we have derived are 'the answer.' He is saying that just because the best we can do to predict QM events is with a probabalistic model does not mean that God does not know what is going to happen to each subatomic particle.
Also, on a side note, I feel that uncertainty is necessary for there to be a God. QM uncertainty is the physical means to a free will which allows us the ability to accept or reject God.
I'll never understand how they can get off and say things like "oh the Olsen twins are worth 20 million dollars"... um to who? They're a pair of uneducated no-talent actors who ride their "being twins and decently good looks".
Look, I'm right there with you in thinking actors get paid way too much, though it's all a free market system, so actors are going to get paid what the market thinks they should be paid.
Also, you should lay off the ad hominems. You called the Olsen twins a pair of uneducated no-talent actors. While talent is a matter of subjectivity (if you don't like them, don't watch their shows/movies, but someone else may want to), you are off-base in saying they are uneducated. They both got a 1600 on their SATs, and they both got into an Ivy League college. Let me ask, who is more educated, the Olsen twins, or you, tomstdenis?
I don't see how a rant with such fallicies get modded insightful, this sounded more like a troll to me...
"An attack would require a user to visit the attacker's Web site first, and any type of Web browser could make a user vulnerable."
;-)
It seems like most non-email Internet attacks require you to visit an attacker's website before the payload can be delivered (there are some good articles about this at ISC). I would tend to think that unpatched browsers (<cough>IE<cough>) would still cause more problems that this.
Don't misunderstand me, though; I am not trying to excuse Google from the flaw, but the good news is that it's already fixed, and I'm sure the scum of the Internet are going to focus on these other (exciting, money-making) opportunities.
PS. I know Seth Fogarty, does that give me some sort of karma bonus