That's nothing. Check out Google Moon, and it gives you a detailed map of the moon with place markers for the landings from the Apollo Missions. It's so detailed, in fact, that if you zoom in all the way, you can see the very material that the moon is made from! It's amazing to see, so check it out yourself!
Don't shit in a vacuum. I agree with your actual point, so don't take offense when I say that this must be the best advice ever taken out of context. Upon reading this, I thought that a vacuum hose is just the right size and shape, but it would be messy. Thanks for the good advice!
... and about 99.9% chance of being trolled by some fool on Slashdot. Crap. Nobody told me that you could get pregnant or diseases from that. The public school system has failed me!
The problem with having one good password is that it's essentially putting all your eggs in one basket. If your password is cracked in one place, then it can be used in other places. If my slashdot password is compromised, and I use the same username/password for my banking, I'll be sorry.
The other problem is with revealing passwords. I know you said never to reveal it to anyone, but everyone must reveal their password at some point. I say this because anywhere that you input your password is revealing it to a computer, which is operated by someone. Do you know how safe a site keeps your password? Take Slashdot for example: Do you know how they store their passwords? I don't, and use a less secure password for here than usual.
The method I use is to have different levels of passwords that I know. For secure sites, such as banking, or trusted online merchants, I have a high level password. For my e-mail accounts and work purposes, I have a medium level one. For message boards and other "junk" sites (yes, slashdot), I have a low level password. They are all secure passwords, don't get me wrong, but I use different ones for different purposes. I find that it works well. If I am logging into a site that I'm not sure if I can trust, I'll use a junk password, write it down, and if I later decide to trust that site, I change it to one of my main passwords. I took that idea from someone on the internet, perhaps here on slashdot, and it's worked well since then. It sure beats when I was in high school and used my girlfriend's name for everything. If I did that now, I'd just have a blank password.
It seems that someone set up a CafePress Shop. I don't know who profits from it, though. It's just one of the links when searching for 09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0. On a side note, almost completely unrelated to everything else, 09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0 is too long for a slashdot username, and cannot be registered. I was wondering if someone had done so, and found out that it's impossible.
Rereading what I wrote, it seems that I didn't know that. My post was intended to be at least somewhat humorous, though it seems to have been modded informative. It seems that Slashdot doesn't censor comments, so it wouldn't be from censors, either. Either way, to explain a joke negates its humor. Oh Well..
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
on
Censoring a Number
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I was amazed at the quickness of the censors, when I clicked on the link here, and got the "Nothing to see here, please move along." message. I've often seen people say that they got that message, but was never quite sure if it actually happened. This time it did. In cooperation with the summary, here's the number: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
I'm not the original poster, but I'd assume he's talking about the fact that rotating a cube that has sides with a fixed orientation will occasionally rotate it to a point where one face is upside-down. For instance, if you are looking directly at a side of a cube, then rotated the cube to see the face on the top, it would be in a different orientation than if you were to see the face on the left or right before going to the one on the top.
I've also never used beryl, but I'd assume it rotates the screen to the proper orientation, or doesn't rotate the cube on more than one axis. It would be rather humorous to see the desktop rotate to find an upside-down screen. It would be great if it were set to do that on a certain day, as a joke. April 1st seems like a good day for that...
A bunch of Slashdotter-spawn running all over the place? You must read a different Bible then the one i've heard tell about, unless perhaps you mean that old testament fire and brimstone wrath of god type stuff. The closest thing that I can find in there is the plague of frogs. Perhaps a plague of slashdotters will be a similar punishment? The only thing is that the Egyptians thought of a frog as a god, and I don't know of anyone who thinks slashdotters are gods.
One thing that I noticed when looking at the clips is that some of the content that is not homemade is still legally posted. One example of this is content from the user NBC. There are quite a few SNL clips that are in the most-viewed videos, but they are put there by NBC, so they are legit. I don't know about any of the others there, but it is possible that some of the other videos that are not homemade are still legally posted. Just something to keep in mind when looking at those results.
I know how to make the DS better! Three Screens! That is what makes it better than the PSP, isn't it?
All kidding aside, I'd say that the biggest issue that I have with it is the lack of WPA support for the wireless. In order to have wireless access, I need to either change the wireless settings on the router, or have a second router that uses WEP. I chose to have a second router that I only plug in when I want to play. The other issue that I've run into is that some public access points, such as at coffee shops, require a browser to connect to their service. There may be a workaround for it, in some cases, but it's still not that convenient to connect. I don't know if the browser "game" coming later will fix that, but it would be a good improvement. Overall, I think I'm happy with the DS, but it's not perfect.
Stone tablets are the only way to go. The big man had the write idea putting the 10 commandments on them. I'd say that their longevity is mainly because of many, many offsite backups. Unless you know where the originals are?
Well, if you look at the bottom of your search results, you'll find the disturbing reality. The word Goooooooooogle. Whether you picture it, or Borg Bill Gates screaming its name, that's just disturbing and wrong.
soon we will see ABC, NBC, CBS, and the rest waiting in the back of the line, looking at the door to YouTube and trying to bribe their way in like someone who doesn't know the bouncer at a good night club. I can't say much for the rest, but it appears that CBS is already in.
Yes, the Wii mostly does. The ratings apply to Wii games and Virtual Console Games, but it will still play any Gamecube game, regardless of rating. Still, it gives you the option, but it isn't yet perfect.
I know that Wikipedia is not the best place to quote from, but it is one that most people here would be familiar with. The sources that you are citing are much better, but I think the language in them requires a large base knowledge of the Church that many here don't have. Let me try to explain.
"when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church"
I don't know if you intended it this way, but this is not a way for the Pope to "make up" a sin. It is intended to be used as clarification of the Church's official stance on a moral issue or doctrine. Though the Bible is believed to be the Word of God, the Catholic Church believes that there is more than just the Bible to guide us. Some of the reasons for that are just logical. If the Apostles were told to write in the Bible that aborting fetuses for practices of stem cell research are not in line with the Church's teaching, they wouldn't have a clue what that meant. There are issues in modern society that are not explicitly defined in the Bible. There are the Two Great Commandments, which sum up the intentions of the 10 Commandments, as well as provide guidance for other things not explicitly defined in the Bible. When Jesus was asked which Commandment was the most important, he replied:
"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."
What I am trying to say is that Papal Infallibility is to clarify doctrine, rather than to create doctrine that is simply to cause other people to be in sin. I would argue that the Pope clarifying does not damn people, as God may have already decided to judge based on whatever that particular moral issue is, and the Pope just points it out. Finally, depending on the severity of the issue, if it is not a serious sin, then it does not send someone to Hell. As I've said in other posts, perfection is not expected to be reached, but it is the goal. We all are not perfect, everyone in a different way. So, even if someone does not follow that particular teaching, it is not a guarantee that they will go to Hell, and therefore, not a damning.
On your note about this setting the Pope above others, I would have to respectfully disagree. I understand that you are saying that since he has this ability, then he must be set above others. I would agree that he has privileges that others do not have, since he is the deciding word on those issues, but what I mean about being set above others was in the spiritual sense. I mean to say that he is still judged according to his actions, and cannot simply change what is and is not a sin to fit his own liking.
OK, on to Anathema. I have to admit that although I am familiar with the concept of Anathema, it is not within my area of expertise. One thing that sticks out to me, down at the bottom of the Anathema article that you have linked, is the following quote:
The Church, animated by the spirit of God, does not wish the death of the sinner, but rather that he be converted and live. This explains why the most severe and terrifying formulas of excommunication, containing all the rigours of the Maranatha have, as a rule, clauses like this: Unless he becomes repentant, or gives satisfaction, or is corrected.
The purpose of Anathema, as well as all forms of excommunication, is to serve as a warning. They are extremely severe warnings, but the intention of them both is repentance. I believe that this isn't a damning in the way that we are discussi
I don't recall saying that anyone is a whacko. I believe that there's a force out there that makes things run. I call that force God. If you want to call that force FSM, that's your choice. I'd think that it's disrespectful, but I suppose that someone, somewhere, could possibly think that FSM is respectful. I doubt that it's the case, but I guess it's possible.
Maybe you think religion is worthless. There are obviously people who do. For me, I think that saying that there is a force out there that must have created something at some point in time is not another worthless layer. I think it's closer to the truth, even if it only seems like semantics to some. I think to deny that a force, such as God, could have created this existence is closing out an idea. It's obviously an idea that many people believe in, though that on its own does not make it right. I'm not trying to convert you, nor am I trying to justify my beliefs to you, as I think that they are justified both with and without your approval. I'm just trying to say that it is a viable option, and it isn't out of ignorance that many Christians believe.
For your second half of a comment, I see that your biases are coming out. Christianity doesn't imply perfection. In fact, it says that God is perfect, humans are inherently imperfect. There are times in the history of Christianity that people were just wrong. With any sufficiently large group of people, that is bound to happen. I'm avoiding the easy target so as not to invoke Godwin's law, but to say that all whites are based on hate, because of slavery, or how the Native Americans were treated when the pilgrims arrived in America is just prejudice.
You also seem to lump Christians in with Republicans, collectively known as the Religious Right. I'd say that there are a lot of people on both sides of the Republican/Democrat split that are Christian. If you look at the census numbers, well over half of the US claims to practice Christianity. Approximately half of the people voted for Bush, which seems to be what you're referencing. Just by the numbers, at least some of the Christians voted for someone else. I personally know quite a few people who are practicing Christians, and will not vote for Bush, nor most Republicans. To me, you argument seems to be a strawman, saying that Republicans are equivalent to Christians, and then attacking Republicans. You're really working against yourself with that.
I suppose if you are thinking that anyone who scares anyone else is a terrorist, then yes, this would be a terrorist cell. I can't quite tell if you are making a joke or not, so I'll be the jerk who explains away a joke that he doesn't get. If someone actually thinks that if someone scares them, then they are a terrorist, then I think that the first person needs to toughen up. There are other people in the world, with other opinions, that may not agree with yours. To try to get everyone to agree with you, just to make it convenient for you to live your life is extremely selfish, and just isn't fair. There's other people around, deal with it
I just said it in another post, but it was obviously not there when you wrote this. I personally think that Pascal's wager is a pretty shallow basis for anyone to base their faith on. That is mentioned in the link as one of the criticisms of this theory. I don't base my Faith on this wager, and I don't think anyone else should, either. I just saw that it came up in the conversation, and thought it would be educational to have.
As far as referring to my God as a singular male, it's mainly for convenience. I think that God has the capability to reveal himself in many different ways, but still is a person. Since the English Language has no pronoun that is gender-neutral and singular, He is generally accepted as such. I believe that the many gods that are worshiped are different perspectives, or points of view, of one, singular, force that I choose to call God.
Perhaps it is a bit of foolish self-rationalization. I was merely saying that the comment I was replying to had the concept of Pascal's Wager. Personally, I don't base my Faith on that wager, but the concept is there, and some people base at least part of their faith in it. I didn't notice it there yesterday, but there is a suggestion to merge Athiest's wager into the Pascal's wager section. That is an intriguing idea also. But I think that is also a self-rationalization. You do bring up good points, and that's one of the reasons I don't usually mention it. But it came up, and in the interest of knowledge, I linked to more information.
You are speaking about Papal infallibility. To quote Wikipedia:
Papal infallibility does not signify that the Pope is impeccable, i.e., that he is specially exempt from liability to sin. It doesn't mean the pope cannot be wrong. What Papal infallibility means is that when the Pope declares a dogmatic teaching, due to spiritual revelation, that he is he deciding factor. It is not used for any ordinary circumstance, and, as a point of reference, it has not been used since 1950, and was used to declare that Mary's Assumption into Heaven was a fact. It is meant to settle disagreements on doctrine, not for the Pope to be set above others. I severely doubt that it would ever be used to damn someone, and if you think it is so, I would welcome you to cite a source.
Slashdot Mirror
That's nothing. Check out Google Moon, and it gives you a detailed map of the moon with place markers for the landings from the Apollo Missions. It's so detailed, in fact, that if you zoom in all the way, you can see the very material that the moon is made from! It's amazing to see, so check it out yourself!
Eh. They'd probably break parole and just not show up. Slackers.
Then we'll just have to set up a sting operation to catch them when they come in to vote.The problem with having one good password is that it's essentially putting all your eggs in one basket. If your password is cracked in one place, then it can be used in other places. If my slashdot password is compromised, and I use the same username/password for my banking, I'll be sorry.
The other problem is with revealing passwords. I know you said never to reveal it to anyone, but everyone must reveal their password at some point. I say this because anywhere that you input your password is revealing it to a computer, which is operated by someone. Do you know how safe a site keeps your password? Take Slashdot for example: Do you know how they store their passwords? I don't, and use a less secure password for here than usual.
The method I use is to have different levels of passwords that I know. For secure sites, such as banking, or trusted online merchants, I have a high level password. For my e-mail accounts and work purposes, I have a medium level one. For message boards and other "junk" sites (yes, slashdot), I have a low level password. They are all secure passwords, don't get me wrong, but I use different ones for different purposes. I find that it works well. If I am logging into a site that I'm not sure if I can trust, I'll use a junk password, write it down, and if I later decide to trust that site, I change it to one of my main passwords. I took that idea from someone on the internet, perhaps here on slashdot, and it's worked well since then. It sure beats when I was in high school and used my girlfriend's name for everything. If I did that now, I'd just have a blank password.
It seems that someone set up a CafePress Shop. I don't know who profits from it, though. It's just one of the links when searching for 09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0. On a side note, almost completely unrelated to everything else, 09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0 is too long for a slashdot username, and cannot be registered. I was wondering if someone had done so, and found out that it's impossible.
Rereading what I wrote, it seems that I didn't know that. My post was intended to be at least somewhat humorous, though it seems to have been modded informative. It seems that Slashdot doesn't censor comments, so it wouldn't be from censors, either. Either way, to explain a joke negates its humor. Oh Well..
I was amazed at the quickness of the censors, when I clicked on the link here, and got the "Nothing to see here, please move along." message. I've often seen people say that they got that message, but was never quite sure if it actually happened. This time it did. In cooperation with the summary, here's the number: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
I'm not the original poster, but I'd assume he's talking about the fact that rotating a cube that has sides with a fixed orientation will occasionally rotate it to a point where one face is upside-down. For instance, if you are looking directly at a side of a cube, then rotated the cube to see the face on the top, it would be in a different orientation than if you were to see the face on the left or right before going to the one on the top.
I've also never used beryl, but I'd assume it rotates the screen to the proper orientation, or doesn't rotate the cube on more than one axis. It would be rather humorous to see the desktop rotate to find an upside-down screen. It would be great if it were set to do that on a certain day, as a joke. April 1st seems like a good day for that...
One thing that I noticed when looking at the clips is that some of the content that is not homemade is still legally posted. One example of this is content from the user NBC. There are quite a few SNL clips that are in the most-viewed videos, but they are put there by NBC, so they are legit. I don't know about any of the others there, but it is possible that some of the other videos that are not homemade are still legally posted. Just something to keep in mind when looking at those results.
I know how to make the DS better! Three Screens! That is what makes it better than the PSP, isn't it?
All kidding aside, I'd say that the biggest issue that I have with it is the lack of WPA support for the wireless. In order to have wireless access, I need to either change the wireless settings on the router, or have a second router that uses WEP. I chose to have a second router that I only plug in when I want to play. The other issue that I've run into is that some public access points, such as at coffee shops, require a browser to connect to their service. There may be a workaround for it, in some cases, but it's still not that convenient to connect. I don't know if the browser "game" coming later will fix that, but it would be a good improvement. Overall, I think I'm happy with the DS, but it's not perfect.
Well, if you look at the bottom of your search results, you'll find the disturbing reality. The word Goooooooooogle. Whether you picture it, or Borg Bill Gates screaming its name, that's just disturbing and wrong.
Yes, the Wii mostly does. The ratings apply to Wii games and Virtual Console Games, but it will still play any Gamecube game, regardless of rating. Still, it gives you the option, but it isn't yet perfect.
"when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church"
I don't know if you intended it this way, but this is not a way for the Pope to "make up" a sin. It is intended to be used as clarification of the Church's official stance on a moral issue or doctrine. Though the Bible is believed to be the Word of God, the Catholic Church believes that there is more than just the Bible to guide us. Some of the reasons for that are just logical. If the Apostles were told to write in the Bible that aborting fetuses for practices of stem cell research are not in line with the Church's teaching, they wouldn't have a clue what that meant. There are issues in modern society that are not explicitly defined in the Bible. There are the Two Great Commandments, which sum up the intentions of the 10 Commandments, as well as provide guidance for other things not explicitly defined in the Bible. When Jesus was asked which Commandment was the most important, he replied:
"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."
What I am trying to say is that Papal Infallibility is to clarify doctrine, rather than to create doctrine that is simply to cause other people to be in sin. I would argue that the Pope clarifying does not damn people, as God may have already decided to judge based on whatever that particular moral issue is, and the Pope just points it out. Finally, depending on the severity of the issue, if it is not a serious sin, then it does not send someone to Hell. As I've said in other posts, perfection is not expected to be reached, but it is the goal. We all are not perfect, everyone in a different way. So, even if someone does not follow that particular teaching, it is not a guarantee that they will go to Hell, and therefore, not a damning.
On your note about this setting the Pope above others, I would have to respectfully disagree. I understand that you are saying that since he has this ability, then he must be set above others. I would agree that he has privileges that others do not have, since he is the deciding word on those issues, but what I mean about being set above others was in the spiritual sense. I mean to say that he is still judged according to his actions, and cannot simply change what is and is not a sin to fit his own liking.
OK, on to Anathema. I have to admit that although I am familiar with the concept of Anathema, it is not within my area of expertise. One thing that sticks out to me, down at the bottom of the Anathema article that you have linked, is the following quote:
The Church, animated by the spirit of God, does not wish the death of the sinner, but rather that he be converted and live. This explains why the most severe and terrifying formulas of excommunication, containing all the rigours of the Maranatha have, as a rule, clauses like this: Unless he becomes repentant, or gives satisfaction, or is corrected.
The purpose of Anathema, as well as all forms of excommunication, is to serve as a warning. They are extremely severe warnings, but the intention of them both is repentance. I believe that this isn't a damning in the way that we are discussi
I don't recall saying that anyone is a whacko. I believe that there's a force out there that makes things run. I call that force God. If you want to call that force FSM, that's your choice. I'd think that it's disrespectful, but I suppose that someone, somewhere, could possibly think that FSM is respectful. I doubt that it's the case, but I guess it's possible.
Maybe you think religion is worthless. There are obviously people who do. For me, I think that saying that there is a force out there that must have created something at some point in time is not another worthless layer. I think it's closer to the truth, even if it only seems like semantics to some. I think to deny that a force, such as God, could have created this existence is closing out an idea. It's obviously an idea that many people believe in, though that on its own does not make it right. I'm not trying to convert you, nor am I trying to justify my beliefs to you, as I think that they are justified both with and without your approval. I'm just trying to say that it is a viable option, and it isn't out of ignorance that many Christians believe.
For your second half of a comment, I see that your biases are coming out. Christianity doesn't imply perfection. In fact, it says that God is perfect, humans are inherently imperfect. There are times in the history of Christianity that people were just wrong. With any sufficiently large group of people, that is bound to happen. I'm avoiding the easy target so as not to invoke Godwin's law, but to say that all whites are based on hate, because of slavery, or how the Native Americans were treated when the pilgrims arrived in America is just prejudice.
You also seem to lump Christians in with Republicans, collectively known as the Religious Right. I'd say that there are a lot of people on both sides of the Republican/Democrat split that are Christian. If you look at the census numbers, well over half of the US claims to practice Christianity. Approximately half of the people voted for Bush, which seems to be what you're referencing. Just by the numbers, at least some of the Christians voted for someone else. I personally know quite a few people who are practicing Christians, and will not vote for Bush, nor most Republicans. To me, you argument seems to be a strawman, saying that Republicans are equivalent to Christians, and then attacking Republicans. You're really working against yourself with that.
I suppose if you are thinking that anyone who scares anyone else is a terrorist, then yes, this would be a terrorist cell. I can't quite tell if you are making a joke or not, so I'll be the jerk who explains away a joke that he doesn't get. If someone actually thinks that if someone scares them, then they are a terrorist, then I think that the first person needs to toughen up. There are other people in the world, with other opinions, that may not agree with yours. To try to get everyone to agree with you, just to make it convenient for you to live your life is extremely selfish, and just isn't fair. There's other people around, deal with it
-end rant-
I just said it in another post, but it was obviously not there when you wrote this. I personally think that Pascal's wager is a pretty shallow basis for anyone to base their faith on. That is mentioned in the link as one of the criticisms of this theory. I don't base my Faith on this wager, and I don't think anyone else should, either. I just saw that it came up in the conversation, and thought it would be educational to have.
As far as referring to my God as a singular male, it's mainly for convenience. I think that God has the capability to reveal himself in many different ways, but still is a person. Since the English Language has no pronoun that is gender-neutral and singular, He is generally accepted as such. I believe that the many gods that are worshiped are different perspectives, or points of view, of one, singular, force that I choose to call God.
Perhaps it is a bit of foolish self-rationalization. I was merely saying that the comment I was replying to had the concept of Pascal's Wager. Personally, I don't base my Faith on that wager, but the concept is there, and some people base at least part of their faith in it. I didn't notice it there yesterday, but there is a suggestion to merge Athiest's wager into the Pascal's wager section. That is an intriguing idea also. But I think that is also a self-rationalization. You do bring up good points, and that's one of the reasons I don't usually mention it. But it came up, and in the interest of knowledge, I linked to more information.