If you really want an answer to that, I can give it a shot:
First of all, the accuracy is considered semantic and pragmatic. Obviously, it doesn't bear a whole lot of syntactic relationship to the original (especially the old testament/torah which was written right to left with no vowels). The idea is that there's a 'natural language' to the Bible, and that God has protected the accuracy to that language throughout each translation.
When we talked about hermeneutics in religion class, an algorithm for verification of verses was presented:
1) figure out what the contextual meaning of the verse is
2) figure out what the verse means to people today
3) abstract
4) investigate the validity of that abstraction as a valid biblical theme.
his was a class on Pauline literature, and this became really important, because there are a lot of surface inconsistencies. This is due to different writers who claim to be Paul throughout the early centuries, and with the general curosities to be found in the book of Acts.
All this is based on a faith that the Bible is in fact directly inspired by God, which in turn requires faith (which is by definition unverifiable). I think that many people accept the Bible (or any complete belief system) as absolute truth because they feel that otherwise they are just making haphazard decisions on things they don't feel qualified to judge. Of course, they are making a haphazard decision to buy into a particular belief system, but they only do that once. Plus, usually their parents do that for them;).
At this point I've created a rather circular argument. Faith -> Belief Belief -> Trust Trust -> Faith. I suppose that's where people come up with 'a leap of faith' to enter the circle, but I think there might be something you can do to rationally enter it. If you believe in God - and if you don't, the whole thing is rather moot - then try to define what you see as his nature for yourself. Then try to find relgions/philosophy that matches what you see as God's nature. Then see what they say the implications of that nature are. That gives you a fundamental basis on which to accept/reject both individual ideas and whole themes/writers/religions. It still leaves a lot of gray areas and question marks, but:shrug: that's just the way it is.
Reading Mr. Markham's site, I am rather curious how he came to the conclusion you quote. I don't see how it is as inevitable as he makes it sound (since plenty of open-minded and intelligent people have taken different paths). However, given what I have said, I do see how one could reach the conclusion that the Bible is accurate and historical.
Thanks for reading this if you did. If you didn't, meh.
A MMORPG is a MUD with graphics and nondiscrete locations. People were itching for the bandwidth/serverpower/graphics to make a graphic MUD happen at least 10 years before it happened.
I suppose if you were really paranoid you could worry about the boot sector for the partition going bad. Although I think there are usually measures built into the bootloader/MBR to deal with this. Could be wrong though. Would be pointless though anyway, come to think of it, because you could still repair the partition from its brother. No, you're right. You'd just be losing half your storage space without any speed or safety gain. Boo that.
Yeah, this reminds me of the time that I mocked-up my shed into a McDonalds (I think I might have to recognize some sort of trademark there: It's McDonald's (I think I might have to 'kill recursion') property.), and started selling hamburgers made of modelling clay. Yeah, that didn't turn out so well.
What does open source have to do with text books? I can't remember anyone compiling a calc book in the recent past. If you're talking about unlimited educational fair use, then please say what you mean and mean what you say. Let's not turn 'open source' into 'organic' or 'natural' or 'chemicals'.
This is an old speech made by Ken Thompson that talks about invisible back doors. To summarize, using Linux as an example in this case:
A method could be written into the kernel that detects that a kernel is being compiled and inserts code into that kernel. That code could be whatever you want, as long as it contains the method that detects a kernel being compiled...and so on.
That way, the kernel could have code in it that was not in the source code, but was present in every build, nonetheless.
In the speech, Thompson notes that this sort of backdoor could be inserted into any compiler or assembler (I can't remember if he says OS or not.) Kind of cool stuff.
I am way too lazy to think it up or write it out, but the OR is unnecessary. All logical gates can be constructed out of XOR gates. It is champion of all the gates.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the XBOX running Windows? Therefore, for any game not to run on the XBOX 2 that ran on the XBOX, wouldn't XBOX 2 have to be running an OS that isn't backwards compatible with previous versions of Windows? I suppose that's possible - or maybe they're just making the switch to Linux.
Seriously though, even if they have a lot of inline functions (which doesn't seem real likely - but I don't make XBOX games, so I may very well be wrong), is the hardware change going to be so radical that they go to a different chipset? Perhaps they anticipate going to 64-bit hardware, but I doubt that would be a serious impediment either.
Just guessing, but I think maybe it has something to do with the encryption scheme they use to encode the games. They probably want to radically change it, in case someone cracks (has it already been done?) it. If it's done at a hardware level, I can imagine that they wouldn't be too keen on adding support to unencode original XBOX games. That motivation could partially explain what he means by 'intellectual property'. Maybe.
Sorry if I got something (or everything) grossly wrong here, which is quite possible as I don't know much about the XBOX, and I'm a little shakey on some of the other issues.
I read that as 'you can't get people to do what I think is good for them.' Before you harangue society for making choices based on 'irrational fears', consider what choices you are talking about: the parent is talking about choosing social programs over research. That is a choice based on philosophy, not fear.
This is epitomized in the debate over space funding. There are those that point out that the money we spend on space research would be a godsend for many social/humanitarian initiatives.
Yes, I am aware of the practical ramifications of pure technological research. In fact, I remain solidly on the side of space research, even manned exploration. However, any research, especially that which is particularly experimental (pun intended), has risks. It is a very real possibility that scramjet technology will amount to absolutely nothing. Then all the time, money, and material that went into it have resulted in nil. At this point, you have wasted resources that could have been used productively in more solid and proven social programs.
So it boils down to a choice between double or nothing and a (relatively) guaranteed, but smaller, return. That is a philosophical choice, much like the basic difference between a liberal and conservative. Don't condemn the majority just because they disagree with you and you can't have your way. That's not democracies fault.
Yes, voting. That will work wonders.
You know what, it actually does. If you actually have the desire to see a change, and cajones to try for it, you can make a difference. This is true, despite what jaded chic may tell you. Where do you think political candidates, come from? Who do you think decides who wins? If you said anything other than voters, then you are absolutely, 100%, no qualifications wrong. To win you must have popular support (or very very close to it). In any case, votes are what decide who leads this country.
Think it's not worth it, because economic interests buy their way into office? It doesn't have to be that way. If people are educated and informed, not just innundated with propoganda, then they will make an informed decision. At the very least they will make a decision that's based non-trivial matters.
Think that government is guided by industry? It doesn't have to be that way either. The vast majority of politicians do not do what will annoy their constituency to the point that they will not be re-elected. This is the double-edge in a representative democracy. It means that if the citizens do not tolerate corrupt officials, there will not be corrupt officials. I know it sounds naive and optimistic, but it's true.
Think that corporations are taking away our rights? That doesn't have to be true either. A corporation is held responsible, too. In their case, they are held responsible to the dollar. They do not do things that will annoy their customers to the point that they will not buy their products. So in this case, don't tolerate corporations doing what you don't like! If enough people don't like it, they won't do it.
The enemy is complacency. If you really want things to be different, to have privacy rights, to feel good about the things your government does, then act. Sitting around complaining and thinking that there's nothing you can really do is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Part of the construction of this government was trust that the peoples' collective will would prevail and prevent tyranny. So far, this trust has not failed, and I don't think we should allow it to now.
A simple bounce has nothing to with either viruses or spoofing. The virus bounces that are coming back are being returned because mail servers are scanning emails, finding known virueses, and notifying the sender that they are sending virueses. This is what should stop, because that is when the return is spoofed. If I have just sent a real email to the wrong address, however, a bounce is appropriate, since 1) the return address is very unlikely to be spoofed (I would hope), and 2) actual useful information is being returned to me, and no-one else.
You missed my question. I don't feel this is obviously friviolous, by virtue of surviving a reasonable process and being dealt with by reasonable people. However, in my lay ignorance, I cannot glean the significance of the patent.
Just reading it, it seems to me that they are patenting a system to apply a different shipping than billing address, with error checking.
Therefore, I would appreciate a little specificity in the response so that I can figure out what I missed. A summary of patent law doesn't really help me here.
Ok, why was this patent made?
I know there must be more to it than Amazon being silly. It seems like it would be crazy to file a patent that was obviously totally frivolous. On the other hand, I can't see anything non-frivolous in it!
So is there some wrinkle of the patent, or of patent law that I'm missing?
Slashdot Mirror
If you really want an answer to that, I can give it a shot:
;).
:shrug: that's just the way it is.
First of all, the accuracy is considered semantic and pragmatic. Obviously, it doesn't bear a whole lot of syntactic relationship to the original (especially the old testament/torah which was written right to left with no vowels). The idea is that there's a 'natural language' to the Bible, and that God has protected the accuracy to that language throughout each translation.
When we talked about hermeneutics in religion class, an algorithm for verification of verses was presented:
1) figure out what the contextual meaning of the verse is
2) figure out what the verse means to people today
3) abstract
4) investigate the validity of that abstraction as a valid biblical theme.
his was a class on Pauline literature, and this became really important, because there are a lot of surface inconsistencies. This is due to different writers who claim to be Paul throughout the early centuries, and with the general curosities to be found in the book of Acts.
All this is based on a faith that the Bible is in fact directly inspired by God, which in turn requires faith (which is by definition unverifiable). I think that many people accept the Bible (or any complete belief system) as absolute truth because they feel that otherwise they are just making haphazard decisions on things they don't feel qualified to judge. Of course, they are making a haphazard decision to buy into a particular belief system, but they only do that once. Plus, usually their parents do that for them
At this point I've created a rather circular argument. Faith -> Belief Belief -> Trust Trust -> Faith. I suppose that's where people come up with 'a leap of faith' to enter the circle, but I think there might be something you can do to rationally enter it. If you believe in God - and if you don't, the whole thing is rather moot - then try to define what you see as his nature for yourself. Then try to find relgions/philosophy that matches what you see as God's nature. Then see what they say the implications of that nature are. That gives you a fundamental basis on which to accept/reject both individual ideas and whole themes/writers/religions. It still leaves a lot of gray areas and question marks, but
Reading Mr. Markham's site, I am rather curious how he came to the conclusion you quote. I don't see how it is as inevitable as he makes it sound (since plenty of open-minded and intelligent people have taken different paths). However, given what I have said, I do see how one could reach the conclusion that the Bible is accurate and historical.
Thanks for reading this if you did. If you didn't, meh.
A MMORPG is a MUD with graphics and nondiscrete locations. People were itching for the bandwidth/serverpower/graphics to make a graphic MUD happen at least 10 years before it happened.
I suppose if you were really paranoid you could worry about the boot sector for the partition going bad. Although I think there are usually measures built into the bootloader/MBR to deal with this. Could be wrong though. Would be pointless though anyway, come to think of it, because you could still repair the partition from its brother. No, you're right. You'd just be losing half your storage space without any speed or safety gain. Boo that.
Yeah, this reminds me of the time that I mocked-up my shed into a McDonalds (I think I might have to recognize some sort of trademark there: It's McDonald's (I think I might have to 'kill recursion') property.), and started selling hamburgers made of modelling clay. Yeah, that didn't turn out so well.
You could make it a giant java applet, served-up to their IP address, that produces somewhat less than desirable results.
I think two lessons can be drawn from this:
1. Water-mark your images.
2. Don't trust anyone that goes on boards for a show about trickery.
What does open source have to do with text books? I can't remember anyone compiling a calc book in the recent past. If you're talking about unlimited educational fair use, then please say what you mean and mean what you say. Let's not turn 'open source' into 'organic' or 'natural' or 'chemicals'.
Oh crap. Someone already posted that on a deeper thread. Credit goes to kfg.
You can find out here.
This is an old speech made by Ken Thompson that talks about invisible back doors. To summarize, using Linux as an example in this case:
A method could be written into the kernel that detects that a kernel is being compiled and inserts code into that kernel. That code could be whatever you want, as long as it contains the method that detects a kernel being compiled...and so on.
That way, the kernel could have code in it that was not in the source code, but was present in every build, nonetheless.
In the speech, Thompson notes that this sort of backdoor could be inserted into any compiler or assembler (I can't remember if he says OS or not.) Kind of cool stuff.
I am way too lazy to think it up or write it out, but the OR is unnecessary. All logical gates can be constructed out of XOR gates. It is champion of all the gates.
yeah, forget that about the chipset...remind me to RTFA.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the XBOX running Windows? Therefore, for any game not to run on the XBOX 2 that ran on the XBOX, wouldn't XBOX 2 have to be running an OS that isn't backwards compatible with previous versions of Windows? I suppose that's possible - or maybe they're just making the switch to Linux.
Seriously though, even if they have a lot of inline functions (which doesn't seem real likely - but I don't make XBOX games, so I may very well be wrong), is the hardware change going to be so radical that they go to a different chipset? Perhaps they anticipate going to 64-bit hardware, but I doubt that would be a serious impediment either.
Just guessing, but I think maybe it has something to do with the encryption scheme they use to encode the games. They probably want to radically change it, in case someone cracks (has it already been done?) it. If it's done at a hardware level, I can imagine that they wouldn't be too keen on adding support to unencode original XBOX games. That motivation could partially explain what he means by 'intellectual property'. Maybe.
Sorry if I got something (or everything) grossly wrong here, which is quite possible as I don't know much about the XBOX, and I'm a little shakey on some of the other issues.
No, but you pulled a +4 funny.
You can't get people to do whats good for them.
I read that as 'you can't get people to do what I think is good for them.' Before you harangue society for making choices based on 'irrational fears', consider what choices you are talking about: the parent is talking about choosing social programs over research. That is a choice based on philosophy, not fear.
This is epitomized in the debate over space funding. There are those that point out that the money we spend on space research would be a godsend for many social/humanitarian initiatives.
Yes, I am aware of the practical ramifications of pure technological research. In fact, I remain solidly on the side of space research, even manned exploration. However, any research, especially that which is particularly experimental (pun intended), has risks. It is a very real possibility that scramjet technology will amount to absolutely nothing. Then all the time, money, and material that went into it have resulted in nil. At this point, you have wasted resources that could have been used productively in more solid and proven social programs.
So it boils down to a choice between double or nothing and a (relatively) guaranteed, but smaller, return. That is a philosophical choice, much like the basic difference between a liberal and conservative. Don't condemn the majority just because they disagree with you and you can't have your way. That's not democracies fault.
Yes, voting. That will work wonders. You know what, it actually does. If you actually have the desire to see a change, and cajones to try for it, you can make a difference. This is true, despite what jaded chic may tell you. Where do you think political candidates, come from? Who do you think decides who wins? If you said anything other than voters, then you are absolutely, 100%, no qualifications wrong. To win you must have popular support (or very very close to it). In any case, votes are what decide who leads this country.
Think it's not worth it, because economic interests buy their way into office? It doesn't have to be that way. If people are educated and informed, not just innundated with propoganda, then they will make an informed decision. At the very least they will make a decision that's based non-trivial matters.
Think that government is guided by industry? It doesn't have to be that way either. The vast majority of politicians do not do what will annoy their constituency to the point that they will not be re-elected. This is the double-edge in a representative democracy. It means that if the citizens do not tolerate corrupt officials, there will not be corrupt officials. I know it sounds naive and optimistic, but it's true.
Think that corporations are taking away our rights? That doesn't have to be true either. A corporation is held responsible, too. In their case, they are held responsible to the dollar. They do not do things that will annoy their customers to the point that they will not buy their products. So in this case, don't tolerate corporations doing what you don't like! If enough people don't like it, they won't do it.
The enemy is complacency. If you really want things to be different, to have privacy rights, to feel good about the things your government does, then act. Sitting around complaining and thinking that there's nothing you can really do is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Part of the construction of this government was trust that the peoples' collective will would prevail and prevent tyranny. So far, this trust has not failed, and I don't think we should allow it to now.
Oh wow. You are my hero.
A simple bounce has nothing to with either viruses or spoofing. The virus bounces that are coming back are being returned because mail servers are scanning emails, finding known virueses, and notifying the sender that they are sending virueses. This is what should stop, because that is when the return is spoofed. If I have just sent a real email to the wrong address, however, a bounce is appropriate, since 1) the return address is very unlikely to be spoofed (I would hope), and 2) actual useful information is being returned to me, and no-one else.
You missed my question. I don't feel this is obviously friviolous, by virtue of surviving a reasonable process and being dealt with by reasonable people. However, in my lay ignorance, I cannot glean the significance of the patent. Just reading it, it seems to me that they are patenting a system to apply a different shipping than billing address, with error checking. Therefore, I would appreciate a little specificity in the response so that I can figure out what I missed. A summary of patent law doesn't really help me here.
Ok, why was this patent made? I know there must be more to it than Amazon being silly. It seems like it would be crazy to file a patent that was obviously totally frivolous. On the other hand, I can't see anything non-frivolous in it! So is there some wrinkle of the patent, or of patent law that I'm missing?