Well, you've made the assertion. Now tell us why "of course" is the answer. Go on. Lay it out, in detail. Why do you believe this is the case? What evidence do you have? We are talking about the Jesus that is reported upon in the bible. Not just "some guy" named Jesus who had nothing to do with the story. Supernatural or not; you can assume the bible gets some things wrong. Now, going from there, exactly what takes Jesus from a character in the bible to a guy who "of course" existed?
Well, I could make the comparable claims that, because there is scientology, it's reasonably probable that there was an L. Ron Hubbard. Because there is mormonism, it's reasonably probable that there was a Joseph Smith. Most ideas originate with SOMEONE.
Jesus is a character in a story that was written by one or more other people. He is not comparable to L. Ron Hubbard; he is comparable to a character in one of L. Ron Hubbard's novels. He is not comparable to Joseph Smith, who wrote the story - he is comparable to Moroni, a character in Smith's story, or Xenu, a character in Hubbard's story. Smith, Hubbard, the author(s) of the books of the NT, these people existed because *someone* had to write the story. We know someone picked up a pen or a scribe and had at it. The characters in the story, however, must be held up against contemporaneous history for validation.
Can we find records of L. Ron Hubbard? Yes. Lots. Joseph Smith? Yes, again, lots. Personal records, legal records, community records. Xenu? No. Moroni? No. With regard to characters (and scenes) in the bible, we find some of them, particularly the broad strokes such as kings and kingdoms, but the individual actors? Not so much, and in particular - not Jesus.
When you say most ideas originate with someone, I absolutely agree, and in the case of stories, those ideas typically can be laid at the feet of the author(s.) The exception is a history; but telling an ancient historical fiction from an ancient fiction is a task of looking quite hard at history and the text under examination and seeing where things line up - and don't. There are many mundane (that is, acts in nature) situations that Jesus was portrayed as being directly involved with, yet, no record. This doesn't rule hum out, but it certainly doesn't serve to validate his role or existence. Worse, there are numerous reports of his involvement on the supernatural level in front of witnesses... and no records of that survive, either. Here is where we can bring some other tools to the task. There are no - zero - known supernatural events. In any venue. The inclusion of them casts enormous doubt upon the accuracy of the story; it certainly leaves the burden of proof on the storyteller, or outside validation of the storyteller's claims. Yet... there is none. We can't find any record of this guy outside his stories, with his feeding of multitudes, healing of the sick, and so forth. These are the kind of things people would have made note of, and with great excitement. But... none have been found. Not definitive, but it is certainly clear that the scale is tilting towards fiction.
After all, why name your religion after a person who doesn't exist, when there is a perfectly good person who did exist and who created the religion in the first place?
No, I'm afraid the name of the religion proves absolutely nothing. Does the presence of the character "Jack Ryan" in book after book by Tom Clancy mean that Jack Ryan existed? Even if I start a religion named "Ryanism"? Christ was a character in the stories; he is central to those stories; it is perfectly reasonable, therefore, to call the people who assert the stories are truth "Christians." Or "Biblicans." Doesn't matter - it isn't in any way related to proof of the existance of Ryan or Christ.
Buddha, Confucius, Jesus, it stands to reason that these folks existed.
The existence of these characters can only be verified through multiple sources. In the case of Christ, there are no other sources. So I think your reasoning here is unsound. There are stories about Odin; lots and lots of them. Does it then stand to reason that there was an Odin? No, of course not. Stories about people do not, in any way, serve to demonstrate the reality of characters in those stories. Even when those stories have other virtues, such as moral and/or ethical points or carrying cultural values
There's an even better answer. To wit, "How do you know there was a Jesus? Were you there?"
There is no historical evidence supporting the actual existence of Jesus. The earliest mention of Jesus is in the context of remarks made by Josephus, a man born about 7 years after Christ's supposed death. Then there is Tacitus, who was born about 55 AD. There are a couple more that come at about 80 AD and 100...110AD and then as the Christians gained followers, more and more mentions. The key thing, though, is that there is no mention anywhere in the records we have from 0 to 30 AD of Mr. Christus, and no mention by anyone whose personal timeline crossed that of Mr. Christus.
"What about the bible?" I hear the apologists winding up to ask. Well, what about it? There are no books of the bible that are any older than 300AD. The earliest documents we have - the Vatican, Sinaitic, and Alexandrin manuscripts - come from 300AD or later; they are supposed to be copies of earlier works, but as no such works have come to light, and of the 5,000 or so documents that went into the mix to be used as a basis for the bible (compared against one another and so on), these three are by far the best ones and the most used... we can pretty much limit the scope of trust to literally hundreds of years after Christus was supposed to have lived - in other words, the bible is actually less authoritative than either Tacitus or Josephus, and as I pointed out, those fellows never even knew the man.
A lot of people take the actual existence of Christ as a given, and then proceed to argue about his divinity. However, examining the history, it turns out there is no reason to even presume the man existed. We know there was a group of people - Christians - who were being a pain in the government's rear by the end of the first century AD. That's all we know.
One more step down the ladder - the argument that "because there were Christians, there must have been a Chirst." I point you to Scientology. Must there have been a Xenu? I point you to Mormonism. Must there have been golden tablets, an angel named Moroni? I can even point you to the wall of your veterinarian. Must there have been a "rainbow bridge"? I could go on (for pages!) but I think I've already made the point. These types of organizations are known to arise for reasons entirely aside from the claims that underlie the mythology. There is no need to assume truth because an organization arises based around certain ideas; quite the contrary. The ideas themselves are what need to be looked at, not the organization. And in the case of Christus, it turns out that there are no more convincing records of him than there are of Xenu.
As the claimant, the burden of proof falls upon the Christian. Presently, there is no historical evidence that backs up their claims; that pretty much cuts the feet right out from under any argument they might make. Much more to the point than the flood. Floods are known to happen. Divine children aren't.
Oh, we are the "retards", eh? Here are some more George Bush quotes. Please feel free to "explain" to us how these are all brilliant, deeply meaningful statements that we low-functioning, ignorant citizens are just "misunderstanding":
You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.
- US President George W. Bush (2000?)
Reading is the basics for all learning.
- US President George W. Bush (Discussing his "Reading First" plan in Reston, Virginia, March 28, 2000)
Rarely is the question asked, 'Is our children learning'?
- US President George W. Bush (Florence, S.C. Jan 11 2000)
The illiteracy level of our children are appalling.
- US President George W. Bush (Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 20004)
We cannot let terrorists hold this nation hostile or hold our allies hostile.
- US President George W. Bush (2000 in Des Moines, Iowa)
If you choose to do so, when Iraq is liberated, you will be treated, tried and persecuted as a war criminal.
- US President George W. Bush (In St. Louis on January 22, 2003)
Will the highways on the Internet become more few?
- US President George W. Bush (Concord, New Hampshire, January 29, 2000)
I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family
- US President George W. Bush (January 27, 2000 in New Hampshire)
I think we agree, the past is over.
- US President George W. Bush (May 10, 2000)
Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country.
- US President George W. Bush (Poplar Bluff, Mo., Sept. 6, 2004)
I think -- tide turning -- see, as I remember -- I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of -- it's easy to see a tide turn -- did I say those words?
- US President George W. Bush (asked if the tide was turning in Iraq, Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006)
You work three jobs? Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that.
- US President George W. Bush (to a divorced mother of three, Omaha, Nebraska, Feb. 4, 2005)
Let me put it to you bluntly. In a changing world, we want more people to have control over your own life.
- US President George W. Bush (Annandale, Va, Aug. 9, 2004)
I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves.
- US President George W. Bush (Washington, D.C., Sept. 21, 2003)
[Shuttle] Columbia carried in its payroll classroom experiments from some of our students in America.
- US President George W. Bush (Bethesda, Md., Feb. 3, 2003)
Do you have blacks, too?
- US President George W. Bush (to Brazilian President Fernando Cardoso, Nov. 8, 2001)
It's amazing I won. I was running against peace, prosperity, and incumbency.
- US President George W. Bush (June 14, 2001)
It's important for us to explain to our nation that life is important. It's not only life of babies, but it's life of children living in, you know, the dark dungeons of the Internet.
- US President George W. Bush (Arlington Heights, Ill., Oct. 24, 2000)
I mean, there needs to be a wholesale effort against racial profiling, which is illiterate children.
- US President George W. Bush (second presidential debate, Oct. 11, 2000)
It'd be funny if he was just "some guy." But he isn't. He's the guy who runs the show around here, and he is one illiterate, incompetent, and unimpressive excuse for a statesman. In the original quote, he wasn't trying to imply that we were out-thinking the terrorists; he simply fumbled the entire statement, just as every one of those other examples shows. That's his normal operating mode: fumbling.
That same number of generations took humans 800,000 - 900,000 years.
Mmmmm.... yeah, but it resulted in George Bush. If they're really serious about equivalent advantages, you could end up with an "evolved" CPU that tries to execute your software using a dialect of COBOL that is not only obsolete, but contains misspellings and incorrectly used operators... then when an error occurs, the system will insist on executing the operation anyway.
Actual George Bush quote:
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." --Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004
When I was a boy, the moon was pearl the sun a yellow gold
When I was a man, the wind blew cold the hills were upside down
But now that I have gone from here there's no place I'd rather be
Than to float my chances on the tide
Back in the good old world
On October's last I'll fly back home rolling down winding way
Scare crows are all dressed in rags out at the edge of the field I lay
And all I've got's a pocket full of flowers on my grave
Oh but summer is gone I remember it best
Back in the good old world
And all I've got's a pocket full of flowers on my grave
Oh but summer is gone and I remember it best
Back in the good old world
hell, during jamming sessions I'm sure a lot of us have come up with music that sounded cool. But making a habit of that is hard.
That's why I run everything through the main board and run the 24-track when I jam with people. You'd be amazed at the one-of-a-kind results you can catch, plus people just get used to the idea the damned thing is always on and stop trying to "get it right" and simply have fun instead. And, of course, you'd be amused at the pure junk I catch, too. I've spent a lot of time explaining to some folks why 3 chords and the pentatonic scale won't carry them all the way through life...:-) People love getting a surprise CD copy of a jam session, more-or-less casually mixed and mastered, which is also fun to do; and they make great birthday and xmas presents.
G3 (Japan, at least) is available on DVD. Also, HDNET did a G3-ish Satriani / Tony Mcalpine / Eric Johnson concert, which I have locked up in my HD DVR. If you're ever in, or moving through (Amtrack - I'm literally a block from the tracks - or highway #2) the area, you can watch it on my 17 foot diagonal HD system with 7.1 at 130x7.400 watts RMS. I'm in Northeastern Montana. Just use the contact form at blackbeltsystems.com to arrange a visit and I'll "slashdot" your ears, and share it with you - I'm always willing to take an hour off to indulge in some St. Joe. Might even play a Satch cover for you, if you want. There's a studio in the house, too, if you play - I have a decent selection of guitars and basses, and a DTX drumkit.:-)
Think about it. (1) You get the real deal, the original album and the original audio which is suitable for archiving (no, Virigina, a lossy copy is NOT the original). (2) No strings attached (like DRM). (3) It's 100% legal. (4) By purchasing used cd's, you aren't giving a cent to the RIAA.
Yes. All of that is true. And (5), you're not giving a cent to the artists, either. And that, as they say, is the problem.
Note to slashdot: Please stop handing mod points to people who don't know how to use them. It isn't like the system works very well anyway, and these bottom feeders are just making things worse. Perhaps you should read this bit on moderation.
Please, don't insult music by calling Tom Waits a "musician." The man sounds like a gravel truck in need of maintenance, his lyrics are about as sophisticated as nursery rhymes, and the backing sounds aren't worthy of any note whatsoever.
There are plenty of real blues artists. Don't push pretenders.
There is huge risk here. Person A creates a "protest." The government takes note, puts person A on list of troublemakers. Persons B through M watch the video. Government uses vague personal ID (IP addresses, for instance) and puts persons G through Z on same list.
The series of tubes that comprise teh intarwebbing are not generally anonymous by nature, and anyone who thinks they are is deluded, or worse. In the USA, at least, the ability to track your online activities has been in place for some time. Once you are a "person of interest", your presumption of privacy can turn into an illusion; your connection provider could be working hand in hand with whoever they tell it to.
You don't agree that someone writing "fictional works" about the raping of children, for sexual pleasure, is someone who deserves to be, at the very least, monitored?
No. Works of fiction, fantasy, and straight reporting — in any medium, for any purpose — are not indicative of either "unhealthy behavior" or even an unhealthy tendency towards such behavior. Nor is the consumption / appreciation of such works. It is also worth noting that the production of such works may have an agenda that 100% aligns with yours, that is, carries a message that is entirely anti-sexuality for children and/or teenagers.
However, I would view your outlook as incredibly unhealthy for society at large, and for art in general, and by art, I mean creative works in any medium.
For the record, I was absolutely appalled by the content of your post. You'll note, however, that I neither suggest you need monitoring or that you be repressed. I'm simply appalled by your thinking, which as far as I am concerned has stepped beyond "think of the children" and well into "abuse the adults."
95% of federal legislation is patently unconstitutional.
I agree.
And don't give me that crap about regulating interstate commerce.
Again, I agree; this is wrong headed and misused.
Of course, all interpretation of any law is ridiculously expansive as far as government powers go, and as narrow as possible as far as citizens' rights go.
Every once in a while - such as the above referenced court decision - someone actually gets the point. Those days still give me hope.
But the 2nd amendment ultimately means nothing. If the citizenry allows themselves to be slowly taken over by a dictatorship--and we're more than half way there--I guarantee that the governemnt will take your guns when they feel the need, regardless of any consitution, judgement, or law.
I think we're long past this; but I don't think it is the strength of the government position that did the insidious deed. I think it is the unwillingness of the vast majority of citizens to abandon the level of comfort they have achieved in their lifestyles. It is much easier to shrug off the problems while crying "for the children!" and "stop the terrorists!" than it is to hold any government actor responsible at the expense of everything you have in this world. Your possessions, home, friends, freedom, funds, future ability to get a job; everything goes upon conviction of any offense. Our freedom is gone, replaced with only the ability to bicker among ourselves about current events. We are permitted to talk almost all we want as a sop to the illusion of freedom, but we cannot, and we will not, attempt to change anything, nor would we be allowed to if we tried.
That is why court decisions like the above are so important. They can actually change things. Sadly, they are extremely rare. Most courts haven't got the sense to pour piss out of a boot.
Anyone else think the arguments against Net Neutrality just got a little weaker?
No. The actual arguments based on greed, not bandwidth. Technical arguments against net neutrality are simply fodder for the common person to argue about. All decisions will be taken based upon degree of profit that appears to be available.
The second amendment does not apply to normal citizens. It applies to organized militia
You're entirely incorrect. The "milita" is the unorganized collection of armed citizens that were available to call up. Also, the 2nd amendment does apply to "normal citizens." Both of these errors in your position are addressed, exposed, debunked, and disposed of in the following March 9th, 2007 court decision:
That's the actual decision, in PDF. Absolutely required reading for collective right theorists (which is where your ideas are found.) The court explains, very clearly, that the individual rights position is the valid one, and precisely why, including what is wrong with attempting to use the prefatory clause to qualify the operative clause.
Oh, look, how quaint. A moderator who thinks it is possible to ban nipples across the Internet... and wouldn't recognize humor if it bit them in the butt. You have to love Slash moderation; no oversight, no control, but most importantly, no sense. This is the precise reason we need accountability on moderation - who did what to whom. This moderator is abusing the system.
Yeah, and the men's swimming sites as well. Nipples a-plenty. And sites that show animals suckling. Oh, and baby bottles. Yessir, nipples are bad! I never look at nipples, because I'm an honorable, upright citizen. Well, gotta go now, look at something healthy, like extremeviolence.com or shootinganimalsforheadtrophies.com, um-hmm. I can go with a clear concience, because I know it is a good thing that nasty, nasty SEX stuff will be in its own ghetto now! Man, that stuff is nasty. Did you know if you do it wrong, you can make a KID? Holy shit, you'll end up cleaning diapers, sending the little fucker to college, paying it a visit when it gets arrested for smoking pot. Phew. Sure am glad we're making a ghetto for sexuality, yes I am. Uh-huh. NASTY!
.xxx is for offensive material. Filth. Vice. You know, like Christian and Islamic websites. Surely we need to protect the children from this. They might grow up to be suicide bombers or abortion clinic bombers; get on television and lie to old people in a blatant attempt to extort money from them in return for "prayer." Or they might build on land in your town, claim they don't have to pay taxes, and saddle you and your neighbors with the portion of the tax burden they should be paying. Or they might encourage censorship, even online "ghettos" where material that doesn't fit into their ridiculous mythologies goes to be blocked by ISPs they control through PACs and other unsavory influences.
Yes, I think we need to move all religious content to a tld such as ".xxx" or ".lie" or ".myth" so we can easily block it. As for sex, no need for that. My kids know sex is perfectly OK, and lying about superstition is not — they're smart kids. No need to lean back towards the dark ages. I was happy for them when they had their first sexual experiences. I'm just as happy they've managed to avoid being conned by these superstitious dimwits, but you know, not all kids are as smart as mine. That is why we have to put religion in its own tld. It must be blocked because I don't like it!
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you've made the assertion. Now tell us why "of course" is the answer. Go on. Lay it out, in detail. Why do you believe this is the case? What evidence do you have? We are talking about the Jesus that is reported upon in the bible. Not just "some guy" named Jesus who had nothing to do with the story. Supernatural or not; you can assume the bible gets some things wrong. Now, going from there, exactly what takes Jesus from a character in the bible to a guy who "of course" existed?
Jesus is a character in a story that was written by one or more other people. He is not comparable to L. Ron Hubbard; he is comparable to a character in one of L. Ron Hubbard's novels. He is not comparable to Joseph Smith, who wrote the story - he is comparable to Moroni, a character in Smith's story, or Xenu, a character in Hubbard's story. Smith, Hubbard, the author(s) of the books of the NT, these people existed because *someone* had to write the story. We know someone picked up a pen or a scribe and had at it. The characters in the story, however, must be held up against contemporaneous history for validation.
Can we find records of L. Ron Hubbard? Yes. Lots. Joseph Smith? Yes, again, lots. Personal records, legal records, community records. Xenu? No. Moroni? No. With regard to characters (and scenes) in the bible, we find some of them, particularly the broad strokes such as kings and kingdoms, but the individual actors? Not so much, and in particular - not Jesus.
When you say most ideas originate with someone, I absolutely agree, and in the case of stories, those ideas typically can be laid at the feet of the author(s.) The exception is a history; but telling an ancient historical fiction from an ancient fiction is a task of looking quite hard at history and the text under examination and seeing where things line up - and don't. There are many mundane (that is, acts in nature) situations that Jesus was portrayed as being directly involved with, yet, no record. This doesn't rule hum out, but it certainly doesn't serve to validate his role or existence. Worse, there are numerous reports of his involvement on the supernatural level in front of witnesses... and no records of that survive, either. Here is where we can bring some other tools to the task. There are no - zero - known supernatural events. In any venue. The inclusion of them casts enormous doubt upon the accuracy of the story; it certainly leaves the burden of proof on the storyteller, or outside validation of the storyteller's claims. Yet... there is none. We can't find any record of this guy outside his stories, with his feeding of multitudes, healing of the sick, and so forth. These are the kind of things people would have made note of, and with great excitement. But... none have been found. Not definitive, but it is certainly clear that the scale is tilting towards fiction.
No, I'm afraid the name of the religion proves absolutely nothing. Does the presence of the character "Jack Ryan" in book after book by Tom Clancy mean that Jack Ryan existed? Even if I start a religion named "Ryanism"? Christ was a character in the stories; he is central to those stories; it is perfectly reasonable, therefore, to call the people who assert the stories are truth "Christians." Or "Biblicans." Doesn't matter - it isn't in any way related to proof of the existance of Ryan or Christ.
The existence of these characters can only be verified through multiple sources. In the case of Christ, there are no other sources. So I think your reasoning here is unsound. There are stories about Odin; lots and lots of them. Does it then stand to reason that there was an Odin? No, of course not. Stories about people do not, in any way, serve to demonstrate the reality of characters in those stories. Even when those stories have other virtues, such as moral and/or ethical points or carrying cultural values
There's an even better answer. To wit, "How do you know there was a Jesus? Were you there?"
There is no historical evidence supporting the actual existence of Jesus. The earliest mention of Jesus is in the context of remarks made by Josephus, a man born about 7 years after Christ's supposed death. Then there is Tacitus, who was born about 55 AD. There are a couple more that come at about 80 AD and 100...110AD and then as the Christians gained followers, more and more mentions. The key thing, though, is that there is no mention anywhere in the records we have from 0 to 30 AD of Mr. Christus, and no mention by anyone whose personal timeline crossed that of Mr. Christus.
"What about the bible?" I hear the apologists winding up to ask. Well, what about it? There are no books of the bible that are any older than 300AD. The earliest documents we have - the Vatican, Sinaitic, and Alexandrin manuscripts - come from 300AD or later; they are supposed to be copies of earlier works, but as no such works have come to light, and of the 5,000 or so documents that went into the mix to be used as a basis for the bible (compared against one another and so on), these three are by far the best ones and the most used... we can pretty much limit the scope of trust to literally hundreds of years after Christus was supposed to have lived - in other words, the bible is actually less authoritative than either Tacitus or Josephus, and as I pointed out, those fellows never even knew the man.
A lot of people take the actual existence of Christ as a given, and then proceed to argue about his divinity. However, examining the history, it turns out there is no reason to even presume the man existed. We know there was a group of people - Christians - who were being a pain in the government's rear by the end of the first century AD. That's all we know.
One more step down the ladder - the argument that "because there were Christians, there must have been a Chirst." I point you to Scientology. Must there have been a Xenu? I point you to Mormonism. Must there have been golden tablets, an angel named Moroni? I can even point you to the wall of your veterinarian. Must there have been a "rainbow bridge"? I could go on (for pages!) but I think I've already made the point. These types of organizations are known to arise for reasons entirely aside from the claims that underlie the mythology. There is no need to assume truth because an organization arises based around certain ideas; quite the contrary. The ideas themselves are what need to be looked at, not the organization. And in the case of Christus, it turns out that there are no more convincing records of him than there are of Xenu.
As the claimant, the burden of proof falls upon the Christian. Presently, there is no historical evidence that backs up their claims; that pretty much cuts the feet right out from under any argument they might make. Much more to the point than the flood. Floods are known to happen. Divine children aren't.
Oh, we are the "retards", eh? Here are some more George Bush quotes. Please feel free to "explain" to us how these are all brilliant, deeply meaningful statements that we low-functioning, ignorant citizens are just "misunderstanding":
You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.
- US President George W. Bush (2000?)
Reading is the basics for all learning.
- US President George W. Bush (Discussing his "Reading First" plan in Reston, Virginia, March 28, 2000)
Rarely is the question asked, 'Is our children learning'?
- US President George W. Bush (Florence, S.C. Jan 11 2000)
The illiteracy level of our children are appalling.
- US President George W. Bush (Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 20004)
We cannot let terrorists hold this nation hostile or hold our allies hostile.
- US President George W. Bush (2000 in Des Moines, Iowa)
If you choose to do so, when Iraq is liberated, you will be treated, tried and persecuted as a war criminal.
- US President George W. Bush (In St. Louis on January 22, 2003)
Will the highways on the Internet become more few?
- US President George W. Bush (Concord, New Hampshire, January 29, 2000)
I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family
- US President George W. Bush (January 27, 2000 in New Hampshire)
I think we agree, the past is over.
- US President George W. Bush (May 10, 2000)
Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country.
- US President George W. Bush (Poplar Bluff, Mo., Sept. 6, 2004)
I think -- tide turning -- see, as I remember -- I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of -- it's easy to see a tide turn -- did I say those words?
- US President George W. Bush (asked if the tide was turning in Iraq, Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006)
You work three jobs? Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that.
- US President George W. Bush (to a divorced mother of three, Omaha, Nebraska, Feb. 4, 2005)
Let me put it to you bluntly. In a changing world, we want more people to have control over your own life.
- US President George W. Bush (Annandale, Va, Aug. 9, 2004)
I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves.
- US President George W. Bush (Washington, D.C., Sept. 21, 2003)
[Shuttle] Columbia carried in its payroll classroom experiments from some of our students in America.
- US President George W. Bush (Bethesda, Md., Feb. 3, 2003)
Do you have blacks, too?
- US President George W. Bush (to Brazilian President Fernando Cardoso, Nov. 8, 2001)
It's amazing I won. I was running against peace, prosperity, and incumbency.
- US President George W. Bush (June 14, 2001)
It's important for us to explain to our nation that life is important. It's not only life of babies, but it's life of children living in, you know, the dark dungeons of the Internet.
- US President George W. Bush (Arlington Heights, Ill., Oct. 24, 2000)
I mean, there needs to be a wholesale effort against racial profiling, which is illiterate children.
- US President George W. Bush (second presidential debate, Oct. 11, 2000)
It'd be funny if he was just "some guy." But he isn't. He's the guy who runs the show around here, and he is one illiterate, incompetent, and unimpressive excuse for a statesman. In the original quote, he wasn't trying to imply that we were out-thinking the terrorists; he simply fumbled the entire statement, just as every one of those other examples shows. That's his normal operating mode: fumbling.
Mmmmm.... yeah, but it resulted in George Bush. If they're really serious about equivalent advantages, you could end up with an "evolved" CPU that tries to execute your software using a dialect of COBOL that is not only obsolete, but contains misspellings and incorrectly used operators... then when an error occurs, the system will insist on executing the operation anyway.
Actual George Bush quote:
0567GS02("memes","code")
0567GS02("polygon","hexes")
Here you go:
When I was a boy, the moon was pearl the sun a yellow gold
When I was a man, the wind blew cold the hills were upside down
But now that I have gone from here there's no place I'd rather be
Than to float my chances on the tide
Back in the good old world
On October's last I'll fly back home rolling down winding way
Scare crows are all dressed in rags out at the edge of the field I lay
And all I've got's a pocket full of flowers on my grave
Oh but summer is gone I remember it best
Back in the good old world
And all I've got's a pocket full of flowers on my grave
Oh but summer is gone and I remember it best
Back in the good old world
So... you're a Tom Waits fan, then?
That's why I run everything through the main board and run the 24-track when I jam with people. You'd be amazed at the one-of-a-kind results you can catch, plus people just get used to the idea the damned thing is always on and stop trying to "get it right" and simply have fun instead. And, of course, you'd be amused at the pure junk I catch, too. I've spent a lot of time explaining to some folks why 3 chords and the pentatonic scale won't carry them all the way through life... :-) People love getting a surprise CD copy of a jam session, more-or-less casually mixed and mastered, which is also fun to do; and they make great birthday and xmas presents.
G3 (Japan, at least) is available on DVD. Also, HDNET did a G3-ish Satriani / Tony Mcalpine / Eric Johnson concert, which I have locked up in my HD DVR. If you're ever in, or moving through (Amtrack - I'm literally a block from the tracks - or highway #2) the area, you can watch it on my 17 foot diagonal HD system with 7.1 at 130x7.400 watts RMS. I'm in Northeastern Montana. Just use the contact form at blackbeltsystems.com to arrange a visit and I'll "slashdot" your ears, and share it with you - I'm always willing to take an hour off to indulge in some St. Joe. Might even play a Satch cover for you, if you want. There's a studio in the house, too, if you play - I have a decent selection of guitars and basses, and a DTX drumkit. :-)
Yes. All of that is true. And (5), you're not giving a cent to the artists, either. And that, as they say, is the problem.
Note to moderator: Opinion != Troll.
Note to slashdot: Please stop handing mod points to people who don't know how to use them. It isn't like the system works very well anyway, and these bottom feeders are just making things worse. Perhaps you should read this bit on moderation.
Please, don't insult music by calling Tom Waits a "musician." The man sounds like a gravel truck in need of maintenance, his lyrics are about as sophisticated as nursery rhymes, and the backing sounds aren't worthy of any note whatsoever.
There are plenty of real blues artists. Don't push pretenders.
There is huge risk here. Person A creates a "protest." The government takes note, puts person A on list of troublemakers. Persons B through M watch the video. Government uses vague personal ID (IP addresses, for instance) and puts persons G through Z on same list.
The series of tubes that comprise teh intarwebbing are not generally anonymous by nature, and anyone who thinks they are is deluded, or worse. In the USA, at least, the ability to track your online activities has been in place for some time. Once you are a "person of interest", your presumption of privacy can turn into an illusion; your connection provider could be working hand in hand with whoever they tell it to.
No. Works of fiction, fantasy, and straight reporting — in any medium, for any purpose — are not indicative of either "unhealthy behavior" or even an unhealthy tendency towards such behavior. Nor is the consumption / appreciation of such works. It is also worth noting that the production of such works may have an agenda that 100% aligns with yours, that is, carries a message that is entirely anti-sexuality for children and/or teenagers.
However, I would view your outlook as incredibly unhealthy for society at large, and for art in general, and by art, I mean creative works in any medium.
For the record, I was absolutely appalled by the content of your post. You'll note, however, that I neither suggest you need monitoring or that you be repressed. I'm simply appalled by your thinking, which as far as I am concerned has stepped beyond "think of the children" and well into "abuse the adults."
I agree.
Again, I agree; this is wrong headed and misused.
Every once in a while - such as the above referenced court decision - someone actually gets the point. Those days still give me hope.
I think we're long past this; but I don't think it is the strength of the government position that did the insidious deed. I think it is the unwillingness of the vast majority of citizens to abandon the level of comfort they have achieved in their lifestyles. It is much easier to shrug off the problems while crying "for the children!" and "stop the terrorists!" than it is to hold any government actor responsible at the expense of everything you have in this world. Your possessions, home, friends, freedom, funds, future ability to get a job; everything goes upon conviction of any offense. Our freedom is gone, replaced with only the ability to bicker among ourselves about current events. We are permitted to talk almost all we want as a sop to the illusion of freedom, but we cannot, and we will not, attempt to change anything, nor would we be allowed to if we tried.
That is why court decisions like the above are so important. They can actually change things. Sadly, they are extremely rare. Most courts haven't got the sense to pour piss out of a boot.
No. The actual arguments based on greed, not bandwidth. Technical arguments against net neutrality are simply fodder for the common person to argue about. All decisions will be taken based upon degree of profit that appears to be available.
You're entirely incorrect. The "milita" is the unorganized collection of armed citizens that were available to call up. Also, the 2nd amendment does apply to "normal citizens." Both of these errors in your position are addressed, exposed, debunked, and disposed of in the following March 9th, 2007 court decision:
Parker v. District of Columbia
That's the actual decision, in PDF. Absolutely required reading for collective right theorists (which is where your ideas are found.) The court explains, very clearly, that the individual rights position is the valid one, and precisely why, including what is wrong with attempting to use the prefatory clause to qualify the operative clause.
Oh, look, how quaint. A moderator who thinks it is possible to ban nipples across the Internet... and wouldn't recognize humor if it bit them in the butt. You have to love Slash moderation; no oversight, no control, but most importantly, no sense. This is the precise reason we need accountability on moderation - who did what to whom. This moderator is abusing the system.
Those without a racket master no serve.
Speaking tangentially, of course.
Would you care to cosign such an outlook?
Or have I thrown you a curve?
All all those filthy ".com" sites, too. Damned capitalists.
Yeah, and the men's swimming sites as well. Nipples a-plenty. And sites that show animals suckling. Oh, and baby bottles. Yessir, nipples are bad! I never look at nipples, because I'm an honorable, upright citizen. Well, gotta go now, look at something healthy, like extremeviolence.com or shootinganimalsforheadtrophies.com, um-hmm. I can go with a clear concience, because I know it is a good thing that nasty, nasty SEX stuff will be in its own ghetto now! Man, that stuff is nasty. Did you know if you do it wrong, you can make a KID? Holy shit, you'll end up cleaning diapers, sending the little fucker to college, paying it a visit when it gets arrested for smoking pot. Phew. Sure am glad we're making a ghetto for sexuality, yes I am. Uh-huh. NASTY!
Now. Where's my gun?
<SARCASM>
Yes, I think we need to move all religious content to a tld such as ".xxx" or ".lie" or ".myth" so we can easily block it. As for sex, no need for that. My kids know sex is perfectly OK, and lying about superstition is not — they're smart kids. No need to lean back towards the dark ages. I was happy for them when they had their first sexual experiences. I'm just as happy they've managed to avoid being conned by these superstitious dimwits, but you know, not all kids are as smart as mine. That is why we have to put religion in its own tld. It must be blocked because I don't like it!
</SARCASM>
Dr. Who continues to run.
Firefly couldn't get past... what, 14 episodes?
Sigh.