I think that sums up the only real difference between Judaism and Christianity: Judaism believes in continual repentance to absolve sin, and Christianity says that was just a model for people to practice until the Messiah absolved all sin -- that repentance was good and all, but it didn't really make you right with God because prior to the Messiah, there was no repentance that actually weighed equal in the scale to sin against God.
Many Jews agree with this view as well, which is how some moderate Jews argue that animal sacrifice and observance of Jubilee among other things are not really required anymore (especially post-destruction of the temple in Jerusalem). The difference being, of course, that Jews don't believe that the Messiah has returned yet, and don't believe that Gentiles can be saved without fully converting to the practices of Judaism.
Islam takes a different branch and argues that the Jews don't have a monopoly on God, and follow a more Samaritan-style approach to religion, life, and salvation. Doing so, they miss all the rules and prophecies of Judaism, and so don't have a Messiah figure at all.
Mormons take things one step further than Christians and believe that we are already in the apocalyptic time -- that there has already been a second return of the Messiah, and we have a limited time to make things right before the end time. As such, they share bits with Jews, Muslims and Christians, but have taken things to the next level, with the largest amount of historical baggage.
Jehovah's Witnesses, well, they re-interpreted the King James Bible in their image (almost completely ignoring the original Hebrew and Greek texts) and believe that the afterlife is only open to a limited elect -- and you have to be the best of the best to be one of those people -- thus ignoring basic tenets of all the other mentioned faith groups that they then go on to base the rest of their religion upon.
Some Christian denominations have become more sane about this. Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, don't "pass the hat". Instead, people discreetly put their donations in a slot in a box outside the auditorium so that only the Father needs to see (Matthew 6:4).
Other Christian denominations such as the Mormons and Muslims have similar methods in some areas.
The Catholic church hasn't sold dispensations in a few hundred years, and "pass the hat" has been a purely optional occurrance (and stated as so) at every faith-based meeting I've ever been to. Other non-profits/not-for-profits tend to go for club dues etc. instead.
I disagree... that's what the bill INTENDS, but the wording leaves a lot to the discretion of the service provider and the police force. I'd like something available that REQUIRES such safeguards. The buffer should also be encrypted, with the justice department having the master key, and dual keys required for decryption (JD and police force). The JD should distribute one-time keys of limited duration along with the warrant.
...quit throwing around 'Anonymous' as if they were Al Qaeda or the New York Mets.
Actually, there are some similarities between Anonymous and Al Qaeda... both of them have a group name and "militarized" rebels, but no actual central structure, with totally unrelated groups of people claiming to be members to get their own special point across. Both attempt to use shock tactics to get the sleeping public's attention and to draw others to their cause.
After this, the parallel breaks down.
As for the Mets, they've got longer clubs, better uniforms, and safer headgear than either of the other groups.
A long time ago, I essentially narrowed the field down to Visio, OmniGraffle, and Inkscape. Inkscape had UI and stability issues, plus lacked the support library. OmniGraffle lacked the ability to read other people's Visio docs. Visio.... well, back when it came out, the competition was Claris Draw... that should say something right there.
I'd love to see Inkscape merge with LibreOffice and get the same development and UI love LO's been getting recently. The underlying product is indeed impressive.
So you're saying that everyone else is colour blind, as they are unable to distinguish between UV and black, where he is.
He has no difficulty perceiving differences in color; he has, in fact, an expanded ability to perceive differences in color where most people are color blind.
I dunno...I'd heard ya'll can get arrested for so called Hate Speech.....
That can be defined so broadly, that it would definitely suppress a lot of speech.
I'm glad I can't be arrested, fined or thrown in jail just for saying I think ____ all suck, or I hate ____s...
It might not be politically correct, but you shouldn't run afoul the law for your opinions no matter what they are....
While true, we also have a backlog in our court system such that a contested hate speech case is likely to get dropped off the docket unless it actually has some merit pertaining to actual activity harmful to the public. Still not nice to be accused of hate speech, but the only people who would be convicted would likely run afoul of some other law in the US and get even worse punishment.
So you're saying that you want all people doing legitimate things to be fully tracked and accountable for their actions, with "irrefutable proof" of what they've done online.
Meanwhile, those bots and viruses etc. that you dislike, not following laws and protocols, will joe job the people who are now fully tracked, calling them to account for what? For using the code you wrote to safeguard your organizations site, and finding that it failed.
We're talking about people here... the Internet doesn't really bring anything new in this respect; people have been doing this for as long as there have been people. So has mother nature, for that matter.
Oh, and if someone did find a magic cure, you'd be out of a job.
Looks like Canada is a lost cause now too. Any rocket scientists out there want to build a shuttle for those of us who like our rights? I think our chances of entering a wormhole and coming out in Narnia are better than the chance that government actually asks for permission from this point on.
I thought I'd point out that this is a bill that the Conservative majority is attempting to ramrod through government... it is not law, and likely never will be. And if it does somehow become law, the "law" will be rejected by the first court case that uses it, as it is unconstitutional, against the Canadian Privacy Act, and has no legal merit. The big question is whether the ISPs will have the guts to say "no" when the RCMP comes (port) knocking.
But this law will be struck down hard and fast by the first judge that sees a case where this evidence is used.
Unfortunately, this bill doesn't map to prosecution of court cases. There is no legal accountability in it. This bill enables hoarding of private information, with no recourse. It doesn't really matter whether it ever shows up in the courtroom, as this bill is not intended to gather evidence, it is intended to gather information, which can be used to then find out what someone might be guilty of and then go after them through the standard means once you know what they're up to.
Once again, this information will never be used as evidence, except possibly as evidence used to get court orders to gather evidence. This makes it BAD, not good.
I think I get what he's really doing... he knows that pretty much anyone can be convicted under Canada's CP laws. So what he's done here is drawn a distinction. He's saying "If you're with the government, you won't be charged with CP offences."
The opposition can't succeed in a vote of non-confidence unless they get a majority of MPs in parliament to agree, which they wont, since the majority is already in power.
Actually, it could have an effect... the Conservative Party is not really a party. I give it 12 years tops before it starts to fragment again. The Conservative party is really a coalition party, with all the members clinging together because they realize there's no other way they could get a majority.
Show this group that all the other parties and a large portion of the electorate are opposed to the current leadership, and a number of MPs would be more than happy to jump ship.
That's one of the benefits of not having a party-based system (not that you'd notice from the way politicians represent themselves in Canada).
There is one other option... convince the Governor General. If you can do that, they have the ability to disband parliament... but due to historical events, they don't actually do it unless it's really really necessary.
I think you have Canada confused with Israel, sir....
In Canada, the Mint prints everyone else's money. In Canada, the media are owned by a small number of non-Jewish families. In Canada, academia is owned by the government (and they are DEFINITELY not Jewish).
I know this was meant to be a "rave at the ignorant masses" post, or possibly a troll, but seriously. You don't even seem to be aware of what country you are pointing your diatribe in the general direction of.
Now if you'd s/JEW/AMERICAN/, some people may agree with you -- even though (at this point) they'd still be incorrect.
that "series of device identification numbers" bit is totally unworkable anyway. My ISP doesn't even have most of that information; they have the DIN of my router, and that's about it. They have NO visibility into what happens on the other side of that router, other than via actual traffic and the ability to capture the MACs.
If they are REQUIRED to capture this information, that will be unworkable too -- I'll just keep updating critical bits of the system (like my MACs) so that the DINs keep changing. There's no way an ISP can feasibly track this, unless they get some custom routers that sit at the endpoint and require DIN-based registration to connect to the Internet -- which would be totally useless, other than to show that said ISP has horrible security and can't secure their routers against nefarious people bouncing off of them and circumventing said system -- making any evidence gathered in this way inadmissible in court.
The big flaw here is that they may be grabbing all sorts of information, but they have NO WAY TO PROVE THAT IT IS LEGITIMATE INFORMATION. Joe jobbing someone would be trivial under such a system.
I have the perfect suggestion for this... create a device that caches all throughput in a circular buffer:D
The trick will be that any government org wanting the info will have to request it within about 30 minutes of when it goes over the wire, or else it will be overwritten. This seems reasonable to me.
Of course, they should still need a court order to obtain that information.
End result would be that they could monitor what some suspect is doing "right now" but would have no way to mine what people have been doing in the past. Search queries would be able to flag what subscribers are associated with what search results to obtain a further warrant for detailed information, but the system would not actually hand out the subscriber data.
This would make the system a kind of fancy wiretap, not a gigantic database of people's lives and identities.
If all that my data is used for is to clear me from some investigation that I am currently under suspicion for, and then said data is deleted from ALL systems, then I'm happy.
If my data is collected and stored indiscriminately with no audit chain tracking how this data is accessed and moved, and done with no reasonable suspicion attached, and then is held indefinitely and used as part of a fuzzy search for every investigation from here on in, by any government-affiliated or heavily lobbying organisation, then I've got a problem, as this violates my privacy and data storage rights on a provincial and federal level.
If the second happens... well, I won't really know, will I? That's why I'm against the government and any of its subsidiaries having the legislative tools in the first place.
Part of this system involves collusion between spy agencies to exchange data. E.g. The US National Security Agency is forbidden from spying on US citizens inside the USA, but the Australian military is not, and vice-versa. They get around this by swapping data. Your emails are ALREADY available to the Vic Toews.
This was true 15 years ago. Since then, the US has added legislation sidestepping the issue in pursuit of "national security". This latest legislation is Canada's answer to this "modernization". My guess is that the secret agreements regarding echelon (or just the hardware) have atrophied, such that it makes more sense just to monitor your own country's people than to attempt to get the information you're looking for out of the Echelon project.
...which is contested by Denmark, and probably by Russia as well. But since it's just an ice cube anyway, nobody really cares enough to contest Canada's claim vigorously until it melts.
There's an attitude hidden in your comment that is the root cause of the issue we're currently experiencing... it can be found in the sentence "I am ashamed of my fellow Canadians for electing this charlatan to office repeatedly." Unless you're talking about your fellow Canadians the members of Parliament, you have no point. Canada is supposed to be a representative democracy where you elect your MP to office, and the MPs come together to select a leader to act as Prime Minister.
If everyone actually voted for their best local representative and political parties were limited, if not disbanded, we'd have a MUCH different political landscape in place.
We need electoral reform to make the system work the way it was intended to work, not as some sort of distorted reflection of the US system.
Slashdot Mirror
The question is: did they see it for the first or second time?
Not really... Jeanne Calment wasn't a man. He didn't set any limits for women....
I think that sums up the only real difference between Judaism and Christianity: Judaism believes in continual repentance to absolve sin, and Christianity says that was just a model for people to practice until the Messiah absolved all sin -- that repentance was good and all, but it didn't really make you right with God because prior to the Messiah, there was no repentance that actually weighed equal in the scale to sin against God.
Many Jews agree with this view as well, which is how some moderate Jews argue that animal sacrifice and observance of Jubilee among other things are not really required anymore (especially post-destruction of the temple in Jerusalem). The difference being, of course, that Jews don't believe that the Messiah has returned yet, and don't believe that Gentiles can be saved without fully converting to the practices of Judaism.
Islam takes a different branch and argues that the Jews don't have a monopoly on God, and follow a more Samaritan-style approach to religion, life, and salvation. Doing so, they miss all the rules and prophecies of Judaism, and so don't have a Messiah figure at all.
Mormons take things one step further than Christians and believe that we are already in the apocalyptic time -- that there has already been a second return of the Messiah, and we have a limited time to make things right before the end time. As such, they share bits with Jews, Muslims and Christians, but have taken things to the next level, with the largest amount of historical baggage.
Jehovah's Witnesses, well, they re-interpreted the King James Bible in their image (almost completely ignoring the original Hebrew and Greek texts) and believe that the afterlife is only open to a limited elect -- and you have to be the best of the best to be one of those people -- thus ignoring basic tenets of all the other mentioned faith groups that they then go on to base the rest of their religion upon.
Some Christian denominations have become more sane about this. Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, don't "pass the hat". Instead, people discreetly put their donations in a slot in a box outside the auditorium so that only the Father needs to see (Matthew 6:4).
Other Christian denominations such as the Mormons and Muslims have similar methods in some areas.
The Catholic church hasn't sold dispensations in a few hundred years, and "pass the hat" has been a purely optional occurrance (and stated as so) at every faith-based meeting I've ever been to. Other non-profits/not-for-profits tend to go for club dues etc. instead.
I disagree... that's what the bill INTENDS, but the wording leaves a lot to the discretion of the service provider and the police force. I'd like something available that REQUIRES such safeguards. The buffer should also be encrypted, with the justice department having the master key, and dual keys required for decryption (JD and police force). The JD should distribute one-time keys of limited duration along with the warrant.
You know what they say...
Everyone is anonymous. Some are just more anonymous than others....
...quit throwing around 'Anonymous' as if they were Al Qaeda or the New York Mets.
Actually, there are some similarities between Anonymous and Al Qaeda... both of them have a group name and "militarized" rebels, but no actual central structure, with totally unrelated groups of people claiming to be members to get their own special point across. Both attempt to use shock tactics to get the sleeping public's attention and to draw others to their cause.
After this, the parallel breaks down.
As for the Mets, they've got longer clubs, better uniforms, and safer headgear than either of the other groups.
A long time ago, I essentially narrowed the field down to Visio, OmniGraffle, and Inkscape. Inkscape had UI and stability issues, plus lacked the support library. OmniGraffle lacked the ability to read other people's Visio docs. Visio.... well, back when it came out, the competition was Claris Draw... that should say something right there.
I'd love to see Inkscape merge with LibreOffice and get the same development and UI love LO's been getting recently. The underlying product is indeed impressive.
So you're saying that everyone else is colour blind, as they are unable to distinguish between UV and black, where he is.
He has no difficulty perceiving differences in color; he has, in fact, an expanded ability to perceive differences in color where most people are color blind.
We let politicians get away with it in parliment so they can talk freely without worrying about a civil suit every time they open their mouth.
...and they'd have to...
I dunno...I'd heard ya'll can get arrested for so called Hate Speech.....
That can be defined so broadly, that it would definitely suppress a lot of speech.
I'm glad I can't be arrested, fined or thrown in jail just for saying I think ____ all suck, or I hate ____s...
It might not be politically correct, but you shouldn't run afoul the law for your opinions no matter what they are....
While true, we also have a backlog in our court system such that a contested hate speech case is likely to get dropped off the docket unless it actually has some merit pertaining to actual activity harmful to the public. Still not nice to be accused of hate speech, but the only people who would be convicted would likely run afoul of some other law in the US and get even worse punishment.
So you're saying that you want all people doing legitimate things to be fully tracked and accountable for their actions, with "irrefutable proof" of what they've done online.
Meanwhile, those bots and viruses etc. that you dislike, not following laws and protocols, will joe job the people who are now fully tracked, calling them to account for what? For using the code you wrote to safeguard your organizations site, and finding that it failed.
We're talking about people here... the Internet doesn't really bring anything new in this respect; people have been doing this for as long as there have been people. So has mother nature, for that matter.
Oh, and if someone did find a magic cure, you'd be out of a job.
Looks like Canada is a lost cause now too. Any rocket scientists out there want to build a shuttle for those of us who like our rights? I think our chances of entering a wormhole and coming out in Narnia are better than the chance that government actually asks for permission from this point on.
I thought I'd point out that this is a bill that the Conservative majority is attempting to ramrod through government... it is not law, and likely never will be. And if it does somehow become law, the "law" will be rejected by the first court case that uses it, as it is unconstitutional, against the Canadian Privacy Act, and has no legal merit. The big question is whether the ISPs will have the guts to say "no" when the RCMP comes (port) knocking.
But this law will be struck down hard and fast by the first judge that sees a case where this evidence is used.
Unfortunately, this bill doesn't map to prosecution of court cases. There is no legal accountability in it. This bill enables hoarding of private information, with no recourse. It doesn't really matter whether it ever shows up in the courtroom, as this bill is not intended to gather evidence, it is intended to gather information, which can be used to then find out what someone might be guilty of and then go after them through the standard means once you know what they're up to.
Once again, this information will never be used as evidence, except possibly as evidence used to get court orders to gather evidence. This makes it BAD, not good.
I think I get what he's really doing... he knows that pretty much anyone can be convicted under Canada's CP laws. So what he's done here is drawn a distinction. He's saying "If you're with the government, you won't be charged with CP offences."
The opposition can't succeed in a vote of non-confidence unless they get a majority of MPs in parliament to agree, which they wont, since the majority is already in power.
Actually, it could have an effect... the Conservative Party is not really a party. I give it 12 years tops before it starts to fragment again. The Conservative party is really a coalition party, with all the members clinging together because they realize there's no other way they could get a majority.
Show this group that all the other parties and a large portion of the electorate are opposed to the current leadership, and a number of MPs would be more than happy to jump ship.
That's one of the benefits of not having a party-based system (not that you'd notice from the way politicians represent themselves in Canada).
There is one other option... convince the Governor General. If you can do that, they have the ability to disband parliament... but due to historical events, they don't actually do it unless it's really really necessary.
I think you have Canada confused with Israel, sir....
In Canada, the Mint prints everyone else's money.
In Canada, the media are owned by a small number of non-Jewish families.
In Canada, academia is owned by the government (and they are DEFINITELY not Jewish).
I know this was meant to be a "rave at the ignorant masses" post, or possibly a troll, but seriously. You don't even seem to be aware of what country you are pointing your diatribe in the general direction of.
Now if you'd s/JEW/AMERICAN/, some people may agree with you -- even though (at this point) they'd still be incorrect.
that "series of device identification numbers" bit is totally unworkable anyway. My ISP doesn't even have most of that information; they have the DIN of my router, and that's about it. They have NO visibility into what happens on the other side of that router, other than via actual traffic and the ability to capture the MACs.
If they are REQUIRED to capture this information, that will be unworkable too -- I'll just keep updating critical bits of the system (like my MACs) so that the DINs keep changing. There's no way an ISP can feasibly track this, unless they get some custom routers that sit at the endpoint and require DIN-based registration to connect to the Internet -- which would be totally useless, other than to show that said ISP has horrible security and can't secure their routers against nefarious people bouncing off of them and circumventing said system -- making any evidence gathered in this way inadmissible in court.
The big flaw here is that they may be grabbing all sorts of information, but they have NO WAY TO PROVE THAT IT IS LEGITIMATE INFORMATION. Joe jobbing someone would be trivial under such a system.
See: http://www.revscene.net/forums/658622-help-wireless-network-hacked.html -- there are numerous more examples of Telus, Rogers, Bell, etc. mandatory routers being broken into by ne'er-do-wells, and not enough logging at this level to figure out what was done, when, or by whom.
I have the perfect suggestion for this... create a device that caches all throughput in a circular buffer :D
The trick will be that any government org wanting the info will have to request it within about 30 minutes of when it goes over the wire, or else it will be overwritten. This seems reasonable to me.
Of course, they should still need a court order to obtain that information.
End result would be that they could monitor what some suspect is doing "right now" but would have no way to mine what people have been doing in the past. Search queries would be able to flag what subscribers are associated with what search results to obtain a further warrant for detailed information, but the system would not actually hand out the subscriber data.
This would make the system a kind of fancy wiretap, not a gigantic database of people's lives and identities.
Notice that the Greens aren't even allowed to come to the party-bashing party....
My feelings are similar...
If all that my data is used for is to clear me from some investigation that I am currently under suspicion for, and then said data is deleted from ALL systems, then I'm happy.
If my data is collected and stored indiscriminately with no audit chain tracking how this data is accessed and moved, and done with no reasonable suspicion attached, and then is held indefinitely and used as part of a fuzzy search for every investigation from here on in, by any government-affiliated or heavily lobbying organisation, then I've got a problem, as this violates my privacy and data storage rights on a provincial and federal level.
If the second happens... well, I won't really know, will I? That's why I'm against the government and any of its subsidiaries having the legislative tools in the first place.
Part of this system involves collusion between spy agencies to exchange data. E.g. The US National Security Agency is forbidden from spying on US citizens inside the USA, but the Australian military is not, and vice-versa. They get around this by swapping data. Your emails are ALREADY available to the Vic Toews.
This was true 15 years ago. Since then, the US has added legislation sidestepping the issue in pursuit of "national security". This latest legislation is Canada's answer to this "modernization". My guess is that the secret agreements regarding echelon (or just the hardware) have atrophied, such that it makes more sense just to monitor your own country's people than to attempt to get the information you're looking for out of the Echelon project.
The north pole is part of Canada.
...which is contested by Denmark, and probably by Russia as well. But since it's just an ice cube anyway, nobody really cares enough to contest Canada's claim vigorously until it melts.
There's an attitude hidden in your comment that is the root cause of the issue we're currently experiencing... it can be found in the sentence "I am ashamed of my fellow Canadians for electing this charlatan to office repeatedly." Unless you're talking about your fellow Canadians the members of Parliament, you have no point. Canada is supposed to be a representative democracy where you elect your MP to office, and the MPs come together to select a leader to act as Prime Minister.
If everyone actually voted for their best local representative and political parties were limited, if not disbanded, we'd have a MUCH different political landscape in place.
We need electoral reform to make the system work the way it was intended to work, not as some sort of distorted reflection of the US system.