I just read the article (well skimmed it), and couldn't find anywhere that Sun claimed Linux as being Sun's. The only thing which comes close is this: Sun's linux-based Java Desktop System (JDS)
It isn't refering to Sun claiming Linux as theirs, but refers to their Java Desktop System (JDS) which is linux-based.
Not the same thing as SCO's claims. In fact, the Sun website specifically endorses SUSE linux as the distro to run it on.
If I missed the bit in the article where Sun claimed Linux as their own, can you please point it out to me. (ie quote it for me, so I can look for it in the article). Otherwise, I think you just mis-read what they were saying.
"Japan chased a Chinese sub out of their waters recently, for starters."
Actually, they didn't chase it out. It left before they even reacted to it, which also caused a stir in Japan because of the slow response by the authorities. The sub was only in Japanese waters for a few mintues before it changed course and left.
China has since apologise and said it strayed off course due to technical difficulties.
I was just mentioning Plato naming the source, as your original posting sounded like you were saying that he didn't quote one on this occassion. I wasn't trying to either support nor disprove the existance of Atlantis.
"Correction: Aristotle understood that Plato didn't intend for his stories to be taken literally."
Not really, what Aristotle wrote included the fact that the Arcadians and other people at his time did believe that Atlantis had been real. What Aristotle was expressing was that he thought Plato had made it up, so it was his opinion. There was nothing in Aristotles writings which suggest that Plato didn't intend for his stories to be taken literally. My understanding was more that Plato didn't suggest either way. He just wrote the story, and it was later that others started to question whether it was true or false. In the case of Aristotle (one of Plato's students), he believed Plato had invented it. Others, like the Arcadians, obviously took it to heart for some reason.
I thought this bit ("Constitution of the Tegaeians") was in "The Politics", but I had a look, and it wasn't. [Darn]. So I will have a good look around and see if I can actually find a copy. I found some references to it via Google, but nothing which I think validates what I said. It might be one of those spurious writings which people claim are by an historical figure (in which case I apologise in advance if this is the case), but I really need to find the actual source to back this up. [I read too much, so it is sometimes hard to remember where I heard or read something from].
" You only reaffirm my claim that the bible has been filtered through so many languages"
No I haven't, I have proven you to be incorrect. You claimed the Modern Bibles were Incorrect in translating the name Yeshua into Jesus. So I went straight to the original source, the New Testament in Kone Greek. (Yes, I own a copy published by Bagster & Sons Ltd). As I stated in the last post, the name used in the manuscripts of the New Testament is Iesous, NOT Yeshua, so the translation is accurate. Jesus name in Aramaic, may have been Yeshua, (it might also have been Hosea, Husua, or Joshua or many other similar names with the same root), but your claim was the Modern Bibles were inaccurate for not using this name. My arguement is that it is a perfectly accurate translation of the name from the one in the Manuscripts "Iesous".
"translate from one language to another and then another and etc... eventually translating back into the original language."
No, I went straight to the source, the NT in Kone Greek. I didn't translate from any other language. The fact that you can't accept what was written originally (in the Manuscripts) is proof of you inability to accept the truth. If we were to translate it back into the language being spoken at the time (Aramaic), then we would be going back into the original language, where Jesus name might be Yeshua (it might be a number of other names too, as pointed out above). Your insistance on one of those names over the others is really where your arguement falls down. After all, the name could have been Hosea. The translators have gone with a perfectly acceptable version of the name based on the original manuscripts they translated from, which uses the name Iesous. We are translating into English from the Kone Greek. Which as I pointed out in my original post, names are translated all the time. In this case, the name isnt' really translated at all, they just use the 'J' for the 'I' which is perfectly legitimate (as in Julius for Iulius), and the 'ou' in the name is reduced to a 'u'. So Iesous in the Kone is basically Jesus. So technically, it wasn't so much of a translation, as much as a use of the name written in the manusript. There is no evil in translating the names into something pronouncable in the new language.
You are the one insisting on translating it BACK into the original language being spoken, and you are the one trying to cloud the issue.
"Furthermore, you are wrong about Yeshua. A simple google search results in plenty of references."
I must laugh at this. You are claiming Goggle is more of an authority on the New Testament than The Manuscripts in Kone Greek. Sorry, you are setting yourself up as flame bait on this. As previously stated (ONCE AGAIN) the Kone Greek Manuscripts that are used DO NOT EVER use the name YESHUA. They only use IESOUS, which can translate back into many different names in Aramaic with the same root. Your insistance on Yeshua over any of the others is laughable, when we have a perfectly good name in English derived from the ONLY actual version of his name which we know is accurate. Using Yeshua, Joshua, Hosea or any of the other possible names as the ONE TRUE NAME is pure guess work.
"So you argue at length that two parts of the bible are translated differently because they start with a different source language, which is exactly the kind of stuff that I am talking about."
I suppose you think Sun Tzu's "Art of War" and Homer's "Iliad" are inaccurate because they also have different source languages? Sorry, but if you are going to translate something in to English, you start with whatever source language it is written in. The fact is, the Old Testament is written in Hebrew, and we translate it from that, and the NT is in Kone Greek, so we start with that. This involves NONE of the Filtering you think is occuring. After all, we are going straight from the source documents straight into English. NO FILTERING OF MANY DIFFERNET LANGUAGES are occu
"when any Platonic character relates a myth which none of the other characters are aware of, the myth is likely to be completely contrived by Plato. I say this as a hunch, mostly because Plato likes to make a point of talking about where information came from"
Plato does actually state where he heard it from. One of the other characters in the book, Solon, heard the story from Egyptian Priests. There is a belief that any reference to Atlantis which the Egyptian Priests may have had, would have been burned at the Library of Alexandria when it burned down the first time. (Thanks to Julius Caesar).
I own five books by Plato, but not this one. Here it is on the web. Timaeus and Critias.
Aristotle didn't believe Plato though, and thought he had made the story up, but he does site one source in "Constitution of the Tegaeians" where the people of Arcadia claim to have been descendants from Atlantis. So at least by Aristotles time (and he was taught by Plato), the Arcadians had at least heard of the Myth and were using it as a reason to claim the lands they lived on.
If modern translations of the bible are so accurate, then why is the name of the Christian Messiah transliterated so inaccurately? Jesus as opposed to "Joshua" or even more poperly "Yeshua".
The New Testament is translated from the Kone Greek of the times. That's what it was written in. So Jesus is neither called Joshua or Yeshua. The Greek is actually "Iesous". The I at the beginning of a name is often translated as a 'J' as that letter appeared later in the alphabet, and was originally pronounced similar to a 'Y' (Both J and Y came out of the Roman letter I). So using 'J' for the beginning of a word starting with 'I' later became a ligitimate translation. So Jesus is actually closer than Joshua or Yeshua. When translating into English, they use the term KNOWN in English, not the name in the original language. Names get translated too. If they left them the same, we'd be learning about Iulius Keaser instead of Julius Ceaser, and Kikero instead of Cicero. (To mention a few).
"Heck, even the fact that Messiah is not transliterated "the anointed one". Also note that Christ and Christos is Greek for Messiah."
And Christos is the term used in the New Testament, except in John, where he uses the term "Messiah" twice, and it is translated as 'Messiah' both times. They don't translate it as "the annointed one", because the New Testament (as originally written) doesn't use the term. It uses Christos, which has come into common usage in English as Christ. Once again, they are translating into ENGLISH, and the term Christ (as has entered the English Language) & Messiah, comes with all the definitions of the Greek, 'Christos', and the Hebrew, 'Messiah'. So translating from Christos to Christ is a ligitimate translation & so is Messiah to Messiah. The meaning is still the same. Why translate a word we already have? When we use other words in English we don't break them down into their meanings. We don't use "King Wind" instead of Typhoon, or "Divine wind of God" instead of Kamikaze, or "Cooking on a rock" for Teppenyaki when we eat at a Teppenyaki restaurant. These words have come into English, and are legitimate words to be used, with all their meaning, rather than broken down into their literal translations.
"Most Christians are not aware that there are other Christs mentioned in the bible simply because of the inaccurate "modern" translations."
Hmmm, lets see. The terms Christ (or Christos) as you have pointed out, is from the Greek. It only appears in the New Testament. The only person this is used for, in the New Testament, is Jesus. (Or "Iesous" if you want to be a pedant). Are there other people annointed in the Bible? Yes, but that doesn't make them "The Annointed One" in terms of "The Messiah" or "The Christ". King David gets annointed in 1 Sam 9:16, but it doesn't make him the equivalent of Jesus. Prophets get refered to as "anointed ones."(1 Chron 16:22) In fact, I only found three references to the term "annointed one/s" in the Old Testament. Two are in Chronicles telling people not to harm them. They are refered to as "my annointed ones". The other is in Daniel, and it's reference is to Jesus.
I find it funny that on the one hand you say, "Jesus must be distinct from the other prophets and "anointed ones" of the bible"; Then on the other hand you then say, "Most Christians are not aware that there are other Christs mentioned in the bible".
First you say that Jesus must be kept distinct from the other people who get annointed (by the way, NONE are refered to as "Christs"), then you raise the awareness of other people being annointed in the Bible, saying most Christians are not aware of them. You seem to be the only one confusing the issue. What do you want? Jesus distinct from the other annointed ones, or are you going to try to claim that the other annointed ones are 'Other Christs' ????
The Kone Greek is very specific on the use of the terms "The Christ", and "The Messiah" in it's pa
Just adding this point for interests sake.
I've heard it explained before that the reason most civilizations have a flood story (which are all very similar), is because most have experienced devestating floods. A lot of them also have stories of other disasters, like fires, earthquakes etc. With most natural disasters being thought to have come from God or the gods, the ppl had to rationalise what God or the gods were up to and doing.
In the case of Genesis 7-8, the story starts as a Judgement, and ends as a redemption story.
So the flood stories, wouldn't have much to do with father's being unable to explain fossils that were found, so much as them trying to explain why a great flood just occurred in the local area, and why everything and everyone were washed away and destroyed.
"My answer is simply that fathers the world round had to explain to their inquisitve children why they could find impressions of shells at the top of high mountains"
Your fossil theory wouldn't take into account civilizations who lived in areas without high mountains, and probably experienced a lot of flooding (like the area between the Tigris and Euphrates where they believe the Noah story originates from). It also assumes that when they find a fossil, that they know what it is. I would assume that most fathers explaining a fossil found in a high mountain area probably would have just assumed it was a rock with patterns on it. Living in an area far from where a shell might have been known, they might not even know what it was they were looking at. If they did, they might have assumed it was someone's lunch which had been dropped, and the gods turned the shell into a rock.
I guess the brief summary of that is, if they have them in their local area (native or imported), they wouldn't find it unusual, and if they didnt have them in their local area, they probably didn't know what it was anyway. Most ancient peoples didn't travel too far from where they were born.
"Noah, his family, and the animals were on the ark for over a year."
10 days more than a year in fact.
Genesis 7:11,12
"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month - on that day, all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on the earth for forty days and forty nights."
Genesis 8:13-16
"By the first day of the first month of Noah's sex hundred and first year, the water had dried up from the earth. Noah then removed the covering fromt he ark and saw that the surface of the ground was dry6. By the twenty seventh day of the second month the earth was completely dry. Then God said to Noah, "Come out of the ark, you and your wife and your sons and their wives."
Doing the maths. 600yrs 2 mnths 17 days Minus 601 years, 2 mnths and 27 days
= 1 year and 10 days.
" Actually, according to the Bible, there were seven of each unclean and two of each clean animal."
Other way around, Genesis 7:2,3
"Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and it's mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and it's mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the Earth."
And some interpretations say that the seven refers to the MALE and MATE... so it would be 14 of each, and 4 of the unclean.
Of course, the question of what they ate when on the ark is not answered in the Bible. It might have been that God provided it like when he surplied Mana in the desert. After all, it did take 150 days, Genesis 7:24:
"The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days."
Cheers.
" Sex != procreation. I don't think too many guys go to clubs with the goal of getting a woman pregnant:-)"
That's true, that's why God invented Sperm Banks!
It's the closest some slashdotters will ever get to having a meaningful relationship. (With something other than a computer).:-)
"antidisestablishmentraistic"
"floccinaucinihilipilification"
"pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis"
Damn, all these big words on the board haven't left me any room to stick my seven letters, and all I can make is 'doodle' with a 'Q' left over that I can't seem to place anywhere.
I'm sure someone was cheating in order to get all those big words anyway. How did everyone else get more than seven letters?
I better give up on scrabble and go back to something easier, like Shogun Total War on the hardest level.
"The copyright itself, not the subject of copyright."
At no time have I argued about the "Subject of Coyright" being property. In fact in the last post, I agreed with you.
""(And I agree, the subject of Copyright as property is a different kettle of fish.)" "
If you go back to the very first post, the fact that I have been arguing, is that Copyright is considered a type of Property under Australian Law. I think I have adequately proven this with quotes from various court cases and the Copyright act of Australia 1968 section 196 POINT 1. Which I also provided a link to.
The court cases also prove that they were interpreting the 1842 Copyright Act in this same way, with the case of "Leather Cloth Co. Ltd. v. American Leather Cloth Co. Ltd. (1863)"
Your last two posts are really the only place that I have seen the "Subject of Copyright" even being debated. As I have already pointed out, I have not been discussing this, except to agree with you in my last post, as it is a "different kettle of fish."
The other point that you brought up, that I disagree with, is that 'Intellectual Property' being considered property is a modern invention. I have quoted from an 1863 court case. Though it doesn't use the term 'Intellectual Property', it does specifically say that the case over a disputed Trade Mark, was a property case. (Which the owner of the Trade Mark won).
"You have a copy right (two words) on them, and it is a very ill fit to call it a property right."
First of all, Copyright is ONE word. And as I have quoted from the Australian Copyright Act, in Australia, Copyright is considered a TYPE of property.
If you are going to argue that anything intangible is NOT a type of property, you might as well give up your money, because it has been Intangible for years, with the majority of Money being stored in computers. I am sure you (and almost anyone else), would argue that they OWN their MONEY. It really only has value due to an agreement in society. Even when the majority of it was circulated as paper notes and coins, it was still intangible, as the notes and coins were only representations of value. The coins and Notes certainly never were the same value as what they represented. If someone emptied your bank account tomorrow, and you took them to court, it would be a case of Theft of Personal Property.
I will quote the AUSTRALIAN COPYRIGHT AT OF 1968 Again in case you MISSED THE POINT: "Copyright is personal property and, subject to this section, is transmissible by assignment, by will and by devolution by operation of law."
This is NOT a quote from someone else, it is a QUOTE from the LAW itself. You claimed previously that you googled the Act up and read it, yet you seem to keep ignoring what it actually says.
" Chuckle, you actually quoted an entirely modern (1999) characterization of copyright as a "right of property"."
It's from the Australian Copyright act of 1968 section 196. In fact, here is section 196 point 1 "Copyright is personal property and, subject to this section, is transmissible by assignment, by will and by devolution by operation of law."
I have it sitting on my desk, I didn't need to google it up. I did get a reference for you from the web, because obviously I can't send my copy to you.
Fundamental differences occured in copyright, when the owner of the copyright shifted from the publishers to the creators of the works. The old type of "copyright" which allowed publishers/printers to capitalise on a work, have been shifted into what are now the modern publishing rights.
Copyright certainly has been considered as property in Australian law from that time on. I quote from the case: PACIFIC FILM LABORATORIES PTY. LTD. v. FEDERAL COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION (1970) 121 CLR 154
"It lies in the failure to distinguish between
the copyright as incorporeal property and property in the material thing which is the subject of the copyright."
They clearly refer to copyright as 'incorporeal property', which today they probably would refer to as "intellectual property".
This is from 1970, and was a case before the High Court of Australia. This is only two years after the 1968 law.
I also quote from another case: "COLBEAM PALMER LTD. v. STOCK AFFILIATES PTY. LTD. (1968) 122 CLR 25" (Again High Court of Australia).
"Protection of property,
rather than abhorrence of fraud, was thus said to be the foundation of
equitable jurisdiction in cases of common law trade marks: Leather Cloth Co.
Ltd. v. American Leather Cloth Co. Ltd. (1863)"
Note, this is a reference to a case from 1863. The protection of one companies 'Trade Mark' being considered 'protection of property'. If they were not thinking in terms of it being property, then why would they use the term "protection of property".
So I would say that the 1842 laws as I said previously, considered "Intellectual Property" to be property as per their ruling in 1863. (21 years after the law was passed.)
I am sure I could probably find many more cases if you want.
So as I said previously, in Australian Law, Copyright is considered a property.
(And I agree, the subject of Copyright as property is a different kettle of fish.)
I am a bit worried though about something you said in a previous post concerning the publishers being behind the push.
"It is the publishing industry attempting to drive the view of copyright as a property right. They WANT propertery-like rights."
Copyright is owned by the artist/creator of the work. The Publishing industry don't own the copyright, so for them to push for it to become property, is actually a bit of a null point. They don't pay copyright, nor do they receive it. The end buyer pays the copyright on the book/recording etc that they purchase, and the copyright royalties go to the artist/creator of the work. Why would the publishers push for something (which is already in Australian Law), which doesn't effect them?
Prior to 1650AD, this arguement wasn't even around. Previous to this the Christian church didn't care how old the earth was. (It is actually irrelevant to the Bible, which never includes dates etc) It was only when Usher decided to approximate the age of the earth via the book of Genesis that the theory that the earth was created in 4004BC even took place.
It's also a nice thing to note, that the word used in Hebrew, which is translated as "a day", when God creates the earth, actually just means a period of time. (Which means God could of made the earth in 6 seconds, 6 billion years, or 6 days). The periods of time don't even have to be of the same length.
Even Bishop Usher refered to his dating as an approximation and a theory. (Why he had to be so precise as 9AM on the 23rd of October 4004 is a mystery. Maybe using an exact time added weight to what he was saying).
In the meantime, the well meaning Bishops Approximation/Theory has come to be treated as "Gospel" in some Christian circles. The Bishop was just trying to answer a question that many people have asked over the years, using the only method available at the time. Science has progressed to the point that better methods are available.
I find it interesting when people try to use this theory to disprove the Bible, or to defend it. It is really only a theory based on one mans interpretation, which used the Bible as a base. (And anyone using the same method as Usher might not even get the same date or time). I'm not even sure that I've heard a Catholic or Orthodox Christian try to defend it either, (Nor a Jew for that matter). So it may be an entirely Protestant thing. (Muslims have told me that they beleive Allah destroys and creates the Earth every second. I am unsure if they base this on the Koran though.)
The point being made at the begining of Genesis is that God created the Earth. It is a point that science can neither prove nor disprove, (not at this point in time anyway), because it doesn't explain how he did it, nor does it have any scientific information except for the order in which he did it. (Which happens to agree with the fossil record).
This is just an assumption on my behalf, but is it possible that SCO are doing it for the publicity?
It gets them mentioned for free in virtually every publication concerning IT. (How much would that normally cost). They get interviewed concerning the law suit, so are able to spread their corporate spin. The law suit may be frivilous... but like you said, a lot of people out there are going, "There must be something to this." It's giving bad publicity (if such a thing exists) to IBM. It's making out that it's been wronged, so people will be sympathetic to it.
So at the end of the day, I think they weighed it up and went:
Cost of Law Suit - Cost of all that publicity + sympathy + bad mouth opposition
= increased sales for SCO + Descreased sales for oposition.
= $MONEY$
Maybe they did the sum and it came back as a big positive for them.
In the meantime, while you are complaining the lawsuit is frivilous, and calling them dumb, they are laughing all the way to the bank.
As I said, it's an assumption on my behalf... but their risk department would have done a sum similar to that before starting the law suit anyway. If the worst case scenario wasn't too bad, and the best case scenario was great, it was probably worth the risk.
Even if the law suit gets tossed out of court. It may be a winner for them financially.
Dumb? Maybe not.
Frivilous, not nice, devious, sneaky? Probably.
Just my two cents worth of assumption.
Cheers.
Re:Old school hackers vs. new school hackers.
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 1
Thanks for bearing with me.
You have been quite bearable. Hopefully you can bear with me as I have another go at trying to convince you to not refer to it as an assumption.:-) I am hoping this post will be valuable in one way or anyother, even if I fail to convince you.:-)
I can see where you are coming from, but in 1842, I don't think it was an asumption that they made when they gave property rights to copyright. I think it was a conscious decision. The old type of copyright (which gave printers a monopoly on a work for a specific period of time), have basically become the publishing rights that they have today. ( I am unsure if copyright actually split into these two different 'rights' at the same time, or if it just evolved that way afterwards. The monopolising aspect though, is enforced in the publishing rights of today, and the ownership is retained by the cretor, who was lucky enough, brilliant enough, or did a lot of hard work in order to create the work). In 1842, they were using their "Good Bad Attitude", in order to make the intellectual leap to say, "Hey, we can treat these intellectual, non physical things in a way like physical property. As such, we should include a law to allow the creator to have certain rights to it as though it were a physical thing."
The leap itself wasn't too big a thing, with humans already being accustomed to similar constructions. Money being the first and most obvious. These constructions are more agreements, and not assumptions. We don't really assume that the copyright, or our money are physical in anyway. But we bestow upon them attributes, as though they were physical. A creator owns their copyright, the same way, you or I own our money. The majority of todays money is actually being stored as 1's and 0's on computer systems. There is a limited amount being represented in physical form. Even so the physical form, is only representative of a value, which we have come to via an agreement.
I read once of a tribe which used pink shells as currancy. Obviously if we went to where they live, our money would be of little value to them, and their shells wouldn't be worth much to us. Within their society though, the idea is that those shells hold more value than their physical worth. (Same as our concept of money - except our money has evolved into more of an idea, which is stored on a computer.)
About five years ago I had a work mate who decided because money "wasn't actually anything", it therefore didn't have any value. He was trying to convince us to return to bartering. As we pointed out to him, the concept was so much a part of the fabric of our society, that we doubted he would be able to convince the world to give up money to return to bartering. We then sent him to the bar without any money to barter for our next round of drinks. He returned and asked for money, because the bar staff were as unconvinced as the rest of us.
To a certain extent, Stocks in a company are also something which fits into the same category. Many people explain stocks in terms of the company being something physical, like a cake. Yet, at the end of the day, the company is more than just the cost of the physical things they own. (In some cases, companies end up being worth less than the physical things that comprise them).
So these social constructs are actually all around us. I agree with you that people take them for granted. This is because of how society is constructed. We learn from an early age that money has value. We get taught to treat these, and many more other things which are abstract, like physical property. I think it is amazing that the human brain is capable of such a construction. (Ownership, even of a physical object, is in a way abstract. After all, the object is just 'there', and it's only through agreement that we recognise a persons exclusive right to an object).
Of course,the more abstract a thought gets, the more di
Slashdot Mirror
Oh Sorry. lol Didn't realise it was a joke. Stoopid me. :-)
Cheers.
" At least he doesn't claim it's Sun's Linux.
But he did."
I just read the article (well skimmed it), and couldn't find anywhere that Sun claimed Linux as being Sun's. The only thing which comes close is this:
Sun's linux-based Java Desktop System (JDS)
It isn't refering to Sun claiming Linux as theirs, but refers to their Java Desktop System (JDS) which is linux-based.
Not the same thing as SCO's claims. In fact, the Sun website specifically endorses SUSE linux as the distro to run it on.
If I missed the bit in the article where Sun claimed Linux as their own, can you please point it out to me. (ie quote it for me, so I can look for it in the article). Otherwise, I think you just mis-read what they were saying.
"That's the last time I'll go to a ornithologist for a check-up!"
You don't go for a check up, you go for Tweatment.
"Japan chased a Chinese sub out of their waters recently, for starters."
Actually, they didn't chase it out. It left before they even reacted to it, which also caused a stir in Japan because of the slow response by the authorities. The sub was only in Japanese waters for a few mintues before it changed course and left.
China has since apologise and said it strayed off course due to technical difficulties.
The US tracked the same sub off Guam earlier.
Cheers.
I was just mentioning Plato naming the source, as your original posting sounded like you were saying that he didn't quote one on this occassion. I wasn't trying to either support nor disprove the existance of Atlantis.
"Correction: Aristotle understood that Plato didn't intend for his stories to be taken literally."
Not really, what Aristotle wrote included the fact that the Arcadians and other people at his time did believe that Atlantis had been real. What Aristotle was expressing was that he thought Plato had made it up, so it was his opinion. There was nothing in Aristotles writings which suggest that Plato didn't intend for his stories to be taken literally. My understanding was more that Plato didn't suggest either way. He just wrote the story, and it was later that others started to question whether it was true or false. In the case of Aristotle (one of Plato's students), he believed Plato had invented it. Others, like the Arcadians, obviously took it to heart for some reason.
I thought this bit ("Constitution of the Tegaeians") was in "The Politics", but I had a look, and it wasn't. [Darn]. So I will have a good look around and see if I can actually find a copy. I found some references to it via Google, but nothing which I think validates what I said. It might be one of those spurious writings which people claim are by an historical figure (in which case I apologise in advance if this is the case), but I really need to find the actual source to back this up. [I read too much, so it is sometimes hard to remember where I heard or read something from].
" You only reaffirm my claim that the bible has been filtered through so many languages"
No I haven't, I have proven you to be incorrect. You claimed the Modern Bibles were Incorrect in translating the name Yeshua into Jesus. So I went straight to the original source, the New Testament in Kone Greek. (Yes, I own a copy published by Bagster & Sons Ltd). As I stated in the last post, the name used in the manuscripts of the New Testament is Iesous, NOT Yeshua, so the translation is accurate. Jesus name in Aramaic, may have been Yeshua, (it might also have been Hosea, Husua, or Joshua or many other similar names with the same root), but your claim was the Modern Bibles were inaccurate for not using this name. My arguement is that it is a perfectly accurate translation of the name from the one in the Manuscripts "Iesous".
"translate from one language to another and then another and etc... eventually translating back into the original language."
No, I went straight to the source, the NT in Kone Greek. I didn't translate from any other language. The fact that you can't accept what was written originally (in the Manuscripts) is proof of you inability to accept the truth. If we were to translate it back into the language being spoken at the time (Aramaic), then we would be going back into the original language, where Jesus name might be Yeshua (it might be a number of other names too, as pointed out above). Your insistance on one of those names over the others is really where your arguement falls down. After all, the name could have been Hosea. The translators have gone with a perfectly acceptable version of the name based on the original manuscripts they translated from, which uses the name Iesous. We are translating into English from the Kone Greek. Which as I pointed out in my original post, names are translated all the time. In this case, the name isnt' really translated at all, they just use the 'J' for the 'I' which is perfectly legitimate (as in Julius for Iulius), and the 'ou' in the name is reduced to a 'u'. So Iesous in the Kone is basically Jesus. So technically, it wasn't so much of a translation, as much as a use of the name written in the manusript. There is no evil in translating the names into something pronouncable in the new language.
You are the one insisting on translating it BACK into the original language being spoken, and you are the one trying to cloud the issue. "Furthermore, you are wrong about Yeshua. A simple google search results in plenty of references."
I must laugh at this. You are claiming Goggle is more of an authority on the New Testament than The Manuscripts in Kone Greek. Sorry, you are setting yourself up as flame bait on this. As previously stated (ONCE AGAIN) the Kone Greek Manuscripts that are used DO NOT EVER use the name YESHUA. They only use IESOUS, which can translate back into many different names in Aramaic with the same root. Your insistance on Yeshua over any of the others is laughable, when we have a perfectly good name in English derived from the ONLY actual version of his name which we know is accurate. Using Yeshua, Joshua, Hosea or any of the other possible names as the ONE TRUE NAME is pure guess work.
"So you argue at length that two parts of the bible are translated differently because they start with a different source language, which is exactly the kind of stuff that I am talking about." I suppose you think Sun Tzu's "Art of War" and Homer's "Iliad" are inaccurate because they also have different source languages? Sorry, but if you are going to translate something in to English, you start with whatever source language it is written in. The fact is, the Old Testament is written in Hebrew, and we translate it from that, and the NT is in Kone Greek, so we start with that. This involves NONE of the Filtering you think is occuring. After all, we are going straight from the source documents straight into English. NO FILTERING OF MANY DIFFERNET LANGUAGES are occu
"when any Platonic character relates a myth which none of the other characters are aware of, the myth is likely to be completely contrived by Plato. I say this as a hunch, mostly because Plato likes to make a point of talking about where information came from"
.
Plato does actually state where he heard it from. One of the other characters in the book, Solon, heard the story from Egyptian Priests. There is a belief that any reference to Atlantis which the Egyptian Priests may have had, would have been burned at the Library of Alexandria when it burned down the first time. (Thanks to Julius Caesar).
I own five books by Plato, but not this one. Here it is on the web. Timaeus and Critias
Aristotle didn't believe Plato though, and thought he had made the story up, but he does site one source in "Constitution of the Tegaeians" where the people of Arcadia claim to have been descendants from Atlantis. So at least by Aristotles time (and he was taught by Plato), the Arcadians had at least heard of the Myth and were using it as a reason to claim the lands they lived on.
If modern translations of the bible are so accurate, then why is the name of the Christian Messiah transliterated so inaccurately? Jesus as opposed to "Joshua" or even more poperly "Yeshua".
The New Testament is translated from the Kone Greek of the times. That's what it was written in. So Jesus is neither called Joshua or Yeshua. The Greek is actually "Iesous". The I at the beginning of a name is often translated as a 'J' as that letter appeared later in the alphabet, and was originally pronounced similar to a 'Y' (Both J and Y came out of the Roman letter I). So using 'J' for the beginning of a word starting with 'I' later became a ligitimate translation. So Jesus is actually closer than Joshua or Yeshua. When translating into English, they use the term KNOWN in English, not the name in the original language. Names get translated too. If they left them the same, we'd be learning about Iulius Keaser instead of Julius Ceaser, and Kikero instead of Cicero. (To mention a few).
"Heck, even the fact that Messiah is not transliterated "the anointed one". Also note that Christ and Christos is Greek for Messiah."
And Christos is the term used in the New Testament, except in John, where he uses the term "Messiah" twice, and it is translated as 'Messiah' both times. They don't translate it as "the annointed one", because the New Testament (as originally written) doesn't use the term. It uses Christos, which has come into common usage in English as Christ. Once again, they are translating into ENGLISH, and the term Christ (as has entered the English Language) & Messiah, comes with all the definitions of the Greek, 'Christos', and the Hebrew, 'Messiah'. So translating from Christos to Christ is a ligitimate translation & so is Messiah to Messiah. The meaning is still the same. Why translate a word we already have? When we use other words in English we don't break them down into their meanings. We don't use "King Wind" instead of Typhoon, or "Divine wind of God" instead of Kamikaze, or "Cooking on a rock" for Teppenyaki when we eat at a Teppenyaki restaurant. These words have come into English, and are legitimate words to be used, with all their meaning, rather than broken down into their literal translations.
"Most Christians are not aware that there are other Christs mentioned in the bible simply because of the inaccurate "modern" translations."
Hmmm, lets see. The terms Christ (or Christos) as you have pointed out, is from the Greek. It only appears in the New Testament. The only person this is used for, in the New Testament, is Jesus. (Or "Iesous" if you want to be a pedant). Are there other people annointed in the Bible? Yes, but that doesn't make them "The Annointed One" in terms of "The Messiah" or "The Christ". King David gets annointed in 1 Sam 9:16, but it doesn't make him the equivalent of Jesus. Prophets get refered to as "anointed ones."(1 Chron 16:22) In fact, I only found three references to the term "annointed one/s" in the Old Testament. Two are in Chronicles telling people not to harm them. They are refered to as "my annointed ones". The other is in Daniel, and it's reference is to Jesus.
I find it funny that on the one hand you say, "Jesus must be distinct from the other prophets and "anointed ones" of the bible"; Then on the other hand you then say, "Most Christians are not aware that there are other Christs mentioned in the bible".
First you say that Jesus must be kept distinct from the other people who get annointed (by the way, NONE are refered to as "Christs"), then you raise the awareness of other people being annointed in the Bible, saying most Christians are not aware of them. You seem to be the only one confusing the issue. What do you want? Jesus distinct from the other annointed ones, or are you going to try to claim that the other annointed ones are 'Other Christs' ????
The Kone Greek is very specific on the use of the terms "The Christ", and "The Messiah" in it's pa
"David and Goliath shoot at the same time"
...' "
Stupid Hollywood taking liberties again. Goliath didn't have anything to shoot with.
"David said to the Philistine, 'You come against me with sword and spear and javelin,
Bet Hollywood gave them both Smith and Wessons too.
Wooops, darn those Freudian slips. Who would have thought they had them in Biblical days!
Just adding this point for interests sake.
I've heard it explained before that the reason most civilizations have a flood story (which are all very similar), is because most have experienced devestating floods. A lot of them also have stories of other disasters, like fires, earthquakes etc. With most natural disasters being thought to have come from God or the gods, the ppl had to rationalise what God or the gods were up to and doing.
In the case of Genesis 7-8, the story starts as a Judgement, and ends as a redemption story.
So the flood stories, wouldn't have much to do with father's being unable to explain fossils that were found, so much as them trying to explain why a great flood just occurred in the local area, and why everything and everyone were washed away and destroyed.
"My answer is simply that fathers the world round had to explain to their inquisitve children why they could find impressions of shells at the top of high mountains"
Your fossil theory wouldn't take into account civilizations who lived in areas without high mountains, and probably experienced a lot of flooding (like the area between the Tigris and Euphrates where they believe the Noah story originates from). It also assumes that when they find a fossil, that they know what it is. I would assume that most fathers explaining a fossil found in a high mountain area probably would have just assumed it was a rock with patterns on it. Living in an area far from where a shell might have been known, they might not even know what it was they were looking at. If they did, they might have assumed it was someone's lunch which had been dropped, and the gods turned the shell into a rock.
I guess the brief summary of that is, if they have them in their local area (native or imported), they wouldn't find it unusual, and if they didnt have them in their local area, they probably didn't know what it was anyway. Most ancient peoples didn't travel too far from where they were born.
Cheers.
"The nuclear winter theory has been challenged more than once, but the alternatives aren't so convincing (the two-asteroid theory for example)."
I think they have footage of an asteroid lurking near the grassy knoll.
"Noah, his family, and the animals were on the ark for over a year."
10 days more than a year in fact. Genesis 7:11,12
"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month - on that day, all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on the earth for forty days and forty nights."
Genesis 8:13-16
"By the first day of the first month of Noah's sex hundred and first year, the water had dried up from the earth. Noah then removed the covering fromt he ark and saw that the surface of the ground was dry6. By the twenty seventh day of the second month the earth was completely dry. Then God said to Noah, "Come out of the ark, you and your wife and your sons and their wives."
Doing the maths.
600yrs 2 mnths 17 days Minus 601 years, 2 mnths and 27 days
= 1 year and 10 days.
" Actually, according to the Bible, there were seven of each unclean and two of each clean animal."
... so it would be 14 of each, and 4 of the unclean.
Other way around, Genesis 7:2,3
"Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and it's mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and it's mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the Earth."
And some interpretations say that the seven refers to the MALE and MATE
Of course, the question of what they ate when on the ark is not answered in the Bible. It might have been that God provided it like when he surplied Mana in the desert. After all, it did take 150 days, Genesis 7:24:
"The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days."
Cheers.
" Sex != procreation. I don't think too many guys go to clubs with the goal of getting a woman pregnant :-)" :-)
That's true, that's why God invented Sperm Banks!
It's the closest some slashdotters will ever get to having a meaningful relationship. (With something other than a computer).
"antidisestablishmentraistic"
"floccinaucinihilipilification"
"pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis"
Damn, all these big words on the board haven't left me any room to stick my seven letters, and all I can make is 'doodle' with a 'Q' left over that I can't seem to place anywhere.
I'm sure someone was cheating in order to get all those big words anyway. How did everyone else get more than seven letters?
I better give up on scrabble and go back to something easier, like Shogun Total War on the hardest level.
"The copyright itself, not the subject of copyright."
At no time have I argued about the "Subject of Coyright" being property. In fact in the last post, I agreed with you.
""(And I agree, the subject of Copyright as property is a different kettle of fish.)" "
If you go back to the very first post, the fact that I have been arguing, is that Copyright is considered a type of Property under Australian Law. I think I have adequately proven this with quotes from various court cases and the Copyright act of Australia 1968 section 196 POINT 1. Which I also provided a link to.
The court cases also prove that they were interpreting the 1842 Copyright Act in this same way, with the case of "Leather Cloth Co. Ltd. v. American Leather Cloth Co. Ltd. (1863)"
Your last two posts are really the only place that I have seen the "Subject of Copyright" even being debated. As I have already pointed out, I have not been discussing this, except to agree with you in my last post, as it is a "different kettle of fish."
The other point that you brought up, that I disagree with, is that 'Intellectual Property' being considered property is a modern invention. I have quoted from an 1863 court case. Though it doesn't use the term 'Intellectual Property', it does specifically say that the case over a disputed Trade Mark, was a property case. (Which the owner of the Trade Mark won).
"You have a copy right (two words) on them, and it is a very ill fit to call it a property right."
First of all, Copyright is ONE word. And as I have quoted from the Australian Copyright Act, in Australia, Copyright is considered a TYPE of property.
If you are going to argue that anything intangible is NOT a type of property, you might as well give up your money, because it has been Intangible for years, with the majority of Money being stored in computers. I am sure you (and almost anyone else), would argue that they OWN their MONEY. It really only has value due to an agreement in society. Even when the majority of it was circulated as paper notes and coins, it was still intangible, as the notes and coins were only representations of value. The coins and Notes certainly never were the same value as what they represented. If someone emptied your bank account tomorrow, and you took them to court, it would be a case of Theft of Personal Property.
I will quote the AUSTRALIAN COPYRIGHT AT OF 1968 Again in case you MISSED THE POINT:
"Copyright is personal property and, subject to this section, is transmissible by assignment, by will and by devolution by operation of law."
This is NOT a quote from someone else, it is a QUOTE from the LAW itself. You claimed previously that you googled the Act up and read it, yet you seem to keep ignoring what it actually says.
"(And I agree, the subject of Copyright as property is a different kettle of fish.)"
Woops, should have been more specific, it should read. "The Subject of Copyright" as property to distinguish from Copyright as a subject. D'oh!
ie, I am talking about the "work" which get's copyrighted. lol
" Chuckle, you actually quoted an entirely modern (1999) characterization of copyright as a "right of property"."
It's from the Australian Copyright act of 1968 section 196. In fact, here is section 196 point 1
"Copyright is personal property and, subject to this section, is transmissible by assignment, by will and by devolution by operation of law."
I have it sitting on my desk, I didn't need to google it up. I did get a reference for you from the web, because obviously I can't send my copy to you.
Fundamental differences occured in copyright, when the owner of the copyright shifted from the publishers to the creators of the works. The old type of "copyright" which allowed publishers/printers to capitalise on a work, have been shifted into what are now the modern publishing rights.
Copyright certainly has been considered as property in Australian law from that time on. I quote from the case: PACIFIC FILM LABORATORIES PTY. LTD. v. FEDERAL COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION (1970) 121 CLR 154
"It lies in the failure to distinguish between the copyright as incorporeal property and property in the material thing which is the subject of the copyright."
They clearly refer to copyright as 'incorporeal property', which today they probably would refer to as "intellectual property".
This is from 1970, and was a case before the High Court of Australia. This is only two years after the 1968 law.
I also quote from another case: "COLBEAM PALMER LTD. v. STOCK AFFILIATES PTY. LTD. (1968) 122 CLR 25" (Again High Court of Australia). "Protection of property, rather than abhorrence of fraud, was thus said to be the foundation of equitable jurisdiction in cases of common law trade marks: Leather Cloth Co. Ltd. v. American Leather Cloth Co. Ltd. (1863)"
Note, this is a reference to a case from 1863. The protection of one companies 'Trade Mark' being considered 'protection of property'. If they were not thinking in terms of it being property, then why would they use the term "protection of property".
So I would say that the 1842 laws as I said previously, considered "Intellectual Property" to be property as per their ruling in 1863. (21 years after the law was passed.)
I am sure I could probably find many more cases if you want.
So as I said previously, in Australian Law, Copyright is considered a property.
(And I agree, the subject of Copyright as property is a different kettle of fish.)
I am a bit worried though about something you said in a previous post concerning the publishers being behind the push.
"It is the publishing industry attempting to drive the view of copyright as a property right. They WANT propertery-like rights."
Copyright is owned by the artist/creator of the work. The Publishing industry don't own the copyright, so for them to push for it to become property, is actually a bit of a null point. They don't pay copyright, nor do they receive it. The end buyer pays the copyright on the book/recording etc that they purchase, and the copyright royalties go to the artist/creator of the work. Why would the publishers push for something (which is already in Australian Law), which doesn't effect them?
Cheers.
Prior to 1650AD, this arguement wasn't even around. Previous to this the Christian church didn't care how old the earth was. (It is actually irrelevant to the Bible, which never includes dates etc) It was only when Usher decided to approximate the age of the earth via the book of Genesis that the theory that the earth was created in 4004BC even took place.
It's also a nice thing to note, that the word used in Hebrew, which is translated as "a day", when God creates the earth, actually just means a period of time. (Which means God could of made the earth in 6 seconds, 6 billion years, or 6 days). The periods of time don't even have to be of the same length.
Even Bishop Usher refered to his dating as an approximation and a theory. (Why he had to be so precise as 9AM on the 23rd of October 4004 is a mystery. Maybe using an exact time added weight to what he was saying).
In the meantime, the well meaning Bishops Approximation/Theory has come to be treated as "Gospel" in some Christian circles. The Bishop was just trying to answer a question that many people have asked over the years, using the only method available at the time. Science has progressed to the point that better methods are available.
I find it interesting when people try to use this theory to disprove the Bible, or to defend it. It is really only a theory based on one mans interpretation, which used the Bible as a base. (And anyone using the same method as Usher might not even get the same date or time). I'm not even sure that I've heard a Catholic or Orthodox Christian try to defend it either, (Nor a Jew for that matter). So it may be an entirely Protestant thing. (Muslims have told me that they beleive Allah destroys and creates the Earth every second. I am unsure if they base this on the Koran though.)
The point being made at the begining of Genesis is that God created the Earth. It is a point that science can neither prove nor disprove, (not at this point in time anyway), because it doesn't explain how he did it, nor does it have any scientific information except for the order in which he did it. (Which happens to agree with the fossil record).
Cheers
6007th Birthday. There was no year 0, so 4004BC to 1 BC plus 1AD to 2004AD = 6007 years.
:-)
I was going to make a similar remark to yours, but you beat me to it.
There were eight dwarves. Police are out there looking for the missing one, his name is Hungry.
If you come to Australia, you can eat our national emblems. The Kangaroo and the Emu are both available if you go to the right restaurant.
But an interesting thing to note, Benjamin Franklin wanted the Turkey as the US national emblem. Imagine if he had of succeeded.
This is just an assumption on my behalf, but is it possible that SCO are doing it for the publicity?
... but like you said, a lot of people out there are going, "There must be something to this." It's giving bad publicity (if such a thing exists) to IBM. It's making out that it's been wronged, so people will be sympathetic to it.
... but their risk department would have done a sum similar to that before starting the law suit anyway. If the worst case scenario wasn't too bad, and the best case scenario was great, it was probably worth the risk.
It gets them mentioned for free in virtually every publication concerning IT. (How much would that normally cost). They get interviewed concerning the law suit, so are able to spread their corporate spin. The law suit may be frivilous
So at the end of the day, I think they weighed it up and went:
Cost of Law Suit - Cost of all that publicity + sympathy + bad mouth opposition
= increased sales for SCO + Descreased sales for oposition.
= $MONEY$
Maybe they did the sum and it came back as a big positive for them.
In the meantime, while you are complaining the lawsuit is frivilous, and calling them dumb, they are laughing all the way to the bank.
As I said, it's an assumption on my behalf
Even if the law suit gets tossed out of court. It may be a winner for them financially.
Dumb? Maybe not.
Frivilous, not nice, devious, sneaky? Probably.
Just my two cents worth of assumption.
Cheers.
Thanks for bearing with me.
:-) I am hoping this post will be valuable in one way or anyother, even if I fail to convince you. :-)
,the more abstract a thought gets, the more di
You have been quite bearable. Hopefully you can bear with me as I have another go at trying to convince you to not refer to it as an assumption.
I can see where you are coming from, but in 1842, I don't think it was an asumption that they made when they gave property rights to copyright. I think it was a conscious decision. The old type of copyright (which gave printers a monopoly on a work for a specific period of time), have basically become the publishing rights that they have today. ( I am unsure if copyright actually split into these two different 'rights' at the same time, or if it just evolved that way afterwards. The monopolising aspect though, is enforced in the publishing rights of today, and the ownership is retained by the cretor, who was lucky enough, brilliant enough, or did a lot of hard work in order to create the work). In 1842, they were using their "Good Bad Attitude", in order to make the intellectual leap to say, "Hey, we can treat these intellectual, non physical things in a way like physical property. As such, we should include a law to allow the creator to have certain rights to it as though it were a physical thing."
The leap itself wasn't too big a thing, with humans already being accustomed to similar constructions. Money being the first and most obvious. These constructions are more agreements, and not assumptions. We don't really assume that the copyright, or our money are physical in anyway. But we bestow upon them attributes, as though they were physical. A creator owns their copyright, the same way, you or I own our money. The majority of todays money is actually being stored as 1's and 0's on computer systems. There is a limited amount being represented in physical form. Even so the physical form, is only representative of a value, which we have come to via an agreement.
I read once of a tribe which used pink shells as currancy. Obviously if we went to where they live, our money would be of little value to them, and their shells wouldn't be worth much to us. Within their society though, the idea is that those shells hold more value than their physical worth. (Same as our concept of money - except our money has evolved into more of an idea, which is stored on a computer.)
About five years ago I had a work mate who decided because money "wasn't actually anything", it therefore didn't have any value. He was trying to convince us to return to bartering. As we pointed out to him, the concept was so much a part of the fabric of our society, that we doubted he would be able to convince the world to give up money to return to bartering. We then sent him to the bar without any money to barter for our next round of drinks. He returned and asked for money, because the bar staff were as unconvinced as the rest of us.
To a certain extent, Stocks in a company are also something which fits into the same category. Many people explain stocks in terms of the company being something physical, like a cake. Yet, at the end of the day, the company is more than just the cost of the physical things they own. (In some cases, companies end up being worth less than the physical things that comprise them).
So these social constructs are actually all around us. I agree with you that people take them for granted. This is because of how society is constructed. We learn from an early age that money has value. We get taught to treat these, and many more other things which are abstract, like physical property. I think it is amazing that the human brain is capable of such a construction. (Ownership, even of a physical object, is in a way abstract. After all, the object is just 'there', and it's only through agreement that we recognise a persons exclusive right to an object).
Of course