I would be astonished if this is legal (its ethically wrong), as notices normally have to be shown...although are often small; hidden in reality. This opens the doors for people leaving usb pen drives in the street, lending computers to friends...or hell just buying someone a usb camera.
I don't really think we should be taking ethical advice from someone who conflates stealing a computer with being lent a computer, much less being gifted a computer.
I think those statistics are heavily doctored. They're counting virtually everything as a "terrorist attack,"
It is Europol's classification. But you know what? It doesn't really matter, the TOTAL number of islamist attacks for the years covered in the reporting, was 5. FIVE total of any level - none of which were hijacking an airliner.
Calling it "sophistry" in a manner you don't believe yourself as you are saying it (yes, it is that obvious), in reference to a -plain objective listing of verses-, only reduces any credibility you had.
Cherry picking versus is certainly not objective. Look at the very first one 8:39 - if you go an read 8:38 the context becomes clear - he's only talking about defending themselves against attacks by another religious group - not converting the world by force.
Tell those who disbelieve that if they cease (from persecution of believers) that which is past will be forgiven them; but if they return (thereto) then the example of the men of old hath already gone (before them, for a warning).
That sort of deception is inherent in basically every single page on that site, there is absolutely nothing objective about that place. I don't know a better word for it than sophistry.
When you reference virulently islamophobic sites like thereligonofpeace.com you give up all moral authority - they don't seek truth, they seek justification for hate. If you use the hateful sophistry of that site as a basis of proselytizing against islam then you only devalue your own religion. Honestly, I can't see how a true christian could reconcile "love they neighbor as thyself" with that site - it's a thousand times worse than letting someone Madalyn Murray O'Hair or Richard Dawkins define Christianity.
No, no divergence in standard at all. The standard in both cases is that they conform to the content of their respective defining documents,
That sounds like a whole bunch of double standard to me. You sum up christianity with a single rule like love they neighbor as thyself, but islam, we gonna pick and choose which verses count and which ones don't.
"--whereas for Islam it tends to be "we take over the world, and convert, forcibly if necessary, everyone".
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm talking about - one standard for you, another standard for the people you disagree with.
There are tons of lines in the quran that directly contradict your statement. Not only that, but the lines typically cited by the crazies as justification for violence against unbelievers are taken out of context. They say things like, "Kill the infidels" when the context is really, "Kill the infidels who are plotting to kill you." If those crazies are still muslims, than christians who cite things like Psalm 144 are still christians.
"Let there be no compulsion in religion." - Quran 2:256
"But if they turn away, your duty is only to convey the Message." - Quran 3:20
"The Messenger's duty is but to proclaim the Message." - Quran 5:99
Okay, then, define what you mean by "Christian" in this and other critiques you are making.
I'm not critiquing christianity. I am critiquing those who are unwilling to apply the same standards to other religions as they apply to their religion. See my original post.
I generalized nothing, and the definition is provided by the examples. There's nothing complicated here.
"love your neighbor as yourself" "if a man strikes you on your left cheek, turn to him your right also".
There are plenty of "christians" who do shitty things to other people because they think those other people deserve it and are happy to embrace the idea that if they themselves 'deserved' it, they would receive similar treatment. In other words, your two rules can easily be contradictory depending on the circumstances.
I know it's important to you to define Christianity -specifically and only- in terms of "anything done by anyone claiming to be a Christian, insofar as and specifically while they are doing something contrary to what the religion explicitly states", and not in a remotely-sensible way, , because it's the only way you can stack your irrationality on top of that irrationality, as you haughtily compare how much better your non-demographic of the non-defined
Sorry, but WTF? That doesn't parse and there is no way I said anything like what you put within quote marks there. I am starting to question your lucidity. Maybe you just typoed and would like a second chance at expressing yourself.
But the one thing I do take away from your insulting wording is that apparently you perceive me to have insulted you and you are giving back in kind. You know the opposite of, "if a man strikes you on your left cheek, turn to him your right also."
It's basic philosophy, even if you can't stand religion.
Yeah, not really. I don't have a problem with religion except when it is misused as a justification for evil.
Especially when atheists Mao and Stalin and eugenics-fueled Hitler killed more people than anyone else in history...
Ah, the atheism is a religion viewpoint. As if Mao/Stalin/Hitler/et al were killing people according to please exactly which god? The vacuum of space perhaps?
I totally would, if Muslims would come out and criticize Islamic terrorism, but most Muslims seem to clam up instead.
(a) Now you've moved the goal posts from the religion to individuals who profess to follow the religion. You are balls-deep in the no true scotsman fallacy with that. (b) Is thousands of prominent muslims good enough for you?
There is literally not a single part of Christianity that is violent.
Jesus beat the shit out of the moneychangers in the temple.
But really, you've fallen victim to the "no true scotsman" fallacy. Anyone who commits violence in the name of christianity isn't a christian. In my experience, the people who are willing to apply that standard to christianity aren't willing to apply that standard to any other religions.
Classic false equivalence argument. There is actually no comparison. Muslim terrorist attacks far outnumber all other groups combined, by about 10,000 to 1.
That one is not on the LAPD, they are holding up their end of the bargain. The problem is that the reward was really a combination of rewards from about 25 different groups and some of them - including some police associations - have reneged based on technicalities. But the LAPD as an organization itself has not backed out of their commitment.
Let's remember, folks, that until we see actual evidence and he's tried, that he's a *suspect.*
There will be all kinds of people claiming that the cops should have shot him, that he doesn't deserve any rights - what about the victim's rights, etc.
The thing is, a trial by jury isn't really about the rights of the accused - it is about OUR right to live in a society under the rule of law rather than the rule of man. Killing this guy or even railroading him with an unfair trial won't bring back any of the dead or heal any of the wounded. But it will undermine our status as a free and just society.
H1B is already all about out-sourcing. The top 10 H1B employers, accounting for roughly half of all H1B visas, are out-sourcers. They bring people in on H1B, train them up and send them back. H1B is encouraging out-sourcing, not stopping it.
This means Silverlight will dynamically adjust the video and audio bitrate so that even users on less-than-fast lines can stream Silverlight video content.
I doubt that Silverlight is anything special in that regard. I would be stunned to learn that it used anything other than a standard codec like vc1 and just switches between a couple of different bit-rate streams that were pre-encoded.
This being said, the DRM probably isn't as needed by the Netflix itself but the content providers.
Nope. Netflix lurves DRM. They will force it on viewers even when the producer does not want it. Hell, they won't even let the producer put up a message at the start of the movie to tell viewers they can get a DRM-free copy.
The fashion industry is a really poor example - it doesn't take millions of dollars of R&D investment to come up with a new dress and even then the amount of innovation in clothing design is pretty limited as it still has to fit a human body. Anything resembling R&D in fashion has been in the development of new materials like gore-tex, rayon and nylon, and of course those were patented.
They simply found OTHER ways to make money out of invention and fund the proces.
I'd like to believe that idea, but so far the evidence for it is basically non-existent.
Sure, people like to invent and create new things. But this is isn't a binary situation. There wasn't much incentive that patents could have provided for the invention of something like the wheel. But there are all kinds of inventions that simply would never have been made were it not for many millions of dollars spent on the effort, money spent with the intent of reaping a return based on the exclusive use of the results.
I don't know if we are in agreement. Sure patents concentrate wealth, but they also provide motivation. The world isn't black and white, you have to try to figure out the net result to decide what is best for society.
Sounds like you have that backwards. It was the GED requirement that held you back. So now you got a box checked on your resume, that hasn't made you any smarter or more capable. If there were no such thing as GEDs then people in your circumstance wouldn't even be expected to get one - you could have just joined the military and gone to college without that particular hoop.
Slashdot Mirror
I would be astonished if this is legal (its ethically wrong), as notices normally have to be shown...although are often small; hidden in reality. This opens the doors for people leaving usb pen drives in the street, lending computers to friends...or hell just buying someone a usb camera.
I don't really think we should be taking ethical advice from someone who conflates stealing a computer with being lent a computer, much less being gifted a computer.
Atheism and Scientific Empericism are two modern philosophies
OK, so exactly what tenet of the "philosophy of atheism" was it that inspired Hitler/Mao/etc to kill all those people?
I think those statistics are heavily doctored. They're counting virtually everything as a "terrorist attack,"
It is Europol's classification. But you know what? It doesn't really matter, the TOTAL number of islamist attacks for the years covered in the reporting, was 5. FIVE total of any level - none of which were hijacking an airliner.
Calling it "sophistry" in a manner you don't believe yourself as you are saying it (yes, it is that obvious), in reference to a -plain objective listing of verses-, only reduces any credibility you had.
Cherry picking versus is certainly not objective. Look at the very first one 8:39 - if you go an read 8:38 the context becomes clear - he's only talking about defending themselves against attacks by another religious group - not converting the world by force.
Tell those who disbelieve that if they cease (from persecution of believers) that which is past will be forgiven them; but if they return (thereto) then the example of the men of old hath already gone (before them, for a warning).
That sort of deception is inherent in basically every single page on that site, there is absolutely nothing objective about that place. I don't know a better word for it than sophistry.
When you reference virulently islamophobic sites like thereligonofpeace.com you give up all moral authority - they don't seek truth, they seek justification for hate. If you use the hateful sophistry of that site as a basis of proselytizing against islam then you only devalue your own religion. Honestly, I can't see how a true christian could reconcile "love they neighbor as thyself" with that site - it's a thousand times worse than letting someone Madalyn Murray O'Hair or Richard Dawkins define Christianity.
No, no divergence in standard at all. The standard in both cases is that they conform to the content of their respective defining documents,
That sounds like a whole bunch of double standard to me. You sum up christianity with a single rule like love they neighbor as thyself, but islam, we gonna pick and choose which verses count and which ones don't.
"--whereas for Islam it tends to be "we take over the world, and convert, forcibly if necessary, everyone".
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm talking about - one standard for you, another standard for the people you disagree with.
There are tons of lines in the quran that directly contradict your statement. Not only that, but the lines typically cited by the crazies as justification for violence against unbelievers are taken out of context. They say things like, "Kill the infidels" when the context is really, "Kill the infidels who are plotting to kill you." If those crazies are still muslims, than christians who cite things like Psalm 144 are still christians.
"Let there be no compulsion in religion." - Quran 2:256
"But if they turn away, your duty is only to convey the Message." - Quran 3:20
"The Messenger's duty is but to proclaim the Message." - Quran 5:99
Okay, then, define what you mean by "Christian" in this and other critiques you are making.
I'm not critiquing christianity. I am critiquing those who are unwilling to apply the same standards to other religions as they apply to their religion. See my original post.
I generalized nothing, and the definition is provided by the examples. There's nothing complicated here.
"love your neighbor as yourself"
"if a man strikes you on your left cheek, turn to him your right also".
There are plenty of "christians" who do shitty things to other people because they think those other people deserve it and are happy to embrace the idea that if they themselves 'deserved' it, they would receive similar treatment. In other words, your two rules can easily be contradictory depending on the circumstances.
I know it's important to you to define Christianity -specifically and only- in terms of "anything done by anyone claiming to be a Christian, insofar as and specifically while they are doing something contrary to what the religion explicitly states", and not in a remotely-sensible way, , because it's the only way you can stack your irrationality on top of that irrationality, as you haughtily compare how much better your non-demographic of the non-defined
Sorry, but WTF? That doesn't parse and there is no way I said anything like what you put within quote marks there. I am starting to question your lucidity. Maybe you just typoed and would like a second chance at expressing yourself.
But the one thing I do take away from your insulting wording is that apparently you perceive me to have insulted you and you are giving back in kind. You know the opposite of, "if a man strikes you on your left cheek, turn to him your right also."
It's basic philosophy, even if you can't stand religion.
Yeah, not really. I don't have a problem with religion except when it is misused as a justification for evil.
without reference to any specific objective rule."
The rule here is "love your neighbor as yourself" and "if a man strikes you on your left cheek, turn to him your right also".
Look, you just quoted TWO rules.
In other words, it isn't Christian because it's contrary to the definition of Christianity.
And now you've generalized to a non-specific, non-objective rule. I think you just proved my point.
Especially when atheists Mao and Stalin and eugenics-fueled Hitler killed more people than anyone else in history...
Ah, the atheism is a religion viewpoint. As if Mao/Stalin/Hitler/et al were killing people according to please exactly which god? The vacuum of space perhaps?
I totally would, if Muslims would come out and criticize Islamic terrorism, but most Muslims seem to clam up instead.
(a) Now you've moved the goal posts from the religion to individuals who profess to follow the religion.
You are balls-deep in the no true scotsman fallacy with that.
(b) Is thousands of prominent muslims good enough for you?
There is literally not a single part of Christianity that is violent.
Jesus beat the shit out of the moneychangers in the temple.
But really, you've fallen victim to the "no true scotsman" fallacy. Anyone who commits violence in the name of christianity isn't a christian. In my experience, the people who are willing to apply that standard to christianity aren't willing to apply that standard to any other religions.
Classic false equivalence argument. There is actually no comparison. Muslim terrorist attacks far outnumber all other groups combined, by about 10,000 to 1.
Classic argument from ignorance.
Europol Report: All Terrorists are Muslims... Except the 99.6% that Aren't
Bad behavior is more often born of frustration than success.
Bad behavior by government agencies is always born of lack of oversight.
reniggin on the reward.
That one is not on the LAPD, they are holding up their end of the bargain. The problem is that the reward was really a combination of rewards from about 25 different groups and some of them - including some police associations - have reneged based on technicalities. But the LAPD as an organization itself has not backed out of their commitment.
Let's remember, folks, that until we see actual evidence and he's tried, that he's a *suspect.*
There will be all kinds of people claiming that the cops should have shot him, that he doesn't deserve any rights - what about the victim's rights, etc.
The thing is, a trial by jury isn't really about the rights of the accused - it is about OUR right to live in a society under the rule of law rather than the rule of man. Killing this guy or even railroading him with an unfair trial won't bring back any of the dead or heal any of the wounded. But it will undermine our status as a free and just society.
CNN/NBC/Fox all want to be the first to get the story out. No matter what, for some reason being first though bad info - is good.
In other words, the fourth estate has been reduced to the level of a slashdot first post.
So they can encourage foreign outsourcing?
H1B is already all about out-sourcing. The top 10 H1B employers, accounting for roughly half of all H1B visas, are out-sourcers. They bring people in on H1B, train them up and send them back. H1B is encouraging out-sourcing, not stopping it.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/04/03/176134694/Whos-Hiring-H1-B-Visa-Workers-Its-Not-Who-You-Might-Think
This means Silverlight will dynamically adjust the video and audio bitrate so that even users on less-than-fast lines can stream Silverlight video content.
I doubt that Silverlight is anything special in that regard. I would be stunned to learn that it used anything other than a standard codec like vc1 and just switches between a couple of different bit-rate streams that were pre-encoded.
This being said, the DRM probably isn't as needed by the Netflix itself but the content providers.
Nope. Netflix lurves DRM. They will force it on viewers even when the producer does not want it. Hell, they won't even let the producer put up a message at the start of the movie to tell viewers they can get a DRM-free copy.
The fashion industry is a really poor example - it doesn't take millions of dollars of R&D investment to come up with a new dress and even then the amount of innovation in clothing design is pretty limited as it still has to fit a human body. Anything resembling R&D in fashion has been in the development of new materials like gore-tex, rayon and nylon, and of course those were patented.
They simply found OTHER ways to make money out of invention and fund the proces.
I'd like to believe that idea, but so far the evidence for it is basically non-existent.
Sure, people like to invent and create new things. But this is isn't a binary situation. There wasn't much incentive that patents could have provided for the invention of something like the wheel. But there are all kinds of inventions that simply would never have been made were it not for many millions of dollars spent on the effort, money spent with the intent of reaping a return based on the exclusive use of the results.
I don't know if we are in agreement. Sure patents concentrate wealth, but they also provide motivation. The world isn't black and white, you have to try to figure out the net result to decide what is best for society.
Sounds like you have that backwards. It was the GED requirement that held you back. So now you got a box checked on your resume, that hasn't made you any smarter or more capable. If there were no such thing as GEDs then people in your circumstance wouldn't even be expected to get one - you could have just joined the military and gone to college without that particular hoop.
It isn't about being fair. It is about what produces the best result for society as a whole.