Actually, it's not non-belief that's being punished here, this is capital punishment for a crime against the "state religion." It's more like treason. The tribe of Israel was a theocracy after all. And capital punishment was common for many religious "crimes." If you weren't a Hebrew this didn't apply to you. And it doesn't apply to Christians, and certainly not gentile Christians. But it did apply, so you are correct in that, and Israel did engage in war for territory and some really awful things (but not uncommon for the day) were done to other tribes... so "Thou shall not kill" obviously wasn't a blanket commandment against non-violence. I don't agree that it is a commandment to seek out and destroy non-Israelites. Israel never interpreted it that way either - which is why there is no "Jewish Jihad." Now there is a lot of killing over the "homeland"... but this scripture isn't the source of that. It is not a "requirement" to kill non-believers in Judaism. It may be encouraged - or rewarded - in other faiths, however.
There are differences in the world religions (which is what we were talking about). Maybe not in practice so much (that's a personal problem the human race seems to not be able to shake) and precepts seem to have a way of being "interpreted" into whatever humans want to do to each other anyway, but if you look at the "authoritative" source texts with a proper translation and using the right historical context as your "light," the differences emerge. The old testament says, "do not kill (murder)" but it also says to stone religious traitors, and that it is OK to defend the Jewish homeland. In Ezekiel even women and children are killed for "non-belief"... Hebrew women and children though. Gruesome, but according to the source text, God was "cleaning up" so to speak and purging "traitors" to Israel. This was a specific act commissioned by God, rather than a blanket commandment to kill "non-believers."
The Qur'an says:
Prophet! Rouse the believers to wage war. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will subdue two hundred: if a hundred, they will subdue a thousand of the disbelievers: for these are a people without understanding.
And in the Bhagavad Gita Krishna tells Arjuna that he must fight his war because (after explaining many yogic truths) that to not fight, to not do his duty, would lead to chaos and then all truth would be ultimately lost. There is an order to things that must be preserved, according to Krisha, so as Arjuna is a prince and a warrior, he must fight.
Yet Ghandi said
There are many causes that I am prepared to die for but no causes that I am prepared to kill for.
And most Muslims abhor terrorism in the name of Islam.
And Christ did this:
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her. Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."
Which to me, is kind of like agreeing that selling atomic secrets to the enemy is wrong and should be punished by death... yet out of humility, fear of God, and an understanding that I am very much not
"Turn the other cheek" is from Matthew 5 & Luke 6. I don't think it is in Mark at all.
"Save his life..." is from Matthew 16.
I know of no place in the NT words attributed to Christ that can even be remotely construed to mean "self-defense is a justifiable reason to kill." But I could be wrong, perhaps you can look them up and post the references?
And I thought it was pretty clear that I was referring to the teachings of Christ. There is no reason to believe that Paul's letters or a speech given by Peter in Acts is infallible truth falling from the lips of God. Some people do believe that though. Some people believe that Peter actually replaced Christ (vicar) in his role as first Pope. Even though there is no evidence that Peter ever even tried to assume the role of "chief bishop" or pontifex maximus for himself or would even think such a thing was possible. I don't believe it either.
So again, if you look at what Christ had to say about things - and about himself - it's hard to argue that he was anything but a pacifist. If you can show me this place in John where he says something like this I'll read it and think about it. I'm sure you can find men after Christ that said otherwise (even Peter, Luke or Paul) but since I'm talking about what Christ said - that's kind of beside the point.
To answer your question, no I don't think the views of "church tradition" are relevant to this discussion. Of course it does prove that followers of various religions cannot seem to help themselves when it comes to further refinements, interpretations, and additions. Which is what we were talking about. Trying to suggest that the man who said "let him without sin throw the first stone" really meant "kill 'em all if they don't agree with you" is kind of a stretch. But people can and do suggest that.
But I don't think Peter or Paul ever said that either. I'd be interested all the same. I don't know any verses (attributable to Christ or not) that call for "violence against non-christians" or "killing in self-defense" in the NT, but that doesn't mean anything. I'm willing to learn, and read it for myself, if you can help me find in the text.
Yes, that's how I understand it too: murder. Modern translations read that way too.
I can't seem to disagree with anyone tonight. So this is not a direct response to your post.
The issue arises (like rhakka was saying) that even with translating it this way (murder) it seems to still be open to interpretation. Or at least the followers of these respective belief systems continue to interpret (or twist) the words in various ways. What exactly is murder? What exactly did God mean by that? It's a one-liner: "no murder." How would Moses have interpreted it? Moses, after all, had killed an Egyptian and hid the body (right out of an Alfred Hitchcock Presents episode!) and was on the lam, a fugitive from Egyptian justice. Modern courts debate what is murder and what isn't all the time. Is accidentally killing someone while driving drunk, murder? Or something less, like manslaughter? What about negligence? What about a revenge killing because someone is dissing your homeboy? What if your homeboy is an Israelite and you are Moses?
Again, even with an accurate translation, rabbis and sages have "debated" the exact meaning of this and lots more for centuries. See the gemara for more on this. Lots more.
And again, again, Christ seems (to some) able cut through a lot of this b.s. with what He had to say. He regularly blew off these intricate interpretations and offered something different than the rabbis of His time were offering... in fact He pissed them off pretty well... and apparently this "good news" resonated with a large chunk of the human race and to some was, in fact, the culmination and fulfilment of some business that started with a man who wasn't a Jew, a Muslim, or a Christian: Abraham. To others it is just the same old nonsense. To yet others, just the current flavor of "religion" to abuse and exploit. Again, same old same old. And to others still (like me) it is utterly transcendent. Why some respond to this message and some do not is still a mystery to me.
Which is what this thread was about: do all religions basically say the same thing? Because for certain, most cultures/religions kill (slay/murder/protect themselves/eat meat/drive drunk/go to war/leave the oven on) all the time, regardless of which "word" they subcribe to, or which specific form of hipocrisy they are endulging in at the moment.
I think there is very real distinction between the various world religions: the fact that a large number of people are hypocrites or don't bother to go to the source texts or understand the context surrounding these "divine words" (both belivers and non-belivers) doesn't change that.
Personally, I've never noticed much of a correspondence with what any of the world's religions claim and what I see in practice. How people can claim to follow Buddha and his "middle path" yet purchase a little golden idol of him and try to win the lottery astounds me. Ditto for how people can take the words of a rebel carpenter who taught "love not the world" and "call no man father, for you have only one father in heaven" can turn around and create something like the Universal Church blows me away as well.
To be fair, Jesus never really said that disputes could be solved through non-violent means, or preached that non-violence was an answer to anything. He just said to do it, because it was the right thing to do. And "blessed are the peacemakers." Stuff like that. See Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr. if you want the real pacifism, the kind that offers a solution to the problems of the world.
For the solution to the world's problems, Jesus had other things to say.
Again, I agree with you. And I think that your point is a key message in Christianity. Christ never justified killing, in any circumstance. So I think you two read that commandment the same way.
But, you can't simply wave your hand and make the issue of interpretation go away. Did God mean "thou shall not kill ANYTHING" or "thou shall not kill HUMANS"? You could make the case that eating meat is killing a sentient lifeform and therefore breaks the commandment. Aside from other "commandments" (not the 10) that define what kinds of meat can be eaten and what can't. And if God says "do as I say, not as I do" (as may well be His right) then perhaps He meant "do not kill anything or anybody, unless I otherwise tell you to?" Because, in fact, the bible has plenty of cases of "the Lord" telling Isreal to "kill something."
And interpretation of the commandments is big business, ask any rabbi.
I interpret things for myself, and attempt to keep it simple and "unambiguous." For me, I think taking another human life is essentially an act of defiance... it is me losing faith that God is running the show down here (for whatever mysterious purpose). It is me taking things into my own hands. Loosing faith. My "interpretation" of the 10 commandments and Christ's "good news" is that killing is wrong, under any circumstances. For me. If God wants/wanted Isreal to defend itself (then or now) this is none of my business. And how would I even know this? When it comes time for me to decide what to do in a given situation (the draft, an intruder, mugger, when fascism comes), King David or Ehud Olmert is irrelevant. Christ told me what to do: this is enough.
I'm not sure what we're talking about anymore. I'm a vegetarian, but I don't think "thou shall not kill" means "do not eat meat." I don't eat meat because I care about sustainable living, the hungry, and the environment. I'm a (theoretical) pacifist (maybe one day we'll see if I have what it takes), but I don't belive that "thou shall not kill" means that the God of the Hebrews never wanted them to go to war. My understanding of the history of Isreal and thier belief system right up to the time of Christ and its (almost) complete annihilation by the Romans... is that it is at least internally consistent.
To respond to your post: yes, there are loads of evil and plenty of hipocrites in the "followers" of every religion. I'm sure Jack Thomson thinks Satan wants kids to play Halo and Jesus wants him to put a stop to it. The fact that this is insane will not stop him. I think Jesus wants me to "turn the other cheek" if somebody tries to rob me on the street. The fact that this is insane won't stop me.:) This is how I "interpret" things, and it is unambiguous to me. And Jack too, I'm sure. And the Muslim suicide bomber. And the Christian Crusader. And George Bush. Yes, some people try and do interpret "thou shall not kill" to justify their killing.
But you know? No one - EVER - has been able to twist Christ's words into a justification for killing. If they can, I'd love to hear that argument.
I agree with you that no one is very good at following whichever "word" they consider to be from "God," however they define it.
But let's be accurate:
The early Israelite leaders (Moses, Joshua, David, ect) clearly interpreted "thou shall not kill" to specificaly mean murder. Killing first born Egyptians, warfare, ect., all OK to them. David on the other hand repented for "killing" a fellow soldier over a hot chick. So there is a difference in Judaism.
Islam (the Qur'an) has the concept of Jihad, and spells out rules for warfare (not in a holy month, ect). 'Nuff said.
Christ was a complete pacifist in every way. "Turn the other cheek" and "he who seeks to save his life will lose it" spell out a very clear message of non-violence, even for self-defense. I don't think Bush has read this part of the bible. This does not apply to God, however, He gives and takes as He pleases.
Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism Dharma all consider non-violence to be a virtue. A primary virtue, in fact. I'm not sure elevating the concept to "sin" or "commandment" is quite accurate. I'll leave that question to someone who knows more than I do.
Obviously I'm down with JC. Just a disclaimer. I am biased.
But my point is that hypocrisy is harder to nail down in some religions than in others. Christianity, IMHO, makes glaring hypocrites of us all in short order. Christ set the bar ridiculously high. As was His point.
Sorry for the appologetics on the nerd site.
On topic, I'm all for video games depicting violence. I play FPS with my nephew all the time. Being human and intelligent requires some basic discernment, after all. Thompson should probably keep his mouth shut and not claim to represent "values" or any religion whatsoever, if he does.
You know, that sounded interesting so I followed your link... strange that you should post that... you should keep reading... apparently in Islam there is a difference between SUICIDE & SUICIDE BOMBING. SUICIDE BOMBING seems (per your link) to be a perfectly OK way to do business.
Many Muslim jurists have justified this course of action as an acceptable means of fighting in Islam. There is nothing unislamic about it.
What business is that?
These people, on the other hand, have a very definite goal in their life and death: To establish the rule of Islam.
You should at least look at his site before you troll. The source is there. He uses Windows (I presume) because:
He wants to.
Visual Studio runs on Windows.
DirectX runs on Windows.
The Wiimote library is managed code, and runs on.NET (Windows).
HID/Bluetooth APIs are handy to code for in Windows.
There are a few Bluetooth stacks and drivers around as well for Windows.
He wants to.
In short, there are many enabling technologies on Windows that developers like. M$ may suck sometimes, but they *are* very developer friendly. It's the one thing they clearly do right, no questions about it. But please, feel free to whip something up in GCC, OpenGL and vi if you want. Dick around with OpenBT or BlueZ. Or use mono and emacs even, if you want to leverage the.NET paradigm and hate vi. Maybe you can put together some linux bindings for the Wiimote library while you are at it. People will apprecitate it. Whatever you want. Your choice really. Nobody will stop you, but I'll be sure to bitch about it when you do.
Relax, dude. I, myself, did notice a huge difference when I upgraded my 486 to 32 megs from 16 megs... in 1996. Now, I gave my parents an old PC I bought like in 1999 and it "runs the internet" (broadband) just as fast as my dual athalon with a gig of RAM. I think that's the point that's being made here and it seems pretty logical to me, as well. His eight-year-old mac "runs the internet" just as fast as his new one. And he said that he does in fact have high speed access.
His point: Anecdotaly, I can confirm that most people won't need to purchase a new machine if their primary use is browsing the web and email. I have high-speed internet and two machines. One is eight years old and one is new. I cannot tell much of a difference between the two. And I have no idea why this other chap is insisting that I have a bad internet connection.
Actually I thought the parent's logic was pretty bad. And I didn't think I was using any logic at all. I was stating the purposes of trains and ID systems. Not a trace of logic to be found anywhere in my post.
How about:
Trains -> Big boxes on wheels.
Butterflies -> Frighten me. In the bath tub.
Trains -> Move stuff.
Butterflies -> Limit my freedom and privacy. Because they frighten me. In the bath tub.
Or maybe things like trains and butterflies are general purpose tools and pretty little flying things, and ID Systems are inherently devices used for control. By others. To control me. Yes, ID can be used for "innocuous" purposes such as credit checks and fraud protection, but to me, these are still limiting my freedoms, for good or ill. No train or butterfly ever refused to move my stuff or scared me because I have bad credit or lied to it. Now one day, I may have to show my "papers" to get on a train, or maybe some little yellow symbol on my coat will identify me as needing to get on a different kind of train, but I'll reserve my anger for the id system and people who instituted it and not the train and the people who built it. Yes, I can see how that's very illogical of me.
Or maybe I'm not just using "limiting my freedom" as a synonym for "bad."
Trains -> Have an inherent nature of moving things.
ID Systems -> Have an iherent nature of proving my identity.
Trains -> Move stuff. They move good stuff and they move bad stuff. THEY ARE DESIGNED TO MOVE ANYTHING THAT IS ROUGHLY TRAIN-CAR SHAPED.
ID Systems -> Limit my freedom and privacy. Because THEY ARE DESIGNED TO DO THAT. They control my access to buildings, countries, credit, and allow others to trace my movements, purchases, forum posts, ect.
In other words, there is no logic to be faulty. I'm simply defining things.
Or perhaps trains "control me" by limiting my "spatial freedom"? And ID Systems "enhance my freedoms" by "allowing" me to drive, purchase booze and cigarettes and see R-rated movies?
Sorry for the rant but you really missed the point.
Or maybe, without knowing it, he feels oppressed in a general way by these wonderous corporations and felt the need to bite back.
And maybe, without knowning it, you feel owned by these wonderous corporations and felt a knee-jerk urge to suck up to the teet. And were dumbfounded by how "stupid" he could be.
I think they just revalued it and let it rise by 2% or something. The yuan is still pegged to the dollar. For now. They'll probably peg it to the euro soon, but I doubt they'll be letting it float anytime soon.
F*ck. Also, "Lumpy," as our 20 year veteran of the corperete world likes to be called, is non other than
"Tim Gray" from "Michigan, United States" so yeah maybe he should learn to speel since he's such an ace manager these days. Uhg.
Oh lord. Sorry. That was not about language skills. I don't know what kind of company the OP works for but at the companies I've worked for IT managers don't go to board meetings and they don't "ask" what the budget is... they are told. The OP just seemed to be pretty much full of shit and I could have riffed on that post for hours.
That was all. The grammar was ok (by my standards).
Slashdot Mirror
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_3:_Treason for a more modern version. Carries the death penalty in some cases, but usually not with stones.
There are differences in the world religions (which is what we were talking about). Maybe not in practice so much (that's a personal problem the human race seems to not be able to shake) and precepts seem to have a way of being "interpreted" into whatever humans want to do to each other anyway, but if you look at the "authoritative" source texts with a proper translation and using the right historical context as your "light," the differences emerge. The old testament says, "do not kill (murder)" but it also says to stone religious traitors, and that it is OK to defend the Jewish homeland. In Ezekiel even women and children are killed for "non-belief"... Hebrew women and children though. Gruesome, but according to the source text, God was "cleaning up" so to speak and purging "traitors" to Israel. This was a specific act commissioned by God, rather than a blanket commandment to kill "non-believers."
The Qur'an says:
Prophet! Rouse the believers to wage war. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will subdue two hundred: if a hundred, they will subdue a thousand of the disbelievers: for these are a people without understanding.
And in the Bhagavad Gita Krishna tells Arjuna that he must fight his war because (after explaining many yogic truths) that to not fight, to not do his duty, would lead to chaos and then all truth would be ultimately lost. There is an order to things that must be preserved, according to Krisha, so as Arjuna is a prince and a warrior, he must fight.
Yet Ghandi said
There are many causes that I am prepared to die for but no causes that I am prepared to kill for.
And most Muslims abhor terrorism in the name of Islam.
And Christ did this:
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her. Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."
Which to me, is kind of like agreeing that selling atomic secrets to the enemy is wrong and should be punished by death... yet out of humility, fear of God, and an understanding that I am very much not
"Save his life..." is from Matthew 16.
I know of no place in the NT words attributed to Christ that can even be remotely construed to mean "self-defense is a justifiable reason to kill." But I could be wrong, perhaps you can look them up and post the references?
And I thought it was pretty clear that I was referring to the teachings of Christ. There is no reason to believe that Paul's letters or a speech given by Peter in Acts is infallible truth falling from the lips of God. Some people do believe that though. Some people believe that Peter actually replaced Christ (vicar) in his role as first Pope. Even though there is no evidence that Peter ever even tried to assume the role of "chief bishop" or pontifex maximus for himself or would even think such a thing was possible. I don't believe it either.
So again, if you look at what Christ had to say about things - and about himself - it's hard to argue that he was anything but a pacifist. If you can show me this place in John where he says something like this I'll read it and think about it. I'm sure you can find men after Christ that said otherwise (even Peter, Luke or Paul) but since I'm talking about what Christ said - that's kind of beside the point.
To answer your question, no I don't think the views of "church tradition" are relevant to this discussion. Of course it does prove that followers of various religions cannot seem to help themselves when it comes to further refinements, interpretations, and additions. Which is what we were talking about. Trying to suggest that the man who said "let him without sin throw the first stone" really meant "kill 'em all if they don't agree with you" is kind of a stretch. But people can and do suggest that.
But I don't think Peter or Paul ever said that either. I'd be interested all the same. I don't know any verses (attributable to Christ or not) that call for "violence against non-christians" or "killing in self-defense" in the NT, but that doesn't mean anything. I'm willing to learn, and read it for myself, if you can help me find in the text.
thanks in advance
I can't seem to disagree with anyone tonight. So this is not a direct response to your post.
The issue arises (like rhakka was saying) that even with translating it this way (murder) it seems to still be open to interpretation. Or at least the followers of these respective belief systems continue to interpret (or twist) the words in various ways. What exactly is murder? What exactly did God mean by that? It's a one-liner: "no murder." How would Moses have interpreted it? Moses, after all, had killed an Egyptian and hid the body (right out of an Alfred Hitchcock Presents episode!) and was on the lam, a fugitive from Egyptian justice. Modern courts debate what is murder and what isn't all the time. Is accidentally killing someone while driving drunk, murder? Or something less, like manslaughter? What about negligence? What about a revenge killing because someone is dissing your homeboy? What if your homeboy is an Israelite and you are Moses?
Again, even with an accurate translation, rabbis and sages have "debated" the exact meaning of this and lots more for centuries. See the gemara for more on this. Lots more.
And again, again, Christ seems (to some) able cut through a lot of this b.s. with what He had to say. He regularly blew off these intricate interpretations and offered something different than the rabbis of His time were offering... in fact He pissed them off pretty well... and apparently this "good news" resonated with a large chunk of the human race and to some was, in fact, the culmination and fulfilment of some business that started with a man who wasn't a Jew, a Muslim, or a Christian: Abraham. To others it is just the same old nonsense. To yet others, just the current flavor of "religion" to abuse and exploit. Again, same old same old. And to others still (like me) it is utterly transcendent. Why some respond to this message and some do not is still a mystery to me.
Which is what this thread was about: do all religions basically say the same thing? Because for certain, most cultures/religions kill (slay/murder/protect themselves/eat meat/drive drunk/go to war/leave the oven on) all the time, regardless of which "word" they subcribe to, or which specific form of hipocrisy they are endulging in at the moment.
I think there is very real distinction between the various world religions: the fact that a large number of people are hypocrites or don't bother to go to the source texts or understand the context surrounding these "divine words" (both belivers and non-belivers) doesn't change that.
Personally, I've never noticed much of a correspondence with what any of the world's religions claim and what I see in practice. How people can claim to follow Buddha and his "middle path" yet purchase a little golden idol of him and try to win the lottery astounds me. Ditto for how people can take the words of a rebel carpenter who taught "love not the world" and "call no man father, for you have only one father in heaven" can turn around and create something like the Universal Church blows me away as well.
My understanding is that no moneychangers were harmed in the making of that film.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_money_changers
To be fair, Jesus never really said that disputes could be solved through non-violent means, or preached that non-violence was an answer to anything. He just said to do it, because it was the right thing to do. And "blessed are the peacemakers." Stuff like that. See Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr. if you want the real pacifism, the kind that offers a solution to the problems of the world.
For the solution to the world's problems, Jesus had other things to say.
But, you can't simply wave your hand and make the issue of interpretation go away. Did God mean "thou shall not kill ANYTHING" or "thou shall not kill HUMANS"? You could make the case that eating meat is killing a sentient lifeform and therefore breaks the commandment. Aside from other "commandments" (not the 10) that define what kinds of meat can be eaten and what can't. And if God says "do as I say, not as I do" (as may well be His right) then perhaps He meant "do not kill anything or anybody, unless I otherwise tell you to?" Because, in fact, the bible has plenty of cases of "the Lord" telling Isreal to "kill something."
And interpretation of the commandments is big business, ask any rabbi.
I interpret things for myself, and attempt to keep it simple and "unambiguous." For me, I think taking another human life is essentially an act of defiance... it is me losing faith that God is running the show down here (for whatever mysterious purpose). It is me taking things into my own hands. Loosing faith. My "interpretation" of the 10 commandments and Christ's "good news" is that killing is wrong, under any circumstances. For me . If God wants/wanted Isreal to defend itself (then or now) this is none of my business. And how would I even know this? When it comes time for me to decide what to do in a given situation (the draft, an intruder, mugger, when fascism comes), King David or Ehud Olmert is irrelevant. Christ told me what to do: this is enough.
I'm not sure what we're talking about anymore. I'm a vegetarian, but I don't think "thou shall not kill" means "do not eat meat." I don't eat meat because I care about sustainable living, the hungry, and the environment. I'm a (theoretical) pacifist (maybe one day we'll see if I have what it takes), but I don't belive that "thou shall not kill" means that the God of the Hebrews never wanted them to go to war. My understanding of the history of Isreal and thier belief system right up to the time of Christ and its (almost) complete annihilation by the Romans... is that it is at least internally consistent.
To respond to your post: yes, there are loads of evil and plenty of hipocrites in the "followers" of every religion. I'm sure Jack Thomson thinks Satan wants kids to play Halo and Jesus wants him to put a stop to it. The fact that this is insane will not stop him. I think Jesus wants me to "turn the other cheek" if somebody tries to rob me on the street. The fact that this is insane won't stop me. :) This is how I "interpret" things, and it is unambiguous to me. And Jack too, I'm sure. And the Muslim suicide bomber. And the Christian Crusader. And George Bush. Yes, some people try and do interpret "thou shall not kill" to justify their killing.
But you know? No one - EVER - has been able to twist Christ's words into a justification for killing. If they can, I'd love to hear that argument.
Just sayin'.
But let's be accurate:
Obviously I'm down with JC. Just a disclaimer. I am biased.
But my point is that hypocrisy is harder to nail down in some religions than in others. Christianity, IMHO, makes glaring hypocrites of us all in short order. Christ set the bar ridiculously high. As was His point.
Sorry for the appologetics on the nerd site.
On topic, I'm all for video games depicting violence. I play FPS with my nephew all the time. Being human and intelligent requires some basic discernment, after all. Thompson should probably keep his mouth shut and not claim to represent "values" or any religion whatsoever, if he does.
What business is that?
These people, on the other hand, have a very definite goal in their life and death: To establish the rule of Islam.http://www.answering-islam.org/Index/S/suicide_bomber.html/
no?
In short, there are many enabling technologies on Windows that developers like. M$ may suck sometimes, but they *are* very developer friendly. It's the one thing they clearly do right, no questions about it. But please, feel free to whip something up in GCC, OpenGL and vi if you want. Dick around with OpenBT or BlueZ. Or use mono and emacs even, if you want to leverage the .NET paradigm and hate vi. Maybe you can put together some linux bindings for the Wiimote library while you are at it. People will apprecitate it. Whatever you want. Your choice really. Nobody will stop you, but I'll be sure to bitch about it when you do.
love, and vote for Ron Paul!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8oe-CSA4wQ
But you were right, I didn't get it.
*sigh*
His point: Anecdotaly, I can confirm that most people won't need to purchase a new machine if their primary use is browsing the web and email. I have high-speed internet and two machines. One is eight years old and one is new. I cannot tell much of a difference between the two. And I have no idea why this other chap is insisting that I have a bad internet connection.
Get it?
How about:
Trains -> Big boxes on wheels.
Butterflies -> Frighten me. In the bath tub.
Trains -> Move stuff.
Butterflies -> Limit my freedom and privacy. Because they frighten me. In the bath tub.
Or maybe things like trains and butterflies are general purpose tools and pretty little flying things, and ID Systems are inherently devices used for control. By others. To control me. Yes, ID can be used for "innocuous" purposes such as credit checks and fraud protection, but to me, these are still limiting my freedoms, for good or ill. No train or butterfly ever refused to move my stuff or scared me because I have bad credit or lied to it. Now one day, I may have to show my "papers" to get on a train, or maybe some little yellow symbol on my coat will identify me as needing to get on a different kind of train, but I'll reserve my anger for the id system and people who instituted it and not the train and the people who built it. Yes, I can see how that's very illogical of me.
Or maybe I'm not just using "limiting my freedom" as a synonym for "bad."
Trains -> Have an inherent nature of moving things.
ID Systems -> Have an iherent nature of proving my identity.
Trains -> Move stuff. They move good stuff and they move bad stuff. THEY ARE DESIGNED TO MOVE ANYTHING THAT IS ROUGHLY TRAIN-CAR SHAPED.
ID Systems -> Limit my freedom and privacy. Because THEY ARE DESIGNED TO DO THAT. They control my access to buildings, countries, credit, and allow others to trace my movements, purchases, forum posts, ect.
In other words, there is no logic to be faulty. I'm simply defining things.
Or perhaps trains "control me" by limiting my "spatial freedom"? And ID Systems "enhance my freedoms" by "allowing" me to drive, purchase booze and cigarettes and see R-rated movies?
Sorry for the rant but you really missed the point.
Trains -> Big boxes on wheels.
ID Systems -> Identify me. To others.
Trains -> Move stuff.
ID Systems -> Limit my freedom and privacy. Because they identify me. To others.
Hmmm.
Ahem, dork. The GPL is license to copy. YOU are inappropriate and unhelpful, and I think you are just made-up anyway.
Well that's the stupidest thing I've heard today. That's even dumber than the stuff I say. You "know some cops?" Holy crap.
Innumerable slashdotters should learn the difference between tensile and compressive stress. Oh, wait, here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensile_stress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressive_stress
So, f*ck you, then.
And maybe, without knowning it, you feel owned by these wonderous corporations and felt a knee-jerk urge to suck up to the teet. And were dumbfounded by how "stupid" he could be.
Maybe. Just thinkin'.
I think they just revalued it and let it rise by 2% or something. The yuan is still pegged to the dollar. For now. They'll probably peg it to the euro soon, but I doubt they'll be letting it float anytime soon.
F*ck. Also, "Lumpy," as our 20 year veteran of the corperete world likes to be called, is non other than "Tim Gray" from "Michigan, United States" so yeah maybe he should learn to speel since he's such an ace manager these days. Uhg.
Oh lord. Sorry. That was not about language skills. I don't know what kind of company the OP works for but at the companies I've worked for IT managers don't go to board meetings and they don't "ask" what the budget is... they are told. The OP just seemed to be pretty much full of shit and I could have riffed on that post for hours.
That was all. The grammar was ok (by my standards).
AND I know my IT manager is always saying, "what the budget is?" I love this post.
I know my IT manager goes to all the "board meetings." FOR SURE!
http://www.scrotalsafetycommission.com/
right on. i mean, "me too"
took me five seconds to find this yes, you are right, MS never actually had to go to court... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VirtualDub