The great part about this is that once the game is released, if he doesn't get killed by some impressionable little tyke, he'll look like even more of a fool, and if he does... well, at least he'll be less annoying.
The root issue here is copyright. The founding fathers of the USA made provisions for copyright for a set of stated purposes.
The movie industry owes much to being able to make derivatives of others' works, and copyright legislation hinders their creativity just as much, if not more, than others. The Internet has revolutionized the economics of distribution (or, at least, it has the potential to do so if the proper frameworks are invested in). In this new environment, what is the optimal period for society to grant a temporary monopoly to creators (or their agents) via copyright? Obviously, there is more at stake than simply profit for the movie industry: there is the intangible value of access to the art of one's culture, but the profitablilty of the industry are not without value to the culture.
Discuss. Debate. Whatever. Engage the students' minds.
Really? So how did the USA wind up on the side that was against the fascists in the first place? Could it be because of deep philosophical differences, namely the principles of human rights? Naw, that would be too obvious.
Also, the Nazis never attacked the USA, it was the Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbor.
And they even now talk bullshit nad close eyes on what happens in China
What would you suggest? Economic sanctions? Open war?
Freedom for Tibet and defending human rights end for the US when there is no oil in the defended country. The censorship and laughter from human rights will continue if no hard actions will be executed
Wait... so now you WANT America to come and make every corner of the world safe for democracy? It's so dizzying.
I suppose it's to be open war then, unless there's some other form of "hard action" you have in mind. That'll be real good for the world. Much better than gradual cultural reform. I'm sure China will simply hand Tibet over without a fight, because they're pretty reasonable about having things taken away from them.
If the people of Tibet really want to be free, they should stand up for their right to self-determination, or at least representation in government.
Slashdot has a funny bit of text when there are no comments to load, and sometimes it strikes you as humorously appropriate. Enjoy the moment, realize that this happens all the time, and proceed normally, commenting on the article, if at all.
Trust us, it's not clever, and the comments will come soon enough. We don't need filler comments in the mean time.
I'm getting a bit tired of this particular misconception about the Christian worldview. There is a difference between belief in facts and trust in a person.
"You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder." - James 2:19
Everyone in hell, according to the non-straw-man version of the Christian worldview, will be there because they have rejected God's offer of free righteousness in Jesus Christ:
All faith acceptable to God throughout all time has been on the basis that God would send someone to establish the righteousness that we humans had made ourselves and continue to make ourselves incapable of producing on our own by rejecting God. Throughout the centuries he was known by different names: the Seed of the woman, Shiloh, the Messiah, etc. When he came, he was known as Jesus of Nazareth.
This has nothing, per se, to do with accepting or rejecting facts. You can accept all the right facts to be true, and still reject the person and the offer. No one is sent to hell for ignorance: we are all continuously shaping our souls into beings capable of heaven, or beings not capable of heaven.
Jesus, the one promised by God, made it possible for things to be right between God and humans again. Do you want that? Do you want Him? Or do you want to be your own god?
The parent's point was that the television networks were the advertisers' customers, not the other way around. The only way that you are involved in this particular transaction is that the advertisers are paying the networks for your eyeballs.
Functionally, the only difference is that you would have to prove that you were healthy do get a discount, but in this case, the burden of proof is on the provider to prove that individuals should qualify pay more.
Keep in mind that at the time, the general Japanese population was convinced that the allies were out to rape, pillage, and torture every last civilian they came across. There are Japanese people who, upon hearing that the Americans were coming, killed their own mothers, and sisters and grandfathers in order to spare them the expected atrocity. They were brainwashed by their government's propaganda to resist to the last man. It would not have been a pleasant invasion.
Lousy rotten Sun, losing its mass. *Grumble* You could have said current orbits, and I might have had the decency to actually look it up before posting.
The reason I said you were trolling was that you misconstrued my post as somehow saying that a government of the type that the Bible teaches me to respect is one that only protects Christians. That was ludicrous and inflammatory.
Christianity does not prescribe a government, nor does it detail the intricacies of its system of justice, in other words, it is not a theocracy. Christianity, however, does recognize the legitimacy of government. In no way am I advocating that there should be "a system of justice or government that is based upon [my] religion or its teachings".
Governments existed before Christianity.
Quite right. In fact, one of those governments was the Roman Empire, the very government that I have already brought up. However, according to the Bible, God instituted governments, and before they existed, He was directly in charge of punishing people for their crimes against others. Now He has delegated that to the human race.
This, as you say, is not very relevant to you, who may or may not believe this particular version of history.
Which begs the question, what is justice? In fact, I think it delves a bit deeper than that: what is morality? What is "right?" Where does someone get the idea that they "should" or "ought" to do or not do anything?
If there is no ultimate basis for morality, then no one has "rights" anyway, so we shouldn't get our knickers in a knot when one person disregards the rights of another, unless there is some sort of benefit to us. Oh, "rights" might be a useful abstraction and convenient for the time being, but don't let that get in the way of good old-fashioned survival of those who want it most and have the biggest guns.
Not at all. Did you even read my post? You're obviously trolling, because there is no logical way to take that from what I wrote.
A system of justice seen from the Judeo-Christian perspective, as I have outlined it, applies to everyone equally, regardless of their attitude toward God. Note the phrases "every man", and "every person". It addresses behavior, not belief. Specifically, it addresses behavior that harms another person.
Nor, I might point out, does this view require that the Christians, or any other political or religious entity, be the ones running the government. The excerpt from Romans was from a letter written to Christians living in 1st century Rome instructing them to submit to the Roman government. I don't think I need to tell you how the Roman government treated Christians in the years following. Paul takes the time to explain to them that God instituted government. Two things, he explains, necessarily follow from this: (1) governmental authority is valid, and ought to be respected and obeyed, and (2) governmental authority is subject to God's authority, and it has no right to countermand God's commandments.
"The purpose of punishment is not to exact vengeance -- it is to deter crimes and to comfort the victims."
I heartily disagree. Punishment of crimes is for the sake of justice. God's righteousness has been violated, and he can't simply dismiss it: to do so would make righteousness worthless. In stead, for a time, he has delegated justice to mankind:
According to the book of Gensis:
"Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man's brother I will require the life of man.
Whoever sheds man's blood,
By man his blood shall be shed,
For in the image of God
He made man."
And in the book of Romans:
"Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil."
So the purpose of government, according to the Bible, is to punish those who do evil (as a delegate of God), and to reward those who do good (also as a delegate of God). What God has delegated to mere mortals will of course be done imperfectly, but He has nonetheless given us this responsibility, and we will answer to Him for how we exercise it.
To say, "nicotine is good for you" isn't quite true either. It's simply being found to be a useful tool to manipulate the body. Healthy bodies get along just fine without drugs. When something goes wrong, and they go to a doctor, the doctor tries to counter-act what is going wrong, selecting from a set of tools that he has available to him. Nicotine is, apparently, a good candidate for this collection of tools.
Slashdot Mirror
He's construing it as a threat on his life.
The great part about this is that once the game is released, if he doesn't get killed by some impressionable little tyke, he'll look like even more of a fool, and if he does... well, at least he'll be less annoying.
Because both sides need to have the same key, therefore one of them needs to send it to the other.
You send the OTP ahead of time via sneakernet.
I believe the actual title (given within the book itself) is "The Revelation of Jesus Christ".
Bottlenecks.
Haven't you heard? Comcast has just landed the contract to be the ISP of Hell.
Yes, that was the joke.
"On a large pile of money with many beautiful women."
The root issue here is copyright. The founding fathers of the USA made provisions for copyright for a set of stated purposes.
The movie industry owes much to being able to make derivatives of others' works, and copyright legislation hinders their creativity just as much, if not more, than others. The Internet has revolutionized the economics of distribution (or, at least, it has the potential to do so if the proper frameworks are invested in). In this new environment, what is the optimal period for society to grant a temporary monopoly to creators (or their agents) via copyright? Obviously, there is more at stake than simply profit for the movie industry: there is the intangible value of access to the art of one's culture, but the profitablilty of the industry are not without value to the culture.
Discuss. Debate. Whatever. Engage the students' minds.
Really? So how did the USA wind up on the side that was against the fascists in the first place? Could it be because of deep philosophical differences, namely the principles of human rights? Naw, that would be too obvious.
Also, the Nazis never attacked the USA, it was the Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbor.
What would you suggest? Economic sanctions? Open war?
Wait... so now you WANT America to come and make every corner of the world safe for democracy? It's so dizzying.
I suppose it's to be open war then, unless there's some other form of "hard action" you have in mind. That'll be real good for the world. Much better than gradual cultural reform. I'm sure China will simply hand Tibet over without a fight, because they're pretty reasonable about having things taken away from them.
If the people of Tibet really want to be free, they should stand up for their right to self-determination, or at least representation in government.
The illegal thing here would be decoding it. This was unencrypted WiFi.
What's more, his computer asked the wireless router for permission to connect, and it granted permission and handed it an IP address.
Yes, we get it. Hahaha.
Slashdot has a funny bit of text when there are no comments to load, and sometimes it strikes you as humorously appropriate. Enjoy the moment, realize that this happens all the time, and proceed normally, commenting on the article, if at all.
Trust us, it's not clever, and the comments will come soon enough. We don't need filler comments in the mean time.
I'm getting a bit tired of this particular misconception about the Christian worldview. There is a difference between belief in facts and trust in a person.
"You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder." - James 2:19
Everyone in hell, according to the non-straw-man version of the Christian worldview, will be there because they have rejected God's offer of free righteousness in Jesus Christ:
All faith acceptable to God throughout all time has been on the basis that God would send someone to establish the righteousness that we humans had made ourselves and continue to make ourselves incapable of producing on our own by rejecting God. Throughout the centuries he was known by different names: the Seed of the woman, Shiloh, the Messiah, etc. When he came, he was known as Jesus of Nazareth.
This has nothing, per se, to do with accepting or rejecting facts. You can accept all the right facts to be true, and still reject the person and the offer. No one is sent to hell for ignorance: we are all continuously shaping our souls into beings capable of heaven, or beings not capable of heaven.
Jesus, the one promised by God, made it possible for things to be right between God and humans again. Do you want that? Do you want Him? Or do you want to be your own god?
Here you go: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap020628.html
Because Firefox uses ninjas! Duh.
The parent's point was that the television networks were the advertisers' customers, not the other way around. The only way that you are involved in this particular transaction is that the advertisers are paying the networks for your eyeballs.
Functionally, the only difference is that you would have to prove that you were healthy do get a discount, but in this case, the burden of proof is on the provider to prove that individuals should qualify pay more.
Keep in mind that at the time, the general Japanese population was convinced that the allies were out to rape, pillage, and torture every last civilian they came across. There are Japanese people who, upon hearing that the Americans were coming, killed their own mothers, and sisters and grandfathers in order to spare them the expected atrocity. They were brainwashed by their government's propaganda to resist to the last man. It would not have been a pleasant invasion.
Lousy rotten Sun, losing its mass. *Grumble* You could have said current orbits, and I might have had the decency to actually look it up before posting.
Right... because the planets can climb themselves right out of the Sun's gravity well.
The reason I said you were trolling was that you misconstrued my post as somehow saying that a government of the type that the Bible teaches me to respect is one that only protects Christians. That was ludicrous and inflammatory.
Christianity does not prescribe a government, nor does it detail the intricacies of its system of justice, in other words, it is not a theocracy. Christianity, however, does recognize the legitimacy of government. In no way am I advocating that there should be "a system of justice or government that is based upon [my] religion or its teachings".
Quite right. In fact, one of those governments was the Roman Empire, the very government that I have already brought up. However, according to the Bible, God instituted governments, and before they existed, He was directly in charge of punishing people for their crimes against others. Now He has delegated that to the human race.
This, as you say, is not very relevant to you, who may or may not believe this particular version of history.
Which begs the question, what is justice? In fact, I think it delves a bit deeper than that: what is morality? What is "right?" Where does someone get the idea that they "should" or "ought" to do or not do anything?
If there is no ultimate basis for morality, then no one has "rights" anyway, so we shouldn't get our knickers in a knot when one person disregards the rights of another, unless there is some sort of benefit to us. Oh, "rights" might be a useful abstraction and convenient for the time being, but don't let that get in the way of good old-fashioned survival of those who want it most and have the biggest guns.
Not at all. Did you even read my post? You're obviously trolling, because there is no logical way to take that from what I wrote.
A system of justice seen from the Judeo-Christian perspective, as I have outlined it, applies to everyone equally, regardless of their attitude toward God. Note the phrases "every man", and "every person". It addresses behavior, not belief. Specifically, it addresses behavior that harms another person.
Nor, I might point out, does this view require that the Christians, or any other political or religious entity, be the ones running the government. The excerpt from Romans was from a letter written to Christians living in 1st century Rome instructing them to submit to the Roman government. I don't think I need to tell you how the Roman government treated Christians in the years following. Paul takes the time to explain to them that God instituted government. Two things, he explains, necessarily follow from this: (1) governmental authority is valid, and ought to be respected and obeyed, and (2) governmental authority is subject to God's authority, and it has no right to countermand God's commandments.
Also,
What if I want to shave off my beard? What if I cut my face or become disfigured?
"The purpose of punishment is not to exact vengeance -- it is to deter crimes and to comfort the victims."
I heartily disagree. Punishment of crimes is for the sake of justice. God's righteousness has been violated, and he can't simply dismiss it: to do so would make righteousness worthless. In stead, for a time, he has delegated justice to mankind:
According to the book of Gensis:
"Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man's brother I will require the life of man.
Whoever sheds man's blood,
By man his blood shall be shed,
For in the image of God
He made man."
And in the book of Romans:
"Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil."
So the purpose of government, according to the Bible, is to punish those who do evil (as a delegate of God), and to reward those who do good (also as a delegate of God). What God has delegated to mere mortals will of course be done imperfectly, but He has nonetheless given us this responsibility, and we will answer to Him for how we exercise it.
Also,
To say, "nicotine is good for you" isn't quite true either. It's simply being found to be a useful tool to manipulate the body. Healthy bodies get along just fine without drugs. When something goes wrong, and they go to a doctor, the doctor tries to counter-act what is going wrong, selecting from a set of tools that he has available to him. Nicotine is, apparently, a good candidate for this collection of tools.
That is all.