Sura 9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
Is this inadequate translation perhaps? Perhaps the Ottoman and Persian Empires did not follow their religion diligently, I don't know. I am aware of the Arab reputation for hospitality though, but I have heard several reports from people who have lived in Islamic (not always Arab) societies that are in agreement with this translation of the Quran, Sura 9:29
The free market has repeatedly decided again and again to reward those who work for money over those who do not.
Copyright protected markets are not free markets, they are government protected monopolies. Whether you think this is right or wrong does not change the fact.
I can't think of any other reason why despite millions of arabs looking at these patterns over the years they were considered "lost" to mankind until "rediscovered" by an english professor.
Perhpas it's refering to no-one knowing how to make the patterns, even though they had them.
I have so many memories of teenage problems which just make me cringe when I look back on them and realise how things I did must have looked to other people!
Arrrggghhhh!!! I should have guessed you were a discordian;-)
I'm a Non Sense-su Master.
I strike down logic when it's least expected. You think you're having a sensible conversation, when suddenly, out of the blue, splat, nonsense strikes! Then, just when you're getting a handle on what's happening, blam, more nonsense, from the green this time. Next, I usually attack from the red or yellow. Soon, the logical person is left only with black and white, until the revelation comes.... white is the combination of all the colours! It's a blow delivered with the timing and devastating force passed down from the ancient Nonsa's. Of course, the logical person then retreats to the black.
That's why people who rely on logic and facts are in darkness.
Consider the power of nonsense:
1 - The health benefits of laughter are well known. People laugh more at nonsense than logic. Nonsense gives health and life!
2 - Read a Microsoft press release. Nonsense makes you rich!
3 - Ask a person on the street to name three current comedians and three current physicists. They will easily name three comedians and probably not even one physicist. Nonsense makes you famous.
So, nonsense gives you popularity, wealth, health and life. By a simple process of nonsensical deduction then, we can conclude that depending on logic and facts make you lonely, poor, sick and dead.
You can now amaze your friends with the story of how you had a converstation with a fundamentalist Christian, and enjoyed it. I've been putting the fun back in fundamentalism since 1998!
I'll take the lashes. Poor modding helps bring the whole place down;-)
True, true.
Likewise, nobody "created" sin, it is not an object requiring creation.But it is. I, personally, don't even believe such a thing exists.
Sublime logic there. Something that I don't believe exists is definitely a created object:)
Did he want that not to happen, he could have easily tweaked a variable before setting it all in motion.
Denying that is a contradiction of either omniscience or omnipotence.
Not necessarily. Einstein said "The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them." Natural learning is a process of observation, thought and the gradual growth of understanding. The people who study quantum physics started with learning to count, learning to add, learing the multiplication tables etc just like everyone else. To go from learing to add to learning quantum physics is just a series of small increases in understanding, same as any other natural field. Miss any of the steps of learning and it would seem like nonsense, being a higher level of understanding. Since the supernatural is not subject to observation, if it can be learned the primary method would be through revelation rather than gradual learning. If the revelation was capable of solving significant problems, it would of necessity come from a higher level of thinking. If this revelation was to occur, there is a high probability that it would seem like nonsense.
I find it entirely possible that given a high enough level of thinking, omniscience or omnipotence would not be regarded as automatically resulting in predestiny.
Hiding behind logic and facts won't get you anywhere with me;)
Bah, 50 lashes with a wet noodle for me for misusing the term. Make it 100 since I did it more than once in the same post and should have known better.
and people think religions are harsh! Be fair, misusing a word on/. doesn't deserve any more that 5-10 lashes with a wet noodle. That or an insightful mod, your choice:)
Christianity teaches that god is all knowing and all powerful and created the universe and everything in it. It teaches that god is perfect. Hence the fact that we are the way we are is entirely due to his specific choices in that creation.
That presupposes that god always chooses to exercise his power to control every situation. To be fair, there are actually branches of Christianity that have taught that or something similar, however most mainstream teaching and certainly the bible teach that we have the power of choice, and that there are many things that happen that are not the will or doing of God. I'm sure you yourself have sometimes not liked something, been able to stop it, but have chosen not to. If you have children, this would no doubt be a common occurence for you.
It's a bit like blaming chair manufacturers for creating chair throwing. They create the chairs, it's Ballmer that throws them. Indeed, chair throwing is not an object that has been created, it's an action that has been performed. Likewise, nobody "created" sin, it is not an object requiring creation.
Sure, just more apologetics. Ignore the facts and just buy into what I tell you no matter how nonsensical.
As I understand it, apologetics is the attempt to make a reasoned argument for Christianity. I'm not sure how you think my statement "Christianity is not reasonable from a human perspective" would be apologetics.
You tried, but I think you missed the point that I wasn't talking about the apologetics, rather the basic underlying assumptions and the basic facts that follow inevitably just from the assumptions of omniscience and omnipotence.
I'm not sure what it is that you think I've tried to do. You claimed that some things are taught by Christianity, some of which are actually not taught by Christianity but are your logical assessment of Christian teachings. It is similar to if I did a logical assessment of some poetry, then presented my assessment as the poem. It is not the poem, it's my opinion. Even if my opinion is correct, it's still not the poem.
You claimed: [Christianity teaches] "He [God] created people with the express intention of making them exactly as they are [sinners]." Christianity does not teach this. The fact that you think it follows inevitably from other Christian teaching does not make it a Christian teaching.
Relevation does not solve it, because any being sufficiently more powerful than man but whom cannot be understood by man could have any motive or purpose at all in giving out particular revelations to folks.
In which case resistance would be futile. If you suspected a revelation to be deceptive, your only hope would be that the god was not really all powerfull and all knowing. The bible doesn't claim that god is unknowable, it claims that a human without revelation cannot understand god's ways or know god. The bible claims a personal relationship with god is possible.
Your statement that "Revelation does not solve it" is true though, from a logical perspective. If there is a God that is all powerfull, all knowing and against you, what could you do?
... the more unreasonable it is to say anything about God with any degree of certainty at all.
Perhaps I haven't been clear on this point: I agree it is unreasonable.
You are aware that this is completely incoherent, aren't you?
I apologise if I falsely gave the impression that I was trying to make Christianity seem coherent to you. The parent post stated that a particular teaching was the basis of the Judeo-Christian religion. I was simply pointing out that the teaching was substatially different than stated, not trying to put forward a rational argument for Christianity.
This is, then, why it is immoral. Acting with certainty when certainty is not only not possible, but actually undermined, is as immoral as...
I'll quote myself from another post in this thread: "Naturalists tend to see truth as being defined as something being observable and repeatable ie: tangible physical reality, while someone with a biblical view sees truth as being defined by revelation, ie the bible."
So while you see certainty as not possible regarding God (presumably because of the lack of observation) someone with a biblical view regards certainty as coming from the revelation (the bible) and any contrary observable evidence is seen as a temporary condition which will eventually change to conform to the revelation. Mind you, this is not a recent insight into Christianity or a response to science, it is actually taught in the bible. II Corinthians 5:7: (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) . The morality of it really depends on whether Christianity is true or not, rather than the method of learning about it.
That's why reasoning with a committed Christian or showing them evidence contrary to the bible won't convince them.
I Corinthians 1:21: For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
Since the gospel was already considered foolishness at the time it was written, the advanced education we have today would not seem to be an advantage to understanding it as it is intended.
One major obstacle to reconciling a biblical worldview and a naturalist one is the naturalists tend to see intellect as the highest human function, while the bible teaches that intellect must be subjected to faith. Naturalists tend to see truth as being defined as something being observable and repeatable ie: tangible physical reality, while someone with a biblical view sees truth as being defined by revelation, ie the bible.
As a result of this, these views will never be reconciled. As long as either group tries to impose by force their ideas on the others, there will be some level on conflict.
Now let's say that you want to explain this to mankind. You want to let them know you created everything. But right now, they're at a point where they don't even have basic mechanics figured out, you know they'd never comprehend the big bang. And they are far from figuring out how traits are passed down. The intricate process of natural selection that you've so cleverly crafted would go over their heads.
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man from the beasts of the field. From the beasts man arose and became like the image of God.
Instead of:
Genesis 2:7: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Evolution gets explained to primary school children. There is no reason that it could not have been explained in scripture if it were intended by the authors to be beleived. They didn't have to understand the science of it any more than they understood how a man could be formed from dust.
... *he got pissed off at people* for acting exactly how he made them...
That is the entire basis of the Judeo-Christian religion. Any of the other tenets rest squarely on this exact basis.
Actually, traditional orthodox Christian teaching would be that God created people flawless, but with the power of choice. They were given instruction and were fully capable of obedience up until the time they chose not to. Their nature was changed through sin.
Whether or not you think that Christianity requires credulity is not my point. Christianity is not reasonable from a human perspective. The bible specifically states that to follow God requires the suspension of your own understanding. Proverbs 3:5 "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding." (KJV) There are more verses like this, but you can look them up yourself if you really want to.
Also, when people think "end users" what they often mean is "customers", in particular "average customers without much dedication to learning or knowledge"
I'm an end user. Occasionally I have helped someone in a mailing list, but usually more knowledgable people answer before I can. I'm neither employed nor qualified in IT. However, I've been using linux as my desktop OS since Redhat 7.0. I didn't like learning the command line, I took a long time to learn some basic stuff and find my way around, but I'd read the GPLv2 and wanted to use Free software. I found the terms offered by the Free software community (Yes, including RTFM) to be more palatable than the terms offered by proprietry software vendors.
I hope people wouldn't withhold software releases of Free software just so they can avoid disappointing people who don't really care anyway.
Or, to put it more simply, those two camps consist of those who focus on the cause, and those who focus on the effect.
Since I don't have mod points, I'll reply: That's probably the best explanation I've seen yet of the difference between Free software and OSS thinking.
I would think that source only releases cover this. Also, sometimes I have been helped by software that says on the webpage something like: "I wrote this for my own convenience, and put it here in case it's helpful to you. Please don't contact me for support" Since I am not a software developer, I would have no chance to create it from scratch. It is a lot more helpfull than nothing at all.
Now in general, the chances of anyone being willing to pay you for this are virtually zero, since you can typically find a copy on the Internet for free.
When I was on dail-up, I was quite willing to pay for copies of distros I wanted to use. Even now, it wouldn't be hard to profitably offer the larger distros like fedora on dvd cheaper than I could download it (if I had used up the download included in my plan).
Actually, the arguement from ignorance doesn't fit at all. You need some lessons on logic yourself. The post I originally replied to was arguement from ignorance, ie: Vista doesn't have exploits because I haven't been given a link to any.
When I wrote that post, I did two quick searches. "Vista exploit" and "Vista patch" if I remember correctly. Then I posted links to a first page result from both searches. It's a slashdot post, not a thesis, not a research paper, not professional journalism.
http://www.toptechnews.com/story.xhtml?story_id=41 034 This article (January 18, 2006) it titled "Microsoft Issues First Vista OS Patch" the article in my original post http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1911406,00.as p says "Microsoft Ships First Vista Security Patches" and says "A Microsoft spokesperson told eWEEK that the Vista patches address the same vulnerability that led to the WMF (Windows Metafile) malware attacks earlier this month." (emphasis mine)
Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant with Sophos, calls it a patch for Vista. The unnamed Microsoft spokesman call it a patch for Vista. You think I'm misleading to call it a patch for Vista. Go figure. I think you need a reality check. If two (presumably) professional journalists can report it as a Vista patch and not be called to account, if the Microsoft spokesman called it a Vista patch and hasn't issued a retraction, then I can call it a Vista patch in a slashdot post without accepting your assertion that I was misleading.
The WMF vulnerability was published and widely known. If someone didn't realize that, they could see the date at the top of the page. You're an idiot if you think that's misleading. Seeing the date at the top of an article is hardly having to carefully scrutinise it. There are current bugs being sold apparently. My point stands. If you weren't awake enough to hear when the WMF exploit came out, it not my fault. If you consider reading a date at the top of an article to be greuling research, it's not my fault. If you think that one of the bugs I pointed out being for the beta product negates the fact that Vista vulnerabilities are (apparently) being sold for tens of thousands of dollars, then you need your head examined. If one of the examples I gave doesn't qualify as a Vista bug in your mind in no way negates or changes that there are exploits for Vista, nor does it justify your accusation against me. The fact that MS is already preparing service pack 1 for Vista should tip you off.
If I had linked to the service pack instead of the WMF exploit, it would have in no way changed my point, and it would have been current, you're critisism would have been invalid. If I chose a link that wasn't the best one available to make my point, that doesn't make me deceptive. Was it the best thing to link to? Probably not. Was my conclusion that Vista has exploits accurate? Yes, therefore, by definition I was not misleading. You cannot mislead someone to an accurate conclusion. To demonstrate that I was misleading you need to show that Vista doesn't have exploits. Good luck.
Slashdot Mirror
Sura 9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
Is this inadequate translation perhaps? Perhaps the Ottoman and Persian Empires did not follow their religion diligently, I don't know. I am aware of the Arab reputation for hospitality though, but I have heard several reports from people who have lived in Islamic (not always Arab) societies that are in agreement with this translation of the Quran, Sura 9:29
The free market has repeatedly decided again and again to reward those who work for money over those who do not.
Copyright protected markets are not free markets, they are government protected monopolies. Whether you think this is right or wrong does not change the fact.
Making non-Muslims pay a tax is the same as the reduced privileges of non-citizens today.
Which modern state has a policy of killing non-citizens for not paying their non-citizen tax?
I can't think of any other reason why despite millions of arabs looking at these patterns over the years they were considered "lost" to mankind until "rediscovered" by an english professor.
Perhpas it's refering to no-one knowing how to make the patterns, even though they had them.
The protective tax system actually led to a rather tolerant Arabic empire
The protection payment system actually led to a rather tolerant Mafia empire
Oh happy days, if I pay my dhimmi tax I won't be killed! I'm FREE!
I have so many memories of teenage problems which just make me cringe when I look back on them and realise how things I did must have looked to other people!
:)
Me too, me too.
I don't have aspergers though
Arrrggghhhh!!! I should have guessed you were a discordian ;-)
.... white is the combination of all the colours! It's a blow delivered with the timing and devastating force passed down from the ancient Nonsa's. Of course, the logical person then retreats to the black.
I'm a Non Sense-su Master.
I strike down logic when it's least expected. You think you're having a sensible conversation, when suddenly, out of the blue, splat , nonsense strikes! Then, just when you're getting a handle on what's happening, blam , more nonsense, from the green this time. Next, I usually attack from the red or yellow. Soon, the logical person is left only with black and white, until the revelation comes
That's why people who rely on logic and facts are in darkness.
Consider the power of nonsense:
1 - The health benefits of laughter are well known. People laugh more at nonsense than logic. Nonsense gives health and life!
2 - Read a Microsoft press release. Nonsense makes you rich!
3 - Ask a person on the street to name three current comedians and three current physicists. They will easily name three comedians and probably not even one physicist. Nonsense makes you famous.
So, nonsense gives you popularity, wealth, health and life. By a simple process of nonsensical deduction then, we can conclude that depending on logic and facts make you lonely, poor, sick and dead.
You can now amaze your friends with the story of how you had a converstation with a fundamentalist Christian, and enjoyed it. I've been putting the fun back in fundamentalism since 1998!
Damnable logic rears its ugly head again ;-)
;-)
You've gained some revelation at last!
Your logic and reason are no match for my powers of nonsense!
"We don't understand the world or even local climate science in enough depth."
I'll take the lashes. Poor modding helps bring the whole place down ;-)
:)
;)
True, true.
Likewise, nobody "created" sin, it is not an object requiring creation. But it is. I, personally, don't even believe such a thing exists.
Sublime logic there. Something that I don't believe exists is definitely a created object
Did he want that not to happen, he could have easily tweaked a variable before setting it all in motion.
Denying that is a contradiction of either omniscience or omnipotence.
Not necessarily. Einstein said "The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them." Natural learning is a process of observation, thought and the gradual growth of understanding. The people who study quantum physics started with learning to count, learning to add, learing the multiplication tables etc just like everyone else. To go from learing to add to learning quantum physics is just a series of small increases in understanding, same as any other natural field. Miss any of the steps of learning and it would seem like nonsense, being a higher level of understanding. Since the supernatural is not subject to observation, if it can be learned the primary method would be through revelation rather than gradual learning. If the revelation was capable of solving significant problems, it would of necessity come from a higher level of thinking. If this revelation was to occur, there is a high probability that it would seem like nonsense.
I find it entirely possible that given a high enough level of thinking, omniscience or omnipotence would not be regarded as automatically resulting in predestiny.
Hiding behind logic and facts won't get you anywhere with me
Bah, 50 lashes with a wet noodle for me for misusing the term. Make it 100 since I did it more than once in the same post and should have known better.
/. doesn't deserve any more that 5-10 lashes with a wet noodle. That or an insightful mod, your choice :)
and people think religions are harsh! Be fair, misusing a word on
Christianity teaches that god is all knowing and all powerful and created the universe and everything in it. It teaches that god is perfect. Hence the fact that we are the way we are is entirely due to his specific choices in that creation.
That presupposes that god always chooses to exercise his power to control every situation. To be fair, there are actually branches of Christianity that have taught that or something similar, however most mainstream teaching and certainly the bible teach that we have the power of choice, and that there are many things that happen that are not the will or doing of God. I'm sure you yourself have sometimes not liked something, been able to stop it, but have chosen not to. If you have children, this would no doubt be a common occurence for you.
It's a bit like blaming chair manufacturers for creating chair throwing. They create the chairs, it's Ballmer that throws them. Indeed, chair throwing is not an object that has been created, it's an action that has been performed. Likewise, nobody "created" sin, it is not an object requiring creation.
Sure, just more apologetics. Ignore the facts and just buy into what I tell you no matter how nonsensical.
As I understand it, apologetics is the attempt to make a reasoned argument for Christianity. I'm not sure how you think my statement "Christianity is not reasonable from a human perspective" would be apologetics.
You tried, but I think you missed the point that I wasn't talking about the apologetics, rather the basic underlying assumptions and the basic facts that follow inevitably just from the assumptions of omniscience and omnipotence.
I'm not sure what it is that you think I've tried to do. You claimed that some things are taught by Christianity, some of which are actually not taught by Christianity but are your logical assessment of Christian teachings. It is similar to if I did a logical assessment of some poetry, then presented my assessment as the poem. It is not the poem, it's my opinion. Even if my opinion is correct, it's still not the poem.
You claimed: [Christianity teaches] "He [God] created people with the express intention of making them exactly as they are [sinners]." Christianity does not teach this. The fact that you think it follows inevitably from other Christian teaching does not make it a Christian teaching.
Relevation does not solve it, because any being sufficiently more powerful than man but whom cannot be understood by man could have any motive or purpose at all in giving out particular revelations to folks.
... the more unreasonable it is to say anything about God with any degree of certainty at all.
In which case resistance would be futile. If you suspected a revelation to be deceptive, your only hope would be that the god was not really all powerfull and all knowing. The bible doesn't claim that god is unknowable, it claims that a human without revelation cannot understand god's ways or know god. The bible claims a personal relationship with god is possible. Your statement that "Revelation does not solve it" is true though, from a logical perspective. If there is a God that is all powerfull, all knowing and against you, what could you do?
Perhaps I haven't been clear on this point: I agree it is unreasonable.
You are aware that this is completely incoherent, aren't you?
...
I apologise if I falsely gave the impression that I was trying to make Christianity seem coherent to you. The parent post stated that a particular teaching was the basis of the Judeo-Christian religion. I was simply pointing out that the teaching was substatially different than stated, not trying to put forward a rational argument for Christianity.
This is, then, why it is immoral. Acting with certainty when certainty is not only not possible, but actually undermined, is as immoral as
I'll quote myself from another post in this thread: "Naturalists tend to see truth as being defined as something being observable and repeatable ie: tangible physical reality, while someone with a biblical view sees truth as being defined by revelation, ie the bible."
So while you see certainty as not possible regarding God (presumably because of the lack of observation) someone with a biblical view regards certainty as coming from the revelation (the bible) and any contrary observable evidence is seen as a temporary condition which will eventually change to conform to the revelation. Mind you, this is not a recent insight into Christianity or a response to science, it is actually taught in the bible. II Corinthians 5:7: (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) . The morality of it really depends on whether Christianity is true or not, rather than the method of learning about it.
That's why reasoning with a committed Christian or showing them evidence contrary to the bible won't convince them.
I Corinthians 1:21: For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
Since the gospel was already considered foolishness at the time it was written, the advanced education we have today would not seem to be an advantage to understanding it as it is intended.
One major obstacle to reconciling a biblical worldview and a naturalist one is the naturalists tend to see intellect as the highest human function, while the bible teaches that intellect must be subjected to faith. Naturalists tend to see truth as being defined as something being observable and repeatable ie: tangible physical reality, while someone with a biblical view sees truth as being defined by revelation, ie the bible.
As a result of this, these views will never be reconciled. As long as either group tries to impose by force their ideas on the others, there will be some level on conflict.
Now let's say that you want to explain this to mankind. You want to let them know you created everything. But right now, they're at a point where they don't even have basic mechanics figured out, you know they'd never comprehend the big bang. And they are far from figuring out how traits are passed down. The intricate process of natural selection that you've so cleverly crafted would go over their heads.
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man from the beasts of the field. From the beasts man arose and became like the image of God.
Instead of:
Genesis 2:7: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Evolution gets explained to primary school children. There is no reason that it could not have been explained in scripture if it were intended by the authors to be beleived. They didn't have to understand the science of it any more than they understood how a man could be formed from dust.
... *he got pissed off at people* for acting exactly how he made them ...
That is the entire basis of the Judeo-Christian religion. Any of the other tenets rest squarely on this exact basis.
Actually, traditional orthodox Christian teaching would be that God created people flawless, but with the power of choice. They were given instruction and were fully capable of obedience up until the time they chose not to. Their nature was changed through sin.
Whether or not you think that Christianity requires credulity is not my point. Christianity is not reasonable from a human perspective. The bible specifically states that to follow God requires the suspension of your own understanding. Proverbs 3:5 "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding." (KJV) There are more verses like this, but you can look them up yourself if you really want to.
Also, when people think "end users" what they often mean is "customers", in particular "average customers without much dedication to learning or knowledge"
I'm an end user. Occasionally I have helped someone in a mailing list, but usually more knowledgable people answer before I can. I'm neither employed nor qualified in IT. However, I've been using linux as my desktop OS since Redhat 7.0. I didn't like learning the command line, I took a long time to learn some basic stuff and find my way around, but I'd read the GPLv2 and wanted to use Free software. I found the terms offered by the Free software community (Yes, including RTFM) to be more palatable than the terms offered by proprietry software vendors.
I hope people wouldn't withhold software releases of Free software just so they can avoid disappointing people who don't really care anyway.
Or, to put it more simply, those two camps consist of those who focus on the cause, and those who focus on the effect.
Since I don't have mod points, I'll reply: That's probably the best explanation I've seen yet of the difference between Free software and OSS thinking.
I would think that source only releases cover this. Also, sometimes I have been helped by software that says on the webpage something like: "I wrote this for my own convenience, and put it here in case it's helpful to you. Please don't contact me for support" Since I am not a software developer, I would have no chance to create it from scratch. It is a lot more helpfull than nothing at all.
Now in general, the chances of anyone being willing to pay you for this are virtually zero, since you can typically find a copy on the Internet for free.
When I was on dail-up, I was quite willing to pay for copies of distros I wanted to use. Even now, it wouldn't be hard to profitably offer the larger distros like fedora on dvd cheaper than I could download it (if I had used up the download included in my plan).
Parallel laser pointers spaced apart with a mount and screw to attach to camera. Also not hard to make.
Actually, the arguement from ignorance doesn't fit at all. You need some lessons on logic yourself. The post I originally replied to was arguement from ignorance, ie: Vista doesn't have exploits because I haven't been given a link to any.
1 034 This article (January 18, 2006) it titled "Microsoft Issues First Vista OS Patch" the article in my original post http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1911406,00.as p says "Microsoft Ships First Vista Security Patches" and says "A Microsoft spokesperson told eWEEK that the Vista patches address the same vulnerability that led to the WMF (Windows Metafile) malware attacks earlier this month." (emphasis mine)
v iew_2003.asp then a December 2005 patch is relevant to the topic. It's a Vista patch.
When I wrote that post, I did two quick searches. "Vista exploit" and "Vista patch" if I remember correctly. Then I posted links to a first page result from both searches. It's a slashdot post, not a thesis, not a research paper, not professional journalism.
http://www.toptechnews.com/story.xhtml?story_id=4
Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant with Sophos, calls it a patch for Vista. The unnamed Microsoft spokesman call it a patch for Vista. You think I'm misleading to call it a patch for Vista. Go figure. I think you need a reality check. If two (presumably) professional journalists can report it as a Vista patch and not be called to account, if the Microsoft spokesman called it a Vista patch and hasn't issued a retraction, then I can call it a Vista patch in a slashdot post without accepting your assertion that I was misleading.
Since Vista (then Longhorn) was supposed to be RTM in 2005 http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/longhorn_pre
people have to understand that even if there is no "physical object" it isn't correct to just copy it.
You are correct. To just copy it is selfishness. They ought to share it with others too.
The WMF vulnerability was published and widely known. If someone didn't realize that, they could see the date at the top of the page. You're an idiot if you think that's misleading. Seeing the date at the top of an article is hardly having to carefully scrutinise it. There are current bugs being sold apparently. My point stands. If you weren't awake enough to hear when the WMF exploit came out, it not my fault. If you consider reading a date at the top of an article to be greuling research, it's not my fault. If you think that one of the bugs I pointed out being for the beta product negates the fact that Vista vulnerabilities are (apparently) being sold for tens of thousands of dollars, then you need your head examined. If one of the examples I gave doesn't qualify as a Vista bug in your mind in no way negates or changes that there are exploits for Vista, nor does it justify your accusation against me. The fact that MS is already preparing service pack 1 for Vista should tip you off.
If I had linked to the service pack instead of the WMF exploit, it would have in no way changed my point, and it would have been current, you're critisism would have been invalid. If I chose a link that wasn't the best one available to make my point, that doesn't make me deceptive. Was it the best thing to link to? Probably not. Was my conclusion that Vista has exploits accurate? Yes, therefore, by definition I was not misleading. You cannot mislead someone to an accurate conclusion. To demonstrate that I was misleading you need to show that Vista doesn't have exploits. Good luck.