"CoS is also structured like a military organization, they have troops, generals and so on. I guess that they have the weapons too."
What popular American religions have such a clearly military organization that you perhaps even think they have weapons? Or am I reading too much into your definition of 'popular'?
1. T-Mobile may have conducted tests in worst-case scenarios. It's their network threatened, they might want to present the worst, not the best, possibilities.
2. As a T-Mobile customer, I would like my service to 'not generally' be interfered with unnecessarily. In fact, I would not like to engage in the struggle to make newly-licensed services not interfere with my service AT ALL. Let's get it right, please? Before we build it? It's bad enough already, ok?
Oh, and 3. Not all agencies or companies are always incompetent. You suspect the T-Mobile engineers are? My service works just good enough to disprove that premise. The FCC, well, let's hope they got good Kung-Fu and can figure this out...
"You will have to refute Jesus' own description of Himself, or challenge the writings that make that statement and the authors thereof.
No he doesn't. The burden of evidence is on the claimant and the more extraordinary the claim, the more evidence is needed."
Refute: 1 : to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous. 2 : to deny the truth or accuracy of.
Seems to me you and he both could use the word 'refute' in the second sense. It was in that sense I used it...
I hate to pass over martydom so quickly, but it's fairly obvious to me, and this next point is much more interesting.
""God works in mysterious ways" isn't much of an argument. Theists always put forward this argument to explain why their god acts in a nonsensical fashion."
Just so we're clear here, most of God's ways couldn't possibly make much sense to us. Our frame of reference is severely limited in comparison. But He does tells us some of His intentions.
"You don't get to have it both ways. Either God is mysterious and the teachings he transmits to prophets are unreliable OR God CAN communicate clearly and his teachings SHOULD be consistent and understandable."
Did I say that God's teachings to the prophets are unreliable? I apologize if I left you with that impression. I don't believe that. Though God is indeed mysterious, see my point before.
Sometimes I get the impression that many skeptics, and many naysayers, choose the points they make carefully. I try to choose mine as well, but I end up accepting the totality of Christ, difficult and all. Trying to make sense of Him from a worldly perspective is pointless. He is foolish to the wise.
I appreciate your response, and your encouragement to read the Bible with an open mind.
I read daily, from both Old and New Testaments. While it is also often glossed over, Jesus taught that He came in fulfillment of the Old Testament, as it was understood then, and had not come to undo any part of the Law, which the Septuagint expresses.
Ultimately, I think I understand your rejection of the Christian Bible, as it is generally constructed, as a rejection of it as written by men, therefore suspect if not entirely flawed. This is senseless for a single reason:
If God is indeed who HE says He is, then He has the power to make the Bible be what He wants. Indeed, it is precisely what He wants it to be, as He has the power to make it different if He chooses.
Now, if you don't believe in God, then you can similarly dismiss the Bible as unreliable and inaccurate. But if you don't believe in God, what use is the Bible to you other than as a story to be entertained with?
It was such for me for most of my life.
But one of the fundamentals of my faith has become to understand that God is indeed God, and He is in control. Or so I believe. In that light, it is up to me to understand that and Him, as best I can.
Just as a small point, Jesus also said "he was the son of man, and that we are all the sons of god (sic)". Equal? Equally important to God and Jesus. You may want to consider the figurative speech used in the Bible, were we are described as 'Sons of God' in reference to being the product of His creation. A strict reading of this implies women are somehow outside that, which is NOT true in the least. A better phrase might be to see us as all 'His children'. But Jesus was confirmed by God as "My Son, with whom I am well pleased". In the singular. Even David is described as a man 'after God's heart'. And that with his flaws and all.
It is not I who tries so hard to make the Bible, Christianity, Jesus, and God so one-dimensional I think. Your arguments seem intent on making Christianity as thin as possible, flattened into something so simple and one-dimensional that it has no variation, no room to accomodate, no space within.
"leave church doctrine at the door". I've found that I am required to become a five-point Calvinist. Which church is that? Instead of hearing your arguments as offering illumination and growth, I hear you trying to chop down anything to do with God, though I suspect you don't agree with that assessment. Again, how do you define a philosophy by its abuse? Indeed, do you 'get' to define a philosophy if you aren't a practitioner, at least, or a believer?
Sorry. I think you were trying to offend me, and I get defensive. I shouldn't.
One last thing. The Trinity is not a construction of Man. It is expressed by Jesus, as He is spoken of by God as the Son of God, Jesus being the Son, and promising to send the Spirit. Read carefully. Many of the most important passages in the Bible are small and unremarkable at first. Over time, you may stumble over one and realize for the first time how important it is. Keep reading...!
- Design a new OS, oh, call it a browser if you want
- Make it a real heavyweight, more RAM used than the host, threads everywhere, screen candy layered over screen candy, shortcuts, you name it, all to consume cycles and starve the bot software (and the viruses, etc.)
- Botnets wither from lack of nutrition. Herders go broke. In fact, no one gets anything else done on their puters any more. No more harm! NO MORE HARM!
- Profit!
Wait... Wasn't Google? Or did Mozilla just release something? Wait, Opera is always coming up with somethi... Couldn't be AOL could it?... Suppose CERN finally... no, can't be, it's not really running yet, oh, those crazy kids at Apple, wait, the Oracle guys finally... nope, maybe somebody finally fixed... no, that's not it... wait.. Gibson? Nawww....
It doesn't seem that poorly written for a CEO/business owner with a less than perfect sense of English.
Do the due diligence; respectful response, solicit an offer from them, make no promises or representations. If you've been using this domain for a while now in good faith you're probably under no obligation to deliver the domain. Remember the mtv.com/Adam Curry fiasco? In the end, they made it worth his while rather than keep coming back with bigger lawyers, and they sent some pretty big lawywers in the beginning.
My former employer sold a few interesting domains for fair money, and had one bully try to slam him over another. Our lawyer prevailed, thankfully before he got disbarred, but that's another an unrelated story...
Sell it for real money if you can. After all, let them finance your new mail server, hosting costs for the next 5 years or so, and a nice stipend to play with. For a serious business, it's either worth it or not. And no, I cannot tell you how much is enough, but it's more than a kind person would ask for, and less than most/.'rs would hope.
ps- if you're not married yet, the ring shoudl be covered too, if not the whole party...
"Of course its possible to respect Jesus as a great teacher and leader..."
What was He leader of? And do you respect what He led?
See, this is where I do indeed get a little (maybe more) frustrated. You claim it is possible to respect Jesus as a leader, but to reject His way... Hmm... This is where I'm lost for words. Unless you mean that you respect Jesus' method and effectiveness as a leader, seperate from His actual message and purpose.
Just doesn't seem right to me, and yet I do the same thing, considering some of the popular leaders I respect for their abilities, and disagree with their purposes. Ultimately, I don't take advice from them, no matter how clever or skilled they are. It's the message...
Yes, you can respect the wisdom of Jesus' teachings, but which ones?
Love, caring, do your brothers and sisters no wrong, ok. Pretty simple.
Put your faith in Him and worship His father, God? Spread this good news to others?
You see, Jesus did teach wisdom - love, compassion, forgiveness, and more. But He also taught that He was the Way, the Truth, and the Light. He taught that He was the Son of God, sent to propitiate for the sins of the world. I suspect you are not going to want to believe in all of His teachings. Am I right? So if you're looking for some good words and good ideas for life, Jesus has much for you, and more. If you're looking for a teacher, Jesus and many others would very much like some of your time. If you're looking for the answer to Life's most difficult questions, are you really going to pick and choose the answers you like? That isn't even scientific.
I encourage you to follow the teachings as much as you can. Indeed, to read His word as much as you can. I pray that you'll get it, all of it.
I'm not sure this sounds as kind as I want it to be, but I'm trying to be honest. Picking the answers to the questions of life is not always the right thing to do. Sometimes, you must choose the truth, even when it's not comfortable, easy, or even makes sense. I don't intend to offend you, but I know that sometimes the truth is offensive. If this is one of those times, I'm disappointed, but not in you.
ps: you wrote:
"Now if only all of the people who purported to be Christians actually read and followed them. "
Why just pick on Christians? How about:
"Now if only all of the people actually read and followed them. "
There. Fixed that for ya.
It's a common accusation to find fault in a movement, belief, or 'religion' by the wayward followers. Should we judge a way of life by those who fail at it? Or in the words of a Christian apologist, Ravi Zacharias points out "that you cannot judge a philosophy by its abuse." Yet, I agree with your accusation, many Christians don't act like Christians, not even remotely. This isn't much different from many other faiths and beliefs, but I do understand why Christians are so readily and repeatedly chastised for it. You're right. I don't like it, but you're right.
There are only two serious flaws in your argument:
1. Jesus said He is the Son of God. You will have to refute Jesus' own description of Himself, or challenge the writings that make that statement and the authors thereof. You are, you know, challenging the veracity of men who went to their deaths to defend that point. They may have been lying, but read Romans 5:7 and consider that. Several died for Jesus' name.
2. God, if He is what and who He claims to be, need not be fair or even just, though he claims to be. As Creator, we are His do with as He pleases. Looking around, He has pretty much left us alone to do as we wish, wouldn't you agree? Reading the Old Testament, God pretty regularly (if not always) declared why He caused disaster or punishment on Man. You may not believe God is who He says He is, and that's fine. But to then challenge His actions according to your interpretation of who and what you think He should be isn't intellectually honest, to me. Dismiss God as not real, I can tolerate that as your opinion. Try to redefine God according to your standards, that doesn't work for me. You and I do not get to decide 'who' God is.
And if you "find the idea of "a god" far more reasonable than the extremely elaborate justification for the story of how Jesus came to exist", I'm interested. If God does exist, and He is who HE says HE is, what's so hard about sending His son as He did? God as Creator can do pretty much anything. A virgin birth is trivial, compared to creating the Universe. Picking and choosing the attributes of God or Jesus leads you down the road of intellectual dishonesty. Don't be lukewarm. Be a believer or not, but don't pick out the parts you like and toss the rest you have a difficult time with. Challenge. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 - "Test everything. Hold on to the good."
I'll leave it to you to discern what is good.
And if you want to dismiss the Bible as hopelessly inaccurate, I can tolerate that as your opinion as well. But doing so leaves you with nothing to base your judgement of what or who God is, since you've dismissed what is considered by His followers as His word. Remember, if God is who He says He is, he could change the Bible to be what He wanted it to be. It is what it is, and He has allowed it. Christians should remember that He may indeed have left it imperfect. We should stop nitpicking the details and focus on the truth.
While I would love to convince you of the truth of Jesus as our Saviour, I'm really just trying to convince you to be either fully atheist or not. Don't get trapped in the middle, thinking Jesus was a 'great teacher' but dismissing some of His own words. If you need to deny Jesus' own claim to being God's Son, you need to pretty much ignore His other words too. He's either right or wrong.
And I'm grateful that I will some day be able to examine and understand the Dead Sea scrolls, with the help of many many scholars. So far as I know, as we research more the Bible is upheld as correct, and is confirmed as accurate historically. We may never settle every issue, but that isn't necessary for me. For you, that I can't be the judge of.
I don't so much "look at hostile agnostics and atheists and see people who are just as irrational as the religious folks that they seem to hate so much" any more.
I see people who say that believing in something that is unprovable is wrong. And they want you to believe in that, or them.
Yes, that's what they are asking you to do; either something they are asking you NOT to do (believe), or to just believe them rather than someone or something else.
We might as well have the argument over the entire issue, rather than over part of it.
I probably already had them, no need to steal them on the way out the door.
Seriously, I'm kinda glad to not be doing sysadmin stuff any more, except for my own systems. I was called in pretty regular in the old days to 'secure' the system just in advance of the incumbent being dismissed. Always a nasty business, both because the incumbent was usually capable of great harm, and because their boss was invariably 'difficult', and often wanted guarantees that the fired employee would never get back into their systems. I told one CFO that you could only be sure if you cut off both hands, put out both eyes, and seal him in a grave. Funny, the CFO took more than a moment to tell me that wasn't an option. I know he was wondering if the lawyers could be more effective.
They've NEVER been my best friends, but then again I'm a guy.
Every woman I have ever known has just looked at me when I pointed this out, like I was missing something...
It seems so elementary to me...
on
Zero Day Threat
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
...but working in the financial industry may have my blinders tighter than ever.
I recall a very basic security seminar I was in many years ago - before Microsoft was in the server business. One of the core concepts presented was the three security factors we could rely on:
- Something you ARE - fingerprint, iris, voice, etc. - Something you KNOW - password, phrase, challenge response. - Something you HAVE - token, card, whatever...
Any two of the three could offer good security. Asking for all three could offer very good security. Of course, we are only talking about access security here, as being forced to use all three to sign into your already-compromised workstation does not offer much data security.
But in most credit card transactions, we have to offer at least #2 & 3, not always in that order. Adding biometrics (something you ARE) is interesting.
Faking #3 (something you HAVE) is not so hard. Cards get copied, and actually the account number may be as good as a card in the card-not-present environment that e-commerce lives in.
Faking #2 is the most current target of many, and they add loggers to terminals. Only a matter of time before we see wireless loggers inserted into terminals or POS devices, making it very hard for a consumer to check for the wire to 'another' device, and removing the need to go and retrieve the logger. Sending those PINs wirelessly is just too easy, only requiring a modest investment in technology. I venture there are plenty of ways to get those made for ya.
Ultimately, for financial security, I think we need to mitigate the technological 'expediter' by introducing either more accountability or more time into the settlement process, allowing fraudulent transactions time to be rolled back and deny the crooks the funds. That is probably impossible in an environment where merchants demand faster payment, especially when merchants live on the edge of cash flow and can fail if they are denied cash over the course of days. Imagine trying to slow down the cash flow for weeks...
Another option is faster accountability. Perhaps your cell phone is your friend here, and you get an SMS for every transaction... Imagine the thrill of seeing your purchase of two minutes ago appearing on your phone with a big "dispute this" button available. Imagine the thrill of getting that message for a purchase you *didn't* make, and killing the transaction... Imagine the potential for abuse. Not perfect.
One key point to remember, perhaps. Theft is not new. The methods have changed. The scale is larger, but everything is.
Is it fixable? Not if we want convenience. But hey, it used to be that people got mugged for cash. Does that happen so much any more? In a cashless society, with stricter security, are we gonna see ATMs that can tell the difference between the eyebell you use to authenticate yourself, or the eyeball the mugger just popped out of your socket?
Hope so. I want all my biometrics to stay with me.
Seeing as I was hoping to become a third-party app developer, it looks like core functionality will have to be addressed before the geegaws and doodads work.
Oh, wait, it's really mostly about geegaws and doodads.
You heard it here first - Google is just another corporation. Evil is intrinsic. Do no evil, do no business.
I miss my hometown library so much. They got such huge endowments for acquisitions that they bought multiple copies of almost any author that sold more than 12 copies of anything. They will have these ready to go 3 days after release.
Crap. Of course, they didn't have any money for staff, but that just means we volunteer some, and wait in line a bit.
"But Premier spokesman Chris Riggall said the programming problem had gone undetected after years of use and both federal and state testing. He stressed that the systems are secure in conjunction with other election safeguards in place."
You gotta love it. Problem went undetected. But the system is safe and secure, 'cause we can't find any security problems...
Space flight is SO much easier when you don't measure success by crew survival. And crew survival is easier to deal with if your crew doesn't mean so much to you.
And success is much, much easier if you control your national news media.
Iran will do well in space, after a while. Though I do have this mental picture of a spacesuit with velcro for the plastique... and a trigger.
Yup, somebody is going to lose something. Hopefully, it will just be their virginity. No, wait, that's important. Hopefully it will just be their wireless mouse.
But somebody will lose something.
Just remember... if everybody at the poker table has a gun, one thing is certain. Somebody is going to get shot. Have a doctor, ambulance, or insurance policy handy. Trust not the lawyers.
Slashdot Mirror
Just a curiosity. The post included:
"CoS is also structured like a military organization, they have troops, generals and so on. I guess that they have the weapons too."
What popular American religions have such a clearly military organization that you perhaps even think they have weapons? Or am I reading too much into your definition of 'popular'?
It's funny because if you replace CoS with any number of popular American institutions, your post still works.
There. Fixed that for ya.
Only if they seem to be little children.
That might include most of /. I know...
'Free wireless Internet'.
I'm thinking Citizens Band Internet.
This will be fun.
Two things...
1. T-Mobile may have conducted tests in worst-case scenarios. It's their network threatened, they might want to present the worst, not the best, possibilities.
2. As a T-Mobile customer, I would like my service to 'not generally' be interfered with unnecessarily. In fact, I would not like to engage in the struggle to make newly-licensed services not interfere with my service AT ALL. Let's get it right, please? Before we build it? It's bad enough already, ok?
Oh, and 3. Not all agencies or companies are always incompetent. You suspect the T-Mobile engineers are? My service works just good enough to disprove that premise. The FCC, well, let's hope they got good Kung-Fu and can figure this out...
sheesh.
"You will have to refute Jesus' own description of Himself, or challenge the writings that make that statement and the authors thereof.
No he doesn't. The burden of evidence is on the claimant and the more extraordinary the claim, the more evidence is needed."
Refute:
1 : to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous.
2 : to deny the truth or accuracy of.
Seems to me you and he both could use the word 'refute' in the second sense. It was in that sense I used it...
I hate to pass over martydom so quickly, but it's fairly obvious to me, and this next point is much more interesting.
""God works in mysterious ways" isn't much of an argument. Theists always put forward this argument to explain why their god acts in a nonsensical fashion."
Just so we're clear here, most of God's ways couldn't possibly make much sense to us. Our frame of reference is severely limited in comparison. But He does tells us some of His intentions.
"You don't get to have it both ways. Either God is mysterious and the teachings he transmits to prophets are unreliable OR God CAN communicate clearly and his teachings SHOULD be consistent and understandable."
Did I say that God's teachings to the prophets are unreliable? I apologize if I left you with that impression. I don't believe that. Though God is indeed mysterious, see my point before.
Sometimes I get the impression that many skeptics, and many naysayers, choose the points they make carefully. I try to choose mine as well, but I end up accepting the totality of Christ, difficult and all. Trying to make sense of Him from a worldly perspective is pointless. He is foolish to the wise.
That's what he wants to do?
pfft. Waste of time and hardware. A leak will kill it.
Use something cool, maybe some old Cray coolant. It's out there.
I appreciate your response, and your encouragement to read the Bible with an open mind.
I read daily, from both Old and New Testaments. While it is also often glossed over, Jesus taught that He came in fulfillment of the Old Testament, as it was understood then, and had not come to undo any part of the Law, which the Septuagint expresses.
Ultimately, I think I understand your rejection of the Christian Bible, as it is generally constructed, as a rejection of it as written by men, therefore suspect if not entirely flawed. This is senseless for a single reason:
If God is indeed who HE says He is, then He has the power to make the Bible be what He wants. Indeed, it is precisely what He wants it to be, as He has the power to make it different if He chooses.
Now, if you don't believe in God, then you can similarly dismiss the Bible as unreliable and inaccurate. But if you don't believe in God, what use is the Bible to you other than as a story to be entertained with?
It was such for me for most of my life.
But one of the fundamentals of my faith has become to understand that God is indeed God, and He is in control. Or so I believe. In that light, it is up to me to understand that and Him, as best I can.
Just as a small point, Jesus also said "he was the son of man, and that we are all the sons of god (sic)". Equal? Equally important to God and Jesus. You may want to consider the figurative speech used in the Bible, were we are described as 'Sons of God' in reference to being the product of His creation. A strict reading of this implies women are somehow outside that, which is NOT true in the least. A better phrase might be to see us as all 'His children'. But Jesus was confirmed by God as "My Son, with whom I am well pleased". In the singular. Even David is described as a man 'after God's heart'. And that with his flaws and all.
It is not I who tries so hard to make the Bible, Christianity, Jesus, and God so one-dimensional I think. Your arguments seem intent on making Christianity as thin as possible, flattened into something so simple and one-dimensional that it has no variation, no room to accomodate, no space within.
"leave church doctrine at the door". I've found that I am required to become a five-point Calvinist. Which church is that? Instead of hearing your arguments as offering illumination and growth, I hear you trying to chop down anything to do with God, though I suspect you don't agree with that assessment. Again, how do you define a philosophy by its abuse? Indeed, do you 'get' to define a philosophy if you aren't a practitioner, at least, or a believer?
Sorry. I think you were trying to offend me, and I get defensive. I shouldn't.
One last thing. The Trinity is not a construction of Man. It is expressed by Jesus, as He is spoken of by God as the Son of God, Jesus being the Son, and promising to send the Spirit. Read carefully. Many of the most important passages in the Bible are small and unremarkable at first. Over time, you may stumble over one and realize for the first time how important it is. Keep reading...!
I KNEW Microsoft was up to some new antivirus program. The logic is elegant, and brilliant:
- Design a new OS, oh, call it a browser if you want
- Make it a real heavyweight, more RAM used than the host, threads everywhere, screen candy layered over screen candy, shortcuts, you name it, all to consume cycles and starve the bot software (and the viruses, etc.)
- Botnets wither from lack of nutrition. Herders go broke. In fact, no one gets anything else done on their puters any more. No more harm! NO MORE HARM!
- Profit!
Wait... Wasn't Google? Or did Mozilla just release something? Wait, Opera is always coming up with somethi... Couldn't be AOL could it?... Suppose CERN finally... no, can't be, it's not really running yet, oh, those crazy kids at Apple, wait, the Oracle guys finally... nope, maybe somebody finally fixed... no, that's not it... wait.. Gibson? Nawww....
It doesn't seem that poorly written for a CEO/business owner with a less than perfect sense of English.
Do the due diligence; respectful response, solicit an offer from them, make no promises or representations. If you've been using this domain for a while now in good faith you're probably under no obligation to deliver the domain. Remember the mtv.com/Adam Curry fiasco? In the end, they made it worth his while rather than keep coming back with bigger lawyers, and they sent some pretty big lawywers in the beginning.
My former employer sold a few interesting domains for fair money, and had one bully try to slam him over another. Our lawyer prevailed, thankfully before he got disbarred, but that's another an unrelated story...
Sell it for real money if you can. After all, let them finance your new mail server, hosting costs for the next 5 years or so, and a nice stipend to play with. For a serious business, it's either worth it or not. And no, I cannot tell you how much is enough, but it's more than a kind person would ask for, and less than most /.'rs would hope.
ps- if you're not married yet, the ring shoudl be covered too, if not the whole party...
104 pages. 70 minutes, and I'll still feel hungry.
I need more Stephenson.
You wrote, in part:
"Of course its possible to respect Jesus as a great teacher and leader..."
What was He leader of? And do you respect what He led?
See, this is where I do indeed get a little (maybe more) frustrated. You claim it is possible to respect Jesus as a leader, but to reject His way... Hmm... This is where I'm lost for words. Unless you mean that you respect Jesus' method and effectiveness as a leader, seperate from His actual message and purpose.
Just doesn't seem right to me, and yet I do the same thing, considering some of the popular leaders I respect for their abilities, and disagree with their purposes. Ultimately, I don't take advice from them, no matter how clever or skilled they are. It's the message...
This is where it gets difficult.
Yes, you can respect the wisdom of Jesus' teachings, but which ones?
Love, caring, do your brothers and sisters no wrong, ok. Pretty simple.
Put your faith in Him and worship His father, God?
Spread this good news to others?
You see, Jesus did teach wisdom - love, compassion, forgiveness, and more. But He also taught that He was the Way, the Truth, and the Light. He taught that He was the Son of God, sent to propitiate for the sins of the world. I suspect you are not going to want to believe in all of His teachings. Am I right? So if you're looking for some good words and good ideas for life, Jesus has much for you, and more. If you're looking for a teacher, Jesus and many others would very much like some of your time. If you're looking for the answer to Life's most difficult questions, are you really going to pick and choose the answers you like? That isn't even scientific.
I encourage you to follow the teachings as much as you can. Indeed, to read His word as much as you can. I pray that you'll get it, all of it.
I'm not sure this sounds as kind as I want it to be, but I'm trying to be honest. Picking the answers to the questions of life is not always the right thing to do. Sometimes, you must choose the truth, even when it's not comfortable, easy, or even makes sense. I don't intend to offend you, but I know that sometimes the truth is offensive. If this is one of those times, I'm disappointed, but not in you.
ps: you wrote:
"Now if only all of the people who purported to be Christians actually read and followed them. "
Why just pick on Christians? How about:
"Now if only all of the people actually read and followed them. "
There. Fixed that for ya.
It's a common accusation to find fault in a movement, belief, or 'religion' by the wayward followers. Should we judge a way of life by those who fail at it? Or in the words of a Christian apologist, Ravi Zacharias points out "that you cannot judge a philosophy by its
abuse." Yet, I agree with your accusation, many Christians don't act like Christians, not even remotely. This isn't much different from many other faiths and beliefs, but I do understand why Christians are so readily and repeatedly chastised for it. You're right. I don't like it, but you're right.
There are only two serious flaws in your argument:
1. Jesus said He is the Son of God. You will have to refute Jesus' own description of Himself, or challenge the writings that make that statement and the authors thereof. You are, you know, challenging the veracity of men who went to their deaths to defend that point. They may have been lying, but read Romans 5:7 and consider that. Several died for Jesus' name.
2. God, if He is what and who He claims to be, need not be fair or even just, though he claims to be. As Creator, we are His do with as He pleases. Looking around, He has pretty much left us alone to do as we wish, wouldn't you agree? Reading the Old Testament, God pretty regularly (if not always) declared why He caused disaster or punishment on Man. You may not believe God is who He says He is, and that's fine. But to then challenge His actions according to your interpretation of who and what you think He should be isn't intellectually honest, to me. Dismiss God as not real, I can tolerate that as your opinion. Try to redefine God according to your standards, that doesn't work for me. You and I do not get to decide 'who' God is.
And if you "find the idea of "a god" far more reasonable than the extremely elaborate justification for the story of how Jesus came to exist", I'm interested. If God does exist, and He is who HE says HE is, what's so hard about sending His son as He did? God as Creator can do pretty much anything. A virgin birth is trivial, compared to creating the Universe. Picking and choosing the attributes of God or Jesus leads you down the road of intellectual dishonesty. Don't be lukewarm. Be a believer or not, but don't pick out the parts you like and toss the rest you have a difficult time with. Challenge. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 - "Test everything. Hold on to the good."
I'll leave it to you to discern what is good.
And if you want to dismiss the Bible as hopelessly inaccurate, I can tolerate that as your opinion as well. But doing so leaves you with nothing to base your judgement of what or who God is, since you've dismissed what is considered by His followers as His word. Remember, if God is who He says He is, he could change the Bible to be what He wanted it to be. It is what it is, and He has allowed it. Christians should remember that He may indeed have left it imperfect. We should stop nitpicking the details and focus on the truth.
While I would love to convince you of the truth of Jesus as our Saviour, I'm really just trying to convince you to be either fully atheist or not. Don't get trapped in the middle, thinking Jesus was a 'great teacher' but dismissing some of His own words. If you need to deny Jesus' own claim to being God's Son, you need to pretty much ignore His other words too. He's either right or wrong.
And I'm grateful that I will some day be able to examine and understand the Dead Sea scrolls, with the help of many many scholars. So far as I know, as we research more the Bible is upheld as correct, and is confirmed as accurate historically. We may never settle every issue, but that isn't necessary for me. For you, that I can't be the judge of.
Please accept my offer of blessing in His name.
I don't so much "look at hostile agnostics and atheists and see people who are just as irrational as the religious folks that they seem to hate so much" any more.
I see people who say that believing in something that is unprovable is wrong. And they want you to believe in that, or them.
Yes, that's what they are asking you to do; either something they are asking you NOT to do (believe), or to just believe them rather than someone or something else.
We might as well have the argument over the entire issue, rather than over part of it.
I probably already had them, no need to steal them on the way out the door.
Seriously, I'm kinda glad to not be doing sysadmin stuff any more, except for my own systems. I was called in pretty regular in the old days to 'secure' the system just in advance of the incumbent being dismissed. Always a nasty business, both because the incumbent was usually capable of great harm, and because their boss was invariably 'difficult', and often wanted guarantees that the fired employee would never get back into their systems. I told one CFO that you could only be sure if you cut off both hands, put out both eyes, and seal him in a grave. Funny, the CFO took more than a moment to tell me that wasn't an option. I know he was wondering if the lawyers could be more effective.
They've NEVER been my best friends, but then again I'm a guy.
Every woman I have ever known has just looked at me when I pointed this out, like I was missing something...
...but working in the financial industry may have my blinders tighter than ever.
I recall a very basic security seminar I was in many years ago - before Microsoft was in the server business. One of the core concepts presented was the three security factors we could rely on:
- Something you ARE - fingerprint, iris, voice, etc.
- Something you KNOW - password, phrase, challenge response.
- Something you HAVE - token, card, whatever...
Any two of the three could offer good security. Asking for all three could offer very good security. Of course, we are only talking about access security here, as being forced to use all three to sign into your already-compromised workstation does not offer much data security.
But in most credit card transactions, we have to offer at least #2 & 3, not always in that order. Adding biometrics (something you ARE) is interesting.
Faking #3 (something you HAVE) is not so hard. Cards get copied, and actually the account number may be as good as a card in the card-not-present environment that e-commerce lives in.
Faking #2 is the most current target of many, and they add loggers to terminals. Only a matter of time before we see wireless loggers inserted into terminals or POS devices, making it very hard for a consumer to check for the wire to 'another' device, and removing the need to go and retrieve the logger. Sending those PINs wirelessly is just too easy, only requiring a modest investment in technology. I venture there are plenty of ways to get those made for ya.
Ultimately, for financial security, I think we need to mitigate the technological 'expediter' by introducing either more accountability or more time into the settlement process, allowing fraudulent transactions time to be rolled back and deny the crooks the funds. That is probably impossible in an environment where merchants demand faster payment, especially when merchants live on the edge of cash flow and can fail if they are denied cash over the course of days. Imagine trying to slow down the cash flow for weeks...
Another option is faster accountability. Perhaps your cell phone is your friend here, and you get an SMS for every transaction... Imagine the thrill of seeing your purchase of two minutes ago appearing on your phone with a big "dispute this" button available. Imagine the thrill of getting that message for a purchase you *didn't* make, and killing the transaction... Imagine the potential for abuse. Not perfect.
One key point to remember, perhaps. Theft is not new. The methods have changed. The scale is larger, but everything is.
Is it fixable? Not if we want convenience. But hey, it used to be that people got mugged for cash. Does that happen so much any more? In a cashless society, with stricter security, are we gonna see ATMs that can tell the difference between the eyebell you use to authenticate yourself, or the eyeball the mugger just popped out of your socket?
Hope so. I want all my biometrics to stay with me.
Seeing as I was hoping to become a third-party app developer, it looks like core functionality will have to be addressed before the geegaws and doodads work.
Oh, wait, it's really mostly about geegaws and doodads.
You heard it here first - Google is just another corporation. Evil is intrinsic. Do no evil, do no business.
...unless I get word that I can sync over Bluetooth. Cables are so yesterday, and IR is 90's...
I miss my hometown library so much. They got such huge endowments for acquisitions that they bought multiple copies of almost any author that sold more than 12 copies of anything. They will have these ready to go 3 days after release.
Crap. Of course, they didn't have any money for staff, but that just means we volunteer some, and wait in line a bit.
"But Premier spokesman Chris Riggall said the programming problem had gone undetected after years of use and both federal and state testing. He stressed that the systems are secure in conjunction with other election safeguards in place."
You gotta love it. Problem went undetected. But the system is safe and secure, 'cause we can't find any security problems...
You canNOT make this stuff up.
Space flight is SO much easier when you don't measure success by crew survival. And crew survival is easier to deal with if your crew doesn't mean so much to you.
And success is much, much easier if you control your national news media.
Iran will do well in space, after a while. Though I do have this mental picture of a spacesuit with velcro for the plastique... and a trigger.
Yup, somebody is going to lose something. Hopefully, it will just be their virginity. No, wait, that's important. Hopefully it will just be their wireless mouse.
But somebody will lose something.
Just remember... if everybody at the poker table has a gun, one thing is certain. Somebody is going to get shot. Have a doctor, ambulance, or insurance policy handy. Trust not the lawyers.
On the one hand, how old am I, considering my UID...?
On the other hand, careful you don't mistake sigs for content...