skunk
Apr 24, 01:32 PM
Currently the biggest threat to freedom and democracy is Islam.Far greater is the threat posed by unbridled corporate power and the purchase of politicians.
matticus008
Mar 20, 03:14 PM
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
GGJstudios
May 2, 04:15 PM
Its not a myth, we've interviewed hackers after conviction, they have no interest in pursuing Macs due to the numbers. To get a really good and useful bot net you'd need roughly 25% of the entire user base!!!!
these guys deal in tens of millions!
That's completely false. The current installed base of Macs is around 100 million, and it grows by over a million Macs per month. You don't need a certain percentage of market share for a useful botnet; you need numbers. You talking to a handful of hackers is hardly conclusive. I can interview a handful of people in my neighborhood and find a consensus on any number of falsehoods. Get some facts (rather than making stuff up) and then re-join the discussion.
these guys deal in tens of millions!
That's completely false. The current installed base of Macs is around 100 million, and it grows by over a million Macs per month. You don't need a certain percentage of market share for a useful botnet; you need numbers. You talking to a handful of hackers is hardly conclusive. I can interview a handful of people in my neighborhood and find a consensus on any number of falsehoods. Get some facts (rather than making stuff up) and then re-join the discussion.
jiggie2g
Mar 18, 03:23 PM
DVD Jon is unstoppable this guy could crack a Diamond.
skottichan
Apr 15, 12:49 PM
Not if you believe HBO! All Roman women were raging lesbians (or at least bi-sexual).
The hunky men, not so much� *sigh*
:p
Shhhh... don't let them know that...
Lucy Lawless *swoon*
Screw you people, I'm allowed to have my one stereotypical crush (yes, and I'm a raging Xena/Gabby shipper... Don't judge me :()
The hunky men, not so much� *sigh*
:p
Shhhh... don't let them know that...
Lucy Lawless *swoon*
Screw you people, I'm allowed to have my one stereotypical crush (yes, and I'm a raging Xena/Gabby shipper... Don't judge me :()
ubersoldat
Jun 5, 05:08 PM
Not sure this is a good test...
I'm beginning to see that while ATT is the bigger culprit, the iphone itself may play a role in what happens with dropped calls...
My service (as is well documented in these forums) at home was/is terrible.
I recently purchased the microcell, from ATT, and I can now make calls in my house!! Except, when I move exactly 20 feet away from the microcell into my kitchen, my iPhone struggles with itself to pick up the 2 bar distant tower that was the guilty party in dropping my calls... so now, in my house iPhone juggles between a 5 bar microcell and a 1-2 bar tower (which still drops calls). It also drops every call that I'm on if i leave my house during a call, or arrive at my house during a call.
it's absolutely ridiculous that you have to buy a microcell (at&t should provide you one free of charge) to get 5 bars. the technology is there as here in germany we have 5 bars (2G and 3G) without issues even in buildings with tons of armored concrete...
I'm beginning to see that while ATT is the bigger culprit, the iphone itself may play a role in what happens with dropped calls...
My service (as is well documented in these forums) at home was/is terrible.
I recently purchased the microcell, from ATT, and I can now make calls in my house!! Except, when I move exactly 20 feet away from the microcell into my kitchen, my iPhone struggles with itself to pick up the 2 bar distant tower that was the guilty party in dropping my calls... so now, in my house iPhone juggles between a 5 bar microcell and a 1-2 bar tower (which still drops calls). It also drops every call that I'm on if i leave my house during a call, or arrive at my house during a call.
it's absolutely ridiculous that you have to buy a microcell (at&t should provide you one free of charge) to get 5 bars. the technology is there as here in germany we have 5 bars (2G and 3G) without issues even in buildings with tons of armored concrete...
CaoCao
Mar 26, 01:04 AM
You are either knowingly full of it or being intentionally insulting. Likely both.
A church is entirely inconsequential to marriage. I know you believe you need the permission of a magic man in the sky to insert your penis into someone, but that is of no practical value to anyone. Including you; you just don't know it.
Marriage in the modern sense is the set of legal policies a society constructs in respect of a voluntary commitment between consenting adults. Homosexuals cannot take part in this status, for no rational reason, in part because people like you have been persuaded by the prejudiced teachings of your fairy tales that you have the right to force even non-Catholics to seek the approval of your magic buddy, to pretend that your religion owns the institution of marriage, and has the right to dictate that governments enforce it on your terms and behalf.
You seem to be going further, openly mocking gay people, compounding the insult of your support for illegitimately depriving them of equal standing in society by suggesting they should be grateful to you for the magnanimity of allowing them an ersatz costume wedding.
"church" is more like wherever-the-Hell-you-want.
The governments job is enforcing the will of the people because it derives its power from consent of the govered
A church is entirely inconsequential to marriage. I know you believe you need the permission of a magic man in the sky to insert your penis into someone, but that is of no practical value to anyone. Including you; you just don't know it.
Marriage in the modern sense is the set of legal policies a society constructs in respect of a voluntary commitment between consenting adults. Homosexuals cannot take part in this status, for no rational reason, in part because people like you have been persuaded by the prejudiced teachings of your fairy tales that you have the right to force even non-Catholics to seek the approval of your magic buddy, to pretend that your religion owns the institution of marriage, and has the right to dictate that governments enforce it on your terms and behalf.
You seem to be going further, openly mocking gay people, compounding the insult of your support for illegitimately depriving them of equal standing in society by suggesting they should be grateful to you for the magnanimity of allowing them an ersatz costume wedding.
"church" is more like wherever-the-Hell-you-want.
The governments job is enforcing the will of the people because it derives its power from consent of the govered
GenesisST
Oct 7, 12:18 PM
Curious. Why do you think Objective-C is not user-friendly and intuitive?
Cause it's not. I played with the iPhone SDK for a test app and had to relearn a few things. For example, the + or - in front of a method, which means instance or class method (or vice-versa). I could find the right information (or Google keywords) to get it without a few bouts of swearing.
Then my company got a contract to port an iPhone app to Android. And by port I mean rewrite since we can't share anything from obj-c to Java.
Coming from a C/C++ background, the learning curve was really quick. Plus Google did a relatively good job with its SDK and emulator which work pretty well on both Mac and Windows.
Cause it's not. I played with the iPhone SDK for a test app and had to relearn a few things. For example, the + or - in front of a method, which means instance or class method (or vice-versa). I could find the right information (or Google keywords) to get it without a few bouts of swearing.
Then my company got a contract to port an iPhone app to Android. And by port I mean rewrite since we can't share anything from obj-c to Java.
Coming from a C/C++ background, the learning curve was really quick. Plus Google did a relatively good job with its SDK and emulator which work pretty well on both Mac and Windows.
milo
Jul 13, 08:51 AM
Lame poll choices.
Most likely is BOTH woodcrest and conroe in different models. Woodcrest is necessary for quad, but using it in a single chip configuration is a waste of money.
Apple needs to deliver both maximum performance and reasonably fast performance at a reasonable price.
Most likely is BOTH woodcrest and conroe in different models. Woodcrest is necessary for quad, but using it in a single chip configuration is a waste of money.
Apple needs to deliver both maximum performance and reasonably fast performance at a reasonable price.
Blipp
Apr 13, 08:36 AM
I believe you. . . but do you have a link. I haven't dug around a lot for it yet. That's really my biggest concern with this update.
I don't have a link for you but I too remember them saying you could run the entire app from the keyboard though I don't remember them specifically mentioning customizing hotkeys.
I don't have a link for you but I too remember them saying you could run the entire app from the keyboard though I don't remember them specifically mentioning customizing hotkeys.
spipenge
Jun 27, 02:22 AM
I find it such a shame about the the low standards we as Americans have for our mobile providers. I see many people with the satisfaction of AT&T around the country, that they have no connection problems. Here is the problem. We are so accustomed to saying that signal strength is the be all and end all. The next question should be network speed. Case in point, I have family in Ottawa in Canada. He did a speedtest, during a weekday, and was getting 5.8 - 6.0 Mbps download speeds on Rogers and Fido networks. What do I get in NYC the fastest? On a good day 2.0 Mbps. The same morning he sent me his results from Ottawa I did a test and received 54 kbps. That's right...dial up speed. The fact is that we do not demand fast speeds as they have have in other places throughout the world, Europe, many parts of Asia and, yes, Canada. There is a reason for this: no competition. I can speak of Canada because of family there: there are multiple carriers there that will support the frequency the iPhone is on. Here, it is only AT&T. Many report using iPhone on T-Mobile with an unlocked phone, but, as I understand it, you can only used Edge on T-Mobile because of the different frequency. In other words, only 2G speeds.
I also feel I have to comment on all the "why isn't Apple developing a phone for Verizon" comments. Simply put, that would be an enormous step back. Verizon's and Sprint's use of CDMA is a huge step back. CDMA just doesn't have the capability of a GSM network (and let's not forget you can't use a CDMA phone outside the United States because nobody else uses this really bad technology). What people don't know is that CDMA does not support simultaneous data and voice transmission and receive. Case in point: friend of mine has Verizon. He called me to ask me to send some directions to his phone. I asked him if he could check to see if the map I'd sent was the correct one. His response: I have to hang up to check my email. The issue, then, is to NOT seek a Verizon phone, but to demand that AT&T build a ubiquitous network that is fast enough.
I also feel I have to comment on all the "why isn't Apple developing a phone for Verizon" comments. Simply put, that would be an enormous step back. Verizon's and Sprint's use of CDMA is a huge step back. CDMA just doesn't have the capability of a GSM network (and let's not forget you can't use a CDMA phone outside the United States because nobody else uses this really bad technology). What people don't know is that CDMA does not support simultaneous data and voice transmission and receive. Case in point: friend of mine has Verizon. He called me to ask me to send some directions to his phone. I asked him if he could check to see if the map I'd sent was the correct one. His response: I have to hang up to check my email. The issue, then, is to NOT seek a Verizon phone, but to demand that AT&T build a ubiquitous network that is fast enough.
dyler
Oct 7, 06:49 PM
Oh so now we have Android. First it was the Palm Pre that was going to kill the iPhone, that did not happen, then it was this or that touch screen phone that was going to kill the iPhone and that did not happen. When Android first came out with the G1 that was going to kill the iPhone, that did not happen and now we have more Android devices killing the iPhone, not going to happen. This is a load of crap from people who don't know what they are talking about. Android is hard to develop for and is at least two years behind Apple at the moment, how is this going to happen? This is the stupidest prediction I have ever heard from people who don't like Apple for some reason that I cannot understand, let's stop predicting which device is going to be King and just see what happens!!! The main reason I say this will not happen is that Android is only being adopted by technophiles and not everyday people, the iPhone is being adopted by apple technophiles and everyday people, it is the everyday people that decide which device is king and they will not adopt Android unless the OS is completely overhauled in a different direction, people like my 63 year old father have an Iphone now and there is no way he would ever want or use an Android based phone. Tech analysts need to think of everyday people when they predict this crap and not techies who hate Apple for some reason or another!!!
Al Coholic
Apr 28, 11:59 AM
And on the topic of laughing at OS X market share, keep on laughing. Apple is the most profitable computer company on the planet. Dell and Microsoft wish they had Apple's problems.
Wow. A bit shortsighted aren't we? (And the Apple pom-pom squad is out in force today).
Don't you see that all the iOS success does is point out to the Board that OSX isn't where it's at and more resources will keep going to iPads and iPhones?
If you're a mac user is this really what you want?
They didn't delete the word "computer" from the Apple name for nothing.
Wow. A bit shortsighted aren't we? (And the Apple pom-pom squad is out in force today).
Don't you see that all the iOS success does is point out to the Board that OSX isn't where it's at and more resources will keep going to iPads and iPhones?
If you're a mac user is this really what you want?
They didn't delete the word "computer" from the Apple name for nothing.
Chupa Chupa
Apr 28, 08:04 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2 like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C134 Safari/6533.18.5)
As for too many people buying iPad 1 for Christmas, thus denting iPad 2 sales, well, all previous iPad 1 sales are included in these numbers, are they not?
No, they are not. This report is for the Jan-March '11 quarter. Christmas sales were reflected in the Oct-Dec '10 quarter.
As for too many people buying iPad 1 for Christmas, thus denting iPad 2 sales, well, all previous iPad 1 sales are included in these numbers, are they not?
No, they are not. This report is for the Jan-March '11 quarter. Christmas sales were reflected in the Oct-Dec '10 quarter.
deputy_doofy
Apr 21, 07:54 AM
This virus talk is full of ignorance. Mac OSX is not more secure than Windows. Windows is just targeted more, because of the marketshare.
If you think that Apple writes perfect code everytime then you have no idea what you're talking about.
I keep hearing this, but in just over 10 years now, I have yet to see one virus -- you know, a self-propagating piece of software (not counting trojans or user-initiated apps). For all the IT "geniuses" on this board, you obviously ALL failed statistics (because OS X should not have a virus count == 0, but it does).
If you think that Apple writes perfect code everytime then you have no idea what you're talking about.
I keep hearing this, but in just over 10 years now, I have yet to see one virus -- you know, a self-propagating piece of software (not counting trojans or user-initiated apps). For all the IT "geniuses" on this board, you obviously ALL failed statistics (because OS X should not have a virus count == 0, but it does).
citizenzen
Mar 15, 10:39 PM
you might want to rethink what I mean by contained ...
It's too undefined...
Contained to the reactor?
Contained to the plant?
Contained to the locality?
Contained to the island?
Contained in the hemisphere?
Contained to the Earth?
It's too undefined...
Contained to the reactor?
Contained to the plant?
Contained to the locality?
Contained to the island?
Contained in the hemisphere?
Contained to the Earth?
tigress666
Apr 10, 12:18 PM
Yeah that is why they have the top selling game on console in COD and the top selling game on PC in WOW :rolleyes:
That being said, I would love to see games like the old school RPG FF games or even starcraft type games.
Those would own on the ipads and work pretty well on the iphone/ipods as well
Uh, they have Final Fantasy 1-III on the iPhone :) (III is the most expensive game I've seen on the iphone, 16 bux!). I'm working on II right now (then going to try I and got a few more games so waiting for III to be on sale or for when I finish the other games, whichever comes first).
I'm just hoping they eventually get to VII (that they find porting these over to iOS is worth doing more Final Fantasy's on it). Shoot, maybe if they keep going by number, they can get X on an iphone (maybe by that time the hardware will be able to handle that?).
And I'd love to see Lunar Star Story on the iphone. That would be pretty awesome too. Or Breath of Fire IV. There's a ton of old rpgs that would do great on the iphone. And touch screen wouldn't be too bad of an interface for the old style rpgs either. Actually, for old style rpgs, touch screen would have advantages (no scrolling through lists, just pick it out with your finger).
Personally, I'd just be happy with them porting over the popular games to the iphone that are on other platforms. I honestly think for me the iPhone is the best portable player cause it is with me everywhere (so with the amount of games I am finding on it now even I'd probably not be really tempted to buy the other handhelds. The iphone being so portable gives it a major plus compared to the more dedicated handheld game systems. Now a console, that would be different).
I do think that it does have one issue, that since it is my phone as well, it is kind of annoying I have to worry about keeping some battery life so I still have my phone (For example using it on a plane flight I still need to have a usable phone at the end of the flight).
That being said, I would love to see games like the old school RPG FF games or even starcraft type games.
Those would own on the ipads and work pretty well on the iphone/ipods as well
Uh, they have Final Fantasy 1-III on the iPhone :) (III is the most expensive game I've seen on the iphone, 16 bux!). I'm working on II right now (then going to try I and got a few more games so waiting for III to be on sale or for when I finish the other games, whichever comes first).
I'm just hoping they eventually get to VII (that they find porting these over to iOS is worth doing more Final Fantasy's on it). Shoot, maybe if they keep going by number, they can get X on an iphone (maybe by that time the hardware will be able to handle that?).
And I'd love to see Lunar Star Story on the iphone. That would be pretty awesome too. Or Breath of Fire IV. There's a ton of old rpgs that would do great on the iphone. And touch screen wouldn't be too bad of an interface for the old style rpgs either. Actually, for old style rpgs, touch screen would have advantages (no scrolling through lists, just pick it out with your finger).
Personally, I'd just be happy with them porting over the popular games to the iphone that are on other platforms. I honestly think for me the iPhone is the best portable player cause it is with me everywhere (so with the amount of games I am finding on it now even I'd probably not be really tempted to buy the other handhelds. The iphone being so portable gives it a major plus compared to the more dedicated handheld game systems. Now a console, that would be different).
I do think that it does have one issue, that since it is my phone as well, it is kind of annoying I have to worry about keeping some battery life so I still have my phone (For example using it on a plane flight I still need to have a usable phone at the end of the flight).
torbjoern
Apr 23, 01:43 AM
It's easier to admit being an atheist on the Internet than in the real world, as even the Dalai Lama seems to hate atheists. Although only a fool would say in his heart "there is no god", it should be legitimate to say "I want to see proof before I believe".
Oh - and about the universe not likely being made by chance: a designer must be more advanced than what he creates, and where does the designer come from? I'm not saying that there is no such designer, just that I don't see any reason to think about that in the first place. Wouldn't it be far more likely that the universe is made by itself rather than by some creating force being made by itself?
Oh - and about the universe not likely being made by chance: a designer must be more advanced than what he creates, and where does the designer come from? I'm not saying that there is no such designer, just that I don't see any reason to think about that in the first place. Wouldn't it be far more likely that the universe is made by itself rather than by some creating force being made by itself?
ct2k7
Apr 24, 04:29 PM
no, i've not posted these before...
Not you - someone presented these to me before. They have been heavily edited to suit a point. In some cases, what's being said contradicts an earlier sentence.
the point of
is that if he says whoever guards his chastity is guaranteed paradise then the opposite is true.
Yes. However, remaining in chastity is a real gem. I don't think anyone, till date has ever achieved that.
Most honour killings occur in muslim majority countries, or are perpetrated by muslims.
Correlation does not mean causation. (This phrase is hardwired into my head - it was the only mark I lost in a Biology A Level paper).
and also:
A manual of Islamic law certified as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy by Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, says that "retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right." However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2).
I guess Islamic clerics are also misinterpreting Islam's message of peace and inclusion? A person might kill his offspring or offsprings offspring for dishonouring the family.
The thing with that, and I remember someone talking about it, is that there had to be certain conditions which were met before honour killing was even an option.
In the cases I've seen, it is murder without trial. Now Islam upholds the sanctity of life, and the Quran declares that killing one innocent human being is akin to killing the entire human race.
Now, the problem of �honour killings� is not a problem of morality or of ensuring that women maintain their own personal virtue; rather, it is a problem of domination, power and hatred of women who, in these instances, are viewed as nothing more than servants to the family, both physically and symbolically.
Islamic Scholars have continuously condemned honour killings. It is not for us to judge, that is for Allah to decide.
in your refutations of my point you don't seem to find any problem with women being beaten for being unchaste lol.
[quote]
You didn't bring it to my attention ;)
[quote]
my point in mentioning Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 63, Number 196: and the other one which deals with testifying against oneself four times is that it shows that counts as four witnesses for the purposes of someone being found guilty of adultery.
Yes. Whilst this may seem weird, the person giving the witness, if indeed four times, must be trustworthy. In this case she was. She wanted to repent, knowing the proceeds that would occur.
Not you - someone presented these to me before. They have been heavily edited to suit a point. In some cases, what's being said contradicts an earlier sentence.
the point of
is that if he says whoever guards his chastity is guaranteed paradise then the opposite is true.
Yes. However, remaining in chastity is a real gem. I don't think anyone, till date has ever achieved that.
Most honour killings occur in muslim majority countries, or are perpetrated by muslims.
Correlation does not mean causation. (This phrase is hardwired into my head - it was the only mark I lost in a Biology A Level paper).
and also:
A manual of Islamic law certified as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy by Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, says that "retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right." However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2).
I guess Islamic clerics are also misinterpreting Islam's message of peace and inclusion? A person might kill his offspring or offsprings offspring for dishonouring the family.
The thing with that, and I remember someone talking about it, is that there had to be certain conditions which were met before honour killing was even an option.
In the cases I've seen, it is murder without trial. Now Islam upholds the sanctity of life, and the Quran declares that killing one innocent human being is akin to killing the entire human race.
Now, the problem of �honour killings� is not a problem of morality or of ensuring that women maintain their own personal virtue; rather, it is a problem of domination, power and hatred of women who, in these instances, are viewed as nothing more than servants to the family, both physically and symbolically.
Islamic Scholars have continuously condemned honour killings. It is not for us to judge, that is for Allah to decide.
in your refutations of my point you don't seem to find any problem with women being beaten for being unchaste lol.
[quote]
You didn't bring it to my attention ;)
[quote]
my point in mentioning Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 63, Number 196: and the other one which deals with testifying against oneself four times is that it shows that counts as four witnesses for the purposes of someone being found guilty of adultery.
Yes. Whilst this may seem weird, the person giving the witness, if indeed four times, must be trustworthy. In this case she was. She wanted to repent, knowing the proceeds that would occur.
arkitect
Apr 15, 10:53 AM
More hate from the god squad. :rolleyes:
So true. And yet I am always told Christianity is all about loving one's neighbour… (as long as you don't covet his ass, I guess).
Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Looking at that list, heaven is gonna be a tad empty…
So true. And yet I am always told Christianity is all about loving one's neighbour… (as long as you don't covet his ass, I guess).
Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Looking at that list, heaven is gonna be a tad empty…
cactusjackatu
Mar 18, 11:13 AM
To everyone that is running jailbroken and tethering (against your AT&T TOS) via MyWi. Did you purchase the app or are you pirating that as well?
superleccy
Sep 20, 06:11 AM
It's also far and away the worst. It's the televisual equivalent of drilling a hole in your skull and pouring pure ethanol into your brain.
Not quite. Having a hole in your skull and a brain full of ethanol is actually a pre-requisite for enjoying ITV.
Not quite. Having a hole in your skull and a brain full of ethanol is actually a pre-requisite for enjoying ITV.
mostman
Sep 20, 03:42 PM
The iTV makes the elgato eyetv hybrid even more appealing. :)
http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyetvhybridna
Use it to record your shows and then stream it to the iTV.
-bye bye comcast DVR.
what about calling it the iStream (ha)
Well.... not quite.
You see the ElGato stuff does not decode digital channels. Not only that, they can't even control your Comcast cable box to tell it to change the channel. So any channel that is digital (>125) you are going to have to manually change before recording.
Sound appealing? No, of course not.
This is the reason solutions like ElGato have not really caught on yet. Add a cable card system and its game over.
-Mike
http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyetvhybridna
Use it to record your shows and then stream it to the iTV.
-bye bye comcast DVR.
what about calling it the iStream (ha)
Well.... not quite.
You see the ElGato stuff does not decode digital channels. Not only that, they can't even control your Comcast cable box to tell it to change the channel. So any channel that is digital (>125) you are going to have to manually change before recording.
Sound appealing? No, of course not.
This is the reason solutions like ElGato have not really caught on yet. Add a cable card system and its game over.
-Mike
CAWjr
Mar 18, 11:05 AM
I can't blame AT&T one bit for trying to protect their network. And as some have already said, those who are trying to game the system are hurting those of us who are being honest by bloating the network unnecessarily.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar