Rodimus Prime
Apr 15, 09:53 AM
I'm a straight, white, middle class kid. And even I felt that was relevant to my own life and experiences. While they specifically talk about being gay, the message of how to deal with hardships when you grow up is still relevant.
I'm in the same group and I saw the message and saw how it still relevant. I just wish they would make videos and focus on the other groups.
Thinking back to those darker times a message like this would not of sank for me because I did not fit in with the LBGT group as I am straight.
Now 10-15 years later as an adult I can see the message and agree it is relevent. But at the time not as good. Hence the reason why I feel they should also try to help out those straight kids who are for example fat and target them directly. Try to target straight kids as well.
I'm in the same group and I saw the message and saw how it still relevant. I just wish they would make videos and focus on the other groups.
Thinking back to those darker times a message like this would not of sank for me because I did not fit in with the LBGT group as I am straight.
Now 10-15 years later as an adult I can see the message and agree it is relevent. But at the time not as good. Hence the reason why I feel they should also try to help out those straight kids who are for example fat and target them directly. Try to target straight kids as well.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 14, 06:11 PM
- Grid energy storage tech needs to advance so renewables can be integrated into base load and we can phase out fossil fuels and nuclear.
The problem with this is that I don't see any huge breakthroughs in battery technology on the horizon, and the most efficient 'battery" is still water behind a dam - or the energy contained in non-renewable sources.
We need to operate on the assumption that storage technology is not going to fundamentally improve.
The problem with this is that I don't see any huge breakthroughs in battery technology on the horizon, and the most efficient 'battery" is still water behind a dam - or the energy contained in non-renewable sources.
We need to operate on the assumption that storage technology is not going to fundamentally improve.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 15, 09:49 AM
Personally, I think it's great. However, they should be careful. Moves like this have the potential to alienate customers. That said, props to the employees.
Fewer and fewer each year.
Fewer and fewer each year.
Jason Beck
May 3, 06:35 PM
Someone link us some malware and viruses for OSX so we can have a looksie.
munkery
May 2, 05:41 PM
What is "an installer" but an executable file and what prevents me from writing "an installer" that does more than just "installing".
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system.
I don't know of any Javascript DOM manipulation that lets you have write/read access to the local filesystem. This is already sandboxed.
The scripting engine in the current Safari is not yet sandboxed.
Here is a list of Javascript vulnerabilities:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+Javascript
The issue is Safari is launching an executable file that sits outside the browser sandbox.
In the current Safari, only some plugins are sandboxed, so this wasn't execution outside the sandbox.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
Except this:
Switching off or turning down UAC in Windows also equally impacts the strength of MIC (Windows sandboxing mechanism) because it functions based on inherited permissions. Unix DAC in Mac OS X functions via inherited permissions but MAC (mandatory access controls -> OS X sandbox) does not. Windows does not have a sandbox like OS X.
UAC, by default, does not use a unique identifier (password) so it is more susceptible to attacks the rely on spoofing prompts that appear to be unrelated to UAC to steal authentication. If a password is attached to authentication, these spoofed prompts fail to work.
Unix DAC is turned off in OS X in the root user account.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system.
I don't know of any Javascript DOM manipulation that lets you have write/read access to the local filesystem. This is already sandboxed.
The scripting engine in the current Safari is not yet sandboxed.
Here is a list of Javascript vulnerabilities:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+Javascript
The issue is Safari is launching an executable file that sits outside the browser sandbox.
In the current Safari, only some plugins are sandboxed, so this wasn't execution outside the sandbox.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
Except this:
Switching off or turning down UAC in Windows also equally impacts the strength of MIC (Windows sandboxing mechanism) because it functions based on inherited permissions. Unix DAC in Mac OS X functions via inherited permissions but MAC (mandatory access controls -> OS X sandbox) does not. Windows does not have a sandbox like OS X.
UAC, by default, does not use a unique identifier (password) so it is more susceptible to attacks the rely on spoofing prompts that appear to be unrelated to UAC to steal authentication. If a password is attached to authentication, these spoofed prompts fail to work.
Unix DAC is turned off in OS X in the root user account.
Cheerwino
Apr 9, 08:47 PM
Guys, they hired PR people. I'm a PR person. We promote things that other people create. They are not developers, programmers, designers or even marketers -- they are press and industry promoters. You want folks with contacts in an industry, good at getting press and related placements, who are also good at running a PR department. It's important and useful for companies, part of the marketing mix but not the whole show.
Folks need to realize there are multiple consumer segments in any product category with varying degrees of interest and values around any product. This is true for cereal, furniture, tires, games and just about any consumer product. Thanks to our somewhat free market capitalism we have a choice in products, so companies work hard to figure out the ideal formula to reach certain target groups. Those groups overlap and vary according to the brand and product. This stuff is complex and there aren't easy, clear answers.
I think these hires just show Apple is serious about the gaming market (an all it's variety) and trying to maximize what is possible within the context of their product capabilities. [gag, spoken like a true PR person, I see] :rolleyes:
Folks need to realize there are multiple consumer segments in any product category with varying degrees of interest and values around any product. This is true for cereal, furniture, tires, games and just about any consumer product. Thanks to our somewhat free market capitalism we have a choice in products, so companies work hard to figure out the ideal formula to reach certain target groups. Those groups overlap and vary according to the brand and product. This stuff is complex and there aren't easy, clear answers.
I think these hires just show Apple is serious about the gaming market (an all it's variety) and trying to maximize what is possible within the context of their product capabilities. [gag, spoken like a true PR person, I see] :rolleyes:
mi5moav
Sep 20, 08:29 AM
I have a feeling that Apple and Disney are going to partner up on this ITV and somehow integrate MovieBeam into it. I am sure there are already plans in the work. Disney has cut the price on this great technology and this is one piece of technology I wouldn't give up. So, much better then running to the store and the definition of the movies are great. For $52 bucks you get you own video Store. Decent prices on rentals. A lot better then $299 no way will I get iTV but for $199 with moviebeam built in it's possible.
jefhatfield
Oct 8, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by nixd2001
True, but hardly going to provoke torrents of postings of heated debate and disagreement - surely a necessity in modern society :p
So that's 2 cents of irrational exuberence then?
no. just enough to get a decent woody going:D
True, but hardly going to provoke torrents of postings of heated debate and disagreement - surely a necessity in modern society :p
So that's 2 cents of irrational exuberence then?
no. just enough to get a decent woody going:D
wlh99
Apr 6, 10:04 AM
Can't just hit Delete? Can't move up a level in the directory structure? Yikes.
Ya know what? These may all be little things individually, but collectively as a whole I think they'd drive me nuts.
I'm still on Vista... maybe going to Windows 7 might be the smarter move in my particular case.
Thanks for your help everyone, I sincerely appreciate your input.
Gotta do some serious thinking about this...
It's cmd-del. And yes you can move up the directory structure.
As someone else pointed out, it's just different. I have used PC's since around DOS 3. I still use them extensively, and also use Macs and manage both as the IT person at work.
My belief is the better a person is at both, the more they realize it doesn't matter. Both have problems, and both work very well. They are just different. When someone thinks one is far better than the other, they probably lack skills in the system they don't like - whether they know they lack the skills or not.
If when you swtich, you will have a month or so of frustration as you struggle to do things that were easy with the PC, like how to delete a file with the keyboard, or that there isn't an up button in the finder. But you will soon find that cmd-del works, and that you can click on the directory hierarchy at the button of the finder window.
My biggest frustrations have been that shortcuts are very different. I use office products a-lot on both platforms, and it is hard to go back and forth. Particularly the usage of the home and end keys. Also, shortcuts are inconsistent between apps on the Mac.
If your PC is old and needs replacement, get a Mac or a Windows 7 PC. You will probably be happy with either in the long run. If you like learning new things, the Mac might be more fun and exciting. Although if you were still on XP, Windows 7 would be different as well.
Ya know what? These may all be little things individually, but collectively as a whole I think they'd drive me nuts.
I'm still on Vista... maybe going to Windows 7 might be the smarter move in my particular case.
Thanks for your help everyone, I sincerely appreciate your input.
Gotta do some serious thinking about this...
It's cmd-del. And yes you can move up the directory structure.
As someone else pointed out, it's just different. I have used PC's since around DOS 3. I still use them extensively, and also use Macs and manage both as the IT person at work.
My belief is the better a person is at both, the more they realize it doesn't matter. Both have problems, and both work very well. They are just different. When someone thinks one is far better than the other, they probably lack skills in the system they don't like - whether they know they lack the skills or not.
If when you swtich, you will have a month or so of frustration as you struggle to do things that were easy with the PC, like how to delete a file with the keyboard, or that there isn't an up button in the finder. But you will soon find that cmd-del works, and that you can click on the directory hierarchy at the button of the finder window.
My biggest frustrations have been that shortcuts are very different. I use office products a-lot on both platforms, and it is hard to go back and forth. Particularly the usage of the home and end keys. Also, shortcuts are inconsistent between apps on the Mac.
If your PC is old and needs replacement, get a Mac or a Windows 7 PC. You will probably be happy with either in the long run. If you like learning new things, the Mac might be more fun and exciting. Although if you were still on XP, Windows 7 would be different as well.
pdjudd
Oct 8, 10:26 AM
Flash is what will bring the iPhone down.
I doubt it. I think that no matter what platform it is on, people are going to realize that it only really works well when you have a large enough screen. Flash may be able to scale up, but that doesn't mean the opposite is true.
Not to mention that a great deal of the things that Flash does now are being incorporated into HTML 5. Flash is heavily used due to incumbency and its prevalence on the desktop market. But what works on a computer doesn't always apply equally on phones.
I doubt it. I think that no matter what platform it is on, people are going to realize that it only really works well when you have a large enough screen. Flash may be able to scale up, but that doesn't mean the opposite is true.
Not to mention that a great deal of the things that Flash does now are being incorporated into HTML 5. Flash is heavily used due to incumbency and its prevalence on the desktop market. But what works on a computer doesn't always apply equally on phones.
chabig
Sep 20, 08:00 AM
I know of at least one company (http://www.itv.com/) in the UK who won't be too happy if they keep that name.
Pay attention. That's NOT the name. That's just what we're calling it today.
Pay attention. That's NOT the name. That's just what we're calling it today.
Gravity
May 6, 09:25 AM
I am in the chicagoland area and I have a high percentage of phone calls that AT&T drops!!! Seems like every other phone call... I probably have about 40% of all my calls dropped by AT&T. What good are full bars on my phone if the connection isn't reliable? If that's the case, WHY do I spend so much for phone service???
ct2k7
Apr 24, 05:12 PM
Islam is more ideology/politcal movement than a simple religion.
You're right, if more had been done to integrate immigrants rather than endorse multi-kulti then perhaps we'd see the new generation being less radical than their parents, however (in belgium at least) the children of immigrants, who were born in europe, are MORE radical and devout than their parents. madness...
The radicalisation is a response to what many Muslims feel: Islamophobia and a war against Islam.
Anything that goes against Western Values is evil to me... or at least anathema. I don't like the term evil, it's too christian... as is anathema for that matter.
Wow, you are so very tolerant of other people. Some modern values come back from the great Islamic empire, or the Ottoman empire.
You're right, if more had been done to integrate immigrants rather than endorse multi-kulti then perhaps we'd see the new generation being less radical than their parents, however (in belgium at least) the children of immigrants, who were born in europe, are MORE radical and devout than their parents. madness...
The radicalisation is a response to what many Muslims feel: Islamophobia and a war against Islam.
Anything that goes against Western Values is evil to me... or at least anathema. I don't like the term evil, it's too christian... as is anathema for that matter.
Wow, you are so very tolerant of other people. Some modern values come back from the great Islamic empire, or the Ottoman empire.
KingYaba
Aug 29, 05:30 PM
GreenPeace's new agenda: Save the iPods :rolleyes:
dethmaShine
May 2, 04:34 PM
google...
'windows more secure than OSX'
check the results, you have people who are professional coders telling it how it is... and has been since 2007.
ignorance of facts doesn't equal knowledge, if no one is trying to break the door down you don't need a big lock.
I think the reality is in front of us. There's no need to google it.
'windows more secure than OSX'
check the results, you have people who are professional coders telling it how it is... and has been since 2007.
ignorance of facts doesn't equal knowledge, if no one is trying to break the door down you don't need a big lock.
I think the reality is in front of us. There's no need to google it.
Stage
Mar 19, 11:54 PM
If only people could work up a tenth of this kind of moral indignation over things that really matter, like poverty or racism. I despair that the only thing that seems to get geeks politically active is the threat that they won't be able to use their music illegally. It's sad, really.
Yeah, you can't. Instead of being out protesting you are stuck at your computer dissing IP geeks. Mmm...Sad and hypocritical. Now that's sad.
Yeah, you can't. Instead of being out protesting you are stuck at your computer dissing IP geeks. Mmm...Sad and hypocritical. Now that's sad.
KnightWRX
May 2, 05:51 PM
Until Vista and Win 7, it was effectively impossible to run a Windows NT system as anything but Administrator. To the point that other than locked-down corporate sites where an IT Professional was required to install the Corporate Approved version of any software you need to do your job, I never knew anyone running XP (or 2k, or for that matter NT 3.x) who in a day-to-day fashion used a Standard user account.
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
clebin
Apr 13, 05:03 AM
A reminder of Jobs' stunning hypocrisy from a year ago:
"For example, although Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5. Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X."
Congrats on another Cocoa port, Apple.
"For example, although Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5. Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X."
Congrats on another Cocoa port, Apple.
emotion
Sep 20, 10:40 AM
The obvious uses for a HDD to be included in the iTV have been discussed fairly extensivly. I'll try not to rehash anything, and all appologies if I do without giving credit. On to the point.
Apple is in the hardware business. They make software and provided services to generate sales and lock you into thier hardware. They make like $.01 per song; maybe $.50 a movie. So why do it? So we'll be a new iPod/computer/iTV every few years. The same holds true for iTV. Its hardware. Apple will include anything if it makes the hardware purchase more compelling. So why the HDD in iTV? For ALL the obvious reasons. Maybe they partition an 80GB iPod drive; say 10, 10 and 60. 10GB for a "rental" service downloaded straignt to the new box. 10GB for a streaming cache from your computer. And 60GB for PRV use. Why not?
You might have a point here but at that price point I suspect a 30GB HD and no PVR use. The HD could be used for caching and PPV/rental movies though.
Apple is in the hardware business. They make software and provided services to generate sales and lock you into thier hardware. They make like $.01 per song; maybe $.50 a movie. So why do it? So we'll be a new iPod/computer/iTV every few years. The same holds true for iTV. Its hardware. Apple will include anything if it makes the hardware purchase more compelling. So why the HDD in iTV? For ALL the obvious reasons. Maybe they partition an 80GB iPod drive; say 10, 10 and 60. 10GB for a "rental" service downloaded straignt to the new box. 10GB for a streaming cache from your computer. And 60GB for PRV use. Why not?
You might have a point here but at that price point I suspect a 30GB HD and no PVR use. The HD could be used for caching and PPV/rental movies though.
Sydde
Apr 26, 11:53 PM
Huntn, please show me some evidence for what you're saying. Then I'll tell you what I think of it. Meanwhile, I should admit that the Bible's original manuscripts no longer exist, and there are copyists' mistakes in the existing copies. There are mistranslations in at least some Bible translations. Take Matthew 24:24 in the King James Version. It's ungrammatical. But I still need you to give us some evidence that, for example, some tendentious ancient people tampered with Bible passages.
Tampering with the text is not, per se, the real issue. What Huntn us probably referring to is the selective composition of the whole. The Protestant bible typically has 66 books. Some other versions can have as many as 81 (see "biblical apocrypha (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha)"). Then there are fascinating tales such as the Gospel According to Judas Iscariot (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas) and the Gospel of Barnabas (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas), which relate a rather different account of the last days of Jesus.
Finally, one cannot ignore the Nag Hammadi texts (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library) nor the books summarily left out (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha) of the new testament.
So what? So someone had to decide which books belonged in there and which did not. The choice was most certainly partly arbitrary and partly political. I mean, even if you could reasonably claim divine inspiration for the authorship, can you also claim divine guidance for the compilation? Especially considering that various Christian sects cannot agree on even that.
Tampering with the text is not, per se, the real issue. What Huntn us probably referring to is the selective composition of the whole. The Protestant bible typically has 66 books. Some other versions can have as many as 81 (see "biblical apocrypha (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha)"). Then there are fascinating tales such as the Gospel According to Judas Iscariot (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas) and the Gospel of Barnabas (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas), which relate a rather different account of the last days of Jesus.
Finally, one cannot ignore the Nag Hammadi texts (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library) nor the books summarily left out (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha) of the new testament.
So what? So someone had to decide which books belonged in there and which did not. The choice was most certainly partly arbitrary and partly political. I mean, even if you could reasonably claim divine inspiration for the authorship, can you also claim divine guidance for the compilation? Especially considering that various Christian sects cannot agree on even that.
twoodcc
Sep 20, 09:36 AM
well i'm very glad that you can hook up or put in a hard drive. maybe it will be worth me buying after all
neko girl
Mar 25, 10:16 AM
PS Marriage is a privilege not a right.
No, it's a right. The United States continues to violate human rights. Not a new phenomenon, your opinion or how this country is.
No, it's a right. The United States continues to violate human rights. Not a new phenomenon, your opinion or how this country is.
JasperJanssen
Apr 30, 03:07 AM
Another one...
You didn't even read that article did you?
Those "servers": each server has two Intel Quad-Core Processors running at 50W, 24GB of memory and a 120GB disk drive. Sounds like a nicely packed PC doesn't it?
No, it sounds like a server. Nicely packed PCs haven't had two sockets for a few years now.
They are built in a way so they can work 24/7 for years without overheating. At home I use a dual Xeon setup. You know what's a Xeon right? So... if it's a server chip how come do I have it on my desktop PC??
It's a server/workstation chip and what you have is a workstation. If it has two sockets with four cores each, let alone 24 gig of memory, it is *not* a desktop PC.
You didn't even read that article did you?
Those "servers": each server has two Intel Quad-Core Processors running at 50W, 24GB of memory and a 120GB disk drive. Sounds like a nicely packed PC doesn't it?
No, it sounds like a server. Nicely packed PCs haven't had two sockets for a few years now.
They are built in a way so they can work 24/7 for years without overheating. At home I use a dual Xeon setup. You know what's a Xeon right? So... if it's a server chip how come do I have it on my desktop PC??
It's a server/workstation chip and what you have is a workstation. If it has two sockets with four cores each, let alone 24 gig of memory, it is *not* a desktop PC.
zgh1999
Apr 20, 08:12 PM
Yeah! My battery lasts for upwards of two days. Definitely not comparable at all to an iPhone.
Inferior interface is subjective, and you've given no reference so that comment is irrelevant.
Name me one app that you have on your iPhone that doesn't have a similar if not identical app on the Android Market.
Get with the program here.
Everyone should buy an iPad 2, in both black and white.
And everyone should also buy an iPhone 4, just in black.
Didn't you get the memo?
Inferior interface is subjective, and you've given no reference so that comment is irrelevant.
Name me one app that you have on your iPhone that doesn't have a similar if not identical app on the Android Market.
Get with the program here.
Everyone should buy an iPad 2, in both black and white.
And everyone should also buy an iPhone 4, just in black.
Didn't you get the memo?
No comments:
Post a Comment