Reading summaries is hard :)

Not to ruin a good joke, but at least with ASCII, each character is a byte, I think... :)

If they have access to the internet, couldn't manufacturers setup an API endpoint that accepts a serial number and a password... so that the password could be changed and the manufacturer could be sent the new one?

The owner, when locked out, can call the manufacturer, they can look up the password, etc.

Not totally sure how one might secure said API so it doesn't just get spammed as well, but... :P

The "Smart" part is just an integrated way to potentially display what you want to throw at it (youtube, amazon video, whatever). At least on my integrated-roku tv, I can still plugin other stuff. I have a cheap Matricom Android thing for stuff the integrated roku doesn't do. But it's nice having the TV remote also be the Roku remote (although it's not as nice as the separate Roku remote, sadly... e.g., no headphone jack :) )

Why would someone by a Roku? For internet? Doesn't almost everybody have a PC or tablet nowadays anyway?

Without the snark ... :) ... I actually bought a "smart TV" (where the "smart" is just a builtin Roku). I still have a little android box plugged in for Skype and stuff... but I'm pretty sure the reason I got the "smart" one is the same reason someone else might - one less box to mess with cables, figure out where audio goes vs. where video goes, Yet Another Remote, etc.

I don't think the point is that you can't do the same thing with a dumb TV + some sort of computer (roku, whatever). But sometimes, having it integrated is nice.

I believe he is referring to "augmented reality"

Because, clearly, insurance companies will just eat those costs. It's not like they charge their clients anything to cover the costs...

I keep my wallet and keys in my left pocket, because if I'm carrying something, I usually use my right hand (right-handed) and typically want to get to my keys to open the car door. But, I wear watches on my right hand as well, even though I'm right-handed.

This is a very ... complicated matter. Hopefully I speak somewhat clearly. Errr... type.

Not one will pass away "until all is accomplished." And to be honest, I'm not sure what exactly Jesus is referring to there, but it "accomplish" sounds rather similar to "fulfill." Perhaps Jesus is talking about what He came to accomplish? But at this point, He is still giving the Jews a chance to *not* reject Him. He's talking as if He is not going to die, as if He actually will be accepted as the Jewish Messiah by the Jews.

Also, it is important to see who He is talking to. In Luke, He's talking to the pharisees. Justifying their own faults (REAL faults, according to the actual law) while simultaneously trying to make sure everyone else kept not just the Law, but the traditions.

This is why the rest of the NT is important, understanding why Jesus came (super short version, He came to Israel as their Messiah under/in the Old Covenant; but He was rejected, and a New Covenant was made that was not specific to Israel... hence the rest of the NT). Under the old covenant with Israel, what Jesus said totally makes sense. You can't say you don't have to follow parts of the Law. Furthermore, you can't wiggle around it like the pharisees (hey, I didn't sin! I mean I was angry enough to WANT to kill my brother, but I didn't, so I'm innocent of the law!).

But, yes, that changed. Jesus was rejected. Jesus still fulfilled the law. Paul, in Romans, goes through great lengths to discuss this, going back to what the law was even there for to begin with. The author of Hebrews does, as well. Paul even mentions that the Jews rejected Jesus so that salvation would be extended to the gentiles. In other words, since the Jews rejected Jesus as Messiah, a new covenant was made that was NOT with Israel specifically, and thus all can come, and without going through the Old Covenant (hence the lack of circumcision being necessary, as Paul makes pretty clear in ... now I forget which epistle).

For a Jew living in the Old Covenant, to say that one of God's covenant laws was not necessary? Blasphemy, pretty much.

"Unchanging" does not refer to God's methods or actions, it refers to His character. Unchanging, faithful, true, those would all be very related words. It doesn't mean that how God acts or deals with men doesn't change. Clearly, that has changed, since Israel was not around since the beginning of time.

"Scare quotes" were because simply saying what they said (the words) and leaving it at that doesn't necessarily indicate what they meant by those words.

Paul said "that stinks." Paul "said" it, but Paul actually meant "that is an unfortunate turn of events," not "that is unpleasant to my olfactory nerves" (or whatever it is that transfers smells in the nose, I'm not actually sure if their nerves now that I think about it, heh).

Ha, yeah. I realize my usage is not at all similar to people who take a lot of photos. I don't have tons of [high res] pictures or ripped movies or anything like that... and the movies that I have, I have the DVDs for, so I just do local backups for those.

Most of my ... I don't recall how much, 150gb or so ... *is* photos (since we got a decent camera) and music, and it's growing, but we're not going to hit 1TB anytime soon. I have more stuff like games, the aforementioned ripped DVDs, ISOs, VMs, etc., but I don't have any reason to back that up other than locally, since it is all recoverable.

[Citation needed]

Seriously, though... this is a very, very simplistic interpretation of what Jesus "said." For example, what exactly did Jesus mean when He said that He didn't "come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it." And, of course, if you take the NT to also be accurate, then you have to deal with all of Paul's writings on the law, which are ... voluminous. And enlightening, as Paul often wrote to non-Jews, whereas Jesus was talking to Jews. Rightly interpreting what Jesus said, and why, requires knowing who He was talking to, why He came... well, and more, heh. He didn't just randomly show up and start speaking nice morals to a global human audience.

I am a Christian, and have attended (and continue to) churches that preach from the Bible, and endeavor to study it and to rightly interpret it.

Also, just in case you aren't familiar with the abbreviations, OT = Old Testament and NT = New Testament :)

Referring to out-of-context passages in the Old Testament (e.g., Leviticus for things about homosexuality) seems pretty common... unfortunately. It is not treated very well, and, as you have noted, pretty much just cherry-picked to "prove" one's point. It's often referred to as proof-texting.

I don't know exactly what you meant, but if you were asking whether that is a good thing - I do not think it is. Israel was a specific nation, with a specific covenant by God; some of the laws appear to coincide with, shall we say, a more universal standard of right and wrong that God has. Others were clearly designed to simply set Israel, as a nation, apart from other nations (e.g., not wearing clothing with mixed fabrics, or many of the dietary restrictions).

In general, I side with non-Christians who criticize Christians for pulling out random OT passages when it suits them and not other ones. Those who criticize Christians for that do, in fact, have a valid point. Christians should not simply pick the parts they like from a law given specifically to Israel and pretend they apply universally to humanity.

Now, that said... I am also of the opinion that there are pretty clear statements in the NT on things like homosexuality (and other sexual sins). And, to be fair, there are parts of the OT that are *not* specific to Israel, even if they were written TO Israel. A lot of stuff in the prophecy books (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, etc.) has not been fulfilled. A lot of the Psalms, which are just songs, were written by Israelites (primarily David) but often talk about God in generic terms, not Israel-covenant-specific terms... though again, one has to be careful when trying to bring out an application for a New Testament Christian.

.

I had heard of this, but at the time, I didn't like their cloud software... I dunno, it just didn't integrate well with my phone, Linux, Windows, etc. OneDrive actually has a lot better support. There's even a little service someone wrote to have it do filesystem sync stuff on Linux. I think I only pay like $2/mo for 200gb or something like that, which is all I need at the moment... backup everything of value to OneDrive, backup everything of super importance to Spideroak, and also use Google Photos / Music / Amazon Music for convenience.

Presumably, somewhere around 3 million have sold. Is that a lot? I have no idea, ha. Seems decent? At, say, an average price of $170, that's about $500 million in revenue.