Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:"it was used for children's writing exercises" (Score 1) 234

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.

Comment Re:"it was used for children's writing exercises" (Score 1) 234

"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).

Comment Re:So basically ... the attack wins? (Score 1) 207

Akamai cached sites don't move between IPs. They are hosted on all of them. Anycast is used to direct your request to the DNS server nearest you, which then goes on to direct your actual HTTP request to the server nearest you. If the attacking computers are geographically located in a certain area, that area will suffer gravely, but other areas won't be affected at all.

As such, ANY Akamai hosted site is DDoS protected by nature. A few years ago, an iOS update was slugish to arrive. Afterwards, we were told that there were considerable slowdowns to web sites not hosted by Akamai. In other words, it was not that the Akamai network couldn't handle the load of many people downloading the update at once. The Internet couldn't handle that load.

There might be something technical I'm not aware of, but as far as I know, the DDoS protection product is a marketing thing, not a technical thing. You are, essentially, buying insurance against having to pay Akamai a whole lot of money for the DDoS traffic it served on your behalf. I am not 100% certain, but I do not think Akamai serve DDoS protected sites and regular CDN hosted sites differently.

Whether it is bad PR or not is not for me to say. I do think that a host provider that gives a pro-bono service has a legitimate claim to say that non-paying customers should not be costing it more than it is willing to give. On the other hand, I also agree that, in this case, the DDoSers won.


Akamai used to publish real time information on how much traffic the entire network was carrying. The page is still there, but it no longer carries that information. I don't know why.

Comment Re:They HAD this service? (Score 1) 49

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.

Comment Re:"it was used for children's writing exercises" (Score 1) 234

Also, Leviticus is not just Hebrew law, its Christian law too. Jesus said so many times himself. Unless, of course, you don't take everything Jesus said seriously.

[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.

Comment Re: Obligatory.. (Score 1) 234

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.


Comment Re:They HAD this service? (Score 2) 49

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.

Comment Re:So basically ... the attack wins? (Score 1) 207

I believe that the reason Akamai kicked him out was because they didn't want to risk their entire network for one client, at least not without him paying considerably more than he does. At the end of the day, there is a limit to what even Akamai's network can take.

Which is another way of saying that the attackers won.


Disclaimer: I've worked for Akamai for a year and a half, up until two years ago, in a technical role. I do not speak for Akamai.

Comment Re:How about.... (Score 1) 232

To be fair, though, the comment you refer to is not a good comment. It is argumentative, tries very hard to push an agenda, and bears little relevance to the comment it is replying to. Then again, the exact same argument (only swinging to the other side of this argument) can be said about the original comment, and that one got +5 insightful.


Comment Re:How about.... (Score 1) 232

It was only moderated that way because Slashdot refuses to add the much sought after "-1 I disagree with your opinion and your challenging my prejudices offend me deeply".

Some go the extra mile, and seek out other comments by the same user on that article and mod them as well. This is how I got a point knocked out on this comment (also marked as troll). Not because of anything I said on that comment, but because I expressed a pro-Israeli position in another comment in the same article.

Human nature at its best...


Just to be clear, I've seen some pro-Israeli moderators do this as well. I find it equally unjustified.

I'm less certain how to handle cases where the commenter was probably not trying to troll, but is so hateful and misinformed that the comment does not contain any usable signal. I usually prefer to answer the comment rather than moderate it, but maybe that's just me.

Comment Re:How about.... (Score 1) 232

That is not 100% accurate.

This is not a question of forgiveness. It's a question of context. Israel has an obvious obligation to try and minimize civilian casualties, and had it ignored it, you could go ahead and not forgive it. Hamas doing its thing is no excuse for Israel. However, judging whether that is the case cannot ignore the context in which Israel has to operate, due to Hamas's actions.

If you judge its action in the context of Hamas's use of civilians as shields, the only reasonable conclusion is that Israel does above and beyond that minimal obligation.

It is only if you ignore this context, and simply count the number of civilians hurt, that there is any way you can conclude anything else.


Slashdot Top Deals

There is no royal road to geometry. -- Euclid