Originally published at Customerservant.com. You can comment here or there.

Here is Blyk for you and it will be offering free mobile calls on a unified network. This company is the brainchild of former President of Nokia Mr. Pekka Ala-Pietila. The service is aimed at people between the age…

I'm not sure this will take off. I can see calls being placed on hold by the service while the person subscribed has to accept a "word" from the sponsors, or people having to wait for a call to go through while they accept ads. Then there's the issue of what kinds of ads will be displayed. I suppose we'll find out all this once the service goes live, or at least I hope we will. Otherwise, I don't see many parents allowing their teenagers to sign up for this. They might feel that they're better off just continuing to pay the bill.

Read more

Originally published at Customerservant.com. You can comment here or there.

Next on the list of goodies offered freely by the Google Empire is Google 411, officially known as Local Voice Search.
still in the experimental phase, Google 411 gets you local business listings for free by making toll-free calls from any phone.
This latest from Google comes just one month after Microsoft acquired TellMe, a voice query software developer.
You might recognize TellMe if you’re in the habbit of dialing for local business listings on your landline.
Residential listings aren’t fre yet, and we’re not sure if advertising is going to be included, but we wouldn’t be surprised if Google doesn’t find a way to tie its several advertising programs in somehow.
You can access the service by dialing 1-800-GOOG-411 (1-800-466-4411).
(Source).

Originally published at Customerservant.com. You can comment here or there.

Yesterday, jury selection began in the trial of the now infamous Mary Winkler, the young minister’s wife accused of shooting her husband to death in their parsonage.
According to her lawyers, the couple were arguing over money after having gotten caught up in the Nigerian email scam, also known as the 419 Fraud.
So she killed him, but it wasn’t her fault.
It was the spammers.
Right.
Since when did stupidity become a defense, and, yes, anyone who gets “caught up” in one of these has failed to use their God-given grayware.
When did stupidity and greed become a defense?
Does that mean that I can go off, so something amazingly idiotic, then commit a crime like murder, and then use the original stupid act as my defense?
And let’s discuss the 419 Fraud in and of itself.
It’s not like this kind of thing is new.
It’s been going on since the 1920’s, but back then it was the Spanish Prisoner scam.
The Nigerians picked it up in the 70’s, and since then have turned it into a technological wonder.
But do people actually have to be instructed not to just fork over their life’s savings just because someone says they’ll give you lots of money in return?
I’ve gotten tons of emails like this, and I have yet to be tempted to just hand over my banking information.
Sure.
I’d love a ton of money.
It would make life easy for a while.
But I’m not gullible enough to think that some anonymous twit who comes begging for my information is going to give me any, and noone else should be either.
And how does murdering anyone solve the problem?
It’s not going to bring the money back, and the woman’s likely going to spend a lot of time in prison for this, away from her kids.
Oh well, I suppose if she’s convicted, she’ll have a lot of time to repent for her crime.

Originally published at Customerservant.com. You can comment here or there.

Parshat Shemini, 2nd Portion Vayikra (Leviticus) 9:17-9:23

Text

Chapter 9

17.
And he brought forward the meal offering, filled his palm with it, and caused it to [go up in] smoke on the altar, in addition to the morning burnt offering.
18. And he slaughtered the ox and the ram, the people’s peace offering, and Aaron’s sons presented the blood to him, and he dashed it on the altar, around,
19.
and [they also presented] the fats from the ox and from the ram: the tail, the [fatty] covering, the kidneys and the diaphragm with the liver.
20.
And they placed the fats on top of the breasts, and he caused the fats to [go up in] smoke on the altar. 21. And Aaron had [already] waved the breasts and
the right thigh as a wave offering before the Lord, as Moses had commanded.
22.
And Aaron lifted up his hands towards the people and blessed them. He then descended from preparing the sin offering, the burnt offering, and the peace
offering.
23.
And Moses and Aaron went into the Tent of Meeting. Then they came out and blessed the people, and the glory of the Lord appeared to all the people.

Commentary

17. and he filled his palm. I.e., the ???????? [i.e., the “fistful,” namely, scooping out three fingers-full of the meal offering]. — [Torath Kohanim 9:11]
in addition to the morning burnt offering. All these sacrifices [Aaron] offered up [only] after [he had offered up the morning] continual burnt offering.
19. and the [fatty] covering. [I.e.,] the fat that covers the innards.
20. And they placed the [sacrificial] fats on top of the breasts. After the waving, the kohen who performed the waving gives [the portions] to another kohen
to make them go up in smoke. The result is that [the portions] that were on the top are now on the bottom [due to the kohen’s inverting the portions to
place them into the receiving hands of the next kohen. See Rashi on Lev. 7:30 for further explanation]. — [Men. 62a]
22. and blessed them. with the blessing of the kohanim [see Num. 6:2227]: ????????? -“May the Lord bless you”… ????? -“May the Lord make His face shine”…
???????? -“May the Lord lift His face….”- [Torath Kohanim 10:22] He then descended. from the altar.
23. And Moses and Aaron went into [the Tent of Meeting]. Why did they enter [the Tent of Meeting]? In the section of the investitures, I found a baraitha
added to our version of Torath Kohanim [which states the following]: Why did Moses enter with Aaron? To teach him about the procedure of [burning] the
incense. Or did he perhaps enter only for another purpose? I can make a deduction: Descending [from the altar (verse 22)] and entering [the Tent of Meeting
(this verse) both] required blessing [the people]. Just as descending [from the altar] is related to the service, so is entering [the Tent of Meeting]
related to the service. Hence, you learn from here why Moses entered with Aaron, [namely] to teach him about the procedure of [burning] the incense [which
is related to the service]. Another explanation [of why Moses entered with Aaron is]: When Aaron saw that all the sacrifices had been offered and all the
procedures had been performed, and yet the Shechinah had not descended for Israel, he was distressed. He said, “I know that the Holy One, blessed is He,
is angry with me, and on my account the Shechinah has not descended for Israel.” So he said to Moses, “My brother Moses, is this what you have done to
me, that I have entered and been put to shame?” At once, Moses entered [the Tent of Meeting] with him, and they prayed for mercy. Then the Shechinah came
down for Israel. — [Torath Kohanim 9:16] Then they came out and blessed the people. They said: “May the pleasantness of the Lord, our God, be upon us (Ps.
90:17); May it be God’s will that the Shechinah rest in the work of your hands.” [And why did they choose this particular blessing?] Because throughout
all seven days of the investitures, when Moses erected the Mishkan, performed the service in it, and then dismantled it daily, the Shechinah did not rest
in it. The Israelites were humiliated, and they said to Moses, “Moses, our teacher, all the efforts we have taken were so that the Shechinah should dwell
among us, so that we would know that we have been forgiven for the sin of the [golden] calf!” Therefore, Moses answered them (verse 6), “This is the thing
the Lord has commanded; do [it], and the glory of the Lord will appear to you. My brother Aaron is more worthy and important than I, insofar as through
his offerings and his service the Shechinah will dwell among you, and you will know that the Omnipresent has chosen him.”

Originally published at Customerservant.com. You can comment here or there.

The Religion News Blog reports that researcher James Kugel has found that the descriptions of God employed in the early books of the Tanach (Hebrew Bible) might not be metaphorical after all.
He believes that, when the text says “God walked in the Garden,” (see Genesis 3:8), it means he literally walked.
In other words, the God we have come to know as omnipresent and incorporeal is really a mere physical being, just like us.
The most obvious question raised by this is “What’s the point?”
It seems to me that James Kugel spent some time giving the text a cursory reading, which led him to his conclusion.
Does it really take long hours of research to come up with this?
Secondly, I don’t see how this argues against the idea of the anthropomorphic descriptions of God in Tanach being metaphorical.
How else are we supposed to understand a being that is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, if we don’t use the language we’re familiar with, (I.E., descriptions of physical attributes)?
More to the point, what’s the use of worshipping, obeying or fearing a God who is little better than we are?
And that may be what Mr. Kugel is driving at.
Maybe he’s looking for the perfect justification to use in order to make himself feel more comfortable with discarding his belief in God.
Admittedly, this is merely speculation on my part.
But I can’t see any other reason for advancing a view like this, unless you’re looking for an escape hatch, and the time honored ones just won’t do.
Finally, I’m amazed that anyone, especially a rabbi who seems to be traditional at the very least, can honestly say that he’s shaken by this.
As a rabbi, I’m sure Yosel Rosenzweig has studied the works of the Rambam, which deal with the idea of God being described as a physical being in detail (see Moreh Nevuchim, chapter 26, where it says that we describe God using attributes that the masses would consider perfect in relation to themselves).
If all it takes to shake one’s faith and cause one to struggle greatly is for another to suggest that God might have physical characteristics because the text of the Tanach seems to say as much on its surface, then there must not have been much faith there to start with.
Mr. Kugel says he’s not sure what effects his observations might have on contemporary Jews and their religious practices, and I submit that his research won’t effect contemporary Jewish religious practice in the slightest, unless you count collectively yawning.
Those who are faithful won’t care, and those who don’t see any point in engaging in Jewish religious practice will most likely do the same, if not for the same reason.

Technorati Tags: