Slashdot Mirror

"Heck, maybe even political parties?"

I think you hit something significant there, at least for me. You can talk about the financial aspects of Net Neutrality all up and down the information superhighway (remember that lovely phrase? Now think of a toll booth). In the end, however, we're talking about giving private companies control over the transmission of a giant steaming shitload of information.

So an organization with the sufficient funds could bribe pay someone, say, AT&T, to throttle content to sites they'd like shut down. So let's think beyond political parties...Suppose the Church of Scientology took it into their head to try and slow/stop traffic to, say, Xenu.net. Just a thought--I mean, I'm sure the Church wouldn't do anything so heavyhanded. After all, they've been so upstanding in the past and value open debate. Or suppose conservative organizations decided that adult-oriented content should be as inaccessible as possible. Maybe Microsoft reversing their position and decides that people don't really need to be able to access Slashdot.org, Firefox.org, or even Google.com.

The more I look at the issue, the more I'm concerned that this could open the floodgate of a free-for-all where you don't have a voice unless you've got a bunch of money to be able to pay for it.

I don't get this. The referenced article says that the infringing website is www.xenu.net and that links to it must be removed. But www.xenu.net is the first result listed. www.xenu.net is the second result if you search for Scientology. So what's been removed? Why would this be a Google bomb?

Brian

Hard to tell if this is supposed to be a joke - if so, I didn't even hear the WHOOSH. But in case you really did miss the point, the kind of censorship that Amnesty cares about is government censorship. Your issues with Wikipedia are easily resolved: post your material somewhere else, start a competing site, whatever. "Freedom of speech" doesn't translate to a right to have others publish your speech, or agree with it, or take it seriously.

The sort of "censorship" that Wikipedia does happens all the time in even the most free societies: some ideas won't be popular, or will be ignored, or actively suppressed, for whatever reasons. For example, Slashdot quite effectively censors unwanted material via its moderation system. The reasons for such censorship are often benign, e.g. designed to improve the quality of discussion; or they may be less benign, in the case of the kind of "groupthink" which can be quite repressive for members of the affected group. But even when good intentions fail, or in cases which are deliberately not benign, the fact that the censorship is not enforced by a government backed up by the power of weapons and imprisonment means that the victims have alternatives.

For example, if you're a Scientologist or an Opus Dei member who's being repressed within those organizations, you can still publish whatever you want to say about the offending organization, and in free countries the law will protect your right to do so. You may have to deal with thugs who try to make you regret your choice (especially in the case of Scientology) -- speech which is critical of others still carries risks. But as long as your government isn't helping to suppress your free speech, and will help protect you against illegal attacks on your reputation or person that result from your reasonable free speech, then things are working pretty much the way they should.

Serious, hard-to-fix problems begin when governments turn against their citizens and impose unreasonable constraints on their speech. That's when things start to go badly wrong for citizens, and those are the cases that Amnesty cares about.

...after all, the evil galactic overlord, Xenu, ruled 4 quadrillion years ago!

xenu.net
xenu.net OT III

...after all, the evil galactic overlord, Xenu, ruled 4 quadrillion years ago!

xenu.net
xenu.net OT III

I am just pointing out that Greenpeace is not an innovator or indeed have any competence in this area. They are not a scientific organisation at all.

They are good at harassing shipping from small inflatable motor boats. The Yemeni Al-Qaida terror cell that hit the USS Cole had similar skills.

The left often complains about the FOX News rise to dominance. You need to understand that by hijacking the mainstream press over the past 30 years the left manufactured them. The great silent majority now has a fair and balanced news source and doesn't have to sift the words of Dan Rather.

A great success story has been US management of the Bering Sea fisheries. They are healthy and productive. I have recently gone cod fishing

in the gulf of Maine. No problems there. Finback Whales lounging on the surface, Bottle Nose Dolphins cavorting in our boat wake, monster cod stuffed with krill. Quite a sight. How the rest of the world manages their fisheries, I don't know.

I'll do that,

but there is no such thing as a non-partisan in the fields of oceanography or climatology.

I had very strange "personality evaluation" test during an interview once; for an IT position, mostly coding.

Little did I know that a big software company was just a front for cult enrollment. I could not find the business online today, but I remember the product "Diskeeper" and Ho and Behold, the CEO of that business is a "Scientology volunteer minister", I think they changed the name of the business for the main product name.

It should be told that at the dawn of the software industry Hubbard ask all his cult followers to start software businesses, that if only one out of ten succeeded, it will bring wonders to the Church Of Scientology, since members must give part of their revenues to the COS. And it worked wonders.

Going in for the interview, my first alarm was the 15+ huge volumes of "L. Ron Hubbard Business Encyclopedia" in the waiting room (the name is probably wrong). For me it was an alarm, since I had a Scientologist manager before and it had been a very bad experience.

I was told during the interview how "near godly Hubbard really was". Then I was asked to do a small test, I found it really strange since I had analyzed similar tests in a psychology class. It cannot be used to evaluate your competency in math or IT.

"Are you often dismayed by the actions of others and are not able to grasp their double-dealing?"

"The OCA has been used as a recruiting tool by Scientology since 1953"

Such tests means nothing if not answered honestly and must be taken under no stress (a job interview?). Anyone that studied in the field can go around these tests easily.

Like the first post said, the personality test is called 'the interview', and no Yes/No or A,B,C personality test will reveal how good a programmer you are.

Back home I hit the NET, and learned everything about "The COS OCA Test". I could even read all the questions and "best answer". "Best" because the test is purposely done to get 20% wrong (no choice is good) so "scientology can help you with that".

The test is also made to seek out "malleable personalities", so they can be directed into obeisance. Now THAT made sense for the test I was asked to fill.

In the interview I was also informed that my first 3 days would be a "formation period" of unpaid 14+ hours a day.

That made a LOT of sense when I searched for Scientology online. Typical strategy for newcommers in the Church is that 3 day 'personality resoucing' strategy to "break" you, so you believe you're a no good puny worker, but don't worry they have the solution you need, they will make you great. Just be a nice little obeying drone. It's really a similar strategy as military boot camps, and LRH based it on it.

That strategy was the problem with my old manager. He started every meeting by yelling and tells you how incompetent you are. When everyone is sitting down he explains what he actually want and at the end throw's a small compl\i9ment that makes you feel good. Everyone ran out working hard ... well the new guy anyway.

My Manager had the additional problem of being completely incompetent, so it just made a bad situation worst.

Run, don't walk, out of there if they want you to take this 'personality test'

It fails several of Carl Sagan's "Baloney Detection" tests for fallacious rhetoric in quick succession.

see http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html

Either google of the operator of http://www.xenu.net/ is wussing out.

From uscode TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."

-- Bold emphisis mine

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/u sc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html

In short, fair use covers xenu.net as their use of the materials is for the purpose of criticism.

Google may not be the wuss here, when the DMCA take down notice was sent. Xenu.net was supposed to have been notifed and given a chance to get the link restored. If the scientologist didn't bring a law suit within 14 days of the counter notice google would be obligated to restore the link

"[512(g)] If a subscriber provides a proper "counter-notice" claiming that the material does not infringe copyrights, the service provider must then promptly notify the claiming party of the individual's objection. [512(g)(2)] If the copyright owner does not bring a lawsuit in district court within 14 days, the service provider is then required to restore the material to its location on its network. [512(g)(2)(C)]"

http://www.xenu.net/

What makes your point about the ease of fooling lie detectors even funnier is their complete misuse by semi-religious scoundrels. Take a good look at the "e-meter" used by Scientologists to recall past lives, get their members to reveal old crimes that can be used to blackmail them into more courses or prevent them from revealing secrets about the cult, and generally get them into a hypnotic state that is very useful for drilling them into acceptance of the cult's weird beliefs about the galactic emperor Xenu and how he slaughtered all the members of the Marcab Confederacy and all your bad thoughts are reborn souls from the slaughtered aliens.

No, I'm not kidding. Check out http://www.xenu.net/ for background on this ridiculous cult. Now picture how much they'd be happy to rip people off for if they were able to charge for MRI sessions rather than the relatively inexpensive and poorly made lie detectors they usually use.

Here's a list of urls that are probably the ones that are filtered. I looked through the first 4 pages of results returned for the query that crymeph0 linked to, and didn't see any of the urls on that list (other than www.xenu.net/) The number of results that the message at the bottom says were removed changes on each page of the results too.

WHAT IS SCIENTOLOGY?
A brief illustrated story of $cientology for beginners (amusing... with cartoons!).
www.xenu.net/archive/scientology_illustrated/intro 13.htm - 3k - Cached - Similar pages

WHAT IS SCIENTOLOGY?
A brief illustrated story of $cientology for beginners (amusing... with cartoons!).
www.xenu.net/archive/scientology_illustrated/intro 13.htm - 3k - Cached - Similar pages

The Disney examples are relevant because they're perfect examples of the military-industrial complex. It's also why Disney hates people mentioning the films. The films are the primary sources. Not copying parts (or the whole) of the film is like writing a paper using only secondary sources. It's far less credible. It's like writing a paper about Soviet or Nazi propaganda without having the propaganda materials available to corroborate your claims.

Virtually noone watches those films for pleasure. Today, they're entirely political and historical.

Well the disney movies and the news articles are trying to use someone elses speech. It isn't really your free speech.

The disney examples are generally attacking Disney and the US government, and are in a totally different class, but here's to addressing the later: Free discourse should not put any hinderences to expression. Often the easiest way to express oneself is to reference or flat out copy (with attribution) already written statements. Blogs are good example of this in practice.

Oh, and I can add another item to the list of copyright vs. free speech: Scientology. Look up http://www.xenu.net/ for how they use copyright to sick lawyers at their critics.

Counter-Spy? Please. Sunbelt-Software's history as Xenu worshipping spammers precludes the use of any of their products by anyone with a conscience or a clue.

I think Scientology's got Clam cloning already worked out.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=21552&cid=2282 987

"I know it's just the INTP in me talking, but I have to wonder what kind of civil rights atrocities we're going to be looking at in the days and weeks to come.

"If you thought the FBI wiretapping Little Nicky Scarfo on only a search warrant was horrifying, consider the bully stick that will be bandied about now. Encryption is bad. Terrorists using encryption got past all our intelligence. Outlaw encryption now! If we didn't have to go through all that judicial rigamarole to keep an eye on terrorists, we would have done better. We promise we won't wiretap anyone without a magistrate's approval who doesn't really, really, REALLY deserve it.

"As shocking and horrifying as what happened today is, and as unbelievable that the intelligence community knew nothing about it (or did they?), I am scared shitless about what we have ahead of us.
--
The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake"

If there's one organization on this Earth that I can't stand, it's the Cult of Scientology. I make a point of harrassing them every chance I get.

We actually did a bit about this story last night on GeekNights.

They typically have their people sitting at little tables in the subways of NYC offering "free stress tests" and copies of Dianetics, hoping to get new converts. Every time I pass them, I take the time to stop and explain to the people they've ensnared that it's a cult. It's scary how many people don't know.

Typical example:

Me: Scientology is a cult. "You know that, right? They believe in an ancient alien named Xenu who exploded the souls of other murdered aliens with H-Bombs billions of years ago. They take your money."

Prospective Scientologist: "What? Wow... Thanks for the warning." -leaves-

Scientologst Asshole: "Hey! You can't say things like that! I'll call the fucking police! Leave NOW or I'll call the police! We're not a cult! It's slander to say we're a cult!"

Me: "The police, eh? Yes, why don't you call them? I'll stick around and wait."

They never actually call the police, but I wish they would sometime. I'd love to see these geniuses attempt to explain to a cop just what illegal act I was committing. "He was telling people about us!" "He says Scientology is a cult!"

So do a good deed. Spread the word about scientology.

However, to spare you from going through an entire page on that "religion", here's the related excerpt:

Heh, better yet, download the really funny Southpark Episode on scientology from Xenu.net (free and legal, thanks to Matt Stone and Trey Parker). This is the one that asks Tom Cruise to come out of the closet ~forty times...

"Christian Science" is based on the teachings of Jesus, as interpreted by Mary Baker Eddy. They're kind of like gnostics, is gnosticism were invented by a Presbyterian woman in the Southeast in the 19th century. They believe in solving worldly problems through spiritual means so as to trancend the illusion of the material world and grow closer to God (that's why they don't go to the doctor). They operate quiet reading rooms and an highly respected news organization

Big difference.

Pretty un-sage. And pretty un-Forbes-like. Sounds a lot like a certain UFO cult, actually.

> BASH BACK. If you get attacked, dig up dirt on your assailant and feed it to sympathetic bloggers. Discredit him.

1. Spot who is attacking us.

2. Start investigating them promptly for FELONIES or worse using our own professionals, not outside agencies.

3. Double curve our reply by saying we welcome an investigation of them.

4. Start feeding lurid, blood sex crime actual evidence on the attackers to the press. (LRH)

- Dead Agenting

> ATTACK THE HOST. Find some copyrighted text that a blogger has lifted from your Web site and threaten to sue his Internet service provider under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. That may prompt the ISP to shut him down. Or threaten to drag the host into a defamation suit against the blogger. The host isn't liable but may skip the hassle and cut off the blogger's access anyway. Also:Subpoena the host company, demanding the blogger's name or Internet address.

"Reporters are a kiss of death unless one really is an expert PR man himself. Reporters have to be handled and well. If truly friendly, they have to be wooed. If not they have to be handled. The routine is (1) Whisper of a bad story (2) Get a lawyer (3) Threaten suit (4) Totally discredit using the technique of the Dead Agent caper which MUST be understood in full."

- Dead Agenting

> SUE THE BLOGGER. If all else fails, you can sue your attacker for defamation, at the risk of getting mocked. You will have to chase him for years to collect damages. Settle for a court order forcing him to take down his material.

ENEMY: [Suppressive Person] Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.

- Fair Game

and

"The purpose of [a lawsuit] is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly."

- "A Manual on the Dissemination of Material" (1955 edition)

If you're running a UFO cult, and you're doing so in the media environment of the 1950s-1970s, L. Ron Hubbard's policies will work just fine. He may have been a raging nutbag, but he knew where the defects were in the news-gathering and news-dissemination networks of his day were, and his cult developed policies to exploit them successfully.

Most organizations have adapted to the new reality, and have come up with effective ways of managing the media - whether you agree with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, or whether you agree with Michael Moore and moveon.org, both groups have become effective in getting their respective messages out.

The Co$, ironically, is the final proof -- part of Cult doctrine is that the words of Hubbard must be regarded as both true, and immutably so. By its own doctrines, the Co$ has been unable to adapt to the new media reality -- because (by virtue of the doctrine of the immutable truth of Hubbard's writings) to deviate from these 1950s/60s/70s-style media manipulations is heresy. The fact that the cult has gone from "that kinda-weird ultra-wealthy Hollywood religion" to "a money-grubbing UFO cult that's the laughingstock of the planet" is testam

Pretty un-sage. And pretty un-Forbes-like. Sounds a lot like a certain UFO cult, actually.

> BASH BACK. If you get attacked, dig up dirt on your assailant and feed it to sympathetic bloggers. Discredit him.

1. Spot who is attacking us.

2. Start investigating them promptly for FELONIES or worse using our own professionals, not outside agencies.

3. Double curve our reply by saying we welcome an investigation of them.

4. Start feeding lurid, blood sex crime actual evidence on the attackers to the press. (LRH)

- Dead Agenting

> ATTACK THE HOST. Find some copyrighted text that a blogger has lifted from your Web site and threaten to sue his Internet service provider under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. That may prompt the ISP to shut him down. Or threaten to drag the host into a defamation suit against the blogger. The host isn't liable but may skip the hassle and cut off the blogger's access anyway. Also:Subpoena the host company, demanding the blogger's name or Internet address.

"Reporters are a kiss of death unless one really is an expert PR man himself. Reporters have to be handled and well. If truly friendly, they have to be wooed. If not they have to be handled. The routine is (1) Whisper of a bad story (2) Get a lawyer (3) Threaten suit (4) Totally discredit using the technique of the Dead Agent caper which MUST be understood in full."

- Dead Agenting

> SUE THE BLOGGER. If all else fails, you can sue your attacker for defamation, at the risk of getting mocked. You will have to chase him for years to collect damages. Settle for a court order forcing him to take down his material.

ENEMY: [Suppressive Person] Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.

- Fair Game

and

"The purpose of [a lawsuit] is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly."

- "A Manual on the Dissemination of Material" (1955 edition)

If you're running a UFO cult, and you're doing so in the media environment of the 1950s-1970s, L. Ron Hubbard's policies will work just fine. He may have been a raging nutbag, but he knew where the defects were in the news-gathering and news-dissemination networks of his day were, and his cult developed policies to exploit them successfully.

Most organizations have adapted to the new reality, and have come up with effective ways of managing the media - whether you agree with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, or whether you agree with Michael Moore and moveon.org, both groups have become effective in getting their respective messages out.

The Co$, ironically, is the final proof -- part of Cult doctrine is that the words of Hubbard must be regarded as both true, and immutably so. By its own doctrines, the Co$ has been unable to adapt to the new media reality -- because (by virtue of the doctrine of the immutable truth of Hubbard's writings) to deviate from these 1950s/60s/70s-style media manipulations is heresy. The fact that the cult has gone from "that kinda-weird ultra-wealthy Hollywood religion" to "a money-grubbing UFO cult that's the laughingstock of the planet" is testam

Pretty un-sage. And pretty un-Forbes-like. Sounds a lot like a certain UFO cult, actually.

> BASH BACK. If you get attacked, dig up dirt on your assailant and feed it to sympathetic bloggers. Discredit him.

1. Spot who is attacking us.

2. Start investigating them promptly for FELONIES or worse using our own professionals, not outside agencies.

3. Double curve our reply by saying we welcome an investigation of them.

4. Start feeding lurid, blood sex crime actual evidence on the attackers to the press. (LRH)

- Dead Agenting

> ATTACK THE HOST. Find some copyrighted text that a blogger has lifted from your Web site and threaten to sue his Internet service provider under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. That may prompt the ISP to shut him down. Or threaten to drag the host into a defamation suit against the blogger. The host isn't liable but may skip the hassle and cut off the blogger's access anyway. Also:Subpoena the host company, demanding the blogger's name or Internet address.

"Reporters are a kiss of death unless one really is an expert PR man himself. Reporters have to be handled and well. If truly friendly, they have to be wooed. If not they have to be handled. The routine is (1) Whisper of a bad story (2) Get a lawyer (3) Threaten suit (4) Totally discredit using the technique of the Dead Agent caper which MUST be understood in full."

- Dead Agenting

> SUE THE BLOGGER. If all else fails, you can sue your attacker for defamation, at the risk of getting mocked. You will have to chase him for years to collect damages. Settle for a court order forcing him to take down his material.

ENEMY: [Suppressive Person] Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.

- Fair Game

and

"The purpose of [a lawsuit] is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly."

- "A Manual on the Dissemination of Material" (1955 edition)

If you're running a UFO cult, and you're doing so in the media environment of the 1950s-1970s, L. Ron Hubbard's policies will work just fine. He may have been a raging nutbag, but he knew where the defects were in the news-gathering and news-dissemination networks of his day were, and his cult developed policies to exploit them successfully.

Most organizations have adapted to the new reality, and have come up with effective ways of managing the media - whether you agree with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, or whether you agree with Michael Moore and moveon.org, both groups have become effective in getting their respective messages out.

The Co$, ironically, is the final proof -- part of Cult doctrine is that the words of Hubbard must be regarded as both true, and immutably so. By its own doctrines, the Co$ has been unable to adapt to the new media reality -- because (by virtue of the doctrine of the immutable truth of Hubbard's writings) to deviate from these 1950s/60s/70s-style media manipulations is heresy. The fact that the cult has gone from "that kinda-weird ultra-wealthy Hollywood religion" to "a money-grubbing UFO cult that's the laughingstock of the planet" is testam

I'm getting more and more out of polite mode on this thread, but I was always offended by the Linux users who tried to tell me that to use Linux, I had to learn text editing all over again - what I knew wasn't good enough. I read the Operation Clambake site at the time, and it reminded me of the way scientologists demand their acolytes to "re-learn" reading.

When people are convinced to swallow their pride and make a big investment at the same time, I don't quite trust their judgement about it afterwards, because it would be hard to admit that it wasn't really necessary. So I'm not convinced of the benefits of vi(m), or even emacs. I am, however, convinced of the benefits of uniform interfaces - that opening and saving files should use the same shortcuts everywhere, even in text-mode apps, that cutting and pasting should work the same. If apps didn't adhere to some standards, we could waste years learning all the basic tasks we take for granted from the mac/windows world. I don't think text editors are entitled to an exception, because then they'd all want one :-)

The big difference between Scientology's theories and Pastafarianism's is that anybody can make up stuff about the Flying Spaghetti Monster out of whole cloth, but only El-Ron and a few of his successors are Allowed to make up Official Scientology Stuff unless they want Bad Things to happen to them.

It's similar to what has happened to L. Ron Hubbard, now that Scientology is a prime target of persecution.

I won't comment on your Mormon comments, but Scientology, a "prime target of persecution"???!?!

WTF? Have you READ any of the nutty things that they do? Well, I have, and I can vouch for the accuracy of much of it - because, as a young, nubile, and easily impressioned teen, I was on staff at the "Church" of $cientology.

For example, as staff, they are pretty clear that the "WOG" (derrogatory slang for non-Scientologists) are the enemy, and are pretty stupid. Even as they talk about the power of finding "basic truth", they openly discuss what their "PR front" is that they give to excuse their rediculous behavior. In short, they talk about what lies and deceipt they'll tell the "WOGs" this week.

And I do mean rediculous... Read about their "Cadet Org" for children. Read about the broken families, the several deaths, the kidnappings of those who are "Type 3 PTS".

Scientology is truly a scary organization, and that's why I'm posting this anon.

or John Travolta's recent movie work?

John Travolta's recent work sucks because he's infested with Body Thetans. He knows the secrets of Xenu but can't seem to shake them. (see xenu.net if ya don't know what I mean.

They found the planet where the Loyal Officers are holding Xenu captive?

...and you can scientifically investigate 'actual design'?

Intelligent Design, regardless of its appearance to stay above the fray, is not interested in the supposed designer being a Hindu god or goddess, or aliens, or robots. It is interested in an appearance of science as a second attempt to put a wedge in education to open the doors to Christianity in school.

Dembski can't help but have an agenda:

"The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ," Dembski said. "And if there's anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.... It's important that we understand the world. God has created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world."

After having followed the activities of the creationist movement, and this is creationism rebadged, the key strategies are that the end justifies the means, everything must agree with Genesis, repeated misquoting of evolutionary proponents, deliberate misuses of terms and deliberate confusion of separate subjects and terms.

"Just a theory" mischaracterizes scientific theories; irreducible complexities, when disproven (like the Krebs cycle) just drive them to pull the next one out of their hat, and, in this particular case, they confuse natural selection and evolutionary theory with abiogenesis, the search for a non-biological origin of life.

Every piece of life on the face of this planet excluding viruses has DNA and ribosomes. These are complex in and of themselves, so they are extremely poor candidates for a non-miraculous origin of life. That, and the similarities and differences in ribosomal DNA (like reconstructing the original program in a fractured open source project gone wild) indicate a shared ancestor before that point.

Precursors lie in the area of conjecture. We cannot directly observe such precursors; DNA has been so incredibly successful that everything else has become food. Hence projects like this.

Criminy. ScienceAgainstEvolution has all the hallmarks of intellectual dishonesty that has become the creationist hallmark, with heaps of question-begging and snide, often mischaracterizing, rhetorical questions. Everything in bold in their Two Silver Anniversaries page typifies the approach.

To get back to the ID movement, we have a right to question the motives underneath, not simply address the surface questions that are designed to 'sound reasonable'. To do otherwise would be to like inviting Scientology's Narconon into schools because 'drugs are bad'. Or a good-looking control freak into bed :)

about spyware? Let's face it, Sunbelt Software has a long history of spamming...

Not to mention the entire Clearwater/$cientology thing...

Then again, who better to look into the entire spam/spyware connection. They're simply vetting out the competition, right? What a world.

In fact, Alex Eckelberry thinks exactly like Tom Cruise. Who would have figured that!

True or not, I'm believing whatever a nerd with a computer tells me to believe because I want to be a cool nonconformist just like all the other cool nonconformists.

cool .. here's something you might like to nonconform with ...

Yeah, that e-Meter really can tell how strong your soul is. Tom Cruise must be off the scale. That's why Scientologists are so anxious to get the word out. Scientology works, when you worship your ego, and the money it can spend.

In any event, I wasn't talking about Dianetics - though my denigrating allusion is appropriate. I was just using "scientology" to mean "corporate weasel culture", which it so abundantly evidently is.

...read Operation Clambake

No. I believe the current "Church" of Scientology not to be a church, but rather an unindicted criminal conspiracy. The courts -- and Scientology's legal team -- disagree. =|

Some of the membership are doubtless true believers, and no more deluded than any other religion. Clambakes aside, the faith isn't any wackier than the "Jedi". However, speaking as someone raised Catholic, I would say the members of the current church leadership are in serious need of their own version of Martin Luther and 95 Theses nailed to their church doors.

It also might help if we could persuade our congresscritters that 18 USC 1839 part 3 should be modified to specifically exclude "religious scriptures" from eligibility for legal protection as trade secrets, thus pulling one of their more unwholesome legal fangs.

I assure you, Tom Cruise is successful IN SPITE OF his espousing of a hokey religion invented by a science fiction hack.

If all you anti-**AA and anti-broadcast flag folks are correct in the notion that the relatively unhindered movement of media actually benefits artists, actors, recording companies and movie studios, then these Draconian measures should have a detrimental effect on both the producers and gatekeepers.

I, on the other hand, couldn't care any less about some silly Broadcast flag. As for the EFF assertion that it... "Limits Fair Use: As the May 11, 2005 Congressional Research Service report noted, the flag will prevent important fair uses, like the ability of teachers to engage in distance learning..." Yawn. The day that teachers can't play video because of some stupid broadcast flag is the day that students start to learn something worthwhile, because the teacher can't opt out of teaching by turning on some stupid "educational" show.

And as far as art goes, I will continue to vote with my wallet. I will vote not to see the latest Tom Cruise blockbuster, because it does not add to my well being or increase my enjoyment out of life and I don't approve of the prominence that he brings a stupid UFO cult. That's right, I'm prejudiced, sue me.

Furthermore, I vote not to buy most CDs because I'd rather download from some of the vast empire of highly innovative independent music coming from artists who don't have corporations manipulating overused harmony hooks on their behalf... Though I must admit, from time to time I watch with mild amusement (and arousal?) at the latest pair of tits that Viacom parades across MTV.

As for the rest of you, enjoy decrypting a digital clip of the latest piece of hollywood fart humor to be targetted at you by the corporations. At least you'll have something to talk about with your friends.

Maybe, listen to him, but remember that a backwards-running coocoo-clock is right four times a day.

I must say that I find this very strange. Infact I am almost speechless. First of all evolution does not negate the existence of G-d. All it does is negate inaccurate account of creation in judaeo-christian religious texts.

The thing I most find disturbing though is the fact that these people most likely have nice cars, live in nice houses, have indoor plumbing. These are all things that are possible because of science. I think everyone wishes there was an after life but I think these people are no more sane then Scientologists.

Anyway if you want a good laugh on this crazy argument check out Penn & Teller: Bullshit!

Dude, we're talking about microsoft here, not The Church of Scientology. I can see how you could be confused though.

I wonder if they are somehow associated with the seaorg: http://www.xenu.net/archive/so/

Lets just hope that the religious fundamentalists with lawyers don't rise into power...

They'd call you a a suppressive person, and report you to their superiors for a taste of whatever they're calling "fair game" these days.

And yet, Scienos are the chain-smokingest sumbitches you've ever met in your life.

In 1961, El Ron said:

there are societies in England that are having an awfully good time fighting the cigarette. They can't do anything else, so they fight cigarettes. And they say that the cigarette causes lung cancer. And they've -- you've been hearing something of this, I'm sure. Yeah.

Not smoking enough will cause lung cancer. Not smoking enough will cause lung cancer!

I believe the idea is that radiation causes cancer, hidden in the lung's cells, but that cigarette smoke causes it to "run out." You want it to run out, but if it doesn't run out far enough, see, it starts to spread like crazy. Therefore if you don't smoke enough, you get cancer and die.

Scientology offers something called a "purification rundown," evidently involving saunas and high doses of niacin, coupled with Scientologically-proven happy thoughts, to help you run all the toxins out. The reader is invited by Scientology to research the efficacy of this method on their own.

I think it's "stuff that matters" because it generally pertains to copyright law. I think it's "news for nerds," or at least for Slashdot nerds, because Scientology has well-deserved a bad rap here.

To the best of my knowledge, Slashdot has only deleted comments three times. Once at the request of the United States Secret Service (maybe that was kuro5hin, I can't seem to find a reference). Once under legal pressure from Microsoft. And once under legal pressure from Scientology.

Scientology threatened the Wayback Machine to the point where its maintainers deleted a bunch of archived content from a site critical of Scientology.

Scientology threatened Google and forced Google to remove listings for that same site which is critical of Scientology.

What Scientology's lawyers are up to is certainly news for nerds.

I think it's "stuff that matters" because it generally pertains to copyright law. I think it's "news for nerds," or at least for Slashdot nerds, because Scientology has well-deserved a bad rap here.

To the best of my knowledge, Slashdot has only deleted comments three times. Once at the request of the United States Secret Service (maybe that was kuro5hin, I can't seem to find a reference). Once under legal pressure from Microsoft. And once under legal pressure from Scientology.

Scientology threatened the Wayback Machine to the point where its maintainers deleted a bunch of archived content from a site critical of Scientology.

Scientology threatened Google and forced Google to remove listings for that same site which is critical of Scientology.

What Scientology's lawyers are up to is certainly news for nerds.

Due to a link fark.com Operation Clambake got 200.000 hits today.

As someone who deals occasionally with CAD drawing scaling, who the fuck decided that the . should replace the , when mentioning numbers? Did Operation Clambake get 200.5 "hits"?