Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Would Settle For The Children
The news from MSNBC
is that Microsoft wants to, er, settle for the children. Take that
whichever way you want. They propose to settle civil anti-trust cases (not the DoJ suit) with a $1.1 billion (retail value) spanking (they
have $36 billion in the bank), consisting of free computer goodies to our nation's poorest schools (the first hit's free, kids). I'm sure Microsoft will upgrade those old computers to keep them current, in perpetuity, for free, out of the kindness of their hearts, but in an apparent oversight that was left out of the news report. Of that $1.1 billion, $0.9 billion will be software presumably valued at whatever Microsoft wants to charge (see "monopoly"). For hardware and (laughable) training/support costs, Microsoft will be docked three weeks' worth of interest on their cashpile; they will seek matching funds for the remainder, I am not making this up. Some lawyers opposed this but "concluded that Microsoft's monopoly already is so pervasive that students would have to learn to use these products anyway in the workplace." Update: 11/20 21:22 GMT by M : Heh. Red Hat offers an alternative to Microsoft's settlement proposal - you provide hardware, we'll provide software.
I just heard on the radio that Richard William Wheaton III (Wil Wheaton's full name) was found dead today at his home in LA. We will all remember his wonderful performances as Wesley Crusher on Star Trek:TNG and Gordie Lachance on Stand By Me. Wil has contributed much to society, and I'm sure he will be greatly missed by the readers of Slashdot.
So lets spread around Microsoft products even more... that'll decrease the percentage of the market that they hold.... geez...
Soon you will live in Microsoftia and use only Microsoft products. You will praise the name of Gates as your lord and savior.
That reminds me of an old forward, the difference between drug dealers and programmers:
Drug Dealers:
-Refer to their clients as "users"
-"The first one's free!"
-Have important South-East Asian connections (to help move the stuff)
-Strange jargon: "Stick," "Rock,", "Dime bag,"
-Realize that there's tons of cash in the 14- to 25-year-old market.
-Job is assisted by the industry's producing
newer, more potent mixes.
-Often seen in the company of pushers,pimps and hustlers.
-Their product causes unhealthy addictions.
-Do your job well, and you can sleep with sexy movie stars who depend on you.
Programmers:
-Refer to their clients as "users"
-"Download a free trial version!"
-Have important South-East Asian connections (to help debug code)
-Strange jargon:"SCSI," "RTFM", "Java," "ISDN".
-Realize that there's tons of cash in the 14- to 25-year-old market.
-Job is assisted by the industry's producing newer, faster, more potent machines.
-Often seen in the company of salesman,
marketing people and venture capitalists.
-DOOM. Marathon. SimCity. Command&Conquor. 'Nuff said
-Damn! Damn! DAMN!!!
Silly troll.
At least check your subtraction and see if you can't get his age right.
BTW, don't you do anything but Slashdot all day? I've been sniffing your packets for a week now.
Sodom
The men of Sodom wanted to "know" the Angels who were staying with Lot (Gen. 19:5)- this is evidently a euphemism for sexual intercourse (more evidence of this is given in Appendix 1). The sexual perversions of the men of Jerusalem are described as being like those of Sodom (Jer. 23:14). The sin of Sodom is described as "abomination" (Ez. 16:49,50), using the same Hebrew word which occurs in Lev. 18:22 regarding homosexual intercourse being "abomination" to God. Lot describes their desire as a "great wickedness", and offers them his two daughters instead. Evidently the desire of the men was sexual; they were not simply asking to be introduced to the visitors, as some gay 'Christians' have been forced, in evident intellectual desperation, to claim. Why would a father propose the violation of his daughters in response to an impolite request to be socially introduced to two male visitors?
There is a parallel to the Sodom record in Judges 19:16; the townsmen of Gibeah surrounded the house of a host, and demanded that his male guest should be brought out so that they could "know" him. Again, a counterproposal was made; that the guest's concubine should be given to them instead of the guest. As a result she was raped. The parallels are strong enough to indicate that the desire of the townspeople in both cases was not just to get socially acquainted with the visitors, but to sexually 'know' them.
Jude 7 condemns Sodom's sin as being unnatural; they desired "different flesh", i.e. unnatural sexual intercourse. By all means compare this with Paul's description of homosexuality as being wrong because it is unnatural (Rom. 1:26,27). 2 Pet. 2:6-8 records Lot's frustration with the moral debauchery of Sodom. I have emphasized the sexual nature of Sodom's sin because it is so widely claimed that Sodom was not destroyed because of homosexuality. The intellectual desperation of this argument ought to be apparent. Seeing it is aired by intelligent people, the question is, why should they be driven to such desperation? It surely demonstrates how hard they are trying to avoid the clear condemnation of homosexuality within Scripture.
Sodom is chosen by the Lord Jesus as a type of the world of the last days, just prior to his return. The selfishness and sexual perversion of Sodom is seen in our present world so clearly. As Lot fled from that city and spoke out against their "unlawful deeds", so should the believer in the last days; because Lot typifies us (Lk. 17:29-32). If we do not separate from this present Sodom-like world, we will share in its judgments (Rev. 18:4). There can be no compromise position between us and 'Sodom'.
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination" (Lev. 18:22) is an unambiguous statement of God's mind concerning homosexuality. Gay 'Christians' try to pass off these Mosaic passages as only condemning homosexual prostitution. But the act of 'lying with mankind as with womankind' is styled "abomination"; the motives for the act are not seen as spiritually significant. There had to be a separation between the people of God and the homosexual attitudes of the surrounding tribes, as there must be between spiritual Israel and the world surrounding us. The Canaanites drew up marriage contracts for homosexuals (see Michael Gold, op cit); therefore the form of homosexuality which was practiced in Canaan was not only pederasty, as some claim. The blurring of the boundary between Israel and the surrounding world was the downfall of God's people in the past. Time and again they are warned about it. And the Christian church, the new Israel of God, has just the same temptation. Giving way to this temptation has been justified and made spiritually respectable by the 'gay Christian' movement.
If God saw the act of homosexual intercourse as "abominable" in the Old Testament, there is no reason to think that He now sees it differently because Christ died on the cross. Whilst it is true that the Law of Moses was ended by Christ's sacrifice, it does not therefore follow that His moral principles changed as, for example, U.K. telephone calls go onto a different tariff after 6p.m. He did not see homosexuality as "abomination" the day before Christ died and then saw it differently afterwards. God's essential morality doesn't change (Mal. 3:6).
The Greek arsenos in the LXX of Lev. 18:22; 20:13 is quoted by Paul in 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10- as if he was aware of these passages in Leviticus and was, under inspiration, making them relevant to the Christian believer. This answers the objection that the Mosaic Law has ended and therefore these prohibitions are irrelevant to Christians today. In any case, the context of these laws is of prohibition of adultery and sexual relationships with blood relatives. Such prohibitions apply to personal behaviour between consenting individuals, not prostitution. It should also be noted that homosexual acts were punishable by death; and any act which the Mosaic Law punished by death is still wrong today. If it excluded from the fellowship of God's people then, so it does today. It is a denial of God's moral immutability to say that He condemned homosexual practice before Christ's death but not afterwards.
Those who committed behaviour worthy of death (e.g. homosexual behaviour) had to die on the testimony of two or three witnesses (Dt. 17:6). This idea is twice alluded to in the NT in the context of the church making the decision to expel someone from membership (Mt. 18:16; 2 Cor. 13:1). The implication is that death under the Old Covenant pointed forward to church disfellowship under the New Covenant. And thus Heb. 10:28,29 reasons that the counterpart of the apostate Christian believer is the man who committed sins worthy of death under the Old Covenant. The conclusion is clear: the practicing homosexual must be excluded from the church, as such a person would have been excluded from the camp of Israel by death under the Old Covenant. When Paul says that homosexuals are "worthy of death" (Rom. 1:32) he may well be alluding to Dt.17:6, which speaks of those who broke the Laws whose punishment was death (e.g. homosexuality) as being "worthy of death".
The commandments of the Mosaic Law were for the good of God's people (Dt. 6:24; 10:13; 30:15,19,20; 32:46,47). If 10 - 20% of the population are born constitutionally homosexual, as we are asked to believe by gay 'Christians', then they cannot have a psychiatrically healthy lifestyle unless they indulge in gay desires or relationships. And yet the Mosaic Law forbad them, and thereby was "good" for God's people. Either God asked constitutionally homosexual people (if they exist) to be celibate, or He does not recognize the existence of this category of people. Gay 'Christians' claim that God would not require them to be celibate if He made them this way. And yet He evidently made this requirement of His people in the past. Yet we must remember that the Law was for the good of God's people, physically as well as spiritually. Forbidding the expression of valid sexuality doesn't seem to be "good" for people. Therefore we are left with the conclusion that God simply does not recognize the concept of constitutionally homosexual people.