Slashdot Mirror


Apple Deals with Devil, Communists

rschroeder writes "I keep thinking that this article can't be real, but it looks like it. Among the juicier bits: 'The real operating system hiding under the newest version of the Macintosh operating system (Mac OS X) is called... Darwin! That's right, new Macs are based on Darwinism! While they currently don't advertise this fact to consumers, it is well known among the computer elite, who are mostly Atheists and Pagans. Furthermore, the Darwin OS is released under an 'Open Source' license, which is just another name for Communism.'" Yes, of course. And I am still waiting for Jesux to be released.

230 of 699 comments (clear)

  1. Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's really it. It's a hoax, and a decent joke at that but it doesn't take much to see that.

    1. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny by bergeron76 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I actually don't think it is. This guy _really_ belives he's right. Look at the domain: www.truepath.com - it's an _actual_ Xristian website. They even use deceptive pop-unders so they can make a buck and push thier cultism. These people are really starting to scare me. Believe what you will, but don't try to convince me that pokemon was created for anything other than the corporate buck. I like the Jesux article better. The apple article really scares me though.

      --
      Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
    2. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny by joel8x · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, the fine community at Macslash.com debunked this hoax earlier today - This was one of the greatest attempts at trolldom I have ever witnessed toward the Mac community (we're such an easy target too).

      --
      Sound waves should be free!
    3. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 3, Informative

      is it a coincidence that Richard Paley is one of the aliases that Warren Beatty uses in The Parallax View? I smell something fishy.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    4. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2

      Nah. Nobody clever enough to come up with the lines that he did could have really believed this stuff- it's too inventive; he'd have to have thrown too many bits away that he couldn't use. But he probably doesn't care if it's all made up- as long as it sounds right it serves his purpose...

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    5. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny by DennyK · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, www.truepath.com is a free Christian web hosting service...so it's quite possible that this particular member is having some fun... ;)

      Of course, the author does have several other articles up there. Like the Apple one, it's hard to tell whether he is being humorous or serious in them. Half his writings sound like tongue-in-cheek exaggerated Christian zealotry, and half sound like somewhat serious arguments (though these are usually backed up only by "Because the Bible tells us so...").

      Whether intentionally or unintentionally, his stuff is still pretty funny. I hope he truly isn't as paranoid about "Evolutionists" as it seems from his writing, though... I have the utmost respect for any and all belief systems, but it's pretty sad to go through life thinking that everyone who believes differently than you do is out to get you and corrupt your soul... :-/

      DennyK

    6. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny by blibbleblobble · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Dr. Richard Paley comes to our movement through his involvement in fighting other forms of anti-Christian hatecrimes. He has lead successful boycotts against Sears and Piggly-Wiggly and has spearheaded the movement to stop Evolutionism from being forced on the children of Marian County. His experience in dealing with secularism's desperate grasp on power has proved invaluable as we move into the next phase of our campaign. Dr. Paley teaches Divinity and Theobiology at Fellowship University."

      Author's biography, from the site

    7. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny by MrResistor · · Score: 2
      Theobiology? What the hell is that?

      I thought the whole thing was pretty funny, although I'm surprised that the Mac Bible wasn't mentioned in any of the Addendums. Or even the Mac Bible, for that matter. Obviously anything that promises to "revolutionize the way you study the Scriptures" must be corrupt!

      My personal favorite quote:

      Hypnotically encased iMacs trick unsuspecting computer users into accepting Darwinism

      I almost fell out of my chair when I read that!

      The part about Pagans being notoriously bad spellers was pretty funny, too.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
  2. From the article... by ocie · · Score: 5, Funny
    Dr. Richard Paley is a teacher of Divinity and Theobiology at Fellowship University

    Makes me wonder if they have Theomathematics, Theochemistry, Theophysics and Theoengineering as well.

    --
    JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
    1. Re:From the article... by Coryoth · · Score: 3, Funny
      Makes me wonder if they have Theomathematics, Theochemistry, Theophysics and Theoengineering as well.

      I remeber seeing a "Theological Engineering" paper once. It had such wonderful questions as: If 30ml of red wine is placed in the mouth of a devout catholic, and transubstantiation takes 3s, how many joules of energy are produced?

      Jedidiah

    2. Re:From the article... by PD · · Score: 3, Funny

      In Theomathematics, pi is defined to be 3.0.

    3. Re:From the article... by czardonic · · Score: 5, Funny

      Makes me wonder if they have Theomathematics, . . .as well.

      Don't forget Theohuxtabology.

      --
      Takahashi Rumiko made beats! DON, taku, DON, taku. . .
    4. Re:From the article... by ghack · · Score: 3, Funny

      It is!

      In Kings 7:23:

      He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.
      weird!
      the laws of thermodynamics are there too...

      I wonder why darwinism and christianity can't coexist: they both make sense.

    5. Re:From the article... by operagost · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because no one has ever demonstrated one instance of macroevolution, yet it's sold as scientific fact to every kid who manages to stay awake in science class. Naturally, by definition faith in creation cannot be proved. However, I feel that the way you talk about reptiles sloooooooowly turning into birds and everyone in the room nods as if he saw it happen himself, disturbs me.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    6. Re:From the article... by Moofie · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's only sold as a scientific FACT by people who don't understand what a scientific THEORY is. In other words, ignorant people.

      I'm an engineer, and I don't know very many scientific FACTs. The closest ones I can think of off the top of my head are the laws of thermodynamics. Everything in science is subject to being disproved. All good scientists, by definition, understand and accept this basic Truth.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    7. Re:From the article... by odaiwai · · Score: 2

      Well: a) the cubit isn't a precise unit of measure.
      b) pi *is* 3 to zero decimal places. It's certainly a reasonable approximation if you're measuring things with your elbow.
      c) Are there any instances of precise measurements in the bible? (Apart from the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch.)
      dave "Lord, what's a cubit?"

    8. Re:From the article... by GMontag451 · · Score: 4, Informative
      Because no one has ever demonstrated one instance of macroevolution,

      Observed Instances Of Speciation
      Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
      29 Evidences For Macroevolution

      Maybe you should do a little research before you make a greatly incorrect factual statement like that.

    9. Re:From the article... by Gerv · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Observed Instances of Speciation" indicates examples of microevolution only.

      "Five Major Misconceptions..." just points to "Observed Instances of Speciation".

      "29 Evidences for Macroevolution" says, at the beginning: "Whether microevolutionary theories are sufficient to account for macroevolutionary adaptations is a question that is left open." In other words, they are theorising about macroevolution without a scientific mechanistic basis to support the theories.

      It also cops out by saying "In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin." But that's the hard bit - if you can't explain the first self-replicating life form, then the argument that life appeared from nothing (as opposed to being created) doesn't hold water.

      Gerv

    10. Re:From the article... by Gerv · · Score: 2

      Evolutionary theory does not try to explain the origins of life.

      But those who wish to deny God must do so in order for their denials to have any shred of credibility. If evolutionary theory does not explain the origins of life, why is it used by atheists as a counter to "God made the world"?

      B.T.W. these hard-core christians don't try to explain anything, they just say it's so because the bible says so (if you interpret it this or that way)

      You speak as if Biblical interpretation is like reading tea leaves - totally arbitrary. This is not at all the case; to take a trivial example, it would be somewhat difficult, in good conscience, to "interpret" the Bible to say that adultery was perfectly reasonable.

      Gerv

    11. Re:From the article... by GMontag451 · · Score: 2
      "Observed Instances of Speciation" indicates examples of microevolution only.

      Really? I must have missed the meeting where everyone decided to change the definition of macroevolution yet again. I could have sworn at least a couple years ago, all examples of speciation were considered macroevolution. Or is "kind" more general now than species? For the future, please define now exactly what you will accept as macroevolution so that when it has been observed, if it hasn't already, you will take it sitting down instead of trying to change the definition once more to support your irrational and unsubstantiated disbeliefs in evolution.

    12. Re:From the article... by GMontag451 · · Score: 2
      It also cops out by saying "In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin." But that's the hard bit - if you can't explain the first self-replicating life form, then the argument that life appeared from nothing (as opposed to being created) doesn't hold water.

      The article was quite right when it said that, evolutionary theory only deals with life once it already exists. In fact, it only deals with it once it is abundant enough to be considered a population.

      The theory that deals with life's emergence is called abiogenesis, and BTW Christianity has to deal with it as well. Abiogenesis is the formation of life from inorganic matter, whether it happened through naturalistic means or through God. The naturalistic version has quite an edge on the religious version here, having a few experiments showing at least the possibility of creating basic amino acids in the primordial soup. All the religious version has is "God did it" which isn't an explanation at all, but rather a cop out. Perhaps some "Creation Scientists" would be kind enough to at least hypothesize about exactly how "God did it" and then try to do some experiments to verify those hypotheses predictions. Until then the naturalistic explanation is the only game in town.

    13. Re:From the article... by jafac · · Score: 2

      "roughly" circular? (hexagonal)
      "roughly" 30 cubits? (31.415926535898. . .)

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    14. Re:From the article... by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 2

      Dude. Evolutionists didn't say that reptiles slowly morphed. They said that reptiles had a variety of children. Some of them died.

      When does this "micro" evolution become "macro" evolution in your mind? Where is the line? Who invented this distinction?

      Is the difference between a wolf and a chihuahua still microevolution? That evolutionary step only took 2000-5000 years of unnatural selection. Birds and some reptiles seem awful similar to me... why wouldn't natural selection be able to make that change over millions of years?

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
  3. To be fair, they're right sortof by Crag · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Open Source and Free Software are heavily based in the ideals of anarchism and communism, and many of us are athiest or agnostic.

    I don't have a problem with this, but _they_ do. This isn't really that funny. It's a clash between the age of pisces and the age of aquarius, much like a similiar clash 2000 years ago, and one 2000 years before that...

    Don't take them too seriously, but don't discard them as complete nuts, either. These people are holding views which were sacred to a much wider community in the past. 2000 years from now (if anyone's still around), this will happen again, and _our_ views will be the silly ones.

    1. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by leodegan · · Score: 2

      I disagree that open source software is, in itself, analogous to communism. If all software was REQUIRED to be open source, that would be communistic.

      Its like saying any time you give something away for free, you are exercising communism. It only becomes communism when you are forced to give stuff away for free.

    2. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by gilroy · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Blockquoth the poster:

      Its like saying any time you give something away for free, you are exercising communism. It only becomes communism when you are forced to give stuff away for free.

      Indeed, people like the author most likely would get quite agitated if you suggested that their charity work was actually "communistic". Sometimes, even in a free capitalist society, it's good to give to the community.
    3. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by debrain · · Score: 2
      Sometimes, even in a free capitalist society, it's good to give to the community.


      I find that is a matter of opinion. I find that I am socialist at heart, but I have had disagreements with people who could genuinely support arguments for monoculture self interest, and by turning a few moral checks off at the door, I could wholeheartedly agree with them. Most of these people were economists, and their microcosm is "special" in the capitalist versus socialist debacle. Their interests are not the same as the interests of humans.
    4. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by Rand+Race · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I vehemently disagree... sort of. You mistake sovietism and maoism for the economic philosophy those systems were attempting to attain. A core principle of communism is the ownership of the means of production by those who operate the means: the workers. This is a similar concept as that behind free software, but the dissimilarity of information technology and industrial tech stretch the analogy quite a bit.

      Giving stuff away for free is communistic, but it only matters if it is required.

      --
      Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
    5. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by Mandelbrute · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Open Source and Free Software are heavily based in the ideals of anarchism and communism
      Only one reply to this - bullshit.

      This sort of stuff is peddled by those that say there is only one way to do things and that's my way - all else is evil/communism/insert_name_here.

      The idea of sharing knowledge dates back to the start of recorded history (which is shared knowledge).

    6. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by GMontag451 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      It only becomes communism when you are forced to give stuff away for free.

      I disagree with this. I must have a very different impression of communism than most people. To me, the word communism conjures up images of The Hawg Farm, The Rainbow Family, and other 60's style communes rather than images of Stalinst Russia and Maoist China. These types of societies do abolish the concept of personal property for the most part, but it is most certainly voluntary.

    7. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by sparkz · · Score: 2

      I'm a practising Christian, and I'm here.

      --
      Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
    8. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by gilroy · · Score: 2
      Blockquoth the poster:

      The "voluntary" part is the key word. Charity is far from synonymous with communism. In order for an act to be charitable, it must be done voluntarily.

      Yes, of course. I am not trying to equate charity with communism. But the Open Source movement doesn't say that private, proprietary software must be banned. It only says that that's not the most efficient method. It recognizes that people like to share and can gain from sharing.


      Open Source is "communistic" in exactly the same way that fundraisers at a church are -- that is, not at all. Yet people will often criticize the former while extolling the latter. It was that hypocrist that I was noting.

    9. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by debrain · · Score: 2
      The sum of wealth in a society is proportional to the productivity of its citizens and is not constant.


      I assume then that in the context of your argument monetary measurement and wealth measurement for a state are different and incompatible? Axiomize that 95% of the monetary wealth is owned, and will forever be owned by no more than 5% of the population, most disturbingly likely the same 5% based on geneology and inheritance. Then at an impossibly low 1% interest rate, that 5% of owners will each make more money on interest than the average person, without working or incentive at all. Indeed, it is in their interest to undermine the ability of the average person to belong to their aristocracy, to prevent variables that would undermine their fabricated self-interested redistribution of wealth.

      The UN, with good experimental justification, uses the difference between the wealthiest and the poorest people of a nation to measure the "happiness" of a nation. Or so I have read, at any rate.

    10. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by Dragoness+Eclectic · · Score: 2

      Funny, I always thought of freely giving the fruits of your labor to those who have not as Christian charity, not communism. I guess I'm old-fashioned that way.

      The thing I've always liked about Free Software is that concept of generosity, of teaching, of sharing, of charity and kindness and giving. It's a very Christian ethic for a programmer. (And, if you're familiar with the great religions of the world, it is also follows the ethical ideals of Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism. Don't know about the others.)

      --
      ---dragoness
    11. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by debrain · · Score: 2

      Economists will cringe at my assumptions, but let's briefly investigate the $1 million mark as above the 5% rule ...

      95% of the US GDP of 1.8 trillion is $9.3 quints in 1999, spread among 5% of the US population, or 12.5 million people, is a harmonized $744 million each.

      So assume a deviation of say 20%, which is high, most of these people still have over $500 US million. The millionaire is hardly a contender in this 5% of wealth owners, and in fact probably falls close to the 90th percentile, a far cry from the 95th percentile.

      Plus, presume the legal autonomity at this level of chargen wealth, as you can begin purchasing laws in 3rd world countries and the United States, and as such inheritance laws are defunct, as are capital gains taxes and provisions can be fabricated for income, inheritance, gains, interest and property tax shelters.

    12. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by i0lanthe · · Score: 2

      Open Source and Free Software are heavily based in the ideals of

      ...early Christianity, if you stretch a bit (you don't really have to stretch any farther than socialism). See the first few bits of Acts of the Apostles where they're setting up a nice little "to each according to their need, from each according to etc" community.

      I'm sure we could whomp up some vaguely plausible parallels to the "open source community", after a sufficient number of beers. Then slap it on a web page and see what kind of fan mail it generates... I bet it would catch flak from all sides. (Perhaps someone in the thread has already suggested this; I'm too lazy to check.)

      --
      "The Crystal Wind is the Storm, and the Storm is Data, and the Data is Life"
    13. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by ahde · · Score: 2

      Aha! That's where you're "common sense" fails you. More than a third of that elite fifth percentile DO NOT walk on the street, thus you would never pass them. Therefore, at the very most, only 1 in 60 people you pass on the street is worth $500 million.

    14. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by ahde · · Score: 2

      Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Krushchevism, Maoism, Sovietism, Jism.

      None of these were communism, or socialism. So you're saying there never has been anything resembling communism in the world, but we all yearn for it?

    15. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      Communism is an economic system where the workers own the means of production, nothing more, nothing less. It is NOT a generalization for anything that diminishes the value of private property.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    16. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by gilroy · · Score: 2
      Blockquoth the poster:

      Just because I write open source software, does not make me a supporter of Communism.

      Exactly. And just because you support charity work doesn't, either. Yet the author of the original paper would almost certainly agree with the take on charity and vehemently disagree with the take on open source. Open source is given away? Then the people doing it must be Communist, since only Communists thumb their noses at the free market!


      I was only pointing out that people donate time and energy in other contexts to the general commonwealth, and it doesn't seem to raise the same alarm that OSS does.

    17. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by squiggleslash · · Score: 2
      Sorry, but as I understand it, that's a conclusion of what will happen, rather than a statement of what it is, just as unrestrained capitalism may result in monopolies but is not, in itself, about monopolisation. Marx himself said "I, myself, an not a Communist."

      And as for "Communism Apologist", you might want to look up what the word "Apologist" means. It doesn't have anything to do with correcting basic misunderstandings.

      Idiot.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  4. A related site by interiot · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Also at the same site...

    Objective Landover Baptist Shutdown aims to get religious parody (?) site Landover Baptist shut down, removed from the internet, basically because they disagree with their message... very little to no legal ground to stand on. They're just trying to use tactics like contacting the hosting ISP and talking to WIPO to reach their goals. They apparently don't even pretend to grasp the first amendment.

    1. Re:A related site by interiot · · Score: 3

      I guess I don't even pretend to grasp a parody of an anti-parody site. Sheesh.

  5. Netcraft Says... by bjtuna · · Score: 5, Funny

    The site members.truepath.com is running Apache/1.3.22 (Unix) mod_perl/1.26 PHP/4.0.6 on Linux.

    That is all.

    1. Re:Netcraft Says... by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 5, Funny

      Heh, nobody better tell them that their sites are being served by a daemon...

      --
      main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
  6. Funny by Calle+Ballz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Visit the Landover Baptist Church webpage for more fun, logical christian humor.

  7. haha by WildBeast · · Score: 2

    while he's at it why don't he just label Apple as terrorists? Is this thing for real or is it April fools day again?

  8. What is he smoking by H1r0Pr0tag0n1st · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You know if one is going to spout off this kind of tripe they should at least get the facts straigt. And how in the hell would good christans know about all this devil stuff anyway?

    This reminds me of the article for concerend parents that said linux is a hacking porgram.

    --
    Americans could not be more self absorbed if they were made of equal parts water and paper towel. -Dennis Miller
  9. Re:Theomathematics by dissonant7 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually, "theomathematics" have been around in numerous religions for millenia, though it's usually called arithmosophy.

  10. spoof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Guys, this is a spoof. There is no "Fellowship University" do a google search on it for cryin' out loud!

    I'm a evangelical pastor. I think Jesus is the only way, I'm also a geek who thinks that the darwin kernel is a wonderful thing. Even spoofs like this make me nervous, because people actually think that evangelicals are taught to think like this (well, they are if they listen to christian radio, I tell my congregation to watch the simpsons instead...).

    It has one valid point though....chmod 666 can be an evil command, depending on the file your sicking it on! :-)

    1. Re:spoof by tshak · · Score: 2

      It's great to see your post. Personally, I think that the Simpsons is way more educational then TBN, because it actually Critiques the church (in normally very correct ways). And even I, a .NET developer with an XBox, am getting interested in the Darwin kernel.

      --

      There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
    2. Re:spoof by zbuffered · · Score: 2

      If this is a spoof, these people really put a lot of effort into it. A lot. Have you looked around? that webpage has dozens of pro-christian articles, most as... interesting... as that one. Check it out, tell me if you think someone would go to that much trouble to prank the internet.
      Although if it is a spoof, it's sure gotten a lot of people.

      --
      Synergy is your friend
  11. Sign of the Beast! by dcavens · · Score: 2, Funny

    Really- people should read the article. It's rolling on the floor funny. It must be a hoax though. No one could be this funny without it being on purpose.

    My favorite quote: (right near the bottom)

    ADDENDUM IV (4/21/2002): Apparently anti-Christian zealots -- as well as shocked Christians who have unwittingly become Mac owners -- are linking to this article, which explains the large number of emails we have received on this topic. More clues have come in showing the dark nature of Apple Computers. According to one of our readers, the new MacOS X contains another Satanic holdover from the "BSD Unix" OS mentioned above; to open up certain locked files one has to run a program much like the DOS prompt in Microsoft Windows and type in a secret code: "chmod 666". What other horrors lurk in this thing?

  12. Apple/Devil by NickRob · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, Apple did have a well-publicized dealing with the Church of Satan. They had a "Made with Macintosh" logo on their homepage, and they had a b/w pic of their founder with "Think DIfferent" next to him. The kicker? They were (obviously) against those things. They demanded the removal of such things. The CoSatan, being the dissenters they are, naturally didn't remove them.

  13. Church of Satan by dissonant7 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, the Church of Satan, so far as I know, actually *does* (or at least used to) run on Apples. They even used to proudly advertise the fact on their web site with a parody of Apple's "Think Different" campaign featuring Anton LaVey (the Church's founder).

  14. Re:Fucking HELL!!! by iCharles · · Score: 3, Insightful
    No No No No No!

    The pastor dude is an idiot--'Nuff said. Anyone who can't see past a word or a name, and sees "communism" and "godlessness" behind every corner probably doesn't know his a** from his elbow. It saddens me to think of how many people are so closed- and literally-minded.

    That said, I feel strongly that reprisals of the sort that are described here should not be tolerated. I worry that if a DoS is tolerated in this instance, replicating it will be regarded as socially acceptable. So, someone else will write a DoS attack, or a worm, or whatever.

    And, whoever writes it will feel he will be held up by his peers here on \. because, after all, they speak about how bad the target of the day (today the document in question, in another Microsoft, in another--who knows?!?).

    Win people with your minds and your ideas, not random acts of terrorism. IF they listen, then you truelly have one. If they don't, then you move on.

  15. I feel like I've arrived... by FortranDragon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    when the story I submitted was rejected -- 2002-04-22 14:56:33 Unix is truly the dark side (articles,humor) (rejected) -- and posted all in the same day.

    I'm off to chmod 666 some files and increase the minions of the dark side. ;-)

    --
    "All the darkness in the world can not quench the light of one small candle."
  16. 'Clearly' is a keyword to look for in propganda... by Bonker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This OS -- and its Darwin offspring -- extensively use what are called "daemons" (which is how Pagans write "demon" -- they are notoriously poor spellers: magick, vampyre, etc.) which is a program that hides in the background, doing things without the user's notice. If you are using a new Macintosh running OS X then you probably have these "daemons" on your computer, hardly something a good Christian would want! This clearly illustrates that not only is Macintosh based on Darwinism, but Darwinism is based on Satanism.

    Lordy, Lordy, this is so thick that you need a shovel to get rid of that high holy smell.

    When looking at *any* kind of text that may or may not be slanted towards or away from any given viewpoint, please keep a look out for the world 'Clearly'. It usually indicates that the author is expecting the reader to make a logic jump that might otherwise not be warranted.

    Examples:

    Some people who live in capitalist societies are homeless and hungry, therefore we can CLEARLY determine that capitalism is responsible for homelessness and hunger.

    Some people who live in socialist societies are oppressed and have no rights. Therefore we can CLEARLY determine that socialism is equivalent to a dearth of human rights.


    Religous types are especially bad about this. I am a Christian... a very liberal Christian... but for a long time I lost my faith because of a poorly produced anti-evolution video I was forced to watch in high school (in Texas). Typical contents of the video can be summarized as follows.

    Because of [poorly documented and inadequately evidence] we can CLEARLY see that this discovery is a sham designed to discredit the world of our Lord...

    'Clearly' gives away propoganda 9 out of 10 times.

    --
    The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
  17. hrm by interiot · · Score: 5, Funny
    view source, see:
    • <META name="generator" content="Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who hath generated all">
    1. Re:hrm by Bruj0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      You know you are a geek when you look at the source of every html page you came across :)

      --
      http://securityportal.com.ar
  18. Lickable? by sweatyboatman · · Score: 5, Funny

    They try to hide all of this under a facade of shiny, "lickable" buttons, but the truth has finally come out: Apple Computers promote Godless Darwinism and Communism.

    I've been licking the buttons on my Dell laptop, and that's okay, but have you tasted the new IMac? Apple has again leaped way ahead in terms of user interface.

    Lickable Buttons. Hmmm... I wonder if he's thinking about those candies you used to get at street-fairs and the like which were just little dots on a roll of paper. Or perhaps those weren't really candies and this is all one long, crazy trip...

    Sweat

    --
    It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
    1. Re:Lickable? by The+trees · · Score: 2, Funny

      OS X: The candy-coated OS with a gooey Unix center ©

      --
      $ make work
      make: *** No rule to make target `work'. Stop.
  19. Re:Is this really worth a mention on Slashdot? by GigsVT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's Funny, Laugh

    That foot icon is not just for putting in your mouth you know. :)

    --
    I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  20. I was waiting for this to show up on /. by Space+Coyote · · Score: 3, Informative
    ... Since it's been on every other website I regularly surf, and seems to fit the classic definition of a meme.

    There are discussions about this site on MetaFilter, a MacSlash article, a very funny Fark thread, as well as mentions on Ars and Memepool.

    Seems the tech subset of the Internet has been well and truly trolled, if indeed this is a hoax, which I am inclined to believe, given that all of the banner ads on the site seem to lead to the same domain.

    --
    ___
    Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.
    1. Re:I was waiting for this to show up on /. by Xenex · · Score: 2

      And As the Apple Turns will be covering it tonight.

      Anyone with a Mac and a sense of humour should be reading AtAT daily.

    2. Re:I was waiting for this to show up on /. by Bodero · · Score: 2
      Seems the tech subset of the Internet has been well and truly trolled

      It's happened before. Remember Is Your Son A Computer Hacker?

  21. It's a hoax by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Informative
    Go to the "updates" link at the top. Scroll down until you see a picture of a purple teddybear. Read the accompanying "story". Now scroll up until you see a multicoloured... "rainbow"?... teddybear. Read story.

    Laugh. There are probably more examples, I didn't have time to check.

    It's a hoax, a very clever one, but a hoax nonetheless.

    As a Brit in America, I suspect my non-American friends are reading this entire thread bemused. "Well, of course it's an effing hoax!" they're exclaiming. "It's too over the top! You Americans are {...}"

    Response: Nope. There really are people like that around here, especially in the South and the mid-West. Even many "moderate" Christians see concepts like evolution as major threats to their beliefs and are actively trying to remove it from public education (sometimes successfully.) And moderate Christians do sometimes seem to form the minority of Christians in this God-forsaken country...

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    1. Re:It's a hoax by FFFish · · Score: 3, Funny

      Here's the Best Page of the site. It's the Kid's Page. :-)

      What should you do if you find an atheist?

      Atheists such as crotchety old Mr. Gruff think they've got it all figured out...
      ...but then why are they always so sad?

      If you find an atheist in your neighborhood, TELL A PARENT OR PASTOR RIGHT AWAY!

      You may be moved to try and witness to these poor lost souls yourself, however AVOID TALKING TO THEM! Atheists are often very grumpy and bitter and will lash out at children or they may even try to trick you into neglecting God's Word.

      Very advanced witnessing techniques are needed for these grouches. Let the adults handle them.


      The TruePath host is gonna be some stiffed what with all the Slashdot, MeFi, Fark, ARS, and Memepool hits... Atheist geeks destroy Christianity!

      --

      --
      Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    2. Re:It's a hoax by superyooser · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Response: Nope. There really are people like that around here, especially in the South and the mid-West.

      I've been a conservative Christian in the South (churches on every street corner) all my life, and I don't know any Christians who think like that. To be sure, there are crackpots in every niche of humanity, though.

      This web site is embarrassing whether it's a hoax or not, because it fits with one of the stereotypes that non-believers have of Christians. The media loves to report quotes, dutifully taken out of context, that have been spouted by some knee-jerk, shoot-from-the-hip, camera-happy televangelist.

      What if the media consistently (or even once) projected Dr. "Death" Kevorkian as a typical doctor in the medical community, or v1urU$ h4X0r$ as typical IT professionals? You'd never see that, because they are not widely respected among their peers. (This is why "peer review" is so important in the scientific community; it helps to weed out crackpots.)

      But for believers in "Jeebus" -- they're fair game for mockery and wild distortions (actually, the Simpsons is pretty fair in this respect). Unfortunately, you'll never see prominent articles in the mainstream/secular news media quoting truly great pastors and evangelists who are widely respected in the Christian community, such as Ravi Zacharias, Adrian Rogers, Charles Stanley, James Dobson, and Ken Ham.

    3. Re:It's a hoax by PinkStainlessTail · · Score: 2
      As a Brit in America, I suspect my non-American friends are reading this entire thread bemused. "Well, of course it's an effing hoax!" they're exclaiming. "It's too over the top! You Americans are {...}"

      Two words: "spaghetti trees." USians have not cornered the market on being gormless gullible morons.

      --
      "Slashdot is about legos and staplers." -Cmdr. Taco
    4. Re:It's a hoax by karmawarrior · · Score: 2

      Try reading the next few words after those quoted. The point being made is the exact opposite to that you're trying to counter.

      --
      KMSMA (WWBD?)
    5. Re:It's a hoax by PinkStainlessTail · · Score: 2
      Not really:

      As a Brit in America, I suspect my non-American friends are reading this entire thread bemused. "Well, of course it's an effing hoax!" they're exclaiming. "It's too over the top! You Americans are {...}"

      Response: Nope. There really are people like that around here, especially in the South and the mid-West. Even many "moderate" Christians see concepts like evolution as major threats to their beliefs and are actively trying to remove it from public education (sometimes successfully.) And moderate Christians do sometimes seem to form the minority of Christians in this God-forsaken country...

      He is NOT saying "The Brits are gullible too", which is what I was saying. My "spaghetti trees" reference is to a ridiculous hoax that many of the "less gullible" British people bought hook, line and sinker.

      And as far as Screwy beliefs: IIRC, the founder of the Flat Earth Society was a Brit.

      --
      "Slashdot is about legos and staplers." -Cmdr. Taco
    6. Re:It's a hoax by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 2

      Well, I know three southerners that are at least that crazy. And I'm a northern atheist. I of course also know hundreds of totally reasonable Christians. Maybe all the crazy types get sick of having no one to save, so they move up here.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    7. Re:It's a hoax by karmawarrior · · Score: 2

      He is NOT saying "The Brits are gullible too"

      Indeed. It's saying "No, the Americans are not gullible". And you're countering "The Americans are not gullible" with "How dare you! The British are gullible too!" which is a bizarre and entirely inappropriate response.
      --
      KMSMA (WWBD?)
  22. Re:Is this really worth a mention on Slashdot? by NanoGator · · Score: 2

    "Post real stories Slashdot...please!"

    After a stressful day, I can use a good laugh. This article didn't provide it, but I'm glad they tried. I don't think Slashdot would work if it was too focused.

    I remember back in 2000, the Register ran a semi-similar joke about Apple. Here it is:

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/613 1. html

    Unfortunately, I think they took the image down. Try to imagine a Nasa-style picture of the sun with a solar flare erupting from the top, shaped a little like an apple stem. It resembled the Apple Logo, heh.

    I showed this to a coworker (mac fanatic, no less) that read it and said something along the lines of "This doesn't surprise me." I honestly couldn't tell if I was putting her on, or if she was putting me on heh.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  23. Is science being taught in our schools? by cybercuzco · · Score: 2, Redundant

    The following is translated -almost- verbatim from an Onion book i have at home.
    Is science being taught in our schools?
    Asks the great news-paper "The Onion", instument of the rich, pacifier of the poor, americas finest news source, on its July 20, 1925 front page. "Scopes monkey trial raises troubling question:
    IS SCIENCE BEING TAUGHT IN OUR SCHOOLS?
    Should children be exposed to facts? are reason and empirical evidence suitable school subjects?"
    Clearly the answer to thes questions is no, as a man who holds that the welfare of the country takes precedence over any other human concern, I must stand firmly against the teaching of Science in our schools. This Science has already caused turmoil among the god-fearing readers of Slashdot, americas second finest, and most accurate, news source These peoples had no wish to know that they, as human creatures, may have descended from apes. What if Science were to champion other truths, provable and real, which people do not want to hear? For example, god forbid, what if Linux were proven by Science, to be superior to any version of Windows? The peoples reaction would cause division and conflict in our nation, nay, in our world, that would doubtless outweigh any benefits of the actual Scientific discovery. Should we teach our children facts? No, I say, a thousand time no! As they grow into tomorrows farmers, housewives, mill workers, and microsoft executives, facts are the last things they will need. Manners, subservience, above all, obedience! To speak only when spoken to, to standardize on one platform, and to not cause trouble! These are the principles upon which our educational system was founded. Why in the name of god should we replace it with a system that actually encourages the ignorant man to ask questions? A good citizen does nothing of the sort. He is content with the reasons he is given by his betters.
    Humanitys noblest heroes were not men who cared about facts. They were men who stood up for what they believed in, to hell with facts! To hell with any truth not their own! Our most cherished heroes would fight to the death, bludgeoning their enemies repeatedly, wholly uninterested in whether they were right or wrong. Once something is accepted as true, it should be true forever. This noble ideal, with its emphasis on unquestioning acceptance and obedience to authority, is what we should teach our children. It is the rock upon which we have built our government, our religion, and our American way of life, and it is the very ideal that science seeks to thwart with its new "discoveries" and impersonal ledgers of "facts".
    Learning! Why should we provide our citizens with learning? Does learning mathematics aid a man who will spend the rest of his life smelting iron in a foundry? Does knowing that man comes from apes, if he indeed does, which seems to be the subject of some debate, change the lot of the farmwife who spends her years shuttling barefoot between the birthing-bed and the milking-stool, as is proper? I say it does not. Furthermore, it fills the brains of children with useless facts which does not help them become better American Citizens. Does a fact have any inherent moral value? Does Science? We know that science allowed the Germans to develop the mustard gas,the motor-gun, and techno music. Has religion ever been used in such a fashion? With the exception of the holy hand grenade of antioch, no.
    Is it possible that we, with our motorcars, and aero-planes, powered by our internal-combustion engines, have already started us down a slippery slope of our destruction. We were not content to stay with time honored steam, to travel in our dignified trains and coach-and-fours, but we can take action now, before ape worshipping scientists turn us one against the other. We must cease our march of progress now, and there is no better way to achieve this than to keep the hellborn demon Science, and his diabolical Facts, from coming into contact with our children.

    --

  24. Hey, them's fightin' words!!!! by trailerparkcassanova · · Score: 3, Funny

    Apparently the Darwin OS is not the original creation of Apple Computers but is instead based off of an older, obsolete OS called "BSD Unix".

    Grrrrrr!!!!!!!!

  25. This Is All True by e2d2 · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is "All True"*. It all started with the insidious darwinist plot using the fluoridation of the drinkng water supply, thereby contaminating our precious bodily fluids. This is just one of many plots master minded by the...I've already said too much....

    * All True actually meant to serve as placeholder for complete and utter bullshit

  26. I thought trolling was reserved for comments... by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 2

    Not articles. Besides, did you see the footnotes?

    First nitpick: Actually, holyrollers that pretend to be true bible scholars annoy me. It wasn't a fig either, but rather a pomengranate.

    Second nitpick: The Woz chose that price as a joke. It was $666.66, not "666". Is the number of the beast 2/3's rounded off to the nearest cent? I suppose all electronic calculators are also satanic, since dividing 2 by 3 gives you the same thing. I guess that holyrolling is so boring though, even they have to dabble in numerology.

    And finally, I have to wonder if M$ isn't somehow involved with this. Maybe small cash donations to this guys church? There's something there, I'm sure.

  27. Re:Don't count on it being a hoax by browser_war_pow · · Score: 2, Flamebait

    I agree, but that doesn't mean that some bible thumping christian reconstructionist bitch doesn't disagree with us

  28. Re:It's a hoax - obviously by pkalkul · · Score: 2, Informative

    My favorite is the profile of contributor "Diamond" Jack Holgroth:

    "Diamond" Jack Holgroth is a Game Theoretician who currently teaches a course in Advanced Game Theory for Theologians at Fellowship University. He served our country during the Cold War as a Game Theory Tactician for the Department of Defense and single-handedly developed an elegant solution to the "Fisherman's Quandary", a game theory problem that was crucial to the winning of the arms race and that was famously intractable - until Diamond Jack came along.

    Very clever, but also quite clearly a joke.

  29. From Google by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 5, Funny

    http://www.ironycentral.com/archives/theoexam.html

    "1. (20 pts.) Bob and Joe are standing on a street corner. God loves each an equal amount L. Bob then accelerates to .9c. In Joe's rest frame, how much does God now love Bob? "

    1. Re:From Google by Cryptnotic · · Score: 5, Funny


      Since God is omnipotent and not bound by the laws of physics, that answer is L



      Omnipotence doesn't affect anything. God loves rapidly moving humans less, because they die more often (e.g., plane crashes, car crashes, falling out of buildings, et cetera). How much less? Unfortunately, I can't tell you because I'm not a theophysicist.

      --
      My other first post is car post.
    2. Re:From Google by Cryptnotic · · Score: 2
      It is also my theory that God's Love approaches zero asympotically as velocity of the soul approaches the Speed of Light c. The reasoning for this is that there's nothing like the Light that God provides the Universe. And if there were (such as a soul travelling at a velocity approaching c), then he wouldn't be too pleased about it. See Genesis and Exodus for examples of God's Anger.

      --
      My other first post is car post.
  30. Apple in league with the devil? by JiffyPop · · Score: 2, Funny

    Then why have they had so much trouble turning a profit. If they made a deal with the devil then MS should be crushed by now... Or is the Apple/Satan conglomerate held at bay by all of those god-faring christians that use MS?

  31. Re:Take a look at the URL by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not really. The whole point of the site, if you were to assume it was real, is to point out anti-creationism or pro-evolution propaganda.

    I don't see your point.

    --
    I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  32. Re:Don't count on it being a hoax by thelaw · · Score: 2

    not anti-Christian openly (who knows what he thinks -- heck, i hardly know what my roommates think!) but certainly non-Christian. like most people in the world. i recall that he's got the california-new-age-thing going on.

    jon

    --
    -- http://www.cerastes.org
  33. Re:'Clearly' is a keyword to look for in propganda by Hard_Code · · Score: 4, Funny

    What you say??? Clearly you are a heathen and must rot in hell.

    --

    It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
  34. oh yeah, that's the stuff by donglekey · · Score: 2

    Thus far, the first episode (called "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" -- at least they are honest in the title) was a melodramatization of Charles Darwin's life. Darwin is portrayed as a sympathetic character who is attacked by ignorant Christians for his "revolutionary thought"

    This is just so good it has to be fattening. Attacked by Ignorant Christians you say? Here is one that will really keep you up at night, the earth is round, we are not the center of the universe, and this kind of stuff doesn't help your worthless cause of ignorance and closed mindedness. (thank God, [pun intended]).

  35. Tool by greygent · · Score: 2

    You'd have to be a serious tool to think this site is real. The more intuitive among us will notice that they got far too many facts straight to be real...

  36. FreeBSD in Texas by seanadams.com · · Score: 5, Funny


    It hasn't been a problem in California, but twice I was accused of being a devil worshipper while wearing my FreeBSD polo shirt in Texas.

    Noo... you see, it's an "operating system". There's these "processes" that run in the "background" and the little demon is just a mascot, sort of like... fuck it... you got me, it's Satan.

    1. Re:FreeBSD in Texas by totallygeek · · Score: 2, Funny

      Twice I was accused of being a devil worshipper while wearing my FreeBSD polo shirt in Texas.

      I had the same problem with my OpenBSD wireframe daemon-head shirt. My wife's parents are ultra-religious (see deluded) and were freaking out about the shirt. I finally told them that Satan is just an angel....like me.

  37. Lamentable article by Orbitalb · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is just another one of those articles written by unnoficial members of the Grumpy Old Men From Texas Club. As a theology student, and a MacOS X user, I find Dr. Paley's article quite lamentable. Not only has he utterly failed to disprove any modern myths, he has made a complete fool of himself and Fellowship University. He will never hear the end of the torrent of criticism from both his academic and ecclesiastical peers.
    If any slashdotters are unfamiliar with Theology, then please don't let this man give you a poor first impression. If he were to read this article aloud in front of an assembly of people with accredited degrees, he might very well be laughed out of the auditorium.

    1. Re:Lamentable article by Orbitalb · · Score: 2

      ... actually, looking at it again, this article is way over the top. It is beyond rediculous. It is a farce. Supermarket tabloids aren't this bad. Nobody could keep a straight face while writing this. Is it supposed to be satire or what?

  38. The Cult of Apple by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 2

    He calls apple users a cult - I suppose its a good thing there aren't too many amiga users around anymore.

  39. I'll troll a bit... and offtopic even... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    First nitpick: Actually, holyrollers that pretend to be true bible scholars annoy me. It wasn't a fig either, but rather a pomengranate.

    Says who?

    As far as I am aware, the bible doesn't say what kind of fruit it was whatsoever, and scholars have debated that it could have been a fig, apple, pomegranate, etrog, carob, palm, nut tree, grapevine, wheat stalk, etc.

    In fact, some dare to suggest that there was no actual tree at all, but that the story of the Garden of Eden is mythological!

  40. Bible belt evolution by bobgoatcheese · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Christians see concepts like evolution as major threats to their beliefs and are actively trying to remove it from public education"
    I can personally attest to this. As a high school student in rural(very) Mississippi I loved it when my Biology "teachers" came to the point where we were to learn about evolution. The lessons were always preceeded with statements like, "Now, I'm not saying I believe this, or that it's at all true, but according to the state I have to teach it to you, it's up to you if you want to listen or not." I would sit astounded as half the class objected to a very fundamental concept by sleeping through the class because Brother so and so told them that, "he ain't evolve from no gosh darn ape."

    --
    How's my typing? Call 1-800-eta-shut
    1. Re:Bible belt evolution by Tyreth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thanks for your reply. Regarding millions of years, there are creatures and plants which are being found often that have been presumed extinct for millions of years. I could quote some examples, but I've given my books to someone else to read. You have probably heard about at least one, the coelacanth. This one's a common example.

      A lot of the abuse of creationists from evolutionists (and most definately the other way around too) is a lack of understanding of the arguments of the other side. Creationists ackonwledge that creatures will adapt to the environment through natural selection. The main difference between C&E is very important:
      Creationists teach that the adaptation is done by already present genetic information. Eg, a bear has the genetic code for white fur and black fur. It has children, one with white fur, two with black fur. Since they are living in the snow, the one with the white fur survives, so the two with black die out quicker. The white one's genes get passed on more, and eventually only the genetic information for white fur remains among bears in that part of the world.
      Evolution teaches that the genetic variety came through mutations, and that the code for white and black fur came through this process. Therefore, an isolated group could theoretically develop new, previously unexistant genetic code, such as purple hair, making them more or less likely to survive.
      Creationists reject this view for a few reaons, some of which are:
      1. Genetic mutations are almost always harmful/harmless, never beneficial (in the sense of different fur). The ratio of harmful mutations is much, much higher than neutral ones. I'm not sure if any beneficial mutations have been observed, but I could be wrong.
      2. We find the genetic code for the variety of species is present in the parent. With current data we are quite clearly dealing with genetic code that already existed, not through fresh mutations.

      Creationists also have problems with dating methods that show the earth to be millions of years old. This is not just religious dogma. Eg, samples taken from rocks formed from a volcano in New Zealand were said to be millions of years old in some cases, when it was known the exact day and year that the flows were created. This is not an isolated example. The Creationists believe there was a worldwide flood. Many dating methods are based on assumptions that would be destroyed if the worldwide flood was true. Anyway, this is just a brief introduction to show you some of the issues that Creationists have with macro-evolution and geological dating. There is much more depth and many more examples.

      As for my unanswerable arguments - I'm not certain there is no answer, I just haven't got one. It deals with inheritance, recessive genes. I have presented it once before on slashdot. Received a lot of replies, and no substance.
      Just briefly (since I don't have much time now):
      Fact: there are beneficial recessive genes
      Fact: harmful mutations occur at a much higher rate than neutral/beneficial mutations
      Fact: marriage between relatives causes much more complications in offspring than benefits. Royal family is a good example
      Fact: both parents must possess a recessive gene in order for it to become dominant

      Given the above facts, evolution has to explain how recessive genes were created. For natural selection to work, a gene must be dominant. Dormant abilities are not subject to natural selection (for very obvious reasons). Here is the problem: two people who possess the same beneficial recessive gene will also posess in common a much greater number of recessive harmful genes which will have opportunity to express themselves. A term for this is genetic load - the cumulitive negative genetic traits outweigh the beneficial. This is what happens in real life, and as far as I can see can't be explained in a macro-evolution framework. I could be wrong though. This problem is perfectly consistent with Creation theory though, that in the beginning each kind was created perfect with all genetic diversity for everyone alive today, but since then (or since the great flood), genetic mutations have become common, and all races are in decline from our former glory.

      There is an excellent article about this by the Institute for Creation Research.

      One thing I have tried to explain before is that both evolution and creation theory are not science. They are philosophy. This does not make them any less worth discussing, but it changes the way in which we should present them, and discuss them.

      A message to all who might read this, not to the author I reply to:
      For thousands of years most men have presumed that God/gods exist. Atheists have been and always will be a minority. People should not reject belief in God as a fairy tale - many of us dedicate our time to understand the deeper mysteries, and many of us try to be critical, able to give reason for the hope we have. The men of ancient times, and today, don't believe in the unseen without evidence. For a great challenge, I ask any that believe the Bible to be a fairy tale to explain it's accuracy in prophecies concerning the Messiah Jesus Christ, our God and Savior. It predicted the exact year He would be born, where, the feelings He would have at the time of His death, His purpose, and much more. Any who say that it was written after the event are ignorant - the prophecies were written in the Septuagint also, a translation of the Scriptures from Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek, before Jesus was born - this translation we know existed before the Messiah's birth.

    2. Re:Bible belt evolution by AxelBoldt · · Score: 2

      evolution has to explain how recessive genes were created

      Recessive traits which are harmful in a homozygote are almost always beneficial in a heterozygote. See for instance Cystic Fibrosis, the most important genetic disease among whites. It's a recessive trait. Heterozygotic carriers of that trait are protected from Cholera because they don't lose water as fast as others when they get diarrhea. Same for cickle sell anemia, the most important genetic disease among blacks. It's recessive, and heterozygotic carries are protected from malaria, because of the special shape of their red blood cells which the malaria parasite tries to attack.

      And now you won't be surprised to learn that malaria is a big problem in the area where blacks originated, and cholera is a big problem in the area where whites originated.

    3. Re:Bible belt evolution by AxelBoldt · · Score: 2

      You have to distinguish between DD, Dd and dd. If d stands for the recessive Cickle cell trait, then the dd people are sick, the DD and Dd people are healthy. The Dd people are carriers who can pass the trait on to their offspring. The Dd people are different from DD people in various small subtle ways. One of those is that they don't die as often from Malaria.

      If Dd and DD were completely indistinguishable, then indeed evolutionary theory would predict that the d gene die out over time.
      Such complete indistinguishability however almost never happens. The case where Dd people differ from DD people is called "incomplete dominance".

    4. Re:Bible belt evolution by AxelBoldt · · Score: 2

      The sickle cell gene allele is much more common among blacks than among whites; the cystic fibrosis gene allele is much more common among whites than among blacks.

      This can be explained by genetics as follows:
      healthy carriers of the cystic fibrosis allele are protected from cholera, which historically was a problem in Europe but not in Africa; healthy carriers of the sickle cell allele are protected from malaria, which is a problem in Africa but not in Europe. Whites, with ancestry in Europe, therefore have a lot of cystic fibrosis; blacks, with ancestry in Africa, have a lot of sickle cell anemia.

      As soon as malaria is removed from the face of the earth, you can expect that sickle cell anemia will slowly vanish as well (unless there is some other as yet unknown beneficial effect of the sickle cell allele).

  41. I had a crazy neighbour like this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There really are people like that around here, especially in the South and the mid-West. Even many "moderate" Christians see concepts like evolution as major threats to their beliefs and are actively trying to remove it from public education (sometimes successfully.) And moderate Christians do sometimes seem to form the minority of Christians in this God-forsaken country...

    I had a neighbor like this. We had a discussion of sorts when day when I found out that she wouldn't let her children use computers -- even at school. As she explained, the logical end for all computer progress is 'artificial intelligence' which is of course just another way of saying 'a living being not created by God' -- and therefore of the devil's minions. She further said that because of computers, the theory of evolution had been proven false, because it demonstrated that intelligent beings -- even soulless, simple ones -- must be created (i.e. evil men create computers, they didn't 'evolve' on their own). Thus, she said, the computers were the seed of the devils minions for armageddon, and smart cards, pet and child ID chips, etc. were the 'mark of satan' that is apparently spoken about somewhere in the bible. (?) The fact that computers were created by 'scientists' was also evidence to her, since it was 'scientists' who came up with what she called the 'lie of evolution' in the first place, presumably to put us all off the scent while they helped to build said devilish minions. 'Scientists' are, as she explained, fundamentally in the business of trying to trick people into believing that there is no God, so as to destroy their salvation and leave them no choice but to work for Satan in the final battle.

    Apparently, it all made a kind of sense to her, and the long and short of it was that she had filed some sort of form at the public school which then excused her children from using the computers, Internet, etc. She had also arranged to have them excluded from discussions of biology and evolution, on grounds that it was all a scientists' lie to destroy salvation.

    Poor kids. When they grow up, they'll be fit only to be one thing: a fanatic like their mother.

    1. Re:I had a crazy neighbour like this! by jeremyp · · Score: 2

      Did you point out to her that individual human beings are created by a mechanical process called reproduction instigated by two other people and therefore technically none of us are created by God (even if God invented the process). Further, if some scientists ever do create artificial intelligence, there is no evidence that God either approves or disapproves and it was God that gave humans the tools (viz intelligence) to be able to create this AI. So God probably approves on balance and the AI will be part of God's creation.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    2. Re:I had a crazy neighbour like this! by WinDoze · · Score: 2

      Poor kids. When they grow up, they'll be fit only to be one thing: a fanatic like their mother.

      I don't know man, I've seen plenty of people grow up in such circumstances (myself included) only to completely reject all the nonsense the first time they get out of the house and hear some other viewpoints (typically high school or college).

  42. Re:Interesting pagan fact! by GigsVT · · Score: 2

    It also looks k-rad and goth. Teenagers all love k-rad and goth stuff, like Paganism. Luckily no one takes it seriously, at least no one over 18 with an IQ of more than 80.

    --
    I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  43. Re:Apple/Devil - Half of the Story by Redline · · Score: 5, Informative

    You can see the parody image on the home page of The Church of Satan near the end of the page. (Don't worry, it's not that offensive.) They also tell their half of the story regarding the "Made with Macintosh" debacle.

    At least the Church of Satan really uses Macs. Didn't Apple's actual "Think Different" campaign feature Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and other people who never used Apple computers?

  44. It angers up the blood. by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not sure who I dislike more; idiot people like this who don't know what their talking about bringing computers and religion together in insane ways, or the idiot athiests who look down their noses and say 'See! See what I told you. Look at how silly those closed mided Christians are!'

    Darwin was a scientist. He observed phonomonea and came to a conclusion. His findings do not disprove creationism or God. All he has done has provided us with, based on observable phonomonea, the best possible understanding about the development of life on this planet.

    It's innane to ignore that in the face of so much compelling evidence. At the same time, athiests take up Darwin's name as a banner with as much fervor, closed mindedness, and compleate lack of a world view as any firebranding preacher.

    There is a spirtual side to the Universe. You can ignore it in the lab and get better results, but don't poo-pah people who like to keep it in mind.

    --
    The Internet is generally stupid
    1. Re:It angers up the blood. by acb · · Score: 2

      Darwin was a scientist. He observed phonomonea and came to a conclusion. His findings do not disprove creationism or God. All he has done has provided us with, based on observable phonomonea, the best possible understanding about the development of life on this planet.

      Actually, by definition, that disproves creationism (being the doctrine that the world, life and humans were created as described in the Bible). There is no way of reconciling this doctrine with contemporary scientific evidence of how life originated.

      Whether one believes in God (or Allah or Vishnu or the Great Pumpkin or whatever) is one's own choice; though with physics and biology describing the physical world as well as they do, the spiritual realm has been more or less exiled to philosophy and poetic metaphor. Thunderstorms are not Thor's anger, the Earth wasn't created in 6 days, and chances are the Virgin Mary wasn't a virgin either. If there is a God, he's staying well out of the way.

    2. Re:It angers up the blood. by foobar104 · · Score: 2

      Actually, by definition, that disproves creationism (being the doctrine that the world, life and humans were created as described in the Bible). There is no way of reconciling this doctrine with contemporary scientific evidence of how life originated.

      Well, that all depends on how you interpret things. IANABS (I am not a Biblical scholar) but I don't recall the Bible claiming that life was created by God and has remained unchanged ever since.

      There are those who hold that opinion, of course. I'm just saying that that's not what I learned in Sunday School.

      In other words, it seems that the creation belief and the evolution belief aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

    3. Re:It angers up the blood. by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 2

      Darwin by no means disproves creationism. Evolutionary theory is simply that; a theory that describes things the best way we know how using what we can observe about the world around us.

      At the worst, if we find out evolution to be true (and there are some issues with that), it goes in contridiction to a literal interpratation of the bible, but not the spirit.

      There are things we don't understand. I'm not saying we should embrace some sort of blind ignorance; at the moment science is the best thing we've got. But science by far does'nt even begin to answer the mysteries of the Universe.

      Heck, I know a lot of physcists who still think we can't exceed the speed of light. They cling to that just as strongly as a hard core fundimentalists clings to a perfect literal reading of the bible.

      And I have faith that eventually, science will get us going faster then light, because I have faith in the scientific community to find new and different solutions to problems. It's always happened in the past.

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
    4. Re:It angers up the blood. by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 2

      ... by using faith and a simple view of the world outside.

      Take a pair of brand new Porsche sports cars. Give one to a scientist, another to a theologian. Tell them both "Look at this car for the next week, and tell me what you find out"

      The scientist will come back after a week and talk about the engineering, the attention to detail in the engine, use of turbochargers for increased performance, and an overall, detailed breakdown of every mechanical system.

      The theologian will come back after a week and say "It's very beautiful, and it's fun to drive."

      Who's right? Well, both of them are. The scientist will get frustrated with the theologian. "How do you measure this? How can you prove it to me this is fun to drive? Beauty is an objective concept. How do you know this is a good looking car?" The theologian will have to shrug and say 'I just do.'

      Two weeks later, the scientist drives up in a new Honda civic. "This car," says the scientist, "has just as much quality engineering as that Porsche. In fact, after 100,000 miles it will be running much better then the Porsche. The only thing that Porsche can do is go faster, which is illegal. Now, would you say that your Porsche is a better car?"

      The Theologian will drive the Honda, come back, and say 'no, I still like the Porsche better.' The scientist will become more frustrated, pull out his hair, go into great detail about fuel economy and injection systems, even the breakdown rates of the two vehicles.

      The theologian will still claim he likes the Porsche better. "Why? How? Don't you see the evidence? In every measurable way, when you put price into account, the Honda is a better car. Can't you see that?" "Yes, I see what your saying. And your not wrong. But the Porsche is still a better car."

      "But what makes it a better car?" 'Like I said from the beginning, it's better looking, and it's more fun to drive'. "But you can't prove this?" 'no, I can't' "And you see all the evidence I've put in front of you" 'Yes, I see it' "And you agree it's correct" 'Yes, it seems in order'.

      At this point the scientist will run off to the other scientists muttering about how the theologian is crazy, self delusional, and can't see the hierocracy of his own statements.

      Personally, I'd take a Porsche over a Honda, and I can't tell you why in any measurable sense.

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
    5. Re:It angers up the blood. by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 2

      religion is just a theory... "the theory of god" as i call it. excpet in this case, their only available proof is an ancient piece of literature that has been translated and re-translated too many times to count

      That's not the point. Religion requires no objective proof. Occasionally many of the more ambitious keepers of the faith will try to find historical accuracies in the bible... but really, in the end it's not needed.

      How do I know God exists? I just know. It's simply impossible to define matters of faith in terms of science. Science can only tell us how. Religion trys to tell us why, and to that extent they can contridict each other while both are right. I can see how this would frustrate somebody with a purly analitcal mind because faith can not be measured or displayed in any objective way.

      But faith really is'nt concerened with the direction of an atom or DNA. Most Christians I know reconize evolution as the most logical reading of the orgins of life we've got from a scientific standpoint.

      But it's a lot harder to take that too liteary, because A: We've never actually seen evolutionary jumps in our lifetime (only mutations), and B: Even if Darwin was exactly right on the nose, it does'nt change the fact that God created us.

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
    6. Re:It angers up the blood. by sg3000 · · Score: 2

      > Darwin by no means disproves creationism.
      > Evolutionary theory is simply that; a theory
      > that describes things the best way we know
      > how using what we can observe about the
      > world around us.

      Well, science (and evolution specifically) does rule out a literal six days for the creation of the universe, which is typically called creationism or misleadingly"creation-science". One cannot do true science if one invokes a miracle or relies on "faith" to describe anything not presently understood.

      In my experience even "scientists" that believe in creationism rely on natural law for whatever discipline they understand, but then invoke miracles for phenomenon outside their discipline that they do not understand.

      Science (and specifically evolution) do not however rule out the existance of God. In fact, science is not interested in the existance of God because it's fundamentally a non-scientific question -- i.e., not a study of natural law. That's not to say that it's not an interesting question. Of course not! It just means that the tools of science cannot be used to determine the existance or non-existance of God.

      That's why many people get annoyed when atheists and theists alike invoke science to promote their agenda.

      > At the worst, if we find out evolution to be
      > true (and there are some issues with that), it
      > goes in contridiction to a literal interpratation
      > of the bible, but not the spirit.

      If you're looking for truth (strictly speaking), you'd better get out of science class. As many have said before, Science is the search for *fact* not truth. Evolution will never be found to be true, because that's not the purpose of science. The most science can do is determine that evolution has not been proved false yet. And universally, biologists have determined that evolution is a fact, the questions come in regarding what mechanisms caused it to happen the way it did.

      > Heck, I know a lot of physcists who still think
      > we can't exceed the speed of light. They
      > cling to that just as strongly as a hard core
      > fundimentalists clings to a perfect literal
      > reading of the bible.

      As for exceeding the speed of light, your response is typical of someone unfamiliar with modern science: demanding a simple, short answer to a question that requires complex answer to be accurate. Physicists do not rely on faith regarding the speed of light limitations any more than they rely on faith to determine the trajectory of a object thrown across the room. The proper discussion is in any second semester college physics class, but I'm sure there are books out there that can provide a better explanation than a slashdot forum.

      Good luck!

      --
      Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
    7. Re:It angers up the blood. by jgerman · · Score: 2

      Also if you've ever read Origin of the species, Darwin writes what amounts to be a disclaimer. I forget the wording but he states that there are holes in his theory, and that he is a Christian. Not exactly the anti-religion flag I'd be waving if I were a rabid atheist.

      --
      I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
    8. Re:It angers up the blood. by sg3000 · · Score: 2

      > The proper discussion is in any second
      > semester college physics class, but I'm
      > sure there are books out there that can
      > provide a better explanation than a slashdot
      > forum.

      Haliday and Resnek have the definitive college-level text on physics, and I think it was called "Fundamentals of Physics" or something like that. If I remember correctly, look in the second half of the book for the chapters on modern physics.

      Or, if you wish a nontechnical, but more entertaining answer, try the Straight Dope. Cecil Adams provides a pretty simple explanation of the answer.

      --
      Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
    9. Re:It angers up the blood. by connorbd · · Score: 2

      The key to fundamentalism is to suck up to the people you're trying to reach. Fundies take as their starting point that the Bible is to be read according to "simple, common-sense" thinking. From there follows the principle of Biblical literalism.

      These people believe what they believe not necessarily because they've been brainwashed (though most of them have), but because their spiritual leaders have started by calling Scripture the ultimate authority and then bending interpretations to fit what their congregation already believes. Many (but probably not a majority) of these ministers know that they're lying; they're the ones who create Bible colleges and suchlike to keep the poor suckers whose prejudices they're feeding from realizing they're being decieved.

      The two beliefs aren't mutually exclusive, really, as long as you try to understand the Bible from a literary standpoint (try A History of God by Karen Armstrong for a starter). The thing is that fundies don't see it that way, because the majority of them are conditioned in such a way as to not be able to see it without compelling outside influences making their way in (a powerful argument for why irrational singlemindedness is sometimes considered a virtue under the label of True Faith (tm) ). Some do find their way out.

      I have personally given up on religion myself -- I was raised Catholic, but being exposed to many influences eroded my faith over the years to the point where I finally admitted to myself that there was no point to me going to church as I didn't really believe anything past the existence of some kind of god. It's caused massive strife with my parents, who claim I'm not being open-minded (after twenty-six years?!). But I have enough to deal with in life without religious guilt.

      The process of fundamentalist Christianity (and a lot of organized religion in general) is to use fear to play off of people's prejudices. Them Northerners want you to get rid of your slaves? We all gonna start our own Southern church that sez you can keep your niggaz and beat 'em up when they get uppity. Them Jews and gubmint types takin money outa yer pocket? Get a gun and join our church for good Christian white folk who love our freedom. And so on. And once you've hooked them by validating their prejudices, you *really* start manipulating them.

      /Brian

    10. Re:It angers up the blood. by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 2

      You seem to be claiming that religion answers any questions at all

      It answers the important questions. Or at least it tries to.

      Science answers questions. Religion merely tells you to stop thinking.

      If anything religion makes you think more. I can't stop thinking about the nature of the universe, God, and the hows and whys behind it. The conflicting messages, trying to unravel the mysteries... it goes on and on.

      Yes, there are zelots out there that take an invintory of beliefs and just stop. Those are the ones who are likely to pass judgement on other people (which is'nt their job), and pretty much ruin the dialogue for the rest of us.

      But those same kinds of people live in the scientific world. They take what they know, they stick to it, and they don't move on.

      I'm not a scientist, but I've always been interested in it. Not because I want to tear it apart, or even approach it with an agenda, but because to me, it's interesting to see how the rules of the universe work.

      Through high school and college, I'd ask lots of questions to my science teachers (especially physics). The one that always got me was 'What causes gravity'. Most of them were not thinking; "It's in your textbook". 'No, it's not.. read it again'. "All it says in the text book is gravity increases in bodies with mass". 'Yes. Thats what causes gravity'. "No, that's a condition of gravity. An explination of it's level in relationship with mass. Why to bodies of mass attract to each other. What are the properities unique to mass that causes that attraction? It outlines in another chapter why and how magnitism works.. I follow that, but nothing is said about gravity... why does'nt gravity receive the same attention as magnitism?'

      I'd usually be asked to leave or be quiet. That always bothered me, because here we have an observable phoenomonea that's all around us, we deal with every day, and yet we know so little about it. To me, the scientific mind would be interested in finding out why. But, like the religious fundimentalist, the scientist has found enough answers he needs, and sticks with them. It was'nt until much later when I finally started dealing with more open minded scientists who finally admited 'we don't know. There is some research into that feild, but we really don't know'.

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
  45. Early Christian Church was Communist.... by Slurpee · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In practise, obviously not in name.

    Members of the early church gave all their belongings to the church, which was then used to support all the members of the church.

    Check out Acts (don't have the exact reference with me). For those who may not know, Acts is the book of the bible that describes what happens to Christianity straight after Jesus Leaves the Diciples. It shows how the church grew and spread through the world.

    For those who know no better....realise that this is a statement of fact by the author of Acts, and in no way does it promote nor demote Communisim.

    Any "preacher" who claims that Christianity supports capitalism (or communism) has no idea what the bible says (or doesn't say).

    1. Re:Early Christian Church was Communist.... by tshak · · Score: 2

      Karl Barth, a radical Christian Theologen, contends that the heart of Communism is closer to what Christ's heart was and that Capitalism's "spirit" is almost the antethesis. I haven't studied him much (yet), however, I don't believe that he "believes in" either system, rather, he debunks the whole "capitalism is the only christian way" that fundamentalists preach.

      --

      There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
    2. Re:Early Christian Church was Communist.... by dvdeug · · Score: 2

      George Bernard Shaw clearly stated why he believed true Christianity to be Socialist in his introduction to Androcles and the Lion. It's an interesting read, and available from Project Gutenberg.

  46. Re:'Clearly' is a keyword to look for in propganda by mshurpik · · Score: 2, Interesting

    'Clearly' gives away propoganda 9 out of 10 times.

    I honestly don't know it's that bad, I think a lot of the time it is just another emphasis word. But it's worth pointing out that spotting propaganda takes attention and diligence. Good propaganda is crafted down to the last word, and often the flaws are easily glossed over.

    One trick is that propaganda makes an emotional impact without making a discernible point. I see this trick work far too often on the elderly. Some huckster calls up grandma, says "you won" this or that, and the emotional resonance never fades to the point where she can think clearly about what this person really wants.

    These tricks can be defeated if you understand how easy they really are. But none of them are obvious, which is why those of us who understand propaganda tactics should make an effort to educate people and spread the word.

    Here on Slashdot it's not so much of a big deal if people get hoaxed from time to time. But when you're talking about public policy, media standards, or elected leadership, the ability to cut through the hype becomes crucial for the functioning of a democratic society.

  47. And tomorrow on his website... by evil_one · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yesterday I was attacked by the followers of an evil heathen website, dotslash.
    What they did is called a DoS, and DoS stands for Denying Our Savour. The attack is called by the followers of dotslash the 'dotslash effect'
    The name of the attackers, dotslash is clearly a reference to the beast, and how it attacks.
    Fear not, I lit candles on top of my monitor, and now that the fire department has put the flames of hell out, and I have finished praying, all will be well.

    --
    Desperation is a stinky cologne
  48. Re:the apple logo by 90XDoubleSide · · Score: 3, Interesting
    From Woz’s 86th letters page:
    Comment from E-mail:

    I really need your help about who designed the logo, the story behind it, the meaning of the logo, how the logo work with the company and all the employee, and maybe you could help me how to contact the designer.

    Woz:

    We ran a small partnership 'out of the garage' for a year, selling about 150 Apple I's. The closest thing to a 'logo' that we had was an etching of Newton under an Apple tree. We then developed a great product, the Apple ][. It looked like we could sell thousands of them, but we needed a lot of money. When we secured the money, from Mike Markkula who joined us as a third and equal partner, we hired an agency to help us with public related marketing concerns. On topic was a logo. We had a great company name, Apple, and wanted to leverage our company off the ideas that this healthful word represented.

    The Regis McKenna agency came back with some proposals, many based on the Apple shape. One of the most notable things about the Apple ][ was that the display was in color, with patents too. No other low cost computers were near such a feature. So the multicolored logo made sense. The McKenna version had the colors in rainbow order. Steve Jobs rearranged them to get the darker (heavier) colors toward the bottom, and the logo was born.

    I have no idea how to contact logo designers.

    --
    "Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
  49. Well at least they are running Linux by m_evanchik · · Score: 2

    Well at least he's being hosted on a Commie linux server, and not a Satanic and Commie BSD one.

    I don't think I have the heart to tell him.

  50. The funniest part of the site.... by pressman · · Score: 3, Funny

    The kids section.

    The section on what to do if you discover that there is a grumpy old atheist in the neighborhood is hilarious. Also the little cartoon about how dinosaurs and humankind used to walk the earth together because the earth is only 10,000 years old is beyond compare. Evolution as a tool of Satan! I love it! Almost as funny as good ole Elron's theory about intergalactic genocide 75,000,000 years ago being the cause of all suffering for humans.

    --
    Pooty tweet
  51. Re:'Clearly' is a keyword to look for in propganda by Keith+Mickunas · · Score: 2

    Its actually titled "Evolutionism Propaganda" if you look at the top of the text. Still this guy is either completely insane, or you're right and it is satire.

  52. At least he got something right. by SrlKlr · · Score: 3, Funny

    [Apple] is well known for its cult-like following. It isn't much of a stretch to say that it is a cult.

    Well the article got one thing right... I just did not know MAC people were so weird because they were in with Satan...

  53. It's a parody, albeit a brilliant one. by lumpenprole · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We spent a lot of time debating that today. The nail in the coffin was when we noticed the site uses the same retailer for its t-shirts as the landover baptist site. I really want a Bazooka Jesus shirt.
    -M

    --
    Disclaimer: MINAA (Mummy! I'm Not An Animal!)
  54. Re:Obviously satire by pressman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I would not go so far as to say it's obviously satire. If you look at the lengths they went to to provide links to other Christian sites and texts is pretty extensive. I checked out a lot of the links, especially the ones on the Christian roots of the US and of the US and various state and township Constitutions. On the surface I can see where one might think it is satire, but the level of research and effort that went in to build this monstrosity definitely goes beyond satire.

    Some people just are that zealous. Make a subtle, sarcastic anti-linux comment here and see what happens!

    --
    Pooty tweet
  55. Is that for real? by Danse · · Score: 2

    If I lived in Indiana I'd be freaking terrified that these people were in charge of establishing the law in my state!

    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    1. Re:Is that for real? by qqtortqq · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I live in indiana, and in the 100+ years since they changed PI to 3, it hasn't gotten any better. It is illegal to have a stiffy in public in this state- 35-45-4-1c: (edited for your pleasure)

      (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally, in a public place:
      (3) appears in a state of nudity; or
      (c) "Nudity" means the showing of the human male or female genitals, pubic area, or buttocks with less than a fully opaque covering, the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any part of the nipple, or the showing of covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state.

      damn state...

  56. sigh... by glwtta · · Score: 2

    How many times do we have to explain it? It applies to Free software, not Open Source, and it's a lot closer to Socialism, than Communism. Geesh.

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi
  57. Evolution and Creationism are compatible by Jeremi · · Score: 2
    From the article:


    He purported to have proved Evolutionism by making his Macintosh draw little squiggles -- or "biomorphs" as he called them -- that changed over "generations". (This of course begs the question: if it took a created machine running created software to make these squiggles, how then does that refute Creation?)


    I realize the article is a hoax, but this is an example of reasoning that I hear fairly often from Creationists. They believe that if Creationism is true, then evolution must be false, and vice versa. But as the example above points out, software-based 'evolution' was created by an intelligent being. Move the scenario back to the real world, and it works there too -- there is nothing to prevent an all-powerful God from creating a Universe that generates human life through evolutionary processes. You can have your Creationism and evolution too.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    1. Re:Evolution and Creationism are compatible by z4ce · · Score: 2

      No, not really. God created man in a single day. Interpreting a day as a thousand years does not make sense in that context (And it was morning the 6th day...) and STILL wouldn't be enough time for evolution. Some people try to recouncil the two beliefs but they are really totally and absolutely unrecouncilable. Either the bible is true or it is false.

    2. Re:Evolution and Creationism are compatible by Jeremi · · Score: 2
      Either the bible is true or it is false.


      And why can't it be the case that parts of the Bible are true, and other parts are false? Or that some parts are true in spirit, but not meant to be taken literally/scientifically? Why the black-and-whitism?

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    3. Re:Evolution and Creationism are compatible by z4ce · · Score: 2

      Suppose that part of the parts of the bible are true and parts of it are false, as you determine.

      Well now you decide that murder thing really is bad. That's definitely right on. No murder. That's definitely a sin.

      But is lying really all that bad? I mean come on, there are good times to lie. What if it will make someone feel bad about themselves. What if it could help me make a big sale?

      And that adultery thing, that's definitely outdated and isn't relevent anymore.

      If you can do that, then you have no moral standard. No one can come to you and say look this is in God's word, this is wrong. If you take parts to be true and parts to be false the bible is nothing more than a bunch of nice fairy tales with moral lessons.

      Ian

    4. Re:Evolution and Creationism are compatible by Jeremi · · Score: 2
      If you take parts to be true and parts to be false the bible is nothing more than a bunch of nice fairy tales with moral lessons.


      ... which is pretty much the conclusion I came to as well. :^) But even as a book of fairy tales, some of the moral lessons do have truth to them (in that they reflect a cultural distillation of what sort of behaviour is beneficial to one's self and society, and what behaviour is not)


      If you can do that, then you have no moral standard. No one can come to you and say look this is in God's word, this is wrong.


      Arguably no one can do that anyway in many cases, since the Bible contradicts itself on some issues. One book of the Bible says one thing, another says the opposite. Which should one believe?

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  58. actually it does by metalhed77 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    most science seems to refute most of the events of the bible, but that doesn't matter to most christians who simply agree and say "I still believe in the core beliefs" or who find extremely irrational explanations. As someone who attends church weekly for 2 services (I work at one, though I am atheist) I see a startling number of contradictions and ridiculous events presented in religious text.

    You still of course have the right to believe, and i'm not denying that. But I too have the right to believe that you are wholly wrong. Don't think your weak arguments will persuade anyone/

    --
    Photos.
  59. His Site Runs Communist Linux by dew · · Score: 3, Interesting
    look here -- he's running Linux:
    The site members.truepath.com is running Apache/1.3.22 (Unix) mod_perl/1.26 PHP/4.0.6 on Linux.
    --

    David E. Weekly
    Code / Think / Teach / Learn
    h4x0r for

  60. It's a Chickenhead operation by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative
    Chickenhead Productions put in a lot of work on this. They also have WhiteHouse.org and several other parody sites. And there's real depth at each site.

    I'm impressed.

    They have some cool merchandise, too.

  61. Re:Obviously satire by pressman · · Score: 2

    This is the page that got me.

    Not even part of their site. Man, do I feel like a sucker now!

    --
    Pooty tweet
  62. Communism, Anarchism, blah blah by afxgrin · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, it all depends what flavour of communism(probably Marxism) you're thinking.

    If you take the complete social-libertarian perspective (Anarchism), you would be having contributions to a community that benefit everyone as a whole. GPL'd software is not viable in a capitalist market because you're selling software that gives you no edge over someone else who's selling the same thing. If money was to be made on the software alone, the market would get flooded with the GPL'd software and the price would bottom out to the lowest cost of distribution.

    Companies that make money by providing Free Software are not capitalizing on the software itself, but the 'value-added' services, manuals, and most likely proprietary software tossed in. If they were generating huge income from the sole sale of software, we'd see Microsoft join the Free Software movement.

    Marxism, would have us hand over our code for the 'greater good of the people' - as history has taught us, a totalitarian regime would ensure this. Anarchism, it's an individual choice. But anarchism works on the ideals that we can live better by working together, but working together because you want to. Not because someone in a position of authority has forced you to.

    For more info on Anarchism:
    www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html
    To determine your political standing:
    www.politicalcompass.org

  63. This is ancient by Cyberllama · · Score: 2

    I read this years ago, word for word the same. How is this possibly "news" for nerds?

  64. Re:'Clearly' is a keyword to look for in propganda by z4ce · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hmm.. interesting technique there for spotting propoganda, but I normally just look to see if the file contains the word "propaganda" :)

    Ian

  65. Duh. by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 2

    Because Satan is in the operating system business. Sure, Apple may be roughly on the same team, but Satan still isn't gonna give the industry to them, when he is competing himself. Besides he did bail them out with that 10% non-voting stock deal a few years back, didn't he?

  66. Coming soon to fundamentalists near you by jamie · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I won't be at all surprised when this anti-Apple satire shows up in far-right-wing Christian literature. Remember the Onion story, "Harry Potter Books Spark Rise in Satanism Among Children"? Turns out it was taken seriously by many fundamentalist "news" agencies, including WorldNetDaily.

    So many people believed the Onion story was true that Snopes had to debunk it!

  67. not bullshit. by afxgrin · · Score: 3, Informative

    umm ...

    Isn't the concept of sharing Communism?
    Communism/Socialism, it's the idea of doing things together. It's just a matter of how it's implemented is what has left the bad imagery in our minds.

    If we ever do hit the absolute extreme of capitalism, information such as recorded history, will only be availible to those who can pay for it. But that's speaking of the ridiculous extreme ... wait a second, we are commodifying water now. Keeping that in mind, sharing knowledge in the future might be regarded as some to be 'communist' in nature, and those who do so must be imprisoned.

    Hmmm ... how many people do I need to start listing for those who've been persecuted by a social and economic structure we've approved of for sharing knowledge?

    Wasn't there some kid arrested or charged for releasing some code to decrypt DVDs?
    Was there not a Russian guy arrested in the United States for code he wrote while in Russia? Had something to do with Adobe eBooks if I remember correctly ...
    Was there not a man who released code to encrypt information, and wasn't he threatened with criminal charges?
    Older examples ...
    What about Galileo? Thomas Aquinas?

    There's good reasons why Free Software can be seen as having ideals of anarchism and communism.

    1. Re:not bullshit. by Mandelbrute · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Isn't the concept of sharing Communism?
      No more than the idea of swapping stuff is capitalism. There is a lot more to both - and without both sharing and swapping we would not be civilised.

      Shared intellectual property between indivuals may offend the sensibilities of some business, but they need it to survive in their current form (otherwise they would be unable to get trained staff). Linux has spread and developed the way USENET was supposed to spread scientific knowledge .

    2. Re:not bullshit. by afxgrin · · Score: 2

      But capitalism is based on the simple concept of accumulating wealth. And what we're seeing now is a very small percentage of people who are no longer sharing so much, and instead hoarding a very large portion of the resources that would be quite helpful if shared.

      I also don't doubt the fact that we share and swap in our day to day activities, but comparing free software to free market capitalism is a long stretch. Since, if any single sellable package of free software had an edge over another package, that package would simply adopt that feature with no additional cost to them except redistribution. And would then make any competition useless, since there would be no profit. The only edge that would ultimately be left for any company is how good their marketing team is and their customer support. Companies would leave those markets in droves and abandon them completely ...

      Especially with GPL'd software. For example, the GPL requires sources to be included with the sold package. If Microsoft went and bought up every single linux distributor around the globe, Microsoft would have a distribution monopoly. But once they sell ONE CD, the source is availible to the public and they'll have heavy competition within a very short period of time.

    3. Re:not bullshit. by Mandelbrute · · Score: 2
      but comparing free software to free market capitalism is a long stretch
      My point was that comparing open source software to communism is such a long stretch that it was originally only seriously suggested by:

      1/ Those that consider communism is evil, therefore bundling it in with communism makes it evil. Or

      2/ those that consider communism is good, therefore bundling it in with communism makes it good.

      Sharing of intelectual property is only a political act to those that see everything as a political act - or those that have had to listen to poeple like that for years. I don't see it as having much to do as either of those two isms - it is a seperate thing of itself.

      The first time I remember seeing gnu software described as being communist was in a column by Bob Metcalfe (of ethernet fame) which was his portion of a flame war, but in print and not email.

      Speaking of flamewars, if you want to take this offtopic stuff furthur, my shiny new email address that I would be mad to post on slashdot if it was the only one I had is bosto@worldoptions.com.au.

    4. Re:not bullshit. by sql*kitten · · Score: 2

      If we ever do hit the absolute extreme of capitalism, information such as recorded history, will only be availible to those who can pay for it.

      It already is available only to those who can pay for it. Encyclopedias, CD-ROMS and teachers aren't free. They are all paid for either by private individuals, or out of taxation - nothing is free.

      This is the reason Open Source coexists so uneasily with the existing economy. The cost of duplicating a piece of software is negligible compared to the cost of developing it, and tends to zero if you can make assumptions like that the infrastructure is a) a fixed cost and b) already present. But the cost of cars, loaves of bread, woolly socks, etc, doesn't - so how do you trade a piece of software for these things, if you don't make units of software behave like them, economically speaking? After all, you can't make material goods behave like software until humanity develops an unlimited power source and has access to unlimited raw materials, and that's not going to happen anytime soon.

      Open Source is a great idea in the Star Trek universe, but it's an anomaly in ours.

  68. Chill Out! by tshak · · Score: 2

    The site is a PARODY!

    --

    There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
  69. Yeh what is it with Americans & creationism by DABANSHEE · · Score: 2

    I'd saythere's only about 4 christians in the whole of Oz & Europe who don't accept evolotion.

    Gez most people in Oz just happen to be born Anglican or Catholic & that's as far as it goes. It's the same again in Europe. Except depending on the part of Europe you can substitute Lutherian, reformed, etc for Anglican or Orthadox for Catholic.

    Now with the small minority in Oz 'n Europe, who actually happen to bother thinking about theological concepts, evolution was just the way god did it. The Melbourne Cardinal even banished a American Catholic preach back to the US because he publically denounced evolution.

    Here in Oz there's only about 4 creationists, all probably in Queensland. From my experiance in Europe virtually the only creationists there are the American Baptist missionairies in Russia trying to convert the godless communist heathens (haven't they heard of the Russian Orthadox Church?).

  70. WTF I submitted this same thing 18 hours ago and.. by phunhippy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It was rejected..
    2002-04-22 08:45:25 Evolutionists spread "false" theories via MAC OS X (articles,humor) (rejected)

    Burn my karma.. i dunt care.. thats way fucking lame of you editors... sheesh...

    Maybe i should be supporting the lame slashdot blackout!

  71. Jesux Mirror by batobin · · Score: 2

    Maybe somebody has already posted a mirror, or maybe I'm the first person that got Yahoo's "exceeded bandwidth" message, but here's a google mirror for the Jesux page.

    Jesux
    For the goatse weary: http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:CruA_mWMcQQC: www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Node/4081/+jesu x&hl=en

  72. Re:Betty Bowers, too by pedro · · Score: 2

    Urk!
    There's a link to Stile's Top 50 sites on that page!
    http://cgi.stileproject.com/top50/rankem.cg i?id=Si sTaffy
    Hm....

    --
    Brak: What's THAT?
    Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
  73. Ugh. by pedro · · Score: 2

    Perhaps you might invite them all down to the mall teraplex to see 'Frailty'?
    I'm sure she'd enjoy that!
    Bill Paxton is SUCH a hunk >:->

    --
    Brak: What's THAT?
    Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
  74. That article is Just Not Funny. by pedro · · Score: 2

    It's a smug, self-satisfied and feeble attempt at 'Satire(tm)' that is an utter failure on all fronts. ALL of it has been done before, better.
    I cannot *believe* that I *ever* found the Onion even remotely amusing.
    (washing his hands feverishly, YET AGAIN!)

    --
    Brak: What's THAT?
    Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
  75. AC/DC, Apple in league with the devil by Ilan+Volow · · Score: 4, Funny

    No wonder I've had a strange urge to a rip an MP3 of "Highway to Hell" on my iMac.

    --
    Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
  76. Tux the Fisheather by pacc · · Score: 2

    Symbolic irony

  77. Re:Obviously satire by migmigmig · · Score: 2, Informative

    Well, of course, it's slashdotted all to hell.

    I was very ALOT curious about whether or not it's a hoax site. I read most of the other poo in there. Especially the "Game Theoretician" section from the silly old DOD guy.

    That's the section that made me come to believe it wasn't a hoax.

    How many people know the two formal arguments against Pascal's Wager? Anybody?

    I do. Of all the people I know 2 others, ever, also knew them before I told them to them.

    There's nothing funny in that section. There's no comedy, there's no nothing. I _like_ to think I'm hip enough on the basics of game theory that I'd get any satirical jokes in that section. I don't.

    Anybody who does, please do email me.

    I don't want to be so frumpy and humorless!

    mig

  78. Re:'Clearly' is a keyword to look for in propganda by Kenneth · · Score: 2

    My first clue that it was propaganda was the url:

    http://members.truepath.com/objective/propaganda .h tml

    I don't really know about anyone else, but I tend to think that anyting with the filenmame "propaganda.html" would tend to fall into that category.

    Alright, anyone who didn't catch that this was a joke within the first ten seconds out of the pool now.

    --
    There is a civil war coming in the United States. Remember which side has most of the guns
  79. The Holy C by Charles+Dodgeson · · Score: 2
    Someone forgot to mention that Unix is papist, too, with the Holy C.

    I will honestly admit that I got caught by the hoax. Even after I noticed the name of the author as "Richard Paley" (which I took as a nom de plume.).

    --
    Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
  80. An Evil Parody by Arandir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is an evil parody. This is not real. I can't believe so many of you fell for it.

    Christians do not believe this tripe. Not even the fundamentalists or evangelicals. If all you know about christianity is what Hollywood and the MPAA tell you, then this guy sound genuine, but it most certainly is not. Distrust all stereotypes. A christian would be as likely to spout this blather as a geek would wear a pocket protector and taped glasses.

    The members.truepath.com website is hoax. A very elaborate hoax to be sure, but still a hoax. Just go to the members' bios page if you don't believe me.

    The proof of this hoax is simple: there is no theology anwhere. There's a lot of shouting about darwinism, communism and anti-christian terrorists, but I can't find any scriptural references anwhere in their arguments. Not one bible thump in evidence.

    I am a christian. I was raised in a christian household. I grew up in the California version of the bible-belt. But I've never met anyone who even remotely resembles these turkeys. Not even the nutbags on the Patriot Network or JT Chick come close.

    --
    A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    1. Re:An Evil Parody by interiot · · Score: 2

      Christians do not believe this tripe. Not even the fundamentalists or evangelicals. If all you know about christianity is what Hollywood and the MPAA tell you, then this guy sound genuine, but it most certainly is not. Distrust all stereotypes. A christian would be as likely to spout this blather as a geek would wear a pocket protector and taped glasses.

      It didn't seem to be any different from what's in the Chick Tracts...

    2. Re:An Evil Parody by MikeBabcock · · Score: 2

      For what its worth (as another Christian), you'd be hard-pressed to find a Christian who read Chick Tracts. They are aweful (as far as I'm concerned) and don't work (for their supposed purpose).

      Consider, for a moment, that basic Christianity is supposed to be about telling people that they have a basic need for God and that God cares for them and wants to help them. How then, does the site, or Chick tracts for that matter, further this? Not at all (except maybe a couple of the tracts, at the most).

      Just FYI ...

      http://www.craigfoster.com/kcc/

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    3. Re:An Evil Parody by Dynedain · · Score: 2

      There are people who are sheepish enough to believe this, and there are those that are like this. I am a Christain (a fairly liberal one now) and I have been through many Christain schools and met many people shortsighted enough to spout this kind of stuff. I even once had a Mormon kid condem me for eating a Brach's Pina Colada flavored hard candy, claiming there was alcohol in it! I've had a science teacher flat out tell me that Louis Pasteaur's experiments (resulting in the pasteurization process) is proof that evolution is false, and a world history teacher say that the Pope is the Antichrist and worships Satan. And this was in urban Southern California, not even the "religous right" controlled midwest.

      The point is, there are people out there who strongly believe this stuff. And they aren't going to use Biblical quotes if their aren't any to support it. There's nothing in the Bible about BSD, or evolution (although you can see the current model of the formation of the universe in the creation story, as well as the chronological order of life forms appearing on the earth).

      While this may be a hoax/satire....there are people out there like this guy. Most of them probably haven't heard enough computer jargon though to ramble on about this stuff. But believe me, they're out there.

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
    4. Re:An Evil Parody by eddy+the+lip · · Score: 2

      I understand how paradoies of these stereotypes must make moderate christians feel. I know that the majority of christians are sensible people. But it's not entirely true to say that there are no christians like this out there. I was raised by one, in an evangelical church, in moderate (and sometimes not-so-moderate) parts of western Canada. Pastors ranged from strict in their faith, but pragmatic about the world, to sounding an awful lot like the linked article. Received truth was often along the lines of "Gorbachev is the beast, he bears the mark." I was actively discouraged from pursuing (secular) university because being taught by unbelievers was considered dangerous.

      Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not saying all christians are like this, but there is a large enough minority to be noticed. They vote, they make political noise and their views are equally dangerous to christians with more moderate views, followers of other faiths, and athiests/agnostics. We shouldn't ignore them.

      --

      This is the voice of World Control. I bring you Peace.

  81. Sigh by Danse · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think it might be better for the universe if we humans never make it out of this solar system. I'd really hate to see the kind of harm we could inflict due to the almost willfull stupidity that is so commonly displayed on this planet.

    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    1. Re:Sigh by GypC · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Feeling a bit misanthropistic today?

      Personally, I hope we perfect immortality treatments, interstellar travel, and terraforming so I can see the human race infest the entire galaxy.

      I mean, if you aren't for the human race who are you for?

    2. Re:Sigh by WinDoze · · Score: 2

      I mean, if you aren't for the human race who are you for?

      Clearly, if you're not with us, you're against us!

    3. Re:Sigh by GypC · · Score: 2

      Well, I wouldn't say that, but you are pretty obviously on your own...

  82. chmod 666 is evil - but we host on Linux? by bildstorm · · Score: 2, Informative

    I just wrote a long e-mail to this guy debunking his ideas.

    I did a little digging, and found that, tada, their server is running on Linux, an open source (and hence, in his view, Communist) server. I kindly informed of why chmod works the way it does, and that chmod 666 isn't nearly as powerful as 777, and that, well, they can do the same thing on their server.

    I don't know. Being a Christian myself, these guys are an embarrasment. I know where they get there ideas now more and more. If you want an interesting read on the developments of the Church and the Jews, read Constantine's Sword. Maybe you'll understand why these guys have such misplaced views.

    --
    The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - G.B. Shaw
  83. Re:Why don't script kiddies DoS sites like THAT? by Armchair+Dissident · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Regardless of the fact that this is a hoax: Yes they do have a right to publish such garbage. It's called freedom of speech, and freedom of expression. Freedom of speech is not, and should not be limited because you don't like it.

    --

    The ways of gods are mysteriously indistinguishable from chance.
  84. pending apocalyse?? by beakburke · · Score: 2, Funny

    so if we all "chmod 666" does that mean that jesux will get here faster :P

    --
    ----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
  85. Fellowship University of Kansas actually exists/ed by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 2
    This would indicate that there is a "fellowship university". However, their lack of presence on the net indicates either that they are ludites, or that the university has been disbanded.

    However, I commend you for posting this anonymously.

    --

    Stop the brainwash

  86. Re:Fellowship University of Kansas actually exists by awharnly · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wrong, silly. Read those google results a little more closely.

    See all those commas and colons separationg "Fellowship" from "University"?

    A moment's inspection reveals: You found a list of resumes of people who did research fellowships at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, Kansas, or medical fellowships at the Medical Center in Kansas City.

  87. I feel personally insulted... by MKalus · · Score: 2

    ... I am Agnostic (or if I feel spiritual Taoist).

    Damn Christians, always twisting everything around, they don't even diss people correctly.

    --
    If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
  88. Meanwhile, outside of California by Zoop · · Score: 2

    I hate to disillusion you, but throughout the real Bible belt, you could get Christians falling for this in droves--literally likely over 50% of the population. I grew up in South Carolina, and had the local public radio station tell me that if you play Van Halen's "Stairway to Heaven" backwards, it exhorted you to smoke marijuana. This during our previous Secretary of Education's term as governor.

    They're pretty much equivalent to the political correctness freaks of the left that I met in college--everything you owned had to be checked for PC/TC (theological correctness). No products from countries with incorrect regimes/godless commies, thousands of "scholarly works" with lots of propaganda and incredibly self-referential citations, and an extreme ingroup-outgroup separation.

    So it gets to the point where you could take the PC-ers and tell them that Apple was exploiting the working class and get them to boycott it and take the religious right and tell them they were in league with the devil, and take both of them and tell them they were involved in the illuminati/corporate/UN conspiracy and they'd both believe you uncritically.

    The thing that gave it away for me is that the site's design is too good. Fundies always have crappy design.

    P.S. If reading this as a Christian offends you, go out and tell your bible-thumping bretheren not to be such complete morons. Same goes if you're a World Bank protester and you don't like what I said about the Politically Correct--tell them to read a book or newspaper not written by the collective.

    1. Re:Meanwhile, outside of California by Dephex+Twin · · Score: 2
      Meanwhile, I'd estimate that nearly 90% of the Slashdot population fell for it. Hmm.

      90% of Slashdotters fell for the fact that people might have seriously made this (because it seems like there are loonies out there like this). What he was saying about the bible belt is that over 50% of people would believe not just that the creators of the site were serious, but that this was true information. And they would agree with it.

      I mean, just this weekend we had another round of pamphlets under every car's windshield on campus "What the Bible Really Thinks About Homosexuality". Don't they know that we take these and read them with our friends and hang them up because they are hilarious? Don't they know that they probably caused one or two more college students to give up on christianity?

      One of the most classic ones though was the one that said "What You Miss By Being a Christian"-- then you open the pamphlet, and in big red letters-- "HELL!" Then it goes on citing passages of the bible that describe hell as fire and brimstone, burning sulphur, etc. It's like "believe in the bible, because if you don't, the bible says you'll go to hell!" But I don't believe in it so...er nevermind.

      Yes, most slashdotters think this site is ridiculous and totally far-fetched... but from the things I've seen the extreme religious right do, it's not really that surprising.

      (Not to say this is what I think christianity is all about, just that there are people like this.)

      mark
      --

      If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
    2. Re:Meanwhile, outside of California by Arandir · · Score: 2

      Are there morons in the christian faith? Absolutely! There are morons in every faith. And there are moron agnostics and atheists to boot. It is the nature of some people to turn off their brains and believe any asinine crackpot theory presented to them. I know some people who manage to simultaneously believe multiple conflicting conspiracy theories.

      It is not my place to judge whether or not someone is a "true" christian or not. But when I see people believe the words of Jack Chick more fervently than the words in the Bible, my suspicions are that they are not. There are a great many cults who call themselves a christian denomination when they most certainly are not. The foundation of christianity, regardless of flavor, is the words of Jesus Christ as recorded in the Bible. When I see someone spout about the evils of a UN Conspiracy with nary a reference to scripture, I suspect cultism.

      That said, I still can't envision Jack Chick denouncing Mac OSX as a satanic plot, or Bob Jones University banning FreeBSD, or the Patriot Network placing the Open Source in their list of communist conspiracies. This is what I was referring to. Of course there are nutbags out there. But I don't know of any nutbags saying Apple, BSD, or Linux are satanic. But I do know of several hoaxes along those lines.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
  89. What a superb parody site! by Doctor+Dark · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For me, the giveaways are:-
    The fictitious university,
    The glaring errors in the Game Theory section,
    The sheer stupidity of the opinions. This has to be deliberate, as actual stupid people are not that literate.

    I only respect the opinions of others if I think they are right. Clue, not you God Squad.

    --

    The original Doctor Dark.

  90. Buttons by Joel+Ironstone · · Score: 2, Funny

    "...under an "Open Source" license, which is just another name for Communism. They try to hide all of this under a facade of shiny, "lickable" buttons"

    Man I love those lickable buttons. Makes everything taste so good

  91. Hexley by Ed+Avis · · Score: 2

    I wonder if the mascot Hexley is named after T. H. Huxley, 'Darwin's bulldog' and the strongest defender of the theory of evolution after it was published.

    --
    -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
  92. It's definetly a hoax by usermilk · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I am almost positive this article is a hoax.
    Here is the member list, it looks pretty satirical: http://members.truepath.com/objective/members.html and here's part of a thread about the site on google groups: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&fra me=right&th=3d39f9a7c118de89&seekm=a9nj4o%24f1f%24 1%40grapevine.wam.umd.edu#link1.

    For me the funniest part is that whoever is perpertrating this satire has the balls to get the site hosted by a Christian web host!

    1. Re:It's definetly a hoax by Oswald · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was going to mention that page too; I think it pretty well cinches the parody theory. My personal favorite is the treasurer/accountant who offers a 10% discount to non-believers willing to convert on the spot.

  93. Evolution (and Science in general) is NOT "belief" by moorewr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Thanks for your post. I have to point something out, though, that is forever being ignored in these discussion, which is that science, and evolutionary science in particular, is not a belief system. I don't "believe in" evolution, or gravity, or optics. I accept the scientific evidence.

    There is a serious attempt in the country to make a false equivalence of religion and science, and we must guard against it.

  94. Evolution != Abiogenesis by MosesJones · · Score: 2

    Abiogenesis is the creation of the first self replicating life form. Done in a lab but how it happened on earth, who knows exactly ?

    Its strange that after each proof of "what must
    be proven else..." that another is created. If you want to say that God, little green men or whom ever created the first self replicating piece of clay or whatever, then fine. You have no evidence and no proof, you ask for Science to give proof but offer none in return.

    In terms of Adultery in the Bible, they have incest in there which many people would regard as much worse. Also condones murder, including of infants.

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
  95. A few comments on the mistakes by edremy · · Score: 2

    1. Genetic mutations are almost always harmful/harmless, never beneficial (in the sense of different fur). The ratio of harmful mutations is much, much higher than neutral ones. I'm not sure if any beneficial mutations have been observed, but I could be wrong.

    You are wrong. We have indeed seen beneficial mutations, including antibiotic resistance in bacteria and bacterial digestion of nylon precusors. One of my personal favorites is tetrachromaticity, as this is a *human* mutation that offers a distinct advantage to a few lucky women.

    2. We find the genetic code for the variety of species is present in the parent. With current data we are quite clearly dealing with genetic code that already existed, not through fresh mutations.

    Again, wrong. We've seen new mutations appear: nylon didn't exist in nature before the 1940s. Now bacteria can eat it. Other types of mutations scramble existing code and generate new: you can claim that rearranging all the letters in a /. post doesn't introduce new information, but I can take the words in your post above and make it say most anything.

    I can't argue your latter bit: I'm a chemist rather than a biologist, so I see a different set of wrong arguments against evolution.

    This problem is perfectly consistent with Creation theory though,

    Here's the real crux of your problem. What is "Creation Theory"? Is it scientific? Is it testable? Is it falsifiable? "God did it" is none of these.

    Please explain the testable, scientific creation theory. The folks on talk.origins have been asking for *years* and have never gotten one.

    Eric

    --
    "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
    1. Re:A few comments on the mistakes by edremy · · Score: 2
      Please explain the testable, scientific creation theory. The folks on talk.origins have been asking for *years* and have never gotten one.

      This does not sound like a very fair request, given two facts:

      No, it is the *absolute crux* of the matter. "Scientific" creationists want evolution and SC taught side by side as if they were equal theories. They are not: SC is *not* a theory, it is not scientific.

      Both macro-evolution (the process by which all life began from a small organism to the complex lifeforms we see today) and creation are areas of philosophy. As such, neither fit the requirements for being science

      WRONG! Evolution is science. It is testable. It is falsifiable. It is both a fact (we've seen it in a lab, we've seen fossil records that show very clearly how one animal came from another) and a theory.

      The mere fact that you differentiate between micro and macroevolution shows that you don't understand evolution: they are the same thing. It's like saying that an inch and a mile aren't both measures of distance since once is so much larger than the other.

      Finding a fossil of a flowering plant in a Cambrian strata would instantly disprove evolution. That's what makes evolution science.

      I have also read up on creation theory, and have come to understand it. If you (or the guys at talk.origins) can't put in the effort to do the same for creation theory, why should I have to type it up for you?

      We *have* put in the effort. It's garbage. There is *no* evidence for creationism. None. The few "facts" presented by creationists to support their theory are simply wrong. My personal bugaboo, being a physical chemist, is the classic "2nd Law of Thermodynamics prevents evolution". It's wrong. Scientists have explained to creationists like Gish and Ham many times why it's wrong. Guess what: it's still up at answersingenesis.

      You claim that you understand the theory of creation. Present it. You've dodged once. If it's truly scientific, we can see how it stacks up against the evidence, just like we can with evolution. If it's just philosophy, then teach it in Sunday school and don't bother the rest of the world with it anymore.

      On the second point, I'm not sure what you are saying. Nylon didn't exist?

      Yes. Nylon didn't exist prior to 1940. It's man made. Yet bacteria have evolved to eat the (man-made) waste products. This ability arose from a change in a totally unrelated enzyme due to a beneficial mutation.

      This is how creation natural selection works - an existing set of genetic variety present in the parent

      See above nylon example: trivially falsified. The ability to eat nylon was not present in the genetic code of any organism prior to 1940. Antibiotic resistance is another good example: vancomycin resistance didn't exist until very recently.

      --
      "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
    2. Re:A few comments on the mistakes by Kintanon · · Score: 2

      Would you like the full and complete Theory of Creation? Well, if you ask me what mine is it's thus: In the beginning, there was nothingness. Then God spoke, and the universe as we know it began. Then God started life. Now God sits back and laughs at us.

      The issue here is that even if every aspect of Evolution, from Macro to Micro to The Big Bang to the Big Crunch is proven, it doesn't disprove the existance of God. I think it is absolutely STUPID to argue that the existance of God precludes Evolution, the Big Bang, or anything else, doing that is like saying that it's impossible for God to make something happen. If God decides that his mechanism for creating life is going to be a huge fucking explosion and then a bunch of bacteria developing into people then who the FUCK are you to tell him he can't do it that way? I think that science and the purpose of science is to understand everything around us as well as we can in order to better understand God. The concept that we have of God right now may be COMPLETELY wrong, but the more we know about the Universe, the more we know about God, because the Universe, the Earth, and each one of us exists as part of God.

      Kintanon

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    3. Re:A few comments on the mistakes by Kintanon · · Score: 2

      There can't possibly be a Scientific Theory of Creation. It's specifically stated biblically that the whole rigamarole is faith based. So no matter what we find, we will never find ABSOLUTE proof that God doesn't exist, nor will we find proof that he does. If we did, it wouldn't be faith anymore, would it?

      Kintanon

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    4. Re:A few comments on the mistakes by edremy · · Score: 2

      You're so confused about these issues that conversation is difficult.

      Evolutionary theory: The earth was created around 4 billion years ago. Is this scientific? Is it testable?

      1. Evolutionary theory says nothing about the age of the earth. It requires an old earth, but we get the data from geology.
      2. Testable? Of course. There are literally dozens of different tracks of evidence that show an old earth: radioactive dating, sedimentation rates, magnetic field reversals, glaciation evidence, etc.
      3. Creation science has it at 6k years. Testable? Yes. All evidence shows that this is not the case. Every bit of it. Not a *single* piece of evidence shows otherwise. You are welcome to troll the creationist web sites looking for something, but what they claim as evidence is laughable.

      Ergo, creation theory is *wrong*. You can dance around the issue as much as you want, but you simply can't ignore the facts. (Well, it appears that you and other creationists can, but people living in the real world can't.)

      Besides, dating method is flawed and impossible to argue with since it is so unscientific. What would happen if a flower was found blooming in a cambrian strata? The "scientists" would simply say, evolution of flowering plants began earlier than we thought!

      Again, there are so many misconceptions in here that it's clear you do not understand science. Dating methods are *not* flawed. You are quite welcome to present any evidence you think proves this. Unlike some of the tricky bio that I have to rely on experts in that field for info, as a physical chemist I can blow them out of the water by myself.

      Second, a flowering plant in Cambrian strata would certainly prove evolution wrong. *Land* plants hadn't evolved by the Cambrian, much less flowering ones. They're a quite recent invention. Finding a fossil 300MY before any precursors appeared would be a disproof of evolution. You're quite welcome to look for one.

      As for the nylon example - there was a stream of germs that was found in a hospital completely immune to all antibiotics.

      You're babbling here. Nylon is not an antibiotic. You clearly don't understand the premise here. Nylon did not exist before 1940. Why would an organism be able to eat the waste products before nylon existed? Hint: they couldn't: a *new* enzyme was created by a favorable mutation to do this.

      Ditto vancomycin resistance. Please read the details None of that existed until quite recently.

      Give me an example of added information that is the beginning of the process to evolution.

      I've given you several: nylon eating, antibiotic resistance, tetrachromaticity. You choose to simply ignore them.

      What more do you want from Creationists?

      I want them to present a scientific, testable, non-falsified theory of creationism or get the fuck out of science classrooms . Teach your fairy tales in Sunday school.

      --
      "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
    5. Re:A few comments on the mistakes by edremy · · Score: 2

      Your post just irritates me. I get tired repeating myself to five people.

      As do scientists to the ICR. We repeat and repeat and the knowledge just bounces off. The ICR repeats its lies. Let's take a look at an example

      Radiocarbon dating has been demonstrated repeatedly in the Creation magazine to be wildly inaccurate. They don't date the strata themselves, but send them off to recognised and respected laboratories. I suggest you grab some Creation magazines and read these examples for yourself.

      I have. Let's, for example, look at their argument that radioactive decay rates aren't constant This is of course very important since a dozen different radioactive clocks date the earth and the universe to a lot older than 6K years, and the ICR cannot allow that since they must swear that they believe the 6K date.

      First, we see that experimental decay rates have a 1% error bar on them. Yep they do: the article then goes on to state that this shows that the rates could vary tremendously since nobody has checked in the last 50 years. That's simply wrong: even without experiments directly checking, people operating nuclear power plants would know. So would biological researchers who work with short-lived isotopes daily.

      The first two reasons why to believe in changing decay rates aren't worthy of discussion. Backed by experimental data both would win Nobel prizes when shown true. (There can be slight alterations in some decay rates, most commonly those with k-capture in certain molecules since k-capture involves the electron density around the nucleus, but these don't affect most radioactive clocks.) Why not publish and win fame and fortune?

      Radiohaloes: I assume they are talking about Po halos. Old argument

      Speed of light changing? Didn't you claim in another post that ICR had given up on this one? Given that c is a fundamental constant, the universe itself wouldn't exist with a large change in c.

      Observed values of half lives. He's somehow amazed that thay have such different values for different isotopes. This is such a bizarre comment that I don't even know what to make of it. Is he also amazed at the difference in the strength of gravity and the strong nuclear force?

      He now goes on to do some curve fitting. His math is correct, but he gives no reason *why* we should believe alpha and beta are changing: he simply plugs in random numbers until he gets the answer he wants. That's not how science is done.

      Now, let's see if there's any good evidence that alpha doesn't change. Oh, here we go. SN1987a happened 170,000 years ago and the isotopes created by the supernova decay at exactly the same rate they do on earth today. Or perhaps the evidence from a natural atomic reactor that atomic physics was the same ~1.7 billion years ago as it is today?

      This is pretty typical creationist stuff. The arguments presented make little sense, extrapolate from experimental error into something huge, make up numbers where appropriate and finally don't agree with what we see in the real world.

      I'm going to stop here. There's no real point in further discussion: you've decided that the world is 6K years old and that evolution is a sham. If you want to believe that I won't further disabuse you.

      --
      "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
  96. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny -clarification by gmack · · Score: 2

    Exactly.. and I know this because those groups tend to put me in the "heathen bin"

    I think in bible times they would have referred to themselves as "Pharasees".

  97. Some more Google-ing... by fredrikv · · Score: 2, Interesting

    After writing an even loooonger discussion about the site and having it all erased in a system crash, this will be a short version. (On the second reading: ha-ha).

    * The web service provider www.truepath.com/ has been online since September 1997. They are definitely for real and serves many, many other cristian sites. Let's not scan or bomb them. They are doing a great job handling the slashdot effect - we have seen many other sites choke immediately.

    It all looks very, very much like a real site. Some glitches point in the hoax-direction however:

    * On the member page, it is very hard to find any evidence of any pastors or doctors on the web. However, searching for '"Tim Allmon" baptist' on Google returns two hits.
    -The Digital Missourian: Citing
    "Tim Allmon, 22, plans to vote for Bush. But the Southern Methodist University student says he is tired of candidates "putting on the fake happy face, shaking hands and kissing babies.""
    There is acutally a guy called Tim Allmon, about the age (24) of the portrait on the member page, studying at the Southern Methodist University. Sounds OK to study at the Methodist Univeristy if you are ultra christian, but I guess there are 10.000 other students there that are not, on the other hand...

    The second link is not about our guy anyway.

    * The bible verses they have chosen are good reading.
    Tim Allmon, the treasurer, chose Mattew 22:17-22... (bible citations from bible.gospelcom.net)
    "Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?" But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?" "Caesar's," they replied. Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away."

    Too good to be true? You judge. But the femnine looking Peggy Miller's choice is Luke 11:21:
    ""When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe."

    Pastor Jose Rosas is also surprising. Claiming to work in "the ecumenical Catholic Outreach Baptist Ministries" is exceedingly hard to believe for me. If the catholic and baptist acutally had any collaborations, we would find it on Google... Wouldn't we? Again, we are directed to Objective as the first link...
    Corinthians 8:1-13 is not that obvious either...

    Kyle Goodman then. His story is almost too good to be true... We can read in the Google cache (to save his Geocities accound from flooding) that he was salvaged by Jim Carlson of the Objective site. He first was a "bad guy" with a webpage against Jim Carlson and pro Landover. Now he has changed and is against Landover. It is hard to know if he is serious. Would anybody changing mind so drastically still keep their old web page that insulted what you now believe in? (His pages are still up on Geocities, but they are often overloaded so use the Google cache instead.
    There is some really good reading in Kyles guestbook. I especially like a comment (KirthGersen - 11/22/00 06:05:12):
    "Taking parody to the razor's edge... The fact that you left your old site up shows you are faking your conversion. The fact that those idiots at Shutdown Landover believe you shows that they are really, really dumb. Congrats on your parody - it's quite convincing. Can't wait till you suddenly fall from grace - should be hilarious!"

    Furthermore, Kyle Goldman is a very uncommon name in Google. Most hits points into golf result tables. Some link actually points to the Faith Presbyterian Church in Huntsville, Alabama, were they have posted the participants in the cermon (how about that privacy?). Actually Melissa Goldman also participated. This seem strange as Kyle have chocked his jewish parents when converting as the Objective site says. Maybe this Kyle Goldman is not the one we are looking for...

    One of the links points to a sermon that was held the 15th of October 2000, which is only two days after Kyle's last note on his Geocities webpage. It seems normal to me that a young newcomer in a presbyterian congregation would be asked to lead the prayers.

    The golf-playing Kyle was a freshman in Temple Highschool in Bell County, Texas in 1997 (See this link, and this directory listing). Is he the same Kyle Goldman? There also seems to be a horse-riding and -judging Kyle Goldman that originates from Washington in Wilkes county, Georgia. Btw, his horse is named Cookie.

    Aaaarghhh. I want to know the truth!

    Conclusion
    It is harder for me to believe that someone spends the enormous amount of work on a site likeObjective for fun rather than if they do believe in it. (On the other hand it may be hard for people to believe that someone spent the time to write this :-) The only obvious people that could do it "for fun" is the Landover crew (and they are probably overloaded with that site, plus they specialize in sharp and clear irony) and Kyle Goldman that has a very different style on his other webpage. Faking the artwork on the Objective site would also take lots of skill and time.

    This has largely turned out to be a study if the people named above really exist. It is hard to determine that using only the Internet, and it gets even harder when the persons are not supposed to use the 'net because of its low moral. It is next to impossible as the pages in discussion lack real-world adresses. Even if that is a sign of a hoax, nobody that tried leaving their mail adress on a page like that would do it again. They may be misinformed, but they are not stupid...

    So, I choose to believe that there acutally are people different enough and determined to set up a site like Objective because they do believe in it for real. If anybody have hard evidence of the opposite, I welcome it.

    ...or maybe I think it is a hoax... :-) /Fredrik

  98. His email address is dead. by handorf · · Score: 2

    Too bad, though. Here's what I tried to send:

    From:

    To: drdinosaur@covenant.org

    I was greatly concerned to learn that the site on
    which your "Creation Education" article was posted is,
    in fact, running on a variant of the UNIX operating
    system (speciffically Linux, which is Open Source).
    As you correctly point out in your article, Open
    Source software is effectively another name for
    communisim. Also it uses the same "chmod" command
    which the "Darwin OSX" operating system uses to give
    access to files, and yes, the full access command is
    "chmod ***".

    Given these facts, I am concerned that your advise may
    be tainted with the exposure to the influences you
    yourself claim to stand firm against.

    (For information on the version of the operating
    system the computer is using, I reference this site: http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?mode_u=on&mode _w=on&site=members.truepath.com
    )

    * I refuse to type the Number of the Beast.

    Regards.

    --
    -- IANAEG - I am not an elder god.
  99. Re:Brought to you by... by connorbd · · Score: 2

    I like how the popup includes a free pen for a $15 donation.

    A free "stick pen".

    A free, bought-in-bulk-for-a-dime-a-piece "stick pen".

    Why don't they just throw in a scoop-neck baby T saying "Showing My Cleavage for Jesus" for their female contributors? Objective Ministries doesn't seem to have a problem with that particular type of clohting; I certainly don't :-)

    /Brian

  100. Their system tracking. by BreakWindows · · Score: 2

    http://extremetracking.com/open;sys?login=olobs

    Bwaha! The page hits are 18% evil, and roughly 12% communist.

  101. California is *not* the bible belt. by Otto · · Score: 2

    I am a christian. I was raised in a christian household. I grew up in the California version of the bible-belt. But I've never met anyone who even remotely resembles these turkeys. Not even the nutbags on the Patriot Network or JT Chick come close.

    Yes, this is a hoax. But it's too close to reality to be called a "parody".

    Take a trip to Alabama, Georgia.. heck, even as far north as Kentucky. At least 10-20% of the population wouldn't find this sort of thing funny at all. Really. I know hordes of people who think *exactly* like this. I have personally seen people show the "chmod 666" fears when I was showing them how to use unix-like systems. And I have seen one person switch to a non-unix system because she found out her computer was "infested with daemons" from her sysadmin.

    You may think you know fundies, but trust me brother, you don't know fundies.

    --
    - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  102. How deeply ironic... by Lethyos · · Score: 2

    ...that this group of Americans struggles so endlessly to preserve core American values... by destroying core American values. When will they wake up and realize that this country was founded in the name of freedom for people of all backgrounds. It was only in recent history that they were be persecuted in similar ways.

    --
    Why bother.
  103. theomathmatics by mikeee · · Score: 2

    Actually, that once comes up from time to time.

    There's a bit in the old testament describing the jewish temple, and a certain object is described as being circular, 10 cubits in diameter with a 30 cubit circumfrance.

    Thus, Pi = 3. And since it's in the bible, any other claims are heresy.

    1. Re:theomathmatics by byoung · · Score: 2

      Never Mind the fact that cubits are an imprecise measurement, something akin to "about 18 inches."

      But hey, whatever you need to prove your point, right?

  104. Re:Religion neutral study of evolution by nusuth · · Score: 2
    I found this website [rennard.org] on genetic algorithms. I have no idea how accurate it is, since i have never studied it before. Let me know if you think it contains a poor introduction to the topic or not.

    As an introduction, it looks ok, but I doubt that you can make use of that page since it is loaded with similarities between natural and artificial evolution. Actually evolution is a matemathical/statistical phenomenon, I gave a reference to GAs only because mathematical analysis of evolution is rarely done elsewhere. Lets call this mathematical phenomenon evolution Ems. Biological entities have also been subject to an evolution, lets call that EB. Whether EB is an instance of Ems, or whether EB is an instance of natural/automatic (as in: without any external influence) Ems are different issues and not my focus now. I just want you to find out about Ems, so that we can discuss why I think EB is an instance of unguided Ems, any you can argue why it isn't.

    Under genetic algorithms and real evolution, changes are gradual and minor (the theory, anyway). There are a number of factors that make such changes have an almost non-existent effect on the chances of the creature's survival above everyone else's.

    Do genetic algorithms deal with the problem I presented? Namely that a multitude of harmful mutations will lie dormant together with one beneficial mutation - and the beneficial one only expressing itself at the same time as the many harmful mutations also will?

    Yes, it is called genetic hitchiking in literature. It is a tradeoff, controlled by mapping and crossover operators; higher the probability of meaningful chunks staying together in an offspring(good thing) and persisting in population in time (another good thing), higher the probability of hitchiking (bad thing) and early convergence (a real bad thing.) But keep in mind that had there been no hitchiking as in all bad mutations are immediatly destroyed, a very early convergence is assured, degenerating the GA to hill climbing. Biological equivalent of early convergence is a single species in a single habitat, and not necessarily best fit one on the long term. The reverse of that is high mutation rates and splicing genes at positions that break coherent interpretation, which degenerates the GA to random searh. This has the biological analogy of subjecting sperms to almost lethal doses of radiation while hoping that the mutations will be somehow benefical for the baby.

    Also do genetic algorithms represent changes in information rather than addition of information? When a genetic mutation occurs, it changes some already existing information, rather than being added. This is a serious question and not a criticism of genetic algorithms, because I don't know anything about this topic.

    Yes they do. The plain vanilla GAs almost exclusively use both constant length genome representations, and a direct mapping thru a stateless function onto phenotype. Your critisim is valid in that case. GAs are usually used for static and closed problem solutions, like "there is one or many solutions, and we want to find one or some of them that fits these criteria." In a dynamic problem (such as survival in biology or game playing in AI) potential solutions are infinite and may change in time. Celular automata encodings, variable length phenotypes, evolution of genotype->phenotype mapping etc. are solutions to these. You also need a dynamic objective function, which suggests that even the "same" traits will have different effects over time and should be trated as such.

    --

    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!

  105. It's not a hoax. by Phreakiture · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's not a hoax at all. It's terribly sad, but true, that there are people claiming to be Christians out there who are really so paranoid. Print doesn't do it justice. Until you have heard this sort of pablum expressed vocally, you just don't grasp that these guys are dead serious.

    To quote one of their own, however, they're almost there--they can almost see the ridiculousness of their position. In the text, it talks about simulations of evolution on a created machine. Why can't evolution take place in a created universe? Wny are evolution and creationism mutually exclusive? It strikes me as though one answers the question "What happened?" and the other answers the question "How did it happen?"

    Idiocy like this is part of the reason why I am no longer a Christian. I grant that these guys are fringers, but questioning them led to me questioning the whole shooting match, and drawing the conclusion that none of them know what they are talking about, regardless whether or not they are this paranoid.

    This is, of course, my opinion as an agnostic (not to be confused with an atheist). I mean no disrespect to Christians. I subscribe to the Ghandian principle of equality of religion, based on the belief that no mortal can know all about God.

    --
    www.wavefront-av.com
  106. Re:WTF I submitted this same thing 18 hours ago an by phunhippy · · Score: 2

    Nah i already got karma of 48-50 range(changes daily) sure it'll go down after this one...

  107. I admit.. all these years... SATAN HAS OWNED ME! by haaz · · Score: 2

    Dear friends,

    I come to you today, a ... shaken man.

    All these years, you see, I thought I was living the life of one who... truly Believes... in the Way of Macintosh, the Way of the Apple II, the Way of... it matters not which Way I thought I was going. For it has been REVEALED to me -- I was ... MISLEAD!

    All this time, you see, I've been promoting "free" software, "shareware," even the EVILLE Gin-Uuue Pub-lick License. Though it was not until years later that I was drawn into the EVILLE FOLD of Richard Stallman's ways.

    But I digress.

    See, brethern and cistern, I thought that I had returned from that PATH of EVILLE, away from the GPL, away from the CANCER known as LINUX... only for it to be REVEALED that I WAS NOT SAVED!

    No, today, I had a... shocking realization. I looked at my computer, at the logo that is etched in it as much as the CLAWS of SATAN had touched it -- and there I saw it -- the Apple.

    This humble Apple is no humble Apple as it may seem.. it was a temptation from the GARDEN of EDEN! The Deville, Torvalds, must have sent it to me, to tempt me -- there could be no other way!

    And although this Apple bears only one color -- it pretends to be WHITE, the color of all that is holy and good -- I realized, in my childhood, that the Apple of those days had SIX colors. SIX!

    And let us think about this some more, the SIX COLORED APPLE.

    My first computer, it was an Apple, the "Two Plus" they called it. (two is SIX divided by THREE!) this "Apple TWO Plus" bore a HUUUUGE Apple upon it. And above it.. there rested TWO MORE APPLES, EACH bearing the six-steeerip-ed Apple. Do you know what this put upon my machine?

    This bore before me... three six-strpied Apples.

    And do you know what this makes?

    Six-striped Apple here. Another six-striped Apple here. And another Six-striped Apple here.

    SIX SIX SIX!! THE NUMBER OF THEE BEAST!!!!

    Indeed, when I looked upon my floppy disks, I found the Mark of Thee Beast -- MICROSOFT!

    ALL OF THIS HAS BEEN AN EVILLE CABAL TO BRING ME INTO HIS GRASP!

    And even now, I am tempted to return to the land of three Apples, with their salaciously tempting new iMac... pray for me, brethern!, that I do not FALL into HIS HANDS.

    YOU SHALL NOT GET ME YET, GATES!

    repenting now, sir,

    --
    -- haaz.
  108. Insight into truepath.com by ajs · · Score: 2

    First off, understand that truepath.com is just a christian hosting service. They are not the ones saying this. The "member" in question (the one who runs "Objective") has been ranting about the Internet being a christian-founded network that should be purged of non-christian thoughts for a long time. The creationism section is run (in theory) by yet another guy who thinks that creationists won't be able to have a fair debate until they define thier own terms (you see, "species" is an evolutionist term... ignore the fact that the term pre-dates the theory of either evolution or natural selection or the origin of species).

    Also, note that the folks ranting here seem unaware that their complaints about communist OSes are being made on a site which runs Linux/Apache ;-)

    I think Christians can be, and usually are, good people. However, it really gets me hot under the collar when folks mis-use doctrin that millions hold sacred like this. It's shameless and someone ought to throw a pie at this nutter instead of Bill Gates!

    Also on the humerous side, I just hit the front page and saw this:

    Apple: Apple Deals with Devil [...]
    ( Read More... | 67 of 666 comments | Apple )


    Heh.

  109. Re:666 by flufffy · · Score: 2

    the front page just now indicated a total of 666 comments for this story ... wonder what the 666th was - and who posted it, eh, eh? sadly, since then great 'first post reforms' of 2001 we can not tell (or at least not easily...). ok back to work.

  110. Re: No hoax - There ARE REAL PEOPLE like this by Zordak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have to agree with you. Let me just say for the record that I have been raised very much Christian and I am a conservative Republican. That being said, if this guy is not a hoax, he is definitely a misinformed zealot. The guy doesn't even have his Biblical facts right (at no time does the Bible refer to Adam and Eve eating an "apple" -- in fact, I'm not totally positive about this, but I don't think the Bible uses the word apple aywhere). Whether this guy is for real or not, his article is a great example of everthing bad about people who claim to be "Christians," while the only doctrine they seem to preach is intolerance and hatred. Take your "rock" music for example. My wife was teaching third grade and had a student in her class that was being raised by such religious zealots. She used to turn on a Yanni CD while the kids were working quietly to help keep a quiet mood. One of the kids went home and told Mommy that the teacher was making them listen to some Devil non-Christian music in class. Mommy came and explained with her very best poor grammar that their family only listens to "Chrisian" music (because obviously a song is more spiritual than Yanni's soft music if it says "Jesus" somewhere -- even if said music is loud and obnoxious). A couple of weeks later, this same kid became unusually upset when he lost one of his "good behavior" tokens for the day. My wife tried to console him and tell him that he had five of them every day (fifteen for the week) and that losing one every now and then was no big deal. All of the kids lost a token every once in a while. By this time the kid was crying, but he finally managed to explain to her that if he lost any of his behavior tokens on a given day, he was not given dinner that night. By this time, my wife was downright pissed with these people, so she proceed to call the good Christian parents, arrange a meeting, and chew them out. Of course, they had a hard time dealing with an educated person, so they just lied, contradicted themselves several times, and finally she let them go.

    --

    Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
  111. Should be a prize for this by ynotds · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just scanned the index for the first time since this was the top article and saw underneath:

    ( Read More... | 666 comments | Apple )

    Definitely needed that laugh.

    Having managed to stash away a few ancient Macs last week which I grabbed for archive retrieval purposes, I would have thought there was precious little evidence of evolution in the Mac lineage ... at best punctuated equilibrium, but sometimes verging on mass extinction.

    But if there is a prize, I could imagine worse than a new desk lamp.

    --
    -- Our systemic servants do not good masters make.
  112. Re:Theomathematics by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 2

    Mathematics are not "the science of numbers". It is about building a theory of axioms and theorems where nothing is unproved. You may be forgetting Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

  113. Wrong.... by Wntrmute · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wrong, wrong, wrong.... I am *so* tired of hearing this.

    You see, it's a THEORY, in the same vain that creationism is a theory.

    Creationism is *not* a theory. It is not testable. It is not falsifiable. It is not predictive. There is no such thing as a "Scientific Theory of Creationism." Ask any long-time poster to talk.origins. They've been asking for one for years, and noone's ever offered one up that meets the actual criteria of being a theory.

    Secondly, evolution is both a fact and a theory.

    Sorry if I'm sounding harsh, but I see these same misconceptions all the time, and they drive me crazy sometimes.

    1. Re:Wrong.... by hawk · · Score: 2
      >There is no such thing as a "Scientific Theory of
      >Creationism." Ask any long-time poster to
      >talk.origins. They've been asking for one for
      >years, and noone's ever offered one up that meets
      >the actual criteria of being a theory.


      Uhh, if they all agree on this, then who are they asking? No wonder no one answered . . .


      :)


      hawk

    2. Re:Wrong.... by Copid · · Score: 2, Informative

      This depresses me. Seeing these types of arguments always depresses me. Are there really people out there whose understanding of evolution is that misguided?

      I'm only 34. I haven't seen it happen. So "we" haven't seen it happen. You must be very old...

      You haven't seen it because you haven't read any of the countless articles in which scientists have written about specific instances of observed speciation. We haven't observed wings developing in a species that didn't have wings. We haven't been around that long. We have, however, seen speciation a number of times. www.talkorigins.org is a good place to start if you're actually interested in learning about some of the specifics.

      And you have not submitted a test of evolution. Please do so.

      OK. I'll bite. Start with a colony of E. coli and select one cell to start a new colony in a clean dish. This colony should have all the same DNA as the original. Repeat this using the new colony. Now you have two colonies of what should be identical E. coli. Dump a bunch of penicillin in one of the dishes and watch the colony die. OK. So we know the original cell was most likely susceptible to your antibiotics (the colony of clones showed a significant reduction in population). Now put a small amount of watered down penecillin into the first dish and let it quickly run out. Let the survivors of the colony regenerate a bit and then start a new colony. Repeat. You'll eventually end up with a colony that's resistant to the penicillin treatment. What can we conclude here?

      Well, the original cell was susceptible (its decendents tended to die when treated heavily with penicillin). Over the next several generations, a few lucky ones mutated in such a way that penicillin doesn't bother them. Those survived. Natural selection (or at least, simulated natural selection) refined the population to contain only penicillin resistant bacteria. Neat, huh? We know that the DNA changed or all would be dead (exact copies of the parent cell). Try this test for yourself, or simply acknowledge the fact that it has been done countless times with a number of bacteria and antibiotics. It doesn't always work (depending on the organism and the chemical) but it often does. Evolution. Bang.

      Oh, so the Creationist wins points for finding only well-developed/complicated organisms in any stratum of rock. Thanks!

      I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't understand the example rather than assuming that you're deliberately mischaracterizing the argument. The point is that if you can prove that species haven't changed smoothly over time (we have significant fossil records that indicate that they have), evolution would be turned on its ear. Another way to do it would be proving that the earth is too young for the process to have advanced so far (people try this to little avail). There are a number of things that could turn up that could make evolution obviously impossible. None have, though. On the other hand, it's not possible to prove that an intelligent creator didn't just create things the way they are. People actually argue that the creator made it look like evolution happened when really it didn't. Argue against that. Scientific? I think not.

      How is this evolution? It is "natural selection," but is insufficient to cause speciation as no new DNA has been created.

      The fact that you, obviously a layman, have decreed that no new DNA sequences exist does not make it so. Sexual reproduction by its very nature invariably causes new combinations of genes to pop up. You can't scramble two organisms' genes together and come up with a child organism with the same genes as both parents. The string of DNA is different. New base pairs are not (necessarily) added to the strands of DNA. The strands are different, though. The result is a different organism. The "no new DNA" argument is way overused by people who haven't seen the experiments that control for this (like the example I gave above).

      Again, talk.origins is a great place to go if you're actually interested in getting some of these questions answered. If you're more interested smugly shooting down arguments that you don't understand, it's probably not the place for you.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
  114. of course! by hawk · · Score: 2
    >If you were a hoaxer, would YOU sell abstinence shorts?


    Of cours--though I'd certainly include a twist of some kind . . .[twists are left as an exercise to the reader]


    hawk

  115. ahem! by hawk · · Score: 2
    As a devout Catholic, I must take exception:
    1) while the bottles may be sized in that evil metric system, we measure our wine and beer in God-fearing "ounces."
    2) 30ml? that's two much for Communion, and far two little to drink.


    hawk, just helping htings out

  116. letter to Mr. Paley by delorean · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Greetings Dr. Paley,
    I read your article concerning evolution and the linking of certain computer operating systems and inferring their maniacal perversion of users into evolutionists. I am troubled by some of your logic and reasoning.
    First let me introduce myself-- I am a believer in Jesus Christ. He is The Savior, the Son of God, and God Incarnate. He was virgin born and Perfect-- without sin. I was middle and high school educated in a Christian environment, and worked for many years in Christian ministries. I am politically conservative. Yes, I do work for NASA now; I am contractor that Administers unix servers for the Space Station project. I, and many other people who work for the Space Agency, are firm and out spoken believers who stress that Space Exploration can show the majesty of our creator. It does not imply that we are godless evolutionists looking for life, aliens, or any other such nonsense as you might want to infer.

    Now...
    The development name of the Apple OS X (or Ten) certainly was called Darwin. True. Somebody, some manager or Pointy-Haired Boss, decided that they would call the new OS (Operating System) Darwin because 1) it will be "the next best thing", 2) a great leap forward in computing. Yup, that certainly smacks of computer evolution. I would much rather they called it Genesis-- but that name is trademarked, so that's out.
    But now the OS is released and for sale as "Darwin"? No, it's called OS X-- or Operating System 10. Apple's previous OS was 8-- so they skipped 9. Big deal. Should people burn their Macs and go buy Windows? No-- because using a piece of software does not effect their spiritual, mental, political (sould/mind/heart) processes in that way.
    Think about the alternative. Windows. Did you know that Windows began working on their "next evolutionary Operating System" back in'92? Do you know what their Code Name was? Cairo. You presumeably use Windows-- at least 95 or 98 version since you don't like Macs or Unix. Did you know that a good deal of that OS is built on Cairo techonology? Does that make you an evolutionist? Does that make you an Islamic Terrorist? I don't think so.
    Being an evolutionist is a heart/soul/mind condition. Not a favorite computer. Making a connection like that is just absurd.
    You also stress that the Mac OS X is built on BSD technology. This is also true-- it is one of it's greatest strengths. Here is more fuel for your fire-- but the B in BSD stands for Berkely. Egads! That's the foundation of the LSD movement, wasn't it? That makes Mac users freaked out druggies, doesn't it? No.
    Sun Microsystems also uses BSD technology in their Solaris operating systems. As does IBM in AIX, SGi, HP, and Linux. It was developed by AT&T waaaaay back in the 70's. It certainly is not obsolete. It is very powerful and extremely functional. That is why Microsoft and Apple are constantly integrating functionality from these environments into their systems.
    Off the top of my head I can't remember why the services were called "daemons". I don't like it... but I take joy in the fact that I am often "terminating" daemons on machines with problems. It is rewarding... but I digress.
    Using a name for a service type as reason to abhore a computing system is ridiculous. I, assuming that you do use Windows since that is the only other alternative to Mac or Unix, notice that you did not discuss Windows' Wizards. Shocking, really. Windows is constantly running little Wizards to help users configure their computer and setup this or that. We all know that Wizards are witches and Satan worshippers. So using your same arguments and assumptions, I can assume that you are an Islamic Terrorist Warlock. Very odd.
    If all this were true, I don't think I would like you very much, Mr. Paley. But I would love you through Christ, and pray that you would come to know him. I would not attack you on your beliefs, or your computers. I certainly would not publish such irrational arguments about you.
    I apologize for taking such an offense with you; I believe you are a good man and do not wish to attack you. I think your arguments were very weak and not well thought out. Your intentions were good and honorable. Your motive pure. The plan was faulted.

    Instead of attacking people and their computers and operating systems, how about attacking the problem? The problem is not what computer they use, but how they use it. What they use it for. Mr. Dawkins' program written for Mac mentioned in your article could just as easily been written in Windows. Probably with minimal work, I could make it run in Windows or Unix. Attacking the people, I've noticed, is not very helpful either. It is ironic that that was what I used to make my point. I apologize for that and I hope my hypocrisy was not in vain. Reach out, touch and change hearts with God's Truth and Love... not attacking and tearing down people that still need to be saved.

    I haven't the time or energy to talk about the Communist-freeware comparison. I like getting free software; I don't mind paying for something really good, but I like it even better when it is free. There is nothing wrong with someone giving away their code and programs. I find it admirable. There are people who make it their religion, but they need to be reached and loved in the same manner as any other man. Not attacked. Not called-names.

    Thank you for time.

    --
    "You may all go to hell and I will go to Texas"
    Sen. Davy Crocket to US Congress, Nov. 1, 1835
  117. guess the internet is evil too.. by josepha48 · · Score: 2
    .. cause all us satin worshiping geeks created most of the content out there...

    I often wonder how dumb fundies really are.. and this just goes to show you .. very ...

    Oh and for the record I am not a athesist, I am a spiritualist..

    --

    Only 'flamers' flame!

    1. Re:guess the internet is evil too.. by kindbud · · Score: 3

      Spiritualist == irrationalist. The moment you agree that the supernatural is possible, every idea becomes equally credible. If the supernatural exists, then it is just as likely that your opinions about spirituality were implanted in your mind last Thursday by god, along with fake memories of your life and what you believed before then. Go ahead, try to disprove it. You can't. That is what is wrong with the idea of the supernatural. It makes any attempt to understand anything futile.

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    2. Re:guess the internet is evil too.. by josepha48 · · Score: 2
      why does everyone always associate spiritualist with the supernatural?

      And what is so irrational about it?

      If we are all made up of matter and enery and matter and energy are neither created or destroyed. Then where does our energy go when we die?

      Matter can change form to energy and energy to matter, so then we become part of the universe again.

      We are all star stuff... (babylon 5)

      --

      Only 'flamers' flame!

    3. Re:guess the internet is evil too.. by kindbud · · Score: 2

      why does everyone always associate spiritualist with the supernatural?

      Because they are synonyms.

      And what is so irrational about it?

      I described what was irrational about it. It is nonsensical, by definition.

      If we are all made up of matter and enery and matter and energy are neither created or destroyed. Then where does our energy go when we die?

      The matter in your body goes six feet under, or is burned and the remains placed in a urn, or is dumped into the sea, or is frozen in Dahmer's refrigerator, or....

      Matter can change form to energy and energy to matter, so then we become part of the universe again.

      So you aren't part of the universe while you are alive, is that it?

      We are all star stuff... (babylon 5)

      That is not a spiritualist outlook. Anthropic perhaps, but not spiritualist.

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
  118. Christians should listen to what Jesus said: by Zen+Mastuh · · Score: 2

    "The Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand". He made that statement ~2,000 years ago and it is still true today. At hand = now. A great many of Jesus' sayings were recorded; very few made the editors' (James and Richard, IYKWIM) cuts. See The Gospel According to Mary Magdelene and The Gospel According to Thomas and you will understand how Jesus' teachings would have prevented all of the tyrannical governments of the last 2,000 years from coming into existence. Someone--Ezra Pound, maybe--said that the purpose of Christianity is to make good Roman citizens. I'm sure Jesus is still rolling over in his grave due to the endless perversion of his teachings by those who claim to be JHVH's authorities on Earth.

    It seems much easier to tell everybody else that they will go to hell instead of reflecting on the teachings of your supposed Saviour. Don't forget that your belief system is one of many, and that the teachings have your Saviour have been perverted by Kings, Priests, and Politicians to now mean exactly the opposite of what He said.

    --
    "What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
  119. Ever checked out Usenet? by artdodge · · Score: 2

    I seem to recall a usenet group "alt.atheism.satire" (or something like that) which was, at one point anyway, dedicated largely to producing a non-stop stream of articles like this, spoofing/satiring "christian" culture and apologetics and theology.

    The amount of vitriolic energy that was poured into that group was pretty amazing. A dozen such articles is a drop in the proverbial bucket.

  120. Re:Americans & creationism by Kintanon · · Score: 2

    Americans != Every individual American.
    When someone says Americans are This or Americans are That, they are talking about the percieved public image of the average American. And (I am an American) Americans as a general rule are louder and more obnoxious than other cultures. That does not mean that each individual American is more obnoxious than each individual non American though.

    Kintanon

    --
    Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
  121. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny (OT) by MaxVlast · · Score: 2

    No, no. It's better than that. It's technically called the Flower Power iMac, but everyone calls it the Acid Trip iMac.

    --
    There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
    Max V.
    NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
  122. Re:Americans & creationism by LMCBoy · · Score: 2

    Except that the parent poster did in fact say that all Americans, without exception are more obnoxious, etc. than the rest of the world...he made the generalization, not me.

    --
    Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
  123. Re:Americans & creationism by Kintanon · · Score: 2

    Oh, well in that case, he's a flaming moron...

    Kintanon

    --
    Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
  124. Re:who is us? by ahde · · Score: 2

    No, atheism is the belief in "no god" or gods. It is a specific anti-religion. It has nothing to do with science, except that some people who call themselves scientists also call themselves atheists.

    Likewise monotheism does not denote a lack of belief in science.

    Cause and effect, observable phenomena, hypothesis, data, theorem, proof, mathmatics. Neither belief system can claim "science" for its own. If the principle of atheism (disbelieve what is not proven) were extexded to science, there would be no atheist scientists.

  125. I cannot believe Apple! by ellem · · Score: 2

    How could Apple ask the Church Of Satan to remove their "Made With A Macintosh" logo? Whatever happened to "Think Different"? Fer Chris'sakes Woz & Jobs charged $666.66USD for their first computer! Obviously they are in League With The Devil!

    --
    This .sig is fake but accurate.