Slashback: OpenSSH, Falwell, OpenDRM

Slashback tonight brings some corrections, clarifications, and updates to previous Slashdot stories including the Supreme Court declines Falwell's appeal, GP2X now shipping in the US, a new version of Systrace released, Lessig and Stallman look back at Sun's OpenDRM, NASA jumps on the anti-matter propulsion bandwagon, GoDaddy donates $10,000 to OpenSSH, Ellison explains why he would NOT acquire Novell or Red Hat, and pictures of the Ball State wireless 'sculpture' -- Read on for details.

The Supreme Court declines Falwell's Appeal. yEvb0 writes "The US Supreme Court has refused to hear the appeal of Jerry Falwell, who claims that "gripe site" http://www.fallwell.com/ infringes on his trademark by luring surfers away from his own site. Despite winning a case in federal court, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with Falwell last year and said that operator Christopher Lamparello was free to operate his site about Falwell's views on gays because he 'clearly created his Web site intending only to provide a forum to criticize ideas, not to steal customers.'"

GP2X now shipping in the US. An anonymous reader writes "The Gamepark GP2X, a Linux-based handheld gaming platform that runs native and emulated games, is now shipping in the US, according to LinuxDevices. The device can reportedly run more than a thousand classic arcade games, through open-source console game emulators such as MAME, SNES, Genesis, and PC Engine. It has a 3.5-inch QVGA (320x240) color TFT LCD screen, and includes a media player supporting MPEG, JPEG, and MP3 formats."

New version of Systrace released. Niels writes "I just recently released a new version of Systrace that runs on Linux without requiring any kernel patches. I termed it the Phoenix release because it has been almost three years since I did any work on Systrace. However, I finally had the need to do some sandboxing on Linux without being able to change the kernel. So, voila, after a few late nights, here we go: Systrace for Linux using a ptrace back end."

Lessig and Stallman look back at Sun's OpenDRM. H4x0r Jim Duggan writes "The Register has an excellent article featuring Lessig and Stallman on 'Open Source' DRM. The spark for the article came from comments made about Sun's 'OpenDRM' by Lessig which were not wholly negative and were interpreted by some as an endorsement. Lessig clarifies: 'There's no disagreement about where we should end up - No DRM.'"

NASA jumps on the anti-matter propulsion bandwagon. steveo777 writes "NASA has an interesting read about creating yet another form of rocket propulsion. They plan on using Anti-electrons (positrons) combine with normal electrons to release enough energy to fuel the way to Mars and back. Its byproduct will be lower energy gamma radiation. From the article, '"Our advanced designs, like the gas core and the ablative engine concepts, could take astronauts to Mars in half that time, and perhaps even in as little as 45 days," said Kirby Meyer, an engineer with Positronics Research on the study.'"

GoDaddy donates $10,000 to OpenSSH. wcbrown writes "Go Daddy has donated $10,000 to the OpenSSH project, which is apparently used extensively within the company." This is another great donation in what hopefully will continue to be a trend within the community. No word on when the blinking will stop.

Ellison explains why he would NOT acquire Novell or Red Hat. Robert writes to tell us CBROnline is reporting that a recent statement by Larry Ellison covered so extensively in the news regarding speculation about why Oracle might be "planning to buy Novell or Red Hat" may have been a little off base. The full transcript of his interview with the FT is illuminating precisely because it reveals why the company would NOT acquire either Novell or Red Hat, and - apparently - why the company did not buy JBoss.

Pictures of the Ball State Wireless 'sculpture'. popeguilty writes "Slashdot readers may recall the story about the Wireless 'Sculpture' at Ball State University. The artwork is up and running, and I've got a few pictures posted for general consumption."

Comments

Here come the Contra-Terrene Matter bombs

[joe_n_bloe]

So, maybe we are already stockpiling positrons.

Re:Here come the Contra-Terrene Matter bombs

[nb caffeine]

We already know the russians are. We cannot have a positron gap!

Slashdot Jeopardy

[Tackhead]

Contestant: I'll take "Hole Truth" for $100, Alex.
Trebek: OpenSSH, Falwell, OpenDRM
Contestant: What are plugged, ass, and analog?
Trebek: Congratulations, all are examples of different types of holes!

Re:Slashdot Jeopardy

[Anonymous Coward]

Connery: Suck it, Trebek!

Re:Slashdot Jeopardy

[rikkards]

Connery:And I plugged your mothersh hole last night

Re:I know this will be an unpopular position...

[koweja]

The difference is that fallwell.com is not cyber-squating, it is a critizism of Falwell. Squatters take a site and fill it with ads and/or attempt to sell it to the person they are squatting for rediculous amounts of money. The owner of fallwell.com maintains his site, has actual content, and is not trying to sell it to Falwell.

Re:I know this will be an unpopular position...

[techno-vampire]

How many mis-spelling "trap sites" have a link to the real site right at the top of the home page? That's what makes the difference. The owner of fallwell.com isn't trying to steal customers from falwell.com and isn't looking to offend them, either. He makes it plain that his site is devoted to showing why Rev. Falwell's position on gays and lesbians is wrong, and points those who agree with the reverend to the site they were looking for in the first place. If you'd bothered to click on the link in TFA, you'd have seen that, as I did.

Space is the Place

[Doc Ruby]

According to TFA, positrons cost $25B:g to produce, though they project the cost will decrease with more R&D (more money). The Mars mission needs 10mg. The amount of energy, not dollars, required to produce the antimatter is not specified, but it's certainly larger than the amount that winds up in the produced antimatter. The antimatter will be produced at the Earth's surface, submerged in our atmosphere, where it can annihilate in contact with any of that matter it comes in contact with.

This is a perfect project to perform in space. The base lab should be on the Moon, using the vast incoming solar energy for power, lasered past the far side to power the reactor creating the antimatter. The antimatter industry is anticipating a large scale anyway, which justifies launching whatever equipment and personnel to the Moon is necessary. That should be small, because the Moon is made of materials useable for the project, including that abundant energy. And the minimization of risk of catastrophic antimatter "pollution" on (in) Earth is priceless. The launch of a new chapter in human industry in space, with specific immediate benefits including environmental protection and energy freedom, can transform our entire society for the better.

Re:Space is the Place

[rocker_wannabe]

I like the idea but I wouldn't start packing your space suit just yet. The problem I see is that companies, nowadays, won't pay to relocate you 100 miles, let alone 240,000 miles. They'll probably just do it in some third-world country where life is cheap. If there's an explosion the insurance companies will pay off the families and they'll write-off the whole endeavor (example: bhopal, India).

If you want rational, effective government, elect engineers rather than lawyers to Congress!

Re:Space is the Place

[StikyPad]

If you want rational, effective government, elect engineers rather than lawyers to Congress!

The problem is that engineers are too smart to do something like run for office, otherwise they'd already be lawyers.

Re:Space is the Place

[doctor_nation]

I think we're probably a LOT closer to fusion than anti-matter propulsion. For one thing, fusion produces more energy, rather than expending it, so it's actually useful for things other than bombs and space propulsion. So it makes more sense from a funding perspective. Also, as you say, antimatter is hideously expensive to create (in money and energy), and you have to keep it perfectly contained or else your trip to Mars will be VERY short.

Re:Space is the Place

[Doc Ruby]

I generally agree. I also think the Moon is a great place for a laser fusion plant, especially the kind that emit a lot of neutrons.

But there's clearly momentum in the antimatter program. Financial, scientific, political. We need to look at a wide variety of energy systems, pronto - relying on petrofuel internal combustion for a century has really trashed the planet in many ways. Both antimatter and fusion programs could share a lot of lunar resources, so both communities driving us there will be more likely to get us there sooner than later.

Re:Space is the Place

[Doc Ruby]

Anonymous caribou Coward, you'd be more clear if you made any sense, or if you had the nerve to use even a real userID. So I invite you to go to ANWR, stick some antimatter up your ass, and file a full report. Anonymous illitsuitok Coward.

Re:Space is the Place

[1u3hr]

This is a perfect project to perform in space.

it's an impossible project to perform in space. Consider how huge particle accelerators are. The whole point is to make an incredibly concentrated fuel here, and use it to make a much lighter, faster spaceship. If you first have to launch megatonnes into orbit, forget it. Maybe in a couple of centuries this could be manufactured on the Moon.

As for the risk; yes it could explode, but as TFA says, the blast would be similar to a chemical rocket, but less poisonous, You'd expect that as any kind of rocket would need approximately the same total energy for a trip that an explosion, all the energy being released at once, would be similar in size.

Re:Space is the Place

[Doc Ruby]

There's no people, or any other life on the Moon. It's bombarded with cosmic rays and other lethal environmental factors - that's why humans wear space suits and stay inside. ANWR's environment certainly is attached directly to the rest of the Earth. Not only in the extremely productive aquatic biome and the many land ecologies, to say nothing of the water cycles. It's also made of matter, which converts totally to energy when touched by antimatter. The Moon is separated from the Earth by a huge safety gap. You compare it to ANWR only because you're an Anonymous Coward who also hates the ANWR, thinking it's merely a "far away pristine environment", which people would want to protect only to protect any people there. Ignoramus.

The Moon is very well suited to industrial exploitation. Much more so than your ridiculous suggestion of ANWR, obviously made as a feeble joke, though now you're insisting it's serious. Hence my easy identification of your post's nonsense. The worst kind of nonsense: wrong, wrongheaded, and annoying.

You have now made it abundantly clear that you're an idiot. Stop trying so hard - you're just getting more idiotic, when you started out too idiotic already.

Re:Space is the Place

[Malor]

You can't have antimatter pollution. All you get is an explosion, of whatever size. Energy is released (and might kill some people), but there's no residual 'pollution' whatsoever.

With reasonable care, it's not really any different than any other kind of explosives plant. Probably less dangerous, since there are no noxious chemicals involved, which CAN pollute the environment.

Antimatter has so little weight per energy unit that it doesn't matter much where it's made. We need only ten milligrams to go to Mars. Even with the containment systems, that's probably not much more than 100kg or so. That's not free to launch, but compared with the cost and energy of making that antimatter in the first place, it's inconsequential. Making orbital antimatter factories would be supremely expensive, trillions of dollars, and all we'd be saving would be a couple of hundred thousand dollars, at most, per trip.

It would require _massive_ space traffic volume to pay for itself, and would have no other benefit whatsoever.

Re:Space is the Place

[honkycat]

Actually, an antimatter reactor wouldn't be that different from a fusion reactor. Both take fuel and convert it into energy. In one case, it's the energy released when an anti-particle recombines with an electron. In the other, it's the energy equivalent of the difference in mass between (say), two hydrogen atoms and a single helium atom. The reason antimatter is so compelling is that you start with two particles of equal mass and end up with no massive particles at all, whereas with fusion you're only "losing" a tiny fraction of the mass in the reaction.

You may be correct that we are closer to a fusion reactor, but there are a lot of compelling reasons to prefer antimatter if you can do it. Also note that we're yet to see a sustained fusion reaction that actually produces more energy than it takes to sustain it, so I don't know that we're actually that close to a fusion power source, either).

Re:Space is the Place

[Doc Ruby]

I put "pollution" in quotes because it's not like other pollution - it "explodes" in total mass->energy conversion. On Earth, it would certainly do a lot of damage, probably killing any people anywhere nearby, consuming whatever other life and equipment was nearby, irradiating for hundreds or thousands of miles. And upsetting an international weapons balance of terror that today looks like it's about 15 minutes from nuclear war already.

No one knows what "reasonable care" is for the material - it's not even brand new in any meaningful quantity. Our track record with other concentrated dangerous material is fairly bad, with every kind leaking and "falling into the wrong hands". The unprecedented danger of "uncontained" antimatter makes plutonium look like gunpowder: no extra technology is needed to "make a bomb", probably no telltale radiation is emitted until it's too late.

It's completely obvious, and should go without saying, that antimatter has no place on Earth, except perhaps in the tiniest miniscule quantities made in labs. That exist for maybe nanoseconds. Until we have enough to be dangerous, with containment tech that could allow it to proliferate or just possibly be mishandled.

The reason to make it in space is not the normal cost of launching it - I never said that. The reason is that it is obviously much too dangerous to risk interaction with humans on our own planet. Haven't you been following the news? I don't mean the past 60 years of news, starting with America nuking another country because it was necessary. Or the generations of irresponsible testing that's polluted America and the world, Or the leaks and explosions that have made us wish Chernobyl, for example, were on the Moon. I mean the news about various countries pushing us closer to extinction every day in a nuclear arms race. Humans are way too incompetent at dealing with each other to have antimatter within reach of these politicians, criminals and businessmen, the terrorists who are their stock in trade.

Antimatter factories orbiting the Moon wouldn't have to cost $TRILLIONS. Hundreds of billions, maybe. $500B is 5B barrels of $100 oil. At 2005 daily consumption of 85Mbbl:day, that's less than 2 months. Even the US share is about 8 months. Investing in the technology I mention would launch American industry fully into near space, built on abundant solar, colonize the solar system, and help keep weapons and extremely dangerous "toxics" off the Earth. And jumpstart an entire class of space manufacturing industry, not just antimatter production. Most of the war threats at the nuclear scale derive from international energy scarcity, which would be diminished by the results. If we spend the $500B, or even trillions, on oil, all we get is a few months or years burning up the little oil we've got into our atmosphere, until we're even worse off. Investing in sustainable energy industries, especially by switching to abundant energy in American (rather than foreign) hands, means a lot safer planet, extended into the solar system.

Re:Space is the Place

[Malor]

A matter/antimatter explosion emits gamma rays, which are non-polluting. Exposure to gamma radiation can certainly kill you, but it leaves no residual radiation behind.

I don't think you understand that it's not going to 'consume everything nearby'. That's just silly. If there are 10mg of antimatter, it would make a pretty darn big explosion, but it's only going to 'consume' 10mg of positive matter. The vast majority of the time, it'll be stored and transported in very small quantities, so that any individual accident won't matter much. They'll put the factories in isolated areas.

It'll be almost exactly like a conventional weapon factory, except that it's a lot more high-tech. We know how to deal with high explosives.

Again, antimatter leaves NO RESIDUAL RADIATION. If there is an accident, there's a flash of radiation and then nothing. If you weren't there at the instant of the accident, it will be perfectly safe to go in five minutes later to rescue people. With good shielding, even if there is a big explosion that blows through that shielding, it will already have done its work... the initial gamma-ray burst will be attenuated well before the conventional shockwave destroys the containment facility. A breach of the containment walls won't matter, because by the time they're breached, they've already done their job.

Even if there's a great big mushroom-cloud style matter/antimatter explosion, it will be perfectly safe downwind... there are no residual byproducts. If you're not within range of the initial burst of radiation, you're safe.

The _only_ real issue with antimatter is that you can pack a really giant explosion into a very small space. We can already make explosions larger than anything we'd ever need, so antimatter weapons won't make _that_ much difference on the battlefield. You might think antimatter would be stealthier, but that's actually not true, because the stuff is so enormously difficult to contain. It requires massive amounts of equipment to hold the antimatter in cryogenic, magnetically-locked storage. It CAN be moved around, but doing it stealthily would be far more difficult than conventional radioactive materials.

ANTIMATTER IS NOT NUCLEAR POWER. It's safer than even fusion power. It won't solve energy problems, because it's very inefficient and expensive to make (and requires more energy than you get out of it, obviously). But it will let us store huge amounts of power in very small spaces, and it will make space travel actually possible.

Your claim that 'antimatter belongs nowhere on Earth' is hysteria based in truthiness, not facts.

Re:Space is the Place

[Malor]

I should amend... to hold antimatter for long periods takes huge amounts of equipment. They have figured out ways to transport it for short periods (an hour or two) with less stuff... but I don't think we can launch antimatter in 100kg. We could move it to the launch pad from cryo storage in a container that big, but I don't think it would last into orbit. So it'll be more expensive than I first though to get it launched... but it's still not going to pay for the trillions to build the facilities in orbit.

There's just no _reason_ to do that... antimatter is nonpolluting.

Re:Space is the Place

[Doc Ruby]

10mg of antimatter will initially consume only 10mg of matter.

The amount of matter consumed in the next few seconds by the blast will be extremely large.

The radiation released in that blast will kill everything for hundreds of miles around the center.

The huge explosion can cause vast wildfires and even an earthquake if close enough to a fault.

There is no reason to believe that such a facility can be shielded in any meaningful way - the technology is too new, there's not nearly enough testing of the materials.

The risk of this event happening will be continuous while the facility is in operation. Theft can move that risk to anywhere on Earth. And military applications can make it happen again and again.

Meanwhile, even nuclear technology has proven to be too powerful for humans to manage without severely disrupting our security. Right now we're almost as close to a nuclear war as we've ever been - except when a single Soviet soldier said "no" to orders to launch during the Cuban Missile Crisis, or when we actually nuked Japan. The actual hysteria we'd get with antimatter facilities on Earth could very well push us over the edge we've never left.

Antimatter production/consumption in space to store solar or nuclear energy would put human energy industry in the next higher category. The kind of power scales we could engineer would offer a replacement for most of the dirty power we transform on Earth, so we'd be back within the ecosystem's capacity to recycle the pollution. We'd get a space travel industry, and lots more.

That is the reality. The fantasy that we can just start making antimatter on Earth without those unacceptable risks totally ignores the facts of the past 50 years. And the facts of the past few months, past few days with Iran and the rest of the "nuclear club". You can fool yourself because you want the shiny new toy, but you can't fool me.

Re:Space is the Place

[Perky_Goth]

Hi Doc, long time fan...
a question from someone who only knows basic physics, but wouldn't messing with the moon also not be a very good idea? or it's completly impossible for the effect to not even alter an inch in tides?

Re:Space is the Place

[Doc Ruby]

The only way to affect the Moon that would change the tides, or any of its effects on its co-orbit with the Earth is to reduce the Moon's mass, or to move its orbit around our common center of gravity (located inside the Earth, off-center).

The total amount of matter lost in the energy conversion from combination with antimatter is only the amount equal to the antimatter. So 10mg anti consumes 10mg matter. Even extremely large amounts of antimatter, like kilograms, would consume only kilograms of matter. Not going to "matter" (pun intended :).

The explosion probably couldn't move much of the Moon's mass out of the orbital system. 10mg is enough only to move a rocket back and forth between Earth and Mars, which is a tiny mass at low acceleration for human comfort. Escape velocity from the Earth/Moon system might be achieved by some matter, but again, probably not enough to matter. Moving the whole Moon enough to disturb its orbit also seems out of the question. Though perhaps kilograms of antimatter might offer enough energy in the conversion to move it, injecting that much energy into the whole Earth/Moon system would be absorbed by both worlds, so probably be dampened. I'm not certain that such a change couldn't stress Earth faults, triggering earthquakes and volcanoes, but I still doubt it - and that's at hundreds of times the masses we're discussing in this story.

Remember that even if the Moon cracked in half - not bloody likely - the effect wouldn't change the mass and orbits of the two worlds, around each other or around the Sun. I'd hope that the large spaces on the Moon and in orbit near it would be used to maintain separation so that there'd be no possibility of more than a tiny fraction of the total antimatter converting with matter before the planned time, under control. And that they'd put the whole shebang across the far side, so any conversion would release high energy rays towards the Earth only with the whole Moon shielding us.

So it's not completely impossible for such large energies released in the wrong way to affect us. But it's extremely unlikely, especially when the advantages of distance and local masses are exploited.

Re:Space is the Place

[Perky_Goth]

that makes total sense, thank you for taking the time to write it. it didn't have to be so through, it was just pure speculation.

thanks.

Re:Space is the Place

[Doc Ruby]

Someone else I talked with last night in meatspace was also similarly concerned. It was useful to write/publish it. I neglected to mention that it is possible to blast the moon hard enough with an initial antimatter blast on the far side that raises a cloud of (matter) dust on the near side, and remaining unconverted antimatter into orbit from the far side, which settles on the near side in microscopic total conversions with the matter dust. Which could completely revise the image on the near side.

Odds are astronomically (pun intended) against it. But a properly controlled blast might make a helluva billboard. Read more about it in my upcoming SF story, "Unpublished" ;).

ssh donation

[Lord Ender]

The donation from godaddy came out of which department within the company? If I had to guess, I would say it came our of Marketing... not that there's anything wrong with that.

For-profit companies don't donate out of alturism.

Re:ssh donation

[Geekboy(Wizard)]

$10k from marketing is just as green as $10k from eng. besides, the ceo knows and approves it.

Re:ssh donation

[geekoid]

Yes, some actually do. No, they do not have to be greedy, and no they don't have to only do things for the bottom line.

Re:ssh donation

[techno-vampire]

For-profit companies don't donate out of alturism.

If nothing else, there's always the deduction for charitable donations they get on their taxes.

Re:ssh donation

[Monad is Missing]

If nothing else, there's always the deduction for charitable donations they get on their taxes.

Umm, except that there is no such deduction, because there is no charitable foundation. Checks are made out to Theo himself, and he decides what to do with the money.

Re:ssh donation

[Tweekster]

No actually a lot of companies do just give money to be good corporate citizens. no it has nothing to do with making them look good or for taxes. Many companies feel the obligation to give back. In fact, MOST companies are that way.

Re:ssh donation

[schon]

If they are a corp. Their shareholders can sue them for that sort of thing if it can't be justified as "marketing"

As a blanket statement, your post is inaccurate. As a specific statement about GoDaddy, your post is just ignorant, and you should read their prospectus before saying what *might* or *might not* be included in it.

What you should have written:

If they are a publically traded corporation their shareholders can sue them for that sort of thing if it isn't in line with their prospectus.

Then you should have actually read their prospectus, and reported with certainty which part(s) of their budget the donation could have come from.

Re:ssh donation

[Lord Ender]

Wow - to the moderator: How is that flamebait? Log in as AC to defend yourself, because I think your moderation is completely unfounded.

Re:ssh donation

[Lord Ender]

Companies don't "feel." They are groups that exist only to serve the interests of thier owners. This interest is nearly always to maximize profit.

Re:Denying Jerry Falwell's appeal

[Anonymous Coward]

"Is yet another example of constant persecution of Christians in the United States by the atheist, socialist left-wing types that currently govern our country. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!"

Err... so the Republican Party are atheist, socialist left-wing types?

I hope I never meet any *real* right-wingers then!

blinking? I don't see any blinking...

[Tumbleweed]

http://www.squarefree.com/bookmarklets/zap.html

'zap cheap effects' *bliss*

I also like zap colors, zap plugins, restore context menu, and restore selecting. Lots of nice bookmarklets there. I put a small folder menu of those on my toolbar for easy access for dumb sites.

Re:blinking? I don't see any blinking...

[DrSkwid]

zapp brannigan is my favourite

Re:blinking? I don't see any blinking...

[evilviper]

I was looking at them for forcing web pages to wrap to a small display. Unfortunately, the "force wrap" code only helps if a long URL is the cause... Wide colums, images, etc., still screw you over, browsing on smaller screens. I'm still amazed, to this day, only Opera has this incredibly useful feature.

Now that I'm done ranting, I much prefer to use Privoxy to filter webpages of all ads and annoyances. No need to go click on that stuff.

Also, "Disable or Replace Context Menu" is already an option in Firefox's Javascript preferences.

Re:blinking? I don't see any blinking...

[Tumbleweed]

zapp brannigan is my favourite

I wish someone would...

Why the fuck would a gay person

[Anonymous Coward]

want to be part of christianity? It's alike a black guy wanting to join the KKK (we've all seen Chapelles bit, no need to repeat it).

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[Spy der Mann]

Why TF would a gay person want to be part of christianity?

Religion is chosen. Homosexuality is not. And only the looniest christian churches condemn people just because "they're gay" and try to threaten them with hell to convert.

An example of a homosexual christian is this guy.

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[glaucopis]

Why the fuck would a gay person want to be part of christianity?

Why would a straight person want to be part of Christianity? Maybe they grew up in a church, maybe they married into it, maybe they're raising kids and want to give them a certain moral frame of reference, maybe they like the networking opportunities, maybe they like its social missions, maybe they're just in it for a good choir, maybe they're new to an area and want the sense of community, maybe they're sick and want the hope and support that a church can provide. Or they might have experienced the whole born again thing. But Christianity has a pretty wide spectrum, and there's any number of reasons why someone might want to be a member of a church regardless of their orientation.

Not all Christian churches go for the abomination business. But even in those denominations, growing up in a church community is pretty significant -- those people are your friends and neighbors and, to some extent, your second family. Provided you still believe in the church's overall values, that community is not something you're going to throw away lightly, even if they condemn one aspect of your life.

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[LordLucless]

Religion is chosen. Homosexuality is not.

That's a nice assertion. Any argument to back it up? Not everyone accepts that as a given.

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[DeathToBill]

Especially since the link is to someone who has gay attraction, but thinks it would be wrong to act on that. So he doesn't. Is it a choice, or not?

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[Spy der Mann]

Especially since the link is to someone who has gay attraction, but thinks it would be wrong to act on that. So he doesn't. Is it a choice, or not?

Well, he's happy and feels loved by God, that should mean something for the rest of us.

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[Spy der Mann]

Religion is chosen. Homosexuality is not.

That's a nice assertion. Any argument to back it up?

TFA has a page dedicated to that. As much as the anti-gay christians tried to "cure him", they couldn't. So either God couldn't cure him, or God didn't WANT to cure him.

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[ddimas]

I read the link. Finally someone who understands the ministry offered to the gay person.

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[LordLucless]

In fact *everyone* who knows anything about the subject does accept it as a given.

Wow, another assertion with no argument backing it up.

As for my justification, how about consistency? Nobody thinks other "life choices" are predetermined. We don't say philanthropists were just born that way, nor do we say murderers "have no choice" in the matter. We don't say socialites were born to be socialites, or loners to be loners. We don't say liberals were born to be liberals, nor conservatives that it's just a matter of conservative genes. In every other aspect of life, we consider behaviour to be a product of choice, but when it comes to sexuality it's just something that you were born with, and if you disagree you get accused of being homophobic (as you just did with me).

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[Tweekster]

because most christians dont really give two shits about homosexuality. it may not seem like it, but really most christians dont care or at most think it is "wrong" (the quotes are important to understand that)

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[LordLucless]

People mean different things when they say homosexual. You see to be saying homosexuality is the attraction to members of the sane sex. The definition most often used by churchs is sexual acts between members of the same sex.

I can see why someone who is a homosexual by the first definition would want to be a Christian. It's no different from someone who has a tendancy towards alchoholism, or gambling, or heterosexual infidelity. But that's very different from the homosexual who engages in sexual acts with other members of the same sex, and (this is the important part) sees nothing wrong with that and doesn't want to change.

Maybe the situation where I live is different to the US. But over here, most Christians would not have a problem with someone who has homosexual tendancies but doesn't act on them, or someone with a homosexual past who has left it behind being a part of their church.

That's where the choice comes in. You can have homosexual tendancies, just the same as you can have alchoholic tendancies, or a weakness for gambling, etc. The choice is in whether you succumb to that temptation or not. I wouldn't call someone had homosexual tendancies, but didn't have homosexual sex a homosexual, any more than I'd call someone who had an urge to drink, but never did, an alchoholic.

But if you ask someone if they think homosexuals should be allowed in the church, they are probably going to think you're asking "Do you think people who approve of and engage in homosexual sex should be considered faithful Christians?". And the answer to that is easy. The Bible clearly states that homosexual acts are wrong. If your faith is one that adheres to the Bible, then clearly homosexuality is not compatible with your faith.

Of course, arguments over whether or not the Bible is correct in it's claims that homosexual acts are immoral is a whole other can of worms.

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[Spy der Mann]

Yes, but the main problem I see with other christian churches is that they judge the sinner and not the sin. If I felt attraction towards males (which I do not, btw), I'd be immediately expelled or called to repent - for something that I have not done at all. A common question homosexuals ask (at least those I have met on the internet) is "why does God condemn me for being homosexual if he made me that way?"

Finally, something I don't understand is that most christians i've met (again, on the internet) judge homosexuals in a much worse way than heterosexuals - even if heterosexuals engage in sex in their teens. And both homosexuality AND fornication are forbidden in the Bible. Double standards, anyone?

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[LordLucless]

If I felt attraction towards males (which I do not, btw), I'd be immediately expelled or called to repent - for something that I have not done at all. A common question homosexuals ask (at least those I have met on the internet) is "why does God condemn me for being homosexual if he made me that way?"

You wouldn't at the church I attend - although you'd probably encounter some social ostracism. But that's more a social thing than a theological thing. It's more or less inevitable in our society at the moment that churches are going to have a significant number of middle-class conservatives. Those people are motivated by both Christian values, and conservative middle-class values, and while there is some overlap between the two, they are not identical sets.

In theological terms, I don't know of any mainstream Christian denomination that regards desire (of any sort) as a sin. It's giving in, or catering to that desire that's the problem. Even Christ was tempted (ok, not with homosexual sex) so it's hypocritical to say that temptation itself is wrong. Of course, just because the theology says one thing doesn't necessarily mean squat when it comnes to the attitudes of the parishners.

Finally, something I don't understand is that most christians i've met (again, on the internet) judge homosexuals in a much worse way than heterosexuals - even if heterosexuals engage in sex in their teens. And both homosexuality AND fornication are forbidden in the Bible. Double standards, anyone?

Yeah, I see that a lot too. I'm not sure if it's so much double-standards as it is double-tipping. Despite all the politicking going on, homosexuality is still very much against the societal grain, whereas sleeping around is less so.

A homosexual gets hit twice - once by the social prejudice, and once by the Biblical prohibition - whereas heterosexual fornication is shrugged off by society.

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[VE3MTM]

I don't normally feed trolls, but here goes.

The justification Christian churches use when they declare homosexuality to be a sin is from Leviticus 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination". Sounds fair. That means Homosexuality is bad, doesn't it?

Well, what about Leviticus 21:5, "They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh"? That means shaving is a sin. Similarly, other passages from this book prohibit tattoos, eating of shellfish and pork, clothes made of more than one fabric, and other common activities.

Since these other passages are commonly ignored by Christians out of convenience, all a gay Christian has to do is ignore one more, 18:22, and they're in the clear. It's extremely hypocritical for Christian churches to pick and choose parts of this book to obey or disobey. If you're going to consider Leviticus holy, abide by the whole thing. If you're going to ignore it, ignore the whole damned book. You can't have it both ways.

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[gkhan1]

This is exactly the point. I wish I had mod points, I'd mod you up. If you are using your own moral judgement to pick passages to follow, how is that different from making your own moral judgement without using the bible at all.

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[VE3MTM]

Oh, yeah, don't get me started on people who say, "how can you have morals when you don't believe in God?" :)

If the only reason you act morally is the threat of supernatural fury and eternal damnation, then you are not a moral person. A truly moral person is one who behaves ethically for entirely internal reasons. External reasons, such as threat of punishment, etc. are not a good basis for a moral code.

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[Anonymous Coward]

How about an even better question: why would any American Woman(of any race who was born and raised in America) want to be a Christian? obviously they haven't read their Bibles or any woman with a brain of her own would clearly choose to walk away.

yet, i have met many intelligent women who are (quite dumbfoundingly to me) Christian.

Even though in Genesis we learn that this God Person made a man and saw that he was "supposedly" unhappy, put him into a deep sleep, stole one of his ribs and made a woman. Obviously this leads one to believe then that women are merely second-rate cuts of meat(sorry to sound assholish ladies) and rightfully so as one continues to read through the Bible. Women are debased and demeaned thru the whole of the book.

Can someone please explain to me how it is that this God Person Is Love if he treats women as less than dirt? And why it is that women are willing to go along with this?

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[nmos]

Frankley it seems self evident. If being gay is a choice then the opposite must be also but I just don't see how I could "choose" to be attracted to another man. Isn't it like that for you?

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[L33TNeMiSiS]

Believe me dudes, christians have allot of problems with homosextuality, christians that dont, havent done their homework and read their bibles. Just to take your example. Leviticus was a book written to one of the 12 tribes. This tribe was dedicated to serve God in the 'temple' area. Thus this book in the bible is written to them. To show them the lifestyle God expects of them and to line out their duties in the 'temple'. That is why in this book you will get things like, not shaving, one color clothing and a indepth look in how this tribe must live, because in that time they were the ones that had to act as the person between God and his people. But to get back to the point of Homosextuality. One of the major stories of the old testament is (and you might have heard of this), is Sodom and Gremora. In this storyline the very reason for both these cities bieng destroyed is homosextuality, that is how much it angered God, that he wiped both cities. So for any christian to say. Christianity promotes Homosextuality, is a lie and these people say so because of what they want not what their bible teaches. Sorry if my English is rusty it's not my Home language.

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[EzInKy]

Religion is chosen.


No, it is not. Most children are indoctrinated by their parents from birth.

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[geminidomino]

For the same reason that I don't need to provide an argument that the earth revolves around the sun. It's a known fact backed up by every piece of evidence. If you are not aware of the fact, then you have done nothing to address your ignorance of the issue.

The orignial question that he asked you was "What evidence?" If you're just going to assert that such evidence exists and we're supposed to take you at your word, how does that make you any different from the Christians "proving" the veracity of the bible using the bible as a source, etc...

Go talk to some gay people about it. You clearly haven't done so and are still pretending to know anything about the subject.

So you get "evidence" that's anecdotal at best? That's not 'research,' it's a friendly chat. Might come in handy in understanding them, which is always a good thing, but it proves nothing.

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[The Master Control P]

If sexual orientation is a choice, then tell us: When did you 'choose' to be straight? And if it's a choice, then you wouldn't mind confirming this by being gay for a day?

Or we could go with the obvious answer. Some boys hit puberty and realize that they like girls for no rational reason, and some realize that they like other boys for no rational reason.

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[LordLucless]

Whose talking about attraction? I'm talking about action. It's a choice whether you want to sleep with other men or not. Nobody is forced into homosexuality by anything. It's entirely their choice.

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[LordLucless]

To say that it didn't happen is a reasonable call, as no sources from the time make any suggestion that it did. Given the fact that Jesus had quite a few enemies who didn't shy from political murder, I'd say if there was any chance of them getting an accusation of homosexuality to stick, they'd have aired it about. And we probably would have had a source regarding it, even if it was just a refutation - there are other sources around from the time that aren't considered Biblical canon. If your concern is the church fiddling with the record (for which there isn't any record - they just picked which documents they considered to be reliable) then there are some of the documents they rejected still available out there.

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[LordLucless]

It's a known fact backed up by every piece of evidence.

Right. So present your evidence. And tell me why and how the things I listed are different from sexuality, instead of just saying that it's so. Make an argument.

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[LordLucless]

Take a straight guy. Put him in a situation were homosexuality is the norm, where there are people he likes and respects living a homosexual life, and, homosexuality will become less repugnant to him. Maybe he'll become homosexual, maybe he won't, but the point is, sexuality is malleable. It's not something set in stone when you're born - or when you hit puberty. I know both people who've had reasonably successful heterosexual relationships go on to homosexuality (post puberty) and homosexuals who have gone on to abandon homosexuality and have heterosexual relationships. One former homosexual I talked to went on to marry and have children. He said that he feels romantically and sexually attracted to his wife, and any homosexual twinges he has are just that - twinges.

People can choose to change their sexuality in either direction. Sometimes life directs you one way, but you can always choose to change.

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Not all Christian churches go for the abomination business.

Lies. All churches, all religions, are in the abomination business. It is their driving force, the very fuel that drives their congregations and galvanises their sermons. It is the prime mover of all religions and everything else, morality, philanthropy, charity, compassion, hope... all of these are simply loosely grafted onto the solid kernel of raw human fear that drives all prayer and devotion.

Without the fear of death, there would be no love of god.

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[m50d]

maybe they married into it, maybe they're raising kids and want to give them a certain moral frame of reference,PErm, I'd imagine that's pretty unlikely for a gay person.

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[lobsterGun]

I always thought that Gamorrah was destroyed because it created that giant flying turtle that fought with Godzilla.

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[DrXym]

The problem is that you can't pick and choose what you want to follow. There is no maybe about it. If the bible says do something you do it, or you're disobeying the word of god. It's all or nothing affair even if it means performing multiple nonsense and possibly contradictory practices at once. If the bible says no shaving of beards then it's no shaving of beards or you are not following the word of god. No ifs or buts.

For the Falwells of the world to focus on one thing and ignore the others exposes them for the venomous bigots and hypocrites that they are. The bible is merely a crutch to support their own deep seated intolerance.

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[gkhan1]

Also, if you look at the ancient greeks, they had no divine imperative to be moral or ethical beings (the only divine sin was hubris, and there was no heaven or hell, all went to Hades), yet they had one of the most sophisticated rule of law and government in ancient times, really only rivaled by post-enlightenment western societies. Hell, Aristotle wrote the damn book on Ethics (literally)!

Stop saying that the judicial system is derived from the ten commandments. That's crap, and nothing else.

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[Darby]

Right. So present your evidence. And tell me why and how the things I listed are different from sexuality, instead of just saying that it's so. Make an argument.

You're the one making far out assertions. You provide evidence for your fantasy. You can't because there isn't any.

Here's a simple enough proof. When did you *choose* to be straight? I didn't. From a very early age, girls just always made me feel funny in the pants. Same goes for every other person I've ever spoken with about it. Gay people have the same story except it's about their own sex.
So you're saying that you had a huge internal debate growing up as to whether you would choose to start liking women or whether you'd start getting hot for hairy man ass? That is what you're saying if you're claiming it's a choice. Pretty clear and simple. You really could have come up with that one yourself if you had any interest in figuring out the reality rather than justifying your bigotry.

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[Hard_Code]

"And only the looniest christian churches condemn people just because "they're gay".

That's interesting. The only Christians I have *ever* heard do indeed "condemn" gay people, even if it is the "soft" condemnation of merely treating them as a sinner of the worst sort (honor thy mother and father, do not covet thy neighbor's house, remember the sabbath day - what about all those other technical "sinners" out there?).

So where are these moderate christians, and why aren't they speaking out, instead of letting all the "loony" ones speak for them?

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[jc42]

Not all Christian churches go for the abomination business.

Indeed. Here in the US, the UU (Unitarian-Universalist) and UCC (United Church of Christ) are both openly welcoming to and supportive of homosexuals. Many American Episcopal (i.e., Anglican) churches are also gay-friendly, though the official policy may not make much of a big deal of this, so if you like Catholic-style ritual, this might be the church for you.

At the other extreme, some Christian sects have been openly hostile to even "straight" sex. They often use Paul's comment in his first letter to the Corinthians (7:9), "But if they have not continency, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. (ASV)" This passage is often interpreted to say that a true Christian would lead a celibate life; only the weak ones give in to sexual desires.

Taken to the obvious extreme, this had led to some sects (such as the Shakers) dying out because they didn't have children to indoctrinate and they weren't able to attract enough converts to keep the church going. OTOH, some monastic orders have lasted quite a long time despite an official ban on all sex.

It's fairly clear that with Christianity, you can pick your church based on its policies, and you can find a fairly wide range of policies. With the UUs, you don't even have to accept the whole package of beliefs, though you might not be too happy there if you don't accept their basic doctrine of tolerance of diversity.

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[ExMember]

The justification Christian churches use when they declare homosexuality to be a sin is from Leviticus 18:22

Not quite.

A long time ago, when Gentiles were first being converted to Christianity, there was some disagreement over whether they needed to be circumcised to be saved. The Apostles and elders met in Jerusalem to settle the issue.

When they had decided, they wrote the Gentile churches thusly; "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality." (Acts 15:28)

So no, Christians are not bound by any Jewish law, except what is described there, which is why homosexuality is bad and shaving is okay.

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[FhnuZoag]

Erm, Sodom was wiped out because:

Classical Jewish texts do not specifically indicate that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because inhabitants were homosexual. Rather, they were destroyed because the inhabitants were generally depraved and uncompromisingly greedy. Rabbinic writings affirm that the primary crimes of the Sodomites were terrible and repeated economic crimes, both against each other and outsiders.

And besides, the idea that the destruction was because of homosexuality isn't exactly emphasised. When angels are sent to Sodom, it's denizens threatened to rape them, and were appeased by being given young girls to rape instead. Having gays amongst them doesn't exactly sound like the worst of their problems.

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[VE3MTM]

Okay, so it's a sin to be sexually immoral. But, where is "sexually immoral" defined unambiguously to include homosexuality?

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[VE3MTM]

Whether the Bible is or is not the "word of God" is not the issue. I personally think it is a work of fiction and history, but that is not what DrXym or myself were arguing about. I pointed out that Christians pick and choose which parts of the Bible to follow, to suit the church's will.

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[DrXym]

I know it wasn't written by god, you know it wasn't written by god. More like a bunch of guys infected by a particularly bad meme. But fundamentalists believe it is the word of god, and go to great lengths to assert that the Garden of Eden, Noah's ark etc. are literally true. Once you're that far gone, then you should be believing and following the bible to the letter.

Conversely if you're just a casual Christian who picks and chooses what to believe, why believe any of it at all? If you think of it as a good source of moral tenets, then why not toss all the other garbage out and lead a decent life without trying to justify yourself to a book written by tribesmen.

Personally I think most evangelicals are just on a power trip. The bible is just their way to assert their alleged moral superiority over others. Others being blacks, Jews, Muslims, homosexuals - basically anyone who might not conform to their silly belief set.

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[LordLucless]

So you're saying that you had a huge internal debate growing up as to whether you would choose to start liking women or whether you'd start getting hot for hairy man ass?

Nope. I'm just saying that I've never gone out and had sex with a man. No matter what you start feeling at puberty, nothing is forcing you to act on them. People (both homosexual and heterosexual) are able to feel attractions and not act on them. People who say "I can't help it, I was just born this way" (about anything, not just homosexuality) are just copping out. You decide your behaviour, not your genes. So if your going to be homosexual, fine, but at least state out and out that it's your choice to screw men instead of women, and stop hiding behind this "it's not my choice" bullcrap.

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[Darby]

Nope. I'm just saying that I've never gone out and had sex with a man. No matter what you start feeling at puberty, nothing is forcing you to act on them.

Then you are talking about a completely different subject now.

People who say "I can't help it, I was just born this way" (about anything, not just homosexuality) are just copping out.

Ahhh, nobody is saying *that* though.

Let me see if I understand your point:

You agree that sexual preference is a matter of how you're born, but actually acting on that preference is a matter of choice?

Fair enough as far as it goes.

But you seem to have some sort of problem with people acting according to their nature in a way that has no effect on you. Why is it ok for you to act according to your nature, but not for them?

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[LordLucless]

You agree that sexual preference is a matter of how you're born

Well, not exactly; I'd say that environment would have a considerable impact. But at the age we're talking about, it's not really possible to control your social environment to any great extent.

But you seem to have some sort of problem with people acting according to their nature in a way that has no effect on you. Why is it ok for you to act according to your nature, but not for them?

I have no problem with homosexuals going and being homosexuals. I have problems with homosexuals saying "Christianity and homosexuality are compatible". If you take Christianity to be based on the Bible, that is clearly false. If whatever religion you are participating in ignores the Bible, and says homosexuality is a-ok, fine; just don't call it Christianity.

As I mentioned above, I have problems with the claim that sexuality is not a choice, because it inevitable leads to "therefore God made me homosexual, and God forbids homosexuality, therefore it's all God's fault and Christianity is hypocritical and judgemental". As I've mentioned in another thread, I know of no mainstream Christian theology that condemns homosexual attraction instead of the homosexual act. Temptation of any form is not a sin, someone tempted towards homosexuality is not sinning. Giving in to temptation is sinful, in Christian theology.

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[glaucopis]

Thank you.

I feel like I'm perpetually defending Christianity here, which is a position I hate to be in, honestly, because if I were to be in a room with a self-identified atheist and a self-identified Christian, I would likely have vastly more in common with and would feel more comfortable around the atheist. But mobs of people here seem to think that anyone who believes in a vaguely Christian God is by definition part of the Christian Right, which is simply incorrect. And anti-Christian zealots are just as misguided and irritating as pro-Christian zealots.

I was going to reply to one of the other people who replied to me, but your post was much more informative and polite than anything I could have come up with this morning. It's just that as a liberal Catholic I strongly resent the implication that I'm somehow in cahoots with Jerry Falwell or that I live my life chapter and verse by the Bible. It's ridiculous. But I will freely admit that my church is not a typical Catholic church and that I've been in several midwestern conservative Catholic churches that scared me. There's probably as much variation between individual congregations as there is between denominations.

And I would add the Quakers to your list of accepting Christian denominations. They've got a general consensus core of beliefs but they admit that there are topics they've agreed to disagree on, which is a refreshing comparison to Catholicism, for one.

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Who (or what) told you that Leviticus 18:22 is the source of Christian's belief that homossexuality is bad? Do you have any base at all for saying that?

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[VE3MTM]

I am referring only to primary-source material, which is the "word of God" itself, not secondary material such as scriptures based on these.

And yes, Leviticus 18:22, and Leviticus 20:13 (which prescribes the penalty of death for the act), comprise the primary basis for the Christian viewpoint on homosexuality. This is where it is stated explicitly that it is a sin to, as they put it, lie with a man like one would with a woman.

Of course, there is also the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, from Genesis. From reading the story, it appears that what is now called "sodomy" was but one of their sins, and not a major one. The text is vague as to what exactly they were being punished for, but hubris, not homosexuality, seems to be the most significant.

If this is the case, and the men of Sodom were in fact guilty of gross immorality of all kinds, then the term "sodomy" and "sodomite" should refer to gross immoral behaviour in general and one who practises it, respectively. This redefinition resolves the last sticking point I have found: Deuteronomy 23:17, which reads, "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel". To me, this is a warning to the Israeli (and therefore Christian) men, that they must behave in a moral, upright way.

This is but a reinterpretation of the literal "word of God". Everyone interprets the Bible their own way, and there is no reason why a homosexual could not interpret it like I have described. This is why I believe homosexuality and Christianity are compatible.

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[INowRegretThesePosts]

The fact that homossexualism is is condemned in Leviticus 18:22 does not prevent it from being condemned in other places.

Also, the Catholic church says that sex must only happen within the context of a family in order to have children, which is not possible with a gay couple. So it seems that this does not depend on Leviticus 18:22. It is a bigger issue. Men who have sex with prostitutes are sinners, as well as gay men.

Also, don't judge the Great Great Grandparent so badly (as a troll). Maybe he is just disconcerted (as I am) for the whole pressure put on the Church to endorse things like abortion, sex out of the marriage, etc. I mean, the Church does not obligate anyone to be part of it. One of the main points of a Church is to guide people. You should be part of it if you believe in it. So, logically speaking, what is the meaning of trying to change the Church to fit what you think? I you think differently, and don't want to change your viewpoint, then don't join it.

OTOH, I'm not American and I don't know know who Chapelle is, and it is the first time I heard of rev. Fallwell, so maybe I'm out of context.

[]'s

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[Darby]

I have no problem with homosexuals going and being homosexuals. I have problems with homosexuals saying "Christianity and homosexuality are compatible". If you take Christianity to be based on the Bible, that is clearly false. If whatever religion you are participating in ignores the Bible, and says homosexuality is a-ok, fine; just don't call it Christianity.

A far more honest argument would be that when you take a couple things from the old testament ignore other parts from the same chapter and then ignore most of what Jesus said then calling it Christianity is incorrect. That is what you are doing. You also after all this discussion came to make my argument for me. You are a bigot, and so you try to shift things around to justify your bigotry. It really is that simple.

As I mentioned above, I have problems with the claim that sexuality is not a choice, because it inevitable leads to "therefore God made me homosexual, and God forbids homosexuality, therefore it's all God's fault and Christianity is hypocritical and judgemental".

Which is exactly the point I made that started this discussion. *You* have problems with it because it is the only thing you have to justify your bigotry. Grow up and get over it. It has no effect on you.

The fact is that Christianity is hypocritical and judgemental. If it weren't, then Christians would be the number one biggest supporters of gay marriage. After all, according to most Christian theology, sex is wrong unless the people are married. Getting married magically makes it ok. Instead of taking the honest moral approach of allowing gays to be magically ok too, you people actively try to prevent it hence making them either be sinners or be forced to live asexually contrary to all human nature or marry a woman against their own nature.

The fact is that God did make some people gay. You want to discriminate against them anyway so you pick and choose parts of the bible to subscribe to. Do you follow *all* of the nonsense in Leviticus including slavery, burnt offerings, and avoiding pork and shellfish? Then you are arbitrarily deciding which parts of "God's word" to follow.
That is a canonical example of "hypocricy and judgement".

Re:Why the fuck would a gay person

[L33TNeMiSiS]

Where do you think the word Sodomy has its origin? Why did you think the turned the Girls down, when they where offered? But it's just my point of view.

Fallwell a church or a store?

[Tumbleweed]

"he 'clearly created his Web site intending only to provide a forum to criticize ideas, not to steal customers.'"

Customers? Sounds more like a store to me than a church. I say cede the domain to Fallwell and start taxing the bejeezus out of him. :)

Re:Fallwell a church or a store?

[Spy der Mann]

Customers? Sounds more like a store to me than a church.

Amen, Brother!

(Yes, this comment is aimed at televangelists)

Re:Fallwell a church or a store?

[dbIII]

Customers? Sounds more like a store to me than a church

We keep merchants in our temples in a few divergent versions of Christianity that forget what Jesus thought about the idea.

Re:Fallwell a church or a store?

[glsunder]

Sounds more like a store to me than a church.

Well, it's made him rich

MOD PARENT UP

[Immercenary_2000]

I don't see how this got modded anything but funny, I'm laughing my ass off.

Re:Denying Jerry Falwell's appeal

[Billly Gates]

Its about teh godless democrats who are influencing the liberal media and trying to take god out of Jesus's chosen country. Infact these liberals even go farther claiming the founders were not even fundalmentalist christians!

Repent!

eerrr

[geekoid]

"A rough estimate to produce the 10 milligrams of positrons needed for a human Mars mission is about 250 million dollars using technology that is currently under development,"

Re:eerrr

[Doc Ruby]

Your point? Or are you just melting down?

Re:eerrr

[geekoid]

My point is 250 million dollars is a lot less then the 25Bn dollars you claim.

My apologies for being to obtuse for you.

Re:eerrr

[WilliamSChips]

I think you said billion, not million. Although if we made antimatter, we should make sure that(SPOILER ALERT, of Dan Brown's "Angels and Demons") gur nagvznggre qbrfa'g trg fgbyra ol gur "Vyyhzvangv" juvpu jnf npghnyyl perngrq ol gur pnzreyratb va beqre gb orpbzr Cbcr.

Re:eerrr

[AnyoneEB]

He typed "$25B:g" but I think he meant "$25B/g" (or maybe he meant it as a ratio, whatever), that is $25 billion per gram, which would be $250 million for 10 mg.

Re:eerrr

[Doc Ruby]

I said "According to TFA, positrons cost $25B:g" and "The Mars mission needs 10mg." At $25B:g, 10mg costs $250M.

My apologies for using the ":" character, commonly understood to mean a ratio. You do understand the distinction between the "M" and "m" characters I used, right?

Re:eerrr

[Mistlefoot]

I didn't read the article, but I do read: "$25B:g" in the original post and "10 milligrams of positrons needed for a human Mars mission is about 250 million" in the yours.

Isn't $25 billion per gram the same as $250 million for 10 milligrams?
Or is my math bad? Units. I'm guessing you missed the units.

Now be a good boy and say your sorry.

Re:eerrr

[Doc Ruby]

Your point, you stupid fucking Anonymous illiterate Coward, is on the top of your head. I said "$25B:g", the article said "$250M:10mg". They're equivalent statements, Anonymous innumerate Coward asshole.

Re:eerrr

[Chmarr]

Ratios are usually used for like units, or non-united figures. You should have used "/" like EVERYONE ELSE elses, rather than trying to be clever (and failing). :)

Re:eerrr

[Doc Ruby]

Using "/" for ratio units is problematic because the same symbol means "divided by", which is the inverse operation of "per", which is what the ratio actually represents. Many people use ":" to represent ratios, as I documented with a link. Just because a more useful convention is more technical than your own experience doesn't make your cruder convention more appropriate.

If you can't read ":" to understand it means a ratio, you're illiterate. If you think "immathematical" is a word, you're illiterate. If you're on the other guy's side after they insult me with their obnoxious mistake, and I merely respond in kind (with extra kind explanations), you're a jerk. If you're all of those, and an Anonymous Coward, I really don't care who's side you're on - especially if it's another Anonymous Coward.

Re:eerrr

[Doc Ruby]

When people use the "/" symbol, it's hard to distinguish from its "divided by" meaning. Especially when the ratio is being used in arithmetic, as it was in the conversion I used, the ":" symbol is more clear, less ambiguous. As I showed in the link, not "everyone" uses only the "/" symbol for ratios. And ratios are absolutely not necessarily between like units, as in MPG. Ratios and the ":" symbol are exactly the accurate way to describe the relationship I mentioned.

If a reader can't understand the precise language, I can respect that - when they repond in a respectful manner. When they don't, I'm not responsible for their failure to be as clever as I am.

Re:eerrr

[Magic5Ball]

innumerate ...

We learned about ratios with the : symbol in grade 4 in backwards Alberta, Canada, so it's not terribly obscure. Most of the other G8 countries except the US teach the concept even earlier. Besides, USAians should be familiar with the : to denote a proportional relationship as used in SATs and such. Even the most unintelligent sports jocks understand the : as denoting a ratio...

Re:eerrr

[hubie]

That is an interesting use of the colon. I would have to disagree with you regarding it being precise language. Colons are, as your link states, commonly used to denote ratios (the model is 1:20 scale; mix the powder to the dry as 2.5:1; etc.), but it is never used (or at least, I should say, I have never seen it used in the physical sciences or engineering fields over the last 25 years, or even in decades-old textbooks or journal papers), in the units label. Units are usually labeled with the slash or raised to a negative power, though sometimes in a more colloquial setting a letter such as "p" is used, as your MPG example shows.

I guess I do not understand your statement that implies that units are ratios and distinct from "divided by." Units are what they are; if you divide the number of meters you traveled by the number of seconds it took you, you get an average velocity with units m/s. If you find it useful to know the product of those two numbers, you get a number with units of m-s. This, at least in the physical sciences and engineering fields, is very precise and unambiguous language.

Re:eerrr

[Doc Ruby]

m-s can be pronounced "meters minus seconds". "m/s" can be pronounced "meters divided by seconds". "m:s" can be pronounced only "meters to seconds", "meters per second" or "meters by seconds", all of which indicate a product, not a dividend. I've been using the symbol in math and science for a couple of decades myself, and haven't had problems being understood. Until the poster who so obnoxiously attacked my post, who still can't grasp the basic concept - out of antipathy, not ambiguity.

Re:eerrr

[TheRealSlimShady]

Isn't metres divided by seconds a measure of speed anyway? (i.e. distance divided by time)

Re:eerrr

[heelios]

You do realize 1KM/H means 1 kilometer per hour, which is exactly 1 kilometer for 1 hour, which is exactly 1 kilometer divided by an amount of time equal to 1 hour, right?

Re:eerrr

[Doc Ruby]

You're going 2 kilometers per hour. You're going for 3 hours. Do you divide the 2 kilometers by 3 hours, or multiply?

I can't believe I'm actually having this discussion.

Re:eerrr

[Doc Ruby]

What?

Re:eerrr

[honkycat]

You multiply and then the hours in the numerator is "divided" out by the hours in the denominator. Units work just like numbers in this regard.

I'm curious who else uses a colon -- I can echo others in saying that I've "been around" in science and engineering and don't recall ever seeing that convention. Have you seen others doing this, and where? (I'm really curious -- not flaming)

Re:eerrr

[honkycat]

As a numerical ratio, sure, but I've never seen it in the context of units in either engineering or physics. Is it a common convention elsewhere?

Re:eerrr

[dylan_-]

You're going 2 kilometers per hour. You're going for 3 hours. Do you divide the 2 kilometers by 3 hours, or multiply?

Speed is kilometers per hour, or kilometers divided by hours. Therefore:

kilometers/hours = 2
kilometers/3 = 2
kilometers = 2 * 3
kilometers = 6

I can't believe I'm actually having this discussion.

Neither can I. Did you really not know that "per" meant the same as "divide" or did you just confuse yourself because you had the dollar sign before the number in your first example? (Units there should have been $/g and then the divide/multiply makes sense as above)

Either way, I'm afraid you're just mistaken here.

Re:eerrr

[The Cydonian]

Doubt this would count, but back when I was doing Physics in school, I was in the habit of writing units with the negative exponential. Therefore, I would write metres per sec as ms^-1, for example, mostly for the fact that it looked cool, and because my textbook said it was the right SI way to go.

Had to get to college to start being less pretentious about writing units.

Re:eerrr

[david.given]

When people use the "/" symbol, it's hard to distinguish from its "divided by" meaning. Especially when the ratio is being used in arithmetic, as it was in the conversion I used, the ":" symbol is more clear, less ambiguous.

When people describe a unit as, say, m/s (metres per second), that does mean division. One metre, divided by one second. That's the definition.

And I'm afraid that using : is simply incorrect, because units such as m/s are not ratios. Ratios only make sense when the numbers on both sides can be added. You can't add metres and seconds --- they're not the same type and the result makes no sense. The reason for this is that when you give a ratio as, say, 10:1, this means ten parts out of eleven: you add both sides to give the total number of parts. (One reason why ratio notation is generally not used in science. They're confusing. Fractions or decimal notation are usually preferred.)

1:10 == 1/11 == 0.090909...

1:9 == 1/10 == 0.1 (exactly)

Re:eerrr

[bucky0]

Hot shit, how about you stop being such a jackass. It's customary to use the '/' to denote 'per', not ':'. He just missaw it. I did too. Are you gonna be a tool towards me too?

Re:eerrr

[Doc Ruby]

It's documented in the Wikipedia. I first used it during the 1970s, learning math as ratios and the definition of "*" as "by, of, for, to". In fact Greeks used ":" as a ratio, rather than our "/" or "÷"; their math was integral and ratiocentric (even "rational"). I started using it again in Web postings to help people recognize that they should multiply by the given denominator, rather than divide by it.

If you just plug the hours into the rate
2km/h for 3 h = 2/3 = 0.666... km/h (wrong)
2km:h * 3h = 2*3 = 6 km:h (right)

Re:eerrr

[Magic5Ball]

It's not common in North American English-language literature, but I've encountered it in Spanish and Portugese. In any case, going from (_3_ hits : _10_ pitches) to (_3_ particles of mass : to _10_ units of currency) should not be conceptually difficult.

Re:eerrr

[Doc Ruby]

You need to look more closely at how rates are ratios of even unlike units.

Re:eerrr

[david.given]

You need to look more closely at how rates are ratios of even unlike units.

Rates are not ratios. They're rates, a fundamentally different thing. Rates have a specific unit; metres per second, joules per kelvin, etc. Ratios don't; they're unitless, like logarithms.

Re:eerrr

[honkycat]

Yeah -- that is pretty common, especially in article text and other places where there's not enough vertical space for fractions, or when there is a long string of units.

Re:eerrr

[honkycat]

Ok, I agree that it's very common to express ratios with a colon. If you'd written 2.5B : 1g, I think it'd have been clearer. I've never seen it used for numberless units. Thanks for hanging around and answering politely. :-)

As for the confusion of division versus multiplication, it's really just algebra. You can treat a unit like a non-zero variable. If you think of "3 hours" as 3*h, and 2 kilometers per hour as 2*km/h, then it's obvious what you do. Multiply these numbers:
(3*h) * (2*km/h) = 6 * km * h / h = 6*km
We were able to divide "hours" by "hours" and come up with a length. If you tried dividing, you'd end up with units of kilometers per hours squared, which is invalid for a length.

This works for almost any unit you'll come across. The only exception I know of is temperature, but there are probably others. The problem with temperature is that both the Celsius and the Farenheit scales have negative temperatures -- thus, you have both the size of the interval between two degrees and an extra degree of freedom for defining the arbitrary zero. Thus, a simple multiplicative scaling isn't enough.

Re:eerrr

[honkycat]

No, but I think this all started because when someone writes $2.5B:g, it's not immediately obvious that the B:g is an abbreviation rather than a typo or some weird emoticon. :-D :-) X^o

Re:eerrr

[TheRealSlimShady]

What?

Seriously dude, the measure of speed is distance per time. That is, the distance divided by the time - that gives you the measure of speed. In the post I responded to you used the example of metres/second (or as you put it, metres:second). You do realise that metres/second indicates the number of metres divided by the number of seconds right?

Re:eerrr

[TheRealSlimShady]

You've just confused the issue. You've gone from the measure of speed (km/h) to calculating total distance (km). To calculate distance given speed and time, yes you multiply the two, because the time in the denominator & numerator cancel. However, the discussion was about the km/h way of notating speed, which you claimed was confusing because it indicates division - which it does. Speed is kilometers divided by hours. It's that simple.

Re:eerrr

[Doc Ruby]

The problem is that there's no convenient single character symbol for "per". The "p" or "P" symbol also means pico or peta, and can combine with other unit symbols. The "*" symbol is not commonly used to mean "per", though it's most appropriate. The ":" symbol is a direct synonym for "÷" - it's the original Greek notation that meant "is to" in ratios, particularly "is to / as" ratios like "a:b::b:a+b". As such, it reflects both the numerator/denominator relationship, and the implication of multiplication, as Greeks didn't actually reduce ratios by division. The "dot" symbol might be better, as it literally means "per", but it's not that convenient to type, its HTML entity #183 ("") is not rendered by all browsers, and it's not that much more likely recognized by the people who won't understand ":".

I don't like "km/h" because I've had people on Slashdot get confused by the "/" and start dividing, especially when I'm discussing some formula not often discussed (or completely novel), especially when abbreviating may ratios/rates in a single post. I wouldn't care, except they often get "me too" replies, which means lots more silent people making the same mistake.

That post was the first I've gotten where people didn't understand the ":". The poster actually ignored it, which seems the least sensible way to react. But then, they had already decided to argue with my conclusion, deciding I had just exaggerated the numbers. In a post they didn't even bother completing to make any sense at all. Then they returned to the thread with an obnoxious argument. I have no reason whatsoever to respect their inability to infer what ":" means, or anything else, except their ability to muddy the waters for other similarly less observant readers. So I might clarify, but only for the benefit of those reading who are actually interested in a discussion, rather than a rant.

I've got plenty of rant available, but I'd always rather talk it out - then I get to learn something. So I've done so in this thread, when the other posters have offered the same level of respect. But I'm just about done.

Re:eerrr

[honkycat]

Ok -- well, I think you're still not understanding the reason for the way units are typically represented (and you're not at all alone on this since, as you point out, people do it inversely all the time). The division versus multiplication is not really a prescription for how to use the number -- when I say 5 km divided by hours, that is not an instruction to divide by the number of hours. It is because when I measure speed, I really measure distance in km and time in hours. Then, I divide the distance by the time to get the speed. Say I measured that you ran 10 km in 2 hours. What was your speed? It was

(10 km) / (2 hr) = (10 / 2) (km / hr) = 5 km/hr

You're right when you say that "per" means you need to multiply by what it's "per" to get the quantity you want. However, that means that the "per unit" has to go in the denominator so that the unit cancels when you do that multiplication. For a discussion of things as simple as speeds or other simple ratios, your line of reasoning works. However, it starts to get confusing when you're talking about things like Joules per second per Hertz per Kelvin per meter squared per steradian. You've just got to take the algebraic approach to keep things straight, which is why the standard conventions are as they are.

Anyway... I think this thread is long dead. Have a nice day. :-)

Re:eerrr

[somersault]

basically / does give you the value of a ratio, as does the 'per' in miles per gallon (wasnt sure if you are saying miles and gallon are 'like' units there). All of it works, I think some people just like to complain, or maybe you're right and that they can't understand ;)

Re:eerrr

[somersault]

You divide the 2 by 1, then multiply by 3.. so both. Or you could have done 6 km in 3 hours, so you divide to get the speed, just as you divide the distance of 2km travelled in one hour to get the speed. *shrug*

Re:eerrr

[somersault]

it almost looks correct, but you shouldnt mix units with the values.. like you get km/h by dividing km by hours. You dont then divide by hours again to find the distance, obviously. If you'd travelled 2km in 3 hours, then yes, you would have done 0.666km/h.

2km/h * 3h = 6km , since the hours cancel out ((s/t) * t = s ).

Using it as a ratio makes sense to me, but logically it does not conform with the definition of a ratio. I dont like when people gang up on me, but maybe you shouldnt try to make yourself out to be 'right' when there are plenty of other engineers on slashdot who agree that the 'proper' use for a ratio is not not, in fact, to describe units (though personally, I accept it).

Correction

[geekoid]

"I don't see how this got modded anything but funny, I'm laughing my Falwell off."

Re:Correction

[Atario]

You're laughing your asshole off? How does that work?

Hands on GP2X experience?

[geekd]

Has any one played with or written anything for the GP2X? What do you think?

I like playing and writing games. I think I might get one.

-geekd

Re:Hands on GP2X experience?

[vga_init]

I've owned one since they were first released, and it's a wonderful little handheld. It works well, is very programmable, and has an active development community.

It's not without its issues; you can learn more by checking out the wiki and also visiting #gp2xdev and #gp2x on EFNet.

Re:Hands on GP2X experience?

[Gaz_EJ]

I've had one for a few months now, and I love it. The various emulator projects are coming along very nicely (MAME especially), and there's a fairly decent library of homebrew titles. If you like 2D shooters, there's more than a few of those :).

A few complaints:

• It can be sometimes be difficult doing firmware upgrades with just the FW file itself. While people end up writing installers to solve this, the GP2X can be very picky about which SD card you're using and how it's formatted. But if you're patient, like I said, you can just wait for the installers.
• Battery life can be dicey, but I picked up some of the Energizer 2500 mAh NiMH rechargeables and haven't looked back. Highly recommended for this sort of thing.
• Replace the analog stick right away. GP32z sells larger replacements... you'll see what I mean when you hold one.

GP2X "now" shipping in US?

[Ex-Cyber]

The linuxdevices.com article mentions only one reseller (repeatedly), and GP2X has been available from US-based seller GP32z for months (and of course available to US residents from the usual Hong Kong sellers like Play-Asia and Lik-Sang) . This just looks like a thinly-veiled advertisement.

Re:GP2X "now" shipping in US?

[nb caffeine]

at least it was part of a slashback and not an entire slashvertisement.

Proton-Antiproton Anihilation

[Cyphermage]

The NASA article says that positrons are preferable to antiprotons for propulsion, because they do not produce as high energy gamma rays. However, proton/antiproton anihilation at rest produces lots of charged and some neutral pions.

The charged pions can be directed with magnetic fields, and either used directly as exhaust for a high specific inpulse, or employed to heat a working fluid. The neutral pions decay almost immediately into high energy gamma rays.

So the situation with antiprotons is slightly more complex than the article suggests, and the stated reasoning for preferring positrons overly simplistic.

Re:Proton-Antiproton Anihilation

[Profane MuthaFucka]

In other words, dilithium focuses the reaction, and when the shit hits the fan you can reverse the polarity.

Re:Proton-Antiproton Anihilation

[m50d]

So the situation with antiprotons is slightly more complex than the article suggests, and the stated reasoning for preferring positrons overly simplistic.

You seem to be just showing off here. Whatever the details of the reaction, if the end result inncludes uncontrollable high energy gamma rays, it's pretty useless for propelling astronauts.

Re:Proton-Antiproton Anihilation

[Cyphermage]

Considerable research has been done on antimatter drives which employ antiprotons, and the consensus of researchers seems to be that the small number of high energy gamma rays produced by the neutral pions can be absorbed by high density shielding such as Tungsten.

I doubt NASA and others are investing money to develop ways of killing astronauts with radiation.

Storing any quantity of charged antimatter in electromagnetic vacuum containment will be problematical because of the strong mutual electrostatic repulsion. It is more likely practical storage schemes will employ antihydrogen microcrystals, which are neutral.

Re:Proton-Antiproton Anihilation

[m50d]

I doubt NASA and others are investing money to develop ways of killing astronauts with radiation.

No, that's precisely why they're investing in positrons rather than antiprotons, because using antiprotons would kill astronauts with radiation.

Storing any quantity of charged antimatter in electromagnetic vacuum containment will be problematical because of the strong mutual electrostatic repulsion. It is more likely practical storage schemes will employ antihydrogen microcrystals, which are neutral.

Erm, how the hell would you contain something neutral? electromagnetic containment, while damn tricky, does at least work. I can't see how you'd stop a neutral object flying into your chamber wall and anhiliating (sp?).

Re:Proton-Antiproton Anihilation

[Cyphermage]

Erm, how the hell would you contain something neutral? electromagnetic containment, while damn tricky, does at least work. I can't see how you'd stop a neutral object flying into your chamber wall and anhiliating (sp?).


Very strong electric and magnetic fields can attract neutral matter by inducing a dipole moment. Perhaps you've never seen a strong superconducting magnet levitate a spider. The spider gets very confused.

Re:I know this will be an unpopular position...

[Locke2005]

How is the author profiting? He is profiting by tricking good, God-fearing, heterosexual into "coming over to his side" and accepting homosexuals as valid human beings! This abomination has got to stop! If we don't constantly treat homosexuals as second-class citizens, if we fail to keep insisting that there is something "wrong" with the way God created them -- then God will get pissed off and smite us! You don't want to get smitten, do you? At any rate, "profit" doesn't necessarily have to be monetary. If Falwell honestly beleives mistakenly going to this site is going to change any of his followers' minds, well, then, their faith must be on pretty shakey foundations to begin with!

Wish

[codymeyer]

Wish I had 10,000 dollars to donate to something...

Re:Wish

[CptNerd]

I "donated" more than $10,000 to the Federal Government last year.

Of course, it was a mandatory "donation"...

What blinking?

[Matt Perry]

Put this in your userContent.css file:

blink {
  text-decoration: none !important;
}

Re:What blinking?

[schon]

Or just go into about:config and disable "browser.blink_allowed"

BTW, what are you doing now that "Friends" is off the air? :o)
(sorry, couldn't resist - although I know it's probably not the first time you've heard that one. :o)

Re:What blinking?

[Xtifr]

Turning off the blinking merely...turns off the blinking. With CSS, you should be able to completely supress and hide the text that someone thought was so important it should blink! :)

Re:I know this will be an unpopular position...

[Steve B]

but really, how is this "fallwell.com" site any different from any other "cyber-misspelling" trap sites?

Er, because actual "cyber-misspelling" trap sites don't have disclaimers in bold red lettering right at the top of the page with a link to the correctly-spelled site?

What app made these call traces maps?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://blogs.zdnet.com/threatchaos/?p=311

What app made the graphics in the above story. They display all the systems calls in a graphical map like format that are used during the process of serving a web page.

Re:What app made these call traces maps?

[scottv67]

What app made the graphics in the above story. They display all the systems calls in a graphical map like format that are used during the process of serving a web page.

Ask someone from Sana. They trot-out the "This is IIS-on-Windows serving one page." slide in every sales presentation.

You may have to dig a few levels into the company to find out who created that PowerPoint slide.

Re:What app made these call traces maps?

[neonleonb]

It looks to me like it could be the output of Graphviz.

Respect for RMS

[wall0159]

I know it's kinda cool to be oh-so-cynical and mock Stallman, but he's really an incredibly important person. Sure, he's a stickler for details, and I'm not sure I'd want him at a dinner party - but we really need people like him. They can remind us of the potential consequences of decisions - consequences that we are typically *very* bad at predicting.

I think this issue is similar to trade-unions. Sure, they can be corrupt (and full of nepotism), but criticising the _concept_ based on the _implementation_ is crazy. People died fighting for workers rights, and now we are notchalently throwing them away.

Similarly (though not to quite the same extreme) people have sacrificed lots of time to produce free (libre) software tools for everybody. Yes, it's an idealistic goal. Yes, Stallman is an idealist, and can be a PITA. But freedom is lost incrementally. Just look at Naz...

Oops! Almost did a Godwin! ;-)

Anyway Ritchie, I've got a lot of respect for you - please keep being a stickler on our behalf! :-)

Cheers.

Re:Respect for RMS

[techno-vampire]

Just look at Naz...

That's a strange way to write "the Soviet Union."

Re:Denying Jerry Falwell's appeal

[techno-vampire]

I hope I never meet any *real* right-wingers then!

I used to think I was a conservative. Then I worked for one. He was trying to put together a cable channel devoted to Conservatives. After getting to know him and a few of his friends, I realized that not only wasn't I a conservative, I was glad of it.

Now, I realize that I'm a moderate, slightly right of center.

The top five

[hotspotbloc]

Straight from the home office in Redwood Shores, CA here's the top 5 reasons why Larry won't buy RedHat or Novell:

5. RedHat won't take an I.O.U.
4. To pay for Novell he'd have to have "Golden Palace" tattooed on his face.
3. "Buy an island near Japan? Shit, get two."
2. Excessive ATM fees finally broke him.
1. Just blew $100k on that shirt from Brokeback Mountain

Falwell??

[eclectro]

Why wasn't the guy who owned PETA.org (people eating tasty animals) allowed to keep his domain? Mr. Falwell, you have bad attorneys that don't know how to railroad the little guy. I'd ask for your money back.

Re:Falwell??

[Darby]

Why wasn't the guy who owned PETA.org (people eating tasty animals) allowed to keep his domain?

Because Jerry Fallwell is a hate mongering bigot who likes to tell people how to live their lives and PETA is...uhhh....

Hmmmm, good question.

Most Dissapointing slashback. Ever.

[ssand]

What ever happened to the new style of slashdot to attract more ladies to slashdot, or the "how to make your own OMG ponies glitter art" slashbacks. Those were very interesting and informative articles.

Re:Most Dissapointing slashback. Ever.

[BigCheese]

Hush, my eyes are still burning.

Oh LARRY Ellison

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

For a second I thought you were talking about Harlan, and we were in for an explitive-filled tirade about how he hates computers and would never buy a software company, capped with a threat to sue anyone that reprinted, quoted, or even linked to said tirade.

Re:I know this will be an unpopular position...

[flooey]

If Falwell honestly beleives mistakenly going to this site is going to change any of his followers' minds, well, then, their faith must be on pretty shakey foundations to begin with!

Clearly, they need one of his books!

Agreed...

[cloricus]

Movements always need a strong leader or they fail. In the free software group it is a god send to have one or two (or three) people that, while people don't always agree with/die listening to via boredom, toe a very specific and non changing line; they provide focus and direction. So for all of the horror of hardcore idealist dullness and jokes I will happily lay on RMS (and the like) I still hold a great deal of respect for him and as a member of the movement roughly follow his guidance on issues. ...Keep being that stickler for all of our sakes.

Oh this is precious

[MC68000]

Stallman quote from the article (concerning the open source philosophy)

"It agrees with the conventional attitude that what matters about software is what job it does, and how much money it costs. That's exactly the same attitude Microsoft wants you to take."

Does Stallman really think that if you run a graphic design firm, you should use the GIMP, rather than Photoshop? If so, I'm scared that this guy is so prominent in the Linux community

Re:Oh this is precious

[wall0159]

I seem to be the RMS advocate in this thread.. ;-)

I think he's saying that the term 'Open Source' doesn't recognise the importance of the 'Free' (libre) part of 'Free Software', and that it focuses only on 'what job it does, and how much money it costs.'

To continue your example, imagine in the future that Photoshop so dominated the graphic design market, that they were able to introduce DRM into their save-files, and made them operate only with other Adobe products. That would make the Free (libre) aspect of GIMP much more important, don't you think?

Merely emphasising the price/performance aspects of GIMP (in comparison to Photoshop) would not illustrate the benefit of having the freedom to use the software however one wishes.

Re:Oh this is precious

[geminidomino]

I think he's saying that the term 'Open Source' doesn't recognise the importance of the 'Free' (libre) part of 'Free Software', and that it focuses only on 'what job it does, and how much money it costs.'


In other words, "Open source" is the pragmatic approach without the bullshit idealogy, whereas "Free Software" should be used even in those situations where it's inferior?

Score one for "Open Source" then.

Re:Oh this is precious

[m50d]

Yes he does. Just like many people believe your business shouldn't pollute, even if it would be cheaper to do so. He cares about his ethics.

Re:Oh this is precious

[wall0159]

Ugh - Obtuse!

No. 'Free Software' is better semantically because it considers the primary benefit of Free Software: Freedom.

If that was ignored, why would anyone ever develop an opensource product? Look at Linux - to start with it was inferior to the competing products. It's _only_ advantage was that it was Free (libre). If it wasn't for Linux, you probably wouldn't have DVD ripping tools right now.

Ideology matters - it's also known as ethics and morals.

Re:Oh this is precious

[geminidomino]

If that was ignored, why would anyone ever develop an opensource product?

I don't know. Why don't you ask all the developers of open source software that don't follow the "Free as in [what we say is] Free" mantra?

If it wasn't for Linux, you probably wouldn't have DVD ripping tools right now.


If that's true (and I don't see how it is), then it's ironic, since I still can't find a decent program for dvd authoring in linux. Am I the only person using open source software that might actually want to put things ON to a DVD instead of taking it off?

Ideology matters - it's also known as ethics and morals.
I guess I'm just a pragmatist. "Does it work?" gets a far higher relevance than "Is it free as in not really?" That's why I run Linux, I don't give a diseased rat's ass about Stallman and his "morals".

Re:I know this will be an unpopular position...

[Illbay]

I never used the term "cyber-squatting," you did.

I said it was a "misspelling trap site," or whatever the official term is.

For example, I want to go to the Bank of America website, and I accidentally type in http://www.bankofamrica.com./ It sends me to http://www.sedoparking.com/bankofamrica.com, a "parked" website that tries to be my friend, become my "new homepage," etc.

I think some folks need to look beyond their distaste for Jerry Falwell, and see that there is a principle involved here that goes beyond your socio-political leanings.

Re:I know this will be an unpopular position...

[schon]

the constition [...] Sadly, it has been badly eroded over the years.

to the point where it doesn't even have a "U" in it anymore... :o)

Re:I know this will be an unpopular position...

[Illbay]

Sophistry. You know what he's trying to do, and it stinks.

Like I said, Jerry Falwell ain't my cup o' tea, but everyone has the right to be able to have a presence on the web without people using nefarious schemes against them to redirect their web traffic.

I guarantee you, if this was a redirect from your favorite pr0n site to the Assemby of God website, you'd be screaming.

DRM haters are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM is not evil. It's a technology.

Encryption keeps information secret, the very thing stallman is against, yet GnuPG is an official GNU project.

With encryption you only get on or off. They either have access to your encrypted information, or they don't. You either trust them, or you don't.

DRM simply adds different layers of trust, more than just the two that you have with encryption. You can have partial or full trust with DRM. You only get two options with plain old encryption.

Just because it's being used for evil doesn't mean the technology itself is evil. By that logic weapons are evil too. If there were no weapons, we wouldn't in turn need them for defense, right? "No DRM" is the only choice? I don't think so. Everyone has secrets, and they have a right to keep them and trust them with whomever they want. DRM gives you that ability. Encryption does not.

Re:DRM haters are idiots

[LordLucless]

DRM is not like this. DRM basically says everyone is a criminal and you will have to play by a very restrictive set of rules.

You're talking about a particular type of DRM, albeit the only type in real use today. But DRM has the ability to do much more than that. For instance, a corporation locking sensitive documents so they can only be accessed from work to stop those "take-home work" leaks. Or you locking an email so it can only be read by the recipient, not forwarded on to everyone they know. Or to lock a document so that it can be read but not cut-and-pasted. Of course, there's always the analog hole in these sort of cases (people can just read the document and type it in again, word-for-word) but it's much better than what we have now. Of course, the key to all this is that you, the owner of the content gets to decide what controls to put on it.

I would be all for DRM - it has lots of good uses - if we could simply issue a law that said content sold cannot be DRMed. The problem with current DRM is that the person managing the rights is not the owner. They have sold the content to you. You have a right to the content - to watch it, to resell it, even to duplicate it - just not to distribute it. Content vendors should not be able to sell you content, and still retain the control over the content. It should be all, or nothing. Either that, or they can rent it. I'd have no trouble with duplication-prevention DRM on rented content.

Re:DRM haters are idiots

[Bushido Hacks]

If DRM adds trust and the industry does not trust us, then why should we trust the people who create DRM?

"If they don't trust you, why should you trust them?"

Re:DRM haters are idiots

[TheRealSlimShady]

I wish I had mod points, I'd mod you up in a second. You've neatly summarised my views on DRM - it could be a good thing for keeping corporate secrets secret, which at the moment is pretty hard - that whole analog hole thing...
IMO DRM has it's uses inside corporates, but becomes a real pain when it comes to consumer level devices. I'd be a very happy man if DRM didn't come near any of my home devices (PC, DVD, media player etc).

Re:DRM haters are idiots

[m50d]

Encryption keeps information secret, the very thing stallman is against, yet GnuPG is an official GNU project.

He's not against keeping information secret. He's against selling people only partial access to information.

DRM simply adds different layers of trust, more than just the two that you have with encryption. You can have partial or full trust with DRM. You only get two options with plain old encryption.

Partial trust...like the kind you have when you give someone a binary without source?

I don't think so. Everyone has secrets, and they have a right to keep them and trust them with whomever they want. DRM gives you that ability. Encryption does not.

Encryption gives you the choice. You should give/sell someone the data to do what they want with, or not at all. This is exactly the same as the GPL - you give someone the software to do what they want with, or not at all.

Re:DRM haters are idiots

[orospakr]

DRM is an example of keyed authentication used incorrectly.

It's really just security by obscurity.

Re:I know this will be an unpopular position...

[wkitchen]

That is the nice thing about the constition; it is suppose to guarentee the freedom of speech. Sadly, it has been badly eroded over the years.

Doh!

I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

So it appears.

Re:I know this will be an unpopular position...

[FauxReal]

Because the first thing you see when you get to that site's homepage is:

---
This website is NOT affiliated with Rev. Dr. Jerry Falwell or his ministry. If you would like to visit Rev. Falwell's website, you may click here.
---

But it's in a larger bold red font.

Re:I know this will be an unpopular position...

[WindBourne]

damn, when I was kid it was a sticky fingers that got you in trouble. Now that I am an adult (sadly, aged), it is a sticky key that causes the issues. :)

Ball State Wireless 'sculpture'

[uvajed_ekil]

Wow, the pics reveal a work of such technological marvel that it is nearly one tenth as impressive as the visual show I saw at a Coldplay concert.

The idea is very cool though, and I applaud the effort.

WTF?

[ratboy666]

DRM is not evil. It is JUST a technology.

Sure, its a technology. It uses crypto, but...

Lets go back to basics. Crypto means A wants to send a message to B, and C is not allowed to read it. A, B, and C are different. A and B can share keys (say, using RSA).

No problems.

DRM means A wants to send a message to B, and B is not allowed to read it. Really. This is NOT a typo.

How to do this? B is given information by A, locked into hardware, that B doesn't have access to. Really. This is NOT a typo.

Go figure. A doesn't trust B, and yet B is the receiver of the message. A wants to control B at a level that B has no say over.

It may only be a technology, but *I* don't want to deal with a paranoid like A. And, if I buy something, I want to use it for MY benefit, and not have it reserved for someone elses.

Ratboy.

Re:WTF?

[jimicus]

Lets just copy it, and set something that says that you have created the sole backup you are leagally (sic) allowed to create.

What happens if the original disk becomes unreadable for some reason - can you make another copy of the backup? Because if not, the usefulness as a backup is limited.

Are you... are you crying? There's no crying on /.

[Sepodati]

The original reply to yours was simply a quote from the article. How is that obnoxious? You actually replied out of line first by asking if the user was melting down. Your post was confusing, at best.

I really hope you're not a teacher...

---John Holmes...

Title freaked the shit out of me

[moro_666]

The first time i read it, it looked like 'OpenSSH , Farewell, OpenDRM' ....

was affraid here for a sec already.

editors, please try to think about people's heart conditions when you put titles ...

Re:Are you... are you crying? There's no crying on

[Doc Ruby]

The original reply was gibberish. It went downhill from there, including the latest - your post. You need a caning, but I decline to participate in any of your weirdo fantasies.
</CACKLING>

Re:I know this will be an unpopular position...

[geminidomino]

You know, I recognize the sarcasm there, but I really have to hope that "Insightful" is the new long-awaited "+1, Satire" tag.

Otherwise, some of those mods really scare me...

Re:OpenDRM is good! I'm serious!

[Anonymous Coward]

There is simply no such thing as "open source DRM". To understand this, you need to realise that DRM is not about controlling data. Digital data does nothing on its own. To control data, you must control what applications can run on the hardware. You do this through the use of digital signatures on the executable code of applications.

The fact is, you can only implement this DRM utopia of yours with software that is trusted (digitally signed and approved of by some central controlling authority)... including the BIOS, the bootloader, the kernel and the media player (at least). Once you introduce hardware that enforces these digital signatures (also known as "Trusted/Treacherous Computing" as found in the new Intel Apple Mac... a group of companies of which Sun is a major member), it is game over for any kind of Free software. There is no middle ground on this one -- and that's unfortunate because this is shaping up to be a major fracture between the concept of Free software and Open source.

Sun have repeatedly lied about this too, and finished the job of corrupting the term "open source" that was started by Microsoft a few years ago. It is one of the worst things they've ever done.

homosexuality != alcoholism

[jtcm]

The choice is in whether you succumb to that temptation or not. I wouldn't call someone had homosexual tendancies, but didn't have homosexual sex a homosexual, any more than I'd call someone who had an urge to drink, but never did, an alchoholic.

If you've never had an alcoholic drink in your life, you won't have any urge to drink. (at least not the type of "hunger" a reformed alcoholic might feel)

If you're homosexual, you'll know it whether or not you've previously "succumbed to temptation". Most people know their sexual preferences long before they're old enough to act on them. Homosexuality IS NOT analagous to an addictive substance. Would YOU be able to suppress your (assumedly) heterosexual tendacies if called-upon to do so? For your entire life?

Check out the news coverage of gay penguins. To me, it appears that homosexuality is something that has probably existed in nature for thousands of years and will continue to do so.

On a less serious note...perhaps tux is in on the gay penguin consiracy

Re:homosexuality != alcoholism

[LordLucless]

If you've never had an alcoholic drink in your life, you won't have any urge to drink. (at least not the type of "hunger" a reformed alcoholic might feel)

No, not that sort of hunger. More a sort of curiosity/desire I suppose. Which, from what I hear, is what homosexuality generally starts out as. A mixture of sexual desire and curiosity.

Could YOU be able to suppress your (assumedly) heterosexual tendacies if called-upon to do so?

There's many people who have done so, whether due to social pressures, or personal ones. There are also heterosexuals who have (ostensible at least) abstained from sex for life - like Catholic priests, nuns and monks. And yes, cue the pedophile-priest jokes, but you can be sure that's not the behaviour of the majority, or even a significant minority.

To me, it appears that homosexuality is something that has probably existed in nature for thousands of years and will continue to do so.

I don't know why people bring up this sort of thing as "proof" that homosexuality is moral behaviour. I mean, the praying mantis canibalizes it's mate in the process of reproduction, but I'm pretty sure nobody's saying that's a good thing in humans.

Re:homosexuality != alcoholism

[jtcm]

I didn't assert that homosexuality is moral. (However, I do believe that there's nothing implicitly amoral about it.)

My assertion was that homosexuality is NOT a choice.

And since you bring it up...deviant behavior like that seen with the many pedophile-priest cases (i'm no expert, mind you) seems to be a direct result of trying to repress their natural sexual urges.

And since you bring it up...do you have "proof" that homosexuality is, in fact, amoral? I suppose it would depend on how you define amoral behavior, and if that definition hinges on causing harm, then it is not amoral. Two people of the same sex making love harms neither you nor I, nor anyone else in any tangible fashion.

Re:homosexuality != alcoholism

[LordLucless]

Deviant behavior like that seen with the many pedophile-priest cases (i'm no expert, mind you) seems to be a direct result of trying to repress their natural sexual urges.

I'm no expert either, but I'd probably agree. I'm a protestant, not a Catholic, and there's nothing particularly scriptural about life-long abstinence. I do think there's a difference between repressing sexuality entirely, and redirecting sexuality into a different channel. I merely brought up the priesthood as an example of people who have repressed their desires (rightly or wrongly) their entire lives (or at least, since they entered the priesthood).

And since you bring it up...do you have "proof" that homosexuality is, in fact, amoral? I suppose it would depend on how you define amoral behavior, and if that definition hinges on causing harm, then it is not amoral. Two people of the same sex making love harms neither you nor I, nor anyone else in any tangible fashion.

I wasn't trying to assert the morality of homosexuality. I was just saying that seeing evidence of it in nature isn't proof one way or the other, which is why I thought you brought up the penguin thing.

But, to answer your question, no proof that will satisfy you. I base my own thoughts on the morality of homosexuality on the Bible. But I'm not out to condemn homosexuals - homosexuality vs. religion is more social politics than theology. From a Christian theological perspective, homosexuality isn't the problem, it's a symptom of the problem. People who go around "fighting" homosexuality are fighting a losing battle. Better to spread the gospel, and let those who are willing come to it. If they are sincere, then they will begin to deal with their problems (including homosexuality) themselves.

But I do still say that homosexuality is a choice. You may be born with certain inclinations - homosexual or heterosexual. But those tendancies don't lock you into your sexuality, any more than having genes that tend towards alchoholism, or cancer, or height, or obesity guarantee any of those traits.

Re:homosexuality != alcoholism

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

More a sort of curiosity/desire I suppose. Which, from what I hear, is what homosexuality generally starts out as. A mixture of sexual desire and curiosity.

Curiosity? You think people become homosexual because they are "curious" about other mens genitals? Because they wonder what it would be like to sleep with a sweaty, hairy man? I think someone here is in denial. I'm quite serious.

Some people are homosexual. They are sexually attracted to members of the same sex and desire sex and relationships with them. This isn't some kind of choice, although like anything, one does have to choose to go out and find a partner. Homosexuals will continue to be attracted to members of the same sex no matter how much they try and repress their feelings, "turn heterosexual", or go along with the precepts of some religion.

No one should have to do this. Homosexuality isn't wrong. They shouldn't have to try and become heterosexual or try not to act on their desires. In fact, this would be a terrible things as it would simply lead to greater problems down the line. Homosexuals should act on their desires and form relationships with people of the opposite sex.

Here are the facts, which I'm going to lay out to you, plain and simple. Why do religions, societies and individuals constantly protest and rail against homosexuals, ostrasise them, punish them even kill them? Why do so many come up with such flawed arguments as you have been setting forth in this thread? Why are homosexuals so hated?

The answer simply goes back to adolesent insecurity. While developing, homophobes felt tremendously insecure in their sexuality. They derided homosexuality and lauded heterosexuality as a part of the teenage instinct to conform. They created in their minds the mythos of the homosexual fall from grace, so that they, no matter how far they fell would always be above those who "chose" homosexuality. Even many homosexuals come to believe in this flawed adolesent hierarchy, to their own detreiment.

Some people never grow out of this. They panic at the thought that anyone might think they are homosexual and fear homosexuals will try and "make them gay". This fallacy extends to such ridiculous proportions that someone who is raped by a member of the same sex is often assummed to have been "converted" into a homosexual. This is where such juvinile thinking leads.

Of course, many of these people are in fact homosexual, yet consistantly deny this fact. Like a priest who condenms an attractive young woman from "tempting men", they blame homosexuals for their unbidden, yet natural thoughts, and thus accuse them of trying to convert people to homosexuality. In reality of course, just like the priest, these thoughts come from within, and are only "wrong" in the mind of the thinker.

Such people will probably live an unhappy lie for the rest of their lives. Occassionally they will make the odd freudian slip as you did above when you spoke of homosexuality "starting out" as "curiosity". As a heterosexual, I can tell you that curiosity is most certainly not a motivator for sexual attraction. As I mentioned, the thought of a a hairy, sweaty man with a five o'clock shadow is not a titillating image. I'm not going to go on a crusade against it, and in fact I would encourage homosexual people to form relationships, but the act of homosexual intercourse itself is about as sexually stimulating as the thought of parental intercourse.

You may feel that I am degenerating the debate by somehow accusing you of having homosexual desire or being homosexual. That is not my intent. However, I felt it important to clarify the situation with regard to the source of much of your arguments, and to refute your own misunderstandings with regard to the source of homosexuality, and indeed, sexuality in general. I cannot tell someones sexual orientation from a few post on Slashdot. In any case, you are applying a different logic to the sexual development of homosexuals than is applied to hetrosexuals.

Re:homosexuality != alcoholism

[xnderxnder]

I wasn't trying to assert the morality of homosexuality.

Liar.

If they are sincere, then they will begin to deal with their problems (including homosexuality) themselves.

Here you're judging that homosexuality is a problem that can be solved by accepting the morals of your church. No thanks. Adhering to the mistranslations of an ancient cult and selectively lording them over those you disagree with (Leviticus) is pretty messed up.

Oh well, I'm sure you disagree.

Re:homosexuality != alcoholism

[janic]

I mean, the praying mantis canibalizes it's mate in the process of reproduction, but I'm pretty sure nobody's saying that's a good thing in humans.

Technically, if you are Catholic, you are a cannibal. Transubstatiation is one of the central cannons of the faith.

Personally, there is a whole heap of stuff from The Book that I am scratching my head over.

John

Re:homosexuality != alcoholism

[LordLucless]

Liar. Liar

Here you're judging that homosexuality is a problem that can be solved by accepting the morals of your church. No thanks. Adhering to the mistranslations of an ancient cult and selectively lording them over those you disagree with (Leviticus) is pretty messed up.

Eh? I said that if a homosexual became a Christian, he would begin to deal with his problems. If he's accepted Christianity, then he would also have accepted (rightly or wrongly) that his homosexuality is a problem, and would start dealing with that.

I have no intention of lording anything over anyone. I have no qualms over other people going out and screwing whoever and whatever they feel like. The only problem I have is when people who do do that then claim they're Christians.

Re:homosexuality != alcoholism

[LordLucless]

Well, if you're a Catholic you believe you're a cannibal I suppose. And while transubstantiation might be a central Catholic belief, it's not supported anywhere in the Bible.

Re:homosexuality != alcoholism

[xnderxnder]

Eh? I said that if a homosexual became a Christian, he would begin to deal with his problems. If he's accepted Christianity, then he would also have accepted (rightly or wrongly) that his homosexuality is a problem, and would start dealing with that.

You are aware that not all Christian sects see homosexuality as a "problem," right?

The only problem I have is when people who do do that then claim they're Christians.

Your kind of Christian maybe.

Oh well, judge not lest ye be judged, blah blah blah.

And of course I assume you follow all the other edicts laid out in Leviticus too? Or, your one of those Christians who picks and chooses? Or follows a misinterpretation/mistranslation of what "knows" means (Sodom/Gomorrah)? Or, perhaps you just don't like fags?

Whatever, I'm sure our respective Christian Gods will sort it all out in the end.

Re:homosexuality != alcoholism

[LordLucless]

Your kind of Christian maybe.

Right, perhaps I should have said Biblical Christianity. Of course, I can't really see the point in calling a religion Christianity if it doesn't pay attention to the Bible, but it seems every little cult and sect likes to call itself "Christian" and nobody's allowed to challenge them on that.

And of course I assume you follow all the other edicts laid out in Leviticus too? Or, your one of those Christians who picks and chooses? Or follows a misinterpretation/mistranslation of what "knows" means (Sodom/Gomorrah)? Or, perhaps you just don't like fags?

I've got no particular problems with homosexuals. Read some of my other comments in this thread - homosexuality is no worse a sin than heterosexual infidelity, or any other form of what the Bible calls sexual immorality. My problem is people saying that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality - it clearly does, see Romans 1. I'd be saying the same thing if someone was saying Christianity and wife-swapping was compatible.

And of course I assume you follow all the other edicts laid out in Leviticus too? Or, your one of those Christians who picks and chooses?

Which edicts are those? Most of the levitical edicts centre around various sacrifices. When Jesus died, He fulfilled those requirements once and for all (Hebrews 9:23-28). If you're looking at actually understanding the Bible, you've got to take it as a whole. You can't say "look, here in Deuteronomy God commands the Israelites to kill the Hittites, therefore all Christians should be off the middle east butchering natives." Of course, if all your looking for is sound-bites to make Christianity seem stupid, out-of-context quotes are definately your game.

Re:homosexuality != alcoholism

[xnderxnder]

but it seems every little cult and sect likes to call itself "Christian" and nobody's allowed to challenge them on that.

Wow. I didn't realize the Anglican Church was a little cult then. Wait 'til I tell my priest.. she'll be sooo embarassed!

homosexuality is no worse a sin than heterosexual infidelity,

According to your "Biblical Christianity," which is based on translations or translations, yeah, got it.

My problem is people saying that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality - it clearly does, see Romans 1.

You mean this?

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."

And two liberal interpretations for that passage are:

"Paul didn't write it as a condemnation of homosexuality, but as a criticism of Greek behavior in temple worship. Greeks often incorporated sexual behavior in temple worship."

"This is the tough one. I think one doesn't get around this. It's the only place in the New Testament where there's any extensive discussion of homosexual relations. In Romans, there's no question that Paul thinks certain kinds of homosexual behavior are a result of the idolatry of the pagan world."

Source:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc5.htm

So there are differing interpretations - and it may very well be that Paul was condemning the Greeks worshipping practice. How that got morphed into all homosexuals, well, the Church does have power, doesn't it?

Of course, if all your looking for is sound-bites to make Christianity seem stupid, out-of-context quotes are definately your game.

That is an excellent, excellent retort. Point taken. I (clearly mistakenly) assumed you to be a garden variety internet Christian - those ones tend to still go to the OT for the brimstone.

In the end, you win. I don't care what your take on Christianity is, and it's not like either of us will change the other's mind. Your "Biblical Christianity" sure is, well, interesting. Good luck with it. Pity it doesn't allow for deeper interpretation.

Re:homosexuality != alcoholism

[LordLucless]

According to your "Biblical Christianity," which is based on translations or translations

I assume you meant "translations of translations". The Bible has been translated many times, but not as "translations of translations". When you translate the Bible into a new language, you don't translate the English version, you go back to the original document (that is, the oldest remaining document we have available to us) and translate it from that.

And while I may use a translated Bible, ministers in protestant churches are generally taught the basics of the Biblical languages in Bible College, so they don't have to depend on translations of the documents. Christian knowledge of the Bible is not based on translations of documents that have been lost through the ages - we still have access to documents relatively close (in terms of copy-generations) to the originals.

And two liberal interpretations for that passage are:

The thing about interpretations is that they need to be based on the passage if they want to be taken seriously: yes, the passage is talking about the results of pagan worship, but I'm not sure how you can say "vile affections" isn't a condemnation.

I could interpret the passage to mean that green cows make good dancers, but unless I can point to parts of the passage that support my interpretation, my "interpretation" is meaningless babble.

Re:I know this will be an unpopular position...

[iainl]

"At any rate, "profit" doesn't necessarily have to be monetary."

Exactly - these heathens are trying to persuade people not to beat them to death. Sounds like they profit to me.

Re:I know this will be an unpopular position...

[WilliamSChips]

The "u" ran away from constitution and into hono(u)r.

RTFP?

[SpectralDesign]

You're kidding right? You're not new to /., so where do you get off expecting someone to RTFP? :)

GP2X and jzIntv

[Mr Z]

Incidentally, you can soon add the Intellivision catalog of games to the list of games that will run on the GP2X. I worked with a GP2X early adopter to get my Intellivision emulator jzIntv ported to the beast. The port actually went very quickly once we determined that the SDL port was crap and started mistrusting it at each step. Once we stopped trusting it and tested what actually worked, we quickly converged on a working, full-speed port.

Right now he's sorting out bindings for all the buttons. Once that's sorted, look for binaries at the link above.

--Joe

The ratio thing doesn't make much sense

[p3d0]

What we're talking about here is dimensional analysis. The cost of positrons is not a ratio; it is a quantity. That quantity happens to be described by a unit called the "dollar / gram", and it happens to be 25 billion of those units. Why the division operator? Because if you make 4 grams for $100B, you compute the cost of the positrons by dividing the dollars by the grams.

Re:The ratio thing doesn't make much sense

[Doc Ruby]

$5:g
3g
$15

You don't divide by the g amount, you multiply. "/" means divide.

Re:The ratio thing doesn't make much sense

[p3d0]

Are you for real?

15 dollars
3 grams
-> 5 dollars/gram

I can explain it more slowly if you need some time to get caught up.

Re:The ratio thing doesn't make much sense

[Posting=!Working]

Yes, "/" does mean divide. $5/g means 5 dollars divided by (one) gram. Which, in everyone elses first biology, algebra, physics, or chemistry class, means you need to multiply by the number of grams to get the grams out of the denominator. If you divide by 3g, the answer is 1.666 because the units you would have would be $/g^2, which would be the rate of change of price per gram, if the price increased $5 in a 3 gram span (i.e. Not a very useful term).

$5/g * 3g = $15 (No grams here! Just a dollar amount!)
$5/g / 3g = $1.666/g^2 (Rate of change-Price per grams squared)

Any you've just proven why the / symbol is used, you can keep your units straight so you know if the answer you get makes sense.

I eagerly await your arrogant reply as to why you are right, and everyone else is wrong. Please be sure to include more math done wrong, for our entertainment.

Could you also explain the differences between $25;g and $25\g, too?

Re:The ratio thing doesn't make much sense

[loqi]

Your notation is non-standard, but "correct" in the meaning of a ratio. However, your explanation is backwards; the indication of a ratio means division, in exactly the same way that / does, and exactly the same way that "per" does. In the expression "miles per hour", that denotes miles/hour. You're confusing the issue with the step of solving for one of the quantities, which involves multiplication because that provides the correct unit as the end result. The : in no way indicates multiplication.

Re:I know this will be an unpopular position...

[advocate_one]

if he was running a valid criticism site, then he should use a domain name like fallwellsucks.com... then falwell can go and take a running jump as there is prior case law covering that type of site. Calling it fallwell.com is cyber squatting, pure and simple.

Energy requirements are very different

[p3d0]

You'd expect that as any kind of rocket would need approximately the same total energy for a trip that an explosion, all the energy being released at once, would be similar in size.

That's false. Antimatter rockets have a dramatically larger specific impulse than chemical rockets, making them much more efficient. Therefore, antimatter rockets need much less total energy for the trip.

I imagine the antimatter explosion is as large as the chemical one only because the former detonates much more quickly, but I really have no idea.

Re:Energy requirements are very different

[1u3hr]

That's false. Antimatter rockets have a dramatically larger specific impulse

Okay. I was however just using an order-of-magnitude approximation. And with less energy total, it makes the consequences of disaster less, not more.

Re:Energy requirements are very different

[p3d0]

Okay. I was however just using an order-of-magnitude approximation.

I hate to belabour the point, but it's not even the same order of magnitude. A typical trip to Mars (the Mars Direct at least) can be achieved with a delta-v of 4.5 km/s from low Earth orbit. With chemical rockets, you'd need propellant equal to 1.7 times the mass of the spacecraft, while this antimatter doohickey only needs propellant equal to 5% the mass of the spacecraft. It's not even close.

Re:Energy requirements are very different

[1u3hr]

while this antimatter doohickey only needs propellant equal to 5% the mass of the spacecraft.

Really? Aside from the actual antimatter, I thought the shielding might be rather heavy, if you wanted to carry passengers at least. But anyway, not to belabour my point, but that was that an explosion should be no more powerful then that of a chemical rocket; not much more so as the poster I originally responded to seemed to think. Your clarification makes it much less powerful.

Re:Energy requirements are very different

[p3d0]

But anyway, not to belabour my point, but that was that an explosion should be no more powerful then that of a chemical rocket...

Dude, you say this like I didn't already know it. Haven't I proven I have a brain in my head at this point? Why can't you just say "oops, I was wrong".

For example, if the new fuel had a lower Isp, then more energy would be required, the explosion would be much larger, and your argument goes out the window.

Sheesh.

Re:Energy requirements are very different

[1u3hr]

Dude, you say this like I didn't already know it. Haven't I proven I have a brain in my head at this point? Why can't you just say "oops, I was wrong".

I did. At least twice. But wrong in a way that made my point stronger.

Dude, you say this like I didn't already know it.

My response wasn't directed only at you, but the silent multitude who had been following the thread. If you just wanted to make your statement, and sit back and wait for adualtion, you could have started your own thread.

If the new fuel had a lower Isp, then more energy would be required

My turn to say "Duh".

Re:Energy requirements are very different

[p3d0]

Yeah, good points. Sorry about that.

Ratios have nothing to do with addition

[p3d0]

How do you explain a P/E ratio then? The sum "price + earnings" is meaningless. Same for the mass ratio of a rocket: the sum "dry mass + wet mass" is equally meaningless.

Re:Ratios have nothing to do with addition

[david.given]

How do you explain a P/E ratio then? The sum "price + earnings" is meaningless. Same for the mass ratio of a rocket: the sum "dry mass + wet mass" is equally meaningless.

price + earnings: both values are monetary quantities.

dry mass + wet mass: both values are masses.

Re:Ratios have nothing to do with addition

[p3d0]

Yes, they are dimensionally compatible. But you made the claim that "when you give a ratio as, say, 10:1, this means ten parts out of eleven: you add both sides to give the total number of parts". That's what I'm responding to.

Re:Ratios have nothing to do with addition

[david.given]

But you made the claim that "when you give a ratio as, say, 10:1, this means ten parts out of eleven: you add both sides to give the total number of parts". That's what I'm responding to.

Yes, you do.

You're right, it's not a useful concept when dealing with things such as mass ratios, which is why mass ratios are usually expressed as a fraction and not using ratio notation. But that doesn't escape the fact that ratios must deal with two values of the same type.

Re:Ratios have nothing to do with addition

[p3d0]

But that doesn't escape the fact that ratios must deal with two values of the same type.

Yes, I get it. I never claimed to disagree with that.

Though, now that you mention it, I do disagree with that too. I don't see any reason why I can't say the ratio of miles to gallons is 35:1.

I can

[GuloGulo]

"I can't believe I'm actually having this discussion."

I certainly can. Over the course of your posting history, you've made things up, distorted facts, and outright lied.

I don't find it difficult to believe you'd fail to acknowledge when you're obviously, demonstrably wrong.

And you are, as MANY others have already shown.

Do yourself a favor, let the matter drop before you make a bigger fool of yourself.

Re:I can

[Doc Ruby]

Over the course of my posting history, I've acknowledged whenever I've been proven wrong. You can find whatever you please, you can just make summary judgements without offering evidence or argument, you can call me names. Because you're a fool, as you've just demonstrated with your otherwise useless post. Don't offer me any advice with an attitude like that - don't pretend to do me any favors. Don't call me a liar or anything else you can't back up.

If you're such a weirdo that you want to come out of the woodwork to lie about my history, you should just keep it to yourself. You're the one who looks like a fool.

Ceremonial law vs. common law. Learn the diffrence

[everphilski]

With Christ's death and resurrection the ceremonial law was abolished - this covers the shaving and the foods. This does **not** cover homosexuality. Leviticus 21 is prefixed "Speak to the priests and Aaron" ... this is directed towards the levites, this is ceremonial law. Leviticus 18 says "Speak to the Israelites." This is religious law that we are still bound to, to this day.

Re:I know this will be an unpopular position...

[Steve B]

I guarantee you, if this was a redirect from your favorite pr0n site to the Assemby of God website

If the Assembly of God did exactly the same thing as this site (featured a disclaimer in bold red font and a link to a pr0n site), I'd do a screen capture and see if I could get a free t-shirt or something from one of those "funny things seen on the web" featurettes. (Bonus points if the page gave their name as "Assemby" of God.) .)

Re:I know this will be an unpopular position...

[Steve B]

I want to go to the Bank of America website, and I accidentally type in http://www.bankofamrica.com./ [www.bankofamrica.com] It sends me to http://www.sedoparking.com/bankofamrica.com [sedoparking.com], a "parked" website that tries to be my friend, become my "new homepage," etc.

How, exactly, is their "This ain't really Bank of America; if you want them, use THIS LINK" message worded?

Oh? They don't have one?

Another invalid comparison bites the dust....

Re:Ceremonial law vs. common law. Learn the diffre

[flosofl]

This is religious law that we are still bound to, to this day

You may be bound to it, but I refuse to let a book of mythology dictate my actions.

There's a difference?

[npsimons]

Sounds more like a store to me than a church.

Wait, there's a difference? I always thought religion (especially organized religion) was just a sales pitch.

I say cede the domain to Fallwell and start taxing the bejeezus out of him.

Or why don't we just start taxing organized religion like any other business that makes a profit? They certainly make enough money.

Re:Why would a gay want to be a Christian?

[jc42]

But then I have a sense of humor.

You might want to look into getting one someday.

Ah, but don't you know that a sense of humor isn't a choice? It's inborn.

(I've heard that a lot of people claim that a sense of humor is learned, but have you ever tried teaching someone to have one?)

GoDaddy = Irony!

[VxJasonxV]

GoDaddy donates hoardes of money to OpenSSH...
Didn't they just migrate a ton of their infrastructure to Windows?

All of the *cough* FEATURES of Windows + OpenSSH for Win32.
Gotta love it...

Re:Ceremonial law vs. common law. Learn the diffre

[everphilski]

I don't care about you, you missed the argument to make an attempt at ripping on someones religion. Lame.

The argument was that Christians are biased, choosing to follow one set of rules while flippantly disregarding another set. I was merely pointing out that one set of rules were invalidated by Christ's resurrection while the other set of rules are still to be followed.

SSH Usage...

[jlockard]

I wonder (read "doubt") if this means GoDaddy will start giving customers SFTP/SCP access to their hosted web pages. When I talked with three levels of support about access to a hosted site and wondered if they had a secure method like SFTP or SSL-FTP they didn't know what I meant about FTP being unsecure. Surely, you have to enter a username and a password, so therefore, it's secure. I was directed to the Java file upload interface instead because... geez, I don't know their thinking.

Re:Shut up

[Doc Ruby]

Fuck you.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Are you... are you crying? There's no crying on

[lantenon]

While you're entirely correct in your use of the colon to denote a ratio that is equivalent to the original article's claim of $250 million for 10mg, you've only really shown one thing through this entire (off-topic) thread:

You only used the $25 billion per gram so that you could use a larger number, and make it seem less economically feasible. While it is in fact the same cost, my interpretation of this use is that you've trumped up the apparent (i.e.: not actual) cost by raising the number of produced units in a hope to appeal to human's psychological tendency to only examine a given option's total cost, and not the cost per unit, in determining desirability. This argumentative trick doesn't enhance your case at all, but rather only plays on the assumed stupidity of your audience.

Re:Are you... are you crying? There's no crying on

[Doc Ruby]

I posted about an entire antimatter industry, not just the single mission. That scope necessitates the use of an actual cost per gram, a useful number beyond just the single Mars mission discussed in the article.

Converse to your argument, keeping the costs in terms of the arbitrary 10mg would have artifically reduced the number, without real utility. So I never assumed the readers were stupid - that inference comes soley from your own mind.

I expected to talk about the economics of an orbital antimatter industry. Instead I had a largely annoying argument about ratio symbols with a largely obnoxious group of readers - read the Subject residue of just this tangential message. I'd say I grossly overestimated my audience's intellect, with a few exceptions.

Re:Ceremonial law vs. common law. Learn the diffre

[FhnuZoag]

Well, no. For the foods, see

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/11.html

This is prefixed with

11:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.

So it is religious law, which we are bound to yadda yadda, so all seafood lovers are screwed. There's plenty of silly laws all over the place, and I kinda doubt Jesus handed out a list saying which passages were repealed.

Wikipedia description not relevant

[alienmole]

Your use is non-standard - see e.g. the article on Kilometer per hour), which doesn't mention the use of a colon. I don't recall ever seeing units expressed using a ratio colon - can you provide even a single reference that wasn't authored by you?

There's already a convention for expressing ratios between units, i.e. the slash. This subthread is evidence that it's not helpful to invent your own conventions and then use them to try and communicate. Your rationale is nonsensical: if people are confused by the apparent division, they simply need to learn the meaning of the convention, which is just as true with your convention.

IOW, give it up.

Ah, no, still wrong

[everphilski]

But then Jesus came to Paul in the New Testament in a vision and told him to eat of an animal with a cloven foot, he said "But lord, this animal is unclean..." Christ told him "No longer" ... and I quote:

1 Cor 10:25 - 1 Cor 10:27 (NIV) 25Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26for, "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it." 27If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience.

Re:Ah, no, still wrong

[the_point]

If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience.

And here I refused to visit my canibalic unbeliever friends!

Re:No, please no

[techno-vampire]

Please, don't fall prey to this very clever scheme. I'll bet you really are still conservative, and your boss was just plain loony. By the way, the L folks are just as guilty but not quite as good at this particular game.

Actually, at the time I just thought I wasn't quite as conservative as I thought. It was only years later that I took an on-line test that showed me to be a moderate. Thinking it over, it seems reasonable, as I have some views that are considered liberal, slightly more conservative, and most rather middle-of-the-road. However, you were right one one thing: my boss was a loony.