Slashdot Mirror


Extreme Christmas Lights In Orlando

tripmine writes "The Orlando Sentinel has a story about a geek who can't get enough Christmas light. 'This Christmas, tech-savvy people such as Hansen are increasingly building the biggest, most elaborate holiday lights in neighborhoods across Central Florida and throughout the country. They typically work in fields such as computer programming, Web development, engineering or audio and visual services and are armed with a technical knowledge that the average person lacks. They trade tips and stories on message boards and set up Web sites with step-by-step descriptions of how they installed their lights as well as pictures and videos of the finished product.'" Many cities have neighborhoods where the spectacle takes up blocks at a time, not just individual houses, too, as anyone who's strolled down Austin's 37th Street can attest. Links invited (in comments) to the best / worst light-spectacles you know of.

318 comments

  1. Random Trivia by orclevegam · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Around Orlando the Sentinel is know as the Orlando Slantinel due to it's tendency to not quite give the full story. Not that that's relevant to this article. Maybe if I get a chance today I'll go check that house out, it would be cool to see it in person.

    --
    Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
    1. Re:Random Trivia by cthulu_mt · · Score: 0

      Most local papers are like that. Here in Albany, NY we have the Times Union known as the "Crimes Union" for its habit of glossing over misdeeds by state legislators.

      --
      Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
    2. Re:Random Trivia by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      Talk about 'misread': I thought you wrote, it would be cool to see it in prison.

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    3. Re:Random Trivia by linguizic · · Score: 1

      I lived there for 20 years and I never heard it called that, as true as it is. Anyway, it makes complete sense to me that such a garish display of lights (not to mention the big fuck you! to the earth) would be in Kissimmee. The only other places I would expect that out of are Las Vegas and Gatlinburg, TN.

      --
      Does this sig remind you of Agatha Christie?
    4. Re:Random Trivia by fbjon · · Score: 2
      Garish display of lights? Oh my, I looked at the videos and there was a link in the beginning that tops the light display. You haven't seen garish until you've seen this hell-hole. (NSFEyes, and probably NSFBrowsers)


      Incidentally, is that message on the door, "Jesus, the reason for the season", common? Not only is it a painful pun, it's wrong too.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    5. Re:Random Trivia by linguizic · · Score: 1

      You know, I actually didn't see that saying until I moved to Northern California. Previously, I lived in Mississippi where I never saw it. I have no clue what the origins of it are, but it pisses me off every time I see it.

      --
      Does this sig remind you of Agatha Christie?
  2. Good Thing It's Not in Boston by imaginaryelf · · Score: 4, Funny

    Or the police would've locked down the city already.

    1. Re:Good Thing It's Not in Boston by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Lady: Hey, what are you doing!
      Officer: We believe this may be an improvised explosive device so it's being removed using a controlled explosion.
      Lady: BUT THAT'S MY HOUSE!!!
      Officer: Ok you heard her boys, book her, she admitted to being the terrorist.

    2. Re:Good Thing It's Not in Boston by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      And it's a good thing the YouTube video is not taken down yet for music theft, um, I mean, IP infringement.

    3. Re:Good Thing It's Not in Boston by QRDeNameland · · Score: 4, Funny

      Popele were just acting rashionally when they saw a st4range device on important imfrasturcture.

      Yeah, I have a hard time keeping away from the eggnog, too.

      --
      Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
    4. Re:Good Thing It's Not in Boston by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, yeah: it takes a lot of eggnog to drop one's IQ to Boston-ite levels.

    5. Re:Good Thing It's Not in Boston by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 3, Insightful

      rashionally

      I doubt this was on purpose, but it is an outstanding word. I propose that it means, "perfectly rational, if you are crazy."

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    6. Re:Good Thing It's Not in Boston by NMerriam · · Score: 1

      Thats an awesome definition, I think i'm going to start using this word, it goes great with truthiness.

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    7. Re:Good Thing It's Not in Boston by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 1

      Okay...next time I see one of those billboards on a building thing I am so going to report it and justify my actions with that excuse.

      And of course MIT the school agreed with the police, it would be extremely surprising if they hadn't. The people who made that decision were not the smart ones if MIT is anything like every other college in the world.

      Last time I checked batteries and LED did not make for good IEDs, especially if you're trying to be secretive. The situation was a joke, some people saw some lights advertising something they didn't recognize, overreacted, and then the police didn't even bother to check one of the devices before going insane but instead trusted some citizens who have 0 experience identifying explosives beyond what they've been fed by Hollywood movies to know what they were talking about. If you can't tell the difference between real weapons and light displays (here's a hint, unless they're using reverse psychology, highly unlikely, real weapons are meant to be stealthy, not bright and obvious) then that's fine, but police should be better trained than that.

      --
      There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
    8. Re:Good Thing It's Not in Boston by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Mooninite thing was paranoid and uninformed cops. The MIT thing was just another idiot from MIT.

  3. Linked video by celardore · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Is actually in Florida, not Orlando. Just got covered by the Orlando Senital.

    1. Re:Linked video by orclevegam · · Score: 1

      The article mentions several light shows. The one from the video is south of Orlando in Kissimmee, but several of the others are actually in Orlando (or close enough at any rate).

      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
  4. Global warming by Yusaku+Godai · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What's the point to banning some incandescent light bulbs if this bullshit is allowed?

    1. Re:Global warming by orclevegam · · Score: 1

      Who's talking about banning incandescent light bulbs? Several manufacturers are trying to phase them out, but unless there's something I missed it's an entirely voluntary thing.

      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
    2. Re:Global warming by mixmatch · · Score: 1

      Check out LED Christmas lights.

    3. Re:Global warming by Yusaku+Godai · · Score: 1

      Just making a tongue in cheek reference to two or three stories down. And to be more precise, it's about banning the sale of certain types of bulbs.

    4. Re:Global warming by DigiShaman · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      What's the point to banning some incandescent light bulbs if this bullshit is allowed?

      Because it's Christmas. You know, the the celebration Jesus's birthday?

      Now if you'll excuse me, I have a bon fire to light. I LOVE the smell of carbon in the winter! I shall spread the gift of warmth all around the world. It's my present to you, merry Christmas!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    5. Re:Global warming by orclevegam · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You know, the the celebration Jesus's birthday? Interestingly enough there is no record of when Jesus was born. One of the original dates that early Christians believed was March 25th, which also corresponded with the date he was believed to have been crucified. Early Christians also did not celebrate the birth of Jesus because they believed saints didn't celebrate their births. The Christian church however has never been one to pass up an opportunity to subsume a competing religions holidays, and late December was a time when almost all cultures celebrated some kind of festival (Yule, Saturnalia, Sol Invictus, etc.). It made it much easier to convert people to Christianity if they got to keep most of their old holidays (see also Easter, corresponding to the Summer Solstice and many cultures fertility holidays [ever wonder about easter eggs?]).
      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
    6. Re:Global warming by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      What's the point to banning some incandescent light bulbs if this bullshit is allowed? Well DOH! Your politicians will have been seen to have done something so that you will vote for them again. Don't you get it? It's not about actual results, it's about the appearance of results.
      --
      Deleted
    7. Re:Global warming by Yusaku+Godai · · Score: 1

      Thanks, you took the words right out of my mouth.

    8. Re:Global warming by schwit1 · · Score: 1
      Allowed? In a truly free society everything is assumed to be allowed unless there's a good reason to outlaw it. A nanny state does the opposite.

      What this has to do with global warming I'm not sure.

    9. Re:Global warming by orclevegam · · Score: 1

      Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything. - Frank Dane

      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
    10. Re:Global warming by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I tagged it "auxiliarynuclear", which fans of Christmas Vacation may recognize.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    11. Re:Global warming by lilomar · · Score: 4, Informative

      Um, not to be pedantic, but Easter is near the Spring equinox, not the Summer solstice.

      --
      The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
    12. Re:Global warming by orclevegam · · Score: 4, Informative

      Um, not to be pedantic, but Easter is near the Spring equinox, not the Summer solstice. I stand corrected. However, the point still remains that Easter was used to replace pre-existing pagan fertility holidays.
      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
    13. Re:Global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does a "truly free society" have to do with the USA?

    14. Re:Global warming by jackbird · · Score: 1

      Actually, it makes Jan 1 the day Jesus was circumcised, and hence became a person according to the prevailing Jewish law of the time (a pragmatic way of dealing with high infant mortality rates when mourning rituals are fairly labor-intensive).

    15. Re:Global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      see also Easter, corresponding to the Vernal Equinox There, fixed that for ya.
    16. Re:Global warming by digital_rich · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Who's the tree-hugging scrooge who modded this insightful?

    17. Re:Global warming by prandal · · Score: 3, Informative

      Easter retains its Pagan origins, being celebrated on the first Sunday following the first full moon following the vernal equinox.

    18. Re:Global warming by orclevegam · · Score: 1

      Yes, lilomar already pointed that out for me.

      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
    19. Re:Global warming by orclevegam · · Score: 1

      Yes, almost the entire holiday is still true to its pagan roots, but the reason for it has been lost and replaced with "celebration of the rebirth of Jesus".

      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
    20. Re:Global warming by One+Childish+N00b · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What's the point to banning some incandescent light bulbs if this bullshit is allowed?

      Shut up. This has been a year to end all years. We've been bullied into accepting bullshit laws left, right and center, we've seen our countrymen lose their lives in a neverending bullshit war, and the holiday season is the one time of year when we get to let our hair down and have fun without petty moaning getting in the way.

      Yes, it's garish, and yes it's a "waste of energy", but you know what? I feel like getting up and going to work every day just to fall into bed and do it all over again tomorrow is a waste of energy, too, and I look forward to the fun and silliness of the holiday season, and things like this add to the fun. Pretty much everything else fun has been legislated to death, if we start legislating Christmas then we might as well give up the fight altogether and become mindless automatons retiring to our alcoves for 8 hours 'recharge' in between 365 days of work.

      --
      Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
    21. Re:Global warming by Deadstick · · Score: 3, Funny
      unless there's something I missed

      There is.

      rj

    22. Re:Global warming by Basehart · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Interestingly enough there is no record of when Jesus was born."

      Interestingly enough there isn't even a record of Jesus being born at all. Assuming his mother was a virgin I'm doubting a birth was even possible, but hey what do I know.

    23. Re:Global warming by Deadstick · · Score: 1
      you know what? I feel like getting up and going to work every day just to fall into bed and do it all over again tomorrow is a waste of energy, too

      Just don't clean fish in your cube, OK?

      rj

    24. Re:Global warming by orclevegam · · Score: 2, Informative

      After Yusaku commented I went back and read the article he mentioned. The title of the article is actually somewhat misleading though as it's not a ban on incandescent bulbs, but a ban on selling non-energy-efficient incandescent bulbs after 2012. Going back to look over the article again it looks like the title has been amended as well to insert a "(most)" into it.

      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
    25. Re:Global warming by sentientbeing · · Score: 1

      Interestingly enough there is no record of when Jesus was born.
       
      Hello?! He was born on Christmas day. Why do you think the wise men brought presents?
       
      And why do you think they were sleeping in a stable? It was CHRISTMAS. All the hotels were full. Duh
       

      --

      ------
      beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
    26. Re:Global warming by Yusaku+Godai · · Score: 1, Informative

      The whole "virgin" thing is a relatively recent phenomenon. When the New Testament was being translated from Hebrew to Greek they took to word "almah", generally referring to a young, unwed girl, and translated it to the Greek "parthenos" ("virgin"). So yeah, Jesus was more likely the bastard son of an unwed teen mommy.

    27. Re:Global warming by jackpot777 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Jesus was more likely the bastard son of an unwed teen mommy


      Silent night, holy night
      All is calm, all is bright
      Round yon Jamie Lynn Spears and child...


      Naaaah. Doesn't have the same ring to it!!!
      --
      Shiny. Let's be bad guys...
    28. Re:Global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except, of course, that the New Testament was written in Greek in the first place.

    29. Re:Global warming by hpebley3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When the New Testament was being translated from Hebrew to Greek...

      Huh?!? The New Testament was originally written in Greek. Any Hebrew version is a translation from Greek, not to Greek.

    30. Re:Global warming by Rich0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Uh, the New Testament wasn't authored in Hebrew - it was originally written in Greek, which was the common language of the day (owing to Alexandar the Great's March across most of Western Europe/Asia).

      What you are probably getting confused over is the fact that Matthew quotes from Isaiah - which was written in Hebrew originally. Matthew translated it when he quoted it (since he was writing in Greek - not that he was the first to translate the Hebrew bible to Greek).

      The word used in Isaiah is probably best translated as young maiden. In using it to refer to the virgin birth Matthew translates it to Greek as virgin to go along with the rest of his account. It is obviously a more recent phenomenon than Isaiah, but it dates back to the first century - it isn't like this was a mistranslation from the middle ages. Matthew's intention of communicating that Mary was a virgin is very clear from the lengthy account of the whole story.

      Now, if you think Matthew was full of it I suppose that is something else, but this isn't some invention of modern translators or anything like that.

      How about an analogy (since this is /.): The US Supreme Court issues a ruling in English based upon some treaty written in French. It turns out that the supreme court choose to use a less-common translation of a French phrase in the treaty as part of its ruling, and quotes it in English. In the USA the only binding law would be the Supreme Court's ruling, based on the alternate translation from French. The Supreme Court's ruling isn't really a translation-error per se since it is also an original creative work, and the Supreme Court's intention wasn't to just translate the treaty, but it chose to quote a part of it in English to further some larger purpose. You couldn't look at the ruling 100 years later and say that the Supreme Court didn't mean what they said because the translation of a line of French was debatable - the Supreme Court clearly meant what they said in the bulk of their ruling, and the translation was in support of the larger work. Now, you could choose to disagree with the Supreme Court, and that is neither here nor there.

      So, while Isaiah is likely to have meant "young maiden" it doesn't really change the fact that Matthew was trying to communicate "virgin". And if you really are just interested in historicity then you'd probably tend to put more stock in a document written after Jesus's birth than 600 years before it when trying to figure out what happened.

    31. Re:Global warming by Yusaku+Godai · · Score: 1

      My mistake, the mistranslation was actually from a prophesy in the OT.

    32. Re:Global warming by virgil_disgr4ce · · Score: 1

      Hahahaha, I can totally appreciate that. Sad to see the tag didn't make it ;)

    33. Re:Global warming by jeephistorian · · Score: 1

      AMEN!!! eh...I am allowed to say that, right?

      --
      Huh?
    34. Re:Global warming by hendridm · · Score: 1

      I think the first half of his comment is valid. What IS the point of banning incandescents?

      I use CFLs in a majority of my house, but they certainly aren't perfect everywhere. Dimmers, motion lights, remotely-controlled fans (of which we have several). No love there. And don't tell me "but bulbs are available for these situations!" They are rare and extremely expensive... And greenish looking...

      You can't walk into Home Depot and buy one of these.

    35. Re:Global warming by Wooky_linuxer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Easter is a Jewish Holiday, and predates Christians by some centuries at the very least. In most languages the term for Easter derives from the Jewish term Pessach. One may still argue that the holiday was celebrated in that time of the year so to undermine pagan celebrations, but it is unlikely this was arranged by Christians.

      --
      Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
    36. Re:Global warming by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      he Christian church however has never been one to pass up an opportunity to subsume a competing religions holidays, and late December was a time when almost all cultures celebrated some kind of festival (Yule, Saturnalia, Sol Invictus, etc.)

      Saturnalia? Cool! Can we also celebrate Uranusmas?

    37. Re:Global warming by mazarin5 · · Score: 1

      I thought it was supposed to be 8 days after the birth, making it January 2nd.

      --
      Fnord.
    38. Re:Global warming by hellocatfood · · Score: 1

      There's a song by Lou Barlow that suggests that same thing! http://www.last.fm/music/Lou+Barlow/_/Mary

    39. Re:Global warming by fbjon · · Score: 1
      If anyone is unfortunate enough to have a bedroom window facing that display, I think they'll be gratuitously legislating it with an axe and chainsaw.


      To clarify: it's an awesome display, but it's also kinda like a meatspace gif. With background music. And no adblock.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    40. Re:Global warming by DMadCat · · Score: 1

      And chocolate bunnies!

    41. Re:Global warming by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Uh, the New Testament wasn't authored in Hebrew - it was originally written in Greek, which was the common language of the day (owing to Alexandar the Great's March across most of Western Europe/Asia).

      Saul of Tarsus was (probably) a native Greek speaker. Iesu ben Yussuf - the guy Christians refer to as 'Jesus' - was well educated and probably spoke some Greek. Everyone else in the New Testament story spoke Aramaic, a language closely related to Arabic; and that is almost certainly the language that Matthew's gospel (and Luke's and Mark's) was first written in.

      The word used in Isaiah is probably best translated as young maiden. In using it to refer to the virgin birth Matthew translates it to Greek as virgin to go along with the rest of his account. It is obviously a more recent phenomenon than Isaiah, but it dates back to the first century - it isn't like this was a mistranslation from the middle ages. Matthew's intention of communicating that Mary was a virgin is very clear from the lengthy account of the whole story.

      'Virgin' and 'maiden' are exact synonyms. 'Virgin' has latin roots, 'maiden' germanic; but they mean exactly the same thing. 'Girl' or 'Young woman' might be a different thing...

      Yes, obviously, the early Christian writers were trying to make the strongest possible claims for Jesus, and, obviously, the fact that he seems to have been a bastard was an embarrassment they had to deal with.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    42. Re:Global warming by jackbird · · Score: 1

      The day of the birth is day 1.

    43. Re:Global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did he get the memo?

    44. Re:Global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "allowed"

      I'm hearing that word way too often.

    45. Re:Global warming by sharkman67 · · Score: 1

      Give me a break! So someone wants to have some fun for a couple of weeks around the holidays. My guess is that he has kids and/or is still a kid at heart. While I don't have a display like his I do put some lights up as the kids love it. Every night they can't wait till we turn them on.

      So drive your Prius back to your tiny CFL lit apartment and ignore the holidays. Let the rest of us actually enjoy our lives.

    46. Re:Global warming by syousef · · Score: 1

      Well I want my incandescent lights back AND I want people to be permitted to do this. While we're at it I'd like plastic shopping bags that don't break under the weight of a single bottle back instead of supposedly environmentally friendly (but actually shopping store friendly) "green" "enviro" bags. People just have no fucking idea what a tiny drop in the bucket these things are compared to commercial waste. I'm fucking tired of every underpaid checkout chick trying to guilt me out about wasting energy or not using "enviro" shopping bags when she's just regurgitating the same asinine shite she's been lead to believe by big business without ever having taken the time to understand the trade offs and just how big an environmental saving is being made and what proportion of the greenhouse gas problem is solved etc.

      Want a better environment? Make it more sensible to go with the "green" option - subsidize the green bulbs instead of legislating away the incandescents. Provide boxes at supermarkets instead of plastic bags. Make "enviro" bags out of material that will actually be recycled and make them as cheap as the plastic. I'm all for environmental responsibility but not when every other fucking jackass wants to waste a shiteload of energy for what they want while I am forced to switch to inferior overpriced products.

      In other words if you want your fucking Christmas lights from hell, find a way to do it environmentally friendly (say using solar power and a battery that isn't going to do as much damage to the environment as using coal), or let me have my plastic bags and incandescent bulbs. Why the fuck should others subsidize what your fun?

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    47. Re:Global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why waste so much effort (clearly put forth by you and a vast majority of other "believers") while trying to "explain" this work of fiction?

    48. Re:Global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've been bullied into accepting bullshit laws left, right and center, we've seen our countrymen lose their lives in a neverending bullshit war

      Maybe YOUR countrymen... we had the brains to stay out of it.

      and the holiday season is the one time of year when we get to let our hair down

      Move to a less uptight society, one that works to live rather than live to work. Here we have a minimum of 5 weeks paid vacation per year per law.

      and have fun without petty moaning getting in the way.

      Just because you have a sentimental attachment to Christmas means debate is forbidden? Respectfully suggest YOU shut up.

    49. Re:Global warming by Devistater · · Score: 1

      Whats scary, is that the Supreme court HAS indeed cited foreign practices in at least 1 recent (in the last couple years) ruling. (I think it was the one about executing and competency to be executed or some such. I think I kinda agreed with parts of the ruling itself, but I did NOT agree with them taking foreign law as a basis for that ruling). I always thought that the supreme court only went on USA constitution and law. But apparently not anymore. So your example, theoretical as it might be, might actually happen.

    50. Re:Global warming by myth_of_sisyphus · · Score: 2, Funny

      Paraphrasing Christopher Hitchens:

      "What is more likely? That god intervened in a virgin birth, or that a Jewish trollop told a lie?"

    51. Re:Global warming by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      Christmas was ripped off a Pagan celebration. Has nothing to do with Jesus. :)

    52. Re:Global warming by drickey · · Score: 1

      Having built my own lighting controllers for a similar display, I want to clear up a few points. The power requirements of the modern LED lights are very modest. Keep in mind that the LEDs are not powered all the time; actually they spend most of the time turned off. For example, my 32 channel controller with lights draws about 50 watts. As far as contributing to light pollution, the whole show is *much* dimmer than a single (horrible) wall pack. My reason for doing this is that it's fun. It costs nothing for you to watch and I'm not trying to sell you anything.

    53. Re:Global warming by jstott · · Score: 1

      (see also Easter, corresponding to the Summer Solstice and many cultures fertility holidays [ever wonder about easter eggs?]).

      Easter corresponds to the Jewish feast of Passover, and has since the earliest days of Christianity. Even its name in most Romance languages (Pascha, etc) is a variation the Greek Hebrew words for Passover. The crazy formula we now use (Easter is the first Sunday after the first full moon after the spring equinox) was also devised as a way to approximately calculate the date of Passover (which always begins on 14 Nisan) and came into use as Christianity moved away from its Jewish roots (and calendar).

      You also mean spring equinox (late March). The summer solstice is always in June. Thus, the holidays displaced would have been the New Year's festivals (on the old Roman calendar) and not pagan Midsummer's night festivals.

      -JS

      --
      Vanity of vanities, all is vanity...
    54. Re:Global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "Greek Hebrew words?" WTF? When did "Greek Hebrew" become a language?

      The Romance languages take their terms for Easter from the Latin verb "patior, pati, passus" meaning 'to suffer.' Modern Greek takes its word from Koine (and Attic) "paskho," also meaning 'to suffer.'

      Easter definitely replaced spring equinox festivals; Eostre was a goddess of the spring.

    55. Re:Global warming by Windom+Earle · · Score: 1

      What's most likely is that Hitchens wanted to sell more copies of his books.

    56. Re:Global warming by o'davy · · Score: 2, Funny

      How about an analogy (since this is /.): The US Supreme Court issues a ruling in English based upon some treaty written in French. It turns out that the supreme court choose to use a less-common translation of a French phrase in the treaty as part of its ruling, and quotes it in English.
      Seems complicated. Please rephrase as an analogy using a car.
      --
      Sig goes here.
    57. Re:Global warming by speculatrix · · Score: 1

      actually, Jesus was frequently taunted as a bastard, it's just that only one of the gospels doesn't spell that out. Only in the last back then, people could be officially a bastard - if there were witnesses to the illegitimate conception - and you could only marry someone else who was also officially so; Jesus was not officially so, but since it was well known no respectable man would let his daughter marry a bastard.

      calling someone or their illegitimate in the middle east is still a great insult and was used to taunt the Iraqi soldiers during the invasion to "smoke them out" so they would come out fighting!

  5. only 25,000? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    25,000? how about 250,000 - http://www.casadelpomba.com/

    (not synched to music, but still VERY impressive)

  6. So 90's by Cthefuture · · Score: 4, Insightful

    These type of flashy animated displays are like flashing HTML text and all the other tacky crap from 90's web design.

    It can be done a lot more tastefully.

    --
    The ratio of people to cake is too big
    1. Re:So 90's by kylben · · Score: 5, Funny

      It can be done a lot more tastefully. Yeah, they could get about a million red, green, and blue lights and string them up in a grid, with a computer to control each light individually instead of entire strands. Then they could port Firefox into the code that controls the lights and just show the damn Trans Siberian Orchestra house video on it.
      --
      Insightful and funny are really the same thing, except one has a punch line.
    2. Re:So 90's by Sigismundo · · Score: 1

      It makes me wonder if these kinds of ostentatious displays could possible trigger seizures in epileptics.

    3. Re:So 90's by orclevegam · · Score: 3, Funny

      So very very tempted right now.

      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
    4. Re:So 90's by Belial6 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When I first read your comment, I though you were just one of those people that just like to complain. Then I saw the video, and had to completely agree with you. The display shows little to no creativity, and seem to be just a "I bought more lights" display. We used to have a house here in Santa Rosa, Ca that had a big display every year. It had a tenth of the lights, and was dramatically more impressive. It had spinning carousels, elves making toys, and various other animated displays. Buying more lights isn't impressive. Show me something I haven't seen before if you want to impress me.

    5. Re:So 90's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My god.

      I now know what I must do this year, to get ready for next christmas.

      Praise Jebus!

    6. Re:So 90's by karnal · · Score: 1

      I was speaking with my wife about this - it seems that there are so many lights in use when people are doing this light control stuff at christmas that it doesn't "feel" like the lights always line up with the music.

      800x600 = 480,000 lights - reasonable for a 4x3 display on the front of my house. Now to get the money together. Anyone have a clue as to what type of controller / interface you'd need for something like this? I know Nine Inch Nails had a "light curtain" that could be programmed to show video and anything else....

      --
      Karnal
    7. Re:So 90's by Hydian · · Score: 1

      At least he isn't using frames.

    8. Re:So 90's by brady8 · · Score: 1

      I totally agree - what's the point in even shelling out for the light-o-rama gear if you're just going to produce seizure-inducing strobe effects? This one at http://www.holdman.com/christmas/video.asp is one of the few I've seen this season that look like some thought and actual design skill went into producing the show... relatively pleasing to the senses.

    9. Re:So 90's by rsun · · Score: 1

      Using surface mount leds in a 0402 package (4mm x 2mm) and assuming 1mm spacing around each led to allow for placement, and assuming you meant 800x600 single color (as opposed to RGB), you're looking at a display about 12 feet across and 5 feet tall and given that these leds cost on the order of a few cents a piece (say $.05 in quantity), you're looking at $24k for the leds alone. Triple that if you want full color. The simplest way to control it I can think of would use modules of 64x64 or so and a pic/cpld to control the leds using a row/column strobe technique. You'd connect the modules to a lan/usb and control the whole thing from a PC. Best to have local memory on each module so that you can let them run independently, but keeping each one in sync could be a pain. Oh, and don't forget the power. You'd need about 19kw of power for a single color version if all the leds are on at the same time.

    10. Re:So 90's by anethema · · Score: 2, Funny

      http://youtube.com/watch?v=rmgf60CI_ks

      Lots of lights, and older video, but still the coolest lights I've ever seen.

      --


      It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
    11. Re:So 90's by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      800x600 = 480,000 lights - reasonable for a 4x3 display on the front of my house. Now to get the money together. Anyone have a clue as to what type of controller / interface you'd need for something like this? I
      If I had to design such a thing I would probablly use LEDs in 16x16 or so matricies each driven by a pic or similar. Then you need to design a system to distribute the signals to the controllers for the individual matricies. If you want monitor like refresh rates the higher levels of the control system would have to be running pretty damn fast.

      Large displays of individual lighting elements are pretty damn expensive to build unfortunately. At say 2.5p or so (Price for standard 5mm red LEDs from rapid electronics) each the LEDs alone for a monochrome 800x600 display would cost £12000. Then you have the cost of getting the PCB(s) to mount them on fabricated and the costs of the control circuits on top of that.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    12. Re:So 90's by bdjacobson · · Score: 1

      Glad you posted that video. This puts the story's link to shame. Much more thought put into this display than the story's.

    13. Re:So 90's by MR.Mic · · Score: 1

      You don't need a resolution of 800x600 pixels to display something meaningful. 320x240 (or even 160x120) should be adequate, and much more manageable.

    14. Re:So 90's by Paisley+Phrog · · Score: 1

      Definitely. I was thinking of this display when watching the OP video...and thinking that this was was done so much better. Thanks for posting it.

  7. All I can say is... by Foofoobar · · Score: 1

    Where's my BB Gun? I'm HOPING to put someones eye out.

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    1. Re:All I can say is... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I'm HOPING to put someones eye out.
      If I had to look at shit like that I'd thank you for it.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  8. Cease & desists and/or lawsuits in 3.. 2.. 1.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    FTFA:
    Hansen's 25,000-light display is synchronized to five songs, which he broadcasts over an FM-radio frequency so passers-by can pick it up in their cars.

    Radio broadcasts a/k/a "public performance" of likely-unlicensed music? So who's gonna get him first? The RIAA? The ASCAP? The FCC?

    Takin' all bets!

  9. Forget the eye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just aim for the wires coming out of the the electric meter.

    1. Re:Forget the eye by Foofoobar · · Score: 1

      Hell all it would take it a bucket of water on an unprotected outlet. Not that I'm trying to give anyone ideas or anything... but that's one way to take them out. If I was his neighbor, I'd be turning on the sprinklers full blast.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
  10. Rochester (MI) has some nice lights by dpryan · · Score: 3, Informative

    Rochester Michigan has a really nice light display setup on all of the stores on Main St. Here's a link to a slideshow from the company that put them up. Not surprisingly, the lights cause gridlock for about a mile in each direction, but it's worth it.

  11. Argh... by snarfies · · Score: 1

    Most annoying neighbor ever? I'd be looking into cutting their power lines after the first evening. But I'm a bit of a depressed grinch.

  12. Amazing dedication, big fat wallet? by dada21 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Who has money for the energy bill from Christmas lights? Our household is very financially secure, but I'm not looking to spend thousands over the season to run the lights. My neighbor, who isn't really decked out as much as some, said his bill will be over $600 more this months for his lighting scheme. OUCH.

    I'm sure the environmentalists will cry foul, and I understand that philosophy, but for me, the lights are putting more demand on electricity, which means I'll pay a higher bill myself.

    The wife and I do like to see the more extravagant lighting setups out there, but we have noticed that some homes aren't running them 7 days a week. Wonder if its an electrical bill concern.

    1. Re:Amazing dedication, big fat wallet? by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 1

      My neighbor, who isn't really decked out as much as some, said his bill will be over $600 more this months for his lighting scheme.
      I'm surprised you can fit that many bulbs on a trailer.
      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    2. Re:Amazing dedication, big fat wallet? by lifejunkie · · Score: 1

      I think those small Christmas lights use about 0.5 watts each on average.

      Some assumptions:
      0.5 Watts per bulb
      25000 Bulbs
      10 Cents per kilowatt hour for electricity.
      Lights run 8 hours per day.

      0.5 * 25 * 8 * 0.10 = 10 dollars per day

    3. Re:Amazing dedication, big fat wallet? by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      10$/day.... @ 30 per montrh...300$/month. Perhaps not 600$/month, but if he's got more lights...

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    4. Re:Amazing dedication, big fat wallet? by Henry+Pate · · Score: 1

      I was reading about these earlier and one engineer who set a system up for his house said that even with so many lights each light is only on about 20% of the time, and 40,000+ lights only added $80 to his power bill per month. So it may not be as costly electricity wise as you think.

      --
      Si Hoc Legere Scis Nimium Eruditionis Habes
    5. Re:Amazing dedication, big fat wallet? by Technician · · Score: 1

      My neighbor, who isn't really decked out as much as some, said his bill will be over $600 more this months for his lighting scheme. OUCH.


      I've gone completely to LEDs this year. The 60 bulb strings I use draw a total of 2 Watts/string. At $0.12 per KWH, the 200 strings take 12 cents for each 2 and a half hours, or about $1.00 per evening. I even stuck a string in the back window of my car. I swapped out the blue for white as a few years ago I ran a red/white/blue set in support of our troups, but got pulled over for displaying a blue light. If you do christmas lights on a car, don't display any blue bulbs. I didn't get a ticket as the officer could see it's purpose and just educated me.

      Ditch the C5, C7 and C9 bulbs. Last year I did blue. This year I'm doing white with some multicolor trim. Next year will probably include annimation, which increases the power for the computer, but reduces the average load for lights. If I run off my old Windows 2K laptop, the computer power will be less than 65 Watts. The initial investment is higher, but I find fewer failures except in some early strings which seem to have a high failure rate for green LEDs.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    6. Re:Amazing dedication, big fat wallet? by WML+MUNSON · · Score: 1

      Around my area there's a block that does this and the electricity company gives them a deduction every year since it qualifies as a "public display." That's the short of it, anyway.

    7. Re:Amazing dedication, big fat wallet? by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      We chose to feed the birds. We have a capacity of about 100 birds at once and go through about 5 pounds of Nyjer thistle seed per day. Neighbors and those walking buy get a show, birds get a meal -- seems more useful than firing off volleys of photons into the night.

      --
      I come here for the love
    8. Re:Amazing dedication, big fat wallet? by Windom+Earle · · Score: 1

      We feed one bird in particular. Of course, it's a red-tailed hawk, and it dines on 'food' that we attract with regular bird food and a feeder.

  13. Story time kids by Yusaku+Godai · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Back when I was in high school, my family lived in southern Florida. Miami, specifically. This kind of crap is extremely prevalent around there, and I'm not sure exactly why. At any rate, one year our neighbor, as usual, had up several thousands of lights, along with the usual array of motorized reindeer, inflatable Santa Claus, and of course a big plastic glowing Jesus (what Jesus has to do with a pagan/capitalist holiday I'm not sure).

    Anyways, a huge ugly array of crap that probably took a lot of work to put up--a perfect target for neighborhood hooligans looking to spoil peoples' hard work, right? Not so. The neighbor's display remained untouched. Meanwhile over at our house, we had simply arranged some lights in the shape of a peace sign over our garage door. Within two days all the lights had been torn down and stomped on. Ah, America...

    1. Re:Story time kids by orclevegam · · Score: 1

      Probably to make up for the complete lack of snow or really even cold weather. It's rather hard to get into the christmas spirit when it's 80 degrees outside, so people try to compensate by putting up ridiculously extravagant decorations.

      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
    2. Re:Story time kids by mcsqueak · · Score: 1

      Probably to make up for the complete lack of snow or really even cold weather. It's rather hard to get into the christmas spirit when it's 80 degrees outside, so people try to compensate by putting up ridiculously extravagant decorations. I'd agree. I'm living in the Pacific NW but have had the good fortune to spend two Holiday seasons in recent years down in Maui, Hawai'i. The first time I went there, it felt like people had simply left their Christmas decorations up until June... it was almost disorientating to have it be in the mid 80's and see Christmas trees all done up, people in Santa costumes, palm tress covered in lights, and all the other typical Christmas stuff. Being someone from a cold and rainy climate, I had always associated Christmas with the cold weather and seeing it in a tropical setting just never seemed quite "right" to me.
    3. Re:Story time kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moderated down by some drooling conservative moron, no doubt.

    4. Re:Story time kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seem to be an awful lot of those around lately, not to mention a recent boom in spammers/trolls of all kinds. Anyone happen to know if slashdot has some sort of blacklisting system? I mean, after about the 100th post from an account (or IP for AC) that has nothing but -1 Troll in its history isn't it pretty apparent that that user should probably be banned?

    5. Re:Story time kids by garett_spencley · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is ... even if I do manage to escape this blistering cold version of hell that is called "Canada" and move somewhere tropical with no snow that I'm not going to be able to get rid of all of the annoying holiday crap ? It's only going to be worse ?

      Thanks for crushing my hopes and dreams. :(

    6. Re:Story time kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It gets kind of annoying the Socialist/Liberal agenda around here always getting pushed and not to mention the nerds are so bitter/jealous towards everyone else.

      Yah like you don't get a new IP address anyways.

      Fucking Taliban around with their bitterness towards Christmas and everyone in life.

    7. Re:Story time kids by Deadstick · · Score: 1
      Are you old enough to remember Anthony Abraham, a Chevy dealer, and Abe Aronovitz, a mayor of Miami? They lived across a street from each other in the Gables, and Jewish though they were, they competed every year for the most garish Christmas lights. I used to take people for airplane rides over there at night.

      rj

    8. Re:Story time kids by Yusaku+Godai · · Score: 1

      To be fair, it is kinda flamebait.

    9. Re:Story time kids by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Clearly you are living in an oppressive nation whose traditions and beliefs run contrary to your way of life. I suggest you quickly pack up your meagre belongings, and, in the middle of the night, climb the wall into West Berl...I mean, Canada!

    10. Re:Story time kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps your dark master objected to you displaying a peace sign ...

  14. Re:Cease & desists and/or lawsuits in 3.. 2.. by orclevegam · · Score: 1

    Well, the FCC should have no claim, as most small transceivers aren't powerful enough to require FCC licensing. Now the RIAA (ASCAP?... maybe, but think that only applies to live performances) may have some sort of claim.

    --
    Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
  15. Awesome by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Of course, it's all fun and games until the bus of epileptic kids drives by.

    --
    Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    1. Re:Awesome by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, good ol' BlinkenBus.

      "If this bus is a-rockin' ... call the paramedics."

  16. You too can do this by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Computer controlled, fully programmable.
    Lite-o-rama

    If you're insane and anal enough to do it right. Some of the displays are pretty impressive, though. In an over the top, freaky, kind of way.

    1. Re:You too can do this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember my friend's dad doing this to his house about 15 year's ago. He's an electrician, though, so he rolled his own setup.

      He even had a sign that read something like, "tune to xyz FM to listen to the music while you watch". Probably not legal, but cool.

    2. Re:You too can do this by sharkman67 · · Score: 1

      I have 32 channels of Lightorama gear. Pretty good bang for the buck. You can buy plug and play units all the way down to kits that you have to solder yourself. There are both AC and DC controllers and they connect to each other via RS-485 over standard CAT5 cable.

      There are also a couple of other vendors of similar gear:
      animatedlighting.com - very similar equipment but a little more expensive
      d-light.us - basically a knock off of lightorama and the cheapest way to get started

      While I have Lightorama controllers I don't sync my display to music. I just use them to make my display less boring. For instance I have both red and green spots (six of each) on the house. I can cross fade in and out the colors and completely change the look of the house. I use 12 channels alone on my pine tree. I have 6 strings each of red, blue, green and white rope lights on the tree. They are broken up into three zones: top, middle and bottom. I've got a number of sequences that that change the color of the tree, mix and match zones as well as twinkle, shimmer, etc.

      These controllers also make for great Halloween displays. I'm also going to try to use it this summer to sequence a fireworks display to music for the 4th of July.

  17. Armed with technical knowledge.... by cc1984_ · · Score: 4, Funny

    They typically work in fields such as computer programming, Web development, engineering or audio and visual services and are armed with a technical knowledge that the average person lacks ..and lack social skills and good taste which others are armed with.
    1. Re:Armed with technical knowledge.... by hendridm · · Score: 1

      ...says he who is posting on Slashdot. Geek is chic, fool.

  18. Bizare Christmas Decorations by doombringerltx · · Score: 2, Funny

    Once I was with my family driving around looking at lights when we saw one house that had a huge nativity scene set up in their front yard. It had Mary, Joesph, the wise men, the whole nine yards. But it also had a huge fucking grim reaper behind the manager leaning over it all. I guess they were too lazy to take down the Halloween decorations all the way before setting up for Christmas, or they were just ape shit insane. Probably a little of each

    1. Re:Bizare Christmas Decorations by Black+Art · · Score: 1

      Now I know what I am going to do for next year.

      --
      "Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
  19. Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by humankind · · Score: 0, Troll

    I couldn't help but notice the huge, annoying, "Jesus is the reason for the season" in those Xmas lights. Maybe if the architect did as much research into history as he did lighting, he might realize that Christmas was appropriated from earlier pagan traditions and has very little, if virtually nothing to do with "Jesus". Historians also generally agree (among those that actually think there was a historial Jesus figure) that Jesus was not born on December 25th in the first place. He was more likely born in the Spring or Summer. It's one thing to believe something that's erroneous. It's another to cast it in a hundred thousand lights and broadcast your ignorance to the entire neighborhood. Happy Saturnalia!

    1. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

      You forgot about the fact that the year is totally wrong as well.

      I like to say that we can tell how much God* cared about Jesus's date of birth by how much he divinely inspired the priests to get the date and year correct. :)

      *Of course, I could also point out that it's yet more evidence of the non-existence of God, but that's another subject.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    2. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      When I saw the "Jesus" sign, I thought it was apropos because I was thinking, "Jesus, what a fucking tacky, ostentatious display." Very Christian. He is more full of... the holy spirit than thouist.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by orclevegam · · Score: 1

      It always amazes me to see that the ones who least embody what the Christians claim to stand for are almost always the ones professing to be the most devout followers. I've met some very nice Christians who feel very strongly about their religion, but are still respectful of others, but sadly I've met many more who are practically militant about their particular flavor of Kool-Aid. I generally of course don't care what people happen to believe in so long as they don't break a few simple rules. First, I don't want to hear about it. Second, I don't want my tax dollars funding it. And Third it has no place in our legal process. So, I don't care if they have some message in their lights, they're their lights, they can put whatever they want in them, just so long as they leave me alone and don't expect me to do anything, or put up anything specific in my lights.

      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
    4. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by phoebusQ · · Score: 1

      While pre-existing times of celebration were appropriated, this is common throughout culture and history, regardless of religion.
      While saturnalia, etc., may be a pagan holiday, Christmas itself is very much about Christ. I find it strange that people are so eager to denigrate one particular religion's holidays...it's pretty small-minded and disgusting.

    5. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by phoebusQ · · Score: 1

      What's sad is that while you seem thoughtful and reasonable, many in this thread are actively hostile toward others just because of their religion, while at the same time accusing the religious of small-mindedness.
      A digusting double-standard.

    6. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by Jhon · · Score: 1
      What I'm reading from your tone (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that Christians shouldn't celebrate the birth of their massiah because they don't know exactly when he was born? And they "appropriated" the celebration of others?

      Christmas is a liturgy. It doesn't matter the exact day, what matters is the event. Most christians are aware of this. What you see as "taken over" earlier pagan traditions can easily, and more neutrally be charactized as "adopted".

      It's another to cast it in a hundred thousand lights and broadcast your ignorance to the entire neighborhood.
      And you don't think you are boadcasting your ignorance and bigotry of christians on slashdot?
    7. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by orclevegam · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately I think a lot of that stems from the particular breakout of users on this site. Out in general public most of those that have some non-traditional religious views (just about anything but Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or maybe even one of the eastern religions) are constantly reminded of the various religions opinions about virtually everything. Furthermore they often must censor themselves around certain individuals (such as extended family they still wish to remain on speaking terms with) and go along with many things during public events that they would rather not. It's also somewhat scary to see powerful business and political leaders giving speeches in which they attribute far reaching actions and opinions to personal religious beliefs rather then sound reasoning. As a result of this I think they tend to lash out at people on /. which is one of the few venues in which we're all free to speak our minds. No, it isn't fair to those that are Christian or otherwise, but all I can say is try to reason with them as best you can and hopefully the mods will balance things out. If they get enough -1 flamebait or -1 troll mods maybe they'll learn to back down and act more reasonably, and if you provide reasoned and articulate responses it might help to counter some of the prevailing view of the religious as being militant and out of touch with reality. Ultimately of course if the discussion comes down to religion there is no way to "win" that argument, if you disagree on it. Religion by its very nature cannot be logically argued, so everyone just needs to accept that their views are different and there's nothing to be done about.

      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
    8. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by Pojut · · Score: 1

      I think what the OP was trying to say was that the pagan religion of Yule was originally modified by Christians in an attempt to a. convert pagans over to christianity b. "gloss over" the pagan holiday in an attempt to prevent other people from discovering it, becomming curious, and partaking in it and c. recently has been perpetuated in an attempt to gain mass amounts of money from the general public.

      This is actually true with most christian holidays. This is not bigotry against christianity, it's the truth. Just like the jews being poor and dirty in The Passion wasn't bigotry, it was the truth...jews were poor and dirty back then. Just like saying black people have big lips isn't racist...it's simply the truth; they do in fact have big lips.

      If anything, modern-day christians should be more pissed than modern-day pagans about this...the holiday that is supposed to celebrate the birth of their saviour is simply a retooling of a much older pagan celebration once considered by the church to be inspired by the devil. If as a christian that doesn't piss you off...you need to read this paragraph again.

    9. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 1

      You're assuming he's talking about Jesus Christ. This is Florida. He could just as easily been referring to Jesus Martinez, the Cuban man whose cheap labor made stringing all those lights up a possibility.

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
    10. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      While saturnalia, etc., may be a pagan holiday, Christmas itself is very much about Christ.

      Yeah, because Christ totally wants you to buy that electric train set for your child. Or maybe a laptop, or a skateboard, or a car.

      And it's Christ who compells you to lie to your child about the existence of a fat, jolly man who flies around the world in a single night, to bring presents to everyone -- but hey, you believe in Christ, so why wouldn't you believe in Santa?

      I get what you're trying to say -- that the spirit of Christmas is about giving and sharing and being cheerful on the darkest of winter days. But that's absolutely not what Christmas is about today. (Oh, and it's not just the time that was appropriated...)

      I find it strange that people are so eager to denigrate one particular religion's holidays...it's pretty small-minded and disgusting.

      I didn't actually see GP denigrating any holidays, just one particular guy's ignorance about its origins. Even you must realize that "the reason for the season" is dead wrong, even if it was the reason for the holiday (which it isn't).

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    11. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I always like to remind myself that the other "side" thinks that I'm going to hell (or equivalent). It's always fun to have a conversation with someone when they think that you are a condemned soul... sort of trips up the whole conversation between equals thing right from the start. That's why it's funny to see these religious summits where they have interfaith councils... they all think that the other is so completely wrong that they are condemned to suffer for eternity. Nice start.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    12. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HAHA! Oh Wow! That's fucking funny!

    13. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by Jhon · · Score: 1

      This is not bigotry against christianity, it's the truth.
      It was bigotry against christianity in his suggestion that christians who celebrate the birth of Jesus are ignorant. The OPs overall tone was bigoted. In the west, typically the birth of Jesus is celebrated on December 25h. In the east, it's typicall celebrated on January 6th. Again, the date doesn't matter, it's the event. Is it ignorant to celebrate ML King's birthday? I can tell you, he wasn't born on a magic day that makes it always fall on a Monday.

      Christians didn't 'steal' other cultures methods of celebration. Other cultures brought their methods of celebration as they converted and in many cases have been adopted by christians as a whole. This is true in non-religious celebrations as well. My wife (and her family) are from the middle east. July 4th diners typical consists of Kabob and Hummus. I don't consider them trying to "take over" our customs.

      Yes, the history of christianity is tainted in blood -- as is every theology. Antitheologic philosophies are likewise tainted (see China, USSR). To stereotype an entire belief system as the OP did defines what bigotry is.
    14. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by Pojut · · Score: 1
      Insofar as the OP is concerned, yes, I will agree what he was saying could be considered bigotry.

      Christians didn't 'steal' other cultures methods of celebration. Other cultures brought their methods of celebration as they converted and in many cases have been adopted by christians as a whole.


      So...what you are saying is, is that "as a whole", christianity accepted the methods of celebration that other cultures used...those other cultures being the same ones that were accused of working in-tandem with the devil, and considered bad enough to be destroyed in mass numbers?

      I'm not saying christianity is the only religion that has blood on it's hands...the majority of religions do, in some form or another. What I'm trying to understand though is what sense does it make to adopt the celebrations from a group of people that the CHURCH THEMSELVES decided were agents and tools for the devil?

      If I were a christian (I'm not...I wouldn't consider myself anything, insofar as religion is concerned) the very idea that the church accepted and actually ENCOURAGED the celebrations brought forward by converts from a religion that was supposed to be about devil worship and blasphemy of MY god would be enough for me to secede from the church completely.

      How does it not piss off christians that many of the traditions used in the celebration for the birth of their saviour came from the very people that their church was denouncing and killing? See...this is why religion is stupid to me. If you aren't willing to accept doublespeak in politics...why are you willing to accept it in religion?
    15. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by pudge · · Score: 1

      I couldn't help but notice the huge, annoying, "Jesus is the reason for the season" in those Xmas lights. Maybe if the architect did as much research into history as he did lighting, he might realize that Christmas was appropriated from earlier pagan traditions and has very little, if virtually nothing to do with "Jesus". Most people would not celebrate Christmas if not for our attachment of it to Jesus, and it certainly would not be a national holiday.

      Jesus is, indeed, the reason why people care about Christmas at all. Funny how people like you complain about revisionism, and then try to ignore facts like this.

    16. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by pudge · · Score: 1

      While saturnalia, etc., may be a pagan holiday, Christmas itself is very much about Christ. Yeah, because Christ totally wants you to buy that electric train set for your child. Or maybe a laptop, or a skateboard, or a car. Straw man. Two-minute penalty. Red herring. Two-minute penalty.

      And it's Christ who compells you to lie to your child about the existence of a fat, jolly man who flies around the world in a single night, to bring presents to everyone -- but hey, you believe in Christ, so why wouldn't you believe in Santa? Who is compelling you to be an asshole? Two more minutes, unsportsmanlike conduct in the guise of an ad hominem.

      I get what you're trying to say -- that the spirit of Christmas is about giving and sharing and being cheerful on the darkest of winter days. But that's absolutely not what Christmas is about today. Correct. It is about the birth of Jesus Christ. That is what it is about. That is why it is celebrated around the world, why it is a national holiday, and why you get the day off from work.

      Maybe you don't believe in Jesus. But that is, in fact, the reason why Christmas is celebrated by billions of people. Each of those billions may have their own reason for celebrating Christmas, but they wouldn't be celebrating it at all if not for that primary reason.

    17. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by pudge · · Score: 1

      the holiday that is supposed to celebrate the birth of their saviour is simply a retooling of a much older pagan celebration False. Just because they appropriated some portions of an existing celebration in no way can logically lead one to say that the new celebration is "simply a retooling" of the old one. That's nonsense on the face of it.
    18. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by pudge · · Score: 1

      What I'm trying to understand though is what sense does it make to adopt the celebrations from a group of people that the CHURCH THEMSELVES decided were agents and tools for the devil? First of all, your characterization of the history is -- at best -- shallow. That's not necessarily a criticism, unless you believe it is reasonably fair and accurate: this is Slashdot, not a place for historical dissertations.

      My point is that it wasn't "the CHURCH THEMSELVES" that started celebrating Christmas as a Christian holiday. So there's nothing to understand, or not understand.

      If I were a christian (I'm not...I wouldn't consider myself anything, insofar as religion is concerned) the very idea that the church accepted and actually ENCOURAGED the celebrations brought forward by converts from a religion that was supposed to be about devil worship and blasphemy of MY god would be enough for me to secede from the church completely. That's stupid. It happened over a period of generations. It's not like they were persecuting people who celebrated the holiday one day, and embracing it the next.

      How does it not piss off christians that many of the traditions used in the celebration for the birth of their saviour came from the very people that their church was denouncing and killing? Why would it? In what logical sense is that remotely offensive?

      See...this is why religion is stupid to me. If you aren't willing to accept doublespeak in politics...why are you willing to accept it in religion? There is no example of "doublespeak" here.

      You're acting like the church today -- as if there is such a monolithic entity that can be called "the church" -- agreed with the church from hundreds of years earlier when it killed people for "heresy." That's rubbish.

      Most people today recognize that this is all just symbols, and symbols have no inherent meaning. A Nazi cross means one thing to most of us, but to some South Americans means something completely different. A Confederate flag means different things to different people. A Christmas tree has only whatever meaning we give to it. There is no pagan symbol or Christian symbol: that is, literally, nonsense. There are only pagan and Christian MEANINGS for whatever symbols happen to be present. So as long as your meaning is a valid one, then whatever symbols you have -- Christmas presents, Easter bunnies, whatever -- don't matter one bit.

    19. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by Pojut · · Score: 1

      My response to your post is from a response I gave to another person in this thread:

      How does it not piss off christians that many of the traditions used in the celebration for the birth of their saviour came from the very people that their church was denouncing and killing? See...this is why religion is stupid to me. If you aren't willing to accept doublespeak in politics...why are you willing to accept it in religion?

    20. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by Pojut · · Score: 1

      If what you are saying is true, does that mean I could take the cross and say that to me, it's symbolism is important to my religion? What if my religion was based upon all of the things that christianity hated? What if my religion was called "assfucking homosexual thiefism"? You know...What if I had a cross made with two men hobnobbing each other... and to me, this truly, honestly, was a divine symbol that represented my view of an infinite deity that created everything. Do you honestly think christians the world over would just shrug, and say "well, it's what it means to him...no harm no foul."

      I agree with you, different symbols mean different things to different people. I know my example is an extremely unlikely one, and certainly a childish one... Still, to say that people don't care how others interpret their symbols is ludicrous. YOU might not personally care, but I assure you the majority of religious folk do. Prove me wrong; walk into a church wearing an inverted cross and see how long you are there before they try to throw you out.

    21. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      It's one thing to believe something that's erroneous. It's another to cast it in a hundred thousand lights and broadcast your ignorance to the entire neighborhood.
      Yes, much better to cast it on slashdot and send it all over the internet. Did you ask the guy to make sure that he wasn't aware of the fact that Christ was more probably born in springtime? I as a Christian am more than well aware, as I am sure, are most other Christians, that we don't know the exact birthdate of Jesus, and that the date we choose to celebrate was chosen on purpose in order to overshadow the existing pagan celebration.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    22. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1
      Simple. There's absolutely no point in getting worked up over things that happened a couple thousand years ago. What good does it do? Will it undo the bad things that happened in the past? No, of course not. Then why should people be all pissed off about it? They should endeavor to make sure it doesn't happen again, of course, but that would be true whether or not there was ever a first incident.

      The Christmas traditions are what they are, and everyone is welcome to partake in different traditions if they wish to. Apparently, most people don't. Tell me, how long has it been since Christmas was primarily a pagan celebration? It certainly was at one point, but that point wasn't any time in recent history (to my knowledge). Christmas, as we celebrate it today, is undeniably there because of Christian history. Would we celebrate it if Christianity hadn't come about? Possibly, but not like we celebrate it today, in all likelihood.

      Anyway, I think that this whole debate is overthinking the issue a bit. It's a holiday, celebrate it how/if you like. If you don't want to celebrate it, just ignore it... that's what I do with holidays I don't celebrate (pretty much everything except Christmas and Thanksgiving).

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    23. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by Pojut · · Score: 1

      I agree with your last sentence whole-heartedly...but a good debate is fun, especially when stuck at work with nothing to do for a few more hours ;-)

    24. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Correct. It is about the birth of Jesus Christ. That is what it is about. That is why it is celebrated around the world, why it is a national holiday, and why you get the day off from work.

      You say this because you dismissed my earlier comments on the basis of "strawman" and "red herring".

      It is celebrated because it is tradition, and because people love shiny new toys. I'm sure I can't speak for everyone, but I strongly suspect that most people are not thinking of Christ on Christmas eve. They are thinking of Santa, of cookies and milk, of the presents they're going to get (or give) the next morning. They're thinking of a turkey dinner, of being home with family, and yes, of getting a day off from work.

      By the way: Strawman. I am not taking tomorrow off.

      Each of those billions may have their own reason for celebrating Christmas, but they wouldn't be celebrating it at all if not for that primary reason.

      Can you be sure they wouldn't be celebrating Yule anyway, had Christ never been?

      So we've basically killed causation and most of the correlation. What does that leave? I suppose the name is still there...

      After all, with only causation, I feel like putting up a sign saying "Sex is the reason for the season." After all, were it not for sex, we wouldn't have people to celebrate Christmas, now would we?

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    25. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by pudge · · Score: 1

      If what you are saying is true, does that mean I could take the cross and say that to me, it's symbolism is important to my religion? Um. Yes. Of course. How do you think the cross first became a symbol of Christianity? Someone had to just ... say it.

      Do you honestly think christians the world over would just shrug, and say "well, it's what it means to him...no harm no foul." What's that got to do with your initial question? Your question was whether you could do it. Yes, you can. How people react to what you do is a different question.

      Still, to say that people don't care how others interpret their symbols is ludicrous. Of course. And if I had said that, then this would be a valid objection to raise to me. Since I neither said nor implied it, then you are just blowing smoke.

      You said that Christians SHOULD care about the origins of some SPECIFIC symbols. I wasn't saying no one gets offended by symbols or alternate interpretations, only that there is no reason anyone HAS to be offended by a particular use of a particular symbol.

      Not only that, but you had it backward anyway, since you said earlier that it is Christians who should be pissed off because their symbols had some other origins, but in your example here, it is the Christians whose symbol was appropriated by someone else. So your own example was opposite of what you were trying to show.

      Come on. You're talking about a religion that uses a device of torture and murder as its primary symbol. If you think we're going to be scared off because some symbols had some origins in paganism, you don't understand Christianity very well (especially the part where Paul told us that meat sacrificed to idols is just fine to eat, which surely has some bearing here, in the worst possible case).

    26. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are pathetic and must live a truly sad life.

      Unless you are a 911 dispatcher or some other emergency service needed; than you should take the day off work.

      You are just over analyzing this completely too much and seem very bitter/jealous towards other people in life. Your mind seems like it has come to a point where you just do not seem to be happy anymore and have to state really pathetic facts at a time when they do not even have to be accurate.

      Get over yourself and have fun driving past some smiling families going to visit each other while you drive to your grunt job.

    27. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by pudge · · Score: 1

      Correct. It is about the birth of Jesus Christ. That is what it is about. That is why it is celebrated around the world, why it is a national holiday, and why you get the day off from work. You say this because you dismissed my earlier comments on the basis of "strawman" and "red herring". No, I say it because there IS no rational basis for what you said.

      It is celebrated because it is tradition, and because people love shiny new toys. No, it's not. That is what the holiday has become to many people, but it is not the reason why the holiday exists for those people in the first place. You are confusing the reason -- the cause -- for the holiday, and how it is practiced.

      I'm sure I can't speak for everyone, but I strongly suspect that most people are not thinking of Christ on Christmas eve. They are thinking of Santa, of cookies and milk, of the presents they're going to get (or give) the next morning. They're thinking of a turkey dinner, of being home with family, and yes, of getting a day off from work. Shrug. I think of all those things, including Christ.

      By the way: Strawman. I am not taking tomorrow off. Look up "straw man." That wasn't one.

      Each of those billions may have their own reason for celebrating Christmas, but they wouldn't be celebrating it at all if not for that primary reason. Can you be sure they wouldn't be celebrating Yule anyway, had Christ never been? Of course not. But it is far more likely than not. How many other non-religious (e.g., Christmas), non-historical (e.g., D-Day) holidays are celebrated by billions of people?

      So we've basically killed causation and most of the correlation. No, in fact, you've not touched either one, in any way. All you've done is show that some of the symbology of Christmas was appropriated from other sources, which is not in any way meaningful to the current discussion.

      After all, with only causation, I feel like putting up a sign saying "Sex is the reason for the season." After all, were it not for sex, we wouldn't have people to celebrate Christmas, now would we? That is, of course, a non sequitur. When you look up "straw man" feel free to look up that one, too.

    28. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by Jhon · · Score: 1

      So...what you are saying is, is that "as a whole", christianity accepted the methods of celebration that other cultures used...those other cultures being the same ones that were accused of working in-tandem with the devil, and considered bad enough to be destroyed in mass numbers?
      So...what you are saying is we should ignore all good or beneficial teachings that comes from a particular philosophy or culture if it's got even a drop of blood tainting it's history?

      Should we ignore and turn away from the teachings and inventions of Archimedes because the same culture that produced him also killed Socrates? Or because he also built tools of war and destruction?

      See...this is why religion is stupid to me.
      And you don't see this as remotely bigoted? Bordering on hate-speech? Why do you link personal faith to the acts done by an orginized body centuries before? I've serious issues with jingoism from a political side -- and I likewise have serious issues with the same attitude taken with faith. From all sides, including yours.

      You call 'religion' stupid to you. You don't see that as offensive to those of any faith?

      You say "stupid" and I call you ignorant. You say "I don't buy it" and I can understand where you are coming from and we at least can be cordial to each other. When you demean a group of people, it becomes easy to subjugate them. Go down that path, and it's easy to destroy them. "It's ok -- their just jews -- not like you or me", or "It's ok -- their just armenians -- not like you or me".

      If you really don't like what the early church did, perhaps you shouldn't be walking down that same path?

    29. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by pudge · · Score: 1

      Most people would not celebrate Christmas if not for our attachment of it to Jesus, and it certainly would not be a national holiday. Well, only if you ignore the simple fact that the planet has been tilted on its axis for far *far* longer than your religion has existed. I defy you to explain how this simple fact has anything to do with what I said. How does the existence of the solstice warrant a national holiday? What historical evidence do you have to show that billions of people celebrate the Christmas holiday primarily because of the solstice, or would do so if we didn't have Christmas? And if the latter, then why don't they do so anyway?

      You're spouting nonsense. I can only surmise you are bored and trolling.

      Oh wait, you don't actually understand the difference between "settled" ... and "founded" I was not talking about anything being settled or founded.

      (often radial extremists who were tossed out of their native lands for their murderous ways)" False. It was, in fact, extremely rare for someone to be kicked out of their native land and to wind up in America.

      "The vast majority of the founders of the nation we now refer to as America were Deists ... False. In fact, very few were Deists. This is a common myth among anti-religionists. There are only a handful of our founders who could reasonably be called Deists, including Jefferson and Franklin. Far more were Episcopalians, Unitatians, and Anglicans. Some people say Washington was a Deist, for example, but it's clearly not true, because a Deist, which explicitly proposes a noninterventionist God, would not have uttered the many phrases that Washington did about "Providence."

      ... if they had any religion at all,and had seen the evil inherent in religious rule as exemplified by such Christian things as the Salem witch trials, and so explicitly excluded such hateful delusions from the government of a free society Also false. Any student of history who bothers to do the research -- as you believe the "vast majority of the founders of the nation ... were Deists," this clearly does not include you -- would recognize that very few of the founders wanted a Jeffersonian "wall of separation" that completely segregated religion from government. In fact, many of the original 13 states had government-established churches at the time the nation was founded, and kept them for some time afterward, and nothing in the Constitution at the time (not until the 14th Amendment was ratified many years later) prohibited that.

      No, you'll just claim that the celebration of the solstice, which far predates the invention of your religion or even your god's promotion from wind god of the Hebrew pantheon, would disappear if everybody grew up and forgot anybody ever believed such nonsense. No. I never said anything of the sort. You need to work on your reading comprehension skills. I am saying that, in fact, billions of people DO NOT celebrate the solstice, which is plainly true, and you've provided -- and cannot provide -- any evidence to the contrary.

      Keep in mind, Pudgie, that the Earth has been tilted on its axis for *billions* of years. Your religion was invented two *thousand* years ago. Keep in mind that this has nothing to do with anything I said.

      Although, I am not sure it is possible for you to keep that in mind. You seem quite incapable of rational thought.

    30. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by kayditty · · Score: 0

      I don't see any overwhelming evidence that you're an adherent to any particular religion, if you're theistic or deistic at all, but, if you are, I'd love to see how you're going to argue your reasons for coming to be so, using the same display of logic and reason.

    31. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by kayditty · · Score: 0

      Is it ignorant to celebrate ML King's birthday?
      I think so. Yeah.
    32. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      You are pathetic and must live a truly sad life.

      That's a bit of an assumption.

      I actually live a pretty good life. I laugh, I play, I love, I appreciate the beauty in the world -- no less beautiful if I believe it to be accidental than if I believe it to be the design of a Creator.

      And I do enjoy a debate, although you may have caught me at a bad time.

      Unless you are a 911 dispatcher or some other emergency service needed; than you should take the day off work.

      Actually, I enjoy what I do, and we have something to present at CES which isn't done yet, so taking today off means I probably lose a weekend. What eventually convinced me to take the day off was a Stephen Hawking book I started reading, an Erlang book that I'm maybe halfway through, and that I can't seem to get this fire started in my wood stove.

      You are just over analyzing this completely too much and seem very bitter/jealous towards other people in life.

      I do tend to overanalyze, although, as I said, I enjoy it. But bitter and jealous? Actually, I was mostly playing Devil's Advocate. In reality, people mentioning Jesus does annoy me, but I enjoy the rest of the season -- people dressing up as elves and hugging each other for no reason, lights all over the place, complete waste of power but often beautiful...

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    33. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      No, I say it because there IS no rational basis for what you said.

      Meh. It's difficult to argue with a straight faulty assertion.

      No, it's not. That is what the holiday has become to many people, but it is not the reason why the holiday exists for those people in the first place. You are confusing the reason -- the cause -- for the holiday, and how it is practiced.

      Actually, I'm suggesting that were it not for how it is practiced, it might not still exist at all, and certainly would not be recognizable. For many individuals, I imagine the holiday would not be celebrated at all, were it not for the display of capitalism it has become.

      Look up "straw man." That wasn't one.

      Straw man: Misrepresenting your opponent's position.

      So you're right. Just a faulty assumption, almost an ad-hominim, but you were most definitely misrepresenting me, and not my position. I don't see how that helps you any, though.

      How many other non-religious (e.g., Christmas), non-historical (e.g., D-Day) holidays are celebrated by billions of people?

      Yule isn't religious?

      That is, of course, a non sequitur. When you look up "straw man" feel free to look up that one, too.

      And that's a demonstration of how little you're actually willing to get into this debate.

      How is it a non-sequitur? That would imply that the conclusion does not follow from the premises, but there are any number of ways that could be in a given argument.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    34. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by pudge · · Score: 1

      I don't see any overwhelming evidence that you're an adherent to any particular religion, if you're theistic or deistic at all, but, if you are, I'd love to see how you're going to argue your reasons for coming to be so, using the same display of logic and reason. Shrug. It's very simple, and it's sad that you think it wouldn't be. You apparently believe religion is irrational, which is, itself, an irrational belief.

    35. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by pudge · · Score: 1

      No, I say it because there IS no rational basis for what you said. Meh. It's difficult to argue with a straight faulty assertion. No, it's not. All you'd have to do is show that there is a rational basis for what you said. It's actually very easy ... unless, in fact, there is no such rational basis.

      No, it's not. That is what the holiday has become to many people, but it is not the reason why the holiday exists for those people in the first place. You are confusing the reason -- the cause -- for the holiday, and how it is practiced. Actually, I'm suggesting that were it not for how it is practiced, it might not still exist at all, and certainly would not be recognizable. Yes, it would. The existence of Christmas would exist regardless of what traditions it happened to encompass, absolutely. And saying it "would not be recognizable" is boring. Fine, something in your alternate reality would not be recognizable by us in actual reality. So what?

      For many individuals, I imagine the holiday would not be celebrated at all, were it not for the display of capitalism it has become. And for many more, it would be. Look at Easter. It's got very little capitalism around it -- compared to, say, Valentine's Day, Halloween, Christmas -- and yet it is celebrated by billions of people. Again, there is no rational basis for this assertion.

      Look up "straw man." That wasn't one.

      Straw man: Misrepresenting your opponent's position.

      So you're right. Just a faulty assumption, almost an ad-hominim, but you were most definitely misrepresenting me, and not my position.

      No. I was merely using "you" as a general example. Whether you personally have the day off could not matter less to me, or anyone else reading the discussion. It is entirely unimportant to the discussion. It does not fall under any category of logical fallacy, certainly not straw man, nor ad hominem. That you are harping on it, however, is a red herring fallacy.

      How many other non-religious (e.g., Christmas), non-historical (e.g., D-Day) holidays are celebrated by billions of people? Yule isn't religious? Correct, it isn't. And even if you want to superimpose "religion" onto it somehow, how would that help your case, seeing as how there are no significant peoples, cultures, or societies who belong to that "religion" today, such that it would be celebrated by millions, let alone billions, of people?

      That is, of course, a non sequitur. When you look up "straw man" feel free to look up that one, too. And that's a demonstration of how little you're actually willing to get into this debate. Ad hominem.

      How is it a non-sequitur? That would imply that the conclusion does not follow from the premises, but there are any number of ways that could be in a given argument. How is it NOT a non-sequitur? You said, After all, with only causation, I feel like putting up a sign saying "Sex is the reason for the season." After all, were it not for sex, we wouldn't have people to celebrate Christmas, now would we? But that is meaningless. It does not address the unique part that Christianity plays in Christmas, and pretends that any cause is equal to any other.

    36. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by kayditty · · Score: 0

      I never said any such thing. You are being irrational, on the other hand, for injecting that into my comment. If it's so simple, then by all means, indulge me. I was being sincere as possible. I would really like to know how you reconcile those two things.

    37. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by pudge · · Score: 1

      You apparently believe religion is irrational I never said any such thing. I wrote a logical evaluation of arguments about the reasons for Christmas. You responded:

      if you're theistic or deistic at all, but, if you are, I'd love to see how you're going to argue your reasons for coming to be so, using the same display of logic and reason. That statement could have two reasons behind it: you could be honestly looking for a logical evaluation of arguments for theism, or you could be implying that you don't believe theism is logical. I highly doubt your reason was the former, as it is entirely off-topic to the discussion, and normally when people inject such completely off-topic requests for information, it is done for ulterior motives. Further, your use of the words "I'd love to see how you're going to argue your reasons" directly imply you don't believe it is possible, and that you have hostility toward the very idea.

      Additionally, in a separate post, you wrote:

      Who cares? Why not [make denigrate religious people]? Making fun of people is cool and fun, and religious people don't have any good, rational arguments for the things they believe. So why not challenge them on it? So I'm calling you on your bullshit: you did, in fact, say such a thing. You just hoped I didn't see it.

      I have no problem explaining the logical reasons for theism. I've done so many times. However, I do have a problem indulging trolls. That puts me in a bit of a bind, and I usually opt for not-indulging.

    38. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      No, it's not. All you'd have to do is show that there is a rational basis for what you said. It's actually very easy ... unless, in fact, there is no such rational basis.

      Unless, of course, what I said was self-evident, in which case I'd just be repeating myself.

      But I'm not sure if that applies, as I don't feel like digging back to the original point.

      Yes, it would. The existence of Christmas would exist regardless of what traditions it happened to encompass, absolutely.

      If it was called "Yule", would Christmas still exist?

      If so, then Jesus is not the reason for the season. If not, then point goes to me.

      And for many more, it would be. Look at Easter. It's got very little capitalism around it

      Other than chocolate bunnies, and chocolate eggs, and Easter egg-making kits, and the Easter bunny at the mall, and Easter's day sale, and...

      Let's take a holiday which has pretty much no capitalism associated with it -- Sukkot. I bet you've never heard of it. (I cheated; it's a Jewish holiday, but you have heard of Passover, where we buy Matzoh and all kinds of things Kosher for Passover, and of course there's Hannukah, which has become a "me too" to Christmas.)

      Correct, it isn't. And even if you want to superimpose "religion" onto it somehow, how would that help your case, seeing as how there are no significant peoples, cultures, or societies who belong to that "religion" today, such that it would be celebrated by millions, let alone billions, of people?

      Except, oh, everyone celebrating "Christmas".

      Ad hominem.

      Yep.

      It does not address the unique part that Christianity plays in Christmas, and pretends that any cause is equal to any other.

      It was actually using an extreme to illustrate a point: I am not arguing that any cause is equal to any other. I am trying to illustrate that one cause is not so important as to become the reason, when, especially in the case of Christmas, there are at least a few others that fit just as well.

      So, perhaps a better example would be, oh, Yule.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    39. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by pudge · · Score: 1

      Let's take a holiday which has pretty much no capitalism associated with it -- Sukkot. I bet you've never heard of it. You lose. And it doesn't make a point either way anyway.

      Correct, it isn't. And even if you want to superimpose "religion" onto it somehow, how would that help your case, seeing as how there are no significant peoples, cultures, or societies who belong to that "religion" today, such that it would be celebrated by millions, let alone billions, of people? Except, oh, everyone celebrating "Christmas". Um. Wow, I guess my point went completely over your head, because Christmas is evidence supporting my point.

      I am trying to illustrate that one cause is not so important as to become the reason, when, especially in the case of Christmas, there are at least a few others that fit just as well. Oh yeah, you're right. There are just as many people who care about Yule as care about the birth of Christ.

      (If you think that what I just said sounds reasonable, then you are beyond reason.)

    40. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      How does the existence of the solstice warrant a national holiday?

      Because that's the way Macy's said it should be. Evidently you have no idea of the process of morphing one thing into another, and are unwilling to follow the money... though you will die chasing after it. The solstice has past, Happy Equinox Day! I believe you call it "Easter". Another cultist holiday of national proportions. And let's not forget "Christmas in July" for the summer solstice, or is it the all star break? Religion and sports... sprouting from the same root? Both are big business. Feel free to leave the lights up.

      --
      What?
    41. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by pudge · · Score: 1

      How does the existence of the solstice warrant a national holiday?

      Because that's the way Macy's said it should be. Fine, but how are you going to get billions of people worldwide to care about that? Valentine's Day has been a tough sell enough, and it's had some success moving into Europe and Asia only because of its tie to romantic love. The solstice has nothing of the sort going for it. So: no.

      You need to learn about marketing. Everything has to have a "hook." It's the religion that makes Easter and Christmas popular, period.

      Nice try.

      Well, not really. It was actually a very poor try.

    42. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by kayditty · · Score: 0

      Your post boils down to: I can't believe you're serious, because I don't want you to be, and, as a result, I don't have to respond to you with anything resembling substance.

      Great. Fuck you.

    43. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by pudge · · Score: 1

      Your post boils down to: I can't believe you're serious, because I don't want you to be, and, as a result, I don't have to respond to you with anything resembling substance. Bullshit. You said "religious people don't have any good, rational arguments for the things they believe" and then you claimed you never said that religion is irrational.

      You lied, I caught you on it, and now you're pissed.

      Great. Fuck you. Shrug. Next time try to match wits with someone who is more your speed. Like a snail.
    44. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Sup, pudgie?

      No matter how popular it is, your religion is still a cult, with its idol worship, demagoguery, and other baggage. It's a for profit business. And being the great, discriminating business person you are, you would be amongst the first to call for Christ's death if he was here today. You and your little plastic statues would also be amongst the first he would kick off the steps to the temple. How far up the pyramid do you think you are?

      It's the religion that makes Easter and Christmas popular...

      It's the children that makes Easter and Christmas popular. It is for them that they exist at all. Well, actually it's for the people that sell to the children. Marketing genius.

      The solstice has nothing of the sort going for it.

      Okay Sure Whatever you say

      Oh, and thanks for the marketing tip. I shall be a billionaire tomorrow if I follow your advice. NOT!

      You better watch out
      You better not cry
      Better not pout
      I'm telling you why...

      --
      What?
    45. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by pudge · · Score: 1

      No matter how popular it is, your religion is still a cult It depends on what you mean. By the most popular definition -- a religion with extreme beliefs that involves secluding adherents, brainwashing, and other manner of exceptionally odd behavior -- absoultely not. That's stupid, and makes no sense whatsoever. By the definition of "cult" that means, simply, "a child religion that differs significantly enough from the parent religion that adherents to the parent religion consider the child religion incompatible," then yes, Christianity is a cult of Judaism.

      with its idol worship, demagoguery Not in my religion, no on both counts. Shrug.

      It's a for profit business. Not my religion, no. Shrug.

      And being the great, discriminating business person you are, you would be amongst the first to call for Christ's death if he was here today. Not only false, but you have absolutely no evidence backing up this claim. I don't believe I have ever called for the death of anyone, other than mass murderers. Once again, you are a liar. Not that this is new, or surprising.

      You and your little plastic statues ... What does my bust of Tchaikovsky have to do with anything? You are seriously confused.
    46. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      I don't believe I have ever called for the death of anyone, other than mass murderers.

      And very selective(discriminating?) you are in that department! And you better stay that way if you don't want to be placed under arrest.

      --
      What?
    47. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by pudge · · Score: 1

      I don't believe I have ever called for the death of anyone, other than mass murderers. And very selective(discriminating?) you are in that department! And you better stay that way if you don't want to be placed under arrest. What a shock! A completely nonsensical post by iminplaya!

      I wonder how hard you have to work to produce such meaningless posts. Does it come naturally?
    48. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Does it come naturally?

      No. Unlike you, I have to work at it pretty hard. I am a natural blonde, though. Does that count? Looks like I hit a nerve...

      --
      What?
    49. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by pudge · · Score: 1

      Does it come naturally? No. Unlike you, I have to work at it pretty hard. What also comes hard to you is coming up with examples that demonstrate your allegations.

    50. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Um. Wow, I guess my point went completely over your head, because Christmas is evidence supporting my point.

      Ditto. You don't see the Yule culture in Christmas?

      (If you think that what I just said sounds reasonable, then you are beyond reason.)

      No, I think what you said was pointless and offtopic.

      What people currently care about is the only basis for "reason for the season"? I guess that circles back to the capitalism point. People currently care about getting and giving presents.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    51. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Not at all. Our last discussion provides plenty of examples, but here it is off topic. But you being such a material girl proves that you are as phony as a three dollar bill when it comes to the subject of religion.

      --
      What?
    52. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by pudge · · Score: 1

      Our last discussion provides plenty of examples ... Of you utterly failing to provide any examples to back up your claims, yes.

      But you being such a material girl proves that you are as phony as a three dollar bill when it comes to the subject of religion. Here we go again! Example?

    53. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by pudge · · Score: 1

      You don't see the Yule culture in Christmas? Borrowing traditions is not the same as demonstrating an existing culture. So, no.

      What people currently care about is the only basis for "reason for the season"? No. The reason why people celebrate is the basis for "reason for the season." Which is, of course, the birth of Christ.
    54. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Of you utterly failing to provide any examples to back up your claims, yes.

      Not gonna do it here. Feel free to join the party. Or are ya chicken?

      --
      What?
    55. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by pudge · · Score: 1

      Of you utterly failing to provide any examples to back up your claims, yes. Not gonna do it here. You won't back up your claims where you made them? Typical dishonesty.
    56. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by pudge · · Score: 1

      Ha, awesome, and you even lied about me in that other discussion. You're a riot.

    57. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Na-Ga-Da. Wouldn't be prudent. You know where to make to make your case. Let's take it over there. I guess you are chicken :-)

      You can't handle the truth

      --
      What?
    58. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by pudge · · Score: 1

      Shrug. I keep things where they start, where they therefore belong. No amount of taunting can get me to change that.

      I wonder what makes you afraid to keep it where it belongs.

    59. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      I keep things where they start...

      It doesn't belong here. Eh, part of you problem, I guess The subject here is Christmas and lights. The other thread is much more appropriate, especially in your case since it's about you. I'm sure we can pick it up again later. Thanks for making my case. Toodles...

      --
      What?
    60. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by pudge · · Score: 1

      It doesn't belong here. Eh, part of you problem, I guess The subject here is Christmas and lights. No, for two reasons. First, this discussion has become broader: it includes discussion of religion and society, and your allegation about me being "phony ... when it comes to the subject of religion" is related to that topic. Second, regardless of subject, when someone makes a personal allegation, I, as a rule, will discuss that allegation where it was made. Because that is honest: it allows the evidence -- or in this case, utter lack of it -- to accompany the allegation. This is why newspapers in general try to put corrections near the same place where the mistake was made, for example. Moving it elsewhere is dishonest.

      Which is, of course, par for the course for you.

    61. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Hmm, let's see... I state that we have a right to uncontaminated air and water, and to protect that right by whatever means necessary. You call it "collectivism" and an infringement of your individual right to do what you please with said resources with an attempt to cloud what you're really saying by calling it "Orwellian doublespeak". Most people might fall for such nonsense. A reasonable person would see it for what it is. A claim that your "rights" are more valid than that of others. Well, I have to admit. You got the big guns on your side... for now. You want the state to protect your personal profit at the expense of others. You have been given every right to sicken us with your effluence.

      Yeah, I can see why you're scared to enter the 'hood. Wouldn't wanna get hit by any drive-bys now, would ya? A guy like you will get chewed up(plucked in your case) pretty bad. See, we don't need to build walls around us to exclude people that disagree, the way you do. You need to surround yourself with your little yes-"men" to make you feel secure because the rest will bury you.

      Moving it elsewhere is dishonest.

      Oh, that's rich! I definitely get a chuckle out of your fearful rationalizations. Enjoy your kool-aid. *cluck cluck cluck*

      --
      What?
    62. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by pudge · · Score: 1

      I state that we have a right to uncontaminated air and water, and to protect that right by whatever means necessary. No, you didn't. You in fact spoke of "right of access to natural resources or the resources themselves from destruction." That does not just mean a right to clean air and water, and you never limited it to just those two things, and my comments therefore cannot honestly be limited to that context after the fact.

      Not that it changes anything, though, since I never said that it is OK for people to destroy natural resources, nor that it is wrong for government to be used to prevent their destruction. I only stated the fact that you were being stupid.

      You call it ... an infringement of your individual right to do what you please No, I did not. I said it was, in YOUR words, "the power of the state over that of the individual." Which, of course, is precisely what it is. That's the doublespeak. You were attacking me for putting "the power of the state over that of the individual," and then your chosen example of this -- which in fact had nothing to do with me anyway -- showed YOU putting "the power of the state over that of the individual."

      A reasonable person would see it for what it is. A claim that your "rights" are more valid than that of others. I never made such a claim, and you cannot possibly quote me doing so. It never had anything to do with me at all, so how I could have made a claim about my rights makes no sense.

      You want the state to protect your personal profit at the expense of others. You're lying again. I get no profit from pollution. I am not polluting anything. And I am not the one trying to marshall the government against the individual, you are. There's your doublespeak again.

      You have been given every right to sicken us with your effluence. Shrug. I've never actually done it, so I don't know what you're babbling about.

      Yeah, I can see why you're scared to enter the 'hood. Not that I can tell what this has to do with anything, but when I actually lived in "the 'hood" for several months I was ... what? Running scared all the time?

      Is that shovel getting heavy? You've dug your hole so deeply ... it's quite impressive, really.

      See, we don't need to build walls around us to exclude people that disagree, the way you do. What walls do I need? None actually exist, so if I need them, please tell me what they are so I can build them, quick!!

      Moving it elsewhere is dishonest. Oh, that's rich! Shrug. I don't expect you to understand, or even care about honesty even if you did understand. Sure, you're not as dishonest as WillAffleckUW -- almost everything he says about everything is a lie -- but, well, you're still pretty bad.
    63. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      I state that we have a right to uncontaminated air and water, and to protect that right by whatever means necessary.
      No, you didn't.
      ...I have right to water and air uncontaminated by your poison...

      *sigh* I'm tired. Have a good night
      --
      What?
    64. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by pudge · · Score: 1

      I state that we have a right to uncontaminated air and water, and to protect that right by whatever means necessary. No, you didn't. ...I have right to water and air uncontaminated by your poison...

      *sigh* I'm tired. Have a good night Wow you're stupid and/or dishonest. If you bothered to quote what I actually wrote in the last post, you would see that I was saying that this is not MERELY what you said; not that you didn't use those words, but -- in my own words, that you ignored -- that you did not "just mean a right to clean air and water, and you never limited it to just those two things."

      If I say to someone, "you're a fucked-up little man," and he hits me, and when telling the cops about it later I say "I called him a man and he hit me," that's called lying by omission. It's what you're doing when you describe your position in the previous discussion as being about air and water.

      And then you link to a comment and resulting discussion proving that I am right.

      Thanks, I guess.

      And you've still never come up with a single example of me putting government over the rights of individuals (even though you provided examples where YOU do that), nor any of your other false claims: that I belong to a cult (by any pejorative sense of the word), that my religion engages in idol worship or demagoguery or is a for-profit business, that I am a businessperson, that I would call for Christ's death, that I have plastic statues(?), that I ever claimed I have a right to pollute your air or water, that I actually DO pollute, that I am scared to enter "the 'hood," that I need -- or have -- walls to exclude anyone.

      I am sure there are other allegations you've made about me you can't back up. I don't think there are any you CAN back up.

      No examples. Anywhere. None.

      You're a liar.
    65. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      If I say to someone, "you're a fucked-up little man,"...

      If you said it while looking at the mirror, it would be a good sign of recognition. You will have completed your first step. It's okay, pudgie. We're here to help. Let it out. Now, seriously, I have to go take my nap. Catch ya on the flipside.

      --
      What?
    66. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by pudge · · Score: 1

      If I say to someone, "you're a fucked-up little man,"... If you said it while looking at the mirror, it would be a good sign of recognition. Damn, I knew you were following me!
    67. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      No. The reason why people celebrate is the basis for "reason for the season." Which is, of course, the birth of Christ.

      Nope, we hadn't established that. (And round and round we go.

      Let's look at that statement again:

      The reason why people celebrate is the basis for "reason for the season."

      I don't dispute that at all. I also don't see the relevance of redefining it that way. If I didn't already acknowledge the birth of Christ as the "reason for the season", why would I suddenly acknowledge it as the "reason why people celebrate"?

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    68. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      ???

      h

      --
      What?
    69. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by kayditty · · Score: 0

      Oh, please. You think I didn't know you were going to look through my comments and find that and somehow "use it against me" 5000 days before you did? I've been posting in forums for years. I'm sure I'm a lot more experienced in these types of discussions than you are, and I've seen it all. The reason I didn't bother "covering up" that post? Because it has nothing to do with the post I made in response to you, and because I really don't give a shit about appeasing the sensibilities of some stupid holier-than-thou asshole who thinks he can just dismiss me out of hand because I'm not good enough for real argument.

      I didn't lie. You didn't "catch me on anything," and I'm hardly pissed. I just said I never claimed to have said that there's no rationality to religious arguments or whatever. That you read into what you want ("you've never said that in your entire life, ever") doesn't really mean much to me. I think it's pretty obvious what I intended. I don't usually expect NORMAL people to go around reading every discussion I've ever had before dignifying a question I ask them, in all sincerity, with a response.

      Besides that: so what if I did lie? It has nothing to do with my question or my post. I'd just like an answer. I never said I don't think religious belief is irrational; I just said I didn't claim it in my post, and I didn't. So maybe I do happen to think it irrational. Does that preclude me from being deserving of your grace or whatever the fuck? Seriously; I just want to know how you argue that. Jerk.

    70. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by pudge · · Score: 1

      Oh, please. You think I didn't know ... You think I care? You lied. You said you never did something that in that post you, in fact, did. QED.

      I really don't give a shit about appeasing the sensibilities of some stupid holier-than-thou asshole who thinks he can just dismiss me out of hand because I'm not good enough for real argument. Now you are continuing to lie. I never stated, nor implied, that I am holier than anyone, including you. And I never dismissed you, out of hand or otherwise: I simply said I wouldn't have the discussion you wanted to have, in this context, because you clearly wanted only to attack my beliefs rather than have a real discussion. I only called you stupid when you pretended -- as you are doing now -- to have not said something that you said.

      I didn't lie. Yes, you did. You said "religious people don't have any good, rational arguments for the things they believe." So when you laterclaimed you "never said [religion is irrational]," that was a lie. You lied.

      I just said I never claimed to have said that there's no rationality to religious arguments or whatever. No. You said "never said [religion is irrational]." And that was a lie.

      That you read into what you want I read what you actually wrote. Silly me!

      I think it's pretty obvious what I intended. Yes, me too: you intended to lie to me, so you could get me to talk about religious belief, so you could attempt to ridicule me for it. It is entirely obvious that this was your intent, from your other post, since that is what you said your intent was.

      I don't usually expect NORMAL people to go around reading every discussion I've ever had before dignifying a question I ask them, in all sincerity, with a response. Stop being retarded, please. It was a comment from THE EXACT SAME DISCUSSION.

      Besides that: so what if I did lie? It has nothing to do with my question or my post. It has everything to do with whether I want to spend time casting pearls before swine. You quite obviously were not interested in having a discussion with me, only in ridiculing religious belief.

      I never said I don't think religious belief is irrational You're lying again.

      So maybe I do happen to think it irrational. Does that preclude me from being deserving of your grace or whatever the fuck? Nope. It is not that you think religion is irrational, it is your hostility, and your STATED INTENT to ridicule people of religious faith.

      Seriously; I just want to know how you argue that. Yes, so you can ridicule me.

      Jerk. No pearls for you, swine.
    71. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by uepuejq · · Score: 1

      religious people DON'T have any good, rational arguments for things they believe. that's a pillar of philosophical significance that is demonstrated in introductory philosophy courses across this planet. it's a question that has been asked by outcast 12 year olds for who knows how long. science is inherently modular in nature due to the recognition of the irresolute nature of information. one of the largest problems confronting us in quantum mechanics is related to the nature of the requirements for making observations of matter on that sub-planck scale. if we cannot establish the integrity of reality at the very smallest level of the universe we can observe, how can we establish it at the idea of the very greatest (by that i mean a 'supreme' being, or personified uncased first cause, if you will).

      don't get the wrong idea. i'm not assuming the validity of the premise of my argument (that you can't logically believe in religion based on the illogical nature of belief) by citing quantum mechanics, but am simply giving what i consider to be a really obvious example of the extremely biased nature of our perceptive and cognitive reaches. we are not capable of knowing that we know anything, and my definition of 'know' in this case would be to have a proper understanding of some aspect of reality. we CAN know, we just can't know we know. we can know we know, but we just can't know we know we know. it's an infinite regress, just like the assumption of a supreme being bringing up the question of something so intricate as a supreme being bearing the necessity for a creator in turn!

      there are a host of actual reasons that theology is not philosophical, but there aren't any reasons i know of that theology is. we can apply the principles of philosophy (logic, reason, argumentation, etc.) to religion, but we cannot consider belief in religion itself philosophically sound because the very act of 'belief' is irrational on a philosophical level. like i stated before, belief is a huge logical black hole, and i'm not going to even begin to want to explain that to you. search for 'logical fallacies' on your web-ruining search engine of choice. i'm sure a smart guy like you can figure it out yourself just by educating yourself on logical fallacies. you really don't have to read about what anybody thinks about it to reason it out for yourself, so long as you allow yourself the freedom to actually educate yourself on the topic. you know, by suspending belief.

    72. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by kayditty · · Score: 0

      I'm not even reading that. I stopped reading it at about the third or fourth sentence, if the shit you write can be called sentences.

      I haven't once attacked your faith to this point. But now I'm going to. Your faith is that you know what my intentions are. And your belief is that I'm not worthy of your time because you have faith that my intentions are whatever it is you think they are and that means I'm a bad person or something. And that's just as fucking idiotic as any religious faith you probably have.

      You are the worst troll ever, or you are seriously insecure. Just fuck off and die. Do you HONESTLY think you've "got me trapped" or whatever it is you're going on about? You are so unbelievably deluded. Look, you stupid piece of shit, you "don't want to have a discussion with trolls" or whatever the hell but you've managed to spent 100 days writing stupid, illogical crap to justify why you don't have to or don't want to reply to me. What the fuck?

      Okay, I TOTALLY LIED ABOUT EVERYTHING AND I'M THE WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD?!!??! ARE YOU HAPPY NOW? Seriously, get a fucking grip. Can I get an answer to my original question now? You really don't want to get into a serious argument with me. I mean I've been doing the whole "oh I caught you," word-twisting, grammatical error-correcting shit for DECADES. Honestly. But I'm not fucking twelve anymore. Maybe I got lazy, but what the hell is YOUR excuse?

    73. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by uepuejq · · Score: 1

      oh, and please don't respond with 'but you believe what you said,' or something equally passe. i don't believe what i said, i'm just working within the abstract confines of philosophy, and i recognize that there's a good chance i'm wrong. i'm totally willing to update my understanding of religion and belief and all of those things. information exists, and i like the principles that allow for information to be propagated for mass pondering. it's sort of like distributed computing: why limit the scope of dissemination of information? 6 billion minds are certainly incalculably (to me, at least) more powerful than any single mind. i don't simply trust in individual ingenuity to provoke human progress, but the collective digression, regression and progression of individuals and the spread of those actions to people of utterly different viewpoints and observational bases for alternative computation.

      i'm just arguing for the sake of argument (it's great fun, and i wish more people would do it. practice may not make perfect, but it certainly helps you to improve, and i know there are a lot of complaints about people's abilities to reason out complex arguments), and i think you've done a lot of assuming in your responses to kayditty, which is really what prompted me to reply to you. it's funny how people who proclaim belief in some deity tend to make really baseless assumptions about the motivations of others.

    74. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by pudge · · Score: 1

      religious people DON'T have any good, rational arguments for things they believe.

      Only if ALL belief in EVERYTHING -- including science, and including the belief that all belief is irrational -- is irrational, which is, itself, irrational.

      that's a pillar of philosophical significance that is demonstrated in introductory philosophy courses across this planet.

      Utterly false. Even if you believe that all belief is irrational, it doesn't make it true that introductory philosophy courses teach the same thing. They don't. What they do teach is that our faculties are limited, and that there are relatively few things we can know, but that's not the same as saying belief is irrational.

      we are not capable of knowing that we know anything

      That's simply not true, as Descartes demonstrated. Cogito ergo sum, and all. Further, we know quite well that 2+2=4, and we know we know it. It is not possible that I do not exist (well, from my perspective anyway; for you, it is only not possible that YOU don't exist), and it is further not possible that 2+2 does not equal 4.

      there are a host of actual reasons that theology is not philosophical

      No, in fact, there are zero. Not a single one exists. But now you are crossing your streams. Above you appeared to be saying that religion is just like everything else, that we can't know it because we can't know anything. Now you appear to be saying it is somehow unique. That's false.

      we cannot consider belief in religion itself philosophically sound because the very act of 'belief' is irrational on a philosophical level

      No, it is not. Part of the problem is that you clearly do not understand what belief is. The act of believing in a religious idea is not philosophically different from the act of believing that if you drop a ball, it will be pulled toward the greater mass of the planet below. The act of believing is merely the end of the process of being convinced that something is true. That is it, and nothing more or less. A belief in God at the philosophical level is no different from a belief in gravity. It's only the methods used to be so convinced that are different, but they are not different by as much as most people think, because they have the same basic root.

      The only reason we believe in gravity is because we believe in a purely philosophical idea that we popularly refer to as the scientific method. We didn't believe in the scientific method because of any scientific evidence (obviously). We believed it in because we thought about it, and it seemed to make sense, and then we saw how it was applied in our life, and that it worked, and so we quite rationally came to believe in the scientific method, and therefore in science conducted under that method. And it is the exact same process that leads some people to believe in God. Belief is not irrational, belief in God is not irrational, and the process of believing in God is no different from the process of believing in anything else.

      And of course, none of this is any different from believing that our ability to "know" is severely limited, which is all you've based this on. You say "don't respond with 'but you believe what you said,'" but you are stating as fundamental ideas things that cannot be believed any more than the things you say can't be believed. If you don't want people to use an argument against you, you can't merely dismiss it by calling it "passe," you have to actually frame what you say so that it is not subject to that argument.

      Now, you could believe, as Lawrence Livermore did, that since we cannot prove most things exist (he wasn't so foolish as to say we can't prove anything, because he had read Descartes), he therefore should not believe in anything, and only practically believe in things he could sense at the moment. So the bottom of his desk didn't exist unless he put his hand under there and felt it.

      You could think, of course, that you ca

    75. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by pudge · · Score: 1

      I haven't once attacked your faith to this point. You're a liar. I already quoted you doing that. You said religious belief is irrational.

      Why do you deny what you did? Why are you lying?

      Your faith is that you know what my intentions are. No, it's not.

      And your belief is that I'm not worthy of your time No, it's not.

      You are the worst troll ever No, sorry, you win that award. Your very first post to me was a troll, and I quoted you from another comment admitting that you were trolling, and I caught you on it immediately. Hard to imagine a worse trolling job than that.

      Do you HONESTLY think you've "got me trapped" I didn't trap you, you trapped yourself. I simply saw the comment where you admitted what you were doing, and linked to it. I don't claim to have done anything great. You're just really terrible.

      Can I get an answer to my original question now? I don't know what you think has changed. Your only interest is to ridicule me, as you stated initially, and you've only proven that more with each post. There's no reason why I would bother answering your question, because your intent is not have a discussion about whatever beliefs I may have, but merely to ridicule.

      Maybe I got lazy, but what the hell is YOUR excuse? Wow. You think I need an excuse to respond to you? And you call me insecure?!
    76. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by uepuejq · · Score: 1

      i'm not saying believing in science is true and believing in religion is not. i'm saying believing in anything is philosophically unsound. i don't believe that believing in things is philosophically unsound, philsophy is an abstract process that offers us abstract boundaries in which we can state that with logical surity. you don't have to believe in god or believe in logic or believe in philosophy to make statements about god or philosophy or logic, but philosophy (unlike religion) gives us standards for judging the worth of arguments that have been refined over thousands of years of thinking and debate (both internal and external). religion gives us the refinement and precision of logical fallacies crafted to appear logically sound, and even uses sound philosophy to contribute to an appearance of logical credibility. i think all of this stuff is pretty obvious. i really don't want to have a conversation with you about it anymore. seeya.

    77. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by pudge · · Score: 1

      i'm not saying believing in science is true and believing in religion is not. That's good. It wasn't clear around the middle of your post there.

      i'm saying believing in anything is philosophically unsound. OK. But you're wrong.

      i don't believe that believing in things is philosophically unsound Yes, you do. You are convinced of it. Therefore, you believe it. There's no difference. If you are convinced of it, you believe it.

      religion gives us the refinement and precision of logical fallacies crafted to appear logically sound Except that, in fact, none of them are logical fallacies. You keep stating this, but it is blatantly false.

      i think all of this stuff is pretty obvious. That is because you are an extremely poor thinker.

      i really don't want to have a conversation with you about it anymore. What a shock: you refuse to back anything you said up. You are simply incapable of providing an actual example of such a logical fallacy that you speak of, and so you walk away.

      Fine, you don't want to have a conversation. But integrity demands you back up your unsolicited and repeated claim, and you've not done it.

    78. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by uepuejq · · Score: 1

      you got me, i'm a sucker for responding. and i used to do the whole quote by quote thing, too. i'm going to pass on that now, though. i'll try to address them in order, though, because i'm so great. you say i'm wrong (and later talk about maintaining integrity, or something. i'll climb that hill when i get there), but offer no evidence or argument to the contrary. that sounds sort of like uh, something...i can't really think of what it's called. i heard about it a long time ago on a coke commercial. relugia?? that's not right. religation?????? RELIGIOINZZZ!!!!111 i am so clever! like i said before, i don't want to get into a conversation about the basics of the philosophical or scientific methods. there are better sources for that information than me (as i'm pretty sure you're convincend, anyway). i'm certainly not capable of convincing you, so all that i can do is suggest you read more (i think it's needless to say in most instances, but for you'll i'll point out that i always take my suggestions, as well, and will continue to study up on the subject. i'll be the first to feel stupid if i find out just how wrong i was [have fun proving it. signed, kafka]). i'm not convinced of it, i'm trying to construct an argument based on logic. i'm not espousing my beliefs, i'm trying to refine my argumentation through practice. i'm not here to change your mind. that's not my goal. if i do, that's your fault for not having the same ideas as me in the first place. an appeal to authority isn't a logical fallacy? the idea that a god none of us can possibly prove the existence of dictates to them how to regulate the activities of men on earth? come on, that one is on the FIRST PAGE of the bible. i may be a poor thinker. i don't know. that's a pretty mean thing to say to me. :( i guess it's kind of obvious that i'm not refusing to back anything up. i just don't understand how somebody who is so obviously a troll is actually in a position of some form of authority on this site (or does that slashdot.org next to your name mean you paid for the premium account?). i just don't want to talk to you about it any more, but i feel compelled to because i like to argue and you're the only person up right now who wants to at least provoke me into saying things. once again, don't get the wrong idea (despite seeing how poorly this statement has worked with you before). i'm not replying because you called me out on saying i don't want to, i'm replying because that's what i do. i'm a replier to things people say to me. i can't help it. i don't think integrity demands anything from me. i don't have to back up anything i say, and i think it's a pretty fortunate luxury for you that i'm actually giving you the time of...night. i normally make a conscious effort to avoid posting on slashdot (one glance at the comments is usually enough to reinforce this), but since you have some stake in the site i'm giving you special treatment, because that's what authorities like god and the president of the united states and the pope deserve and the administrators of a web site named slashdot deserve. or whatever.

    79. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by uepuejq · · Score: 1

      i suppose i'll go ahead and fulfill godwin's law here just to point at that the little slashdot next to your name sure does remind me a lot of a swastika arm band. it's slightly terrifying. slightly. do you know any blackhat seo hackers i can hire to get my site to the third page of google for hacker tips?? it's actually a collection of mega man pictures, but i know how people like to hack. you call kayditty a liar, and i'm sure kayditty is more than capable of speaking for kayditty's very own self, but since when is an observation an attack? just because you're sensitive about the subject doesn't mean you're being attacked. you're not a victim. this is a conversation, and people are speaking freely. get a grip. you really are a troll, and normally i'm just like 'eh' and try not to respond (like i said in another reply to you), but dammit if you aren't good at being a troll, because i feel so damned damningly dammit damn damn damn compelled to respond. you bug me, congratulations. i really hope you feel good about yourself, and that is not sarcasm. i want you to feel good. and you talk of excuses, but who needs excuses to respond when 'integrity demands' rational response filled with evidence and intricate statements well backed by reason and explanation such as yours? (that one is sarcasm)

    80. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by pudge · · Score: 1

      i suppose i'll go ahead and fulfill godwin's law here just to point at that the little slashdot next to your name sure does remind me a lot of a swastika arm band. Wow. That's the most irrational thing I've seen yet in this discussion.

      you call kayditty a liar Yes. That's because kayditty vehemently asserted that they never said something they, in fact, said quite clearly and plainly. You don't get much more obvious a lie than that.

      but since when is an observation an attack? Since when did I say it was? You're confused.

      you really are a troll Shrug. No moreso than you, and FAR LESS than kayditty, who EVEN ADMITTED that their purpose was to troll people with religious beliefs. And then got pissy when I called them on it.

      That you are defending kayditty, who by any standard was lying and trolling, is odd. It's not like it makes you look good, or backs up the impression that you are trying to create that you are rational.

    81. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by pudge · · Score: 1

      you say i'm wrong ..., but offer no evidence or argument to the contrary. that sounds sort of like uh, something...i can't really think of what it's called. i heard about it a long time ago on a coke commercial. relugia?? that's not right. religation?????? RELIGIOINZZZ!!!!111 i am so clever! Nope. You're the one who is talking about being rational. About philosophical soundness. About standards. About logic. Well, one of those commonly accepted standards of logic is that the person making the allegations has the burden of proof. I don't need to provide an argument why you're wrong, until you actually back up your claim to begin with, because it is exceedingly difficult, and sometimes impossible, to prove a negative.

      And in this case, it holds: it is not possible for me to prove that religious belief is not irrational, that it commits no logical fallacies. The only rational course of action to push this discussion forward is for you to make your argument, and for me to show you where your argument is incorrect.

      like i said before, i don't want to get into a conversation about the basics of the philosophical or scientific methods. I couldn't care less. Back up your claim, that's all.

      i'm trying to construct an argument based on logic. Then present the logic. You've not done so, you've merely offered assertions.

      an appeal to authority isn't a logical fallacy? the idea that a god none of us can possibly prove the existence of dictates to them how to regulate the activities of men on earth? come on, that one is on the FIRST PAGE of the bible. No, you're way off base on multiple levels. I am not going to go through it all, though, because, as I noted before, you are once again conflating "knowledge" with "belief." If I said, "we absolutely know as a matter of hard fact that the Christianity is true because the Bible said so," that is a logical fallacy. But merely saying I believe it to be true because the Bible said so, there's nothing fallacious about that at all. There is no such thing as a logically fallacious belief, except that belief which can be proven false with logic.

      It's really funny to me that you were acting in your posts as though you have some higher level of understanding than me, and yet you get this fundamental thing wrong.

      You also don't even really understand the appeal to authority fallacy anyway, except on a shallow level. The fallacy is only holding when the authority is actually capable of error; you'd have to establish that the authority in question is capable of error, even if the fallacy DID apply (which as proven above, it doesn't).

      And you also don't understand the Bible, because the Bible doesn't say "believe the Bible because the Bible says so." It goes far deeper than that, first nurturing a belief in God from sources entirely external to the Bible: general revelation of nature, and special revelation in the human mind. The Bible really represents a logical dissertation: X is true, and Y follows from X, an Z from Y. Not "believe Z because I said so."

      And further, how would this apply to MY religious belief? Let's assume the incorrect: that the the Bible commits the appeal to authority fallacy. Fine. Now what's that got to do with me? It is not fallacious for me to be a Christian while not accepting that fallacy. You were talking about religious belief, not the Bible specifically.

      Again, you're just way off base here. You really don't understand what you're talking about.

      i guess it's kind of obvious that i'm not refusing to back anything up. Well, you finally attempted to back it up. And you failed miserably. Care to try again?

      i don't think integrity demands anything from me. i don't have to back up anything i say Yes, if you choose to be dishonest, you don't have to back up the claims you make.
    82. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by uepuejq · · Score: 1

      who are you? juvenile? stop telling me to back things up. you are not the keeper of proper argumentation, and you're certainly not going to dictate how or why i express myself. what i'm saying is a self-evident truth. you cannot prove the existence of god, and as such believing in something you cannot have evidence for or even argue logically is ILLOGICAL. you cannot argue for the existence of a god logically without making unverifiable claims. there is a HUGE amount of documented thinking about this subject. you can pick up any given richard dawkins book to see how somebody who's actually intelligent would approach the subject. you talk about me acting like i have a 'higher level of understanding' than you, but i really don't know where this is coming from. i'm pretty self-deprecating in general. you seem to paint a lot of straw men in your responses to me.

      unless you're willing to argue that pascal's wager is some deep and meaningful insight into the religious mind, i really don't have anything else to add the the conversation. i cited dawkins, because i think he's the leading authority (at least in presence) on opening up the fallacious nature of religion (personal opinions of his aside). if you don't want to read what dawkins has to say, you surely don't want to read what i have to say. if you've already read what dawkins has to say, there is absolutely nothing i can say to contribute to this conversation. you keep demanding i 'back up' my 'claim,' but it's not 'my' claim, and a hardcore web 2.0 programmer of the future such as yourself should understand that it's bad enough i'm wasting my time talking to you this much, let alone the time i would waste confusing the issue further by applying my limited capacity for reason to subjects that have already been thoroughly discussed by men of greater magnitudes of intelligence than myself.

      as i've said before, and you've chosen to ignore: the information is freely available in copious amounts. i'm just curious, though, have you asked god to back up his claims lately?

    83. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by pudge · · Score: 1

      who are you? juvenile? stop telling me to back things up.

      Shrug. An adult wouldn't need to be told to back things up.

      you are not the keeper of proper argumentation

      And you are not the keeper of "philosophical soundness." Yet your language was no more less assertive than mine, so you're being a hypocrite by complaining about me doing no more than what you did.

      what i'm saying is a self-evident truth

      No, in fact, it is not. You are, actually, you are contradicting yourself: you said that religious belief does not match up against philosophical standards, which means that it is not self-evident, but, rather, demonstrable.

      you cannot prove the existence of god

      Straw man logical fallacy: I never said I could.

      and as such believing in something you cannot have evidence for or even argue logically is ILLOGICAL

      Now you are committing several logical fallacies here. The first is the "shifting the goalposts" fallacy, by changing from talking about "proof" to "evidence." They are two very different things. If I concede I cannot prove the existence of God, that does not imply there is no evidence for it (and, in fact, there is) or that it cannot be argued logically (and, in fact, I can).

      You are also -- again -- committing the equivocation fallacy by treating knowledge and belief as the same thing. They are not.

      So your entire argument there is fallacious.

      you cannot argue for the existence of a god logically without making unverifiable claims

      False.

      there is a HUGE amount of documented thinking about this subject

      All of it incorrect.

      you can pick up any given richard dawkins book to see how somebody who's actually intelligent would approach the subject.

      Yes, I could. He is an extremely poor thinker on the subject. He doesn't know even basic fundamentals about religion and barely understands the basics of philosophy. He is a scientist, not a philosopher.

      you talk about me acting like i have a 'higher level of understanding' than you, but i really don't know where this is coming from

      That's stupid of you to say. How about the several times you talked about how you thought I need to read to understand what you were saying, and that you didn't want to explain principles to me, as though I needed it? That is precisely what you did.

      unless you're willing to argue that pascal's wager is some deep and meaningful insight into the religious mind, i really don't have anything else to add the the conversation

      So you won't back up any of your claims? I mean, I know you tried, citing the appeal to authority, but I blew that out of the water, so you're left with nothing right now. Not a single thing to back up your claims, except assertion (which, interestingly, is precisely what you attack religious belief for!).

      i cited dawkins, because i think he's the leading authority (at least in presence) on opening up the fallacious nature of religion

      It's telling that you think so. Real philosophers -- on all sides of the issue -- are embarassed by Dawkins' hamhanded attempts to attack religious belief.

      if you don't want to read what dawkins has to say, you surely don't want to read what i have to say

      Nope, unacceptable. That's a dishonest copout. You back up your claim. If you want to cite Dawkins, fine, but point to a specific argument he makes, don't just handwave at his book. Back it up. Back it up. Back it up. Again, feel free to consider me the juvenile, but the adult doesn't need to be told this basic concept.

      you keep demanding i 'back up' my 'claim'

      Yes, and I will continue to, as long as you refuse to.

      but it's not 'my' claim

      Please do not lie, it is unbecoming. You made the claim over and over, many times, and even repeated t

    84. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by uepuejq · · Score: 1

      so by your logic i'm not an adult? geez, your statements are completely vacuous. seeya4eel!

    85. Re:Jesus is the "reason for the season"? by pudge · · Score: 1

      so by your logic i'm not an adult? Sigh. No, in fact, that was YOUR logic. You were the one who made this a matter of age. I turned YOUR logic around on you.

      geez, your statements are completely vacuous. Geez, you didn't even attempt to back up any of your arguments after I completely shot down your few lame attempts.

      The reason why is obvious: you can't. But that is not surprising: you said things that make absolutely no logical sense (belief is irrational; belief is irrational is self-evident; it is impossible to know that we know anything; that all introductory philosophy courses teach such nonsense; etc.) and then cited a scientist with no serious standing in the philosophical community, who has been ridiculed by people of all stripes as ignorant of how to "do" good philosophy, as your expert (without actually providing any of his arguments anyway).

      I hope you learned your lesson: next time, know what you are talking about when you make sweeping assertions to strangers, or you just might end up looking like an idiot.

  20. Lights? Call me when you get a pair.... by PhreakOfTime · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Thats not creative at all. its just plain old boring.

    Now, THIS is original and creative. Id love to see the neighbors faces when this thing fires up on the front lawn! If some pinheads flashing lights annoy you, just pay them back with the wonderfully tuned sound of static discharge! Enjoy!

    1. Re:Lights? Call me when you get a pair.... by SixArmedJesus · · Score: 1

      Okay. THAT is completely awesome. Thanks for sharing!

      --

      *slight crashing sound*
    2. Re:Lights? Call me when you get a pair.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In terms of being plainly annoying, this one wins hands down.

      http://youtube.com/watch?v=rmgf60CI_ks

    3. Re:Lights? Call me when you get a pair.... by plasmoidia · · Score: 1

      Wow, that is pretty cool. Does anyone know how the modulation is done?

    4. Re:Lights? Call me when you get a pair.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd never seen that before. Thank you :)

      You have just enriched my life.
      (Now to go end it by playing with electricity).

    5. Re:Lights? Call me when you get a pair.... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      And you can have bad gas near it after eating all those xmas pies, and nobody would know the difference.

    6. Re:Lights? Call me when you get a pair.... by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well, this seemed to be the winner. It actually fades the lights as well, and it seems that the whole yard is completely filled with lights. But bugger, if I was one of the people living near during rehearsals, I definitely would have bought some candles and killed the electricity.

    7. Re:Lights? Call me when you get a pair.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only enteraining for the holidays - those are great for keeping those darned allied kids off my lawn. Now if only they'd leave my ore trucks alone, everything would be just peachy.

      Got juice? Yeaaaaaaaa!

      Capcha? "privacy"

  21. Ramen by humankind · · Score: 1

    I still prefer the more understated FSM Holiday Display.

    1. Re:Ramen by matria · · Score: 1

      Ah, Christmas dinner!

  22. Merry Christmas, Hon' by beadfulthings · · Score: 1

    For pure unadulterated camp, you can't beat the display on the 700 block of 34th Street in Baltimore's neighborhood of Hampden. Each traditional row house is decorated to the owner's own taste and vision, and while they aren't particularly technical, they certainly do make a splash. They've been lighting up that block for so long that realtors feel it's mandatory to warn prospective home buyers that they'll have to light up, too. There's a pretty good sampling here.

    --
    "Here's what's happening. You're starting to drive like your Dad..." - Red Green
  23. Unfortuantely by BlueParrot · · Score: 1

    the energy required will soon surpass the rating of a standard household connection, but thankfully revolutionsing nuclear systems from Toshiba is promising to deliver lots of luminous joy for Christmas to come.

    1. Re:Unfortuantely by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      Your're kidding, right. LEDs are going to make future christmases 10 times brighter for the same energy input.

      --
      Deleted
    2. Re:Unfortuantely by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      It depends a bit on the power of the lights chosen but afaict ordinary christmas bulbs are about 1W. Afaict household service in the UK and the USA usually means over 10KW of power availible.

      Do you really think many people will want to use more than ten thousand bulbs in thier display?

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  24. Season? by Dr.+Photo · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Around October, somebody was just walking around my neighborhood, and they told me they really liked our lights and that it really made the season for them," Hansen said. "If I am the one that triggers the season for somebody, then it really makes it worthwhile."


    No, you misheard: you triggered the seizures!
  25. I bet this guy drives a Prius and by melted · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I bet this guy drives a Prius and talks about reducing his carbon footprint all the time, too. ;-)

  26. Carson Williams by apharmdq · · Score: 1

    Didn't Carson Williams do this a couple years ago? I saw someone linking to Lightorama, which is the software he used, but I don't see a link to his video. In any case, while it may not have quite as many lights, I feel his Wizards in Winter performance was a lot better orchestrated.

    1. Re:Carson Williams by apharmdq · · Score: 1

      Whoops, looks like the article already mentions Williams. My apologies.

  27. Orlando? by Hemogoblin · · Score: 1

    It'd be more impressive if it wasn't 21C there. Try putting up all those lights in 3 feet of snow.

  28. You'll never go broke understimating the taste by crovira · · Score: 1

    of the American public.

    I watched part the video and it was like watching the eighteen wheeled log-hauler coming your way in front of you on the narrow mountain road suddenly jackknife and the tree trunks go up and over before coming down like a bunch of really BIG pick-up-sticks. (And you hope like Hell you jambed on the brakes fast enough!)

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  29. Some Canadian Examples Set To Music by 8127972 · · Score: 1

    This one is from Newmarket which is just north of Toronto Ontario:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXk0wc5qXuo

    This one gained instant fame a year ago. Again it is a house located just north of Toronto:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4983931962566123785

    --
    This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
  30. Happy winter solstice. by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    And saturnalia is just a celebration of the winter solstice and the birth of the new year.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:Happy winter solstice. by orclevegam · · Score: 1

      And saturnalia is just a celebration of the winter solstice and the birth of the new year. I've alway preferred Yule to Saturnalia, although both at least aren't so pretentious as to think they're much more than an excuse to party with friends and family. I mean who else besides the Scandinavians are going to have a holiday that involves 12 "wild nights" of drinking, feasting, and general debauchery. Now that's the way to do a holiday!
      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
  31. Waste of energy and resources by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    It is just xmas, no need for fancy lights. Thankfully it will be over in another day anyway.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  32. TRIP OUT MAN by neuteknique · · Score: 1

    I saw something like this, but it wasn't at Christmas. All you need is a little LSD. MUCH scarier though.

  33. are so doomed by tero · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't think the human race will survive the coming global warming and after watching that video, I don't think we deserve to either.
    The display gets full points for not having any taste though..

    1. Re:are so doomed by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Of course, the fine article mentions that the lighting controller was one that his company uses in one of the many clubs in the area. Better to have that lighting controller running that stuff for a few weeks out of the year, then year round in one of the clubs. Oh, and have you seen Las Vegas? Maybe we should shut them down too.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    2. Re:are so doomed by owlstead · · Score: 1

      "Oh, and have you seen Las Vegas? Maybe we should shut them down too."

      Well, in two words: YES PLEASE.

  34. On th eheels of the earlier CFL story by sm62704 · · Score: 1

    Are they using CFL Christmas lights? Oh sorry, don't want to offend the liberals, "holiday lights?"

    Oh yeah, these are geeks. The CFL Christma... sorry, "holiday tree" lights are the wrong color temperature and they give the whiney geeks headaches. And you can't dim 'em. Can't have that, planet be damned.

    Peace on earth goodwill to men, I wonder how much electricity these displays take? Vain, selfich rich kids. Lets just do away with Christmas altogether.

    Sorry, I'm having a really bad day today. I'm trying for funny but shit... troll? flamebait? Offtopic? You're the mod, go ahead, make my day.

    -Dirty Hairy

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    1. Re:On th eheels of the earlier CFL story by mazarin5 · · Score: 1

      Peace on earth goodwill to men Tsk. Tsk.

      "Peace on Earth and goodwill to people"
      --
      Fnord.
    2. Re:On th eheels of the earlier CFL story by agent_no.82 · · Score: 1
      I'm a liberal and I'm so offended that you accidentally called them "Christmas lights" and "Christmas trees!" I'm going to go cry now.


      Seriously dude, I don't know any liberals who give a damn about Christmas trees/lights/displays unless those setups utterly ridiculous or over-the-top annoying. In fact, I somewhat enjoy the whole Christmas thing. Mostly the "what about other religions" bit is used as a rhetorical example for important outlying possibilities.

      What you said would be like me accusing you of being one of those "freedom fries" people, when most Americans just call them "fries."

    3. Re:On th eheels of the earlier CFL story by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, "happy politically correct holidays."

      A woman (wo'man, womb man) is a man with a womb. "Mankind" includes women. 'Tis the season to be pedantic.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    4. Re:On th eheels of the earlier CFL story by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      It's sad that I have to put a damned smiley on a post for people to NOT TAKE IT SERIOUSLY.

      Seriously!

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    5. Re:On th eheels of the earlier CFL story by mazarin5 · · Score: 1

      Folk etymology, sir. "Man" itself was a genderless word, and the noun for the male sex has been dropped from the language. On the other hand, woman is a compound of the noun for the female sex and the genderless "man." Besides, I was being full of snark.

      --
      Fnord.
    6. Re:On th eheels of the earlier CFL story by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Well, slashdot is a great place to go snark hunting. IMO shark is best breaded and frieed, although some like it grilled. Be sure not to shoot one out of season or the mods, er "game wardens" will be all over you.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    7. Re:On th eheels of the earlier CFL story by agent_no.82 · · Score: 1

      Oops. :)
      I know people like that IRL, though.

  35. So, Tie a Yellow Ribbon around the Old Oak Tree? by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    Will IT be visible by Dawn? What will SHE have to say about it?

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  36. Lame by cuby · · Score: 1

    This light thing is some other form of penis size competition. Every year, Christmas is more about business and show off and less about its origins.

    Disclaimer: I'm not a religious person but I think you don't need to believe in God to admire Jesus work at that time. If he was in our time he would certainly be against the war in Iraq. He was a pacifist, unlike most of his hard line followers.

    --
    Math is beautiful... e^(pi*i)+1=0
    1. Re:Lame by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      This.

      And pretty much anyone that uses the label "Christian" nowadays would have had him locked up in Guantanamo Bay.

    2. Re:Lame by PhreakOfTime · · Score: 1

      "I think you don't need to believe in God to admire Jesus work at that time. If he was in our time..."

      How about if he was in any time... would you care to find me a historical reference from the years around 10BC-50AD that documents his existance? Other than 'the bible'.

      Nice to see that you have thrown off the shackles of superstitio... uh religion. Next step is to question everything you think you believe, and find out if its basd on facts and true, or if its just something somebody told you, who told them, who told them, etc...

    3. Re:Lame by TrollMaster+9000 · · Score: 0

      If he was in our time he would certainly be against the war in Iraq. He was a pacifist, unlike most of his hard line followers.

      And would Jesus have approved of Uday's rape rooms?

      Or, as a pacifist, would Jesus have said "Nope, not my problem" and just turned the other cheek?

      Merry Christmas you fucking moron.

    4. Re:Lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was a pacifist
      "Don't imagine that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" -Jesus (Matt. 10:34)
    5. Re:Lame by cuby · · Score: 1

      There are Roman records referring to him and some of his direct followers... Etc, Etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

      But the most important is not if he existed, is his message. And, as I told before, I'm not a religious person, but the Jesus figure is of the upmost importance in history.

      --
      Math is beautiful... e^(pi*i)+1=0
  37. For those in the SF Bay Area... by mpthompson · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... on Eucalyptus Avenue in San Carlos the whole neighborhood gets involved with spectacular lighting displays. While not technically elaborate or geeky as the linked video, it is still quite a sight. Kids, young and old, certainly enjoy it walking up and down the street enjoying the hospitality of the home owners.

    Of course, it's a sight that would make Al Gore cry, but he's an old Hum Bugger anyway.

    1. Re:For those in the SF Bay Area... by steevc · · Score: 1

      Of course, it's a sight that would make Al Gore cry, but he's an old Hum Bugger anyway. Hummer bug?
  38. You think that's bad? by jd · · Score: 3, Funny

    If enough houses got together, they could make a great set of fake runway lights for aircraft.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:You think that's bad? by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      Been done, by the Papuan Cargo Cult...

      rj

    2. Re:You think that's bad? by Brad1138 · · Score: 1

      Ya.... They could......

      --
      If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
    3. Re:You think that's bad? by leathered · · Score: 1

      Nah, real geeks build fake ILS systems.

      --
      For all intensive porpoises your a bunch of rediculous loosers
    4. Re:You think that's bad? by Animats · · Score: 1

      If enough houses got together, they could make a great set of fake runway lights for aircraft.

      The Museum of Modern Art in New York once did that by accident. They had a piece called "Pulsa", by Patrick Clancy, in 1969-1970. This involved strobe lights in the MOMA courtyard and on adjacent buildings. Speakers played clicks as the strobes flashed, and the display was timed to produce the look and sound of something moving at hundreds of miles per hour.

      The FAA made them shut it down, after a pilot reported seeing it from the air. They'd accidentally reproduced the "meatball" which identifies airport runways. In midtown Manhattan. Oops. The work was brought back up with some mods so it didn't look anything like a runway.

  39. My neighbor does quite well by grahamsz · · Score: 1

    I captured this video last night

  40. Why port firefox? by jd · · Score: 2, Funny

    The Chaos Computer Club's Blinkenlights project lets you hook up games like Pong to hotel lighting systems. With the better resolution and greater refresh rate offered by christmas lights, it should be possible to get Doom or Quake to play quite nicely over the side of a mountain or something.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  41. Re:It's Easier Than That by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I need to correct this. It was NOT Homeland Security that shut down Boston. It was the Boston Police.

    Not even George Bush is dumb enough to shut down a city over a Lite Brite. That kind of incompetence is something only Boston is capable of.

    (The best part being, of course, that they did it TWICE, and begged for a Medal of Honor for their restraint in not immediately killing the suspect in the second case.)

  42. Re:Global warming QWZX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does a "truly free society" have to do with the USA?

    People whine about the USA, but exactly which country, on balance, is more free than the USA?

  43. Re:Global warming QWZX by Eternauta3k · · Score: 3, Funny

    Canada.

    --
    Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
  44. Dallas Area by robwmc · · Score: 2, Informative
    There is a house in Frisco (just north of Dallas) that has been doing this for several years. They have a small site and it gives descriptions, pictures and video. You can see it here.

    We usually take our daughter to see it every year.

  45. More internet controlled lighting by 2centplain · · Score: 1
  46. Mods, pay attention by DrWho520 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This is a TROLL! This statement was made by a high on the 'nog geek with a few days off from the 12 hour Initech grind for no other reason than to insight angry reactions from other high on the 'nog geeks with a few days off from the 12 hour Initech grind. Actually, its poorly executed, so I would call it FLAMBAIT, but I suspect the number of replies is directly proportional to the amount of eggnog being imbibed.

    Last I heard, I was allowed to put up as many Christmas lights as I wanted. Yeah, I use LEDs, shut-off the boob-toob and even the computer (obviously not now) to conserve energy. I have all CFL bulbs, my thermostat is computerized so that I lighten the load during peak hours and I wear a sweater so when the heat is on, so its not set very high. I sold the Bronco and am on the list for a Smart Car, although I would prefer a diesel tubine/electric hybrid which is much more efficient. All of that is of my own volition. What else needs must I do?

    How about I turn off my Christmas lights if you turn off your 42" plasma/LCD, Wii/PS3/360 and that 600W powersupply gamer rig with the dual 22" LCDs? Now if you will excuse me, I am out of eggnog.

    --
    The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
    1. Re:Mods, pay attention by Yusaku+Godai · · Score: 1

      Whoa, lay off the eggnog yourself there pal.

      Actually, I'm at work right now, you know, working (I'm a Jew...a lonely Jew...)

      Also, I shut off all my gear before I leave the house, except for my file server since, you know, it's a server.

      Put up all the lights you want (especially if they're LEDs), and nobody's going to stop you, not even me. So lay off the invective.

      (P.S. My desktop has a 350W power supply and only one 22" LCD :P)

    2. Re:Mods, pay attention by Darby · · Score: 1

      You would be merry, but you're Hebrew ;-)

  47. A guy in Utah by rjolley · · Score: 1

    There is a guy here in Utah that makes a pretty cool Christmas display with lights timed to music and all that, here are some pics http://www.christmasutah.com/2007_lights.html If you are in the area, it is definitely worth seeing. (Google ads on the bottom, I am not the owner of the website)

  48. STFU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It is annoying, pedantic whiners like you who give the rest of us atheists a bad name. Who cares when Christians want to celebrate the birth of Jesus? Cultural tolerance should extend to local culture just as much as to all the others. So as long as you aren't being physically forced to participate, just ignore them and stop whining.

    1. Re:STFU by t0rkm3 · · Score: 1

      Thank you,

      From one more embarassed atheist.

      Why do people find it necessary to denigrate those that they do not agree with? Every weekday is a little holy day and the significance only varies by which yardstick you measure it. Personally, I like the Germanic tradition of observing the power of my mighty lords each day of the week. Happy Moon's day today, and Happy Tyr's day tomorrow.

    2. Re:STFU by kayditty · · Score: 0

      Who cares? Why not do it? Making fun of people is cool and fun, and religious people don't have any good, rational arguments for the things they believe. So why not challenge them on it? You're just being as annoying as whomever it is you're annoyed at for being annoying, to me. I can say what I want, and you can criticize me. Similarly, you can say stupid shit, too, but don't expect me not to call you on it.

  49. Make something that is different by houghi · · Score: 1

    Basicaly it is a bunch of groups of lights that go on and off individually. The first time I saw something like this a few years ago it was impressive. Now it is just another one.

    It would be more impressive if he were realy steering each light individualy and thus making his whole house a screen. The real chalange would be to have more then one angle in which it looks great (no just good). This would mean some weeks or months of 3d modelling first to see how it works.

    The obvious next step whould be a connection to the Internet, although a repeating message with "Fuck Global Warming" would be also apropriate.

    Some other lights here from 2005 and although in one colour, better then the one now posted

    Here also something that looks better and is from 2006.
    A last one is here.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  50. Blink by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 3, Funny

    They typically work in fields such as ... Web development
    Got to do something with all those unused "blink" tags...
    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Blink by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1

      Those were put in the spec. as a joke, right? Along with the marquee tags, I assume?

      --

      If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

  51. Christmas decoration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure everybody knows this one, but anyway : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gvMYVGZLgQ
    Less lights but more related to the music playing.
    I prefer this one.

  52. Mod Parent Up (Informative) by quizwedge · · Score: 1

    good reply. Thanks for posting this. Wish I had mod points to mod you up.

    --
    I have no .sig
  53. Re:Global warming QWZX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm glad that was modded funny. Canada has some fucked up laws regarding speech... definitely not free.

  54. But imagine what you could do if only... by SpzToid · · Score: 1

    Just imagine, if you could only organize the neighbors just a little bit, sorta like a block party, and string all the house lights together, to create a beowolf cluster-formation! Wow! You might even get mentioned in /. it'd be so cool!

    --
    You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
  55. And what is the moral of the story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back when I was in high school, I had a neighbor who was a bitter alcoholic old man that used to come out and yell at kids playing in front of his house all the time. His decorations got torn down and stomped on too.

    1. Re:And what is the moral of the story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, didn't your mom have her own fucking sidewalk you could screech on?

  56. That's nothing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That guy is a pussy. Every year I impregnate a virgin in late March. She gives birth around Christmas time. Then I crucify the baby in my front yard. I am hardcore.

  57. Re:Global warming QWZX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  58. so i guess the mythbusters WAS right by holywarrior21c · · Score: 1

    million lights and it did'nt burn up so far. Myth busted!

  59. Re:your life is a waste of energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your life is a waste of energy. You literally generate CO2 and the longer you live the more you produce. Everything you do will contribute to CO2 production. The best solution for you to reduce man-made global warming is to self terminate and even then your decaying corps will release CO2.

  60. But what we really want to know by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    has it gotten anybody laid?

  61. There's one that goes all out...on Halloween by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    This is in Miami. The yard has tall palm trees in a row behind a diamond link fence. There is a giant spiderweb between two of them so it spans the front of the yard. A huge spider is on it (the stuff that used to scare me in the old serial reruns like Flash Gordon or vintage Batman--not the Adam West stuff but even older)

    Under one of the palm trees: a crashed helicopter mockup, broken rotors and all, and a dazed pilot is RIGHT THERE, stuck on the web.

    I would drive there at night with my two daughters, and whenever we are about to pass by, I start clutching my daughter's arm, pretending to be really scared.

    Of course my daughters roll their eyes. Some nights we scream together. I wonder if the family that lives there gets a Doppler effect of our mock screams. One particular night, I turned to them and said in all seriousness, We've got to save him!

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  62. Local legend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One house in my hometown has the best-synchronized light and music show I've seen. They call it Christmas Utah.

  63. Re:Cease & desists and/or lawsuits in 3.. 2.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    None of the above... but instead, The City... because his carbon footprint is too big
    when running all of these lights.

  64. Re:Global warming QWZX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) I wasn't whining.
    2) I wasn't making a comparison with another country.
    3) You assume too much.

  65. Blow Global Warming Out Your Chimney by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

    Oh, man, do you "Do You Know That Christmas isn't really Jesus' Birthday?" neo-pagan hipsters know how boring you've become? You're just two tics on the pedantic-o-meter below the "Why can't Hollywood get computers right in the movies?" pop-culture geeks, which is to say nestled snugly between the crowd who can't get over the fact that the word "hacker" doesn't mean "computer hobbyist" like it did for twenty minutes in 1994 and those who insist upon using "architect" as a verb.

    It's Christmas Eve. Hug the person next to you, say something to make a child smile, thank God your free and healthy enough to be idling time away in front of a computer monitor, and pour yourself another eggnog.

    Merry Christmas. Lighten up.

    1. Re:Blow Global Warming Out Your Chimney by Windom+Earle · · Score: 1

      They are competing with the 'I don't even OWN a television set' guy to be cool and hip.

    2. Re:Blow Global Warming Out Your Chimney by orclevegam · · Score: 1

      Not that it matters but I'm agnostic, not neo-pagan. I just find it interesting to look at the history of our various holidays (religious or otherwise), and I'm trying to point out that most people don't understand anything about the holiday they're celebrating.

      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
    3. Re:Blow Global Warming Out Your Chimney by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

      I'm trying to point out that most people don't understand anything about the holiday they're celebrating.

      I think most everyone who celebrates Christmas knows they are celebrating the birth of Christ. It doesn't matter one iota (except to the "there can be no explosions in outer space" geeks and other wonder-deprived nit-pickers) that Christ was not born on December 25th. The fact that the Church celebrates the event in the heart of winter, when humans have traditionally craved celebrations of light and hope, is a point in the holiday's favor, not a knock against it.

      And the fact that Christmas has co-opted and superseded so many other religions' celebrations held at the same time ("embrace, extend, destroy") is just brilliant marketing...

    4. Re:Blow Global Warming Out Your Chimney by orclevegam · · Score: 1

      I think most everyone who celebrates Christmas knows they are celebrating the birth of Christ. I think most people that celebrate christmas are celebrating being with friends and family and exchanging gifts. The fact that the Christian churches co-opted the holiday to give it a religious spin after they couldn't convince people not to celebrate it doesn't really change that. Until the mid 1800s most of the major christian religions even tried to eliminate christmas as they didn't feel it was a proper thing to celebrate the birth of any religious figure let alone their most important one, and particularly not with feasting and presents. The fact is, few people really honestly care much about the religious angle, they just want an excuse to spend time with family and take a few days off from their busy work schedules.
      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
    5. Re:Blow Global Warming Out Your Chimney by orclevegam · · Score: 1

      Just found this, seemed appropriate.

      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
    6. Re:Blow Global Warming Out Your Chimney by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

      The fact is, few people really honestly care much about the religious angle, they just want an excuse to spend time with family and take a few days off from their busy work schedules.

      Wow! That's one heck of a fact! From whereabouts was that pulled?

      I suspect that is your impression, based upon your experiences with your immediate friends and family. My own -- admittedly anecdotal -- impression is just the opposite. I think I like my circle better...

      Until the mid 1800s most of the major christian religions even tried to eliminate christmas

      In case you have not noticed, Mr. Van Winkle, a lot has changed since the mid 1800s. (Although I'd still be real interested in seeing some statistical back-up to your "most" and "major" adjectives.) I mean, Christmas disappeared after Gregory of Nazianzus resigned as bishop in 381, and was reintroduced by John Chrysostom at around 400. So... what's your point? That in the 1800s there were some Christian sects extant with decidedly Puritanical bents? Good thing we pushed those back into the minority, ennit? TODAY (which is when we are having this dialogue), the birth of Christ is celebrated on December 25 by pretty much every Christian priest, pastor, and congregation, and it matters only to the Han-Shot-First Fringe that Jesus was not actually born on that calendar day.

    7. Re:Blow Global Warming Out Your Chimney by orclevegam · · Score: 1

      Ok, I'm tired of arguing with you. My point was, there are a lot of facts about Christmas that the majority of people aren't aware of and may find interesting. It doesn't matter much for celebration because people are doing just that, celebrating, it doesn't matter why. Since you brought them up, my friends and family are all over the board, as I would guess is the case with most Americans, some of them are very religious, others not at all. Does it make any difference at all how they celebrate Christmas? Nope, the same no matter where you go, and maybe that should tell you something.

      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
  66. Little Baby Jesus, *IMMANUEL* ("God is with us!) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last night, I attended Midnight Mass at the Cathedral Basilica here on Guam. It was inspirational and dignified, and there was not an empty pew in the church. The music was sung partially in the native Chamorro language, which (IMHO) sounds more melodious than English. The procession of priests and altar boys into the Basilica, with the bishops and archbishop in full regalia broke the stillness of midnight with blares of trumpets. I felt as if I were a shepherd, shaken by the earth-shattering message of God's arrival on earth. So moving was the ceremony! The archbishop, Antonio Apuron, gave a softly-spoken, but withering sermon in which he deplored the blind consumption and materialism displayed by Christians. Christmas is a celebration of JESUS CHRIST-- NOT OF SANTA CLAUS. Hardly anyone off the street in America even knows who Saint Nicholas was, or even how the gift-giving tradition came to be. If there were no gifts being exchanged, there would still be reason for Christmas to be celebrated. If there were no lights being strung, no tree being exalted, no carols being sung, no food being served, no vacation, there would STILL BE CHRISTMAS! Jesus Christ was born of such poor circumstance: farm animals surrounded him, straw was his bed, lowly shepherds were his only admirers. The King of Kings and Prince of Peace entered this world with quiet dignity. Worship of this Miracle, love for all of God's creatures, and hope for the future, should be the ways in which we honor Him. Faith, hope, and charity should guide our actions. Sharing meals with the poor, sending money to charities, and lots of PRAYER. Why attend only one Mass? Attend two! Why sit silently at mass? Instead, sing your heart out! You have 364 days in the rest of the year in which to drink yourself silly, indulge your spoiled kids, travel to Bermuda, buy that car you always wanted, screw that Vegas hooker. Go ahead and decorate your home. But, do you have to make it a competition?! Must you compete for "BH" (Bonus Honor-- World of Warcraft?) Such selfishness yields little reward and only sows enmity and discouragement. You want to decorate something? How about your local homeless shelter? Or a soup kitchen, orphanage, hospital, emergency room? (Imagine having to go to USC LA County Hospital ER on Christmas Eve!) What a world in which we live! So distant from the Nazareth of yore. Let's put the MEANING back into Christmas. Who's with me??!!

  67. Re:Public Performance... by Technician · · Score: 1

    I wondered about all that, and I have noticed some very important things happening at the Ligts-O-Rama website. Ever since the Carson Williams lightshow stood the internet on fire for crazy annimated lights, the question was raised. The first big dilema was with TSO who has a record label which is a member of the RIAA... Ohh bad news. At the time not many have heard of TSO.. The online free publicity has been a godsend to TSO, who publicly praised the lightsohow and gave Carson Willmans red carpet treatment to one of their concerts. This put the label and the RIAA in a fix.. Attack or grin and bear it? The TSO invite made an attack a bad move. But what about all the others that are sure to follow....

    The first thing to happen in the back room was to get the software and lighting folks on board to avoid legal issues that could damage their business for making avaliable the technology. Who needs a RIO lawsuit?

    The outcome is a licensing agreement. The TSO sequences are free to use with the lights-o-rama program. You must buy your own legal copy of the CD to rip it for the show. Lights-o-Rama is in negotiations with other bands and labels for additional material. Unfortunately, most have decided this can be a real money maker.. and for a fee of about $30 for most of the listed tunes, you can get a performance license for your show. Lucy and Linus is one of the approved songs. Just don't do a show without buying the license. Don't do a show without a license. Not all musicians and lables have warmed up to the idea. I would not recommend any shows to any tunes by the artist formaly known as Prince. That could get ugly, especialy if posted on youtube.

    Here is a direct link to the fees for the public performance fees including a list of the songs and artists. The list is short to say the least.. A pathetic list of ten total songs to choose from.. Come on guys, lighten up a little on the licensing..
    http://store.lightorama.com/sequences.html

    Here is a link to the FREE TSO sequences. Remember, use a legal copy of the TSO track, not a limewire download. My head was about to explode on this one. TSO is wonderful for starting the ball rolling on this and dragging along the label and RIAA. But the songs are on RIAA member labels.. Do I buy it to suport TSO or avoid it because it's an RIAA label??? My head is going to explode!
    http://www.lightorama.com/FreeTSO.html

    This page explains clearly the need to purchase the CD. I have considered doing a show, but have been stopped by the licensing issues.

    I am considering doing a Mannheim Steamroller track because they are RIAA safe, but they want a high fee and an entire selection to choose from is only two songs.. The fee includes MP3 downloads of the songs which is nice as you don't have to buy the entire album. I'll stick to static displays or silent annimation for now until things improve.

    --
    The truth shall set you free!
  68. Re:Global warming QWZX by Eternauta3k · · Score: 1

    He wanted a country freer than the US, not one that was completely free.

    --
    Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
  69. lolikun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  70. Re:Global warming - and young maid ins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Umm.. all this talk about about "virgins" and "young maidens" has gotten me hungry for some raisins...
    I wonder why...
    best to ask my Imam!

  71. Re:Little Baby Jesus, *IMMANUEL* ("God is with us! by TheJodster · · Score: 1
    My wife, I, and our kids went to a Christmas pageant Saturday night to watch my step mother sing in the choir. We went to candle light service at our own church Christmas Eve. I agree with you whole heartedly. That one service reminds everyone there why we celebrate Christmas. It also reminds you why you go to church on Sundays. We love the candle light service and I know that my kids know why we Christians celebrate Christmas.

    I could absolutely care less about the fact that pagan religions celebrate whatever they celebrated during the month of what we now call December. I don't care what pagan or other religions have always celebrated around Christmas. What exactly is the point of that statement? I really don't understand what theorem is proven by the fact that other religions have celebrated something on or about the same day. It reminds me of a quote from the movie Forest Gump. "That is a very lovely story, and you tell it so well."

    What is the theorem proven by the fact that Christmas has been commercialized by our capitalist society? Christmas is no longer a celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ because Wal-Mart makes a mint from it? That is excellent proof? Since the gigantic megacorps that make millions or billions from Jesus Christ's birth don't call it Christmas anymore, I say that particular proof is crap. They are now making money from the "Holiday Season" so Christmas has been returned to us and we know exactly why we celebrate it.

    If someone doesn't care about Christ, Christians, or Christmas, why do they care if I do? I have never seen a group so hell bent (pun intended) on ruining my holiday, my religion, and my celebrations as atheists. The only thing this group appears to firmly believe in is attempting to tear down my faith.

    It's Christmas. I love it. I thank God for the gift he sent us in his only begotten son. I thank God for the opportunity to celebrate it on whatever day we choose to celebrate it. We had a fantastic Christmas full of good cheer, thankfulness, giving, good food, good family, good friends, and worship. If someone else didn't then I am sorry for them. If a person doesn't believe then we pray for them. If you don't believe and don't care, then be quiet. This "holiday" is not about you nor is it for you. Wal-Mart has a "Holiday Celebration" for you instead. Take it or leave it, but stop whining about it.

    Incidentally, St. Nicholas was the patron saint of anonymous giving. That is what Santa Claus represents. That's what the whole tradition represents to me. We give to the needy. We give to the Churches who use the money to help the needy. We buy nice things for our children and put it under the tree. They get gifts from St. Nicholas a.k.a. Santa Claus and the folks who helped with that process are emulating the real St. Nicholas in not expecting thanks or gratitude for a kind gesture. Jesus said that a man who marches through the streets loudly proclaiming his tithes are paid has already received his reward. The giving of gifts by Christians is in the tradition of Christ's teachings. Our children may not be needy, but we give to them in the same spirit in the hopes that they will do the same when they are adults. That is: giving to the needy, worshiping God, Jesus Christ our Lord, the Holy Spirit, and passing this tradition along to their own children.

    Matthew 6:1-4
    But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. I'm not inviting posters to attack my faith. I am not attempting to insult anyone of another faith. I believe that most followers of other faiths don't care what I believe and aren't bothered by the fact that I do believe. What I am trying to say is that it IS a Christian holiday and WE DO know why we celebrate it. It is NOT because we all go broke and it DOESN'T MATTER what flipping day of what flipping month we do it.

    Merry Christmas and may God bless all of us. I hope that your new year is even better than your last.
    --
    A little misunderstanding? Galileo and the Pope had a little misunderstanding...
  72. Re:Global warming QWZX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He wanted a country freer than the US, not one that was completely free.

    Yes, but it's hard to argue that a country with such weak free speech laws is going to win in a "free country" comparison.

  73. Re:Public Performance... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or pick an artist who uses a better license. Jonathan Coulton is my favorite example, he releases his songs under the 'creative commons' license ("Podsafe Christmas Song" is a good example). http://www.hermann-uwe.de/blog/10-100-creative-commons-christmas-songs has a list of more.