Slashdot Mirror


USB Is the Devil's Connection

Jamie handed us Satan's Data Connection. You see, sane and rational human being, the USB logo is actually in the shape of a trident, and the obvious action to Evangelical Christians in Brazil is to ban its use. Hopefully they don't mispronounce SCSI and find themselves lusting after their PCs.

474 comments

  1. it always looked to me like... by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Funny

    A guy lying down carrying a briefcase and a pizza and... wait, never mind...

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:it always looked to me like... by longtailedhermit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      [i]Hopefully they don't mispronounce SCSI and find themselves lusting after their PCs. [/i]
      I don't get it. In what way would they have to mispronounce SCSI?

    2. Re:it always looked to me like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      secsy

    3. Re:it always looked to me like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sexy ?

    4. Re:it always looked to me like... by cforciea · · Score: 1

      Sexy.

    5. Re:it always looked to me like... by Surt · · Score: 1

      SeCSI (sexy)

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    6. Re:it always looked to me like... by revlayle · · Score: 1

      well, obviously... you worship Satan

    7. Re:it always looked to me like... by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Have you ever actually heard someone who wasn't a teenage horny boy on the Internet that said 'sexy' instead of 'scuzzy'?

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    8. Re:it always looked to me like... by phozz+bare · · Score: 5, Informative

      Why would that be a mispronounciation? That's how it was originally intended to be pronounced. It's everybody else who's got it wrong :)

    9. Re:it always looked to me like... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Satan has never carried a trident - it is hard to say where this myth originated.

      He does, however, have an enormous johnston.

      Also, I suppose that there are key areas of the London Underground - which according to my tube map - these people would do best to avoid.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    10. Re:it always looked to me like... by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 3, Funny

      Kevin Flynn: Come on, you scuzzy data, be in there. Come on.

      What's not arousing about that?

    11. Re:it always looked to me like... by contra_mundi · · Score: 4, Informative

      Probably from Poseidon.

    12. Re:it always looked to me like... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The naming convention behind SCSI was originally intending on it to be pronounced Sexy (secsi).

      Evidently, if you read it, it's supposed to sound like that. The concept never really took off and people now forget about it. Btu sexy and lust is a close companion.

      Anyways, I'm wondering why they arne't worried about the World Wide Web. Everyone knows that W translated into Hebrew is 6 (actually the V is substituted as W doesn't exist) so whenever they go to a web site, they are paying homage to the number of the beast 666. (www).

    13. Re:it always looked to me like... by realityimpaired · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes... but it was originally intended to be "sexy", not "scuzzy".

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scsi#History

      So strictly speaking, pronouncing it as "sexy" isn't actually mispronouncing it. :)

    14. Re:it always looked to me like... by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      The naming convention behind SCSI was originally intending on it to be pronounced Sexy (secsi).

      I believe Steve Jobs was behind that proposed pronunciation. The properly descriptive "scuzzy" won out.

    15. Re:it always looked to me like... by Rewind · · Score: 1

      The naming convention behind SCSI was originally intending on it to be pronounced Sexy (secsi).

      I believe Steve Jobs was behind that proposed pronunciation. The properly descriptive "scuzzy" won out.

      I have seen a couple of people comment that on this story, but no source for it. The linked (entirely too often in this thread now) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scsi#History seems to disagree. I mean it IS wikipedia so it could be wrong, but I haven't seen any better source.

      --
      ?
    16. Re:it always looked to me like... by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 1

      Satan has never carried a trident

      It's not a trident, it's a pitchfork.

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
    17. Re:it always looked to me like... by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 1

      The naming convention behind SCSI was originally intending on it to be pronounced Sexy (secsi).

      That was more of Steve Jobs BS. Everyone else called it "scuzzy". Steve Jobs' tremendous ego thought he could make it pronounced "sexy".

      Everyone knows that W translated into Hebrew is 6 (actually the V is substituted as W doesn't exist) so whenever they go to a web site, they are paying homage to the number of the beast 666. (www).

      Since W is double-vee in most languages that use the character wouldn't www == 666666?

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
    18. Re:it always looked to me like... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      Since W is double-vee in most languages that use the character wouldn't www == 666666?

      No, it would be 0xCCC.

      My first few days at work here, I had a fellow employee, a woman, come ask me if I knew anything about "the sex protocol".

      After I recovered a bit, I learned it was "the SECS protocol", or "Semiconductor Equipment Communications Standard". It's all been downhill since that one exciting day.

    19. Re:it always looked to me like... by c6gunner · · Score: 0, Troll

      Let's see ... one guy wanted it to be "sexy" .... while the rest of the world decided it should be "scuzzy" .... so, of course, the one guy is right!

      Wait, what?

    20. Re:it always looked to me like... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Well. Make hay while the sun shines, eh?

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    21. Re:it always looked to me like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Is that the original with Gene Hackman or the remake with Kurt Russel ?

    22. Re:it always looked to me like... by BluBrick · · Score: 1

      Yep, everyone else is wrong when they pronounce SCSI. Just like everyone else is wrong when they use the word "hacker".

      Aside: I have heard a third pronunciation of SCSI - "Skizzy". I like it because it sounds kinda friendly, rather than sounding just plain nasty.

      --
      Ahh - My eye!
      The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
    23. Re:it always looked to me like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like 'router'... the device which routes data.

    24. Re:it always looked to me like... by meerling · · Score: 1

      Yes, and the word that he wanted it to be sexy only came out of their back offices years later. Everybody had a laugh at some fool wanting to call an interface sexy. The jokes about hookerbots were thicker than a Bender episode of Futurama. I have no idea why some people are trying to make a big deal out of it this late in the game. (Maybe they are looking for an epitaph?)

    25. Re:it always looked to me like... by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since W is double-vee in most languages that use the character wouldn't www == 666666?

      Well, actually, the www=666 is more or less a long running joke that has existed in some form or another since the mid 1990's. I probably first ran across it on my windows 3.11 running Netscape 2.something dialing into what became one of the largest local internet services in my area. The Hebrew language is a lot like the roman numeral system in that when you put numbers beside each other, they are added together. 666 would actually be 18, 666666 would be something like 36. There are rules in how it's done but I don't know them well enough to say anything.

      Here is a link explaining it a little more. Note that the copyright at the top of the page lists 1999 where the one on the bottom of the page lists 1995. '95 sounds about the right time frame as I may had just upgraded to windows 95.

      As for the SCSI being SekSI (sexy), your probably right. I don't remember where I heard that from. I just know I can understand why the Scuzzy sounding name stuck (it's a PITA in some situations)

    26. Re:it always looked to me like... by aiht · · Score: 1

      I always pronounced SCSI as ess see ess eye instead of scuzzy (and IDE as ide instead of eye dee eee).
      I know, I know, I'm crazy, right?

    27. Re:it always looked to me like... by BronsCon · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's actually the proper pronunciation...

      "Larry Boucher intended SCSI to be an acronym all along. Pronounced "sexy." That didn't quite happen."

      See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCSI

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    28. Re:it always looked to me like... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Write, your wierd.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    29. Re:it always looked to me like... by sznupi · · Score: 1

      ...W is double-vee in most languages that use the character...

      How so?

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    30. Re:it always looked to me like... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      The Hebrew language is a lot like the roman numeral system in that when you put numbers beside each other, they are added together. 666 would actually be 18, 666666 would be something like 36. There are rules in how it's done but I don't know them well enough to say anything.

      The idea is that each letter also has a numeric value. Using Latin letters as an analogy, A-J would be 1-10, K-S would be 20-100, in increments of 10, and T-V would be 200-400, in increments of 100 (Hebrew has 22 letters). To get a number like 42, you would use the letters for 40 and 2. The exception is 15, which is written as 9 and 6 instead of 10 and 5, since the letters for 10 and 5 are also the first two letters of the Hebrew name for God. Normally you would use the simplest way of writing a number, so you would never write 18 as 6+6+6, but as 10+8.

    31. Re:it always looked to me like... by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      because V in a majority of languages is pronounced like W.

      like "wolksvagen" or "wodka"

    32. Re:it always looked to me like... by WeatherGod · · Score: 0

      Oh, my. That makes me see SCSI in that show, Reboot, (Hexadecimal's pet) in a different light...

    33. Re:it always looked to me like... by sznupi · · Score: 1

      No they aren't. V and W are two different sounds. Certainly in the language of Volkswagen (a convenient instance of both of them here; just...say it) or Slavic ones (where V often doesn't really exist in local alphabet - but when it is pronounced for some reason, it's typically closer to F or at least distinctly between)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    34. Re:it always looked to me like... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      That's how it was originally intended to be pronounced.

      Then perhaps a spelling that reflected it less ambiguously should have been employed.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    35. Re:it always looked to me like... by dave87656 · · Score: 1

      I always pronounced SCSI as Scuzzy.

    36. Re:it always looked to me like... by c0mpliant · · Score: 1

      I believe that protocal is "always open"...

      --
      There is no -1 disagree
    37. Re:it always looked to me like... by IAmGarethAdams · · Score: 1
    38. Re:it always looked to me like... by Stooshie · · Score: 1

      "your wierd"

      Well you told me to write it. Anyway it should be "weird", not "wierd"

      --
      America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
    39. Re:it always looked to me like... by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      Satan is sometimes described as having a pitchfork. Seeing their general amount of intelligence, I guess they get easily confused

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    40. Re:it always looked to me like... by Insanity+Defense · · Score: 1

      well, obviously... you worship Satan

      Damn dyslexics who can't spell Santa always get that wrong.

    41. Re:it always looked to me like... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Devil: Has goats legs and horns. Lives in hell (QV).

      Hell: Red, hot.

      Poseidon: Has the lower half of a fish. No horns. Lives in the sea (QV).

      Sea: Blue, and mostly cold.

      Yeah, I can see why it's so totally easy to get those two confused.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    42. Re:it always looked to me like... by Philbert+de+Zwart · · Score: 1

      Also, they should avoid Ukraine.

    43. Re:it always looked to me like... by lxs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "remake with Kurt Russel"

      Is there any way that Satan isn't involved when those words are uttered?

    44. Re:it always looked to me like... by mr_bubb · · Score: 0

      It should also be "Right" and "you're". Congratulations, in a three word sentence you managed to make three mistakes. You're batting 1.0!

    45. Re:it always looked to me like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh

    46. Re:it always looked to me like... by glabble · · Score: 1

      In my misspent youth (DC area, early '80s), "scuzzy" meant the same thing "skanky" does now.

    47. Re:it always looked to me like... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      So did everyone else, apart from retarded thirteen year olds.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    48. Re:it always looked to me like... by Silfax · · Score: 1

      Also, they should avoid Ukraine.

      and Barbados They would probably really freak over Morocco

    49. Re:it always looked to me like... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The modern version of Satan is a composite of various myths. Satan is an amalgam of pagan gods, which Christians of the last liked to portray as satanic creations. Poseidon's trident became Satan's pitchfork. He got the horns and goat-legs from Pan, in the same way. The modern conception of hell borrows ideas in a similar way - the bible mentions hell in the new testament, but doesn't give much in the way of specific descriptions. It does mention a 'lake of fire,' but everything else we think of as Hell-like today comes from a combination of the greek Hades and the creative efforts of medieval artists and writers. The modern view of Hell owes more to Dante's Inferno than the bible.

    50. Re:it always looked to me like... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I shall devise a protocol for tunneling multible serial port connections over a SSH connection to remotely access industrial controllers, purely so I can call it 'SEcure Control Systems Interface.' Or would, if there wern't already about ten different products to do that.

    51. Re:it always looked to me like... by bjwest · · Score: 1

      It's not the proper pronunciation, no matter what Larry Boucher intended. If he wanted it to be pronounced as sexy, he should have included the 'a' from small - SaCSI - although I'm not sure skipping letters makes it a proper acronym.

      I always get a laugh out of people who pronounce gif as jif - and yes, I know the creators of the format used a soft G, but that is wrong. Acronym letters should take the sound of the letters in the word they replace.

      --

      --- Keep the choice with the user..
    52. Re:it always looked to me like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes... but it was originally intended to be "sexy", not "scuzzy".

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scsi#History

      So strictly speaking, pronouncing it as "sexy" isn't actually mispronouncing it. :)

      It's spelled "SCSI" but it's pronounced "Throat warbler mangrove".

    53. Re:it always looked to me like... by BronsCon · · Score: 2, Funny

      In response to your comment, I've created the Small Electronic Component System Interface, which is 100% compatible with the Small Computer System Interface as it uses the same cables, pinouts, protocols, and voltages.

      Now we can all have our SECSI interfaces. In fact, your SCSI interface is now a SECSI interface and your SCSI cable is not a SECSI cable. And "sexy" is the proper pronunciation.

      That said, choosy moms pronounce GIF as "jif"; they also annoy me.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    54. Re:it always looked to me like... by 2names · · Score: 1

      Pete: I've always wondered, what's the devil look like?

      Ulysses Everett McGill: Well, there are all manner of lesser imps and demons, Pete, but the great Satan hisself is red and scaly with a bifurcated tail, and he carries a hay fork.

      Tommy Johnson: Oh, no. No, sir. He's white, as white as you folks, with empty eyes and a big hollow voice. He likes to travel around with a mean old hound. That's right.

      --
      "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
    55. Re:it always looked to me like... by Bassman59 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I always get a laugh out of people who pronounce gif as jif - and yes, I know the creators of the format used a soft G, but that is wrong. Acronym letters should take the sound of the letters in the word they replace.

      What about the illiterates who pronounce, "gigabyte" with a hard G?

      It's the same root as the word, "gigantic." Get it right.

    56. Re:it always looked to me like... by sznupi · · Score: 1

      And the second example with such, basically, formal name of a character (actual pronunciation doesn't follow like that) makes it "most languages"?

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    57. Re:it always looked to me like... by bjwest · · Score: 1

      Giga is not an acronym of gigantic, it's a prefix derived from the Greek word for giant. We're talking acronyms here, not derivative words.

      --

      --- Keep the choice with the user..
    58. Re:it always looked to me like... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      that was typed... ...and spelling was the only thing you came to criticize?

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    59. Re:it always looked to me like... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      He's white, alright. And Jewish, too.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    60. Re:it always looked to me like... by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected.

    61. Re:it always looked to me like... by Curly+Brackets · · Score: 1

      How would you connect your kb and your mouse, considering that PS/2 means 'Pray to Satan 2-a-day'?

    62. Re:it always looked to me like... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      If he wanted it to be pronounced as sexy, he should have included the 'a' from small - SaCSI

      Then it would say "saxy" which AFAIK isn't a word. If it was it would mean "bearing a resemblance to a bent metal clarinet".

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    63. Re:it always looked to me like... by operagost · · Score: 1

      I'll let my aunt Geraldine know that she's pronouncing her name wrong.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    64. Re:it always looked to me like... by bjwest · · Score: 1

      Again, we're talking acronyms here. Geraldine is not an acronym for anything as far as I know. It's a word with a soft g sound, same as the g in general. The g in gif comes from the g in graphics, which has a hard g sound and should take on that hard g sound.

      --

      --- Keep the choice with the user..
    65. Re:it always looked to me like... by bjwest · · Score: 1

      Actually, it would have more of the sound of an o making it sound like soxy. I guess that wouldn't work either.

      There's no way to make SCSI sound sexy without renaming the interface.

      --

      --- Keep the choice with the user..
    66. Re:it always looked to me like... by mfnickster · · Score: 1

      The g in gif comes from the g in graphics, which has a hard g sound and should take on that hard g sound.

      I agree in principle (unless I misheard and it's actually "giraffe interchange format") but there's actually no precedent for letters in acronyms taking the sound of their source words.

      Think about it: do you pronounce NATO as "nah-to" or SCUBA as "scubba"? WINE as "winneh"? PIN as "pine"?

      --
      "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
  2. How many members in this cult? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

    It doesn't matter, unless the cult has members who are also on the board of the USB-IF.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    1. Re:How many members in this cult? by jd · · Score: 4, Funny

      The entire membership of the Firewire committee.

      --
      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)
    2. Re:How many members in this cult? by iris-n · · Score: 5, Informative

      None. The cult does not exist. The entire story is a hoax; their only source is the brasilian blog "bobolhando" (rough translation: stupid staring), which is a literary blog who posts only fictional stories.

      --
      entropy happens
    3. Re:How many members in this cult? by guyminuslife · · Score: 1

      Hell is full of fire. And the Devil would probably use wires to torture damned souls. So Firewire is clearly Satanic as well.

      Let's just get to the point and start living in caves.

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    4. Re:How many members in this cult? by PPH · · Score: 1

      which is a literary blog who posts only fictional stories.

      In hopes of them being picked up by Slashdot.

      Well done, lads!

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re:How many members in this cult? by iris-n · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, no... Only the foreign media would make this misunderstanding. The blog is quite obviously humoristic, no one here in Brasil would believe them.

      --
      entropy happens
    6. Re:How many members in this cult? by jd · · Score: 1

      This cave and this one sound perfect to start with. What do you think? Good places for hiding from daemons?

      --
      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)
    7. Re:How many members in this cult? by jeffrey.endres · · Score: 1

      I think a better translation would be "Looking silly" or maybe "looking like a clown". Very appropriate.

    8. Re:How many members in this cult? by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      The entire membership of the Firewire committee.

      They are the hellfirewire club.

    9. Re:How many members in this cult? by Adam+Heine · · Score: 1

      I think most people who actually followed the link wouldn't believe them either. From TFA: "...Bluetooth...is permitted, for 'Blue was the color of the eyes of our savior Jesus Christ'."

    10. Re:How many members in this cult? by caranha · · Score: 1

      Actually, the story was repeated as true in some media outlets in Brazil. The original blog's admins even went around posting "Thanks for believing in us!" in some of these.

    11. Re:How many members in this cult? by N0Man74 · · Score: 1

      Actually, no... Only the foreign media would make this misunderstanding. The blog is quite obviously humoristic, no one here in Brasil would believe them.

      Right! For example, American journalists would never mistake a story in the Onion for a real story, right?

    12. Re:How many members in this cult? by Creepy · · Score: 1

      In what hell does it say "Blue was the color of the eyes of our savior Jesus Christ," anyway?

      I was raised by parents that dragged me to Church 3x a week and have never heard that, nor do I recall it anywhere in my 3-4 read-throughs of the Bible (New [American] Standard, Revised Standard, King James, and Young's Literal Translation), though I've seen the white idealized Jesus paintings with brown hair and blue eyes, and he was most likely middle-eastern or black and brown eyed. There are no descriptions of Jesus in any book, AFAIK, even in apocrypha texts so the guy could be reborn and living next door to you and you'd never know.

  3. who is the devil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He is supposed to be an angel, yet in order to demonize pagans, they pretended that the devil looked like a cross between Pan and Zeus. Let's admit what USB really is, an instrument of paganism. All hail Zeus!

    1. Re:who is the devil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oops Poseidon. Either way it's not Jesus.

    2. Re:who is the devil? by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      Or Dionysus, the god of both wine AND ecstasy. And let's face it, who hasn't gotten really drunk and tried to have sex with their computer?

    3. Re:who is the devil? by somersault · · Score: 2, Funny

      who hasn't gotten really drunk and tried to have sex with their computer?

      *raises hand*

      I'd raise two, but my other is busy.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    4. Re:who is the devil? by SETIGuy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Most of the Pantheon shows up in the devil. Don't forget Prometheus, the light bringer (aka Lucifer).

    5. Re:who is the devil? by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Funny
      And let's face it, who hasn't gotten really drunk and tried to have sex with their computer?

      Are YOU the reason they had to come up with the micro-USB connector, just so it would fit?

    6. Re:who is the devil? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Most of interesting stuff shows up in him.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    7. Re:who is the devil? by metlin · · Score: 1

      Well, look at the bright side. If you bring in the Hindu pantheon, the trident is the weapon of choice of Shiva, the fantawesome god of destruction and assorted goodness.

  4. SciFi Skeleton by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

    It always looked like the top half of a SciFi skeleton to me. I guess it's time to up my meds again.

  5. USB is the devil by mirix · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But not because of any tridents. Because of too many variants of connectors.

    And it can be a pita to implement for some things, teeny embedded ones for example. Not horrible, but just to set up serial port emulation can be fairly non-trivial. Although luckily people have written nice libs for a lot of things by now.

    --
    Sent from my PDP-11
    1. Re:USB is the devil by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      maybe the symbol shouldn't be a trident - it should be a yin-yang.

      because no matter how you hold it, you'll always have a 50-50 chance of plugging the thing in the wrong way.

      "negative. it did not go in. it just impacted on the surface"

    2. Re:USB is the devil by camperdave · · Score: 1

      It's not the variants either. USB is the bringer of viruses.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    3. Re:USB is the devil by IAmGarethAdams · · Score: 1

      Actually, it always takes me 3 attempts to plug a USB device in, if I can't see the port. It defies all logic

  6. Only Apple tried to mispronounce SCSI by billstewart · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The rest of us always called it "scuzzy", and thought Apple Marketing's attempt to rebrand it as "sexy" was just lame.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Only Apple tried to mispronounce SCSI by schmidt349 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wait, they tried to pronounce it "sexy?" Because nothing says "sexy" to me like the sweet, sweet curves of the Mac IIcx.

    2. Re:Only Apple tried to mispronounce SCSI by pathological+liar · · Score: 4, Informative

      The rest of us? I've always called it SCSI but if you thought "sexy" was a rebranding (or Apple's idea) Larry Boucher would like a word with you...

    3. Re:Only Apple tried to mispronounce SCSI by Rewind · · Score: 1

      How was it an Apple marketing rebranding attempt? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scsi#History

      --
      ?
    4. Re:Only Apple tried to mispronounce SCSI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh? I've never heard Apple say it wrong.

    5. Re:Only Apple tried to mispronounce SCSI by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      The *actual* rest of us didn't think that was an attempt at rebranding at all, or have anything whatsoever to do with Apple.

      It was the proposed original pronunciation.

    6. Re:Only Apple tried to mispronounce SCSI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol huh?

      "The rest of us"
      Speak for yourself, we all called it 'S...C....S....I"

    7. Re:Only Apple tried to mispronounce SCSI by raddan · · Score: 1

      Ah, but the Mac SE/30 (which I still have, and whose keyboard I still type on daily-- yes ADB-to-USB adapters can be found!) was actually supposed to be the "Mac SEx", according to Apple's model versioning scheme. Only they couldn't bring themselves to call it that. I remembered the first time I used one. Definitely sexy. I had been using a 286 at the time. I'm not exaggerating when I say that it played a major role in my now being a computer scientist.

    8. Re:Only Apple tried to mispronounce SCSI by aiht · · Score: 1

      Hear, hear!
      I never understood why everybody tried to pronounce three consonants in a row, yet IDE always got spelled out.

    9. Re:Only Apple tried to mispronounce SCSI by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 1

      The rest of us always called it "scuzzy", and thought Apple Marketing's attempt to rebrand it as "sexy" was just lame.

      Yeah, the iSCS just didn't catch on.

      "Grandma, can I have an iSex for Christmas?" *SLAP*

      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
    10. Re:Only Apple tried to mispronounce SCSI by azalin · · Score: 1

      iSex? Is that like a one hand browsing experience?

  7. Now this is... by MrQuacker · · Score: 2, Funny

    A trident tested measure of faith.

  8. I used to hear... by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...that the peace symbol was the Christian cross upside down with the arms broken off! OMG, Satanic message!

    1. Re:I used to hear... by icebraining · · Score: 4, Informative

      [citation needed]

      The creator of symbol says nothing about it representing evil, and the circle representing imprisioning it.

      The symbol is a combination of the semaphore signals for the letters "N" and "D," standing for "nuclear disarmament". In semaphore the letter "N" is formed by a person holding two flags in an upside-down "V," and the letter "D" is formed by holding one flag pointed straight up and the other pointed straight down. Superimposing these two signs forms the shape of the centre of the peace symbol.(...)
      Holtom later wrote to Hugh Brock, editor of Peace News, explaining the genesis of his idea in greater depth: "I was in despair. Deep despair. I drew myself: the representative of an individual in despair, with hands palm outstretched outwards and downwards in the manner of Goya's peasant before the firing squad. I formalized the drawing into a line and put a circle round it."

      Despair, not evil.

    2. Re:I used to hear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You listen to people whose superstitions cause them to imagine seeing their deities in tortillas, bread, windows, and other random objects?

    3. Re:I used to hear... by Pooua · · Score: 1

      That's Catholics. These are reputedly Evangelicals.

      The story is nonsensical, anyway, just another urban legend.

      --
      Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
    4. Re:I used to hear... by TractorBarry · · Score: 1

      The "Peace" symbol also looks conveniently like "Algiz" which is the rune of protection in the old language.

      http://www.runemaker.com/futhark/algiz.shtml

      --
      Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
    5. Re:I used to hear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Despair, not evil.

      But...the peace sign is used by peace movement. The peace movement is made up of well-intentioned (i.e. good) people who want to do nothing to defend the country. And we all know that all it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. Therefore the peace sign is a symbol of evil.

      Q.E.D.

      Say, have you heard about digital watches? And I've proven that black equals white; really; I have it written down somewhere. Oh there it is on the other side of the street; wait here while I go get it. Say, what's that screeching sound?

    6. Re:I used to hear... by jahudabudy · · Score: 1

      I've always been amused by the idea that the upside down cross is a Satanic symbol; I assume this was a meme begun by Protestants. Pretty good trick, really.

      --
      ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
    7. Re:I used to hear... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Interesting bit of history. I was always taught that it was designed to look like a B-52 in a circle. Not sure how anyone could ever think a B-52 would be a peace symbol though.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  9. I thought that was firewire by h4rr4r · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I thought that was firewire;
    1. it has fire right in the name
    2. apple loves it, and the apple was the fobidden fruit in the garden of evil.
    3. Who am I kidding, your invisible friend is not real and religious folks really are just practicing magical thinking. In a sane society we would offer them mental help not let religious leaders steal their money and abuse their children.

    1. Re:I thought that was firewire by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

      +1 Insightful

    2. Re:I thought that was firewire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4. Used by gay people which is an abomination. May be redundant with point #2.

    3. Re:I thought that was firewire by Teun · · Score: 1

      And Steve Jobs was resurrected as God.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    4. Re:I thought that was firewire by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      2. apple loves it, and the apple was the fobidden fruit in the garden of evil.

      The first apple computer sold for $666.66.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    5. Re:I thought that was firewire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More likely a pomegranate than an apple for #2, perhaps.

    6. Re:I thought that was firewire by sznupi · · Score: 1

      USB does try hard though...now at SuperSpeed revision...SS...in many places that still resonates strongly with Schutzstaffel (also...)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    7. Re:I thought that was firewire by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      In a sane society

      Sounds like you too believe in fairy tales.

    8. Re:I thought that was firewire by SilverHatHacker · · Score: 1

      In a sane society, we would allow others the freedom to be wrong and not shun them because we disagree with their beliefs.

      --
      Funny may not give karma, but +5 Informative never made anyone snort coffee out their nose.
    9. Re:I thought that was firewire by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Where did I suggest we shun anyone?

    10. Re:I thought that was firewire by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Who am I kidding, your invisible friend is not real and religious folks really are just practicing magical thinking. In a sane society we would offer them mental help not let religious leaders steal their money and abuse their children.

      Don't worry, I'll be praying for them to get better...

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    11. Re:I thought that was firewire by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      jobs being a golden cow, worshipped by the masses

    12. Re:I thought that was firewire by freedumb2000 · · Score: 1

      And in the bottom image, is it not a snake wrapped around and guarding the window to eden? And does the ad not ask us to circle 42, to imprison the meaning of live, too keep us away from knowledge and wisdom?

    13. Re:I thought that was firewire by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2, Insightful

      /sarcasm Mod ignorance up. Only the non-religious are the true paragons of morality. /snicker
      (Stalin is quoted as saying "You know, they are fooling us, there is no God...all this talk about God is sheer nonsense" in E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow 1940)

      The atheists are just as ignorant of reality as the theists. At least the agnostic have the honesty to admit they DON'T KNOW, which is the first sign of TRUE knowledge. (Of course only the mystic sees the incompleteness in the other three, and laughs inwardly at the atheist blind man telling the other religious blind man that he can't see.)

      > really are just practicing magical thinking.
      Do Scientists have an answer for the "magical thinking" of the placebo effect yet?? I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss that thinking has no effect on changing reality when you don't a) understand what is thinking, thought or consciousness, and b) don't understand the true nature of reality.

      > religious leaders steal their money and abuse their children.
      Right! Let's toss the baby out with the bathwater! Simply because we have a few religious nuts who are too spiritually stupid to even understand what their religion is about. Every religion teaches the "Golden Rule." The fact that you have some stupid Catholic priests to stupid to even understand why Marriage is the foundation of the original Trinity relationship - father, mother, child - is completely irrelevent to your rant.

      How about we simply hold up common sense values regardless of what beliefs a person choses to practise??

      The bottom line, there are lot of good people, and lot of ignorant people, religious or not, theist or atheist.

      --
      Inner Space not Outer Space is the FINAL frontier.

    14. Re:I thought that was firewire by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      No, Steve Jobs is a golden cow maker. Someone has to create and satisfly a market for golden cows, y'know. Those things don't appear on their own.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    15. Re:I thought that was firewire by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      And in the bottom image, is it not a snake wrapped around and guarding the window to eden?

      Yes, but look at where the apple is hanging: Over someone's head. That's clearly Isaac Newton, who lives outside Eden. We're looking through the window from the other side. The snake is there to keep us from leaving Eden for the land of the IBM-compatible where mean-spirited trees will pelt you with fruit. Or something. Early Apple advertising tended to be a bit eclectic.

      And does the ad not ask us to circle 42, to imprison the meaning of live, too keep us away from knowledge and wisdom?

      That's just Apple trying to maximise their profits by delaying the destruction of Earth. Remember, Earth will be destroyed directly after the question to the answer has been found. By imprisoning the answer, Apple is trying to keep people from arriving at the question, thus abusing a loophole in how the story works in order to keep the Vogons at bay.

      Arthur Dent has been asked about his opinion and commented that since he can't die before the whole thing has even started, he won't object if we keep stalling for another century or two. He also likes the fact that the construction workers in front of his house haven't been able to commence tearing it down for the last thirty-two years.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    16. Re:I thought that was firewire by shadowofwind · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Where did I suggest we shun anyone?

      Actually you suggested not letting religious leaders steal their money. The stealing that they're doing is pretty much just a matter of asking for offerings based on false doctrines. Stopping that implies a level of coercive control quite a bit beyond "shunning".

      Also, it may be reasonable for you to conjecture that other people's gods are unreal. However, since the idea of 'God' is largely an interpretation of internal experiences, and you don't have access to anyone's internal experience except your own, you're only guessing that other people's interpretations are delusional. That may be a reasonable guess, given the evidence you have. But its a guess, and there is a huge variety to human experience. Yours is actually a religious attitude, just an atheistic one, which is why ex-atheists like C. S. Lewis often make such marvelous religious crusaders.

    17. Re:I thought that was firewire by walshy007 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The atheists are just as ignorant of reality as the theists. At least the agnostic have the honesty to admit they DON'T KNOW

      In practice the difference between atheists and agnostics are none, both conclude there is and can never be no credible evidence (how can you provide evidence of something you cannot define in clear non-supernatural terms, same reason you cannot provide proof that there is none) and so the assertion that there is a god is deemed false.

      Your mistake is that you think atheists declare there is proof there is no god, they never will, in essence agnostics are just 'politically correct' atheists.

      The rules of science and logic indicate that there must be some kind of basis (either in substance or in thought) for an assertion or else it must be denied. An assertion without evidence is not accepted as true, this is the default position. The position that defines what critical thought is. Critical thought is not believing things you are told unless there is evidence to back it up.

      Without critical thought logic and science are abandoned, and this is the only kind of productive thought humanity has ever come up with.

      Dealing with illogical people can be a serious pain at times, thusly why we try put some kind of reason into them.

      The only kind of theists I have respect for are the ones who recognize there can never be proof of their 'god' and that it is entirely based upon their own faith (faith being the belief in something without logic or evidence). People are entitled to believe whatever they want, but they should not make false claims.

    18. Re:I thought that was firewire by wall0159 · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's not an original argument, and it's common for believers to trot out the "atheists believe in no god, hence atheism is a religion" meme. It doesn't hold water because there are a plethora of gods that most people don't believe in (eg Thor, Neptune, etc) for the good reason that there's no evidence of their existence. Does that make them subscribers to the church of anti-Thor, or anti-Neptune, etc? Atheists believe that the lack of evidence for gods makes it reasonable to disbelieve, in the same way as most people would disbelieve in Burtrand Russel's teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot). If atheists are religious in their atheism, then all people are religious in their disbelief of the teapot, the FSM, Thor, .... Now, you may argue that one can have 'faith' in the absence of evidence. That's fine. But please don't argue that disbelieving in something because there is no evidence of its existence is an unreasonable position.

    19. Re:I thought that was firewire by bertok · · Score: 1

      Yours is actually a religious attitude, just an atheistic one

      Suggesting that atheism is a religion is like saying that bald is a hair color.

    20. Re:I thought that was firewire by shadowofwind · · Score: 1

      But please don't argue that disbelieving in something because there is no evidence of its existence is an unreasonable position.

      Atheism is not an unreasonable position. I made it clear in my post that I consider it to be a reasonable position. The kind of arrogant intolerance implied by the poster I was responding to is unreasonable however.

      If you have no evidence of God, then it would be unreasonable for you to believe in God. (Some people argue you should believe to cover your ass just in case, but I consider that cowardice.) Moreover its reasonable to assume that the people who claim to have externally unverifiable evidence of God are deluded or lying, since they're clearly deluded or lying about all kinds of other verifiable things. But many thoughtful people's ideas about God are much more nuanced and consistent with objective reality than any flying spaghetti monster or other such straw men. So it is unreasonable to subject their gods to the same degree of ridicule. Ostensibly the straw men are equivalent to other gods, because all are equal in lacking evidence for their existence. But there is the simple, easily controllable and repeatable kind of evidence that scientists deal so effectively with, and there is subtler, more difficult to pin down evidence at the margins, where certainty starts to break down. For a person who has actually made a serious consideration of the issue, and isn't just getting off on glibly dismissing theists as morons, it is unreasonable to consider all of the gods as equally unlikely or equally unreal. Certainly all theists are at least somewhat mistaken about their gods, but that doesn't necessarily make them completely mistaken. By all means disbelieve in their gods: that is reasonable. But it is unreasonable not to leave the door open a little bit to discovering something new. Its that kind of closed-mindedness, combined with an implied authoritarianism, that I was commenting on. I have no beef with sincere atheists.

    21. Re:I thought that was firewire by shadowofwind · · Score: 1

      Atheism is not a religion. And not all atheists have a theist-like penchant for making stuff up and declaring it the truth. But some do. I was commenting on one particular class of atheists, not on atheists in general.

    22. Re:I thought that was firewire by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      There seems to be an entirely different construct in Atheism as a religion and Atheism as in I don't believe there is a god.

      What your missing is the reasonable, I don't believe your god exists being confused with a god doesn't exist. Those are not the same comments at all.

      You see, your going from atheism to what is essentially a religious view when you move from, I'm not convinced to I know there isn't. If your making the simple I'm not convinced a god exist, you are doing the traditional atheism. But when you are making an acertive statement about the existence of god, most likely using science to back it up, you have become a religious zealot in the same way others are.

      BTW, the UN declaration on human rights lists Atheism as a protected religion for a human right. SO at least for classification purposes, it's a religion as recognized by the world. But make no mistake, once you go from I'm not convinced to trying to justify there there is no, you have gone from the absence of evidence to a belief system no different then a religion.

    23. Re:I thought that was firewire by sjames · · Score: 1

      Some over-reach with the argument. They may just not understand the philosophy of atheism or they might have met too many of that subset of atheists that actually do seem to have an anti-religion complete with faith as it's basis and an urge to proselytize to any who will listen.

    24. Re:I thought that was firewire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

    25. Re:I thought that was firewire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but when we flip things around and point out that, say, Stalin was an atheist, you call Communism a "religion" now, so you guys try to have it both ways.

      I mean, after listening to atheists, I'm forced to conclude that no actual atheists exist, because they all believe in something (even if they believe only that they believe nothing), and apparently we can go around calling such things gods now if we claim that they're really sure that they're right (i.e. "dogmatic").

    26. Re:I thought that was firewire by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Well it's not that there never could be evidence of god, if god does exist and possesses the powers various religions claim that he does, then he could very easily prove his existence should he want to, and faced with undeniable proof most agnostics would be forced to start believing.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    27. Re:I thought that was firewire by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      You cannot prove an infinite claim. Even if a man who called himself god came flying down and brought people back from the dead, the bible claims he can do anything, how can you prove that? say blow up mars and bring it back? still doesn't prove he can do anything.

      Great claims require great evidence. Infinte claims require infinite evidence. Which nobody can give.

    28. Re:I thought that was firewire by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      With infinite power, he could merely alter your mind to make you believe...

      Although you do have a point, science today would appear to be godlike powers to someone living 2000 years ago.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    29. Re:I thought that was firewire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not a Christian, nor am I religious, but I disagree. About a year ago I heard my friend say something that really knocked me back, I never thought that people actually believed this- but come to find out, many really do. He was just in an odd enough state of mind at the time to actually vocalize it.

      The majority of 'devout' atheists (as in, they try to convince other religious people to follow their *supposed* lack of beliefs, which is of course bs, they have beliefs) do in fact believe in a sort of god: themselves. It is a self worship in which they are their own kings of their own little universe. They set the doctrine, which can alter from moment to moment (cussing at someone for tailgating them, only to turn around and tailgate some other person moments later).

      It isn't a 'religion' in the sense that there is a prescribed set of rules or ceremonies that you sign up for and have weekly meetings, but it is a 'religion' in the sense that it is a shared belief amongst them as a group - and this belief dictates to some degree their actions and responses towards people of an opposing set of beliefs. Look at what happened during the french revolution- the rejection and substitution of any 'gods' instead for only that which is tangible, human wisdom, 'reason'. To say that these people were not religious is absurd. They had a religion, and that religion was the worship of self. Same as it is today.

    30. Re:I thought that was firewire by Azaril · · Score: 1

      I think you've really missed the thrust of the arguement. The lack of belief in a god is not the suggestion - in fact that would not qualify as atheism, more agnosticism (which is what I personally subscribe to). Instead, he's commenting on a fervent belief in a lack of God. Not only has that belief been displayed here by h4rr4r, but he has also shown many other tenets of religon, such as the statement that his unprovable belief is somehow more correct that someone elses (see point 3 of the op).

      Remember lack of belief in God =/= belief in a lack of God.

    31. Re:I thought that was firewire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, to be precise, having faith in something not existing (or existing for that matter) in the absence of evidence are both unreasonable. Religious people have a point that atheists 'believe' that there is no God (based on no objective evidence) much as religious people believe God exists (again based on no objective evidence).

      So following reason alone, agnosticism is the only outcome. =)

      There is no logical way, to move form lack of evidence to the outcome that something does not exist..

    32. Re:I thought that was firewire by Insanity+Defense · · Score: 1

      Marriage is the foundation of the original Trinity relationship - father, mother, child - is completely irrelevent to your rant.

      The conception of Jesus was an act of adultery. So instead of "sanctifying marriage" it sanctifies adultery.

    33. Re:I thought that was firewire by Bob-taro · · Score: 1

      Yours is actually a religious attitude, just an atheistic one

      Suggesting that atheism is a religion is like saying that bald is a hair color.

      This boils down to semantics based on how you define the word "religious". One definition of religion could be "belief system" and not necessarily involve a god or gods. It wouldn't make sense to say bald was a hair color, but it might make sense to call it a hair style. I guess in that analogy agnostics just never look in the mirror :-)

      --
      Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
    34. Re:I thought that was firewire by cyber0ne · · Score: 1

      Your mistake is that you think atheists declare there is proof there is no god, they never will, in essence agnostics are just 'politically correct' atheists.

      I've actually heard self-proclaimed atheists make such a claim. I generally shrug it off and think of it as no different than self-proclaimed Christians saying/doing very anti-Christian things. (That is not to say that one much be perfect to be a Christian, but to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of what Christianity is makes the claim a bit disingenuous.)

      The last time I heard such a statement was somebody saying, "Science has disproven the existence of God." To which I naturally replied, "Really? What test was performed?" We then got into a short debate on the scientific method. Turns out this particular atheist was just some random blow-hard who wanted his passing whim of an opinion to be heard. I guess religious groups aren't the only ones with zealous outlying cultists who make the rest of them look bad.

      There are definitely different "flavors" of atheists out there. There are those who do not believe in God, and there are those who firmly believe in no God. Many of my friends sit comfortably in the former category. Those in the latter category have an admirable amount of faith, even if they deny having it. Much like people who do believe in God (or any god), it's the few who leave us with a sour feeling about the subject whom we remember most, unfortunately.

      --
      http://publicvoidlife.blogspot.com
    35. Re:I thought that was firewire by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > both conclude there is and can never be no credible evidence
      That is true that one man's "evidence" is another man's skepticism.

      However, that is an incorrect conclusion based on a faulty assumption, even though a quite reasonable conclusion, lack of experience. Here is an analogy:

      A blind man says there is no such thing as color. From his perspective (pardon the pun) he is absolutely correct - he has no valid frame of reference to even understand what color is.

      Theists, Atheists, and the Agnostic are the blind men all arguing over what constitutes color when they really don't have a clue what the spectrum is.

      It's like saying there is no life after death. If you have NEVER been dead, you don't KNOW, so you can NOT assert this claim. Once you have been dead, you will KNOW that Reality is much, much more complicated than the average human could even comprehend.

      > how can you provide evidence of something you cannot define in clear non-supernatural terms,

      If _you_ are unable to define it, that is _your_ problem. For example, as a baby did you understood Differential Calculus? Why Not?? The same applies to spiritual understanding. The fact that you are unable to understand the answer does not imply there is no answer.

      Furthermore, ALL KNOWLEDGE is subjective. The objective relies upon the subjective experience/evidence. How do you KNOW that 2+2 = 4? If you can't do math or even know what numbers are, you DON'T, let alone come up with a proof.

      > Your mistake is that you think atheists declare there is proof there is no god
      Can you show me where I said that please?

      a-{word} = without, or lacking

      Theism = has-a belief
      Atheism = has-no belief (due to lack of evidence)
      Agnostic = has-no knowledge (due to lack of evidence or experience)
      Gnostic = has-a knowledge (due to experience and evidence)

      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theism?&qsrc=

      Note: Faith is DIFFERENT than belief. Everyone has faith, in some form or another, even if they are unwilling to admit it.

      The problem is the "blind faith" that religion ignorantly tries to use as a crutch for "God".

      --
      Death is only a change in state.

    36. Re:I thought that was firewire by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      Unsure if you are christian or not, but your post is full of logical errors akin to what they use to try to convert others, where do I even start.

      A blind man says there is no such thing as colour. From his perspective (pardon the pun) he is absolutely correct - he has no valid frame of reference to even understand what color is.

      Sure he does, he can devise a device (spectrometers already exist) that measures various wavelengths of light, and get a nice mapping of the wavelength ranges of what people consider 'blue' and 'red' to be.

      Sure he would lack the senses to tell how the human eyes/brain perceive these colours. But that itself does not exclude an understand of what 'colour' is.

      It's like saying there is no life after death. If you have NEVER been dead, you don't KNOW, so you can NOT assert this claim.

      I never made the assertion that there is no god. I simply said there is no evidence nor can there be to assert/deny that there is a god. And without supporting evidence there is no reason to believe there is a god.

      If _you_ are unable to define it, that is _your_ problem.

      It really isn't, it is the responsibility of the people making the assertion (that god exists) to define what god is so it is a testable hypothesis, they are the one making the assertions.

      For example, as a baby did you understood Differential Calculus? Why Not?? The same applies to spiritual understanding. The fact that you are unable to understand the answer does not imply there is no answer.

      The problem is christianity etc rely on the supernatural which requires faith, faith ignores the lack of evidence and logic entirely so using anything supernatural in your definitions is folley.

      The point of having a clear definition and clear assertions is so they can be tested. If you do not have a clear assertion it cannot be tested, like religious claims of god cannot.

      Furthermore, ALL KNOWLEDGE is subjective. The objective relies upon the subjective experience/evidence. How do you KNOW that 2+2 = 4? If you can't do math or even know what numbers are, you DON'T, let alone come up with a proof.

      Logic and evidence comes from observing the universe around us, these things are not subjective and can be repeated. If I drop a tennis ball, it will fall to the ground. If someone else drops a tennis ball, it will fall to the ground. From this we conclude when things are dropped from a height they tend to fall.

      These things ARE objective and CAN be tested, unlike the vague claims of religion about god.

      Your claim that there is no such thing as empirical evidence is rather silly.

      Note: Faith is DIFFERENT than belief. Everyone has faith, in some form or another, even if they are unwilling to admit it.

      Faith is belief without evidence or logic to back it. No, not everyone has faith, some people do in fact require evidence and logic to support their beliefs, this is not faith.

    37. Re:I thought that was firewire by jacob1984 · · Score: 1

      Really, what tests were performed.

      Wow, I think you both missed the point here. The very fact that no tests can be performed ipso facto demonstrates the inability for God to exist. Even theists realize this, and posit that an atheist must prove a negative. i.e. "prove that God does NOT exist." An invisible, infinite being with no tangible physical attributes cannot exist. Period. By the way, I'd love to introduce you to this Teapot in space I discovered!

    38. Re:I thought that was firewire by wall0159 · · Score: 1

      I think you are wrong. I believe there is no god. But that is merely on the basis of lack of evidence for a god's existence, and I concede that I could be wrong. I also believe that even if a god did exist, it still would be unlikely to resemble the Judeo-Christian god. This makes me an atheist.

      I could be convinced in the existence of a god if there was evidence.

    39. Re:I thought that was firewire by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > Unsure if you are Christian or not,
      Why would I waste my time with Spiritual Kindergarten??

      >> Here is an analogy
      > he can devise a device (spectrometers already exist)
      What part of the word 'a-n-a-l-o-g-y' do you not understand??

      > Sure he would lack the senses to tell how the human eyes/brain perceive these colors.
      And this is _precisely_ what theists and atheists are -- ignorant of experience -- they lack the senses to perceive non-physical reality. Without senses, they lack experience. Without experience, they lack knowledge.

      > I simply said there is no evidence nor can there be to assert/deny that there is a god. And without supporting evidence there is no reason to believe there is a god.

      If _you_ haven't found the evidence then "Maybe you aren't looking hard enough!"

      The mystical experience provides plenty of evidence. If you haven't had these experiences, then you are the "proverbial" blind man, which is the original point.

      A very wise man (Buddha) once stated this wisdom:

      "What could you know about God? What do you know about yourself? Do you know anything about yourself? No? So how could you know anything about God? Leave God aside, for the time being, and find out who you are."

      You don't know what you are looking for because you don't understand who you are really are, your Higher Self, let alone "God." Or in other words: "Know Thyself" is the _ultimate_ form of knowing God.

      How do I know these mystical experiences are real? Because of deep meditation for the past 6 years.

      Even a brain researcher is starting to understand:
      http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html

      > it is the responsibility of the people making the assertion (that god exists) to define what god is so it is a testable hypothesis
      LOL. The existence of God is NOT some theorem to be proved. (For one thing She would get a real kick out some human using their limited human intelligence and perspective trying to solve an unsolvable problem -- "prove that something 'outside' yourself exists!) Existence claims can never be proven _only_ experienced. You can't prove that I "exist" because I could be a figment of your imagination. There is no "proof" -- only knowing. I will address in further down.

      As much as I hate the New Age definition of god being "All-That-Is", it is the most concise and accurate definition there is. Every religion has some cockamania "definition" of "God" that isn't even close to being accurate.

      > The problem is Christianity etc rely on the supernatural which requires faith,
      The three Western religions, Judaism, Christian, and Islam have _many_ problems. Requiring faith is NOT one of them. I highly recommend you try reading Gurdjieff 'The Fourth Way' to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the various approaches since you don't know what you are talking about.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fourth_Way

      To present another _analogy_:
      - Some people learn best by reading.
      - Some people learn best by watching.
      - Some people learn best by doing.

      If you have ever studied Dancing or Martial Arts you would know that a multi-pronged solution caters to and maximizes the widest learning types, but there is nothing wrong with "specializing" in one type. Religions follow this same pattern of specialization.

      Faith-based religion work extremely well for some people -- heart-centered. For others it does _absolutely_ nothing -- mind-centered. True Atheists, thank god (pardon the pun), are logic driven. They tend to do well with Buddhism -- since it ignores the whole concept of "What is God" from the get go, and instead focuses on (IMHO the more important) question "Who/What am I?"

      > Logic and evidence comes from observing the universe around us, these things are not subjective an

    40. Re:I thought that was firewire by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Yeshua bar Yakov was born of human parents, so your statement isn't accurate, but I like your thought process!

      I have a joke that you may appreciate:

      Teacher: "Question everything! Question Authority!"
      Student: "Says who!?"
      (Teacher smiles at the student who "gets it.")

      Please keep questioning everything ...

      Cheers

    41. Re:I thought that was firewire by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      For one thing She would get a real kick out some human using their limited human intelligence and perspective trying to solve an unsolvable problem -- "prove that something 'outside' yourself exists!

      Fan of solopsism (or a derivative) hey? I'll pay that, good luck making any kind of productive thought with that. I mean hey if everything is merely inside yourself are you really that egotistical to create illusions of other minds simply to satiate your own ego?

      Hell go and cause armageddon by killing yourself, if you're right and we're all just a part of you we'll all cease to exist with you right?

      You are confusing BLIND faith with FAITH.

      Faith is _action_ _because_ of beliefs. If you do nothing with your beliefs, it is just that, beliefs.

      Look up the definition of faith. I dare you... actually hell I'll post it

      "A belief not resting on logical proof or material evidence."

      As a Gnostic & mystic

      Ah so we have one of those 'I have experienced the wonder of the goddess' types. Very well

      As for the rest of your post, I leave you to your delusions, you are entitled to them, the further on peoples errors are in a chain of logic the longer it takes to explain the sources of error and to be frank I cannot be bothered to explain the concepts you are using with incorrect definitions.

      Good day sir

    42. Re:I thought that was firewire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the astronauts went to the moon, they had faith because they acted on their belief that they could do it, even though there was _no_ evidence that they could do it.

      Hoo boy. There is a HELL of a big difference between saying "we think we can do it" and conceiving, designing, building and testing all the rockets, space capsules, landers, and pressure suits they needed to actually go.

      At any point, NASA could have discovered that the rockets would inevitably fail or that radiation would have killed the astronauts no matter what precautions were taken. If that had happened, logic and reason would have dictated the abandonment of the mission and no amount of "faith" would have gotten men to the moon.

  10. Bluetooth... by damn_registrars · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Really? Jesus was born in the middle east and had blue eyes?

    Either way, though, Bluetooth was of course named for a Danish King. While he himself converted to Christianity he certainly ruled over a nontrivial number of non-Christian followers.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Bluetooth... by Surt · · Score: 1

      Of course, he was the product of god and a human woman. God's genes won out. Even the recessive ones, he's God after all.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    2. Re:Bluetooth... by PitaBred · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What's even funnier is that most internal Bluetooth cards use... you guessed it. The USB bus. They're still using Satan! Muahahahahahah!

    3. Re:Bluetooth... by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      Well, they must be using the typical western depictions of a long haired pasty white guy rather than looking like someone that many of his followers would be nervous about flying on an airplane with.

    4. Re:Bluetooth... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "While he himself converted to Christianity he certainly ruled over a nontrivial number of non-Christian followers.
      --"

      Perhaps um, enough for a __Beowulf__ cluster?

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    5. Re:Bluetooth... by demonbug · · Score: 4, Funny

      Really? Jesus was born in the middle east and had blue eyes?

      Duh, that's what the spice does.

    6. Re:Bluetooth... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      why would God need eyes?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:Bluetooth... by garvon · · Score: 1

      Yes I was thinking of that I have never met a Jewish man with blue eyes.

    8. Re:Bluetooth... by Surt · · Score: 2, Funny

      To see that it was good?

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    9. Re:Bluetooth... by kevinmenzel · · Score: 1

      To see the viewscreen on his starship. Duh. Now as to what God needs with a starship...

    10. Re:Bluetooth... by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      there are blue eyed persians, some arabs, and northern indians.

      just because you haven't seen them on TV...

    11. Re:Bluetooth... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Jesus was born in the middle east and had blue eyes?

      Duh, that's what the spice does.

      and i assume Frank Herbert contributed to the bible also...

    12. Re:Bluetooth... by wall0159 · · Score: 1

      ...so he was a clone of god?

    13. Re:Bluetooth... by Surt · · Score: 1

      Probably only to the most perfect extent that would make him as perfect as possible without making it impossible for him to die for our sins. After all, there was no reason for God to get him less than just right.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    14. Re:Bluetooth... by WaroDaBeast · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that technology was named after Harald Blåtand, because he managed to unite "dissonant Danish tribes into a single kingdom."

      --
      "The body may heal, but the mind is not always so resilient." -- Deus Ex: Human Revolution
    15. Re:Bluetooth... by WaroDaBeast · · Score: 1

      Sweeping generalizations on the Internet? Shocking!

      --
      "The body may heal, but the mind is not always so resilient." -- Deus Ex: Human Revolution
    16. Re:Bluetooth... by sznupi · · Score: 1

      What? Suddenly related to Iranians or Arabs?! Lies!

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    17. Re:Bluetooth... by sznupi · · Score: 1

      So...what was his...lenght? The perfect one. Such benchmark could solve that issue once and for all...

      (and perhaps could be extrapolated from Holy Prepuce, once we'll recover it / decide if it's the true one; shit, I should be harshly excommunicated now :/ )

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    18. Re:Bluetooth... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course he had blue eyes! And blond hair! And he was tall and had fair skin and lots of muscles, because that's what every good aryan looks like.

      Oh, wait, wrong cult - I'm confusing fundamentalist christians and nazis again. But in my defense, it's pretty easy to get them mixed up.

    19. Re:Bluetooth... by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1

      more importantly, what does god want with a starship?

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    20. Re:Bluetooth... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will kill him!

    21. Re:Bluetooth... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Jesus was born in the middle east and had blue eyes?

      Dude, I swear it's true. I saw the movie. I think it starred Peter O'Toole as Jesus. It's really long, with some boring parts in the middle, and then at the end he dies in a motorcycle crash.

    22. Re:Bluetooth... by LeeRyman · · Score: 1

      Back at uni a group of us BEng undergrads were sitting eating lunch one day when a BA student that associated with us asked us what was Bluetooth. We explained it was like Black Eye, only a little lower. No one appreciates engineer humour.

  11. Anyone else thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was going to be a story from the Onion?

  12. Sigh, more Christian bashing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Unfortunately, nowhere in the Bible does Satan ever have a trident. But this is Slashdot... sigh let the Christian bashing begin if it must! :(

    1. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by volkerdi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unfortunately, nowhere in the Bible does Satan ever have a trident. But this is Slashdot... sigh let the Christian bashing begin if it must! :(

      Perhaps you should explain that to the Evangelical Christians in Brazil.

    2. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by roca · · Score: 1

      One particular group of nutcases (who may or may not even actually exist) != "the evangelical Christians in Brazil".

    3. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      They are evangelical Christians in Brazil. They are not the only evangelical Christians in Brazil, but the GP's "the" can easily refer to "the evangelical Christians in Brazil who believe this crap."

      So yeah, this is just one group of nutcases, but they refer to themselves as evangelical Christians, and one cannot arbitrarily define them as "no true Scots^W evangelical Christians" just because they're nutcases.

    4. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by Sprouticus · · Score: 1

      yes that is a completely different set of nutcases.

    5. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by FiloEleven · · Score: 1, Informative

      The article's author says he hasn't found anything to back it up. The Brazilian article itself specifically says that it's an "evangelical cult."

      But of course some cult rumored to be doing something bizarre isn't as sensational as generalizing it to all evangelical Christians in Brazil. The linked article's author is guilty of this, and Taco is guilty of repeating it. There's no question in my mind that the point is just to poke more fun at religion, in this case, for no good reason at all.

    6. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by Creedo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's no question in my mind that the point is just to poke more fun at religion, in this case, for no good reason at all.

      Poking fun at religion is a good reason in its own right. Mockery is the best response to silliness.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    7. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Interesting

      explain that to the Evangelical Christians

      In Evangelical Russia, Christians explain to YOU!

      Actually, I have met a few (a handful) of real Christians in my life. They stood out because of their deeds, not their words, and never tried force their religion on me. One was an ear, nose and throat doctor, who closed his private practice for two weeks every year. Instead of spending the time on the golf course, he went to god-awful places on the planet, and did volunteer work for the World Health Organization.

      The Mormons who proselytize where I live tend to be very polite, well. They introduce themselves, tell you what they are doing, and when you say that you are not interested, they answer: "OK, thank you, and have a nice day."

      Now a question for our Brazilian folks: If I am approached by a Brazilian Evangelical Christian, can I hold up a USB stick with a trident to scare them away. Like a cross scares away vampires?

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    8. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by interval1066 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, symbols are powerful. I once bought a t-shirt with a sort logo-like cartoon of a baker man with the logo "Freshly Baked" underneath. The VERY NEXT DAY I was shooting heroin and selling my underage sister for drug money. The shirt was obviously the work of Satan and the reason I'm now posting on /. from underneath an overpass bridge in my underwear.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    9. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by slinches · · Score: 1

      Ha! You're wrong. The devil does have a trident. I have proof right here!

      --
      Knowledge Brings Fear
    10. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by Atriqus · · Score: 1

      I have to ask, does the act of pointing out stupidity and its damage to society count as christian bashing? Because I would like to point out that this christian group is acting stupid and damaging society.

      --
      Hey, look! It's Bono's brother.
    11. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by CannonballHead · · Score: 3, Informative

      Even the original article refers to it as an "evangelical cult."

      Hey, I heard about this scientist who proves things using a "scientific method" but his method is logically faulty. But since he claims to be a scientist, and claims his method is the "scientific method," I guess it's true; therefore, I guess other scientists are the same way. After all, one scientist can't use the "not a true Scotsman" argument. If I claim to be a scientist, I am one!

      The funny thing is, I don't see who is claiming to be an "evangelical Christian." I see "evangelical cult" and "Christian homes," but "evangelical Christian" is NOT used in the original; that was apparently interpreted by the Guardian.

    12. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      But of course some cult rumored to be doing something bizarre isn't as sensational as generalizing it to all evangelical Christians in Brazil.

      I think you're missing the point. Evangelical Christians are, by definition, always a cult doing something bizarre.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    13. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1
      "No memory sticks for you - one year!"

      -- Soup Nazi. release 2.0

    14. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      FiloEleven finds a factual flaw in the article. Creedo says that doesn't matter because he agrees with the idea of mocking religion. Who gets marked as the troll, and who gets marked as insightful?

      (awaits the reply to this, which will no-doubt be marked as insightful, while this is marked down as troll)

    15. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      Perhaps someone should explain to you this story is bogus.

      Unfortunately, nowhere in the Bible does Satan ever have a trident. But this is Slashdot... sigh let the Christian bashing begin if it must! :(

      Perhaps you should explain that to the Evangelical Christians in Brazil.

    16. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      FiloEleven finds a factual flaw in the article. Creedo says that doesn't matter because he agrees with the idea of mocking religion. Who gets marked as the troll, and who gets marked as insightful?

      (awaits the reply to this, which will no-doubt be marked as insightful, while this is marked down as troll)

      Sigh. The wrong one is marked as troll, and the wrong one as insightful. And your insightful comment stays at zero.

      I'm getting tired of slashdot - any good substitutes?

    17. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by el3mentary · · Score: 1

      I'm getting tired of slashdot - any good substitutes?

      Digg?

      --
      I reject your reality and substitute my own.
    18. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by LordLimecat · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, the issue is that noone aside from actual evangelical christians even seem to know what the word "evangelical" means anymore. Any time you see it in the media, it generally indicates something that is to be ridiculed.

      Nevermind that it IS a strictly christian word, and refers to the focus on the "evangel", that is the gospel of Jesus, and has absolutely nothing to do with any of the crazy stuff its been penned as as of late. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism.

    19. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by Creedo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sigh. The wrong one is marked as troll, and the wrong one as insightful. And your insightful comment stays at zero.

      I'm getting tired of slashdot - any good substitutes?

      Maybe it's because the rest of the world is getting increasingly tired of the rampant irrational stupidity that religion brings to the table, and we are more and more willing to mock those who keep pushing it. Religion in general is a childish and immature response to life, and I for one believe that it should be treated as such.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    20. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by syousef · · Score: 1

      There's no question in my mind that the point is just to poke more fun at religion, in this case, for no good reason at all.

      Poking fun at religion is a good reason in its own right. Mockery is the best response to silliness.

      Yes I find that when a large mob comes with sinister instruments designed to torcher, mame or kill me, that responding to accusations with "You big silly" is the wisest move.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    21. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by Creedo · · Score: 1

      Yes I find that when a large mob comes with sinister instruments designed to torcher, mame or kill me, that responding to accusations with "You big silly" is the wisest move.

      Well, yeah, if they showed up in person, I would be more likely to reach for something with a bit more bite(or bang, as the case may be) than mockery. But, this being the internet and all, ridicule will do nicely.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    22. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by Pooua · · Score: 1

      "So yeah, this is just one group of nutcases..."

      If they even exist. Even the author of the story admitted that no one has confirmed the authenticity of this story. This is just an urban legend, reported as news.

      --
      Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
    23. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

      Are you really surprised?

      The group mentality here is that Religion has done nothing good for the world while causing great ills and that Science does the exact opposite. Both claims are demonstrably false, but it's pointless to try and point out the good that religion has done. The ills of science are a little more accepted, but only slightly so.

      Let me be clear: I take no issue with mocking the cult's wacky beliefs. What I take issue with is the misinformation in the summary that paints a much larger group as being completely irrational and that much of the "conversation" here is general religion-bashing; due in part to the atheist zealots who are even more vigilant of possible soapboxes than their religious counterparts, and due in part to the misleading headline. If you equate the belief in a supreme being with the belief that USB is the devil's connection then you are as much a zealot as those in the cult, and the fact that the reader is led to believe that this measure is backed by all Christians in Brazil shows a complete lack of journalistic integrity.

      Feel free to abuse the moderation system and mark this Troll as well so that the Two Minutes Hate may continue uninterrupted.

    24. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mockery is for people who don't have better examples to show themselves, otherwise their deeds would speak for them.

    25. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by heathen_01 · · Score: 1

      The ills of science are a little more accepted, but only slightly so.

      This is the first time I've heard mention of the ills of science.

    26. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by heathen_01 · · Score: 1

      Who is providing your bandwidth?

    27. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by elwinc · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, nowhere in the Bible does Satan ever have a trident. But this is Slashdot... sigh let the Christian bashing begin if it must! :(

      True. However, the Book of Revelations does refer to Satan's realm as Hades. The early Christians carried a lot of baggage from ancient Rome and thereby from ancient Greece. The Roman god of the underworld, Pluto (Greek = Hades) was frequently depicted carrying a bident - a two pronged staff. As any reader of the Percy Jackson series knows, the trident is carried by Hades' brother, the god of the sea (Roman name = Neptune, Greek = Poseidon).

      Since Pluto/Hades was the god of the underworld, he became associated with Satan in many early Christians' minds, and the Book of Revelations referred to the underworld as Hades. At some point, for reasons unknown to me, some depictions of Pluto/Hades began to carry the trident. I guess it's cooler. Or maybe crueler. Hence the Satan - trident connection.

      "Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him." Revelation 6:8, New International Version, also New American Bible.

      "Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death." Revelation 20:14, New International Version, also New American Bible.

      For another fine example of the early Christians inheriting from the ancient Romans and Greeks, take a look at the 1633 trial of Galileo for heresy for suggesting that his observations prove the Earth revolves around the Sun. The bible never says explicitly that the Sun revolves around the Earth (though the creation story is implicitly terracentric), but the Church, through its tradition of Scholasticism, was at the time still committed to many of the theories of Aristotle who explicitly supported the implicit terracentrism of the bible. Aristotle/Scholasticism won the early rounds, but today Galileo and the scientific method are the heavyweight tag-team champs, and the Catholic church has admitted is error vis-a-vis Galileo.

      --
      --- Often in error; never in doubt!
    28. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by Creedo · · Score: 1

      Are you really surprised?

      The group mentality here is that Religion has done nothing good for the world while causing great ills and that Science does the exact opposite. Both claims are demonstrably false, but it's pointless to try and point out the good that religion has done. The ills of science are a little more accepted, but only slightly so.

      Religion have historically constrained the best of human nature while canonizing the worst. They most often trade on authoritarianism, ignorance and conformity. They have long acted as a retardant of human progress, and are collectively the greatest threat to global stability that we see. Science is what drug us out of the muck and mire that religions have tried to bury us in. I'll take an honest search for knowledge over childish dogma every time.

      Let me be clear: I take no issue with mocking the cult's wacky beliefs. What I take issue with is the misinformation in the summary that paints a much larger group as being completely irrational and that much of the "conversation" here is general religion-bashing; due in part to the atheist zealots who are even more vigilant of possible soapboxes than their religious counterparts, and due in part to the misleading headline. If you equate the belief in a supreme being with the belief that USB is the devil's connection then you are as much a zealot as those in the cult, and the fact that the reader is led to believe that this measure is backed by all Christians in Brazil shows a complete lack of journalistic integrity.

      The core Christian beliefs are no less irrational and wacky than this particular tidbit. It's no more irrational than magic sky fathers, burning bushes, impossible arks, talking snakes, rib created humans, nonexistent floods, healing disease with prayer, imagining that you are immune to snake venom, that fish guts can drive away demons, that there are magical invisible monsters and heroes vying for your soul, that believing the wring things lands you in a pit of fire or even the whole stupid idea that you must achieve forgiveness for nonexistent sins through the mutilation and killing of people and animals. And you think that a silly trident belief is somehow more wacky than this crap?

      Feel free to abuse the moderation system and mark this Troll as well so that the Two Minutes Hate may continue uninterrupted.

      You think that THIS is hate?! Why don't you go do a google image search on "sectarian violence," if you have the stomach for it. That's hate, and most of it is bred in that fucked up institution we collectively call religion.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    29. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      So the only "true" Christians are ones that don't piss you off?

    30. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not be honest? If they showed up in person, you'd piss yourself and be cowed into silence.

      Then once they'd left, you'd log right on to Slashdot to dash off an outraged comment bemoaning how awful religion is from the safety of your anonymous basement, and how tough you'd be if they ever showed their faces around you again.

      TL;DR: Shut the fuck up, your bloviating is obnoxious and boring, and none of us believe the tough guy schtick.

    31. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by Creedo · · Score: 1

      Why not be honest? If they showed up in person, you'd piss yourself and be cowed into silence.

      Then once they'd left, you'd log right on to Slashdot to dash off an outraged comment bemoaning how awful religion is from the safety of your anonymous basement, and how tough you'd be if they ever showed their faces around you again.

      TL;DR: Shut the fuck up, your bloviating is obnoxious and boring, and none of us believe the tough guy schtick.

      Is that what you'd do, you pathetic little troll? If someone were threatening my safety, I guarantee that the contents of the closet not 10 feet behind me would be more than sufficient to discourage them. I am quite willing to defend myself and my family, and to tell stupid people to go fuck themselves.

      Speaking of which: go fuck yourself.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    32. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

      One story can be listened to here--it's a podcast and the story begins around 10:20, but I'll recount it here.

      Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) was first classified around 1900, but no one knew the cause. People decided that a logical step was to dissect the bodies of SIDS babies and compare them to normal cadavers. What they found was that the thymus gland, part of the immune system, was different. SIDS kids had thymuses which were twice the size of other cadavers, and its proximity to the windpipe led to the reasonable hypothesis that if the kid rolled over wrong, the gland would press on the trachea and suffocate the child while he slept.

      The treatment proscribed with this was to shrink the thymus gland using radiation, doses of 200-400 rads. The treatment worked in shrinking the thymus all right, but the then-unknown side effect was to vastly increase the risk of cancer. Estimates put the death toll from this procedure alone at 20,000-30,000 people due to thyroid cancer which developed decades later. And this use of radiation was a very widespread phenomenon not limited to medical science: you could go into a shoe store and have your feet x-rayed, irradiated water was sold, and it was said everywhere that "radioactivity is harmless." So there is one ill: death on a massive scale due to a lack of knowledge of radiation's long-term effects.

      But this particular story isn't over and goes even farther back to the 18th Century, a little after the Revolutionary War. The newly-formed medical schools needed bodies to dissect and would pay people to dig 'em up and bring 'em in. This didn't sit well with living relatives and there were riots, so most European countries (where the schools were) passed laws which mandated that anyone who died in a poorhouse would have his body given to the anatomists. The result is that the overwhelming majority (estimated to be 99%) of cadavers used in medical science were those of poor people.

      All of which sounded fine until 1936 when Hans Selye showed that being poor causes physical changes in the body. One of the effects of chronic stress found very often in the poor is that the immune system is weakened, and part of that weakening is a shrunken thymus gland. So what was thought to be a normal thymus was not, and tens of thousands of children with perfectly healthy thymuses were irradiated because of reasoning that was completely logical yet mistaken.

      I am in no way anti-science, and anyone who claims to be yet lives in any technological society is a fool at best and a hypocrite at worst. But the prevailing attitude is that science can do no harm when in fact it has and does cause harm--and there is no way to prevent that without stagnation. Anyone who refuses to admit as much is a zealot no longer grounded in reality.

      An excellent book on the topic is Jacques Barzun's Science: The Glorious Entertainment. It was written in the 1960s but remains quite relevant today, especially in its insights as to how most people act as though science is their religion, with the same amount of zealotry and faith in what the "clergy" tell them.

    33. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

      Thanks for illustrating my point.

    34. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How very one-dimensional of you. We already know that you're an internet tough guy. Can I call you Johnny Rambo?

    35. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by Creedo · · Score: 1

      Thanks for illustrating my point.

      Back at ya'.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    36. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by Creedo · · Score: 1

      How very one-dimensional of you. We already know that you're an internet tough guy. Can I call you Johnny Rambo?

      Call me whatever you like if it makes you feel better. Makes no difference to me what a random AC on slashdot thinks of me. I will invite you to continue to fuck yourself.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    37. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear Johnny Rambo,

      I'm glad you have no need for the approval of other people. It must help you avoid the pain of knowing that nobody approves of your obnoxious anonymous internet twattery.

      Sincerely,

      Colonel Samuel Trautman, US Army (Retired)

    38. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is kind of a definition and job description of "scientist"; there is even the label "bad scientist" for a scientist who uses faulty methods, or "pseudoscientist" for someone who pretends to be a scientist.

      Beyond believing in Jesus and in proselytizing, how can you define what an "evangelical Christian" is, other than saying that most people who identify as such, are such?

    39. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The taxpayers.

    40. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by Creedo · · Score: 1

      LOL, judging by the fact that most of my posts are modded up, while none of yours are, I'm not too worried there, cowboy! Nice Rambo reference, though. I'll give you that.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    41. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by mikechant · · Score: 1

      But the prevailing attitude is that science can do no harm when in fact it has and does cause harm--...

      This may be true or not, but your example doesn't really support your assertion.
      By your description, the whole thymus error was based on a failure to use proper scientific methods - i.e. not using a randomized sample when assessing thymus size, and not properly investigating the effects of radiation before using it on humans. So all this example illustrates is what happens when you *fail* to 'do the science'.

    42. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

      I disagree. Science is a process, and one thing that is certain is that you can never be certain that you have all the facts. It's now taken for granted that excess stress warps your body, but until that was discovered there was no reason to believe that a sample containing all body types of men, women, and children was not randomized. And with radiation, there was no precedent for a substance that caused harm not days or weeks but years or decades later. The concept of such extremely delayed harm just hadn't been thought of.

      You can't dismiss the erroneous stuff as "not science" simply because it turned out to be wrong. It's not as if the people doing it were stupid or lazy; it's just that nobody perceived the hidden flaws in the hypothesis (radiation is harmless) or methodology (poorhouse cadavers are a random sample). It is all a process of unwitting experimentation that has real consequences.

      You can't view science the process as some thing that is separate from the people who practice it. It does not magically "progress" on its own and its conclusions are not foregone (or ever final, really). It relies entirely on smart and insightful people to stare at problems, new or old, and ask new questions. They are bound to find things that others missed and consequently falsify accepted truths, and they are bound to miss things themselves. The process results in increased knowledge about the universe we live in, but it contains its fair share of missteps along the way. To claim that it is "not science" if there are unknowns in play which later become rectified is to essentially invalidate the process, reserving "science" to mean "a final body of knowledge that we know for sure is true," a goal that is far, far off if not unattainable.

    43. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, I think religion is just a pretext for irrational stupidity in this case, if these guys didn't have religion they'd probably make up some other nonsense to explain their irrational stupidity.

    44. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      "Believing in Jesus" and "proselytizing" are big aspects. Especially the "Believing in Jesus" part. A group that says "Jesus is Satan's brother" and a group that says "Jesus is God" and a gourp that says "Jesus wasn't God" ... those are all very different, and yet you could all say they "believe in Jesus."

      Here's an example of a definition of a evangelical Christian. From wikipedia, of all places. In the summary above the wikipedia article.

      Evangelicalism is a Protestant Christian theological stream which began in Great Britain in the 1730s.[1] Its key commitments are:
      The need for personal conversion (or being "born again")
      Actively expressing and sharing the gospel
      A high regard for biblical authority, especially biblical inerrancy
      An emphasis on teachings that proclaim the death and resurrection of Jesus.[2]

      And one may argue, "but the usage has changed since then!" Perhaps so. So has the word "scientist." And "doctor."

    45. Re:Sigh, more Christian bashing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, except for the fact that one of those "childish and immature" religions is actually true.

      That neither you nor your athiest buddies know it yet is utterly irrelevant. I have no doubt that you will continue to mock the truth for now, as the arrogant fucker you always have been, but in time your eyes will be opened. It is my hope that will happen for you before it is too late.

  13. And you'll burn in a FireWire HELL!!1! by countSudoku() · · Score: 1

    iLink 1394 Blasphemers!
    1394 - 728 = 666

    --
    This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
  14. Bluetooth? by sidragon.net · · Score: 1

    Measures were taken so that all the USB connections of his followers were exchanged for common connections and even the Bluetooth (sic).

    They have no problem with runic alphabets?

  15. Idle Connections are the devil's playthings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Make sure you don't install any SATAn drives either!

    1. Re:Idle Connections are the devil's playthings by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Christians shouldn't use the EIDE-al-Fitter cable.

      back in the day, they shunned the vulgar MoFoMe too

    2. Re:Idle Connections are the devil's playthings by raddan · · Score: 1

      Especially if you're running the Mac OS. Or any software written in Berkeley for that matter.

    3. Re:Idle Connections are the devil's playthings by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Is that why it's most popular among certain...sinful group of men? (I can hardly believe that, for once, this might be funny and ontopic instead of troll)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  16. Firewire? by pak9rabid · · Score: 1

    I wonder what they'd have to say about FireWire

    1. Re:Firewire? by cnstoll · · Score: 1

      That's pretty bad too, but clearly anyone caught using eSata will be subject to eternity in a lake of hell fire.

  17. They are right by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    Forks have no place the cathedral, they belong to the bazaar.

  18. Not a story... by random_ID · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The article even says it is unconfirmed "if this turns up on Snopes don't blame me." Even with my sucky karma I expect better of /.

    1. Re:Not a story... by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      It's unconfirmed, but it's definitely making the rounds on Brazilian blogs and such. Even if it is a farce, the fact that it's newsworthy is newsworthy. IMHO.

    2. Re:Not a story... by Steve+Max · · Score: 1

      Actually, "bobolhando" is a joke site. And, if you go to the "source" on the blog (the Twitter feed of the blog's main author), you will see:

      Amigos, trollar o Guardian, quem já conseguiu? http://bit.ly/aiVTeW Texto do @Thiago__Caetano no @bobolhando sim

      Roughly translated to:

      Friends, trolling The Guardian: who has done it? http://bit.ly/aiVTeW @Thiago__Caetano's text at @bobolhando did

    3. Re:Not a story... by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Good to know. Like I said, the veracity doesn't make it any more or less newsworthy. The fact that people are talking about it are what make it news. The other facts are irrelevant ;)

    4. Re:Not a story... by Americano · · Score: 1

      The fact that other people are talking about it, but it's not true, means it's nothing but pointless gossip.

      I'd say that's entirely relevant to whether or not it's "newsworthy," and speaks volumes about the lax editorial standards we've come to demand from our media.

      "Who cares about actual important events happening in the world, we want to hear about those crazy Brazilians, and how backwards they (and evangelical Christians!) are for thinking the USB logo is a mark of the devil. What ignorant savages! LOL!"

      The fact that it's being repeated here as anything remotely resembling 'news' only reinforces this chauvinistic and condescending viewpoint.

  19. Religion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The inhabitants of the earth are of two sorts: Those with brains, but no religion, And those with religion, but no brains.”
      - Abul Ala Al-Maarri

    1. Re:Religion... by forkfail · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, no, no.

      The two groups are those who try to divide everyone into two discrete sets and get it wrong, and those who don't try and get it right.

      --
      Check your premises.
    2. Re:Religion... by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

      No, there are 3 kinds of people: those who can count and those who can't.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    3. Re:Religion... by Creedo · · Score: 1

      The inhabitants of the earth are of two sorts: Those with brains, but no religion, And those with religion, but no brains.” - Abul Ala Al-Maarri

      I'd have to say that this is incorrect. There are plenty of smart people who manage somehow to believe in various deities and such. And there are plenty of dumbasses who have at least figured out that there is no god. Smart people are just as capable of irrational thoughts as anyone else.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    4. Re:Religion... by Creedo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So I assume that you would in the latter group then since you don't understand the difference between faith and religion.

      It depends on how it's used. Faith is just belief which is not based on proof. But a lot of people call their religion "faith." It seems especially popular in Christian circles. In most cases, there is no difference.

      Modern Atheism is a belief system aka. a religion.

      Not even close. Atheism is a lack of theistic beliefs. That's all.

      A personal faith in god is not the same as a belief system/religion/philosophy.

      What a load of bullshit. If your "faith" includes scriptures, commandments and the like, it's a religion, and your naive sounding assertions are crap.

      Religion is a man made system of dogma and rituals.

      Modern Atheism has a set of man made rituals and dogma. Ergo, Atheism == Religion.

      Since you can't define a single piece of ritual or dogma which would include atheists, aside from the obvious "lack of belief in a god" entailed in the definition, you can't even make this specious piece of reasoning work.

      I have a brain and I do not follow a religion. I have a personal faith in god and I share that faith with a community of believers.

      In other words, a fucking church. Geez, are you another liar for Jesus?

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    5. Re:Religion... by JohnBailey · · Score: 1

      No, there are 3 kinds of people: those who can count and those who can't.

      So which ones understand binary?

      --
      It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
    6. Re:Religion... by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      Modern Atheism is a belief system aka. a religion.

      BZZT.

      Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

      Atheists don't claim to know what's going on, and they don't make up answers to make themselves feel better.

      I suppose it's POSSIBLE that the Christian God of the Bible is real....I suppose it's also possible that there's an invisible pink unicorn in my back yard, or that the universe was created last Tuesday in situ and all our memories are false.

      Or, we could go with the mostly likely scenario...things are they way they are because of (a) physics and (b) the anthropic principle.

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    7. Re:Religion... by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      Atheism is a lack of belief in a god, or a belief that there is no god?

      "someone who denies the existence of god" according to Google. Denying something is different from simply "not believing" in something.

    8. Re:Religion... by ADRA · · Score: 1

      I'll go with this line of thinking:

      1. There are a ton of people who are ignorant and just plain stupid
      2. God has never stepped in to smarten these guys up
      3. You must be ignorant, diluted or just plain stupid to believe in god

      Hence, god has to exist, and it makes ignorant, diluted or just plain stupid people in order to be loved. Case CLOSED!

      --
      Bye!
    9. Re:Religion... by Creedo · · Score: 1

      Atheism is a lack of belief in a god, or a belief that there is no god?

      "someone who denies the existence of god" according to Google. Denying something is different from simply "not believing" in something.

      Indeed, this is what is commonly called strong and weak atheism. Strictly speaking, atheism is a lack of a belief in a god. The second definition is included as a subset under this more broad definition.

      I have no theistic beliefs, thus I am an atheist. I also believe that all of the gods that I am familiar with are non-existent. In addition, I also believe that theistic beliefs are downright harmful, both to individuals and society as a whole. So, I am anti-theistic.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    10. Re:Religion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +50 insightful

    11. Re:Religion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Atheism is a lack of theistic beliefs. That's all.

      Congrats. This describes nothing of substance which can be discussed.

    12. Re:Religion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But a lot of people call their religion "faith." It seems especially popular in Christian circles. In most cases, there is no difference."

      Strong disagreement here. I was a missionary for two years, and I could count the number of people I met who actually believed (their faith) what their church said was correct (their religion). Even the number of people who have read the book(s) they consider scripture is pretty small, not to mention all the official declarations and positions churches take.

    13. Re:Religion... by BaldingByMicrosoft · · Score: 1

      Wow.

      Well, actually, there are growing numbers of individuals who consider themselves "spiritual" but not "religious". They seem to have no issues with differentiating themselves between practicing their theologies, which may or may not be theistic, and practicing a traditional religion. They generally seem interested in personal spiritual growth outside of a formal religion (which has a public or social aspect).

      As far as Atheists go, I don't know if I would go so far as claiming they share such concepts as ritual or dogma. I have noticed that they are capable of having the same rigidity of beliefs and intolerance of other people's beliefs as any other dick.

    14. Re:Religion... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Not even close. Atheism is a lack of theistic beliefs. That's all.

      Er, believing that there is no "theos" IS a belief, and its a belief about the spiritual. Its not like there are those who believe certain things about certain gods, and then theres the athiests; athiests hold certain views about gods, namely that they dont exist. Whether or not you want to call this a faith or a religion is a matter of semantics, but unless youre a nihilist, you certainly believe something.

      What a load of bullshit. If your "faith" includes scriptures, commandments and the like, it's a religion

      It sounds like youre defining "religion" as any systematized belief in or about the supernatural. That being the case, why is the belief "your god doesnt exist" exempt?

      aside from the obvious "lack of belief in a god"

      A "lack of a belief in a god" is a belief that there is no god. You keep wording it in the negative as if to hide the fact that you too have beliefs that can be scrutinized.

      In other words, a fucking church

      I imagine parent doesnt like the term religion because it is ambiguous and not a terribly useful word. I would define it as "the way people behave in response to what they believe", which, while (IMO) it captures how people use the word, is so incredibly broad as to not be terribly useful.

    15. Re:Religion... by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      I think it's more the agnostics that claim they don't know what's going on. The OP was right that atheism is a religion: it is claiming an absence of God, with no proof.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    16. Re:Religion... by Creedo · · Score: 1

      Atheism is a lack of theistic beliefs. That's all.

      Congrats. This describes nothing of substance which can be discussed.

      Bingo! That's why you can't call it a fucking religion, eh?

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    17. Re:Religion... by Creedo · · Score: 1

      Wow.

      Well, actually, there are growing numbers of individuals who consider themselves "spiritual" but not "religious". They seem to have no issues with differentiating themselves between practicing their theologies, which may or may not be theistic, and practicing a traditional religion.

      Great. If they are "practising" something, then it's a religion, pretty much by definition. Being non-theistic has no bearing on the issue in the least.

      They generally seem interested in personal spiritual growth outside of a formal religion (which has a public or social aspect).

      You've described a private religion, nothing more.

      As far as Atheists go, I don't know if I would go so far as claiming they share such concepts as ritual or dogma. I have noticed that they are capable of having the same rigidity of beliefs and intolerance of other people's beliefs as any other dick.

      Indeed. The only thing that necessarily binds atheists together is that they lack a belief in gods. That's it. They can be pricks(like me) or nice people. They can be rigid or flexible in their beliefs. They can be hard nosed realists or flighty irrational whackos. That was one of my points in my response. You can't define atheism as a religion because it doesn't entail any of the things you'd need to define it as such. It is exactly one dimension of belief in a whole spectrum.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    18. Re:Religion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what do atheists belief? Or are you just another liar for that chick with no head?

    19. Re:Religion... by Creedo · · Score: 1

      So what do atheists belief? Or are you just another liar for that chick with no head?

      I'm not sure what atheists "belief" nor do I have any idea what "chick with no head" you might be referring to.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    20. Re:Religion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Bingo! That's why you can't call it a fucking religion, eh?

      Well, not exactly. If one wanted to oversimplify things then sure. For the rest of us who live in reality, we realize there are many different conceptions of atheism, and some of these conceptions would qualify as a religion under some definitions of religion. Thus, it's too simplistic to simply pound the table saying, "Atheism is not a fucking religion."

      Though, I can certainly understand the psychology behind why "Internet atheists" would not want atheism to be viewed as a religion, a dogma, a position, or a worldview. I mean, if it were any of these things then an atheist would bare a burden -- the burden of supporting their perspective. As it is, the pansy definition of atheism provides atheists with a means to attack theism, and then when rightly the theists expect the atheists to present and defend an alternative perspective, per the Gricean maxims of conversation, they can simply retreat back to their safety hole. (In other words, I see atheists who push this definition as nothing more than intellectual pussies.)

    21. Re:Religion... by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      Modern Atheism is a belief system aka. a religion. A personal faith in god is not the same as a belief system/religion/philosophy.

      These two statements are at total odds with each other. You are contending here:
      a) that a lack of a personal faith in god is a belief system and therefore a religion.
      b) that a having of a personal faith in god is NOT a belief system and therefore a religion.

      True, there may be religious like beliefs slathered over and on top of a person's atheism, but the atheism is itself just like your comment about "a personal faith in god" being exempt from being a belief system/religion/philosophy. It is simply a "belief", in the singular.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    22. Re:Religion... by joost · · Score: 1

      Atheism is a lack of theistic beliefs. That's all.

      Actually, that's agnosticism.

      Since one cannot scientifically prove that God does not exist, one could argue that atheism is a belief system as well.

    23. Re:Religion... by Creedo · · Score: 1

      Er, believing that there is no "theos" IS a belief, and its a belief about the spiritual.

      Yeah, it means "without god," which includes those who simply lack a theistic belief(the broadest point of the term) and those who actively deny deities. It includes many of what are commonly called agnostics as well.

      Its not like there are those who believe certain things about certain gods, and then theres the athiests; athiests hold certain views about gods, namely that they dont exist. Whether or not you want to call this a faith or a religion is a matter of semantics, but unless youre a nihilist, you certainly believe something.

      My kids(and, indeed, every single kid) were born atheists. They had no conception of a deity until it was installed in them. Now, they reject deities. They have met both the broad definition and the more restrictive one. Since it is a single axis of belief that entails no dogma, no scripture and no practices, there is no basis for calling it a religion.

      It sounds like youre defining "religion" as any systematized belief in or about the supernatural. That being the case, why is the belief "your god doesnt exist" exempt?

      Nope. Religions can be entirely atheistic or non-supernatural . And a simple belief in a deity is not necessarily a religion. That's my point. A single point of belief does not a religion make.

      A "lack of a belief in a god" is a belief that there is no god. You keep wording it in the negative as if to hide the fact that you too have beliefs that can be scrutinized.

      No, you keep ignoring the fact that there are two different states that we are talking about. That's why things like strong and weak atheism are defined. Simply saying "atheism is a religion" is wrong, as it doesn't mean anything. There are atheists all along that spectrum, including those who attend and promote religions.

      I imagine parent doesnt like the term religion because it is ambiguous and not a terribly useful word. I would define it as "the way people behave in response to what they believe", which, while (IMO) it captures how people use the word, is so incredibly broad as to not be terribly useful.

      I imagine that they do it in an attempt to distance themselves from the very public failings of organized religion while still holding onto the same irrational beliefs. Every time I have run across this claim, it has come from a Protestant Christian who wanted to claim that their church, their beliefs and their religious authority figure were not the same as all of the others. I could be wrong, of course, but I very much doubt that this case is much different.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    24. Re:Religion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you keep ignoring the fact that there are two different states that we are talking about.

      If we agree atheism, as a lack of theistic belief, is simply referring to a state of being (i.e., a simple description of what is), as oppose to intellectual assent (i.e., a belief), then the question "Why are you an atheist?" is meaningless. It would be akin to asking a tree, "Why are you a tree?" It does not make sense to ask either question because the terms are simply referring to a state of being.

      With that in mind, why do atheists answer the question, "Why are you an atheist?" It is a meaningless question. Yet, for some reason, atheists feel compelled to give an answer. (More often than not, they appeal to a lack of evidence for the existence of gods.) So, if atheists are compelled to give an answer, I find it difficult to believe that atheism does not mean something more than a simple lack of theistic belief to the atheist. I am inclined to belief atheists actually mean more by atheism than they let onto with the lack of theistic belief definition. (I would willing grant such meaning is subconscious rather than a conscious intent to deceive, though.)

    25. Re:Religion... by Creedo · · Score: 0, Troll

      Well, not exactly. If one wanted to oversimplify things then sure. For the rest of us who live in reality, we realize there are many different conceptions of atheism, and some of these conceptions would qualify as a religion under some definitions of religion.

      Nope. There are many different belief systems which may include atheism, and some of those may be considered religions, but not atheism itself.

      Thus, it's too simplistic to simply pound the table saying, "Atheism is not a fucking religion."

      Though, I can certainly understand the psychology behind why "Internet atheists" would not want atheism to be viewed as a religion, a dogma, a position, or a worldview.

      Wow, you just keep missing the basic picture, don't you? Atheism could be part of a religion. It could be a dogmatic statement. It could be a position and it most certainly does inform a worldview. But it is not any of those.

      I can certainly understand why you want to try and equate them, though. Religions are in general so foolish and puerile that you have to imagine that the atheist you are debating is saddled with the same nonsense that you are. Otherwise, you just end up looking like a jackass jawing on about hand-me-down delusions.

      I mean, if it were any of these things then an atheist would bare a burden -- the burden of supporting their perspective.

      I have no problem supporting my perspective. I do it all the time. But my position is far more than simple atheism.

      As it is, the pansy definition of atheism provides atheists with a means to attack theism, and then when rightly the theists expect the atheists to present and defend an alternative perspective, per the Gricean maxims of conversation, they can simply retreat back to their safety hole. (In other words, I see atheists who push this definition as nothing more than intellectual pussies.)

      That's ok. I see theists as intellectual pussies who can't handle reality and so run like little sobbing children to hide behind the skirts of their imaginary sky bully who will protect them from the universe which really doesn't give a flying fuck about them. Grow the fuck up.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    26. Re:Religion... by Creedo · · Score: 1

      If we agree atheism, as a lack of theistic belief, is simply referring to a state of being (i.e., a simple description of what is), as oppose to intellectual assent (i.e., a belief), then the question "Why are you an atheist?" is meaningless.

      Bingo!

      It would be akin to asking a tree, "Why are you a tree?" It does not make sense to ask either question because the terms are simply referring to a state of being.

      With that in mind, why do atheists answer the question, "Why are you an atheist?"

      Because it attains meaning when contrasted against theism.

      It is a meaningless question. Yet, for some reason, atheists feel compelled to give an answer. (More often than not, they appeal to a lack of evidence for the existence of gods.) So, if atheists are compelled to give an answer, I find it difficult to believe that atheism does not mean something more than a simple lack of theistic belief to the atheist. I am inclined to belief atheists actually mean more by atheism than they let onto with the lack of theistic belief definition. (I would willing grant such meaning is subconscious rather than a conscious intent to deceive, though.)

      I am compelled to answer simply because many people assume that it is a choice, or a rebellion, or any of a number of things. They assume this for different reasons, usually because they are theists who cannot imagine someone who lives without that baggage. If you probe deeper, you will usually find that the question they are really asking is "how come you are not like me?" And this usually requires some explanation, since it is not obvious to them. And in the cases where the question is asked genuinely and in a format that allows it, I do so, all the while making clear that I am answering these questions largely as a secular humanist and an anti-theist, not necessarily in the strict category of atheist.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    27. Re:Religion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you just keep missing the basic picture, don't you? Atheism could be part of a religion. It could be a dogmatic statement. It could be a position and it most certainly does inform a worldview. But it is not any of those.

      The basic picture is clear. You have a preferred definition of atheism and assume it's the only one or only correct one. Either way, the "lack of theistic belief" conception of atheism is really nothing more than a propaganda tool. (See? It's fun to oversimplify.)

    28. Re:Religion... by Creedo · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's agnosticism.

      Since one cannot scientifically prove that God does not exist, one could argue that atheism is a belief system as well.

      No. Being agnostic is a different axis that atheism and theism. Some agnostics are atheists(don't believe in a god and don't believe that there is any way to prove or disprove it) and some are theists(believe in a god but don't believe that there is any way to prove or disprove it).

      And, again, atheism is not a system. It is a statement about a single point of belief.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    29. Re:Religion... by Creedo · · Score: 1

      The basic picture is clear. You have a preferred definition of atheism and assume it's the only one or only correct one. Either way, the "lack of theistic belief" conception of atheism is really nothing more than a propaganda tool. (See? It's fun to oversimplify.)

      It must be, since you keep doing it.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    30. Re:Religion... by Eleanor+235 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would also add that the smart people usually make decisions for themselves about what they believe in, whether that be religion or atheism, whereas the 'dumbasses' tend to follow whoever has the best propaganda. Sometimes that is atheists who like to evangelise, sometimes it's the religion they have been born into that they never think to question, but the common thread is that they all believe whatever is the accepted belief in their environment.

      I have met Atheists who have valid arguments for the non-existence of a god, Atheists who decided to drop any previous theism once they started university (college in the US, I think) because it was 'cool', and Atheists who keep it to themselves.

      I have also met Theists who truly believe in God, follow their organised religion and have well thought out, internally consistent arguments for it; Theists who blindly follow their religion without deciding for themselves if it is true or not and try to convert all non-believers with flawed, hypocritical arguments; and Theists who simply follow their beliefs quietly.

      The same goes for Agnostics, Polytheists and Pantheists

      --
      I believe there is someone out there watching us. Unfortunately, it's the Government.
    31. Re:Religion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they are "practising" something, then it's a religion

      Does this include golf? Am I a golf-icite? Maybe golf is my religion.
      However I think my definition of religion is not the same as yours. In my definition simply "practising something" does not make a religion.

      You can't define atheism as a religion because it doesn't entail any of the things you'd need to define it as such.

      I don't appreciate being dumped with your limitations. I indeed have the ability to define atheism as both a religion and not a religion. One one side not having a belief is much like not playing golf. But then I see people like you practising replying to post to on with an atheistic subject almost, dear i say, religiously.

      I see this "practise" of yours and as you say If they are "practising" something, then it's a religion well I must say I am disappointed by your religion, with its strange definitions and sweeping limitations. Lets face it Buddha seems much more fun, well the fat smiling one anyway. I wonder if he plays golf

      I have never been interested in atomic definitions, and I doubt they exist. Especially when individuals seem to make their own without telling anyone. I find it far more interesting learning about how other people define things. You have taught me today: in your mind religion = Practising Something*.

      But are you defining the word: religion; or your idea: religion. Or do you really think they are the same thing?

      *My apologies if that's not what you meant or your definition of a religion, but it is entertaining.

    32. Re:Religion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it attains meaning when contrasted against theism.

      If atheism had meaning then atheism would have substance. If atheism had substance then atheism could be discussed. Yet, we've agreed atheism offers nothing to be discussed. Thus, atheism can have no meaning.

    33. Re:Religion... by Creedo · · Score: 1

      Because it attains meaning when contrasted against theism.

      If atheism had meaning then atheism would have substance. If atheism had substance then atheism could be discussed. Yet, we've agreed atheism offers nothing to be discussed. Thus, atheism can have no meaning.

      Atheism in isolation has no meaning. When contrasted with theism, however, it does have meaning. It is, in fact, only recognized because there is a concept called theism. In a world without theism, atheism would be completely unknown, even though it would be state of everyone in the world.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    34. Re:Religion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Atheism in isolation has no meaning. When contrasted with theism, however, it does have meaning. It is, in fact, only recognized because there is a concept called theism. In a world without theism, atheism would be completely unknown, even though it would be state of everyone in the world.

      Yes, I understood the distinction you were making between "atheism in isolation" and "atheism in contrast with theism." This distinction is unhelpful with regard to my question.

      If atheism has meaning then it is possible to critique the idea. And, as a consequence, it is possible to discuss the idea. Therefore, what does one think or talk about when one has the desire to critique or discuss atheism?

    35. Re:Religion... by Creedo · · Score: 1

      Yes, I understood the distinction you were making between "atheism in isolation" and "atheism in contrast with theism." This distinction is unhelpful with regard to my question.

      If atheism has meaning then it is possible to critique the idea. And, as a consequence, it is possible to discuss the idea. Therefore, what does one think or talk about when one has the desire to critique or discuss atheism?

      You would discuss theism, of course.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    36. Re:Religion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would discuss theism, of course.

      A discussion is the sharing and supporting of differing opinions on an issue. With regard to theism, the opinions of the theist are often well known (i.e., "God exists" is a true proposition, etc.). What are the opinions of the atheist?

    37. Re:Religion... by Creedo · · Score: 1

      Have you not read any of my posts? The thing I am doing when I mock you and poke fun at you? That's not atheism. That's anti-theism. If I have a religion, it is a form of secular humanism. My atheism informs my disgust of theism, but it is not the same thing. It's my anti-theism and general asshole tendencies which lead me to have fun attacking theists. I'm under no illusion that speaking to theists in such a forum does anything at all to dent their delusions.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    38. Re:Religion... by Creedo · · Score: 1

      A discussion is the sharing and supporting of differing opinions on an issue. With regard to theism, the opinions of the theist are often well known (i.e., "God exists" is a true proposition, etc.). What are the opinions of the atheist?

      It depends on the individual. Some don't have an opinion(my kids for all the years until they became aware of the god concept). Some find theism to be benign. Some, like myself, find it to be a toxic and puerile concept. You answer could range from "I don't know if a god exists" to "I believe that this certain set of gods don't exist" to "I believe that no god exists."

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    39. Re:Religion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some don't have an opinion.

      Here's the kicker. If atheism is going to be meaningful then it must necessarily have some central defining opinion. If atheism lacks a central defining opinion, then it cannot be an "-ism." You, along with your Internet buddies, have made atheism into a meaningless term.

    40. Re:Religion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you not read any of my posts?

      No. I have read them.

      The thing I am doing when I mock you and poke fun at you?

      Umm, maybe.. I don't know what the question is... also I am not the same "you", i am another "you" unmocked, so far.

      That's not atheism.

      In the same way being a jerk and saying "im joking" makes it all better. What is true in your mind is not a global truth, what others think is also true(at least to them). It seems to me you use definitions to hold things in certain places, so that they cannot be more or less than what you have defined. I find this limiting. It is possible that a whole bunch of small parts make up a whole, each defined by the other all to create a single - or more likely a tangle. So is it possible it could be that atheism is a part of "that" - for without atheism, would "that" still be "that", or would it be "this".

      If I have a religion, it is a form of secular humanism.

      Well at least its a possibility. Is this how you "practise" your religion. If so I'm glad to have helped :) I guess that you enjoy this as much as I do, but for different reasons.

      I'm under no illusion that speaking to theists in such a forum does anything at all to dent their delusions.

      I agree, that does not seem the illusion you are under. But that is the great thing about illusions, if you knew you were under the effects of one, it would cease to be an illusion. I found myself under the illusion the other day that no one had thought of making hot chip nachos, but a little searching and alas, i was not unique in this regard. The trick is never to stay under the same illusion for too long.

    41. Re:Religion... by Creedo · · Score: 1

      Here's the kicker. If atheism is going to be meaningful then it must necessarily have some central defining opinion. If atheism lacks a central defining opinion, then it cannot be an "-ism." You, along with your Internet buddies, have made atheism into a meaningless term.

      Rendering it completely meaningless is a noble goal, as that will happen when theism is finally regulated to the dustbin of mythology. I would be perfectly happy knowing that my grandchildren won't have any reason to think about atheism at all.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    42. Re:Religion... by Creedo · · Score: 1

      Strong disagreement here. I was a missionary for two years, and I could count the number of people I met who actually believed (their faith) what their church said was correct (their religion). Even the number of people who have read the book(s) they consider scripture is pretty small, not to mention all the official declarations and positions churches take.

      Being heterodox is not the same thing as being without a religion. And being ignorant of your particular church's dogma and scripture is also not the same as being without religion.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    43. Re:Religion... by Creedo · · Score: 1

      Umm, maybe.. I don't know what the question is... also I am not the same "you", i am another "you" unmocked, so far.

      Alas, the uncertainty inherent in arguing with AC.

      In the same way being a jerk and saying "im joking" makes it all better. What is true in your mind is not a global truth, what others think is also true(at least to them). It seems to me you use definitions to hold things in certain places, so that they cannot be more or less than what you have defined. I find this limiting. It is possible that a whole bunch of small parts make up a whole, each defined by the other all to create a single - or more likely a tangle. So is it possible it could be that atheism is a part of "that" - for without atheism, would "that" still be "that", or would it be "this".

      I use definitions for clarity. If you do not have a clear definition of a concept, then how can you possibly communicate about it? And if two people are arguing about a concept for which they hold two differing definitions, then they aren't communicating about that concept at all.

      Well at least its a possibility. Is this how you "practise" your religion. If so I'm glad to have helped :) I guess that you enjoy this as much as I do, but for different reasons.

      I suppose in part it is. But I do enjoy it, especially with a glass of good red wine.

      I agree, that does not seem the illusion you are under. But that is the great thing about illusions, if you knew you were under the effects of one, it would cease to be an illusion. I found myself under the illusion the other day that no one had thought of making hot chip nachos, but a little searching and alas, i was not unique in this regard. The trick is never to stay under the same illusion for too long.

      I agree. I was under the illusion of theism myself for quite a while, and it is refreshing to be out from under that illusion.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    44. Re:Religion... by Americano · · Score: 1

      My kids(and, indeed, every single kid) were born atheists. They had no conception of a deity until it was installed in them.

      I'm not sure that's entirely accurate, I think the concept of a deity is something that's pretty easy to come by. Humans are capable of symbolic thought, and we are so "good" at seeing patterns that we begin to see patterns even where there aren't. We seek to impose order and structure on the world around us as an aid to understanding the world, and it's no surprise that part of that turns into a belief in some "external force or forces" (call them what you will - demons, gods, saints, spirits...) which are the cause and the guiding impulse behind what we perceive as "random events" - it's an attempt to impose a cause and effect relationship on events that we don't understand. At a very basic level, the formation of religious explanations for physical events is the beginning of a scientific impulse: "why does this happen? how can we prevent it?" The danger is in clinging to these outmoded explanations in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence explaining "why this happens" and "how can we prevent it".

      If "I" am powerless to prevent lightning, then clearly something more powerful than me must be the cause: in the absence of scientific data, is it any wonder that we tend to create some sort of unseen/all-powerful actor that is the cause? Is it any wonder, furthermore, that we would then seek to find ways to please that unseen / all-powerful actor so that it would send less lightning to plague us in the future? If I am walking in the woods and find myself confronted with an angry bear, self-preservation demands that I find a way to escape being eaten. If I have a steak in my hand, perhaps it will occur to me that the bear might accept this humble offering and leave me in peace, or at least leave me to escape with my life. There, I've just canonized the bear, and appeased Ursa, the hungry Bear God through my small offering to one of her incarnations on earth.

      None of this means that "gods" exist, but it certainly means that we have the capacity to create them in our own image - as the evolution of spirituality and religion across pretty much all cultures and peoples amply demonstrates. I suspect that children, left to their own devices and faced with a world they don't comprehend, would readily invent their own pantheons to explain the world around them, as well, and that, given the passage of a few generations, this would take the form of some sort of religious and symbolic practice.

    45. Re:Religion... by Americano · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, it's quite logically impossible to definitively "prove" the absence of God, since he is defined as unprovable.

      Many atheists conflate their dogmatic certainty that they have "proven" a negative with their distaste for organized religion, and the result is a vitriolic attack on anybody who professes a belief in god as stupid, ignorant, and backwards. Thus it often becomes just as much of a fundamentalist 'faith' that it leaves no room for question, exploration, or discussion, and thus it ironically opens itself up to charges that it is, in and of itself, a "religion," defined by it's intolerance for and diametric opposition towards organized religions which affirm the existence of a god or gods.

      Atheists believe that there is no god. They cannot offer proof, because they cannot prove the absence of God. They can merely conclude, based on the evidence that they've seen and the logical conclusions they can draw from that evidence, that it does not exist, or at least - does not exist in the form characterized by organized religions so far.

      Theists believe that there is a god. They cannot offer primary proof, because they generally define God to be unknowable / unseeable / other / elsewhere from us. What is God? He is not-us, not-here, not-seen, not-touched, not-tasted, not-smelled, not-heard. They are being asked to 'prove' a negative as well: if he is all of those things, how can they prove that he exists? They believe it - they conclude, based on the secondary evidence they see around them, that he must exist. If you think the birth of a child is miraculous, how could you not see evidence of God's existence in that?

      Theists look at the process, and say, "Damn, how could something like that come about through some sort of miraculous guidance and planning?" Atheists look at it and say, "It happens all the time. It's not that special, why do you call it a miracle?"

      In the final analysis, atheists who believe that religion and spirituality have nothing useful to offer humanity have missed the point; Theists who cling to their beliefs in spite of overwhelming evidence that their beliefs are wrong have ALSO missed the point. A sense of spirituality need not be opposed to a sense of science and curiosity. Many of the so-called 'atheists' today would be more correctly termed "areligionists", because their ire seems mostly focused on the transgressions and mistakes of the church, most notably Christian churches, and specifically Catholic churches (where the priest abuse scandal provides a handy slogan against religion), and fundamentalist / evangelical protestant groups (where creationism also provides a handy slogan against organized religion), instead of on the claimed single point of contention, namely that God doesn't exist.

      Many atheists say, "I'm an atheist!" as if that's somehow the only thing they need to prove their superiority to the great unwashed masses of believers. My response to that is, "Great, we know what you're not. Now what are you?" So, for the sake of argument - let's all agree that god doesn't exist... does that mean pedophilia and child abuse only exist if God is believed to? Demonstrably false. Does that mean that jihad, racism, sexism, and a host of other nasty human traits only exist if God does? Demonstrably false, once more. I tend to dislike the atheists-slash-comedians who seem to view their sole purpose in life as mocking believers, and for much the same reason that I tend to dislike the theists who seem to view their sole purpose in life as warning the non-believers that they're all going to hell: because I like people who are interested in building something, not tearing everything else down.

      What's funny is, if you really got an atheist to describe what they think about ethics, morals, social conduct... you'd find that many of their ideas probably aren't that far off from the christian, or jewish, or muslim, or wiccan, or buddhist ideal - certainly, some details will differ, and points of disagreement would emerge, but on the whole, I think you can arrive at a very large subset of standards and principles you agree upon, with or without the involvement of scripture.

    46. Re:Religion... by Americano · · Score: 1

      Different axes? Or simply different points along the line with one endpoint at atheism, and the other at theism?

      Agnostics don't sound like they're on a different axis at all, it sounds like shades of gray on the continuum between theism and atheism, to me.

    47. Re:Religion... by Creedo · · Score: 1

      Different axes? Or simply different points along the line with one endpoint at atheism, and the other at theism?

      Agnostics don't sound like they're on a different axis at all, it sounds like shades of gray on the continuum between theism and atheism, to me.

      No, it's answering a different question altogether.

      Atheism<-->theism: Is there a god?

      Agnostic<-->Gnostic(Note: not the classical "gnostic" religious movement, just the opposite of agnostic): Are claims about the existence of a deity unknowable?

      Maybe this will help.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    48. Re:Religion... by Creedo · · Score: 1

      This is likely how the concept of a deity initially developed. However, in the specific example I gave, that innate tendency is largely blunted by taking the time to explain physical effects and exploring the real causes of such. My kids didn't exhibit that tendency, since they were taught from an early age to inquire into the real reasons behind events. This has even been noticed by their teachers, who have made a point of mentioning it on several occasions, and who are not privy to my methods or reasons. The concept of a deity was unnecessary, and thus did not develop as it might in other situations.

      However, that is not the case in general. Most people are indoctrinated into a particular theistic belief during childhood by their parents. Thus, they are neither untainted by parental indoctrination nor developing theistic beliefs independently.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    49. Re:Religion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have agreed atheism is without substance or meaning in isolation. We have agreed atheism has substance or meaning in the context of theism or, more precisely, in the context of the discussion about the existence of gods. Atheism obtains its meaning from describing an opinion within the discussion.

      Your definition of atheism includes those who lack an opinion on the existence of gods. This definition makes atheism meaningless and unhelpful, and to use it damages the discussion by creating ambiguity. That ambiguity alone is problematic, but it can also prevent progress by creating a safe haven for those who engage and refuse to present and defend an opinion.

      Thus, the only reasonable conclusion which can be drawn about atheism defined as a lack of theistic belief is sophistry. And, further, those engaged in the discussion are ethically obligated to forbid its use. Atheism, to be allowed in the discussion, must contain something of substance (i.e., an opinion about the existence of gods).

    50. Re:Religion... by Creedo · · Score: 1

      Your definition of atheism includes those who lack an opinion on the existence of gods. This definition makes atheism meaningless and unhelpful, and to use it damages the discussion by creating ambiguity.

      Not at all. It adds clarity. It is one of the possible states of being an atheist. Turn it around. There are many possible states of being a theist. You can be a polytheist, a deist, a monotheist, a quasi-monotheist or a pantheist, just to name a few. This belief may be the basis for a lifestyle, or it may be held in isolation. Likewise, there is a spectrum of atheistic beliefs, which include the state of having no concept of a god.

      That ambiguity alone is problematic, but it can also prevent progress by creating a safe haven for those who engage and refuse to present and defend an opinion.

      Not at all. If you wish to engage someone, then ask them what else they believe. For example, engaging me as an atheist is useless. You have one point of contention which doesn't tell you much about my worldview. Engaging me as a secular humanist and an anti-theist is far more productive, since it allows you to engage my worldview.

      Thus, the only reasonable conclusion which can be drawn about atheism defined as a lack of theistic belief is sophistry. And, further, those engaged in the discussion are ethically obligated to forbid its use. Atheism, to be allowed in the discussion, must contain something of substance (i.e., an opinion about the existence of gods).

      No, it is a point of clarity. If you wish to argue against a view which incorporates atheism, such as secular humanism, that is one thing. If you wish to argue against atheism itself, you actually have to argue FOR theism. Just as if I want to argue for atheism, I have to argue against theism. It goes both ways.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    51. Re:Religion... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      My kids(and, indeed, every single kid) were born atheists.

      You would have a hard time proving that objectively. By the time you can ask them "do you believe in a deity" and get a comprehensible response, would they not have been instilled with a belief (either that there is, or is not a deity)?

      I suspect that the athiest's kids will answer "no" and the Christian's will answer yes, and you will turn around and declare that both situations prove that only theistic belief is "installed"-- because certainly that is the reality of what happens (though many Christians would agree that children need to-- and do-- make up their own minds as they age).

      Since it is a single axis of belief that entails no dogma, no scripture and no practices, there is no basis for calling it a religion.

      You are begging the question: you start with the assumption that any way a Christian behaves differently than the athiest is dogma, practice, or ritual, and that the athiest is the baseline for normal. Thus by defining religion in terms of "stuff that isnt athiestic in behavior" you guarentee that you can declare athiesm "not religion".

      A single point of belief does not a religion make.

      SO far you have only defined religion in the negative-- that is, what you think it ISNT. Would you mind clarifying what you think it IS?

      including those who attend and promote religions

      I am unsure how to understand the term "attend....religions", or what "promoting religions" has to do with anything. From this statement, I wonder-- do you define religion as "the behavior of a group of people with certain beliefs"?

      I imagine that they do it in an attempt to distance themselves from the very public failings of organized religion while still holding onto the same irrational beliefs.

      TBQH, I dislike it because I wish to distance myself from what others perceive to be my "religions'" failings when in fact they are the fact the failings of specific people. I am well aware for example that when I say that I am a Christian, people often paint me or my belief system as personally responsible for the Spanish Inquisition-- never mind the fact that I would disagree with just about everything its leaders believed and stood for (except perhaps the imagery being the same?). There is some kind of expectation that just because we claim to believe something, therefore we must all of a sudden be faultless like the God we claim to follow, despite believing that all men are prone to error and failure.

      Thats why _I_ dislike the word "religion".

    52. Re:Religion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not at all. It adds clarity. It is one of the possible states of being an atheist. Turn it around. There are many possible states of being a theist. You can be a polytheist, a deist, a monotheist, a quasi-monotheist or a pantheist, just to name a few. This belief may be the basis for a lifestyle, or it may be held in isolation. Likewise, there is a spectrum of atheistic beliefs, which include the state of having no concept of a god.

      The discussion is concerned with opinions which can be engaged, evaluated, and critiqued. Theism describes an opinion. Deism describes an opinion. Agnosticism describes an opinion. Pantheism describes an opinion. All these terms are nouns which describe opinions. Atheism, as a lack of theistic belief, does not describe an opinion. It is an adjective. This creates ambiguity. If atheism is going to be meaningful and helpful in the discussion then it must be a noun.

      Not at all. If you wish to engage someone, then ask them what else they believe. For example, engaging me as an atheist is useless. You have one point of contention which doesn't tell you much about my worldview. Engaging me as a secular humanist and an anti-theist is far more productive, since it allows you to engage my worldview.

      This is confusing the broad discussion (i.e., worldview) with the narrow discussion (i.e., gods). If an atheist desires to engage in the "gods discussion," then the atheist must have an opinion on the matter and be willing to present and defend the opinion. If the atheist fails to do so, then the atheist is not engaging in discussion.

      No, it is a point of clarity. If you wish to argue against a view which incorporates atheism, such as secular humanism, that is one thing. If you wish to argue against atheism itself, you actually have to argue FOR theism. Just as if I want to argue for atheism, I have to argue against theism. It goes both ways.

      If atheism is a "lack of theistic belief" only, then the expression "argue for atheism" is meaningless. For the expression to be meaningful, then atheism must describe something of substance. It must describe an opinion. If one is going to "argue against theism," then one must necessarily take the opinion "theism is false." (That is, unless they wish to flout the Gricean maxim of being truthful.) That opinion is the substance of atheism. What is atheism? It is the doctrine that no gods exist.

  20. Jehova witnesses by Gofyerself · · Score: 1

    So I only need to whip out a laptop or USB stick to keep the bible thumpers away?

    1. Re:Jehova witnesses by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Funny

      IT doesn't work that way in real life. I told a bunch of Jehova's witnesses that I was a Devil worshiper in order to get them to leave me along. This didn't work, they came back in larger numbers and prayed for my. they followed me to work and other stupid shit praying for me. My boss asked me what the hell was going on (as he was completely anoyed by this as was about to fire me), so I told them that after they knocked on my door about twenty times asking me if I head the good news, I told them I was a devil worshiper and told them to get off my property. We had to explain to their pastor that it was only a ploy to get them to leave me the fuck alone in order to get them to leave me the fuck alone.

      The cops wouldn't even stop them as they stayed mostly on the sidewalk and public right of way.

      I later found out that the easiest way to get rid of them is to simply say "I'm catholic" and then listen to a bunch of crap about Marry being a whore for a few minutes. But if you pretend to be a devil worshiper to get rid of them, it's likely to backfire on you.

    2. Re:Jehova witnesses by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      So I only need to whip out a laptop or USB stick to keep the bible thumpers away?

      Hang it above your door. And windows, just to be sure!

    3. Re:Jehova witnesses by panda · · Score: 1

      It helps if you're chopping/pruning branches on a tree in your yard and you're holding a lumber ax when they approach your house. When you tell them you're not interested in whatever they have to sell, they tend to leave and not come back.

      --
      Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
    4. Re:Jehova witnesses by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      The best response is not Catholism, it's being Mormon. They got nowhere to go with Mormons as all the tricks the JV's use the Mormons used first. Most will turn and walk away if you mention being Mormon.

    5. Re:Jehova witnesses by jshackney · · Score: 1

      Tell 'em your neighbor's a devil worshiper, but is in such denial that (s)he is unable to admit it.

    6. Re:Jehova witnesses by Techman83 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Answer the door naked, that usually works.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    7. Re:Jehova witnesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you could always just politely say, "no thanks"

    8. Re:Jehova witnesses by quacking+duck · · Score: 2, Funny

      A friend related an even better and faster way to get rid of them: next time they come a-knockin' be sure to greet them straight out of the shower, "accidentally" drop your towel when they start sermonizing you (bonus if they have one of their teen sons along, which they almost always do), then after quickly picking it up and covering yourself again, feign a sudden change of heart and earnestly ask when their next meeting is and you'd very much like to join them to talk more.

      The two JWs practically ran over each other to leave his property, and haven't been back since.

    9. Re:Jehova witnesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best way to get rid of these people is to tell them you are researcher of comparative religion. Trust me.

    10. Re:Jehova witnesses by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, last time, they came to me on a Saturday morning, at about 9 am. I had been out drinking hard until something like 6 am. So, when they rang, I opened the door in my underpants, wild hair, red eyes, reeking of booze and ranted at them for 5 minutes for waking me up at such an UNHOLY hour. Haven't seen em since.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    11. Re:Jehova witnesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My ex did that, but he *was* truly fearsome when naked.

      (has fond memories of crucifixion)

    12. Re:Jehova witnesses by sa1lnr · · Score: 2, Funny

      IT doesn't work that way in real life. I told a bunch of Jehova's witnesses that I was a Devil worshiper in order to get them to leave me along. This didn't work,

      Blood and organ donor stickers on the front/street door work wonders here in the UK. ;)

    13. Re:Jehova witnesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seeing that we understand the cross and the "Jesus fish" are pagan symbols, and still talk to people with them on their doors or 'amongst their titties' (especially ironic being the cross is in some contexts a phallus), I don't think that would work.
      What you could do is ask them to leave.

    14. Re:Jehova witnesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you know, I hear stories like this from time to time... About Jehovah's Witnesses doing something that is very atypical in my experience with them (I actually used to attend a Kingdom Hall, and even participated in the door to door work). NO witness I have ever met would even consider doing anything like this. Much less a significant group from a congregation.
      Perhaps next time you could be polite and express your dis-interest. Everyone I have ever known would attempt to leave you some literature and let you make up your own mind. Witnesses aren't interested in forcing anyone to do anything. They just want to express the message from the Bible to interested people. So tell them you are not interested in talking to them, or discussing the Bible with them, and you would like them to leave. And shockingly enough they will leave. You can even be polite.
      Oh and by the way, Witnesses don't have "pastors". They have a group of elders. The men comprising that group, at each Kingdom Hall, changes periodically so that there is no single human leader to follow. In general they are very careful to follow the text of the Bible quite closely and not the thoughts or statements of a single individual man.
      Just trying to provide a balanced view.

    15. Re:Jehova witnesses by Mr.+Munshun · · Score: 1

      Being a former Latter Day Saint (a.k.a "Mormon"), I found that holding an open Book Of Mormon and telling them I was an LDS Missionary made them go away and never come back. It's rumored that a Jehovah's Witness cannot talk to an LDS Missionary for longer than 15 minutes because they face expulsion from their church. I have no clue if it is true or not, but I know that it always worked for me. They'd visit my residence once, and I wouldn't see them again until I changed residences.

    16. Re:Jehova witnesses by Abstrackt · · Score: 2, Funny

      My solution was to try selling them porn. It works for pretty much any unsolicited visitors but if you have a roommate who's capable of trying to sell gay porn with a straight face it works even better. As a bonus, it provides an excuse to keep a couple of dirty magazines laying around.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    17. Re:Jehova witnesses by Mal-2 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I got a visit from them at a similar time (~9 am on a Saturday) but it was a family of four -- father in the lead, wife, son, and daughter standing behind. I answered the door and he asked if they could come in and speak to me. I said "No... but the girl can stay." That got rid of them pretty quickly.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    18. Re:Jehova witnesses by Americano · · Score: 1

      It's amazing how a story like this brings out the "I had this friend who..." brigade, eh?

      I've never met a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness missionary who was anything less than polite, well-mannered, and respectful, and I've had a good 8 or 9 visits from them at various times that I can recall. A simple, "No thank you, I'm not interested, but have a nice day," is usually all it takes to send them on their way. I find it hard to swallow that these people are being badgered in so persistent a manner that they have to resort to public indecency, threats, and being downright offensive in order to get them to leave, it seems quite out of character for the missionaries I've met.

    19. Re:Jehova witnesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep sharpening an axe the whole time they try to talk to you. They usually leave pretty quick.

    20. Re:Jehova witnesses by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I've never met a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness missionary who was anything less than polite, well-mannered, and respectful,

      That's sort of the problem. If you return politeness in kind without converting to their religion, they keep coming back. It's a hassle and time consuming and like most other annoyances, happens when you would rather be doing something else. But you don't really want to be rude or nasty to them as they typically aren't to you. It makes it difficult to creatively get rid of them without hurting their feelings.

      Now the JVs in your area might not be as assertive in others, but they can be down right persistent and somewhat vicious. This is especially true when they realize you don't want to hear what they are saying. But there is a Watchtower teaching/interpretation of the bible that actually encourages some of these people to be rude in order to seek the grace of God (It's an interpretation of Matthew 5:11-12 in which they think they are securing a great reward in heaven if people cuss and them and such). It might be a matter of brainwashing or inept training, confusions or something, but it's quite common for it to happen where they are more then rude.

      You have to remember, the Jehovah's witness group is large and spans all around the world to some degree. In my area, I have seen probably 10-15 different door to door salesmen working for them. And with about everything else, you don't hear or remember as much about the good deeds people do as you do hear about the bad ones. Just watch the evening news if you doubt this.

  21. Sad news for believers by asher09 · · Score: 1

    It is news like this that gives evangelical Christians a bad rep. I suppose that these Brazilian Christians were thinking about the "mark of the beast" in the book of Revelation, in which it states that in the Great Tribulation, only those with the mark of the beast can participate in commerce and those who refuse to have the mark of the beast (newly converted Jewish believers) will be persecuted by the society because they can't buy or sell anything. There is nothing in the Scriptures about Satan having a trident thingy or that he is red or anything like that. In fact, it says that he can appear as an angel of light that appears righteous, etc. But nothing about the stereotypical evil look.

    --
    Some were yelling one thing, some another. Most of them had no idea what was going on or why they were there. Acts19:32
    1. Re:Sad news for believers by geekoid · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      evangelical Christians gives evangelical Christians a bad rep. this is just one more case of their lunacy.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Sad news for believers by asher09 · · Score: 1

      Intelligence, please. Not just name calling

      --
      Some were yelling one thing, some another. Most of them had no idea what was going on or why they were there. Acts19:32
    3. Re:Sad news for believers by geekoid · · Score: 1

      oh please. There all goofy, and have stupid beliefs. The deserve ridicule, and nothing more.

      that's unfair, they should also be shunned.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Sad news for believers by couchslug · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "It is news like this that gives evangelical Christians a bad rep."

      Well that, and direct experience with them also helps. The US Rovian Religious Right are a MASSIVE collection of Evangelical Dominionists bent on turning the US into a theocracy.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    5. Re:Sad news for believers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go search on youtube to find out what the mark of the beast really is. It is not 666, a bar code, the USB symbol or anything like that. It represent a counterfeit religion. What religion represents itself as peaceful and holy and yet condones, outright lying, murder and various other things as long as you are doing it for their religion? What religion says that it is ok to break all of the commandments in the books of Moses and yet claims to be associated with Abraham?

    6. Re:Sad news for believers by Creedo · · Score: 1

      Intelligence, please. Not just name calling

      I agree. Slinging around foul names like "evangelical Christian" is just uncouth.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    7. Re:Sad news for believers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      666. Apple I computer. Bankcard (only available in Australia, so go figure). Bar codes. New millennium. And on it goes.

      FFS, I'm old enough to remember when Mikhail Gorbachev was the beast. Because, y'know, he has that port wine birthmark on his head which was just like it said in the bible (something about the beast being stabbed but still living, and the birthmark looks like blood), and because he was a godless Russkie. This shit got serious traction amongst the fundamentalists of the day.

      Anything, any-fukken-thing, can be held out to be the beast of Revelations, from the Pope down to Justin Bieber.

      Just let it go before your head explodes.

    8. Re:Sad news for believers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The earliest manuscripts have characters that were mistaken to be three greek symbols and was later translated into 666 when they were actually arabic script. The mark represents the religion that calls itself the religion of "peace". That religion of "peace" goes around killing people with bombs and tried to associate itself with Abraham when it is the anti-thesis of the laws of Moses. Lying breaks one of the commandments, so does murder. Suicide in the Abrahamic faiths is considered an unforgivable sin but this other religion thinks it is ok if done in the name of their god.

      Can I be any more clear without outright naming it?

    9. Re:Sad news for believers by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Christianity?

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    10. Re:Sad news for believers by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      Don't worry.

      Its a bogus article

    11. Re:Sad news for believers by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Its kind of interesting that people are so ready to pounce on religion in general that a story with no sources, totaling a single paragraph, with external information to be found, elicits responses of "yea, i kind of knew this".

      So you ridicule christianity for its belief in certain things you find dubious, and then go on to believe this story which reads like an onion article? Protip, try googling any of the facts in the story, see if you can find anything other than a regurgitation of what the article claimed.

    12. Re:Sad news for believers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, we get it. You think Islam is the Antichrist. You missed the point. Whatever is the bogeyman-of-the-day is always the antichrist. And the proponents pushing the idea always come up with all sorts of stuff to "prove" it, but for some strange reason the proof never appeared in the last two thousand years until after the bogey man showed up. That is, after people already decided he/she/it was a bogey man for one reason or another. Sure thing, why not add "antichrist" to the list of reasons not to like someone/something.

      And you've done it again. Early manuscripts, mistranslated greek symbols, its all there. Thanks.

      Quick look around the net found this post from 2003:

      I've been studing this for many years and there is a reason all this don't add up. I have never shared this with anyone but perhaps the time has come to reveal the truth.If you read enough you will find that the number of the beast is not actually "666" but "66" + the mark.The mark is the number 4742 which is the cross and the beast is "Jesus" which is 2424 in Greek or "6"& "6" & 4742. At last the mystery is solved it is basically an attack on Relegion Namely the Catholic Church. The Pope is the Anti-Christ based on the KJV of the bible. Good Luck On your search for the truth beware though most relegions don't have a clue!

      Well I'm glad that's cleared things up.

    13. Re:Sad news for believers by infinite9 · · Score: 1

      Maybe not so massive. I've been a christian for quite a while and have yet to meet a single person that advocates anything like a theocracy. Most will simply encourage you to vote democrat or republican depending on whether they think feeding the poor or stopping abortion is more important. But don't let a silly thing like reality get in the way of your rants.

      --
      Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
  22. No problem by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1

    I seriously doubt they'll behead anyone.......

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
  23. Yes, lunatics exist in all places on the planet. by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    !news

    It happens all the time, its what happens people are fanatical, not really sure why this is news, even on slashdot. Giving them attention just furthers their behavior.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  24. Install BSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That will give them a shock big enough that they might do us a favour and don't use anything electrical until doomsday.

  25. Whew thank God... by masterwit · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is good news!

    Just think, if scientology somehow found the keyboard to be a derivative of the devil / whatever-their-evil-avatar-is, the internet would be a much more comforting place also...

    But on another note, do these people know that most computers come with the USB symbol next to the port intended for their devil-plugs? I guess there is nothing preventing them from banning most computers!

    ...

    Users over there really shouldn't despair, there are usb-to-firewire adapters out there...that way they can send the devilish signal back into the fire-filled hell where it belongs!

    --
    We should start a new Slashdot and return control to the geeks. It actually wouldn't be that hard to get some users to
    1. Re:Whew thank God... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Just think, if scientology somehow found the keyboard to be a derivative of the devil / whatever-their-evil-avatar-is, the internet would be a much more comforting place also...

      Its John Travolta.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    2. Re:Whew thank God... by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      "Oh my Xenu, this keyboard is covered in thetans!"

    3. Re:Whew thank God... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      And computer monitors! They spray thetans right at your face! Or was that photons? Better play it safe and ban monitors too.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  26. translation of original article according to goog by Surt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The evangelical cult "Peace Beloved of the Lord" in the interior of Brazil forbids its followers to use any USB technology by contending that it uses a symbol that makes apology to the devil.

    According to its founder, the Apostle "Welder Saldanha says that this is just a symbol of Satan, is always present in all Christian homes.

    "The symbol of that name (he even likes to pronounce) is a trident, which is used to torture souls go to hell. Use only a symbol of those shows that all users of this technology pífia are actually worshipers of Satan "- explains the " Apostle. "

    Measures were taken so that all the USB connections of his followers were exchanged for common connections and even the Bluetooth (sic), which according to Saldanha Welder is permitted, for "Blue was the color of the eyes of our savior Jesus Christ" .

    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  27. Wouldnt networked SATA be closer? by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Serial ATA, Networked. Put that all together, you have something worse than USB :P

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  28. USB is pure evil for different reason. by w0mprat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because it's symmetrical. Who but the most evil cabal of engineers on earth would design such a connector to be a perfect rectangle? Without looking closely you have a 50/50 chance of getting the correct orientation.

    Everything in computing from an RJ45 to IEEE 1397 have a obvious shape you can identify the correct orientation from.

    Yes, yes. I know the trident is supposed to go "up" in relation to the trident logo by port on the port. But this varies randomly from one manurfacturer to another, from device to device, and thats those that have the trident logo next to the port at all.

    Mini-B USB, popular for small gadgets, thank god, has an identfiable orientation.

    --
    After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    1. Re:USB is pure evil for different reason. by MachDelta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, I thought this was common knowledge. I mean, who HASN'T experienced a severe homicidal urge while trying to plug a USB connection into the backside of some device?

      "Does it go... this way? Nope, lets try the other... no that's not it, maybe the first time was right... well.. no, no I think it IS upside down, hang on... oh fuck, I dropped it! I swear to god if I meet the motherfucker who designed this piece of shit i'm gonna rip his fucking... wait, I GOT IT! Oh thank god! Now, no one touch it, or I will strangle you with the cord and then use it to hang your corpse from a tree. Seriously."

      Well, maybe it's just me.

    2. Re:USB is pure evil for different reason. by ZX-3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Without looking closely you have a 50/50 chance of getting the correct orientation.

      And yet it typically takes three tries to get it turned the right way...

    3. Re:USB is pure evil for different reason. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      A real evil cabal of engineers would have it use a dimension we can't see.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:USB is pure evil for different reason. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      It's been clear to me that the devil was personally involved in the design of EHCI and UHCI. Not even Intel could stoop that low.

    5. Re:USB is pure evil for different reason. by owlstead · · Score: 1

      It's only four wires that need to be connected. They could easily have specified two receiving ports, a cheap one with a single orientation (and of course an asymmetrical design) and one that would accept both orientations. Of course, the plastic surrounding the port could also play a role in guiding the connector. As it stands, it is sometimes easier to connect one of those infernal DVI connectors than a USB connector.

      PS mod parent up, not the responses that basically repeat what was said

    6. Re:USB is pure evil for different reason. by owlstead · · Score: 1

      They did. Ever noticed that you turn a USB connector around because it does not fit, it still does not fit? And when you turn it again and again, it suddenly it fits? They simply must have used the fourth or higher dimension to pull that off.

    7. Re:USB is pure evil for different reason. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, though I have found that in most cases the side of the connector with the two holes (not the two filled rectangles) goes up. Of course, this is just a heuristic and not guaranteed to work.

    8. Re:USB is pure evil for different reason. by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      Didn't someone release an always right way USB awhile ago? And I know an either ended battery was released

    9. Re:USB is pure evil for different reason. by dillee1 · · Score: 1

      And it got WORSE after tiny usb thumb drives get popular.
      With the standard old plug you have to force to plug in up-side-down. These tiny fucking drives just slip in either way effortlessly.
      Now the 1st thing I ever check with lusers usb problem is always their plugin orientation.

    10. Re:USB is pure evil for different reason. by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Not just you.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    11. Re:USB is pure evil for different reason. by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Nope. It's not just you.

    12. Re:USB is pure evil for different reason. by Mantrid42 · · Score: 1

      It isn't 50/50. The first orientation will always be wrong. Always.

    13. Re:USB is pure evil for different reason. by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      Only the first time. After the second time you try the first orientation it will work.

      Which reminds me that EVERY usb port on the old "colored" imacs are upside down. Every time you plug a usb-key into one of those things, the LED always points down.

    14. Re:USB is pure evil for different reason. by rawler · · Score: 1

      Are you seriously using the RJ45 as an example of good design? Sure, I agree on the evil of symmetrical contacts, (concentric contacts excepted of course), but I fully believe that the design of the RJ45 was aiming for the destruction of man kind.

      Have you ever tried untangling an aging RJ-45 installation? Cables get crossed a little here and there, and the connector have barbs, effectively preventing any chance of getting it out. And of course someone in a hurry pulled a life-critical fiber-patch through it all.

      The design of the RJ-45 is the most insidious ever. I'll take USB any day over RJ 45, thank you.

    15. Re:USB is pure evil for different reason. by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      If the USB connector were truly symmetrical, it would be possible to plug it in the wrong way. Noticed how it isn't? Look inside the metal sheath, it isn't symmetrical.

    16. Re:USB is pure evil for different reason. by daid303 · · Score: 1

      Did you know the orientation of the logo is part of the design? If you have a connector with logo, the logo should be topside when it fits. I am not kidding you, it doesn't help shit because not every manufacturer has implemented this right, but it's still part of the spec and it works 80% of the time.

      And it's silly, only halve the connector types would fit in both orientations after a quick look. If everyone would have used type-B, mini-A or micro-B then the problem would be gone. But they used type-A as 'default' connector for everything. Which has only 1 plus side: you can build "PCB" connectors, which is cheap, as you don't really need a connector. It's just part of your PCB design.

    17. Re:USB is pure evil for different reason. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The side of the plug with two holes is generally up.

    18. Re:USB is pure evil for different reason. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      USB is nothing. Have you ever tried to plug a SCART connector into the back of an immovably heavy CRT television?

    19. Re:USB is pure evil for different reason. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You kids have it easy. Back in my day it was possible to plug the power cables into the motherboard backwards, which would cause some nice smoke, or plug the IDE cables into the hard drive and motherboard backwards, which would cause some nice cursing. USB has to be oriented right to connect, even if you can't tell which way is right without plugging it in.

    20. Re:USB is pure evil for different reason. by heathen_01 · · Score: 1

      And the second.

    21. Re:USB is pure evil for different reason. by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      Because it's symmetrical. Who but the most evil cabal of engineers on earth would design such a connector to be a perfect rectangle? Without looking closely you have a 50/50 chance of getting the correct orientation.

      And yet this is still a massive improvement over the old PS/2 connectors, which were perfect circles. With a rectangle you have one right and one wrong orientation. With a circle you get 359 wrong orientations for one right one. So we're definitely headed in the right direction!

    22. Re:USB is pure evil for different reason. by Xoltri · · Score: 1

      It also fits perfectly convincingly into a network jack port.

      --
      -Xoltri
    23. Re:USB is pure evil for different reason. by Trogre · · Score: 1

      I posted a rant about this below, but you worded it much better and deserved the mod points.

      I don't mind that it's symmetrical, but if it must be so, make the internals symmetric too, so you can plug it in either way.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  29. Obligatory Ron Burgundy Reference by HangingChad · · Score: 2, Funny

    I stabbed a guy in the heart...with a (USB) trident!

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:Obligatory Ron Burgundy Reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, I saw that. Brick, I've been meaning to talk to you about that. You might want to find a close friend or relative and lay low for a couple of days, because you're probably wanted for murder.

  30. I assume these people never use dessert forks. by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    n/t

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  31. Except that by geekoid · · Score: 3, Interesting

    the number of the beast is 616. The next(or may the recent one?) printing of KJB will have the correct translation.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Except that by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      the number of the beast is 616. The next(or may the recent one?) printing of KJB will have the correct translation.

      Wow, King James sure is a slow editor. What's he been doing for the last 380 years? Playing video games?

    2. Re:Except that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that it isn't.

      Six Hundred Sixty-six. That's not 616.

      And there are far too many people that don't know what it means.

      7 is divine completeness, either to God's standards or Satan's.
      6 falls short of that completeness. It is incomplete.
      3 is emphasis and monstrosity.

      6 repeated 3 times is emphatically, and monstrously, incomplete. Thus Satan's political system (the wild beast and its scarlet-colored replica) is extremely incapable, fallible, and doomed to failure.

      Remember that for the next election.

    3. Re:Except that by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Leave us Gentoo users alone, just finished compiling KDE.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  32. Re:Yes, lunatics exist in all places on the planet by Teun · · Score: 1
    Indeed, here in The Netherlands there is a number of conservative (Dutch Reformed) Christians that cover up the Europe symbol on their cars' license plates.

    This EU symbol is a circle of 12 yellow stars surrounding the country designation, they are adamant this is part of a Roman Catholic conspiracy to take back the world for Satan (the Bishop of Rome, also known as The Pope).

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  33. Trident? That explains IE then... by enter+to+exit · · Score: 1

    Only the devils tool could explain the harm IE has caused the world..

  34. hey by geekoid · · Score: 1, Funny

    you can spell Satan with a keyboards, maybe they should stay the hell off the internet?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  35. Reliable source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Foreign humor blogs are always a rock solid news source!

    http://bobolhando.com.br/bomba-em-sp-culto-evangelico-proibe-uso-de-tecnologias-usb/

    It's a joke! For f*** sake!
    Here they are talking about the satanist psychologists.
    http://bobolhando.com.br/bomba-em-sp-culto-evangelico-ataca-agora-a-psicologia/

  36. neither run Linux by 1800maxim · · Score: 1

    I hear it has a lot of daemons.

  37. So I take it, by Icegryphon · · Score: 1

    Firewire is how we will burn USB at the stake?

  38. Number of the Beast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SOH = 001
    STX = 002
        U = 125
        S = 123
        B = 102
      BS = 010
        U = 125
    SUB = 032
      US = 037
        B = 102
    ETX = 003
    EOT = 004
    -------------------
                666

  39. ...I see by Konster · · Score: 2, Funny

    I see the connection here!

  40. Running FreeBSD! by mangu · · Score: 1

    How evil can you get?

  41. devil's connection... by lostmongoose · · Score: 1

    so when it connects is there a devil's handshake involved?

  42. OS X and BSD culprits too by noidentity · · Score: 1

    Also, OS X and BSD promote evolution, the devil, as covered by Objective Ministries.

    1. Re:OS X and BSD culprits too by Slutticus · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the difference is that Objective Ministries is a Parody website, whereas this Brazilian folks appear to be the real deal.

    2. Re:OS X and BSD culprits too by hnangelo · · Score: 1

      It is a hoax.

    3. Re:OS X and BSD culprits too by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Ahhh no, don't tell me that's a hoax. All along I wanted to believe it was real. That makes it more funny.

  43. Bluetooth is Pagan not USB by medv4380 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Measures were taken so that all the USB connections of his followers were exchanged for common connections and even the Bluetooth (sic), which according to Saldanha Welder is permitted, for "Blue was the color of the eyes of our savior Jesus Christ"

    Bluetooth is the one using a pagan blind rune as its symbol and they are all excited about using it. Come on, next thing you know you'll see christens celebrating pagan holidays.

    1. Re:Bluetooth is Pagan not USB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on, next thing you know you'll see christens celebrating pagan holidays.

      You mean like christmas and easter? :P (Yeah, I know, whoosh...)

    2. Re:Bluetooth is Pagan not USB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, like Christmas?

    3. Re:Bluetooth is Pagan not USB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "christens celebrating pagan holidays."

      They already are...ever hear of Christmas and Easter - both are derived from pagan festivals!

    4. Re:Bluetooth is Pagan not USB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey mods, it was a joke, should be Score :3, Funny.

    5. Re:Bluetooth is Pagan not USB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wooosh!

  44. They got it wrong by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

    It's obviously a double amputee woman carrying a purse.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  45. And PSI? by mangu · · Score: 1

    From .:
    The letter PSI can also be a symbol for:
    psychology, psychiatry, and sometimes parapsychology (involving paranormal or relating with the supernatural subjects, especially research into extrasensory perception).
    In mathematics, the reciprocal Fibonacci constant.
    Water potential in movement of water between plant cells.
    In biochemistry, it denotes the rare nucleotide pseudouridilic acid.
    Stream function in fluid mechanics defining the curve to which the flow velocity is always tangent.
    One of the dihedral angles in the backbones of proteins
    The planet Neptune
    The Schrödinger equation and throughout quantum mechanics, PSI(x) stands for the wave function
    Indiana University (as a superimposed I and U)
    Gangster Disciples
    A Sai, the name of which is pronounced the same way.
    Pharmacology, general pharmacy
    In virology the PSI site is a viral packaging signal.
    The PSI meson, in particle physics.
    In the Computability Theory, PSIP(x)\,\! represents the return value Y\,\! of a program P\,\!.
    In the comic Monochrome, Psi is a mentally disturbed character, though her name is usually spelled out.
    In the television show Babylon 5, PSI is the symbol of the Psi Corps.

    Hey, that's a lot of uses for a trident!

  46. Come on.. by TropiCHAOS · · Score: 1

    The translation of Saldanha's quote is quite lousy, so here goes a slightly better one, free of charge: "The symbol of you-know-what (he doesn't even like to pronounce its name) is a trident, which is used to torture hell-bound souls. Using such a symbol merely shows that all users of this lame technology are actually satan worshippers". Anyway, this great piece of news apparently came from a Brazilian comedy blog, http://bobolhando.com.br/ (the site's name is itself a joke, combining the words "bobo olhando", which could be translated as "fool looking at"). Regards from the Banana Republik!

    --
    "Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds" -Feynman
  47. More of [citation needed] on peace sign by billstewart · · Score: 2, Informative

    A few years ago was the 50th anniversary of the symbol, and the guy who designed it was being interviewed on BBC radio. He said that the John Birch Society tried to portray it as an anti-Christian symbol, but that was nonsense.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  48. so what's the Christian cross? by t2t10 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Let's see: the symbol of Christianity is an ancient device of execution and torture.

    Seems to me it's pretty clear who is using "the devil's" symbology.

    1. Re:so what's the Christian cross? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      You do know that was intentional right? The cross represents the crucifixion, which happens...you know...on a roman cross.

    2. Re:so what's the Christian cross? by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      Well, golly gee! Any other such bright comments, Mr. Obvious?

      But perhaps you are unaware that Christians didn't just adopt Roman symbols, they also adopted Roman practices: torture, persecutions of non-Christians, burnings, mass executions, etc. Yeah, the Christians were a jolly bunch after they got to power. So, using an ancient device of execution and torture is actually quite symbolic of what Christianity actually stands for.

  49. Actually RS232 was the devil's interface by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More student projects have been wrecked because the students couldn't get the RS232 interface to work ...

  50. Neptune will be pissed by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

    Satan stole his Trident!

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  51. USB sucks, rectangles suck by hansamurai · · Score: 1

    USB is obnoxious. It's like US power plugs. "oh, I'm going to plug this in, crap doesn't fit, gotta turn it around." How hard would it have been to make USB not rectangular so I don't have a 50/50 chance (and what really seems like a 10% chance) of getting it plugged in right the first time?

  52. The Iranians would agree ... by daremonai · · Score: 1

    Just ask anyone whose systems were infected with Stuxnet - these Brazilian evangelicals are right.

  53. Come on by freeman-sr · · Score: 1

    Oh gosh... does a 'lol' satisfy as a response? Perhaps that will be thought to be a devilish symbol too...

    --
    ++
  54. No Hope for Mankind by Sounder40 · · Score: 1

    That's it--we have now reached the critical mass of human stupidity. There's just no hope for us any more.

    --
    A clever person solves a problem, A wise person avoids it. -Einstein
  55. ROTFLMAO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, you made my day. I've been laughing for 10 minutes! Thanks a bunch!

  56. I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I smell a tale of utter bullshit. This just sends my bullshit-detector ringing.. cant quite point out why.. Other then the fact.. Nowhere does Satan have a trident.. Polearm perhaps, scythe maybe.. not trident..

    Also.. the last comment about bluetooth? naah sounds like the article is a bit of a hoax put out there by someone in the Brazilian media. For reasons unknown.
    --
    CelticKnight

    1. Re:I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, do you have your myths mixed up. Satan had a pick fork. The Grim Reaper had a scythe.

  57. No Actual Symbol in Real Christianity... by SlowCanuck · · Score: 1

    From the cross, to the pentagram, to whatever - there should be no symbol, or anything you worship. This group is a cult and not a mainstream group in anyway shape or form!!! But the only bad guys these days are Christians, attack any other group and your seen as a bigot... Attack or mock Christians and your seen edgy, and hip. Easy to attack a group that is suppose to forgive you!!

  58. Idiots by Nihn · · Score: 1

    Brazil? The same government that allowed mass executions of prisoners..most of which were still awaiting trial. If you are wondering what Im getting at Look up Pavilhão Nove. People who are that superstitious are simple minded and don't deserve the time of day. Good luck keeping up with technology, oh yea, that's right, you are too busy murdering people to pull your head out and see the world for what it is.

  59. THIS JUST IN by paxcoder · · Score: 1

    Slashdot posts a story with a reference to an article derived from a news article on a Brazilian web site about a Brazilian protestant evangelical cult (notice: each word is deepening the specialization).
    In related news: A slashdot user clicks this article so he can read a funny generalization and thus laugh at all religious people because of it.

  60. It gets better. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Append “NCQ” to “SATA” for “SATANCQ.”

  61. Blue-eyed Jesus by neoshroom · · Score: 1

    Measures were taken so that all the USB connections of his followers were exchanged for common connections and even the Bluetooth (sic), which according to Saldanha Welder is permitted, for "Blue was the color of the eyes of our savior Jesus Christ".

    I was also wondering about the above quote. I don't recall anything in the Bible about Jesus having blue eyes. I kind of always assumed he had brown eyes, since most, though not all, people of Jewish heritage have brown eyes. Is a blue-eyed-Jesus supported Biblically?

    --
    Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
    1. Re:Blue-eyed Jesus by ls+-la · · Score: 0

      ...Is a blue-eyed-Jesus supported Biblically?

      No. Just like the devil's pitchfork that started this all. Not to mention large chunks of the remainder of christian beliefs. But when has that ever stood in the way of christians believing what they want?

  62. cult by soupbowl · · Score: 1

    The article states they are a cult, not Christians. But either way carry on.

  63. Brazil? Really?? by mfnickster · · Score: 0

    Isn't Brazil the country where they have a giant statue of Jesus looking down on a beach full of topless women wearing butt-floss bikini bottoms??

    --
    "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
  64. how about sata? by abednegoyulo · · Score: 2, Funny

    its only one letter away...

  65. Oh for f*k's sake! by PPH · · Score: 1

    Trident = wielded by Neptune (or Poseidon),

    Pitchfork (most often with 4 or more tines) = only sometimes wielded by Satan in humorous caricatures

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  66. Protection from evil by DavMz · · Score: 1

    I don't care! My data are protected from evil in my cross usb drive!

    1. Re:Protection from evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      perfect for a child porn collection

  67. I guess that's how engrained it is by pathological+liar · · Score: 1

    I meant "I've always called it 'scuzzy'..." of course...

  68. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait until they get a load of this:

    http://i.imgur.com/OYVtq.png

  69. My toaster pastry looks like Jesus Christ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These are the same people that see Jesus and Mary in wood panels, food, or dirt on the ground and consider it a miracle. Now they think the USB symbol is satanic.

    It would be funny if it wasn't so sad that you have a large group of ignorant, uneducated people with religious beliefs so deep that common sense is overridden. Don't forget that they do exorcisms and routinely kill adults and children because of possessions or other such nonsense.

    Ignorance and religious fervor make a dangerous combination.

  70. hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm brazillian. For those who did not read TFA - well... The original site linked by TFA only publish made up funny news.
    From the site:
    Um site chamado "Bobolhando", não deve ser levado à sério!

    Se copiar, credite, ok?
    subjective translation:
    A site named "Idiotting" should not be taken seriously!

  71. I heard Larry Boucher commited suicide... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because he was at the end of the SCSI chain, he self-terminated.

    (don't hurt me)

  72. It's pretend Christianity for business purposes by dbIII · · Score: 1

    That's right, the country famous for having a huge statue of Jesus and a lot of Christians. The evangelicals thought they could set up a franchise or two and milk them for a bit of cash with Christianity Lite.

  73. Well, now that I think about it... by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 1

    ...I can kinda understand their sentiment. After all, the computer I just built has me committing idolatry. :3

    --

    Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
  74. common sense values - ha ha by wall0159 · · Score: 1

    the reason is that some religious people are trying to undermine logic and science in the vain hope that this will bolster both their arguments and their followers. For simplicity, let's say there are two positions here. One relies on evidence and experiment to draw conclusions about the world. The other, in the absence of evidence, relies on faith to believe in an invisible being while simultaneously trying to undermine the ideas of reason, logic and experimentation _in_general_. Who deserves our support? While I agree that religion doesn't make people evil, I do think that the conviction that one has the support of a deity, that one's friends are _good_ and one's enemies _evil_ is a very good way to get people to do terrible things. This is (in my opinion, incontrovertibly) one of the consequences of religious belief in some people, and the reason why I think the world would be better off without religion. In summary, religion encourages one more "them and us" style of thinking. One of my favourite quotes is by Charlotte Bronte: "conventionality is not morality".

    1. Re:common sense values - ha ha by Bob-taro · · Score: 1

      the reason is that some religious people are trying to undermine logic and science in the vain hope that this will bolster both their arguments and their followers. For simplicity, let's say there are two positions here. One relies on evidence and experiment to draw conclusions about the world. The other, in the absence of evidence, relies on faith to believe in an invisible being while simultaneously trying to undermine the ideas of reason, logic and experimentation _in_general_. Who deserves our support? While I agree that religion doesn't make people evil, I do think that the conviction that one has the support of a deity, that one's friends are _good_ and one's enemies _evil_ is a very good way to get people to do terrible things. This is (in my opinion, incontrovertibly) one of the consequences of religious belief in some people, and the reason why I think the world would be better off without religion. In summary, religion encourages one more "them and us" style of thinking. One of my favourite quotes is by Charlotte Bronte: "conventionality is not morality".

      Regarding "them and us" thinking - that may be true of some religions, but Jesus preached to bless your enemies and pray for those who persecuted you. He said that to people who were under Roman occupation. Christianity also teaches that no man is "good". to show mercy and not judge because God has shown you mercy rather than judgment.You are right, I can't claim that religion hasn't led people to do terrible things, but I wonder what our conventional morality would be today without the strong influence of Christianity in western culture. You say that religion produces crusaders and terrorists, but it also produces support groups, homeless shelters, and many other good things. Belief in a deity has helped many people overcome alcohol addiction and other problems. You may say you can have all that without religion, but you can also have terrorists and atrocities without religion.

      On an unrelated note - what the heck is "conventionality"? Was the word "convention" not long enough? It's like when people say "utilize" rather than "use".

      --
      Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
    2. Re:common sense values - ha ha by wall0159 · · Score: 1

      I agree that some of Jesus' teachings are excellent. The problem is that churches are a human institution and are hence vulnerable to corruption - which is exactly what has happened over the centuries. Unfortunately, people are quick to form tribes, and difference religions are an excellent way to facilitate this. Partly, I think this is because many people have only a vague understanding of the religion in which they profess to believe. Churches also exploit their status as 'good' and 'holy'. While lots of religious charities do good work, there are also lots of secular charities that do equally good work. I agree that it is possible to have terrorists and atrocities without religion, but I think you get more of them with religion. Let's look at the worst conflicts in the last 30 years: Northern Ireland (catholics vs protestants), Iraq (christians vs shia muslims vs sunni muslims), Afghanistan (christians vs muslims), Somalia (muslims vs everyone else). In fact, I challenge you to name a significant terrorist attack in the last 30 years that has not involved some form of religious conflict!. I guess the Korean war (though it's older) is an example of a war that was driven by secular ideology, but I still think that religious conflict is the most common. conventionality is to convention as morality is to moral. Also, wrt your sig. Wanting to believe you're special doesn't make you special - the universe doesn't work that way. If you're just matter, but believe you're god's creation, it doesn't matter - you still don't matter!

    3. Re:common sense values - ha ha by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > Churches also exploit their status as 'good' and 'holy'.

      Yes, unfortunately. Churches are in the business of selling heaven insurance.

      Sadly, they have degenerated into cult status ("Our way is the only way") as a matter of self-preservation, thus they are "holy" and everyone else is "pagan" or "heretic." Ironically, heretic comes from the root words "choice".

    4. Re:common sense values - ha ha by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > For simplicity, let's say there are two positions here. One relies on evidence and experiment to draw conclusions about the world. The other, in the absence of evidence, relies on faith to believe in an invisible being while simultaneously trying to undermine the ideas of reason, logic and experimentation _in_general_.

      Apologies for offending you but that is a simplistic dualistic-modality of thinking and looking at the world:
      e.g.
      In understanding truth, we have evidence, therefore logic dictates that the only other choice is lack-of-evidence.

      To provide another perspective. While you are correct, you have only described the horizontal axis: logic

      You are missing the vertical axies: emotion / faith.

      The two are orthogonal.

      There is actually a 3rd dimension of consciousness (knowingness) but I would encourage you to explore the first two, Theism (Femine Non-Linear Faith/Emotion) vs Atheism (Masculine Linear Logic), before moving to Agnostic. If you are persistant, you may experience Gnosticism to be able to undertand the strengths and limitations of the first two.

      Good luck!

  75. All inspiration gets rebranded by the profits. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if the Son of God pronounced it "Scuzzy" to Larry, then that mean Larry through it through the marketing department and some "perfume" to make it sexy, like how John the Baptist threw a bunch of dirty hippies into the Jordan River and only one (The Christ Jesus) sprung out of the water into the air smelling sweet in a pair of Pumps that gave him Airtime none-the-likes the gods have ever seen!

    Might be the Ol'Spice given him by one of them dark wanderers 31 years before his Quickening.

  76. Keyboards should be personal like Mouthguards. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like when I had to boil my Mouthguard to wear when I joined flag football. I hear if you boild the Hell out of a keyboard, then it outcasts the evil like a car License Plate from the DMV shields and averts Automobile Collisions into "accidents not done on purpose." That would be cool if any illegal downloading executed from my personal Keyboard could be re-construed as an "accident" rather than offense, but I think I'm sending money to the legislature too often rather than the RIAA/MPAA task forces of NSA's DMCA BATFE(ces).

  77. FreeBSD on a church's server by jweyrich · · Score: 1

    Reminds me a story of an IT company that installed FreeBSD on a church's server. The priest went mad!

  78. Re:translation of original article according to go by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

    See, the way I see it, is the way it's written in the Christian's bible: "The devil may also quote scripture." So these evangelical fucks are just grandstanding. Give them no attention.

    --
    I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  79. Too late, that title's already taken... by unitron · · Score: 1, Funny

    As I have pointed out elsewhere, IBM's PS/2 mouse port and protocol is obviously the invention of the Devil.

    --

    I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    1. Re:Too late, that title's already taken... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      PS/2 was an excellent connector. I'm not sure why you would think it'd the devil.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Too late, that title's already taken... by unitron · · Score: 1

      I didn't say anything about the connector.

      I'm talking about the electronics and software that won't let you hotswap, like you can with a keyboard, or detect after loading the OS, so that KVM switches have to be much more comlicated and expensive.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    3. Re:Too late, that title's already taken... by unitron · · Score: 1

      Looked right at "comlicated" in the preview and hit "submit" anyway. Doh!

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  80. Re:Your Sig File... by unitron · · Score: 1

    "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it. -Upton Sinclair" fits within the 120 character limit and properly credits the originator.

    --

    I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  81. Re: more Christian/Muslim/Judaism/etc bashing by ukemike · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Poking fun at religion is a good reason in its own right. Mockery is the best response to silliness.

    I would agree if religion were just silliness. It isn't. It is horribly damaging. The key teaching of religions is that believing in things that are provably false is a virtue. They call it faith. What's worse is that the more absurd a thing that you can believe in the more virtuous you are. A person who believes that the earth is literally about 7,000 years old has much stronger faith than a person who equivocates and says that Genesis is metaphorical. Faith is the one basic teaching that is at the root of so much suffering. It leads directly to fundamentalism. Fundamentalist Islam is the Taliban, and the intensely repressive regimes in Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. Fundamentalist Judaism believes that despite being largely absent for a thousand or so years they have a right given them by some sky guy to possess to the exclusion of all others a bit of real estate at the East end of the Mediterranean Sea. Christian fundamentalists lead America into unwinnable wars that sap our spirits and drain our treasury. Fundamentalist personality cult is the twisted crap that has lead to decades of starvation and tyranny in North Korea.

    Please teach your children this: if you have seen it proven then believe it until you see it dis-proven. Be skeptical about everything else.

    --
    -- QED
  82. Re:Yes, lunatics exist in all places on the planet by sznupi · · Score: 1

    Did anybody try to inform them how the "devout" Catholics are quite often also anti-EU?

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
  83. Re: more Christian/Muslim/Judaism/etc bashing by Creedo · · Score: 1

    Poking fun at religion is a good reason in its own right. Mockery is the best response to silliness.

    I would agree if religion were just silliness. It isn't. It is horribly damaging. The key teaching of religions is that believing in things that are provably false is a virtue. They call it faith. What's worse is that the more absurd a thing that you can believe in the more virtuous you are. A person who believes that the earth is literally about 7,000 years old has much stronger faith than a person who equivocates and says that Genesis is metaphorical. Faith is the one basic teaching that is at the root of so much suffering. It leads directly to fundamentalism. Fundamentalist Islam is the Taliban, and the intensely repressive regimes in Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. Fundamentalist Judaism believes that despite being largely absent for a thousand or so years they have a right given them by some sky guy to possess to the exclusion of all others a bit of real estate at the East end of the Mediterranean Sea. Christian fundamentalists lead America into unwinnable wars that sap our spirits and drain our treasury. Fundamentalist personality cult is the twisted crap that has lead to decades of starvation and tyranny in North Korea. Please teach your children this: if you have seen it proven then believe it until you see it dis-proven. Be skeptical about everything else.

    I agree completely. But you treat my offhand comment as if it is the only response we should make. The silliness of religion should be mocked in many situations while at the same time more serious attacks are leveled in more appropriate venues. Sometimes a jeer is a more effective tool than an essay.

    --
    All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
  84. Soon I discovered by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 1

    that this pitch fork thing was true
    Bill Gates was the devil
    jesus was an architect previous to his career as an open source developer
    all of a sudden, I found myself in love with the world
    so there was only one thing that I could do
    was ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
  85. Once again they prove it. by Mr2cents · · Score: 1

    "Religious" and "nuts" are two words that fit perfectly together.

    --
    "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
  86. So ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No Forks Allowed ?

  87. Sigh, more faux persecuted Christians... by bledri · · Score: 1

    Well to use a cliche, some of my best friends are Christians. But...

    As of 2008, 76% of the US population self-identifies as Christian, with about 4% as "other" religions. About 15% self-identifies with None/No religion. The final 5% responded "don't know/refuse" so we'll ignore them.

    So what's the make up of the US Congress? Well, it's 86.6% Christian, 12.4% "other" and 0.9% unknown. Pete Sark may be an agnostic, or some such, but had to back peddle and say he is a Unitarian. In short, Christians and Jews are overrepresented in elected government while (openly) non-believers can not get elected.

    Many of these representatives belong to powerful Christian organizations which influence not only US law, but also the laws of other nations (see Senator James Inhofe and the draconian anti-gay legislation of Uganda, or the abortion gag rule that every Republican president uses to limit funding of NGOs, etc.). And then there is the ongoing folly about sex education, evolution, and the age of the universe that is a constant (and seemingly losing) battle in US school systems. Plus the uses of leviticus to argue against gay marriage (but not to enforce other "laws", oddly). The adding of "In God We Trust" to coins in the 1860s, making that the national motto in 1956, and changing the pledge to include "one country under God" in 1956. Now used by some as evidence that we were founded as a Christian nation. All in a country with a supposed separation of church and state. And yet many Christians feel persecuted...

    As an agnostic, I get really tired of hearing about people "doing God's work" or how "God is their moral compass" and other implications that people with different (or significantly reduced) magical thinking can not be moral or trust worthy. I also get really tired of huge social battles and the restricting of personal freedoms based on taking the Bible "partially literally." I say partially, because if we took it literally we would not be much different from several Middle Eastern countries. Depending on whether one wants to focus on the vengeance or the forgiveness bits (but there is a lot of vengeance...) So while it may not be the most mature response, some people feel inclined to verbally poke back at the apparent insanity of our society.

    --
    Some privacy policy Slashdot.
  88. And MS Windows is GOOD, right? by VincenzoRomano · · Score: 1

    Because if you look carefully you'll notice that the four colored squares leave a greek cross in the middle.
    And I'm not pulling the abvious FreeBSD in.

    --
    Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
    For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
  89. Re:Your Sig File... by JohnBailey · · Score: 1

    But how else would I annoy people like you?

    --
    It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
  90. Don't forget about USB3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    USB 3, or USB SuperSpeed or SS for short.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS

  91. Just a HOAX! by famazza · · Score: 1

    The evangelic cult "Paz do Senhor Amado" does not exist. Search Google for it, you'll find nothing but phrases from other religions. It's just a hoax from a website called bobolhando (stupid staring), never intended to be a serious post..

    --

    -=-=-=-=
    I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
  92. Doesnt anyone check the qualty of slashdot posts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This article points to another article, that is based on a humorous brazilian site, that states in the end of the page "Um site chamado "Bobolhando", não deve ser levado à sério!" that translate directly to: "A site named "A fool looking" shouldnt be taken seriously.

  93. "Hopefully they don't mispronounce SCSI" by RichiH · · Score: 1

    SCSI was _meant_ to be pronounced like "sexy".

  94. hahaha!! From a eligious country what you want!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hahahahaha!!
    Worst than that...
    Someone ones, speak about "MAYONNAISE" from a brand called "HELLMANS" mean from "HELL" and im not kidding.
    Last night watching one of SEVERAL ROMAN CHURCH SUPPORTED by GOVERNMENT, watcIh a guy called Aquino, speaking " IT's not the BLACK ones do not have soul, like everyone and "THEY" ( they mean any kind of protestant) spread in "LYE" ( Yes, in this channel they say the slavery was not how we know, was more soft). It's they and NATIVE PEOPLES do have an "INNOCENT" SOUL! And give tons of examples.
    Other day I was looking another kind of PENTA HIPER MEGA PENTECOSTAL GUY, Speaking the "CREDIT CARD" Are the "BEAST MARK"..

    Religion and all kind of RELIGIOUS and RELIGIOSITY: are the cancer of WORLD!
    In North America and other places. Some of CRAZY MUSLIMS that have a crazy interpretation of a book kill lot os peoples with attacks.
    But ROMAN Christians and modern derivations are worst. What they do in SO CALLED "OCCIDENTAL" world are the most pure EVIL in any meaning we can have.
    HEre in Brazil. Watch one hour of ROMAN SUPPORTED but government channels and the derivations ones called from protestantism to hipper ultra pentecostals is EVIL AND MORE EVIL.

    They just want money, to build temples and put gold, and more powerful.

    Who watch this know why countries Like Brazil and ones under this dominance will never be powerful in globe. Just do BABY's their gods. Same north america. Already start to suffer from this.

  95. Falls out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So why did they not put the USB connector in the middle, so you don't have to guess all the time to the direction of insertion required and some form of retention mechanism to stop the damn things falling out all the time. Would you believe there is "enterprise-grade" equipment getting around with USB connectors and cabling?

    The USB connector is a prime example of stupidity and cost-cutting, winning out over engineering.

  96. hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's funny, and although quite possible, it's not true. I't just a brazilian blog hoax.
    The author is now celebrating his successful trolling of the guardian on his twitter @Thiago__Caetano.

  97. True or false, no confirmation found so far by h00manist · · Score: 1

    it is hard to say where this myth originated.

    Indeed there seems to be no way to confirm or deny this story which has gone around the world... for a few months now. I'm in the state of Sao Paulo. I did several Google searches to find anything at all about the origin of this story. The city or town is not mentioned, only the name of the pastor. Couldn't find his name anywhere other than news stories - which are everywhere, seems like it makes for good scary shock-content news snippets. Didn't find that name in phone books. Of course it's common for people here to have no website, internet commenters or mentions, or listed phone in their name. And to say off-the-wall, insane things to fools in evangelical churches too. But the name or town for this temple/church/whatever seems to be mentioned nowhere. There is just a somewhat uncommon pastor's name, somewhere in the most populous state in Brazil. I could start searching credit records for the name, but that'll cost me money.

    --
    Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
    1. Re:True or false, no confirmation found so far by h00manist · · Score: 1

      It seems that the original source is from a humor site, www.bobolhando.com.br. That domain's translation would be "fools looking". In other words, it seems that it is all fake, and the whole world reproduced it, no questions asked.

      --
      Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
    2. Re:True or false, no confirmation found so far by h00manist · · Score: 1

      Author of the story will not give a city for this church. Never mind a phone and address. He mentions "producing" another story about a church of google celebrating communion with coca cola. So, it seems safe to confirm it is all false news, going around the world, getting people indignant at Brazilians and poor, religious, uneducated people, There's enough sordid news in the world that only a few people know what to do about, no need to invent fake stories for shock value, losing credibility. Shocking is that all kinds of blogs and news sites are publishing it, drawing thousands of negative comments.

      --
      Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
  98. Too far down in the Google hits by lee+n.+field · · Score: 1
    A Google search on "Paz do Senhor Amado" is totally dominated variations of this story. I can't find anything about the group itself.

    I suspect, how shall I put this, a group somewhat far afield from mainstream evangelicalism.

  99. Firewire's probably not much better... by shadedream · · Score: 1

    and I guess eSATA(n) is out too... wonder what the safe way to attach external storage devices is.

    I remember when the same sort of crazies were going around proclaiming UNIX was evil because it was full of daemons and used the secret code "chmod 666" on your files...

  100. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Poseiden is dissed once more in favor of a Christian-based mythological creature. Brazil, beware of the Kraken!

  101. say you're an ex-Jehovah Witness by vortexau · · Score: 1

    Truly- Just say you are an ex-Jehovah Witness, and they'll have to follow their training: which is to shun you!

    Shunning someone, means 'to keep away from' that person.

      http://www.exjehovahswitness.net/tag/shunning

    --
    (David Bowman, EVA near HUGE Monolithic Win-PC in orbit around Jupiter) "My God - its full of Malware!"
  102. Re: more Christian/Muslim/Judaism/etc bashing by ukemike · · Score: 1

    you treat my offhand comment as if it is the only response we should make.

    Didn't mean it that way, it just seemed like a nice springboard quote to give me a chance to say my fill.

    --
    -- QED
  103. Ha ha ha ha ha... by Mickets · · Score: 1

    boboolhando.com ("Fool Staring") -> Guardian -> Slashdot Doesn't anyone investigate? One of the most important teachings of the Bible is to investigate what one says before believing. Like the people from the church in Bereah. Anyone who believes something without verifying it first isn't being very smart. Christian or not.

  104. Re:translation of original article according to go by RemyBR · · Score: 1

    Brazilian here.

    Except that the whole thing appears to be some guy trolling. Let's get to the facts:
    - The site (http://bobolhando.com.br) where the original article in portuguese in published is but a small blog, apparently run by a single individual. I've never heard about it also.
    - The "source" cited at the end of the article is a Twitter account
    - The Guardian seems to have picked on the story (don't ask me why)
    - The owner of that twitter account posted the following, soon after the Guardian article: "Amigos, trollar o Guardian, quem já conseguiu? http://bit.ly/aiVTeW Texto do @Thiago__Caetano no @bobolhando sim." which translates to "Friends, trolling the Guardian, who accomplished that? Text by @Thiago__Caetano at @bobolhando got it." http://twitter.com/#!/ThiagoTG/status/4740146524061696

    So it seems that he got to not only troll The Guardian, but Slashdot also.

  105. Re: more Christian/Muslim/Judaism/etc bashing by Creedo · · Score: 1

    Didn't mean it that way, it just seemed like a nice springboard quote to give me a chance to say my fill.

    Ah, cool! :)

    --
    All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
  106. Poindexter Hnurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have Christians seen the Dodge logo? Or are cars too simple to admit diabolical contamination? Or too sacred?

  107. People, please, this is a joke! by agoliveira · · Score: 1

    The original post comes from a humor blog and some news outlets, specially abroad, picked up as real.

    --
    Scientia est Potentia
  108. DVL 666 L by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Hmm, I wondered which bastards vandalised my Maserati. I thought it must have been the local chavs, but it seems it was Evangelical Christians all along.

    People told me that vanity plate wasn't a good idea.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  109. Are we being trolled? by mrchoeif · · Score: 1

    Was this just a hoax? I feel like it was done as a joke....

  110. Disappointed by Trogre · · Score: 1

    Here I was hoping to see some kind of acknowledgement by the USB steering committee that the form factor is broken and a resolution to fix it in future revisions.

    Of course I mean this:
    If you're going to design a connector that has to all intents and purposes 180 degree rotational symmetry externally, then for Bilbo's sake give it 180 degree rotational symmetry internally too!

    Or, more simply:
    Since the connector looks like a rectangle from the outside, make it so you can plug it in right-way-up or upside-down and still work. Or key the actual shape of the connector so it's not ambiguous.

    For an example of the former take the Mac Book power connectors. Since the pins are arranged palendromically you can plug it in, pull it out, flip it, plug it in again and it still works. An extreme example is round power connectors as found in most PC laptops. These can be rotated at any angle.

    An example of the latter - Firewire or IEC connectors, that have clear right and wrong orientations.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife