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.
secsy
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 :)
Probably from Poseidon.
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.
Your brain is not a computer.
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. :)
[citation needed]
The creator of symbol says nothing about it representing evil, and the circle representing imprisioning it.
Despair, not evil.
Dilbert RSS feed
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...
Most of the Pantheon shows up in the devil. Don't forget Prometheus, the light bringer (aka Lucifer).
Support SETI@home
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
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.