has anyone ever used the Tierra artificial life software? I downloaded it years ago; hardly knew what to do with it, as I knew nothing about C.. got it to compile, but it always locked up my 386...
This article piqued my interest in the software again, and I found some info on it, for those interested...
well, I guess it goes kinda well with the following Slashdot article, maybe? If you have an anti-sniffer sniffer, would it maybe stop a bunch of script kiddies who use plain old sniffers with default settings, I guess?
Linux supporters... champions of Open Source... supporters of the GPL...
...Flipping RHAT, selling off your stake in a major milestone (good or bad, this is yet to be determined) within the Linux community.
For what? A few $$$? A lot of $$$? So some stodgy guy in a pinstriped business suit can determine the fate of what might very well be the prototype for future free-software based corporations?
"Yeah, I believe that software should be free. But nevermind that, now that I've made my loads of cash, I don't care about the principles."
Sellouts. Yeah, I guess that's an all too-common term, anymore. But it still stands. If you stand by your principles, then support it by holding onto your stock and having a stake, a true voice in what happens at the company.
If Linux advocates everywhere go on and sell their RHAT shares, wouldn't that be an indication of the true direction of the movement? If you dump your shares, you're dumping your voice, with regards to the future of free software. If you sell out your IPO offers for cash, how can anyone expect to believe that you won't sell out the future of free software?
Granted, this message isn't directed to all of you. Those of you who hold on to your shares, that you might have some voice in the goings-on at RHAT, I applaud you. The rest of you are nothing but flaming hypocrites who don't deserve any say in the future of Linux or free software in the first place.
Every citizen has to be a Secretary of something. When applying for passport, citizen has to choose his Ministry and his officeal title. If the Ministry and/or title exists, citizen has to choose some other Ministry. Secretarial position cannot be above or under any other secretarial position. Correct samples of secretarial titles are: Secretary for Coca-Cola, Secretary of Treasury, Secretary for Mountains, Secretary of Sunset, Secretary for Ducks, Secretary for Fusion, Secretary for Independence, Secretary for Babes, Secretary for Red Star, Secretary for Speed Metal, Secretary for Swimming, and all other examples.
...if that's not an example of bureaucratic explosion waiting to happen, I don't know what is.
Microsoft thinks it's anti-trust troubles are just about over...if they (or AOL for that matter) started to take over in the manner they described, putting countless local ma-n-pa ISP's out of business, I would *hope* the government would step in.
I don't see why. Very few ISPs actually make money through the ISP itself, in the first place, especially small ones; this realization was made a couple years ago. All the competition has already dropped prices to a level where monthly access rates hardly cover the associated costs to run an ISP, hence why most are looking for alternative revenue streams (web design, consulting, banner ads, products, etc).
having the gov't step in to stop AOL/MSFT from essentially shutting down the small handful of "ma and pa" ISPs that might be in the black, would be almost akin to having Pizza Hut broken up into "baby Huts" to keep them from quashing some instance of 'Luigi's pasta palace' in Podunk City, Arkansas.
However, if this actually came at the cost of quality, that's another story. However, it probably wouldn't, as there would likely still be enough local competition in the next eschelon up from "ma-and-pa", who have already moved on to alternative revenue streams to supplement income.
Basically: if you're trying to enter the ISP-only market right now, you're about 2+ years too late in 90% of the US. If you're a "ma-and-pa" ISP who's been around, but haven't yet moved on, you'll probably go down anyway, regardless of MSFT/AOL action.
"What if someone decides to do something you hate with your program, such as make changes that preserve compatibility with prior versions and break compatibility with your latest release, and then spend millions of dollars to promote their version? As long as they're in compliance with your program's license, you couldn't stop them. If a "corporate Linux" can guarantee better release-to-release compatibility, easier installations, and most of all, better usability, then the mainstream users will choose it over the "real Linux" by an overwhelming ratio."
I said something very similar on Slashdot, a few weeks ago.
If redhat^H^H^H^H^H^Hany distribution were to become a "standard", they could exist comfortably, due to the nature of the GPL. Sure, release your code, freely distribute your software -- but strike deals with companies to only guarantee compliance/compatibility with your software. You're still adhering to the GPL, but this still comes at the cost of the linux community as a whole.
Consider this. M$ could easily package a linux distro, distribute it (even packaged) for free. They could port over all the MS-Office apps, etc, and a windows look-and-feel GUI. Before you know it, you would have many companies flocking to M$ to port their apps to MSL, the contract of which would include some sort of exclusivity, while still staying open. At this point MS would again have become some sort of standard, while adhering to the parameters of the GPL. The end question the linux community must ask itself then, is "what has been gained"?
This isn't anti-MS talk, it's the realisation that any "standard" must exist within the linux community itself, and not with a corporation which has the power to srike exclusivity deals. This said (again), the whole Redhat situation will continue to concern me for some time...
No, the note does not say there is a specific "magic bullet".
Read this again, children....
"For this testing, we are intentionally not putting these machines behind a firewall. This means that you could slow these machines down by tossing millions of random packets at them if you have enough bandwidth on your end. If that happens, we will simply start filtering traffic. Instead, find the interesting "magic bullet" that will bring the machine down."
In other words "DoS attacks don't count. Perform a real security hack, not some little script kiddy prank"
uh, d00dz and kiddi3z, they announced this earlier...around 9:55 Pacific time, a message was posted regarding something to the effect of "because of the obscene nature of this board, it will be shut down in one hour".
hmmm, that is strange. In any case, the book was Visions of Jazz, by Gary Giddins, heh.
let's try this again. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/019507675 3/o/qid=933619455/sr=8-1/002-5558908-28014 46
hyperlink ...interesting, the hyperlink gets converted during the preview, and strange spaces are being inserted into the non-linked url.
Oh well, try this address (it killed the barnes and noble url, too) http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnIn quiry.asp?pcount=0&srefer=&isbn=0195076753
(of course, I do realise this is probably more info than you even wanted.)
I think your insights would be more correct if RedHat was relying on its distribution as their main source of revenue. They claim to make their money off services(support and whatnot). This is a model Wall Street understands (look at IBM, for instance). If RedHat poo-poos the distribution as a clever advertising tool, I believe Wall Street will be more inclined to let it go.
That's my point though. If RedHat makes deals with software companies who in turn only offer support or guarantee their installation will work with a RedHat distribution (we've all seen the evidence of this), Redhat will indeed make their money off of support -- support for the RedHat brand only, thus at the expense of the rest of the Linux community.
Again, who really cares if RedHat allows their distro to be freely released? RedHat won't, if they can still sleep comfortably knowing that they'll get their millions, if theirs is the only distro for which the myriad of software suites will be guaranteed... and what good, then, does that do for the Linux movement -- or users -- in the end?
In just a few short weeks, Redhat Software will release its IPO, as it begins its wild ride on Wall Street. The controversy over this, inherited, to a degree, from the Linux movement itself, will be an interesting soap opera to observe.
To be sure, I have a certain hesitancy towards Redhat's public offering; I don't desire to see Redhat become the de facto standard within the marketplace, which certainly appears to be the case, as of late. Regardless of whether or not software is being written that is designed solely for a Redhat system (we all know the answer to this), the fact nonetheless remains that the public itself is equating the two as one in the same.
Thus comes the issue of the IPO. Shareholders mean control, it's as simple as that. My fears aren't of an imminent Micro$oftabsorption, either; I'm concerned about Joe Q. Stockholder.
I had a conversation with an acquaintance of mine recently, who incidentally, does not use Linux. I told him that I was worried about the Redhat IPO; Should Redhat become a psuedo-standard, coupled with public control, the likelihood is that Redhat would head down the path of proprietary OSes.
His response: "Well, if that's what it would take to see Linux succeed, why are you against it?"
I tried to explain that such would not be a success, in fact it'd be a complete departure from the whole philosophy. If Redhat were to become a standard, what, then has been gained? If I can't run the same application on my debian system at home, if the company can't guarantee that it will work outside a Redhat environment, how is that any better than the current situation?
"But you need a standard of some sort," he replied.
When I told him that the standard exists within the Linux community,development team, and ultimately with Linus, he shook his head.
"Corporations don't work that way, though."
- * -
And thus, there you have it, from the other side... and many others future stockholders like him share the same opinion. And while I don't agree with their goals, I couldn't help but feel he was right. Corporate control eventually becomes proprietary by nature. It's as simple as this:
1. People will use Redhat
2. Redhat will bow to the whim of its stockholders
3. Redhat won't be Linux, it will be whatever stockholders want it to be.
It boils down to Joe Q. Stockholder again. He will invest in Redhat for the money, not for any Linux philosophy. He'll do whatever he can to make Redhat profitable. If that means making exclusivity deals with companies to have them only offer support for Redhat, he'll do it. If that means striking deals to have software packaged exclusively in RPM format, he'll do it. Nevermind that Redhat code can stay freely distributable; If Redhat is can rest assured that third party software/support is available for their distribution, only, how is the end user any better off? In the end, Redhat would end up being Linux by architecture only, not by philosophy.
Come the day of the IPO, you can bet I'd like to get in on it. But you can also bet that money won't be my main objective.
...but I've not seen the answer anywhere; or maybe I've just been blind or something. anyway...
when Moz is finally released, are they going to continue to release the standalone client alongside the communicator? I, for one, have no need for the massive disk bloat of an html editor (still use pico, vi), mail reader (pine), or newsreader (tin). Thus, it would be nice if I could download just the neccessary component...
>>why on earth would they allow >>such a fringe lunacy to associate...
Haven't you heard of that little thing called freedom of speech? One person's fringe is another's mainstream.
The USROA is an organisation. Thus, it would seem to reason that they are fairly unified on certain ideas, beliefs, ethics, etc. To have these people there would make it quite easy for the average joe to rationalize and equate the USROA with such beliefs.
I'm not treading on anyone's right to speech. But I hardly think that the conspiracy theorists speak for the whole of the Association, and am quite surprised that such a collection of characters was brought to speak and/or attend a meeting at this apparently highly-reputable group.
doesn't the US Reserve Officers Organization realize that bringing:
An obviously ultra-partisan representative
A founder of some fringe global paranoia group
A conspiracy (albeit fiction) writer
..together at the same function would only lead to suspicion? I mean, if the USROA is officially sanctioned by the Gov't (as the Wired article would indicate), why on earth would they allow such a fringe lunacy to associate with the name? They're apparently an "eminently repspectable organization". Has the chair of the Org been dipping into the Agent Orange again, or something? Absurdities...
I am a Christian, one with a Bible & Religion minor, at that. From this perspective, I feel safe in saying that the CAP website is flawed from both a spiritual and theological perspective.
First off, this guy is on his spiritual high horse, acting in a pharisaical manner. From a Christian perspective, the old law is dead, because to live by the law is to live in sin. This guy is a prime example of this. By making a livelihood of 'exposing the immoralities' of today's culture, he is searching out, perhaps misinterpreting every little instance of anything that could be considered 'immoral'. But in doing so, he is both immersing himself in it, as well as spending so much time nitpicking that he's forgetting the true meaning of the word. That's exactly what Jesus meant when he talked of the pharisees straining flies and letting through camels.
You've stated that "his "CAP" is trying to provide a Christian perspective of cultural events." This is false. For a prime example, read his review of You've Got Mail and/or 101 Dalmations. In the former, he warns about a man sitting on a woman's bed with her in it (both unmarried)"; in the latter, he states that "we cannot permit elevatation of the dog to human status". Regardless of one's belief in the morality/immorality of either action, it becomes quite obvious that his obsession with finding faults has surpassed his interest in finding and sharing the truth; he is not coming from a Christian perspective.
Furthermore, a perusal of this guy's reviews shows he is speaking from a truly dualist perspective, which is theologically incorrect. The battle of 'good vs. evil', in a cosmological sense, is unbiblical. From a Christian perspective, Evil is not a 'substance' that exists where Good is not, rather it is a virus, a scavenger that exists upon Good. It is a perversion of good; it can't exist on its own.
This said, everything I've read at CAP leads me to believe that this guy is under the impression that if something is not outright Christian, then it is evil. Thus, CAP is theologically incorrect in that perspective. In addition, this assumption that everything non-Christian is evil, puts it at odds with the realisation that everything is ultimately God's creation.
In the end, the CAP Reports are spiritually and theologically flawed. While the guy might have good intentions, to sit and seek out the faults only results in a failure to ultimately understand what Christianity is -- while at the same time, gives the world a false impression of the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
has anyone ever used the Tierra artificial life software? I downloaded it years ago; hardly knew what to do with it, as I knew nothing about C.. got it to compile, but it always locked up my 386...
This article piqued my interest in the software again, and I found some info on it, for those interested...
links:
Web page
FTP Site
Documentation
Rules can be found on this page.
well, I guess it goes kinda well with the following Slashdot article, maybe? If you have an anti-sniffer sniffer, would it maybe stop a bunch of script kiddies who use plain old sniffers with default settings, I guess?
Maybe?
...
Linux supporters...
champions of Open Source...
supporters of the GPL...
...Flipping RHAT, selling off your stake in a major milestone (good or bad, this is yet to be determined) within the Linux community.
For what? A few $$$? A lot of $$$? So some stodgy guy in a pinstriped business suit can determine the fate of what might very well be the prototype for future free-software based corporations?
"Yeah, I believe that software should be free. But nevermind that, now that I've made my loads of cash, I don't care about the principles."
Sellouts. Yeah, I guess that's an all too-common term, anymore. But it still stands. If you stand by your principles, then support it by holding onto your stock and having a stake, a true voice in what happens at the company.
If Linux advocates everywhere go on and sell their RHAT shares, wouldn't that be an indication of the true direction of the movement? If you dump your shares, you're dumping your voice, with regards to the future of free software. If you sell out your IPO offers for cash, how can anyone expect to believe that you won't sell out the future of free software?
Granted, this message isn't directed to all of you. Those of you who hold on to your shares, that you might have some voice in the goings-on at RHAT, I applaud you. The rest of you are nothing but flaming hypocrites who don't deserve any say in the future of Linux or free software in the first place.
...depends on what you're trying to produce.
Every citizen has to be a Secretary of something. When applying for passport, citizen has to choose his Ministry and his officeal title. If the Ministry and/or title exists, citizen has to choose some other Ministry. Secretarial position cannot be above or under any other secretarial position. Correct samples of secretarial titles are: Secretary for Coca-Cola, Secretary of Treasury, Secretary for Mountains, Secretary
of Sunset, Secretary for Ducks, Secretary for Fusion, Secretary for Independence, Secretary for Babes, Secretary for Red Star, Secretary for Speed Metal, Secretary for Swimming, and all other examples.
...if that's not an example of bureaucratic explosion waiting to happen, I don't know what is.
Microsoft thinks it's anti-trust troubles are just about over...if they (or AOL for that matter) started to take over in the manner they described,
putting countless local ma-n-pa ISP's out of business, I would *hope* the government would step in.
I don't see why. Very few ISPs actually make money through the ISP itself, in the first place, especially small ones; this realization was made a couple years ago. All the competition has already dropped prices to a level where monthly access rates hardly cover the associated costs to run an ISP, hence why most are looking for alternative revenue streams (web design, consulting, banner ads, products, etc).
having the gov't step in to stop AOL/MSFT from essentially shutting down the small handful of "ma and pa" ISPs that might be in the black, would be almost akin to having Pizza Hut broken up into "baby Huts" to keep them from quashing some instance of 'Luigi's pasta palace' in Podunk City, Arkansas.
However, if this actually came at the cost of quality, that's another story. However, it probably wouldn't, as there would likely still be enough local competition in the next eschelon up from "ma-and-pa", who have already moved on to alternative revenue streams to supplement income.
Basically: if you're trying to enter the ISP-only market right now, you're about 2+ years too late in 90% of the US. If you're a "ma-and-pa" ISP who's been around, but haven't yet moved on, you'll probably go down anyway, regardless of MSFT/AOL action.
"What if someone decides to do something you hate with your program, such as make changes that preserve compatibility with prior versions and break compatibility with your latest release, and then spend millions of dollars to promote their version? As long as they're in compliance with your program's license, you couldn't stop them. If a "corporate Linux" can guarantee better release-to-release compatibility, easier installations, and most of all, better usability, then the mainstream users will choose it over the "real Linux" by an overwhelming ratio."
I said something very similar on Slashdot, a few weeks ago.
If redhat^H^H^H^H^H^Hany distribution were to become a "standard", they could exist comfortably, due to the nature of the GPL. Sure, release your code, freely distribute your software -- but strike deals with companies to only guarantee compliance/compatibility with your software. You're still adhering to the GPL, but this still comes at the cost of the linux community as a whole.
Consider this. M$ could easily package a linux distro, distribute it (even packaged) for free. They could port over all the MS-Office apps, etc, and a windows look-and-feel GUI. Before you know it, you would have many companies flocking to M$ to port their apps to MSL, the contract of which would include some sort of exclusivity, while still staying open. At this point MS would again have become some sort of standard, while adhering to the parameters of the GPL. The end question the linux community must ask itself then, is "what has been gained"?
This isn't anti-MS talk, it's the realisation that any "standard" must exist within the linux community itself, and not with a corporation which has the power to srike exclusivity deals. This said (again), the whole Redhat situation will continue to concern me for some time...
:As the notes state, there is a magic bullet.
No, the note does not say there is a specific "magic bullet".
Read this again, children....
"For this testing, we are intentionally not putting these machines behind a firewall. This means that you could slow these machines down by tossing millions of random packets at them if you have enough bandwidth on your end. If that happens, we will simply start filtering traffic. Instead, find the interesting "magic bullet" that will bring the machine down."
In other words "DoS attacks don't count. Perform a real security hack, not some little script kiddy prank"
uh, d00dz and kiddi3z, they announced this earlier...around 9:55 Pacific time, a message was posted regarding something to the effect of "because of the obscene nature of this board, it will be shut down in one hour".
You didn't take anything down.
:is it just me, or have hackers* already messed up
:)
:
:*or incompetent Microsoft employees
hey, we already have enough problems with people equating hackers == crackers. let's not start equating M$ Employees with hackers, as well...
Of several people...
picked to live in a cubicle...
and have their lives taped.
...THIRTY DAYS. *New Joisey*
Heh.
In reality, 'thirty-days' is probably the amount of time they're planning to spend online before taking it all and going public.
hmmm, that is strange.
5 3/o/qid=933619455/sr=8-1/002-5558908-28014 46
n quiry.asp?pcount=0&srefer=&isbn=0195076753
In any case, the book was Visions of Jazz, by Gary Giddins, heh.
let's try this again.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/01950767
hyperlink
...interesting, the hyperlink gets converted during the preview, and strange spaces are being inserted into the non-linked url.
Oh well, try this address (it killed the barnes and noble url, too)
http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnI
(of course, I do realise this is probably more info than you even wanted.)
I saw this at Borders the other night; At $22.50, I probably won't buy it (I've already got an expensive hardcover to still read, yet).
;-)
However, you can be sure that I went to the index in the back, and looked up Linux and Linus. Indeed, Linux gets referenced a fair bit.
Looked up Slashdot too, but didn't see any mention
...that this article's correspondent is named "McCarthy".
:)
hehe. before I scrolled down and saw your definitions, I was thinking other things.
:)
s/black/baked/g
they [the market, not e-trade] don't want people jumping in on an IPO and selling off at $50 higher per share, at the end of the day.
thus, from what I've heard, they're pulling together and choosing candidates through their past trading experience.
This said, someone who gets in, and immediately sells off like I mentioned before, runs the risk of getting blacklisted.
yeah...especially considering this little piece of info I learned just recently...
I've been told that, in several places across the US, having a Bob Marley or Grateful Dead sticker on your vehicle is considered 'probable cause'.
If anyone could confirm/deny these claims, I'd apprecate it.
I think your insights would be more correct if RedHat was relying on its distribution as their main source of revenue. They claim to make their money off services(support and whatnot). This is a model Wall Street understands (look at IBM, for instance). If RedHat poo-poos the distribution as a clever advertising tool, I believe Wall Street will be more inclined to let it go.
That's my point though. If RedHat makes deals with software companies who in turn only offer support or guarantee their installation will work with a RedHat distribution (we've all seen the evidence of this), Redhat will indeed make their money off of support -- support for the RedHat brand only, thus at the expense of the rest of the Linux community.
Again, who really cares if RedHat allows their distro to be freely released? RedHat won't, if they can still sleep comfortably knowing that they'll get their millions, if theirs is the only distro for which the myriad of software suites will be guaranteed... and what good, then, does that do for the Linux movement -- or users -- in the end?
inherited, to a degree, from the Linux movement itself, will be an interesting soap opera to observe.
To be sure, I have a certain hesitancy towards Redhat's public offering; I don't desire to see Redhat become the de facto standard within the marketplace, which certainly appears to be the case, as of late. Regardless of whether or not software is being written that is designed
solely for a Redhat system (we all know the answer to this), the fact nonetheless remains that the public itself is equating the two as one in
the same.
Thus comes the issue of the IPO. Shareholders mean control, it's as simple as that. My fears aren't of an imminent Micro$oftabsorption, either; I'm concerned about Joe Q. Stockholder.
I had a conversation with an acquaintance of mine recently, who incidentally, does not use Linux. I told him that I was worried about the Redhat IPO; Should Redhat become a psuedo-standard, coupled with public control, the likelihood is that Redhat would head down the path of proprietary OSes.
His response: "Well, if that's what it would take to see Linux succeed, why are you against it?"
I tried to explain that such would not be a success, in fact it'd be a complete departure from the whole philosophy. If Redhat were to become a
standard, what, then has been gained? If I can't run the same application on my debian system at home, if the company can't guarantee that it will
work outside a Redhat environment, how is that any better than the current situation?
"But you need a standard of some sort," he replied.
When I told him that the standard exists within the Linux community,development team, and ultimately with Linus, he shook his head.
"Corporations don't work that way, though."
- * -
And thus, there you have it, from the other side... and many others future stockholders like him share the same opinion. And while I
don't agree with their goals, I couldn't help but feel he was right. Corporate control eventually becomes proprietary by nature.
It's as simple as this:
1. People will use Redhat
2. Redhat will bow to the whim of its stockholders
3. Redhat won't be Linux, it will be whatever stockholders want it to be.
It boils down to Joe Q. Stockholder again. He will invest in Redhat for the money, not for any Linux philosophy. He'll do whatever he can to
make Redhat profitable. If that means making exclusivity deals with companies to have them only offer support for Redhat, he'll do it. If
that means striking deals to have software packaged exclusively in RPM format, he'll do it. Nevermind that Redhat code can stay freely
distributable; If Redhat is can rest assured that third party software/support is available for their distribution, only, how is the end
user any better off? In the end, Redhat would end up being Linux by architecture only, not by philosophy.
Come the day of the IPO, you can bet I'd like to get in on it. But you can also bet that money won't be my main objective.
...but I've not seen the answer anywhere; or maybe I've just been blind or something. anyway...
when Moz is finally released, are they going to continue to release the standalone client alongside the communicator? I, for one, have no need for the massive disk bloat of an html editor (still use pico, vi), mail reader (pine), or newsreader (tin). Thus, it would be nice if I could download just the neccessary component...
thanks.
>>why on earth would they allow
>>such a fringe lunacy to associate...
Haven't you heard of that little thing called freedom of speech? One person's fringe is another's mainstream.
The USROA is an organisation. Thus, it would seem to reason that they are fairly unified on certain ideas, beliefs, ethics, etc. To have these people there would make it quite easy for the average joe to rationalize and equate the USROA with such beliefs.
I'm not treading on anyone's right to speech. But I hardly think that the conspiracy theorists speak for the whole of the Association, and am quite surprised that such a collection of characters was brought to speak and/or attend a meeting at this apparently highly-reputable group.
An obviously ultra-partisan representative
A founder of some fringe global paranoia group
A conspiracy (albeit fiction) writer
..together at the same function would only lead to suspicion? I mean, if the USROA is officially sanctioned by the Gov't (as the Wired article would indicate), why on earth would they allow such a fringe lunacy to associate with the name? They're apparently an "eminently repspectable organization". Has the chair of the Org been dipping into the Agent Orange again, or something? Absurdities...
Linux has grown quickly, mostly at the expense of other Unix operating systems
:)
...do I win the cookie? Do I? Do I?
I am a Christian, one with a Bible & Religion minor, at that. From this perspective, I feel safe in saying that the CAP website is flawed from both a spiritual and theological perspective.
First off, this guy is on his spiritual high horse, acting in a pharisaical manner. From a Christian perspective, the old law is dead, because to live by the law is to live in sin. This guy is a prime example of this. By making a livelihood of 'exposing the immoralities' of today's culture, he is searching out, perhaps misinterpreting every little instance of anything that could be considered 'immoral'. But in doing so, he is both immersing himself in it, as well as spending so much time nitpicking that he's forgetting the true meaning of the word. That's exactly what Jesus meant when he talked of the pharisees straining flies and letting through camels.
You've stated that "his "CAP" is trying to provide a Christian perspective of cultural events." This is false. For a prime example, read his review of You've Got Mail and/or 101 Dalmations . In the former, he warns about a man sitting on a woman's bed with her in it (both unmarried)"; in the latter, he states that "we cannot permit elevatation of the dog to human status". Regardless of one's belief in the morality/immorality of either action, it becomes quite obvious that his obsession with finding faults has surpassed his interest in finding and sharing the truth; he is not coming from a Christian perspective.
Furthermore, a perusal of this guy's reviews shows he is speaking from a truly dualist perspective, which is theologically incorrect. The battle of 'good vs. evil', in a cosmological sense, is unbiblical. From a Christian perspective, Evil is not a 'substance' that exists where Good is not, rather it is a virus, a scavenger that exists upon Good. It is a perversion of good; it can't exist on its own.
This said, everything I've read at CAP leads me to believe that this guy is under the impression that if something is not outright Christian, then it is evil. Thus, CAP is theologically incorrect in that perspective. In addition, this assumption that everything non-Christian is evil, puts it at odds with the realisation that everything is ultimately God's creation.
In the end, the CAP Reports are spiritually and theologically flawed. While the guy might have good intentions, to sit and seek out the faults only results in a failure to ultimately understand what Christianity is -- while at the same time, gives the world a false impression of the same thing.