OpenSolaris was an attempt by Sun to throw some sand in the gears of Linux, not to build an open source project. They are doing the same thing with OpenJava.
I mean, who is going to contribute to such a project if (1) Sun engineers keep calling the shots, and (2) anything you contribute needs to be given to Sun so that they can sell it to paying customers?
If Sun were serious about making Solaris and Java open source projects, they'd release them under a single, open source license only. That would probably have to be BSD.
And why not? Solaris was BSD licensed to begin with; it was Sun that made it proprietary.
But you can't use Squeak "just like your Mac or PC (or X11 or NeWS or just about anything else)" without changing the context menu onto the right button.
Well, I think $3m ought to cover that turning the "swapMouseButton" option on by default, with $2.9999m left for all the other stuff.
I'll take your word for that, I quit playing video games on a regular basis... oh, probably about the time my kids started school.
Your loss.
But based on my previous experience that's an awful low bar to beat.
Well, it's the bar that happens to be relevant when the discussion is about whether to give the money to a game developer or Croquet.
I don't particularly like the Croquet interface, and I think it's stupid that they aren't setting the defaults so that people like you and me feel really comfortable with it out of the box. But, in the end, it's trivial to customize and it's a kick-ass gaming, 3D, and development environment compared to just about any other gaming or 3D platform. Just have a look at the abysmal in-game facilities in SL.
They already have NASA Colab and the rest of their islands in SL.
Yes, and whatever they are trying to achieve with these $3m, they can build on top of that and make it better.
Croquet? It's got a user interface from 1976.
You don't know what you're talking about. Squeak uses a user interface and toolkit designed in the 90's that has little to do with the original Smalltalk UI or toolkit. The Squeak UI provides standard scroll bars, titles, and menus. In addition, it provides some new user interface elements that aren't found in any other system; ignore them if you don't need them (and you don't need them if all you want to do with Squeak is use it like your Mac or PC).
Croquet uses a 3D navigation and manipulation, so Squeak's 2D interface doesn't really come into play much.
And whatever "issues" you may have with the Squeak or Croquet interfaces, both of them are far better than the in-game UI disasters that commercial games usually have.
In any case, yes, both the Squeak and the Croquet systems can be made more user friendly for mainstream users and easier to install. $3m from NASA for building a kick-ass multi-player game and environment on top of it would go a long way towards that, while at the same time solving NASA's problem.
I think they should just build something on top of Second Life. With $3m, they can actually do something in SL that's a lot better than other SL effort and they already have a user base. SL pretty much ensures it will be a B-rate experience, but at least it will be that, and it will be a B-rate experience that's better than all the other stuff in SL. And, maybe, NASA could actually get SL to fix some of the awful limitations of that platform.
Another NASA-ish thing to do might be to build something on top of Croquet (www.opencroquet.org)... they'd be supporting a neat platform, and for $3m, they could probably get the Croquet people quite interested and get something better out of it than paying a game company to develop a new MMO from scratch.
I'm sorry, but interesting as Sugar is, it's not what has created all this interest in the OLPC. What has greated the interest is that the OLPC is cheap, has cute hardware, has some really interesting technologies on it, and that its software is fully open and can be modified.
Putting Windows on the OLPC and Sugar on Windows negatively affects many of those issues: it makes the thing more expensive, it eliminates many of the interesting technologies (power management, mesh networking,...), and it doesn't even let the thing be a decent Windows machine. And the only reason to run Windows over Linux is to run Windows applications, and they won't run well and they sure as hell won't integrate with Sugar.
The only thing that might make a tiny amount of sense is to offer Windows Mobile, because you'd actually have a chance of running Windows Mobile apps on the OLPC. But what Windows Mobile apps would be of any interest to an OLPC user? What relevant Windows Mobile apps don't already have superior Linux equivalents available?
I think Negroponte is losing it. Get the passionate, good people back that left and put the OLPC back on track. Forget about Windows.
Ideally, you should use one time passwords when you're on untrusted terminals. Unfortunately, no web E-mail that I know of supports them (if you know of any, please post).
Some services use image-based logins, but some logging software captures images of the context of the mouse, so that doesn't really help.
It's fully open sourced, but it's also dual licensed. That means that Sun will still try to call the shots and set the direction for Java development, and that means that the numerous problems in Java won't get fixed.
But it doesn't matter anymore anyway. Java is what it is at this point, and it's not going to get any better, only more bloated. You either love it or you hate it.
The days of single platform computing and lock-in are over. After Vista and "Plays for Sure", even the most die-hard Microsoft fans must have figured out that betting on all-Microsoft solutions is a sure way to lose.
The N95 release has been delayed much in the US cause the firmware was not stable enough...
It's stable in Europe and Asia and somehow not stable in the US? Get real.
ANd is this one of the Nokia phones with 21 function keys and hierarchical menus that go down to level 9? That what I'd call clunky.
Apple keeps its UI simple by crippling the phone. The Nokia UI isn't intuitive, but it is much more functional than that of the iPhone.
The N95 is available everywhere and since (at least) 12 months, the iPhone is available at one provider and for a mere 6 months.
You're quite right, it's biased: in favor of the iPhone. I was comparing Europe-wide iPhone sales (which means multiple providers) against sales of the N95 in a single country. (I figured you can do the math for the time periods yourself, but I obviously overestimated you.)
As for Apple's choice of going with a single carrier in each country, presumably they did that to maximize profits. Furthermore, that kind of lock-in is another defect of the iPhone, just like lack of 3G or lack of IM, so if it does reduce sales, it is just as relevant as any of the other defects.
It's easy to build distributed, reliable storage that theoretically lasts thousands of years if you assume that you can just keep going down to the corner computer store and buy replacement parts that more or less work like today's parts, that operating systems keep doing what they have always been doing, and that networks keep working the way they always have. But those are bad assumptions.
I use IM on my phone all the time: IM works well with desktop clients, it's faster than SMS or a phone call for short messages, it gives presence notifications, it's cheaper than SMS, and it's not as intrusive as a voice call.
...that I hate Google for their immense privacy violations
I'm sorry, but what are you referring to? You don't have to give them any personal information to use their services. Almost anything is opt-in with Google.
Just about the only thing that's opt-out is their advertising and Google Analytics, but you can opt out of that fairly easily, too; Google doesn't try to track people who don't want to get tracked.
Since when was pretty language a prerequisite for self-control?
No, it's just that lack of the former is an indication of lack of the latter. Is he going to get angry and lose his control if someone actually shines a light in his cockpit? Because it's pilot reaction, not the light or flash blindness itself that would cause the crash. You can be sure that if he "vents" like this in a forum where his employer can identify him, he would be in trouble. And if he vents like this on the plane, you can be sure I would file a complaint about it with his employer and follow up on it. His reaction is unacceptable in a commercial pilot.
And it will stop the sale to the sorts of people who use them offensively because they don't have a lawful excuse. Only industrial and commercial interests do. What legitimate reason does an ordinary person have for owning one of these powerful lasers?
First, the Australian law classes 1-5 mW lasers as "weapons": standard laser pointers that cause no damage and are used in lectures and amateur astronomy. Second, it's the vague manner in which these things are being prohibited ("unless there is a legitimate reason") that's the problem.
The fact is, people are importing more powerful (50 to 200mW) lasers and are pointing them in the sky. The fact that they are already regulated doesnt help - the police need a a way to get it off you if they suspect something. Classing them as a weapon if you dont have a good reason is a great way to do that.
How does classing laser pointers help protect people against illegally imported 50mW lasers? Class 3a laser pointers are 1-5 mW. They have many legitimate uses and you can't realistically damage people's eyes with them.
Classing them as a weapon if you dont have a good reason is a great way to do that.
No, it is not. Anything as vague as "if you don't have a good reason" is not acceptable in laws because it gives way too much power to police and judges. The law should spell out what those legitimate reasons are and means of establishing those reasons.
I'm extremely happy for them to ban these things if it stops morons
But they aren't banning them.
The fact that there have been coordinated attacks is also evidence that it is more than an incidental problem.
And this law isn't addressing that problem.
from blinding my pilot on final approach.
Using the word "blinding" is such loaded and inaccurate language. This is at most the same kind of "blinding" that you get when you suddenly step from sunlight into a dark room, nothing more. Sure, it would be better if it didn't happen, but it would take other, exceptional circumstances if that causes a plane to crash.
I fly a lot, and on my list of things to worry about this is far, far below drunken pilots and bad maintenance.
That's bullshit. Laser pointers have a few mW power (more powerful lasers are already regulated); they don't cause blindness even at short range, let alone at a distance of hundreds of feet when pointed at a moving plane with a pilot with normal blink reflexes. You really have to work hard to produce any kind of damage with a laser pointer.
To be honest this law isn't going to change much, because the problem is they don't know who these morons are
So, you agree it's an ineffective law.
however this should at least stop the sale of the types of lasers which are capable of being used offensively.
No, if it were to stop the sale, then it would say so. It won't stop the sale because people have legitimate reasons for using them.
As an Australian Commercial pilot I have been victim to these laser attacks before around the Melbourne area. How the fuck are we meant to deal with them?
I think you shouldn't deal with them at all. You evidently have a problem with self control and foul language and you have no business sitting in the cockpit of a plane.
These incidents are, overall, extremely rare. In-flight they are not an issue at all. Furthermore, pilots better be able to deal with them, since there are lots of other sources of bright light that may cause them to be temporarily blinded (or experience the "photic sneeze").
If lawmakers are just itching to make a new law, make it a specific law that says that it's illegal to carry a laser pointer on your person, outdoors, within 2 miles of the runway, where it could be pointed at planes taking off or landing.
No, I don't believe in cooperative ventures with the Catholic Church and, among those I worship with (whose members can claim some level of persecution from Catholic authorities--Transylvanian history ain't pretty), many would be quick to rebuke anyone who tried.
I didn't say that you engaged in "cooperative ventures". I was saying that there are many positions on which your church (and presumably you) agree with the Catholics. The two churches were together for a 1000 years after all.
Actually, no. The Orthodox Church doesn't support faith by argumentation in the same way as the Roman Catholic scholastic tradition.
But you apparently do.
Orthodox theology is essentially apophatic
There is nothing incompatible about apophasis and logical argumentation; in fact, many formal logical arguments wouldn't work any other way. However, for a supposedly apophatic church, the Orthodox Church sure makes a lot of strong assertions about the nature of God, mankind, creation, and the afterlife.
My original point remains: your attempt to turn this into an atheist/Christian dichotomy was unfounded and not relevant. I have given several examples of people getting into trouble for criticizing Islam in another posting, and if you look at laws in Europe, there are several nations (e.g., Germany) that quite unapologetically restrict free speech that could offend large religious groups merely on the basis of whether those groups feel offended.
I'm not Catholic and in fact myself belong to a church that has some major issues with them.
So? The strategy to deflect criticism of branches of Christianity by turning it into a faithless-atheist-vs-all-of-Christianity isn't limited to Catholics. And although you have "major issues" with Catholicism, in these kinds of matters, you would naturally stick together.
But you're mistaken if you think my conviction (or the conviction of others) that your kind of religion is spiritually and morally wrong is based on some kind of atheistic logic. Quite to the contrary: it is my faith that tells me that religions like yours have the relationship between God and man fundamentally wrong. And it is my faith that tells me that the teachings of churches like yours are immoral, not in the may-I-eat-oysters kind of sense, but in how it misleads people about the nature of creation.
The fact that your Swinburnian Orthodox Christianity also has logical holes big enough to have all of creation fall through is really secondary. The reason why people like you get a lot of non-faith-based arguments isn't because other people lack faith, it's because because you have chosen a form of religion that attempts to support faith by pseudo-rational arguments about the existence of God and cost/benefit analyses.
You are sort of missing a crucial aspect of all this.
No, I'm afraid you are.
The wast majority of Christians does not realize that their beliefs are made up bullshit. They think hell is real. So, they are not promoting torturing gays or anything. They just think that they are going to hell.
First of all, please stop using Christians and Catholics interchangeably. We're talking about Catholics, not Christians. Christians as a whole are a much more diverse group, and many forms of Christianity have rejected the hateful aspects of Catholic doctrine.
Now, it's not about what individual Catholics are "promoting". In fact, I think the vast majority of Catholics don't follow Catholic doctrine because they are nicer and better people than that. And Catholic clerics do their hardest to paper over the more hateful parts of Catholic doctrine because they'd be in real trouble if they were clear about it.
But we're talking about Catholic doctrine itself, a doctrine that effectively states that the vast majority of humans on this planet are going to suffer eternal torment in hell. That is dehumanizing and hateful, no matter how much the vast majority of Catholics try to be nice despite such a doctrinal foundation.
Slashdot Mirror
OpenSolaris was an attempt by Sun to throw some sand in the gears of Linux, not to build an open source project. They are doing the same thing with OpenJava.
I mean, who is going to contribute to such a project if (1) Sun engineers keep calling the shots, and (2) anything you contribute needs to be given to Sun so that they can sell it to paying customers?
If Sun were serious about making Solaris and Java open source projects, they'd release them under a single, open source license only. That would probably have to be BSD.
And why not? Solaris was BSD licensed to begin with; it was Sun that made it proprietary.
Generally, Hairy... I mean Hardy Heron seems like a good release. There are two issues I have come across...
First, a couple of packages messed up the upgrade, so I ended up doing a fresh install.
Second, Firefox 3 Beta has been an issue for me because some of the extensions I need haven't yet been upgraded.
I don't think enough people actively play SL to make it worthwhile.
Sadly, that's probably a lot more than those who would bother downloading a NASA MMO...
But you can't use Squeak "just like your Mac or PC (or X11 or NeWS or just about anything else)" without changing the context menu onto the right button.
Well, I think $3m ought to cover that turning the "swapMouseButton" option on by default, with $2.9999m left for all the other stuff.
I'll take your word for that, I quit playing video games on a regular basis... oh, probably about the time my kids started school.
Your loss.
But based on my previous experience that's an awful low bar to beat.
Well, it's the bar that happens to be relevant when the discussion is about whether to give the money to a game developer or Croquet.
I don't particularly like the Croquet interface, and I think it's stupid that they aren't setting the defaults so that people like you and me feel really comfortable with it out of the box. But, in the end, it's trivial to customize and it's a kick-ass gaming, 3D, and development environment compared to just about any other gaming or 3D platform. Just have a look at the abysmal in-game facilities in SL.
They already have NASA Colab and the rest of their islands in SL.
Yes, and whatever they are trying to achieve with these $3m, they can build on top of that and make it better.
Croquet? It's got a user interface from 1976.
You don't know what you're talking about. Squeak uses a user interface and toolkit designed in the 90's that has little to do with the original Smalltalk UI or toolkit. The Squeak UI provides standard scroll bars, titles, and menus. In addition, it provides some new user interface elements that aren't found in any other system; ignore them if you don't need them (and you don't need them if all you want to do with Squeak is use it like your Mac or PC).
Croquet uses a 3D navigation and manipulation, so Squeak's 2D interface doesn't really come into play much.
And whatever "issues" you may have with the Squeak or Croquet interfaces, both of them are far better than the in-game UI disasters that commercial games usually have.
In any case, yes, both the Squeak and the Croquet systems can be made more user friendly for mainstream users and easier to install. $3m from NASA for building a kick-ass multi-player game and environment on top of it would go a long way towards that, while at the same time solving NASA's problem.
I think they should just build something on top of Second Life. With $3m, they can actually do something in SL that's a lot better than other SL effort and they already have a user base. SL pretty much ensures it will be a B-rate experience, but at least it will be that, and it will be a B-rate experience that's better than all the other stuff in SL. And, maybe, NASA could actually get SL to fix some of the awful limitations of that platform.
Another NASA-ish thing to do might be to build something on top of Croquet (www.opencroquet.org)... they'd be supporting a neat platform, and for $3m, they could probably get the Croquet people quite interested and get something better out of it than paying a game company to develop a new MMO from scratch.
I'm sorry, but interesting as Sugar is, it's not what has created all this interest in the OLPC. What has greated the interest is that the OLPC is cheap, has cute hardware, has some really interesting technologies on it, and that its software is fully open and can be modified.
...), and it doesn't even let the thing be a decent Windows machine. And the only reason to run Windows over Linux is to run Windows applications, and they won't run well and they sure as hell won't integrate with Sugar.
Putting Windows on the OLPC and Sugar on Windows negatively affects many of those issues: it makes the thing more expensive, it eliminates many of the interesting technologies (power management, mesh networking,
The only thing that might make a tiny amount of sense is to offer Windows Mobile, because you'd actually have a chance of running Windows Mobile apps on the OLPC. But what Windows Mobile apps would be of any interest to an OLPC user? What relevant Windows Mobile apps don't already have superior Linux equivalents available?
I think Negroponte is losing it. Get the passionate, good people back that left and put the OLPC back on track. Forget about Windows.
Ideally, you should use one time passwords when you're on untrusted terminals. Unfortunately, no web E-mail that I know of supports them (if you know of any, please post).
Some services use image-based logins, but some logging software captures images of the context of the mouse, so that doesn't really help.
I would pose the following question to slashdot: how has Java being closed source affected you personally
It's basically meant that Sun had free reign to ruin Java.
and what effects do you see this having in the future?
None. It's too late to fix Java.
It's fully open sourced, but it's also dual licensed. That means that Sun will still try to call the shots and set the direction for Java development, and that means that the numerous problems in Java won't get fixed.
But it doesn't matter anymore anyway. Java is what it is at this point, and it's not going to get any better, only more bloated. You either love it or you hate it.
The days of single platform computing and lock-in are over. After Vista and "Plays for Sure", even the most die-hard Microsoft fans must have figured out that betting on all-Microsoft solutions is a sure way to lose.
The N95 release has been delayed much in the US cause the firmware was not stable enough ...
It's stable in Europe and Asia and somehow not stable in the US? Get real.
ANd is this one of the Nokia phones with 21 function keys and hierarchical menus that go down to level 9? That what I'd call clunky.
Apple keeps its UI simple by crippling the phone. The Nokia UI isn't intuitive, but it is much more functional than that of the iPhone.
The N95 is available everywhere and since (at least) 12 months, the iPhone is available at one provider and for a mere 6 months.
You're quite right, it's biased: in favor of the iPhone. I was comparing Europe-wide iPhone sales (which means multiple providers) against sales of the N95 in a single country. (I figured you can do the math for the time periods yourself, but I obviously overestimated you.)
As for Apple's choice of going with a single carrier in each country, presumably they did that to maximize profits. Furthermore, that kind of lock-in is another defect of the iPhone, just like lack of 3G or lack of IM, so if it does reduce sales, it is just as relevant as any of the other defects.
It's easy to build distributed, reliable storage that theoretically lasts thousands of years if you assume that you can just keep going down to the corner computer store and buy replacement parts that more or less work like today's parts, that operating systems keep doing what they have always been doing, and that networks keep working the way they always have. But those are bad assumptions.
I use IM on my phone all the time: IM works well with desktop clients, it's faster than SMS or a phone call for short messages, it gives presence notifications, it's cheaper than SMS, and it's not as intrusive as a voice call.
...that I hate Google for their immense privacy violations
I'm sorry, but what are you referring to? You don't have to give them any personal information to use their services. Almost anything is opt-in with Google.
Just about the only thing that's opt-out is their advertising and Google Analytics, but you can opt out of that fairly easily, too; Google doesn't try to track people who don't want to get tracked.
Since when was pretty language a prerequisite for self-control?
No, it's just that lack of the former is an indication of lack of the latter. Is he going to get angry and lose his control if someone actually shines a light in his cockpit? Because it's pilot reaction, not the light or flash blindness itself that would cause the crash. You can be sure that if he "vents" like this in a forum where his employer can identify him, he would be in trouble. And if he vents like this on the plane, you can be sure I would file a complaint about it with his employer and follow up on it. His reaction is unacceptable in a commercial pilot.
And it will stop the sale to the sorts of people who use them offensively because they don't have a lawful excuse. Only industrial and commercial interests do. What legitimate reason does an ordinary person have for owning one of these powerful lasers?
First, the Australian law classes 1-5 mW lasers as "weapons": standard laser pointers that cause no damage and are used in lectures and amateur astronomy. Second, it's the vague manner in which these things are being prohibited ("unless there is a legitimate reason") that's the problem.
The fact is, people are importing more powerful (50 to 200mW) lasers and are pointing them in the sky. The fact that they are already regulated doesnt help - the police need a a way to get it off you if they suspect something. Classing them as a weapon if you dont have a good reason is a great way to do that.
How does classing laser pointers help protect people against illegally imported 50mW lasers? Class 3a laser pointers are 1-5 mW. They have many legitimate uses and you can't realistically damage people's eyes with them.
Classing them as a weapon if you dont have a good reason is a great way to do that.
No, it is not. Anything as vague as "if you don't have a good reason" is not acceptable in laws because it gives way too much power to police and judges. The law should spell out what those legitimate reasons are and means of establishing those reasons.
I'm extremely happy for them to ban these things if it stops morons
But they aren't banning them.
The fact that there have been coordinated attacks is also evidence that it is more than an incidental problem.
And this law isn't addressing that problem.
from blinding my pilot on final approach.
Using the word "blinding" is such loaded and inaccurate language. This is at most the same kind of "blinding" that you get when you suddenly step from sunlight into a dark room, nothing more. Sure, it would be better if it didn't happen, but it would take other, exceptional circumstances if that causes a plane to crash.
I fly a lot, and on my list of things to worry about this is far, far below drunken pilots and bad maintenance.
That's bullshit. Laser pointers have a few mW power (more powerful lasers are already regulated); they don't cause blindness even at short range, let alone at a distance of hundreds of feet when pointed at a moving plane with a pilot with normal blink reflexes. You really have to work hard to produce any kind of damage with a laser pointer.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/news2005-rst/2800.html
To be honest this law isn't going to change much, because the problem is they don't know who these morons are
So, you agree it's an ineffective law.
however this should at least stop the sale of the types of lasers which are capable of being used offensively.
No, if it were to stop the sale, then it would say so. It won't stop the sale because people have legitimate reasons for using them.
As an Australian Commercial pilot I have been victim to these laser attacks before around the Melbourne area. How the fuck are we meant to deal with them?
I think you shouldn't deal with them at all. You evidently have a problem with self control and foul language and you have no business sitting in the cockpit of a plane.
Techdirt is reporting that Jon Dudas, head of the US Patent Office, is lamenting the continuing quality drop in patent submissions.
Here's an idea: reject them. Eventually, people will get the message.
If you keep accepting them, you'll keep getting more.
These incidents are, overall, extremely rare. In-flight they are not an issue at all. Furthermore, pilots better be able to deal with them, since there are lots of other sources of bright light that may cause them to be temporarily blinded (or experience the "photic sneeze").
If lawmakers are just itching to make a new law, make it a specific law that says that it's illegal to carry a laser pointer on your person, outdoors, within 2 miles of the runway, where it could be pointed at planes taking off or landing.
No, I don't believe in cooperative ventures with the Catholic Church and, among those I worship with (whose members can claim some level of persecution from Catholic authorities--Transylvanian history ain't pretty), many would be quick to rebuke anyone who tried.
I didn't say that you engaged in "cooperative ventures". I was saying that there are many positions on which your church (and presumably you) agree with the Catholics. The two churches were together for a 1000 years after all.
Actually, no. The Orthodox Church doesn't support faith by argumentation in the same way as the Roman Catholic scholastic tradition.
But you apparently do.
Orthodox theology is essentially apophatic
There is nothing incompatible about apophasis and logical argumentation; in fact, many formal logical arguments wouldn't work any other way. However, for a supposedly apophatic church, the Orthodox Church sure makes a lot of strong assertions about the nature of God, mankind, creation, and the afterlife.
My original point remains: your attempt to turn this into an atheist/Christian dichotomy was unfounded and not relevant. I have given several examples of people getting into trouble for criticizing Islam in another posting, and if you look at laws in Europe, there are several nations (e.g., Germany) that quite unapologetically restrict free speech that could offend large religious groups merely on the basis of whether those groups feel offended.
I'm not Catholic and in fact myself belong to a church that has some major issues with them.
So? The strategy to deflect criticism of branches of Christianity by turning it into a faithless-atheist-vs-all-of-Christianity isn't limited to Catholics. And although you have "major issues" with Catholicism, in these kinds of matters, you would naturally stick together.
But you're mistaken if you think my conviction (or the conviction of others) that your kind of religion is spiritually and morally wrong is based on some kind of atheistic logic. Quite to the contrary: it is my faith that tells me that religions like yours have the relationship between God and man fundamentally wrong. And it is my faith that tells me that the teachings of churches like yours are immoral, not in the may-I-eat-oysters kind of sense, but in how it misleads people about the nature of creation.
The fact that your Swinburnian Orthodox Christianity also has logical holes big enough to have all of creation fall through is really secondary. The reason why people like you get a lot of non-faith-based arguments isn't because other people lack faith, it's because because you have chosen a form of religion that attempts to support faith by pseudo-rational arguments about the existence of God and cost/benefit analyses.
You are sort of missing a crucial aspect of all this.
No, I'm afraid you are.
The wast majority of Christians does not realize that their beliefs are made up bullshit. They think hell is real. So, they are not promoting torturing gays or anything. They just think that they are going to hell.
First of all, please stop using Christians and Catholics interchangeably. We're talking about Catholics, not Christians. Christians as a whole are a much more diverse group, and many forms of Christianity have rejected the hateful aspects of Catholic doctrine.
Now, it's not about what individual Catholics are "promoting". In fact, I think the vast majority of Catholics don't follow Catholic doctrine because they are nicer and better people than that. And Catholic clerics do their hardest to paper over the more hateful parts of Catholic doctrine because they'd be in real trouble if they were clear about it.
But we're talking about Catholic doctrine itself, a doctrine that effectively states that the vast majority of humans on this planet are going to suffer eternal torment in hell. That is dehumanizing and hateful, no matter how much the vast majority of Catholics try to be nice despite such a doctrinal foundation.