Lets change the argument to something more accurate: alcoholism. There are people born with a hereditary disposition to it. Would you argue that, because that's "who they are", they should become alcoholics? This isn't a simple question about preference; this is a question about morality. Whether or not you think religion is man-made has no difference in this scenario. There are several things wrong with homosexuality, and it is not simply limited to "ascribing my views to an unknowable deity". Regardless, I believe that He is, I believe, knowable and you are not in a position to judge that. That's called faith, not bigotry.
if you are born with the orientation to view members of your own sex as sexual objects, then you are who you are, and as long as what happens is between consenting adults, there is no crime committed, legally or spiritually
I love how you think you have the religious authority to tell me what is considered sinful or not. And I believe that if you were in the Middle East right now, you'd find that it isn't quite "legal" over there... Legality has nothing to do with it. Morality does, though.
i will respect no religious organization that is so caught up in mumbo jumbo that it thinks it has a right to tell people to deny themselves who they are.
You wouldn't argue that someone with a hereditary disposition to alcoholism should become and alcoholic, right? That's what I thought...
pedophile priests
Which the Church has been trying to take care of and officially disapproves of. Even if they didn't disapprove of pedophile priests, what good reason would they have to randomly molest children around the world? It sounds a little far-fetched, doesn't it?
helping spread AIDS in africa by telling people not to use condoms
Condoms don't help at all. The entire point of condoms is so you can have sex without getting pregnant, and you can get AIDS orally if I'm not mistaken. The answer isn't condoms but sexual self-control. Handing out condoms would deny the life-giving aspect of sexuality that God put in it since the beginning of sexuality itself, therefore being sinful. Those with AIDS are called to live lives of Chastity, as are homosexuals. We're not animals; we don't have to act on our desires all of the time.
continuing to population time bombs like in the philippines by denying people a right to family planning
Ever hear of Natural Family Planning? That's abstaining from sex when you're most fertile to minimize the risk of pregnancy. We have self-control, don't we? If you don't want kids, just don't have sex! Is it really that hard?
if jesus christ were alive today, compassionate man he was, he would be speaking out against the catholic church as an abomination of his beliefs
You may be right that he'd criticize some of the things that happen within the Church, but He certainly wouldn't criticize their policies and doctrines because they've been virtually the same since the very beginning of Christianity itself. Extremely large citation needed on your part.
what the bleep do these people know about human sexuality and why should we listen to their ideas about it, considering they have no experience with it
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that anybody with a decent education should know that you don't have to have sex to know all about it... That should have been obvious.
the catholic church really needs to shut up about any and all issues having to deal with human sexuality. it can't seem to do anything on that subject matter except cause evil in the world
Like you and your illogical Church-bashing, as I've pointed out above?
Sorry, that's all just bigotry with a load of after-the-fact bluster on top of it, as an attempt at justification.
The definition of bigot is very broad, and it appears that you misunderstand it. With your definition of bigotry, I could call you a bigot for disliking pepperoni on pizza (even if you had good reasons). What the definition really means is that bigots are people who don't listen to reason or argument at all and stick to their opinions like glue. I believe I showed very clearly that I know every single "pro-LGBT" argument very well. Am I not allowed to dislike what I personally feel is disgusting? Homosexual attraction is natural sometimes, yes; acting on those attractions, as I said, is a totally different thing. Calling it "sinful" isn't bigotry either, and I believe I could say that you (or other LGBT-supporters) are bigots for not listening to me and my logic/reason.
You are allowed to disagree with the Pope, and you can still call yourself a Catholic if you like.
It's not "The Pope", but "The Church". I agree with the Church completely and I don't see why I wouldn't as they're one of the most logical and reasonable religions on the planet (as far as I've seen).
The color of your skin/eyes/hair at birth, as well as your gender, you don't chose at all and it's very well understood that you don't choose that (though it's possible to change somewhat). Even if people are born with homosexual attraction (which seems rather unscientific to me), that doesn't change the fact that it can be supressed because humans are much smarter than animals that only act on instinct.
No, Taco has it right -- the vast majority of evidence on the topic supports the statement that homosexuality in a person cannot be altered
It most certainly can be. Even if not, it can always be supressed. You wouldn't suggest that someone with a hereditary disposition to alcoholism become an alcoholic, would you? Then what difference does it make with homosexuality? As I said, if you have homosexual tendencies the Church says you're called to Chastity because of how hard it is to ignore your preferences. They know that some people find it very hard to change or ignore their preferences and simply having homosexual tendencies isn't sintul; acting upon them, and thereby showing little sexual self-control, is.
I don't think Apple should have banned it: they should have just packaged it with an App to cure Bigotry.
Well thank you, Taco, for calling everybody who doesn't approve of homosexuality a bigot. Have you, or any of the other homosexuality-supporters, ever considered that there are more than two sides to this? You don't have to fully 100% approve or disaprove of homosexuality, and as a Catholic I take offense when being labled as one of them.
The Catholic Church knows that there's a difference between homosexual attraction and homosexual acts, something that many people on "both" sides often forget. Homosexual attraction, like any other kind of sexual preference, is influenced by a variety of factors; most important of all of those factors is conditioning (like, allowing/encouraging yourself to think homosexual thoughts, or hanging around with homosexuals, for example). Some people can't help that they have homosexual attractions and I completely understand that, as does the Catholic Church believe it or not. The difference though with the Catholic opinion is that we believe that people who experience severe homosexual attraction are called to chastity. And no, that's not "supressing your desires" like most anti-Catholic people make it sound like. Self-control is never a bad thing, last I checked.
The Catholic Church doesn't approve of homosexuality, but not for the reasons that many think. Many pro-LGBT people with misunderstandings of the Catholic religion (such as lumping it together with all of the other Christian faiths) think that it's just "forbidden" and "sinful" and an "abomination" for little reason, while the real reason why it's sinful to the Church is that it denies the life-giving aspect of sexuality entirely. For more information, read any of the many books or articles out there summarizing Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body; the Catholic Church's opinion on sexuality is a lot more reasonable than many people make it sound like.
Yes, I've heard there's a "g-spot" "in there" (cough), and I know that animals engage in homosexual behaviors. Animals do lots of things that aren't socially acceptable (killing, flinging poo, not wearing clothing... I could go on for pages). The mere existence of all of these doesn't change the fact that I'm allowed to have an opinion about sticking reproductive organs into germ-infested digestive tracts for little reason besides pleasure. There are "bigots" out there like WBC, but please don't label the Catholic Church (whether or not you were) as one of them. I hope I've made sense explaining the Catholic position...
Why thank you for lumping all of us religious folk into one big, stereotypical group without any logic or reason behind it. That is so logical of you. There certainly aren't any religious people who follow science such as Evolution. And do you know why that is? Because, obviously, the entire idea of religion can never be compatible with science at all...
If it wasn't obvious to you, I was sarcastic. I'm a science-following Catholic and science doesn't get in the way of my beliefs one bit. I know all about Evolution, how some animals have homosexual behaviors, and that doesn't change my opinion of God. The mere existence of multiple religions is not enough to disprove it entirely, you know, and doing that is incredibly illogical.
Re:How to restore the older tabs look:
on
Firefox 4 Released!
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I don't understand why people don't like their tabs on top. I like it, and there's quite a few good reasons for them to be on top (such as how the buttons like back and forward only modify what's on the current tab, making the buttons appear to be directly connected to the tab). The only reason I can think of off the top of my head for keeping the tabs on the bottom is just a resistance to change or not being used to the new behavior, which I completely understand. Insisting that it's "where they belong", though, is just nonsense.
First of all, I love the "AwfulBar". It works a lot better than the older bar to me. If you, for some reason, absolutely cannot use the new location bar, you do know that an Add-on to fix it is only a quick search away, right?
Presentation only: OldBar Presentation and features: (not marked compatible with Firefox 4, though you can force add-on compatability) Old Location Bar
I don't see how the new location bar is so bad. I love it! Yeah it takes up more space, but that's what scrolling is for;)
Yet it is posed as such. Especially when something is questioned you get the response: "It says so in the bible and because bible is always true then it is so."
By Protestants, who basically took the Bible, removed books from it, and claimed that it alone is the sole rule of faith, which completely ignores several hundred years of Catholic history. Saying that the Bible is the sole rule of faith is like saying that a video game manual is the only reliable resource for information on a video game, how to play it, secrets and whatnot. The New Testament, as well as the modern Old Testament, was arranged and preserved by the Catholic Church itself, therefore taking an incomplete version of the Bible and claiming (with no good reason) that it's the sole rule of faith is just illogical.
Really? I quite happen to enjoy being on the receiving side.
And doesn't the bible anyways tell one must not lie? Isn't it also a form of lying to know that you're homosexual deep inside but try to pose as a heterosexual person, both to yourself and possible partners and outside society? Ergo, wouldn't it be against the bible, too? It's something that has always bothered me. Then again, bible has lots of things that get contradicted by the very same book they're in..
The Bible isn't meant to be the sole rule of faith. Also, you're taking that out of context. Yes it's wrong to lie, and yes it's wrong to lie about not being a homosexual. However, that doesn't make homosexuality okay. It perverts the entire point of there being a difference between man and woman in the first place (plus sticking a reproductive organ into a digestive tract is just disgusting for so many reasons).
...But I think this app deserves to stay. Why? Because homosexuality is nothing more than a preference, a preference that some people clearly don't like. You can't force people to not download the app because you disagree with it's position. That's the whole point of free speech. IF the people who approve of homosexuality don't like the app, just don't download it! It's that simple! You can't force people to subscribe to your view of the world by making them approve of homosexuality, and likewise you can't prevent people from disagreeing.
In a completely unrelated point, I find homosexuality disgusting for various reasons; plus, I'm a Catholic and have religious beliefs about sexuality. That has nothing to do with my opinion of the application though (I don't plan on downloading it), so please don't respond criticizing my beliefs and preferences.
Don't blame the lack of DirectX for the lack of games on Linux. OpenGL works just fine on it, as it does on Windows.
I completely agree! I have World of Goo, Braid, Osmos, Penumbra, Nexuiz/Xonotic, NetHack (of course), Scorched 3D, Battle for Wesnoth (get it, it's awesome), emulators for pretty much every console on the planet except the really powerful ones, and also a ton of games in Wine (Civilization IV with no DRM, pretty much every one of Telltale's adventure games, Baldur's Gate, Psychonauts, Portal/HL2) and they all work perfectly (in fact, sometimes better than on my Windows XP partition). OpenGL is more than what most games need to work properly. DirectX certainly isn't needed, and the lack of games is simply because of a lack of popular support (though I've found that nearly every Linux junkie I know is a gamer... hmm...).
VNC is more or less just a video stream with input controls, while GTK+ 3.2 is an interface toolkit. This not only uses less bandwidth for the typical "remote desktop" scenario, but it also can be used for entirely different purposes, such as a web application or an interface to a remote application. They're two totally different things.
No, I mean, say you own a social website in the USA, and that this "right to be forgotten" only applies in Europe mostly. Someone wants to be "forgotten" in Europe; does that mean that you, as an American, have to remove their data from your site even though there's no legal pressure to do so?
As nice this may or may not be for some people, I'm pretty sure that it's next-to-impossible to be "forgotten" online unless you never posted or shared any content anywhere (or never even went online). Data doesn't have a collective "off switch" that you can just flip to delete everything everywhere relating to a certain person. Computers don't work like that at all (and while it's technically possible, have fun forcing every other person in the world to comply with it).
...I honestly don't mind this one. I mean, almost all of AT&T's DSL customers get only 1.5Mb/s or 3Mb/s down (I get the latter). IF I was watching an 80 minute movie on Netflix, that is approximately, at the very very most, 1440000KiB (about 1.37GiB). I'm not going to watch the equivalent (or close to the equivalent) of 100 80-minute movies streaming in a month, no way. I still wish that they wouldn't use caps, but this one I can deal with. If I was constantly using Bittorrent, though... not so much.
Is it really this hard for/. editors to use the handy little search function this site provides and see if a story is a dupe? This story was even posted two days ago (albeit on a different website but it's pretty much the same thing).
Slashdot Mirror
I believe that He is, I believe
Pardon my bad grammar; I accidentally put that in there without checking my comment over. My mistake.
Lets change the argument to something more accurate: alcoholism. There are people born with a hereditary disposition to it. Would you argue that, because that's "who they are", they should become alcoholics? This isn't a simple question about preference; this is a question about morality. Whether or not you think religion is man-made has no difference in this scenario. There are several things wrong with homosexuality, and it is not simply limited to "ascribing my views to an unknowable deity". Regardless, I believe that He is, I believe, knowable and you are not in a position to judge that. That's called faith, not bigotry.
if you are born with the orientation to view members of your own sex as sexual objects, then you are who you are, and as long as what happens is between consenting adults, there is no crime committed, legally or spiritually
I love how you think you have the religious authority to tell me what is considered sinful or not. And I believe that if you were in the Middle East right now, you'd find that it isn't quite "legal" over there... Legality has nothing to do with it. Morality does, though.
i will respect no religious organization that is so caught up in mumbo jumbo that it thinks it has a right to tell people to deny themselves who they are.
You wouldn't argue that someone with a hereditary disposition to alcoholism should become and alcoholic, right? That's what I thought...
pedophile priests
Which the Church has been trying to take care of and officially disapproves of. Even if they didn't disapprove of pedophile priests, what good reason would they have to randomly molest children around the world? It sounds a little far-fetched, doesn't it?
helping spread AIDS in africa by telling people not to use condoms
Condoms don't help at all. The entire point of condoms is so you can have sex without getting pregnant, and you can get AIDS orally if I'm not mistaken. The answer isn't condoms but sexual self-control. Handing out condoms would deny the life-giving aspect of sexuality that God put in it since the beginning of sexuality itself, therefore being sinful. Those with AIDS are called to live lives of Chastity, as are homosexuals. We're not animals; we don't have to act on our desires all of the time.
continuing to population time bombs like in the philippines by denying people a right to family planning
Ever hear of Natural Family Planning? That's abstaining from sex when you're most fertile to minimize the risk of pregnancy. We have self-control, don't we? If you don't want kids, just don't have sex! Is it really that hard?
if jesus christ were alive today, compassionate man he was, he would be speaking out against the catholic church as an abomination of his beliefs
You may be right that he'd criticize some of the things that happen within the Church, but He certainly wouldn't criticize their policies and doctrines because they've been virtually the same since the very beginning of Christianity itself. Extremely large citation needed on your part.
what the bleep do these people know about human sexuality and why should we listen to their ideas about it, considering they have no experience with it
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that anybody with a decent education should know that you don't have to have sex to know all about it... That should have been obvious.
the catholic church really needs to shut up about any and all issues having to deal with human sexuality. it can't seem to do anything on that subject matter except cause evil in the world
Like you and your illogical Church-bashing, as I've pointed out above?
Sorry, that's all just bigotry with a load of after-the-fact bluster on top of it, as an attempt at justification.
The definition of bigot is very broad, and it appears that you misunderstand it. With your definition of bigotry, I could call you a bigot for disliking pepperoni on pizza (even if you had good reasons). What the definition really means is that bigots are people who don't listen to reason or argument at all and stick to their opinions like glue. I believe I showed very clearly that I know every single "pro-LGBT" argument very well. Am I not allowed to dislike what I personally feel is disgusting? Homosexual attraction is natural sometimes, yes; acting on those attractions, as I said, is a totally different thing. Calling it "sinful" isn't bigotry either, and I believe I could say that you (or other LGBT-supporters) are bigots for not listening to me and my logic/reason.
You are allowed to disagree with the Pope, and you can still call yourself a Catholic if you like.
It's not "The Pope", but "The Church". I agree with the Church completely and I don't see why I wouldn't as they're one of the most logical and reasonable religions on the planet (as far as I've seen).
The color of your skin/eyes/hair at birth, as well as your gender, you don't chose at all and it's very well understood that you don't choose that (though it's possible to change somewhat). Even if people are born with homosexual attraction (which seems rather unscientific to me), that doesn't change the fact that it can be supressed because humans are much smarter than animals that only act on instinct.
sintul
*sinful. Typo, my bad.
No, Taco has it right -- the vast majority of evidence on the topic supports the statement that homosexuality in a person cannot be altered
It most certainly can be. Even if not, it can always be supressed. You wouldn't suggest that someone with a hereditary disposition to alcoholism become an alcoholic, would you? Then what difference does it make with homosexuality? As I said, if you have homosexual tendencies the Church says you're called to Chastity because of how hard it is to ignore your preferences. They know that some people find it very hard to change or ignore their preferences and simply having homosexual tendencies isn't sintul; acting upon them, and thereby showing little sexual self-control, is.
I don't think Apple should have banned it: they should have just packaged it with an App to cure Bigotry.
Well thank you, Taco, for calling everybody who doesn't approve of homosexuality a bigot. Have you, or any of the other homosexuality-supporters, ever considered that there are more than two sides to this? You don't have to fully 100% approve or disaprove of homosexuality, and as a Catholic I take offense when being labled as one of them.
The Catholic Church knows that there's a difference between homosexual attraction and homosexual acts, something that many people on "both" sides often forget. Homosexual attraction, like any other kind of sexual preference, is influenced by a variety of factors; most important of all of those factors is conditioning (like, allowing/encouraging yourself to think homosexual thoughts, or hanging around with homosexuals, for example). Some people can't help that they have homosexual attractions and I completely understand that, as does the Catholic Church believe it or not. The difference though with the Catholic opinion is that we believe that people who experience severe homosexual attraction are called to chastity. And no, that's not "supressing your desires" like most anti-Catholic people make it sound like. Self-control is never a bad thing, last I checked.
The Catholic Church doesn't approve of homosexuality, but not for the reasons that many think. Many pro-LGBT people with misunderstandings of the Catholic religion (such as lumping it together with all of the other Christian faiths) think that it's just "forbidden" and "sinful" and an "abomination" for little reason, while the real reason why it's sinful to the Church is that it denies the life-giving aspect of sexuality entirely. For more information, read any of the many books or articles out there summarizing Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body; the Catholic Church's opinion on sexuality is a lot more reasonable than many people make it sound like.
Yes, I've heard there's a "g-spot" "in there" (cough), and I know that animals engage in homosexual behaviors. Animals do lots of things that aren't socially acceptable (killing, flinging poo, not wearing clothing... I could go on for pages). The mere existence of all of these doesn't change the fact that I'm allowed to have an opinion about sticking reproductive organs into germ-infested digestive tracts for little reason besides pleasure. There are "bigots" out there like WBC, but please don't label the Catholic Church (whether or not you were) as one of them. I hope I've made sense explaining the Catholic position...
Why thank you for lumping all of us religious folk into one big, stereotypical group without any logic or reason behind it. That is so logical of you. There certainly aren't any religious people who follow science such as Evolution. And do you know why that is? Because, obviously, the entire idea of religion can never be compatible with science at all...
If it wasn't obvious to you, I was sarcastic. I'm a science-following Catholic and science doesn't get in the way of my beliefs one bit. I know all about Evolution, how some animals have homosexual behaviors, and that doesn't change my opinion of God. The mere existence of multiple religions is not enough to disprove it entirely, you know, and doing that is incredibly illogical.
I don't understand why people don't like their tabs on top. I like it, and there's quite a few good reasons for them to be on top (such as how the buttons like back and forward only modify what's on the current tab, making the buttons appear to be directly connected to the tab). The only reason I can think of off the top of my head for keeping the tabs on the bottom is just a resistance to change or not being used to the new behavior, which I completely understand. Insisting that it's "where they belong", though, is just nonsense.
I don't want to search my bookmarks through my url bar. I already have my bookmarks sorted by category.
Simple fix:
1. Preferences
2. Privacy
3. Location Bar
4. Select "History"
5. Install this Add-on (optional)
6. ???
7. Profit!
Ahh, preference menus! What would we ever do without them? ;)
First of all, I love the "AwfulBar". It works a lot better than the older bar to me. If you, for some reason, absolutely cannot use the new location bar, you do know that an Add-on to fix it is only a quick search away, right?
Presentation only: OldBar
Presentation and features: (not marked compatible with Firefox 4, though you can force add-on compatability) Old Location Bar
I don't see how the new location bar is so bad. I love it! Yeah it takes up more space, but that's what scrolling is for ;)
Yet it is posed as such. Especially when something is questioned you get the response: "It says so in the bible and because bible is always true then it is so."
By Protestants, who basically took the Bible, removed books from it, and claimed that it alone is the sole rule of faith, which completely ignores several hundred years of Catholic history. Saying that the Bible is the sole rule of faith is like saying that a video game manual is the only reliable resource for information on a video game, how to play it, secrets and whatnot. The New Testament, as well as the modern Old Testament, was arranged and preserved by the Catholic Church itself, therefore taking an incomplete version of the Bible and claiming (with no good reason) that it's the sole rule of faith is just illogical.
Really? I quite happen to enjoy being on the receiving side.
Bacteria? Heath effects?
And doesn't the bible anyways tell one must not lie? Isn't it also a form of lying to know that you're homosexual deep inside but try to pose as a heterosexual person, both to yourself and possible partners and outside society? Ergo, wouldn't it be against the bible, too? It's something that has always bothered me. Then again, bible has lots of things that get contradicted by the very same book they're in..
The Bible isn't meant to be the sole rule of faith. Also, you're taking that out of context. Yes it's wrong to lie, and yes it's wrong to lie about not being a homosexual. However, that doesn't make homosexuality okay. It perverts the entire point of there being a difference between man and woman in the first place (plus sticking a reproductive organ into a digestive tract is just disgusting for so many reasons).
[citation needed for your entire post]
There is no "gay gene", JSYK. Homosexuality isn't decided like your hair color or eye color and that's scientifically absurd to state.
...But I think this app deserves to stay. Why? Because homosexuality is nothing more than a preference, a preference that some people clearly don't like. You can't force people to not download the app because you disagree with it's position. That's the whole point of free speech. IF the people who approve of homosexuality don't like the app, just don't download it! It's that simple! You can't force people to subscribe to your view of the world by making them approve of homosexuality, and likewise you can't prevent people from disagreeing.
In a completely unrelated point, I find homosexuality disgusting for various reasons; plus, I'm a Catholic and have religious beliefs about sexuality. That has nothing to do with my opinion of the application though (I don't plan on downloading it), so please don't respond criticizing my beliefs and preferences.
Don't blame the lack of DirectX for the lack of games on Linux. OpenGL works just fine on it, as it does on Windows.
I completely agree! I have World of Goo, Braid, Osmos, Penumbra, Nexuiz/Xonotic, NetHack (of course), Scorched 3D, Battle for Wesnoth (get it, it's awesome), emulators for pretty much every console on the planet except the really powerful ones, and also a ton of games in Wine (Civilization IV with no DRM, pretty much every one of Telltale's adventure games, Baldur's Gate, Psychonauts, Portal/HL2) and they all work perfectly (in fact, sometimes better than on my Windows XP partition). OpenGL is more than what most games need to work properly. DirectX certainly isn't needed, and the lack of games is simply because of a lack of popular support (though I've found that nearly every Linux junkie I know is a gamer... hmm...).
VNC is more or less just a video stream with input controls, while GTK+ 3.2 is an interface toolkit. This not only uses less bandwidth for the typical "remote desktop" scenario, but it also can be used for entirely different purposes, such as a web application or an interface to a remote application. They're two totally different things.
And of course they give the clueless guy who can't use Google a +4, I get nothing...
They already have it on DVD and streaming. I'd know, I watched it :)
No, I mean, say you own a social website in the USA, and that this "right to be forgotten" only applies in Europe mostly. Someone wants to be "forgotten" in Europe; does that mean that you, as an American, have to remove their data from your site even though there's no legal pressure to do so?
As nice this may or may not be for some people, I'm pretty sure that it's next-to-impossible to be "forgotten" online unless you never posted or shared any content anywhere (or never even went online). Data doesn't have a collective "off switch" that you can just flip to delete everything everywhere relating to a certain person. Computers don't work like that at all (and while it's technically possible, have fun forcing every other person in the world to comply with it).
...I honestly don't mind this one. I mean, almost all of AT&T's DSL customers get only 1.5Mb/s or 3Mb/s down (I get the latter). IF I was watching an 80 minute movie on Netflix, that is approximately, at the very very most, 1440000KiB (about 1.37GiB). I'm not going to watch the equivalent (or close to the equivalent) of 100 80-minute movies streaming in a month, no way. I still wish that they wouldn't use caps, but this one I can deal with. If I was constantly using Bittorrent, though... not so much.
1. sudo cp -t /usr/share/gdm/autostart/LoginWindow/ /usr/share/applications/gnome-appearance-properties.desktop /usr/share/applications/gconf-editor.desktop /usr/share/gdm/autostart/LoginWindow/gnome-appearance-properties.desktop /usr/share/gdm/autostart/LoginWindow/gconf-editor.desktop
2. Logout
3. Customize GDM as wanted
4. Login
5. sudo rm
6. ???
7. Profit!
I hope that helps :)! You could also use gdm2setup, a program that can configure the new GDM.
"Google Releases Stable Version of Chrome 10"
Is it really this hard for /. editors to use the handy little search function this site provides and see if a story is a dupe? This story was even posted two days ago (albeit on a different website but it's pretty much the same thing).