There's a difference between a merely boring movie which puts you to sleep, and a truly horrific movie which induces physical pain and/or nausia. Nick Fury was the former, Highlander II was the latter, at least for me.
The reason overclocking generates additional heat is because you often have to run the system at a higher-than-standard voltage to make it stable at a higher-than-standard clock speed. It is the higher voltage, not the clock speed, which creates most of the extra heat in a seriously overclocked system. When you're underclocking you can't drop the speed below the specified voltage. Because the CPU is still dissipating nearly the same amount of current, you'll produce nearly the same amount of heat.
Maximum Overdrive is based on a Steven King short story. Could be the first movie plagarized King, or King plagarized the movie... Don't know when he wrote it.
Sounds like a cheap knockoff of Maximum Overdrive, which was not exactly a masterpiece itself. Notable mostly for the on-screen performance of Yeardly Smith (AKA Lisa Simpson), and a killer soundtrack (as well as a cameo apperance) by AC/DC.
Some movies are so bad they're good in their own way. Showgirls is enjoyably awful, as was the classic sexploitation film The Perils of Gwendoline in the Land of Yik-Yak, or cult classics like Attack of the Killer Tomatoes or Toxic Avenger. The key to making somthing that's enjoyably cheesy, to me, seems to be to not take yourself seriously, but to not make a joke of yourself either. Whether through design or accident, some "bad" films manage to pull of this balancing act.
A bad movie which tries to take itself seriously, like Highlander II is unwatchable, as is a bad movie which tries too hard to make fun of itself like Leanord, Part 6.
You go, girl! Looking good. Ignore the homophobic little troll, he's just insecure because he thinks you're hot and his little pea brain can't handle the cognitive dissonance of being attracted to someone who might have a penis. Hey troll: being straight doesn't mean you have to be narrow.
Anyone who's interested in keeping big brother out of their bedrooms should support the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom. Yeah, it's primarily an American lobby group, and you're Canadian, but it's still a worthy organization. What the EFF does for the computer geek community, NCSF does for the alternative sexuality (Gay/les/bi/TV/TS/Poly/BDSM/etc) community. Even if you're a plain vanilla heterosexual, you should still support the NCSF.
Why waste bandwidth and CPU time sending a page back to what's most likely a worm-infected machine? The default 404 response is more than adequate. His RedirectMatch hack is pretty good, but you can use the same regexps in SetEnvIf rules:
#regexp rules to set environment variables SetEnvIf Request_URI "(regexp1)" ATTACK SetEnvIf Request_URI "(regexp2)" ATTACK ...
# Anything that matches a worm/virus attack pattern goes in a special log CustomLog logs/attack_log common env=ATTACK
# Everything that's not an attack goes on the normal log CustomLog logs/access_log common env=!ATTACK
This puts all the zombie/worm attacks into a seperate log file. This also allows me to have logrotate truncate the attack_log and the access_log on different schedules.
Yeah, I've been seeing those too for the last couple of weeks. Started out one a day, now it's up to a half-dozen. Still, that's less than the number of NIMDA/Code[Red|Blue] hits I'm still getting daily.
mod_throttle and mod_bandwidth
are pretty useful if you're running Apache 1.3; unfortunately (last time I checked) they aren't working right under 2.0 yet.
Very good points. However, it does nothing to resolve the basic issue that we have no way of determining whether the content of the Bible is just as fictional as, say, The Silmarilion. The whole debate boils down to the circular argument: "The Bible is the one and only inerrant literal Word of God because it says it is".
By your own analysis, the Bible says God is in favor of slavery as long as it isn't abusive. And you think this is a deity worthy of your worship?
others have been able to logically reconcile those same contradictions
I've read many of the reconciliations of which you speak. Every single one which I have read contained logical fallicies of their own; indeed, many are (literally) the canonical textbook exemples thereof. Moore and Aquinas were brilliant men, far more intelligent than I could ever hope to be. However, my opinion is that they mis-spent their gifts. Having first accepted the Bible on faith alone (instead of impartially evaluating it solely on it's merits), they were thereafter too emotionally invested in that belief system to reject it as the codswollop it so obviously is, and instead were reduced to creating complex circumlouctions to try and explain away the glaring inconsistancies. Thier error is readily apparant to the impartial observer: they never once considered the possibility that the Bible might be wrong. Having postulated [accepted without proof, as in geometry] that the Bible is inerrant, the only conclusion they could reach within the framework of that assumption was that any apparant contradictions were false and could be reconciled. As with non-Euclidian geometries, they were sometimes able to find a soloution which was logically consistant within the artifical boundries of the system, but which had no connection whatsoever with observable reality.
I do not reject Christianity casually or through ignorance -- I have studied it deeply (to a greater extent than most of the self-professed Christians I have met!) and found it to be, on the whole, without merit.
I seek Truth in all things. Not solace, not forgiveness, not salvation; just pure unvarnished provable facts. I looked for Truth in Christianity and found none, so I rejected it. I looked at Christianity for a moral compass and found it to be contridictory to my values, so I created my own code of conduct.
Most of the arguments on that site are nit-picky little things.
I'll agree with you on that one. It has numerous flaws; however, "most" != "all". To quote Jefferson, there are some diamonds in the dungheap; this goes for both the original work and the commentary.
There's nothing there that points to large gaping holes in Christian ideology.
Have to disagree on that one. Some of the contridiction pages are particuarly good. For example, the pages on slavery and polygamy do, IMHO, a great job of listing the contridictory passages. I fail to see how there's any bias whatsoever in taking two sets of apparantly conflicting quotes and setting them side by side without commentary. That's about as unbiased as you can get.
Myself, I'm not a Christian. I look at the recorded actions of this "merciful" God and decided that if a God like that exists, I don't want to have anything to do with him. I'll stick with my own personal god (who hasn't murdered millions of people, destroyed cities, promoted murder and incest, and other things I find morally abhorrent).
Couldn't have said it better myself.
My wife is a witch. While I don't share or agree with her beliefs, they're basically harmless and positive. Like any other bad habit, religion can be safely ignored until it starts imparing your ability to function in life. However, I have a serious problem with any group which would condemn my wife on the basis of her beliefs. Anyone who tries throwing a stone at someone I love is going to find out REAL quick whether or not there's an afterlife.
Misquote and misrepresent? I think not. Name ONE thing I paraphrased from Leveticus which was inaccurate or taken out of context. Do you deny that it proscribes the death penalty for exactly the offenses I listed? Do you claim that any of the things I enumerated as abominations are NOT described as such in your Holy Scripture? Back up your claim.
If anyone is doing selective quotation of the Bible, it's the Christian right. According to Falwellesque Christian dogma, the Bible is "the literal and inerrant Word of God". You can't pick and chose the parts of Bible you want to follow -- if it's the Word of God, you have to take it all as a package deal.
Explain to me how it isn't hypocritical to claim that you can ignore the parts of the Bible which explictly tell you when & how to conduct animal sacrifices and what food you can eat, but that you have to listen when it says that God hates gay people and wants you to throw stones at them.
Ad hominim attack, another logical fallacy. Just because I made a supportable, accurate observation you found unpleasant dosen't make it an insult. It may be a sacred cow to you; to me, it's hamburger.
Let's look at the words I used:
Self-contridictory: a factual claim supported by hundreds of examples.
Superstitious: An accurate description, by definition.[A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance]
Gobbledegook: By definition, "Unclear, wordy jargon"; which is an accurate description of numerous Biblical passages, particuarly in the KJV.
You've already poisoned the well,monkeyboy.
And you call me insulting? Unlike you, Mr. Anonymous Coward, I have the courage to put my name to my words.
try giving proof that there isn't a supreme being.
Try to prove that there isn't an invisible pink unicorn living in my garage. Proving the non-existance of something is a logical absurdity. The burden of proof is on the person making the affirmitive claim, not the one refuting it. If I claim I invented a working perpetual motion machine, I have to support that claim; the person who says it doesn't work needs to do nothing besides demand proof to the contrary.
What isn't absurd is to point out that there is zero observational evidence to support the hypothesis that there is a supreme being, nor is there any logical basis to the belief. Wishful thinking is still a logical fallacy, no matter how attractive the idea may be or whether if fills a psychological need.
That said, it's pretty easy to DISPROVE some of the specific dogmatic beliefs through emperical and observational evidence and experimentation. The scriptual observations that Pi = 3.0, or that bats are a kind of bird, or that rabbits chew their cuds are trivial examples of provable Biblical falsehoods. Likewise the widely held belief that praying to Jesus (versus praying to Allah or Ganeesh or Isis) is an effective at curing disease or avoiding natural disaster is easily disproven via double-blind experimental protocol and statistical analysis.
Give me PROOF that there is a supreme being and I'll admit that I was wrong. Show me one shred of physical evidence to support the existance of Heaven or Hell and I'll recant. Present me with a LOGICALLY CONSTANT argument that your Bible isn't a self-contridictory mass of supersitious gobbledegook and I'll convert tomorrow.
Christ does mention homosexuality in the strongest terms: Leviticus 18:22
Hmmm, it's amazing how Jesus could be the source of something in the OLD TESTAMENT which was written thousands of years before his (alleged) birth.
Let's see what else is an "abomination" according to Leveticus:
Eating leftovers from your animal sacrifice that are 3 or more days old
Eating the wrong parts of your animal sacrifice
Eating any kind of shellfish, certian kinds of bird, or "creeping things"
Anyone who eats abomonable foods is an abomination
Leveticus also says the penalty for homosexualty is death by stoning. Also on the list of capital crimes:
Giving your seed to Moloch
Being a wizard or having a familiar spirit
Being a witch
Cursing or using the Lord's name in vain
Children who curse their parents
Having sex with one of your father's wives (presumably one who's not your mother)
Having a threesome with a girl and her mother
Doing the nasty with your brother's or uncle's wife
bestiality and incest
Seeing your stepsister naked (or having sex with her).
Having sex with a woman during her period.
Sleeping around ("playing the whore"), but only if you are a priest's daughter (If daddy isn't priest it's apparantly OK)
Anyone who kills a man (no exceptions -- even if it was accidental or in self-defense)
"Devoted things", whatever that means
Since it's the Word Of God, naturally you should do EVERYTHING that the Bible tells you to -- it can't POSSIBLY be wrong. You DO make animal sacrifices in the manner GOD commanded you to in Leveticus, don't you? What? You don't? Abomination! Blasphemer! Heretic! Fetch the stones!
[P]eople like Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, Thomas Moore, Isaac Newton (who wrote a great deal of biblical analysis), never ever saw them or tried to work through them
.
Appeal to authority. An expert in one field (physics) is not necessarily an expert in another field (theology), and just because a person IS an acknowledged expert in a field does not make them automatically correct.
It's a pretty sad reflection on our species that even the smartest human being who ever lived (Newton) could not see past his superstitions. We all have our blind spots; what is important is to recognize that we are fallible and constantly reassess our understanding of the universe based on observational evidence and the rational interpretation thereof.
The most intellectually honest thing any person can say is "I might be wrong". I've yet to meet a fundamentalist who's willing to make that declaration about their interpretation of the Bible.
IANAL, but I'd say that the existance of the 1-800-H[O0]LIDAY ruling is pretty good basis for appeal. My limited understanding of the law is that if a trial judge ignores a relevant precedent, it's automatic grounds for appeal.
Courts define the constitution and the law--remember Marbury v. Madison. How did they get that power? They interpreted it. Why can they interpret it? It's their power. How did they get that power? (STACK OVERFLOW)
Thurgood Marshall flat-out invented the concept of Judicial Interpretation, just as Jefferson flat-out invented the power of the President to purchase territory.
Congress has the explicit authority to either formalize this power or to repudiate it. For example they could pass an Amendment explicitly giving the power of interpreting the Constitution to some other body or individual, or formally invest the power in the S.C. They could also constitute a Court of Constitutional Intrepretation directly under the Supreme Court, using the power granted in Article I section 8. The fact that Congress has chosen not to oppose Judicial Intrepretation is a de-facto acknowledgment of it's validity.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a difference between a merely boring movie which puts you to sleep, and a truly horrific movie which induces physical pain and/or nausia. Nick Fury was the former, Highlander II was the latter, at least for me.
The reason overclocking generates additional heat is because you often have to run the system at a higher-than-standard voltage to make it stable at a higher-than-standard clock speed. It is the higher voltage, not the clock speed, which creates most of the extra heat in a seriously overclocked system. When you're underclocking you can't drop the speed below the specified voltage. Because the CPU is still dissipating nearly the same amount of current, you'll produce nearly the same amount of heat.
Maximum Overdrive is based on a Steven King short story. Could be the first movie plagarized King, or King plagarized the movie... Don't know when he wrote it.
A bad movie which tries to take itself seriously, like Highlander II is unwatchable, as is a bad movie which tries too hard to make fun of itself like Leanord, Part 6.
Anyone who's interested in keeping big brother out of their bedrooms should support the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom. Yeah, it's primarily an American lobby group, and you're Canadian, but it's still a worthy organization. What the EFF does for the computer geek community, NCSF does for the alternative sexuality (Gay/les/bi/TV/TS/Poly/BDSM/etc) community. Even if you're a plain vanilla heterosexual, you should still support the NCSF.
Yeah, I've been seeing those too for the last couple of weeks. Started out one a day, now it's up to a half-dozen. Still, that's less than the number of NIMDA/Code[Red|Blue] hits I'm still getting daily.
mod_throttle and mod_bandwidth are pretty useful if you're running Apache 1.3; unfortunately (last time I checked) they aren't working right under 2.0 yet.
By your own analysis, the Bible says God is in favor of slavery as long as it isn't abusive. And you think this is a deity worthy of your worship?
I do not reject Christianity casually or through ignorance -- I have studied it deeply (to a greater extent than most of the self-professed Christians I have met!) and found it to be, on the whole, without merit.
I seek Truth in all things. Not solace, not forgiveness, not salvation; just pure unvarnished provable facts. I looked for Truth in Christianity and found none, so I rejected it. I looked at Christianity for a moral compass and found it to be contridictory to my values, so I created my own code of conduct.
My wife is a witch. While I don't share or agree with her beliefs, they're basically harmless and positive. Like any other bad habit, religion can be safely ignored until it starts imparing your ability to function in life. However, I have a serious problem with any group which would condemn my wife on the basis of her beliefs. Anyone who tries throwing a stone at someone I love is going to find out REAL quick whether or not there's an afterlife.
If anyone is doing selective quotation of the Bible, it's the Christian right. According to Falwellesque Christian dogma, the Bible is "the literal and inerrant Word of God". You can't pick and chose the parts of Bible you want to follow -- if it's the Word of God, you have to take it all as a package deal.
Explain to me how it isn't hypocritical to claim that you can ignore the parts of the Bible which explictly tell you when & how to conduct animal sacrifices and what food you can eat, but that you have to listen when it says that God hates gay people and wants you to throw stones at them.
- Self-contridictory: a factual claim supported by hundreds of examples.
- Superstitious: An accurate description, by definition. [A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance]
- Gobbledegook: By definition, "Unclear, wordy jargon"; which is an accurate description of numerous Biblical passages, particuarly in the KJV.
And you call me insulting? Unlike you, Mr. Anonymous Coward, I have the courage to put my name to my words. You, apparantly.What isn't absurd is to point out that there is zero observational evidence to support the hypothesis that there is a supreme being, nor is there any logical basis to the belief. Wishful thinking is still a logical fallacy, no matter how attractive the idea may be or whether if fills a psychological need.
That said, it's pretty easy to DISPROVE some of the specific dogmatic beliefs through emperical and observational evidence and experimentation. The scriptual observations that Pi = 3.0, or that bats are a kind of bird, or that rabbits chew their cuds are trivial examples of provable Biblical falsehoods. Likewise the widely held belief that praying to Jesus (versus praying to Allah or Ganeesh or Isis) is an effective at curing disease or avoiding natural disaster is easily disproven via double-blind experimental protocol and statistical analysis.
Give me PROOF that there is a supreme being and I'll admit that I was wrong. Show me one shred of physical evidence to support the existance of Heaven or Hell and I'll recant. Present me with a LOGICALLY CONSTANT argument that your Bible isn't a self-contridictory mass of supersitious gobbledegook and I'll convert tomorrow.
Let's see what else is an "abomination" according to Leveticus:
- Eating leftovers from your animal sacrifice that are 3 or more days old
- Eating the wrong parts of your animal sacrifice
- Eating any kind of shellfish, certian kinds of bird, or "creeping things"
- Anyone who eats abomonable foods is an abomination
Leveticus also says the penalty for homosexualty is death by stoning. Also on the list of capital crimes:Since it's the Word Of God, naturally you should do EVERYTHING that the Bible tells you to -- it can't POSSIBLY be wrong. You DO make animal sacrifices in the manner GOD commanded you to in Leveticus, don't you? What? You don't? Abomination! Blasphemer! Heretic! Fetch the stones!
It's a pretty sad reflection on our species that even the smartest human being who ever lived (Newton) could not see past his superstitions. We all have our blind spots; what is important is to recognize that we are fallible and constantly reassess our understanding of the universe based on observational evidence and the rational interpretation thereof.
The most intellectually honest thing any person can say is "I might be wrong". I've yet to meet a fundamentalist who's willing to make that declaration about their interpretation of the Bible.
Sorry, special pleadings are a logical fallacy too.
IANAL, but I'd say that the existance of the 1-800-H[O0]LIDAY ruling is pretty good basis for appeal. My limited understanding of the law is that if a trial judge ignores a relevant precedent, it's automatic grounds for appeal.
Congress has the explicit authority to either formalize this power or to repudiate it. For example they could pass an Amendment explicitly giving the power of interpreting the Constitution to some other body or individual, or formally invest the power in the S.C. They could also constitute a Court of Constitutional Intrepretation directly under the Supreme Court, using the power granted in Article I section 8. The fact that Congress has chosen not to oppose Judicial Intrepretation is a de-facto acknowledgment of it's validity.
Anyone who can't recognize that the Christian Bible has numerous internal contridictions, even on basic theological issues, lacks critical thinking skills.