Adding your own words to someone elses defination doesn't support your point. If the author of that particular defination did not feel that the words man and woman to B or C then I fail to see what you adding it proves. However, it does tend to indicate that marriage may not have the "specific" defination that you claimed it did. This is the problem with getting 'hooked' on words.
Do you know the origination of 'Common Law' marriage? Do you know how it differed from Canon Law marriage? If not, go research it.
The point is we don't agree. What then are the options?
Well, the first option I can think of is to keep your nose out of other individuals relationships. You have failed to show how homosexuals getting married are a threat to anyone or any aspect of society (unless you count the religous right losing a battle as a threat), so you have failed to show how it is any of your concern.
The second option, would be to repeat the following statement until you reach enlightment:
"Like what you like, enjoy what you enjoy, and don't take crap from anyone."
I also recommend considering the possibility that what you think is 'true' is simply one possible interpertation. Consider that you might be wrong and live your life accordingly. Remember, everyone else might be wrong as well.
Finally, seriously consider that you are getting all worked up over a word. Nothing will change if other people use a word. It is nothing more than a word, if some people use it to mean more than you do... it doesn't matter.
People are dying from illness, war, crime, abuse and starvation. The economy sucks, people are losing their jobs, and you are worrying about a couple gay guys being allowed to treat each other as spouses. As a postscript option, I would recommend you do some soul searching about your priorities.
The word marriage has a very specific definition. When you change the situation you are trying apply the word to does not fit the meaning then use a different word.
Marriage as an institution was born in a religious context for a specific purpose. So a man and woman can procreate without violating religious rules and to provide a clear lineage so the thorny issues of inheritence can be traced. People can still break these rules, but that does not change the original intent of the institution. Homosexual marriage is therefore an oxymoron.
So you are saying that Marriage (the defination) was most recently defined by the Christian Church?
Perhaps then, that defination should stay in the church and not be forced upon those who choose not to involve themselves in dogmatic belief. Perhaps we should seperate Legal Marriages from Marriages recognized by The Church. (Yay more words)
As for marriage having a very specific defination, lets take a look at that shall we?
The American Heritage Dictionary defines 'marriage' as:
marriage 1a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. b. The state of being married; wedlock. c. A common-law marriage. d. A union between two persons having the customary but usu. not the legal force of marriage: a same sex marriage.
Well 3 of the 4 definations don't specify gender and at least one of the 4 specify 'same sex marriages'.
Hrmmmm, well lets examine the word marry:
marry -tr. 1a To join as spouses by exchanging vows. b. To take a spouse. c. To give in marriage. 2. To preform a marriage ceremony for. 3. To obtain by marriage. 4. Nautical To join (two ropes) end to end by interweaving their strands. 5. To unite in a close, usu. permanent way. -intr. 1. To take a spouse; wed. 2. To combine or blend agreeably.
Oh no, not a single reference to the gender of anyone in that.
And what does spouse mean?
spouse A marriage partner; a husband or wife.
The root for spouse is:
ME OFr. spous Lat. sponsus p. part. of spondere, to pledge.
The PIE root of the word is, spend-
spend- To make an offering, perform a rite, hence to engage oneself by a ritual act.
Nowhere in those definations does one see this idea that Marriage is a thing that only heterosexuals can engage in.
'Specific' defination indeed.
------Part II---------
Your earlier statements regarding Bacon and Water, simply agreed with my initial point.
In your example, you used the word water to indicate bacon. If you and I agreed that we could call bacon, water, then I would know what you were talking about and I would get you bacon and the following would seem true:
1. The bacon you get will taste like bacon, calling it water will not change its properties. The thing and the word that describes the thing are different.
2. The properties of the H2O which you drink after eating the bacon will still quench your thirst, just as before. The thing and the word that describes the thing are different.
The same is true for marriage. The United States could say that gay couples who get legal documents signed are 'married'. Then the following would seem true:
1. A homosexual relationship will still have all the properties of a homosexual relationship, they will still not be able to reproduce. Their union is no different than it was, except that its called a different word.
2. However, it would not change the properties of other things called by the same name. Your marriage will be just as satisfying as it is now. You and your wife will be able to produce children, just as you do now. Your union will be no different than it is now, except that some people use the same word to mean something else.
You're right it isn't about marriage at all, its about people being unable to seperate things and words that talk about things. The menu isn't the meal and the map of the road isn't the road. The word marriage, the act of marrying and the state of being married is not the same as being in a union with a person you love and who loves you.
For example, immigrants sometimes marry people for green cards. There is not love, union or anything in such a marriage, but the word is still attached. Marriages have not always been about commitment, love, union... for thousands of years, many marriages have been arranged for political, financial or religious reasons. Marriages that are childless, even loveless exist today.
Marriage is just a word, and a particularly impotent one today.
Will you love your wife less if gays are permitted to marry? Will your faithfulness to her wane? Will you be less of a father if lesbians can marry?
Or are you trapped in Dogmatic belief, letting someone else tell you the TRUTH?
Huh? No, I mean drink the word I typed there... 'Water'.
What?! You can't drink it? Stick your tounge against the screen of your computer and try again.
Hrmmm, maybe if I called you on the phone and said the word "Water" you could drink the soundwaves...
No?
Well damnnation apparently the wrod is not the thing (or idea) that it represents.
It's funny, everyone, from the Professor to the Pastor, from the Evolutionist to the Sunday School Teacher will agree that the word is not the thing... until of course, we start using words like sacred, holy, truth or,*gasp* marriage.
The poster above apparently thinks that the word marriage is a precursor for making babies. He should examine this strange phenomenon called 'Unwed Mothers'. Apparently, these individuals sucessfully procreated without the word marriage involved.
Strangely enough, other couples have lived together for many years, raised entire families, and never involved the word marriage. On the other hand, many couples that invoked the word marriage on their union, found themselves unhappy and divorced (with or without children).
Lets look at some suppositions:
1. People who are homosexual are not likely to produce children (married or unmarried).
2. People who are not homosexual are likely to at least go through the process of reproduction (married or unmarried).
From these statements we can deduce the following:
1. Homosexual unions will not likely result in babies.
2. Heterosexual unions may result in babies.
Now, stick with me, this is the tricky part...
Homosexuals who are denied use of the word marriage are no more or less likely to produce children.
Heterosexuals are likely to produce children with or without the word marriage.
Heterosexuals will not stop having sex (therefore making babies possible) simply because homosexuals are permitted to use the word marry.
Below is a great website which discusses this Neurolinguistic Hallucination in more detail.
If the religious community at large, simply said "You know what, this is a dumb fight, we don't care", then they would begin to lose their grip on the minds of their followers. If one piece of 'Absolute Truth' is invalidated, how long before another and another and another?
Dogma doesn't allow the Reverend to step up and say "Ya know, we think we may have misunderstood God's take on this whole gay issue". He has spent years telling his faithful Parishinors that 'God WILL smite the evildoer, including 'Men who lie with men". If he was wrong on that bit, how long before other evildoers slip away from judgement? The potential for a mass sobering up from the Opium of the People is a real threat.
you hippie communist! how dare you say anything against our proud and sucessFul millitary! if we had this traiNing tool earlier, we may have been able to discover the weapons Of mass distruction (not that they were the Reason we went to war, minD you!)
haH! i am so sick of you people knocking our obviously sucessful millitary And economic progress! do you know who Is responsibLe for Everything we have? do you? how can you sit there, like every other ameRican, safe, with plenty of food, a roof over your head, and a secure future, and say anything agaInSt our government?!
I play with an experienced LARP troupe and oddly enough we were discussing a Paranoia LARP just a couple weeks ago. Is there any chance that you'll release Paranoia as a LARP? Do you need Alpha Testers?;-)
I once spoke to a christian, I asked him why he believed in God, the Bible and Hell... he told me:
"The Church knows a lot more about the subject than I do, I tend to simply accept their beliefs on such matters."
I once spoke to a suicide bomber, I asked him why he thought he would go to Heaven by killing... He told me:
"Our leaders knows a lot more about the subject than I do, I tend to simply accept their beliefs on such matters."
I once spoke to a Jehovah's Witness, living in a concentration camp in Nazi Germany. I asked him why he wouldn't say Heil Hitler and gain his freedom... He said:
"The Watchtower knows a lot more about the subject than I do, I tend to simply accept their beliefs on such matters."
I asked the Roman who was nailing Jeshua bin Joseph to a crucifix, I asked the apostles who were killed for following him, I asked the followers of Do, Jim Jones and David Koresh why they were willing to act in such strange ways... they all replied them same.
I looked out over the world and cried from the mountaintop: "Why? Why do you follow other men who are just as prone to mistakes as you? Why do you simply believe what someone tells you? Why do you think any of us really know the answers?
Then they came to my mountain, the Christian, the Jew, the Muslim, the Catholic and the Protestant, the Nazi, the Religous Right, the Scientest, the Physist and the Doctor. For I had attacked the one thing that they all believe in. Like an army they marched toward me, then crying havoc they let slip the War of Dogma.
(The above is a metaphor... but then maybe everything else is as well)
Once upon a time, wise men studied the stars. They knew that the power of the stars were directly related to the fate of people and places. They called it Astrology and those who differed, were ridiculed.
Once upon a time, wise men understood that the earth moves around the sun and the earth was flat and the center of the universe. For God had told them so in their holy book. They called it religion and killed or ridiculed any who differed.
Once upon a time, wise men knew that Newton's Laws of Physics and later Principia Mathematica were fact. When some wise men disagreed, they were ridiculed.
We can interpret some (but not all) of what our senses relay about the world and universe around us. There is evidence to support that our brain 'filters' quite a bit of the signals we receive, so we actually make observations and guesses with only a portion of what our senses can relay to us.
Anytime I hear a physics say that they 'know' the facts, I have to wonder how long they've actually bee doing physics.
For me, I will say that I know one thing:
I will never fully understand the universe, nor the possibilities that exist therein.
Of course all of the numbers for Ethanol are based on using Corn as the biomass for fermentation. However, Corn is not the most usable biomass crop for making energy. Hemp provides a much better return on the growing, harvesting and processing. 1 acre of hemp will produce 1000 gallons of fuel per growing season. Hemp also grows more quickly that corn and can be grown in areas where corn will not. Of course, thats completely ignoring the hempseed oil, which also is able to provide energy in the form of bio-diesel.
Of course, hemp crops are usable for other things as well, including paper. Hemp can produce more paper per pound, and grows much more quickly than trees (4 month investment instead of 10-20 years).
Those same hemp fibers can also make clothing which is rugged and weather-resistant.
A field of hemp costs less to grow (in both resources and time) than an equal field of corn.
But, some people smoke the flowers and enjoy themselves... obviously its far too dangerous to use here in the USA.
Actually the New Testament is more likely based on the earlier writings of the Threaputes, a sect living in Egypt about 300 years before the NT was written. (read "The Diegesis: Being a Discovery of the Origin, Evidences, and Early History of Christianity, Never Yet Before or Elsewhere So Fully and Faithfully Set Forth" by Rev. Robert Taylor (First Printing in the late 1800's) ISBN: 1564591638)
So Islam is based (using the term loosely) on the Prophet Mohammed and his whacked view of reality. Christianity is based (using the term loosely) on a number of plagerists in the 1st century, and their whacked out view of reality. Good start all around.
Folks, the problem with all of it is that Dogma permeates both (and most other) religons. Dogma a.k.a. "I'm right, I'm the only one thats right, I know the answer to The Big Questions."
Someday, maybe, the majority of humans will upgrade their consciousness to a new level and decide that there is probably a lot more to reality than we're aware of. Until then, pitting one Dogma against the other is like the pot calling the kettle a 'God Damned Heathen Who Will Burn IN Hell For Their Pagan Ways!!!!!'
Evil Force? Would this be different than the Evil Force that blessed weapons for the Nazi's and the Americans during WWII? Would it be the same Evil that ripped apart Bosnia, Ireland, Cheneya, and whatever small African country the Hutu and Tutsi live in?
The answer is Yes... the Evil isn't Islam or Christianity, it is the Dogma that Islam and Christianity force feed their believers.
Christians are no more or less reprehensible, they simply cover their actions with pretty clothes and fancy names. Dogma is the culprit, Dogma is the reason that Osama Bin Laden can tell people to kill themselves via a jumbo jet. Dogma is the reason that Ireland and England have spent generations destroying each other. Dogma (not just religous but also Political) is what sent thousands of US troops across the sea to stop Saddam's WMD's (whoops, I mean topple an Evil Man, yeah thats it).
Dogma is the reason Nazi's tromped through snow into killing fields of Russia. Oh and its the reason that the russian Czar and his family "bit the bullet" (hehehe, sorry about the Pun).
There is no arguing that this Dogma is worse or better than any other. One Dogma may be more violent, but all Dogmas cause rational thinking to cease. That is the worst effect of all.
I have never been threatened by any business that I've reported a flaw to. I believe this is because I treat it like a Business Communication. I am clear, concise, explain how I found the flaw, why the flaw is dangerous, how to fix the flaw and how to contact me with questions.
If the flaw is major (exposes cc data or the like) I also include a note that unless I am contacted or the system is fixed by X date, I am ethically compelled to alert consumers that the system might be compromised. I usually recieve an answer within hours.
The idea that companies are sueing people who are ethically alerting them to flaws is outdated. A few years ago, you'd be right... now, companies don't want the bad press.
Apparently I am the D. Clyde Williamson that you know.
The original poster made very clear that he was talking about "independant security professionals" who use unsanctioned audits to garner money or business. Not a "Whoops I was surfing your site and saw X" or "Hey I found that your system is vulnerable to the 'foo bar baz' expolit. Here's a link to the fix".
Ethical Hacking has its place. You do not have to be a 'professional'. Hell, if you know who I am (and my past history) you know I'm not just a commercial auditor. I've told many companies that they have holes, but I have never once expected any payment for it (that is the key difference).
Hackers (not Crackers) have 3 options when they discover a hole:
1. Don't say a word and walk away. (rare)
2. Anonymously (or otherwise) alert the system owner, then forget about it. (common)
3. Alert the owner and give them a time table within which to reply and agree to fix it. Failure would result in a public disclosure of information. (very common)
Nowhere in there is "force the company to pay you". Nowhere in there is "expect anything in return".
I (and many of my peers) alert companies on a fairly regular basis that they have holes/flaws/exposures, I have yet to receive a C&D and I can only think of two of my peers that have gotten them. They simply publicly disclosed the flaw and that was the end of it. No company wants to be in the news for trying to gag someone who pointed out a flaw.
I think your understanding of InfoSec is not as informed as it should be to justify your post.
D Clyde Williamson 8 years in the InfoSec Trenches
Not likely. This guy threatened several companies with the same thing, audits proved those to be bluffs... (In fact, some of the system designs made his claim impossible).
Slashdot Mirror
Hrmmm, they go live on March 31 and this sounds too silly to be serious. I vote April Fools Joke.
Adding your own words to someone elses defination doesn't support your point. If the author of that particular defination did not feel that the words man and woman to B or C then I fail to see what you adding it proves. However, it does tend to indicate that marriage may not have the "specific" defination that you claimed it did. This is the problem with getting 'hooked' on words.
Do you know the origination of 'Common Law' marriage? Do you know how it differed from Canon Law marriage? If not, go research it.
The point is we don't agree. What then are the options?
Well, the first option I can think of is to keep your nose out of other individuals relationships. You have failed to show how homosexuals getting married are a threat to anyone or any aspect of society (unless you count the religous right losing a battle as a threat), so you have failed to show how it is any of your concern.
The second option, would be to repeat the following statement until you reach enlightment:
"Like what you like, enjoy what you enjoy, and don't take crap from anyone."
I also recommend considering the possibility that what you think is 'true' is simply one possible interpertation. Consider that you might be wrong and live your life accordingly. Remember, everyone else might be wrong as well.
Finally, seriously consider that you are getting all worked up over a word. Nothing will change if other people use a word. It is nothing more than a word, if some people use it to mean more than you do... it doesn't matter.
People are dying from illness, war, crime, abuse and starvation. The economy sucks, people are losing their jobs, and you are worrying about a couple gay guys being allowed to treat each other as spouses. As a postscript option, I would recommend you do some soul searching about your priorities.
The word marriage has a very specific definition. When you change the situation you are trying apply the word to does not fit the meaning then use a different word.
Marriage as an institution was born in a religious context for a specific purpose. So a man and woman can procreate without violating religious rules and to provide a clear lineage so the thorny issues of inheritence can be traced. People can still break these rules, but that does not change the original intent of the institution. Homosexual marriage is therefore an oxymoron.
So you are saying that Marriage (the defination) was most recently defined by the Christian Church?
Perhaps then, that defination should stay in the church and not be forced upon those who choose not to involve themselves in dogmatic belief. Perhaps we should seperate Legal Marriages from Marriages recognized by The Church. (Yay more words)
As for marriage having a very specific defination, lets take a look at that shall we?
The American Heritage Dictionary defines 'marriage' as:
marriage 1a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. b. The state of being married; wedlock. c. A common-law marriage. d. A union between two persons having the customary but usu. not the legal force of marriage: a same sex marriage.
Well 3 of the 4 definations don't specify gender and at least one of the 4 specify 'same sex marriages'.
Hrmmmm, well lets examine the word marry:
marry -tr. 1a To join as spouses by exchanging vows. b. To take a spouse. c. To give in marriage. 2. To preform a marriage ceremony for. 3. To obtain by marriage. 4. Nautical To join (two ropes) end to end by interweaving their strands. 5. To unite in a close, usu. permanent way.
-intr. 1. To take a spouse; wed. 2. To combine or blend agreeably.
Oh no, not a single reference to the gender of anyone in that.
And what does spouse mean?
spouse A marriage partner; a husband or wife.
The root for spouse is:
ME OFr. spous Lat. sponsus p. part. of spondere, to pledge.
The PIE root of the word is, spend-
spend- To make an offering, perform a rite, hence to engage oneself by a ritual act.
Nowhere in those definations does one see this idea that Marriage is a thing that only heterosexuals can engage in.
'Specific' defination indeed.
------Part II---------
Your earlier statements regarding Bacon and Water, simply agreed with my initial point.
In your example, you used the word water to indicate bacon. If you and I agreed that we could call bacon, water, then I would know what you were talking about and I would get you bacon and the following would seem true:
1. The bacon you get will taste like bacon, calling it water will not change its properties. The thing and the word that describes the thing are different.
2. The properties of the H2O which you drink after eating the bacon will still quench your thirst, just as before. The thing and the word that describes the thing are different.
The same is true for marriage. The United States could say that gay couples who get legal documents signed are 'married'. Then the following would seem true:
1. A homosexual relationship will still have all the properties of a homosexual relationship, they will still not be able to reproduce. Their union is no different than it was, except that its called a different word.
2. However, it would not change the properties of other things called by the same name. Your marriage will be just as satisfying as it is now. You and your wife will be able to produce children, just as you do now. Your union will be no different than it is now, except that some people use the same word to mean something else.
Wake up and smell the water!
How do you believe it to be a big change (other than in the minds of some people)?
You're right it isn't about marriage at all, its about people being unable to seperate things and words that talk about things. The menu isn't the meal and the map of the road isn't the road. The word marriage, the act of marrying and the state of being married is not the same as being in a union with a person you love and who loves you.
For example, immigrants sometimes marry people for green cards. There is not love, union or anything in such a marriage, but the word is still attached. Marriages have not always been about commitment, love, union... for thousands of years, many marriages have been arranged for political, financial or religious reasons. Marriages that are childless, even loveless exist today.
Marriage is just a word, and a particularly impotent one today.
Will you love your wife less if gays are permitted to marry? Will your faithfulness to her wane? Will you be less of a father if lesbians can marry?
Or are you trapped in Dogmatic belief, letting someone else tell you the TRUTH?
I agree. Some Gays seem as dogmaticaly stuck on the word marriage as some Christians seem to be.
"I want to use this word"
"No Its MY WORD you can't use it!!! Use this different word."
"But I like that word, I want to use it."
"No, you can't have it. The Lady of The Lake, her arm clad in... err I mean God gave us that word and you can't use it."
Mmmmm, Dogma.
Here, drink some 'Water', go ahead, I'll wait...
t exts/raw-carlin.html
Huh? No, I mean drink the word I typed there... 'Water'.
What?! You can't drink it? Stick your tounge against the screen of your computer and try again.
Hrmmm, maybe if I called you on the phone and said the word "Water" you could drink the soundwaves...
No?
Well damnnation apparently the wrod is not the thing (or idea) that it represents.
It's funny, everyone, from the Professor to the Pastor, from the Evolutionist to the Sunday School Teacher will agree that the word is not the thing... until of course, we start using words like sacred, holy, truth or,*gasp* marriage.
The poster above apparently thinks that the word marriage is a precursor for making babies. He should examine this strange phenomenon called 'Unwed Mothers'. Apparently, these individuals sucessfully procreated without the word marriage involved.
Strangely enough, other couples have lived together for many years, raised entire families, and never involved the word marriage. On the other hand, many couples that invoked the word marriage on their union, found themselves unhappy and divorced (with or without children).
Lets look at some suppositions:
1. People who are homosexual are not likely to produce children (married or unmarried).
2. People who are not homosexual are likely to at least go through the process of reproduction (married or unmarried).
From these statements we can deduce the following:
1. Homosexual unions will not likely result in babies.
2. Heterosexual unions may result in babies.
Now, stick with me, this is the tricky part...
Homosexuals who are denied use of the word marriage are no more or less likely to produce children.
Heterosexuals are likely to produce children with or without the word marriage.
Heterosexuals will not stop having sex (therefore making babies possible) simply because homosexuals are permitted to use the word marry.
Below is a great website which discusses this Neurolinguistic Hallucination in more detail.
http://www.deepleafproductions.com/wilsonlibrary/
One Word: Dogma
If the religious community at large, simply said "You know what, this is a dumb fight, we don't care", then they would begin to lose their grip on the minds of their followers. If one piece of 'Absolute Truth' is invalidated, how long before another and another and another?
Dogma doesn't allow the Reverend to step up and say "Ya know, we think we may have misunderstood God's take on this whole gay issue". He has spent years telling his faithful Parishinors that 'God WILL smite the evildoer, including 'Men who lie with men". If he was wrong on that bit, how long before other evildoers slip away from judgement? The potential for a mass sobering up from the Opium of the People is a real threat.
If you can't see the fnords, the can't eat you.
.
you hippie communist! how dare you say anything against our proud and sucessFul millitary! if we had this traiNing tool earlier, we may have been able to discover the weapons Of mass distruction (not that they were the Reason we went to war, minD you!)
haH! i am so sick of you people knocking our obviously sucessful millitary And economic progress! do you know who Is responsibLe for Everything we have? do you? how can you sit there, like every other ameRican, safe, with plenty of food, a roof over your head, and a secure future, and say anything agaInSt our government?!
I play with an experienced LARP troupe and oddly enough we were discussing a Paranoia LARP just a couple weeks ago. Is there any chance that you'll release Paranoia as a LARP? Do you need Alpha Testers? ;-)
I once spoke to a christian, I asked him why he believed in God, the Bible and Hell... he told me:
"The Church knows a lot more about the subject than I do, I tend to simply accept their beliefs on such matters."
I once spoke to a suicide bomber, I asked him why he thought he would go to Heaven by killing... He told me:
"Our leaders knows a lot more about the subject than I do, I tend to simply accept their beliefs on such matters."
I once spoke to a Jehovah's Witness, living in a concentration camp in Nazi Germany. I asked him why he wouldn't say Heil Hitler and gain his freedom... He said:
"The Watchtower knows a lot more about the subject than I do, I tend to simply accept their beliefs on such matters."
I asked the Roman who was nailing Jeshua bin Joseph to a crucifix, I asked the apostles who were killed for following him, I asked the followers of Do, Jim Jones and David Koresh why they were willing to act in such strange ways... they all replied them same.
I looked out over the world and cried from the mountaintop: "Why? Why do you follow other men who are just as prone to mistakes as you? Why do you simply believe what someone tells you? Why do you think any of us really know the answers?
Then they came to my mountain, the Christian, the Jew, the Muslim, the Catholic and the Protestant, the Nazi, the Religous Right, the Scientest, the Physist and the Doctor. For I had attacked the one thing that they all believe in. Like an army they marched toward me, then crying havoc they let slip the War of Dogma.
(The above is a metaphor... but then maybe everything else is as well)
But of course, you do realize that General Relativity could be wrong, right?
I mean certianly you don't believe that we won't change our theories over the next hundred years, do you?
The words of the foolish and the words of the wise, are not far apart in Discordian eyes.
Once upon a time, wise men studied the stars. They knew that the power of the stars were directly related to the fate of people and places. They called it Astrology and those who differed, were ridiculed.
Once upon a time, wise men understood that the earth moves around the sun and the earth was flat and the center of the universe. For God had told them so in their holy book. They called it religion and killed or ridiculed any who differed.
Once upon a time, wise men knew that Newton's Laws of Physics and later Principia Mathematica were fact. When some wise men disagreed, they were ridiculed.
We can interpret some (but not all) of what our senses relay about the world and universe around us. There is evidence to support that our brain 'filters' quite a bit of the signals we receive, so we actually make observations and guesses with only a portion of what our senses can relay to us.
Anytime I hear a physics say that they 'know' the facts, I have to wonder how long they've actually bee doing physics.
For me, I will say that I know one thing:
I will never fully understand the universe, nor the possibilities that exist therein.
Hail Eris, All Hail Discordia
Its also cheaper and more efficient to make it from Hemp.
Of course all of the numbers for Ethanol are based on using Corn as the biomass for fermentation. However, Corn is not the most usable biomass crop for making energy. Hemp provides a much better return on the growing, harvesting and processing.
1 acre of hemp will produce 1000 gallons of fuel per growing season. Hemp also grows more quickly that corn and can be grown in areas where corn will not. Of course, thats completely ignoring the hempseed oil, which also is able to provide energy in the form of bio-diesel.
Of course, hemp crops are usable for other things as well, including paper. Hemp can produce more paper per pound, and grows much more quickly than trees (4 month investment instead of 10-20 years).
Those same hemp fibers can also make clothing which is rugged and weather-resistant.
A field of hemp costs less to grow (in both resources and time) than an equal field of corn.
But, some people smoke the flowers and enjoy themselves... obviously its far too dangerous to use here in the USA.
He may not be the counter-culture hero he used to be, but he's still not just "some hacker guy that is known as Captian Crunch."
And you mayh be surprised at a few things he's still working on.....
Actually the New Testament is more likely based on the earlier writings of the Threaputes, a sect living in Egypt about 300 years before the NT was written. (read "The Diegesis: Being a Discovery of the Origin, Evidences, and Early History of Christianity, Never Yet Before or Elsewhere So Fully and Faithfully Set Forth" by Rev. Robert Taylor (First Printing in the late 1800's) ISBN: 1564591638)
So Islam is based (using the term loosely) on the Prophet Mohammed and his whacked view of reality. Christianity is based (using the term loosely) on a number of plagerists in the 1st century, and their whacked out view of reality. Good start all around.
Folks, the problem with all of it is that Dogma permeates both (and most other) religons. Dogma a.k.a. "I'm right, I'm the only one thats right, I know the answer to The Big Questions."
Someday, maybe, the majority of humans will upgrade their consciousness to a new level and decide that there is probably a lot more to reality than we're aware of. Until then, pitting one Dogma against the other is like the pot calling the kettle a 'God Damned Heathen Who Will Burn IN Hell For Their Pagan Ways!!!!!'
Evil Force? Would this be different than the Evil Force that blessed weapons for the Nazi's and the Americans during WWII? Would it be the same Evil that ripped apart Bosnia, Ireland, Cheneya, and whatever small African country the Hutu and Tutsi live in?
The answer is Yes... the Evil isn't Islam or Christianity, it is the Dogma that Islam and Christianity force feed their believers.
Christians are no more or less reprehensible, they simply cover their actions with pretty clothes and fancy names. Dogma is the culprit, Dogma is the reason that Osama Bin Laden can tell people to kill themselves via a jumbo jet. Dogma is the reason that Ireland and England have spent generations destroying each other. Dogma (not just religous but also Political) is what sent thousands of US troops across the sea to stop Saddam's WMD's (whoops, I mean topple an Evil Man, yeah thats it).
Dogma is the reason Nazi's tromped through snow into killing fields of Russia. Oh and its the reason that the russian Czar and his family "bit the bullet" (hehehe, sorry about the Pun).
There is no arguing that this Dogma is worse or better than any other. One Dogma may be more violent, but all Dogmas cause rational thinking to cease. That is the worst effect of all.
I have never been threatened by any business that I've reported a flaw to. I believe this is because I treat it like a Business Communication. I am clear, concise, explain how I found the flaw, why the flaw is dangerous, how to fix the flaw and how to contact me with questions.
If the flaw is major (exposes cc data or the like) I also include a note that unless I am contacted or the system is fixed by X date, I am ethically compelled to alert consumers that the system might be compromised. I usually recieve an answer within hours.
The idea that companies are sueing people who are ethically alerting them to flaws is outdated. A few years ago, you'd be right... now, companies don't want the bad press.
That is exactly what he was. He was attempting several targets, not just Best Buy.
Oh gods, has poor old John been relegated to "some hacker guy"?
*crawls in a hole and checks his hair for grey streaks*
Apparently I am the D. Clyde Williamson that you know.
The original poster made very clear that he was talking about "independant security professionals" who use unsanctioned audits to garner money or business. Not a "Whoops I was surfing your site and saw X" or "Hey I found that your system is vulnerable to the 'foo bar baz' expolit. Here's a link to the fix".
Ethical Hacking has its place. You do not have to be a 'professional'. Hell, if you know who I am (and my past history) you know I'm not just a commercial auditor. I've told many companies that they have holes, but I have never once expected any payment for it (that is the key difference).
Hackers (not Crackers) have 3 options when they discover a hole:
1. Don't say a word and walk away. (rare)
2. Anonymously (or otherwise) alert the system owner, then forget about it. (common)
3. Alert the owner and give them a time table within which to reply and agree to fix it. Failure would result in a public disclosure of information. (very common)
Nowhere in there is "force the company to pay you". Nowhere in there is "expect anything in return".
I (and many of my peers) alert companies on a fairly regular basis that they have holes/flaws/exposures, I have yet to receive a C&D and I can only think of two of my peers that have gotten them. They simply publicly disclosed the flaw and that was the end of it. No company wants to be in the news for trying to gag someone who pointed out a flaw.
I think your understanding of InfoSec is not as informed as it should be to justify your post.
D Clyde Williamson
8 years in the InfoSec Trenches
All Hail Discordia
Its all about people spending lots of time downloading something completely useless.
Google on The Invisible College.
Not likely. This guy threatened several companies with the same thing, audits proved those to be bluffs... (In fact, some of the system designs made his claim impossible).