Um, do you have any idea who the sandia red team is?
Then maybe you know that they managed to break into every system they attempted to, giving the 'opponent' months warning, and a description of how they were going to get in.
THe quote was something along the lines of: ' Oh sure, security slows us down, but only a matter of minutes or hours, when you are dísguised as background noise, there really isn't much one can do to stop you.'
Now this may be hogwash, but somehow I'll choose to believe them that they can(and have)hack any system they are set up against. Mainly because the systems they are up against are big heavyweights that are big on security. (oh, they use linux, and UNIX, and freebsd and blah - even openVMS)
The only system, regardless of OS, that can't be hacked into (and even that isn't guaranteed) is the one not connected to the network. The real question is, can it be hacked without the hackee detecting the hacker.
Balgillow
- Murphies Advocate
written 3000 years ago by a chinese scholar called Lao Zi:
8. Water The best attitude is like water, Which benefits all things, and does not compete with them, Which flows to places that others disdain, Thereby, it is in harmony with the Dao.
So the sage: Lives within nature, Thinks within the deep, In dealing with people, treats them well, Speaks, knowing how to keep his word, Governs through order, Serves within ability, Acts within opportunity. By not contending, none can contend against him.
At that point, the entire helpdesk for the German speaking ccustomers was no more than 30 people. Normal was ~20. We at times were down to 10 people, providing support for all of German speaking Europe. this was 1st and 2nd tier support only, and only for Dos/Win3x/9x. I averaged 60-70 calls/day. so there ya go. whether that helps or not, I dunno. Balgillow
Re:More to do with the definition of "Addict"
on
LonelyNet
·
· Score: 1
I think that is a very liberal definition of the word addict. To be addicted to something implies one cannot do without something. To be addicted to a substance means it has serious psychological and physiological factors binding you to it. An alchoholic cannot survive sans alchohol without putting his mental state in a traumatic condition.
A person 'addicted' to the internet would display an obsessive/compulsive necessity to be on the net (in the mud, on irc, whatever) The important term is obsessive/compulsive. One cannot *choose* otherwise...one stops thinking. It would be very hard to stop. Not merely inconvenient, but actually very difficult. Email is not addictive. Addiction is the wrong term there, both medically speaking and psychologically.
I guess this might sound like splitting hairs, but for an 'internet addict', as they are called, this is quite important. It means he can't in most cases stop without help, and the effects may be quite serious. In contrast, a habitual surfer will not be affected by his ISP going down, except maybe for a sense of boredom. So you probably are not addicted to your hobbies. That is, unless you are a compulsive/obsessive stamp collector and would go into traumatic shock if your collection went up in flames.
Don't use the word addict lightly. I agree it is an American trend to call everything an addiction... And an addiction need not necessarily be bad. (Sugar is a good example) But it is not something trivial.
Hrm..Yes, I agree with you that in a good one-to-one relationship, or even in some extended group dynamics, the issue of 'better' or other heirarchies falls apart. But, I think in general group dynamics the heirarchy is unavoidable. As long as there is an unknown quantity, there needs to be a pecking order. In a mutual relationship, the giving and taking are balanced, and both know where they stand. In a good circle of friends, everyone knows where they stand. BUT (big but) that is essentially because everyone knows everyone else, and does not need to prove his position. The heirarchy (for wont of a better word) has been established. In the anonymity of the net, however, the opposite is enhanced, no-one knows where they stand, hence the instincts kick in. These instincts, I think, are something that will not change, unless the very nature of man changes (not something that will happen for a long time), regardless of education. It just is shifted to a different area every time the deciding factor ceases to matter. e.g. skin colour on the internet become irrelevant, so it is impossible to discriminate by it...thank god, but my point is the discrimination merely moves to a different factor...if you need proof, log on to irc or a mud with a female name (though I'm sure most of us have done that anyhow *g*), or try to hail the advantages of M$, or Islam on a so-and-so forum and watch the postulations.
As to cleverness, I also agree with you, we *are* getting cleverer. (more clever?) Rupert Sheldrake and Bert Hellinger have done some interesting studies regarding morphological fields which provide some interesting insight into this. But, I think that cleverness is not the deciding factor:o). Mainly, I think that to move into the revolution that you mention, clever people will fail in the same way as stupid people. The pivot is greed, egotism and egocentricity. These, I believe, are not changing. I *do* believe education can change these, and truth is one step on the way. But truth is not possible without selflessness, and the above mentioned education requires selflessness. A catch-22. But I am also an optimist: We may get sucked into a black hole first;o)
But then, that is just my opinion, and if all of our opinions were the same, neither of us could be right:o)
Those who strive to change the world According to their desire Cannot succeed.
I disagree here. It is in the nature of our society (and most other current societies, thus maybe in the nature of man), to try and establish heirarchies and groups. We all try to find out how we are better than someone else, and why the people above us are where they are and why they shouldn't be. And that is without taking greed into consideration(whether social or material).
Racism, sexism, chauvanism are all based around this simple principle. (of course, reality is a bit more complex, but nonetheless) When we do away with racism, we will simply find another substitute. Already, the net is filled with sexism, and the chauvenism moves from physical prowess to cleverness (the 'I can do the Linux thang from 0-100% in 25 seconds...you use windows hence you suck' syndrome). Unfortunately, I don't see that dissapearing, but getting stronger. I have worked hells job personally (win95 hotline for MS) and I know that I am not exempt from getting a cramped middle finger when faced with stupidity.
But I think I'd rather have people getting intellectually tough and having battles of wit than battles of flesh and bones. Unfortunately, those that cannot compete in the field of wit need to gain some sense of superiority, thus the stupid bully will always remain.
The other thing I disagree with is the insinuation (maybe that is just me reading between the lines) that people are getting more intelligent. I disagree. We are becoming more adept in certain modes of thought, but are just as entrenched and limited as always. General public rationale is as far away from reality now as it was in the middle ages. The only difference is that the rational people have more chance to get the truth and the common sense out to the world.
I couldn't resist... To the music of Muddy Waters, 'Man'
*da-dum-da-da-dum* I got up this morning *da-dum-da-da-dum* and switched into the net *da-dum-da-da-dum* Its the first thang I did *da-dum-da-da-dum* so you think I'm sad, I'll bet
[refrain] But I got the bluuuhues, the internet blues. Yeh I got the bluuuhues, those internet blues.
[leaving out the dumdeedahs] I chatted to hongkong I chatted to rome The people call me lonely Cause I don't leave my home
[refrain] cause I got the bluuuhuues...
I've mudded till dusk I've quaked till dawn the schools , well they hate me they think I'm hellspawn
[refrain]
I buy my stuff online I've dated online, too My friends all got fake names but I know that they are true
[refrain]
I'm socially inept I can't play any sports if that's what you think of me you can kiss mah hairy warts
[refrain]
(etc, etc....as with Muddy Waters, this can go on ad infinitum)
I really wonder about 'scientific' studies sometimes. Does anyone know who funded the study at Stanford? (reminds me of the time a study appeared, stating that red wine prevented cancer... people failed to notice the study was funded by the california grape growers association...)
So, seeing as I'm such a lonely git, and have no life (and Stanford has proven this now), does that make me psychologically unstable? (as opposed, for example, to someone who devotes his entire life to learning how to fight over a little egg shaped pigskin and get it past the enemy into a certain line...you are telling me 50 guys beating the crap out of each other for a pigskin is psychologically stable and is good healthy interaction? woohoo!) More to the point...why is watching TV considered human interaction (especially watching 50 guys beating the crap out of each other for a pigskin)...or even shopping...I tend to try and avoid people when I go shopping, the lines are shorter that way, and I hate people that yak on when I'm watching TV.
And I guess the fact that I have good friends I talk to daily in malaysia, china, australia uk, german, blah doesn't count, because I don't sit and watch telly with them.
Good stuff, Stanford. Yea, science. Ignore reality! We are a snazzy university, so we can say what we want to and people will listen, even if it is garbage! bwahahahaaaaa!
and tomorrow, they will discover that the moon *is* made out of cheese.
Who understands does not preach; Who preaches does not understand.
What are we protecting children from? Sex? You really think kids don't get into sex? What is bad about sex, anyways? No. Not the right approach. Censorship just stuffs the problems under the carpet where adults can preted they don't see them. I agree 100% that kiddie porn and snuff movies etc should be banned and fought against. No question. However. Where do you draw the line? This vilification of sex is just rediculous. Rape isn't caused by porn. Its caused by sad, sick, repressed individuals. Banning porn isn't going to change that. A kid who knows about sex isn't going to go out and impregnate the girl next door, the one that isn't educated about the facts of life will, tho. Its not like they both don't realise they have a schlong down there. For all its libertarianism, the US is the most prude and sexually repressed country I have been in. As if hiding sex will make it go away. And in the meantime, the US porn industry cranks out new flicks for the 'perverted' masses so they can wind up their faltering imagination and break out of the repression. Sad fact that the more you try and hide something and keep away from your kids, the more appealing it becomes. Hitler wasn't allowed to play with war toys.
So have sex. Enjoy it. Bathe topless or nude on public beaches. It's natural. And quit trying to make eroticism into a crime. Spend more time with your kids, educating and protecting them, rather than trying to allieve your personal guilt that you can't by stiftling them. Children need danger and excitement, and by hiding everything that might harm them, you force them to find new ways to get the kick. What better way to lose them or warp them? No, instead why not let them face the danger and exitement that you know and can be prepared for, and help them and protect them? The dutch have a very different system, not without problems, but they are far ahead of us in some ways. Maybe we should quit hiding up our arses and cut the liberty and personal freedom crap and start working on it?
*sigh* No chance. Those who strive to change the world According to their desire Cannot succeed.
The stuff he says is really quite true.. Unfortunately, it won't have much of a positive effect (besides stating what many think and many don't), IMHO, because the people that agree already know what he's said is true and the people that don't are so entrenched that they are going for a war of attrition anyhow. Finally the flamers that just need an excuse to explode don't read the article anyhow, they just flame. But then again, I guess it is important to keep it going. How can the supposedly most intelligent people be so rigid? I think a reevaluation of the importance of conventional intelligence is required. Oh, we are sooo proud at being able to hack a linux kernel, but can't even engage in an intelligent discussion, or *gasp* take criticism. Get real.
The best attitude is like water, Which benefits all things, and does not compete with them, Which flows to places that others disdain, Thereby, it is in harmony with the Dao.
Do you honestly think non-christians will be punished?
Don't you think that in the ultimate wisdom that God is supposed to have, he is beyond that petty distinction and will treat people by the lives they have led, by their experience and wisdom (or lack thereof) and not because they believed in Christ or Bruce or Boogawonga.
It is not a matter of right or wrong. It is a matter of seeing what is there in different ways. Allah, Yahweh, God, Buddha, The Dao are all the same thing. You choose to see things one way, I choose another, yet I'll bet if we actually compared beliefs, you'd find more similarities than differences. And just as you, I'm betting I won't burn so I'll see you, or not:)
Well established hierarchies are not easily uprooted; Closely held beliefs are not easily released; So rituals enthrall generation after generation.
Your post is yet another example of a Christian Fundamentalists thinly veiled attacks on Katz's perfectly neutral statements. (whether you like em or not, this statement of his really has very little in the way of religious statements) Your writing has no other purpose than to stir up hatred and animosity...period. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Why don't you go to the middle ages and join the spanish inquisition where this type of attitude is accepted more.
And you call yourself a Christian. *laugh* I can see the brotherly love just ooooozing out of you. Oh, I forgot, only Christians are your brothers...the rest are heathens that should be burnt at the stake for insulting you (and God) with their presence....I suppose you think God created us non-believers for your personal entertainment and target practice?
When the Dao is forgotten Duty and justice appear; When intelligence and cleverness are born So is hypocrisy.
To put it bluntly, assuming god were allowed to 'help' out in the government...
a) who decides or says what god wants b) who is to say god really wants anything to do with all this anyhow ( I mean he may be busy installing a seperate system, universe 7.1.3 by now...do *you* want to hack around on version 1.1.03 beta when you have 2.7.23) c) does anyone want eric clapton interfering in our govt anyways?
I mean this is all really obvious, the problem is not god, but people, and by saying noone is allowed to make any church or religious rulings in government, we ensure that all the people who know that god is their best buddy and he's the guy that talks to them while they're taking a dump aren't able to get more power than they have anyways. And for those who are a moderated, intelligent version of religious....does it really matter if a guy is a daoist or a christian? If the rules by which we run the country ensure that all are treated equally and justly (the basic rules for most religions), then god is getting his will. Whether you call him Yahweh, Allah or Bruce and whether you eat pork or kosher or your Aunt Wang Li's poodle soup really doesn't matter in the grand scale of things, does it...? I hope not...poodle soup is my favorite.
The Dao that can be defined is not the true Dao; The name that can be named is not the true name;
Amen to that.... abuse of any ideology, when put in the correct (wrong) hands is a problem. The only difference is you live in the USA, where there are more Christian fundamentalists. Having to live with fundamentalists of any belief (or of any sort, for that matter) will show you that a vocal and organised pushing of the percieved agenda is quite strong in all forms of belief. Ah, well. Some of the peeps here are just as bad as fundamentalist Christians, but they wave their linux distribution instead of the bible, or thump their preferred editor instead of the koran. Of course, one can take this analogy quite a bit further.... 'ye shall all be damned ta hellfires, cause ya don't believe in gawd!' ~= 'Ye are not a geek cause ye can't install linux!'
hear, hear.... Quite sad, but it seems to have gotten to the point where people will flame anything he writes, just because they see his name. If I recall, Pavlov did some experiments like that. I doubt those people even bother to read what he has to say. It's a shame, not only because he writes good stuff some of the time, but mainly because it shows how many supposedly educated and smart people are unable to deal with something they dislike creatively. Just like the jocks they all dispise.... Has anyone else also noticed the number of flames that vow never to read Katz's articles again, yet continuously flame them? Now that is lame. *cackle*
Hehe...do as the cantonese do: eat anything that moves, regardless of species, size or cuteness, after all they'd eat us, given half the chance. How many mosquitos do you know that go 'no!no! those poor humans!' well...actually if you know *any* mosquitos, yer wierd, but never mind... I spent a year in China, and we went to this one restaurant, where they served donkey. Thinking ok, when in Rome, do as the Mongols do, we ordered it. So the waiter arrives, tells us the donkeys name and starts praising this donkey, saying it had a distinguished military career and had always served well, was hung like a horse, left behind a wife and 17 kids etc, etc...yadda yadda. When he was done (this was 10 minutes later) he served it and left.... Possibly the most surreal thing I've experienced. Tasted ok...sorta chewy, but you certainly had respect for the bugger. (of course most likely it was some random donkey and the waiter had 10 minutes of fun taking the rip on some stupid foreigners)
Slashdot Mirror
Um, do you have any idea who the sandia red team is?
Then maybe you know that they managed to break into every system they attempted to, giving the 'opponent' months warning, and a description of how they were going to get in.
THe quote was something along the lines of: ' Oh sure, security slows us down, but only a matter of minutes or hours, when you are dísguised as background noise, there really isn't much one can do to stop you.'
Now this may be hogwash, but somehow I'll choose to believe them that they can(and have)hack any system they are set up against. Mainly because the systems they are up against are big heavyweights that are big on security. (oh, they use linux, and UNIX, and freebsd and blah - even openVMS)
The only system, regardless of OS, that can't be hacked into (and even that isn't guaranteed) is the one not connected to the network. The real question is, can it be hacked without the hackee detecting the hacker.
Balgillow - Murphies Advocate
written 3000 years ago by a chinese scholar called Lao Zi:
8. Water
The best attitude is like water,
Which benefits all things, and does not compete with them,
Which flows to places that others disdain,
Thereby, it is in harmony with the Dao.
So the sage:
Lives within nature,
Thinks within the deep,
In dealing with people, treats them well,
Speaks, knowing how to keep his word,
Governs through order,
Serves within ability,
Acts within opportunity.
By not contending, none can contend against him.
At that point, the entire helpdesk for the German speaking ccustomers was no more than 30 people. Normal was ~20. We at times were down to 10 people, providing support for all of German speaking Europe.
this was 1st and 2nd tier support only, and only for Dos/Win3x/9x.
I averaged 60-70 calls/day.
so there ya go. whether that helps or not, I dunno.
Balgillow
I think that is a very liberal definition of the word addict. To be addicted to something implies one cannot do without something. To be addicted to a substance means it has serious psychological and physiological factors binding you to it. An alchoholic cannot survive sans alchohol without putting his mental state in a traumatic condition.
A person 'addicted' to the internet would display an obsessive/compulsive necessity to be on the net (in the mud, on irc, whatever)
The important term is obsessive/compulsive. One cannot *choose* otherwise...one stops thinking. It would be very hard to stop. Not merely inconvenient, but actually very difficult. Email is not addictive. Addiction is the wrong term there, both medically speaking and psychologically.
I guess this might sound like splitting hairs, but for an 'internet addict', as they are called, this is quite important. It means he can't in most cases stop without help, and the effects may be quite serious. In contrast, a habitual surfer will not be affected by his ISP going down, except maybe for a sense of boredom.
So you probably are not addicted to your hobbies. That is, unless you are a compulsive/obsessive stamp collector and would go into traumatic shock if your collection went up in flames.
Don't use the word addict lightly. I agree it is an American trend to call everything an addiction... And an addiction need not necessarily be bad. (Sugar is a good example) But it is not something trivial.
Hrm..Yes, I agree with you that in a good one-to-one relationship, or even in some extended group dynamics, the issue of 'better' or other heirarchies falls apart. But, I think in general group dynamics the heirarchy is unavoidable. As long as there is an unknown quantity, there needs to be a pecking order. In a mutual relationship, the giving and taking are balanced, and both know where they stand. In a good circle of friends, everyone knows where they stand. BUT (big but) that is essentially because everyone knows everyone else, and does not need to prove his position. The heirarchy (for wont of a better word) has been established. In the anonymity of the net, however, the opposite is enhanced, no-one knows where they stand, hence the instincts kick in. These instincts, I think, are something that will not change, unless the very nature of man changes (not something that will happen for a long time), regardless of education. It just is shifted to a different area every time the deciding factor ceases to matter. e.g. skin colour on the internet become irrelevant, so it is impossible to discriminate by it...thank god, but my point is the discrimination merely moves to a different factor...if you need proof, log on to irc or a mud with a female name (though I'm sure most of us have done that anyhow *g*), or try to hail the advantages of M$, or Islam on a so-and-so forum and watch the postulations.
:o). Mainly, I think that to move into the revolution that you mention, clever people will fail in the same way as stupid people. The pivot is greed, egotism and egocentricity. These, I believe, are not changing. I *do* believe education can change these, and truth is one step on the way. But truth is not possible without selflessness, and the above mentioned education requires selflessness. A catch-22. But I am also an optimist: We may get sucked into a black hole first ;o)
:o)
As to cleverness, I also agree with you, we *are* getting cleverer. (more clever?) Rupert Sheldrake and Bert Hellinger have done some interesting studies regarding morphological fields which provide some interesting insight into this. But, I think that cleverness is not the deciding factor
But then, that is just my opinion, and if all of our opinions were the same, neither of us could be right
Those who strive to change the world
According to their desire
Cannot succeed.
I disagree here. It is in the nature of our society (and most other current societies, thus maybe in the nature of man), to try and establish heirarchies and groups. We all try to find out how we are better than someone else, and why the people above us are where they are and why they shouldn't be. And that is without taking greed into consideration(whether social or material).
Racism, sexism, chauvanism are all based around this simple principle. (of course, reality is a bit more complex, but nonetheless) When we do away with racism, we will simply find another substitute. Already, the net is filled with sexism, and the chauvenism moves from physical prowess to cleverness (the 'I can do the Linux thang from 0-100% in 25 seconds...you use windows hence you suck' syndrome). Unfortunately, I don't see that dissapearing, but getting stronger. I have worked hells job personally (win95 hotline for MS) and I know that I am not exempt from getting a cramped middle finger when faced with stupidity.
But I think I'd rather have people getting intellectually tough and having battles of wit than battles of flesh and bones. Unfortunately, those that cannot compete in the field of wit need to gain some sense of superiority, thus the stupid bully will always remain.
The other thing I disagree with is the insinuation (maybe that is just me reading between the lines) that people are getting more intelligent. I disagree. We are becoming more adept in certain modes of thought, but are just as entrenched and limited as always. General public rationale is as far away from reality now as it was in the middle ages. The only difference is that the rational people have more chance to get the truth and the common sense out to the world.
Amongst the blind, the one-eyed man is King.
I couldn't resist... To the music of Muddy Waters, 'Man'
*da-dum-da-da-dum*
I got up this morning
*da-dum-da-da-dum*
and switched into the net
*da-dum-da-da-dum*
Its the first thang I did
*da-dum-da-da-dum*
so you think I'm sad, I'll bet
[refrain]
But I got the bluuuhues,
the internet blues.
Yeh I got the bluuuhues,
those internet blues.
[leaving out the dumdeedahs]
I chatted to hongkong
I chatted to rome
The people call me lonely
Cause I don't leave my home
[refrain]
cause I got the bluuuhuues...
I've mudded till dusk
I've quaked till dawn
the schools , well they hate me
they think I'm hellspawn
[refrain]
I buy my stuff online
I've dated online, too
My friends all got fake names
but I know that they are true
[refrain]
I'm socially inept
I can't play any sports
if that's what you think of me
you can kiss mah hairy warts
[refrain]
(etc, etc....as with Muddy Waters, this can go on ad infinitum)
I really wonder about 'scientific' studies sometimes. Does anyone know who funded the study at Stanford? (reminds me of the time a study appeared, stating that red wine prevented cancer... people failed to notice the study was funded by the california grape growers association...)
So, seeing as I'm such a lonely git, and have no life (and Stanford has proven this now), does that make me psychologically unstable? (as opposed, for example, to someone who devotes his entire life to learning how to fight over a little egg shaped pigskin and get it past the enemy into a certain line...you are telling me 50 guys beating the crap out of each other for a pigskin is psychologically stable and is good healthy interaction? woohoo!) More to the point...why is watching TV considered human interaction (especially watching 50 guys beating the crap out of each other for a pigskin)...or even shopping...I tend to try and avoid people when I go shopping, the lines are shorter that way, and I hate people that yak on when I'm watching TV.
And I guess the fact that I have good friends I talk to daily in malaysia, china, australia uk, german, blah doesn't count, because I don't sit and watch telly with them.
Good stuff, Stanford. Yea, science. Ignore reality! We are a snazzy university, so we can say what we want to and people will listen, even if it is garbage! bwahahahaaaaa!
and tomorrow, they will discover that the moon *is* made out of cheese.
Who understands does not preach;
Who preaches does not understand.
What are we protecting children from? Sex?
You really think kids don't get into sex? What is bad about sex, anyways? No. Not the right approach. Censorship just stuffs the problems under the carpet where adults can preted they don't see them. I agree 100% that kiddie porn and snuff movies etc should be banned and fought against. No question.
However. Where do you draw the line? This vilification of sex is just rediculous. Rape isn't caused by porn. Its caused by sad, sick, repressed individuals. Banning porn isn't going to change that. A kid who knows about sex isn't going to go out and impregnate the girl next door, the one that isn't educated about the facts of life will, tho. Its not like they both don't realise they have a schlong down there.
For all its libertarianism, the US is the most prude and sexually repressed country I have been in. As if hiding sex will make it go away. And in the meantime, the US porn industry cranks out new flicks for the 'perverted' masses so they can wind up their faltering imagination and break out of the repression. Sad fact that the more you try and hide something and keep away from your kids, the more appealing it becomes. Hitler wasn't allowed to play with war toys.
So have sex. Enjoy it. Bathe topless or nude on public beaches. It's natural. And quit trying to make eroticism into a crime. Spend more time with your kids, educating and protecting them, rather than trying to allieve your personal guilt that you can't by stiftling them.
Children need danger and excitement, and by hiding everything that might harm them, you force them to find new ways to get the kick. What better way to lose them or warp them? No, instead why not let them face the danger and exitement that you know and can be prepared for, and help them and protect them?
The dutch have a very different system, not without problems, but they are far ahead of us in some ways. Maybe we should quit hiding up our arses and cut the liberty and personal freedom crap and start working on it?
*sigh*
No chance.
Those who strive to change the world
According to their desire
Cannot succeed.
The stuff he says is really quite true..
Unfortunately, it won't have much of a positive effect (besides stating what many think and many don't), IMHO, because the people that agree already know what he's said is true and the people that don't are so entrenched that they are going for a war of attrition anyhow. Finally the flamers that just need an excuse to explode don't read the article anyhow, they just flame.
But then again, I guess it is important to keep it going.
How can the supposedly most intelligent people be so rigid? I think a reevaluation of the importance of conventional intelligence is required. Oh, we are sooo proud at being able to hack a linux kernel, but can't even engage in an intelligent discussion, or *gasp* take criticism. Get real.
The best attitude is like water,
Which benefits all things, and does not compete with them,
Which flows to places that others disdain,
Thereby, it is in harmony with the Dao.
Do you honestly think non-christians will be punished?
:)
Don't you think that in the ultimate wisdom that God is supposed to have, he is beyond that petty distinction and will treat people by the lives they have led, by their experience and wisdom (or lack thereof) and not because they believed in Christ or Bruce or Boogawonga.
It is not a matter of right or wrong. It is a matter of seeing what is there in different ways. Allah, Yahweh, God, Buddha, The Dao are all the same thing. You choose to see things one way, I choose another, yet I'll bet if we actually compared beliefs, you'd find more similarities than differences. And just as you, I'm betting I won't burn so I'll see you, or not
Well established hierarchies are not easily uprooted;
Closely held beliefs are not easily released;
So rituals enthrall generation after generation.
Interesting viewpoint.....NOT!
Your post is yet another example of a Christian Fundamentalists thinly veiled attacks on Katz's perfectly neutral statements. (whether you like em or not, this statement of his really has very little in the way of religious statements) Your writing has no other purpose than to stir up hatred and animosity...period. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Why don't you go to the middle ages and join the spanish inquisition where this type of attitude is accepted more.
And you call yourself a Christian. *laugh* I can see the brotherly love just ooooozing out of you. Oh, I forgot, only Christians are your brothers...the rest are heathens that should be burnt at the stake for insulting you (and God) with their presence....I suppose you think God created us non-believers for your personal entertainment and target practice?
When the Dao is forgotten
Duty and justice appear;
When intelligence and cleverness are born
So is hypocrisy.
To put it bluntly, assuming god were allowed to 'help' out in the government...
a) who decides or says what god wants
b) who is to say god really wants anything to do with all this anyhow ( I mean he may be busy installing a seperate system, universe 7.1.3 by now...do *you* want to hack around on version 1.1.03 beta when you have 2.7.23)
c) does anyone want eric clapton interfering in our govt anyways?
I mean this is all really obvious, the problem is not god, but people, and by saying noone is allowed to make any church or religious rulings in government, we ensure that all the people who know that god is their best buddy and he's the guy that talks to them while they're taking a dump aren't able to get more power than they have anyways.
And for those who are a moderated, intelligent version of religious....does it really matter if a guy is a daoist or a christian? If the rules by which we run the country ensure that all are treated equally and justly (the basic rules for most religions), then god is getting his will. Whether you call him Yahweh, Allah or Bruce and whether you eat pork or kosher or your Aunt Wang Li's poodle soup really doesn't matter in the grand scale of things, does it...? I hope not...poodle soup is my favorite.
The Dao that can be defined is not the true Dao;
The name that can be named is not the true name;
Amen to that.... abuse of any ideology, when put in the correct (wrong) hands is a problem. The only difference is you live in the USA, where there are more Christian fundamentalists. Having to live with fundamentalists of any belief (or of any sort, for that matter) will show you that a vocal and organised pushing of the percieved agenda is quite strong in all forms of belief. Ah, well. Some of the peeps here are just as bad as fundamentalist Christians, but they wave their linux distribution instead of the bible, or thump their preferred editor instead of the koran. Of course, one can take this analogy quite a bit further.... 'ye shall all be damned ta hellfires, cause ya don't believe in gawd!' ~= 'Ye are not a geek cause ye can't install linux!'
hear, hear.... Quite sad, but it seems to have gotten to the point where people will flame anything he writes, just because they see his name. If I recall, Pavlov did some experiments like that. I doubt those people even bother to read what he has to say. It's a shame, not only because he writes good stuff some of the time, but mainly because it shows how many supposedly educated and smart people are unable to deal with something they dislike creatively. Just like the jocks they all dispise.... Has anyone else also noticed the number of flames that vow never to read Katz's articles again, yet continuously flame them? Now that is lame. *cackle*
Hehe...do as the cantonese do: eat anything that moves, regardless of species, size or cuteness, after all they'd eat us, given half the chance. How many mosquitos do you know that go 'no!no! those poor humans!' well...actually if you know *any* mosquitos, yer wierd, but never mind... I spent a year in China, and we went to this one restaurant, where they served donkey. Thinking ok, when in Rome, do as the Mongols do, we ordered it. So the waiter arrives, tells us the donkeys name and starts praising this donkey, saying it had a distinguished military career and had always served well, was hung like a horse, left behind a wife and 17 kids etc, etc...yadda yadda. When he was done (this was 10 minutes later) he served it and left.... Possibly the most surreal thing I've experienced. Tasted ok...sorta chewy, but you certainly had respect for the bugger. (of course most likely it was some random donkey and the waiter had 10 minutes of fun taking the rip on some stupid foreigners)