Yeah, I'm a firm believer that all inmates should spend 15 hours per day in community service of various forms.
Ideas are:
1) Anything normal people don't want to do that needs to be done (cleaning up highways like they do, manual labor, etc.)
2) Have crews inside the prison build inexpensive modular homes (not trailers, something intentionally designed and closer to stickbuilt, but in modules, even just preframed walls) and have lower-risk crews go out and assemble them. Habitat For Humanity on steroids.
3) If nothing else, they should be put on exercise bikes hooked up to generators and create electricity for the rest of us.
Part of the point of prison should be to teach them how (and why) to be productive members of society (something some of them have never experienced). This is not accomplished by free internet access and gym priviledges.
I agree whole-heartedly. They're exposed to dozens of different shows, cartoon or otherwise. There are just a few that exceed our threshhold for violence or overly sarcastic humor.
We also try to expose them to as much of the good as possible. Variety is the spice of life. We just do so within the standards acceptable in our home.
You'd better believe my wife is more sensitive to this stuff than I am, and that is one of the things I love about her.
I'm not sure who's looking over your shoulder your trying to score points with, but I never said anything about weaker sex. I'm simply relating the fact that most women would be disgusted by the experience, and most men would stick around and take a peek.
Between my wife and I we have 2 mothers and 4 grandmothers, and not one of them would say sh*t if they had a mouth full of it. Women, in general, are simply more sensitive than men. It's a Good Thing. That is why they make better mommy's, and we make better daddy's. One isn't better than the other, they're both necessary.
Weaker sex... You've obviously never been in the delivery room while you're wife is giving birth. WE are the weaker sex (in all ways but physical strength).
And if she types in bisney.com instead of disney.com?
I never said I gave her unrestricted access. But I don't want it happening whether I'm sitting right there or not.
The guy was deliberately targeting childrens domain names (among others) and sending them to porn sites. Who else did he mean to send there? This is no different than standing in front of an elementary school handing out copies of hustler. You should plan on going to jail (as opposed to someone handing out porn on the strip in Vegas).
My wife and I are stricter than most (even in Utah, where we live). We don't even like our children (daughters: 5, 3, 1) to watch Sponge Bob Square Pants and other cartoons like it. We both enjoy watching and discussing cartoons and movies with them.
Same with the internet. Much of the time one of us will be right there surfing and playing with them. I'm self-employed and write software from home and my computer is 5 feet away from theirs, so it's easy to be involved, which we try to be.
My hope is that as they get older we'll have armed them with the knowledge to make proper choices and choose not to view pornography. ( Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it. Proverbs 22:6).
The girls are very intelligent, and when the time comes I trust them to do the right thing or be willing to take the consequences that come along with their actions. But I hope to be involved in the decision making, even if just as a friend and advisor, until they're driving at least (a father's wishful thinking...).
Have you forgotten the whole super bowl half-time fiasco with Janet Jackson? She flashes her boob for 1/2 a second and 100,000's of parents complain the next day.
But it's OK if some jerk hijacks your daughter on the internet and sends her to site after site of some of the nastiest p0rn on the net, because he has the right to earn a quick buck.
What happened to the rights of parents to protect their children? And my motives in wanting to protect my daughters are none of your business. It is my family, and my stewardship, and I take it seriously.
3) I usually surf the internet with my daughter because I enjoy spending time with her (and her 2 sisters). When I'm not, we're in and out of the room constantly.
Guess what, my 5 year old daughter uses the computer and takes herself to www.disney.com and www.barbie.com. It would be a very easy thing for her to get an eye full.
And 5,500 domains?!?
This guy got exactly what he deserved, assuming he got 3 years in jails and a 1 million dollar fine so there is no money waiting for him when he gets out.
This man is a scum sucking pig that preyed on little childrens mistakes to give himself an easy life.
Let's do the math:
5,500 domains, say 10 people per day (quite conservative), for a year. So this guy makes 20,075,000 people look at p0rn (daughters, mothers, grandmothers), with no way of using the back button or getting out of it, and prison time is excessive?
Re:1/625 possibility of being destroyed in 2031
on
Space Elevators Going Up
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
To avoid this possibility why not take this approach:
Instead of a fixed cable that has to support it's own weight, how about a large satellite or space station in geo-syncronous orbit, with 2 cables, one that comes down to earth and one that goes the opposite direction into space as a counter balance.
Nothing would be permanently attached to earth. Instead the two cables would wind out (like a giant winch) in each direction until the earth-bound cable reaches earth.
The cable could be wide and flat, like a giant nanotube nylon webbing. Payloads may only be in the thousands of pounds, but that is OK. Even if we could only make a few trips per day it would revolutionize space travel, exploration, and research.
Larger objects like space ships could be taken up in pieces and assembled in space.
Best of all, when the 2031 Leonid Meteor Shower (and others like it) arrive the ribbons can be stowed and the satellite could be flown around to the back side of the earth and protected from meteors (if that is even necessary).
Also, if the cables break they would fall to earh in the general vicinity of the landing base on earth, causing destruction there (like the never ending chain falling on that guy in "Twins") but not wrapping around the earth twice...
Oh, and when I mentioned the "giant winch" I wasn't talking about your wife. This is slashdot, you don't have a wife. (I was talking about your mother).
Plain and simple, Mormons who don't practice tolerance and neighborliness aren't living their religion in that respect.
Read any talk that the current Prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley has given, and the chances are very high it will talk about being better, more tolerant neighbors.
There's *nothing* inherently wrong with alcohol or gambling, it's how people handle it.
Then I assume you have no problem with meth, cocaine, marijuana, or any other drugs either? There is nothing wrong with them, it's just when people become *addicted* to them that there is a problem?
I'm willing to bet that clearly half of the people in this country were conceived in the heat of a passion that was enhanced by the effects of alcohol
Remember, I live in Utah where we don't drink and do have the biggest families of any group in America. I'm pretty sure people would still have kids just fine without alcohol. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to find that a higher percentage of unwanted and abused children were conceived under the influence of alcohol than without.
Don't stop at banning drinking gambling and pornography!!! Look at how many people are addicted to consumerism.
Yes, consumer debt is at an all-time high. And why not, there is no responsibility for anything else in America, why should there be responsibility for spending? We have the right to do anything in America, surely that means get ourselves in to debt and then file bankrupcy.
"The price to society is simply too high." And of course, you have the wisdom to mandate this.
So you don't think the toll alcohol alone takes on America is too high?
I can think of 17,419 families in 2002 that would disagree with you. Alcohol related deaths account for 41% of all traffic deaths each year. (I'm sure the other 59% were people rushing to the mall to get into debt).
Here are some child abuse statistics:
Everyday three children in the U.S. are murdered by a parent or caretaker.
18,000 are permanently disabled every year.
565,000 are seriously injured every year.
Three million children were reported as victims of child abuse and neglect in 1999 in the United States.
I would be very surprised if less than 41% of that abuse wasn't related to drug and alcohol abuse.
Think of how many movies and tv shows involve a father coming home drunk and beating the wife or kids.
So yes, I think the cost of alcohol on our society is too high for a little fun on the weekends. Plenty of people have just as much fun without it. I also think that if we didn't have alcohol already, and a company tried to release it as a product and it was found to cause 17,419 deaths a year and all of the other "side-effects" that it would never be approved by the FDA or any other government organization. As it is, it is deeply entrenched and trying to get rid of it would be political suicide.
But I stand by my argument. As a country, as communities, and as families we'd be better without drugs and alcohol.
Which mafia-like companies are you referring to?
Sorry, I live 2 hours north of Las Vegas, so my comments were directed specifically at that town where the owners of the casinos are very, very powerful and don't spend their time just going around and building playgrounds.
There is at least one tribe where each member gets profit sharing of the casino's cut. IIRC, this was to the sum of $30,000 per member.
I can see how this may be good for the tribe in general (schools, hospitals, infrastructure, etc), but I would think a check for $30,000 each year that required no work or effort would be a very bad thing for the individuals in the tribe (or any group for that matter).
"Something for nothing" robs people of their work ethic, skews their reality, and often ruins them for life. I remember a guy that went on the game show "Press Your Luck" and beat the system and won $106,000. It absolutely ruined his life and hastened his death. The same has been found of many lottery winners. Work is a good thing, free money only seems like it.
This entire discussion is moot, as I'm having it with someone who doesn't believe in prophets or scripture (modern day pharisees and sadducees, like I said before), so this will be my last post.
Yes, Brigham Young was a prophet. No, I do not agree with that statement. But that is pointless anyway, because the statement was made before the civil war, in a very, very different time. And the only source is the Journal of Discourses, which has never been considered a source of church doctrine.
If you only analyze a group by their teachings or actions of 150+ years ago, then every american is a bigot against indians (american soldiers murdered tens of thousands of them) and every catholic is a barbarian (leftover from the cruisades). But neither of those are the case, just like neither I or my church are bigots.
Too true that many wars have been fought in the name of religion, and sadder still that many men have used their beliefs to justify terrible actions.
But it isn't religion per se, that is the nature of man (or more correctly some men and some women). Hitlers beliefs of supremecy were racially motivated, but not necessarily religious. Quacks will be quacks regardless. And if it isn't religion its something else.
But I stand by my statements regarding alcolhol and gambling. No good is brought to the world by either (at least not when all things are considered). There are plenty who can hold their acolhol, but far more who can't. Most addictive things leave a wake of broken homes, broken hearts, broken bank accounts, and broken people. This includes alcohol, drugs, gambling, pornography, and others.
Sure a party may be a little more fun at the moment with alcohol, but the same can probably be said of most drugs. The price to society is simply too high.
Same with gambling. It may be mildly entertaining, but it is highly addicting. Not only that, the money then goes to companies that are arguably mafia-like. The little money that ends up in education coffers is small consolation to the kids in broken homes or poverty because of a parents gambling addiction.
Hmm, it seems the only thing I'm being force fed here is your opinion that I'm a bigot. Something I've given you no reason to believe.
If you don't believe the Old Testament, you CAN'T believe the New Testament or in Jesus Christ. It isn't possible. He Himself taught from the Old Testament and affirmed repeatedly that He was the great I AM spoken of in the Old Testament. He seemed to think it was more than just "a collection of tales". He seemed to think it was scripture.
Do I believe that there have been unintentional and intentional errors in translation? Absolutely. But that doesn't change the fact that it's scripture. Or do the 10 commandments no exist for you?
So far you remind me a lot of the pharisees and sadducees that contended with Jesus and helped promote the bigotry that led to His crucifiction. They prided themselves in understanding the scriptures, or at least telling other people they were wrong, but didn't believe the scriptures and put forth no effort into living them.
The truth is, I don't care what you think about me. I have no problem with blacks, indians, jews, muslims, or any other race or group (except maybe lawyers and politicians:). It is God I will meet with face to face to account for my life, not you.
See, that's the funniest thing. I've never known anyone who treats their neighbors that way. I try to be nice and friendly to my neighbors regardless of religion or lack thereof.
Now there is the fact that we know each other from church and church functions, so naturally we're closer to each other because of that. But that would be true of a bridge club, a group that golfs together, quilts together, whatever.
What I have found true is that people will move into the neighborhood from out of state, not socialize with us, criticize our ways, and seem to go out of their way to exclude themselves. Naturally, they are going to feel left out.
One lady in particular (I was her sons leader in scouts and her husband came out on some campouts with us and was very nice) just seemed bent on standing out and making the world know that she wasn't one of us and had no intentions in associating with us. She excluded herself.
Now I know that is an extreme case, and that we are both right to different degrees and in different instances. But I don't see how it can be as bad as you say.
Perhaps the "unholier-than-thou" attitude is only a problem with some people in the state.
I can see how family values, the traditional family, no smoking or alcohol, no gambling, fighting tooth and nail against strip clubs, etc. look more and more peculiar to the rest of the world.
If only Sodom and Gomora had 5 peculiar people, it wouldn't have been destroyed.
I'm more than happy to be peculiar. (Deut. 14: 2, Deut. 26: 18, 1 Pet. 2: 9)
You mean if someone builds a crackhouse (or nuclear plant, or something else you're against) in your neighborhood you don't oppose it and speak out against it? Particularly when it happens over and over and over again? And is accompanied by lies, stereotypes, and prejudice?
We're a close state, so our neighborhood just happens to be bigger than most.
It reminds me of the song line "they pave paradise and put up a parking lot". I love Utah. I love living here, raising my family here, and I love the people. So sometimes it gets old to have people constantly try to fix it for us to get us up to speed with the rest of the world.
You're not very familiar with the God of the Old Testament, are you? Or the New Testament for that matter.
The issues you raise are things you'll have to take up directly with God, because I don't have the answer to his motives now, or in Old / New Testament times.
What is clear is that God, repeatedly throughout the Old and New Testaments, at times and under circumstances of his own choosing, has chosen to "mark" or "accurse" different groups (Cain and his seed, families of the wicked (see Joshua chapter 7 about Achan and his family), the Jews for the crucifiction of the Savior, etc, etc, etc) for their actions. In most cases these marks or curses continue on to their seed until God sees fit to change it.
There have been numerous groups in the Bible, with and without visual marks, that have been denied the gospel or the priesthood for differing periods of time.
Yes, the blacks were not allowed to hold the priesthood until 1978. But we were not taught to shun them or be prejudiced against them in any way. They were taught the gospel and could be baptized and were welcome, as they are now.
At no point has the LDS church taught or tolerated bigotry. You can't call us bigots, without calling God a bigot at the same time, unless you don't believe in the Old and New Testaments (or don't understand them).
Again, an uneducated, knee-jerk reaction. You don't know what you're talking about when it comes to our beliefs and are simply regurgitating something you heard or read elsewhere, while putting no thought or energy into understanding it, only into propagating it.
As a Utahn who absolutely loves living here and raising his family here, I have to agree.
So many people move to Utah (usually from California as far as this post is concerned) because it's a great family-oriented place to live, and the first thing they do when they get here is complain that there isn't enough alcohol (the greatest source of child abuse and spouse abuse ever known to man), gambling (the greatest source of wasted lives ever known to man), and that everything is closed on Sunday (because people are at church or home spending time with their families, which is the reason you moved to this family-oriented state in the first place, isn't it?).
The same road that brought you in will take you back out, and have fun in California!
Utah: A great place to live, despite many efforts by outsiders to make it otherwise...
As a Mormon in Utah, it is frustrating that so much attention is given to the "bad karma", and so little attention is paid to the great things about Utah.
Polygamy is practiced by groups in many states, but Utah gets all of the focus because of the concentration in certain communities (half in Utah, half across the border in Arizona). Additionally, most of that is attributed to the "Mormon church", which hasn't practiced polygamy since it became a state about 120 years ago (at which time it joined the U.S. and polygamy became illegal in Utah. Before that Utah was not in the United States, and polygamy was perfectly legal). So to even associate modern polygamy with the LDS church would be like calling anyone who currently lived in the southern states racist because their states used to practice slavery.
SCO is ~in~ Utah, but in no way reflects the views of Utah or Utahns. I don't hear anyone bagging on California or Virginia because Verisign is there, or Washington state because Microsoft is there.
Utah is a great state with great people, a lot of great companies, incredibly beautiful natural resources that we take very good care of (8 or 9 National Parks, I think more than any other state, and certainly more geologically diverse), and a lot of other things going for it.
To "feel immediate antagonism" toward Utah over a few issues that are really quite unrelated to the state is just a narrow-minded, uneducated, knee-jerk reaction.
What if one of my emails was urgent and I wasn't allowed to send?
Like I said, more than sufficient for any normal user. Almost all powerusers I know have multiple accounts with webmail and would have no problem sending out an email in an emergency.
What if I'm emailing a new virus to Sophos to analyse?
Then you add it to a zip file first, changing it's fingerprint (and rendering it benign in the meantime).
Anyone smart enough to send a virus to someone to be analyzed will be smart enough to figure out a way to do it safely. But Aunt Bertha isn't smart enough (in computer land, anyway) to keep her PC from sending out thousands of emails per day.
Virus scanning on outgoing email is a good idea. I think it's necessary. In fact, I think virus scanning on port 25 should be added to the main routers that power the internet at the backbone level. It should be possible with all of the traffic shaping those things are capable of.
I agree we need to keep the net as free as possible, but we also need to keep it as usable as possible. Take a giant step backward and look at the pattern of viruses and spam.
The growth rates can't keep going like this forever. Something has to be done, or email will collapse under its own weight. My spam is up 10 times over last year, and 25 times over the year before that.
Slashdot Mirror
In case you've forgotten, kids transpose and reverse letters quite easily.
He made money off of the traffic via affiliate programs, not off of subscriptions.
You exhibit nothing more than absolute, utter, and total ignorance.
Yeah, I'm a firm believer that all inmates should spend 15 hours per day in community service of various forms.
Ideas are:
1) Anything normal people don't want to do that needs to be done (cleaning up highways like they do, manual labor, etc.)
2) Have crews inside the prison build inexpensive modular homes (not trailers, something intentionally designed and closer to stickbuilt, but in modules, even just preframed walls) and have lower-risk crews go out and assemble them. Habitat For Humanity on steroids.
3) If nothing else, they should be put on exercise bikes hooked up to generators and create electricity for the rest of us.
Part of the point of prison should be to teach them how (and why) to be productive members of society (something some of them have never experienced). This is not accomplished by free internet access and gym priviledges.
I agree whole-heartedly. They're exposed to dozens of different shows, cartoon or otherwise. There are just a few that exceed our threshhold for violence or overly sarcastic humor.
We also try to expose them to as much of the good as possible. Variety is the spice of life. We just do so within the standards acceptable in our home.
Nope. I'm in the room with her or my wife is. I don't trust software to take the place of parenting.
I'm self-employed and write software from home, so my computer is 5 feet from the kids computer, and I'm almost always at my computer.
And I don't want her seeing even a peek of porn whether I'm standing there or not.
Hmm, a little single, are we?
You'd better believe my wife is more sensitive to this stuff than I am, and that is one of the things I love about her.
I'm not sure who's looking over your shoulder your trying to score points with, but I never said anything about weaker sex. I'm simply relating the fact that most women would be disgusted by the experience, and most men would stick around and take a peek.
Between my wife and I we have 2 mothers and 4 grandmothers, and not one of them would say sh*t if they had a mouth full of it. Women, in general, are simply more sensitive than men. It's a Good Thing. That is why they make better mommy's, and we make better daddy's. One isn't better than the other, they're both necessary.
Weaker sex... You've obviously never been in the delivery room while you're wife is giving birth. WE are the weaker sex (in all ways but physical strength).
And if she types in bisney.com instead of disney.com?
I never said I gave her unrestricted access. But I don't want it happening whether I'm sitting right there or not.
The guy was deliberately targeting childrens domain names (among others) and sending them to porn sites. Who else did he mean to send there? This is no different than standing in front of an elementary school handing out copies of hustler. You should plan on going to jail (as opposed to someone handing out porn on the strip in Vegas).
No problem.
My wife and I are stricter than most (even in Utah, where we live). We don't even like our children (daughters: 5, 3, 1) to watch Sponge Bob Square Pants and other cartoons like it. We both enjoy watching and discussing cartoons and movies with them.
Same with the internet. Much of the time one of us will be right there surfing and playing with them. I'm self-employed and write software from home and my computer is 5 feet away from theirs, so it's easy to be involved, which we try to be.
My hope is that as they get older we'll have armed them with the knowledge to make proper choices and choose not to view pornography. ( Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it. Proverbs 22:6).
The girls are very intelligent, and when the time comes I trust them to do the right thing or be willing to take the consequences that come along with their actions. But I hope to be involved in the decision making, even if just as a friend and advisor, until they're driving at least (a father's wishful thinking...).
You don't have young daughters, do you?
Have you forgotten the whole super bowl half-time fiasco with Janet Jackson? She flashes her boob for 1/2 a second and 100,000's of parents complain the next day.
But it's OK if some jerk hijacks your daughter on the internet and sends her to site after site of some of the nastiest p0rn on the net, because he has the right to earn a quick buck.
What happened to the rights of parents to protect their children? And my motives in wanting to protect my daughters are none of your business. It is my family, and my stewardship, and I take it seriously.
1) I don't drink.
2) The computer is in a public place in the home.
3) I usually surf the internet with my daughter because I enjoy spending time with her (and her 2 sisters). When I'm not, we're in and out of the room constantly.
Guess what, my 5 year old daughter uses the computer and takes herself to www.disney.com and www.barbie.com. It would be a very easy thing for her to get an eye full.
And 5,500 domains?!?
This guy got exactly what he deserved, assuming he got 3 years in jails and a 1 million dollar fine so there is no money waiting for him when he gets out.
This man is a scum sucking pig that preyed on little childrens mistakes to give himself an easy life.
Let's do the math:
5,500 domains, say 10 people per day (quite conservative), for a year. So this guy makes 20,075,000 people look at p0rn (daughters, mothers, grandmothers), with no way of using the back button or getting out of it, and prison time is excessive?
To avoid this possibility why not take this approach:
Instead of a fixed cable that has to support it's own weight, how about a large satellite or space station in geo-syncronous orbit, with 2 cables, one that comes down to earth and one that goes the opposite direction into space as a counter balance.
Nothing would be permanently attached to earth. Instead the two cables would wind out (like a giant winch) in each direction until the earth-bound cable reaches earth.
The cable could be wide and flat, like a giant nanotube nylon webbing. Payloads may only be in the thousands of pounds, but that is OK. Even if we could only make a few trips per day it would revolutionize space travel, exploration, and research.
Larger objects like space ships could be taken up in pieces and assembled in space.
Best of all, when the 2031 Leonid Meteor Shower (and others like it) arrive the ribbons can be stowed and the satellite could be flown around to the back side of the earth and protected from meteors (if that is even necessary).
Also, if the cables break they would fall to earh in the general vicinity of the landing base on earth, causing destruction there (like the never ending chain falling on that guy in "Twins") but not wrapping around the earth twice...
Oh, and when I mentioned the "giant winch" I wasn't talking about your wife. This is slashdot, you don't have a wife. (I was talking about your mother).
I whole-heartedly agree.
Plain and simple, Mormons who don't practice tolerance and neighborliness aren't living their religion in that respect.
Read any talk that the current Prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley has given, and the chances are very high it will talk about being better, more tolerant neighbors.
Then I assume you have no problem with meth, cocaine, marijuana, or any other drugs either? There is nothing wrong with them, it's just when people become *addicted* to them that there is a problem?
I'm willing to bet that clearly half of the people in this country were conceived in the heat of a passion that was enhanced by the effects of alcohol
Remember, I live in Utah where we don't drink and do have the biggest families of any group in America. I'm pretty sure people would still have kids just fine without alcohol. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to find that a higher percentage of unwanted and abused children were conceived under the influence of alcohol than without.
Don't stop at banning drinking gambling and pornography!!! Look at how many people are addicted to consumerism.
Yes, consumer debt is at an all-time high. And why not, there is no responsibility for anything else in America, why should there be responsibility for spending? We have the right to do anything in America, surely that means get ourselves in to debt and then file bankrupcy.
"The price to society is simply too high." And of course, you have the wisdom to mandate this.
So you don't think the toll alcohol alone takes on America is too high?
I can think of 17,419 families in 2002 that would disagree with you. Alcohol related deaths account for 41% of all traffic deaths each year. (I'm sure the other 59% were people rushing to the mall to get into debt).
Here are some child abuse statistics:
Everyday three children in the U.S. are murdered by a parent or caretaker.
18,000 are permanently disabled every year.
565,000 are seriously injured every year.
Three million children were reported as victims of child abuse and neglect in 1999 in the United States.
I would be very surprised if less than 41% of that abuse wasn't related to drug and alcohol abuse.
Think of how many movies and tv shows involve a father coming home drunk and beating the wife or kids.
So yes, I think the cost of alcohol on our society is too high for a little fun on the weekends. Plenty of people have just as much fun without it. I also think that if we didn't have alcohol already, and a company tried to release it as a product and it was found to cause 17,419 deaths a year and all of the other "side-effects" that it would never be approved by the FDA or any other government organization. As it is, it is deeply entrenched and trying to get rid of it would be political suicide.
But I stand by my argument. As a country, as communities, and as families we'd be better without drugs and alcohol.
Which mafia-like companies are you referring to?
Sorry, I live 2 hours north of Las Vegas, so my comments were directed specifically at that town where the owners of the casinos are very, very powerful and don't spend their time just going around and building playgrounds.
There is at least one tribe where each member gets profit sharing of the casino's cut. IIRC, this was to the sum of $30,000 per member.
I can see how this may be good for the tribe in general (schools, hospitals, infrastructure, etc), but I would think a check for $30,000 each year that required no work or effort would be a very bad thing for the individuals in the tribe (or any group for that matter).
"Something for nothing" robs people of their work ethic, skews their reality, and often ruins them for life. I remember a guy that went on the game show "Press Your Luck" and beat the system and won $106,000. It absolutely ruined his life and hastened his death. The same has been found of many lottery winners. Work is a good thing, free money only seems like it.
I happen to be a social drinker...
This entire discussion is moot, as I'm having it with someone who doesn't believe in prophets or scripture (modern day pharisees and sadducees, like I said before), so this will be my last post.
Yes, Brigham Young was a prophet. No, I do not agree with that statement. But that is pointless anyway, because the statement was made before the civil war, in a very, very different time. And the only source is the Journal of Discourses, which has never been considered a source of church doctrine.
If you only analyze a group by their teachings or actions of 150+ years ago, then every american is a bigot against indians (american soldiers murdered tens of thousands of them) and every catholic is a barbarian (leftover from the cruisades). But neither of those are the case, just like neither I or my church are bigots.
Bye.
Too true that many wars have been fought in the name of religion, and sadder still that many men have used their beliefs to justify terrible actions.
But it isn't religion per se, that is the nature of man (or more correctly some men and some women). Hitlers beliefs of supremecy were racially motivated, but not necessarily religious. Quacks will be quacks regardless. And if it isn't religion its something else.
But I stand by my statements regarding alcolhol and gambling. No good is brought to the world by either (at least not when all things are considered). There are plenty who can hold their acolhol, but far more who can't. Most addictive things leave a wake of broken homes, broken hearts, broken bank accounts, and broken people. This includes alcohol, drugs, gambling, pornography, and others.
Sure a party may be a little more fun at the moment with alcohol, but the same can probably be said of most drugs. The price to society is simply too high.
Same with gambling. It may be mildly entertaining, but it is highly addicting. Not only that, the money then goes to companies that are arguably mafia-like. The little money that ends up in education coffers is small consolation to the kids in broken homes or poverty because of a parents gambling addiction.
Hmm, it seems the only thing I'm being force fed here is your opinion that I'm a bigot. Something I've given you no reason to believe.
:). It is God I will meet with face to face to account for my life, not you.
If you don't believe the Old Testament, you CAN'T believe the New Testament or in Jesus Christ. It isn't possible. He Himself taught from the Old Testament and affirmed repeatedly that He was the great I AM spoken of in the Old Testament. He seemed to think it was more than just "a collection of tales". He seemed to think it was scripture.
Do I believe that there have been unintentional and intentional errors in translation? Absolutely. But that doesn't change the fact that it's scripture. Or do the 10 commandments no exist for you?
So far you remind me a lot of the pharisees and sadducees that contended with Jesus and helped promote the bigotry that led to His crucifiction. They prided themselves in understanding the scriptures, or at least telling other people they were wrong, but didn't believe the scriptures and put forth no effort into living them.
The truth is, I don't care what you think about me. I have no problem with blacks, indians, jews, muslims, or any other race or group (except maybe lawyers and politicians
See, that's the funniest thing. I've never known anyone who treats their neighbors that way. I try to be nice and friendly to my neighbors regardless of religion or lack thereof.
Now there is the fact that we know each other from church and church functions, so naturally we're closer to each other because of that. But that would be true of a bridge club, a group that golfs together, quilts together, whatever.
What I have found true is that people will move into the neighborhood from out of state, not socialize with us, criticize our ways, and seem to go out of their way to exclude themselves. Naturally, they are going to feel left out.
One lady in particular (I was her sons leader in scouts and her husband came out on some campouts with us and was very nice) just seemed bent on standing out and making the world know that she wasn't one of us and had no intentions in associating with us. She excluded herself.
Now I know that is an extreme case, and that we are both right to different degrees and in different instances. But I don't see how it can be as bad as you say.
Perhaps the "unholier-than-thou" attitude is only a problem with some people in the state.
You're right.
I can see how family values, the traditional family, no smoking or alcohol, no gambling, fighting tooth and nail against strip clubs, etc. look more and more peculiar to the rest of the world.
If only Sodom and Gomora had 5 peculiar people, it wouldn't have been destroyed.
I'm more than happy to be peculiar. (Deut. 14: 2, Deut. 26: 18, 1 Pet. 2: 9)
You mean if someone builds a crackhouse (or nuclear plant, or something else you're against) in your neighborhood you don't oppose it and speak out against it? Particularly when it happens over and over and over again? And is accompanied by lies, stereotypes, and prejudice?
We're a close state, so our neighborhood just happens to be bigger than most.
It reminds me of the song line "they pave paradise and put up a parking lot". I love Utah. I love living here, raising my family here, and I love the people. So sometimes it gets old to have people constantly try to fix it for us to get us up to speed with the rest of the world.
You're not very familiar with the God of the Old Testament, are you? Or the New Testament for that matter.
The issues you raise are things you'll have to take up directly with God, because I don't have the answer to his motives now, or in Old / New Testament times.
What is clear is that God, repeatedly throughout the Old and New Testaments, at times and under circumstances of his own choosing, has chosen to "mark" or "accurse" different groups (Cain and his seed, families of the wicked (see Joshua chapter 7 about Achan and his family), the Jews for the crucifiction of the Savior, etc, etc, etc) for their actions. In most cases these marks or curses continue on to their seed until God sees fit to change it.
There have been numerous groups in the Bible, with and without visual marks, that have been denied the gospel or the priesthood for differing periods of time.
Yes, the blacks were not allowed to hold the priesthood until 1978. But we were not taught to shun them or be prejudiced against them in any way. They were taught the gospel and could be baptized and were welcome, as they are now.
At no point has the LDS church taught or tolerated bigotry. You can't call us bigots, without calling God a bigot at the same time, unless you don't believe in the Old and New Testaments (or don't understand them).
Again, an uneducated, knee-jerk reaction. You don't know what you're talking about when it comes to our beliefs and are simply regurgitating something you heard or read elsewhere, while putting no thought or energy into understanding it, only into propagating it.
As a Utahn who absolutely loves living here and raising his family here, I have to agree.
So many people move to Utah (usually from California as far as this post is concerned) because it's a great family-oriented place to live, and the first thing they do when they get here is complain that there isn't enough alcohol (the greatest source of child abuse and spouse abuse ever known to man), gambling (the greatest source of wasted lives ever known to man), and that everything is closed on Sunday (because people are at church or home spending time with their families, which is the reason you moved to this family-oriented state in the first place, isn't it?).
The same road that brought you in will take you back out, and have fun in California!
Utah: A great place to live, despite many efforts by outsiders to make it otherwise...
As a Mormon in Utah, it is frustrating that so much attention is given to the "bad karma", and so little attention is paid to the great things about Utah.
Polygamy is practiced by groups in many states, but Utah gets all of the focus because of the concentration in certain communities (half in Utah, half across the border in Arizona). Additionally, most of that is attributed to the "Mormon church", which hasn't practiced polygamy since it became a state about 120 years ago (at which time it joined the U.S. and polygamy became illegal in Utah. Before that Utah was not in the United States, and polygamy was perfectly legal). So to even associate modern polygamy with the LDS church would be like calling anyone who currently lived in the southern states racist because their states used to practice slavery.
SCO is ~in~ Utah, but in no way reflects the views of Utah or Utahns. I don't hear anyone bagging on California or Virginia because Verisign is there, or Washington state because Microsoft is there.
Utah is a great state with great people, a lot of great companies, incredibly beautiful natural resources that we take very good care of (8 or 9 National Parks, I think more than any other state, and certainly more geologically diverse), and a lot of other things going for it.
To "feel immediate antagonism" toward Utah over a few issues that are really quite unrelated to the state is just a narrow-minded, uneducated, knee-jerk reaction.
What if one of my emails was urgent and I wasn't allowed to send?
Like I said, more than sufficient for any normal user. Almost all powerusers I know have multiple accounts with webmail and would have no problem sending out an email in an emergency.
What if I'm emailing a new virus to Sophos to analyse?
Then you add it to a zip file first, changing it's fingerprint (and rendering it benign in the meantime).
Anyone smart enough to send a virus to someone to be analyzed will be smart enough to figure out a way to do it safely. But Aunt Bertha isn't smart enough (in computer land, anyway) to keep her PC from sending out thousands of emails per day.
Virus scanning on outgoing email is a good idea. I think it's necessary. In fact, I think virus scanning on port 25 should be added to the main routers that power the internet at the backbone level. It should be possible with all of the traffic shaping those things are capable of.
I agree we need to keep the net as free as possible, but we also need to keep it as usable as possible. Take a giant step backward and look at the pattern of viruses and spam.
The growth rates can't keep going like this forever. Something has to be done, or email will collapse under its own weight. My spam is up 10 times over last year, and 25 times over the year before that.