Re:One Point For Gmail
on
Gmail vs Pine
·
· Score: 1
Actually, it's not a bandwidth issue as the other poster surmised, it's just a public space where I keep an account for random pics of no particular import to share. I don't have anything like that set up anywhere else. This is quite different, to me, as compared to email. My email contains a detailed history of whats been going on for the last 21 years or so. So I'm considerably more careful with it.
Re:One Point For Gmail
on
Gmail vs Pine
·
· Score: 1
... and a long time without a kernel security update:-)
This is true. However, the only port open in the firewall to these two machines is SSH, and I've really not been worried about it. They're on their own pair of static IPs. Do you think I should be worried? Watching the publicly exposed servers, all the attacks seem to come after the web server (and most of those seem to think it's a windows machine, which is kind of funny to watch.) There are various types of nasties in the email that gets filtered, but it never gets to a client (and I suppose an interesting question is, is anyone writing viri to attack Pine?), just dropped by the filters, so I've not worried about that, either. Think I've been too much of an optimist? I mean, so far, so good, but better to get paranoid before a problem than after...
The preisthood -- programmers, that is -- are encouraged to consume pizza on high holy days, such as the seven (thou shalt not count six, or eight) holy days of the week we must program. We can also consume spaghetti in His Noodly Honor. At the same time. And spill it on the keyboard. Lasagnia is OK too. It's hard to explain. In fact, it's pasta all understanding.
Those Christian people have simply distorted history. The well-known pasta-maker, Cheeses of Nazereth, somehow got involved when wine was called for from his famous Bottomless Barrel(tm), and also, he catered the bread. Next thing you know, there's a book, they're writing about the "Last" supper, where they were listening to Judas Preist and having a merry old tyme.
Well. Anyway, don't take noodles in vein. You gotta chew 'em to get the best effect, m'kay? That mainlining stuff is for the gluten-intolerant, and no one wants those apostate sons-of-rice-eaters in their neighborhood, savvy? Pretty soon, you're riding innocent pasta-makers out of town on a rail, there are hippies and drum circles everywhere, and life's gone right to the crumbs.
Re:One Point For Gmail
on
Gmail vs Pine
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Yep, as I said, I'm not suggesting this is for everyone. But it works great for me. As for my employer — I am my employer, mostly. Me and the IRS, anyway. Black Belt Systems is my company. I've been building the company since 1985. We do graphics software. Used to do graphics and microcontroller hardware, but the margins... yech.
My post was about Pine's capabilities. Not about converting people to use Pine. I'm enthusiastic about it, but not evangelistic. Fair enough?
Re:One Point For Gmail
on
Gmail vs Pine
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
That 200 is, as you surmise, raid. Current uptime is...
...(this is a redhat 9 machine, no uncontrolled reboots, restarts, or failures, powered by a 1500 watt 100% online [sinewave] UPS.) Backup is every evening to a separate machine done via cron controlled copy, then archive and copy. If the main server fails, I can log into the backup machine. It's been up less time because I stuck a sound card in it (cheap Dell server — no sound) and had to turn it off to do so. Just 403 days. So as you can see, I don't much worry about my mail system going down when I go out of town.:-)
either way I'm betting Google is more reliable.
I bet they're not. My arrangement has been rock solid, and Google's complexity is its own curse.:-)
You still need a telnet client.
Not a problem. I have one on a USB drive in my man-purse (yes, I carry one... so I have wallet, some tools, pocket knife, palm, PSP, reading glasses (I'm old), all manner of stuff.) In the USB stick is a copy of Putty which covers PCs. I also have my PSP and my Palm, both of which have secure clients (the Palm one is wonderful, but I have to take off my glasses to read the fonts... they're insanely small, yet readable. Here's a pic of it I just took.) I don't have a real keyboard for the PSP so it is my last choice, but it *is* there. And if the PC can't read the USB stick, Putty is available all over the net. If it's a modern Mac, then it's already got the software it needs, because underneath, a modern Mac is a *nix creature at heart. If the PC itself has a firewall that doesn't allow outgoing SSH ports (I've never run into this, btw) or it's a stone-age Mac (which I really don't know much about in its pre-*nix configurations, and which I have run into), then I can find a wifi connection somewhere and slip in that way using the Palm. It's really not a problem — I have considerably more options than you do with a browser, and btw, no, there are no browsers on a lot of the older machines. Hard to run a GUI browser in 64k of ram, but a terminal emulator will still run just fine.
Also, with Gmail Google is paying for the bandwidth but with Pine you are (cheap as it might be).
Nope. My bandwidth isn't metered — I pay the same if I have no connection or if data is flowing all the time.
There's also the issue of your network going down, your ISP doing maintainance, or whatever else.
Um. Well, mine, Google's, same thing, really. Problem related outages can be reasonably considered random. Except I've not been down in years, and Google is down quite often. Though not for long. Mainly because they're always messing with stuff, and mine is 100% stable.
One more advantage: I have all my incoming and outgoing email all the way back to Compuserve days in the late 1980's. All of it. I can search it, noodle over it, sort it, filter it... it's fun.
In the end, again, I'm not suggesting anyone make the change. If they're comfortable with CLI stuff and *nix they're probably already well aware of the huge number of options available to them. I'm happy with how my stuff works, the reliability and flexibility are awesome and I'm independent of anyone else as far as it is possible to be.
I've even got (very slow) SSH access via encapsulated packet radio (I'm a ham radio person, callsign is AA7AS) from my car and boat if I'm anywhere the hams have packet stuff running. I use this in the summer from my boat out on Fort Peck lake here in Montana — the lake is freaking huge. I rock collect out there, swim, and chase my sweetheart around the boat. Which always works out in my favor, as it's only a 28-footer.:-)
Re:One Point For Gmail
on
Gmail vs Pine
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Right now I have 2.7GB storage on GMail. Right now, I have 200+ GB of storage available to Pine. Not that I'll ever need it, but it is there.
I don't need a client with GMail. I don't need a client with Pine — Pine is the client, and it runs on my home machine, no matter where I access it from. Which reduces the client-side needs considerably. All I need is a shell of a few K in any computer system. You, on the other hand, require a multi-megabyte browser that supports client-side operations.
I can access my GMail from home. I can access Pine from home
I can access my GMail from work. I can access Pine from work.
I can access my GMail from my phone. I can access Pine from my phone. And my PSP. And my Palm. And my old Amiga. And my Mac. My old 64k OS9/6809 system. And my various other old systems that don't support Java and other client-side technologies. And any *nix system on the planet. I look forward to being able to check my email from my PS3, when they finally get it out the door. All I need is a telnet or (preferably) secure shell, and as they're saying it is linux based.... done deal, probably. I have a dial-up connection on my linux machine that allows me to log in from the oldest, lamest modem I am ever likely to run into. And yes, from there... I can run Pine.
GMail is yet to allow a piece of spam into my inbox. Pine can take advantage of all manner of cool and innovative spam filters and other kinds of filters. Bayesian, white/blacklist based, custom, you name it. There's no spam in my Pine mailbox at all. Also, there are no ads. You, on the other hand, have Google providing ad content all the time you use GMail. Which is not a lot different from constantly being spammed, at least, to me.
That's not all. You are allowing Google to both hold your messages (privacy may become an issue at some point) and you rely on them to stay available to you — they could decide to drop GMail at any time, or the servers could crash, etc. If you use Pine, you have complete control: You are storing your own data, you can implement any backup technology that satisfies your need for security and data retention, there are no extra privacy issues to speak of, the goverment can't get your private messages with a general legal attack on Google.
Don't kid yourself. If you are comfortable on the command line, there are a million programs that will do all manner of cool things for you. Pine, however, is menu-driven and because of that it is generally easy to use for just about anyone, and it doesn't require anywhere near the usual savvy we associate with CLI-mavens.
I'm not saying you should turn to Pine, either. The version of Pine I am familiar with doesn't do HTML for crap, can't embed images, doesn't do formatting and so on. I don't care, because I actually use email to communicate words, silly me.:-) But don't for a minute think that it isn't accessible, practical, powerful, and full of cool features. It is all of that, and more.
According to dictionary.com, however, that isn't quite right--it is actually being easily decieved or convinced.
That still cleaves precisely to what I said. If you believe in a god or gods, you've been deceived (and) convinced, and I maintain that the "easily" applies every time because (for whatever reason) you failed to apply the mundane and habitual standards to this belief that you would if I simply told you that your coat was on fire. In that case, you'd look carefully, find no fire, and assume I was either a lunatic, a liar, or looking to benefit somehow from you during the time of your lapse into the belief that you coat was indeed on fire. In the case of the presumption of god, someone (a lunatic, a liar or an entrepreneur) told you this was so and you've taken it from there, despite the objective fact that no god is in evidence anywhere.
You may disagree, but that doesn't make you smarter or even less gullible.
It doesn't make me smarter (nor did I mean to imply it did), but it does make me less gullible.
Clearly, you've got an emotional stake in the presumption of truth in some theology. For some reason (which you may certainly feel free to explain if you think it's important), you need to think that there is truth in this. That's what is holding you to the gullible choice you made despite the complete lack of supporting objective fact, real-world testability and repeatability.
The underlying reasons may be fear of death, an unwillingness to think that you are insignificant in relation to the universe, or something completely different, or combinations thereof. Doesn't matter what emotional event or events are causing you to hold to this idea, though, as its character as a presumptive knowledge remains the same either way: You have taken a completely unsupportable position via a path that contained no supporting data, and that, my dear correspondent, is what highlights the role of gullibility in your personality.
The men and women who study theology are bound by the same fundamental rules of logic, reason, and intellectual honesty that those who study phsyics are.
Now, that qualifies for a very hearty "bullshit", indeed.
A person who is highly gullible may be just as likely to abandon their newfound 'truth' just as quickly as they found it. In fact, this is suggested by the definition of the construct.
Yes, exactly. So you can teach a gullible person that the earth was formed 4 billion years ago, show them evidence, etc., then some noodnick comes along on Sunday and tells them, "no, it was 6,000 years and we "know" that because there here book sez so. And Gawd wrote this here book." The gullible person just goes, "Oh. OK." This is the poster child for gullibility. Gullibility is the characteristic of taking (and oftentimes holding) a position without requiring (or paying serious attention to) objective fact.
Often, if there is an emotional stake in a position, it will be held regardless of how far it diverges from known objective fact. This is why religious faith is so difficult to dislodge; not because of facts, or the lack of them, but because the holders of such faith have a large emotional stake in being correct.
You're all just basically like psychics on the hotline.
You've almost got it. The accurate phrase is "You're all just basically like those fakes on a hotline pretending to have magic powers." There is no evidence supporting the idea that there are psychics.
Even a doctorate in bullshit still only assures you're an expert on bullshit.
They're fighting the wrong battles. You know what is actually harmful to theaters?
(1) Insane ticket prices (and the insane actor's pay rates that cause them)
(2) Insane concessions prices
(3) Idiotic slide shows before the movie
(4) Pesty and annoying commercials embedded in the movie's start up
(5) Product pushing embedded in the movie
(6) Listening to some FOOL take a cellphone call
(7) Listening to some FOOL's baby scream and whine and bawl throughout the movie
(8) Listening to some IDIOT chatter throughout the movie
(9) Loud, rustle-producing concessions packaging and the TWITS who rattle it all through the movie
(10) Scores with lowest-common-denominator music such as Country and Rap (country+rap=Crap)
(11) Listening to some inconsiderate LAMER with a cold or flu behind me and KNOWING I'm going to catch it
It's not the delay between DVD release and theatrical release that keeps me from going to the movies. It's those 11 things. I don't care if they DOUBLE or TRIPLE the time between theatrical and DVD release, I'll still watch it at home, thank you, with an awesome sound system and my wide screen and NONE of the above annoyances. Not to mention the ability to instantly drop the volume 20 dB when some ghettowhack/brokebackcowboy comes on and tries to be "meaningful." And the ability to see it again when my kids come over. And the ability to pause when someone needs a break.
Come to think of it, I don't know why theaters even still exist.
I'm sorry, but you are suffering from the serious delusion that people will get off their asses and vote for a certain government because of their INTERNET policies
And you seem to be under the delusion that voting could affect the situation. Not in the US, where the decisions are made, it can't. US citizens aren't allowed to make law. They can only elect members of one of the two major political partys. Those members already have an agenda (it is set by the party) and it makes no difference what they say prior to election, because they never follow through, and everyone both knows and expects that. The agenda is set by corporate and PAC interests, and there is *zero* ability for the voter to affect anything.
If we're going to be forcing porn-folk into a.xxx ghetto, I think we should force the other profoundly morally objectionable people into a ghetto as well, so we can easily lock it out. I am, of course, talking about religion. (We've already got politicians in.gov, and I've got them locked out at home using that... wouldn't want my kids reading government propoganda.) So for the religious types, we should do the same. Maybe.rlg (actually, maybe.bunk would be better.) Lawyers too..law or.shyster perhaps... yes, and while we're at it, let's put the spammers in... not a domain... no... how about the caldera of Vesuvius?
The FCC censors nationally on the basis of value that at a minimum, should be community based if we look at mundane law, but if we look at good supreme sourt decisions, should not be at all.
The FCC intentionally prevents low-power stations from operating, which directly muzzles the populace.
The FCC interferes with privately owned communications hardlines (cable, Internet, telephone) all resources that are not limited by anything other than commerce issues.
Sadly, the FCC is just a symptom of all the other major ills our government has developed because out system does not work.
Our country is mutating from a nation on-track for increasing freedom into a dump for conservative and corporate agendas.
What needs to be done is obvious; but Americans no longer have the will.
I believe that everyone should have a mac even as a second machine.
You sneaky bastard. Now, you know no one who uses a Mac, much less uses a Mac with Delicious Library, is never, ever, going to treat the Mac as the "2nd machine.":-)
Well, that's fine. Perhaps, instead of couching your position in such a way as to attempt to define what pornography (or anything else) is, you could simply state what you find acceptable or not. People are far more accomodating of the expression of another person's reaction to any particular common experience than they are of another person's attempt to define what their own experience is, or will be.
The problem with me defining what class(es) your experience falls into is that I lack your outlook on the world. The opposite is surely true. When in doubt (which in my case is always), my rule is, ask. Failure to presume is an excellent starting position.:-)
Pornography violates this Scriptural context by taking sex outside the marriage bed...
You wrote that. Read it again.
The song of solomon takes sex outside the marriage bed (to the reader of the bible), therefore, it is pornography by your definition.
...the key difference is that while sex is a part of the book, the sexual content is not the focus of the book.
Sorry — that's not what you said, and it also means that "She took his hot, throbbing man-banana and inserted it along with her favorite dildo and Thursday's breakfast sausage, screaming, Solomon! Solomon! I love you dearly, but get more lube and plug in the Hitachi, my clit isn't feeling the love!" isn't pornographic either if the subjects are married and the majority of the book is about goat herding.
Which would be an absurd consequence; one that emerges directly from your two statements.
I'm afraid you have put your foot directly and solidly in your mouth. It's OK, we all do it. Simply admit it, then move on.
Putting porn under a.xxx domain is no more an "infringement" on rights than only allowing non-profits to use a.org.
The availability of a ".xxx" domain is no threat to any part of the porn industry. But forcing people to use it based on some externally imposed metric is.
I think it'd be much more critical to limit religious web sites to a particular domain, perhaps ".gullible" or ".delusions" or ".manipulation" or even ".bullshit" so as to attempt to limit the harm to children's critical thinking faculties. After all, even if one religion is right (despite the fact that there are no indications that even lean slightly in that direction), that simply means all the thousands of others are wrong, so we'd best put them all into a domain ghetto.
Porn, on the other hand, can directly represent reality. For instance, when you make porn with (one of) your usual sexual partner(s). Ah, the benefits of mass production, the Mac, firewire, and low-lux cameras. Definitely a lot more fun than you can have in church.
No wonder porn scares religious people so much. It's more reality-based.
The sex described or implied in Song of Solomon is between a woman and her husband. Pornography violates this Scriptural context by taking sex outside the marriage bed and displaying it for all the world to see, whether through magazines or screens.
The song of solomon takes marital sex out of the marriage bed and displays it for all to see — in the bible. Therefore, according to your definition, the song of solomon is pornography.
Remember DR DOS, Netscape? I expect that photshop will stop working with Windows pretty soon.
That's actually not funny. We make Winimages, a graphics product of similar complexity to Photoshop. It's about special effects, animation, and high complexity image editing. It's been running on Windows since about 1992, and it's definitely not been a given that everything stays solid from one windows version to another. For instance, NT and RISC windows versions arbitarily befuddled some UI functions (font rotation and skew, for instance) and XP outright destroyed the consistancy of window metrics that spaced titlebars from client windows. Then there was the Win95 file dialog as compared to the Win98 and later file dialog which handled multiple file selection differently (but still insanely) and so on... and these are just off the top of my head. There are certainly many more.
Microsoft is pretty annoying when it comes to maintaining compatability from one version of Windows to the next.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it's not a bandwidth issue as the other poster surmised, it's just a public space where I keep an account for random pics of no particular import to share. I don't have anything like that set up anywhere else. This is quite different, to me, as compared to email. My email contains a detailed history of whats been going on for the last 21 years or so. So I'm considerably more careful with it.
This is true. However, the only port open in the firewall to these two machines is SSH, and I've really not been worried about it. They're on their own pair of static IPs. Do you think I should be worried? Watching the publicly exposed servers, all the attacks seem to come after the web server (and most of those seem to think it's a windows machine, which is kind of funny to watch.) There are various types of nasties in the email that gets filtered, but it never gets to a client (and I suppose an interesting question is, is anyone writing viri to attack Pine?), just dropped by the filters, so I've not worried about that, either. Think I've been too much of an optimist? I mean, so far, so good, but better to get paranoid before a problem than after...
Those Christian people have simply distorted history. The well-known pasta-maker, Cheeses of Nazereth, somehow got involved when wine was called for from his famous Bottomless Barrel(tm), and also, he catered the bread. Next thing you know, there's a book, they're writing about the "Last" supper, where they were listening to Judas Preist and having a merry old tyme.
Well. Anyway, don't take noodles in vein. You gotta chew 'em to get the best effect, m'kay? That mainlining stuff is for the gluten-intolerant, and no one wants those apostate sons-of-rice-eaters in their neighborhood, savvy? Pretty soon, you're riding innocent pasta-makers out of town on a rail, there are hippies and drum circles everywhere, and life's gone right to the crumbs.
My post was about Pine's capabilities. Not about converting people to use Pine. I'm enthusiastic about it, but not evangelistic. Fair enough?
22:16:40 up 550 days, 11:40, 8 users, load average: 0.02, 0.13, 0.16
I bet they're not. My arrangement has been rock solid, and Google's complexity is its own curse. :-)
Not a problem. I have one on a USB drive in my man-purse (yes, I carry one... so I have wallet, some tools, pocket knife, palm, PSP, reading glasses (I'm old), all manner of stuff.) In the USB stick is a copy of Putty which covers PCs. I also have my PSP and my Palm, both of which have secure clients (the Palm one is wonderful, but I have to take off my glasses to read the fonts... they're insanely small, yet readable. Here's a pic of it I just took.) I don't have a real keyboard for the PSP so it is my last choice, but it *is* there. And if the PC can't read the USB stick, Putty is available all over the net. If it's a modern Mac, then it's already got the software it needs, because underneath, a modern Mac is a *nix creature at heart. If the PC itself has a firewall that doesn't allow outgoing SSH ports (I've never run into this, btw) or it's a stone-age Mac (which I really don't know much about in its pre-*nix configurations, and which I have run into), then I can find a wifi connection somewhere and slip in that way using the Palm. It's really not a problem — I have considerably more options than you do with a browser, and btw, no, there are no browsers on a lot of the older machines. Hard to run a GUI browser in 64k of ram, but a terminal emulator will still run just fine.
Nope. My bandwidth isn't metered — I pay the same if I have no connection or if data is flowing all the time.
Um. Well, mine, Google's, same thing, really. Problem related outages can be reasonably considered random. Except I've not been down in years, and Google is down quite often. Though not for long. Mainly because they're always messing with stuff, and mine is 100% stable.
One more advantage: I have all my incoming and outgoing email all the way back to Compuserve days in the late 1980's. All of it. I can search it, noodle over it, sort it, filter it... it's fun.
In the end, again, I'm not suggesting anyone make the change. If they're comfortable with CLI stuff and *nix they're probably already well aware of the huge number of options available to them. I'm happy with how my stuff works, the reliability and flexibility are awesome and I'm independent of anyone else as far as it is possible to be.
I've even got (very slow) SSH access via encapsulated packet radio (I'm a ham radio person, callsign is AA7AS) from my car and boat if I'm anywhere the hams have packet stuff running. I use this in the summer from my boat out on Fort Peck lake here in Montana — the lake is freaking huge. I rock collect out there, swim, and chase my sweetheart around the boat. Which always works out in my favor, as it's only a 28-footer. :-)
Right now, I have 200+ GB of storage available to Pine. Not that I'll ever need it, but it is there.
I don't need a client with Pine — Pine is the client, and it runs on my home machine, no matter where I access it from. Which reduces the client-side needs considerably. All I need is a shell of a few K in any computer system. You, on the other hand, require a multi-megabyte browser that supports client-side operations.
I can access Pine from home
I can access Pine from work.
I can access Pine from my phone. And my PSP. And my Palm. And my old Amiga. And my Mac. My old 64k OS9/6809 system. And my various other old systems that don't support Java and other client-side technologies. And any *nix system on the planet. I look forward to being able to check my email from my PS3, when they finally get it out the door. All I need is a telnet or (preferably) secure shell, and as they're saying it is linux based.... done deal, probably. I have a dial-up connection on my linux machine that allows me to log in from the oldest, lamest modem I am ever likely to run into. And yes, from there... I can run Pine.
Pine can take advantage of all manner of cool and innovative spam filters and other kinds of filters. Bayesian, white/blacklist based, custom, you name it. There's no spam in my Pine mailbox at all. Also, there are no ads. You, on the other hand, have Google providing ad content all the time you use GMail. Which is not a lot different from constantly being spammed, at least, to me.
That's not all. You are allowing Google to both hold your messages (privacy may become an issue at some point) and you rely on them to stay available to you — they could decide to drop GMail at any time, or the servers could crash, etc. If you use Pine, you have complete control: You are storing your own data, you can implement any backup technology that satisfies your need for security and data retention, there are no extra privacy issues to speak of, the goverment can't get your private messages with a general legal attack on Google.
Don't kid yourself. If you are comfortable on the command line, there are a million programs that will do all manner of cool things for you. Pine, however, is menu-driven and because of that it is generally easy to use for just about anyone, and it doesn't require anywhere near the usual savvy we associate with CLI-mavens.
I'm not saying you should turn to Pine, either. The version of Pine I am familiar with doesn't do HTML for crap, can't embed images, doesn't do formatting and so on. I don't care, because I actually use email to communicate words, silly me. :-) But don't for a minute think that it isn't accessible, practical, powerful, and full of cool features. It is all of that, and more.
That still cleaves precisely to what I said. If you believe in a god or gods, you've been deceived (and) convinced, and I maintain that the "easily" applies every time because (for whatever reason) you failed to apply the mundane and habitual standards to this belief that you would if I simply told you that your coat was on fire. In that case, you'd look carefully, find no fire, and assume I was either a lunatic, a liar, or looking to benefit somehow from you during the time of your lapse into the belief that you coat was indeed on fire. In the case of the presumption of god, someone (a lunatic, a liar or an entrepreneur) told you this was so and you've taken it from there, despite the objective fact that no god is in evidence anywhere.
It doesn't make me smarter (nor did I mean to imply it did), but it does make me less gullible.
Clearly, you've got an emotional stake in the presumption of truth in some theology. For some reason (which you may certainly feel free to explain if you think it's important), you need to think that there is truth in this. That's what is holding you to the gullible choice you made despite the complete lack of supporting objective fact, real-world testability and repeatability.
The underlying reasons may be fear of death, an unwillingness to think that you are insignificant in relation to the universe, or something completely different, or combinations thereof. Doesn't matter what emotional event or events are causing you to hold to this idea, though, as its character as a presumptive knowledge remains the same either way: You have taken a completely unsupportable position via a path that contained no supporting data, and that, my dear correspondent, is what highlights the role of gullibility in your personality.
Yes, exactly. So you can teach a gullible person that the earth was formed 4 billion years ago, show them evidence, etc., then some noodnick comes along on Sunday and tells them, "no, it was 6,000 years and we "know" that because there here book sez so. And Gawd wrote this here book." The gullible person just goes, "Oh. OK." This is the poster child for gullibility. Gullibility is the characteristic of taking (and oftentimes holding) a position without requiring (or paying serious attention to) objective fact.
Often, if there is an emotional stake in a position, it will be held regardless of how far it diverges from known objective fact. This is why religious faith is so difficult to dislodge; not because of facts, or the lack of them, but because the holders of such faith have a large emotional stake in being correct.
I stand by my assessment.
You've almost got it. The accurate phrase is "You're all just basically like those fakes on a hotline pretending to have magic powers." There is no evidence supporting the idea that there are psychics.
Even a doctorate in bullshit still only assures you're an expert on bullshit.
Sure there is. We call it "gullibility." And there are psychological tests that measure it.
(1) Insane ticket prices (and the insane actor's pay rates that cause them)
(2) Insane concessions prices
(3) Idiotic slide shows before the movie
(4) Pesty and annoying commercials embedded in the movie's start up
(5) Product pushing embedded in the movie
(6) Listening to some FOOL take a cellphone call
(7) Listening to some FOOL's baby scream and whine and bawl throughout the movie
(8) Listening to some IDIOT chatter throughout the movie
(9) Loud, rustle-producing concessions packaging and the TWITS who rattle it all through the movie
(10) Scores with lowest-common-denominator music such as Country and Rap (country+rap=Crap)
(11) Listening to some inconsiderate LAMER with a cold or flu behind me and KNOWING I'm going to catch it
It's not the delay between DVD release and theatrical release that keeps me from going to the movies. It's those 11 things. I don't care if they DOUBLE or TRIPLE the time between theatrical and DVD release, I'll still watch it at home, thank you, with an awesome sound system and my wide screen and NONE of the above annoyances. Not to mention the ability to instantly drop the volume 20 dB when some ghettowhack/brokebackcowboy comes on and tries to be "meaningful." And the ability to see it again when my kids come over. And the ability to pause when someone needs a break.
Come to think of it, I don't know why theaters even still exist.
And you seem to be under the delusion that voting could affect the situation. Not in the US, where the decisions are made, it can't. US citizens aren't allowed to make law. They can only elect members of one of the two major political partys. Those members already have an agenda (it is set by the party) and it makes no difference what they say prior to election, because they never follow through, and everyone both knows and expects that. The agenda is set by corporate and PAC interests, and there is *zero* ability for the voter to affect anything.
If we're going to be forcing porn-folk into a .xxx ghetto, I think we should force the other profoundly morally objectionable people into a ghetto as well, so we can easily lock it out. I am, of course, talking about religion. (We've already got politicians in .gov, and I've got them locked out at home using that... wouldn't want my kids reading government propoganda.) So for the religious types, we should do the same. Maybe .rlg (actually, maybe .bunk would be better.) Lawyers too. .law or .shyster perhaps... yes, and while we're at it, let's put the spammers in... not a domain... no... how about the caldera of Vesuvius?
Hiroshima and Nagasaki's walls. All of them.
No... no, I believe I'll keep tape on my duck. Damned thing craps on the floor otherwise.
The FCC censors nationally on the basis of value that at a minimum, should be community based if we look at mundane law, but if we look at good supreme sourt decisions, should not be at all.
The FCC intentionally prevents low-power stations from operating, which directly muzzles the populace.
The FCC interferes with privately owned communications hardlines (cable, Internet, telephone) all resources that are not limited by anything other than commerce issues.
Sadly, the FCC is just a symptom of all the other major ills our government has developed because out system does not work.
Our country is mutating from a nation on-track for increasing freedom into a dump for conservative and corporate agendas.
What needs to be done is obvious; but Americans no longer have the will.
You sneaky bastard. Now, you know no one who uses a Mac, much less uses a Mac with Delicious Library, is never, ever, going to treat the Mac as the "2nd machine." :-)
Progress progresses progressively?
Well, that's fine. Perhaps, instead of couching your position in such a way as to attempt to define what pornography (or anything else) is, you could simply state what you find acceptable or not. People are far more accomodating of the expression of another person's reaction to any particular common experience than they are of another person's attempt to define what their own experience is, or will be.
The problem with me defining what class(es) your experience falls into is that I lack your outlook on the world. The opposite is surely true. When in doubt (which in my case is always), my rule is, ask. Failure to presume is an excellent starting position. :-)
You wrote that. Read it again.
The song of solomon takes sex outside the marriage bed (to the reader of the bible), therefore, it is pornography by your definition.
Sorry — that's not what you said, and it also means that "She took his hot, throbbing man-banana and inserted it along with her favorite dildo and Thursday's breakfast sausage, screaming, Solomon! Solomon! I love you dearly, but get more lube and plug in the Hitachi, my clit isn't feeling the love!" isn't pornographic either if the subjects are married and the majority of the book is about goat herding.
Which would be an absurd consequence; one that emerges directly from your two statements.
I'm afraid you have put your foot directly and solidly in your mouth. It's OK, we all do it. Simply admit it, then move on.
The availability of a ".xxx" domain is no threat to any part of the porn industry. But forcing people to use it based on some externally imposed metric is.
I think it'd be much more critical to limit religious web sites to a particular domain, perhaps ".gullible" or ".delusions" or ".manipulation" or even ".bullshit" so as to attempt to limit the harm to children's critical thinking faculties. After all, even if one religion is right (despite the fact that there are no indications that even lean slightly in that direction), that simply means all the thousands of others are wrong, so we'd best put them all into a domain ghetto.
Porn, on the other hand, can directly represent reality. For instance, when you make porn with (one of) your usual sexual partner(s). Ah, the benefits of mass production, the Mac, firewire, and low-lux cameras. Definitely a lot more fun than you can have in church.
No wonder porn scares religious people so much. It's more reality-based.
The song of solomon takes marital sex out of the marriage bed and displays it for all to see — in the bible. Therefore, according to your definition, the song of solomon is pornography.
That's actually not funny. We make Winimages, a graphics product of similar complexity to Photoshop. It's about special effects, animation, and high complexity image editing. It's been running on Windows since about 1992, and it's definitely not been a given that everything stays solid from one windows version to another. For instance, NT and RISC windows versions arbitarily befuddled some UI functions (font rotation and skew, for instance) and XP outright destroyed the consistancy of window metrics that spaced titlebars from client windows. Then there was the Win95 file dialog as compared to the Win98 and later file dialog which handled multiple file selection differently (but still insanely) and so on... and these are just off the top of my head. There are certainly many more.
Microsoft is pretty annoying when it comes to maintaining compatability from one version of Windows to the next.