I am a Christian. I am a geek. I am not alone. Though we ChristoGeeks (a new demograph I just coined which you may proceed to patronize) tend to be a quiet group here on Slashdot, I felt the need to voice this question.
How much does this new 'demograph' overlap with pizza-faced, chubby nerds, also to be found here? I have dubbed them 'CriscoGeeks'.
As for your feeling of being sooooooo abused and oppressed as a 'minority'... 1) x-tians aren't a 'minority' in this culture (the US). 2) You're probably not a a minority on/. 3) If you are, maybe it's because most geeks are smart enough to have left religion behind in the dust, where it belongs.
x-tians aren't a minority in the US, but their belief that they are seems similar to the belief many whites have when ethnic minorities 'move in' -- they (the whites) are still the (often vast) majority, but they'll claim they're being overrun by the 'minorities': they're not used to seeing minorities, and so when they do see them, they overestimate their numbers ("they're everywhere!").
Then again, perhaps you're just paranoid and believe everyone (especially those nasty atheists) are out to get you.
Look, Katz is a hack, and everyone knows it. He's here most likely for financial reasons because he generates hits. My comment is a representation of how people feel about him.
Look, you're a crybaby, and everyone knows it. You're just whining because you haven't gotten any in a while. My comment is a representation of how people feel about you.
Whether Katz is a hack or not is not important. Who cares? Taco and Hemos sold out -- they're in it for financial gain; whine about them instead. Besides, is it a bad thing if Katz is in it for the money? (which you haven't proven).
Why do you feel the need to complain? Why do you have to take the time to say something worthless. It won't change anything. Just more male chest-thumping, perhaps?
For now, no comment about your "[crappy] local webpage for the sake of having no time".
I don't know what I keep responding to such stupid posts, but oh well, here it goes...
Sorry, the Ten Commandments are accepted by the vast majority of people on this earth (Christians, Jews, Muslims).
Whoah there, junior...! vast majority? Let's see "this" earth has about 6 billion people. A simple majority would be a bit more than 3 billion... I don't know what *you* consider a "vast majority", but with over 1 billion people in China (most not C/J/M), almost 1 billion in India (most not C/J/M), numerous Buddhists in the rest of Asia (and elsewhere), followers of other religions (tribes in S.America and Africa, Wiccans, Scientologists) and followers of no specific religion (or none at all, period), I think you fall short of your "vast majority". Even if people of other religions might agree with some of the ideas in the Ten Commandments, they might not agree with the T.C. themselves, which are specific to a Judeo-Christian worldview.
Does it really offend you that much?
Yes. Having people tell me that some fictional deity tells me what I can and can't do is quite insulting.
What do you disagree with in there?
They are 'commandments' -- that is, I am supposed to accept their so-called morality without thinking about 'why'. It's just so -- 'god' says so. Ooh, what a great system of morality and ethics. "The Fuehrer says we should hate and kill Jews. Let's not think about it, let's do it." "The Pope says we should burn heretics, so let's do it." No thanks.
How is denying the school's right to post it not denying their freedom of religious expression?
The school has no freedome of religious expression. 1) Public schools are not religious institutions. 2) Only people at a school have rights (which people tend to forget, when they start taking away the rights of students to their privacy and right to free speech... I consider that more important that trying to create a Christian army of right-thinking zombies), and their rights to wear crosses, talk with their friends about religion, and put the Ten Commandments on their binders, etc. is not being attacked. The (*public*) school's ability to force Christianity on people is, though.
As for your statement about religion and genocide, why noy look at the present? The biggest mass murderers of all time were Atheists during the 20th century-- Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.
Stalin was a priest. You forgot Hitler -- Hitler and the Nazis followed an Aryan-Christian-Mythology; not atheists. Of course, people like you will say "they weren't true Christians" or some shit like that (just like, I'm sure, the leaders of the Crusades, the Teutonic Knights, and the leaders of the Inquisition weren't 'true Christians' either -- or maybe the heretics, heathens and infidels should have been all killed...) Hence -- your argument "atheism is bad because some atheists have committed atrocities, and therefore let's all be good x-tians... religion is good" is just stupid -- unless you also accept "religion is bad because some religious people (read the Old Testament, and the above-mentioned examples) have committed atrocities, and therefore let's all be good atheists..."
In conclusion: you simply missed the point. Public institutions should not be favoring a single religion (or group thereof); as public institutions they should be open for all members of society. If people want the T.C. -- send your kids to religious schools where they can learn about Creationism (um, I mean "Creation Science")
Why don't you admit you are a marxist? You believe no one should own property or ideas. Everyone should be forced to work for the good of man kind.
Part I
You "argument" lacks all logic. You seem to imply that because one doesn't believe in IP, that one is a Marxist. This does not follow. The set of people who don't believe in IP is not identical with the set of Marxists. For example, many anarchists do not believe in IP, but are definitely not Marxists. 2nd, "Everyone should be..." does not follow from "You believe no one..."
Part II
Regarding another thread -- the one with the twit "Tom" asking how he was supposed to feed his family, blah blah blah -- I'm going to assume (perhaps mistakenly, but oh well) that your views overlap to some extent with Tom's.
The whole "anti-IP people are Marxists, commies, etc." is bogus. One could easily make the argument that instead it is those looking for IP protection ("intellectual property" -- how can you "own" something in your head... can someone steal it so that you no longer have it?) who are supporters of a strong, centralized government -- a government which provides so-called IP-trade-barriers and time-limited-subsidies (you get to have this idea all to your little lonesome for 17 years...). A government that encourages monopolies in a so-called open/free market could hardly be called a supporter of free-market capitalism, which is what so many of the pro-IP people around here so vehemently support (although not necessarily all).
Part III (getting off topic)
I find it hard if not impossible to believe that Tom or anybody else working with algorithms (ooh --- that is, people writing computer programs) has a right to any patents on such algorithms and such. There is the BS argument "if Einstein and Newton wanted to share their ideas, fine, but I don't have to share mine... don't take away my freedom". 1) Einstein and Newton didn't have any patent-able ideas --- no 'inventions', no specific processes. 2) Such algorithms are quite often merely applications of already-known mathematical relations, etc. How can you 'own' work somebody else did months, years, decades, etc. ago. That's called a free-ride. "Ooh look, I made a copy of the Mona Lisa, but I changed her smile a bit. Now, nobody else can make a copy with a smile like this, it's *mine*." You may have derived something from something else, but as long as that which is derived has no physical existence (scratches on paper or impulses on a magnetic medium notwithstanding), I find it very difficult to believe that such 'results' can be called 'property', and futhermore, giving them so-called 'IP Protection' sounds like a 'free ride' to me. Your freedom isn't being taken away -- you're not losing property, as you never owned it; but patents do take away the freedom of others (to independently come up with something, then have others tell them, 'no, you can't use that idea, someone else "owns it" already.')
Part IV (closing remarks)
A final note: who owns all these patents? Not family-feeding, 'God fearing' (sarcasm) Americans -- rather, it's the mega-corporations that employ them: IBM, MS, Apple, Unisys, Intel, Motorola, Xerox, etc. It is a myth that patents help the lonely little inventor/programmer -- that may have been the case once, but it sure doesn't seem that way now.
It doesn't matter if you *are* a/the jerk or not, because no one is 1) going to know or 2) bother getting to know (you, for example).
Example: male friend who always walks around with his head down and not smiling at people. His take: he's just introspective and shy -- why won't people see past that facade and get to know him? Other peoples' take: boy that guy's unfriendly; he doesn't smile and chat and he's so hard to get to know -- perhaps he's not really interested in getting to know me (or whomever); maybe he's stuck up (smart geek who can't be bothered to deal with 'us' peons), etc.
[note: after improving this, by learning to smile, to look at people in the eyes, etc., this friend 1) had several girls ask him out, and 2) got up the nerve to ask a few others out. surprise surprise...]
If you're afraid of 'uncomfortable social situations', fine, but don't expect to have a 'social' life. Admittedly, a lot of social situations are lame and pointless, but remember that it's your choice to avoid them, and frankly the opinion 'i won't fit in there' or 'they don't want me there' is a BS excuse. It's a BS excuse I've used before and that many of my male geek friends have used.
Sorry, I'm not the bad guy here.
Maybe not, but such a line sounds whiny, and coming across as a defensive and/or self-pitying guy makes you look immature on the one hand, and furthermore, many (most?) girls/women want guys with selfconfidence (not the same as arrogance).
I haven't been online quite as long, but I've still been on for much of the 90s, and I have to agree to a great extent.
When I first got online, there were some directories of sites and such. Gopher still worked quite well, too, in the non-web-world. So I browsed through things quite a bit. There were a few places I'd got all the time, but mostly I browsed from site to site. There were no "portals" where 1) my browsing options were more limited (despite the seemingly large number of links) and 2) where I could get "all my info at once" -- when I had to actually search for things on my own, I found interesting sites that I didn't expect to find.
Since then, the number of truly geeky personal pages has been replaced by tons of teen-age goth-girl wanna-bees complaining about their sucky families, life of depression, etc. (of course such problems exist, but you have to admit, the number of cookie-cutter home pages has gone up... black, lavender, javascript role-overs, similar-sounding web-journals, framesets, etc.)
Even though my "usual" browsing is now more limited -- gotta see/., t.o., freshmeat, userfriendly, and a cast of other things daily, the most rewarding browsing still occurs 'off the beaten path'. Too bad, as was mentioned, there are so many dead links on sites/pages that haven't been updated forever (I, too, am guilty of this at times).
Anyway, time for cookie-cutter-me to stop rambling.
i forgot about those pics! time to clean out the directory!
I'm sorry it had to come to that -- that you had to censor your own site because of what somebody else said/wrote. I hope I wasn't partially at fault -- for responding to an AC (after all, his (her?) score would have been 0 and most people would have missed it).
At least you took notice -- too bad you had to -- and took the situation in hand.
Side note: to crystalize a few thoughts. As you originally stated, and as I agree with you: "I didn't need any encouragement!" (neither did I, even though I'm *sure* I received it, subtle or otherwise from people I looked up to!) I think this AC's post, combined with those of many of the guys here points out that there are *2* main things to consider: encouragement and positive reenforcement on the one hand, and subtle and/or even passive, if not active, discouragement on the other.
I find it's the little things -- both positive and negative -- that can so affect the direction someone goes. The little nods from people you respect on the one hand, or the almost insignificant slights and remarks on the other hand. A teacher putting me down I can respond to, just to spite them; an environment that makes it uncomfortable for me to work in, is another matter.
Sorry, I'm rambling (as usual!) I guess I should have stuck this in another thread, but it came to me here, and since I'd posted in this one earlier...
Give it up... This is a new low for/. I think... you publishing that URL. And you wonder why there are so few geekgirls around (and/or willing to show their faces) --- here's a hint : it's geek-guys like you.
Note: I don't mean all geek-guys by this (I've known my share, and they generally had more manners than this one)
To the girl this AC was posting about -- he's right, you seem pretty cool (Linux, band, pix), but don't take his shit too seriously.
Slashdot Mirror
I am a Christian. I am a geek. I am not alone. Though we ChristoGeeks (a new demograph I just coined which you may proceed to patronize) tend to be a quiet group here on Slashdot, I felt the need to voice this question.
How much does this new 'demograph' overlap with pizza-faced, chubby nerds, also to be found here? I have dubbed them 'CriscoGeeks'.
As for your feeling of being sooooooo abused and oppressed as a 'minority' ... 1) x-tians aren't a 'minority' in this culture (the US). 2) You're probably not a a minority on /. 3) If you are, maybe it's because most geeks are smart enough to have left religion behind in the dust, where it belongs.
x-tians aren't a minority in the US, but their belief that they are seems similar to the belief many whites have when ethnic minorities 'move in' -- they (the whites) are still the (often vast) majority, but they'll claim they're being overrun by the 'minorities': they're not used to seeing minorities, and so when they do see them, they overestimate their numbers ("they're everywhere!").
Then again, perhaps you're just paranoid and believe everyone (especially those nasty atheists) are out to get you.
Have a nice day.
Andra
---
Look, Katz is a hack, and everyone knows it. He's here most likely for financial reasons because he generates hits. My comment is a representation of how people feel about him.
Look, you're a crybaby, and everyone knows it. You're just whining because you haven't gotten any in a while. My comment is a representation of how people feel about you.
Whether Katz is a hack or not is not important. Who cares? Taco and Hemos sold out -- they're in it for financial gain; whine about them instead. Besides, is it a bad thing if Katz is in it for the money? (which you haven't proven).
Why do you feel the need to complain? Why do you have to take the time to say something worthless. It won't change anything. Just more male chest-thumping, perhaps?
For now, no comment about your "[crappy] local webpage for the sake of having no time".
Have a nice day :)
Andra
---
I don't know what I keep responding to such stupid posts, but oh well, here it goes ...
Sorry, the Ten Commandments are accepted by the vast majority of people on this earth (Christians, Jews, Muslims).
Whoah there, junior ...! vast majority? Let's see "this" earth has about 6 billion people. A simple majority would be a bit more than 3 billion ... I don't know what *you* consider a "vast majority", but with over 1 billion people in China (most not C/J/M), almost 1 billion in India (most not C/J/M), numerous Buddhists in the rest of Asia (and elsewhere), followers of other religions (tribes in S.America and Africa, Wiccans, Scientologists) and followers of no specific religion (or none at all, period), I think you fall short of your "vast majority". Even if people of other religions might agree with some of the ideas in the Ten Commandments, they might not agree with the T.C. themselves, which are specific to a Judeo-Christian worldview.
Does it really offend you that much?
Yes. Having people tell me that some fictional deity tells me what I can and can't do is quite insulting.
What do you disagree with in there?
They are 'commandments' -- that is, I am supposed to accept their so-called morality without thinking about 'why'. It's just so -- 'god' says so. Ooh, what a great system of morality and ethics. "The Fuehrer says we should hate and kill Jews. Let's not think about it, let's do it." "The Pope says we should burn heretics, so let's do it." No thanks.
How is denying the school's right to post it not denying their freedom of religious expression?
The school has no freedome of religious expression. 1) Public schools are not religious institutions. 2) Only people at a school have rights (which people tend to forget, when they start taking away the rights of students to their privacy and right to free speech ... I consider that more important that trying to create a Christian army of right-thinking zombies), and their rights to wear crosses, talk with their friends about religion, and put the Ten Commandments on their binders, etc. is not being attacked. The (*public*) school's ability to force Christianity on people is, though.
As for your statement about religion and genocide, why noy look at the present? The biggest mass murderers of all time were Atheists during the 20th century-- Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.
Stalin was a priest. You forgot Hitler -- Hitler and the Nazis followed an Aryan-Christian-Mythology; not atheists. Of course, people like you will say "they weren't true Christians" or some shit like that (just like, I'm sure, the leaders of the Crusades, the Teutonic Knights, and the leaders of the Inquisition weren't 'true Christians' either -- or maybe the heretics, heathens and infidels should have been all killed ...) Hence -- your argument "atheism is bad because some atheists have committed atrocities, and therefore let's all be good x-tians... religion is good" is just stupid -- unless you also accept "religion is bad because some religious people (read the Old Testament, and the above-mentioned examples) have committed atrocities, and therefore let's all be good atheists..."
In conclusion: you simply missed the point. Public institutions should not be favoring a single religion (or group thereof); as public institutions they should be open for all members of society. If people want the T.C. -- send your kids to religious schools where they can learn about Creationism (um, I mean "Creation Science")
Andra
---
Part I
You "argument" lacks all logic. You seem to imply that because one doesn't believe in IP, that one is a Marxist. This does not follow. The set of people who don't believe in IP is not identical with the set of Marxists. For example, many anarchists do not believe in IP, but are definitely not Marxists. 2nd, "Everyone should be..." does not follow from "You believe no one ..."
Part II
Regarding another thread -- the one with the twit "Tom" asking how he was supposed to feed his family, blah blah blah -- I'm going to assume (perhaps mistakenly, but oh well) that your views overlap to some extent with Tom's.
The whole "anti-IP people are Marxists, commies, etc." is bogus. One could easily make the argument that instead it is those looking for IP protection ("intellectual property" -- how can you "own" something in your head ... can someone steal it so that you no longer have it?) who are supporters of a strong, centralized government -- a government which provides so-called IP-trade-barriers and time-limited-subsidies (you get to have this idea all to your little lonesome for 17 years ...). A government that encourages monopolies in a so-called open/free market could hardly be called a supporter of free-market capitalism, which is what so many of the pro-IP people around here so vehemently support (although not necessarily all).
Part III (getting off topic)
I find it hard if not impossible to believe that Tom or anybody else working with algorithms (ooh --- that is, people writing computer programs) has a right to any patents on such algorithms and such. There is the BS argument "if Einstein and Newton wanted to share their ideas, fine, but I don't have to share mine ... don't take away my freedom". 1) Einstein and Newton didn't have any patent-able ideas --- no 'inventions', no specific processes. 2) Such algorithms are quite often merely applications of already-known mathematical relations, etc. How can you 'own' work somebody else did months, years, decades, etc. ago. That's called a free-ride. "Ooh look, I made a copy of the Mona Lisa, but I changed her smile a bit. Now, nobody else can make a copy with a smile like this, it's *mine*." You may have derived something from something else, but as long as that which is derived has no physical existence (scratches on paper or impulses on a magnetic medium notwithstanding), I find it very difficult to believe that such 'results' can be called 'property', and futhermore, giving them so-called 'IP Protection' sounds like a 'free ride' to me. Your freedom isn't being taken away -- you're not losing property, as you never owned it; but patents do take away the freedom of others (to independently come up with something, then have others tell them, 'no, you can't use that idea, someone else "owns it" already.')
Part IV (closing remarks)
A final note: who owns all these patents? Not family-feeding, 'God fearing' (sarcasm) Americans -- rather, it's the mega-corporations that employ them: IBM, MS, Apple, Unisys, Intel, Motorola, Xerox, etc. It is a myth that patents help the lonely little inventor/programmer -- that may have been the case once, but it sure doesn't seem that way now.
--Andra
---
Example: male friend who always walks around with his head down and not smiling at people. His take: he's just introspective and shy -- why won't people see past that facade and get to know him? Other peoples' take: boy that guy's unfriendly; he doesn't smile and chat and he's so hard to get to know -- perhaps he's not really interested in getting to know me (or whomever); maybe he's stuck up (smart geek who can't be bothered to deal with 'us' peons), etc.
[note: after improving this, by learning to smile, to look at people in the eyes, etc., this friend 1) had several girls ask him out, and 2) got up the nerve to ask a few others out. surprise surprise ...]
If you're afraid of 'uncomfortable social situations', fine, but don't expect to have a 'social' life. Admittedly, a lot of social situations are lame and pointless, but remember that it's your choice to avoid them, and frankly the opinion 'i won't fit in there' or 'they don't want me there' is a BS excuse. It's a BS excuse I've used before and that many of my male geek friends have used.
Sorry, I'm not the bad guy here.
Maybe not, but such a line sounds whiny, and coming across as a defensive and/or self-pitying guy makes you look immature on the one hand, and furthermore, many (most?) girls/women want guys with selfconfidence (not the same as arrogance).
That's just my take, based on my experiences.
---
When I first got online, there were some directories of sites and such. Gopher still worked quite well, too, in the non-web-world. So I browsed through things quite a bit. There were a few places I'd got all the time, but mostly I browsed from site to site. There were no "portals" where 1) my browsing options were more limited (despite the seemingly large number of links) and 2) where I could get "all my info at once" -- when I had to actually search for things on my own, I found interesting sites that I didn't expect to find.
Since then, the number of truly geeky personal pages has been replaced by tons of teen-age goth-girl wanna-bees complaining about their sucky families, life of depression, etc. (of course such problems exist, but you have to admit, the number of cookie-cutter home pages has gone up ... black, lavender, javascript role-overs, similar-sounding web-journals, framesets, etc.)
Even though my "usual" browsing is now more limited -- gotta see /., t.o., freshmeat, userfriendly, and a cast of other things daily, the most rewarding browsing still occurs 'off the beaten path'. Too bad, as was mentioned, there are so many dead links on sites/pages that haven't been updated forever (I, too, am guilty of this at times).
Anyway, time for cookie-cutter-me to stop rambling.
- Andra
---
I'm sorry it had to come to that -- that you had to censor your own site because of what somebody else said/wrote. I hope I wasn't partially at fault -- for responding to an AC (after all, his (her?) score would have been 0 and most people would have missed it).
At least you took notice -- too bad you had to -- and took the situation in hand.
Side note: to crystalize a few thoughts. As you originally stated, and as I agree with you: "I didn't need any encouragement!" (neither did I, even though I'm *sure* I received it, subtle or otherwise from people I looked up to!) I think this AC's post, combined with those of many of the guys here points out that there are *2* main things to consider: encouragement and positive reenforcement on the one hand, and subtle and/or even passive, if not active, discouragement on the other.
I find it's the little things -- both positive and negative -- that can so affect the direction someone goes. The little nods from people you respect on the one hand, or the almost insignificant slights and remarks on the other hand. A teacher putting me down I can respond to, just to spite them; an environment that makes it uncomfortable for me to work in, is another matter.
Sorry, I'm rambling (as usual!) I guess I should have stuck this in another thread, but it came to me here, and since I'd posted in this one earlier ...
-- Andra
---
Note: I don't mean all geek-guys by this (I've known my share, and they generally had more manners than this one)
To the girl this AC was posting about -- he's right, you seem pretty cool (Linux, band, pix), but don't take his shit too seriously.
-Andra ---------------------
---