I would try Prime95 if I could get the box to even boot with 4 sticks. I could run Prime95 with two sticks, test them thoroughly, and then swap the sticks and test the other 2. However, given that I have no issues with any of the 4 sticks in any of the 4 slots when running only 2 at a time, and running 4 at once stops my computer from getting past POST, I don't think it is bad sticks.
Actually those "Ext4" data corruption issues that set the Internet all ablaze (including Slashdot) were mainly due to KDE 4 not handling metadata correctly. In the end, it wasn't an Ext4 issue. However, feel free to spread FUD.
And you're right. I shouldn't have suggested he run Fat32 if he is paranoid that newer filesystems are inherently unsafe. He should run Fat16 to be sure.
Certainly, an older file system that doesn't have the nicer, fine-grained journaling (and journaling controls) which be much safer.
Ext4 is a wild, data-eating beast that just can't be trusted.
Ext4 is merely an extension (that is mostly backwards-compatible) of Ext3. Ext4 was born out of patches that were intended for Ext3. In 2006, the decision was made to split some of the newer features being pushed into Ext3 under the namespace of Ext4. It isn't like they started development on Ext4 in 2006. In 2006, there was a usable file system from the day it was annouced as a "new" project.
It was pretty damn stable then, and even more stable now.
I've been running it for 3 years. The age of a product does not always equate directly to stability. There are old releases that aren't very stable, and then there are projects that are well designed, and are stable pretty much from day 1.
Ext4 is one such project. However, if you're terrified of Ext4 eating your dog, you're welcome to run Fat32 if it makes you feel better.
Congrats first and foremost to everyone who worked on this release.
I use and love openSUSE. I've been running betas of 11.2 for a while now.
My only gripe is that openSUSE still apparently hasn't switched to Upstart, nor DeviceKit. I assume Novell's layoffs last year are the reason that openSUSE seems to be falling a little behind in feature adoption. I hope this isn't a growing trend.
They moved to an 8 month release. 8 months is almost a year. Are you suggesting that Ubuntu is superior because the increase the version number every 6 months as opposed to 8 months?
One of the best aspects of Yast is that the core design and libraries are agnostic of the toolkit. So the CLI version of Yast looks and operates the same was as the GTK+ and Qt versions.
The reason I run openSUSE is that they have great packages. Ubuntu's 9.10 release was like every other release they have, which is broken. Fedora also likes to push bleeding edge.
openSUSE does live fairly close to the bleeding edge, but they have a lot of developers pushing upstream code, and making solid packages. Heck, I often run weekly development snapshots from them and feel pretty secure in knowing they won't break my box.
They have arguably the best KDE 4.x desktop out there (Arch and Sabayon also being solid contenders). They also put a lot of time and attention into their Gnome desktop, but I don't run it and can't comment on it.
Yast is a fantastic tool.
Novell seems to be pushing the bulk of development in major projects like Evolution, Openoffice, etc. Novell and Red Hat seem to be the two kings of upstream development.
The knock against openSUSE is that they're falling a little behind in certain features (they're just now pushing EXT4, I think they still haven't moved to Upstart or DeviceKit, etc.) Sadly, I think think this is a result of the Novell layoffs last year. I wish there were fewer distros, so that the Linux community could consolidate and focus on putting out the best possible product as oppose to replicating everyone else's efforts.
IBM would need to ramp up, but they are beating Intel to the 22nm fab processor on SRAM. And I thought IBM was about to start putting 40nm Cell procs in the new line of PS3s.
Again, IBM seems to be doing better than AMD in the fabrication department. I'd partner with them.
That isn't exactly the same issue because you're not running Half Life 2 on your phone. You're not expecting to take your desktop apps with you, and mobile apps are ported to ARM processors.
The issue isn't that Microsoft can't port Windows 7 to ARM (though apparently it took years to port Office to x86_64 for crying out loud), but that they won't, because it will break every piece of Windows software out there.
Apple did manage to emulate their old processor on top of x86 with Rosetta or whatever it was called, but they had fewer apps to test and support, and it killed performance. Why would Microsoft tell everyone to go to ARM to make all their existing apps to break, or run like shit? Microsoft is having a hard enough time getting people to run x86_64.
I build a lot of systems for people. I've been using AMD since the K6 line. However, my current desktop I went with a Dragon platform.
I got a Phenom II X4 940, a 790GX board, and a Radeon HD 4850 (Saphire).
First off, I can't get the box to see 4 sticks of DDR2 1066. My buddy literally built the same hardware off my recommendations, and he ran into the same issue.
All 4 sticks work fine individually. All 4 memory slots work fine individually. I can get the 4 sticks to work together on an Intel board (I borrowed a work PC to test).
I swapped the motherboard for another brand, and has the same problem. I went to a better power supply and had the same problem. Then I see a bunch of people posting on AMD's forums about a specific bug with the 940 not handling 4 sticks of 1066. Tons of people are reporting this. I call AMD tech support, who keeps cutting me off to insist there is no way possible that the processor can affect the memory.
I keep telling them the processor contains the memory controller. But there is zero way the processor can be responsible. Tech support starts yelling at me. I call back the next day, and get the same answers. Even worse, they insist I must have cheap memory. I bought Kingston. They insist it must be my motherboard. I thought them I'm on my second motherboard from another manufacturer. The only consistency is that they both use AMD silicon for the chipset. Again, AMD Tech Support told me there is zero chance they could have anything to do with it, and they wouldn't consider swapping the proc.
Even worse, the second rep told me that AMD doesn't recommend buying parts from Biostar, Foxconn or Kingston. They said Kingston memory isn't on their approved list. Kingston for crying out loud. Way to throw your partners under the bus!
Combine that with my first Radeon HD 4850 (built directly by AMD/ATI via Sapphire) was DOA. My second one has also stopped working. (It only works in VESA mode, but never when a driver is loaded in XP x64, Windows 7, or openSUSE. Apparnetly hardware acceleration is completely busted on it).
Next, I have 4 SATA drives in RAID 1 with 2 logical drives. My first logical drive says there is a failure. Yet, Seagate diagnostics can't find a problem with the second drive. I RMA the drive regardless (at a cost of $20 to me!) and put a second drive in. There is no option to rebuild the array, nor does it happen automatically.
I call AMD again (the AMD name is all over the RAID tool on their chipset) and they say they don't make the RAID tool, again, despite it saying Copyright AMD all over the place. I call Foxconn who say it is just part of the chipset they get from AMD, and they won't support it.
I call AMD back who insists I must destroy the LD, and recreate a new one. I explain that defeats the whole concept of a RAID if I can't rebuild/repair it. And they say they have no knowledge of their own RAID tool.
I did end up wiping the logical drive, but I'm pissed. I bought a second power supply that I didn't need, which didn't fix the issue. I've swapped parts left and right. I still can only use 2 sticks of memory, and now my second video card is dead. ATI won't do an RMA directly (thanks for that) and NewEgg won't let me do a second RMA from the same invoice. I just ate $160 on a dead card.
And again, AMD tech support has been nothing but rude to me, treating me like an idiot. I'm a fucking Systems Engineer. I also build at least 10 rigs a year for family and friends. Bad products plus even worse support is a bitter pill to swallow.
Even worse, Foxconn and Biostar both independently told me they have also noted that the 940 does in fact have an issue where often it can't recognize 4 sticks of 1066. Asus also had a note on their site about it. And tons of users reported on the AMD forums. But again, AMD refuses to own their issue and do anything about it. I'm pretty pissed to the point that I may boycott AMD, even if it means buying from Intel, who is guilty of anti-competitive practices.
Color me stupid, but why doesn't AMD strike a deal with IBM who does routinely manage to get their fabrication processes put together in a reasonable matter of time.
The Cell hasn't taken off like mad. IBM lost the Apple processor deal a few years back. I'm assuming IBM could ramp up and assist AMD.
Better in what way? Better in top performance. Sure.
However, when comparing performance to cost, and other mitigating factors such as some of the benefits of having a built-in memory controller, cheaper motherboards, etc. it makes sense to build and sell AMD systems.
Is it $1.25 billion of pure profit? How much has AMD spent fighting this battle to this point?
How much more would they have to spend to continue fighting the battle? I would assume the risk/reward factor would say the smart move would be to finish what they started at this point and reap a MUCH LARGER settlement for their troubles. They've no doubt lost many more billions in lost sales over the past decade plus.
Combine that with the future value of market share, and we're talking about a huge shift.
The only way it makes sense to take a small settlement now is that AMD can't afford to keep fighting, even if it is the right thing to do.
When AMD first started releasing x86-64 processors, they were beating Intel in price and performance. I think that is why Intel started to resort to the tactics that they did.
AMD can't beat Intel on top performance these days because they keep falling behind on new fabrication processes. However, price out a comparable low to medium end AMD system with an Intel system, and you'll find that not only is the processor cheaper, but so is the motherboard.
AMD can still claim advantages at certain price points. Now, it just so happens I am really pissed at AMD for a string of defecting products I've gotten from them, combined with terrible service, but I think people overlook that there are reasons to purchase AMD.
ARM is a threat if Apple adopted it, or if Linux took off big-time. However, Windows 7 isn't being ported to ARM, because then all your existing software wouldn't work on it. Every single Windows developer on the planet would need to release ARM ports. For better or worse, we're stuck with x86 for some time to come.
The only time/way I see this changing is if Windows decided to break backwards compatibility with their previous API and apps, build a new API from the ground up, and at the same time port to a new archit ecture. They bundle in an emulator to run old apps that emulates both the API and hardware.
That is a minimum of five years out, if it happened at all.
Not to mention, if the market moved to a different architecture, what stops AMD from developing processors for that architecture?
Not to mention Intel has already been found guilty in other countries. I think that Intel had good reason to suspect the same might happen in the US. Intel did get off light.
I assume AMD took the deal because they have been hemmoraghing money for some time now. They needed a cash influx and couldn't afford to fight a legal battle much longer.
The sad thing here is that the end lesson is that illegal, anti-competitive practices can be quite beneficial. The US government overlooked them, even when a bevy of vendors testified on AMD's behalf, despite Intel threatening those vendors. Intel profitted not only in the immediate dollar sense, but also in gaining massive market share.
Yet the US threatened to go after Google if they had a search partnership with Yahoo. That is an evil monopoly that must be quashed (but it would be fine if Microsoft purchased Yahoo, swallowed their services, and removed choice and competition from the marketplace). None of this makes much sense.
If God didn't want us to have free will, we never would have had it. Adam had the free will to defy God.
In Eden, there was but one rule. Then it was ten commandments. And then the Jews insisted on a lengthy series of Mitzvots. This is a story of man distancing himself of his own free will from God, and replacing God with the hierarchy of the church.
All laws reflect a certain level of morality. You can point to a good chunk of legislation and say it reflects the morality of religion X, Y, and Z.
I think the rule of thumb should be that personal freedom must be preserved as much as possible. The right to swing your first ends precisely at the tip of my nose.
Thusly, I am fine with legislation saying murder is wrong. This is morality in legislation, but more specifically it is protecting constituents from being victims.
I am not fine with legislation discriminating two consenting adults in the bedroom, because there is no victim.
You are correct in that there are centuries of people twisting scripture. It happens today. That doesn't mean my take on the Mitzvots is wrong, nor am I the first to suggest it. Sometimes I think the level-headed ones are overlooked for vocal whack-job minorities.
I think there are three main ways that Christians respond to the bulk of the Old Testament.
* Some say the subscribe to a literal interpretation, so long as it suits them. This allows them to call gays abominations, and subjugate women. My wife knows a guy who attends a church where women may not speak. However, they elect to ignore portions in Leviticus on slavery, etc.
* Some feel that these were literal laws of God at one point, but they no longer matter because Jesus replaced the old laws. They elect to just ignore the bulk or entirety of the Old Testament.
* A third group (like myself) feels that the Old Testament on the whole is relevant. It didn't get thrown out. But I don't believe the Mitzvots are literal commandments from God. They are a historical representation of the laws the Jews used to govern themselves. For instance, there were laws about to properly prepare the altar, and the priests' garb before animal sacrifice, and how one progressed through the temple for the sacrifice. Yet the 10 direct commandments from God don't say we must sacrifice animals. In the same vein that I don't sacrifice animals, I don't believe I should or could sell my daughter into slavery. I'm not selectively choosing to ignore bits of the Bible. I accept all of it within (what I believe to be) the proper context.
In my church, we always read an Old Testament passage, a Psalm, a New Testament passage, and a portion of the Gospel. (For those who care, I consider myself basically non-denominational because I don't care for sect politics, but I attend a Lutheran Church). My church treats homosexuality on the same level with other sins. We're all sinners. We're not here to judge. We're here to have fellowship.
I've never been a member of a Church that selectively decides to follow only portions of the Bible, one that practices discrimination, or one that likes to take single verses out of context. All Biblical lessons should be a large passage examined within a greater context.
I have always been a Christian who pushes for legal rights for gays. I don't see that as a contradiction. I don't believe Christ promoted discrimination. Why should I?
Yes, but it is treated as an equal sin in the New Testament.
The term "abomination" in Leviticus is the reason many claim it is different from other sins, and must be judged far differently. You can forgive a murderer and welcome them into your church, but not a gay.
There are those who suggest that many of the early books in the Old Testament aren't exactly God's commandments to his followers, but rather a historical accounting. For instance, the Old Testament lists the kashrut laws. This does not mean that Christians must keep a kashrut diet.
The Torah has 613 Mitzvot, commandments, or laws. Yet there are 10 commandments directly attributed to God. If you read the Old Testament, you'll see that there is a story arc in which God goes from having simple commandments and dealing directly with his people, to his people intentionally seperating themselves, wanting to establish government, establish a complex priesthood, and then develop these complex laws.
I don't think it is far to say that the Mitzvot constitute Biblical law in any true sense.
That means fundamentalists who want to come down on gays suddenly don't have much in the way of Biblical evidence to support themselves, but it also means those that want to mock Judeo-Christian beliefs can't uphold the silliness contained within the 613 Mitzvot either.
Slashdot Mirror
I would try Prime95 if I could get the box to even boot with 4 sticks. I could run Prime95 with two sticks, test them thoroughly, and then swap the sticks and test the other 2. However, given that I have no issues with any of the 4 sticks in any of the 4 slots when running only 2 at a time, and running 4 at once stops my computer from getting past POST, I don't think it is bad sticks.
I do however appreciate your suggestion.
Actually those "Ext4" data corruption issues that set the Internet all ablaze (including Slashdot) were mainly due to KDE 4 not handling metadata correctly. In the end, it wasn't an Ext4 issue. However, feel free to spread FUD.
And you're right. I shouldn't have suggested he run Fat32 if he is paranoid that newer filesystems are inherently unsafe. He should run Fat16 to be sure.
Certainly, an older file system that doesn't have the nicer, fine-grained journaling (and journaling controls) which be much safer.
Ext4 is a wild, data-eating beast that just can't be trusted.
Ext4 is merely an extension (that is mostly backwards-compatible) of Ext3. Ext4 was born out of patches that were intended for Ext3. In 2006, the decision was made to split some of the newer features being pushed into Ext3 under the namespace of Ext4. It isn't like they started development on Ext4 in 2006. In 2006, there was a usable file system from the day it was annouced as a "new" project.
It was pretty damn stable then, and even more stable now.
I've been running it for 3 years. The age of a product does not always equate directly to stability. There are old releases that aren't very stable, and then there are projects that are well designed, and are stable pretty much from day 1.
Ext4 is one such project. However, if you're terrified of Ext4 eating your dog, you're welcome to run Fat32 if it makes you feel better.
Congrats first and foremost to everyone who worked on this release.
I use and love openSUSE. I've been running betas of 11.2 for a while now.
My only gripe is that openSUSE still apparently hasn't switched to Upstart, nor DeviceKit. I assume Novell's layoffs last year are the reason that openSUSE seems to be falling a little behind in feature adoption. I hope this isn't a growing trend.
Ext4 has been mature and stable for at least 3 years now.
I also think openSUSE is the last of the big distros to switch to it. So it isn't like they are pushing something brand new.
They moved to an 8 month release. 8 months is almost a year. Are you suggesting that Ubuntu is superior because the increase the version number every 6 months as opposed to 8 months?
What does a version number mean?
One of the best aspects of Yast is that the core design and libraries are agnostic of the toolkit. So the CLI version of Yast looks and operates the same was as the GTK+ and Qt versions.
The reason I run openSUSE is that they have great packages. Ubuntu's 9.10 release was like every other release they have, which is broken. Fedora also likes to push bleeding edge.
openSUSE does live fairly close to the bleeding edge, but they have a lot of developers pushing upstream code, and making solid packages. Heck, I often run weekly development snapshots from them and feel pretty secure in knowing they won't break my box.
They have arguably the best KDE 4.x desktop out there (Arch and Sabayon also being solid contenders). They also put a lot of time and attention into their Gnome desktop, but I don't run it and can't comment on it.
Yast is a fantastic tool.
Novell seems to be pushing the bulk of development in major projects like Evolution, Openoffice, etc. Novell and Red Hat seem to be the two kings of upstream development.
The knock against openSUSE is that they're falling a little behind in certain features (they're just now pushing EXT4, I think they still haven't moved to Upstart or DeviceKit, etc.) Sadly, I think think this is a result of the Novell layoffs last year. I wish there were fewer distros, so that the Linux community could consolidate and focus on putting out the best possible product as oppose to replicating everyone else's efforts.
IBM would need to ramp up, but they are beating Intel to the 22nm fab processor on SRAM. And I thought IBM was about to start putting 40nm Cell procs in the new line of PS3s.
Again, IBM seems to be doing better than AMD in the fabrication department. I'd partner with them.
That isn't exactly the same issue because you're not running Half Life 2 on your phone. You're not expecting to take your desktop apps with you, and mobile apps are ported to ARM processors.
The issue isn't that Microsoft can't port Windows 7 to ARM (though apparently it took years to port Office to x86_64 for crying out loud), but that they won't, because it will break every piece of Windows software out there.
Apple did manage to emulate their old processor on top of x86 with Rosetta or whatever it was called, but they had fewer apps to test and support, and it killed performance. Why would Microsoft tell everyone to go to ARM to make all their existing apps to break, or run like shit? Microsoft is having a hard enough time getting people to run x86_64.
I build a lot of systems for people. I've been using AMD since the K6 line. However, my current desktop I went with a Dragon platform.
I got a Phenom II X4 940, a 790GX board, and a Radeon HD 4850 (Saphire).
First off, I can't get the box to see 4 sticks of DDR2 1066. My buddy literally built the same hardware off my recommendations, and he ran into the same issue.
All 4 sticks work fine individually. All 4 memory slots work fine individually. I can get the 4 sticks to work together on an Intel board (I borrowed a work PC to test).
I swapped the motherboard for another brand, and has the same problem. I went to a better power supply and had the same problem. Then I see a bunch of people posting on AMD's forums about a specific bug with the 940 not handling 4 sticks of 1066. Tons of people are reporting this. I call AMD tech support, who keeps cutting me off to insist there is no way possible that the processor can affect the memory.
I keep telling them the processor contains the memory controller. But there is zero way the processor can be responsible. Tech support starts yelling at me. I call back the next day, and get the same answers. Even worse, they insist I must have cheap memory. I bought Kingston. They insist it must be my motherboard. I thought them I'm on my second motherboard from another manufacturer. The only consistency is that they both use AMD silicon for the chipset. Again, AMD Tech Support told me there is zero chance they could have anything to do with it, and they wouldn't consider swapping the proc.
Even worse, the second rep told me that AMD doesn't recommend buying parts from Biostar, Foxconn or Kingston. They said Kingston memory isn't on their approved list. Kingston for crying out loud. Way to throw your partners under the bus!
Combine that with my first Radeon HD 4850 (built directly by AMD/ATI via Sapphire) was DOA. My second one has also stopped working. (It only works in VESA mode, but never when a driver is loaded in XP x64, Windows 7, or openSUSE. Apparnetly hardware acceleration is completely busted on it).
Next, I have 4 SATA drives in RAID 1 with 2 logical drives. My first logical drive says there is a failure. Yet, Seagate diagnostics can't find a problem with the second drive. I RMA the drive regardless (at a cost of $20 to me!) and put a second drive in. There is no option to rebuild the array, nor does it happen automatically.
I call AMD again (the AMD name is all over the RAID tool on their chipset) and they say they don't make the RAID tool, again, despite it saying Copyright AMD all over the place. I call Foxconn who say it is just part of the chipset they get from AMD, and they won't support it.
I call AMD back who insists I must destroy the LD, and recreate a new one. I explain that defeats the whole concept of a RAID if I can't rebuild/repair it. And they say they have no knowledge of their own RAID tool.
I did end up wiping the logical drive, but I'm pissed. I bought a second power supply that I didn't need, which didn't fix the issue. I've swapped parts left and right. I still can only use 2 sticks of memory, and now my second video card is dead. ATI won't do an RMA directly (thanks for that) and NewEgg won't let me do a second RMA from the same invoice. I just ate $160 on a dead card.
And again, AMD tech support has been nothing but rude to me, treating me like an idiot. I'm a fucking Systems Engineer. I also build at least 10 rigs a year for family and friends. Bad products plus even worse support is a bitter pill to swallow.
Even worse, Foxconn and Biostar both independently told me they have also noted that the 940 does in fact have an issue where often it can't recognize 4 sticks of 1066. Asus also had a note on their site about it. And tons of users reported on the AMD forums. But again, AMD refuses to own their issue and do anything about it. I'm pretty pissed to the point that I may boycott AMD, even if it means buying from Intel, who is guilty of anti-competitive practices.
Color me stupid, but why doesn't AMD strike a deal with IBM who does routinely manage to get their fabrication processes put together in a reasonable matter of time.
The Cell hasn't taken off like mad. IBM lost the Apple processor deal a few years back. I'm assuming IBM could ramp up and assist AMD.
Better in what way? Better in top performance. Sure.
However, when comparing performance to cost, and other mitigating factors such as some of the benefits of having a built-in memory controller, cheaper motherboards, etc. it makes sense to build and sell AMD systems.
True. Intel could end up paying fines to the government, but AMD won't receive compensation from those fines.
Is it $1.25 billion of pure profit? How much has AMD spent fighting this battle to this point?
How much more would they have to spend to continue fighting the battle? I would assume the risk/reward factor would say the smart move would be to finish what they started at this point and reap a MUCH LARGER settlement for their troubles. They've no doubt lost many more billions in lost sales over the past decade plus.
Combine that with the future value of market share, and we're talking about a huge shift.
The only way it makes sense to take a small settlement now is that AMD can't afford to keep fighting, even if it is the right thing to do.
When AMD first started releasing x86-64 processors, they were beating Intel in price and performance. I think that is why Intel started to resort to the tactics that they did.
AMD can't beat Intel on top performance these days because they keep falling behind on new fabrication processes. However, price out a comparable low to medium end AMD system with an Intel system, and you'll find that not only is the processor cheaper, but so is the motherboard.
AMD can still claim advantages at certain price points. Now, it just so happens I am really pissed at AMD for a string of defecting products I've gotten from them, combined with terrible service, but I think people overlook that there are reasons to purchase AMD.
ARM is a threat if Apple adopted it, or if Linux took off big-time. However, Windows 7 isn't being ported to ARM, because then all your existing software wouldn't work on it. Every single Windows developer on the planet would need to release ARM ports. For better or worse, we're stuck with x86 for some time to come.
The only time/way I see this changing is if Windows decided to break backwards compatibility with their previous API and apps, build a new API from the ground up, and at the same time port to a new archit ecture. They bundle in an emulator to run old apps that emulates both the API and hardware.
That is a minimum of five years out, if it happened at all.
Not to mention, if the market moved to a different architecture, what stops AMD from developing processors for that architecture?
Not to mention Intel has already been found guilty in other countries. I think that Intel had good reason to suspect the same might happen in the US. Intel did get off light.
I assume AMD took the deal because they have been hemmoraghing money for some time now. They needed a cash influx and couldn't afford to fight a legal battle much longer.
The sad thing here is that the end lesson is that illegal, anti-competitive practices can be quite beneficial. The US government overlooked them, even when a bevy of vendors testified on AMD's behalf, despite Intel threatening those vendors. Intel profitted not only in the immediate dollar sense, but also in gaining massive market share.
Yet the US threatened to go after Google if they had a search partnership with Yahoo. That is an evil monopoly that must be quashed (but it would be fine if Microsoft purchased Yahoo, swallowed their services, and removed choice and competition from the marketplace). None of this makes much sense.
If God didn't want us to have free will, we never would have had it. Adam had the free will to defy God.
In Eden, there was but one rule. Then it was ten commandments. And then the Jews insisted on a lengthy series of Mitzvots. This is a story of man distancing himself of his own free will from God, and replacing God with the hierarchy of the church.
If I didn't have a bevy of comments in this thread, I'd mod you way, way up.
All laws reflect a certain level of morality. You can point to a good chunk of legislation and say it reflects the morality of religion X, Y, and Z.
I think the rule of thumb should be that personal freedom must be preserved as much as possible. The right to swing your first ends precisely at the tip of my nose.
Thusly, I am fine with legislation saying murder is wrong. This is morality in legislation, but more specifically it is protecting constituents from being victims.
I am not fine with legislation discriminating two consenting adults in the bedroom, because there is no victim.
The Wii-mote is a pointer, and a very inaccurate one at that. It is a very different tool from a mouse.
You are correct in that there are centuries of people twisting scripture. It happens today. That doesn't mean my take on the Mitzvots is wrong, nor am I the first to suggest it. Sometimes I think the level-headed ones are overlooked for vocal whack-job minorities.
I think there are three main ways that Christians respond to the bulk of the Old Testament.
* Some say the subscribe to a literal interpretation, so long as it suits them. This allows them to call gays abominations, and subjugate women. My wife knows a guy who attends a church where women may not speak. However, they elect to ignore portions in Leviticus on slavery, etc.
* Some feel that these were literal laws of God at one point, but they no longer matter because Jesus replaced the old laws. They elect to just ignore the bulk or entirety of the Old Testament.
* A third group (like myself) feels that the Old Testament on the whole is relevant. It didn't get thrown out. But I don't believe the Mitzvots are literal commandments from God. They are a historical representation of the laws the Jews used to govern themselves. For instance, there were laws about to properly prepare the altar, and the priests' garb before animal sacrifice, and how one progressed through the temple for the sacrifice. Yet the 10 direct commandments from God don't say we must sacrifice animals. In the same vein that I don't sacrifice animals, I don't believe I should or could sell my daughter into slavery. I'm not selectively choosing to ignore bits of the Bible. I accept all of it within (what I believe to be) the proper context.
In my church, we always read an Old Testament passage, a Psalm, a New Testament passage, and a portion of the Gospel. (For those who care, I consider myself basically non-denominational because I don't care for sect politics, but I attend a Lutheran Church). My church treats homosexuality on the same level with other sins. We're all sinners. We're not here to judge. We're here to have fellowship.
I've never been a member of a Church that selectively decides to follow only portions of the Bible, one that practices discrimination, or one that likes to take single verses out of context. All Biblical lessons should be a large passage examined within a greater context.
I have always been a Christian who pushes for legal rights for gays. I don't see that as a contradiction. I don't believe Christ promoted discrimination. Why should I?
Yes, but it is treated as an equal sin in the New Testament.
The term "abomination" in Leviticus is the reason many claim it is different from other sins, and must be judged far differently. You can forgive a murderer and welcome them into your church, but not a gay.
There are those who suggest that many of the early books in the Old Testament aren't exactly God's commandments to his followers, but rather a historical accounting. For instance, the Old Testament lists the kashrut laws. This does not mean that Christians must keep a kashrut diet.
The Torah has 613 Mitzvot, commandments, or laws. Yet there are 10 commandments directly attributed to God. If you read the Old Testament, you'll see that there is a story arc in which God goes from having simple commandments and dealing directly with his people, to his people intentionally seperating themselves, wanting to establish government, establish a complex priesthood, and then develop these complex laws.
I don't think it is far to say that the Mitzvot constitute Biblical law in any true sense.
That means fundamentalists who want to come down on gays suddenly don't have much in the way of Biblical evidence to support themselves, but it also means those that want to mock Judeo-Christian beliefs can't uphold the silliness contained within the 613 Mitzvot either.