Oh please please please MOD THIS UP My kingdom for some mod points!!!!

The Air Force was part of the Army.

...to look for (and remove) certificates for North Korean Certificate Authorities. Oh this is going to go sooooo well.....

tar -xvf gulf.tar

I most certainly did not make that assertion. Of course it does. However I don't view the human mind as something that is unable to change anything it learns as a child. "Because that's how I was raised" is the weakest excuse someone could ever have for maintaining a life philosophy or personal beliefs. If you disagree with that, then I feel sorry for you as you can not possibly turn away from something that you might not truly believe, no matter what other points of view have been presented to you since childhood.

Ok, Ill bite...

It seems overwhelmingly self evident to me that people inherit their religious beliefs from their parents and the society around them. They don't wait until they're adults, capable of making these kinds of Big Decisions with a rational mind. They don't research all the alternatives and make an informed decision. They're basically brainwashed from birth.

I don't think this is completely true. You are correct, parents generally attempt to influence their children's religious beliefs at a young age, and religions provide means of education, indoctrination, and initiation of members from birth. I think brainwashing might not be the right word for this. However I also believe that as adults we all have the ability to learn, expand our minds, challenge the world around them, etc which usually leads to things like higher education and otherwise exploring different ideas about everything. I was raised Catholic, that is what I follow to this day, but not simply because that's what I was indoctrinated with as a child...as an adult I had questions, looked to challenge some of those ideas and challenging those ideas for me actually strengthened my faith.

If God really is a psychopath; i.e., if God really is going to send you to hell for eternity because you didn't believe or did believe, but believed in the wrong God, then the vast, vast majority of humanity is screwed, and is going to hell, because even if you do believe in the right God, chances are your faith and adherence to your religion is watered down enough to piss him off to send you to hell anyway...

Just one thing about the whole "right vs wrong God" thing...the major monotheistic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam - are there any others I can't think of? Maybe even Zoroasterism?) all worship the same God, even if some of the more fringe, radical types of people don't want to accept it. Just because a particular radical Muslim, for example, might believe that worshipping Allah is not the same thing as worshipping the Christian God, it doesn't mean they aren't doing it in reality. I might be able to stretch this a bit further by saying that maybe even some polytheistic religions are actually worshipping the same God I point to here, but they may simply incorrectly see other powerful spiritual beings as "gods". Catholicism gets a bad rap for this, some people seem to think that we worship angels and saints...this view is not correct. However maybe some of these polytheistic religions are looking at angels, saints, etc as "other gods". While God may not be man-made, religion is and therefore must be flawed in one or more aspects of each religion man creates. However the rest of what you say makes sense and surely is a possibility, except when you consider what you write next...

I would argue that to have true faith and confidence in God would mean having faith and confidence that he's competent and his plan doesn't suck so much that the vast majority of human souls will spend eternity in hell. You should have faith that God is not a complete psychopath just waiting to make the vast majority of his creation suffer torment for all eternity.

Now here is the big selling point for Christianity that seems to be lost on most people (including many Christians). Christianity is the new covenant between God and humanity. The concepts that are central to the Christian faith is this: God is perfect. God has created imperfect beings. God formed a new covenant with humanity and decided to be present among us in the form of a "human son" to teach us about this new covenant, about our imperfection, and eventually our salvation. The new covenant was sealed with the death of Christ on the cross, an event people commonly refer to as "Christ's personal sacrifice / death on the cross for our sins". The whole point of this exercise was for God to show us that he loves us so much that he sent his one and only son to "save" us from the devil, Hell, etc. (BTW: I really don't like the concept of the terms saved, salvation, etc, but since that is the common term I continue to use it.) He "saved" us by continuing to teach this path to salvation, even under threat of execution for these teachings. The path to salvation is based on our acceptance of our imperfections and the understanding that Jesus Christ is our savior, and that we should choose to follow the path to salvation through acceptance of the savior and therefore his teachings. However as humans we are imperfect - we can and do stray from this path. God knows this and as a forgiving, loving being/entity/bearded dude in the clouds/whatever forgives us for our imperfections, which we will never eliminate from our nature no matter how much we try. If we deny this covenant and therefore the teachings, path, etc then it is not God that damns us but ourselves. God does not send us to Hell out of hatred or disappointment, we choose to send ourselves there. If that's what we ultimately want, then God will provide it just as he as provided everything else in creation.

Incidentally for me, this is the pinnacle of what "free will" and "liberty" means. God is all powerful, but does not use that power to force us into anything. We always have a choice up until the moment we die. We are truly free only because the ultimate power that exists over everything chooses not to exercise a bit of that control over us.

I agree with this, also you can look up what you just heard on WQXR on their website and click a link to ArchivMusic which will allow you to buy the recording of what you just heard. I haven't used it yet, but if you are looking for a very specific recording WQXR's site is a great reference to find the recording and find a way to buy it.

Why can't different religions be right at the same time? Sure they can all be wrong, but you make the issue way too black and white. There are probably religions that are 100% wrong. I doubt any religion is 100% right, but sure, it could be possible. However a bunch of different religions could be right in one way or another without being completely perfect. BTW, when I say "religion" I also include the differences between denominations that have the same "base religion" so to speak...some can be so different they might as well be different religions.

um, arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded. Being a language nazi makes you doubly so.

Mod parent up +1000!!! Holy crap its about time people other than liberals started posting on popular internet forums.

"The watering-down of titles for the Wii certainly isn't universal. Almost every game released by Nintendo is solid. The story lines are outstanding, the controls capture the essence of the Wiimote, and the graphics are just fine. Super Mario Galaxy and The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess immediately come to mind when I think of Wii games that aren't watered down. They are stellar titles that anyone should play. And they match any full-featured game on other consoles. The same can be said for the vast majority of titles built exclusively for the Wii. Punch Out was great. Wii Sports provides an incredibly fun experience. Simply put, there are a variety of compelling games on the Wii that still make it a worthwhile console. But unfortunately, the vast majority of those full-feature Wii games have been developed by Nintendo. The reality is that many third-party developers haven't been able to capture the true power of the Wii and thus water down their games to bring them to the popular console. If gamers want the best experience for those games, they'll need to play them on another console."

So in other words, the problem is not the Wii, it's the capability of the developers? Why is it the Wii's fault that third party developers water down games because they can't develop properly for the Wii? Do third party developers not have all the tools, knowledge, etc they need to develop for the Wii? Is Nintendo holding back on third party developers to ensure Nintendo always publishes the "best" titles (I hope not!) Based on this paragraph, I am led to believe that Nintendo is perfectly capable of writing awesome games for the Wii while everyone else is incapable of doing the same.

Boris, now we can finally put an end to Moose and Squirrel!!!

but may I ask: what is the real benefit to totally handcoding a site as opposed to using web design applications? I really like the ability to create a layout in Fireworks and then have that imported into Dreamweaver where I can continue to design graphically or code by hand where I feel it is necessary. I can see what it will look like instantly in the WYSIWYG, and then test it in the million different browsers I have installed on my system. Some of us do not want to code our sites 60 hours a week, we want to spend the time on figuring out the actual look and feel of the site, writing copy, editing graphics, etc. Maybe if you have a full team of developers and a marketing department its a different story...marketing writes the copy, creates the images, has the concept for the layout of the site, and then developers just code it to marketing's specs.

But many organizations, especially small businesses that like to do things in-house don't have those luxuries. I have been in the position of being responsible for ALL ASPECTS of a corporate site, from copy to images to layout and coding. Many people in positions like mine love the ability to quickly put together the site, have an automated tool tell me the code is compliant to whatever standard I desire, and then dive into the code where I see things just aren't right, or to write the dynamic portions of the site that can't be put together in a WYSIWYG environment. Tools like Dreamweaver (especially Dreamweaver, I've used it since Dreameaver MX) and really the entire Macromedia Studio/Adobe Web Design package as a whole have been a Godsend.

Ultimately if the page looks great, runs well, is secure, built quickly, cost effective, and meets all the requirements of the organization or customer, what's the problem? Other than personal ego and bragging rights (neither of which have anything to do with creating a website), I don't see the big deal.

You, sir, should be modded up to the sky, as this is the best explanation I have ever seen concerning the "nature of Linux" as you describe it.

However might I add that Linux can still keep this identity despite things like merging distros, LSB, making connections to the non-free world, non-free components, etc. You mentoned Red Hat but not Ubuntu, but I will use Ubuntu as my example.

For example, Ubuntu is Debian, except that Ubuntu has been willing to play nice with corporations and put some real money and business sense behind it...which includes helping to drive the development and supply of non-free/restricted drivers. Ubuntu is still Linux if, for example, someone at Canonical got Linux Mint to close shop because they might "create confusion among distros". Having your own distribution does not make you any more or less of a contributor to Linux or the Open Source movement. If there were no metadistributions of Ubuntu and Ubuntu somehow caused that, it does not cease to be Linux. Some could say the same about Ubuntu vs. Debian as well...but the difference is the people involved with Ubuntu would not be able to do what it is doing if they were part of the Debian organization. Many minor distros can not make this argument. I believe minor or metadistros help Linux when they do something that can not be done by simply being a contributor to the parent distribution. Otherwise they do not.

Despite this and other things, I don't believe that Ubuntu (as an example) has gone far enough away from the "Nature of Linux" to say that it is no longer Linux. They seem to straddle the line between "Linux" and "Linux-like thing but not Linux" pretty well. It is almost completely free/open source and plays well with the open source community. What is non-free, closed or proprietary is not forced on the user - I can have a completely FOSS box and still run Ubuntu. Changes have been made to "improve" the user experience/ease of use for joe user without throwing away that which your typical Linux hacker holds dear. While I use GNOME, I am not forced to keep it. While I use Firefox, I can dump it and use Iceweasel instead, and do so with ease. I believe Linux as the beacon of software freedom and choice not only continues to exist - it has been enhanced through vendors/distros such as Ubuntu.

However I agree with your view that OSX is not BSD. It certainly is possible for a vendor to take Linux/BSD far enough away from its roots to say that it is no longer that thing. I'm not quite sure at what point that line is crossed, but I believe Red hat and Ubuntu are dancing on that line; Apple has jumped over it.

So let the bank get robbed because insurance will pay out? That is pretty weak. Shit rolls downhill. Banks are insured, insurance costs money. Insurance costs go up when perceived risk goes up, to the detriment of non-rich bank customers who lose money in the form of reduced interest rates and increased fees to cover new insurance premiums as well as increased security. Federal money also covers bank account funds, so the non-rich taxpayers all over the place can lose out there. In modern times, a bank robbery can also include theft of non-rich personal financial information which has value. Safe deposit boxes at banks also contain physical property that has great value, monetary or otherwise. Plenty of non-rich have those as well. Insurance can compensate for these things, but can never truly replace things like private information or family relics.

I wasn't trying to imply that someone could steal my house by robbing a bank, and I realize now that it sounded like that. The intent simply was to further express how banks are tied to non-rich people. Plenty of non-rich people do business with banks, even if it is just for their mortgage.