Apple Deals with Devil, Communists 965
rschroeder writes "I keep thinking that this article can't be real, but it looks like it. Among the juicier bits: 'The real operating system hiding under the newest version of the Macintosh operating system (Mac OS X) is called... Darwin! That's right, new Macs are based on Darwinism! While they currently don't advertise this fact to consumers, it is well known among the computer elite, who are mostly Atheists and Pagans. Furthermore, the Darwin OS is released under an 'Open Source' license, which is just another name for Communism.'" Yes, of course. And I am still waiting for Jesux to be released.
Copy/paste before geocities knuckles under... (Score:2, Informative)
Welcome to the Jesux home page
The distribution that will not lead you into temptation
What is Jesux?
Jesux (pronounced Hay-sooks) is a new Linux distribution for Christian hackers, schools, families, and churches. There is already a core distribution being prepared, based on RedHat's distribution.
Jesux will aim to be an environment that is pleasant for Christians to work in, with all the amenities a Christian might expect, and when possible, free from worldly influences.
What is different about Jesux?
Below is a short list. As we get more information, we will put it here. Send more suggestions to jesux@pobox.com. Send your suggestions for content in the bookmark, fortune, and
default fortune file contains quotes from the scriptures, Augustine, C.S. Lewis, Chuck Swindoll, etc.
Christian Enlightenment themes featuring Jesus, the cross, and other Christian icons
Login screen has full text to Lord's Prayer and Pledge of Allegiance, with Christian and American symbols
Provide alternate screens for non-Americans, perhaps
Pregenerated Netscape bookmarks and
cal(1) includes Christian holidays
Special hack of emacs "M-x doctor" mode, "M-x pastor"
Optional technical support and basic counseling services provided by Christian hackers
The current plan is to double up the tech support line as a crisis line, where people in need can be redirected to people who can really help them
Online Bible in King James Version
no other versions will be provided by default; we feel the KJV is the only English version that can be fully trusted
Addition of
Removal of some of the RedHat games
we don't play them much, but several of you have noted that some of them are clearly inappropriate
Squid proxy server (plus squidGuard) bundled and configured for blocking illicit web sites (including a regularly updated list of illicit sites and URL patterns to install on your own; we will be looking for mature and diligent volunteers to help maintain it)
Optionally disable logins on Sunday, the day of rest
bash(1) is default
the "Bourne-Again" shell is already the default; but we like the shell, and we love the name
chmod(1) accepts hexadecimal modes, such as 0x01B6
qmail replaces sendmail as the standard MTA (sendmail was written by a prominent homosexual)
we are considering postfix too, due to popular request
Hierarchical user structure, so parents and teachers can easily access children's files without needing to become root
No encryption provided; Christians have nothing to hide
We have had concerns about the "no encryption" item
No cracking utilities provided; SAINT can be acquired from us later, after the user has proven his worth
All new code will be provided under the Christian Software Public License, an Open Source-compatible license. Go ahead and check it out. The final CSPL is very similar to the BSD license, where the required advertising is the text of John 3:16 from the King James Version of the Bible. (Note: the requested requirement that only Christians could redistribute the code was considered and rejected, in accordance with the "No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups" section of the Open Source Definition. We actually agree with this section of the OSD
Also, we are seriously considering changing some fundamental OS features. The idea would be that function calls and features suggesting evil and otherwise pagan ideas would be changed.
abort(3)
kill(1)
references to "daemon"
NOTE: we do not believe words are inherently bad. We simply do not like these words because of their connotations in different contexts. You do not have to agree, but you will not change our minds. However, because this is not a point of religious contention but of linguistics and meanings and associations, and because the solution seems like the easiest one to implement, the current plan is to provide symlinks, headers, macros, etc. so that the existing names will still exist, but those who want to use alternate symbols (words) can do so.
For the /.-ed (Score:5, Informative)
Surely this is a joke? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Copy/paste before geocities knuckles under... (Score:2, Informative)
Apple/Devil (Score:5, Informative)
Church of Satan (Score:4, Informative)
I was waiting for this to show up on /. (Score:3, Informative)
There are discussions about this site on MetaFilter, a MacSlash article [macslash.com], a very funny Fark thread [fark.com], as well as mentions on Ars and Memepool.
Seems the tech subset of the Internet has been well and truly trolled, if indeed this is a hoax, which I am inclined to believe, given that all of the banner ads on the site seem to lead to the same domain.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Take a look at the URL (Score:1, Informative)
Says it all, doesn't it?
Hey now! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:It's a hoax - obviously (Score:2, Informative)
"Diamond" Jack Holgroth is a Game Theoretician who currently teaches a course in Advanced Game Theory for Theologians at Fellowship University. He served our country during the Cold War as a Game Theory Tactician for the Department of Defense and single-handedly developed an elegant solution to the "Fisherman's Quandary", a game theory problem that was crucial to the winning of the arms race and that was famously intractable - until Diamond Jack came along.
Very clever, but also quite clearly a joke.
Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny (OT) (Score:1, Informative)
POD
Jars of Clay
DC Talk
Third Day
Petra (Older)
Precious Death
Michael W Smith (Well, he's contemporary, but still)
And many, many more. Oh, and I don't listen to all of these, but DC Talk has been one of my favorite bands for many years.
Bizarre (Score:5, Informative)
Kyle Goldman's new site [geocities.com]
These two sites are obviously intentionally weird, and are heavily linked to the truepath site as well as the LandoverBaptist site. Some have suggested that he's the creator of all these parodies. There's also a possible googlebombing campaign going on ("baptist" returns the Landover Baptist site in third place) similar to the Co$'s campaign, where many seemingly unrelated but heavily interconnected sites are created.
Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I feel like I've arrived... (Score:1, Informative)
I'll troll a bit... and offtopic even... (Score:2, Informative)
Says who?
As far as I am aware, the bible doesn't say what kind of fruit it was whatsoever, and scholars have debated that it could have been a fig, apple, pomegranate, etrog, carob, palm, nut tree, grapevine, wheat stalk, etc.
In fact, some dare to suggest that there was no actual tree at all, but that the story of the Garden of Eden is mythological!
Bible belt evolution (Score:2, Informative)
I can personally attest to this. As a high school student in rural(very) Mississippi I loved it when my Biology "teachers" came to the point where we were to learn about evolution. The lessons were always preceeded with statements like, "Now, I'm not saying I believe this, or that it's at all true, but according to the state I have to teach it to you, it's up to you if you want to listen or not." I would sit astounded as half the class objected to a very fundamental concept by sleeping through the class because Brother so and so told them that, "he ain't evolve from no gosh darn ape."
Re:Apple/Devil - Half of the Story (Score:5, Informative)
At least the Church of Satan really uses Macs. Didn't Apple's actual "Think Different" campaign feature Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and other people who never used Apple computers?
Re: No... It's not a hoax... (Score:1, Informative)
Truepath.com is a free hosting website for Christians.
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?site=truep
The funny thing is that his website runs on Linux which is yet another varient of unix (yeah yeah posix blah blah) just like that *evil* BSD.
Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, the author does have several other articles up there. Like the Apple one, it's hard to tell whether he is being humorous or serious in them. Half his writings sound like tongue-in-cheek exaggerated Christian zealotry, and half sound like somewhat serious arguments (though these are usually backed up only by "Because the Bible tells us so...").
Whether intentionally or unintentionally, his stuff is still pretty funny. I hope he truly isn't as paranoid about "Evolutionists" as it seems from his writing, though... I have the utmost respect for any and all belief systems, but it's pretty sad to go through life thinking that everyone who believes differently than you do is out to get you and corrupt your soul...
DennyK
It's a Chickenhead operation (Score:4, Informative)
I'm impressed.
They have some cool merchandise, too.
Communism, Anarchism, blah blah (Score:4, Informative)
If you take the complete social-libertarian perspective (Anarchism), you would be having contributions to a community that benefit everyone as a whole. GPL'd software is not viable in a capitalist market because you're selling software that gives you no edge over someone else who's selling the same thing. If money was to be made on the software alone, the market would get flooded with the GPL'd software and the price would bottom out to the lowest cost of distribution.
Companies that make money by providing Free Software are not capitalizing on the software itself, but the 'value-added' services, manuals, and most likely proprietary software tossed in. If they were generating huge income from the sole sale of software, we'd see Microsoft join the Free Software movement.
Marxism, would have us hand over our code for the 'greater good of the people' - as history has taught us, a totalitarian regime would ensure this. Anarchism, it's an individual choice. But anarchism works on the ideals that we can live better by working together, but working together because you want to. Not because someone in a position of authority has forced you to.
For more info on Anarchism:
www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html [infoshop.org]
To determine your political standing:
www.politicalcompass.org [politicalcompass.org]
Re:Theoscience... (Score:3, Informative)
not bullshit. (Score:3, Informative)
Isn't the concept of sharing Communism?
Communism/Socialism, it's the idea of doing things together. It's just a matter of how it's implemented is what has left the bad imagery in our minds.
If we ever do hit the absolute extreme of capitalism, information such as recorded history, will only be availible to those who can pay for it. But that's speaking of the ridiculous extreme
Hmmm
Wasn't there some kid arrested or charged for releasing some code to decrypt DVDs?
Was there not a Russian guy arrested in the United States for code he wrote while in Russia? Had something to do with Adobe eBooks if I remember correctly
Was there not a man who released code to encrypt information, and wasn't he threatened with criminal charges?
Older examples
What about Galileo? Thomas Aquinas?
There's good reasons why Free Software can be seen as having ideals of anarchism and communism.
Re:From the article... (Score:2, Informative)
I'm an engineer, and I don't know very many scientific FACTs. The closest ones I can think of off the top of my head are the laws of thermodynamics. Everything in science is subject to being disproved. All good scientists, by definition, understand and accept this basic Truth.
Re:Obviously satire (Score:2, Informative)
I was very ALOT curious about whether or not it's a hoax site. I read most of the other poo in there. Especially the "Game Theoretician" section from the silly old DOD guy.
That's the section that made me come to believe it wasn't a hoax.
How many people know the two formal arguments against Pascal's Wager? Anybody?
I do. Of all the people I know 2 others, ever, also knew them before I told them to them.
There's nothing funny in that section. There's no comedy, there's no nothing. I _like_ to think I'm hip enough on the basics of game theory that I'd get any satirical jokes in that section. I don't.
Anybody who does, please do email me.
I don't want to be so frumpy and humorless!
mig
Re:From the article... (Score:4, Informative)
Observed Instances Of Speciation [talkorigins.org]
Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution [talkorigins.org]
29 Evidences For Macroevolution [talkorigins.org]
Maybe you should do a little research before you make a greatly incorrect factual statement like that.
chmod 666 is evil - but we host on Linux? (Score:2, Informative)
I just wrote a long e-mail to this guy debunking his ideas.
I did a little digging, and found that, tada, their server is running on Linux, an open source (and hence, in his view, Communist) server. I kindly informed of why chmod works the way it does, and that chmod 666 isn't nearly as powerful as 777, and that, well, they can do the same thing on their server.
I don't know. Being a Christian myself, these guys are an embarrasment. I know where they get there ideas now more and more. If you want an interesting read on the developments of the Church and the Jews, read Constantine's Sword [fsbassociates.com]. Maybe you'll understand why these guys have such misplaced views.
Thank you (Score:1, Informative)
Re:chmod 666 - the devil's command (Score:2, Informative)
now 667 or more, I'm sure.
Let's not forget that the bible has its own problems - here are a few:
666 was decided on by a guess and consensus by scholars. It could have meant that number, 667, several letters, or a combination of letters and numbers, and possibly other numbers. The original scrolls were written when a letter represented a number, so numbers need to be identified by context or the fact that the words would be gibberish. There is no good context for identifying letters or numbers and the author could have meant the gibberish word not the number. Also, the 'number' was at the end of the scroll and had some damage/wear, so scholars are not sure if that is the true number. To compound this, there is ambiguity in the values represented by the numbers. I don't remember exactly why, I picked up most of this off the History channel Bible Week.
The tale of the Great Flood in Gilgamesh is very similar to Noah's Ark, but in a polytheist world, and written hundreds of years earlier.
There is a dress code in the bible that is cut out of nearly every translation (try the Revised Standard, I think it's still in there). Men need to shave and have short hair. I vaguely remember turbans as well, or something like that. Women need to wear a veil in public (and I believe have long hair).
Wrong.... (Score:4, Informative)
You see, it's a THEORY, in the same vain that creationism is a theory.
Creationism is *not* a theory. It is not testable. It is not falsifiable. It is not predictive. There is no such thing as a "Scientific Theory of Creationism." Ask any long-time poster to talk.origins. They've been asking for one for years, and noone's ever offered one up that meets the actual criteria of being a theory.
Secondly, evolution is both a fact and a theory. [talkorigins.org]
Sorry if I'm sounding harsh, but I see these same misconceptions all the time, and they drive me crazy sometimes.
Re:Wrong.... (Score:2, Informative)
I'm only 34. I haven't seen it happen. So "we" haven't seen it happen. You must be very old...
You haven't seen it because you haven't read any of the countless articles in which scientists have written about specific instances of observed speciation. We haven't observed wings developing in a species that didn't have wings. We haven't been around that long. We have, however, seen speciation a number of times. www.talkorigins.org is a good place to start if you're actually interested in learning about some of the specifics.
And you have not submitted a test of evolution. Please do so.
OK. I'll bite. Start with a colony of E. coli and select one cell to start a new colony in a clean dish. This colony should have all the same DNA as the original. Repeat this using the new colony. Now you have two colonies of what should be identical E. coli. Dump a bunch of penicillin in one of the dishes and watch the colony die. OK. So we know the original cell was most likely susceptible to your antibiotics (the colony of clones showed a significant reduction in population). Now put a small amount of watered down penecillin into the first dish and let it quickly run out. Let the survivors of the colony regenerate a bit and then start a new colony. Repeat. You'll eventually end up with a colony that's resistant to the penicillin treatment. What can we conclude here?
Well, the original cell was susceptible (its decendents tended to die when treated heavily with penicillin). Over the next several generations, a few lucky ones mutated in such a way that penicillin doesn't bother them. Those survived. Natural selection (or at least, simulated natural selection) refined the population to contain only penicillin resistant bacteria. Neat, huh? We know that the DNA changed or all would be dead (exact copies of the parent cell). Try this test for yourself, or simply acknowledge the fact that it has been done countless times with a number of bacteria and antibiotics. It doesn't always work (depending on the organism and the chemical) but it often does. Evolution. Bang.
Oh, so the Creationist wins points for finding only well-developed/complicated organisms in any stratum of rock. Thanks!
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't understand the example rather than assuming that you're deliberately mischaracterizing the argument. The point is that if you can prove that species haven't changed smoothly over time (we have significant fossil records that indicate that they have), evolution would be turned on its ear. Another way to do it would be proving that the earth is too young for the process to have advanced so far (people try this to little avail). There are a number of things that could turn up that could make evolution obviously impossible. None have, though. On the other hand, it's not possible to prove that an intelligent creator didn't just create things the way they are. People actually argue that the creator made it look like evolution happened when really it didn't. Argue against that. Scientific? I think not.
How is this evolution? It is "natural selection," but is insufficient to cause speciation as no new DNA has been created.
The fact that you, obviously a layman, have decreed that no new DNA sequences exist does not make it so. Sexual reproduction by its very nature invariably causes new combinations of genes to pop up. You can't scramble two organisms' genes together and come up with a child organism with the same genes as both parents. The string of DNA is different. New base pairs are not (necessarily) added to the strands of DNA. The strands are different, though. The result is a different organism. The "no new DNA" argument is way overused by people who haven't seen the experiments that control for this (like the example I gave above).
Again, talk.origins is a great place to go if you're actually interested in getting some of these questions answered. If you're more interested smugly shooting down arguments that you don't understand, it's probably not the place for you.