7 habits, 8 habits, whatever it takes...

The last three days I've spent in a classroom with other professionals from virtually every other discipliine, being taught about unchanging principles, values we choose and modify, and Stephen Covey's (as in Franklin Covey) seven habits of highly effective people. Overall I was quite impressed with the material. There was far too much for me to cover in the blog, but I'll scratch the surface since one of the concepts of the course was three-person learning (ie. the taught person passing on what he/she has learned, including personal experiences and value).

Before delving into the habits themselves, Covey focuses like a laser-beam on one of (IMHO) the core break-downs in our society: the substitution of timeless principles with the politically-anchored "Social Values". Principles, which can very easily be pronounced "Biblical Principles" for those who care, are unchanging, foundational truths, like "honesty" and "selflessness", etc... This shift is evident in our change of focus from personal character (the makeup of a person which is under the surface) to "personality" (the outward appearance). According to Covey, he noticed literature mirroring this shift about 50 years ago. Of the 200 years fo literature studied, the first 150 years found literature glorifying the character (pronounced "moral character") of its heros, these past 50 years have brought about a shift toward the personality of the hero. Rather than nobility, circumstance is the focus. Principles, and thus good-character, is not impacted by circumstance. All hope is not lost, however. I found "character" in the unlikely source of my daughter's Disney video last night: Aladdin. To sum up, we need to develop character, and live our lives based on principles. Quite refreshing to hear from such a popular, secular course.

Habit 1: Think Proactively

While I could bean Covey for redefining the word, I'll forgive him since the concept is such a worthy one: In a nutshell, take ownership of your own actions. Personal responsibility is the very core of this habit.

The habit is actually focused on our ability the choose how we respond to circumstances and stimulii. Whereas it has become commonly accepted to simply react to events, Covey encourages us to make use of our right to separate the circumstance from our response and insert our values and principles into the equasion. Thus, when someone insults us, while our natural response may be to chase him down and make him wish his mother was a virgin, we are able to choose a response appropriate to principles like "love" and "patience" and "forgiveness". While these things don't seem glorious, they certainly used to be, and will indeed make an extreme impact on your life. I remember my parents first learning something similar: instead of "reacting", "responding". Where a reaction is scripted and does not require thought (eg. nuclear reaction), a responce is considered, and should be appropriate. Self-control.

Habit 2: Begin with the End in Mind

Wow, this shouldn't be nearly as profound as it is. At least to me. When I first read this several months ago, it impacted how I live my life in a very real way. I started thinking about what success looks like in every situation, realizing that as I become responsible for more and more (eg. father, project manager, and many other important roles I live) I can't be relying on others to guide me the whole way. I used to look at a project, pick the most difficult things and go after them... When I had been working on them for a while, I ended up feeling lost in the project. Quite frankly I became afraid of completing what I was working on because I wasn't sure of the next steps. BEginning with the end in mind allows success to be defined early on, and this is important to be able to refer back to after you've been face-to-face with too many details for too long.

In order to better understand the "mental creation" process, we need to understand what is important. This habit got into Finding the Center, and writing a Personal Mission Statement. More on that in Habit 3.

If you want to be successful, you must first know what success looks like: Begin projects with the end in mind.

Habit 3: Put First Things First

This is a very introspective habit. In order to put first things first, one must first clearly define what's most important. Covey shows how having most important things as one's "center" neglects everything else. He encourages us to put Principles as our center, the most important things taken into account when making decisions. My center had a slightly different word, but Principles is close enough.

With so much bombarding us in this era of overbusiness, little things can overwhelm our schedule and cause us to neglect the important things. We should not learn to prioritize our to-do list, but should build our to-do list based on our priorities. The smaller stuff gets added last, if at all. The bigger stuff includes many important items, including major projects, vacation, family, and habit 7: "Sharpening the Saw"

Covey introduces the 4-quadrant view on priorities:

I) Important and Urgent

II) Important but not urgent

III) Not Important, Urgent

IV) Not Important, Not Urgent

Quadrant II is the "sweet spot" so to speak. It is where regular maintenance and most valuable work gets done. If you spend a lot of time in Quadrant I (constant fire-fighting) you probably aren't spending enough time in Quadrant II, taking care of business.

Too much Quadrant I can lead to Quadrant IV, which includes "Escape Behavior", also known as "recovery". While this is surviveable, it is not efficient. If you try driving a hundred thousand miles without an oil change, the car ain't gonna last that long.

To be continued....

The other 4 habits, and a comment on the "8th habit" to follow. There is *much* more to this, since Stephen fills a book and three days of classes. This is almost completely from memory, in order to (a) cement the habits in my mind, and (b) avoid any possible plagarism complaints. That said, buy and read the book or take a course. It's worth it.

DRM and the Value of Honesty

Digital Rights Management (DRM), has been the topic of a great deal of controversy these past several years. Whether it is legal to copy a CD or DVD, ownership versus licensing, the Patents and Copyrights, DMCA, DVD-Jon. If you remember, one man's court battle over his right to decrypt DVD's and help others do the same turned the software world upside down as his "deCSS" code, the programming which foils the DVD "copy-protection" scheme, was prominently displayed printed to his shirt as he entered into court. A touch of Brilliance on his part, in my humble opinion.

DRM

DRM has been the brainchild of the recording industry who for years has been looking for a way to "stop the bleeding". Their continued efforts to use technology to protect that which by nature must be available for use by everyone is incredible. The only thing they have to work with is some "super-secret handshake" between the storage media and the media player. DVD's use CSS, which is basically little different than unencrypted DVD's except the player has to figure out the keys for decryption before playing. The method to do so was held secret, only allowed out to "licensed companies" for the purpose of making media players and such. The problem is, the encryption wasn't the key to said DRM. The method for determining the keys was, in the security world this is known as "obscurity" and is shunned outright for many and lengthy reasons I will not delve into here. One key problem has been that encryption was never intended to keep a participating party from accessing the information. Doing so if futile, as proven by DVD-Jon and his buddy(ies?), who wrote the code to unprotect DVD's so we, the owners of DVDs, can make backup copies, store them on our hard drives, and compress them for use in a media-center (like MythTV). The point is, the end user must be able to watch their favorite DVD's, not just look at them on the shelf... there is no reasonable way to protect the data when end users need to have simple access to it.

Rather than explain to the recording industry that they were stupid for their attempts to misuse the technology, the courts actually banned the deCSS code from being linked to from US sites! Granted, you simply need visit a particular site in France to download and install the code on the Linux operating system.

Why then, since the recording industry is not made up of too many dolts and idiots, do they continue down this path? Several reasons in my opinion.

1) There is money to be made in licensing, and it's difficult to build a hardware component and expect to use technology without appropriate licensing. Software is much easier, since the end users can be provided the means to install this themselves.

2) DMCA violations - somehow the government has been allowed to criminalize anything that breaks DRM-attempts, however weak they may be. The problem here is that even consumers with integrity see little problem with violating this law since fair-use (the idea that a purchaser should be able to make a backup copy, etc... of their media) has been completely removed by the DMCA. There was legislation a couple years ago called DMCRA, which countered the DMCA and retured the balance to fair-use, but it was never passed.

3) Price justification - One big excuse people have been using to justify sharing CD music and (to a lesser extent) DVD movies has been price. There is no reason to charge $14-20 for CD's anymore. DVDs fall less into this category, since the cost of goods lies in the many $millions.

Remember, though, that if the recording industry "spends millions on DRM" regardless of soft-money they will be justifying their high-prices. Perhaps not in our eyes, but in their own, and likely the courts....

Microsoft and the DRM revolution: The P Problem

Paladium was the big push a couple years ago, when Microsoft set out to solve the worlds insecurity problems. (BRB-recovering from laughing pains). The idea behind Paladium was to have DRM hardware incorporated into PCs and licensed software and OS which could talk to it. A lot of smoke and mirrors, and of course, no opensource OS (like Linux and BSD) would be allowed legally to play. What ever happened to Paladium? Perhaps Microsoft realized it needed to focus on the inadaquacies of its software rather than dazzle the public with more PR nonsense. "I'm sorry, Microsoft, I knew we need but involve you and all our troubles would disappear!"

DMCA

Wow, what a piece of work. Otherwise known as the RUN! DMC Act, it is a joke with teeth. It is located at http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf and should be modified immediately to allow us, the paying consumers, reasonable rights to back up and utilize our media the way we see fit. Sharing is an issue, but should be approached by indicting the offenders, not damaging fair-use for all of us law-abiders.

Should IP be this way?

Intellectual Property (IP) is quite a concept in the digital age. When a creation is able to be copied without any degredation, there is certainly a difference. I'm still not clear in my opinions on this topic. Perhaps creators not expecting their IP to be copied should invest in paint and canvas. Technology, to date, has not found a way to perfectly copy a Picasso or a Dali.

Or perhaps we simply must continue to crack down on people unwilling to abide by the copyright laws... or redo them. While Copyright is not as awful as Patents, there is certain room for improvement. Since I'm speaking of the USA, we are supposed to be a government for the people, by the people. Does the amount of dissident behavior warrant a vote on the subject? Perhaps we should do away with digital copyrights. There would definitely be repercussions, like diminished quality in movies or condemnation of digital media altogether... but it would be a good vote anyway. Perhaps we must pay a price before we realize we must be good netizens...

Patents and Copyright?

Patents are very scary to Open Source advocates. The reason is simple. FOSS (Free/OpenSource Software) is created by anyone who has a desire, need, or ego. These individual "grass-roots" projects don't start out with a marketting plan and legal team covering the bases, so there are potentially obscure (and undeserved) patents they are violating without knowledge.

That is not the issue, however. The PTO (Patent and Trademark Office) seems bent on granting patents to any big name company who applies for them. Perhaps they think the courts will sort out the difficulties or determine stupidity of a Patent. Many patents have no merit as patents. For instance, Microsoft applied for, and was granted a patent for how to group like applications on a toolbar. Give me a break! This has been happening for longer than Microsoft thought of it. And it will continue to happen, because it makes sense. There wasn't a lot of ingenuity that went into that decision. Hmmm... limited taskbar space, many apps... hmmm.. How about we group applications of the same type to save space? wow.

Integrity.

Alright, all. Here's my soapbox.

Pay for the stuff which is worth paying for. Lord of the Rings, for example. It was exceptionally done, there were many folks to pay, and many millions of dollars spent to create an exquisite experience. It's well worth the $20-40 (depending on whether you bought the Extended version).

Find a way to pay for music which is worthwhile. Many artists are going online, which I can get behind, particularly because I have some assurance that they are actually getting paid something. Going through the whole CD channel has proven they don't get much of that cash. Paying them directly gives me a better knowledge that they're being taken care of, and of course the artist (and mixers) is the reason I like the music... not the marketters.

If you don't wish to pay for media not openly licensed? Don't have it. Delete it immediately or pay for it. Some will rip a CD or DVD for temporary keeping or trial period. I can get behind that... but if you've had it longer than 30 days (15 even?) it's time to delete it or pay for it (or find someone and borrow it,etc...)

I can't support paying for junk. But paying for entertainment has always been a staple of generating entertainment worth wasting your time on.

My First Windows Virus!

I can now say that I've propagated a virus! WOOHOO!

Netsky, to be exact (ClamAV calls it SomeFool.Z). I am *so* geeked. You don't understant, we Linux-folk don't get to do some of the finer Windows things, like run SpyWare which sends my credit card and other information to bad-guys, or spread viruses or worms. We're often stuck in the same old "run as expected" mode which, between you and me, can get dull sometimes.

So I'm cleaning up my home directory, getting rid of old Word documents, PDFs and text files which have outlived their usefulness (by several years for some). I click on a text file called "Details.txt" to see if it was safe to delete it. Only after clicking it did I notice the "..." which tells me that the name scrolls out of view. It was actually named "Details.txt .exe" which is a Windows program intended to look like a text-file. I had been analyzing this bad-boy a couple months ago and forgotten to put it where it belongs (in the "malware" directory). DOH!

As configured, my system had started the Windows emulation software known as Wine, and started running the process. I've have tried using Wine to run Windows malware in the past, with very little luck since most the malware uses bugs quirks of the Windows OS not always emulated by Wine. If malware ran at all, it hadn't completed and propagated correctly. Believe it or not, this actually disappointed me, since Wine provides a nifty little analysis environment (emphasis on "little"), which is simple to clean and view all changes. This time, Netsky took hold, dropped it's code in my Wine environment, and started sending email to people it found in my address book! It WORKED!

Alright, you're probably thinking I need to get a life. Truth is, I have an overabundant life, with not enough time in the day to enjoy it all appropriately... but playing with malware is part of it. Sun Tsu, an oriental strategist of old, wisely spoke:

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle." The Art of War by Sun Tzu

So what did I do? Well I burned a CD of course! (for the sake of posterity!)

I was going to link to the ISO of my entire Wine environment, but since it currently has Lotus Notes I would be in violation of copyright laws. Perhaps I will strip out Notes and provide a much smaller ISO in the future.

It apparently dropped "C:\Windows\Jammer2nd.exe" and started sending out the emails. Unfortunately, I was unable to find any registry settings to restart itself. After killing Wine and restarting Notes, I was disappointed (honestly!) to find that it didn't start up. So I guess we can't do *everything* you Windows folks can...

So there you have it, my excitement for the day. Netsky works inside of Wine on LInux! Woohoo! I think I'll go take my medication now :)

Thank you for the respectful reply. Read on.

David Bandel wrote:

>

>I have considered not only content, but context, the times of the

>writings (what was/was not known and understood then, and much more.

>Two diametrically opposed versions. one true, the other a story, a

>parable, a fairy tale.

>

>

So how do you explain the difference, given that the author is the same? " 4 This is the history of the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created....

>

>Ahh, the meat of the inconsistency. Here's where all of the

>hypocritical church-goers really rub me the wrong way.

>

>Love.

>

>First let's define it. Because to me, we're not talking puppy love,

>or even the love of one sister for another. Nor the love of a young

>man for his fiancé. When I hear God and Love I think of only one

>kind: the kind a mother has for her child. Uncompromising,

>unrequited, and completely non-judgemental. A mother does make rules

>for her children, and will punish them. But she will _always_ love

>them no matter what they do, and will support and protect them.

>

>

I prefer to define it as it is defined in the Bible, as I listed before, from I Corinthians 13:4-8. So far, however, we're talking roughly the same definition.

>Problem is, reading what you say, it sounds very much like many other

>born-again Christians that claim to have found God, but can't quite

>get this love thing. They (and you too) judge everyone according to

>your standards. It is ANNOYING. These are grown people who can make

>their own decisions (and have).

>

>

It ain't my standard. It just happens that I believe it. I'm sorry that you find it annoying that we "judge" the world, even as you judge everything. Actually, I prefer to call it "discernment", since it's not about enforcing a sentence on someone. That is left to God and the courts (which is yet another huge debate). Yet I must make decisions for my own life, which takes discernment. The fact that we call a spade a spade is which you seem to take offense to.

Again, Love doesn't involve acceptance of unacceptable behavior. And it's not unacceptable to me, it is unacceptable to God, according the Bible, upon which I base my life. I'm not sure where you see the disconnect. It's not about hating and rejecting people. It is about identifying that which hurts and angers God. Sometimes we've not dealt well with the dichotomy of hate the sin, love the sinner. We are imperfect just like you... or do you dispute that as well?

>In fact, if you believe and follow this, you can only come to one

>conclusion (but I leave that for you, since almost no one agrees with

>me).

>

>

>

?

>I don't rant at Christians, or Muslims, or Hebrews, or Shamans, or

>anyone else. Not my place. But people who take it on themselves to

>"educate" the rest of us (while talking down to us) are really

>irritating. Most people's minds are made up, and you should stop

>trying to confuse them with your "facts".

>

>

It's easy to live and let live, it's like running Windows.... it's the path of least resistance but a living hell :)

"13 “Enter in by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter in by it. 14 How (TR reads “Because” instead of “How”) narrow is the gate, and restricted is the way that leads to life! Few are those who find it." Matthew 7:13-14.

But to care enough for people to prompt them to rethink things, even when it can mean rejection and hatred from them... That is the better way. And it is the way we have been commanded to take. Jesus said:

"19 Therefore go, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I commanded you. Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen." Matthew 28:19-20.

I respect your right to choose, indeed God respects your free will to reject Him. Love is not valuable if it is forced. However, there are things which should be addressed in this world, and they are worth ranting about, like guesswork and lies being presented as fact.

>If asked, you have permission to volunteer your opinions. But I get

>bombarded all the time with Theological spam that I don't want, don't

>need, and according to my beliefs is wrong (and I certainly haven't

>solicited).

>

>

It's called "General" because nothing is OT. If you don't agree, simply delete the messages. If you are exceptionally opposed to opinions being spread which seem to differ from your own, unsub. I am only replying directly to you because you took this off list.

>I don't ask you to stop believing. Stop trying to convince me you're

>right and I'm wrong. And no matter how you twist it, when you start a

>theological debate, that is the bottom line.

>

>

The point is the sharing of thoughts. For me, the sharing of beliefs is as natural as communicating the value of Linux, with higher stakes. In fact, evangelizing both God and Linux are quite similar. But God and Linux are both worth evangelizing. It's nothing new for people speaking pro-God to be condemned and ridiculed, check out the prophets of the OT and the Apostles and Jesus himself. I expect nothing different, although I have been quite well taken care of by Him.

>

>

>>

>>I have, and they do not. I'm more than happy to discuss those which

>>you may have difficulty understanding. I don't have all the answers,

>>but I'm interested in the discussion.

>>

>>

>

>The only difficulty I have is I can't get my hands on the original

>author's original work, and even if I could, the language is so long

>dead, even the experts dispute exactly how to translate it into a

>current language that can be understood by me.

>

>

I understand that sentiment. It is why I have taken up studying with BibleTime. It allows me to compare the translations, as well as the original text, the meanings as laid out by Strong (as in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, the Webster of the Hebrew and Greek), and frequently go word-for-word between different translations and the original text. The Greek is fun, since I recognize most of the letters and pronunciations. The Hebrew... that's a pain :) I'm considering taking up Hebrew and Greek someday. Yes, it's that important to me.

>

>>>I am _very_ comfortable in my belief system and welcome someone

>>>pointing out the holes.

>>>

>>>

>>Please share your belief's and any faith you may have. I may not

>>agree, but I don't necessarily think that we are on totally different

>>pages. You seem to feel that I have attacked your beliefs, but I

>>still do not even know what they are... just what you described as

>>"jaundiced and unbelieving".

>>

>>

I'm still unaware of your beliefs, just that I seem to be telling you that you are wrong. I know that we disagree, but I don't see you setting your belief's on the chopping block as I have. I simply see you picking my beliefs (and actions) apart. That's fine, but I'm continuing to feel this is a one way conversation with only rants and tears coming back. I don't mind hearing your rants, and even your tears give me insight into who you are and what you believe. I understand that there is a lot of "chemistry" (ie. the explosive kind) around spiritual things, and that there is a great deal of hurt -- some accidental, some incidental -- but that is not my goal. As I've stated before, you are important, and I'm interested in your thoughts. Yes, I may disagree and even point out specifics. But that's what sharing thoughts and beliefs is all about. A conversation where no common ground is found may seem pointless, but I value you enough to listen.

>>

>>

>>>What I don't like is someone screaming at me that I just have to

>>>believe the way they do (argument for it or not).

>>>

>>>

>>I'm sorry that someone has screamed at you, I assure you that is not

>>my typical method of discussing spiritual things. I also would not

>>tell you that you have to believe as I do. I do not believe exactly

>>the same as most common denominations of Christianity; I believe the

>>Bible is God's Word.

>>

>>

>

>Even given divine guidance, we're talking human authors, writing in

>long dead languages, with no understanding of science trying to

>explain the (likely still) unexplainable to even less knowledgeable

>people. The most amazing thing is that the Bible is still

>comprehensible. Although I am afraid the translations have done

>nothing to help convey the original meaning, obtuse as it is in parts.

>

>

Yes, divine guidance, yes, human authors, not quite dead languages, not unexplainable.

Greek is still spoken, and Hebrew is taught between Jewish parents and children (and schools) all over the world.

The Bible gives an explanation. Evolution gives a partial one. They seem to be the two most common approaches. Unexplainable? Perhaps unprovable. One day we'll all know. Either way, it takes faith to buy any story, back to my original point.

>

>>I don't recall telling anyone that they were wrong. If my arguments

>>convicted you to that belief, feel free to reconsider you beliefs and

>>stance.

>>

>>

>>

>

>Quoting you (from above):

>

>

>

>>I believe that my friends living these lifestyles are suffering very

>>real present and future damage to themselves, both in their

>>relationships with God and with other people, not to mention

>>emotionally.

>>

>>

>

>The above is a _very_ judgemental statement. My personal belief is

>that neither you nor I have the right to judge. Society already does

>this enough. But I believe doing so flies in the face of what the

>Bible says (confused as it is through the ages in parts).

>

>

No? What do you define as judging? Determining what's right and wrong? Then how do we know what is? Or do you believe there is no such thing as right and wrong? What then would keep someone from killing me? Is that not wrong? If not, what is it then, inconvenient? scary? It's wrong.

>God created _all_ creatures. The normal, healty desire you and I feel

>for females (the opposite sex), these folks feel for folks of their

>own sex. I don't begin to understand, but it may be some type of

>protection mechanism that kicks in when potentially harmful genetic

>patterns might make reproduction either a dead end or a bad idea.

>

That's just it. It's a whole which cannot be answered through science. It lends credence to God willing it that way. That is what I believe. On a lighter note, I think that the drive to procreate is so powerful because otherwise we might simply not... anyone who's had infants might agree :)

Kinda like what kids are so cute... so that we don't kill them before they achieve double-digit ages. :)

>In

>some folks that come from regions of Africa that carry a mortal

>illness for children, we find that a fair percentage of these people

>carry a gene that fights this disease (a DNA immunity). On occasion,

>two people carrying this particular gene have a child that inherets

>the gene from both parents rather than only one (about a 1 in 10 or

>less probability) and that child gets sickle cell enemia.

>

>

And again we're talking theory... more specifically theorizing about a theory based on our inability to accept the Bible as truth and definite right and wrong.

>I don't begin to understand all this, and science can't yet explain

>it. And it may be that the even less understood tendency of some

>folks to prefer others of their own sex may also be some similar type

>mechanism. I don't know. But I do know I don't know enough to judge

>them for something most claim they have no control over.

>

>

I appreciate your honesty with "I don't know." It shows a bit of trust on your part. Thank you.

Back in the '50s a study was done which "proved" that homosexuality is genetic... It made huge amounts of press and uprooted the world. Only later were the studies torn apart on basis of scientific and moral issues, but nobody cared. The "Kinsey" research is now being made into a movie, which is causing a great deal of attention.

http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/reisman.html

http://www.drjudithreisman.com/

'Kinsey was a "massive criminal" who cooked his statistical data and based many of his purported findings on interviews with convicted sex offenders, Reisman said in an interview. "He found pedophiles all over the country, sought them out and encouraged them to engage in sex with children and report on it to him."'

http://www.detnews.com/2004/religion/0412/12/A11-14730.htm

Further studies attempted to prove the tie between homosexuality and a genetic cause, but even the scientific community has rebutted this research as positive research with inaccurate conclusions.

http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~kmayeda/HC92/conclusion.html

http://dunamai.com/articles/Christian/is_homosexuality_genetic.htm

http://www.mission.org/jesuspeople/thegaygene.htm

http://www.cornerstonemag.com/pages/show_page.asp?690

An excerpt of the above (cornerstonemag) link:

"Gay items make the front page of the major urban newspapers. Such a flurry of journalistic interest in homosexuality is not new. On July 15th, 1993 National Public Radio reported the discovery of the gene that causes homosexuality. The next day's headline in the Wall Street Journal read: "Research Points Toward a Gay Gene" (July 16th) and in the New York Times: "Report Suggests Homosexuality Is Linked to Genes"(July 16th). This byline was based on a seven page article in the journal of Science by D. H. Hamer, Stella Hu, Victoria Magnuson, Nan Hu, and Angela Pattatucci entitled, "A Linkage between DNA Markers on the X-Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation." [40] Gay activists and American journalists made the most of this news item.

However, four months later in the same journal, genetics researchers from Yale, Columbia, and Louisiana State Universities took issue with the assumptions and statistics that underlay the article's conclusions. [41] There was little or no media reporting. At the same time a review of 135 research studies appeared in the Archives of General Psychiatry, concluding that that there was no evidence to substantiate a biologic theory of homosexuality. [42] Once again, little or nothing was reported by the media. Media misinformation continues on a regular basis. Studies with findings on genetic links between homosexuality and DNA, [43] the size of the hypothalamus, [44] the size of the splenium of the corpus callosum, [45] the presence of prenatal feminine or masculine hormones, [46] central nervous system hermaphroditism, [47] finger-length, and left-handedness [48] -studies that have failed on replication to be substantiated--are often presented as fact by the media, thereby leading the public to the misinformed conclusion that homosexuality is genetically hard-wired and therefore immutable. [49]"

I'm not trying to make up your mind for you. I'm just ranting, perhaps in the hopes that you'll see, research, and possibly agree. Awareness is the main point. Since the media-leanings for said research is clear, it is up to plebians to make information (and admittedly, complaints) available to the populus.

>

>Proofs are difficult and require that we both agree on the foundation.

> If we can't agree to the basics (beyond there is a God, the Jews and

>Muslims agree that far), then it becomes pointless argument. There

>are certainly enough contradictory statements in the Bible to spawn

>hundreds of religions (not counting the Talmud and Koran from whence

>spring even more sects). But I do have my reasons. And I dislike

>being preached to. You can "spread the word" without being offensive,

>but most haven't figured out how.

Do share. I'd like very much to find what common ground we have.

I'd also like to hear your thoughts. Not necessarily in rebuttal, just your thoughts. Obviously I have my own opinions, and nobody else owns them but me. I know you to be a thinking, stubborn :) person as well. While I might not agree, I would like to hear them.

And if you have pointers on "spreading the Word" effectively without being offensive, please let me know. Even Jesus said that many will hate those who believe in Him.

That said, again I offer the olive branch. My opinions and beliefs are my own. I obviously have my reasons as well. But there is a foundation of faith in every person. That faith may be in the Bible, the Koran, the Constitution, "Science", or public opinion. But it is faith indeed. There are so many sources of conflicting information, we must choose which to place our faith in.

Respectfully,

Matt

--

Matthew Carpenter

matt@eisgr.com http://www.eisgr.com/

Enterprise Information Systems

* Network Server Appliances

* Security Consulting, Incident Handling & Forensics

* Network Consulting, Integration & Support

* Web Integration and E-Business

The World Against God...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hash: SHA1

David Bandel wrote:

>> Matt,

>>

>> please read to the end before going wild.

>>

Naturally and likewise.

>>

>

>>>> It's not sense, reason, and intellect which is from Satan.

>>>> Unfortunately, he seems very adept at corrupting something good

>>>> with a very small twist. Sense, reason, and intellect are gifts

>>>> which can be good, and can be distorted. Ever hear of the term

>>>> "garbage in, garbage out"? When reason loses all foundation in

>>>> anything greater than that of our own observation and guesswork

>>>> (see "circular reasoning"), problems result. The conflict is not

>>>> "faith" versus "thought", but "God-based" or "Human-based"

>>>> religion. Christianity is an example of a God-based religion (or

>>>> belief system). Humanism (covers much of the "scientific"

>>>> community) is the primary human-based religion (or belief

>>>> system).

>

>>

>>

>> Wow. Talk about twisting. Your arguments argue against themselves.

>> Garbage in-garbage out is what follows. please keep reading.

I'm afraid that doesn't make sense without some details. Please avoid

vague generalizations.

>>

>

>>>> Each requires a significant amount of faith. Christianity

>>>> requires faith that God exists, is good, and loves His creation

>>>> more than any of us could imagine... so much so that even in our

>>>> willful disregard for the good of others or Him, which separates

>>>> us from fellowship with God, He sent Jesus to endure suffering,

>>>> death, and hell in our stead. Love and care for others,

>>>> selflessness, self-control, with acknowledgement and thanks to

>>>> God. These are the basic tenets of the Bible, which is the

>>>> foundation of truth for this religion. As such, they believe

>>>> that God created the earth, as detailed in Genesis chapters 1 and

>>>> 2. They believe that all mankind is sinful (Romans

>

>>

>>

>> READ, them REREAD those two chapters carefully. They are mutually

>> exclusive accounts of two separate creations. The first is true

>> and supports what you say is incorrect, the second is a wild

>> fantasy that flies in the face of what is known to be true (but

>> does support your speculative theology).

I have, many times. I suggest you do the same. Consider the context

of the writing. You will find two different accounts of the same

story which do not conflict, but augment. One from a chronological

standpoint, one from a more story-telling approach, where chronology

is not the main point. If you have a faulty Bible, I can provide you

excerpts from mine since it's OSS.

>>

>

>>>> 3:23) and that a price must be paid for that sin, to allow us to

>>>> commune with God, and the cost is our life (Romans 6:23). They

>>>> also believe that Jesus came, taught us how to live though a

>>>> sinless life, and then paid the price for our sin with His life,

>>>> proving victory over death by raising to life again (Matthew,

>>>> Mark, Luke, John... pick one and look near the end). They also

>>>> believe that Jesus will come again to separate His followers from

>>>> those who are "jaundiced" and unbelieving, destination: Heaven

>>>> or Lake of Fire, respectively. Regardless of who has failed these

>>>> tenets in the name of God, the principles remain the same. Some

>>>> examples of people who have done attrocious things in the name

>>>> of God: Hitler, Crusaders, Usama, etc....

>>>>

>>>> Humanism requires faith in the scientific community. While

>>>> humanists will tell you otherwise, this is a significant step of

>>>> faith. Particularly true since there exists a history of biased,

>>>> directed research, sometimes with incomplete, incorrect, or even

>>>> falsified data to prove the hypothesis set out. While there are

>>>> many reputable, and even Christian members of the scientific

>>>> community, some (or much) of this research has among its

>>>> hypothesis that God cannot exist. Evolution and the big bang

>>>> theories, both currently taught as fact in public education, are

>>>> examples of this research. They portray an alternative to

>>>> creationism which presupposes the non-existence of a diety,

>>>> regardless of missing data, data suggesting the opposite, and the

>>>> question "where did the explosive matter come from?" While

>>>> there are many scientists with integrity, seeking truth, it

>>>> appears the majority has been lead to believe that there can be

>>>> no diety in science. Unfortunately, since there are so many to

>>>> choose from, one

>

>>

>>

>> Simply a wild, uninformed theory. The bible supports scientists

>> and vice versa.

>>

>> If you believe Genesis Chapter 1, then it basically supports these

>> "big-bang" theories (which Chapter 2 doesn't, so pick which is the

>> basis of your belief). What is beyond the universe? Just because

>> you can't fathom it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

In a perfect sense, the Bible supports science and scientists...

scientists do not always support the Bible. It isn't a matter of God

not being able to use a "big bang" to set our universe in motion, but

the fact that the "big bang" is used as a way for the world to exist

without the presence of a creator. Evolution? why not. Oh, other

than the fact that there are many required pieces of evidence which

simply do not exist. Like the picture in many science texts of the

evolutionary skeletons from the Smithsonian. At the Smithsonian there

is a plaque next to the exhibit stating that many of the skeletons do

not exist in the fossil record, but are artist's renditions of what

they should look like. Anything in the textbooks? Nada.

Again, read chapter 2, maybe just once, and understand the Hebrew

culture a little and you'll find that Chapter 2 is consistent with the

story-based culture and oral tradition of the old testament, recapping

before driving the important points home. The Hebrew culture is such

that important things are repeated, not always verbatim.

I agree that one cannot know more than one knows at any given point.

There is no reason to summarily dismiss the unknown... neither is

there reason to accept and teach it as fact. Move back to the states

and hang out in science class. I believe our school systems would be

much better for your presence.

>>

>

>>>> simply needs to find research which supports what one wants to

>>>> believe. - From the idea that we come from apes, humanists are

>>>> able to trivialize the lives of those who are inconvenient, like

>>>> unborn children, aging, and mentally or physically handicapped

>>>> people (see Terri Shiavo). They will also trivialize this

>>>> description since it doesn't show them in a good light, and Right

>>>> is determined differently for everyone, according to humanism,

>>>> because we are what's important.

>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>>>>>> No, I suspect it has more to do with whatever diety's disciples

>>>>>> have done for themselves and to the rest of the world, and the

>>>>>> courts have become as jaundiced as many of us "non-believers".

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>

>>>>

>>>> Jaundiced in understandable, considering some of the misguided

>>>> people who somewhat miss the point. That is still, however, your

>>>> choice. We are all responsible for our choices, which is the

>>>> flip-side to free-will.

>>>>

>>

>>>>>> Every religion I've had contact with has always preached:

>>>>>> tolerance, love, servitude.

>>

>>>>

>>>> I know of no Christian church which teaches "tolerance".

>>>> Tolerance is not a tenet of the Bible. Love is the closest

>>>> thing, as is described below. Tolerance in its popular

>>>> definition is more "acceptance", both of a person and their

>>>> behavior. The Christian church teaches "Love the Sinner, Hate

>>>> the Sin" which is not good enough for modern-day "tolerance"

>>>> preachers.

>

>>

>>

>> Please read your Bible again. Jesus does teach tolerance. "Let he

>> who is without sin cast the first stone." Not sure how else you'd

>> classify that. He didn't ask you to love the person, just not

>> "cast the first stone" (which sounds an awful lot like the

>> definition of tolerance to me): The endurance of the presence or

>> actions of objectionable persons, or of the expression of offensive

>> opinions; toleration. [1913 Webster]

As I said, Tolerance in America simply does not mean what Webster

indicates. You and I are on the same page here. Tolerance today is

used to promote the condemnation of Christians simply because we

believe that living a homosexual or promiscuous lifestyle is wrong.

To even say that is borderline "hate crime" these days. It ain't

about clubbing sinners to death, it's about caring for them. I

believe that my friends living these lifestyles are suffering very

real present and future damage to themselves, both in their

relationships with God and with other people, not to mention

emotionally. I haven't killed them, abused them, or otherwise hurt

our friendship, except to make it clear that I disagree with their

choices. So far not many have told me to go @#$% myself, so we

continue being friends.

Jesus certainly told us to love other people. The two greatest

commandments from Matthew 22:39:

36 ?Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the law??

37 Jesus said to him, ??You shall love the Lord your God with all

your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.? 38 This

is the first and great commandment. 39 A second likewise is this, ?You

shall love your neighbor as yourself.? 40 The whole law and the

prophets depend on these two commandments.?

By loving my neighbor as myself, I ache for my friends' lack of

relationship with God, I don't hate them for it.

>>>>>> Every religious fanatic that invokes the name of a diety,

>>>>>> however, tends to display intolerance (because how could you

>>>>>> _not_ believe as they do), hate (historically, the most

>>>>>> protracted wars, the heinous actions were all in the name of a

>>>>>> diety), and they expect you to serve them (vice their diety).

>>

>>>>

>>>> It's one thing to identy that which is wrong. It something else

>>>> to know how to respond to it. It is yet something quite

>>>> different to justify awful, hateful acts under the guise of

>>>> religion. The guilt of all mankind is selfishness. Left

>>>> unchecked, it leads to greed, pride, and everything they become

>>>> or produce.

>>>>

>>

>>>>>> No, I expect little of hateful, close-minded, hypocritical

>>>>>> folks. And once the name of a diety has been invoked, you can

>>>>>> forget using reason.

>

>>

>>

>> [huge snip of religious demagoguery]

>>

>> While I could waste days ripping each of your arguments apart (easy

>> since they have no real substance and end up falling back on "well

>> you just have to believe".), I don't have time. We can revisit

>> each of your arguments in the near future one by one if you like,

>> but going through all the above is too much all at once.

So far, you have ripped exactly zero apart, and your arguments have

included as much substance as you suggest mine to have. The simple

attempts sound like a uneducated, misunderstanding proffered by those

who choose not to understand, in a sad effort to dismiss the Bible's

relevance.

Meanwhile, I'm interested in just what you do believe. You obviously

feel attacked in some way.

>>

>> Meanwhile, just start with Genesis Chapter 1. When you get to the

>> last verses (about 5 verses from the end), start questioning every

>> verse. Does it agree or disagree with what came before. Remember

>> that the Bible is full of parables that can easily be taken out of

>> context.

In the process, about 7/8 through. Although the questioning I do is

probably different than your own. I ponder what the value and meaning

is, based on what I already have read, since each book is based on

others but written by different authors. I do not look for ways to

misconstrue it in order to rant at Christians. So far I have gained a

lot better understanding if God's nature, His rules, our lives, and

the troubles we as a world face today.

I would recommend trying the same with scientific "fact" which is

experimented, collected, and interpreted by someone other than

yourself. For example, if it appears to disprove Genesis 1's one-week

model, or Romans 1's homosexuality disclosure, do your own research.

Investigate the involved "science" and you will find that studies are

inconclusive or the evidence is trusted when it should not be. For

example, carbon dating of "billions" of years when can only prove the

measurement data from the last century or less. Even with that data,

we proved that a living cat was several thousands of years old. We

can study Galileo's and Newton's laws on our own. That's what I love

about physics, and why I aced it in high school and college. But we

can only prove them now. We can't even prove they were the same 5

thousand years ago. We just don't know and can't prove anything

scientifically about them. This is why so much of controversial

science is a belief, seldom fact.

>> Ask yourself if what your're reading agrees with what we know of as

>> physical reality or flies in the face of even common sense (and

>> previous chapters and verses).

I have, and they do not. I'm more than happy to discuss those which

you may have difficulty understanding. I don't have all the answers,

but I'm interested in the discussion.

>> Play "devil's advocate" to every phrase, remembering that these

>> phrases also need to be kept in context and not isolated (as even I

>> did above).

I attempt not to be the devil's advocate, but do weigh the words

against what came before, and after.

>> When you've reexamined everything and decided not to "just

>> believe", you'll be able to see the holes in your own arguments,

>> and perhaps strengthen your own faith at the same time.

Studying the Word does indeed strengthen my faith and my beliefs. I

do not "just believe". I understand what I believe and why. Although

I find it intriguing and amusing that you would think I do. There are

some things which I am still chewing on, like Matthew 22:21-22, or

Mark 16:17-18. But if you are interested in my seeing holes in my

arguments, feel free to enlighten me, since obviously your previous

suggestion hasn't worked.

>> I am _very_ comfortable in my belief system and welcome someone

>> pointing out the holes.

Please share your belief's and any faith you may have. I may not

agree, but I don't necessarily think that we are on totally different

pages. You seem to feel that I have attacked your beliefs, but I

still do not even know what they are... just what you described as

"jaundiced and unbelieving".

>> What I don't like is someone screaming at me that I just have to

>> believe the way they do (argument for it or not).

I'm sorry that someone has screamed at you, I assure you that is not

my typical method of discussing spiritual things. I also would not

tell you that you have to believe as I do. I do not believe exactly

the same as most common denominations of Christianity; I believe the

Bible is God's Word.

Even if I said that you *do* have to believe as I do, what difference

does it make? Are you not a grown man, and able to make up your own

mind? Do my words have such great impact in your life? If so, I am

most honored. Truth is, I have a lot of respect for you, regardless

of your temper and general irritated bedside manner.

>> I also feel obliged to play devil's advocate when I see what I

>> believe is demagoguery.

I, too, like to toy with idiots (please correct me if I misinterpreted

your last comment).

>> Keep believing as you want, but telling others if they don't agree

>> with you they're wrong just doesn't cut it with me.

I don't recall telling anyone that they were wrong. If my arguments

convicted you to that belief, feel free to reconsider you beliefs and

stance.

>>

>> And we're back to tolerance again.

>>

David, honestly, I care a great deal for you. I am writing this

because it is important to me, and in my beliefs, it is important to

you and everyone else in the world. I am perfectly willing to

tolerate you and others I may disagree with. Tolerance does not

preclude one party from being wrong. This is probably not what you

want to hear, but I strive to love you even if it is unidirectional.

That is not only my commandment from Jesus, but it is the way of my

heart. I sometimes like to get involved in heated debate, but I'm

currently writing about what matters. Tolerance is not enough.

Tolerance ends. Irritation levels tolerance. Love is what is

required. Obviously that can be misconstrued so please refer to the

previous definition from I Corinthians 13:4-8.

I will continue to tell others when what they say and do does not

match up with the Bible's teaching, and welcome others to do the same

to me. Mine is journey and I am not perfect.

It is my belief that those who fail to acknowledge God and give thanks

to Him are indeed wrong, to name but one example. But it is every

man's right to be wrong. Heck, I take full advantage of that right

quite frequently. :) In this case, however, there are consequences

for being wrong, over which none of us has any control.

It would seem that people who cannot handle being told they are wrong

are either immature in their beliefs or have a "god" complex and

cannot be wrong.

I could be wrong right now. Heck, don't take my word for it. Prove

me wrong. I've shared some of my beliefs, and provided the basis for

my evidence, the Bible, which I and a good many other intelligent

people believe to be God's Word. Show me your evidence, and provide

the reasons for your faith in the sources.

Matthew 15:12-13

- --

Matthew Carpenter

matt@eisgr.com http://www.eisgr.com/

Enterprise Information Systems

* Network Server Appliances

* Security Consulting, Incident Handling & Forensics

* Network Consulting, Integration & Support

* Web Integration and E-Business

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCVm+Pso9lqh4MragRAqgvAJ4j+1w4O1OfmZPgmPY6ZpbCGMRY6gCfdl1B

UoVQVz11wnry5pKO+075zKQ=

=fL6p

-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Slippery when Wet

Pope, K5, and the religious left

Well, the unreligious left (pronounced "humanists") have surprised me a bit, but understandably so.

According to this story at Kuro5hin: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/4/1/221759/0901 the author calls the pope one of the true heros of the twentieth century. This shocked me for obvious reasons, namely K5's abhorring anything which gives value to anything but "me". Now I'm not a "Pope-believing Catholic" but I wouldn't expect anyone

The article is actually a good read, with quite a bit of history I did not know about the former Pope. Obviously the religion of Humanism reigns supremely on K5, as detailed by the comments that followed. What out of my mouth would be an insult, I read quite freely from one of the readers:

"Come on, is this best denunciation you liberalists can muster."

Please forgive the gramatical errrors, I didn't write it.

Humanism is a religion which is often masqueraded as Science and "critical thought". Basically they threw out all moral tenets and replaced them with "me-ism". With no basis greater than relativism, valuations are deteriorated to what makes me the happiest/best/etc... It's basic creation theory of choice is Evolution. The devaluation of everyone else is supported by this theory.

Pyblosxom Gone Dark

While attempting to get a test Blog site up using pyBlosxom, the site holding its Wiki went toes-up. Conversing with the author has turned up that the ISP for subtlehints.net claims the site generated too much CPU utilization and they had to drop it. Sucky. But at least I was directed to the real store of documentation: http://pyblosxom.sf.net

Ubuntu and Kubuntu Linux

Only a few more days away from Ubuntu's "Hoary" release, and the first ever Kubuntu release!

Ubuntu is a Free Linux distribution (All Free, All the Time), based at http://www.ubuntu.com/ It is relatively simple to install and use as a server or desktop system. It is Debian-based (like so many others: Knoppix, MEPIS, Helix, etc...) which means the install software is used to install the base system, and online software repositories are available for installing new/updated software.

Kubuntu is still Ubuntu, but the installation and initial package selection is based around the K Desktop Environment (KDE). Kubuntu is looking very promising for those of us who prefer the blue, glitzy interface of KDE.

Both are very good systems, with an active community and many means of getting involved. Kubuntu has quickly become a close second-favorite distro for me, right behind SuSE Professional. But unlike SuSE Pro, Ubuntu's main page states in "Ubuntu will always be free of charge, and there is no extra fee for the "enterprise edition", we make our very best work available to everyone on the same Free terms." The "Ubuntu Manifesto" is a refreshing commentary.

Kphone and Asterisk

I recently was provided an extension on an Asterisk PBX. Asterisk is an OpenSource Voice over IP (VoIP), supporting SIP, H.323, and many other open standards for voice telephony.

Kphone is the SIP tool I'd like to play with, so I configured it up as I suspected it should be and guess what? It didn't work. Crap. So I did some troubleshooting and made sure I was doing it right.... Finally, it hit me. I'm connecting using Wireless/Cisco VPN. That changes my IP Address, much like a NAT but not quite. Kphone doesn't account for that, it just allows me to pick from real network adapters, not the virtual one created by Cisco's VPN. I plugged the machine in wired and of course I get connected and registered immediately.

Perhaps I can run a SIP Proxy on my own system and bypass this... Who knows? Or the Kphone folks will work that into their code to support Cisco VPN. Either way, it works for wired connectivity at least. Yea!

Definition of Left and Right, aka Wrong and Right

"A wise man’s heart is at his right hand, but a fool’s heart at his left." Ecclesiastes 10:2

-----

31 “But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. 32 Before him all the nations will be gathered, and he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will tell those on his right hand, ‘Come, blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry, and you gave me food to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in; 36 naked, and you clothed me; I was sick, and you visited me; I was in prison, and you came to me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry, and feed you; or thirsty, and give you a drink? 38 When did we see you as a stranger, and take you in; or naked, and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick, or in prison, and come to you?’

40 “The King will answer them, ‘Most assuredly I tell you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers (The word for “brothers” here may be also correctly translated “brothers and sisters” or “siblings.”), you did it to me.’ 41 Then he will say also to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry, and you didn’t give me food to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink; 43 I was a stranger, and you didn’t take me in; naked, and you didn’t clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you didn’t visit me.’

44 “Then they will also answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and didn’t help you?’

45 “Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Most assuredly I tell you, inasmuch as you didn’t do it to one of the least of these, you didn’t do it to me.’ 46 These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”" Matthew 25:31-46

------

"Right" is typically considered "conservative" but is more practically characterised by someone who believes that there is a "Right" and "Wrong" which transcends individual opinions. This type of individual typically will acknowledge the importance of self-responsibility, however failed each individual may be. This is represented in a valuation of human life, value of "the greater good", and the ownership of guns (?).

"Left" is normally considered "liberal" but is more practically characterized by someone who believes that "Right" and "Wrong" are relative. Unwilling to declare faith in something as dogmatic as the Bible, "leftists" have nothing to measure right and wrong against, short of their own meandering opinions. This is represented in a valuation of self, personal freedom, and love of Unions.

Although we are all a bunch of sinners, I find myself on the Right. I believe the world was created, we humans were made special, God has written Right and Wrong on our hearts (of an unseered conscience), that we need to work hard, point at perfection, and when we miss the mark we keep at the challenge. I believe in corporal punishment, spanking, and loving those who do wrong as laid out in I Corinthians 13:4.

" 4 Love is patient and is kind; love doesn’t envy. Love doesn’t brag, is not proud, 5 doesn’t behave itself inappropriately, doesn’t seek its own way, is not provoked, takes no account of evil; 6 doesn’t rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 8 Love never fails. "

I fail. But I will not stop trying because I fail.

God is good. He loves you and me. He wants for us to repent and

Free Ipod's?

Heard this is legit. If you like, please sign up for a free iPod (have to sign up for a free credit card or efax account, etc... and get 10 others to do the same):

http://www.freephotoipods.com/default.aspx?r=16472538