For anyone who followed the Boulder land-grab case:

http://www.rottenneighbor.com/story.php?id=56559

Ha!

Just about every digital camera under the sun, still or video, is more or less sensitive to the light spectrum immediately outside the human-visible range. You could pull the same trick with a UV light, too. I use IR leds frequently in photography just for this reason.

@ Fnarf

Seriously? A Diana knockoff? That's... staggering.

$50 is pretty steep for a what amounts to a crappy 120 camera. I'll use my $15 Holga over it any day.

There's something really funny to me about the way it brags of having 4 f-stops. I have to wonder if it's the same as the Holge "having" apertures.

Oh, and.... it includes a lens cap. Gotta protect that lens, lest it should get scratched and produce a flawed photo.

@ phasor3000

I shoot with low-fi film, hi-fi film, and digital cameras. The amount of time/effort I have to put into recreating low-fi film effects from a digital image (which never quite hits the mark anyway) is better spent just shooting it low-fi in the first place. Film and digital are very different beasts.

@ Vertigo25:

"This is the same state that only started allowing inter-racial marriages in 2000."

The laws were still on the books, but no one paid attention to them. Inter-racial marriages were allowed for quite a while before that.

"They still think George Wallace was a hero."

No, overwhelmingly, they do not.

"They have "anti-sodomy" laws."

Lots of places do. They're not enforced anywhere except when prosecuting some rape cases.

"These are not the most forward looking people."

I would say that about most people across the world. Alabama isn't particularly special in that regard.

About the original post: sex toy parties are immensely popular in the area I lived in, and judging from word-of-mouth, it was the same across the state. I think the problem with Alabama sex laws is that the laws are made by aged men who don't care for a second what women might want, beyond what they need to consider in order to pander to their conservative female base... which really isn't all that demanding in terms of women's issues.

Every time someone who holds some sort of religious power opens his/her mouth and says something destructive like this, I have to wonder if the statement comes from genuine belief or a desire for control. I think that the two are not compatible. A genuinely "faithful" person, however deluded or misinformed, would be unlikely to say something like this to make a power grab. A cynical jerk who says something like this just to pander to his followers and maintain power wouldn't seem very beholden to the tenets of Christian faith. Maybe it's a mix, but I it's hard to see them abiding in a single mind. Maybe the Archbishop is actually a Discordian Pope. It's sad, any way I look at it.

Oh, yes, and poopoo on all religions. Surely, personal jackassery and desire for power over others has nothing to do the world's ills, and secularism will save us all.

There's an AP article out that described how satellite imagery has been used to further confirm suspicions of human rights abuses in those villages:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070928/ap_on_go_ot/myanmar_satellites;_ylt=Au8a.VgGxBFk_CpBnSDy.DWs0NUE

I wonder if the government actually believes that cutting internet will prevent the rest of the world from finding out what is happening within the Myanmar borders. Do they really think that cutting easy real-time access means no access at all?

@Joe Cunningham

I get all warm and fuzzy when I see something about a photographer saving the day. Nice job.

@skep

"... it is possible to show that certain ideas of a god are logically inconsistent with the way the world works."

Most Christians are fine with that when it concerns the inconsistent actions or words of their god. While you may understandable stop when you find what you consider a contradiction, a Christian might presume the issue must be explained away. I know many would take issue with what you mean by "evil" in terms of Christianity. After all, in a monotheistic religion where god calls all the shots, it defines morality independently of human mores. In such a system, God gets away with murder, hellfire, and sending bears to eat children; because it necessarily is the source of morality in such religions, it can do whatever it wants and be internally consistent, even if it breaks its own established rules and behaviors.

It's a funny issue to me, when talking to Christians about it, because when you're outside the belief system, you can say, "Look! Your god is doing the opposite of what he says he would!" To a Christian, that often nonsense, as their god is not restricted by such rules.

This is part of what I meant by assuming that this god exists for the sake of discussion. If you assume that god exists for the sake of pointing out inconsistencies, especially when talking to a Christian, you must be willing to consider the absoluteness of that god's authority. You're debating within the framework of a system that assumes infallibility of god; to show that god is fallible, you must break with those assumptions. When you break those assumptions, you are no longer talking about the god most Christians / Jews / Muslims identify with. That's why arguments that amount to, "Your god is evil," don't make it very far with folks who have cemented their faith.

I don't think these conversations are really about whether god exists or not. It's more a matter of understanding a set of popular world views, that happen to be one of the most powerful cultural forces on our planet. I'm at odds pretty often with that culture, so I like to understand what's going on in the heads of religious folk when I talk to them. To another extent, it helps me understand myself... I am, like most non-believers, a product of a religious culture.

@ Skep

"the degree to which the Old Testament is rescinded by the New Testament is not, and cannot be reasonably stated to be unequivocal"

Sure. I'm just looking at what most Christians tend to believe, at least in terms of their denominations' claims.

"It is not necessary that billions should suffer.."

That is assuming such a god cares about the suffering of billions. The Jewish god made no secret of his favor: he wanted chosen people to win, and cared little for anyone else. You might raise arguments of whether he was as compassionate or merciful as he described himself, and I would say that, according to himself and his followers... yes. Probably not to anyone on the outside, though.

Don't these questions necessarily assume that god exists for their basis? That's the problem I have with these conversations, which may be why my statements don't carry well to others. We're both speculating on the nature of a god's will, right? If we assume it exists according to the Jewish testament, that reduces both our speculations regarding its will to meaninglessness. If I were to believe, I'd lean toward the statement of mine that you quoted. In reality, I lean toward some variation of what you last stated.

This is awesome. I think we too easily assume creativity is the result of insanity or excessive drug use. It bugs the hell out of me for when someone looks at a piece of art and readily concludes with either description.

@ Skep, again!

re my statement: "most of the commandments are still valid under the New Testament"

I won't deliver verse-by-verse explanationb of this, but stuff like "don't kill," "don't worship other gods before Jehova," etc. were very strongly implied in the New Testament. Some exceptions were obvious, I think, such as Jesus working (gathering food) on the Sabbath, which strongly broke with tradition under threat of death. Other exceptions, like taking god's name in vain, were ignored, which might suggest that it was completely dismissed. Or not.

@ Skep

I'll dismiss any attempts to push Christian propaganda regarding "keep the sabbath day holy" and "don't take the lord's name in vain" as socially harmful BS any day. That's what I rather belligerently called "dumb crap," because I believe it is concerned less with serving one's god and more with poorly considered knee-jerk reactions of fear.

I'm not claiming a proper knowledge of the Bible. I am, however, speaking with knowledge of how the majority of denominations interpret these matters, as best as I can. If I've got a little too enthusiastic/arrogant/had too much brandy, and made an authoritative claim to truth... whoops. Sorry. :)

@ Cap'n Tim

"... more to religion changing to meet the evolving social mores of culture than it does about god giving the hebrews a new service pack update"

That's my view of it, and the acceptance of rape is just a further reflection of that idea, IMO.

But, surely an infinitely wise god would understand that people would follow outlandish rules only to a certain extent and concoct a set of rules they would be likely to (mostly) follow. Maybe rape was a more socially acceptable form of smiting at the hands of the Jews back then, I'm really not well-versed enough about their culture at the time to say. They certainly did kill willy-nilly across the Middle East and find ways to justify it.

"..he could just tell them what was right and wrong, and rain fire on those that disobeyed."

Well... he did, kinda. :) His direct threat constantly directed the Jews, according to the Bible.

@Skep

"...is that it is actually God who deliberately turns them gay as punishment for their failure to honor him."

Exactly. That's the good stuff, not that silly "OT says this, but NT says this!"

The Bible is full of examples just like this, where Jehova explicitly causes people to sin and defy him against their will over and over and over.

@ Skep

"As I noted earlier, the degree to which Christians feel bound to the Old Testament varies radically... A prime example of this is the zeal with which some Christians attempt to inject the Ten Commandments into government and schools."

Agreed. It's not simple at all. Zeal frequently overtakes those who listen too much to their leaders, and you get dumb crap like this. However, most of the commandments are still valid under the New Testament. They just weren't laid out so explicitly.

"It is also a myth to characterize the beliefs of Christians as being coherent."

Let me clarify, then. :) Most Christians identify with a particular denomination. They are usually not fully educated in the particulars of that denomination. In my experience, when pressed on a subject, they will either default to their own personal view, or to their denomination's view (especially if they do not fully understand the reasoning behind that view). Nearly all denominations, Protestant or Catholic, agree with my statement about hacker Jesus. That's what I mean when I say most Christians agree; they look to their denomination's previous decisions on such matters.

@Deus Ex Machinima

Sure, if you're examining the subject from a mocking or dismissive perspective.

On the other hand, if you believe in Jehova, maybe the laws of the Old Testament served their purpose for the Jews until they outgrew it. A lot of Christians don't bother with the subject, but many theologians would suggest that their god foresaw that the old law could not be applied to society at large. Hence, the divine hack that was Jesus.

@ Cap'n Tim

Would it be any better if there was condemnation homosexuality in the New Testament? I think not, but it might address the "verse picking" you mention.

Here: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm

That said, it's saddening when you examine the verses many Christians use to condemn homosexuals. The most vocals ones usually quote the older stuff that advocates killing gays, rather than the newer stuff that suggests punishment is best reserved their for god. Whether most actually advocate violence is debatable; I suspect they tend to use old testament because it's just more inflamatory.

@Skep

Yeah. I'm glad he didn't go by that particular law. :)

However, I believe you are incorrect in your perception of the contradiction you propose. A major theme of the New Testament is "mercy" rather than "punishment."... at least, at mankind's hands. Sure the NT is full of wrath and hellfire and such, but that's reserved for divinity.

As I suggested elsewhere in this topic, most Christians accept Jesus as being the reason that they are no longer bound by the absurd laws of the Old Testament.

@johndicker

I've thought about going to one of those. What's the time/place?

@AJ Jacobs

I just read the "first month" section on Amazon, and it's got me more curious about the rest of the book. I'm curious at present, though, did you ever receive any sort of religious reprimand by Christians or Jews for doing this?

@Flying Squid

Well, I wasn't angry, but ok.

@Phasor3000

Interesting, that. The OT vs. NT deal isn't really about new law superseding old law in terms of chronology, but I guess it does seem that way. Makes me think there is some denomination of Christianity that might hold to the same idea. I wonder if this guy was ever reprimanded by Christians over this sort of thing.

Oh, wow, I missed this somehow in the article:

"..he said, “I’m an adulterer, are you going to stone me?” I said, “Yeah that would be great.” The Bible doesn’t say what size the stones have to be, so I had been carrying around these pebbles in my pocket for just such an occasion."

@Flying Squid

Way to ignore context. We were talking about Christianity. Don't use what nearly amounts to a typo to dismiss the point.

Strangely enough, the interviewer doesn't ask anything about animal sacrifice or violent punishment toward others. I take it as a given that he would not attempt such things, but I have to wonder how that figured into his decisions over what to observe.

Flying Squid said:

"Also, if Jesus made Old Testament law null and void, why do so many Christians revere the 10 Commandments?

I swear, I do not get religious people..."

You don't get that religious people like to follow simple, clearly spelled out rules that were mostly reiterated by Jesus?

@Mechphisto

A Christian would probably argue that the old law did not fail, but rather humanity did, and Jesus' crucifixion was a hack to get around the Old Covenant.

... except they might not use the word "hack."

Is this how we're going to seed life on other planets and laugh at the Tardigrades' descendants who support intelligent design but can't quite get it right?

Well, this is stupid:

"... If you wish to purchase an entire album, you are required to use the Amazon MP3 Downloader available for Windows XP or Vista and Mac OS X 10.4 or higher. ..."

I think we can all take pretty good guesses as to why they intentionally make it more expensive for non-Windows/Mac users to by albums. If you can buy the album for around $9, you pay more in the sum of the individual songs that comprise the album.

DRM-free gooooood, pandering to Microsoft and Apple baaaaaaad.

@RadioGuy

More digital content does take up more shelf space in terms of storage and bandwidth. That stuff isn't cheap when you've got millions of users.

Added to that, there are the logistical challenges of securing rights to sell, dealing (very likely) with agents for said bands, making sure bands get paid, making sure the posted music meets some standard of quality (highly subjective, of course), developing software to support a scalable selling system anyone can sign up for... I could go on. I'd wager all that is probably more of an expense than storage/bandwidth, and that you might as well consider that to be part of the virtual "shelf space."

@ Peter Swimm

I don't think you'll see that any time remotely soon. Amazon has its own reputation to maintain, and they rely on labels to provide them with "quality" music. A large conglomerate like that doesn't really have time to pick and choose from an endless stream of indie bands. It would be nice to see them open up to some lesser known labels, though.

At $.99 / song or ~$9 / album? Thank god. I was getting sick of iTunes and alternative shady services. There's no reason to require Quicktime + iTunes and its 10 bazillion background processes (WTF is iTunesHelper.exe?!) when I just want to listen to a Godspeed You Black Emperor track. I hope this lasts, and that it makes waves through the industry.

Any charge filed against her not being dropped = fearful jerks in power trying to make an example of an innocent woman.

On another note, to everyone saying, "It's obviously not a bomb, they should have known better!" : that's really condescending. My mother doesn't know what a breadboard is. My neighbors don't. Several of my friends don't. I'd wager the great majority of the US doesn't know, for better or worse. Don't pretend that everyone else knows what you know, especially when you are judging circumstances after being given all the facts at once in hindsight.

Be honest, please, how would any of you just know a bomb when you see it?

@jere7my

I agree with almost everything you stated, except for your characterization of this incident as a mistake by the airport security.

@ Kelebek

"Is it so mind boggling to think that a woman out of her own free will choose to follow the rules of her religion? "

For some people who have little or no experience as a member of a religion with such codes, yes, it is mind-boggling. :) I think that's understandable, though. What I find disappointing is the hostility that "mind-boggled-ness" tends to spawn. It's a perpetual source of frustration to have someone else tell you what you really think as opposed to what you are blatantly saying you think.

@ Kelebek

"Is it so mind boggling to think that a woman out of her own free will choose to follow the rules of her religion? "

For some people who have little or no experience as a member of a religion with such codes, yes, it is mind-boggling. :) I think that's understandable, though. What I find disappointing is the hostility that "mind-boggled-ness" tends to spawn. It's a perpetual source of frustration to have someone else tell you what you really think as opposed to what you are blatantly saying you think.

Just curious... Can anyone who is protesting her treatment state exactly what a bomb is supposed to look like, even it were worn on the outside of some idiot "martyr's" shirt?

Sometimes I think that the fearmongering that occurs in my country is due not only to those in power who stand to profit off of it (whether monetarily or politically), but also by those people who insist that it has to be ok to just do whatever the hell we want without regard for the way we are perceived by society at large.

I will readily concede that there are too many extreme examples of overly-tightened security, and my heart goes out to those folks like the man who was turned away for his so-called "I.E.D". But seriously, someone comes into an airport with electronics strapped to her chest and some of us here think that everyone should have just looked at her and said, "Oh! An artist!"

BS.

If you're into DIY electronics, frankly, you're in a small niche compared to the rest of the nation. It's unreasonable to expect everyone else to see homebrew electronics on someone's shirt and deduce immediately at a glance that it's a novelty device or "art."

As much as airport security can sometimes go overboard, I'm glad to see that they can respond immediately to what could have been an actual threat by someone a little off-kilter.

I'm glad she's alright; she is lucky.

I wonder if anyone is going to try to use this code to track MediaDefender's attempts to block distribution of this code.

"She said it was a piece of art, and wanted to stand out on career day."

Mission accomplished?

Add my first comment (#14) here to the list of inflammatory crap that didn't get turned into bizarre incantation.

Back on track,

@ G.Park

I understand what you're saying, but my opinion on the degree of choice is very different. Even in the case of someone facing overwhelming factors that tip a decision in one way they may not necessarily like, that someone still is able to make a decision. This is why some people become martyrs for their religions, and why others do not when presented with a choice. It's why people betray their friends, or maintain loyalty under duress.

Your example of the Amish girl certainly seems extreme to us. She would have to be very brave or foolish to leave her faith/community. But, could she choose to leave? Of course! Not that I know of an example pertaining to the community you mention, but it would be hard to imagine that a woman has never left it. I guess that's just an assumption I'm going to make.

And, as for the fashion parallel: I know they do not carry the same degree of severity in nearly all cases. I was just pointing out a similar scenario that does not have religion as a pretext.

@Tim

I don't know what you're so upset about.

"pprssn cn nt b md fshnbl. ny cmpny tht ttmpts t d s s cptlzng n sd prssn."

That's easy enough to read, though I don't really get why you would want to summon Azathoth at the conclusion of your argument.

Regarding stricter Muslim's rejections of the design

I don't know how credible the source is. Just posting what I saw.

@ Teresa

"..whether Jacob Davis is CofC."

You could ask. :)

Yes, I'm a proud, card-carrying, infidel-bashing, remote-island-ritual-attending, tentacle-wigglin member of the Cult of Cthulhu.

No, I don't know what "CofC" is.

@ Xeni

Yeah, I think it will be interesting to see a reaction from more restrictive governments or cultures. If something like this actually allows for more freedom of activities like swimming, would that tiny bit of added freedom be considered a threat to the larger collective?

Or worse still, would some object over the potential for these bathing suits to be more attractive than the alternative Galcie pointed out in #55?

I don't doubt that there would be some nuts that would object on both points, but I wonder how widespread it could be.

Agreed about the editing. This conversation got derailed because of it. I was looking forward to the Cap'n's further participation, and didn't find anything inflammatory about his remarks.

Any chance we can just continue with the discourse?

@ G. Park

No connection. :)

I agree that supernatural punishment is a more stressful factor than general fashion sense.

re: "... fear of being ostracized by my family and friends"

Frankly, fashion choices can lead to just that, if your friends/family are jerks. A lot of people infer way too much about a person based on the way they dress themselves. It happens with kids a lot, somewhat less so with adults.

Now, the choice I speak of departs from your considerations. First, one must choose whether to accept a dress code as being required for their religion ("Will a miniskirt send me to hell or not?"). That's the crux of this matter. If you accept that as part your religion, that's your own doing. While someone else may have created the rules, you accept them or reject them as you see fit.

re: "However, is the choice really free if the price of that choice includes losing your family, friends, and community?"

My experience of family/friends/community at the time might differ from yours. They were all one and the same. But, having made that choice myself, I will say yes. Once I rejected the things they taught, I chose to leave. So did others. I also knew people who rejected the teaching but consciously chose to stay with the group.

It is choice under social pressure, or even coercion, for sure. It's about fitting in a culture with which your comfortable vs. finding a new one. But in large, religiously tolerant societies, it's still a choice.

@ Tim

"...they're immune to being told that if they don't dress a certain way, they're bad people."

Tell that to an impressionable, marginalized teen goth who gets shunned by mainstream dressers over his/her black clothing and piercings. Sure, it doesn't carry the psychological damage of a grumpy deity, but it sure does leave a lasting mark.

@Tim

I get the whole cultural programming facet. I've been involved with what I consider a cult that enforced similar behavior, favoring men's freedom over women's. I believed in it and perpetuated it, as did the women I knew.

A lot of those people were brought up in that religious context, a lot of them were roped in and reprogrammed in their teens (including me). Few of us viewed the restrictions as oppression. We always knew it was our choices that led us there, and our choices that kept us there. A lot of us eventually changed our minds and chose to leave, facing alienation from our friends (who many of us considered family); others faced alienation from actual family.

Some things stuck as a sense of fashion, such as the women continuing to wear long skirts, long hair in a bun, etc. Men continued dressing modestly, though with less restriction. It was, obviously, a partial result of the enforcement of those niche mores. It was comfortable. But never did any of us think we didn't have a choice in the matter.

Cultural programming is a pervasive force, and I would argue with your assertion that atheists are somehow free from capitalistic trends in fashion. Tommy Hilfiger (I don't care how it's spelled) has a lot of loyal fans, religious or not. Regardless of the responsible force, one always has a choice in the matter.

As I see it, you're characterizing religious folk with dress code as sheep who blindly dress the way they're told. There's something inherently hostile in that view, I think you would agree (re: "religion gets me riled up"). People make their choices, and religious folks are well aware of their own. Barring government mandated religious dress code and or religiously intolerant societies, they know they are free to make up their own minds.

Hyperbole. Given the ridiculousness of the statement like "Burka, baaaad, thong bikini goood,", I thought it an obviously silly stretch. No offense meant, man. Cheers. :)

@ all the internet freedom fighters on this thread:

You are aware that there are a crap-ton of Muslim women not living in oppressive theocracies who choose to continue their traditions, yes?

You are aware that the world really is more complicated than "Burka, baaaad, thong bikini goood," yes?

@Theresa Nielsen

I agree that she was lying, but for completely different reasons. I don't think she was thinking deeply enough to even attempt to address Creationist concerns about the literal interpretation of Biblical flat earth descriptions. She just looked/sounded more confused than anything else, and compelled by defensive position to continue being adversarial with the other idiots.

Also....

You said: "...plus a giant heap of rules about how you can't eat shellfish, shave your beard, wear clothing made of mixed fibers, live in a building that has contracted leprosy (that one's exceptionally mysterious), or refuse to have sex with your brother's widow."

That's a misconception perpetuated by opponents of Christianity to carry the religion into some realm of irrelevant absurdity. Sure, it was silly of Jehova to put those restrictions on the Jews, and is easily mocked on that point. The vast majority of Christians, including fundamentalists, believe that Jesus negated those rules, a la New Covenant vs. Old Covenant. Sure, sometimes something scares them and they fixate on one of those antiquated rules, but by and large Christian theology agrees that the Old Testament commandments are null/void.

Point being.... There are plenty of things to argue against in Christianity, but this argument about literal interpretation of OT rules is a straw man. Anyone vaguely versed in Christian theology doesn't take it seriously.

No lampooning of flat earth creationists in the media is complete without the mention of a couple of links:

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
(be sure to check the membership form!)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/

Somewhere in the Darkly Aged bowels of the first site is a description of a mission which involves getting Flat Earthers covertly embedded in the media. Zoinks! Sherri's cover is blown!

A Wrinkle in Time served as my introduction to multidimensional geometry as a young kid. It was through Ms. L’Engle's simple description of creating a cube from a line that it first dawned on me that there were "bigger" dimensions that what I could see, and that I could think of them in similar terms. That simple lesson has stuck with me all my life. If only for that small insight in my very young life, I admire her.

Not everyone who went through the storm and aftermath wants to be remembered at their worst. Living in the Gulf Coast at the time, I quickly grew sick of the media barrage showing survivors at the worst physical and mental state they'd ever been in. I don't know anyone who would have wanted to be remembered only by the severity of such sad state that only reflected what was really a small glimpse of many of their lives.

I've seen very few portrait photographers do anything but shoot the same type of predatory, degrading photos you might expect from a clueless first-day photojournalism student taking a picture of a depressed bum. Kudos to Mr. Cubitt for looking into the ways in which his subjects want to be remembered, and in a manner that more likely reflects the tough and determined nature of these survivors. It's refreshing.