USB - Satan's Data Connection

(this happens when one takes religion too far away....)

Evangelical Christians in Brazil have banned the use of USB connections after claiming the technology is the mark of Satan-worshippers.

Evangelical Christians in Brazil have apparently banned the use of USB connections after claiming the technology is the mark of Satan-worshippers (Hat tip: Fernando Frias). Apparently the revelation came after the evangelists noticed that the USB symbol resembles a trident. Presumably they're not great fans of Britain's ballistic missiles either.

USB - Satan's data connection

Here's the story, though be aware that aside from being repeated on a bunch of Brazilian websites, I've yet to find much to back it up, so if this turns up on Snopes don't blame me.

English (Translation):

The evangelical cult "Paz do Senhor Amado" ("Peace of the beloved Lord") in the interior of Brazil forbids its followers to use any USB technology by contending that it uses a symbol that shows sympathy for the devil.

According to its founder, the "Apostle" Welder Saldanha says that this is just another symbol of Satan, which is always present in all Christian homes.

"The symbol of that name (a name which he doesn't even like to pronounce) is a trident, which is used to torture souls that go to hell. Use only a symbol of those shows that all users of that vile technology are actually worshipers of Satan" - explains the" Apostle".

Measures were taken so that all the USB connections of his followers were exchanged for common connections and even the Bluetooth (sic), which according to Saldanha Welder is permitted, for "Blue was the color of the eyes of our savior Jesus Christ".

Portuguese (Original):

O culto evangélico "Paz do Senhor Amado" do interior de SP proibe seus fiéis a usar toda e qualquer tecnologia USB, por alegar que a mesma use um simbolo que faz apologia ao demônio.

De acordo com seu fundador, o "Apóstolo" Welder Saldanha diz que isso é apenas mais um simbolo de satanás, estando sempre presente em todos os lares cristãos.

"O simbolo daquilo (nome que ele sequer gosta de pronunciar) é um tridente, que é usado para torturar almas que vão para o inferno. Usar um simbolo daqueles apenas mostra que todos usuários dessa pífia tecnologia são de fato, adoradores de satã" – Explica o "Apóstolo".

As medidas tomadas foram para que todas as conexões USB de seus seguidores fossem trocadas por conexões comuns e até mesmo pelo Bluetooth (sic), que de acordo com Welder Saldanha é permitida, pois "Azul era a cor dos olhos de nosso salvador Jesus Cristo".

Note: English translation amended on Wednesday 17th November on the advice of a helpful translator, Luís Coelho.

via ScribeFire

The accidental exclusion of non-white atheists

| Alom Shaha | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, PZ Myers, James Randi … if you're a regular Cif belief reader, you'll already have spotted the pattern – these are the names of arguably the most prominent, outspoken atheists and "sceptics" in the world. There's something else you should notice – they are all white men. The atheist and sceptic movements are dominated by white men and I think this is a problem.

In a recent piece for the Guardian science blog, I highlighted the lack of high-profile women scientists on TV and why I thought it was important that this should be addressed. I was commended for this piece by many women, who felt that what I had written was important and that it was particularly powerful for having come from a man. I really don't want to come across as an Asian with a chip on my shoulder, so if you'd prefer to hear an argument from a white person about the need for the atheist movement to engage with minority groups, please stop reading now and watch this brilliant lecture by Greta Christina.

There are issues that black and Asian atheists face that white atheists do not, for example, greater pressure to adhere to the religion of the communities in which they live. Since first writing about my atheism in public, I have been contacted by a number of Asian people who don't believe in God but feel they have to carry on the pretence of being a Muslim because they genuinely fear that the consequences of "coming out" would be unbearable. They fear being ostracised from their family and friends, and "not being able to get married". Sure, there are some white people who might face these same issues, but I would suggest the problem is more widespread in, for example, some Muslim communities than in the typical readership of the Guardian.

These are issues that the white "leadership" of the atheist and sceptic movements have largely ignored because they are not issues that concern them. But these issues should concern all atheists – because if we are to be a "community", if, as so many of us want, we are to be given the same standing in society as people who identify with a religious group, then we must ensure that black and Asian people are not just made to feel welcome but actively encouraged to join atheist and sceptic movements.

I have been disappointed by the refusal of many atheists and sceptics I know to acknowledge that there is even a problem. Saying "there isn't a big conspiracy to keep black and Asian people out", is tragically missing the point.

Simply arguing that black or Asian people are free to go along to gatherings of atheists or sceptics is to ignore an uncomfortable truth: people tend to be more comfortable with people who are like them. Some of my Bangladeshi friends still find it awkward to socialise with my white friends, despite the fact they get on perfectly well with their white colleagues at work. This doesn't make them racist and it isn't necessarily because they feel white people are racist, it's just a consequence of the same thing that makes goth kids gravitate towards other goth kids and Asian kids gravitate towards other Asian kids on the first day of college.

While black and Asian people may not be actively excluded from atheist and sceptic gatherings, the lack of black and Asian people as speakers or audience members might be one reason why many black or Asian people feel such events are not "for them". So, even if there's no deliberate exclusion, there is accidental exclusion. Perhaps some people are genuinely unaware of this, but perhaps others are just hoping the problem does not really exist.

I have not written this to accuse anyone of being racist, but rather to plead with those who are in a position to do something to stop turning a blind eye to this important issue. I know from personal experience that there are many black and Asian atheists out there who feel very alone – please reach out to them specifically, not generally.

If, like me, you believe the atheist and sceptic movements can be huge forces for good, please do more to reach out to your "brothers" and "sisters" in all communities because, to paraphrase Greta Christina, "religion hurts black people just as much as it hurts white people, in many ways more so".

via ScribeFire

A fan of Western Bulldogs?

Just to let you know, Western Bulldogs is a favourite footy team ,  of Julia Gillard, the Aussie PM. When I lived in Melbourne, my accommodation is very close to the Whitten Oval, Barkly St. I lived at Gordon St . So,it is just a walking distance. I remembered when going to Sims supermarket,I would pass the Oval. Miss the moment so much .....

via ScribeFire

The goal of every human life is "eudamonia", a deep conception of happiness as long-term flourishing, rather than fleeting pleasure

It seems the government has moved on from higher education and on to our higher feelings: it is proposing to measure our happiness. But, as centuries of philosophical debate have shown, happiness is neither simple nor uncontroversial – and certainly not easy to measure.

In the western philosophical tradition, reflections on what the best kind of life might be have almost always acknowledged that happiness is something we all desire. Philosophers often regard human happiness as an important criterion for deciding what is good and right, and sometimes as the main criterion. The most straightforward expression of this last view is found in the "utilitarian" moral theory pioneered in England in the 19th century by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.

According to utilitarians, the moral value of any action is measured according to the amount of happiness that results from it. Even for these thinkers, though, questions of happiness are not simply about how much of it there is. Mill certainly recognised different qualities of happiness: he thought that the pleasures of listening to opera or reading Milton, for example, were "higher" than the kind of enjoyment found in a good meal. Indeed, he famously qualified his utilitarianism by insisting that "it is better to be a Socrates dissatisified than a pig satisfied". The thought here seems to be that part of the moral value of human life – what we might called its dignity – lies in the capacity to be affected by a great range and depth of experience. And this includes our capacity to suffer.

Critics of the kind of moral theory advocated by Bentham and Mill often talk about the practical difficulties of measuring happiness, which might give the coalition pause for thought. In fact, some of these difficulties were pointed out long before the rise of utilitarianism. Aristotle, for example, thought that the goal of every human life is "eudamonia", a deep conception of happiness as long-term flourishing, rather than fleeting pleasure. This would be difficult, if not impossible, to record with questions such as "how happy did you feel yesterday?".

Aristotle also recognised that, unlike some other branches of philosophical enquiry, ethics is not an exact science. In the 18th century, Immanuel Kant made this point even more strongly: of course we all desire happiness, said Kant, but we do not know what it is or how it will be achieved. Anyone who has pursued something in the hope that it will make her or him happy – whether this be a career path, a relationship, or a holiday – only to find it disappointing, and even a source of stress and anxiety, will know what Kant was talking about.

However, the government's plan to measure happiness raises a further and perhaps more profound philosophical question: regardless of whether this is possible in practice, is it the best way of thinking, even in principle, about what it is to live a good human life? A clue to this idea can be found in the way a term like "utilitarian" is sometimes used disparagingly. When, for example, a course of action is described as "merely utilitarian", this implies that something important has been overlooked. But what might this be?

The German philosopher Martin Heidegger can help us to answer this question. In his work both before and after the second world war, he came to focus increasingly on the issue of modern technology. He argued that technological devices such as machines and gadgets were symptoms of a deeper phenomenon that could be traced back through centuries of western culture. "Technology" in this deep sense refers not to this or that item of equipment, but to a fundamental way of thinking, and of being, that shapes everything we do.

The essence of technology, argued Heidegger, lies in the idea that life is something to be controlled and mastered. Instruments of measurement and calculation – surveys, for example – are integral to this project. Heidegger linked the accelerating domination of technology in the 20th century with the idea that modern humanity faces a spiritual crisis. According to this view, utilitarian approaches to ethics in general, and attempts to measure and regulate happiness in particular, are symptoms of this crisis rather than solutions to it.

Heidegger's analysis of technology expresses in secular terms ideas that have recurred through religious traditions over many centuries. These traditions aren't immune to ideals of mastery and control: the bible teaches that man has dominion over nature, and the "spiritual" exercises taught by ancient Indian sages were – not so unlike modern drugs – techniques to alter and regulate states of mind and body. But these religious forms of technology exist alongside a willingness to recognise the limitations of human power and control, and the need to be receptive to something beyond ourselves.

This isn't to suggest that we can't be responsible for our own actions, and also for our own flourishing. Denying our responsibility would itself be morally and spiritually – as well as politically – dangerous, and this is certainly not what Heidegger's philosophy of technology, nor traditional Christian theology, are advocating. Our government seems to be struggling to strike the right balance between individual and collective responsibility – and it is sometimes hard to avoid the suspicion that its emphasis on both personal responsibility and "big society" is seeking to mask and allow a disavowal of public responsibility.

As our pens hover between the "fairly chirpy" and "very disgruntled" boxes on the new household survey, we might pause to reflect on these questions of happiness and responsibility. Perhaps the wisest people are those who make every effort to establish and maintain the conditions of their happiness: health, wealth, friendship, a clear conscience, and, yes, perhaps a decent single malt in the cupboard. (At least some of these conditions can and should be promoted by the state as well as by individuals.) At the same time, though, they recognise that happiness cannot be engineered, for it comes and goes, more like a gift that is given than a commodity that is produced. Such people do what they can to protect against the vicissitudes of fortune, while remaining open to those moments when they are surprised – maybe even in the midst of grief or cancer or redundancy – by the joy of an unexpected call from an old friend, or a hedgehog ambling across the garden, or a crisp bright November day.

via ScribeFire

Wills and Kate

Their very public appearance as a newly engaged couple was all but subsumed in a blaze of camera flashes and quickfire questions.

But a little earlier, in a quiet side room at Clarence House, William and Kate gave the first glimpses of the closeness of their relationship.

Seated side by side in their first interview together, the happy couple spent more than 15 minutes chatting informally to ITV News’ Tom Bradby.

The commercial channel’s political editor has become a close friend of the Prince, who chose him for the exclusive interview rather than the national broadcaster, the BBC.

Relaxed and often sharing a joke together, William and his bride-to-be revealed that they want to start a family.

And the Prince explained why he took so long to pop the question, saying he wanted to give Kate a chance to ‘back out’ if she felt she couldn’t cope with life as a future Queen.

Here is what the couple had to say:

THE ROMANCE

Bradby: When did you first set eyes on each other?

William: It’s a long time ago now, Tom, I’m trying to wrack my brain. We obviously met at university – at St Andrews, we were friends for over a year first and it just sort of blossomed. We just spent more time with each other, had a good giggle, lots of fun and realised we shared the same interests and had a really good time. She’s got a really naughty sense of humour, which kind of helps me because I’ve got a really dry sense of humour, so it was good fun.

Bradby: Kate, what did you think of William?

Kate: Well I actually think I went bright red when I met you and sort of scuttled off, feeling very shy.

Bradby: There’s a story that goes around that you had a picture of him on your wall.

William: There wasn’t just one, there was about 20.

Kate: He wishes. No, I had the Levi’s guy on my wall, not a picture of William, sorry.

We're very happy: Prince William and Kate Middleton give their first interview after announcing their engagement

THE 2007 SPLIT

William: We did split up for a bit. We were both very young, it was at university, we were both finding ourselves as such and being different characters and stuff, it was very much trying to find our own way and we were growing up. It was a bit of space and a bit of things like that and it worked out for the better.

Kate: I, at the time, wasn’t very happy about it, but actually it made me a stronger person. You find out things about yourself that maybe you hadn’t realised, I think you can get quite consumed by a relationship when you are younger and I really valued that time for me although I didn’t think it at the time.

THE PROPOSAL

William: It was about three weeks ago on holiday in Kenya. We had been talking about marriage for a while so it wasn’t a massively big surprise. I took her up somewhere nice in Kenya and I proposed.

Kate: It was very romantic. There’s a true romantic in there. I really didn’t expect it. It was a total shock... and very exciting.

Bradby: And he produced a ring there and then?

Kate: Yes.

William: I had been carrying it around with me in my rucksack for about three weeks before that and I literally would not let it go. Everywhere I went I was keeping hold of it because I knew this thing, if it disappeared I would be in a lot of trouble and because I’d planned it, it went fine.

You hear a lot of horror stories about proposing and things going horribly wrong it went really, really well and I was really pleased she said yes. It’s my mother’s engagement ring so I thought it was quite nice because obviously she’s not going to be around to share any of the fun and excitement of it all – this was my way of keeping her close to it all.

Kate: It’s beautiful. I just hope I look after it. It’s very, very special.

Great significance: Prince William has given Kate Middleton his late mother's engagement ring

WHY WAIT TO PROPOSE?

William: I wanted to give her a chance to see in and to back out if she needed to before it all got too much. I’m trying to learn from lessons done in the past and I just wanted to give her the best chance to settle in and to see what happens on the other side.

Lady in waiting: The couple prepare for yesterday's media photocall

KEEPING THE SECRET

William: We’re like sort of ducks, very calm on the surface with little feet going under the water. It’s been really exciting because we’ve been talking about it for a long time, so for us, it’s a real relief and it’s really nice to be able to tell everybody. Especially for the last two or three weeks – it’s been quite difficult not telling anyone, keeping it to ourselves.

Bradby: Did you ask Kate’s dad and what did he say and what did your respective parents say?

William: I was torn between asking Kate’s dad first and then the realisation that he might actually say ‘No’ dawned upon me. So I thought if I ask Kate first, then he can’t really say no.

Bradby: What did your mum say?

Kate: She was absolutely over the moon. We had quite an awkward situation because I knew and I knew that William had asked my father but I didn’t know if my mother knew. So I came back from Scotland and my mother didn’t make it clear to me whether she knew or not, so both of us were there sort of looking at each other.

MEETING THE IN-LAWS

Kate: I was quite nervous about meeting William’s father, but he was very, very welcoming, very friendly, it couldn’t have gone easier really for me.

Bradby: Meeting the Queen?

Kate: I first met her at Peter ( the Princess Royal’s son) and Autumn’s wedding and again it was amongst a lot of other guests and she was very friendly.

Bradby: You clearly are tremendously fond of each other’s families.

William: ‘Kate’s got a very, very close family. I get on really well with them and I’m very lucky that they’ve been so supportive. Mike and Carole have been really loving and caring and really fun and have been really welcoming towards me, so I’ve felt really a part of the family.

DIANA’S LEGACY

Bradby: William’s mother was this massive iconic figure. Is that worrying? Is that intimidating?

Kate: Obviously I would have loved to have met her and she’s obviously an inspirational woman to look up to. Obviously on this day and going forward and things, you know, it is a wonderful family, the members who I’ve met have achieved a lot and very inspirational and so, yes, I do.

William: There’s no pressure, though. Like Kate said, it is about carving your own future. No one is trying to fill my mother’s shoes, what she did was fantastic. It’s about making your own future and your own destiny and Kate will do a very good job of that.

Relief: The couple said they were delighted to break the news of their engagement

CRITICISM OF KATE’S WORK

Kate: I think I know I’ve been working very hard for the family business, sometimes those days are long days and I think if I know I’m working hard and pulling my weight, both working and playing hard at the same time, I think everyone who I work with can see I am there pulling my weight.

STARTING A FAMILY

Bradby: Kate, you very evidently have a close-knit family.

Kate: Yes. It’s very important to me. And I hope we will be able to have a happy family ourselves. They’ve been great over the years – helping me with difficult times. They are very, very dear to me.

Bradby: People are bound to ask... children, do you want lots of children? See what comes?

William: I think we’ll take it one step at a time. We’ll sort of get over the marriage first and then maybe look at the kids. But obviously we want a family so we’ll have to start thinking about that.

EXCITED OR TERRIFIED?

William: We are hugely excited and we are looking forward to spending the rest of our lives together and seeing what the future holds.

Kate: It’s obviously nerve-wracking, I don’t know the ropes, William  is obviously used to it, but I’m willing to learn quickly and work hard.  I really hope I can make a difference, even in the smallest way. I am  looking forward to helping as much as I can.

Teasing and touching gently, a couple completely at ease...

BY Paul Harris

She was wearing Diana’s ring, holding the arm of the late princess’s son.

Every word she said was being reported around the world, every nuance and gesture broadcast live to hundreds of millions of TV viewers.

There could hardly have been a more testing debut for Kate Middleton than her first formal appearance before the cameras as she stood side by side with Prince William.

Beaming: Kate Middleton and Prince William pose after announcing their engagement

But with a beaming smile – and a clear determination to overcome her nervousness – the young woman in line to become a princess, maybe a Queen, confidently began the first day of the rest of her life.

In a state room at St James’s Palace, plain Miss Middleton prepared to embark on a lifestyle under scrutiny as the newest recruit to the royal family.

The happy couple: Prince William and Kate Middleton in relaxed form

And although she was deemed to have emerged triumphant from this difficult baptism, you couldn’t help feeling we had been here before.

Some of the phrases she chose to describe her engagement bore an uncanny similarity to those used by Lady Diana Spencer when she and Prince Charles went through the same process in 1981.

Some of the looks they gave each other echoed those which Charles and Diana shared between the laughter and rather cautious enthusiasm.

The difference yesterday was that Kate and William were unmistakeably in love, clearly a couple who actually knew, to borrow Prince Charles’s phrase, whatever love meant.

But, blimey, they took long enough to get around to it.

Her nine-year transition from Home Counties girl and university chum of a future king of England took longer than some royal marriages last. (They don’t get to celebrate too many silver weddings in this family).

Fortunately, perhaps, the recruitment of a commoner to ‘The Firm’ was a slow and carefully researched process.

Continuing this gradual theme, six hours passed yesterday between the official announcement and our first sighting of the gleaming new royal couple.

For a privileged few journalists, that came not in the blaze of flashguns and TV lights that practically seared them into the St James’s Palace carpet, but over tea and bone china at a far less formal private chat with William and Kate.

What they told us here was all off the record, simply a courtesy. But the impression they gave was of a couple completely at ease with each other, sometimes teasing one another, holding hands, touching gently.

Perhaps significantly, the prince allowed his new fiancee to be encircled by a posse of journalists for a time, leaving her to fend for herself, except for an occasional glance in her direction and an ear to the questions.

Not surprisingly for a chap who told his father and the Queen about the engagement only hours before it was made public, Prince William didn’t betray any real secrets.

Elsewhere though it emerged yesterday he had carried the ring around rather precariously in a rucksack before proposing to Kate at the ‘romantic’ location he had chosen to do the deed.

He already had her father’s permission, and although his brother Prince Harry wasn’t formally told until yesterday, one suspects he would have had a good idea.

Taking the plunge: Kate Middleton and Prince William attend the wedding of friend Chiara Hunt in 2006

Many of their friends, after all, had already taken the plunge; not being first among them must have made much easier for Prince William.

Kate, too, would have been bursting to break the news – she was repeatedly asked about the prospect of engagement when she and William attended a friend’s West Country wedding recently.

‘Maybe he’ll get round to it some day,’ she diplomatically replied, even though she had already said yes to William’s proposal.

Apparently she has also been making it clear she prefers to be known as Catherine. A clue to a forthcoming title of Princess Catherine or Queen Catherine? Or just revenge against headline writers who prefer the brevity of Kate?

Whatever, back at St James’s yesterday, it was patently a relief for each of them to talk about their engagement at last.

So that’s what she sounds like! The voice was a surprise at first, slightly more upmarket than many of us imagined.

Her responses were pretty quick too, including a couple of clever quips and suitably deferential compliments to her newly betrothed beau. ‘She’s very good at flattery,’ the Prince told us.

What about joining the royal family? ‘It’s quite a daunting prospect but hopefully I’ll take it in my stride,’ she said. ‘And William’s a great teacher so hopefully he’ll be able to help me along the way.

‘He’s treated me very well, as the loving boyfriend he is. He is very supportive of me through the good times and also through the bad times.’

The proposal? ‘It was very romantic,’ she said, adding intriguingly: ‘And it was very personal.’

Uh-oh. Dangerous territory here. One of the watching Palace press officers put a hand to his chin. He must have known the down-on-one-knee question was about to follow.

William intervened with a laugh. ‘That’s going to stay a state secret,’ he said. Just as Kate had predicted, her ‘great teacher’ was helping her along the way.

Calm and collected: Kate Middleton and Prince William remain poised after announcing their engagement

Nervous proposal: Prince William admitted he planned popping the question meticulously

His responses to how he felt about the engagement, however, were somewhat blokeish. Maybe he knew he would be ribbed by his RAF mates when he got back to base. ‘The time is right now,’ he said.

It was when he was asked about the engagement ring that the tone changed. This time he spoke with great poignancy.

‘As you may have recognised, it’s my mother’s engagement ring, so of course it’s very special to me. And Kate’s very special to me now as well, and it’s only right the two are put together.

‘It was my way of making sure my mother didn’t miss out on today, the excitement, and the fact that we’re going to spend the rest of our lives together.’

Kate gave him that look again. The TV lights made her peacock blue dress shimmer and she bowed her head slightly. From time to time as she spoke, she crossed her legs to give the impression she was relaxed.

But study the strength of the grip she kept on William’s right arm and you might get a pointer to the kind of strain the scrutiny put her under. It surfaced even before they had finished speaking.

A couple of female journalists concluded she looked ‘too skinny’. (I was berated for suggesting she looked comfortably slim). Someone else said the shoes were a little plain.

Oh well. Here we go again. There will be much more of this in the months running up to their wedding, and undoubtedly beyond.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1330280/Prince-William-Kate-Middleton-engagement-We-want-start-family.html#ixzz15VSYsZGY

via ScribeFire