What else is banned in the Bible?

This blog is becoming a convenient repository of emails I want to keep without cluttering my inbox.  This was sent to me by a respected fellow churchgoer, although it lacks attribution.

The point of the article is, if you take the Bible too literally, a lot of common everyday things are banned, not just homosexuality.  This article is an excellent response to any citations of the Bible against homosexuality.

y seek my advice on spiritual matters. It could be my charisma, or the rumor that I've committed most of the sins in the Good Book and therefore must be something of an authority. Indeed, I have read the Bible. Some years ago, weary of having it selectively quoted at me, I purchasedThe One Year Bible, neatly divided into 365 daily readings. I began reading and one year later said, "Whoa." Jeremiah, in particular, made for a very long October. But now I know everything and am happy to respond whenever an inquiry is made.

The most recent question, put to me during the furor over the ordaining of a homosexual Episcopalian bishop, was, "Would it be okay to stone him?" The answer, directly from the pages of scripture, is a resounding, "You betcha!" Homosexuality is clearly an abomination -- an offensive violation of established custom, an abhorrent act. It says so right in Leviticus 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." And Leviticus 20:13 adds, "they shall surely be put to death."

Break out the fossil collection! But, and I add this only as a caution, look out for the snags.

For one, in the very same Bible, in John 8:7, Christ himself says, "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone." So before we pick a starting hurler, we have to sort out anyone who has committed one or more of the otherabominations, and who, if sincere, will take their rightful place inside the circle with the bishop.

What other abominations does the Bible specify? Of course, adultery (Lev 18:20), sex with animals (Lev 18:23), remarrying one's wife after she's had another husband in between (Deut 24:4), or approaching any woman and humming "Strangers in the Night" during the time of her "uncleanness" (Lev 18:19). Cross-dressing is out (Deut 22:5), and that includes Halloween costumes, slacks on women, bib overalls on little girls, or a wife wearing her husband's favorite Oxford buttondown. And more on buttondowns in a moment.

Other abominations include tarot readings, glancing at your horoscope, trimming one's beard, and getting a tattoo, even if it says, "Mom" (Lev 19:26-28). Haughty eyes (Prov 6:17) and telling lies (Prov 6:17, 12:22) are big abominations. Being untruthful also includes false weights and measures (Prov 11:1), or any other dishonesty in business. "Everyone who acts unjustly is an abomination to the LORD your God" (Prov 11:16).

What do abominators have for dinner? Rare steaks off the grill (Lev 17:10), Lobster Newburg at the Krebs and crab cakes in Baltimore (Lev 11:10), a rack of ribs at the Dinosaur Bar-B-Que (Lev 11:7).

But abominations are not just about bodily functions. Chargingor payinginterest are abominations. Bankers and anyone with a mortgage, car loan or credit card debt will be unavailable to throw the first stone, regardless of the interest rate (Psalm 15:1-5, Jeremiah 15:10).

Graven images of other gods are an abomination (Deut 7:25). Thus the Happy Buddha on my dresser and my postcards of the Great Buddha at Kamakura would excuse me from taking the lead in rock throwing, if I hadn't already fallen by the wayside.

My personal favorite abomination is wearing blended fabrics. Deuteronomy 22:11 forbids wearing a material made of wool and linen, but Leviticus 19:19 says it's an abomination to wear any blended material, period. Hence a woman in a man's buttondown can be doubly abominable if it's a no-iron, easy care blend of cotton and polyester.

Of course, when confronted with such information, there are people who will tell you that the blended fabrics abomination is really just a symbolic warning that Jews should not mix with other cultures, and that the dietary laws were set aside for Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem, and that these "other abominations" were about self-preservation, hygiene and just for Orthodox Jews anyway. In short, when somethingthey do is shown to be an abomination, many abominators become instant anthropologists, Biblical scholars and historians as well.

So why do active abominators continue to refer to the Bible when condemning homosexuals? Are such men and women unaware of their own abominations detailed in the same scriptures? Or are they simply counting on their audience being unaware?

For myself, I am sure that people of integrity, once informed of their own abominable behavior, will step into the circle and accept for themselves whatever punishment they were going to hand out to others. "Since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23) That's the verse I recall whenever someone uses the Bible to justify their own pet bias.

Enjoying My Beef Brisket Sandwich

My second attempt to post by email...

Begin forwarded message:

From: Bernie Yoo <bernie.yoo@gmail.com>
Date: June 29, 2008 7:34:06 PM PDT
To: "bernie.yoo@blogger.com" <bernie.yoo@blogger.com>
Subject: Reno After Climate/Energy Change?

I'm sitting at the Gecko Restaurant at Circus Circus Reno, waiting for a table.  It's not full, but the hustle and bustle is palpable.

This is a barbecue restaurant.  I've read economic analysis predicting shortages in wheat production this year will cause increases in beef prices next year.  I'm consciously enjoying my barbecue meals, lately.

I expect salmon prices will also rise, as the collapse of the fall king salmon fishery in California and Oregon takes effect on the fish market.

I just ordered a beef brisket sandwich, a barbecue delicacy I fell in love with during my college years in Texas.

How much corn did it take to produce the beef I'm about to enjoy today?  How much farmland?  It seems like a triple whammy.  The physical presence of cattle displaces agricultural production.  The corn to feed the cattle was diverted from food production.

Will our society be equitable and reduce beef production so that more grain can be produced for food?  Or will this be derided as socialist?  Will the wealthy continue to enjoy beef at high prices while the rest of us struggle to subsist on grain, with prices inflated by the beef that the wealthy are enjoying?

I'll be mulling that question as I enjoy my beef brisket sandwich.

Sent from my iPhone

Dell will Emulate Apple, Using Linux

I was just reading this article on Slashdot.

If we step out of our consumer role and step into the role of Apple CEO, then study Apple's past actions, the article's conclusions should be obvious. I was not surprised that Apple allowed MS OSes to run on Intel Macs -- they could hardly to anything to stop that -- but I was surprised they they released Boot Camp Beta. The guys at Yellow Dog Linux must've been green with jealousy at that. Then there are the commercials that advertise the Mac's ability to run Windows.

Then only reason Apple would take those two steps is to *encourage* Windows users to use a Mac -- without giving up Windows. I understand the "switch" ad campaign was not very successful at making converts (although the iPod halo effect was). Nobody would switch to a Mac if it meant giving up Windows. Boot Camp on Intel Mac is a way to get Windows users to switch, without giving up Windows.

The target? Remember, Apple is a hardware company -- albeit making bold forays into consumer electronics and media. Most analysis of their finances show that their profits come from their hardware, not their software. The top-quality Apple software is what lures people to buy Macs instead of PCs. In the past, Apple needed specialized hardware (SCSI, NuBus, etc.) to try to present an advantage over PCs, but now that's changed. With things like USB, Apple runs on the same commodity hardware components as PCs. Apple now has common hardware and superior software compared to the PC companies. If we consider three major factors in computer purchasing decisions: hardware quality, software quality, and price, Apple is equal in the first, better in the second, and flexible on the third: price. While Apple has always avoided the lowest end of the market, it has extended its boundary toward to low end while becoming increasingly competitive on the high end.

The trend toward competing with Dell has been developing slowly but steadily. So slowly that nobody noticed until now. So steadily that it is now happening. The question is, what is Dell going to do now? What *can* they do now? I don't think Dell can count on Windows providing a user experience that equals MacOS. What's the alternative?

Linux! While Linux does not have the ease of use that MacOS has (and probably never will), it's open source nature means the potential is there. All Dell has to do is find someone to develop a Linux UI that is almost as easy as MacOS, then preinstall that on Dell. This would eliminate the ease-of-use advantage of Mac while maintaining a cost advantage.

Who's going to develop this Linux-as-easy-as-Mac? (Note: I don't think it will ever by *quite* as easy, but it can get close enough.) You need a group of talented and motivated people to do that. Today, those people are moving to Google. Google has already demonstrated some very useful features on reasonably good interfaces with products like Google Desktop and Google Earth (Apple could do it better, but Google is doing it well enough). My prediction: to avoid certain death, Dell expands its collaboration with Google to the point where Dell is preinstalling Linux with a Google developed interface. Dell's software costs head toward zero, giving it a pricing advantage over Apple.

How will Dell pull off this Windows to Linux switch? The same way Apple is pulling it off. Google's software offerings will be available on both Windows and Linux, and users won't be able to tell the difference. Dell will offer the Linux version of their software load at a discount, reflecting the lack of costs associated with Windows licensing.

Where does this leave Windows? Linux and MacOS are inherently more secure than Windows. If you don't accept this fact, then skip the next two paragraphs. This will not change with the release of Vista. More and more consumers and companies are realizing that dealing with Windows security is an additional cost, in terms of time, money, and frustration, that they don't need to deal with when using Apple or Linux products. To a consumer, this makes the difference between frustration and happiness. To a company, this ultimately flows down to the bottom line. With the iPod halo effect and now the Boot Camp on Intel Mac, more and more people are discovering this.

Windows must adapt or die. Windows has done a remarkable job of copying MacOS over the years, but time and time again, it has failed become more secure and less frustrating. Can they do it with Vista? I wouldn't bet on it. Windows users who switch to Mac hardware will eventually switch to Mac software. Windows users who are buying Dell's will eventually switch to Linux on Dell.

In the future, the computer rivalry will be between MacOS on Apple hardware (with Intel chips?) vs. a Google UI on Linux on Dell hardware (with AMD chips?).

Sony's PS3 Gamble: Many Risks But Many Possibilities

I started writing this post saying how risky Sony's PS3 strategy is, but it morphed into an article describing all the possible ways PS3 can become successful. I'll go ahead and publish it the way it was written.

It is becoming more and more evident that Sony's game console gamble is an all-in play on a very risky pair of pocket cards. If all goes well, Sony could dominate the next storage format with Blu-Ray DVD while retaining its foothold in game consoles. However, any one of several missteps (not all in Sony's control) could doom the profitabiliy of the Playstation 3 (PS3).

Four things must happen for the PS3 to be a success:

1. Customers must wait for its release, without jumping ship to Microsoft's XBox 360 or Nintendo's Wii.
   
2. Game developers must faithfully develop PS3 games.
   
3. Customers must be willing to accept the steep price tag of $600.
   
4. Sony must offer a compelling reason for customers to choose PS3 over XBox 360 or Wii.
   

Xbox 360 sales started in late 2005, at price points of $300 and $400. Predictably, the initial shipments sold out very quickly, but I haven't heard much news about the success of Xbox 360 sales since then. On the contrary Xbox 360 sales in Japan have been disappointing. My own research suggests that the current Xbox 360 sales rate is nothing to brag about. None of my geeky friends have them. None of the random strangers I've asked have them. The only place where I can find an Xbox 360 is in the stores!

This tells me that many people are waiting, but waiting for which alternative? Nintendo's Wii has a very low-risk strategy of providing moderately increased computing power with a revolutionary new motion sensing game controller at a downright inexpensive price of $200 - $250. Wii and PS3 should be released around the same time, the 2006 holiday season. Which one will customers choose: a $200 Wii or a $600 PS3? The answer depends on Sony's ability to offer a compelling reason for the customer to shell over the extra $400 for the PS3.

One possible compelling reason is game developers presenting must-have games on the PS3 that customers cannot have on the Xbox 360 or Wii. One thing PS3 can do that Xbox 360 cannot is provide incredible computing power with it's Cell processor. Because of the new programming paradigm of the Cell processor, that must-have game may not be immediately available, as it will take time for game companies to learn to harness that power and figure how best to use it. This gaming article points out a chicken and egg problem: consumers need compelling games to buy the PS3, but gamers need compelling reasons to develop compelling PS3 games. The burden is on Sony to convince customers that the must-have games are coming while convincing the developers that the customers are waiting for the must-have games.

One factor that Sony must overcome is customer resistance to the $600 price tag. Will customers pay double or triple the competitors price for Sony's game console? Certainly, some will, as some have paid even $1,000 for marked-up Xbox 360s on Ebay.

What is a customer going to buy for $600? Perhaps not a game console, but a Blu-Ray DVD player instead. Sony's claim to success is that its game console is really a Blu-Ray DVD player, at less than the cost of a Blu-Ray DVD player, and with gaming capabilities. Here, Sony faces the same chicken-and-egg dilemma as with games. For customers to buy PS3 as a Blu-Ray DVD player, they must want a Blu-Ray DVD player, and for publishers to publish Blu-Ray DVDs, they must be convinced that customers want them.

A third market for Sony is computer geeks who want a Cell processor based computer. This customer base includes graphics and animation professionals, and possibly, the scientific/engineering/research community. It doesn't look like Apple's going to be offering a Cell solution (more on that later). It does look like Sony will offer software packages targeted at this community. But even if Sony succeeds in selling to this group, will it be as profitable as the licensing they would get on games? If Sony follows the iPod business model and makes low-profit software a compelling reason for customers to buy high-profit hardware, computing power hungry graphics professionals may add to PS3 profits, with or without game sales.

I've already presented evidence that the scientific/engineering/research community is interested, in a previous blog entry. If this group of professionals were to buy a Cell workstation from a conventional vendor, in a conventional form factor, it could cost upwards of $3,000. Could Sony present the PS3 as a $600 version of a $3,000 scientific workstation? Would the researchers buy it?

I started this blog entry by saying Sony is gambling on many things for the PS3 to be a success. But do all of these things have to work out for PS3 to be successful? I'm beginning to think that Sony has a robust product, that may fail in one market, but not in all markets. Xbox 360 may have Xbox Live and some rudimentary Internet capabilities, but it is still just a game console. Wii may have a revolutionary game controller and some rudimentary Internet capabilities, but it is still just a game console. PS3 is also a game console, but it has possible uses for the graphics/animation and scientific/research/engineering communities, as well as a possible market for Blu-Ray DVD users. These are three markets in addition to the gaming market. At $600 per console, Sony may actually be making a profit on the PS3, in which case any one of the four target markets has the potential to make PS3 a success, even if losing the gaming market will change the identity of the PS3.

Even if you rule it out as a gaming platform, don't rule out the PS3.

IBM Global Services in Trouble?

I was surprised to read an I, Cringely column on the imminent implosion of IBM Global Services. Apparently, the highly touted services arm of IBM is no better than any other IT consulting firm. Cringely cites lack of training, overwork, underbid, and overcharge practices. This reminds me of some old IT consulting friends who told me that no IT consulting firm would be profitable if it delivered on schedule, on budget, without overworking its employees. I had always thought that IBM would not fall victim to such practices, given its mainframe roots. Perhaps I was wrong.

One piece of evidence to support Cringely's claim is Sprint Nextel's recent lawsuit over its outsourcing contract with IBM. If this is just one public example of many failing IBM service contracts, IBM Global Services really is in trouble.

Cell Processor for Scientific Computing

Slashdot has an article summarizing a Lawrence Berkeley National Lab paper on the usefulness of the STI Cell processor for scientific applications. In summary, the Cell processor makes a good compromise between programming complexity, performance and power. Compared to a vector architecture (Cray), superscalar architecture (AMD Opteron), and VLIW architecture (Intel Itanium2), the Cell processor performed 10x as fast on several common scientific operations. Similar improvements were found in power efficiency. The cost of this performance improvement is that the core computations require about 10x as many lines of code, at least when hand coding for the Cell processor. This is not a big deal, as the lines of code for the core computations are a small fraction of the lines of a complete program. Presumably, an auto-optimization by a compiler may eliminate the need for special code.

One of the deficiencies of the Cell is that it is not optimized for double precision (DP) floating point operation, although its DP speed is still several times faster than the other architectures. The authors include a few sections describing minor modifications that could be made to the Cell to bring its DP performance up to par with the single precision (SP) operations.

This paper should put to rest any doubts about the real-world benefits of the Cell architecture. Here, we have the nation's top technical researchers writing a paper describing the performance benefits of the Cell processor for scientific computing, and going on to recommend further improvements. Furthermore, the paper reveals that a team of several researchers at a government sponsored national lab spent over a month on this project. This means that serious researchers are seriously interested in the Cell processor.

While Cell performance is the explicit subject of this article, there is another very important implication. The researchers used IBM's freely available Cell simulator software to test their analytic Cell performance model. I don't think their research would have been possible if these tools and other Cell related documentation were not as openly available as they are. IBM has set up a Cell Broadband Engine Resource Center that makes it easy for even hobbyists like me to learn about the Cell processor and tinker with the Cell Simulator (I haven't actually done that, yet. I still need to get my hands on a computer suitable for running this simulator).

I foresee the a Cell processor based system making it into the Top 500 Supercomputer Sites list within a year or two. I expect most of these systems will be made by IBM, the current leader in the Top 500 list. I would be amused if a cluster of Sony Playstation 3's also makes it into the list.

The Other 10%

In my previous entry, I stated that 90% of PC users spend 90% of their computing time on Web and email. This supports my assertion that the platform is the Web browser and the operating system is a minor detail. So, what about the other 10% of people and other 10% of activities?

The other 10% of people are people for whom the operating system IS important. This includes UNIX geeks, Visual Basic programmers, and creative professionals. These folks insist on the use of Linux, Windows, and MacOS, respectively. These users won't care that Google is now preloaded on Windows.

The other 10% of activities includes things like word processing, photo/video editing and archiving. Photo editing is already included in Google software in the form of Picasa. It may not be as easy to use as iPhoto, but it's good enough for the 90% of users who don't care what operating system they use. Your typical home computer users wants to use their PC for photo management, and those that aren't using iPhoto will want to use Picasa because it comes preinstalled on their Dell computer. Dell and Google have really turned the tables on Microsoft.

So, Microsoft may lose the photo editing software mindshare to iPhoto and Picasa. So what? That may not matter much to Microsoft, but Picasa is just the beginning. Surely, Google is not going to stop there. So what else does Google have planned for the Dell desktop?

One of the Microsoft incentives Dell may lose by going with Google is favorable pricing on Office applications, like Word. Solution? Give up Word altogether and preinstall a link to Writely, the self-described Web Word Processor. And Writely just happens to have been bought by none other than Google!

Nah, nobody's going to replace Word with Writely, right? Think again. Why is it that nobody replaces Windows or Office with better alternatives (back when there were alternatives, at least to Office)? It's because what came with the computer was good enough for the 90% of people that didn't care to look beyond what came with their computer. That 90% of computer users is alive and well today, and if Writely is the word processor that comes with their computer, it is good enough!

Besides, Writely lets the user "publish on the Web", and "post on my blog", and remember the Web is 90% of what 90% of people do with their computer. Sure, Word can do that, too, but is Word going to be the obvious Web publishing solution when the Dell computer comes preinstalled with a Web-based word processor provided for free by the most recognized Web presence in the Internet world?

Let's not get too carried away, though. This will not convert 90% of people off of Word and onto Writely overnight, but it does put a crack in Microsoft's Windows-Office strategy. Eventually, Microsoft will release upgrades to both Windows and Office. At that time, users will have to deal with the cost and hassle of upgrading. By that time, users will have heard all about Writely from their friends who recently bought a Dell. The migration will proceed like bacterial reproduction. The first person to use Writely might convince two others to switch, but then those two will convince four more and so on.

The "other 10%" of what 90% of people do on their computers is going to change the future of the personal computing landscape.

Google Preinstalled on Dell

First the Mac moves to Intel, then Dell moves to AMD (partially). What next? Next is Google preinstalled on Dell. This small step for Google and Dell will have profound consequences for Microsoft and the PC industry.

For over a decade, the most powerful force behind the dominance of the MS Windows operating system has been preinstallations of Windows on virtually every PC sold. Microsoft's ability to coerce PC vendors to preinstall Windows was so strong that even mightly IBM could not preinstall it's own OS/2 operating system on it's own PCs (in the few exceptions, OS/2 was offered as a less-than-default choice next to Windows).

That was then and this is now. What's changed? What's changed is the platform. Back then, the platform was the operating system. You either ran Windows or MacOS. That choice largely dictated your computing environment. Today, there is still diversity in operating systems (Windows, MacOS, and Linux, to name the most popular). But for most people the operating system is not the platform. It is merely what the platform runs on.

Today, the platform is the Web browser. People use their Web browser to see the content of the Internet and to read email. For 90% of computer users that's 90% of what they do on their computer. The operating system underneath the browser is now an insignificant detail. What matters is which browser people use to access the Internet and which portals (i.e. search engine) they access it through. The desktop operating system revenue has largely been ceded to Microsoft (although that is changing) but the new revenue comes from the search advertising.

The brilliance of Dell and Google's agreement is that Google is NOT fighting Windows preinstalls. Instead, Google software will be preinstalled on top of Windows! In the past, such actions would be countered with retaliatory licensing by Microsoft. In the Microsoft antitrust hearing, IBM executives testified that IBM was the last PC vendor to obtain a Windows 95 license because Microsoft was using that as a bargaining chip against IBMs marketing of Lotus Notes and SmartSuite. Past Windows licensing practices made it cheaper for the PC vendor to preinstall Windows on every computer sold, even if the customer wanted a different operating system. I have to believe that Dell will lose some Microsoft incentive with its most recent move.

The article linked above mentions that the preinstallation of Google software on Dell computers will bring revenue to both companies. My best guess is that Dell will get a cut of Google ad revenue coming from Dell's preinstallations of Google software. This just may be enough to offset the lost incentives from Microsoft. Dell may break even, financially, with this deal. At the same time, Google gains an important foothold at Microsoft's expense, preventing Microsoft from using Windows preinstallations against Google on a large portion of computers sold.

So that's all good and well for Google and Dell, while being a blow to Microsoft. What does this mean for the computer user who buys the Dell preinstalled with Google software? Stay tuned....