““You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.”
I never do. But let me explain something. Most people think that The Third Commandment means that they shouldn’t use his name as a swear word, e.g. shouting, “Oh God!” when they stub their toe instead of, “Oh Fuck!”
This is not the case (although I love the idea that God would rather them shout “Fuck” than “God”. That makes him cool in my book. But no.)
The commandment could equally be, “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in ‘vanity’,” e.g. when your enemy is hurt or defeated saying, “that’s God’s wrath,” or when you win an award saying, “thank God.” This is using his name in vanity. It’s suggesting that you KNOW that God helped you win that award because you deserved it more, or because he was on your side. It’s always tickled me that God would have a favourite actor at The Golden Globes.”
Ricky Gervais theologising… I kind of like his interpretation, although I’m not sure I would have made the same call in the past. Yet there is something fitting here, even amongst the deliberate flippancy. I, like Ricky, have become very wary of people who say that they know what god does or doesn’t think on any matter. At the very least it’s arrogant. At worst it is putting your own opinions on a level (or above) that of god. And that doesn’t sound like a good idea to me…
Lore Sjöberg does it again…
The piece does raise lots of interesting questions though – I mean, how different is our society now, compared to what our forebears would have hoped for?
A post for another day, methinks
“What next? A camera that refuses to take pictures of ugly people?”
Wired bemoans compact cameras with too many hand-holding features…
Wired’s gadget blog today pointed to this wonderful creation: a measuring jug that gives you plenty to think about, with helpful suggestions in terms of volume.
The version here is the Equal Measure Measuring Cup from Fred, and the shots below are the original, UK version: Domestic Science by Harry White.
I want one!
I peruse a few gadget blogs, as part of my sanity-saving feed-reading while at work. One of the stories that has been exciting and infuriating said bloggers for weeks now has been the whole Psystar debacle.
(For those who don’t know/aren’t interested, Psystar has been the first company to sell ‘Hackintoshes’ commercially: PC hardware pre-installed with Apple’s OS X as the operating system)
I don’t want to talk majorly on this, as its really not that interesting, but a line from Wired’s blog post today caught my attention:
“This isn’t to knock PCs – there will always be incompatibilities with such a huge array of hardware and software available. Apple makes the whole shebang, inside and out. That’s why it just works. And Psystar’s little science project is the best argument yet against Apple licensing its OS to third parties.”
Which just makes me wonder: could this whole thing be a marketing ploy by Apple?
All the Psystar issue has done is generate tons and tons of copy reinforcing why Apple’s own hardware/software combination is so good… Its amazing publicity for them; so could they have thought this up themselves?