[Argo tirelessly grabs code from the mozilla.org cvs servers]

Ok, now it's making. I get bored with waiting, so finally decide to start a rambling. Then it just so figures that the thing finishes just as I start. Hmmm... Ho hum.

Well, now it's building. Anybody's guess as to how long....

Take that back. Finished just as I was in the middle of that sentence. Such are the burdens of having a fast computer on a high bandwidth line. lol.

Now I gotta figure out how to make my Mozilla use the damn library, given that the docs are slightly vague on that issue. I'm skeptical. Just exit, set my LD_LIBRARY_PATH, and restart my existing browser? Ehhh. Can't be that easy. Something's gotta be missing. Here's goes nothing...

Nope. I knew it couldn't be that easy. Well, I suppose I could grab the AOL-bloat-ized "official" version, which I believe has ssl support. Yeah, that's what I'll do. For this transaction. The other alternative would be to grab a copy of (horror of horrors) the legacy browser. Or find some other alternative browser with ssl support. Hmmmm. I wonder if Opera does ssl?

[Bitscape goes to the Opera site to find out.]

Indeed it does. Maybe I'll try that, just for a kick.

Kewl, they even have .debs for download!

[Bitscape starts opera. It loads a page. Segfault. Starts it again. Actually manages to get a secure page loaded. Begins typing into CGI forms. Segfault. A third time. Segfault.]

Grrrrrrrrrr. And people say Netscape is unstable. I give up. Time for Preview Release 3. Opera looks like it would be a nice browser if it weren't so crash-prone. It is a beta release, after all. Maybe next time.

dpkg -P opera-static

Ah, some readers might be wondering, "And why, exactly, does Bitscape display this sudden interest in getting a browser with ssl capabilities?"

See last night's rambling, and link. (Actually, I have to admit I went to Amazon to see what other people thought of it, but I refuse to buy from them. A shame they have to be such a bunch of patent nasties, because they really do have a nice site. But actually, fatbrain is cheaper anyway. :)

[Bitscape places his order using Netscape 6 Preview Release 3.]

Transaction complete. Alrighty then.

And now, something resembling my response or reaction to Jaeger's latest changelog entry. (I wonder if this is going to lead into the realm cross-website debates between members of the content vulture community.)

For the sake of this discussion, I would submit that our universe could be roughly divided into a couple of realms. The first is things which we all know to be case, can easily observe, and agree upon. The second would be defined as the realm of things which are not immediately observable or provable, and hence no definite objective conclusion can be drawn upon which everyone would easily agree.

Examples of the first -- i.e. the physical world. Truths which are evident simply from day-to-day living. Laws of nature. Gravity. The fact that right now, I am sitting in this chair. (Or am I? Ok, so maybe not everyone else can observe this one, but if you were here, you could. :) For the most part, these things are non-contestable. (Although.... differing perceptions might blur that distinction. For example, one who is blind might not so easily accept as fact certain assumptions the rest of us take for granted.)

The second realm: things which cannot be observed. What happens to one's consciousness after death? What was the nature of the universe before humankind came into being? What will be happening in 500 years? For that matter, the future in its entirety. Does there even exist anything beyond the physical here and now? If so, what?

I would submit that one could mentally construct any number of self-consistent, reasonably plausable, and potentially valid explanations for the second realm. It would seem sensible that the most likely explanations would be consistent with the nature of properties which govern the physical realm, but if this is truly another plane of existence we're talking about, I would say all bets are off. I still maintain the following premise, and if it means I am an eternal agnostic at heart, so be it: We simply don't know.

(Ok, so some claim they do know. I'll reword: I simply don't know.) It's a black box. Anyone can make intelligent guesses as to how the internals are implemented, but without seeing the code... Well, there's my techie metaphor side for ya.

Even so, we as human beings seem to have an insatiable need to find ourselves in a grander scheme of things. So we come up with sets of beliefs to describe that which is beyond our own grasp or sensory knowledge. Start with a set of base assumptions that makes sense, and build from there.

Getting back to the "responding to Jaeger" part. :) I do not "take the step of faith required to accept the Bible as one's canon". In fact, to date, I have not accepted any single work as my cannon. (Calling the Bible a "single work" might be a bit misleading, given that it consists of so many writings by distinct individuals at different time periods.) I believe the Bible contains worthwhile material. The book of Ecclesiastes ranks among the most profound works I've read in my life. I put things in the Bible on the same scale as anything else I read: to be appreciated, agreed with, disagreed with, enjoyed, or taken with a grain of salt as necessary. Case by case.

Oh my. I didn't really intend to go on for quite this long. I might abbreviate this, because I think my brain is gonna rot if I keep sitting here much longer. The Wendy's burger from today is not agreeing with my stomach.

Um... so... yes. The second realm. Everyone puts into it what they like, what they've been raised with, or what makes sense to them. Or some just ignore it completely (sensibly so). That's what I have generally done in recent times. That gets boring. Why not treat it as a canvas? Paint something beautiful. Something I can sink my teeth into. Something which empowers. Something which invigorates a sense of the beyond. The mystery, wonder, and order (or disorder) of it all. Yeah.

One quote I would like to contest, if I may (I recognize that by doing so, I leave my words open to -- and even invite -- similar critique): "On the other hand, if we crawled out of the primordial ooze on our own, there's only one person who matters, and that's one's self."

Without going into whether or not I believe the premise about the "primordial ooze", I think the automatic conclusion that just because somebody doesn't believe in a God, they will automatically be self-centered is inherently flawed. It's also incorrect, based on my own life experience. Often at ucollege.edu, it seemed to be an implicit (or sometimes stated) assumption by Christians (not in all cases, but many) that anyone who was non-Christian would have nothing more to live for than their own selfish gratification. Being a non-Christian myself, and having personally known many non-religious people who were/are caring and generous, I found such intimations ignorant and offensive.

Of course, there are non-Christians people who are selfish. So are some Christians. In fact, I don't think religion has a much at all to do with a person's selfishness quotient. I think that has a lot more to do with the environment in which a person is raised, the ambient level of generosity in the community of which one is a part (think free software), and perhaps some internal / genetic factors which vary from person to person. Spirituality doesn't hurt either. That spirituality doesn't necessarily have to consist of a monotheistic deity, or any deity for that matter. It could be as little as feeling that one is a part of the whole of the cosmos, and being part of that whole, doing what is best for the general good helps to add to -- and create -- the fullness of all life.

I have come to believe that it is also a part of human nature to be empathetic to those of the same species. To help our brothers and sisters. (And also part of our nature to be hostile under certain conditions -- think mating competition.) Some may say that's because God tells us to be so. Maybe some do practice kindness for that reason. Not everyone though. I don't think it a prerequisite by any means.

Blah blah blah. And again, I go on far longer than initially intended. As I recall, this one started as a way to pass the time while I waited for my Mozilla ssl library cvs checkouts. lol. So much for that.

Well, I've ordered my book, given the happy bank account depletion card a little online exercise, and now I think I'll watch my movie. Log entry to follow.