Slashdot Mirror

how did this blatant misinformation get modded informative?

"There are no Christian groups that demand that that for the Bible"

Christian Dominionism must be a new concept to you. http://www.publiceye.org/chris...

Rick Santorum in 2011: http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

Tom DeLay just yesterday: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/...

Mike Lowrie of Louisiana: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/1...

a sitting Colorado legilator: "if you disagree with me and other Christians, you are demon possessed": http://www.rightwingwatch.org/...

the Religious Right's wishlist for Trump to create a theocratic Xtians First nation: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/...

basically anything by this guy: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/...

Jim Bakker who thinks Trump is the Messiah or his forerunner: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/...

"There's no Muslim countries where non Muslims have religious freedom" ....Except Algeria, Lebanon, Tunisia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Jordan, Syria (pre-civil war), Turkey, Indonesia, Kosovo, Djibouti, Albania, Mali, Senegal and Sierra Leone , and a few others. No, not every Muslim country is all hunky dory with other religion...but not every Muslim majority country is Saudi Arabia. And not even every repressive regime in a Muslim country is religiously oppressive; several are secularly repressive.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Recent wars/conflicts fought by and over Christianity just off top of my head newer than your joke of a historical record:
-North Ireland
-The Lords Republican Army
-the Croatian and Bosnian wars
-the mistreatment/forceful conversion of Indigenous Peoples in the Americas and elsewhere

But you know what? Every article, every boycott and every protest is pushing them back. Similar bills are stalling or failing. The outrage at actions like these are causing more and more Americans to leave their religion in disgust. The more we drag this bullshit into the light, the more the theocrats feel the heat.

Fair enough, but what scares me is how many extremists are already in power, in Congress and in the Senate. And on the road to the White House. We as a society really do need to take a close look at what is known as the "christian dominionist movement". This movement seeks to establish an American theocracy with the rule of law given by the bible. We should think about what these people are actually proposing: the death penalty for abortion, both for doctor and mother. The death penalty for homosexuality. Here is an article to give you an idea of what I am talking about. A very good read on this subject is American Fascists.

It is easy to dismiss these people as being a crazy fringe. Indeed every society has its own lunatics. What is concerning is how this extreme form of christianity has infiltrated the main stream of christianity and what we commonly know as the christian right. What is extremely concerning is how many mainstream politicians share similar modes of thought to this movement. When I hear about laws such as what Tim Cook is writing about, I hear the clicking of a ratchet, bringing us a small step towards an American version of the taliban government.

Those of us with a sense of what is actually going on must work towards steering our society away from this cliff. Above all, we should promote the idea that although we live in a tolerant nation, we should never tolerate intolerance. The bastards who bring in laws like this should be run out of town.

Come on, that list leaves out everything that happened before the 20th century !!! When did religion rule the roost for most of civilization and what percentage of the available people did wage war with and on?

Point is, the fundies going after House of Spirits (!!!!????) have no moral basis to start in after other people's literary works. In fact their DECLARING WAR on these peaceable books is just the latest manifestation of their bellicose, intolerant "kill everything that disagrees with us" mentality which is just exactly what produces a "body count" in the first place. .

It just so happens that history has not deposited these book burners into a political climate and historical time in which they have the power to KILL these authors. But they're working on it:

http://www.publiceye.org/christian_right/dominionism.htm

This raises another question. What happens when these people refuse to answer questions or allow a search of their home?

IANAL, but I've done quite a bit of reading about this topic. The rule (at least in the US) is very simple: You are not required, nor should you allow any law enforcement officer into your home or business without a search warrant. Needless to say, you should not be talking to them at the front door either. They are not going to bust your door down, and it's likely they will not return.

Keep in mind that you should never talk to a federal agent without your attorney's advice. The reason? It is a federal crime to lie to a federal agent, and there are many cases of people being charged with lying rather than the original crime for which they were being investigated.

Don't take my word for it. Read the words of a former government attorney (scroll down to "The Raid"). There are any number of good articles and videos authored by attorneys. Here's another one that's worth a read.

"Fascism should more correctly be known as corporatism as it's the alignment of corporate and state power." - Mussolini

That quote is a fake.

It is unlikely that Benito Mussolini made that statement.

Corporatism does not mean what you think it means. Control of corporations was to be wielded by the state, not the opposite as our two dominant political parties seem intent upon insuring.

You get your info from LarouchePAC? The purveyors of the nutty card table shrines at universities dedicated to the worship of the fascistic political con artist who drove Ken Kronberg to jump off a bridge?

http://publiceye.org/larouche/

Mod parent waaay down.

It appeared in a translation of Mussolini's work Enciclopedia Italiana. More here:
http://www.publiceye.org/fascist/corporatism.html

I refuse to believe that the religious reich (sic) is a majority.

Agreed! "About 14 percent of the electorate in 2000 identified itself as part of the "Christian Right," with 79 percent of this sector voting for George W. Bush," quoted from this article.

Retroactive immunity is not fascism though. Here's a page you may find illuminating http://www.publiceye.org/fascist/corporatism.html. Aside from that, I agree with everything Olbermann says, although of course he insists on saying it in a way that will never convince any but the already faithful. But I guess I'm not looking to him to save the nation.

In any case, it should be intuitively obvious that corporatism is not Fascism. WWII sucked for business in all Axis countries. The minority that could convert to producing materiel of course benefited for a short time, but after their factories started getting hit by Lancasters it went entirely downhill from there. Fascism is about a particular merger between the citizenry and the state's agenda. And whereas it did keep free market competition as a system of production, fascism really had little of corporatism at it's core.

I'm not advocating for Bush in any way, I hate the guy, but what we're seeing here is simple crime and corruption. It's not Fascism.

When Bush starts asking for (and forming) citizen groups to contribute to terrorist monitoring and detection, that's the time to start shitting your pants. And leaving the country. Seriously on that last one.

Was the actual word he used, and it does not mean what you think it means. It does not mean the modern legal structure you that we refer to as a "corporation." It means much more like "guilds." Here's an informative page discussing the issue http://www.publiceye.org/fascist/corporatism.html.

Fascism at it's core really has nothing to do with corporatism. Fascism is about absorbing everyone into the agenda of the all powerful state. Rights and restrictions evaporate as the distinction between public and private realms, between the state and the people, disappears. And despite the fact that Nazi Germany maintained a heavily free market oriented approach to production, and that the State operated in close coordination with business, corporatism is not fascist.

When Bush and Cheney give no bid contracts to Halliburton, it's corruption. Criminal corruption. It's not the second coming of the Third Reich.

While I agree with your sentiments, I have to point out that the quote you ascribe to Mussolini is something of a myth, probably based on a mistranslation. He is not known to have said that and, based on what he wrote, his philiosophy did not include giving power to anything other than the fascist state.

(see http://www.publiceye.org/fascist/corporatism.html)

Now Slashdot has been invaded! Is there nowhere I can go to escape these conspiracist nutbags? I will make a feeble attempt to counteract this inane review of an inane book, with a list of various debunking links:

September 11th
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/
http://www.debunking911.com/index.html
http://www.911myths.com/
http://wtc.nist.gov/

Income Tax and the Federal Reserve
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/IncomeTax.htm
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/Federal_Reserve.html

Other
http://www.debunker.com/conspiracy.html
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000140.html

General
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html
http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html

You mean like NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, CNN, NPR, Various Publishing Houses

The New York Times and Washington Post have been reliably conservative on foreign policy. They're reliable supporters of Israel; they've were unquestioning of the Iraq war until recently (if they'd done their jobs and revealed Bush's bullshit before we were up to our necks in it, the war wouldn't have happened). The front section of the Post always has a bunch of ads for fighter planes and weapons systems, after all; a bit of war is good for their sponsors business. They feature conservative voices on their editorial pages, and their reporting on economic issues skews center-right.

I don't know so much about the LA Times. CNN is also full of conservative voices. NPR is not a for-profit corporation, but has a conservative bias in its sources. "Various Publishing Houses" is vague and meaningless.

The way I figure it, 1/2 is left wing, 1/2 is right wing, and 0 represent Libertarian position.

Libertarian capitalism - which is usually what's meant by "capital L" Libertarian, the position of the the Libertarian party, is a right-wing position. Properly speaking, left and right are economic positions, being in favor of labor and capital respectively.

(It is of course possible to be a leftist or socialist libertarian, but that's "little l" libertarian.)

The Wall Street Journal is often libertarian capitalist in its bias; certainly there are a number of smaller publications, such as Reason.

"Yes, I'm saying that conservative social positions correlate with provincialism and ignorance."

That is your opinion, and is based on the kind of elitism I detest.

No, it's not just my opinion.

It's long been clear that urban areas are more social liberal than rural ones. It's harder to maintain prejudices in a more densely populated area where your neighbors are diverse.

The more educated the population of a state, the less likely that state was to vote for Bush in 2000; college graduates are much less socially conservative than people with less education.

If being in favor of education and diversity means "elitism", then I will proudly call myself elitist.

How about this, I leave you alone, you leave me alone, I won't take your money for things you don't like, and you won't take my money for things I don't like. Deal?

The leave each other alone thing is fine. The "not take my money" has the complication of figuring out just what is my money, since money - like many forms of property - a creation of the state.

Libertarian capitalists like to talk about getting the government out of "meddling" in economic matters, but when I suggest revoking government issued corporate charters, land and resource deeds, patents and copyrights, all the government interventions that make capitalism possible, they blanch.

If you have proof showing another group that has indiscriminately gone after Americans more often then I would love to see it.

What about clinic bombings or don't you consider that terrorism? What about the KKK?

The most thorought treatment of terroism in the US I could find with a quick google was pdf. FYI, the tables are at the end of the document.

That's what Robert Welch (founder of the John Birch Society) argued: "Welch's famous book, The Politician, caused a stir even among many loyal Birch members who were shocked by Welch's assertion that President Dwight D. Eisenhower was "a dedicated conscious agent of the communist conspiracy.""

Possibly Giovanni Gentile, described by Mussolini as 'the philosopher of Fascism' (and who better to judge?) who said:

Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.

(this quote is frequently attributed to Mussolini himself, and publiceye.org questions whether either Mussolini or Gentile ever said it).

The Republican party has been replaced with another party going by the same name.

I suspect these people or similar are responsible for the growth of the Christian Right:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm
http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre1.h tml
http://www.mainstreambaptists.org/dominionism.htm

Their goals aren't much different than the Taliban's--establishment of a religious government, death to all non-believers etc. I'm open to the thought that they are more common than it at first seems and are the driving force behind the Christian Right, especially since most every diehard Christian I currently know espouses much of their philosophy. If you have the stomach to watch The 700 Club or Jerry Falwell (Often on Fox News), it sure seems they are heavily influenced. Google for more.

We agree. You've restated what I was trying to get across. That FOSS people, 99% of them, do not support DoS attacks and the like, but the other 1% give the rest of us (I am including myself in that group) a bad name.

Maybe it didn't come across that way, but it was meant to address directly to the one kid. I would have thought people who did not do it would understand that I didn't mean them. Apparently not.

as to use of the term cyber... somebody tell wikipedia, because they've got it wrong here: Cyber is a prefix stemming from cybernetics and loosely meaning through the use of a computer. See Cyberspace, Cybersex. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber ) , here, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber-terrorism ), here, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberspace ) here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberstalking ) and... well you get the picture.

Second, terrorism, wars and arsen kill, injure and put people in real physical danger. Hacking and DoS attacks do not. And hacking is very different than DoS. Hacking involves breaking into computers. DoS simply refuses those computers network bandwidth.

So you are saying that property damage is no big deal. so if you make sure everyone is out of the building before you burn down a printing press makes it OK. If these DoS attacks are for real, then they are costing this company real money. How about uttering a death threat over the phone... doesn't actually hurt anyone... sound OK? How about just putting a burning cross on the front lawn? breaking a few windows (google cristalnacht.) Nobody 'got hurt' in any of those events, so they're OK, right? I respectfully disagree completely with your reasoning.

Regardless of whether it is right or wrong, An arab guy named... oh.. Shaheed (very common name, unfortunately, it happens to mean 'Martyr') walks in for a job interview. You are telling me that thoughts of terrorists are not going to cross your mind? I don't want the term FOSS even vaguely associated with nasty hackers. Look what happenned to the word 'hacker.' You cannot really use it any more. I would like to be able to promote free and open source software without people worrying that I am an utter nutbar. You think that what some random kid does doesn't matter. I think that when they do it in the name of FOSS, it does matter. I don't like it when people supposedly on our side are handing the other-side ammunition.

These people are about as useful to FOSS advocacy as Lyndon Larouche is to the US democratic party. ( http://larouchein2004.net/ ... http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/ ) The 'one kid who does a DOS attack' stands in complete opposition to the values of open source: open discussion and cooperation, reliance on facts rather than marketing or legal constraint, meritocracy.

I certainly wouldn't feel any sympathy for LinuxWorld after reading their unethical propaganda. Agreed. I don't have any sympathy for them. We need to keep the focus on their unethical behaviour, not create a side-show where they can garner sympathy and deflect the issue by giving them the opportunity to characterise us as nut cases.

Free speech is not about letting people you agree with say their piece. It is about letting people you violently disagree with say theirs.

Christ, learn how to check facts on what people tell you.
Common sense dictates: Believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you see.

Here are some facts for you to check. Seriously, research them, I'm certain some of them may be false, but if any of them are true, well, then we are being repressed.

http://www.rense.com/general24/overtrepression.htm
http://www.workers.org/ww/2004/repressbox0624.php
http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?item ID=3493&sectionID=43
http://www.publiceye.org/liberty/repression/histor y.html

These people have set up the experiments so that their claims will either be supported by facts or not.

A quick search on the Net shows that the experiments themselves may not have been set up correctly, that the experimenters choose their data to fit the facts, seem to skew results, have a patent that presupposes their results and that plenty of bona fide quacks treat this as "truth" which always gets skeptics (like me, who do not take such publicity at face value) jumping all over gullible posters.

Or add: ' David Icke believes...'. Much more like the real thing.

After reading the link for this story, I was amused to see that things really haven't changed in a number of places. Management doesn't worry about Web site security until it hits them where it hurts, their liability insurance premium, or when the executives spend some time in the cooler.

The majority of defacements I've seen described involve little more than vandelism, electronic tagging by lower lifeforms of script kiddies, that do very little harm to the company whose site is defaced. You "wash the walls" and go on. End of story.

Except that it isn't the end of the story.

What happens when the defacer decides to use your Web site to store a couple hundred cracked credit card numbers? How about the 600 MB of MP3s of copyrighted music material that appears in its own directory of your Web server? The kiddie porn? Can you imagine what would happen if a terrorist cookbook were to be uploaded to your site, given today's paranoia caused by the November 11 terrorist attack?

IANAL, but I recall the Mogur-BBS debacle when a BBS system was used to traffic in telephone calling card numbers. Some facts are missing from the account the link points to, but it's sufficiently accurate to be useful. Here is another account of the incident. Here is a more thoughtful retrospective and analysis.

Shall I bring up the episode of Steve Jackson Games as an indication of the kind of risk that operators of public computer systems face when security is not a primary concern? Steve Jackson Games is apparently alive and well (and probably mad as hell about being mentioned in a Slashdot article) so the news isn't all bad, but the six months they were effectively out of business -- the publishing business -- must have hurt and hurt badly. Granted, the Secret Service has learned much since that 1990 fiasco, but can you imagine the long arm, and the long flatbed truck, coming and taking your computer systems because of the acts of some malicious script kiddie who does more than tagging?

Can your company afford to have its Web servers siezed and perhaps damaged because of the illegal acts of non-employees?

What you can do: tell your manager to contact your company's general legal counsel and request they research the legal liability, and the practical effects of law enforcement action, resulting from illegal acts committeed on public servers that have inadequate security controls. Emphasize that the research include short-term effects such as equipment seizure and forceable removal, damage inflicted during such action, and the expense of obtaining the timely return of the equipment.

If you run an e-commerce site, also be sure to ask about legal exposure in the event any web server containing crdit card records, customer information records, order histories, or credit search information is compromised and the information released to unauthorized people.

Steve Jackson Games was almost put out of business based on a bogus rumor. How would your company survive the legal onslaught from a script kiddie interested in more than just defacement?