Slashdot Mirror
Watch For A New Set Of CyberSecurity Laws
SuperDuG writes "According to a story on PCWorld.com the Congressional subcommittee dealing with cybersecurity will be researching and legislating new cybersecurity laws. The Chair, Adam Putnam says 'We want to put something out there that makes sense, that's balanced, that accomplishes the same goals, without it being this headlong rush to prove that we're doing something for our constituents because we were asleep at the switch when there was this digital Pearl Harbor.' Perhaps it wouldn't hurt if we all took a part and Contacted Representative Putnam about how well thought out other cybersecurity laws like the DMCA have 'helped out' and were 'thought out.' At least they're actually thinking before they legislate, and it seems they're open for suggestions."
Outside of a few cases, where has the DMCA not been ultimately beneficial (the 'safe harbor' provision for ISPs, for one.) How many DMCA cases have actually been run through the system?
The poster says "At least they're actually thinking before they legislate, and it seems they're open for suggestions.", failed to notice they consider the DMCA 'thought out'..
hmmm... shit.
puts ("Python r0cks\n");
It might als be benificial to mention to Representative Putnam that it possible to protect individual rights as well as corperate rights, seems that capitol hill forgets that sometimes.
I tell ya what, if we all make our voices heard by hitting that contact button the intern that reads those messages is going to start to get the hint and might actually let putnam know, I mean it takes 30 seconds ...
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
This would make Microsoft (and Red Hat, etc.) liable for security holes which allow virus redistribution, distributed denial of service attacks, and similar situations where the victim and the customer are different.
The "no servicing" requirement means that a patch-based or signature-based approach to security doesn't relieve the vendor of liability. The system has to be secure as delivered.
Representative Putnam about how well thought out other cybersecurity laws like the DMCA have 'helped out' and were 'thought out.'
How about somebody send this Brainchild a link to /. and a few hyperlinks to stories regarding the wonderful and well thought out DMCA.
(I would not recommend including a picture of your bare ass when contacting your Representitive or Senator.)
how can we have a "digital pearl harbor"
I mean the nature of the internet is decentralised so at most, there would be anoyances rather than devistation.
also, every critical system is on a closed network so our infrastructure will not fall apart.
the only thing I am left with, is that they want to protect corprate profits from script kiddies.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Do they run Linux?
and it seems they're open for suggestions.
When are the next eletions again? [hint][hint]
We want to put something out there that makes sense, that's balanced, that accomplishes the same goals, without it being this headlong rush to prove that we're doing something
:)
Our government has this weird tendency towards actually thinking before it acts. And doing it the first time, rather than blundering around with large blunt instruments RIGHT AWAY because people are screaming for the government to protect them RIGHT AWAY.
But I guess someone has to blunder around stupidly to serve as an example to the rest of the world for What Not To Do.
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
"America created the Internet, and it's about time we cleaned it up and locked it down, too"
To be precise, Al Gore invented the Internet. He said so on CNN (that he invented it when he was in Congress during the late 1970s.)
Whoops, hope I didn't just compromise any systems with that revelation.
"Our government has this weird tendency towards actually thinking before it acts"
They failed to give the proper thought to the matter before they foisted the inferior socialist hell-care system on the Canadians.
It would have been better off if they had stayed home that day instead of voting on this monstrosity, which is embarassment to the hemisphere.
"Frankly, I'm finding a lack of attention and a lack of understanding by the Congress and the (Bush) administration as to the serious nature of the threat," he said. "It's not nearly as sexy, or as engaging, or as interesting as the threats that are posed by terrorists boarding aircraft, or terrorists threats to the Brooklyn Bridge
Issues that affect us all, but... Forthcoming cybersecurity legislation will be "meaningful regulatory approach to securing private-sector critical infrastructure" says Representative Adam Putnam
Shame it's only for the private sector. Ordinary decent home users would benefit greatly from a similary committee. Currently there is little or no useful media attention, which is a problem
Put it this way: if you were to hold a random sampling of U.S. citizens on cybersecurity, you would likely get a lot of semi- or un-informed views on it. The reason is simple: it's not considered important enough by society at large to have anything more than a knee-jerk reaction to it. If/when the details of cybersecurity (not just the fallout from high-profile cases) becomes a big thing in the media and in government, only then will the population at large (who are being spoonfed by popular media, remember) feel that it is important enough to become an issue.
Congress shouldn't take a "knee-jerk, let's legislate" approach to cybersecurity, Putnam answered. He noted that many people in Congress and in the public don't realize how many pieces of the U.S. critical infrastructure are controlled through networked technology. He used the example of flood-control gates on the Mississippi River or the power grids that serve stock markets.
No mention of the myriad other effects of problematic cybersecurity, such as that mentioned here, and presumably many similar more highly controlled privacy issues wrapped around the TIA and other institutional privacy violations.
Until then, it remains an issue for the interested parties and the various lobby groups, and now for the "private sector" affected by this committee. The average internet user doesn't understand the implementations, the "downsides" discussed ad nauseam on Slashdot, or the current infringements on privacy laws by the Bush administration and their agents, so there will be no popular upswing, no attempt to popularise privacy and security for Mr. Average Midwestern Suburbian, who currently doesn't spend as much time as we do reading up on "niche" issues such as this.
Ultimately, the population is only as interested in an issue such as cybersecurity as they are directly affected by it. Otherwise, it depends how the media portrays it. Think DMCA, think The Geneva Convention, think The Universal Convention on Human Rights. The US media targetted the DMCA issue at the public by suggesting that "hackers" would benefit if it wasn't in place. The Patriot Act was introduced to wide public acclaim because the media suggested "Terrorists" would benefit if it wasn't in place. The Geneva convention is flaunted in Guantanamo Bay, and the US public lets it past because the media doesn't highlight it.
If the general public - the majority of voters - are not negatively affected by the multivarious issues in cybersecurity - including things currently covered by wiretapping laws, TIA etc., and erosion of personal privacy - then it takes too much effort for them to take interest, and too much effort on the media's part to educate them.
Until it becomes an issue of general relevance, the voting public won't care, input will be limited to private sector industries, and their liberties will be further eroded until they have a mode of thought equivalent to "newspeak", with only the single state department/media line to go along with.
jer
We may be human, but we're still animals
- Steve Vai
There is no "Department of Defence" in the United States (or is that the United Statec, using your spelling ...erm cpelling?)
I see someone bought McCarthyism hook, line and sinker.
Nice to know you're not paranoid.
Anyway, onto the real discussion.
Wow, until I read that last couple of sentences, I thought this guy was joking. Weird that people really believe this.... don't know how you can read /. for any length of time and be so incredibly uneducated....
*blink*
Sarcasm right?
I hope?
*blink*
Politicans already overuse Pearl Harbor in situations where it is actually relevant, such as national defence. It's used for a catch phrase to mean if we let down our guard, we will be overwhelmed at any moment. It's a way to not explain exactly what they mean, which serves them well because the situation in intelligence gathering and warfare now is so different than it was in 1941.
So even using it in that context is a bit of a "Bavarian Fire Drill". Using the threat of a hacking attack and associating it with Pearl Harbor is even sillier. If this country faces a bad hacking attack, or major attempt on our internet infrastructure, what will it mean? I'll have to sklp read people's Live Journals for a few days? Some web pages will get defaces? Some banks records will get broken into? e-Mail will get choked with wormed messages? None of these things are very pleasent, but I don't think we will see a cyber attack that leaves thousands dead and billions of property smoking and burnt. In fact, I think comparing the effects of some "lost productivity" to an event like Pearl Harbor is somewhat tasteless.
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
we were asleep at the switch when there was this digital Pearl Harbor
Riiight, and passing a law through congress that made it illegal for Japan to attack the US would have stopped Japan how exactly?
New laws are not required, everything that should be illegal is under current law. Laws do not stop terrorists or foreign governments from attacking. It won't even stop ordinary people from attacking.
-- iCEBaLM
"Riiight, and passing a law through congress that made it illegal for Japan to attack the US would have stopped Japan how exactly?"
It would have authorized Janet Reno to blockade Tokyo for a few weeks and then incinerate everyone within after bombarding them with bad music.
The security cert. card in my wallet just went off like a vibrator. Can you say job security? :D
How can they compare the attacking of some computer systems to an attack that left 2,300 people dead?
Karma: Can only be portioned out by the Cosmos.
"If you are a 94 year old male with West Nile, AIDS, and SARS who has a bullseye target painted on his back and smokes while eating Big Macs, and you happen to be in a pilotless airplane headed for a mountaintop, and you also enjoy playing Russian Roulette in your leisure time, YES you can get life insurance for just $3 a month."
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
...is proactive government.
Once upon a time a messenger service discovered that by having all their messengers wear rocket powered roller skates they could deliver things in record time, beating their competitors into the dust. Soon every messenger service relied on rocket powered roller skates, the original company went broke and a few larger companies dominated the delivery business. People hardly shopped or went to the bank any more. Everything was handled by messengers wearing rocket powered roller skates. Commerce doubled and the economy briefly soared.
Then some asshole discovered that by dropping pencils on the sidewalk you could cause spectacular crashes. Packages were lost, messengers and pedstrians were killed, and commerce was interrupted. All manner of security precautions were invented. Radar-equipped skates appeared. The sidewalk hackers used hair-fine tripwires. Police and private guards patrolled the streets. The hackers went through the sewer system.
Congress passed some laws making it a crime to possess anything that could be placed on a sidewalk to trip up a rocket powered roller skater. Civil libertarians were outraged, but what else could be done?
Doing away with rocket powered roller skates was unthinkable, because everything would go back to being unbearably slow. Banning non-messengers from the sidewalk was similarly unthinkable. Building special secure sidewalks just for rocket powered roller skaters would be too expensive. The whole beauty of rocket powered roller skates was that they could use existing sidewalks.
The real problem was that the messenger companies had all jumped into relying on rocket powered roller skates without anticipating their weaknesses. They never really came up with a solution, just ways to stay one step behind the problem. But who could blame them? They had to stay competetive. It was always the hackers' fault. Maybe if enough of them got thrown into prison they would learn their lesson. If ordinary people had to live their lives differently, well... they were the ones who insisted on fast deliveries weren't they? The industry was just responding to demand.
Eventually ordinary people just didn't use the sidewalk anymore. It would expose them to too much danger and litigation. For all their communications and physical needs they relied exclusively on messengers on rocket powered roller skates, never leaving their homes. And they lived happily ever after.
"we were asleep at the switch when there was this digital Pearl Harbor."
Not a Battlefield 1942 fan, eh?
But seriously folks, what does a guy have to do to get a Pearl Harbor map in this game? Screw political correctness, it's a game. Screw political correctness right in it's ass.
Seriously, I think he forgot the sarcasm modifier. Anyone who can properly spell that many multi-syllable can't be that dumb. It takes someone who just crawled out of their bomb shelter to still believe that socialists are the enemy instead of the munti-national conglomerates. I would rather live in a socialist system like Canada's or England's than a 'corparchy' like America's, at least until I needed health services for something that's non-life threatening.
The problem with the American system is that politicians are bought by corporations, and we have allowed it to become, and stay, common practice. I know other systems have similar problems, but in America, they insult our intelligence by continuing to advocate that what they are doing is in our best interest. It's obvious that you have been bought by media giants, auto makers, or industry polluters. Why slap me in the face by insisting that violating my fair use rights, allowing SUVs (the minivan of the new millenium) to pollute like trucks, or letting companies trade pollution credits are in my best interests?
Breathe polluted air, drink polluted water, eat tainted meat, care only for yourself; vote conservative.
I wish I hadn't blown all my modpoints modding stuff down.
+1, Insightful
If you would rather live in Canada/UK there is no one stopping you from moving, oh right... that job working for the capitalists.
What's the threshhold before the FBI will even get involved? $10000 in material damages? Even if you do all the legwork, and all they have to do is walk down the street and present the papers, they won't.
If the current laws were enforced, it would act as a deterrant, and give us some idea of the efficiency of current laws, and what sort of changes should be made to them. Any new laws would simply be theoretical in their benefit to society - we haven't done any "applied research" - ie, finding out what can be enforced, what can't, and what crimes are most damaging. Most of the cases that would give us that information don't make it to court.
Memorandum
To: Rep. Putnam
From: Slashdot
L1nux r00lz! M1cr0$haft sux0rz! LOLOLOL
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
And even that overlooks the fact that Algore was hyping this technology on the hill back when supercomputers were connected at a speed rivaling that of the mighty V.90 modem...
I am very disappointed. It's a no-show
I hope they do as good a job with this as the department of homeland security did with the "terror alert". Maybe we could all have little color-coded icons on our desk tops that let us know how likely we are to come under terrorist attack.
On Wall Street they say "buy low, sell high" On the pad we say, "buy high, sell high" Isn't that somehow better?
Oh yeah, you mean like the gun registry that has ended up costing at least over 5 times the original estimate and that likes to "crash" and lose a few days' worth of applications when it's overloaded? Or maybe like the government's promise to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000, with the result being that child poverty is higher now than in 1993?
a free society:
a ce _security-PCIPB.pdf
http://www.isalliance.org/announcements/Cybersp
The whole system really is a joke. You know as well as I do that its not there to actually do anything about terrorism. It exists simply to make the public feel better about the situation.
Orange? Well, i dont know where you get your information from... but the terror alert has just increased from magenta to maroon.
Congressmen aren't capable of thought.
From my experience with politicians I wouldn't assume that saying something is "thought out" and actually thinking are the same thing.
"I would rather live in a socialist system like Canada's or England's than a 'corparchy' like America's..."
So instead of having most of your money go to corrupt, parasitical corporations, you can have most of it go to corrupt, parasitical wards of the state.
Don't kid yourself. The extremes on both sides care only for themselves. The solution is to get rid of the extremes.
My Dad use to say the only bebenfical politican is a dead one..
why not repeal the DCMA and start over?
Don't Tread on OpenSource
I see someone bought a big fat troll: hook, line and sinker. Nice to know YHL.
That's going straight into the Mixed Metaphor file. A triple!
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
I just had my "annual treatment" for termites. The termite guy made a big showing going around my house with a hose connected to his truck which was supposedly dispensing termiticide. Yes, lots and lots of fluid came from the hose, soaking it in pretty good. He told me the termiticide was a pyrethrin based material. Ok. I asked for a jug of it while he had hose in hand for spot treatment should I find a spot missed. No way. He could not, by "law", dispense the material other than as directed. So, it all went onto the ground in front of me.
Ok, now he presents me with the form to sign regarding completion of the treatment. There is a spot on the form where the chemicals used and quantity are supposed to be filled in. But he leaves it blank, because there wasn't an active infestation that was specifically treated. Apparently, under "law", I do not need to be informed as to what chemical he sprayed all over my property.
Now, here's the part that infuriates me, the next day, I go out to feed my cats and there's ANTS all over my cat food bowl. Now I figured that strong fresh dose of termiticide would have done away with all those ants.
Had I been able to recover a sample of whatever he sprayed on my property, I could send it off to a chemist friend who has a gas chromatograph in his garage and ask him to run a spectra on it and look for pyrethrins. I strongly suspect the termite man just made a show of spraying water on my property. To add insult to injury, I destroyed much of my vegetable garden on his advice that the poisons would be absorbed into my edibles.
Its all this closed-source ( not the price, but the reassurance that I know what I am getting ) that concerns me so. I am *personally* responsible for the expenses of maintaining my house, it does me no good to try to blame someone else, so having some termite company to blame it on does not help me. I feel I have a right to know what chemicals and in which strength is placed on my property, and I feel I have a right to verify this.
I am getting really fed up with all these laws prohibiting the understanding ( possibly reverse engineering if the vendor is uncooperative ) of what I am receiving in return for money. This seems so unfair to me because the quality of the money can be so easily verified, but I am supposed to accept, by laws passed by Congress, the word of the vendor on what it is I am buying.
I know I am being a little hot-headed on this issue, but the problem is I am personally responsible. In a large business, it wouldn't make that much difference on whether or not lots of damage resulted from some delegate's failure to perform, as I could delegate the problem and wash my hands of it, while still retaining my employment status and retirement plans. ( This is the main reason in my mind why business executives would choose to go with some system that keeps them ignorant of its inner workings. ) On my level, when I am personally responsible, I want the ability to verify anything. It really cripes me to have my rights to verification annuled by law.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
There already was a digital Pearl Harbor...it starred Ben Affleck and it really sucked. Let's not let it happen again, OK?
Am I the only one who is annoyed by people throwing around phrases like "Digital Pearl Harbor"?
What in the world would that be? Do they expect every computer to burst aflame and melt into a puddle?
Or maybe more sensibly they mean wide scale security breach, oh like Code Red 1 through Code Red n.
The first is just stupid, the later has been happenning on monthly bases for the last 3 years. And yet it doesn't seem to count as "Digital Pearl Harbor".
So perhaps somebody would like to enlighten me as to what in hell they're expecting?
I see a lot of anti-law posts here, but we need some good laws (I agree the DMCA is a bad law and should be removed). Any society that exists will need laws to keep the peace, and since the internet is not breaking down international barras it will need laws of some sort. Is the US government the group to pass them, NO. What we need for the internet is a group like the IARU (The International Amateur Radio Union). And the use of the internet can fall under a international treaty and then there could be local (read, governments of countries) informant of these laws, that all the countries agree to be bound to.
are two different topics, but both have a complex fused relationship.
.... No one (or few) attacks, because failure is highly probable, the enemy cracker, phreaker, ... forensic tools collect incorruptible legally admissible evidence for prosecution, and prosecution is internationally pursued. ... they always do the most evil and/or wrong thing with ridiculous and righteous intentions. Supporting the static defense (first), then identify your potential enemy, your active enemy, their communications, operations, tactics and versatility (ability to attack, evade, and change with situations, people, and places), ... you must be able to hunt them down and prosecute with (if possible) civilized methods to whatever extent is required for victory (enemies surrender, go to jail, or die [limited options]). ...) intent is a vast waste of valuable resources needed for homeland defenses not virtual reality graffiti artist. Reasonable, measured, and proportional responses should be considered, public-image making can be absurd and wasteful.
.... Software should be treated the same. The car OEM can be deceitful or proactive in fixing the problem, and the OSD of the software should be required to proceed with equal haste to deceive or repair.
Cyber-Security (I think) has three major facets:
(1) Static Defense, mission to maintain all necessary daily business processes for the users, LAN, Enterprise, and external relationships - by doing all the right things to create (to the most professional extent possible) an impregnable IT/IS/IM/CT (collaborative technologies [AKA: Synergy Tech]) network/environment
(2) Active Defense, mission to develop and deploy H/S/N technologies and training that support the static defense for the government, military, and business in an intelligent cooperative coordinated manner. Remember reactionaries are like suicide-fanatics
(3) Open Source and Open Standards to address the problem of "Security Through Obscurity", because today there is no way to develop a Cyber-Security plan that addresses proprietary interest. This does not imply that software and/or hardware copyright should be abandoned for GPL/CopyLeft, but the only planning possible for the unknown (of proprietary hardware protocols and applications, and software) is to accept promises and pray for miracles. Standards of required procedures for business, government and military when compromises occur must include reporting security anomalies and problems and schedules and penalties on resolving security anomalies and problems, and when someone intentionally hides information about security anomalies and problems, then criminal fines and jail sentences must be enforced at the highest levels responsible in business, government and military. A security violation "Sleeping on Duty" and/or attempts to defraud can kill thousands of citizens in a surprise attack. Duplicity and treason have much in common, to me, in times of war.
There are many fine points, but for me the, three points, above are the big-picture. Reactionary investigations and arrest of script-kiddies and hackers with no provable malicious (defacing a website is a prank, not an attack, devastation, destruction, dead people, murder,
On software liability it should be addressed in much the same way as any other liability is handled. The laws are adequate, but legislatures, courts, and lawyers want to make technology hardware and software something unique.
If I buy a dangerous car and the OEM knows, then
OldHawk777
Reality is a self-induced hallucination.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
- White Knight of the Order of Mihoshi Enthusiasts
Anyone who can properly spell that many multi-syllable can't be that dumb
Can't spell "definitely" though
Damn. Moderators been smoking that cheap $3 crack again. -1 Flamebait? Bull shit, try +5 Insightful, jackass.
You can't be serious, can you? I mean, how can you possibly contend that Canada or England, bastions of socialists and atheists, can possibly compete with the United States of America? It's this kind of liberal brainwashing that's infected our public schools and brought about the downfall of our society.
I've been terribly dissapointed with George Bush. I thought he was going to clean this place up. When are we going to fix our schools? When are we going to get rid of all this nonesense filling up our textbooks, and acknowledge in our classrooms that the United States of America is the greatest nation on earth through the righteous power of Jesus Christ? When Americans recognized that fact, the power of the United States was unmatched. But now, the atheists, the homosexuals, and the socialists have perverted our society. We can withstand conflict from outside, like this CyberSecurity witchcraft, but not from within. Come on, wake up, man!
Consensual sex is boring.
I doubt that we will ever see vendor liability of harmful systems come thru legislation, but instead I believe that operator liability will come instead. If you run an un-networthy system on the public internet, and if it gets hijacked or infected and thus used to propagate harm to other parties' systems, then you'll be the one who'll get blamed and not the vendor who supplied it. Just a hunch....
It's just too often the wrong kind.
Too late.
"The problem with the American system is that politicians are bought by corporations"
If this is true, they'd better get their money back. The politicians are taxing the hell out of the corporations, and are piling on more regulations all the time.
"Breathe polluted air, drink polluted water, eat tainted meat, care only for yourself; vote conservative"
Conservative, like Nixon who created the EPA? The first Bush, who expanded the park system?
" It takes someone who just crawled out of their bomb shelter to still believe that socialists are the enemy instead of the munti-national conglomerates"
No, all it takes is to have a knowledge of world events and history. Socialists are the enemy because they want to take what is ours and deny us the freedom to make our own personal economic decisions. All the multi-nationals do is offer goods and services that people want while crossing national borders: nothing wrong with that.
It is interesting that you mention pollution. Look at Europe. In the places where it was ruled by socialists (eastern), the environment was very bad until the anti-socialist revolution in 1989. Then they could clean things up. The problems have never been near as bad in western Europe, where the economy is much more in the hands of the people (privately controlled; capitalist) than it was in Eastern Europe.
"and attack other countries without provocation or reliable evidence of any connection and call this "fighting terrorism."
Saddam Hussein had engaged in numerous attacks against neighboring countries which are allies (including terrorist attacks), and also against US peacekeepers in the "no fly zones". There was plenty of provocation, and he was given plenty of time to cease and desist.
"We label this as "Terrorism," begin to summarily revoke or violate the rights of our own citizens, "
I've not lost any rights yet, neither have you.
"Here is another one: we supply arms and gorrila training to paramilitary groups opposed to the Soviet Union"
Yes, those paramilitary groups were much better able to fight the Soviets after we taught them how to climb in trees, eat bananas, and beat their chests.
" I think you have Canadians confused with Americans."
No, sometimes the American legislators (both Democrats and Republicans) get it right, as they did early in the Clinton administration when they listened to public outrage and shut down Hillary's ill-conceived scam that was going to stalinize the health care system.
I shall quote the morally immaculate Rev. Franklin Graham (son of Billy Graham) and his courageous words of peace, tolerance, and love for his fellow man:
We're not attacking Islam, but Islam has attacked us. The God of Islam is not the same God... He's not the son of God of the Christian or Judeo-Christian faith. It's a different God, and I believe it is a very evil and wicked religion.
It must really suck to feel like another religion, in its entirety, has it in for you. Maybe we should start sending wave after wave of holy christian soldier overseas to eradicate those whorish muslims in one final holy war. Every last one of those dogs are evil and don't deserve to live, wouldn't you agree? I think, for once, christians are on the receiving end of what they have been dishing out for centuries, and they don't like it one bit.
You are correct! No evil has ever been done by a christian majority. I mean, look at great prosperity between the beginning of the medieval times and the end of the inquisitions. Those had to be the best times for human kind. It is only through religious intolerance and blind fear that we humans shall come together and treat others with the dignity that all humans deserve.
Maybe if all christians, or every religion for that matter, could practice the principals of their beliefs instead of the politics set forth by its ancestors, the world would be a much more tolerant place. You should not delude yourself either. Americe is powerful because of its historical christian power-holders who broke the backs of countless people in the name of religion and progress. Your ancestors sure showed those savage Indians and godless niggers didn't they!?! They were truly shown the infinite love of jesus. Maybe they rejected your religion because they saw the christians saying one thing and doing something completely opposite; something which still goes on to this day. Stealing their land, taking them from their homes, and working them as free labor for the rest of their lives on cotton and tobacco fields... and all using religion as a backdrop for slavery and genocide. I know it isn't just christians who have committed unspeakable evils, but they are the ones who have shaped the political and social climates for America and Europe, so their actions hold more relevance to our current state than those of other religious atrocities. For most of the first millennium, christians controlled the power over the western hemisphere and most of Europe. To put it bluntly, it was the slowest progression of the political, social, and scientific, fields ever, since the beginning of recorded human history.
REPENT and beg absolution for the sins of your fathers so that you may shake off these shackles of self-righteousness and supremacy that bind your mind, body, and soul to repetition of their indecencies and condemnation of their fate. Being christian is not a prerequisite for being a good person.
Wow, way to show your own anti-Christian bias there, bucko. I think that pretty well invalidates your arguments. You seem to be so blinded by your hate for the Lord, that you're completely unable to put things in perspective. Look, you show me one remarkable scientific advance that came from outside Christendom. One. Go on. Have at it.
So, where did this discussion of Islam come from? What did that possibly have to do with what we were talking about? I guess if you can't win the argument, then just change the topic and start making stuff up. Great debating technique there.
F the P
" Our current Bush has allowed the trading of pollution credits as well as pulling out of the Kyoto treaty."
One is bad, I agree. The second, however, does not matter when it comes to the environment: the Kyoto treaty is political, not environmental. It lets certain very large countries keep producing greenhouse gasses out of political considerations. If it really was environmental, it would reduce them for everyone.
"Also, please do not confuse communism with socialism. They are two very distinct *ism's and should not be interchanged at will"
The socialists and communists do this all the time. Supposedly mainstream socialists sing the praises of Castro's hardline communism. (I've even listened to some of Fidel's speech: he also sings the praises of socialism, and he is, again, a hardline communist).The Soviet Union was run by a communist party but was made up of socialist republics (but the rule was all the same).
"I would defend that England, France, and especially Canada are very competitive with the U.S. as far as environmental protection is concerned."
The systems you are defending would be best described as being less socialist than the Eastern European ones, that's all.
Isn't France the one that had their military execute a Greenpeace activist, and they have kept on with above-ground nuclear weapons testing?
So you stop listening that quickly? You mistake my contempt for the ignorance of history for hate of the lord and suddenly I'm completely wrong and am not even worth listening to? Please, for your sake, do not mistake other christians or their actions for the lord. You made the common religious mistake of concentrating so hard on my words that you could not see the message behind them. You also mistake religion for spirituality. Religion is nothing more than the political regimes that man has instituted for his spirituality. I will admit that christianity is a peaceful and beautiful religion, in its theory. Unfortunately theory and practice have little to do in common for most everything related to mans' creations and institutions.
As for products of non-christian societies: democracy, philosophy, poetry, the first hospital as well as the idea of communication of disease (which christians thought were evil spirits, not microscopic bodies), paper, gun powder, domesticated animals, agriculture, the wheel, the scientific method, mathematics, and even many of your religious principals (which came from hebrew religious societies). Christian societies have been around for a very short time when compared to the length of human existence.
My quote from the Reverend was to show that popular christian leaders can be just as guilty as any muslim extremist. People listen to him as a spiritual leader, yet he continues to ignore history and propagate fear and distrust in the name of religion despite the inevitable outcome of hate, or worse, bloodshed. For many, it is easier to demonize, condemn, and dismiss people unlike them than it is to attempt to understand them. It is infinitely worse to not make an attempt because of illogical preconceived notions than it is to quit after making a concerted effort.
Software producers should not be held liable for damages when an error occurs if they have fully followed secure and reliable processes, and if part of these processes is proving beyond a reasonable doubt that there existing no errors in the software.
Correctness proving techniques make this possible.
When it is specified in a contract that software will behave in a certain particular way, the software producer should be held liable when an error occurs if they have not follows reliable and secure processes, and if they have not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that there are no such errors in the software.
Correctness proving works.
Yes, the software can only be as correct as its specification, but there are still no doubt many errors occur which are actual violations of the specification.
Correctness proving works.
A lot of Congressman Putnam's phraseology in the beginning of the article sounds comforting, but this bit bothers me:
... or to Disney World, and so the cyber threat has taken a back seat to the physical threat. I think that is a dangerously lopsided approach to homeland security."
"[The threat is] not nearly as sexy, or as engaging, or as interesting as the threats that are posed by terrorists boarding aircraft, or terrorists threats to the Brooklyn Bridge
I'm not usually given to hyperbole (and in this I differ from the Congressman), but terrorist threats to aircraft, the Brooklyn Bridge, or Disney World are not sexy, engaging, OR interesting. They are scary. The fact that the Congressman downplays these issues for the sake of raising the cyber-security issue makes me wonder if the Congressman's motives are to be trusted. Why should a U.S. Congressman be using such language against the people who are trying to prevent U.S. citizens, residents, and guests from getting blown up?
I am supported in the supposition Congressman Putnam may not have everyone's best interest at heart by the fact that he is 28 years old. While some might think his youth might work in favor of computer users, I instead think what we have here is a pretty young person who simply understands computers better than his senior colleagues in Congress (and perhaps only slightly better....after all, he majored in Food and Consumer Resources in college). Said young person could be trying to make a name for himself by playing up an issue his elders can't handle or won't be bothered with because of their age and perhaps lack of experience in the area. Putnam has held state or federal office as a legislator since he was 21 years old. To me, an attraction to power of that sort is not reflective of someone who is apt to be balanced, or thoughtful, or careful. It, his above tirade, and his use of the "Pearl Harbor" metaphor speaks of someone driven by a powerful ambition. If you aren't a constituent, I seriously doubt any contact letter will make a lick of difference (notice on the contact page that the only state given as a choice is Florida).
I think the thing to do here is keep and eye on Congressman Putnam, and then start emailing our OWN Congressman, if Congressman Putnam tries to pull one over on us in the name of National Cyber-security.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool. -Richard Feynman
Look, you show me one remarkable scientific advance that came from outside Christendom. One. Go on. Have at it.
Stonehenge showed a remarkable knowledge of astronomy. The Chinese were able to predict eclipses and invented gunpowder. Einstein, an atheist, was one of the most remarkable minds in recent history. Charles Darwin advanced our understanding of evolution, and he was, at best, agnostic. Thomas Edison, while not a pure scientist, was a great inventor and an atheist. Isaac Asimov, Stephen Hawking, and Benjamin Franklin are all either agnostic or atheist.
Your problem is that you mistake wealth and religion. How many scientific advances have come from areas converted to Christianity by missionaries? Have you seen a lot of great scientific work suddenly coming from Christians in poor South American countries?
Science comes from the educated and education comes from wealth. Had Europe and North American been primarily Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, some other faith, or atheist, their contribution to science would have been the same.
Consensual sex is boring.
Well, you're putting the cart before the horse there. You seem to think that prosperity and religion are unrelated. I contend that they are not. In the middle ages and the renaissance, Europe ruled, because the Europeans had the favor of the Lord with them, for they alone kept the Faith. In the late 19th and for most of the 20th century, the United States reigned supreme, due to the righteous might of our Lord Jesus Christ. You seem to think the culture that led to advancement and Faith are seperate, while the fact is that they are not. An advanced culture springs from righteous Faith. The evidence is all around you. Look at the cultural bankruptcy of followers of Islam. Isn't it obvious? Those who doubt Christ reap failure.
Sadly, you and your ilk wish to rob the United States of our Birthright, to sacrifce our domination over the world on the altar of secular humanism, a religion without a god. To whom will the 21st century belong? The Master of Lies, I suppose, for, thanks to snake-tounged mouths like yours, our leaders lack the strength of Conviction to cury His favor. Our downfall will be your doing.
F the P
Haven't you been receiving a PILE of extra spam in your inbox of late? Haven't you been reading about all the viruses which have been causing 'havoc'? Heck, didn't you watch the propaganda-saturated Terminator 3?
Damnit, man! You're clearly not taking your pills or tuning into enough CNN! There's a war on, mister! And so what if it's a make-believe war?! The Great Muppet-President has a schedule to keep, you ungrateful boat-rocker! What are you? Some kind of godless-commie-fag-comic book reading-pot smoking-cab driving terrorist? Don't you appreciate that people died so that you could have your freedoms!?
Why, I oughta call TIPS on your ass and tell the FBI what library books you've been borrowing!
Don't make me come down there!
-FL
What if there were power-mad lunatics in office who dreamed of a world where civil rights no longer existed; had even drafted proposals and suggestions as to how this could be achieved by, (this is true!), manufacturing Pearl Harbour type events so that they could ride the back-lash into a position where the public was ready to accept draconian re-writes to the laws?
Think I'm joking? Many of Bush's current cronies have written plans and proposals over the last few years of exactly this sort. Do some Googling. You'll find them, because some journalists are mad as hell. The evidence is all there for anybody brave enough to stare it in the face.
-FL
Digital Perl Harbour on Information Superhighway!
Lisp is the Tengwar of programming languages.
You seem to think that prosperity and religion are unrelated. I contend that they are not. In the middle ages and the renaissance, Europe ruled, because the Europeans had the favor of the Lord with them, for they alone kept the Faith.
The "Lord" must have truly been impressed by The Crusades and The Inquisitions. If that kind of behavior doesn't curry favor, what does?
Why don't you look at the "prosperity" in Africa and much of South America where Christian missionaries did their work? Now look at the richest nation (per-capita) in the world. It's an Islamic one.
Those who doubt Christ reap failure.
I don't subscribe to your primitive, superstitious beliefs. I am a modern man. I don't believe in invisible, all-powerful beings that oversee everything -- and for which no concrete proof exists. It's a bunch of bunk put together to control ignorant peasants almost two thousand years ago and people like you still fall for it. Get a spine. Take responsibility for your own life, accept that you will die some day and that there is not some "afterlife" in which you will go to "heaven", and start behaving like a rational human being. This is a web-site for people with a belief in science, not the occult.
And please take your ill-informed Christian bigotry elsewhere.
Have fun in hell, buddy! Be sure to bring your sun screen!
You are very good at spouting off names of logical fallacies, yet you do not understand them. I read your tirade against the other person and you were flat wrong in your classifications of his statements -- over and over.
In fact, it was you, who started with the morally and intellectually bankrupt debating when you wrote:
Wow, way to show your own anti-Christian bias there, bucko. I think that pretty well invalidates your arguments.
That was Circumstantial Ad Hominem, a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the other person is making the claim out of self interest or bias. While a person's self interests or bias will provide them with motives to make certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. A person's religious or political beliefs do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim. You are obviously strongly religious. Should we dismiss all of your claims about the existence of God because of your bias?
Then, let's top it off with a Failure to Assert:
I will admit that christianity is a peaceful and beautiful religion, in its theory.
That was not a "failure to assert." He asserted that, in theory, Christianity is "a peaceful and beautiful religion." As evidenced by The Crusades, the Inquisitions, and the countless people tortured and killed in the name of Christianity, its practice and theory diverge more than a little.
Now, let's Change the Subject, from modern scientific advances, to ancient, unrelated culture events!
Stop distorting and lying. You did not ask for modern scientific advances. You challenged him to show you "one remarkable scientific advance that came from outside Christendom.[sic]" He did that very effectively and also showed advances outside of the sciences.
Now, let's move on to the Appeal to False Authority
Wrong again. An appeal to authority would be if he were claiming that the Reverend, because of his position, should automatically be considered correct. That is clearly not what he did.
Next, how about the Appeal to Anonymous Authority! "People listen?" I'm sure they do!
Again, you obviously don't know anything about the logical fallacies about which you write. An "appeal to anonymous authority" would be one in which the writer claimed that the beliefs of unnamed person's should be considered proof of the validity of those beliefs. For example, if he wrote "the Pope is a pedophile -- many people believe that", it would be an appeal to anonymous authority. If he wrote "Rev. Graham is an important, mainstream figure who many people view as a spiritual leader", he need not name the people in order for the argument to hold water.
I won't waste my time tearing apart the remainder of your attack on the other person, but I wanted you, and everyone else, to see that your claims are without merit.
Have fun in hell, buddy! Be sure to bring your sun screen!
That's the problem with being an atheist. I have no belief in an afterlife when I can say "I told you so!"
If the lord is blessing us, then who is he cursing? My god is the god of peace and love. I don't know who your god is, but he sounds angry and spiteful. An omni powerful being should know that humans respond better to love than they do fear. You ignorance even continues to deny that Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are different religions. As I stated earlier, the difference is mostly political; it is simply which faith decided to nominate who as their messiah. And calling Islamic culture bankrupt is the strongest evidence of either a very poor education or a rigidly closed mind. Should the U.S follow the lead of many middle-eastern countries and institute religion as a government? Maybe it shall fix our problems as it fixed theirs. You should realize that in, confusing for god, and following the word of man, you can not know the spirit behind the message. You are blinded by your fear, hate, and ignorance. I weep for your children just as I weep for the children of klan members, for they are not raised to know any better; and so the circle shall continue.
It reminds me of junior high school ( long tyme ago in a galaxy far away ) the school would have ridiculous rules - rules that you would expect in a prison because someone might do something 'bad'. No walking in the halls with out a pass because someone *might* be cutting class. No going outside between classes because someone *might* smoke, get in a fight, get run over by a car etc. No knives - not even an x-acto knife for art class to protect any would be psychos with daggars from innocent students finding something in their backpacks to fight back with - at least they didn't ban chairs, I'd rather have one of them in a fight than a daggar anyway. No eating with a metal fork unless there is a cork on the tines to prevent you from poking yer eye out ( ok, not really, that's off a Steve Martin movie - don't take the cork off the fork Ruprat. )
The environment just caused the kids to think up new ways to muck things up for the administrators who would then cite 'abuse' of freedoms and impose more assinine restrictions. The constant battle was a vicious circle.
They say that they want to impose restrictions to prevent a Pearl Harbor? Not likely. They'll probably *cause* one. If you turn your country into a police state ( or go war against countries as a way to try and force terrorists to stop ) you will only make the terrorists right. You will actually be the evil influence in the world they claim you are and *then* enough people might hate you to actually be dangerous.
The more you tighten your grip Vader, the more starsystems will slip through your fingers. - Princess Leia
In the case of evil terrorism, or even criminality the best course is not to try and prevent the loss of face by cutting off your own nose. In the case of crime, go after the criminals, but don't ban banks because of bankrobbers. In the case of terrorists, go after the individual people that commit the act, but don't close your society. Turn the other cheek to the countries the terrorists grow up in unless they are actively participating in the terrorism ( like Afganistan, letting terrorists run training camps )
Not letting them drag you down to their level is the best way to convince the world to hate the haters. Acting worse than the bad guys is a great way to turn evil terrorism into noble and riteous struggle.
Eat at Joe's.
Wow, you don't know a damn thing, do you? The Righteous Might of Jesus Christ shall deliver to you a smackdown, sir!!! A RIGHTEOUS SMACKDOWN for your ignorance!
Oh man! My god, the Righteous Jesus Christ, is going to deliver to you a righteous smackdown! Your ignorance is extreme, and your follow undeniable! Cower before the coming smackdown! Cower!!!!!!!
Wow, you don't know a damn thing, do you?
I am far more knowlegeable and intelligent than you are. Your ignorance about logical fallacies was laughable (assuming that you are the same writer -- since you are too inconsiderate to post under a user name).
The Righteous Might of Jesus Christ shall deliver to you a smackdown, sir!!! A RIGHTEOUS SMACKDOWN for your ignorance!
So now we're combine religious beliefs and professional wrestling terminology? My, you are sophisticated and informed! I guess I should not be surprised given the correlation between limited education and strong religious beliefs (you will note that the Bible belt is not exactly filled with Ivy League universities).