Slashdot Mirror


Grand Ayatollah Says High Speed Internet Is "Against Moral Standards"

An anonymous reader writes A Grand Ayatollah in Iran has determined that access to high-speed and 3G Internet is "against Sharia" and "against moral standards." However, Iran's President, Hassan Rouhani, plans to renew licenses and expand the country’s 3G cellular phone network. A radical MP associated with the conservative Resistance Front, warned: “If the minister continues to go ahead with increasing bandwidth and Internet speed, then we will push for his impeachment and removal from the cabinet.” “We will vigorously prevent all attempts by the [communication] minister to expand 3G technology, and if our warnings are not heeded, then the necessary course of action will be taken,” he added.

542 comments

  1. If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...then there's got to be something to it.

    1. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Religion isn't always right... they don't teach facts, they teach opinions.

    2. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Stupid opinions based on violent fairy tale books, at that.

    3. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I am of the same opinion, and I can provide evidence.

      Around 1992-3, the Internet was operating at kB/s. It was fast enough for the Usenet and exchange of texts. There was very little junk, only one virus of note, and people were nice and out of the way to help. It encouraged reading, learning, communicating with real people and, in general, growing. Even slashdot, when it appeared, was interesting. The only thing that would break your concentration were talk (which you could turn off in your .bash_rc) and email.

      Fast forward to 2013. The Internet is operating at Gb/s speeds in the civilized countries and at Mb/s everywhere else. Most of the content in porn, spam, fake illegal downloads, various scams and viruses. The chances you'll be talking to a bot that is trying to swindle you out of something are huge. Even if you switch your mobile off, the phones of your wife, kids, dog, colleagues, or other people on the subway continue to beep and annoy. Computers analyze your traffic and try to predict where are you going to spend your money next and make you change your mind.

      Amen, Ayatollah, give me back the internet of yore.

    4. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      fake illegal downloads

      I'll have you know all my illegal downloads are real and the NSA will back me up on this.

    5. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am of the same opinion, and I can provide evidence.

      Around 1992-3, the Internet was operating at kB/s. It was fast enough for the Usenet and exchange of texts. There was very little junk, only one virus of note, and people were nice and out of the way to help. It encouraged reading, learning, communicating with real people and, in general, growing. Even slashdot, when it appeared, was interesting. The only thing that would break your concentration were talk (which you could turn off in your .bash_rc) and email.

      Fast forward to 2013. The Internet is operating at Gb/s speeds in the civilized countries and at Mb/s everywhere else. Most of the content in porn, spam, fake illegal downloads, various scams and viruses.

      It sounds like your browsing habits changed...

    6. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Chas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      HERETIC!

      *Chops of "The New Guy's" head*

      Respect my peaceful religion! OR ELSE!

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    7. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "isn't always right"

      More like "is almost always wrong with few exceptions."

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    8. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by ThatAblaze · · Score: 2

      Oh no! It's a holy war against the internet!

      I wonder how well that will work out. Will the internet fight back?

    9. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The pope essentially said the same thing recently when he said that young people spend too much time on the Internet.

      Religious leaders know that the survival of religion is being threatened by knowledge sharing on the internet, so it shouldn't be any surprise that they would speak out against it.

    10. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by sumdumass · · Score: 5, Interesting

      About as well as it did the last time..

      You see, letters in the hebrew language are also numbers. There is no W so V is used in it's place or in other words, V and W are interchangeable. It so happens that V is also 6 so when you type www, you are typing 666. That's right, every time to go on the World Wide Web, you are paying homage to the beast.

      That was the early rallying cry to why the internet was evil and should be removed. Of course some people who actually knew better checked up on those facts and it turns out a little different.

    11. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, reading material changed. In the golden age of the Internet nobody was discussing the prevalence of porn and spam on the Internets, because people were getting hand jobs from their girlfriends instead of jerking off to moving porn pictures.

      Nowadays the topic comes up every few weeks, so it is impossible to not see or unsee.

    12. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by pete6677 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The internet is especially threatening to the Religion of Peace, as it exposes them for who they really are.

    13. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Internet, and mobile internet in particular is for morally virtuous and educational text and image content like this.

    14. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the survival of religion is being threatened by knowledge sharing on the internet,

      By pr0n sharing - maybe. By knowledge sharing - no way, we, who participate in the latter are a small minority and are largely invisible.

    15. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Nyder · · Score: 4, Interesting

      About as well as it did the last time..

      You see, letters in the hebrew language are also numbers. There is no W so V is used in it's place or in other words, V and W are interchangeable. It so happens that V is also 6 so when you type www, you are typing 666. That's right, every time to go on the World Wide Web, you are paying homage to the beast.

      That was the early rallying cry to why the internet was evil and should be removed. Of course some people who actually knew better checked up on those facts and it turns out a little different.

      Except that 666 isn't the number of the beast, it's actually 616. Google it, number of sources other then the one I put down.

      http://theologica.ning.com/pro...

      --
      Be seeing you...
    16. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2

      I'll have you know all my illegal downloads are real and the NSA will back me up on this

      It's true, it's how we get all our software. And viruses.

      But when it comes to Jennifer Lawrence, we choose to go right to the source('s phone). Your stuff is totally boring.

      -The NSA

    17. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When has "fact" had anything to do with religious outrage?

    18. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And WWW is not 666 either.

      You might as well be saying the blue moon isn't blue for what it is worth. I mean the entire premise of the post was about misconceptions as the basis for a war against the internet.

    19. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wait, you're saying nerds used to have lives, it's just high speed internet that killed it? That alt.sex.pictures.oddly.specific.weirdo.porn was a relatively recent invention?

      I'll have you know that TRUE nerds used to have to jerk it to 320x200x256 palletized images. Nipples would be fucking CYAN half the time, but it was that or play wing commander. SuperVGA made the situation oh so much better, we could get 640x480x16bit in 200-300kB files that would take 2 hours to download, but hey, pink nipples! Assuming some family member didn't pick up the phone right before that line was downloaded and ready to rasterize. The cure for THAT were progressive jpeg's, we could jerk it staring at what either was snatch, or a golden retriever, the connection would probably drop before we could find out.

      No the only thing that has changed is the quality of porn and the number of viewers.

      Or so I'm told, I think I read about all this in a book.

    20. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It has nothing to do with religion, they just want to keep the peoples in the dark age, so they can rule them.

    21. Re: If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Control is the point of religion. In Christianity the first book gives a lessen of do as you're told.

    22. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, you're saying nerds used to have lives, it's just high speed internet that killed it? That alt.sex.pictures.oddly.specific.weirdo.porn was a relatively recent invention? I'll have you know that TRUE nerds used to have to jerk it to 320x200x256 palletized images. Nipples would be fucking CYAN half the time, but it was that or play wing commander. SuperVGA made the situation oh so much better, we could get 640x480x16bit in 200-300kB files that would take 2 hours to download, but hey, pink nipples! Assuming some family member didn't pick up the phone right before that line was downloaded and ready to rasterize. The cure for THAT were progressive jpeg's, we could jerk it staring at what either was snatch, or a golden retriever, the connection would probably drop before we could find out. No the only thing that has changed is the quality of porn and the number of viewers. Or so I'm told, I think I read about all this in a book.

      I lived through those days, and in lieu of mod points that I never seem to get anymore, I award thee (+6, Sidesplit), in the spirit of rec.humor.funny.

    23. Re: If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uuencode/decode, cshow, get. Good times. Wuarchive even had porn.

    24. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TRUE nerds used to have to jerk it to 320x200x256 palletized images.

      Yes, you read about it in a book. The true nerds were jerking off to stories in ASS and ASSM. And posting them, too.

    25. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they don't teach facts, they teach opinions.

      They don't teach facts at law schools either, they teach legal opinions.

    26. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by aevan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      alt.binaries.erotica.*

    27. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Read the comments on that page. The "fact" is foggy at best. Don't let that stop you though. Hypocriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiite.

    28. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      In that system, anything can mean anything with enough twisting.

    29. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by cold+fjord · · Score: 5, Informative

      The pope essentially said the same thing recently when he said that young people spend too much time on the Internet.

      Did he? It looks like you don't quite have that right.

      Pope Francis says the Internet is a 'gift from God'
      Pope Francis: Internet is a blessing

      The Pope's view is a bit more insightful and nuanced than you state.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    30. Re: If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's religion for you

    31. Re: If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Religion isn't ever right

    32. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's reverse psychology.
      1.- "Why would Catholicism accept evolution, heliocentrism, the Internets and everything that shows that every word they believe in is demonstrably false?"
      2.- "Does that mean they are self-delusional and stupid?"
      3.- "Or do they just pretend they believe in a stupid goat herd story in the greatest case of mass hypocrisy for profit?"
      4.- "I'm becoming a Catholic!"
      5.- G.O.D.
      6.- $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!!!

    33. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice story, but Hebrew uses a different alefbet with only 22 characters.

    34. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I can imagine the furor that resulted from the upgrade from stone to clay tablets...

    35. Re: If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by spottedice · · Score: 0

      'Lessen'. Clever.

    36. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by solidraven · · Score: 2

      Discrimination! A virus is also software, how dare you be so racist towards them!

      -- PETCOM (People for the Ethical Treatment of COmputer Malware - All organisations need a crappy acronym name!)

    37. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. Where are my mod points when I need them? Internet in 1992-1993 consisted of gigabytes of porn and copyright violation, trafficked on alt.binaries.* and ftp sites, punctuated by vapid flame wars on Usenet groups. Nowadays we have exabytes of porn and copyright violation, trafficked on web sites, punctuated by vapid flame wars on web forums. At least we've evolved to a point where we only need a single client software to get all of that done.

    38. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the Grand Ayatolla's a muslim. Christian symbolism means nothing to him.

    39. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Wootery · · Score: 2

      them

      Nice generalisation, there.

    40. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ....or Duke Nukem 3D Stripper Gifs.....(don't judge me, I'm out of bubble gum)

    41. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by ultranova · · Score: 2

      Religion isn't always right... they don't teach facts, they teach opinions.

      This is unlikely to have much to do with either, and more with Ayatollah wishing to stay "Grand": a gatekeeper of Heaven who dictates to ignorant masses in the name of God. That doesn't really work if the masses aren't ignorant, and even more so if they get used to debating.

      In other words, power corrupts. It should really be regarded like super-heroin: no matter your initial purposes for getting it, you will be addicted and unwilling to put it down, until keeping it and getting more is all that really matters to you anymore. Which explains why the world is so dysfunctional: every society is led by junkies.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    42. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      alt.binaries.erotica.ayatollahs.*

    43. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 3, Funny

      The pope essentially said the same thing recently when he said that young people spend too much time on the Internet

      If they are outside playing and not inside surfing the internet, they are harder for the priests to catch.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    44. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Teun · · Score: 0

      I don't believe you should include (these) superstitious people in the grand total of Christianity.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    45. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It might be a generalization if it wasn't true. Been paying attention to the world lately, or did you miss the "religion of peace" committing genocide in Iraq.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    46. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Megol · · Score: 2

      Right. And what about the ones with the same religion fighting against the IS? How about the majority of the people around the world with the same religion that say IS doesn't represent them nor their religion? Etc...

    47. Re: If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by goarilla · · Score: 1

      The rest is just a reaffirmation of that as well. Examples of even when things go haywire you should keep following orders !

    48. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by hsa · · Score: 1

      I'll have you know that TRUE nerds used to have to jerk it to 320x200x256 palletized images. Nipples would be fucking CYAN half the time, but it was that or play wing commander. SuperVGA made the situation oh so much better, we could get 640x480x16bit in 200-300kB files that would take 2 hours to download, but hey, pink nipples!

      You are doing it wrong. The 256 color palette is actually 262 144 color palette, but only 256 colors can be at the screen. So actually normal VGA is deep down 18-bit, but it cannot show all those colors at once. You must have some real shitty quantization on your images, to get cyan. My nipples were pink. But then again, there is no 16-bit GIF, so all the images started being JPGs. They didn't take 200-300kB, either - what were you on? LZW-compressed TIFs? You should have used more quality sites like McHenry BBS, like .. er.. my friend told me. Just sayin'..

    49. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by donscarletti · · Score: 1

      Ah, but the book of Revelations was written in Greek, not Hebrew, so WWW must not abbreviated to Stigma Xi Chi, (possibly after a frat), otherwise the Antichrist cometh. P.s. damn Slashcode for its lack of Unicode, you're about 15 years overdue.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    50. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Apparently you are still a student of the English Language. Just remember the hard coded bounds of English that say I before E except after C unless you are an efficient ancient.
      Why do you think we have legalize? it is the law version of a programming language with strict structure and definitions. Worse it was written by people who hate staying in the bounds of strict structure and definitions.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    51. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by GCsoftware · · Score: 1

      Errrr..There is a V, and it is basically the same letter a B with a dot.

      It's in ARABIC and Ottoman Turkish where the W and V letters were interchangeable..

    52. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by peragrin · · Score: 1

      The ones fighting are a tiny percentage of muslims though. The fact is a percentage of muslim inman are indirectly supporting the IS through sharing similar beliefs about sharia law. They may decry the tactics the IS is using. They may denouce the violence, but at the end of the day they still want Sunni Sharia law imposed and will look the other way on how to get there.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    53. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Religion isn't always right... they don't teach facts, they teach opinions.

      These Islamic fundamentalists remind me of the Roman Catholic Church when they controlled every aspect of people's lives. How dare they speak with presumed authority about the teachings of the prophet.

    54. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by stephenfrank · · Score: 1

      I do not think that this true because all religions believe on technological advancement. http://www.britishassignmentsh...

    55. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the bible says that the number OF the name of the beast is EQUAL TO . is equal to 600 is equal to 60 and is equal to 6. is the snake-like which gets inbetween the letters which is a common way to write , christ. as an example sums up to 888. the 616 figure is wrong.

    56. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by theVarangian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When has "fact" had anything to do with religious outrage?

      Religious outrage, racist outrage, nationalist outrage. They are all equally stupid. I have had a long series of strange discussions with people of all these denominations about the building of a Mosque in my town. The argumentation goes that: "Do you know how many Churches there are in Saudi Arabia? Have you seen what they are doing to Christians in Iraq!?! We must ban mosques immediately to prevent this from happening here before the Moslems rise up and impose Sharia law on all of us!!!". Really? Says I, for one thing our moslems are a small and moderate minority; how are they supposed to impose Sharia law on us (Answer: Uhhhhhhhhmmmmm.... Uhhhh.... I just fear that they just will!). Secondly I find it interesting that you are implying that one can use the stupidity and cruelty of people in other countries to justify doing stupid and cruel things to innocent people in your own country? In that case did you notice what the Serbs did to Moslems in Bosnia? Did you notice what the white patriotic christian knights of the Ku Klux Klan did to African Americans, Latinos and other minorities in the USA? We must ban Christianity immediately!!! Remarkably enough they considered equating all moslems with ISIS and banning Islam to be a reasonable and natural thing to do (even though the local moslem community is just about the most peaceful and law abiding group of people in our country) but they went absolutely apeshit when I applied their own logic to Christianity. It got even funnier when I pointed out that both the Serbs and the Ku Klux Klan are white and perhaps we should ban white people since most of the people involved in this discussion including my self were white. I just find it endlessly fascinating how the minds of these people work. They keep citing the Constitution when it supports their point of view but then they want to ban Moslems from practicing their religion, ban immigration of non-whites or put gay people in jail for offending christian fanatics everywhere by existing the Constitution can apparently be ignored.

    57. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by murdocj · · Score: 3, Insightful

      they don't teach facts, they teach opinions.

      They don't teach facts at law schools either, they teach legal opinions.

      They try to teach you how to reason & argue & back up your opinion with facts. Which is a little different then saying "on page 392 of the holy book God himself said X, that's it, end of story".

    58. Re: If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by tiger_turned_lion · · Score: 1

      True, knowledge and porn together are like Sodom and Gomorrah.

    59. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by mean+pun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The ones fighting are a tiny percentage of muslims though.

      Actively fighting? Probably. That's usual in war. Supporting the fight against the goons? A vast percentage. Like Joe Average, Ahmed Average just wants a quiet life, and only gets into heated disputes about the merits of the local football teams. And narrow-minded Koran thumpers are just as bad for such a quiet life as narrow-minded Bible thumpers.

      The fact is a percentage of muslim inman are indirectly supporting the IS through sharing similar beliefs about sharia law.

      Funny how you left out `tiny' before `percentage' here. You don't really belief that this percentage is large, do you?

    60. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i guess even inside the great walls of the vatican, there is still great demand for (you know what).

    61. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Ron+Goodman · · Score: 2

      That would be the No True Scotsman argument.

    62. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Pope Francis says the Internet is a 'gift from God'

      That guy will take credit for anything.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    63. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Pffft. Strip Poker was available for the C64 and ZX Spectrum. In both cases the image was black and white (not greyscale, just black OR white) and on the Spectrum the graphics were a crude line drawing. The C64 managed to have some badly digitized images.

      I take this as proof that there is almost no limit to what teenage boys can wank over.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    64. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      Hey! Be respectful to your elders. If 300 baud was good enough for the prophet Muhammad, then it's good enough for you! Besides, teletype printers can't print ASCII pr0n faster than that anyway, and if they did, you'd run out of ink real fast. Now get off my carpet and out of my tent!

    65. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol the vatican is nothing but pedophfiles, just look at how the pope before Francis, Joseph Ratzinger is on wanted list for arrest and cannot leave Vatican..

      Go to some christian site to troll coldfjord you are lamest astroturfer around..

    66. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by kamapuaa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except no...a little Googling shows that first mention of the number is in a widely distributed book from 2nd century Christian author Irenaeus, who affirms that the number is 666, and mentions some texts with the wrong number. The only evidence for 616 is an old papyrus from the 3rd century. It may be the oldest known copy of the book of Revelations, but it wasn't the original copy, the text was written 150 years earlier. Furthermore, papyrus was valuable and was often re-used, so it may not even be the oldest known version of Revelations.

      In order to prove that the original number was 616, one would have to find either the original version of the text, or a large number of texts (from various locales) which wrote 616, or perhaps have a well-regarded and well-preserved early Christian author like Irenaeus or Augustine say that the actual number was 616.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    67. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Respect mah righteous AUTHORITAH!

    68. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by scsirob · · Score: 1

      I've seen my share of sick, but this is too much for my stomach.. Perv!

      --
      To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
    69. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      clearly this guy doesnt know about anonymous

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    70. Re: If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do as you're told or god will kill you with a flood.

    71. Re: If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^^^ this

    72. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1
      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    73. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "W" is the 23rd letter of the alphabet, W = 23 = 2 X 3 = 6 : WWW = 666. Isaac Newton wrote almost a million words on the numerology of 666, in fact he wrote a lot more about theology than science. Thing is nobody remembers him for his prolific "contributions" to theology.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    74. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by afxgrin · · Score: 2

      The fact is the Grand Ayatollah is Shia muslim and not Sunni. Sure he wants Sharia law, but not the IS Sharia law since they're Sunni. So if anything he would be supporting the fight against IS.

    75. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by tibit · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter anyway, since the number for a name/word is counted by adding the letter values (hebrew and greek both have them) together. The number for www is 18, not 666. In ancient times, if you were jewish, and your sweetheart wanted to say in code that he/she loved you, the line would be "I love the person whose number is 140". 140 is your number (K=20, M=40, P=80 in Hebrew). This tradition does in fact carry forward in interesting ways - I distinctly remember that we had a similar system going in the elementary school. Someone came up with value assignments for all letters of the roman alphabet. At some point every literate kid in the building had those assignments memorized. It was a shortlived fad, even though it was good to get the kids doing some addition exercises and decomposition ("decoding") of integers into sums.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    76. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by rgbatduke · · Score: 3, Funny

      I dialed this number, but the beast put me on hold listening to muzak.

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    77. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Chelloveck · · Score: 1

      The world's going to perish in fire when we finally get full adoption of IPv666.

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
    78. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christianity has matured as a religion to the point where it doesn't need basis on evidence (accuracy), just a preponderance of like minded thought.

      So, if the people holding these records for a thousand years were fine watching the world drift away from the written archive of the religion, then in what other ways is the current state of the religion fabricated?

    79. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As the OTP says numbers have meaning. 6 is the number for man and 3 for god. hence 3 6's is simply a statement that a man will make himself to be god...not too original...just add a PFC and you get a whole load of made up stuff, but hey that is what makes humanity so interesting!

    80. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ahahaahaha you sir win best post ever.

      >but it was that or play wing commander

      And we know how much we played wing commander. It was that or jerk it to wing commander. And we all know how well that worked out.

    81. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I see you've never been involved in a trial. Did you know that if you as a juror have expertise in something being talked about by their expert witness, and you know it's incorrect, you're not allowed to correct them. The best you can do is submit a note, and then both lawyers review it and decide on whether it's allowed to be said in court.

      Yup, law is all about facts.

    82. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      If man is five then the devil is six. If the devil is six then god is seven.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    83. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take a look at the history of the Jewish and Christian religions and say that again with a straight face, you effing bigot!

    84. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1, Insightful

      When has "fact" had anything to do with religious outrage?

      Why don't we ask the atheist communists that imprisoned, tortured, and murdered people for going to church?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    85. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by weav · · Score: 1

      What's Hebrew got to do with it? Wasn't the Revelation of St. John The Divine written in Greek, and used "Greek Numerals" (also a letter-based system)?

    86. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Well-written legalese is the law version of a programming language. Like programming languages, legalese can also be used to conceal intent.

    87. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But why the fig would islamic people give 2 hoots about a Christian 'devil'? If there is seriously a worry about 666 in islamic circles then they have much more bullshit in that religion than I ever credited them for.

    88. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      ...but they went absolutely apeshit when I applied their own logic to Christianity...

      Well, there's yer problem, pal. Logic? Seriously? Fear and willful ignorance trumps reason almost every time.

    89. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by 0a100b · · Score: 1

      Why don't we ask the atheist communists that imprisoned, tortured, and murdered people for going to church?

      What has that to do with this thread about the number of the beast?

      But I'd guess that you would get the same answer from them as other groups that have imprisoned, tortured, and murdered people for their beliefs; it is for the good of the community, or even humanity.

      BTW, why single atheist communists out from other ideological or religious nut cases?

    90. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Jawnn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why don't we ask the atheist communists that imprisoned, tortured, and murdered people for going to church?

      You mean like the righteous Christians who have done the same thing to tens of thousands for going to the wrong church? Try not to lead with your chin like that. It takes all the sport out of it.

    91. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Jawnn · · Score: 2

      The pope essentially said the same thing recently when he said that young people spend too much time on the Internet.

      Religious leaders know that the survival of religion is being threatened by knowledge sharing on the internet, so it shouldn't be any surprise that they would speak out against it.

      Not that I feel any need to defend His Holiness, but there's a bit of a difference, don't you think, between calling the Internet "immoral" and observing that young people might have better things to do with some of their time?

    92. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Wootery · · Score: 1

      It's a tempting point, but not strictly relevant. The histories of other religions neither vindicate, nor worsen the standing of, Islam. Far better to emphasise that most modern Muslims in western countries are peaceable.

      (Regrettably, this is not also true of, say, the average Afghan Muslim.)

    93. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      All true, except narrow-minded bible thumpers haven't committed any genocides lately.

    94. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by 0a100b · · Score: 2

      "W" is the 23rd letter of the alphabet, W = 23 = 2 X 3 = 6 : WWW = 666.

      This I've never understood. What's wrong with WWW = 232323, 216 (6 X 6 X 6), or even 2 (2 X 1 X 6 = 12, 1 X 2 = 2)?
      When to multiply digits and when not seems kind of arbitrary to me.

    95. Re: If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by lymond01 · · Score: 2

      One might even suspect that the media pushes (or is pushed) to put Christianity in the best light and any other religion in a poor light because most of the country's political donors are Christian. It strengthens your base.

    96. Re: If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either way it was just a code for Caesar. It had nothing to do with Satan.

    97. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      You're a little late. The sub-thread was about slandering religion to start with.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    98. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      What has that to do with this thread about the number of the beast?

      You're replying to the wrong person. What I replied to is below, which also has nothing to do with the number of the beast. Why didn't you reply to that? Or was it your ox being gored?

      When has "fact" had anything to do with religious outrage?

      ----

      BTW, why single atheist communists out from other ideological or religious nut cases?

      Because they were left out of the initial statement, which was probably from an atheist.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    99. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by GerryHattrick · · Score: 1

      The Ayatollah's right. You can't sustain irrationality, autocracy and extremism against a tide of information and entertainment shared worldwide and without regard to gender. That's probably what he wants to do, so his policy is wise. But it won't last, even if things have to get (very) much worse before they get better.

    100. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by mean+pun · · Score: 1

      All true, except narrow-minded bible thumpers haven't committed any genocides lately.

      True, the non-islamic people who recently committed genocide were not thumping a holy book, but rather a history book. I'm not sure this is progress, though.

    101. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Phil+Karn · · Score: 1

      The Christian fundies' fear of Sharia Law is one of the most ironically amusing things to come out of them in recent years. If they didn't spend so much time railing against our consitutitional separation of church and state, maybe, just maybe they might realize that it's exactly what protects them from such an (unlikely) threat.

    102. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by hufter · · Score: 1

      Whatever, Iron Maiden says it's 666. That's good enough for me.

    103. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > When a lot of people have the same imaginary friend, it's called Islam,

      Or Christianity or...

    104. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      OK, I lost count... so we are at "there are misconceptions in a post about misconceptions as the basis for a war against the internet"?
      Or is that a misconception on my part?

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    105. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Al Gore is god?

    106. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Which is a little different then saying "on page 392 of the holy book God himself said X, that's it, end of story".

      Right, they teach you that because Judge X ruled that tomatoes are a vegetable, it's a "fact" now.

    107. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by DanielOom · · Score: 1

      The inestimable Lord of Hosts hath decreed that 999,999 bittes per seconde shall be all that thou needest as thou surfest the Interweb.

    108. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by murkwood7 · · Score: 1

      5.- G.O.D.

      "Greenbacks On Demand" - I tried to find a good "G" word for this. Better than "Green Stuff" at least. That could have gotten weirdly ugly!

      "Gold On Demand" - Good. The way things probably should be. But, in this context (humorous), seems kind of out-of-place.

      "Gnote on Demand" - What we probably will end up with, sigh. Fuck lot better than "Inote", IMHO.

      --
      - X/Y -
    109. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by walterbyrd · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      In general, there are 4 stages to Islamic conquest.

      1) When they are a tiny minority they only want to live, and worship, in peace.

      2) Once they are a bigger minority, they start demanding special laws to respect their religion and culture. This is happening in many European nations right now. These special laws may directly oppose fundamental rights in western countries.

      3) Once they are a sizable minority: they drop the mask, and the gloves come off. Time to violently overthrow the existing religion and culture. This has been going on throughout Islamic history. This is going on in Thailand right now.

      4) Once Muslims are in charge, it is no different than any other mid-east nation.

      Even getting to stage 2 is too much for many Americans. Lots of Americans do not want to give up stuff like freedom of speech, or freedom of press, freedom of religion.

    110. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      I think the key word is "history" as in centuries ago. Back then, there was stuff like forced conversion in Christianity.

      The difference is: that stuff is common in Islam today.

    111. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by westlake · · Score: 1

      Stupid opinions based on violent fairy tale books, at that.

      If the geek were honest about the thing, he would that he has built his own language and culture from bits and pieces scavenged from pop cultural icons like Star Trek --- whose stories were in turn drawn from familiar sacred and secular texts, myths, legends, and fairy tales,

    112. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by theVarangian · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In general, there are 4 stages to Islamic conquest.

      1) When they are a tiny minority they only want to live, and worship, in peace.

      2) Once they are a bigger minority, they start demanding special laws to respect their religion and culture. This is happening in many European nations right now. These special laws may directly oppose fundamental rights in western countries.

      3) Once they are a sizable minority: they drop the mask, and the gloves come off. Time to violently overthrow the existing religion and culture. This has been going on throughout Islamic history. This is going on in Thailand right now.

      4) Once Muslims are in charge, it is no different than any other mid-east nation.

      Even getting to stage 2 is too much for many Americans. Lots of Americans do not want to give up stuff like freedom of speech, or freedom of press, freedom of religion.

      You just described the rise of Christianity in the Roman empire.

    113. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by rockout · · Score: 2

      A critical difference is that the geek doesn't (usually) attempt to make other people live their lives according to the same sacred texts.

      --
      I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
    114. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except Jesus is an prophet in Islam and all three use the same God. What they disagree on is the importance of Jesus and Mohamed. A cut down document based on the same texts as the Bible exists in Islam. So some "Christian symbolism" does exist in Islam.

      Now in this case it does not.

    115. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by rockout · · Score: 1

      Your alarmist progression is worthy of a Fox News headline; it's so full of holes and logical fallacies that it's difficult to know where to start, but how about your crazy, uninformed jump from #2 to #3?

      There's about 4 million Muslims in Thailand, out of a population of around 70 million. If you're trying to refer to the current insurgency in southern Thailand, the evidence suggest that's more rooted in ethnic (Malay vs. Thai) differences than it is in Islam vs. Buddhism, though of course that plays a part - problem is, that particular conflict has been present for hundreds of years. And before you point your finger and say "Aha! that proves my point, Muslims have always been trying to conquer!" take a look at what "Christian" nations were doing hundreds of years ago and were continuing to do until right after World War II. Some would say we're still trying to do it now, what with invading Iraq and all.

      To suggest that this one religion is somehow worse than all the others when it comes to breeding maniacs that want to impose their will on others is ridiculous.

      --
      I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
    116. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just described the rise of Christianity in the Roman empire.

      That was pretty nasty too.

      We've only just started to get over it in the last 500 years or so, and there's still a long way to go. Religion and the religious still have far too much power and special favorable treatment. We even have an Established religion here (Anglicanism, invented on a whim by the King so he could get a divorce since that was impossible in the incumbent state religion of Catholicism) with priests having unelected seats in government and an unelected Head of State (the Queen) who is head of the Church and sworn to protect it.

      Islam is just a rehash of Judaism, Catholicism and the ravings of a mentally-ill self-styled leader written down by credulous sycophants.

      You can read about it in books.

    117. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      alt.binaries.erotica.immans.*

    118. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn I miss those Golden Retrievers...

    119. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      +1 Internets for you, sir

    120. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by DamnOregonian · · Score: 2

      I can attest to cyan nipples. Shitty quantization is indeed to fault for it. Compressing high color depth down to 8-bit color depth requires making decisions on color accuracy. Unfortunately, automated processes aren't always great at deciding if nipples or shadows are more important.

    121. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Well, today's Furry porn crowd may have found satisfaction in Kilrathi babes...

    122. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by scarboni888 · · Score: 1

      "people were getting hand jobs from their girlfriends instead of jerking off to moving porn pictures. "

      Speak for yourself!

    123. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by scarboni888 · · Score: 1

      Funny though how the West is all huggy kissy with some of the worst of their governments, isn't it? (Think: Saudi Arabia).

    124. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Does it really need spelled out?

      The entire WWW=666 was incorrect but due to someone's misconceptions, was used as a basis to war against the internet. Pointing out that 666 should be 616 is like arguing the bank robber crew socks instead of tube socks when he robbed the bank. It does nothing to the fact the bank was robbed. Likewise, debating whether it was 666 or 616 does nothing for the fact that someone thought 666 was the number and that WWW represented it and attempted to attack the internet as evil. It's like saying the thought of WWW=666 is otherwise valid when it clearly is not.

    125. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      And your point is what? Naming an argument does not mean it isn't proper to use it. Besides, it is not actually a no true scotsman argument. But what you would have otherwise? A few fringe idiots all the sudden represent every single other person of a group when there is absolutely no basis for it?

      BTW, why it is not a no true scotsman argument is because he is not saying those people are not Christians, he is saying not all Christians are the same. A big bit of difference there.

    126. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by murkwood7 · · Score: 1

      ...Better than "Inote", IMHO.

      or: icash, icred, imoney, etc.

      --
      - X/Y -
    127. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      No one said they were worried about it. The entire www=666 isn't even connected to Muslims.

      The parent said

      Oh no! It's a holy war against the internet!

      I wonder how well that will work out. Will the internet fight back?

      Then I said about as well as it worked out last time then presented the last time I knew of a religious war against the internet.

      I swear... This isn't all that difficult. Are people really that obtuse?

    128. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the benefits of being The Prime Mover - all causal chains begin with you, so you can legitimately take credit for anything. On the other hand you're also completely on the hook for all the horrible stuff too.

    129. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by murdocj · · Score: 2

      You mean trials follow rules? Wow, sounds like horrible oppression to me.

    130. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by murdocj · · Score: 1

      Yes, it would be much better if the laws were constantly variable, so you had no idea what the rules were. Sort of like Russia. Where the only rule is "don't cross Putin" and everything else gets bent to that end.

    131. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It would be nice if Islam, as a religion, would hurry up and get out of its terrible 700's, out of its angry, rebellious teenage phase. Judaism went through this too, when it was new, then Christianity, now it's Islam. Remember, there was a time when Jews would follow their nonsensical bullshit TO THE LETTER, stoning people for working on the sabbath, etc. Then Christians had their whole "convert or DIE!" moment, but it passed, and I think, I BELIEVE, that most of them don't take their religion that fuckin' seriously.

      It would be great if Muslims, as a group, a community, an extended family stopped taking these words so literally. I don't know what changed things for Jews; for Christians, I think it was somewhere between the Reformation, and the Renaissance, the beginning of the age of REASON. I'll put it this way, if Jesus ACTUALLY showed up, (forgetting for a moment it's all made up bullshit, but if it were REALLY REAL...) showed up Sunday morning IN A CHURCH, in front of a bunch of Jesus-worshipping, "god-fearing" Christians, a not inconsiderable number would SHIT THEMSELVES, have a heart attack, and drop DEAD on the SPOT. "Holy FUCK," they'd exclaim, "you mean to tell me all this fucking Jesus bullshit is fuckin' REAL?!?"

      Then they'd drop dead from shock.

      Well, Islam needs to hurry the fuck up and get to that point, because them going through their "join us or we'll behead you!" phase is getting pretty fucking annoying.

      I think the first step is for such people to get over themselves. Religious wackos have this super inflated ego that tells them, "GOD needs YOU!" Needs your help running things on this 10,000 mile wide ball of shit. You know, the dude who WISHED EVERYTHING INTO BEING out of SHEER WILLPOWER needs YOUR insignificant fucking help with something. What a head-trip these fuckers must have been on. GOD made everything, knew everything right down to the fact that I would be sitting here typing this shit right now, the instant he created EVERYTHING, and oh, he needs 10 bucks from me for the movies next Saturday?

      The entity that FORCED Pharaoh Ramses the Second, (ALLEGEDLY) to change his mind and pursue the fleeing Hebrews into the dessert (so much for "free will,") so that when this band of uneducated, disorganized, contentious, bickering, hapless, UNARMED Hebrew (up until THAT MORNING) Egyptian SLAVES could (with God's HELP) kick their asses, everyone would KNOW, everyone would be CONVINCED that "God" is real.

      Yeah, back then he'd appear to people and shit. Today, rather too conveniently, NOT so much. What changed? Is he just TOO busy? What a JOKE.

      There's no point to pointing out the internal inconsistencies, impossibilities, and contradictions in the various parts of ANY collection of so-called scripture. A better idea, and almost certainly to be more effective, is to get people to think about WHY they believe, rather than challenging beliefs directly with common sense.

      Uh oh! I better stop talking shit about God and his Non-existant ASS, or sometime, somewhere, somehow, something bad or unpleasant might MAYBE happen to me. Never mind HOW LONG it took after the last time I mentioned how no only is "God" not real, neither are any oaf the OTHER "gods" that people have claimed existed and/or worshipped/prayed to?

      I can't help but wonder if it isn't extreme poverty and lack of access to education play a role in being religious, not being able to think your way out of a wet paper SACK until you have learned to be able to distinguish fantasy from reality, and the truly wise from the slick-ass frauds..

      Here's why most people believe. When a man was a little boy, (or throughout, when a woman was a little girl,) there were generally, for any kid, at least one if not a few people whom they held in absolute AWE, such as their mothers and fathers. A father (to a small child, let's pretend that's YOU,) is a colossus, able to open jelly jars of seemingly infinite tightness, answer every question you have, (though you are as a small child i

    132. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by JasonGoatcher · · Score: 0

      Jesus isn't imaginary. Simply put, if you don't want to deal with Him, He certainly doesn't want to deal with you.

    133. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by JasonGoatcher · · Score: 0

      OMG, off-topic, but I'm so glad you said that. I have been insulted by so many people that make claims about US law without even sitting down and reading it. I wish more people would understand the US is supposed to be a nation of written law and not one run by random asshole judges.

    134. Re: If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course your imaginary friend isn't imaginary.

    135. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by h5inz · · Score: 1

      Speak for yourself!

    136. Re: If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Once again you prove your lack of tolerance along with the non-conservative cronies of yours all the while likely claiming to the whole world how open-minded and tolerant you are.

      Are you this tolerant of people who believe in government Santa Claus and are unnecessarily on government support because it's more convenient than being employed?

    137. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by tibit · · Score: 1

      Whatever. It doesn't work in Greek, either.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    138. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      Bruce Dickinson hates you.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    139. Re: If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus is real. Historically speaking.

      He was just a chill dude that roamed around the Middle East about 2000 years ago, drinking wine and telling people that they should be nice to each other. He eventually got crucified because he pissed some people off.

      All that stuff about coming back from the dead, turning water into wine, or breaking a loaf of bread into 450 servings... well that's all fairy tales and fish stories. But Jesus was real.

    140. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      A critical difference is that the geek doesn't (usually) attempt to make other people live their lives according to the same sacred texts.

      Or behead people because Captain Kirk wants him to.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    141. Re: If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      One might even suspect that the media pushes (or is pushed) to put Christianity in the best light and any other religion in a poor light because most of the country's political donors are Christian. It strengthens your base.

      Silly person. If you've been paying attention, the Christians are being discriminated, punished and cast out more now than at any time in history.

      Just ask them.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    142. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      ?

      There's about 4 million Muslims in Thailand, out of a population of around 70 million.

      How many in Phuket?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    143. Re: If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      everything he posted made complete sense. what the fuxk does tolerance have to do with it. Islam isn't tolerating high speed Internet so fuck em, lets leave them in the Stone Age where they belong.

    144. Re: If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by ormond.otvos33 · · Score: 1

      That must be why they've never found any serious historic proof he existed, even though the Romans at the time kept lots of records. You must have missed the latest report from religious historians. Imaginary friends can be a real problem.

    145. Re: If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by rarkm · · Score: 1

      616 is the US area code for Grand Rapids, Michigan. Grand Rapids is the home of the headbanger/metal band Pop Evil.

      All secrets are known to the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, PBUH.

      --
      [Insert pretentious and semi-clever sig here: ______ ]
    146. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by NewYork · · Score: 1

      This Map Shows Most Racist People On Earth.
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

    147. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Hoov7178 · · Score: 1

      And is probably the countries largest internet user.

    148. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by ormond.otvos33 · · Score: 1

      Religion fosters faith and suppresses reason during childhood. As the twig is bent, so is the tree inclined.

    149. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by teknosapien · · Score: 1

      They hate everything about the US way of life.
      maybe they are getting that we developed the technology but more than likely its a matter of controlling the masses

      --
      no matter how good it is, it is human nature always wants to make things better
    150. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If you have expertise, you're not likely to get on the jury. Typically, one or both lawyers will want to present things their way, and will reject somebody. (At least in the jury duty I've served, each side is allowed to kick two people off the sixteen empanelled, and of course anybody can be dismissed for cause if the judge OKs it.)

      Of course, if you do know something about a subject, and do wind up on the jury, you can say whatever you want in jury deliberations.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    151. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Around 1992, there were warez sites and plenty of pornographic images going around. There were plenty of garbage Usenet groups. Usenet was monitored by Holocaust deniers, and of course the Turkish guy who would post long rants about the 1919 genocide of the Turks by the Armenians (although all the history I've read has claimed the reverse). Sometime around then, there was a debate going on about how much the Internet could be commercialized, since lots of it ran on government sites that weren't supposed to support commercial activity. Serious spam didn't start until 1994, though.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    152. Re: If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of records that he existed, perhaps you haven't looked hard enough?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    153. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You left out the mass extermination of Pagans and Mithranists, Osirians and Zoroastrians of Rome under Christian rule.

    154. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      I appreciate the atheist rant, and I think you'd be surprised to find most Catholics share in it. Including the Pope. oh, not the God doesn't exist bullshit, but especially the Jesus showing up in Church (which he does every day for Catholics) stuff, which most Protestants would be incredibly shocked by if they understood it.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    155. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      If I could mod this up 10,000 times, I would.

      All forms of righteous indignation - generally created by applying a liberal dose of populist nonsense, emotional propaganda, carefully culled cherry picked "facts", artfully staging the truth... fall apart when logic is applied. And what's even more amazing, when you do this to such folks, they respond, generally, by calling you names like racist, homophobe, xenophobe, ignorant hayseed, devil worshiper, infidel radical, bad for America, bad for whatever...

      As a species, we're damn gullible, aren't we?

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
    156. Re: If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      Because a philosophy of "If it feels good, do it" has worked out so much better for the advancement of the human race than any philosophy based on attempting to define "right" and "wrong" (e.g. duality), correct?

      Putting the government in charge of your life is even worse, because government always turns out be a bunch of greedy "I want it all" folks. Corporations, exactly the same.

      So who do you propose we entrust with helping young people figure out that some actions are wrong (i.e. harm others) and some actions are right (i.e. benefit others)? Unicorns? Such entities must exist, or we have anarchy. The problem isn't Christianity, or Islam - it's greed, same problem we have in government and corporations. Can't be eliminated, it's human nature. So try and blame the real culprit... instead of posting bigoted hate speech anonymously.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
    157. Re: If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Care to share a reliable source, then? And at any rate, didn't the historical Mohammad exist too?

    158. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by PishiGorbeh · · Score: 0

      Yes. There is something to this. 3G is Haram (evil doing)! That's why I took the religious high ground and went LTE!

    159. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Right. And what about the ones with the same religion fighting against the IS? How about the majority of the people around the world with the same religion that say IS doesn't represent them nor their religion? Etc...

      And how about the ones that say it is? How about the large swaths in the middle east that say that does represent their religion. Come on, there was polling done not more than a few days ago showing that a vast majority in saudi arabia for example supported them. The government does not, various people do.

      How about the imam's that say: "Islam is the religion of beheadings." - Hussein bin Mahmoud or the Wahhabi Cleric stating the proper way to behead someone, telling his followers that you should enjoy doing it. Seriously, I could go on all freaking day finding these religious leaders from the middle east, to Europe to those right home in North America proclaiming the same thing.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    160. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by fuzzy2k · · Score: 1

      So, you know that one story, but not the other ones. I promise you, their imaginary friends are as real as yours are.

      --
      --- Say something clever. Pretend it was me. Thanks.
    161. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by fuzzy2k · · Score: 1

      The Prime Directive clearly states I must not interfere with primitive cultures, like the one I have found here on /.

      --
      --- Say something clever. Pretend it was me. Thanks.
    162. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      A holy war against the internet, sounds like the Ayatollah is joining the RIAA, the incumbent Telecoms, the conservatives and, Fox not-News, 'Net Neutrality is Evil', so is the open and free distribution of information and knowledge.

      Isn't it amazing how the psychopaths at the top who want to own and control everything all seek the same means to feed their own personal egoistic ends. So a religious leaders seeks the same things as the worst psychopathic executives in the US, censoring, closing and strangling off the internet.

      Can't have us divided and conquered types communicating together and sharing notes about out various conquerors and how the labels change but the behaviour doesn't at least not behind closed doors, just various public masquerades.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    163. Re: If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Yes, so what? Josephus is the normal source, but so are the court records of Herod Agrippa and Pontius Pilate.

      The "Jesus didn't exist outside of the Gospels" is a pious myth of atheists invented in the 20th century.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    164. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by ThatAblaze · · Score: 1

      Clearly you have never heard of a rhetorical question.

    165. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      But Iranians speak Farsi (Persian) which uses a different script to Hebrew as well as being from a different & unrelated language family (linguistically).

      So without researching more about the topic, while I could see the potential for a Hebrew speaker uncomfortable with the 666 thing having a problem with "www", I'm not sure how that would relate to our Iranian friends.

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
    166. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      I'd +1 except I object to the assumption that you can't be both white and Muslim.

      Other than that, I've had similar experiences arguing with these types - the same thing happens when you argue about politics.

      Probably one of the reasons it's forbidden to discuss both religion and politics in, for example, a Masonic Lodge.

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
    167. Re: If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      There's a Russell Peters bit on this - in a nutshell he went to the Middle East to see for himself and found that the "western" news channels show the equivalent of rednecks to make it all seem worse.

      Having spent a lot of time in various countries in that region myself (civilian), I have also found it to be true that the vast majority of them are just as moderate as people are in the west, going about their days, going to work, going home, going for coffee, having dinner and so on.

      In fact, I have seen exactly the same number of Muslim suicide bombers in the Middle East as I have in the US (zero - not to say they don't exist there, but they exist in the US too... but I don't really need to point that out, do I?)

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
    168. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Quite right. The problem though is that the entire premise was wrong before even needing to get to this level of analysis.

      Interestingly, I posted that as an example of an "attack" on the internet that fizzled and failed and people seem to be spell bound about the details instead of there being an attack on the internet that failed. I guess the premise is interesting which is why it somewhat caught on until calmer heads pointed out the screw up.

    169. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The parent mentioned a religious attack on the internet and facetiously said I wonder how that will turn out.

      The only relation intended here is the fact that one already happened, failed, and was forgotten by most people. The detailed was just explaining how the religious attack was set. It wasn't expected to be connected to Iranians or Islam.

    170. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, but this time it's "the enemy" (Iran) and not an "ally" (Israel).

      So when they do it, it's crazy. When [we/ally] do it, it's standard operating procedure.

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
    171. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      How did you get anything remotely resembling that from what I have posted?

      First, the entire WWW=666 thing wasn't Israel, it was a christian preacher in the US who gained some support until someone set them strait. Second, I'm pretty sure it all is crazy and it all fails.

    172. Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      I assumed Israel because of the part about Hebrew, my bad.

      But that it was a christian preacher makes it all the more delicious, and the idea I was trying to convey remains valid: to you and I, yes, both sides appear to be equally ridiculous, but Joe Sixpack holds up a double standard without realizing it, hence the "when they do it, it's crazy, when we do it, it's SOP" commentary.

      Sorry for the confusion.

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
  2. The difference is.. speed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    14.4 ackbar? Really?

    1. Re:The difference is.. speed? by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

      Yep, once we hit 6 Mb per screen we should be all set... that's the speed compressed HD video moves at at most. Anything that moves faster than a 1080p screen can't be represented by humans that fast, until we get to 4Kx1080.

    2. Re:The difference is.. speed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, once we hit 6 Mb per screen we should be all set... that's the speed compressed HD video moves at at most. Anything that moves faster than a 1080p screen can't be represented by humans that fast, until we get to 4Kx1080.

      Unless you're downloading large files and not streaming them.

    3. Re:The difference is.. speed? by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

      If you download at 12 Mb while you sleep, you'll spend all your waking day watching what you got.

    4. Re:The difference is.. speed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The largest files I've downloaded are not movies but games and operating system installers -- streaming them won't do me any good.

    5. Re:The difference is.. speed? by Cyberdyne · · Score: 1

      Yep, once we hit 6 Mb per screen we should be all set... that's the speed compressed HD video moves at at most. Anything that moves faster than a 1080p screen can't be represented by humans that fast, until we get to 4Kx1080.

      That's something that hit me quite recently: with an 80/20 Mbps VDSL2 line, I can honestly say it's "fast enough" for everything I do. My satellite STB has a semi-streaming mode, where it downloads a whole show and will start playing once it has enough to play through without pausing for buffering - and it always starts in seconds. Big downloads, I'm almost always limited by the far end anyway; they tend to take longer to install than to download anyway - so if I had the option of a faster link, would I actually get any benefit at all? Previously, I jumped on every increase: from dialup (pricey, even a 30 Mb download was an ordeal) to half-megabit cable modem (yay, I could grab hundred meg files overnight), to ADSL, ADSL2+ (nothing big enough to leave downloading overnight any more), 50 Mbps cable modem, getting a big improvement each time. (I even have the option of upgrading to 330/30 if I want, for a price ... and it really isn't tempting, in the way I would have jumped at any chance of better speeds before.)

  3. Anything that wrests away control by Khyber · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You already know they don't like this because it takes away their control over a population.

    Of course they count it against their religion of control and abuse.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:Anything that wrests away control by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      Duh! No different than Communism controlling religion. It's all about monopolizing focus and control in the hearts of man. Everything else is a threat to that goal.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:Anything that wrests away control by fermion · · Score: 4, Insightful

      so the same as any religious zealot, like the Christians in the US who are willing to spend any amount of money and support any amount of censorship to insure that a child never sees a picture of a breast.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    3. Re:Anything that wrests away control by Nethead · · Score: 1

      No, they are just pissed at having to buy new Sandvines and support contracts to filter traffic. Trust me, they ain't cheap.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    4. Re:Anything that wrests away control by guises · · Score: 1

      ... This is the opposite of the purpose behind Marx's condemnation of religion. Marx saw religion as filling a bread and circuses role - people would quietly suffer through abuse by those in power, with the belief that they would be rewarded in heaven. In other words, religion is about monopolizing focus and control and communists sought to break away from that.

    5. Re:Anything that wrests away control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Marx saw religion as filling a bread and circuses role - people would quietly suffer through abuse by those in power, with the belief that they would be rewarded in heaven. In other words, religion is about monopolizing focus and control and communists sought to break away from that.

      This is sooo XIXth century. We have the internet for that now.

    6. Re:Anything that wrests away control by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Communists sought to monopolize and control typewriters, mimeograph machines, faxes, and photocopiers. More important than their need to control the means to production, they strove to have complete control over the means to communicate.

    7. Re:Anything that wrests away control by Shalhav · · Score: 0

      That doesn't make sense. Religious people aren't taught to blindly take unjust abuse. When has that ever happened that Marx came up with such a lame brained idea.

    8. Re:Anything that wrests away control by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      Philosophically, yes, but the Leninites and Trotskyites (and later the American Progressives) turned "The State" into a replacement for Religion... and the quotes used to justify this are, as usual, completely out of context. From both sides.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
    9. Re:Anything that wrests away control by guises · · Score: 1

      Not rewarded for suffering through physical abuse - rewarded for their humbleness, rewarded for their poverty, etc. This life is just a test, so put up with what you have to and wait for heaven.

    10. Re:Anything that wrests away control by Shalhav · · Score: 0

      A rather caricatured vision of religion, probably to suit his ends. As I implied, but will ask explicitly, find a real world case where religious people "put up with" abuse by those in power. The American colonies, for instance, are not examples.

  4. The key bit by cold+fjord · · Score: 5, Informative

    The key bit FTA is here:

    “All third generation [3G] and high-speed internet services, prior to realization of the required conditions for the National Information Network [Iran’s government-controlled and censored Internet which is under development], is against Sharia [and] against moral and human standards.”

    In short the position is that if you have freedom you will abuse it. That's overall pretty similar to the thinking of al Qaida and ISIS. Strike up the banjos and play "Dueling Theocracy!" Oops, sorry, no music allowed. Or kite flying.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    1. Re:The key bit by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 2

      Those who are wrong hate communication because it allows the good-doers to take over.

    2. Re:The key bit by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      It's pretty fucked up when the US may actually side and assist Iran in stomping out ISIS. It truly is an act of choosing the lesser evil???

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    3. Re:The key bit by siddesu · · Score: 1

      In short the position is that if you have freedom you will abuse it.

      It is a universally acknowledged government problem. Governments are known to have built 'free speech zones' to deal with the issue.

    4. Re:The key bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > In short the position is that if you have freedom you will abuse it.

      That's the position of all authoritarian governments everywhere. Even the secular ones.

    5. Re:The key bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When you consider that the US sided with Saddam Hussein to contain Iran, you begin to realize that such things are possible.

    6. Re:The key bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > In short the position is that if you have freedom you will abuse it. That's overall pretty similar to the thinking of al Qaida and ISIS.

      This is the same core idea used to justify drug and weapon prohibitions in the west. It's far from unique to the mideast, the only difference is the material or resource they're attempting to control.

    7. Re:The key bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evil can never be stomped out, it is an intrinsic property of being human. Only a complete extinction will stomp out evil.

    8. Re:The key bit by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      This is true. Man is born in sin.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    9. Re:The key bit by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      And which governments are those? The only enduring "free speech zones" you find in the US on are some college campuses when they are often struck down in court. The only other use I can think of is some limited use during some events or parades. Although there are problematic aspects to their use in the US, it is still a long ways from fascism. Or does the existence of the hecklers veto provide the only true measure of freedom?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    10. Re:The key bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > And which governments are those?

      The Phillipines

      > The only enduring "free speech zones"

      Key word "enduring" - typical cold fjord duplicity to simultaneously acknowledge the heart of the problem and dismiss it as unimportant - as if restricting protests to the times and places where it is convenient for the protested is just fine.

    11. Re:The key bit by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      Thank you for sharing about the Philippines, but that isn't quite the same as it notes in the article.

      As for the rest, its nonsense. You also overlook the rights of audiences, organizations, and governments to conduct their assemblies for the intended purpose. Your right to free speech doesn't allow you to prevent others from engaging in theirs. You are simply embracing another form of censorship, an attack on free speech, and one popular with fascists by the way. There are 8760 hours in a year. A limitation during 2 of those hours as to where you protest so as to allow another free speech event to take place for the intended purpose is a minor burden at most even if it is worth discussing and some of them go too far. The much bigger problem is what goes on in college campuses.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    12. Re:The key bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's pretty fucked up when the US may actually side and assist Iran in stomping out ISIS. It truly is an act of choosing the lesser evil???

      Welcome to the real world, Neo.

    13. Re:The key bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's pretty fucked up when the US may actually side and assist Iran in stomping out ISIS. It truly is an act of choosing the lesser evil???

      No, it is more a matter of having a common enemy. Iran doesn't want a strong and ultra-violent neighbor and ISIS have gotten a lot of their power because of the instability that the war in Iraq caused so the US can't really step away and say "This is your fscking problem." because then whoever comes out on top will be someone who considers them to be total dickheads that deserves to die.

    14. Re:The key bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DigiShaman, you're not getting something here: Yahweh *invented the concept of Sin.* Not any specific sin, not sins plural, but Sin-with-a-capital-S.

      Your God is supposed to be omnipotent, eternal, unconditioned, time-transcendent, immortal, and absolutely sovereign, correct? That means *nothing can possibly affect or injure it in any way shape or form.* And THAT means "sin" is "Yahweh choosing to take offense at something that cannot possibly harm or injure him."

      Do you understand? Your God is *choosing* to be offended. It does not have to care one little bit about what any of its creations do. If it were truly as powerful and grand as all that, it wouldn't, either. It has infinite capacity to "be the bigger man (God)" in cases like these.

      And let's not get into how little sense it makes for this God to sacrifice his own son, who is also himself, TO himself, to stop himself from throwing his own creations into the hell he freely chose to create (but didn't tell the Jews about; he let the pagan Persians and Greeks do it...) for the sins he knew they would commit before he created them, with the free will he chose to give them... ...and it mostly. Doesn't. Work.

      What kind of schizophrenic monster are you worshiping?! And why aren't you trying to kill it?! I'm no atheist; I know an evil spirit when I see one, and Yahweh is it. Either that or a hostile alien...or perhaps, as the Ugaritic texts say, just another Canaanite idol who got blown way the hell out of proportion.

    15. Re:The key bit by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Never mind that there are multiple denominations out there. Not going into it, just acknowledging that fact. Some believe each individual is predestined, I for one do not. As for "sin", well God loves his creation so much that he gave man the free will. There were rules, but that damn apple (forbidden fruit and all that) damned us all. Until his son (Jesus) saved us.

      I believe in the trinity. And yes, it's God. Who knows what the motives were. Perhaps it's his way of of introspection by taking on three forms?! Who knows.

      As for Yahweh, you do know the origins of the his name, right? When Moses asked God what his name was, he responded "I am". Yahweh is "I am" translated in third person. Yahweh (God) is the Alpha and Omega.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    16. Re:The key bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to have imaginary friends when I was a child, but even then, I didn't truly believe they existed. What does that make you?

    17. Re:The key bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A violation of free speech by government thugs is unacceptable even if it takes place 'just' for 1 second. You don't get to use censorship to 'protect' free speech; that's just hypocritical nonsense, but exactly what I'd expect from you.

      Free speech zones are 100% intolerable to any true believer in small government.

    18. Re:The key bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in what way fucked up? oh you think USA is "protecting the worlds freedom". fuck off. It protects its own interests, and fuck everyone and everything else, like it always has done, while feeding the military, fuel and banking conglomerates. So I dont know why anyone would be in the least bit surprised at any time when this or that "alliance" occurs

    19. Re:The key bit by ultranova · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's pretty fucked up when the US may actually side and assist Iran in stomping out ISIS. It truly is an act of choosing the lesser evil???

      I guess there's always a Greater Satan.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    20. Re:The key bit by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      No, if Iran sides with the US in stomping out ISIS, they are definitely not choosing the lesser evil...

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    21. Re:The key bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just so you know, the kite flying thing isn't about little kids with kites on a nice day with fluffy clouds.

      it's about adults playing the sport of battle-kite, with bits of broken glass in the kite string to try and cut the other guy's cord.

      no idea why an omnipotent being would have a problem with that, but there you are.

    22. Re:The key bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's exactly it, isn't it?

      Against Sharia and against moron standards but whose moron standards?!

      Silence! - I keel yoo!

    23. Re:The key bit by scsirob · · Score: 1

      I find it quite interesting that sharia which has to be taken literally and has not changed in a thousand years, has anything to say about internet speeds. So somewhere over 1000 years ago a bearded guy sat in a tent, writing "Thou shalt not surf the interwebs over more than 14.4k Baud...". These guys are goood..

      --
      To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
    24. Re:The key bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you consider that the US sided with Saddam Hussein to contain Iran, you begin to realize that such things are possible.

      This is pretty standard behaviour for governments. Conquering the world by force may be possible, but it is viewed as "too expensive". The next best thing is to find two bad guys fighting, and prop up the weaker one. The fighting then lasts longer, more bad guys die on both sides. With some luck, the bad guy you're helping comes to depend on your help, and can be controlled to some extent. Or that's what governments hope, anyway.

      If this 'helping' is overdone, "your" bad guy takes over and becomes the biggest bad guy in the region. Then he thinks he won't need you anymore and does whatever he wants. Typical scenario involving americans - they tend to hand out too much weapons.

    25. Re:The key bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well, one government says this:

      "People are not at liberty to speak whenever, however, and wherever they please," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ruled for the court.

    26. Re:The key bit by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      It's an act of trying to reinstate the regional power balances ... Saudi Arabia's mental image of Iran as the big bogey men (which the US loyally spread to the world) has been shattered by reality.

      They thought they could fuel Sunni uprisings without it endangering themselves, they see now how fucking moronic that was now given their own cushy positions and popular image. So all hands on deck to reverse the course set with Islamic spring and bring some stability back, including the stalemate between Sunni and Shia, strengthening Iran a bit is not a problem and minimizes costs.

    27. Re:The key bit by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      The only actual censorship is going on at the colleges, which is why that is a bigger problem. There isn't any censorship going on when used to prevent disruption of events. They would probably see less use if demonstrators wouldn't disrupt the actual events, using the heckler's veto, to harm the free speech rights of other people. You don't speak for all people that believe in smaller government. Even smaller government is expected to maintain law and order.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    28. Re:The key bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, DigiShaman, Yahweh is a Canaanite idol. I DID mention the Ugaritic discoveries, did I not? You should read of them. There is also an Assyrian tablet in a British museum, dated to ca. 700 BC, that shows Bel-Marduk going through the entire Passion cycle, from judgment to death between two other people to descent into the underworld to a woman looking for him.

      Reality doesn't give a damn what you believe. You also did not engage my response to you AT ALL; you simply shut down and started spewing from the Catechism. Read for comprehension, please. I will paste it again:

      "Your God is supposed to be omnipotent, eternal, unconditioned, time-transcendent, immortal, and absolutely sovereign, correct? That means *nothing can possibly affect or injure it in any way shape or form.* And THAT means "sin" is "Yahweh choosing to take offense at something that cannot possibly harm or injure him.""

      Do you understand this? Do not move on until you do.

      "Your God is *choosing* to be offended. It does not have to care one little bit about what any of its creations do. If it were truly as powerful and grand as all that, it wouldn't, either. It has infinite capacity to "be the bigger man (God)" in cases like these."

      Do you understand THIS? Again, do not move on until you do.

      "And let's not get into how little sense it makes for this God to sacrifice his own son, who is also himself, TO himself, to stop himself from throwing his own creations into the hell he freely chose to create (but didn't tell the Jews about; he let the pagan Persians and Greeks do it...) for the sins he knew they would commit before he created them, with the free will he chose to give them... ...and it mostly. Doesn't. Work."

      If you get nothing else through your head understand this. You are worshipping a narcissistic and very likely insane demiurge. This entire sadomasochistic charade was completely unnecessary, free will or not, because he's supposed to be omniscient; if he wants to forgive, he can JUST FORGIVE.

      DigiShaman, you are providing me with interesting sociological data here, but I'm more interested in helping people get out of their own way than cataloging the ridiculousness of Abrahamic believers. Please, wake up. The water's fine over here; come on in.

    29. Re:The key bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There isn't any censorship going on when used to prevent disruption of events.

      When government thugs shove people off into free speech zones, that is censorship. No exceptions. Free speech zones are absolutely intolerable, even when you think they're used to prevent "disruptions."

      to harm the free speech rights of other people.

      Nonsense. The only thing harming people's free speech rights is the government. Other people speaking cannot do that, even if they "disrupt" some event. This is strictly a government matter.

      You don't speak for all people that believe in smaller government.

      I speak only for people who truly believe in small government. That means no censorship-loving morons who think that free speech zones are okay.

    30. Re:The key bit by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      The only thing harming people's free speech rights is the government. Other people speaking cannot do that, even if they "disrupt" some event.

      Disruption is harm. You don't have a right to disrupt other people's events.

      I speak only for people who truly believe in small government.

      You speak for yourself.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    31. Re:The key bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The free speech zones are there to make sure the news never carries a protest against the political establishment. It has nothing to do with protecting against disruption of the republican/democratic political conventions, or the latest "screw-the-nonrich treaty" signing party. Note that the minor parties get no similar free speech zones to contain protesters. Anyone can go up and disrupt them, and it frequently happens.

    32. Re:The key bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disruption is harm.

      Disruption is speech, depending on how the disruption is done. The fact that you're trying to rebrand speech as harm like a typical authoritarian is unsurprising.

      You don't have a right to disrupt other people's events.

      I disagree. If it's in a public place, the government has absolutely zero legitimate authority to interfere.

      You speak for yourself.

      If you don't want small government, just say so. Everyone already knows that you're not an actual small government advocate. On nearly every discussion about freedom, you side with the authoritarian government, except for a few conservative issues, proving that you're a partisan hack.

    33. Re:The key bit by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      If you get nothing else through your head understand this. You are worshipping a narcissistic and very likely insane demiurge. This entire sadomasochistic charade was completely unnecessary, free will or not, because he's supposed to be omniscient; if he wants to forgive, he can JUST FORGIVE.

      I get you what you're saying loud and clear. What you FAIL to accept is that I don't give a damn. The motives and reason behind God are ABOVE YOU. It's NOT FOR YOU TO JUDGE! He can smite you just..."because". The moment you accept that, is the moment you can drop your fucking hubris and remain an humble man.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    34. Re:The key bit by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      You're only telling it as it is halfway. Yes, America is protecting its own interests first and foremost; as would any nation. But yes, "protecting the worlds freedom" via democracy and self-determination is a core view of Western Civilization; spearheaded by America, a super power.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    35. Re:The key bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are not a gadfly.

    36. Re:The key bit by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      And the funny thing is that in countries like Saudi Arabia the #1 pastime is conspicuous consumption and shopping followed closely by sports. By outlawing drinking, dancing, music... you end up with rampant consumerism, which is exactly what they claim is wrong with the West.

      More proof that what sounds good and looks good on paper rarely works in the real world with actual people.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
  5. Maybe it would be good if the Ayatollah wins? by ikedasquid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Imagine if 3G (and "4G") was found to somehow be illegal in the US - I think there'd be a revolt. A good enough chunk of the nation expects to get FB updates and cat vids on demand anywhere they go. Maybe Iran is the same? It seems backwards, but I think this is the kind of thing that gets the average person to actually care about something. No cat vids = Arab spring in Iran? Maybe?

    1. Re:Maybe it would be good if the Ayatollah wins? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No cat vids = Arab spring in Iran? Maybe?

      Because that has worked out so well for everyone in the rest of the countries?

      I get where you are going with it, but the only good that might do is put a minor delay in their nuclear efforts. The after effects could be much worse.

    2. Re:Maybe it would be good if the Ayatollah wins? by ikedasquid · · Score: 1

      You've got a point there. The summary article on Wikipedia has 21 nations listed as having some kind of Arab spring activity, but only 3 with good-ish outcomes.

      Next way-out-there question: The US is pretty tired of middle east involvements right now...but if there was a significant revolt in Iran, would the US jump in? Fund rebels? Deliver arms?

    3. Re:Maybe it would be good if the Ayatollah wins? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be more like if municipal wifi or fiber were declared to be illegal.

    4. Re: Maybe it would be good if the Ayatollah wins? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean how every current corporate ISP is trying to make them? ;-)

    5. Re:Maybe it would be good if the Ayatollah wins? by dryeo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You mean like in Syria where the end result has been ISIS? The Iranian people are actually moving towards more freedom on their own. They've voted in a pretty liberal (for that part of the world) President, they have more religious freedoms then most of that part of the world and isn't much different in some ways as American allies such as Saudi Arabia where they have morals police who will execute you on the spot and women have even less rights then Iranian women.
      It's all a weird game where our friends are just as bad as our enemies, just that there is a lot of propaganda from both sides.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    6. Re:Maybe it would be good if the Ayatollah wins? by rossdee · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Arab spring in Iran? Maybe?"

      Very unlikely since the Iranians are not Arabs - they're Persians

    7. Re:Maybe it would be good if the Ayatollah wins? by dcollins · · Score: 1

      If I had a dollar for every "there'd be a revolt in the US!" thing that has come to pass in the last 20 years, with no revolt, I'd be a very wealthy man.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    8. Re:Maybe it would be good if the Ayatollah wins? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      You mean like in Syria where the end result has been ISIS?

      That's not really a good example since the US and the West didn't back the moderates in a timely fashion. That allowed the Islamist extremists like al Qaida to stream into Syria to form ISIS. If the moderates had been stronger earlier that might not have happened.

      I don't think that the current Iranian president is particularly liberal.

      As to the Saudis versus the Iranians - at least our friends aren't looking to attack us and work with us on many matters of common interest. You can't really say that about the Iranians.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    9. Re:Maybe it would be good if the Ayatollah wins? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not really a good example since the US and the West didn't back the moderates in a timely fashion. That allowed the Islamist extremists like al Qaida to stream into Syria to form ISIS.

      Al Qaida, the organization that CIA built up and and supported during the cold war to mess with Soviet? That organization?

    10. Re:Maybe it would be good if the Ayatollah wins? by meglon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, you could have said that about Iran.. until someone fucked it all up. But more to the point, 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers were citizens Saudi Arabia. I'd suggest you pretty much have it ass backwards.

      http://atimes.com/atimes/Middl...

      Iran is the mess it is now (from our perspective) directly because the US fucked them over in 1953. We have a bunch of clueless myopic idiots who's first and only thought is to dump more weapons anywhere there's a problem in the world, without giving second thought to how that's come back to bite our asses time and time again. If we quit listening to these numb-nutted war neo-cons, maybe we wouldn't keep finding ourselves in bad situations decades later.... although with the whole Iraq/Afghanistan thing, it didn't even take decades.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    11. Re:Maybe it would be good if the Ayatollah wins? by Saffaya · · Score: 2

      As to the Saudis versus the Iranians - at least our friends aren't looking to attack us and work with us on many matters of common interest. You can't really say that about the Iranians.

      Quoting Jon Stewart on the matter (speaking of saudi arabia) :

      "May I remind you that a full 20% of the 9/11 hijackers were NOT from there"

    12. Re:Maybe it would be good if the Ayatollah wins? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Actually things have spun up. There are many more revolutions than in the past. Consider music recording: the norm used to be 33-1/3 revolutions per minute. With CDs it went beyond hundreds of RPM. Now, with hard disk technology, thousands of RPM.

      It's all just spinning in place, yes, but let's be real: even the most earnest revolutionary, standing at the lit table, really is mainly aiming to get the pants off a few freshmen coeds.

    13. Re:Maybe it would be good if the Ayatollah wins? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you read what you replied to. The claim wasn't that the current Iranian president is "particularly liberal".

      And were is the evidence for the assertion that the Saudis aren't looking to attack you? The Saudi financed Al-Quida already did, you know..

      And where is the evidence for the assertion that the Iranians are looking to attack you? There's an awful lot of evidence suggesting they are looking to defend themselves, but not much else.

      In fact, it seems "the Saudi are our friends, the Iranians are our enemies" is some kind of religious dogma for you. Lots of "thinking" and believing, no questioning and precious little facts supporting it.

    14. Re:Maybe it would be good if the Ayatollah wins? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      It's an almost completely irrelevant point. They were Islamic extremists acting as part of the international terrorist organization al Qaida, not part of the Saudi government. By a similar token, if the IRA had conducted the attack would you blame the Irish government or the country of Ireland? No.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    15. Re:Maybe it would be good if the Ayatollah wins? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Who cares if they are moderate? They won't be able to run the country after a civil war ... and after it collapses in on itself the warlords will take over and the extremists will float to the top any way.

    16. Re:Maybe it would be good if the Ayatollah wins? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      But more to the point, 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers were citizens Saudi Arabia. I'd suggest you pretty much have it ass backwards.

      Actually I'm the one that has it right and you're the one that has it ass backwards. Those hijackers were Islamic extremists acting as members of the international terrorist organization al Qaida, not as members of the Saudi government, its armed forces, or organizations under its control. How is it that you don't get that? Is everything that US citizens do outside the country at the order of the US government? Clearly not.

      Maybe you haven't heard but al Qaida is fighting against the Saudi government and wants to overthrow it.

      Iran is the mess it is now (from our perspective) directly because the US fucked them over in 1953.

      Once again you have it completely wrong. The US and UK didn't "fuck them over," they helped Iran recover from a coup. The Prime Minister had effectively overthrown the government having faked an election, dissolved the parliament, was ruling by decree, and ignoring the last check on his power - the right of the head of state, the Shah, to dismiss the Prime Minister. Restoring the Shah to power gave Iran a chance.

      If we quit listening to these numb-nutted war neo-cons, maybe we wouldn't keep finding ourselves in bad situations decades later....

      Question: Does the Soviet Union still rule Afghanistan? Does the Soviet Union still rule Eastern Europe? No? Apparently the factions you favor can take no part of the credit for that.

      although with the whole Iraq/Afghanistan thing, it didn't even take decades.

      That is pretty much nonsense. The problem of Islamist extremism has been growing for decades in the Middle East and South-West Asia. Maybe you've heard of the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon? The problem is decades older than even that.... in its current form.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    17. Re:Maybe it would be good if the Ayatollah wins? by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      No cat vids = Arab spring in Iran?

      This is not likely to happen, unfortunately.

      Revolutions usually happen when natality drops and people get literate, which let them care about politics. For Iran, it happened in 1979, which means the Iran "arab spring" (wow, don't tell an Iranian he is an Arab) already occurred.

      It could happen again (after All, France did 4 revolutions within 1789 and 1848), but do not take it for something ready to mechanically happen.

    18. Re:Maybe it would be good if the Ayatollah wins? by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      I agree with you but placing fault with the neo-cons is really old. More soldiers died in Afghanistan under Obama than Bush by a 3:1 margin. Obama, our first progressive president, launched an illegal war in Libya that has really fucked it up - has greatly expanded our war footing, is putting us back in Iraq, did more drone raids against women and children than Bush ever did, etc. etc. etc.

      So please put the blame where it belongs.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
  6. Re:We need him... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I feel like I'm being punished by reading your off-topic nonsense. You do know that Madoff is in prison, right?

  7. This will be hugely popular. by mikeabbott420 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Young and old we all hate fast internet connections the way seals hate fish.

    --
    This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
    1. Re:This will be hugely popular. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Young and old we all hate fast internet connections the way seals hate fish.

      ... and we need comments from the Grand Poohbah (sorry, Ayatollah) on this subject the way a fish needs a bicycle.

    2. Re:This will be hugely popular. by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Ms. Steinem, I'd been told you were dead!

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:This will be hugely popular. by ComputersKai · · Score: 1

      Obviously Grand Ayatollah has never experience the horror of Steam downloads.

  8. Re:We need him... by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

    Uhm, you're confused bankers on Wall Street are doing just fine moving the cash around... it's the traders instructions they follow, and the traders who are making the mistakes right now.

  9. Maybe now the Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    will be for faster Internet. I know with their rule here in Seattle, Internet access is pitiful. I have 192 kbps at home and many of my friends are still stuck on dial-up. The DINOs that run this city hate the Internet and are doing everything they can to keep us from having it.

    1. Re:Maybe now the Republicans... by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      They rule this city

      Republicans lose to Greens in Seattle. Whatever accounts for poor bandwidth in Seattle relative to other US cites has got nothing at all to do with Republicans.

      The degree of deviation from reality exhibited by some of you libtards is genuinely disturbing. Seek help, "greenwow."

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    2. Re:Maybe now the Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "director's rules" here in Seattle prevent upgrades. There is no city in this country that has a law that is more Republican than that. It puts the whims of one person ahead of the common good. That is the way of Republicans. They rule this city with an iron fist. I only have 576kbps at home, but it's faster than all but one of my friends. When you let Republican ideas rule your city, this is what happens.

      Actually both Republican and Democratic ideas consist of defending the rights of the individual against the tyranny of the masses, they just differ in terms of the specifics. For example, consider Pot and Tobacco- each group would like one to be illegal and the other to be available freely.

      What you're thinking of is Socialism, where the individual ceases to matter entirely, and only the 'greater common good' is considered important.

  10. Backwards savages, wanting to remain backwards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't say?

    1. Re:Backwards savages, wanting to remain backwards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Maybe the religious fascists in Iran could be called backward savages, but certainly not the general population. I've known many people of Iranian origin here in the U.S. who were or are part of major scientific establishments. There are also many Iranian students studying in American universities. Also, the recent Fields medal winner, Mirzakhani, is Iranian. So it is extremly myopic to suggest that they are all uncivilized beasts.

  11. High Speed Internet Is "Against Moron Standards." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He clearly meant to say this, but Persian is tricky.

  12. Democrats rule Seattle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seattle has had Democratic mayors for more than 20 years you stupid troll.

    1. Re:Democrats rule Seattle by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      This stupid Republican troll once blamed Republicans for rent increases in San Francisco! As if Republicans have any power there whatsoever.

    2. Re:Democrats rule Seattle by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      There are Republicans under you bed when you sleep at night.

  13. Then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If my connection sucks means my morality is immaculate? I'm feeling like a saint already.

  14. I hope they don't have Comcast... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... just wait until they try to cancel.

  15. "Against Moral Standards?" Or Just Your Backers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe the Ayatollah is on the payroll of Comcast

  16. I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 1

    Iran's government is fighting over whether or not to implement rusting-edge technology, with calls for impeachment if they go ahead. It's like they WANT to remain in the 8th Century. Why is it exactly that we're afraid of them?

    1. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by bloodhawk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They aren't the only country wanting to remain in the 8th century, their are still supposedly modern countries that ban teaching or evolution and insist on teaching their kids at school creationism.

    2. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You will have few useful insights if you focus on the wrong data, as you are.

    3. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the technology required to make a basic nuclear fission bomb does not require internet access, and people with the delusion of divine authority are much more likely to use it.

    4. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Except for the fact Iran is trying to go back to the 8th century using 21 century technology to get there, and ostensibly taking the entire world back with it!

      Well, I'm sure our drill bits can go through glass just as well as sand.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    5. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by schnell · · Score: 3

      It's like they WANT to remain in the 8th Century. Why is it exactly that we're afraid of them?

      Because while they're eager to keep an 8th century moral code (and dress code for women), they seem decidedly more modern in their choice of military forces and interest (but not yet attainment of) nuclear weapons.

      Because, you know, when you're the Grand Ayatollah, some "Bikinis" are OK but definitely not others.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    6. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by cold+fjord · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Apparently you aren't up on the latest research, which puts you behind the times.

      Belief In Evolution Doesn't Measure Science Literacy

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    7. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      I know you mean the US, but the difference is that the US has left the 8th century. A small minority seems adamant in getting them back to the dark ages, but there's a wide chasm between that and the poor souls of the Middle East. To conflate the two and pretend otherwise hinders both issues.

    8. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Except for the fact Iran is trying to go back to the 8th century using 21 century technology to get there,

      Except they aren't. Iran is one of, if not the most, modern countries in that region.
      They are the 21st largest country by GDP and 17th by PPP (purchasing power parity).

      They've got culture shit that doesn't match american cultural shit.
      But so does China and that hasn't stopped them from bootstrapping themselves.

    9. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course if you "believe" in evolution, you clearly don't understand the fundamental principles of science....

    10. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Islam is by definition insanity; don't try and rationalize it. To do so would be a maddening endeavor.

    11. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't seem to be in a good position to comment on that.

    12. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Islamophobia is by definition insanity; don't try and rationalize it. To do so would be a maddening endeavor.

    13. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But not "believing" in evolution sure as hell does make you scientifically illiterate, even if merely "believing" in evolution doesn't necessarily make you all that knowledgeable about science.

    14. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      You should read the article, you're wrong.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    15. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by antifoidulus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which is part of what drives the radicalism of the Islamic clerics. They have a perverse incentive for keeping things as fundamentalist as possible. They look to what happened to the clergy in Europe, who in roughly a 100 year span went from being basically on top of the social hierarchy to near the bottom, and are scared it might happen to them. In their eyes the situation in Europe was brought around both by the clergy actively supporting reform, but perhaps even more importantly the clergy not fighting back against reform hard enough(read cutting the heads off of reformers). In a society where your social status not only dictates the amount of property you have, but also your access to women, it's not surprising that the Islamic clergy are scared shitless of modernization and are doing everything in their power to stop it.

    16. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It's almost like Islam is some kind of religion... oh wait.

    17. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Iran also by and large left the 8th century a long time ago. Under Shah, say, it wasn't really any different from other authoritarian European regimes from a decade before.

    18. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nope. The theory of evolution itself is a part of science. By rejecting a scientific theory that is so overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community due to the massive amount of evidence that supports it, one is ignorant of science. There is no debate here. You might know random other scientific facts, but that does not make one scientifically literate.

      But besides that, it's always cute to see people linking to articles they agree with as if that automatically proves what they believe. I'll accept the conclusion when scientific studies have been performed and have been replicated numerous times, and the evidence is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community. A single study or article--or even a few--means little. Scientific consensus is a check on quackery and human error.

    19. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by narcc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't need religion for that kind of insanity. Do some reading about the dechristianisation of France during the French Revolution. I'll wait.

      Nasty, isn't it? Given the evidence, it's difficult to believe that ideological atheism won't lead to irrationality and bloodshed just as quickly and easily as any religion.

    20. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by Your.Master · · Score: 2

      You might know random other scientific facts, but that does not make one scientifically literate.

      Note: I am a man of science and easily accept the validity of the theory of evolution.

      They aren't random facts. Please actually read the linked article -- it's clear you aren't doing so, and it makes you look very bad and frankly undermines your points about science.

      The article specifies that comprehension of the theory of evolution is uncorrelated to "belief" in the theory of evolution. In other words, just because somebody believes evolution, does not mean they understand what it is they believe in; just because they disbelieve evolution, does not mean they do not understand what it is they disbelieve. Scientific literacy can reasonably be defined as understanding of the principles of science, regardless of whether you accept its conclusions. Even if it seems ridiculous to you and me not to accept its conclusions.

      Remember, there are people in the world who literally believe in the talking snake, even though every adult knows that snakes cannot talk.

      (point is well taken at using a single, recently-produced study without independent corroboration to support a point, though).

    21. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by terjeber · · Score: 2

      it's difficult to believe that ideological atheism won't lead to irrationality and bloodshed

      Actually, it is very difficult to believe atheism would lead to anything, positive or negative. Atheism is the absence of belief, so it can not, on its own, become ideological or extremist. You have to have something in addition. Extremism has to come from the belief in something. Stalin, for example, was not a murderous bastard because of a non-belief, he was a murderous bastard for his belief in Communism, and extremist belief in a political ideology will look similar to strong religious extremism.

      Extremism requires the belief in some absolute truth, so in that way, Christianity, Islam and Communism all qualify. Atheism, being the lack of belief, does not. I could imagine someone collecting coins could develop some sort of extremist behavior related to the concept of "collecting coins", for example hating everybody who "mistreated" coins. Someone who doesn't collect stamps could not develop some sort of extremist notion related to the fact that he is not collecting stamps.

    22. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Given the evidence, it's difficult to believe that ideological atheism won't lead to irrationality and bloodshed just as quickly and easily as any religion.

      That's because every religion is an ideology and every ideology a religion.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    23. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by narcc · · Score: 1

      All fine talking points, we've all heard countless times.

      Now, if you'd like, please actually address the content of my post.

    24. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't random facts.

      To most people, they are random facts. This is because science education is abysmal in a lot of places.

      Please actually read the linked article -- it's clear you aren't doing so, and it makes you look very bad and frankly undermines your points about science.

      I disagree with this. Regardless of how bad I look to some people, my arguments stand on their own merits.

      The article specifies that comprehension of the theory of evolution is uncorrelated to "belief" in the theory of evolution. In other words, just because somebody believes evolution, does not mean they understand what it is they believe in; just because they disbelieve evolution, does not mean they do not understand what it is they disbelieve. Scientific literacy can reasonably be defined as understanding of the principles of science, regardless of whether you accept its conclusions. Even if it seems ridiculous to you and me not to accept its conclusions.

      Remember, there are people in the world who literally believe in the talking snake, even though every adult knows that snakes cannot talk.

      I understand, but I question the validity of most tests that we give people. I'll wait on this one until more studies are done.

    25. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by coofercat · · Score: 1

      ...Curiously imposed by using very 21st century means and technologies though. Had we all stayed in the 8th century, they'd be coming around with nothing more than a sword. As it is, the rest of the world provided them with guns, missiles, tanks and Internet videos etc, and they're very happy to use that to get the rest of the world back to the 8th century. Ironic, huh?

    26. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      I know you mean the US, but the difference is that the US has left the 8th century.

      Actually, the US was never in the 8th century.

      Pre-Colombian America (the part the US sits on now) was definitely pre-8th century (pre-8th century BC, even).

      Then we jumped straight into the 17th century (or arguably 16th - depends on how you want to count those earliest Spaniards who may or may not have actually reached CONUS), and proceeded from there.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    27. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Also, because we're really never that far ahead of toppling back centuries in our grasp of technology. A few weeks of massive power and infrastructure failure would drag large parts of humanity back centuries, and potientially allow new anti-tech warlords to take control. The average channel surfing prole wouldn't rise to the occasion. He'd be driven to the countryside in a global repeat of Pol Pot's 'drive to the countryside*'

        (* which was actually caused by the instantaneous halt of supplies from the US airlifted into the urban centers of Cambodia, where the former agrarian population had been driven by US bombing campaigns.)

    28. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How does it fail to address your point?

      I'm an atheist. I also don't believe in unicorns.

      I don't campaign against unicorns. I don't really care if YOU believe in unicorns.
      Yes, I think you're wasting a whole lot of time, money, and energy believing in something there is no evidence for.

      If you start trying to convince me to believe in unicorns, I will debate it with you.
      If you start trying to force me to live as though unicorns were real, I will fight you.
      If you start chopping off the heads of people who don't believe in unicorns, I think you must be stopped. Not because of your beliefs. Because of your actions.

    29. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      So you think that the National Science Foundation acted rashly after years of study? Darn them and their precipitous action!

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    30. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Oh oh! Looks like we have some anti-science moderators that don't accept the conclusion of the National Science Foundation. The horror!

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    31. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      their are still supposedly modern countries that ban teaching or evolution and insist on teaching their kids at school creationism

      Well at least they still teach the difference between "their" and "there."

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    32. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I think: "But besides that, it's always cute to see people linking to articles they agree with as if that automatically proves what they believe. I'll accept the conclusion when scientific studies have been performed and have been replicated numerous times, and the evidence is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community. A single study or article--or even a few--means little. Scientific consensus is a check on quackery and human error."

    33. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      Actually, it is very difficult to believe atheism would lead to anything, positive or negative. Atheism is the absence of belief...

      Captain Pedantic here..., and I am going to stop you right there. Atheism is not the absence of belief. It is the absence of any theistic belief. In a case where "the truth" is pretty much unknowable, that position is itself a belief. While the atheists I know are largely reasonable and intelligent people, an awful lot of them arrogantly refuse to acknowledge that inconvenient fact.

    34. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      He did. Your problem is that you're confusing atheism (the lack of belief) with militant anti-theism (the belief in the lack of).

    35. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      In short, you don't accept the findings of the National Science Foundation. Fine.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    36. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They may very well be right. I just said that I'm waiting until there have been multiple such studies and the conclusion is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community.

    37. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by terjeber · · Score: 1

      In a case where "the truth" is pretty much unknowable, that position is itself a belief.

      How so? Is the non-belief in a deistic invisible pink unicorn also a belief? How about the non-belief in a theistic green tea pot in orbit around the sun somewhere between 68 and 203 astronomical units from the center of the sun?

    38. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they're embracing SOME modern technology, to whit, suicide vests filled with high explosives and shrapnel.

    39. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      Given the French revolution was a direct response in part to the excess, privilege and abuses committed by the church and state the actions their while excessive are hardly surprising and the pre French revolution time is an excellent example of why the church should never be permitted to have any sort of power in society. It is important to note though the revolution WASN'T based on atheism at all, it was based on overthrowing an aristocracy and class system that was oppressing the people through taxes and starvation.

    40. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it is very difficult to believe atheism would lead to anything, positive or negative. Atheism is the absence of belief...

      Captain Pedantic here..., and I am going to stop you right there. Atheism is not the absence of belief. It is the absence of any theistic belief. In a case where "the truth" is pretty much unknowable, that position is itself a belief. While the atheists I know are largely reasonable and intelligent people, an awful lot of them arrogantly refuse to acknowledge that inconvenient fact.

      That is a very arguable point (personally I am agnostic though I would lean towards atheism), Atheism can be said to be the most logical conclusion from the facts available (though there is a lot of missing information the information that is their doesn't lead itself to their being a magical unicorn in the sky looking after people).

    41. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The truth is currently unknowable, but the available evidence suggests atheism is the likely correct answer. So it isn't actually so much a belief as a willingness to accept the most likely scientific answer.

    42. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by narcc · · Score: 1

      How so? Is the non-belief in a deistic invisible pink unicorn also a belief?

      Yes. Obviously.

      How about the non-belief in a theistic green tea pot in orbit around the sun somewhere between 68 and 203 astronomical units from the center of the sun?

      Yes. "I believe no such tea pot exists."

      See? It's not rocket surgery.

    43. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by terjeber · · Score: 1

      Yes. Obviously

      So, not collecting stamps is a hobby. Not running 50 miles is exercise. Not earning $100 000 is income. Not slapping you in the face is violence.

      Were you born retarded or was it inflicted upon you by other retards?

      I believe no such tea pot exists.

      I see that your retardation has made it difficult for you to read. if you don't understand the difference between: "I believe there is no tea pot" and "I do not have a belief in such a tea pot" you should not participate in public discourse without adult supervision. There is an infinite number of things in which I do not have a belief, I do not believe there is a tea pot out there. In other words, that belief does not exist within me. I have no opinion whatsoever on whether there is a tea pot or not. That doesn't mean I am agnostic about the tea pot, agnosticism would mean that I am open to the possibility of there being a tea pot, I am not. The "idea of there being a tea pot out there" is silly to me, but that doesn't mean I have an opinion on the tea pot, I don't. I have an opinion about entertaining the idea that there may be a tea pot out there.

      Again, the number of things in which I do not have a belief is infinite, exactly infinite. Someone can come up with any kind of thing they them selves believe exists, but I do not entertain these ideas. I have never heard of these ideas, and I relate to them accordingly (not at all). I relate to notions about deities in the same way. I have heard some of the notions of people who believe in deities, but I do not have any kind of notions about the deities I have an opinion about the notions of deities

      . Google "not even wrong".

      My version of not even wrong would be something like: When a religious person says "there is a God", he is not correct, he's not even wrong. In science, a statement isn't either right or wrong, it can be right, wrong and "not even wrong". Statements about the existence of magical creatures like God are not wrong, they are not right, they are neither, the statement it self is nonsense. These two statements have equivalent truth levels: "There is a God" and "bleeeeehhhpfhhhth eeeeef ooook". When religious people talk about their gods, to a scientific mind the sounds coming out of their mouths contain less information than the sounds coming out of a male chimpanzee in heat. The very statements, disregarding the meaning they are trying to convey, are meaningless stringing together of sounds that only appears to be some form of communication.

    44. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by narcc · · Score: 1

      So, not collecting stamps is a hobby.

      You're a walking talking point. Too bad you picked the worst of the bunch for this particular dispute. Let's try reason instead of rhetoric this time:

      The statements "I don't believe the green teapot exists" and "I believe the green teapot does not exist" are logically equivalent. They are the same. This is indisputable. This is logic 101, chapter 1, page 1. It's not complicated. If you disagree, go ahead and do a bit of math. You'll find that they are, in fact, equivalent.

      Why does this simple fact bother you so much?

    45. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by terjeber · · Score: 1

      The statements "I don't believe the green teapot exists" and "I believe the green teapot does not exist" are logically equivalent

      No, they are not. Not even close. The first goes to the existence of my belief, it doesn't exist. The second states I have a belief, a belief there is no teapot. You should get a refund from your English teacher.

      As in math - simplify. Statement 1:I have no belief. Statement 2: I have a belief. They are not equivalent, they are opposites.

      Why does this simple fact bother you so much?

      Morons with big mouths always bother me.

    46. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by narcc · · Score: 1

      You're an idiot.

      They are exactly identical. To the question "Is there a green teapot" answering "I don't believe in the green teapot" is the same as answering "I believe no green teapot exists".

      They are both statements of belief, both indicate the same belief about the teapot. (Certainly not opposite beliefs about the teapot!) Play semantic games all you like, but that does not change reality.

      When you were making decisions about your education, you should have picked "university" instead of "youtube".

    47. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by terjeber · · Score: 1

      To the question "Is there a green teapot" answering "I don't believe in the green teapot" is the same as answering "I believe no green teapot exists"

      Not in English, and not using logic. "I believe" and "I do not believe" are the exact opposite. Try running it by an adult.

    48. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by narcc · · Score: 1

      "I believe" and "I do not believe" are the exact opposite.

      Yes they are. Good for you.

      However, "I believe x does not exist" and "I do not believe x exists" are logically identical.

      This isn't complicated. It's not even arguable. What's wrong with you?

    49. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by terjeber · · Score: 1

      However, "I believe x does not exist" and "I do not believe x exists" are logically identical

      Sigh. There is nothing wrong with me, and I'll try to show you again. I understand meta-discussions are difficult, and you are obviously not particularly well educated as it comes to logic and language. So, let's break this down a little. Let's start with the belief in a tea pot. There are three main elements to the statement "I believe in a tea pot". They are the subject, "I", the action "believe" and the object "a tea pot". Then there is the negation, NOT. This gives us:

      SUBJECT(I) ACTION(believe) OBJECT(NOT tea pot) => no presence of tea pot in "the believing area of my mind"
      SUBJECT(I) ACTION(NOT believe) OBJECT(tea pot) => no presence of tea pot in "the believing area of my mind"

      So, in your mind, the fact that both situations end up with the non-existence of a tea pot in "the believing area of my mind", the two actions must be the same. This is where you fail. Remember, we are specifically talking about the action of belief, and though the two ACTIONS above, namely believing and not believing are diametrically opposite, we end up with the same result, no presence of tea pot in "the believing area of my mind". Your fallacious assumption is that because we end up with the same result, the ACTIONS are the same, they are not. Now, after these exchanges, I do realize that you will not understand this, so therefore let's create another sentence with exactly the same logical content but a different action and object. This time, let's use "look through a microscope" as action and "bacteria" as an object. We then get:

      SUBJECT(I) ACTION(look through a microscope) OBJECT(NOT bacteria) => no presence of bacteria in "the visualization area of my mind"
      SUBJECT(I) ACTION(NOT look through microscope) OBJECT(bacteria) => no presence of bacteria in "the visualization area of my mind"

      Is it really your contention that looking through a microscope to see no bacteria is the same as not looking through the microscope and therefore ending up with no bacteria visualization are the same? Is the action of not looking through a microscope the same as the action of looking through a microscope and not seeing anything the same?

      I don't believe. In anything at all. I have zero beliefs. In total. When I converse with someone about reality and stuff, I have to make an assumption that could be tantamount to a belief. I will have to assume that the world (universe if you wish) is observable by all within it, and that the experience of observing aspects of it are very similar for all of us. In other words, I have to assume that if we watch an apple "fall down" from a tree, you and I both will agree that there was an apple falling down. If that is not so, all discussions about the nature of the universe become pointless.

      This is the only trace of "belief" you will find in my entire being. I believe in nothing else.

    50. Re:I can't believe we're afraid of these assholes by narcc · · Score: 1

      Remember, we are specifically talking about the action of belief,

      No, we're not. We're talking about the belief in the existence of the teapot. Pay attention.

      Let's take two people, Alice and Bob. Clara asks both of them if such a teapot exists. Alice says "I don't believe that teapot exists". Bob says "I believe no such teapot exists." Which of the following statements are true: (1) "Bob believes the teapot exists" (2) "Alice believes no teapot exists" (3) "Alice believes the teapot exists" (4) "Bob believes no teapot exists".

      If that's still tripping you up, how would Alice and Bob each answer the question "Does the teapot exist?" with a simple "yes" or "no".

      I don't believe. In anything at all. I have zero beliefs. [snip] This is the only trace of "belief" you will find in my entire being. I believe in nothing else.

      Nonsense!

      Your problem is that you think that belief means something like "belief without reason" or "belief without evidence" or whatever other nonsense some youtube personality fed you. You like to think that you're above such things, some perfectly rational being, accepting only the assumptions necessary to function.

      This is what happens when you get your "education" from blogs, forums, and youtube instead of a university.

      Unless you're completely delusional, you'll soon come to discover that that isn't even remotely true. Even worse, you'll find that you actually DO believe things without reason or evidence -- most things, in fact. Go ahead, give it a bit of thought.

      See, belief isn't subject to the will, after all. You can't choose to believe or choose to not believe in things. Give it a try. You can say it, but you can't actually force a change in your beliefs. (This isn't to say that beliefs can not change. For example, you could be convinced or otherwise compelled in to changing a belief.)

  17. You have to define your premise... by Karmashock · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First... moral standards are "his" moral standards.

    Second, internet in general connects his people to the world... exposing them to other view points that might distort their indoctrination to his world view.

    So what he is saying is "the people of my country might not believe in my values if exposed to alternative view points."

    Which is rational. They probably won't. His world view is pretty weak on logic, argument, or supporting evidence. Its just do what I say or the sharp knives come out.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:You have to define your premise... by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Second, internet in general connects his people to the porn

    2. Re:You have to define your premise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Its just do what I say or the sharp knives come out.

      How is that any different from what our government does, where they will invade your country (or just bomb it to hell) unless you do as we say? I would have difficulty finding a country that was a stranger to violence.

    3. Re:You have to define your premise... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Are you comparing the united states to iran because the US invaded Saddam's Iraq?

      Can you please not be such a pathetic tool?... Please...

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  18. COMCAST AGREES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this explains everything

  19. UNCENSORED high-speed internet by Namarrgon · · Score: 5, Funny

    I accidentally RTFA'd and realised the fatwa is actually against high-speed internet that isn't government controlled and censored:

    All third generation [3G] and high-speed internet services, prior to realization of the required conditions for the National Information Network [Iran’s government-controlled and censored Internet which is under development], is against Sharia [and] against moral and human standards.

    Thus I conclude that internet porn is just fine, so long as it's consumed slowly, scanline by scanline. He clearly wants you to enjoy the anticipation.

    --
    Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    1. Re:UNCENSORED high-speed internet by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Or maybe is just a fan of ASCII art.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    2. Re:UNCENSORED high-speed internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Accidentally RTFA"??? Yeah, right, sure pal. You're obviously one of them article-reading types. We know how to deal with your type here... boys, get a rope!

    3. Re:UNCENSORED high-speed internet by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      Perhaps instead of sending in the tanks, we could just dedicate a few dozen Satelittes in LEO broadcasting 4G Internet across the Middle East. And instead of AK47's we can carpet bomb them with 4G wi-fi Modems and cheap Tablets? Give them the tools and let them sort themselves out. Knowledge, not weapons brought the West out of the dark ages, perhaps we should bring the knowledge (rather than bombs) to save the Middle East?

    4. Re:UNCENSORED high-speed internet by PPH · · Score: 1

      Thus I conclude that internet porn is just fine, so long as it's consumed slowly, scanline by scanline. He clearly wants you to enjoy the anticipation.

      Or he wants his wives to think that stopping suddenly in the middle of having sex* is normal behavior.

      *It's called 'buffering' honey. I saw it on the Internet.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  20. Wait a minute by viperidaenz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Where in the Koran does it mention bandwidth? or the speed in which information is made available, since it has nothing to do with what information is available, just the connection speed?

    1. Re:Wait a minute by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

      All of the religious texts exist because of the Gutenberg press concepts... first thing mass printed was The Bible, then people who couldn't agree with it started printing their own.

    2. Re:Wait a minute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      let's destroy all the printing presses so that this will never happen again!

    3. Re:Wait a minute by WhoBeI · · Score: 1

      Are you trying to make sense of religion? Adorable.. :)

    4. Re:Wait a minute by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The article doesn't give reasoning, but as he has no objection to high-speed internet once the filtering is in place I'm guessing his objection isn't to the technology but the content. The internet is full of things that would be regarded as corrupting by many in Iran. Not just the obvious pornography and blasphemy - this is a country where forign films often have to be edited to raise the necklines of women's clothing or chop of the arms off an unmarried couple so they aren't holding hands.

    5. Re:Wait a minute by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Where in the Koran does it mention bandwidth?

      "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's bandwidth"

    6. Re:Wait a minute by Nethead · · Score: 1

      I think his objection is to the cost of Sandvines or the like to filter and monitor that amount of band with. Wouldn't be surprised if this was just a card played in negotiations with a hardware vendor.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    7. Re:Wait a minute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iran has Shiites, and they do consider the Koran more like a guideline. They have an Islam-pope as well, they call it an Ayatollah. He gets to decide the new rules as things evolve, and has the authority to do this. The Sunnis are the ones that have a literal interpretation of the Koran, and do not allow any other rules that are not in there.

    8. Re:Wait a minute by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Human literacy, and the written word to record knowledge, existed for eons before movable type and printing existed. Gutenberg was just a bandwidth increase.

    9. Re:Wait a minute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's where the evil rot started. The bandwidth of a Gutenberg press was considerably higher than that of a monk copying books out by hand. And it's all gone downhill since then....

    10. Re:Wait a minute by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      Of course the Koran does not mention bandwidth. But if blasphemy is a capital offense, then certainly anything that enables blasphemy is not halal.

    11. Re:Wait a minute by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      But like I said, it's not the enabling of blasphemy, it's the speed at which blasphemy is enabled that's being argued against.

  21. what section is restricted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This will mean the general population will have restricted speed internet but the ruling class, the government and the military will still be working with speeds as fast as they can muster. It's the usual dual standard applied in all tyrannies.

    They're not going to let the people have the freedom they deserve but they cannot afford to become weakened where exposed to the outside world.

  22. And the lord said unto them... by RalphBNumbers · · Score: 4, Funny

    64kb/s ought to be enough for anybody.

    --
    "The worst tyrannies were the ones where a governance required its own logic on every embedded node." - Vernor Vinge
    1. Re:And the lord said unto them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      For $59 a month, I'm sure Comcast can market a Halal connection for 64kb/s. Act now, and receive a free burka! Whooo.

    2. Re:And the lord said unto them... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Be nice to more then double my download speed and quadruple my upload speeds.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    3. Re:And the lord said unto them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what is the data limit of that "unlimited" 64kbit/s connection? I guess 30 megabytes should be enough for everybody but the infidel?

    4. Re:And the lord said unto them... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      God is Gates? No, no, no, that's gotta be downstairs.

  23. Shoo troll, go away! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is hard to have laws written by Republicans if you keep electing Democrats. Seattle has had Democrats for mayors for decades. This is a bit of Democratic folly, and you're apparently stuck telling not just lies, but obvious stupid lies.

    The current Democratic mayor is thinking about changing it, but he might not. Enjoy your Democratic party in action!

    http://www.geekwire.com/2014/s...

  24. High Speed Internet Against Moral Standards? by jamesjw · · Score: 4, Funny

    Quick!, Get the Australian Government on the phone, slow national broadband is their policy!
    Mr Malcolm Turnbull, We have a sale for your broadband plan.. Iran is interested in your vision!! :)

    --
    -- If at first you don't succeed, lie!
    1. Re:High Speed Internet Against Moral Standards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup ... slow national broadband (according to the Oz government estimates we're all gonna need less bandwidth in 10 years time than we have now - and it's only gonna cost $30 odd billion to provide this), censorship and network based monitoring of its own citizenship, the protection of failed business models (in postage, product delivery, broadcast and media, newspapers, music and film content, government service delivery, private industry service delivery, 'bricks 'n mortar' retailing and a host of other failing business models - I was surprised to see that blacksmithing wasn't included) belonging to their 'friends' and open slather for our police and intelligence services to intrude on our privacy. Both sides of politics are complicit in this, but the conservatives are the ones who have gone with the ridiculous bandwidth requirements estimates as a justification ... but hey, they're conservatives in all things.

      The Iranian mullahs look downright progressive and democratic in comparison. Sad that a theocracy trumps a democracy ... but true.

  25. Great, by mjwx · · Score: 4, Funny

    So Comcast is just trying to protect our moral integrity?

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    1. Re:Great, by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

      Comcast aims to be a common carrier which means they don't censor their system unless some court tells them to.

    2. Re:Great, by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      AND making a profit at it. That's the diff between American busybodies and theirs.

  26. Oblig J&M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
  27. Re:We need him... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, but what about Henry Paulson and his colleagues?

  28. 3G is bad... by dlingman · · Score: 1

    So - straight to LTE then? I don't blame him for saying 3G is not a good idea. much better tech is out there already. why waste time on 3G?

  29. Even in Iran... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "A Grand Ayatollah in Iran has determined that access to high-speed and 3G Internet is "against Sharia" and "against moral standards."

    I guess I shouldn't be shocked that the cable companies even have lobbyists in Iran!

  30. Low Speed Strangulation is OK, though by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

    Torture is OK in Iran.

    1. Re:Low Speed Strangulation is OK, though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Low speed strangulation is ok only on chickens.

    2. Re:Low Speed Strangulation is OK, though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Torture is okay in Amerika.

  31. You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Someday we will have to get rid of the muslims from the planet.

    They are not compatable with the rest of the people on earth.

    The longer we wait. The harder it will be to do.

  32. Temptation by jklovanc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It is interesting that one of the basis of most religions is the freedom to choose. Most religions allow people to choose to do good or choose not to. Why does the Muslim religion seem to want to control everything? Conversion by force, death sentence for converting to another religion, hiding women's bodies so not to tempt men and now censorship. What would a religion have to force it's followers to conform? What proves a person's faith is the ability to resist temptation. Look at the trials of Job. If the people need to be "protected" from temptation then their faith is weak.

    1. Re:Temptation by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Wasn't that long ago the Christians were the same.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    2. Re:Temptation by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Wasn't that long ago the Christians were the same.

      Which shows that Christianity has evolved but the Muslim religion has not. Where in the last 100 years there has been a death sentence for converting from Christianity? The point is that entire countries are still following Sharia Laws now.

    3. Re:Temptation by Sqr(twg) · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Christians (in Uganda) only have death penalty for homosexuality. That is soo much more evolved.

    4. Re:Temptation by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Some of the African Christians are pretty backwards as the sibling points out. Christianity has also had much longer to evolve and it wasn't that long ago that there were unofficial death sentences for not embracing Christianity, at least for natives sent to the residential schools here in Canada.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    5. Re:Temptation by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      When you have to cite Uganda for an example of Christian atrocity, you know you're reaching for an example.

    6. Re:Temptation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christianity has been around a few centuries longer. For a fair comparison, you have to rewind Christianity to how it was in the 1300s.

    7. Re:Temptation by dcollins · · Score: 1

      Geez, what planet did you grow up on?

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    8. Re:Temptation by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Matthew Parris: As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God

      it wasn't that long ago that there were unofficial death sentences for not embracing Christianity, at least for natives sent to the residential schools here in Canada.

      Color me skeptical.

      On the other hand, persecution of Christians around the world, including murder, is well known. The record of the officially atheist communist regimes was often quite bad.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    9. Re:Temptation by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Where in the Old or New Testament does it say that people who will not convert will be put to the sword or people who convert from Christianity will also be killed. It says that in the Qur'an. That some Christians perverted the teachings is very different than these tenants being in the holy book.

    10. Re:Temptation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is that different from citing a Muslim in a destabilized war-torn country? (Not that jklovanc did that, he just stated Muslims in general which is wrong.)
      As opposed to what jklovanc is suggesting the average US Muslim does not support the behavior of ISIS.

    11. Re:Temptation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absurdities are absurdities. Communism is just as absurd as Christianity, and for the same reason: neither takes human nature into account.

      You, i am sure, are a good little Christian bootlicker, who somehow thinks that a being sadistic enough to fry people for all eternity for not kissing his ass will never, ever, not once in all infinite time, ever decide he's sick of your face and chuck you in the lake of fire too. How charmingly naive. Kissing up to the powers that be is not sustainable, no matter who they might be.

      The similarities between the Abrahamic God and the fascist leaders of the "atheistic regimes" you like to blatter on about are so glaring that only a brainwashed apologist like you can't immediately see them. And before you go off accusing me of being an atheist troll, nope, I'm a deist, just like Tom Paine and several other of the Founding Fathers...the ones who said this is NOT a Christian nation.

      May all Muslims, Christians, and other fascists secular and religious disappear from the face of the planet.

    12. Re:Temptation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, yes, the trials of Job! Where the omniscient Yahweh allows his creation Satan to tempt him into a bet, the outcome of which he knows full well in advance, and put poor Job through untold misery! To the point the man asks Yahweh to throw him into Sheol (Jews didn't have a Hell until the Greeks and Persians got to them...) until it's all over.

      Yeah. REAL good moral exemplar there.

    13. Re:Temptation by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      How is that different from citing a Muslim in a destabilized war-torn country?

      I am citing the spiritual leader of a Muslim country whose last war was over 25 years ago. If they are not stable in 25 years there are big issues with the country.

      Until these "laws" are repealed by the Muslim religion there will always be people who will use them to justify murder. One of the strengths of most other religions is that there is a head of that religion; Pope, Arch Bishop, Dahli Lama, etc. The problem I see is that any Imam can make any interpretation of the Qur'an and there is no one to overrule him. There are issues like the Branch Davidian but they never get as big as ISIS. Mainly because Christian leaders with authority denounce them. Where would that come from in the Muslim religion?

    14. Re:Temptation by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      You are a little behind the times. The Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014 was struck down on 1 August 2014 by the Constitutional Court of Uganda.

    15. Re:Temptation by aNonnyMouseCowered · · Score: 1

      The persecution of Christians in so-called communist regimes is really a side-effect of the fact that these Christian groups are primarily foreign-funded. The so-called "communist" regimes (in Marxist dogma there's no such thing as a truly communist regime since that is supposed to be the "perfection" of political development into a "classless" society) tend to be paranoid of anyone or anything that affects the social order. Every non-conformist is viewed as a dissident or worse, a foreign agent out to sabotage the State. Atheistic dissidents are also harrassed, locked up and murdered. Since they don't belong to an organized group, their cases tend not to be as greatly publicized.

    16. Re:Temptation by Bongo · · Score: 1

      It is debatable why, complex history, etc., but some interesting points are that Jesus inserted a virus into the monotheistic movement of the time. Take a couple of messages like, "Render unto Caesar..." and "Turn the other cheek". Did you know that (this or the previous) Ayatollah gave a speech that, "this notion that Jesus said turn the other cheek, is an invention by the West who are trying to undermine Muslims, for no prophet would be so stupid as to say such a thing." (quote from memory, words to that effect). So it could possibly be that Jesus inserted just enough freedom into the culture of the time, that later on, it became easier for Europe to start a long line of questioning "heretical" approaches. Even in 1500 or so, one of the brightest theologians of the time, wrote an essay which basically said, gee, that guy says he is absolutely right and has God on his side, and this other guy also says he is absolutely right and has God on his side, so um... [ here comes the leap of insight for the year 1550ish ] um... they can't BOTH be right? Wow, in like 1550. Then the Render unto Caesar means that Christianity had the semblance of an idea of the separation of Church and State, whereas Islam, basically, doesn't, and adherents often praise it for being "holistic", ie. it should control everything. Even the Koranic passage "there is no compunction in religion" can be read as, you can't force someone to believe, so once you have done your preaching, anyone who still won't convert, just give up on them and eliminate them. Meanwhile, Buddhism, whilst it also has a lot of zealots around the world, at least its founder started with a sort of inquiry, who am I? And that gave it just enough of a rational seed from the outset, some would argue, so it has been more open to change, although, being a religion, still has its share of cultural dogmas about women etc.

    17. Re:Temptation by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      It is interesting that one of the basis of most religions is the freedom to choose. Most religions allow people to choose to do good or choose not to. Why does the Muslim religion seem to want to control everything? Conversion by force, death sentence for converting to another religion, hiding women's bodies so not to tempt men and now censorship. What would a religion have to force it's followers to conform? What proves a person's faith is the ability to resist temptation. Look at the trials of Job. If the people need to be "protected" from temptation then their faith is weak.

      Be very careful of what your own house is made of before you start throwing bricks.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... (and it's not ancient history so don't ignore it out of hand)
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...

      Of particular note might be Buddhists, who generally practice non-violence very explicitly, persecuting Muslims:
      http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi...

      Religious is a tool used to control the masses and will be used against anyone who goes against those in power, regardless of which religion it is.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    18. Re:Temptation by Sqr(twg) · · Score: 1

      The law is still there. The fact that it was ruled invalid by the court does not make the people who fought to put it in place (some of whom were American) any less despicable.

      My point, though, is that there are unevolved people of every religious (and non-religious) orientation. Saying that one religion is more evolved than another just because the worst of the fundamentalists have less political power is a non sequitur.

    19. Re:Temptation by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      Is that actually one of the bases of most religions?

      I know it shows up in at least some sects of Christianity, and in arguments about the "Problem of Evil". I've never heard it claimed that it was at the basis of most religions.

    20. Re:Temptation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Deuteronomy 17

      If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

      Doesn't specifically say to kill them by sword since that would be a unreasonably swift killing, but rather stone them to death.

      Worshiping any other deity is considered a mortal sin in Christianity. It is even put as an offense in the ten commandments together with stealing and murdering.

    21. Re:Temptation by terjeber · · Score: 1

      that one of the basis of most religions is the freedom to choose

      Outside of Buddhism (which isn't really a religion, I can't think of a single religion where this is true. Christianity? Nope. It celebrates that Abraham who, when God demanded Abraham murder his son, obliged blindly, putting his faith in God. Abraham's response, from the point of view of "choosing" was wrong. From the point of view of free will, Abraham should have spat God in the face and told him to go f#ck a goat. Abraham chose badly, he chose blind obedience, and even today his insane, morally reprehensible response is celebrated within Christianity. Islam? Sure as Hell not.

    22. Re:Temptation by terjeber · · Score: 1

      Communism is just as absurd as Christianity, and for the same reason: neither takes human nature into account

      They are as absurd, but not for that reason. The absurdity of Christianity, or most religions and Socialism, Communism and some other political beliefs lie in the fact that they subscribe to "The Truth". This is why it is impossible for Atheism to become extremist. An atheist has no beliefs. Atheism is an ideology in the same way that "not collecting stamps" is a hobby. Many Christians will point to, for example. Communist Stalin for the evils that Atheism can inspire. Since "atheism" and "nothing" are equivalent, the very notion that it can inspire behavior is absurd. Stalin was a murderous bastard because of his religious notions (Communism) not for the absence of such.

    23. Re:Temptation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet, nobody expects the Spanish inquisition.

    24. Re:Temptation by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      So you embrace a 'one true scotsman' view of communism?

      What's your preferred flavor, then? Trotskyism? Or are you a Spartacist? Or just a dabbler in Fabianism?

      Perhaps an 'intellectual marxist' or some other flavor of oxymoron? Check out Henry George. There are countless musty old disciplines of political economy to dabble in. It can make Civil War reenactment look like a tiny hobby by comparison.

    25. Re:Temptation by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      As much as they'll tell you otherwise, most of those high standing religious leaders aren't all that concerned about their religion. They're not the brainwashed religious fanatics, those are their minions. They're much smarter, and what they're doing is pretty much politics: they want to keep their power base intact. They are fully aware that the indoctrination of the masses, while powerful, wouldn't resist if faced with wide open access to the internet. There are too many opinions, too much information, you could even develop critical thinking *gasp*! It'd be the end of their power trip, and they won't accept that, so they'll drag down their entire country if need be.

    26. Re:Temptation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uganda is full of black people and multiculture and "white flight" so the joke is on you, dumb liberal.

    27. Re:Temptation by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      The persecution of Christians in so-called communist regimes is really a side-effect of the fact that these Christian groups are primarily foreign-funded.

      That is utter rubbish. Communist regimes had a long history of persecuting their local churches.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    28. Re:Temptation by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      This is why it is impossible for Atheism to become extremist.

      Impossible? Hardly.

      League of Militant Atheists

      An atheist has no beliefs.

      On the contrary, an atheist believes there is no God. An agnostic isn't sure.

      Atheism is an ideology in the same way that "not collecting stamps" is a hobby.

      Which is why they form clubs?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    29. Re:Temptation by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      And that's why we had crusades, to help people 'choose'.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    30. Re:Temptation by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Yopu also missed a few more points;
      1. Uganda has no State religion.
      2. Though the original law called for the death penalty, what was passed was life in prison.
      3. The law was passed by parliament not a referendum
      4. The last election in Uganda was in 2006. This law was not even thought about when the people elected Parliament.

    31. Re:Temptation by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      It celebrates that Abraham who, when God demanded Abraham murder his son, obliged blindly, putting his faith in God.

      You should read more. Abraham was stopped at the last moment and a ram was sacrificed instead. Even you allude to the fact that Abraham had a choice.

      Abraham chose badly

      He could have turned his back on God and that would not be a death sentence.

    32. Re:Temptation by terjeber · · Score: 1

      Impossible? Hardly.

      Do you understand the difference between a- and anti-. Believing there is no God is non-scientific nonsense, you can't prove a negative. An atheist relates to a divine entity in the same way he relates to all the other (infinite number of) things that is unlikely. I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, but I also don't believe in red tea-cups in orbit between 75 and 253 astronomical units from the center of the sun. This lack of belief can not create extremism. If on the other hand I felt that I knew that God doesn't exist (as I mentioned non-scientific nonsense) then I can become extremist. On the other hand, that isn't atheism, that would more correctly be described as anti-theism.

      Which is why they form clubs?

      Perhaps to try to defend science from the militant Christian nuts?

    33. Re:Temptation by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      The Crusades were about control of land, mainly the Holy City, and not conversion of the people living there.

    34. Re:Temptation by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      This lack of belief can not create extremism.

      The problem you face is that extremism has a long and fairly well known history among atheist regimes.

      And who are the "anti-theists" if not atheists?

      If you are asked the question, "Do you believe in god," there are basically three answers: yes, no, I don't know. Those answers map to: theist, atheist, and agnostic.

      Perhaps to try to defend science from the militant Christian nuts

      No, that isn't it. The common thread there is atheism, not "defending science." Besides, there are already science clubs in many schools. Why do something redundant? It's about atheism, supporting and spreading the atheist belief ... or should I say faith?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    35. Re:Temptation by terjeber · · Score: 1

      Abraham was stopped at the last moment

      That's irrelevant. The entity demanding such a sacrifice is a psychopath, no matter whether they change their mind or not after. The entity that obliges the psychopath is a nutcase and should be put in jail for his actions.

      He could have turned his back on God and that would not be a death sentence.

      He should not have turned his back on God, he should have spat God in the face and told him to f#ck off. If God persisted Abraham should have killed God. That was the right thing to do. Abraham did everything wrong. God should have been killed that day. Abraham's God is worse than ISIS.

    36. Re:Temptation by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      How cute. You even contradict yourself.

      If you are asked the question, "Do you believe in god," there are basically three answers: yes, no, I don't know. Those answers map to: theist, atheist, and agnostic.

      Here you state that atheism is the lack of belief in god.

      supporting and spreading the atheist belief

      And here you are talking about belief. That is doubleplusgood doublethink.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    37. Re:Temptation by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Contradict? Not so much. The atheist believes there is no god, the atheist clubs support its members and try to spread that belief.

      “Atheism is indeed the most daring of all dogmas . . . for it is the assertion of a universal negative.” - G. K. Chesterton

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    38. Re:Temptation by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      I guess you have never heard of the word "test". How do you know it was not God's plan to rescind the order at the last minute?

      If God persisted Abraham should have killed God.

      Is killing your only solution to a problem? By the way it is very difficult to kill an entity with no corporeal form that talks to you in you head.

      Abraham's God is worse than ISIS.

      Abraham's God is the same God as the ISIS God. Christians an Muslims follow the same entity though they use a different name.

    39. Re:Temptation by Sqr(twg) · · Score: 1

      I think you misunderstood me. When I said "the people" I did not mean the Ugandan people. I have nothing against the the Ugandan people, (nor Christians or any other demographic).

      By "people" I meant "persons" i.e. the relatively few individuals (American and British as well as Ugandan) who actively advocated for a death penalty for homosexuality for the stated reason that it says so in their Bible.

      Yes, the vast majority of Christians condemn these extremists just as the vast majority of Muslims condemn theirs, but the "my team is better than theirs because look what they did" argument does not hold. All large population groups have the same fraction of assholes.

    40. Re:Temptation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does the Muslim religion seem to want to control everything?

      The simple answer is islam doesn't really do any of that.
      However, at some point in history, idiots decided that the best way to justify their nonsense is to pretend that religion supports their actions. And there is no way to stop it. It's not like an angel is going to appear to everyone on earth and ask us to to stop this shit.
      In short, religion was abused from moment zero.

    41. Re:Temptation by terjeber · · Score: 1

      The problem you face is that extremism has a long and fairly well known history among atheist regimes

      No, it doesn't. Seriously. The USSR, for example, was a bloody regime, not because it was atheist, but because it was socialist. You need motivation to become extremist, and the absence of something is not motivation. Christians have been lying about this for years, but it doesn't get more true. People can become extreme for a lot of reasons, but there has to be a motivating factor, and the absence of something can not be a motivating factor. So, yes, an atheist can surely become an extremist, but not motivated by his lack of belief, there has to be another factor that drives his motivation. For Stalin and Mao, for example, that motivation came from their belief in socialism/communism as the be-all end-all solution to perceived problems in the world.

      As I said elsewhere, you can probably become a fanatical coin collector, but you can not become a fanatical "non-stamp-collector", there is nothing in the absence of a stamp collecting hobby that could motivate you to extremism.

      The motivation that drives you to extremism would also typically be some sort of motivation where you could derive an absolute, non-debatable truth. A coin collector could feel that all mistreatment of coins was evil in any and all circumstance, a communist would consider anyone with an opposing world view as wrong by definition etc. There must be an "absolute truth" and an aspect of totalitarianism in the "belief" of the extremist. Religions (most) have such views, as does totalitarian political ideologies. The lack of a belief system has no such things.

      The common thread there is atheism, not "defending science."

      Where? I would love to see an example.

    42. Re:Temptation by terjeber · · Score: 1

      The atheist believes there is no god.

      No, he doesn't. He treats God in the same way as he treats invisible pink unicorns in the forest. He treats it in the same way that he treats tea pots somewhere around Alpha Centauri.

      Ponder this - the statement "There is a God" is not correct, it isn't even wrong. Scientifically. Google "not even wrong".

      the atheist clubs support its members and try to spread that belief

      Which clubs? I know a fair amount of atheists, and none of them are in any clubs. The most militant of all atheists I know of is probably Richard Dawkins, and to my knowledge he is not a member of any "atheist club". What are these clubs you speak of?

    43. Re:Temptation by terjeber · · Score: 1

      How do you know it was not God's plan to rescind the order at the last minute?

      I don't know (well, actually I do since the whole story is fiction) and I do not care. Anyone asking this from anyone else, no matter what other motives they might have, is evil beyond comprehension. If a (real) deity with ultimate powers asks the question the evil is bigger and worse. The story of God testing Abraham is a description of the worst evil known to man: God. Later, when God makes a bet with Satan and gives Satan the permission to torture Job in unspeakable ways, killing his family etc, God ups the ante a bit and shows him self for the insane evil he actually is. Well, if he existed that is. The fact that Christians do not deem these acts of their God as evil just means they are morally far below any person who ever lived who did not subscribe to this evil ideas.

      Is killing your only solution to a problem?

      It's called self defense, and in this case, defense against evil incarnate. If someone tries very hard to have my child killed and I can not call upon an authority to remove the evil bastard, then yes I will kill him my self. That is not a right I have, it is an obligation. You protect your family above anything else. Even against evil gods.

      Abraham's God is the same God as the ISIS God.

      Yes, that is why I said "Abraham's God is worse than ISIS", not "Abraham's God is worse than the God of ISIS". Abraham's God is worse than the worst members of the ISIS. By many orders of magnitude. Compared to God the members of ISIS are positively Mother Theresas.

  33. Ayatollah is right! by VTBlue · · Score: 1

    The Ayatollah speaks the truth. Just look at America. Everywhere there is broadband, heathens have flourished, while is REAL America, where dial-up reigns, people are living nobly under god's laws and the Bible. Preach it Brother Ayatollah! AMEN!

  34. Look out Brian Roberts! by SeaFox · · Score: 1

    Someone's after your job.

  35. Pay attention! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After the ongoing metastatic infiltration of the US and Europe is complete, sharia law will be a reality across the West. You will need to take heed of these pronouncements, to avoid being hanged/beheaded, or parts chopped off.

  36. Educate or eradicate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Education has clearly failed and these folks won't/can't be brought to modern standards. Can we eradicate them all instead? A few nukes and they'll be gone... and there won't even be the opportunity for videos of their deaths to spread. We'll all be much better off without them. Telling yourself otherwise is just you believing in the same made up stuff that they do.

    1. Re:Educate or eradicate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They create more suffering each day by just existing, when implementing and executing their sharia law.
      Nuke would be humanitarian compared to what they do daily to innocent people.

  37. He should move to the US by Huge_UID · · Score: 1
  38. USA is morally safe. by hackus · · Score: 1

    Between COX, Time Warner and Charter we should be safe from High Speed Internets evil influences for the foreseeable future..

    --
    Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
  39. Didn't they get the memo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the middle God said let there be 3G.

    Captcha:embassy
    Not where I'd want to be after this comment.

  40. Same thing from ultra-orthodox Jews. by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

    Many ultra-orthodox rabbis who demand their followers not use uncensored smartphones or uncensored internet access. In 2012, a big anti-Internet rally for ultra-orthodox Jews was held in New York. "The siren song of the Internet entices us! It brings out the worst of us!" The event was streamed live and is summarized on YouTube.

    There are ultra-orthodox ISPs with filtering. The filtering is very stringent, based on a rabbi-approved whitelist. "That's all you get, and nothing else."

    There are kosher cell phones. "Kosher Phone has no camera, no Bluetooth capabilities, no memory card slot and cannot be connected to a computer."

    That's in the US. In Israel, kosher cell phones are so locked down that only approved numbers can be called. Even rape crisis centers are blocked.

    1. Re: Same thing from ultra-orthodox Jews. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Religions and their followers sound amazing! Where do I sign up? :-/

    2. Re:Same thing from ultra-orthodox Jews. by cold+fjord · · Score: 1, Interesting

      There is a meaningful difference. In Iran the government chooses the rules and you have no choice but to comply. In New York the followers of the rabbis choose if they want to comply. They are acknowledging that the various communications technologies are tools, that can be used for good or ill, and they are trying to choose what they believe is good. They are choosing, not the government.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    3. Re:Same thing from ultra-orthodox Jews. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I have a Jewish friend in who co-runs a computer repair service in NYC. They've told me that when a rabbi calls for assistance, they inevitably have among the largest stashes of porn you can imagine. And the wives all have accounts on dating services.

    4. Re:Same thing from ultra-orthodox Jews. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would guess jewish porn should be tiring...

    5. Re:Same thing from ultra-orthodox Jews. by leomekenkamp · · Score: 1

      No. The only difference is that you can leave your religion if you are an ultra-orthodox Jew in the U.S.A. Leaving any orthodox religion is hard, after so many years of hard-line indoctrination.

      But in no way do 'followers of the rabbis' have any say in which rules they will follow and which rules not: do everything, or face the consequences. In this there is a great similarity with the situation in Iran.

      --
      Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
    6. Re:Same thing from ultra-orthodox Jews. by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      The orthodox jews in the US are not in charge of the government. They don't force their views on the whole population.

      Quit being ridiculous.

    7. Re:Same thing from ultra-orthodox Jews. by Animats · · Score: 1

      Leaving any orthodox religion is hard, after so many years of hard-line indoctrination.

      In Israel, it's very hard to leave. There are extensive Government benefits for ultra-orthodox, including subsidized housing, pay for religious study, and unlimited draft deferments. This is on top of the heavy social pressure, the lack of marketable skills, and the language barrier (the ultra-orthodox in Israel speak Yiddish, not Hebrew.)

    8. Re:Same thing from ultra-orthodox Jews. by leomekenkamp · · Score: 1

      Nice strawman. I never said the orthodox jews are in charge of the government of the whole of the U.S.A.

      A rabbi forces 'his' views on the people under him. The Irani government (and a lot of governments on this planet) force 'its' views on the people under it. That is the similarity.

      It is relatively easier for an orthodox jew in the U.S.A. to leave orthodoxy than for an Iranian muslim to leave islam, but there is no pick and choose for fundamentalist movements, like the orthodox jews, what the original poster seemed to imply.

      Not so ridiculous.

      --
      Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
  41. It'll lead to dancing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yeah, well, that's pretty much the philosophy of a lot of religions. That it's better to prevent sin by removing temptation. That the "weaker" folk will give in and those "evil" sinners are more likely to lure in the good souls to sin than the good souls will lead the sinners to redemption--probably true, but then that's a whole other area to talk about*. Of course the real point is that Iran is a theocracy and not a democracy. The similarities to al Qaida and ISIS on religions matters are really moot in themselves--as honestly there's a good many Christians who obviously think the same way about the internet and porn but the name dropping of Catholics or Mennonites doesn't have the same guilt-by-association. What does matter is that Iran is clearly not moving towards a democracy, which is no real big surprise. *shrug* So, not really news.

    * Those without the character to resist sin are damned. Except Jesus specifically conserved with, converted, and saved sinners. So, Godly enough people should be capable of resisting and doing right by God. But most people don't follow religion out of some deep spiritual belief but because there's an almost de facto theocracy of the masses and it's better to be on the good side of that mob, at least in appearances. The openly atheists and agnostics, meanwhile, have an actual theological basis to reject the notions and aren't merely doing what the want and paying lip service. Although it's hard to say at what point everyone is just rationalizing their own actions after the fact rather than reasoning their way to the point they're at. The ones who chuckle to themselves about going to hell? I think very few actually embrace going to hell.

    1. Re:It'll lead to dancing by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      .... but the name dropping of Catholics or Mennonites doesn't have the same guilt-by-association.

      To be fair they do a lot less chopping off of heads or hands.

      Those without the character to resist sin are damned. Except Jesus specifically conserved with, converted, and saved sinners.

      It is Christian teaching that everyone needs that salvation from Christ, not only for forgiveness of sin, but to address ones sinful nature.

      The ones who chuckle to themselves about going to hell? I think very few actually embrace going to hell.

      Plenty do, but that is because they misunderstand the nature of Hell.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    2. Re:It'll lead to dancing by aliquis · · Score: 1

      I don't even know what you are saying but it was likely stupid.

      Anyway - I will of course go to neither hell or heaven. There is no god.

    3. Re:It'll lead to dancing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair they do a lot less chopping off of heads or hands.

      Globally, yes. Regionally, that isn't universally true at all. In the US, for example, you find few (if any) head-chopping events taking place from either group. Go over to several middle-eastern shitholes, and there's plenty of barbaric behavior dressed up in the name of both religions.

      Plenty do, but that is because they misunderstand the nature of Hell.

      No, it's because they are of the opinion that it's fantasy designed to scare primitive people into accepting social rules (aka "Law").

    4. Re:It'll lead to dancing by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Go over to several middle-eastern shitholes, and there's plenty of barbaric behavior dressed up in the name of both religions.

      Where in the Middle East is all this "Christian" head chopping going on? That isn't really happening, is it?

      No, it's because they are of the opinion that it's fantasy designed to scare primitive people into accepting social rules (aka "Law").

      No, that is yet another but different mistaken idea that some people have. What I was referring to are the people who think that Hell is where all the "fun" will be so they like the idea of going there. Neither belief nor disbelief in it changes its existence any more than the existence of London or Brigadoon.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    5. Re:It'll lead to dancing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair they do a lot less chopping off of heads or hands.

      You speaking of Saudi Arabia? Or the fact that the US still has (botched) lethal injections? Or were you just spouting out of your ass? In any case, you should well review the theocracies of Christiandom and see how they regularly tortured and killed people. The main reason Catholicism and Mennonites don't chop off heads or hands--at least, as sanctioned by a state? Because we, the west, got sick of them chopping off heads and hands so pushed for an end to the theocracy. And yet plenty in western countries want to end the separation of church and state. Honestly, Iranian youths feel the same way but the old guard crack down brutally every time they attempt to change or even raise awareness of this dissatisfaction.

      So, overall, you have a point. But it's less about the religion and more about the culture and social structure. I mean, Catholics in the past weren't burning witches because Jesus told them to in the Bible. And unfortunately, nothing short of a war and decades of occupation would begin to alter the societal structure--and would have a great chance of failing regardless from the loathing of forced assimilation of external social norms (look at Reconstruction in the South in the US).

      It is Christian teaching that everyone needs that salvation from Christ, not only for forgiveness of sin, but to address ones sinful nature.

      And...? Last I checked, Christ isn't physically present on Earth going around doing missionary work. It's his loyal Christian minions. So, the discussion is now and invariably of what said minions can or cannot do and what sort of laws they passe or moral code they enforce to stipulate out things like, whether to drink coffee, buy Sports Illustrated (and make sure it's covered and behind the counters), etc.

      Plenty do, but that is because they misunderstand the nature of Hell.

      Then they embrace it in much the same way most Christians embrace Christianity--superficially and of such an empty nature that it's laughable to call them Christians except to the extent that their self-identification is associated with assholic behavior towards others. So, I don't think it's a fact of misunderstanding the nature of Hell. It's about not giving it any real thought at all. I wouldn't call that embracing.

    6. Re:It'll lead to dancing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compared to Milton Keynes at least hell is warm.

  42. On the bright side by Livius · · Score: 1

    At least there is a political disagreement and (a small number of government) people are talking about the issue.

    It's scarier when you remember that Iran is a liberal democracy compared to some countries (Saudi Arabia).

  43. Re:Just nuke them already by Livius · · Score: 1

    Just nuke these animals already.

    I'm pretty sure that solution also has moral implications.

  44. Re:Just nuke them already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When they get nukes. They'll use them on everyone else...

  45. Can't resist... by msobkow · · Score: 1

    Ay ah tol' ya and ay ah tol' ya....

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  46. Net neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell me again how bad it is.

  47. Sounds like Cable's arg. against Municipal Fiber by _0x783czar · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm becoming increasingly suspicious that the Grand Ayatollah runs my ISP...

    --
    ~theCzar
  48. Oblig Clash by seven+of+five · · Score: 1
  49. To the Grand Ayatolah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You have exactly ZERO right to dictate anything to anyone, so go fuck yourself, or better yet, strap a claymore to your chest curved side aimed at your non-existent heart, climb back down to the sewers from where you were spawned and detonate it.

  50. Re:Just nuke them already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Not really, when a dog goes rabid, you put it down, for the safety of the community.

    When a religious nut goes rabid, you do the same thing, with the community being the world.

    All those ISIS fucks, this shit-head ayatollah, and any others who feel they can dictate terms to anyone based on some fucked up religious interpretation need to be wiped from the face of the earth.

  51. Re:You mean the same guy the CIA put in power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've got the wrong conspiracy theory there, Jack.

  52. Four-gee by WaffleMonster · · Score: 3, Funny

    Whenever someone says "4G" half the time all I hear is "orgy". Is it just me or are other people having this same problem? This all started with the T-Mobile 4G chick and proceeded downhill from there.

    Had to pause and rewind the commercials... all I kept hearing was "my touch orgy" .. when I knew consciously she must be saying "my touch 4G" ... I'm clearly going to hell.. and clearly high speed cellular networks are sinful.

    1. Re:Four-gee by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Whenever someone says "4G" half the time all I hear is "orgy".

      Look on the bright side, it could have been the other way round. Just imagine you had turned down an invitation to an orgy thinking that the beautiful girl asking was trying to sell a phone contract

    2. Re:Four-gee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be honest, the latter is far more likely.

  53. Good by Tailhook · · Score: 1

    Another setback for nations of theocrats and their hate-filled, atavist subjects.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
  54. Because without religion they claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Man wouldn't have morality but with religion man wouldn't have technology just how much of it would the believers in Imaginary friends have us ban?
    Back to the plough? The stone knife , the club using a stick as a club ? oh wait then they wouldn't be able to control their followers would they.

  55. Re: We need him... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nah, we got rid of all those pesky banking regulations so banks can trade too.

  56. Sharia don't like it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rock the cazbah.
     
    :)

  57. That is not what he said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What he said is that government should first have enough infrastructure to filter the web from what he considers to be morally wrong (like pron) before increasing the speed of internet, and that it is problematic to increase the speed of the internet with such filtering infrastructure.

    Now it is definitely a bad idea to filter. But it is also wrong to exaggerate what he said to make it ridiculous.

  58. So where is it by Camael · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I am of the same opinion, and I can provide evidence. ...Fast forward to 2013. The Internet is operating at Gb/s speeds in the civilized countries and at Mb/s everywhere else. Most of the content in porn, spam, fake illegal downloads, various scams and viruses.

    So where is the "evidence" you claim to have? Your "evidence" seems to have originated from your gut. There is a lot less porn on the internet than you think

    The dubious provenance of statistics about porn are well-known inside the tech industry.

    "We are aware that a number of statistics are being used in relation to online safety and have concerns over their accuracy," said Nicholas Lansman, secretary general of ISPA, which represents net supply firms. Anyone quoting stats should check their veracity, he said.

    "It is vital that any decisions in relation to online safety, like any other policy area, are based on evidence rather than myths and assertions," he added.

  59. "Is that a nipple?" by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    No wonder all the young men are all killing each other in the middle east: they have to live with ASCII porn.

    1. Re:"Is that a nipple?" by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      No wonder all the young men are all killing each other in the middle east: they have to live with ASCII porn.

      Seriously, I was told that the fact that muslims are allowed to take more than one wife, with the obvious side effect that there are no wives available for many muslims, helps getting volunteers for all kinds of dangerous missions. Much harder to convince a happily married man with two kids to go on some suicide mission.

    2. Re:"Is that a nipple?" by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      They should promote gayness to take up the slack.

  60. What's the BW between that Grand Ayatollah & G by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    ... 300baud ?

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  61. Bandwidth Druids ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do NOT hail our new Grand Ayatollah overlords !

    The Singularity is coming. Have your bags packed and a goodbye note ready.

  62. Big Surprise by hyades1 · · Score: 2

    The Imams decided Gutenberg's printing press was off limits, because (you have to know how the press worked...stamping, essentially) printing the prophet's words on one would be equivalent of punching him in the face.

    And ever since, Muslims have been spiraling downward into a pit of ignorance and fanaticism. There was a time when they were the flower of human civilization. That time has passed. Ours will, too, if we continue to allow superstitious morons to dictate our social and educational policiies.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:Big Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very good analogy. There is an intrinsic fear from religions that don't base their "salvation" on faith, rather rely on your good deeds. If they can control what is and isn't a good deed and constantly evolve their definition of right and wrong, they can control the actions of the people through fear of punishment for doing something wrong. Many religions have done this. The Catholic Church has been notorious for redefining what is and isn't required for "salvation" and what is an isn't a good deed. Muslims have been at it for a very long time as well. Even Jews had a tradition of legalism through the Pharisees thousands of years ago, although most of that has died out now. Muslims are one of the few religions that have stuck with this approach to managing people and access to unfiltered global communication is a big threat to that control. This is NOT just about filtering porn so that the temptation isn't there. It really is about keeping the masses uninformed. Look what happened to the Catholic Church when the Bible was translated into a language that people could understand and read for themselves. The Reformation was a pretty big change.

  63. Re:Ah ... Cold Fjord is a Catholic !! by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    I'm often impressed by the ability of my critics to find yet another dead end road to travel.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  64. Islam by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    Islam: Raping non muslims, killing apostates, forcing captives into sex slavery, and beheading captives - morally good. Using 3G - morally bad.

  65. Universal broadband in America is dangerous! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Universal availability of broadband internet to every home in the USA is a slippery slope to communism and governmental control, so thus it is against the moral standards of America. Deploying broadband in areas where capitalism have not deemed appropriate is Communism and it must be stopped!!! Only large incumbent providers shall decide whether or not an area is worthy of broadband. For the good of capitalism and all that is America and apple pie we need to block all others from offering broadband to those areas.

    The first step on the slippery slope to communism was Google Fiber, in Austin, Texas's only left wing city. Google fiber is dangerously subversive, and physically dangerous. There simply isn't enough space on the telephone poles or underground to carry google fiber. Someone might trip on a google fiber cable cabinet, or get electrocuted by a downed aerial google fiber cable. The government might demand that we go to single payer health care to deal with all the injuries that will be caused by allowing anyone other than the incumbent provider to provide broadband. When an incumbent provider says you can't have broadband. It is really for your own good! The telephone poles in your area must be infested with termites, or there be unexploded ordinance from WW2 preventing the installation of underground cabling. Allowing someone else to provide broadband to those areas will put local governments at great legal risk. It is for the protection of the taxpayers that we block such projects from ever being started.

  66. In a new development by gnalre · · Score: 1

    The Grand Ayatollah announced that High Speed Internet is immoral via youtube yesterday, followed quickly by the Internets 1st selfie beheading..

    --
    Choose your allies carefully, it is highly unlikely you will be held accountable for the actions of your enemies
  67. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  68. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  69. Re:Ah ... Cold Fjord is a Catholic !! by narcc · · Score: 1

    Facts are trolling now? Damn.

  70. fairs fair by amias · · Score: 1

    you've all made comments just as daft about islam in the past

    --
    [site]
  71. "On his website" by beermad · · Score: 1

    Just about sums up these religious idiots.

  72. Re:"Against Moral Standards?" Or Just Your Backers by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

    More like Rogers Communications, Bell Canada, or Telus... maybe Shaw. Or all three.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  73. If I had been there by satuon · · Score: 1

    If I had been there:

    [Hesitantly raises hand] "Um, Mr. Grand Ayatollah, do you have any opinions on electricity and running water, too?"

    1. Re:If I had been there by Tanuki64 · · Score: 1

      Answer: No..... And off with this naughty hand.

  74. I can understand his way of thinking by DrXym · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The internet facilitates reason, criticism, satire, and alternate points of view. And yeah porn, fun, shopping and irreverence. All things which an authoritarian theocracy has reason to fear.

  75. Stupid Religion by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    Yes some backwards fool can point out that the net provides opportunities to see sexual content and therefore enables sin. And that makes as much sense as saying that if we allow right handed people to keep their right hands we enable masturbation and therefore the old fart should demand that the right hand be amputated from everyone in his nation. Frankly religion normally involves something more than a pile of completely ignorant, brain impaired zealots babbling with absurd logic and obvious hatred and fear. If we lived in a just an able world we would lock the population of these nations in a mental ward until we had a way to help them. Since we do not live in a just and able world chances are these folks will be nuclear ash before it is over.

    1. Re:Stupid Religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No kidding! I've never really been able to get the left hand into the act, either.

  76. just try this for free games and other stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.steampowers.net?join=448188

  77. Religion is at the root of many wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Its not that religion is evil, or that it does not have significant purpose. Its just that people use it as a means to carry out their own agenda hiding behind the myths and teachings that were misunderstood or misinterpreted. Religion is just a way to get people to follow you and to make you fear going against them because its going against a God. Iran is just another Country bent on keeping the information of the real world away from its people. Only instead of a dictator you have a religious figure who tries to control people through religion. Don't think for a second the Muslims are any more peaceful then the Christians, or Jews or any other religion. Wars throughout history have had significant meaning over differing religions. Unfortunately, religion has backfired on keeping peace in the world. It has only worsen and created conflicts and in many cases has shed more blood then it has saved. It was never meant to happen that way, but it has.

    1. Re:Religion is at the root of many wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Its just that people use it as a means to carry out their own agenda

      You could also say that about *anything* that people have ever held as very important to them. Is your fix to hold nothing dear?

    2. Re:Religion is at the root of many wars by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      Religion used to carry out other agendas? Naaaaaah.

      Comcast will be thrilled, just thrilled, I tell you to explain that by providing substandard and slow internet service, they are obeying Sharia and complying with moral standards. There is no agenda there. Comcast was just trying to honor religious and moral laws all along.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  78. Re:Just nuke them already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You probably meant to say "Just Duke Nukem them already." The resulting cultural apocalypse wouldn't be nice to watch but could save their country from an aggressive invader from the north or the east.

  79. More proof... by MitchDev · · Score: 0

    Iran is not fit to continue to exist.

  80. Diderot said it best. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.

  81. Boobquake? by drolli · · Score: 1

    So if we al watch boobquake photos over highspeed internet, something very bad should happen....

  82. Move on! by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    The Grand Ayatollah is an evil relic of the past. Move on Iran!

  83. yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Comcast=Satan as we all know

  84. Comcast needs a new explanation by anomalous3 · · Score: 1

    I feel like comcast would have a much easier time with the whole net neutrality debate if they explained that data caps were against divine law.

  85. Same thing from ultra-orthodox Jews. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I saw what you did there, the comment is about islam and you deflect to a few rabbis. FYI I don't see that many rabbis beheading infidels. Try again dips. next time do it without the veil.

  86. Troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean religious person... same thing

  87. Let it self-destruct or interfere and prolong it by seniorcoder · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Much of the foreign interference offered by this country's government results in the reverse of what they were trying to achieve.
    To meddle in something that is none of your business merely tends to give credibility to whatever you disagreed with in the first place.

    “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin.
    “Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” - Mark Twain.

    So if Iran or wherever wants to pass stupid edicts, just let it go ahead.
    Have some respect for Iranians to recognize a horse's ass for what it is.
    If a stupid government passes a sufficient number of dumb edicts that they eventually make themselves irrelevant.

    Or maybe we should interfere and start another war which would surely help support a dumb regime (on both sides).

  88. Sure, why not. by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    If they dont want to be with the rest of us, fine by me. "High speed Internet" is not a basic human right, its a choice. No more than having koolaid is a human right.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  89. And this is exactly how their oppression will end by lamer01 · · Score: 1

    You can take away most freedoms but don't touch my internet!

  90. "NSA will back me up on this" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    then your downloads must be fake - the NSA will lie about the time of day both b/c they fear that letting potential terrorists know we have clocks accurate to with a minute poses a serious national security risk as well as simply out of habit...

  91. gimme internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or i kill you infidel

  92. Wait a minute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where in the Koran does it mention bandwidth?

    Nowhere. Similiar to how the bible don't mention "gay marriage" or "abortion clinics" anywhere.

    Various holy books come up short on many modern concepts - and religious leaders make up statements mostly based on custom, their own ideas/prejudices, and sometimes very loosely based on those books. Not that it matters much - holy books were merely written by humans long ago anyway - based on local customs and prejudices...

  93. Brian Roberts is the Grand Ayatollah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That explains a lot...

  94. See how to eradicate porn from the internet by JacobLeclerc · · Score: 1

    Make people wait... brilliant!

  95. Against Sharia, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess that means the UK'll have to abandon plans to increase internet speeds when Sharia Law becomes the norm in their country.

  96. Misleading title. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the linked article it appears to me that the immoral is an access to the uncensored Internet regardless of it's speed. Iran is evil enough. Why making anti Iran propaganda that is an stupid exaggeration ?

  97. Re:Ah ... Cold Fjord is a Catholic !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come now, you're interfering with his world view that "religion is always bad and backwards, with no exceptions", and people don't like their world view screwed up with tiny things like facts.

  98. Perhaps AT&T and Comcast believe that too by Skynyrd · · Score: 1

    That might explain why Comcast and AT&T are so shitty and slow.
    I didn't realize they were run my militant clerics, but now it all makes sense.

  99. Re:Just nuke them already by Livius · · Score: 2

    So.... you support starting with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, right?

  100. Re:What's the BW between that Grand Ayatollah & by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    Reading between the lines, licensing is at issue, not Alla. It appears that the head puba of the islamic ariean nation is referencing the busness section of Crayon?

  101. 3G? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Not many people use 3G any more. All the new smartphones come with 4G LTE. How about expanding the 4G network in Iran instead?

  102. As if... by Jawnn · · Score: 1

    ...we needed any more evidence that religious "leaders" are uniquely unqualified to act as an authority on "morality". My command of Sharia is far from what it could be, but I am damn sure that neither Allah nor The Prophet had anything to say about high-speed Internet connections. Most ISP's however, are probably guilty of at least a few "stoning" offenses, but as for the "morality" a faster Internet, the Ayatollah is full of shit. Ignorance is never a moral virtue.

  103. He can read the Quran at slow speeds just fine by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Come to think of it, he can probably read it without pausing as it prints out on his 1980s fax machine, so I'm surprised he hasn't denounced everything faster as "unnecessary."

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  104. 'Restrict the flow of information' by kheldan · · Score: 1

    It's a very common page from the playbook of every dictator and oppressive regime. Keep the people in the dark as much as possible, or better yet in the case of religion, demonize other, non-church-authority sources of information, insist that if you use them you are committing a sin, and that only information from church leaders is valid and right. The only good thing in this story is that moves like this just highlight how desperate these people are to maintain power over the people, and how much that power is, year by year, slipping through their fingers like so much sand, as they grip tighter and tighter.

    I don't want to live forever, but for this one reason alone: I'd be pleased to live long enough to see humans, as a race, finally evolve beyond this silly need for 'god(s)' and 'religion' and finally realize they've been relying on themselves all along, and that it's a Good Thing to be that way. Then power-hungry and/or deluded people like this 'Grand Ayatollah', and the Pope, and anyone like them, would no longer hold sway over people. Then we'll really have a shot at having a civilization to be proud of.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  105. Those damn commie Russians... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Polluting Americans' precious bodily fluids.

    http://ncse.com/news/2010/06/c...

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  106. Technology in Iran by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The internet must be restricted because it has no place in the 7th century culture we are working to recreate.

  107. Temptation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its obvious. Religion is all about controlling the gullible for profit.

  108. Could be worse by bigmammoth · · Score: 1

    See ...Comcast is not so bad after all :P

  109. and hacker says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    and hacker says stuffy old bearded nut bar religions that cause murder death and mayhem are really against moral standards

  110. but.. how will they download all the ISIS videos? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    without the high speed internets how will they watch the ISIS video's of cutting off heads?

  111. If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... by Cyberdyne · · Score: 1

    The funny thing is, I recall a Labour MP here in the UK saying something comparably dim back in 1998! At that point, all we had was expensive metered dialup; I was in a group campaigning to change that, and happened to meet him at some event. His reply was that he "didn't think the Internet was a good idea". One of those moments I really, really wish I could have recorded!

  112. Internet not Sharia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Correct me if I'm mistaken but the Koran doesn't mention internet service anywhere does it?

  113. I'm just suprised that an Ayatollah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    has seen avenue Q. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-TA57L0kuc

  114. Being reflective on pros and cons of technology... by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    "In other words, power corrupts. It should really be regarded like super-heroin: no matter your initial purposes for getting it, you will be addicted and unwilling to put it down, until keeping it and getting more is all that really matters to you anymore. Which explains why the world is so dysfunctional: every society is led by junkies."

    If "power" is addictive, maybe that explains the outrage on Slashdot regarding a plea to limit internet speed and access? :-)

    More seriously, while you may well be right about the political motivation in this case, there was a recent Slashdot article on how social networks make people more depressed, and here are links to stuff by Paul Graham on the "Acceleration of Addictivess" and so on.
    http://tech.slashdot.org/story...
    http://www.paulgraham.com/addi...
    http://www.amazon.com/Supernor...
    http://www.sparringmind.com/su...
    http://www.drfuhrman.com/libra...
    http://www.amazon.com/Moths-Fl...
    http://www.amazon.com/Autonomo...

    And something by Bill Joy on "How the Future Does Not Need Us".
    http://archive.wired.com/wired...

    One other example of what we have lost:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
    "Nature deficit disorder refers to a hypothesis by Richard Louv in his 2005 book Last Child in the Woods that human beings, especially children, are spending less time outdoors resulting in a wide range of behavioral problems. ... Louv claims that causes for the phenomenon include parental fears, restricted access to natural areas, and the lure of the screen. Recent research has drawn a further contrast between the declining number of National Park visits in the United States and increasing consumption of electronic media by children."

    So there are many obvious negatives of modern technology. Look at all the concern on Slashdot about ubiquitous surveillance of everyone that was effectively impossible decades ago. I don't know what the general solution is for the USA regarding technological choices. Obviously Iran has its own political and social dynamics and what may be right for that culture may not be right in the USA. But I'd suggest we need a more reflective attitude towards technology and social systems connected to it. Maybe that would be hard in Iran with its current politics and censorship, but at least, in the USA and on Slashdot, we may want to be more reflective on both what we have gained and what we have lost.

    For example, the Amish don't shun technology as much as ask whether specific technologies promote community or not.
    http://www2.etown.edu/amishstu...
    "Many outsiders mistakenly think that the Amish reject technology. It is more accurate to say that they use technology selectively. Televisions, radios, and personal computers are rejected outright, but other types of technology are used selectively or modified to fit Amish purposes. Amish mechanics also build new machines to accommodate their cultural guidelines. Moreover, the Amish readily buy much modern technology, such as gas grills, shop tools, camping equipment, and some farm equipment.
    The Amish do not consider technology evil in itself but they believe that technology, if left untamed, will undermine worthy trad

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  115. 10Gbit/s ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    absolutely haram

  116. I'll tell you one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it is not his religion. no one has the authority to dictate rules and announce that this is against religion.
    Please don't blame religion for what assholes say.

    If the pope suddenly decides that people with green eyes go to hell, does it make it true? no. because he is a human being and he doesn't get to rewrite rules.

    Again, don't blame religion for what dumbass humans say or do.

  117. I always knew Comcast and Verizon were Iranian spi by iamacat · · Score: 1

    And now it's proven! They are against high speed Internet too!

  118. 3G/4G revolt by phorm · · Score: 1

    Well, around here the support 4G speeds are pretty revolting as it is, and the 3G signal isn't very good either...

  119. Enjoy the anticipation by phorm · · Score: 1

    Which is why I've always asserted that (older) geeks make better lovers. 2400 baud modems have taught us to be patient...

  120. Got a bunch of 56K modems in the garage... by kimgkimg · · Score: 1

    Sweet! A new market for the 56K modems that I've got sitting the the garage!

  121. they only had dialup in 780 AD, so stay there by swschrad · · Score: 1

    so thinks the Assahola.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  122. So, when did the Ayatollah... by Stubbyfingers · · Score: 1

    Become a majority stock holder in Comcast?

  123. The Ayatollah is Right by ptkdb · · Score: 1

    It has to be 4G or better!

  124. I speak for the civilized world when I say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FSCK the Ayatollah and what he likes. He needs to accept the fact that he does not run the world, and throwing tantrums, committing acts of terrorism and trying to act like the reach of his power is larger than it actually is, is in essence advertising his frustration at his own impotence to the world and not enforcing any actual power.

    It would be refreshing if the Ayatollah acted like an adult and said something more like, "Our religious doctrine does not support High Speed internet as something that is part of a traditional muslim life, but we support those of a different religion or no religion to exercise their right to enjoy the wonders of technology." But no, they throw tantrums and act like there is something wrong with the world because they don't act like the Ayatollah knows everything and that everything they don't like is something spawned by Satan.

    FSCK overbearing religious idiots, be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish or even Atheists! There is a difference between reasonable people and zealots. It is clear what camp the Ayatollah falls into. Reasonable has respect for the opinions and lives of people who do not believe as they do. Zealots try (in vein) to exert their control beyond the realm where they actually have control and act like their beliefs are what everyone should believe (in essence a form of self imposed suffering.) This is not how the world is structured. This is where religion crosses the line from being something that should be tolerated to a cultish doctrine of a terrorist organization.

  125. Wisdom by NewYork · · Score: 1

    Religion was born when the first con man met the first fool

  126. True believers should support me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Allah told me that Muhammad(PBUH) made mistakes in writing Quran.
    Allah gave me mandate to rewrite Quran.
    True believers should support me.

  127. IMO by NewYork · · Score: 1

    Asking WHY is a taboo in every religion, not just Islam.

  128. This is the stupidest thing I have read all week.. by pmcizhere · · Score: 1

    ...but the week is still young. This right here though, is tragic entertainment.

  129. Grand idiot is an idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Grand idiot is an idiot. Their religion is false anyways. (Matthew 7:2) for with the judgment you are judging, you will be judged, and with the measure that you are measuring out, they will measure out to you.
    They will get theirs.

  130. Re:Being reflective on pros and cons of technology by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

    You're spot on, of course, but as you are differed with "The Progressive Narrative" which seems to be groupthink on /. I hope you have your flame retardant pants on.

    --
    Murphy was an optimist
  131. cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dnt forget to check out www.buddychoice.com

  132. Re:Let it self-destruct or interfere and prolong i by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

    If a stupid government passes a sufficient number of dumb edicts that they eventually make themselves irrelevant.

    Brilliant. Surely this will take hold in the USA - soon.

    --
    Murphy was an optimist
  133. Historical comment; by CHIT2ME · · Score: 0

    I'm sure Muhahahahamed and Allahlalala would not want their "Sheeple" to have high speed internet or 3G. Good!, so let the infidels have it so we can bury you in the trash heap of history! By the way, why do they call their god Allah? Is it because God already had the name and Satan had to look elsewhere?

    --
    My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!
  134. Stand in Line Grand Ayatollah, Rupert Murdoch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stand in Line Grand Ayatollah, Rupert Murdoch was here first with his political cronies like Tony Abbott and Brandis et al commiting the most major act of terrorism against their own people destroying the future of our internet and turning Australia into a police state.. just like NSA has done to the USA.

    Flaimbait can be addressed to libadm@liberal.org.au

  135. Re:What's the BW between that Grand Ayatollah & by fuzzy2k · · Score: 1

    What are we, animals? 56k is enough bandwidth for anyone. Be nice, or they'll cut you back to 14.4.

    --
    --- Say something clever. Pretend it was me. Thanks.
  136. The envelope please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This year's 'head in the sand' award goes to...

  137. THIS JUST IN! by kuzb · · Score: 1

    Anything which could potentially educate people must be against moral standards!

    --
    BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
  138. This is funny by nesdave1 · · Score: 1

    Coming from a guy who finds murder, torture and generally executing just about anyone he wants, to be politically correct. All in the name of Allah. Fortunately for him, he doesn't have to take responsibility for this as he is advised by his most hollies on its correctness. I don't get it, do you?