It is not difficult nor contradictory to support "open source" as well as seek to end copyright. It's so trivial that children seem to have a natural grasp of it.
Child: "I don't want to take my medicine!" Parent: "It's grape flavored, and you love grapes!" Child: "Well OK I'll take it but I still don't want to take it."
The principle is the same. One can be for abolishing copright monopoly whilst being in favor of a less draconian use of the existing copyright system to demonstrate that the draconian claims are invalid and that copyright as a whole is not a mandate.
We make these choices all the time. I don't *WANT* to go to work, but if I get paid I'm more likely to do so. Hell I might even enjoy it. But that doesn't mean I want to spend my life *working*.
Why stop there? Why not seek the extradition of the heads of Syria, Sudan, Iran, Russia, China, Cuba, Israel, Egypt, many South African nations, many South American nations? After all they've all committed acts that are surely illegal or against the rules somewhere. Hell why not extradite the head of the UN (at any given time)?
No? Didn't think so. But hey if someone does, by all means do present it, I'd love to have some. I just own't hold my breath You see, these extraditions have been going on for years, and have been around for decades if not centuries.
It never ceases to amuse me how both sides use precisely the same tactics whilst accusing the other of using bad tactics.
Not everything is the fault of the WoT, or Bush, or the US. But hey don't let that stand in your way, right?
Because the US was not an instantiated as a democracy. It was set up as a republic, a democratic republic in which there was a meta-nation. What they teach in the US today is not that different from what they teach you in what ever country you are in in that they are both wrong.
There was no government of the structure that the United States was set up as in 1776, never in recorded history has there been. The US was set up as a confederation of soverign states under a single "outfacing organization" to provide for mutual defense and commonality of basic code: the constitution. It was set up as the first government in recorded history to be one defined by limiting it as opposed to maximizing it.
The governments you describe had "mob rule" - it was however formalized. Democracy is not an ancient greek word. It is a later combination of two ancient greek words:
demos: people kratos: strength/power/govern
Looking at the root word it is actually a bit of a stretch to say that the roots imply what we call democracy - though they fit what democracy reallyis that being mob rule. It is far too common to take what we thnk a word means today and assume it to mean the same thing thousands of years ago. For example, in ancient Greece the word tyrant was used merely to describe someone who took over government by overthrowing the previous regime. Now we use the word far differently.
As far as Ancient Greece's "democracy" goes, everyone was *required* to vote - well those who were deemed worthy. They also served as the jury/judges for the society as well. Hardly what we have today. That said oraties of the day also talked of the folly of democracy in the sense of it developing a ruling class that essentialy enslaves the lower classes - and does so by elevating the needy through public works into said ruling class. Furthermore the US system of one-person=one-vote was also a new integration.
Whilst there are similarities with "prior art" in the structure of the US government to say it is not the first of it's kind is folly and factual inaccurate. To say that the various forms of democratic rule or representative government throughout history preclude the proper assertion that the American government was a new form is likewise innacurate and folly.
Many of the other references you give were actually republics. Which brings us back to the founding of the United States as a democracic republic. It was hoped by the founders (per their writing) that the republic aspect could temper the nasty effects of democracy. We see today that this is sadly not true for extended periods of time.
You should also thank your educationj system for not educating you on the history of the time as well. The "newness" of what was being done in Americas was proclaimed throughout Europe at the time and by scholars in full posesion of the knowledge of historic governments. Of particular note was/is the separation of powers. As mentioned above the prior democracies consolidated power in the "elected" or the casting of lots. This is critical because these writings are the basis for the long running "America was a new government" assertion.
As far as the difference between democracy and republic - republics are fundamentally based on civic virtue and liberty. Democracies are founded on the principle of majority rule and force of law. While they are subtle and generally unexplored it is not difficult to still see the vestiges of this underlying difference between republicanism and democracy in the modern Republican and Democrat parties in the US. Other key differences is that democracy is essentially "the law is what the current legislators belive it to be" whereas a republic is founded on a specific set of laws and they are the whole.
Just because students of today, which clearly include students in your country as well as the US, do not get a solid understanding of the various forms of government conflate the terms does not mean that the US was not the first government of it's kind. Perhaps you should spend less time bashing the US and more time looking at your own system with a critical idea. And they that goes to everyone.
To demonstrate how har it is to reverse, the US started down this path with "The New Deal" and are still on it. Read up on how FDR coerced (a particular membr of) the Supreme Court by threatenting to expand it until he got enough people on it to agree with him. Then note how the court's decisions on what was unconstitutional abruptly reversed and started expanding government.
Democracy is incompatible with freedom and liberty.
Humor is actually one of the most common responses to tragedies and horrible situations in which you are not personally invovled in - and often when you are. It's a defense mechanism. It is not common to see/hear humor in eulogies. I even used a "joke" regarding my grandfather in his eulogy - and everyone there laughed alongside me.
Laughter is good even in cases like this (no pun intended) - it helps us to cope and to remember that life is full of more than misery and death. Now if only the cable news networks would ealize this.
The problem is not getting to Mars with enough fuel to return to earth. First you send in situ propellant production plants with hydrogen feedstock. By simple ages old processes you use the hydrogen feedstock to "make" rocket fuel, oxygen, and water literally out of thin air. Look up Mars Direct.
That said, many groups have and are considering one-way trips. My family and I have discussed it and would do so. Sadly there are too many people who think they know better and would prevent people from doing so.
I understand your sentiment but have a different take on it.
Look at cultures around the world, especially pre-industrialized ones. Each has it's rites of passage from childhood to adulthood. Even the US used to have them. We had master-Apprentice training, we had guilds. What few realize is that these provide a transition from childhood to adulthood. They do so by establishing a sense of accomplishment in the youth as they increase in skills and maturity. The relationships formed by youths provide a solid grounding for dealing with the biological (hormonal) changes that adolescence brings on.
Instead today we have high schools which continue to treat you as if you are five years old. Seriously. Look at what the difference in experience is between 1st and 12th grade. It's the same thing with more topics. There is no bridge between childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. Graduation is supposedly some major event, our "replacement" for a rite of passage. But it fails miserably on that account, as we can see.
Adolescents need to feel an impact on their local world as they mature. They need to experience having input and control over their environment as they transition from childhood to adulthood. Our school system provides neither of these. Worse yet, it prevents them and perpetuates the treatment of adolescents as children. With the push toward moving them to college afterward it further perpetuates the problem because the mentality is becoming "well college will prepare them". The channeling of children into groups where they interact with only people their own age (within a year either way) makes it a bad situation because they do not develop inter-age relationship skills.
This is IMO one of the major reasons home schooled children generally do so well. It's more than the formal teaching they get, it is the learning of how to form natural relationships with others, with adult and people of varying ages. Many home schoolers also fall into a pattern similar to a master-apprentice relationship by pursuing a specific skill or field much earlier than government schoolers.
Being placed into the government school environment removes the natural avenues for maturity, delays any learning to interact on a mature level, and delays any learning of how to "control" your environment and life. Is it any wonder so many kids in such a system are depressed, "disruptive", and "failing"? To me it's a wonder more aren't.
its really stunning to think that something like voting in a democracy isn't considered mission critical to the country....to not consider it that way is to say that voting doesn't matter
You are incorrect on both counts.
First, if something is "mission critical" do you entrust it to people who have no idea of the necessary details, or will just use a default position to produce the end result as opposed to careful thought and analysis? No.
Perhaps you don't understand what "mission critical" means. I'll clue you in a bit. Take a look at the Space Shuttle. See those massive engines? Those are mission critical. If they fail so does the mission.
Does the country continue to operate if voting fails? Yes. Every election has had issues with voting. Every election from the beginning has had counting issues, validity of the voter issues, etc.. Yet the *Republic* marches on (though it is becoming more of a democracy - yes that's a bad thing). The troops still fight, stupid laws still get passed, political games still occur, the courts still continue functioning, ambassadors still do their jobs, the IRS still siphons the results of your work from your paycheck, the cops still arrest people, the people still work, shop, and generally live their lives, and so on.
Now that said, it does not mean voting shouldn't be taken seriously. But to say it is mission critical is to say something that isn't true.
Why do companies like Diebold not take voting seriously? The people don't. To paraphrase "K" a bit, a person may take voting seriously but the people do not. When you have a large portion of the voters who vote on "single-issue" or party-line they are not taking it seriously. When people go in and punch votes that they didn't research, they aren't taking it seriously. When people are given the choice of evils, the decision is generally not taken seriously.
The candidates and lawmakers don't take voting seriously either. If they did they wouldn't put all manner of blocks in the way of political speech. They also would not make laws to "protect" us from stupidity. They act as if we are stupid except for that short moment of casting a vote - for them. Hell look at all the accusations by the Gore-siders when Bush was elected: the other voters were stupid.
You want voting to be taken seriously? Give us a "none of the above" option. How does it work? Simple: if NOTA "wins" all who were on the ballot are barred from the next election, and it is held 90 days from the first. If NOTA still wins, the office goes vacant until the next election. Clearly nobody was able to fit the bill so nobody sits in the office. If the office goes a couple cycles w/o a victor, dissolve it wherever not constitutionally required.
Another option: Require a majority. Not just a majority of voters, but a full-on majority of citizens. Most elections (in the US at least) don't require a majority, just a plurality (yes that means less than half of the votes can still win - as Clinton did) of the votes cast. Consider the whole of the adult citizenry the body, and in order to have a solid vote mandate that votes of more than half of the citizenry are required to be voted in.
Right now if a third of those eligible vote, and half of them vote for one guy you've got about 1/6th of the population voting someone into office. Where a majority is not required, the numbers can drop down to 20% of votes cast which in the above example would mean what, 1/30th of the population?
Do the same thing for all issues in front of the voters. Bond issues, levies, tax raises, initiatives, etc..
Voting is marginalized by the government (which has a vested interest in doing so), by the voters (who do not do "due diligence"), and by the candidates (who know they don't really need a majority of people, just a plurality of those who hauled their asses down to teh voting station or sent their mail-in ballot in). Something so heavily marginalized can not be mission critical.
Never mind the 30 second Google search. All it took me was a 1 second glance across the room to the PS3 I got last year. Plays Blu-Ray just fine and cost less than 600.
Although the United States is an increasingly unpopular country, China is a more likely enemy.
Are you sure you don't mean "more popular country to bash" instead of' increasingly unpopular"? Last I check there are more people trying top get here than ever before. Talk is cheap, and people will tend to echo the sentiments they think the interviewee or press wants. But actions such as trying to get to the US speak much louder. Last I knew there was no big immigration surge for China, Russia, France, Germany, UK and/or a decrease in US immigration attempts - legal or otherwise.
Many Russian textbooks of the same era, however, took this approach (again, paraphrasing, not quoting anything): "There is one world superpower, and they mean to oppress us..."
My former Soviet, now Russian, friends would disagree with that assertion. They were told that they were the superpower and that the rest of us were living in worse conditions than they were.
I haven't heard anyone in a position to know say anything other than it was pretty accurate for a powerpoint presentation by a politician.
What? It is either accurate or it is not, regardless of who says it. "pretty accurate for a..." implies to me that at least some things in it are NOT accurate. After all there would be no need for a qualification to the claim of accuracy if they were.
The most dangerous aspect in modern "journalism" is the contest for eyeballs. Why?
Take your "news is non-norm stuff" hypothesis. let us assume for the sake of argument it is true. Now, apply context.
Murders in LA? That seems pretty normal to me. Hurricanes in the South? Normal. Corruption in government? Definitely normal. Corruption in big corporations? Normal. Tomorrows weather not the same as today? Normal. People breaking laws? Normal. People saying something others don't like? Normal. Government officials seeking censorship of views/statements they don't like? Normal
Thus according to your hypothesis none of this would be "News". So if we agree that these things are "news" we are left with two options: either these are not normal events/behavior or the definition of news you use is incorrect.
Sop what else could "News" mean? Perhaps the origin has some clue: New things/events.
The problem is not too much of the "wrong doom/gloom", but the competition for advertisers. The news corporations are not competing for you the viewer, they are competing for advertising dollars. The problem is that we don't directly pay for our news.
It isn't commercialization of news that is the problem, but how it is done. If we the consumers were the source of revenue, then news companies would cater to what people want to see/hear/read. That might be doom/gloom, that might be rose tinted reports, and it might be simple reporting of events. Right now we don't have a choice. Whether your news outlet is CNN, Fox, NBC, or CBS doesn't really matter - they are all showing pretty much the same thing. And it's gone "national" or "global". Why? Because local news isn't lucrative enough for advertisers. Look at the news today and you find it is probably about 90% non-local news except around elections. Even then if there is a national election at the same time the local news is put "in context" of the "bigger picture".
Local news is generally not doom and gloom, except where the market is large such as in big cities. The larger the "viewer market" the more advertisers will pay, the more it focuses on "controversy" - manufactured or not.
One of the casualties in this mess is the feeling of connectedness with your local community. When all the news you see is not around you, when the politics is all about stuff happening hundreds or thousands of miles away, your feeling of what is going on in your local community dwindles. It is how we lose local control of our institutions, which cascades to losing non-local control. The unstated implication in focusing on non-local news is that local events are unimportant. As a result we see fewer people involved in local politics, local decisions, and in their local community. We become isolated in our own areas.
IMO the focus on the content of the news is misguided. The content of the news is a symptom or result of the way news is marketed. Rather than market the news to those who consume it, it has been turned into a means to sell to people who really don't care what it is. Only by addressing this root cause will the problem begin to be resolved.
As long as you just stand somewhere swinging your fist, it may make some sense to say that I simply shouldn't go near you in order to avoid being hit, but if you deduce from that that you're always free to swing your fist, then do consider a situation where I'm in a group of people who're all swinging their fists, with nowhere left to go. Is it my fault then that I get beaten up?
So, yeah, I agree that it does fall under free speech rights, but I also think that saying "if it were a private company, nothing would be wrong with it" is fallacious.
There is a flaw in your analogy. You conflated public with private. "private company" fits in your analogy by replacing the word company with property. If I have some land that has people swinging their fists you can choose to enter or not. If you choose to enter, you have no grounds for complaining you got your butt whipped by a group on that property.
If my property had signs saying "we don't swing our fists around" when in fact we did, then you'd have a case: it's called fraud. If I forced you onto the property, or forced my fist swinging crown onto public property, or your property where you don't have a choice in the matter, that's called force. These are the two things that libertarians are against as a rule: force and fraud.
What you are saying instead is that I can't swing my fists on my property. Now combine your two assertions: 1) Swinging your fists in public is bad and should not be allowed. 2) Swinging your fists in private is bad and should not be allowed.
That covers all situations. You've essentially argued for banning things from all spaces. So what happened to free speech? Change "swinging fists" to "making a statement others may not like" and you may see the problem with your apparent position.
It is made worse by the government's declaration that property that is "open to the general public" *is* public property.
That is a result of the focus on security theater instead of real security. When the alleged security is hype, we will see more hype about it's problems, real or imagined.
There is no such thing as corporate greed. There is greed. Humans have greed corporations do not. One of the worst episodes in the history of the US was when the US Supreme Court decided corporations, a fiction created by government, were tantamount to people. And continuing to anthropomorphize them only perpetuates the real problem. Corporations don't have soul, emotions, etc.. People do.
So why do socialists and "anti-capitalists" and so on continue to refer to them as if they were human? Because it belies the problem to socialism. The actions taken are done by humans. Humans can be greedy. Sometimes greed can be good, often it is bad. Pretending that corporations have greed, feelings, emotions, desires, etc. lets people feel good about humans while feeling bad about corporations.
The problem with governments and corporations are the same, and for the same reason. The more humanity is separated from itself via fictions such as corporations and government, the more they people can justify things they would not do themselves in a more personal situation.
So whine all you want, but put the blame squarely where it belongs - on the people, not the fictions called corporations.
This particular problem is exacerbated by the fiction of "intellectual property". Here we have two fictions being combined to control others. For all the frailties of humans, it gets worse when we exclude humans. At least humans have qualities that limit or hinder the damage of our frailties when we are involved
Unless you're looking for an actual overrun in Emacs, what you're asking for isn't hard.
Well it is what you said, so that's what I'd ask for. So if it isn't hard we can expect your evidence/proof soon then, right? Are you saying finding an actual overrun in Emacs is hard? And what about tying that overrun into a cascading situation, is that hard to? I don't think it unreasonable that you be asked to provide that which you say is easy. Rather than branch out I stuck to exactly what you claimed. You say it's easy, so by all means provide it.
The other possibility, a macro that auto-runs, wouldn't really require a patch to disable--it would only require changing a preference.
Only on the assumption that all macros are configurable preferences. It is not inconceivable that there are macros that are not a preference check box.
The only thing left is the actual buffer overflow. If you're actually suggesting that Emacs is incapable of having a buffer overflow, that's an assertion I'd like to see a basis for, and is largely irrelevant since it was just an example.
I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. What I am saying outright is that we see a lot of people say it would be so easy to do in a given OSS program, but we never see them prove their statement. That said, you did (intentionally or not) follow the next argument.. "well it was just an example". Examples of hypothetical situations don't prove the hypothesis.
That said, buffer overflows are not some magic incantation that programmers can not prevent. There are many methods that can severely limit ht epossibility of overflow exploits, even if we can not eliminate them entirely. Further there are various abilities and models available to Linux systems such as PaX, SSp, libsafe, exec-shield, grsecurity, etc. that further limit the ability to exploit a given buffer overflow in a piece of software such as Emacs (or open office, Kmail, Mozilla, Evolution, Thunderbird...). it may well be that the developers of Emacs have actually made your hypothetical exploit not possible.
Your attitude seems a bit hostile. I'm not trying to make any statement about the validity or correctness of their patch.
Any hostility is imagined on your part.
That there was a patch implies that there was, indeed, something to patch. However, what the patch actually fixed is not stated, and thus could well mean anything. We have seen patches prior that looked for the overflow data and rather than fix the overflow they simply dropped it on the floor. This was shown by the next variant of said worm simply changing the string it used to cause it and nothing else - and being just as successful as the first.
I don't know if you're a Linux zealot, a Microsoft hater, or both, but there's room for civility in discussions like this. I'm neither, and I've been civil. I've even been humorous. Perhaps you should stop looking for incivility in others, or at least grant that statements of fact or challenges to assertions that are not backed up does not constitute hostility yor incivility.
I love Linux, but I also recognize the fact that there have been vulnerabilities in FOSS, and you can never forget the human factor (a trojan'd binary/script in Linux could do as much damage as one on Windows).
There are many degrees of vulnerability. There is a vast difference between the "small" vulnerabilities, and large, self-replicating ones. Not all vulnerabilities are created equal. Furthermore, your assertion that "a trojan'd binary/script could do as much damage" is heavily reliant upon assumptions that are most often not valid. For example, Linux systems do not have/use the same level of integration between components as Windows systems do. The majority of vulnerabilities such as the one in the article are entirely dependent on a cascade of failures due to the tight integration on Windows. Absent that you've just lost a key component of the requirements for cascadi
If you think the government ought to force people to prepare for their retirement
Lets stop here for a moment. Lets expand that statement... "If you think government ought to use the threat of imprisonment or death to force people to prepare for their retirement".
Because that is what that force means. It also means that you take away their rights and ability to handle their current situations and needs by removing that money from their control. Perhaps for some people using that money to pay of credit debts, or to prevent them is just as good, or even better for them. After all going into retirement with no debts is a damned good way to go. What good is a SS payment of 800 per month if you have credit debts that high that you have to pay off?
Let people decide for themselves what is best. If people choose to not save and can't make it tough. Nothing says you should not educate them, provide information on it. But if you look at the history of declining savings it tracks the rise of social security quite curiously. Could there be a relation there? Probably so. Lo0ok at the shock of retirees that found SS wasn't enough, and as a result of SS didn't do it on their own. ANd to think once upon a time the US Supreme Court said the government had no constitutional authority for a general retirement program.
But then FDR came along and threatened the Supreme Court with adding more justices to it to get what he wanted, thus bullying a swing vote on the court to change and accept FDR's policies as constitutional. Go ahead, research the history of FDR and the Supreme Court. Look at the massive reversal of judgements at that point. No small wonder this isn't taught in US high schools.
The New Deal sure sounds like The Screw Deal. Today it looks like it too.
Too late that law was passed decades ago. Later they changed their minds. How about we go one better and revert to it's original purpose: to identify your Social Security account? nah that won't do it either.
In 1976 they passed a law: "To make, under federal law, unlawful disclosure or compelling disclosure of the SSN of any person a felony, punishable by fine and/or imprisonment."
You'll see them say repeated "no national id". Then it is followed with "but this other thing which we mandated means you need to have a defacto ID called the SSN". Yes that's a paraphrase but read the original and you arrive right there.
The "observed law" is simple: As long as an entity such as the SSN exists, the government will spew rhetoric against it being used more and more as a form of ID while moving solidly and irrefutably in that direction. It doesn't require complicity or conspiracy, or malevolence. All it requires is some "need" to track, some "need for accountability" for some program ostensibly meant for the public welfare.
And it is set up in a way to deny you are required to have one. You are only required if you want to take advantage of some "benefit" the fedgov decides to "grant" you. You know, like not having your income taken from you. Like getting a job in the first place, or a bank account. These types of backdoor requirements feed conspiracy theories left and right. Sure, you aren't required to have one to live - officially. But if you want to do anything that living entails such as having a job, property, driving, banking, etc. you need one.
No, there is one and only one permanent fix: ban the existence of the SSN or any multi-agency identifier. Let each agency have it's own ID for people who it tracks err I mean services, and let there be no legal cross-checking between. Let the credit industry provide it's own identifier system. let the banking have it's own. Let Blockbusters have it's own.
But limiting the use of any ID will not solve it. You have to ban them. Of course, getting rid of those agencies that feel they need them is also another part of a complete solution.
For example, adding small pieces of wire or cable to a display could make a big difference.'"
So adding an antenna makes it broadcast better meaning you can pick it up easier. Shocking. Very useful for remote spying. Step one, add an antenna to the target's display.
What is disturbing to me is not that these SSNs were exposed, but that they were simply included in "other" databases to begin with. We were told that our SSNs would be limited only to those entities that had a legitimate reason to NEED it. The fact that they were included as a matter of common practice belies this claim. The reference to "before identity theft was a problem" is unadulterated crap. Identity theft has been a problem since biblical times (Jacob and Esau)! The reference to it is a red herring.
What should have been happening is that SSNs should not simply be included in various databases. They should have been following the rules that we were told they were. Whether or not that was successful, they should have had policies and processes for vetting the database for privacy issues prior to dumping it online. Federal privacy laws predate the Internet. The basic notion of checking your data for data that should not be publicly available predates the Internet.
IMO this is similar to the claim that "nobody imagined using airplanes as missiles before 9/11". The problem of Identity Theft existed, was well documented, and alone should have given them reason to examine their DB first. The basic laws on privacy should have. And failing that common sense should have. This is a failure on many grounds.
Does commanded work for you? How about approved of? Try some of these passage, see if you can name them.
"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."
"A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death."
"And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under the axes of iron, and made them pass through the brickkiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. So David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem."
"Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
"Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished."
"And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and woman: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house."
"Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."
"But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. "
"If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst."
"Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death."
"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all - old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded.
Slashdot Mirror
It is not difficult nor contradictory to support "open source" as well as seek to end copyright. It's so trivial that children seem to have a natural grasp of it.
Child: "I don't want to take my medicine!"
Parent: "It's grape flavored, and you love grapes!"
Child: "Well OK I'll take it but I still don't want to take it."
The principle is the same. One can be for abolishing copright monopoly whilst being in favor of a less draconian use of the existing copyright system to demonstrate that the draconian claims are invalid and that copyright as a whole is not a mandate.
We make these choices all the time. I don't *WANT* to go to work, but if I get paid I'm more likely to do so. Hell I might even enjoy it. But that doesn't mean I want to spend my life *working*.
See, not so hard at all.
Why stop there? Why not seek the extradition of the heads of Syria, Sudan, Iran, Russia, China, Cuba, Israel, Egypt, many South African nations, many South American nations? After all they've all committed acts that are surely illegal or against the rules somewhere. Hell why not extradite the head of the UN (at any given time)?
I'm only half joking.
Wanna back that up with evidence?
No? Didn't think so. But hey if someone does, by all means do present it, I'd love to have some. I just own't hold my breath You see, these extraditions have been going on for years, and have been around for decades if not centuries.
It never ceases to amuse me how both sides use precisely the same tactics whilst accusing the other of using bad tactics.
Not everything is the fault of the WoT, or Bush, or the US. But hey don't let that stand in your way, right?
Because the US was not an instantiated as a democracy. It was set up as a republic, a democratic republic in which there was a meta-nation. What they teach in the US today is not that different from what they teach you in what ever country you are in in that they are both wrong.
There was no government of the structure that the United States was set up as in 1776, never in recorded history has there been. The US was set up as a confederation of soverign states under a single "outfacing organization" to provide for mutual defense and commonality of basic code: the constitution. It was set up as the first government in recorded history to be one defined by limiting it as opposed to maximizing it.
The governments you describe had "mob rule" - it was however formalized. Democracy is not an ancient greek word. It is a later combination of two ancient greek words:
demos: people
kratos: strength/power/govern
Looking at the root word it is actually a bit of a stretch to say that the roots imply what we call democracy - though they fit what democracy reallyis that being mob rule.
It is far too common to take what we thnk a word means today and assume it to mean the same thing thousands of years ago. For example, in ancient Greece the word tyrant was used merely to describe someone who took over government by overthrowing the previous regime. Now we use the word far differently.
As far as Ancient Greece's "democracy" goes, everyone was *required* to vote - well those who were deemed worthy. They also served as the jury/judges for the society as well. Hardly what we have today. That said oraties of the day also talked of the folly of democracy in the sense of it developing a ruling class that essentialy enslaves the lower classes - and does so by elevating the needy through public works into said ruling class. Furthermore the US system of one-person=one-vote was also a new integration.
Whilst there are similarities with "prior art" in the structure of the US government to say it is not the first of it's kind is folly and factual inaccurate. To say that the various forms of democratic rule or representative government throughout history preclude the proper assertion that the American government was a new form is likewise innacurate and folly.
Many of the other references you give were actually republics. Which brings us back to the founding of the United States as a democracic republic. It was hoped by the founders (per their writing) that the republic aspect could temper the nasty effects of democracy. We see today that this is sadly not true for extended periods of time.
You should also thank your educationj system for not educating you on the history of the time as well. The "newness" of what was being done in Americas was proclaimed throughout Europe at the time and by scholars in full posesion of the knowledge of historic governments. Of particular note was/is the separation of powers. As mentioned above the prior democracies consolidated power in the "elected" or the casting of lots. This is critical because these writings are the basis for the long running "America was a new government" assertion.
As far as the difference between democracy and republic - republics are fundamentally based on civic virtue and liberty. Democracies are founded on the principle of majority rule and force of law. While they are subtle and generally unexplored it is not difficult to still see the vestiges of this underlying difference between republicanism and democracy in the modern Republican and Democrat parties in the US. Other key differences is that democracy is essentially "the law is what the current legislators belive it to be" whereas a republic is founded on a specific set of laws and they are the whole.
Just because students of today, which clearly include students in your country as well as the US, do not get a solid understanding of the various forms of government conflate the terms does not mean that the US was not the first government of it's kind. Perhaps you should spend less time bashing the US and more time looking at your own system with a critical idea. And they that goes to everyone.
To demonstrate how har it is to reverse, the US started down this path with "The New Deal" and are still on it. Read up on how FDR coerced (a particular membr of) the Supreme Court by threatenting to expand it until he got enough people on it to agree with him. Then note how the court's decisions on what was unconstitutional abruptly reversed and started expanding government.
Democracy is incompatible with freedom and liberty.
Humor is actually one of the most common responses to tragedies and horrible situations in which you are not personally invovled in - and often when you are. It's a defense mechanism. It is not common to see/hear humor in eulogies. I even used a "joke" regarding my grandfather in his eulogy - and everyone there laughed alongside me.
Laughter is good even in cases like this (no pun intended) - it helps us to cope and to remember that life is full of more than misery and death. Now if only the cable news networks would ealize this.
The problem is not getting to Mars with enough fuel to return to earth. First you send in situ propellant production plants with hydrogen feedstock. By simple ages old processes you use the hydrogen feedstock to "make" rocket fuel, oxygen, and water literally out of thin air. Look up Mars Direct.
That said, many groups have and are considering one-way trips. My family and I have discussed it and would do so. Sadly there are too many people who think they know better and would prevent people from doing so.
Heh, it also pisses off tried and true anti-capitalists.
I understand your sentiment but have a different take on it.
Look at cultures around the world, especially pre-industrialized ones. Each has it's rites of passage from childhood to adulthood. Even the US used to have them. We had master-Apprentice training, we had guilds. What few realize is that these provide a transition from childhood to adulthood. They do so by establishing a sense of accomplishment in the youth as they increase in skills and maturity. The relationships formed by youths provide a solid grounding for dealing with the biological (hormonal) changes that adolescence brings on.
Instead today we have high schools which continue to treat you as if you are five years old. Seriously. Look at what the difference in experience is between 1st and 12th grade. It's the same thing with more topics. There is no bridge between childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. Graduation is supposedly some major event, our "replacement" for a rite of passage. But it fails miserably on that account, as we can see.
Adolescents need to feel an impact on their local world as they mature. They need to experience having input and control over their environment as they transition from childhood to adulthood. Our school system provides neither of these. Worse yet, it prevents them and perpetuates the treatment of adolescents as children. With the push toward moving them to college afterward it further perpetuates the problem because the mentality is becoming "well college will prepare them". The channeling of children into groups where they interact with only people their own age (within a year either way) makes it a bad situation because they do not develop inter-age relationship skills.
This is IMO one of the major reasons home schooled children generally do so well. It's more than the formal teaching they get, it is the learning of how to form natural relationships with others, with adult and people of varying ages. Many home schoolers also fall into a pattern similar to a master-apprentice relationship by pursuing a specific skill or field much earlier than government schoolers.
Being placed into the government school environment removes the natural avenues for maturity, delays any learning to interact on a mature level, and delays any learning of how to "control" your environment and life. Is it any wonder so many kids in such a system are depressed, "disruptive", and "failing"? To me it's a wonder more aren't.
its really stunning to think that something like voting in a democracy isn't considered mission critical to the country. ...to not consider it that way is to say that voting doesn't matter
You are incorrect on both counts.
First, if something is "mission critical" do you entrust it to people who have no idea of the necessary details, or will just use a default position to produce the end result as opposed to careful thought and analysis? No.
Perhaps you don't understand what "mission critical" means. I'll clue you in a bit. Take a look at the Space Shuttle. See those massive engines? Those are mission critical. If they fail so does the mission.
Does the country continue to operate if voting fails? Yes. Every election has had issues with voting. Every election from the beginning has had counting issues, validity of the voter issues, etc.. Yet the *Republic* marches on (though it is becoming more of a democracy - yes that's a bad thing). The troops still fight, stupid laws still get passed, political games still occur, the courts still continue functioning, ambassadors still do their jobs, the IRS still siphons the results of your work from your paycheck, the cops still arrest people, the people still work, shop, and generally live their lives, and so on.
Now that said, it does not mean voting shouldn't be taken seriously. But to say it is mission critical is to say something that isn't true.
Why do companies like Diebold not take voting seriously? The people don't. To paraphrase "K" a bit, a person may take voting seriously but the people do not. When you have a large portion of the voters who vote on "single-issue" or party-line they are not taking it seriously. When people go in and punch votes that they didn't research, they aren't taking it seriously. When people are given the choice of evils, the decision is generally not taken seriously.
The candidates and lawmakers don't take voting seriously either. If they did they wouldn't put all manner of blocks in the way of political speech. They also would not make laws to "protect" us from stupidity. They act as if we are stupid except for that short moment of casting a vote - for them. Hell look at all the accusations by the Gore-siders when Bush was elected: the other voters were stupid.
You want voting to be taken seriously? Give us a "none of the above" option. How does it work? Simple: if NOTA "wins" all who were on the ballot are barred from the next election, and it is held 90 days from the first. If NOTA still wins, the office goes vacant until the next election. Clearly nobody was able to fit the bill so nobody sits in the office. If the office goes a couple cycles w/o a victor, dissolve it wherever not constitutionally required.
Another option: Require a majority. Not just a majority of voters, but a full-on majority of citizens. Most elections (in the US at least) don't require a majority, just a plurality (yes that means less than half of the votes can still win - as Clinton did) of the votes cast. Consider the whole of the adult citizenry the body, and in order to have a solid vote mandate that votes of more than half of the citizenry are required to be voted in.
Right now if a third of those eligible vote, and half of them vote for one guy you've got about 1/6th of the population voting someone into office. Where a majority is not required, the numbers can drop down to 20% of votes cast which in the above example would mean what, 1/30th of the population?
Do the same thing for all issues in front of the voters. Bond issues, levies, tax raises, initiatives, etc..
Voting is marginalized by the government (which has a vested interest in doing so), by the voters (who do not do "due diligence"), and by the candidates (who know they don't really need a majority of people, just a plurality of those who hauled their asses down to teh voting station or sent their mail-in ballot in). Something so heavily marginalized can not be mission critical.
Yes, the
Never mind the 30 second Google search. All it took me was a 1 second glance across the room to the PS3 I got last year. Plays Blu-Ray just fine and cost less than 600.
Although the United States is an increasingly unpopular country, China is a more likely enemy.
Are you sure you don't mean "more popular country to bash" instead of' increasingly unpopular"? Last I check there are more people trying top get here than ever before. Talk is cheap, and people will tend to echo the sentiments they think the interviewee or press wants. But actions such as trying to get to the US speak much louder. Last I knew there was no big immigration surge for China, Russia, France, Germany, UK and/or a decrease in US immigration attempts - legal or otherwise.
Many Russian textbooks of the same era, however, took this approach (again, paraphrasing, not quoting anything): "There is one world superpower, and they mean to oppress us..."
My former Soviet, now Russian, friends would disagree with that assertion. They were told that they were the superpower and that the rest of us were living in worse conditions than they were.
I haven't heard anyone in a position to know say anything other than it was pretty accurate for a powerpoint presentation by a politician.
..." implies to me that at least some things in it are NOT accurate. After all there would be no need for a qualification to the claim of accuracy if they were.
What? It is either accurate or it is not, regardless of who says it. "pretty accurate for a
The most dangerous aspect in modern "journalism" is the contest for eyeballs. Why?
Take your "news is non-norm stuff" hypothesis. let us assume for the sake of argument it is true. Now, apply context.
Murders in LA? That seems pretty normal to me.
Hurricanes in the South? Normal.
Corruption in government? Definitely normal.
Corruption in big corporations? Normal.
Tomorrows weather not the same as today? Normal.
People breaking laws? Normal.
People saying something others don't like? Normal.
Government officials seeking censorship of views/statements they don't like? Normal
Thus according to your hypothesis none of this would be "News". So if we agree that these things are "news" we are left with two options: either these are not normal events/behavior or the definition of news you use is incorrect.
Sop what else could "News" mean? Perhaps the origin has some clue: New things/events.
The problem is not too much of the "wrong doom/gloom", but the competition for advertisers. The news corporations are not competing for you the viewer, they are competing for advertising dollars. The problem is that we don't directly pay for our news.
It isn't commercialization of news that is the problem, but how it is done. If we the consumers were the source of revenue, then news companies would cater to what people want to see/hear/read. That might be doom/gloom, that might be rose tinted reports, and it might be simple reporting of events. Right now we don't have a choice. Whether your news outlet is CNN, Fox, NBC, or CBS doesn't really matter - they are all showing pretty much the same thing. And it's gone "national" or "global". Why? Because local news isn't lucrative enough for advertisers. Look at the news today and you find it is probably about 90% non-local news except around elections. Even then if there is a national election at the same time the local news is put "in context" of the "bigger picture".
Local news is generally not doom and gloom, except where the market is large such as in big cities. The larger the "viewer market" the more advertisers will pay, the more it focuses on "controversy" - manufactured or not.
One of the casualties in this mess is the feeling of connectedness with your local community. When all the news you see is not around you, when the politics is all about stuff happening hundreds or thousands of miles away, your feeling of what is going on in your local community dwindles. It is how we lose local control of our institutions, which cascades to losing non-local control. The unstated implication in focusing on non-local news is that local events are unimportant. As a result we see fewer people involved in local politics, local decisions, and in their local community. We become isolated in our own areas.
IMO the focus on the content of the news is misguided. The content of the news is a symptom or result of the way news is marketed. Rather than market the news to those who consume it, it has been turned into a means to sell to people who really don't care what it is. Only by addressing this root cause will the problem begin to be resolved.
There is a flaw in your analogy. You conflated public with private.
"private company" fits in your analogy by replacing the word company with property. If I have some land that has people swinging their fists you can choose to enter or not. If you choose to enter, you have no grounds for complaining you got your butt whipped by a group on that property.
If my property had signs saying "we don't swing our fists around" when in fact we did, then you'd have a case: it's called fraud. If I forced you onto the property, or forced my fist swinging crown onto public property, or your property where you don't have a choice in the matter, that's called force. These are the two things that libertarians are against as a rule: force and fraud.
What you are saying instead is that I can't swing my fists on my property. Now combine your two assertions:
1) Swinging your fists in public is bad and should not be allowed.
2) Swinging your fists in private is bad and should not be allowed.
That covers all situations. You've essentially argued for banning things from all spaces. So what happened to free speech? Change "swinging fists" to "making a statement others may not like" and you may see the problem with your apparent position.
It is made worse by the government's declaration that property that is "open to the general public" *is* public property.
That is a result of the focus on security theater instead of real security. When the alleged security is hype, we will see more hype about it's problems, real or imagined.
There is no such thing as corporate greed. There is greed. Humans have greed corporations do not. One of the worst episodes in the history of the US was when the US Supreme Court decided corporations, a fiction created by government, were tantamount to people. And continuing to anthropomorphize them only perpetuates the real problem. Corporations don't have soul, emotions, etc.. People do.
So why do socialists and "anti-capitalists" and so on continue to refer to them as if they were human? Because it belies the problem to socialism. The actions taken are done by humans. Humans can be greedy. Sometimes greed can be good, often it is bad. Pretending that corporations have greed, feelings, emotions, desires, etc. lets people feel good about humans while feeling bad about corporations.
The problem with governments and corporations are the same, and for the same reason. The more humanity is separated from itself via fictions such as corporations and government, the more they people can justify things they would not do themselves in a more personal situation.
So whine all you want, but put the blame squarely where it belongs - on the people, not the fictions called corporations.
This particular problem is exacerbated by the fiction of "intellectual property". Here we have two fictions being combined to control others. For all the frailties of humans, it gets worse when we exclude humans. At least humans have qualities that limit or hinder the damage of our frailties when we are involved
Unless you're looking for an actual overrun in Emacs, what you're asking for isn't hard.
.. "well it was just an example". Examples of hypothetical situations don't prove the hypothesis.
Well it is what you said, so that's what I'd ask for. So if it isn't hard we can expect your evidence/proof soon then, right? Are you saying finding an actual overrun in Emacs is hard? And what about tying that overrun into a cascading situation, is that hard to? I don't think it unreasonable that you be asked to provide that which you say is easy. Rather than branch out I stuck to exactly what you claimed. You say it's easy, so by all means provide it.
The other possibility, a macro that auto-runs, wouldn't really require a patch to disable--it would only require changing a preference.
Only on the assumption that all macros are configurable preferences. It is not inconceivable that there are macros that are not a preference check box.
The only thing left is the actual buffer overflow. If you're actually suggesting that Emacs is incapable of having a buffer overflow, that's an assertion I'd like to see a basis for, and is largely irrelevant since it was just an example.
I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. What I am saying outright is that we see a lot of people say it would be so easy to do in a given OSS program, but we never see them prove their statement. That said, you did (intentionally or not) follow the next argument
That said, buffer overflows are not some magic incantation that programmers can not prevent. There are many methods that can severely limit ht epossibility of overflow exploits, even if we can not eliminate them entirely. Further there are various abilities and models available to Linux systems such as PaX, SSp, libsafe, exec-shield, grsecurity, etc. that further limit the ability to exploit a given buffer overflow in a piece of software such as Emacs (or open office, Kmail, Mozilla, Evolution, Thunderbird...). it may well be that the developers of Emacs have actually made your hypothetical exploit not possible.
Your attitude seems a bit hostile. I'm not trying to make any statement about the validity or correctness of their patch.
Any hostility is imagined on your part.
That there was a patch implies that there was, indeed, something to patch.
However, what the patch actually fixed is not stated, and thus could well mean anything. We have seen patches prior that looked for the overflow data and rather than fix the overflow they simply dropped it on the floor. This was shown by the next variant of said worm simply changing the string it used to cause it and nothing else - and being just as successful as the first.
I don't know if you're a Linux zealot, a Microsoft hater, or both, but there's room for civility in discussions like this.
I'm neither, and I've been civil. I've even been humorous. Perhaps you should stop looking for incivility in others, or at least grant that statements of fact or challenges to assertions that are not backed up does not constitute hostility yor incivility.
I love Linux, but I also recognize the fact that there have been vulnerabilities in FOSS, and you can never forget the human factor (a trojan'd binary/script in Linux could do as much damage as one on Windows).
There are many degrees of vulnerability. There is a vast difference between the "small" vulnerabilities, and large, self-replicating ones. Not all vulnerabilities are created equal. Furthermore, your assertion that "a trojan'd binary/script could do as much damage" is heavily reliant upon assumptions that are most often not valid. For example, Linux systems do not have/use the same level of integration between components as Windows systems do. The majority of vulnerabilities such as the one in the article are entirely dependent on a cascade of failures due to the tight integration on Windows. Absent that you've just lost a key component of the requirements for cascadi
If you think the government ought to force people to prepare for their retirement
Lets stop here for a moment. Lets expand that statement...
"If you think government ought to use the threat of imprisonment or death to force people to prepare for their retirement".
Because that is what that force means. It also means that you take away their rights and ability to handle their current situations and needs by removing that money from their control. Perhaps for some people using that money to pay of credit debts, or to prevent them is just as good, or even better for them. After all going into retirement with no debts is a damned good way to go. What good is a SS payment of 800 per month if you have credit debts that high that you have to pay off?
Let people decide for themselves what is best. If people choose to not save and can't make it tough. Nothing says you should not educate them, provide information on it. But if you look at the history of declining savings it tracks the rise of social security quite curiously. Could there be a relation there? Probably so. Lo0ok at the shock of retirees that found SS wasn't enough, and as a result of SS didn't do it on their own. ANd to think once upon a time the US Supreme Court said the government had no constitutional authority for a general retirement program.
But then FDR came along and threatened the Supreme Court with adding more justices to it to get what he wanted, thus bullying a swing vote on the court to change and accept FDR's policies as constitutional. Go ahead, research the history of FDR and the Supreme Court. Look at the massive reversal of judgements at that point. No small wonder this isn't taught in US high schools.
The New Deal sure sounds like The Screw Deal. Today it looks like it too.
Too late that law was passed decades ago. Later they changed their minds. How about we go one better and revert to it's original purpose: to identify your Social Security account? nah that won't do it either.
= Reply&threshold=3&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=18 816893
In 1976 they passed a law:
"To make, under federal law, unlawful disclosure or compelling disclosure of the SSN of any person a felony, punishable by fine and/or imprisonment."
Take a peek at http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=231667&op
You'll see them say repeated "no national id". Then it is followed with "but this other thing which we mandated means you need to have a defacto ID called the SSN". Yes that's a paraphrase but read the original and you arrive right there.
The "observed law" is simple:
As long as an entity such as the SSN exists, the government will spew rhetoric against it being used more and more as a form of ID while moving solidly and irrefutably in that direction. It doesn't require complicity or conspiracy, or malevolence. All it requires is some "need" to track, some "need for accountability" for some program ostensibly meant for the public welfare.
And it is set up in a way to deny you are required to have one. You are only required if you want to take advantage of some "benefit" the fedgov decides to "grant" you. You know, like not having your income taken from you. Like getting a job in the first place, or a bank account. These types of backdoor requirements feed conspiracy theories left and right. Sure, you aren't required to have one to live - officially. But if you want to do anything that living entails such as having a job, property, driving, banking, etc. you need one.
No, there is one and only one permanent fix: ban the existence of the SSN or any multi-agency identifier. Let each agency have it's own ID for people who it tracks err I mean services, and let there be no legal cross-checking between. Let the credit industry provide it's own identifier system. let the banking have it's own. Let Blockbusters have it's own.
But limiting the use of any ID will not solve it. You have to ban them. Of course, getting rid of those agencies that feel they need them is also another part of a complete solution.
For example, adding small pieces of wire or cable to a display could make a big difference.'"
So adding an antenna makes it broadcast better meaning you can pick it up easier. Shocking. Very useful for remote spying. Step one, add an antenna to the target's display.
Depending on the city I hear some of you have problems seeing the Sun.
What is disturbing to me is not that these SSNs were exposed, but that they were simply included in "other" databases to begin with. We were told that our SSNs would be limited only to those entities that had a legitimate reason to NEED it. The fact that they were included as a matter of common practice belies this claim. The reference to "before identity theft was a problem" is unadulterated crap. Identity theft has been a problem since biblical times (Jacob and Esau)! The reference to it is a red herring.
What should have been happening is that SSNs should not simply be included in various databases. They should have been following the rules that we were told they were. Whether or not that was successful, they should have had policies and processes for vetting the database for privacy issues prior to dumping it online. Federal privacy laws predate the Internet. The basic notion of checking your data for data that should not be publicly available predates the Internet.
IMO this is similar to the claim that "nobody imagined using airplanes as missiles before 9/11". The problem of Identity Theft existed, was well documented, and alone should have given them reason to examine their DB first. The basic laws on privacy should have. And failing that common sense should have. This is a failure on many grounds.
Does commanded work for you? How about approved of? Try some of these passage, see if you can name them.
"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."
"A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death."
"And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under the axes of iron, and made them pass through the brickkiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. So David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem."
"Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
"Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished."
"And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and woman: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house."
"Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."
"But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. "
"If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst."
"Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death."
"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all - old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded.