THey dont have to remove the DNS entry, and regardless DNS is plaintext UDP-- it can be hijacked quite easily, or 3rd party DNS blocked. Intend to go by IP address? Those can be blocked. Routing through foreign countries? Pretty sure they could restrict proxies to be in the country, guarenteeing that SOME ISP has the ability to filter things.
If they control the connection, and have the backing of the government, again, there is very little they cant do.
That has absolutely nothing to do with whats being proposed, according to TFA. This is about setting network security requirements and enforcing them, not shutting down threats of any kind. Grats on not reading the summary tho.
Why do I have the sneaking suspicion you didnt even read the summary, much less the article? This bill is about requiring certain standards to be met by certain vital private sector companies. How on earth would you even get at torrent sites under this bill, require them to upgrade to the latest version of cisco IOS?
Out of curiosity, are you expecting to see government websites that are "primarily designed" for or have "no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose" other than copyright infringement, to use the article's (and bill's) language? Seems like a rather small issue to be complaining about on this bill even if your assertion were true...
Im pretty sure the "New Tea Partiers" arent actually in office yet (at least not till next year), nor are they members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. And while the republicans on the committee DID vote in favor of it, Ill note that democrats make up a huge majority of the Committee (12 dems, 7 repubs, and headed by a dem). So yes, in one way (not to exonerate the republicans), it WAS those "dang Demo-crats" again, seeing as the committee is in their control.
No offense, but thats taking historical innacuracy awfully far. The USA has a lowly 99% literacy rate (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate), and a majority of citizens can access a store of knowledge (via the internet) unheard of a mere 50 years ago. Compare that to earlier times with far lower literacy rates and no such access to that kind of information, and THEN rethink that statement that the dominant group has a "historically unheard of technological advantage".
Nevermind the fact that incredibly advanced technology is available for the download (linux, truecrypt, ipsec vpns, etc etc etc); Im not sure quite what advantage you were referring to.
it's technically impossible to block foreign websites.
No, its not, and they state the way in the article-- the ISP would redirect traffic. Presumably they can blackhole the site's IP, or, if the site relies on a hostname in the header, simply removing the DNS entry and filtering http traffic with that name in it.
I suppose the natural response will be "encrypt and onion route", but lets keep in mind that if the ISP controls the connection, and they have the backing of trusted root authorities, there is a great deal they can do to prevent workarounds.
My kids(and, indeed, every single kid) were born atheists.
You would have a hard time proving that objectively. By the time you can ask them "do you believe in a deity" and get a comprehensible response, would they not have been instilled with a belief (either that there is, or is not a deity)?
I suspect that the athiest's kids will answer "no" and the Christian's will answer yes, and you will turn around and declare that both situations prove that only theistic belief is "installed"-- because certainly that is the reality of what happens (though many Christians would agree that children need to-- and do-- make up their own minds as they age).
Since it is a single axis of belief that entails no dogma, no scripture and no practices, there is no basis for calling it a religion.
You are begging the question: you start with the assumption that any way a Christian behaves differently than the athiest is dogma, practice, or ritual, and that the athiest is the baseline for normal. Thus by defining religion in terms of "stuff that isnt athiestic in behavior" you guarentee that you can declare athiesm "not religion".
A single point of belief does not a religion make.
SO far you have only defined religion in the negative-- that is, what you think it ISNT. Would you mind clarifying what you think it IS?
including those who attend and promote religions
I am unsure how to understand the term "attend....religions", or what "promoting religions" has to do with anything. From this statement, I wonder-- do you define religion as "the behavior of a group of people with certain beliefs"?
I imagine that they do it in an attempt to distance themselves from the very public failings of organized religion while still holding onto the same irrational beliefs.
TBQH, I dislike it because I wish to distance myself from what others perceive to be my "religions'" failings when in fact they are the fact the failings of specific people. I am well aware for example that when I say that I am a Christian, people often paint me or my belief system as personally responsible for the Spanish Inquisition-- never mind the fact that I would disagree with just about everything its leaders believed and stood for (except perhaps the imagery being the same?). There is some kind of expectation that just because we claim to believe something, therefore we must all of a sudden be faultless like the God we claim to follow, despite believing that all men are prone to error and failure.
"Begging the question" would be if he had hinged an argument on the assumed premise that windows HAD had a ground-up re-write, when, in fact that premise was doubtful and groundless.
Its kind of interesting that people are so ready to pounce on religion in general that a story with no sources, totaling a single paragraph, with external information to be found, elicits responses of "yea, i kind of knew this".
So you ridicule christianity for its belief in certain things you find dubious, and then go on to believe this story which reads like an onion article? Protip, try googling any of the facts in the story, see if you can find anything other than a regurgitation of what the article claimed.
Well, the issue is that noone aside from actual evangelical christians even seem to know what the word "evangelical" means anymore. Any time you see it in the media, it generally indicates something that is to be ridiculed.
Nevermind that it IS a strictly christian word, and refers to the focus on the "evangel", that is the gospel of Jesus, and has absolutely nothing to do with any of the crazy stuff its been penned as as of late. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism.
Not even close. Atheism is a lack of theistic beliefs. That's all.
Er, believing that there is no "theos" IS a belief, and its a belief about the spiritual. Its not like there are those who believe certain things about certain gods, and then theres the athiests; athiests hold certain views about gods, namely that they dont exist. Whether or not you want to call this a faith or a religion is a matter of semantics, but unless youre a nihilist, you certainly believe something.
What a load of bullshit. If your "faith" includes scriptures, commandments and the like, it's a religion
It sounds like youre defining "religion" as any systematized belief in or about the supernatural. That being the case, why is the belief "your god doesnt exist" exempt?
aside from the obvious "lack of belief in a god"
A "lack of a belief in a god" is a belief that there is no god. You keep wording it in the negative as if to hide the fact that you too have beliefs that can be scrutinized.
In other words, a fucking church
I imagine parent doesnt like the term religion because it is ambiguous and not a terribly useful word. I would define it as "the way people behave in response to what they believe", which, while (IMO) it captures how people use the word, is so incredibly broad as to not be terribly useful.
Gold only has value because people believe it does.
For the record, youre the first person Ive ever heard acknowledge that. A lot of people talk of gold's "intrinsic value", which as far as I can tell would be based on its utility as tooth fillings, or as a paperweight.
The word "most" gives the lie to your argument. Good luck convincing anyone that there has ever been a society with none of the issues commonly attributed to religion (or in finding a national leader who doesnt believe SOMETHING).
A very large portion of the country believes Obama is a Muslim. So what?
A quick 10 second google shows 11-18% of americans thinking Obama is muslim. A quick 10 second poll shows 45-55% of americans opposing ESC research. And since Obama being muslim has basically 0 important real world ramifications (a label doesnt really affect policy decisions, and we already know his political views...), while on the other hand there are big ramifications with ESC research (commoditizing death vs slowing research), I would say the comparison is a bit of a reach.
would not save a single frozen embryo
Im not sure thats ever been the issue. The issue would be more like if the question of whether to use gas-chamber victims for medical research in WW2 Germany. If you were to give your opinion on that, I would imagine it would have little to do with whether you could actually save someone who had died, and everything to do with how much of our humanity we are willing to sacrifice in the name of research. Some things are morally repugnant, and a good number (ie large minority if not majority) of people think ESC research is one of them.
That is what hESC research is: Parents donating tissue from a deceased child
Am I to understand you, that you believe the embryos to be human, yet have no problem with commoditizing them? Would you support research in an area which required the use of stillborn infants?
Adding an additional layer of routing does absolutely nothing. The purpose of a DMZ is to put internet facing devices on, so that if one of them gets rooted etc, it does not have the ability to scan your internal network.
I am unaware of any actual term "buffer network", but it sounds like setting up a network between your outer (DMZ) network and your inner (secure) network. Only issue is that it would accomplish very little except for complicating routing, documentation, and ACLs with no advantage that I can conceive of. Packets dont care how many routers they pass through; all that matters is the net resulting ACL list and port forwarding ruleset that is applied to them, and adding extra steps to the process doesnt really help.
If you think getting rid of religion will neatly solve humanity's violent and oppressive tendencies, you are badly mistaken.
Hint: just look at Communist [fill in the blank]
Slashdot Mirror
Getting a court order is not due process.
which implies that it is outside of it.
THey dont have to remove the DNS entry, and regardless DNS is plaintext UDP-- it can be hijacked quite easily, or 3rd party DNS blocked. Intend to go by IP address? Those can be blocked. Routing through foreign countries? Pretty sure they could restrict proxies to be in the country, guarenteeing that SOME ISP has the ability to filter things.
If they control the connection, and have the backing of the government, again, there is very little they cant do.
That has absolutely nothing to do with whats being proposed, according to TFA. This is about setting network security requirements and enforcing them, not shutting down threats of any kind. Grats on not reading the summary tho.
If that just means new security standards that companies have to meet
That seems to be just what theyre asking for, according to the article.
Im not exactly clear why the DHS would be super good at proposing network security requirements though
Why do I have the sneaking suspicion you didnt even read the summary, much less the article? This bill is about requiring certain standards to be met by certain vital private sector companies. How on earth would you even get at torrent sites under this bill, require them to upgrade to the latest version of cisco IOS?
Out of curiosity, are you expecting to see government websites that are "primarily designed" for or have "no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose" other than copyright infringement, to use the article's (and bill's) language? Seems like a rather small issue to be complaining about on this bill even if your assertion were true...
Im pretty sure the "New Tea Partiers" arent actually in office yet (at least not till next year), nor are they members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. And while the republicans on the committee DID vote in favor of it, Ill note that democrats make up a huge majority of the Committee (12 dems, 7 repubs, and headed by a dem). So yes, in one way (not to exonerate the republicans), it WAS those "dang Demo-crats" again, seeing as the committee is in their control.
historically unheard of technological advantage
No offense, but thats taking historical innacuracy awfully far. The USA has a lowly 99% literacy rate (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate), and a majority of citizens can access a store of knowledge (via the internet) unheard of a mere 50 years ago. Compare that to earlier times with far lower literacy rates and no such access to that kind of information, and THEN rethink that statement that the dominant group has a "historically unheard of technological advantage".
Nevermind the fact that incredibly advanced technology is available for the download (linux, truecrypt, ipsec vpns, etc etc etc); Im not sure quite what advantage you were referring to.
So warrants and writs are not due process then?
it's technically impossible to block foreign websites.
No, its not, and they state the way in the article-- the ISP would redirect traffic. Presumably they can blackhole the site's IP, or, if the site relies on a hostname in the header, simply removing the DNS entry and filtering http traffic with that name in it.
I suppose the natural response will be "encrypt and onion route", but lets keep in mind that if the ISP controls the connection, and they have the backing of trusted root authorities, there is a great deal they can do to prevent workarounds.
The majority of the population does NOT want to see this pass,
While I too oppose this, I nowhere in the article saw a mention of how the population feels on this. Can you provide source for that claim?
My kids(and, indeed, every single kid) were born atheists.
You would have a hard time proving that objectively. By the time you can ask them "do you believe in a deity" and get a comprehensible response, would they not have been instilled with a belief (either that there is, or is not a deity)?
I suspect that the athiest's kids will answer "no" and the Christian's will answer yes, and you will turn around and declare that both situations prove that only theistic belief is "installed"-- because certainly that is the reality of what happens (though many Christians would agree that children need to-- and do-- make up their own minds as they age).
Since it is a single axis of belief that entails no dogma, no scripture and no practices, there is no basis for calling it a religion.
You are begging the question: you start with the assumption that any way a Christian behaves differently than the athiest is dogma, practice, or ritual, and that the athiest is the baseline for normal. Thus by defining religion in terms of "stuff that isnt athiestic in behavior" you guarentee that you can declare athiesm "not religion".
A single point of belief does not a religion make.
SO far you have only defined religion in the negative-- that is, what you think it ISNT. Would you mind clarifying what you think it IS?
including those who attend and promote religions
I am unsure how to understand the term "attend....religions", or what "promoting religions" has to do with anything. From this statement, I wonder-- do you define religion as "the behavior of a group of people with certain beliefs"?
I imagine that they do it in an attempt to distance themselves from the very public failings of organized religion while still holding onto the same irrational beliefs.
TBQH, I dislike it because I wish to distance myself from what others perceive to be my "religions'" failings when in fact they are the fact the failings of specific people. I am well aware for example that when I say that I am a Christian, people often paint me or my belief system as personally responsible for the Spanish Inquisition-- never mind the fact that I would disagree with just about everything its leaders believed and stood for (except perhaps the imagery being the same?). There is some kind of expectation that just because we claim to believe something, therefore we must all of a sudden be faultless like the God we claim to follow, despite believing that all men are prone to error and failure.
Thats why _I_ dislike the word "religion".
"Begging the question" would be if he had hinged an argument on the assumed premise that windows HAD had a ground-up re-write, when, in fact that premise was doubtful and groundless.
Light isnt sped up going around black holes, though it is red-shifted.
*Stupid slashdot is mucking with my ability to paste. WTF?
Google Chrome dev version has this issue. I switched to Mozilla Minefield because of it.
Its kind of interesting that people are so ready to pounce on religion in general that a story with no sources, totaling a single paragraph, with external information to be found, elicits responses of "yea, i kind of knew this".
So you ridicule christianity for its belief in certain things you find dubious, and then go on to believe this story which reads like an onion article? Protip, try googling any of the facts in the story, see if you can find anything other than a regurgitation of what the article claimed.
Well, the issue is that noone aside from actual evangelical christians even seem to know what the word "evangelical" means anymore. Any time you see it in the media, it generally indicates something that is to be ridiculed.
Nevermind that it IS a strictly christian word, and refers to the focus on the "evangel", that is the gospel of Jesus, and has absolutely nothing to do with any of the crazy stuff its been penned as as of late. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism.
You do know that was intentional right? The cross represents the crucifixion, which happens...you know...on a roman cross.
Not even close. Atheism is a lack of theistic beliefs. That's all.
Er, believing that there is no "theos" IS a belief, and its a belief about the spiritual. Its not like there are those who believe certain things about certain gods, and then theres the athiests; athiests hold certain views about gods, namely that they dont exist. Whether or not you want to call this a faith or a religion is a matter of semantics, but unless youre a nihilist, you certainly believe something.
What a load of bullshit. If your "faith" includes scriptures, commandments and the like, it's a religion
It sounds like youre defining "religion" as any systematized belief in or about the supernatural. That being the case, why is the belief "your god doesnt exist" exempt?
aside from the obvious "lack of belief in a god"
A "lack of a belief in a god" is a belief that there is no god. You keep wording it in the negative as if to hide the fact that you too have beliefs that can be scrutinized.
In other words, a fucking church
I imagine parent doesnt like the term religion because it is ambiguous and not a terribly useful word. I would define it as "the way people behave in response to what they believe", which, while (IMO) it captures how people use the word, is so incredibly broad as to not be terribly useful.
they might even be dos.
Phew, theres a load off my mind.
Gold only has value because people believe it does.
For the record, youre the first person Ive ever heard acknowledge that. A lot of people talk of gold's "intrinsic value", which as far as I can tell would be based on its utility as tooth fillings, or as a paperweight.
The word "most" gives the lie to your argument. Good luck convincing anyone that there has ever been a society with none of the issues commonly attributed to religion (or in finding a national leader who doesnt believe SOMETHING).
A very large portion of the country believes Obama is a Muslim. So what?
A quick 10 second google shows 11-18% of americans thinking Obama is muslim. A quick 10 second poll shows 45-55% of americans opposing ESC research. And since Obama being muslim has basically 0 important real world ramifications (a label doesnt really affect policy decisions, and we already know his political views...), while on the other hand there are big ramifications with ESC research (commoditizing death vs slowing research), I would say the comparison is a bit of a reach.
would not save a single frozen embryo
Im not sure thats ever been the issue. The issue would be more like if the question of whether to use gas-chamber victims for medical research in WW2 Germany. If you were to give your opinion on that, I would imagine it would have little to do with whether you could actually save someone who had died, and everything to do with how much of our humanity we are willing to sacrifice in the name of research. Some things are morally repugnant, and a good number (ie large minority if not majority) of people think ESC research is one of them.
That is what hESC research is: Parents donating tissue from a deceased child
Am I to understand you, that you believe the embryos to be human, yet have no problem with commoditizing them? Would you support research in an area which required the use of stillborn infants?
Adding an additional layer of routing does absolutely nothing. The purpose of a DMZ is to put internet facing devices on, so that if one of them gets rooted etc, it does not have the ability to scan your internal network.
I am unaware of any actual term "buffer network", but it sounds like setting up a network between your outer (DMZ) network and your inner (secure) network. Only issue is that it would accomplish very little except for complicating routing, documentation, and ACLs with no advantage that I can conceive of. Packets dont care how many routers they pass through; all that matters is the net resulting ACL list and port forwarding ruleset that is applied to them, and adding extra steps to the process doesnt really help.
If you think getting rid of religion will neatly solve humanity's violent and oppressive tendencies, you are badly mistaken.
Hint: just look at Communist [fill in the blank]