Maybe Billy Bob Nye knew this, and just ignored it, but NASA's customers for time in its wind tunnels at the Langley Research Center include several NASCAR teams.
The PIN information is encrypted within Target’s systems and can only be decrypted when it is received by our external, independent payment processor. What this means is that the “key” necessary to decrypt that data has never existed within Target’s system and could not have been taken during this incident.
You're assuming the PIN was in any way related to the 3DES key. That's almost certainly not the case. More likely, Target requests a transaction key from the bank which is then used to encrypt the PIN and sent the encrypted PIN to the bank. The bank then decrypts the PIN using the 3DES key and verifies the PIN.
They probably should switch to RSA or some other public key algorithm. With 3DES, both parties need to share the key. With RSA, there is a public key and a matched private key. If the public key is compromised, it's no big deal. Since the bank retains the private key and doesn't share it, it's at least theoretically more secure for this kind of transaction.
The article also says "Target does not have access to nor does it store the encryption key within our system." The problem is that 3DES is a symmetric encryption algorithm; both parties need to share the same key to encrypt or decrypt anything. So at some point, they needed to have a key for the transaction.
I think you'll find the Japanese consider China's intent to wrest control of the Senkakus from Japan's administrative control as an aggressive act... or do you consider Japan to be "on the other side of the planet" from China? The U.S. considers it aggressive (to the extent the Obama administration has a coherent foreign policy which can be differentiated from abject appeasement at least) because it has important strategic allies in the area, namely Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines and other Southeast Asian nations. In economic terms China is also an important trading partner to the U.S., and anything which destabilizes the area, or interferes with the flow of trade will impact this partnership to the detriment of both. And lastly, the U.S. has a possession in the area (i.e. Guam), not to mention its treaty obligations to assist the Japanese from outside threats.
Failure to recognize these and to take them into account, while may be good from a "rose colored glasses" perspective, is nonetheless both naive and ignorant.
It's more than purely symbolic. There are extensive undeveloped natural resources in the area which the Chinese would like to control. The islands also lie at a strategic location between the Pacific and the East China Sea, and just north of Taiwan. If the Japanese, Americans and Taiwanese do nothing to abate this, the Chinese will be emboldened to act more aggressively in the area.
I respectfully decline to tilt at your strawmen a second time, and instead leave you with the following, which summarizes the ideal Christian perspective on how we are to live in this world.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
Galatians 5:22-23
You would do well to exhibit some of these qualities. Farewell.
By asking ourselves what can make us, and those around us happy. By asking ourselves how we can reduce harm and suffering. By not taking good and evil for granted.
If there is no objective moral standard, then why are these important? And why is it important I agree with you? If there's no absolute moral standard, then why have you spent all this time arguing with me to get me to see your notion of "reason" and convince me to adopt your worldview?
Much less responsiblity.
Different responsibilities perhaps not less. Yes, it's spelled out for me what's right and wrong, but I still need to judge my own actions against that standard. And if that's not what you do, then you get to create the standards as you go along with only retrospection to serve as a guide.
Maybe one day your God will tell you (or someone with similar beliefs) to kill all those that don't "love" Him enough.
God chooses not to act in a manner which is contrary to His nature which is in perfect alignment with the objective moral truth you dismiss as anachronistic.
For the sake of argument, let's assume you're correct and that God does not exist. What are the logical consequences?
First, if God does not exist, then there is none to perfectly judge our actions against an objective moral truth.
If there is none to perfectly judge our actions against an objective moral truth, then no judgement of our actions against such an objective moral truth can be made.
If there is no judgement of our actions against an objective moral truth can be made, then the entire notion of an objective moral truth is meaningless, for there are no consequences for violating it.
If there is no meaningful objective moral truth, your notion of good and evil is likewise meaningless, making statements like "There are a MILLIONS of good people out there." completely irrational.
If there is no meaning to the notion of good and evil then we can justify or condemn what ever we want and give it whatever label we think is appropriate (which is precisely what you've been doing during this discourse).
You can't have it both ways. You are either irrational for labeling my beliefs as evil or you are implicitly acknowledging there is an meaningful objective truth, defining the terms to which you appeal and therefore implying there is One to judge such. You may not like the consequences, you may not care for the attitudes of the Judge, but that doesn't impact the Truth one bit.
You're reading too much into it. God is not in Hell, and He is not torturing anybody. He may relegate those who choose Hell over Him to their choice, but He is not there... as I said earlier, there is nothing there.
You are an evil being and a morally bankrupt person.
In order to make such an assertion, you have to draw upon some sort of objective moral truth; from where did it arise? What is its origin?
And would any notion of civility be within your notion of such an objective moral truth? If so, you might want to pay attention to what it's telling you.
you didn't have the balls to tell me that a just men deserves to be tortured for eternity,
Because there is no such thing as a just or good person, not Abraham Lincoln, not Ghandi, not Al Gore, not Billy Graham, not Mother Theresa, not you, not me; none are good, none are just, except for Jesus; He alone is good because He was and is God. From a Christian perspective, your basic premise is flawed.
"5) Would you kill, rape and pillage if God told you so? (There seem to be precedents in the Bible...) I suppose I would be required to do so, which after all was the context God used in the case of the Israelites entering Canaan." You are an evil being and a morally bankrupt person.
Nice the way edited that to make me seem to have said something I didn't say. I served for 20 years in the military. I was never called to actually take the life of another human being. But I would have done so, not gladly, not happily, but because it would have been my duty to do so to protect, among other things, the rights of the individual to hold beliefs, even beliefs such as yours. That is the context under which I would have taken the life of another human being. That is the context under which I would have seized or destroyed the property of another country. I would not have raped anyone regardless of who was ordering me to do so in part because there is no military reason for doing so, but also because the notion is repugnant to me. Was that a clear enough response to your hypothetical question?
There are other things I should respond to, and will in the course of time. But these I couldn't let pass without some sort of immediate response.
Not sure what you mean by running away from the issues. I thought I answered them, but apparently not to your satisfaction. So, I'll try again.
1) Why do Christians believe in an afterlife of eternal torment?
We all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). Judgment of the dead (Revelation 20:11-15).
As a Christian, I firmly believe we have all sinned against a holy and just God; it's in our human nature to sin. We sin with every lie we utter, every time we have a lustful thought, every time we say something unkind to somebody else (Matthew 5:21-30). These are sins not only against others, but against God (Exodus 20:1-17), since we are each made in His image (Genesis 1:26). So what exactly should the punishment be for sinning against an infinite God? Should it not likewise be infinite? It is for these sins we are judged and cast out of the presence of God.
But that's not the end of the story. In addition to His just nature, God also desires us to have fellowship with Him. It is the purpose of our existence; it's why He made us. But He made us with the ability to either love Him in return, or to reject Him... it is our choice. But since we have sinned, we have no hope in anything we can do to overcome the death we have rightfully obtained through our sin. Therefore, since we can do nothing to save ourselves, and God still desires to be merciful to us, He sent His son to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves. He was and is without sin (Hebrews 4:15) and became the perfect sacrifice to atone for our sins (Hebrews 10:1-18).
So, God has given us a choice. We can chose to believe He is real and trust He has provided for our salvation, and act accordingly, or we can choose to turn our back on Him and all that He has to offer us. God does not condemn anybody to Hell who hasn't already made the choice to go there.
2) Why do you believe different stuff from them?
What stuff would that be? If you're talking about believing whether or not the universe exists, I think most Christians would agree that it does. If you ask them to prove that it does, they will likely give you the same response you gave me... of course it exists.
My point in that is to show that even atheists have to have faith. Even if you could prove the universe is real, you would still have to rely upon axioms which cannot be proven... they would be the assumptions you would have to make to draw your conclusions. That's the way logic and philosophy and mathematics all work. You start with axioms you assume to be true and draw conclusions from those. If a particular axiom can be shown true without relying upon itself, but only on some subset of the other axioms, it ceases to be an axiom, and instead becomes a conclusion or a theorem or a consequence of the others.
3) Why do you believe that it is just and merciful to punish someone strictly for her beliefs?
I believe it would be less merciful to force somebody into God's presence when they never wanted to be there in the first place.
4) Why don't you believe in Santa Claus?
My parents told me so, and I trust them.
5) Would you kill, rape and pillage if God told you so? (There seem to be precedents in the Bible...)
Slight correction: There is no place in the Bible where God instructed anybody to rape somebody else. Rapes are recorded in the Bible, but never at the instruction of God. I'll concede that God carved out the area we now call Israel for the Israelites after they came out of Egypt, and that during this conquest, the Israelites were instructed to kill and in some cases pillage. That said, what you're asking is highly hypothetical, and I can't conceive of an instance where God would call me to do those things. My country might, and I have a responsibility to render unto Caesar (Mark 12:13-17) and to be subject to those in authority over me (Titus 3:1), so from that context, I suppose I would be required to do so
And here is another one. Personally I don't believe the universe is just a big simulation, but to completely dismiss the idea without any proof one way or the other...
So reading between the lines, it seems you value the dignity of the individual, yet you're appealing only to cultural constraints to justify that dignity. If it is just a cultural artifact then certainly other cultures are free to reject that dignity (and many do) and by extension the notion of consent (and again, many do). What makes your view correct and the view of those others somehow any less correct?
I'm not sure what you are going for, but there it is
You'd understand if you read either of the first two books I mentioned. Like I said, this is going to take some time.
And how are you judging what is good? How are you determining that one person is good and another is not?
Consider this... a person, who is a pillar in the community, who helps the poor, gives of his time to build a better life for others, who has all of the virtues I expect you consider to be right and good and honorable has a lapse in judgement. One day, he decides to brutally rape and murder a child. Should those good works save this person from a lengthy prison sentence or worse?
I do not have faith that there is a reality with which I can interact.
I believe you exist, but I don't know you're anything more than a figment of my imagination for faith is the belief in something which cannot be proven. If you don't have faith that there is an objective reality, but instead know that there is, then you should have that proof. I'd very much like to see it.
Lee Strobel may have written the book, but he did so by interviewing historians and theologians. Still, if you're not willing to put in the effort there, I suppose we can continue here, but it will take some time. So I'll pose a question to you:
Throughout history (pretty much up until the time of reliable contraceptives) sexual intimacy was legitimized through marraige. That is most cultures considered sexual intimacy legitimate only when engaged within the context of marraige. Having come from a predominantly Christian background, with the Christian perspective of marraige, the United States recognized the institution of marraige in its various laws. Since the advent of reliable contraceptives, marraige as being the legitimate context in which sexual intimacy is sanctioned has been replaced with the concept of consent. What two consenting adults do is there business and all that. So the question is what is so sacrosanct about the notion of consent that it will legitimize sexual initimacy when present and yet when that consent is absent, it is no longer legitimate?
The chain of logic I'm referring to has been documented in Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis and again in The Reason for God by Timothy Keller. The historical veracity of the New Testament is described in The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel.
According to your beliefs, how's my afterlife like?
You will be eternally separated from God under that condition; not sure exactly what that looks like, but there is nothing good there. But that is your choice. Would you have Him torment you by forcing you into His presence for all eternity instead? Which is more merciful?
Also, define what you mean by "religion" and I will tell you whether atheism is a religion or not
This is relevant in that atheists generally claim to have no faith or belief; they rely upon scientific proof. I find this somewhat shallow since it assumes there is some objective reality which can be observed and which in some way correlates to what we sense about it. That is an article of faith. If it wasn't you should be able to prove you exist without appealing to my senses? Since, by faith I can only believe that what they are telling me is based in some measure in objective reality. Even if you able to logically prove your existence or the existence of an objective reality that resembles what I can sense of it, you will still have to rely upon axiomatic articles of faith which by their very definition cannot be proven.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe Billy Bob Nye knew this, and just ignored it, but NASA's customers for time in its wind tunnels at the Langley Research Center include several NASCAR teams.
From the first article linked:
The PIN information is encrypted within Target’s systems and can only be decrypted when it is received by our external, independent payment processor. What this means is that the “key” necessary to decrypt that data has never existed within Target’s system and could not have been taken during this incident.
You're assuming the PIN was in any way related to the 3DES key. That's almost certainly not the case. More likely, Target requests a transaction key from the bank which is then used to encrypt the PIN and sent the encrypted PIN to the bank. The bank then decrypts the PIN using the 3DES key and verifies the PIN.
They probably should switch to RSA or some other public key algorithm. With 3DES, both parties need to share the key. With RSA, there is a public key and a matched private key. If the public key is compromised, it's no big deal. Since the bank retains the private key and doesn't share it, it's at least theoretically more secure for this kind of transaction.
The article also says "Target does not have access to nor does it store the encryption key within our system." The problem is that 3DES is a symmetric encryption algorithm; both parties need to share the same key to encrypt or decrypt anything. So at some point, they needed to have a key for the transaction.
I think you'll find the Japanese consider China's intent to wrest control of the Senkakus from Japan's administrative control as an aggressive act... or do you consider Japan to be "on the other side of the planet" from China? The U.S. considers it aggressive (to the extent the Obama administration has a coherent foreign policy which can be differentiated from abject appeasement at least) because it has important strategic allies in the area, namely Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines and other Southeast Asian nations. In economic terms China is also an important trading partner to the U.S., and anything which destabilizes the area, or interferes with the flow of trade will impact this partnership to the detriment of both. And lastly, the U.S. has a possession in the area (i.e. Guam), not to mention its treaty obligations to assist the Japanese from outside threats.
Failure to recognize these and to take them into account, while may be good from a "rose colored glasses" perspective, is nonetheless both naive and ignorant.
It's more than purely symbolic. There are extensive undeveloped natural resources in the area which the Chinese would like to control. The islands also lie at a strategic location between the Pacific and the East China Sea, and just north of Taiwan. If the Japanese, Americans and Taiwanese do nothing to abate this, the Chinese will be emboldened to act more aggressively in the area.
In Kelo v. City of New London, SCOTUS decided a municipality could use eminent domain to transfer property from one private owner to another.
I thought the real threat of the Internet was the time people waste posting to FB or reading /. comments. Think of all that lost productivity.
It's France... they talk to enjoy the sound of their language.
Jeff Atwood had good things to say on his blog about some of the no-name monitors you're talking about.
Footage from state TV showed the jet in flight, but not its take-off or landing
Just because they can get it into the air once, doesn't mean they can do so a second time ... assuming it's not part of some Photoshop Air Force.
I respectfully decline to tilt at your strawmen a second time, and instead leave you with the following, which summarizes the ideal Christian perspective on how we are to live in this world.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
Galatians 5:22-23
You would do well to exhibit some of these qualities. Farewell.
By asking ourselves what can make us, and those around us happy.
By asking ourselves how we can reduce harm and suffering.
By not taking good and evil for granted.
If there is no objective moral standard, then why are these important? And why is it important I agree with you? If there's no absolute moral standard, then why have you spent all this time arguing with me to get me to see your notion of "reason" and convince me to adopt your worldview?
Much less responsiblity.
Different responsibilities perhaps not less. Yes, it's spelled out for me what's right and wrong, but I still need to judge my own actions against that standard. And if that's not what you do, then you get to create the standards as you go along with only retrospection to serve as a guide.
Maybe one day your God will tell you (or someone with similar beliefs) to kill all those that don't "love" Him enough.
God chooses not to act in a manner which is contrary to His nature which is in perfect alignment with the objective moral truth you dismiss as anachronistic.
For the sake of argument, let's assume you're correct and that God does not exist. What are the logical consequences?
First, if God does not exist, then there is none to perfectly judge our actions against an objective moral truth.
If there is none to perfectly judge our actions against an objective moral truth, then no judgement of our actions against such an objective moral truth can be made.
If there is no judgement of our actions against an objective moral truth can be made, then the entire notion of an objective moral truth is meaningless, for there are no consequences for violating it.
If there is no meaningful objective moral truth, your notion of good and evil is likewise meaningless, making statements like "There are a MILLIONS of good people out there." completely irrational.
If there is no meaning to the notion of good and evil then we can justify or condemn what ever we want and give it whatever label we think is appropriate (which is precisely what you've been doing during this discourse).
You can't have it both ways. You are either irrational for labeling my beliefs as evil or you are implicitly acknowledging there is an meaningful objective truth, defining the terms to which you appeal and therefore implying there is One to judge such. You may not like the consequences, you may not care for the attitudes of the Judge, but that doesn't impact the Truth one bit.
Love me or I will torture you.
You're reading too much into it. God is not in Hell, and He is not torturing anybody. He may relegate those who choose Hell over Him to their choice, but He is not there... as I said earlier, there is nothing there.
You are an evil being and a morally bankrupt person.
In order to make such an assertion, you have to draw upon some sort of objective moral truth; from where did it arise? What is its origin?
And would any notion of civility be within your notion of such an objective moral truth? If so, you might want to pay attention to what it's telling you.
you didn't have the balls to tell me that a just men deserves to be tortured for eternity,
Because there is no such thing as a just or good person, not Abraham Lincoln, not Ghandi, not Al Gore, not Billy Graham, not Mother Theresa, not you, not me; none are good, none are just, except for Jesus; He alone is good because He was and is God. From a Christian perspective, your basic premise is flawed.
"5) Would you kill, rape and pillage if God told you so? (There seem to be precedents in the Bible...)
I suppose I would be required to do so, which after all was the context God used in the case of the Israelites entering Canaan."
You are an evil being and a morally bankrupt person.
Nice the way edited that to make me seem to have said something I didn't say. I served for 20 years in the military. I was never called to actually take the life of another human being. But I would have done so, not gladly, not happily, but because it would have been my duty to do so to protect, among other things, the rights of the individual to hold beliefs, even beliefs such as yours. That is the context under which I would have taken the life of another human being. That is the context under which I would have seized or destroyed the property of another country. I would not have raped anyone regardless of who was ordering me to do so in part because there is no military reason for doing so, but also because the notion is repugnant to me. Was that a clear enough response to your hypothetical question?
There are other things I should respond to, and will in the course of time. But these I couldn't let pass without some sort of immediate response.
Not sure what you mean by running away from the issues. I thought I answered them, but apparently not to your satisfaction. So, I'll try again.
1) Why do Christians believe in an afterlife of eternal torment?
We all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). Judgment of the dead (Revelation 20:11-15).
As a Christian, I firmly believe we have all sinned against a holy and just God; it's in our human nature to sin. We sin with every lie we utter, every time we have a lustful thought, every time we say something unkind to somebody else (Matthew 5:21-30). These are sins not only against others, but against God (Exodus 20:1-17), since we are each made in His image (Genesis 1:26). So what exactly should the punishment be for sinning against an infinite God? Should it not likewise be infinite? It is for these sins we are judged and cast out of the presence of God.
But that's not the end of the story. In addition to His just nature, God also desires us to have fellowship with Him. It is the purpose of our existence; it's why He made us. But He made us with the ability to either love Him in return, or to reject Him... it is our choice. But since we have sinned, we have no hope in anything we can do to overcome the death we have rightfully obtained through our sin. Therefore, since we can do nothing to save ourselves, and God still desires to be merciful to us, He sent His son to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves. He was and is without sin (Hebrews 4:15) and became the perfect sacrifice to atone for our sins (Hebrews 10:1-18).
So, God has given us a choice. We can chose to believe He is real and trust He has provided for our salvation, and act accordingly, or we can choose to turn our back on Him and all that He has to offer us. God does not condemn anybody to Hell who hasn't already made the choice to go there.
2) Why do you believe different stuff from them?
What stuff would that be? If you're talking about believing whether or not the universe exists, I think most Christians would agree that it does. If you ask them to prove that it does, they will likely give you the same response you gave me ... of course it exists.
My point in that is to show that even atheists have to have faith. Even if you could prove the universe is real, you would still have to rely upon axioms which cannot be proven... they would be the assumptions you would have to make to draw your conclusions. That's the way logic and philosophy and mathematics all work. You start with axioms you assume to be true and draw conclusions from those. If a particular axiom can be shown true without relying upon itself, but only on some subset of the other axioms, it ceases to be an axiom, and instead becomes a conclusion or a theorem or a consequence of the others.
3) Why do you believe that it is just and merciful to punish someone strictly for her beliefs?
I believe it would be less merciful to force somebody into God's presence when they never wanted to be there in the first place.
4) Why don't you believe in Santa Claus?
My parents told me so, and I trust them.
5) Would you kill, rape and pillage if God told you so? (There seem to be precedents in the Bible...)
Slight correction: There is no place in the Bible where God instructed anybody to rape somebody else. Rapes are recorded in the Bible, but never at the instruction of God. I'll concede that God carved out the area we now call Israel for the Israelites after they came out of Egypt, and that during this conquest, the Israelites were instructed to kill and in some cases pillage. That said, what you're asking is highly hypothetical, and I can't conceive of an instance where God would call me to do those things. My country might, and I have a responsibility to render unto Caesar (Mark 12:13-17) and to be subject to those in authority over me (Titus 3:1), so from that context, I suppose I would be required to do so
And here is another one. Personally I don't believe the universe is just a big simulation, but to completely dismiss the idea without any proof one way or the other ...
And I'm not the only one who has considered this possibility.
Let's start with some small steps then.
I think you are stupid and evil.
Against what standard do you judge me as evil?
So reading between the lines, it seems you value the dignity of the individual, yet you're appealing only to cultural constraints to justify that dignity. If it is just a cultural artifact then certainly other cultures are free to reject that dignity (and many do) and by extension the notion of consent (and again, many do). What makes your view correct and the view of those others somehow any less correct?
I'm not sure what you are going for, but there it is
You'd understand if you read either of the first two books I mentioned. Like I said, this is going to take some time.
So, a good person would *deserve* "nothing good"?
And how are you judging what is good? How are you determining that one person is good and another is not?
Consider this... a person, who is a pillar in the community, who helps the poor, gives of his time to build a better life for others, who has all of the virtues I expect you consider to be right and good and honorable has a lapse in judgement. One day, he decides to brutally rape and murder a child. Should those good works save this person from a lengthy prison sentence or worse?
I do not have faith that there is a reality with which I can interact.
I believe you exist, but I don't know you're anything more than a figment of my imagination for faith is the belief in something which cannot be proven. If you don't have faith that there is an objective reality, but instead know that there is, then you should have that proof. I'd very much like to see it.
Lee Strobel may have written the book, but he did so by interviewing historians and theologians. Still, if you're not willing to put in the effort there, I suppose we can continue here, but it will take some time. So I'll pose a question to you:
Throughout history (pretty much up until the time of reliable contraceptives) sexual intimacy was legitimized through marraige. That is most cultures considered sexual intimacy legitimate only when engaged within the context of marraige. Having come from a predominantly Christian background, with the Christian perspective of marraige, the United States recognized the institution of marraige in its various laws. Since the advent of reliable contraceptives, marraige as being the legitimate context in which sexual intimacy is sanctioned has been replaced with the concept of consent. What two consenting adults do is there business and all that. So the question is what is so sacrosanct about the notion of consent that it will legitimize sexual initimacy when present and yet when that consent is absent, it is no longer legitimate?
The chain of logic I'm referring to has been documented in Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis and again in The Reason for God by Timothy Keller. The historical veracity of the New Testament is described in The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel.
According to your beliefs, how's my afterlife like?
You will be eternally separated from God under that condition; not sure exactly what that looks like, but there is nothing good there. But that is your choice. Would you have Him torment you by forcing you into His presence for all eternity instead? Which is more merciful?
Also, define what you mean by "religion" and I will tell you whether atheism is a religion or not
2.Details of belief as taught or discussed
This is relevant in that atheists generally claim to have no faith or belief; they rely upon scientific proof. I find this somewhat shallow since it assumes there is some objective reality which can be observed and which in some way correlates to what we sense about it. That is an article of faith. If it wasn't you should be able to prove you exist without appealing to my senses? Since, by faith I can only believe that what they are telling me is based in some measure in objective reality. Even if you able to logically prove your existence or the existence of an objective reality that resembles what I can sense of it, you will still have to rely upon axiomatic articles of faith which by their very definition cannot be proven.