No -- but don't you have different levels of trust in your organization? I have all kinds of people working for me -- any one of them could send me a proposal, memo, or something else to go up and I would cc them on what I sent up (usually -- not always). That's just one scenario -- and an attacker can usually find out who works somewhere without any difficulty...
How? This isn't social engineering -- it happens in the real world all the time!
I receive documents for review and editing from up to 400 different people -- and I'm not even all that high up the food chain. This would easily work on me -- and I'm very security concious. This isn't like "don't click on attachments from people you don't know" -- it falls more into the category of "don't ever use word and outlook and office for what they're designed to do." (I know -- use OO... When somebody convinces the government to do that...)
Check out this link. neocon has done an excellent job of laying it out in his journal, so I won't rehash it. The point is, you give up many of your constitutional rights by taking up arms in a manner that contravenes the laws of war (Geneva Convention, etc.) This is what he did, and why he will probably be tried before a military tribunal at the convenience of the government.
I think the reason that McVeigh was tried was that there wasn't any link to any semi-organized terrorist group. There weren't any intelligence sources to protect, no foreign governments to keep at bay(or overthrow), etc.
Personally, I think the only thing McVeigh had to do with the OKC bombing was possibly driving the truck there and waiting to get caught. I mean, come on -- driving around Tulsa in a car with no license plates (that's a guarantee you'll get pulled over -- midwest cops don't mess around) and a gun in a shoulder holster??? Talk about class A, Grade 1 STUPID! I doubt he had the intelligence to make a fertilizer bomb -- as simple as they may be to make. It would be nice to know who really master-minded it -- unfortunately, I doubt we'll ever know for sure.
Treason is a very specific crime. I don't believe anyone has been charged with, or tried, for treason since Aaron Burr. The process is laid out in the Constitution.
If you decide to carry out a terrorist attack against the American people(or the people of any country), as he did -- you become an illegal combatant, a person who has no legal rights or claim to citizenship. Which means that a military tribunal will convene to decide his fate -- and you may never know about it. And I, for one, don't really care -- if some switch gets thrown in someone's brain that says "I want to nuke some civilians today" -- the world is better off without them.
I'm sure the evidence against him is highly classified. Regardless of what you may think, the people who run these sorts of things don't just put someone in prison for no reason -- there is all kinds of oversight on the intelligence community. I'm sure you're not cleared to know what actions have been taken, and what oversight has been conducted, on this case.
So, no -- my reasoning isn't flawed. When the evidence against him is declassified 10-20 years from now, you may very well see why. Or not -- I don't have any specific knowledge, I just realize that to an extent we have to trust the people we've elected to positions of responsibility. If we don't, our style of government doesn't work. Of course, if you disagree, the polls open in a couple of months -- make your vote heard.
I don't know much about the Iranian hostage crisis -- I vaguely remember it, as I was quite young when it happened. However, if your analysis of the situation is correct, then as far as they were concerned, they may have been doing what was best for their national security. However, your comparison is fatally flawed either way. Jose Padilla-Muharij is not a diplomat. He does not, nor did he ever have, diplomatic immunity. We treat foreign diplomats with a great deal of respect -- the worst thing we can do to them is require their removal from the country. Iran held our diplomats and overran our embassy, and that breaks all kinds of international laws.
Try again.
Do you think that's what he had in mind? I seriously doubt the founding fathers had the wanton murder of innocent (well -- mostly) civilians in mind when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
My personal views run almost as far to the libertarian as you can get -- but when someone tries to murder civilians, I say lock him up and throw away the key. There is most likely a very good reason he's being held as he is -- just because you put a terrorist in prison doesn't mean he can't accomplish things if he's allowed to communicate with his cell. I do think he should have a trial, but I also understand that intelligence agencies have to be cautious with when they release information. Other people's lives are at stake as well, and as I said earlier, he forfeited his rights when he took up arms against the American people.
On that note -- you raise an excellent point. Should an American citizen be able to take up arms against a corrupt government? The answer, of course is spelled out in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. But -- if one were to do such a thing, would it surprise you if they were treated in the same way? They would have committed a crime against the government -- We laud Nathan Hale today as a hero, while we forget that he was rightly hung by the British troops because he committed an illegal act(A military person dressing in civilian clothes in a war zone is to this day a war crime). Did he commit a moral wrong? Most Americans today would say no (I agree) -- but he broke the law, and paid the ultimate price for it.
While I may not agree with all the things the government today does, it's nothing like what the colonists revolted against. To compare the government today to the English government of the 1770's and Abdullah al-Muhajir to the colonists is sophistry -- it ignores way too many key points to be a valid argument.
I'm surprised my comment hasn't been modded to karma hell yet -- I'm sure it's only a matter of time...
Nothing but fluff from the Deputy Chief -- we may not be the most fiscally responsible city in the world, but they won't spend all that money and then not use it for something.
You forfeit your citizenship when you take up arms against the US. I, for one, am quite glad that Abdullah al-Muhajir is in a military brig with all access to his terrorist friends denied. He gave up his citizenship, and his rights as a citizen, when he took up arms against the US. Neocon has written a very insightful comment in his journal regarding this. Check it out for some excellent information about what constitutes an unlawful combatant.
It's not about ethics. If you read the New Testament, you'll see that it says the same things about homosexuality that the Old Testament says (Romans 1). Slavery was a horrible mis-interpretation of the Bible by clergy in the 1700-1800's -- the "slavery" that is discussed in the Old Testament was something completely different from what was practiced in the US in that time, and the clergy who condoned it were just as guilty as the people who did it.
The point is, there is a standard -- "The wages of sin are death." In the Old Testament, that was the way it had to be -- in the New Testament to the present day, Jesus fulfilled that law by dying to pay for the sins of the world. There is no "adaptation of ethics", no change in what is right and what is wrong. The Old Testament says "thou shalt not kill" but the word is murder. It means unjustified killing. God recognizes the right of the people/state to punish some crimes with death, but this certainly does not allow for murder(and never did).
It's not. The point of Christianity is to accept Jesus as your personal saviour and Lord. This is the most important part -- Jesus will save you, and in doing so He's going to change the way you live your life. If you don't change, you don't believe -- it's that simple. Many people understand the saviour part -- but most forget the part that you have to accept His control over your life.
The point the original poster was trying to make is that your salvation is not dependant on performing good works -- it's dependant on accepting Jesus, and allowing Him to change your life.
Christianity is about a life change -- not a fire insurance policy.
Theft requires depriving someone else of their property. When (if) you copy download a copy of this movie, you're not "receiving stolen goods." A case can definitely be made that you're infringing on the studio's copyright, and what you're doing is probably not right, but let's get our terms straight here.
If you were to go into the studio and take a reel with the actual film on it, that would be theft -- you're physically taking an object that belongs to the studio. When you download it, you're not depriving them of property, thus it can't be theft. That said, distributing this would probably fall afoul of several other, unrelated laws regarding distribution of electronic material that you don't own the copyright to.
I don't pretend to believe that trafficking in copyright-infringing material is right -- but when you use the movie studios' terms, you're falling prey to their flawed logic.
:) Thats funny -- just last night my niece (18 months old) picked up my cell phone (nokia 6360 with IR port on the top) and pointed it at the TV...:) I got a good laugh out of it -- but it really is a good idea.
So, if you want to get that "old VMS feeling", just fire up a Windows NT or XP machine and type at the command line--it's roughly the same.
uhmm... no. It's not. I worked with VMS for a couple of years learning to program FORTRAN back in the late eighties -- the commands are not even close. The only similarities between VMS and NT are due to the fact that Dave Cutler(I think) worked on both -- the interface for NT is mostly copied from DOS.
Because it says that God created the heavens, the earth, the animals, and man -- all in six days. If you believe in creation, then evolution, what exactly did God create in the first six days?
Actually, now that you bring it up, that's really not the case.
How can we have faith in something we don't know anything about? Could you believe in God without the Bible? I suppose you could, but you'd have no basis for belief. The Bible is God's manifestation of Himself to the world -- if you don't believe that He can be accurate with regard to science, how can you believe that he really means what he says in John 3:16?
Last point -- Science has nothing to do with evolution, unless you can show me evolution occurring now. Science does not deal with the past or the future -- it deals with the present, with repeatable results. You cannot use science to prove the existence of God, and you cannot use science to prove evolution. Both are outside the realm of science, and in the realm of faith -- evolution is no less faith than Christianity.
The main difference is this: Genesis 1 specifically says God created the earth in 6 days. The hebrew word for day in this case is a specific word that means from morning to evening -- a literal 24 hour day. Now tell me this: How could the evolutionary process, which we have never in recorded history observed to occur, happen in six days? The evolutionary time scale requires millions upon millions of years to occur -- the Bible specifically states that the earth was created in six days.
The thing about being created in God's image is a bit difficult for me to understand -- it's not clear if it means that we were created to physically look like God, or if he meant that we were created without sin. Either way, it does say that man was originally without sin -- it further explains how man came to do wrong against God later on in Genesis. This is one of the most important tenets of the Christian faith -- if God allowed the earth to simply evolve, using sin and death and destruction to create man (as the theory of evolution would have us believe), then why would he see the need to send his Son to earth to die for our sins(John 3:16)? If sin is just a natural process used by God to "create" the earth, then the rest of the Bible makes no sense, and has no real authority.
The difference between the parable of the Good samaritan and the creation account is just as you said. A parable, by definition, is a story that is told to accentuate a point. It is not necessarily a true story, although it can be.
The creation story in Genesis has NO elements of a parable. Whether you agree with it or not, you have to agree that whoever wrote it, wrote it as literal truth.
And herein lies the rub: If the Bible cannot be trusted in the creation account, then why should it be trusted in John 3:16? How do we know that Jesus wasn't just another guy who said some interesting things? My original post was directed at a Christian -- if you don't believe the Bible at all, then all this is irrelevant. But if you claim to be a Christian, you'd better understand the difference between truth and fiction -- and you'd better understand that to deny Genesis 1 is also to deny Christ's death and resurrection. The two are linked -- if God allowed man to evolve through a process of millions of years of death and destruction, why do we need Jesus? Sin is just another name for natural selection, right? On the other hand, if you believe the Bible, that God created man perfect, in his image, without sin, the rest of the Bible makes sense. Without sin, we don't need a Saviour -- that's the real purpose of the myth of evolution: to deny God and his redemption plan. Like I said earlier -- if you don't believe in the Bible, this is unimportant to you. But if you're a Christian, you need to understand that this is why Genesis is so important.
To a self-proclaimed Christian, that's irrelavant. One of the central tenets to the Christian faith is that the Bible was inspired by God, regardless of who put the actual words on paper. This is why evolution is incompatible with Christianity -- they directly contradict.
No, actually you belittle God and make Christians look stupid when you say His Bible is a lie. Go back, read Genesis one, and tell me again how Christianity is compatible with a world view that says we evolved from monkeys. And if you feel that having scientists on your side is necessary, check out Institute for Creation Research. There are quite a few Phd's who disagree strongly with you, and there's a lot of evidence that they're right.
evidently it's not a law... I'm sure I could probably sue them, but it's just not worth the effort. If I can't pass the GED, I'd be pretty shocked -- I've been doing college work since I was 13. The only thing that's kept me from getting my degree is money (and now this college's admissions dept).
Slashdot Mirror
No -- but don't you have different levels of trust in your organization? I have all kinds of people working for me -- any one of them could send me a proposal, memo, or something else to go up and I would cc them on what I sent up (usually -- not always). That's just one scenario -- and an attacker can usually find out who works somewhere without any difficulty...
I receive documents for review and editing from up to 400 different people -- and I'm not even all that high up the food chain. This would easily work on me -- and I'm very security concious. This isn't like "don't click on attachments from people you don't know" -- it falls more into the category of "don't ever use word and outlook and office for what they're designed to do." (I know -- use OO... When somebody convinces the government to do that...)
Check out this link. neocon has done an excellent job of laying it out in his journal, so I won't rehash it. The point is, you give up many of your constitutional rights by taking up arms in a manner that contravenes the laws of war (Geneva Convention, etc.) This is what he did, and why he will probably be tried before a military tribunal at the convenience of the government.
You obviously didn't read my bio.
Personally, I think the only thing McVeigh had to do with the OKC bombing was possibly driving the truck there and waiting to get caught. I mean, come on -- driving around Tulsa in a car with no license plates (that's a guarantee you'll get pulled over -- midwest cops don't mess around) and a gun in a shoulder holster??? Talk about class A, Grade 1 STUPID! I doubt he had the intelligence to make a fertilizer bomb -- as simple as they may be to make. It would be nice to know who really master-minded it -- unfortunately, I doubt we'll ever know for sure.
Treason is a very specific crime. I don't believe anyone has been charged with, or tried, for treason since Aaron Burr. The process is laid out in the Constitution.
If you decide to carry out a terrorist attack against the American people(or the people of any country), as he did -- you become an illegal combatant, a person who has no legal rights or claim to citizenship. Which means that a military tribunal will convene to decide his fate -- and you may never know about it. And I, for one, don't really care -- if some switch gets thrown in someone's brain that says "I want to nuke some civilians today" -- the world is better off without them.
So, no -- my reasoning isn't flawed. When the evidence against him is declassified 10-20 years from now, you may very well see why. Or not -- I don't have any specific knowledge, I just realize that to an extent we have to trust the people we've elected to positions of responsibility. If we don't, our style of government doesn't work. Of course, if you disagree, the polls open in a couple of months -- make your vote heard.
I don't know much about the Iranian hostage crisis -- I vaguely remember it, as I was quite young when it happened. However, if your analysis of the situation is correct, then as far as they were concerned, they may have been doing what was best for their national security. However, your comparison is fatally flawed either way. Jose Padilla-Muharij is not a diplomat. He does not, nor did he ever have, diplomatic immunity. We treat foreign diplomats with a great deal of respect -- the worst thing we can do to them is require their removal from the country. Iran held our diplomats and overran our embassy, and that breaks all kinds of international laws. Try again.
My personal views run almost as far to the libertarian as you can get -- but when someone tries to murder civilians, I say lock him up and throw away the key. There is most likely a very good reason he's being held as he is -- just because you put a terrorist in prison doesn't mean he can't accomplish things if he's allowed to communicate with his cell. I do think he should have a trial, but I also understand that intelligence agencies have to be cautious with when they release information. Other people's lives are at stake as well, and as I said earlier, he forfeited his rights when he took up arms against the American people.
On that note -- you raise an excellent point. Should an American citizen be able to take up arms against a corrupt government? The answer, of course is spelled out in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. But -- if one were to do such a thing, would it surprise you if they were treated in the same way? They would have committed a crime against the government -- We laud Nathan Hale today as a hero, while we forget that he was rightly hung by the British troops because he committed an illegal act(A military person dressing in civilian clothes in a war zone is to this day a war crime). Did he commit a moral wrong? Most Americans today would say no (I agree) -- but he broke the law, and paid the ultimate price for it.
While I may not agree with all the things the government today does, it's nothing like what the colonists revolted against. To compare the government today to the English government of the 1770's and Abdullah al-Muhajir to the colonists is sophistry -- it ignores way too many key points to be a valid argument.
I'm surprised my comment hasn't been modded to karma hell yet -- I'm sure it's only a matter of time...
Nothing but fluff from the Deputy Chief -- we may not be the most fiscally responsible city in the world, but they won't spend all that money and then not use it for something.
You forfeit your citizenship when you take up arms against the US. I, for one, am quite glad that Abdullah al-Muhajir is in a military brig with all access to his terrorist friends denied. He gave up his citizenship, and his rights as a citizen, when he took up arms against the US. Neocon has written a very insightful comment in his journal regarding this. Check it out for some excellent information about what constitutes an unlawful combatant.
Same difference.
Didn't think so.
The point is, there is a standard -- "The wages of sin are death." In the Old Testament, that was the way it had to be -- in the New Testament to the present day, Jesus fulfilled that law by dying to pay for the sins of the world. There is no "adaptation of ethics", no change in what is right and what is wrong. The Old Testament says "thou shalt not kill" but the word is murder. It means unjustified killing. God recognizes the right of the people/state to punish some crimes with death, but this certainly does not allow for murder(and never did).
The point the original poster was trying to make is that your salvation is not dependant on performing good works -- it's dependant on accepting Jesus, and allowing Him to change your life.
Christianity is about a life change -- not a fire insurance policy.
If you were to go into the studio and take a reel with the actual film on it, that would be theft -- you're physically taking an object that belongs to the studio. When you download it, you're not depriving them of property, thus it can't be theft. That said, distributing this would probably fall afoul of several other, unrelated laws regarding distribution of electronic material that you don't own the copyright to.
I don't pretend to believe that trafficking in copyright-infringing material is right -- but when you use the movie studios' terms, you're falling prey to their flawed logic.
:) Thats funny -- just last night my niece (18 months old) picked up my cell phone (nokia 6360 with IR port on the top) and pointed it at the TV... :) I got a good laugh out of it -- but it really is a good idea.
So, if you want to get that "old VMS feeling", just fire up a Windows NT or XP machine and type at the command line--it's roughly the same. uhmm... no. It's not. I worked with VMS for a couple of years learning to program FORTRAN back in the late eighties -- the commands are not even close. The only similarities between VMS and NT are due to the fact that Dave Cutler(I think) worked on both -- the interface for NT is mostly copied from DOS.
Because it says that God created the heavens, the earth, the animals, and man -- all in six days. If you believe in creation, then evolution, what exactly did God create in the first six days?
How can we have faith in something we don't know anything about? Could you believe in God without the Bible? I suppose you could, but you'd have no basis for belief. The Bible is God's manifestation of Himself to the world -- if you don't believe that He can be accurate with regard to science, how can you believe that he really means what he says in John 3:16?
Last point -- Science has nothing to do with evolution, unless you can show me evolution occurring now. Science does not deal with the past or the future -- it deals with the present, with repeatable results. You cannot use science to prove the existence of God, and you cannot use science to prove evolution. Both are outside the realm of science, and in the realm of faith -- evolution is no less faith than Christianity.
The thing about being created in God's image is a bit difficult for me to understand -- it's not clear if it means that we were created to physically look like God, or if he meant that we were created without sin. Either way, it does say that man was originally without sin -- it further explains how man came to do wrong against God later on in Genesis. This is one of the most important tenets of the Christian faith -- if God allowed the earth to simply evolve, using sin and death and destruction to create man (as the theory of evolution would have us believe), then why would he see the need to send his Son to earth to die for our sins(John 3:16)? If sin is just a natural process used by God to "create" the earth, then the rest of the Bible makes no sense, and has no real authority.
The creation story in Genesis has NO elements of a parable. Whether you agree with it or not, you have to agree that whoever wrote it, wrote it as literal truth.
And herein lies the rub: If the Bible cannot be trusted in the creation account, then why should it be trusted in John 3:16? How do we know that Jesus wasn't just another guy who said some interesting things? My original post was directed at a Christian -- if you don't believe the Bible at all, then all this is irrelevant. But if you claim to be a Christian, you'd better understand the difference between truth and fiction -- and you'd better understand that to deny Genesis 1 is also to deny Christ's death and resurrection. The two are linked -- if God allowed man to evolve through a process of millions of years of death and destruction, why do we need Jesus? Sin is just another name for natural selection, right? On the other hand, if you believe the Bible, that God created man perfect, in his image, without sin, the rest of the Bible makes sense. Without sin, we don't need a Saviour -- that's the real purpose of the myth of evolution: to deny God and his redemption plan. Like I said earlier -- if you don't believe in the Bible, this is unimportant to you. But if you're a Christian, you need to understand that this is why Genesis is so important.
To a self-proclaimed Christian, that's irrelavant. One of the central tenets to the Christian faith is that the Bible was inspired by God, regardless of who put the actual words on paper. This is why evolution is incompatible with Christianity -- they directly contradict.
No, actually you belittle God and make Christians look stupid when you say His Bible is a lie. Go back, read Genesis one, and tell me again how Christianity is compatible with a world view that says we evolved from monkeys. And if you feel that having scientists on your side is necessary, check out Institute for Creation Research. There are quite a few Phd's who disagree strongly with you, and there's a lot of evidence that they're right.
evidently it's not a law... I'm sure I could probably sue them, but it's just not worth the effort. If I can't pass the GED, I'd be pretty shocked -- I've been doing college work since I was 13. The only thing that's kept me from getting my degree is money (and now this college's admissions dept).