It could publish its CIFS specification tomorrow if it so chose, an act that would correspond closely to the spirit and letter of the European decision.
Opening up CIFS, or the file specifications for their Office suite, or their ABI spec would really cut into much of their FUD. This is a good part of any dominant player's business model (I won't limit this stritctly to monopolistic behavior). A perfect example is the IBM/Wang situation, where IBM flung FUD about lack of the Wang's compatibility (which was simply untrue). In the end, IBM's sales stayed strong, and Wang went the way of...well...Wang. Microsoft does the same thing with their proporitary formats. "Sure, you can use a Samba server, but are sure you want to entrust your network to a hack of our 'real' stuff?". Same deal with OpenOffice.org (Microsoft actually published some FUD about this, which I can't seem to find) -- Microsoft basically said "Yeah, it'll probably work, but wouldn't you rather have a guarantee than a reverse-engineered hack of our stuff? Besides, you don't get Access with Oo.o, and you need that. You'll also have to shell out to pay to retrain your employees. Lost productivity!"
Actually opening this stuff up would likely cause a major shift in their FUD activities. A good thing, perhaps...but asking why they don't do it is asking why someone hasn't opened up another hole in their head yet. Because it'll hurt!
I'm not saying that humans are inherently evil, but we often don't think things all the way through, and my question of whether we should hasn't been answered yet.
A good point. However, this isn't even a case of "we could" it's just one of those "someday, we might be able to". This idea is barely outside the realm of Sci-Fi. Like I said -- nobody is proposing to do anything. The summary was totally misleading. This makes me want to actually read the journal itself (not TFA, which was a popular-media summary of the journal) and see what she was saying, because AFAIK, the idea of terraforming is not a new one.
Anyway, it seems like so many slashdotters were being pretty knee-jerky about this, like there's already a plan in motion for this and the terraforming landers are on their way right now (nobody even proposed that we do this). It's hard to tell sometimes what people are thinking (or even what they mean in their posts).
Heh...right on (tugs at shirt collar). Seriously though -- people here honestly believe in some wild shit. I honestly missed the humor. The god/gods thing was all me, however.
he question: What right do we have to do this? Are we saying that we have right to all celestial bodies in the solar system?
Well...since this is all just cool what-if stuff anyway (that's right...the article was misleading, and nobody ever proposed a thing), does that really beg the question? I think what's a more important question than "what right we have" is to ask "what right don't we have". We should ask who or what this is going to harm. Personally, I don't think that humans are inherently evil, and I also don't think that everything we touch turns to ass. Before we assume that we should never mess with a giant rock in space, maybe it's a good idea to ask "why not?" first.
So whens the global vote on this gonna be? There _is_ going to be a global vote on this right? Ya know democracy and stuff?
Well, since nobody has actually proposed that anyone do it, there is no need for a vote. Well -- the/. summary says so, but TFA didn't. Once again, people are led astray by a combination of bad/. summaries, and not reading articles before commenting.
Erm...perhaps this is "totally irresponsible" commenting by you. The article doesn't say anything about a proposal (unlike the bad/. summary) to terraform anything (you read it, right?). All that they mentioned was theoritical research published in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Planets. If there's another article about this somewhere else where NASA has proposed this and asked for funding, please, post a link. Until then, there's a difference between saying "we could" and "we should". One could even objectively discuss benefits and drawbacks without actually planning for anything.
Let me ask you, should your feelings about global warming (and you've made those opinions clear) dictate what scientists are allowed to study, theorize, or report? Personally, I prefer that we not stifle a clever idea just because you're pissed off about a global warming trend, which some have speculated is caused by humans. Furthermore, I don't find it at all important that scientific research/findings/hypothesis be congruent with popular ideals. If this were the case, scientists would simply be yesmen for the clergy "Our great scientists have consulted the Great Bible and confirmed that the Earth is indeed 3000 years old".
As a disclaimer, I only read the popular press report of the paper (TFA), not the journal itself.
We let loose some microbes in the process of teraforming mars. They mutate we bring back the mutated microbe. It destroys us.
I think he meant, what's the worst that could happen that's even remotely plausible. I honestly hope that you don't spend your time worried about pissing some extra-terrestrial society off (whose existance we have no knowledge of). Well -- then again, this isn't much more outlandish than worrying about pissing off a god who we don't have any proof/knowledge of.
This reminds me of the people that say that humans changing the earth aren't natural, therefore it's bad. I always have to wonder what about humans aren't natural, because we are exactly like every other creature on the planet. We have absolutely no choice but to act in our nature. Somewhere along the lines someone decided that if it changes the environment too much, then it's not "natural". This argument isn't sound, or I'd argue that beavers building huge dams and creating gigantic ponds/lakes/starting small ecosystems themsleves aren't "natural".
I'm glad that someone is pointing this out. Absolutely correct.
Even if global warming were true for example (which it's not) there would be consequences but the planet would not be rendered uninhabitable for many hundreds or thousands of years.
An obvious troll...but I'll bite. Global warming is true. I highly doubt that you will find any evidence (anywhere) contrary to that which shows an upward trend in global temperatures. What remains to be seen, however, is whether or not this warming trend is the direct result of human activities. You do know what you're arguing, right?
You're not gonna try telling me that the Holocaust never happened either, are you?
I hope I'm not being too rude, but seriously, I googled for referrer spam and bam...first result had some decent advice. This was just the first thing that came up. Add the word "apache" to your query and you will get some very helpful results. Besides, this is Slashdot...not a trove of reliable information/advice. Just start using Apache to start blocking the Mallorys. Also, if you're still posting any kind of statistics or referrers publicly, stop. Spammers wouldn't do this if Bloggers didn't publish that kind of abusable data.
But if I'm representing myself as a non-US firm, who's really a front for a US firm, then I'm in the clear.
No, you're not in the clear. I see where you're coming from, but it's not really applicable to telemarketing. You are suggesting that businesses operating outside of the US, but doing trade and advertising inside of the US are not subject to US regulation. That's just not right -- these businesses are regulated every day, regardless if it's a spin-off, a front, or a subsidiary. Haliburton is a popular lightning rod, and perhaps they got away with something. Does that mean that every business gets away with breaking every law? I 'd like to think not.
In the link I posted in my previous post, they specifically said that US companies are liable for the actions of any agent whom they hire outside of the country. Unless Halliburton and GE were hiring massive amounts of Iranian telemarketers to cold call us, your example isn't really applicable to this particular topic. This is especially considering that we're talking about issues which are handled by different govermnent offices. Embargos are handled by the Treasury department's Office of Foreign Assets Control. Telemarketing is handled by the Federal Trade Commission (which may or may not be under the control of the department of Treasury, I'm not sure). Different offices do things differently (and yes, usually ineffectively).
Just because people dislike telemarketing companies doesn't mean they're run by people without sense.
BTW, a really good point. Now that I stop and think about it, it seems pretty common on Slashdot, and I'm glad you called me on that. I think it's symptomatic of projecting negative attributes to people I/they don't like (or want to dislike). Anyway -- cheers.
Alternatively, politely and calmly ask them for their name, and the name of their firm (rather than being aggressive or letting them know what your intentions are). Then file a DNC complaint ASAP.
You do, however, make a compelling point. That being said, I still think that one could hook a sales person (in your system) by saying "sure, I'm interested" and then "hold on, while I get a pen to write down the information". If they're as smart as you claim, they'll eventually realize that your household does not buy products advertised by unsolicited phone calls, and you just consistently waste their time.
This is just a matter of social engineering. It can be done, given sufficent trial and error. You're right that they're a business, and usually profitable. To them, time is money. Also, if you follow the thread a bit, it goes into an idea for customizing Asterisk (a F/OSS PBX system) to automate this process. If it were released on a large enough scale, I think that it could eventually cut into profits. (It would be pretty funny to develop something that would wait for a pause in their end of the conversation and drop in a random "yeah?"/"hmmmm"/"maybe"/"I dunno"/"I don't think I understand, can you explain further?"
Finally, many of these operations are too small to have any of the infrastructure you're talking about (equipment or personnel). I had a few friends who worked at different local telemarketing operations, and they were mostly just small shops who generally hired temps. I had one friend who got paid her hourly wages, and was given "bonuses" in the form of cannabis on her way out the door for the day. (Granted this was 6 years ago...have they changed that much in 6 years?) Some of these oeprations are huge, and maybe harder to fool given the depth of their experience and systems.
I look at this is a hack. It's still a system, and the system is not infallible -- this one is suseptible to social engineering. On a large scale, such social engineering can certainly cut into profits. If there are no profits, or steadily decreasing margins...these businesses may eventually go away.
Again, you do make a good point. It will take a bit of work to implement this correctly.
It is completely useless, just as any other authentication relying on sending data that is not secret. This is really getting old... Ley me quote a 1998 article on biometrics by Bruce Schneier:
Schneier also follows up with a 2002 Crypto-gram blurb, noting Matsumoto's excellent work with the gelatin-finger.
Not International. This outsourcing is just another way of getting around the rules.
Incorrect. I pointed this out in my post above (it has a stupid typo in the subject header). The post references this FAQ, which states that:
33. Are telemarketing calls from overseas covered?
Yes. Any telemarketers calling U.S. consumers are covered, regardless of where they are calling from. If a company within the U.S. solicits sales through an overseas professional telemarketer, that U.S. company may be liable for any violations by the telemarketer. The FTC can initiate enforcement actions against such companies.
Has someone come up with a device that checks incoming calls against a list of people known to you, and if it is an unknown number, automatically either sends them directly to the answering machine or tells them that because they are not known, they will have to wait through a 20 second wait period before their call is put through?
I dunno, but this is exactly the kind of thing that a F/OSS PBX (like Asterisk, for example) could be set up to do. You could also write some code so it captures the last words of telemarketers before they hang up and publish your favorite explitives to a webpage (along with the call duration -- it's even funnier when you know how long they were waiting) just for giggles.
33. Are telemarketing calls from overseas covered?
Yes. Any telemarketers calling U.S. consumers are covered, regardless of where they are calling from. If a company within the U.S. solicits sales through an overseas professional telemarketer, that U.S. company may be liable for any violations by the telemarketer. The FTC can initiate enforcement actions against such companies.
I guess it would make sense that people doing business in the US are still accountable to US laws and regulations. Get their name and number -- file a complaint. It will do us all a favor.
Just hang up on them the moment you realize what is going on. You both will be better off.
Actually, to make a difference, I'd go the other way around. When they ask for you, or the homeowner, or whomever, ask them to hold on while you find that person. Put the phone down, and walk away to do something else. If they hold for 10 minutes or more, you'll get a good laugh out of it.
This may tie up your phone line, but you're wasting their time (better than them wasting your time). Advertisers have to pay them, and you're decreasing their sales effectiveness. If enough people do this, telemarketing may be perceived as less effective.
Alternatively, politely and calmly ask them for their name, and the name of their firm (rather than being aggressive or letting them know what your intentions are). Then file a DNC complaint ASAP.
In fact, no. It's just because of your perspective of bunching everyone who disagrees with you into a class of people that your statement is correct.
Generally speaking, people who talk about peak oil are geologists, and even oil engineers. People who talk about climate warming are meteorologists.
Actually, I don't necessarily disagree, I'm just not an alarmist. Calling armchair environmentalists meteorologists is an interesting take on things though. I'm not talking about scientists here. I'm talking about your average bandwagon environmentalist who gets (vocally) pissed about what they read in the Greenpeace newsletter and watches an anchor's interpretation of a newly released scientific article in the evening news.
It comes down to a simple thing, like I said in my original post: risk analysis. Situation 1, you will die. The odds of situation 1 occuring are very low, but taking a preventive measure will most likely save your life. Situation 2, you won't die. Odds are very high that you won't die, so why take a precaution? Right?
See, I'm not a big fan of doing nothing...but I don't think that it's an all or nothing equation. I'm just responding to your so-sure-that-you're-right attitude which is responsible for some pretty silly comments. You group the discussion into two arguments (which is just incorrect...but you did claim me of doing something similar, no?), and claim that everyone who makes the other argument is an industry lobbyist...and then go on to say that everyone in the second group should be shot. This is not conducive to a discussion.
Outside of this, I see where you're coming from with your risk analysis perspective...but unfortunately, the jury is still out on whether or not humans have accelerated global warming. There's some interesting evidence there, but nothing that I believe is conclusive (not even good enough to be called a scientific theory, let alone a fact). Is the evidence compelling enough to make some changes for the better? I believe so. Is it compelling enough to make radical changes that will hurt us? Absolutely not.
I just feel that the rest of the world shouldn't be the US's plaything. They have no right to kill tens of thousands of people so they can play political games in the middle east.
I'm with you there. It is only slightly comforting to know that this is really the fault of British colonization (well, French and German too). Not half of these countries would exist without the great compromise that the Brits made as they left the region. We didn't necessarily create this mess (we are, however, doing our part to make it worse). I will way this -- we certainly have a responsibility to protect ourselves (and I think that we've already crossed "the line" of simple protection). If the world is unsafe for us, there is a certain amount that we can do to make it safe. This Iraq thing...it's a bummer alright, and at the moment, I'm ashamed that my country would do such a thing, predicated on weak intelligence and false information ("we know where they are and how much they have").
But the most galling thing is the constant references to Christianity and Morality. WWJD? He certainally wouldn't kill people, no matter who they are, where they live or how much oil they have. Even if they did annoy his Daddy.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. On September, 2001 I stood on top of a building in Brooklyn and watched Manhattan burn. All I could think was "look what god just did" (right before thinking "OK, everything starts getting worse...right about now"). I blamed this whole thing on manipulation of religious ideology on a massive scale. I realized that in the same position, Christian fundamentalists would do the same thing (or any fundamentalist, for that matter). This organized religion thing is holding us way, way back -- and I think that it's at the root of so much of what's wrong with our world. What believers don't really understand is that Cathloics are no better or worse than Muslims, who are the same as than Jews, who are the same as Protestants, who are the same as Hindus. Problem is -- how can you have respect for anyone who is essentially damned eternally (since our life on earth doesn't really matter to those people anyway)? Remember, one of the central beliefs in most of these religions is that you're right and everybody else is wrong (and this will cost them their afterlife, which is infinite). I think that this is central to much of religion, and it's disappointing that the world continues to let god (or the belief therein) get in the way of peace.
I guess this takes it a few steps further into athiesm territory, but we're seeing this similarly. Umm...time for me to get off of this here soapbox.
Slashdot Mirror
Opening up CIFS, or the file specifications for their Office suite, or their ABI spec would really cut into much of their FUD. This is a good part of any dominant player's business model (I won't limit this stritctly to monopolistic behavior). A perfect example is the IBM/Wang situation, where IBM flung FUD about lack of the Wang's compatibility (which was simply untrue). In the end, IBM's sales stayed strong, and Wang went the way of...well...Wang. Microsoft does the same thing with their proporitary formats. "Sure, you can use a Samba server, but are sure you want to entrust your network to a hack of our 'real' stuff?". Same deal with OpenOffice.org (Microsoft actually published some FUD about this, which I can't seem to find) -- Microsoft basically said "Yeah, it'll probably work, but wouldn't you rather have a guarantee than a reverse-engineered hack of our stuff? Besides, you don't get Access with Oo.o, and you need that. You'll also have to shell out to pay to retrain your employees. Lost productivity!"
Actually opening this stuff up would likely cause a major shift in their FUD activities. A good thing, perhaps...but asking why they don't do it is asking why someone hasn't opened up another hole in their head yet. Because it'll hurt!
A good point. However, this isn't even a case of "we could" it's just one of those "someday, we might be able to". This idea is barely outside the realm of Sci-Fi. Like I said -- nobody is proposing to do anything. The summary was totally misleading. This makes me want to actually read the journal itself (not TFA, which was a popular-media summary of the journal) and see what she was saying, because AFAIK, the idea of terraforming is not a new one.
Anyway, it seems like so many slashdotters were being pretty knee-jerky about this, like there's already a plan in motion for this and the terraforming landers are on their way right now (nobody even proposed that we do this). It's hard to tell sometimes what people are thinking (or even what they mean in their posts).
Heh...right on (tugs at shirt collar). Seriously though -- people here honestly believe in some wild shit. I honestly missed the humor. The god/gods thing was all me, however.
Well...since this is all just cool what-if stuff anyway (that's right...the article was misleading, and nobody ever proposed a thing), does that really beg the question? I think what's a more important question than "what right we have" is to ask "what right don't we have". We should ask who or what this is going to harm. Personally, I don't think that humans are inherently evil, and I also don't think that everything we touch turns to ass. Before we assume that we should never mess with a giant rock in space, maybe it's a good idea to ask "why not?" first.
My god! Scientists disagreeing about a theory! Amazing!
Well, since nobody has actually proposed that anyone do it, there is no need for a vote. Well -- the /. summary says so, but TFA didn't. Once again, people are led astray by a combination of bad /. summaries, and not reading articles before commenting.
Erm...perhaps this is "totally irresponsible" commenting by you. The article doesn't say anything about a proposal (unlike the bad /. summary) to terraform anything (you read it, right?). All that they mentioned was theoritical research published in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Planets. If there's another article about this somewhere else where NASA has proposed this and asked for funding, please, post a link. Until then, there's a difference between saying "we could" and "we should". One could even objectively discuss benefits and drawbacks without actually planning for anything.
Let me ask you, should your feelings about global warming (and you've made those opinions clear) dictate what scientists are allowed to study, theorize, or report? Personally, I prefer that we not stifle a clever idea just because you're pissed off about a global warming trend, which some have speculated is caused by humans. Furthermore, I don't find it at all important that scientific research/findings/hypothesis be congruent with popular ideals. If this were the case, scientists would simply be yesmen for the clergy "Our great scientists have consulted the Great Bible and confirmed that the Earth is indeed 3000 years old".
As a disclaimer, I only read the popular press report of the paper (TFA), not the journal itself.
I, for one, welcome our new -- oh, wait. That only works the other way around.
I think he meant, what's the worst that could happen that's even remotely plausible. I honestly hope that you don't spend your time worried about pissing some extra-terrestrial society off (whose existance we have no knowledge of). Well -- then again, this isn't much more outlandish than worrying about pissing off a god who we don't have any proof/knowledge of.
Or, for that matter...who is to say that we even have a purpose?
I'm glad that someone is pointing this out. Absolutely correct.
An obvious troll...but I'll bite. Global warming is true. I highly doubt that you will find any evidence (anywhere) contrary to that which shows an upward trend in global temperatures. What remains to be seen, however, is whether or not this warming trend is the direct result of human activities. You do know what you're arguing, right?
You're not gonna try telling me that the Holocaust never happened either, are you?
Hey, be nice. Was I really impolite (kinda like you're being right now)? Did I, or did I not provide helpful information to the poster?
Lighten up, Francis.
I hope I'm not being too rude, but seriously, I googled for referrer spam and bam...first result had some decent advice. This was just the first thing that came up. Add the word "apache" to your query and you will get some very helpful results. Besides, this is Slashdot...not a trove of reliable information/advice. Just start using Apache to start blocking the Mallorys. Also, if you're still posting any kind of statistics or referrers publicly, stop. Spammers wouldn't do this if Bloggers didn't publish that kind of abusable data.
No, you're not in the clear. I see where you're coming from, but it's not really applicable to telemarketing. You are suggesting that businesses operating outside of the US, but doing trade and advertising inside of the US are not subject to US regulation. That's just not right -- these businesses are regulated every day, regardless if it's a spin-off, a front, or a subsidiary. Haliburton is a popular lightning rod, and perhaps they got away with something. Does that mean that every business gets away with breaking every law? I 'd like to think not.
In the link I posted in my previous post, they specifically said that US companies are liable for the actions of any agent whom they hire outside of the country. Unless Halliburton and GE were hiring massive amounts of Iranian telemarketers to cold call us, your example isn't really applicable to this particular topic. This is especially considering that we're talking about issues which are handled by different govermnent offices. Embargos are handled by the Treasury department's Office of Foreign Assets Control. Telemarketing is handled by the Federal Trade Commission (which may or may not be under the control of the department of Treasury, I'm not sure). Different offices do things differently (and yes, usually ineffectively).
BTW, a really good point. Now that I stop and think about it, it seems pretty common on Slashdot, and I'm glad you called me on that. I think it's symptomatic of projecting negative attributes to people I/they don't like (or want to dislike). Anyway -- cheers.
As I said in my original post:
You do, however, make a compelling point. That being said, I still think that one could hook a sales person (in your system) by saying "sure, I'm interested" and then "hold on, while I get a pen to write down the information". If they're as smart as you claim, they'll eventually realize that your household does not buy products advertised by unsolicited phone calls, and you just consistently waste their time.
This is just a matter of social engineering. It can be done, given sufficent trial and error. You're right that they're a business, and usually profitable. To them, time is money. Also, if you follow the thread a bit, it goes into an idea for customizing Asterisk (a F/OSS PBX system) to automate this process. If it were released on a large enough scale, I think that it could eventually cut into profits. (It would be pretty funny to develop something that would wait for a pause in their end of the conversation and drop in a random "yeah?"/"hmmmm"/"maybe"/"I dunno"/"I don't think I understand, can you explain further?"
Finally, many of these operations are too small to have any of the infrastructure you're talking about (equipment or personnel). I had a few friends who worked at different local telemarketing operations, and they were mostly just small shops who generally hired temps. I had one friend who got paid her hourly wages, and was given "bonuses" in the form of cannabis on her way out the door for the day. (Granted this was 6 years ago...have they changed that much in 6 years?) Some of these oeprations are huge, and maybe harder to fool given the depth of their experience and systems.
I look at this is a hack. It's still a system, and the system is not infallible -- this one is suseptible to social engineering. On a large scale, such social engineering can certainly cut into profits. If there are no profits, or steadily decreasing margins...these businesses may eventually go away.
Again, you do make a good point. It will take a bit of work to implement this correctly.
Schneier also follows up with a 2002 Crypto-gram blurb, noting Matsumoto's excellent work with the gelatin-finger.
Incorrect. I pointed this out in my post above (it has a stupid typo in the subject header). The post references this FAQ, which states that:
I dunno, but this is exactly the kind of thing that a F/OSS PBX (like Asterisk, for example) could be set up to do. You could also write some code so it captures the last words of telemarketers before they hang up and publish your favorite explitives to a webpage (along with the call duration -- it's even funnier when you know how long they were waiting) just for giggles.
From the National Do Not Call Registry FAQ
I guess it would make sense that people doing business in the US are still accountable to US laws and regulations. Get their name and number -- file a complaint. It will do us all a favor.
Actually, to make a difference, I'd go the other way around. When they ask for you, or the homeowner, or whomever, ask them to hold on while you find that person. Put the phone down, and walk away to do something else. If they hold for 10 minutes or more, you'll get a good laugh out of it.
This may tie up your phone line, but you're wasting their time (better than them wasting your time). Advertisers have to pay them, and you're decreasing their sales effectiveness. If enough people do this, telemarketing may be perceived as less effective.
Alternatively, politely and calmly ask them for their name, and the name of their firm (rather than being aggressive or letting them know what your intentions are). Then file a DNC complaint ASAP.
Because the rest of the world's people have butts that are smaller than their thumbs.
Actually, I don't necessarily disagree, I'm just not an alarmist. Calling armchair environmentalists meteorologists is an interesting take on things though. I'm not talking about scientists here. I'm talking about your average bandwagon environmentalist who gets (vocally) pissed about what they read in the Greenpeace newsletter and watches an anchor's interpretation of a newly released scientific article in the evening news.
See, I'm not a big fan of doing nothing...but I don't think that it's an all or nothing equation. I'm just responding to your so-sure-that-you're-right attitude which is responsible for some pretty silly comments. You group the discussion into two arguments (which is just incorrect...but you did claim me of doing something similar, no?), and claim that everyone who makes the other argument is an industry lobbyist...and then go on to say that everyone in the second group should be shot. This is not conducive to a discussion.
Outside of this, I see where you're coming from with your risk analysis perspective...but unfortunately, the jury is still out on whether or not humans have accelerated global warming. There's some interesting evidence there, but nothing that I believe is conclusive (not even good enough to be called a scientific theory, let alone a fact). Is the evidence compelling enough to make some changes for the better? I believe so. Is it compelling enough to make radical changes that will hurt us? Absolutely not.
I'm with you there. It is only slightly comforting to know that this is really the fault of British colonization (well, French and German too). Not half of these countries would exist without the great compromise that the Brits made as they left the region. We didn't necessarily create this mess (we are, however, doing our part to make it worse). I will way this -- we certainly have a responsibility to protect ourselves (and I think that we've already crossed "the line" of simple protection). If the world is unsafe for us, there is a certain amount that we can do to make it safe. This Iraq thing...it's a bummer alright, and at the moment, I'm ashamed that my country would do such a thing, predicated on weak intelligence and false information ("we know where they are and how much they have").
I wholeheartedly agree with you. On September, 2001 I stood on top of a building in Brooklyn and watched Manhattan burn. All I could think was "look what god just did" (right before thinking "OK, everything starts getting worse...right about now"). I blamed this whole thing on manipulation of religious ideology on a massive scale. I realized that in the same position, Christian fundamentalists would do the same thing (or any fundamentalist, for that matter). This organized religion thing is holding us way, way back -- and I think that it's at the root of so much of what's wrong with our world. What believers don't really understand is that Cathloics are no better or worse than Muslims, who are the same as than Jews, who are the same as Protestants, who are the same as Hindus. Problem is -- how can you have respect for anyone who is essentially damned eternally (since our life on earth doesn't really matter to those people anyway)? Remember, one of the central beliefs in most of these religions is that you're right and everybody else is wrong (and this will cost them their afterlife, which is infinite). I think that this is central to much of religion, and it's disappointing that the world continues to let god (or the belief therein) get in the way of peace.
I guess this takes it a few steps further into athiesm territory, but we're seeing this similarly. Umm...time for me to get off of this here soapbox.