According to history, Muhammed lived from 570CE to 632CE, thus he died at the age of 62. He married Aisha after the death of his first wife, Khadijah, who was a 40 year old widow when he married her at the age of 25. Khadijah died in the year 619, at the age of 64. Thus Muhammed was at least 49 years old when he married Aisha, who was 6 years old at the time.
Averages are a funny thing. A man with on foot in a bucket of ice and the other in a bucket of boiling water feels just fine, on average. The question one must ask is "Why is the average lifespan 30yrs in that time frame?" Could be that more people died before and during young adulthood, say before the age of 25?
And, while it was common for young teens to marry, it was rare that they would marry middle-aged and older adults. It was even more rare that adults would marry and have sex with children under the age 13. Unless, of course, you believe that having sex with children was the norm around 500 CE.
I watched entire towns in the middle east having parties to celebrate 9/11. Maybe you should go look up the video footage for a week beginning 9/11/2001.
I have watched Muslims dancing in the street in celebration of 9/11. I have seen Muslims celebrating in front of burning embassy.
I have watched on the news, on sect of Muslims blowing up one the holiest mosques of another sect.
I have seen reports of Islam growing in many countries, especially third world countries. And, with this rise in Muslims, there has been a rise in violence, murder and terrorist bombings.
In the Koran/Quran, it states that Mohammed married Aisha when she was six years old and then consumated the marriage when she was nine years old. That means the the Prophet Mohammed had sex with a nine year old girl. Having sex with a nine year old child is the act of a pedophile.
You say that these are editorials and not news stories and so Google News should not put up anything from the New Media Journal. Shall Google News stop linking to Yahoo!News, because it has an Editorial section which shows up in Google News searches? How about the Washington Post? One of its op-ed piecew was on the front page of a search I did. Shall Google News stop linking to it.
Google states very clearly in it's email that it considers the referrenced articles as being hate speach. So, my question is "When did the truth become hate speach?"
I hate Democrat hate blogs that are out there and focus on half of one side of a story to make it look as bad as possible for anyone other than themselves.
The worst part, is that they link to themselves over and over and over and over and over and over worse than a hick family tree were all the grandmas grandpas, children and grand children descended fromt he same 2 people.
Take a recent look on google for "stop iraq war" and you will see hundreds of Democrat blogs on the subject, all citing other Democrat blogs as the definitive and truthful source, when in the end the story was put up as a sensational tabloid article with no truth behind it at all.
Bloggers are not the new news media, they are just a bunch of people who have found out a place were people will read their opinions, nod their heads, and help them mentally wack themselves off at how awsome they are and how many people they can get to agree.
Plagarism isnt even the half of it, these people cite sources that cite sources to the point were it would be difficult to find out were the original story came from, its like a horrible game of telephone gone awry, or the before mentioned incestuous family forgetting whose kid little jenny is.
It is all apart of the demagoguery used by both sides.
True. The original point was that in all things, there are limits.
The right to bear arms has limits for the protection of society as a whole. The rights of the free press has limits to protect society as a whole. One limit is that the press may not violate the laws of the land without fear of prosecution. Whether the prosecution is successful is up to the judge and jury.
I am often amazed that people forget "With great power comes great responsiblity". A free press has great power to inform and influence. It also has a great responsiblity to tell the truth and not to endanger the populace. Printing state secrets can endanger the public. Once the secret is out, it can not be recalled. The government can use existing laws to prosecute the journalists and organizations involved in the spreading the secret, if said laws exist. But, it is ultimately up to the citizenry to determine guilt or innocence.
arm:
1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.
ordinance:
1. An authoritative command or order.
2. A custom or practice established by long usage.
3. A Christian rite, especially the Eucharist.
4. A statute or regulation, especially one enacted by a city government.
Arms is a generic term for weapons. There is no limitation on what an arm may be. That is why we say "They are armed with (pistols|rifles|atomics|smallpox|nuclear tipped intercontential ballistic missles)."
Actually, the Second Amendment does not specify that only members of "a well-regulated militia" may bear arms. Rather it uses the need for "a well-regulated militia" as an explanation as to why the right to bear arms is needed
Militia:
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Following your logic, the Government can not prevent me, or anyone, from owning any arm, including but not limited to fully automatic assualt rifles, heavy machineguns, 15 kiloton tactical nukes, Sarin nerve gas, or weaponized small pox.
The First Amendment says you can say what you wish, but it does not guarantee that doing so will not have some consequence.
If you speak lies, you can be sued. If your speach encourage violence and violence results, you can be charged with inciting the violence. If you speak government secrets, you can be charged with treason, or dissemination of state secrets.
Here we have a clear case of someone not understanding what is going on.
The opinion quoted does not effect the actions and policies of the Executive branch and Attorney General. Rather, it effects the Judicial branch and the way the cases brought by the Executive branch play out.
Therefore, the Attorney General can bring cases against journalist, this opinion may result in the case being lost, or dismissed. The only way that an opinion such as this can stop such cases is if the opinion includes an injuction against bringing further cases with the same argument. This opinion does not contain same.
In an apparent public relations blunder, Google claimed to have no way of filtering suggestions. However, Google can and does filter because the toolbar won't provide suggestions for keywords like 'porn'."
Here we have a classic example of not understanding how things work. It is relatively easy to prevent searches for specific items such as "porn", "pussy", etc. One simply provides a list of terms in the program that result in no search being performed. Here is some psuedo-code. @banned_words="porn","pussy","dick"; foreach word in @banned_words {
if ( @search_terms=~m/$word/ ) {
$naughty=1;
break;
} } return 1 if ($naughty); do_search(@search_terms);
As one can see, it is a very simple operation which, as other have pointed out, is easily circumvented.
Filtering the results is a much trickier proposition because there is context involved. The same code applied to results would prevent results containing "pussy cat" from appearing in a search for "cat". It would also prevent any referrence to someone named "Dick" from appearing in, say, a search of Vice Presidents or actors.
In the case of the results listed ("serverscheck crack", "serverscheck pro crack", and "serverscheck keygen")trying to filter "crack" and or keygen would result in a large number of valid sights being block for OTHER searches. Imagine the results from search on ssh-keygen if one filters "keygen" out of the results.
From what I have seen, unions will start off well, and then degenerate into just another bunch of corrupt people using their offices for personal gain and political power. Once the unions start trying to make management decisions, things go to hell fast.
In the end, you get something like the UAW, where they strike until they get a contract that says:
Junior people make parts and work at the beginning of the assembly lines.
Senior people work towards the end of the line
Junior people can't do senior people's work and senior people can't do junior people's work.
People are laid off according to seniority.
That leads to a situation where the senior people sit around on the line with nothing to do because all the junior people have been laid off. So, the companies shutdown entire plants. But, unions don't want that, either, so they are trying to prevent that in the contracts. That is when the union goes from protecting the workers to hurting the business and the customers/consumers.
Also, there is a wonderful situation where a janitor can't change a lightbulb because it is a piece of electrical equipment and the union contracts says "Only electricians can change electrical equipment". Will there be a clause saying only hardware techs can move computer equipment and sys admins have to get the hardware techs to move a monitor?
Ok, I can see you are a dumbass. Pay attention. The following is very simple.
The poster is saying "I am not a religious nut, but we shouldn't do this because this story says it is the work of the devil! The bible says so!"
Using that same arguement anyone can say "We shouldn't have firemen because they will be used to burn books in the future! Fahrenheit 451 says so!"
Or how about: "We shouldn't use computers because they will take over the world and enslave humanity! Terminator and The Matrix says so!"
Just because it is the bible doesn't change the fact that it is just a book. No matter how many people believe in it, it is just a book. Remember, not to long ago, the majority of people believed that
the Earth was flat
all diseases could be cured by bleeding people
lonely old women were witches who could fly
cats killed children by stealing their breath
eating tomatoes would cause one to go insane
meat turned into maggots
the sun revolved around the Earth, which sat at the center of the universe
and the Christian church not only supported these ideas, it resisted any change using all methods available, including violence and murder.
This isn't about philosphy. This is about something someone is doing to himself. Any technology can be used for opression. Anything can be used for good or for evil.
The guys writing this stuff may have been writing from a religious perspective, but that doesn't mean they were stupid.
IMNSHO, yes it does mean they are stupid. Bring the bible into this discussion is like bringing any other work of fiction into it. Why not talk about Logan's Run and Carousel, or THX-1138?
Seems to me any totalitarian, evil (for lack of a better word with fewer metaphysical overtones) state would just LOVE to track the movements of their mindless cyborgs, excuse me, citizens. Haven't we given up enough freedom and privacy in the name of safety and convenience yet?
Listen to yourself. This guy wants to VOLUNTARILY implant himself. Shouldn't people decide what is right for them? No "totalitarian, evil state" is making him do anything. OR do you think the government is using it's secret mind-control technology on him?
And, if you think you can't be tracked now, you are either ignorant or fooling yourself.
You saw Gattaca, yet you did not think of the fact that one can attach an RFID tag to an arm under a bit of latex, just like the fingertip blood packs used by the character in Gattaca?
An entire industry could grow up around circumventing this technology, and it would not be anywhere near as difficult as in Gattaca.
Or Punk: Gimme your keys or I'll cut you! You: Sorry, no keys, I start my car with a microchip in my hand. Punk: What the hell? Don't fuck with me! Gimme your keys! You: I told you I start the car with a microchip in my hand! Punk: Ok, then, give me your hand! You: Aaaaaa!
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you. Could not have said it better myself.
I really want to know when the word unethical came to mean "not complete and totally agreeing with me".
According to history, Muhammed lived from 570CE to 632CE, thus he died at the age of 62. He married Aisha after the death of his first wife, Khadijah, who was a 40 year old widow when he married her at the age of 25. Khadijah died in the year 619, at the age of 64. Thus Muhammed was at least 49 years old when he married Aisha, who was 6 years old at the time.
Averages are a funny thing. A man with on foot in a bucket of ice and the other in a bucket of boiling water feels just fine, on average. The question one must ask is "Why is the average lifespan 30yrs in that time frame?" Could be that more people died before and during young adulthood, say before the age of 25?
And, while it was common for young teens to marry, it was rare that they would marry middle-aged and older adults. It was even more rare that adults would marry and have sex with children under the age 13. Unless, of course, you believe that having sex with children was the norm around 500 CE.
Or when someone would forget to do planned maitenance or clean the line printer and it would catch fire.
Yes, that lp package error message "printer on fire" esixts because that actually used to happen.
I watched entire towns in the middle east having parties to celebrate 9/11. Maybe you should go look up the video footage for a week beginning 9/11/2001.
And, yes, you are a jackass.
I have watched Muslims dancing in the street in celebration of 9/11. I have seen Muslims celebrating in front of burning embassy.
I have watched on the news, on sect of Muslims blowing up one the holiest mosques of another sect.
I have seen reports of Islam growing in many countries, especially third world countries. And, with this rise in Muslims, there has been a rise in violence, murder and terrorist bombings.
In the Koran/Quran, it states that Mohammed married Aisha when she was six years old and then consumated the marriage when she was nine years old. That means the the Prophet Mohammed had sex with a nine year old girl. Having sex with a nine year old child is the act of a pedophile.
You say that these are editorials and not news stories and so Google News should not put up anything from the New Media Journal. Shall Google News stop linking to Yahoo!News, because it has an Editorial section which shows up in Google News searches? How about the Washington Post? One of its op-ed piecew was on the front page of a search I did. Shall Google News stop linking to it.
Google states very clearly in it's email that it considers the referrenced articles as being hate speach. So, my question is "When did the truth become hate speach?"
It is all apart of the demagoguery used by both sides.
True. The original point was that in all things, there are limits.
The right to bear arms has limits for the protection of society as a whole.
The rights of the free press has limits to protect society as a whole. One limit is that the press may not violate the laws of the land without fear of prosecution. Whether the prosecution is successful is up to the judge and jury.
I am often amazed that people forget "With great power comes great responsiblity". A free press has great power to inform and influence. It also has a great responsiblity to tell the truth and not to endanger the populace. Printing state secrets can endanger the public. Once the secret is out, it can not be recalled. The government can use existing laws to prosecute the journalists and organizations involved in the spreading the secret, if said laws exist. But, it is ultimately up to the citizenry to determine guilt or innocence.
From Dictionary.com
arm:
1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.
ordinance:
1. An authoritative command or order.
2. A custom or practice established by long usage.
3. A Christian rite, especially the Eucharist.
4. A statute or regulation, especially one enacted by a city government.
Arms is a generic term for weapons. There is no limitation on what an arm may be. That is why we say "They are armed with (pistols|rifles|atomics|smallpox|nuclear tipped intercontential ballistic missles)."
Actually, the Second Amendment does not specify that only members of "a well-regulated militia" may bear arms. Rather it uses the need for "a well-regulated militia" as an explanation as to why the right to bear arms is needed
Militia:
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
Following your logic, the Government can not prevent me, or anyone, from owning any arm, including but not limited to fully automatic assualt rifles, heavy machineguns, 15 kiloton tactical nukes, Sarin nerve gas, or weaponized small pox.
If you speak lies, you can be sued.
If your speach encourage violence and violence results, you can be charged with inciting the violence.
If you speak government secrets, you can be charged with treason, or dissemination of state secrets.
Here we have a clear case of someone not understanding what is going on.
The opinion quoted does not effect the actions and policies of the Executive branch and Attorney General. Rather, it effects the Judicial branch and the way the cases brought by the Executive branch play out.
Therefore, the Attorney General can bring cases against journalist, this opinion may result in the case being lost, or dismissed. The only way that an opinion such as this can stop such cases is if the opinion includes an injuction against bringing further cases with the same argument. This opinion does not contain same.
Here we have a classic example of not understanding how things work. It is relatively easy to prevent searches for specific items such as "porn", "pussy", etc. One simply provides a list of terms in the program that result in no search being performed. Here is some psuedo-code.
@banned_words="porn","pussy","dick";
foreach word in @banned_words {
if ( @search_terms=~m/$word/ ) {
$naughty=1;
break;
}
}
return 1 if ($naughty);
do_search(@search_terms);
As one can see, it is a very simple operation which, as other have pointed out, is easily circumvented.
Filtering the results is a much trickier proposition because there is context involved.
The same code applied to results would prevent results containing "pussy cat" from appearing in a search for "cat". It would also prevent any referrence to someone named "Dick" from appearing in, say, a search of Vice Presidents or actors.
In the case of the results listed ("serverscheck crack", "serverscheck pro crack", and "serverscheck keygen")trying to filter "crack" and or keygen would result in a large number of valid sights being block for OTHER searches. Imagine the results from search on ssh-keygen if one filters "keygen" out of the results.
In the end, you get something like the UAW, where they strike until they get a contract that says:
- Junior people make parts and work at the beginning of the assembly lines.
- Senior people work towards the end of the line
- Junior people can't do senior people's work and senior people can't do junior people's work.
- People are laid off according to seniority.
That leads to a situation where the senior people sit around on the line with nothing to do because all the junior people have been laid off. So, the companies shutdown entire plants. But, unions don't want that, either, so they are trying to prevent that in the contracts.That is when the union goes from protecting the workers to hurting the business and the customers/consumers.
Also, there is a wonderful situation where a janitor can't change a lightbulb because it is a piece of electrical equipment and the union contracts says "Only electricians can change electrical equipment". Will there be a clause saying only hardware techs can move computer equipment and sys admins have to get the hardware techs to move a monitor?
Two wrongs don't make a right.
They have returned core dump to its original meaning! Now THAT is what I call good science!
Now you are my kind of religious nut.
The poster is saying "I am not a religious nut, but we shouldn't do this because this story says it is the work of the devil! The bible says so!"
Using that same arguement anyone can say "We shouldn't have firemen because they will be used to burn books in the future! Fahrenheit 451 says so!"
Or how about: "We shouldn't use computers because they will take over the world and enslave humanity! Terminator and The Matrix says so!"
Just because it is the bible doesn't change the fact that it is just a book. No matter how many people believe in it, it is just a book. Remember, not to long ago, the majority of people believed that
- the Earth was flat
- all diseases could be cured by bleeding people
- lonely old women were witches who could fly
- cats killed children by stealing their breath
- eating tomatoes would cause one to go insane
- meat turned into maggots
- the sun revolved around the Earth, which sat at the center of the universe
and the Christian church not only supported these ideas, it resisted any change using all methods available, including violence and murder.This isn't about philosphy. This is about something someone is doing to himself. Any technology can be used for opression. Anything can be used for good or for evil.
IMNSHO, yes it does mean they are stupid. Bring the bible into this discussion is like bringing any other work of fiction into it. Why not talk about Logan's Run and Carousel, or THX-1138?
Listen to yourself. This guy wants to VOLUNTARILY implant himself. Shouldn't people decide what is right for them? No "totalitarian, evil state" is making him do anything. OR do you think the government is using it's secret mind-control technology on him?
And, if you think you can't be tracked now, you are either ignorant or fooling yourself.
You saw Gattaca, yet you did not think of the fact that one can attach an RFID tag to an arm under a bit of latex, just like the fingertip blood packs used by the character in Gattaca?
An entire industry could grow up around circumventing this technology, and it would not be anywhere near as difficult as in Gattaca.
I don't know whether to hand you a tin foil hat and matching cross, or laugh.
That is funny because you sound like a religious nut.
All the bible quotes and "mark of the beast" drival are just B.S. and have no bearing on a technology discussion.
RFID implants creep you out, fine.
But, how do you feel about joint replacements, implanted hearing aids, and other medical implants?
Or, is it only the implants that the religious nuts say are the "mark of the beast" that you find creepy?
Of course they could just cut off the bicep.
Don't be silly. Real theives would never use sissors.
Pruning shears work much better and faster!
Or
Punk: Gimme your keys or I'll cut you!
You: Sorry, no keys, I start my car with a microchip in my hand.
Punk: What the hell? Don't fuck with me! Gimme your keys!
You: I told you I start the car with a microchip in my hand!
Punk: Ok, then, give me your hand!
You: Aaaaaa!