What they published was already public information. How the fuck do you think they got it? Did jackbooted thugs working for a newspaper search your house?
There are no known threats. The FBI has laughed off the bullshit claims by the idiots that posted people's information. The newspaper is looking to demonize people exercising their rights. Fuck them.
The irony is that the newspaper, looking to demonize people exercising their rights, is looking to armed guards to protect them. The irony is extremely thick.
Wow. The cognitive dissonance must be killing you. You are trying to simultaneously believe that there are no known threats and that the newspaper is so terrified that they hired armed guards to protect them.
Dont forget Judaism as its where they ripped christianity from to create their own cult
it's not like Judaism was their sole source. They also added God having a kid, a dash of gnosticism, a quart of Zoroastrianism, a pagan-inspired virgin birth, two cups of demonic possession and a side Holy Spirit channeling. Whip until guilty. Roast at 425F for all eternity. Serve when Jesus comes back.
Maniciheans believed Jesus was divine and was the Son of God. That's Christian enough for me.
I think people get hung up defining a narrow scope of beliefs to define Christianity because they are a Christian and a lot of Churches have a "salvation by faith" doctrine so they think that people are saved by believing the right thing about Jesus and whatever they believe is (by definition) the right thing. So if other people believe quite a bit differently then that's not the right thing and believing in not the right thing won't save you.
But that it is a wrong way to think about things when you're classifying religions. Christianity is big tent and it's much bigger than you have been led to believe. It's distinguishing features are belief that Jesus (that dude who lived early in the 1st century and got himself crucified, was supremely holy and you can somehow leverage that holiness to get to Heaven. Some Christians thought of him as a supreme prophet who got the whole and final Truth. Some thought of him as a man who was enlightened and had special secret transformative knowledge and he passed that along to his disciples. Some thought he was a divine being who appeared to people as a human being and lived on Earth but was never really human. Some thought he was both human and divine, but there were arguments over how this broke down. Of those who thought Jesus was divine, some thought he was part of God and some thought he was a subordinate God. Then there's the Holy Spirit. The Eastern and Western churches had a schism over whether the Holy Spirit proceeded from the father or from the father AND the son. Some think it's another subordinate god. Some people think Jesus is the begotten son of God and some think he's an unbegotten god co-equal with the father....
The variations go on and on. And on. My point is, given the HUGE variety of Christian beliefs from which the particular form of modern Western Christianity you're comfortable with is distilled, it doesn't make sense to draw a line around "Christians" that doesn't include Mormons.
In contrast, some of the other religions (Judaism, Christendom, Hinduim, Buddhism) seem to have started out as attempts to understand the world and fill out holes of their knowledge... and then it grew from there. Sure, many sects and leaders have used these to the same ends as the two religions listed above, but at least they don't seem to be started by someone with a clear motive to gain from it.
The roots of Judaism and Hinduism are so far in the past it's really hard to say what their founders were thinking. Buddhism is a little better grounded in history and Christianity's founding is even a little murky. I think all but Hinduism could have been founded by crazy charlatans.
Actually, they haven't done that in over a century as far as I know, but it is documented fact that Mormons did kill some non-believers. They also kidnapped daughters of other non-believers and forced them to "marry" their captors.
The reasons the Mormons were forced out of the different states they lived in before they went to Utah had more to do with them being gigantic assholes and less to do with their wacky religious beliefs.
Yeah, UnitedStatesofAmericans did that to Native Americans, too. Start pointing fingers about that and you'll run out of fingers pretty quick.
And wasn't this thread about Scientologists in Belgium?
And who has the trademark on Christianity? The Roman Catholic Church? Sure, Mormonism is identifiably different from other brands, but I figure if they claim Jesus Christ was the most-holiest-person-EVER they're Christians if they want to call themselves Christians and if they don't want to call themselves Christian, they don't have to whatever they believe. Why split hairs?
Christianity isn't a specific set of beliefs and practies, it's a category of religions. Before the 4th century, there was a LOT more diversity of belief among people who called themselves Christians, e.g. Gnostics, Manicheans, Arians, etc as opposed to almost all other modern Christians who accept the Nicene christology and soteriology. Most the Roman Empire chose to promote the Nicene view I don't know, but that's the historical reason why most Christians today believe pretty much the same thing about Jesus.
Occupy Wallstreet was an astroturf movement, who the heck cares about an astroturf movement?
If the FBI was investigating it, who would be the group behind the astroturfing? Are you imagining it as a trick to bring out the people who don't support the government's policies so the government can identify who they are?
The reference is to Astroturf, a kind of artificial grass once used for sports fields. It means a campaign run by or at the behest of an organization to generate the appearance of grassroots support or opposition to a product or policy positions.
It's most often used in marketing, but also increasingly in politics.
Likely, but not necessarily. If a person or in this case more likely an organization or network of such is motivated to do so and has a little know-how, they can get around the blocks and get the content anyway, view it and generate a big old list of complaints. Or they can get a list of complaints from counterparts working out of a country where the service is not blocked and forward it under their names.
If the system doesn't have robust identity checks, email spoofing could be used to make the complaints appear to come from thousands of people whose names might be gathered from mosque attendance lists, customer lists from businesses, etc. They could be generated by malware on thousands of computers. There are any number of dirty tricks that can be used to create the illusion of public support for a minority position.
Bottom line, if a huge number of emails with similar content come in a gigantic surge, it's a big red flag that something is not on the up and up. I suspect that the authorities were duped into thinking that there was a groundswell of objection to YouTube when the vast majority of Pakistanis either want the service to be available or don't care.
But what they hell? If any Pakistani wants access to YouTube, why shouldn't they have it? My having access to YouTube doesn't hurt you, right?
The average Pakistani probably has no idea about any blasphemy on youtube, the people who are viewing the most blasphemy on youtube in pakistan are the people looking for it within the government so that they can block it.
"Innocence of muslims" has to be one of the worst pieces of film I've ever watched. It was quite clearly created to insult and enrage muslims.
However I would suggest to the Pakistani authorities that if they REALLY want to stop their sensitive southerners from getting enraged at the west, perhaps they need to have a word to their american friends about those drone bombers. I figure if I was in a targetted village it would be the drones, not some silly infantile troll video, that would be my major beef.
Bombing people is a Pakistani tradition. Especially if they're in hotels in India. Americans doing it is just joining in on the fun, isn't it?
Doesn't matter. The fact that they shut it down after 3 minutes means that there was a large number of people queued up to complain / issue threats before they even brought YouTube back on line. They crossed the censorship agency's threshold immediately and they began shutting back down immediately.
No, Somalia is what you end up with when there is no central authority or too weak of one to create order. With no lawyers what you get is authoritarian courts.
Infrequently. I've seen somebody get hit that hard a handful of times in 20 years. I've had to do it myself twice. (There have been other lower-level chastisements.) Once I was the point man for a major reaming of a contractor that had been deceiving us for months about multiple issues. The other time was a guy that had been concealing his lack of progress on a project I was directing.
When somebody has engaged in completely unacceptable behavior, it's absolutely necessary to do at least one of two things: (1) get them off your project or (2) otherwise make them understand why such behavior cannot be tolerated. The latter is only an option if you believe the person is able and can be convinced to learn from their mistakes.
Doing it by email is a mistake and Linus can be criticized for that and, IMO, that alone. This is the kind of conversation you have face to face if you can and by phone if you can't.
Regulating the price of milk is not their job. Making rules about how federal laws are enforced IS their job. Disagreeing with the rules is one thing. Whining about milk is just whining.
It's necessary to first do away with the notion that it is acceptable to kill (or even hurt) someone over a religious dispute, however serious, before you can make inroads on belief itself. Once that goal is achieved, the urgency of the latter seems a great deal lessened.
The people ready to kill over an insult need to be removed from society or chill out. It is an irresponsible and antisocial act to allow people to kill over hurt feeling. I find someone saying fuck jehova offensive but it doesn't make me mad and want to kill someone.
How do you propose to prevent people from hurting each other over bullshit? Really, what's your practical solution that isn't worse than the disease?
So in a world where there are people that will kill to protect slavery, slavery should never be criticized?
Being willing to kill to prevent something from being said does not make it wrong to say that thing. It just makes you wrong.
Nobody is arguing that kiling people who say a prohibited thing is wrong. Another wrong thing is a presumption that it is OK to push unstable people over the edge into violence rather than pulling them back.
Slashdot Mirror
What they published was already public information. How the fuck do you think they got it? Did jackbooted thugs working for a newspaper search your house?
There are no known threats. The FBI has laughed off the bullshit claims by the idiots that posted people's information. The newspaper is looking to demonize people exercising their rights. Fuck them.
The irony is that the newspaper, looking to demonize people exercising their rights, is looking to armed guards to protect them. The irony is extremely thick.
Wow. The cognitive dissonance must be killing you. You are trying to simultaneously believe that there are no known threats and that the newspaper is so terrified that they hired armed guards to protect them.
Dont forget Judaism as its where they ripped christianity from to create their own cult
it's not like Judaism was their sole source. They also added God having a kid, a dash of gnosticism, a quart of Zoroastrianism, a pagan-inspired virgin birth, two cups of demonic possession and a side Holy Spirit channeling. Whip until guilty. Roast at 425F for all eternity. Serve when Jesus comes back.
Maniciheans believed Jesus was divine and was the Son of God. That's Christian enough for me.
I think people get hung up defining a narrow scope of beliefs to define Christianity because they are a Christian and a lot of Churches have a "salvation by faith" doctrine so they think that people are saved by believing the right thing about Jesus and whatever they believe is (by definition) the right thing. So if other people believe quite a bit differently then that's not the right thing and believing in not the right thing won't save you.
But that it is a wrong way to think about things when you're classifying religions. Christianity is big tent and it's much bigger than you have been led to believe. It's distinguishing features are belief that Jesus (that dude who lived early in the 1st century and got himself crucified, was supremely holy and you can somehow leverage that holiness to get to Heaven. Some Christians thought of him as a supreme prophet who got the whole and final Truth. Some thought of him as a man who was enlightened and had special secret transformative knowledge and he passed that along to his disciples. Some thought he was a divine being who appeared to people as a human being and lived on Earth but was never really human. Some thought he was both human and divine, but there were arguments over how this broke down. Of those who thought Jesus was divine, some thought he was part of God and some thought he was a subordinate God. Then there's the Holy Spirit. The Eastern and Western churches had a schism over whether the Holy Spirit proceeded from the father or from the father AND the son. Some think it's another subordinate god. Some people think Jesus is the begotten son of God and some think he's an unbegotten god co-equal with the father....
The variations go on and on. And on. My point is, given the HUGE variety of Christian beliefs from which the particular form of modern Western Christianity you're comfortable with is distilled, it doesn't make sense to draw a line around "Christians" that doesn't include Mormons.
In contrast, some of the other religions (Judaism, Christendom, Hinduim, Buddhism) seem to have started out as attempts to understand the world and fill out holes of their knowledge... and then it grew from there. Sure, many sects and leaders have used these to the same ends as the two religions listed above, but at least they don't seem to be started by someone with a clear motive to gain from it.
The roots of Judaism and Hinduism are so far in the past it's really hard to say what their founders were thinking. Buddhism is a little better grounded in history and Christianity's founding is even a little murky. I think all but Hinduism could have been founded by crazy charlatans.
Actually, they haven't done that in over a century as far as I know, but it is documented fact that Mormons did kill some non-believers. They also kidnapped daughters of other non-believers and forced them to "marry" their captors.
The reasons the Mormons were forced out of the different states they lived in before they went to Utah had more to do with them being gigantic assholes and less to do with their wacky religious beliefs.
Yeah, UnitedStatesofAmericans did that to Native Americans, too. Start pointing fingers about that and you'll run out of fingers pretty quick.
And wasn't this thread about Scientologists in Belgium?
And who has the trademark on Christianity? The Roman Catholic Church? Sure, Mormonism is identifiably different from other brands, but I figure if they claim Jesus Christ was the most-holiest-person-EVER they're Christians if they want to call themselves Christians and if they don't want to call themselves Christian, they don't have to whatever they believe. Why split hairs?
Christianity isn't a specific set of beliefs and practies, it's a category of religions. Before the 4th century, there was a LOT more diversity of belief among people who called themselves Christians, e.g. Gnostics, Manicheans, Arians, etc as opposed to almost all other modern Christians who accept the Nicene christology and soteriology. Most the Roman Empire chose to promote the Nicene view I don't know, but that's the historical reason why most Christians today believe pretty much the same thing about Jesus.
Occupy Wallstreet was an astroturf movement, who the heck cares about an astroturf movement?
If the FBI was investigating it, who would be the group behind the astroturfing? Are you imagining it as a trick to bring out the people who don't support the government's policies so the government can identify who they are?
What the hell does an "astroturf movement" mean?
The reference is to Astroturf, a kind of artificial grass once used for sports fields. It means a campaign run by or at the behest of an organization to generate the appearance of grassroots support or opposition to a product or policy positions.
It's most often used in marketing, but also increasingly in politics.
Likely, but not necessarily. If a person or in this case more likely an organization or network of such is motivated to do so and has a little know-how, they can get around the blocks and get the content anyway, view it and generate a big old list of complaints. Or they can get a list of complaints from counterparts working out of a country where the service is not blocked and forward it under their names.
If the system doesn't have robust identity checks, email spoofing could be used to make the complaints appear to come from thousands of people whose names might be gathered from mosque attendance lists, customer lists from businesses, etc. They could be generated by malware on thousands of computers. There are any number of dirty tricks that can be used to create the illusion of public support for a minority position.
Bottom line, if a huge number of emails with similar content come in a gigantic surge, it's a big red flag that something is not on the up and up. I suspect that the authorities were duped into thinking that there was a groundswell of objection to YouTube when the vast majority of Pakistanis either want the service to be available or don't care.
But what they hell? If any Pakistani wants access to YouTube, why shouldn't they have it? My having access to YouTube doesn't hurt you, right?
The average Pakistani probably has no idea about any blasphemy on youtube, the people who are viewing the most blasphemy on youtube in pakistan are the people looking for it within the government so that they can block it.
I think so. In America, the internet is for porn. In Pakistan, it's for blasphemy.
"Innocence of muslims" has to be one of the worst pieces of film I've ever watched. It was quite clearly created to insult and enrage muslims.
However I would suggest to the Pakistani authorities that if they REALLY want to stop their sensitive southerners from getting enraged at the west, perhaps they need to have a word to their american friends about those drone bombers. I figure if I was in a targetted village it would be the drones, not some silly infantile troll video, that would be my major beef.
Bombing people is a Pakistani tradition. Especially if they're in hotels in India. Americans doing it is just joining in on the fun, isn't it?
This looks much more a well planed statement as a botched trial.
So it's exceptionally flat?
Only Allah could pass judgement and shut down YouTube in 3 minutes! Allahu Akhbar!
Doesn't matter. The fact that they shut it down after 3 minutes means that there was a large number of people queued up to complain / issue threats before they even brought YouTube back on line. They crossed the censorship agency's threshold immediately and they began shutting back down immediately.
No, Somalia is what you end up with when there is no central authority or too weak of one to create order. With no lawyers what you get is authoritarian courts.
Thus you need experts who understand the case law and are expert at arguing cases to the advantage of their clients.
A story on slashdot about a hardware patent? How can this be?
Infrequently. I've seen somebody get hit that hard a handful of times in 20 years. I've had to do it myself twice. (There have been other lower-level chastisements.) Once I was the point man for a major reaming of a contractor that had been deceiving us for months about multiple issues. The other time was a guy that had been concealing his lack of progress on a project I was directing.
When somebody has engaged in completely unacceptable behavior, it's absolutely necessary to do at least one of two things: (1) get them off your project or (2) otherwise make them understand why such behavior cannot be tolerated. The latter is only an option if you believe the person is able and can be convinced to learn from their mistakes.
Doing it by email is a mistake and Linus can be criticized for that and, IMO, that alone. This is the kind of conversation you have face to face if you can and by phone if you can't.
Regulating the price of milk is not their job. Making rules about how federal laws are enforced IS their job. Disagreeing with the rules is one thing. Whining about milk is just whining.
Helping the killers create the disorder in which they kill with impunity? I consider that antisocial.
It's necessary to first do away with the notion that it is acceptable to kill (or even hurt) someone over a religious dispute, however serious, before you can make inroads on belief itself. Once that goal is achieved, the urgency of the latter seems a great deal lessened.
The people ready to kill over an insult need to be removed from society or chill out. It is an irresponsible and antisocial act to allow people to kill over hurt feeling. I find someone saying fuck jehova offensive but it doesn't make me mad and want to kill someone.
How do you propose to prevent people from hurting each other over bullshit? Really, what's your practical solution that isn't worse than the disease?
So in a world where there are people that will kill to protect slavery, slavery should never be criticized? Being willing to kill to prevent something from being said does not make it wrong to say that thing. It just makes you wrong.
Nobody is arguing that kiling people who say a prohibited thing is wrong. Another wrong thing is a presumption that it is OK to push unstable people over the edge into violence rather than pulling them back.
I find it a useful thought exercise to presume that my computers are under specific, directed attack even though they probably aren't.