When smart phones and tablets were having their best growth, we were getting stripped down OSs and applications... things were back to being measured in 'megs' instead of 'gigs'. They got smaller, and chucked the legacy bloat.
But now we're back to having full x86 architecture and Windows... because for some reason people want to cling to the decades of bloat we have and run Office, instead of actually deciding to take all that legacy crap and just destroy it.
If all we're doing is turning the mobile devices back into full-fledged PCs with the same OS... we're throwing away the progress when we got away from that in the first place.
The bloated carcass which is Windows on x86 has no place in mobile phones and tablets. All it does is reward dinosaurs who are incapable of actually innovating and coming up with something new.
The last thing I want is a phone spec'd enough to run a full version of x86 Windows while hosting a fucking Linux VM. It screams "hey, the hell with progress, let's make the same shit we've made the last 15 years".
The only way to fix this is criminal liability, with very stiff fines.
If they're going to continue to be incompetent at security, hit them where it hurts... right in the profits.
As long as corporations can say "oops" and just pretend that two years of credit tracking like this, nothing at all will change.
Until then, corporations will be as incompetent and lazy as the law allows... which is pretty much as incompetent and lazy as they want to be.
If you don't make the company pay actual fines, escalating to much bigger things for repeat offenses, corporations will simply do whatever their PR consultants tell them they can get away with... basically nothing.
Making the tools illegal doesn't mean people who plan on doing illegal things won't have them.
It also assumes that the best such tools come from America.
This is idiot lawmakers who don't understand technology passing laws trying to fix it. So, saying it's extra special illegal to break the law achieves absolutely NOTHING, and it prevents people from studying actual security holes because the tools are limited.
Can we make it illegal to be stupid? That would be awesome!
But the reality is from the description of this, the manufacturer has done a crap job of building the "networking" part of this, and if you start trying to be clever and hook it up to an actual network you might really fsck it up.
So, imagine some field tech decided he'd rather find a clever new way to fix things, and then hoses (pun intended) the pumps because he's doing something which the pumps can't actually be made to work with.
Who the hell do you think is going to fix it?
You can call it a networking problem, but I would suggest if the manufacturer has given them all the same IP address... these things aren't designed to be "networked" in any meaningful sense of the word.
Do you really want to run the risk of fucking up the pumps because you think you have a solution which works?
Because setting up a bunch of VMs so you can hook them up in a clever way and try to do this in parallel sounds like you have a better chance of it going wrong than going right.
It may use some networking technology in a limited way, but it isn't a networked device... from the sounds of it they use that networking port as little more than a serial connection. And if you start trying to connect them all at once with some fancy setup of your own, you have no frickin' idea how it's going to work or what will happen.
You don't want to explain to the gas station owner why he has no working pumps and why the company who makes them wants no part of what you broke by doing it in an unapproved way.
Actually, there were a fair few good developers on the project.
But either because the person running the project as agile was an idiot, or the developers got a little too much free rein... the project went to hell in a hand basket.
The devs started off saying how awesome it was they'd be doing agile development and how we should all drink the koolaid.
They ended up by saying how badly managed of a project it was, and how tragic it was they couldn't build what they'd set out to do.
So, Agile development has every bit of capacity to produce shitty outcomes. Because, as I said, Agile isn't fucking magic.
If you run your project as an open scrum with no rules, you might end up with shit results because nobody is enforcing an actual schedule with actual specified features.
Agile is not now, and never will be, a cure all solution. And it sure as shit isn't guaranteed to produce outcomes.
So when someone says "we should totally do this project using Agile methodologies" the question should be "have any of you clowns successfully done a project with agile?" If the answer is no, you probably shouldn't use it, because you're just being buzzword compliant.
I've actually seen R.O.T.O.R (the 70th worst of all time) -- trust me, it outsucked Batlefield Earth by a long shot. I've seen Leonard Part 6, number 59 on the list, and it was atrocious.
Hell, the 6th ranked "The Hottie and the Nottie" has Paris freakin' Hilton in it (who has 2 of the top 20). Fortunately I've not seen that.
You should really never underestimate how many absolutely terrible movies have been made.
English idiom connoting yet another impossible thing in a child's unrealistic wishlist... typically placed at the end of a series of outrageous demands: "... and a pony".
Now, please, don't make me pedantic you again to explain the cromulency of phrases.;-)
OK, grandpa, it's time for your meds again... look, Matlock is about co start... no, they're not on your lawn.;-) [ Wow, and actual 3-digit id ]
Honestly, for those of us old enough to still have a copy of Goldfarb's book, this has been the holy grail for a very long time.
But in practice, there's still no tools to convert all those formats to it, and most anything you do is going to be custom code.
As a system which takes other formats as input, docbook falls into the category of wishful thinking.
Even us old SGML geeks don't see it as really being a viable solution. It presupposes that all of your content starts in that format, and that's really unrealistic.
Although the application will need to allow uploading of.docx, doc,.pdf, etc, I'd like to store the documents in a standard open format that will allow easy search, compression, rendering, etc. Which open document format is the best?
Lets' see... you want to allow uploading in a large number of formats.. you want to magically turn it into a universal format... while retaining all of aspects of the original... and will be easily maniuplated... and you want it in an open, and documented format? And all for free?
I want one of those too. And a Red Rider BB gun with a compass in the stock and this thing which tells time. And a new skateboard. And a pony.
Honestly, you're asking for the holy grail of document management systems... the universal, lossless document format.
I'm not sure it exists. And I'm not sure companies like Microsoft or Adobe would allow it to exist.
But you know, development isn't about making developers 100% happy. It's about product.
I spent around 15 years as a developer, and now I'm closer to a PM.
Development has to have actual goals, clear targets, and measurable outputs -- because you're either writing something specific which has to work as designed, or you're releasing a version of a product which has to fix a set of things and add a set of features. Both of these will probably have deadlines.
The problem is when we see it as "we must keep the developers happy" or "we must keep the middle management happy".
You're all, in theory, on the same team. If the developers have no measurable yardstick to judge their progress, or middle management collects a bunch of meaningless metrics which don't help the development process... you're doing it wrong.
It has long been observed that managing developers is like herding cats.
Fundamentally what is happening is you need to ensure all of the cats get to the same place at the same time. Some cats, once they understand the goal, will plan their own route and get there in plenty of time, and will assist in getting some of the other cats there... others need to be dragged hissing and mewling to make sure they don't go off in random directions and not show up.
In my experience, some teams will organically manage their stuff, and others need a good swift kick in the ass.
I've met a few developers who need to have a little friction foisted on them, or they drift a little. And some of the best managers I've known are ex coders who understand this.
The trick is to fool the cats into forming a self organizing collective, as well as implementing ways to keep tabs on all of the cats to ensure none have gone chasing butterflies.
The specific methodology is as dependent on which cats you have as anything else.
Well... people will cherry pick what they want out of stuff, and will NEVER implement it all according to your perfect idea. Reality simply doesn't allow for perfect implementations according to an abstract theoretical model.
That is a 100% true fact. It's true for Agile. It's true for Waterfall. It's true of religions, philosophies, and all other -isms.
At the end of the day, someone says "but you didn't do all of the things I said you should and therefore the failure of my awesomeness must be in how you did it".
Which is convenient and all, but if your system comes down to "my idea is perfect but your execution sucked"... well, maybe your perfect idea is far too damned reliant on fundamentally unrealistic assumptions which aren't justified?
If your perfect abstraction doesn't hold up to reality, maybe it's not reality which is lacking? Or at the very least that your perfect abstraction is an incomplete theoretical model.
Yeah, people put it forward as some universally awesome technique.
Different teams, different projects, different management.. you can't simply say "yarg, teh agile" and have it work in all cases.
You don't see most other forms of engineering or building of stuff done in an agile manner.. bridge builders do not wait to design the deck until later, car makers don't just wing it an hope they'll be able to make the parts fit.
For rapid prototyping and some kinds of projects, sure.
But I've seen someone try to run a distributed project using agile techniques to build a replacement for a key piece of software with very specific requirements, and which needed to work against published interfaces.
And the end result was a project which produced a random subset of required functionality, was abysmally late, what it did do it did poorly, and then the project was cancelled. And as often as not the developers were writing the eye candy before the functionality, and adhering to the published interfaces was non-existent because the people involved decided to reinvent the wheel and decided that the existing stuff didn't matter... because apparently the existing stuff would magically take care of itself.
Agile is a tool in the suite of project tools... it's not universal to all projects, it doesn't produce perfect results just for being agile, and it sometimes doesn't even produce the required results.
Saying "we're going to keep throwing pieces at it and hope that in the end we wind up with what we were hoping for".
Like it or not, the waterfall method of development and project management still has its place, and it always will. And, likewise, I'm sure there are teams and projects for which agile will be an awesome fit.
And sometimes the people who decide which method to use are the least qualified to run the project -- I've seen developers insist on agile and fail to deliver anything useful, and I've seen PMs insist on waterfall and do a terrible job of managing it.
Even then, though, I'm not convinced you can have verifiable voting, even if you give up the secret part.
If a "secret magic number" is all that you have to confirm that a) it's the person you expect it to be, and that b) someone isn't forcing them... I'm still not sure you can put any trust in it.
So then you're dealing with not-secret, not-really-verifiable, still not secure.
Because surely we're not suggesting some PIN mailed to you actually proves that you are the one clicking the buttons of your own accord. It's not like those kinds of things don't have several places where the security falls apart.
I just don't think that short of some really invasive mechanisms (which would undermine the point) you can ever verify this on the internet.
Photo id in person isn't perfect, but it's quite possibly as good as you get without creating a system by which the government just needs you to submit all of your biometrics and have you vote under direct supervision.
Which undermines the whole point of a democracy in the first place.
It seems to me the activists at NASA underestimate global temperature and over estimate the movement of glaciers? You don't think they have a political agenda, do you?
It seems to the rest of us that whiny ACs and climate deniers who provide no evidence probably have their own political agenda.
This is why I don't let companies do ever have direct access to my accounts.
Not my banking accounts, not my credit card, not anything. Never. Period. No way. If a company demands this, I walk away from the deal 100% of the time.
Giving companies the ability to go in and raid your money is a recipe for disaster. Tying that ability to a phone or a gift card is even worse.
You have pre-authorized the bearer of that device to go in and take your money without any oversight or authentication.
I've known far too many people who have been screwed over by companies who insist on auto-billing but have subsequently demonstrated themselves to be greedy and incompetent corporations who take more money than they're supposed to. And then fixing the problem becomes a nightmare.
So, I'll go all boohoo for people who crave their Starbucks so badly they've created a loophole where their money gets taken without them knowing it. But they did it to themselves.
And I'll continue to say this is precisely why I would never use one of them, or any of the things like Apple Pay and Google Wallet -- because the chance of it being abused, stolen, subject to corporate incompetence or spying is so utterly massive as to outweigh any perceived benefits.
Unfortunately, those of us who warn about these things get shouted down as paranoid worriers. And then people get bit in the ass and we stand here saying "well, we told you so" and laugh at you.
We live in an age where convenience and some shiny bauble will make us do things which, if you really think about it, are pretty reckless. When that has unfortunate, but predictable, consequences... well, bummer dude.
It's a shame this happens to people. But it's not in any way surprising.
Unfortunately, like most Slashdotters, you think you understand Islam and thus ignorantly swat away the argument of someone who correctly deduced that Islam is completely political.
Bullshit.
Islam is completely religious, and to its adherents encompass all aspects of life... I understand this. I have actually endeavored to read about Islam and educate myself about it... as I have with several other religions.
But having religion encompass all aspects of your life does not make it political. It makes it religious.
So when you use the bullshit argument that "all of life in Islam is Islam, therefore if I kill you in the name of Islam it is political" you are lying through your fucking teeth. Because it is 100% done in the name of religion.
If the religion is the basis for the 'politics' (which is a white washed way of saying 'religion'), you can't turn around and claim its "political" instead of "religious". The two are completely indistinguishable.
So until your "politics" are separable from your "religion", let's be fucking honest here and say that you aren't acting out of political reasons, you are acting out of religious reasons, because the religion provides the justification and rules of your politics.
That someone needs to paint this picture to sound differently isn't my fucking problem.
But you cannot say "politics not religion" when the politics 100% derive from religion. That's an utterly meaningless distinction, and it's mostly a shell game to make it sound like it's not actually religion when it is.
Slashdot Mirror
And this is why we can't have nice things.
When smart phones and tablets were having their best growth, we were getting stripped down OSs and applications ... things were back to being measured in 'megs' instead of 'gigs'. They got smaller, and chucked the legacy bloat.
But now we're back to having full x86 architecture and Windows ... because for some reason people want to cling to the decades of bloat we have and run Office, instead of actually deciding to take all that legacy crap and just destroy it.
If all we're doing is turning the mobile devices back into full-fledged PCs with the same OS ... we're throwing away the progress when we got away from that in the first place.
The bloated carcass which is Windows on x86 has no place in mobile phones and tablets. All it does is reward dinosaurs who are incapable of actually innovating and coming up with something new.
The last thing I want is a phone spec'd enough to run a full version of x86 Windows while hosting a fucking Linux VM. It screams "hey, the hell with progress, let's make the same shit we've made the last 15 years".
The only way to fix this is criminal liability, with very stiff fines.
If they're going to continue to be incompetent at security, hit them where it hurts ... right in the profits.
As long as corporations can say "oops" and just pretend that two years of credit tracking like this, nothing at all will change.
Until then, corporations will be as incompetent and lazy as the law allows ... which is pretty much as incompetent and lazy as they want to be.
If you don't make the company pay actual fines, escalating to much bigger things for repeat offenses, corporations will simply do whatever their PR consultants tell them they can get away with ... basically nothing.
Once again lawmakers don't understand the issue.
Making the tools illegal doesn't mean people who plan on doing illegal things won't have them.
It also assumes that the best such tools come from America.
This is idiot lawmakers who don't understand technology passing laws trying to fix it. So, saying it's extra special illegal to break the law achieves absolutely NOTHING, and it prevents people from studying actual security holes because the tools are limited.
Can we make it illegal to be stupid? That would be awesome!
Yeah, I read TFS as a big giant "holy cow are police forces actually this damned stupid?"
How can these idiots take themselves seriously when they have such monumentally idiotic ideas? And why should they expect us to take them seriously?
But the reality is from the description of this, the manufacturer has done a crap job of building the "networking" part of this, and if you start trying to be clever and hook it up to an actual network you might really fsck it up.
So, imagine some field tech decided he'd rather find a clever new way to fix things, and then hoses (pun intended) the pumps because he's doing something which the pumps can't actually be made to work with.
Who the hell do you think is going to fix it?
You can call it a networking problem, but I would suggest if the manufacturer has given them all the same IP address ... these things aren't designed to be "networked" in any meaningful sense of the word.
Do you really want to run the risk of fucking up the pumps because you think you have a solution which works?
Because setting up a bunch of VMs so you can hook them up in a clever way and try to do this in parallel sounds like you have a better chance of it going wrong than going right.
It may use some networking technology in a limited way, but it isn't a networked device ... from the sounds of it they use that networking port as little more than a serial connection. And if you start trying to connect them all at once with some fancy setup of your own, you have no frickin' idea how it's going to work or what will happen.
You don't want to explain to the gas station owner why he has no working pumps and why the company who makes them wants no part of what you broke by doing it in an unapproved way.
Actually, there were a fair few good developers on the project.
But either because the person running the project as agile was an idiot, or the developers got a little too much free rein ... the project went to hell in a hand basket.
The devs started off saying how awesome it was they'd be doing agile development and how we should all drink the koolaid.
They ended up by saying how badly managed of a project it was, and how tragic it was they couldn't build what they'd set out to do.
So, Agile development has every bit of capacity to produce shitty outcomes. Because, as I said, Agile isn't fucking magic.
If you run your project as an open scrum with no rules, you might end up with shit results because nobody is enforcing an actual schedule with actual specified features.
Agile is not now, and never will be, a cure all solution. And it sure as shit isn't guaranteed to produce outcomes.
So when someone says "we should totally do this project using Agile methodologies" the question should be "have any of you clowns successfully done a project with agile?" If the answer is no, you probably shouldn't use it, because you're just being buzzword compliant.
LOL ... I thought that was Waterworld.
They only spent $44 million on BFE, after all. But, it might be the highest budget in the list of stinkers.
Not according to IMDB.
It's 88th.
I've actually seen R.O.T.O.R (the 70th worst of all time) -- trust me, it outsucked Batlefield Earth by a long shot. I've seen Leonard Part 6, number 59 on the list, and it was atrocious.
Hell, the 6th ranked "The Hottie and the Nottie" has Paris freakin' Hilton in it (who has 2 of the top 20). Fortunately I've not seen that.
You should really never underestimate how many absolutely terrible movies have been made.
Sorry, I interpreted you as saying we could have verifiable voting on the intertubes.
You can have anonymous (and therefore useless) voting.
You can't have secure and verifiable without draconian invasions of your privacy.
You sure as hell can't have all three.
English idiom connoting yet another impossible thing in a child's unrealistic wishlist ... typically placed at the end of a series of outrageous demands: " ... and a pony".
Now, please, don't make me pedantic you again to explain the cromulency of phrases. ;-)
Honestly though, I'm surprised this annoys the developers.
Mostly I've heard of developers asking for agile, and management saying no because it didn't seem to come with enough adult supervision.
I didn't. But google was "helpful" enough to throw up related images along with the search results.
And now I shall ever be traumatized that 'adults' are dressing up like that.
I can't simply unsee that. I'm going to make it the new Rick rolling ... just randomly stick in links to bronies. Spread around the pain.
OK, grandpa, it's time for your meds again ... look, Matlock is about co start ... no, they're not on your lawn. ;-) [ Wow, and actual 3-digit id ]
Honestly, for those of us old enough to still have a copy of Goldfarb's book, this has been the holy grail for a very long time.
But in practice, there's still no tools to convert all those formats to it, and most anything you do is going to be custom code.
As a system which takes other formats as input, docbook falls into the category of wishful thinking.
Even us old SGML geeks don't see it as really being a viable solution. It presupposes that all of your content starts in that format, and that's really unrealistic.
Nonsense, bamboo can't touch papyrus for longevity, and you don't need to worry about pandas.
Damned bamboo shills.
And don't anybody go suggesting cave paintings, it's a completely dead platform.
Dude ... can I point out to you that you got the reference and that many of us wouldn't know WTF it was?
So maybe your question is how many other Slashdotters are Bronies besides you? ;-)
And, for the record, I included that link because I had to google it to find out what it meant.
Now if you will excuse me I need to go apply brain bleach. The images which came up in that google search are terrifying.
Lets' see ... you want to allow uploading in a large number of formats .. you want to magically turn it into a universal format ... while retaining all of aspects of the original ... and will be easily maniuplated ... and you want it in an open, and documented format? And all for free?
I want one of those too. And a Red Rider BB gun with a compass in the stock and this thing which tells time. And a new skateboard. And a pony.
Honestly, you're asking for the holy grail of document management systems ... the universal, lossless document format.
I'm not sure it exists. And I'm not sure companies like Microsoft or Adobe would allow it to exist.
But you know, development isn't about making developers 100% happy. It's about product.
I spent around 15 years as a developer, and now I'm closer to a PM.
Development has to have actual goals, clear targets, and measurable outputs -- because you're either writing something specific which has to work as designed, or you're releasing a version of a product which has to fix a set of things and add a set of features. Both of these will probably have deadlines.
The problem is when we see it as "we must keep the developers happy" or "we must keep the middle management happy".
You're all, in theory, on the same team. If the developers have no measurable yardstick to judge their progress, or middle management collects a bunch of meaningless metrics which don't help the development process ... you're doing it wrong.
It has long been observed that managing developers is like herding cats.
Fundamentally what is happening is you need to ensure all of the cats get to the same place at the same time. Some cats, once they understand the goal, will plan their own route and get there in plenty of time, and will assist in getting some of the other cats there ... others need to be dragged hissing and mewling to make sure they don't go off in random directions and not show up.
In my experience, some teams will organically manage their stuff, and others need a good swift kick in the ass.
I've met a few developers who need to have a little friction foisted on them, or they drift a little. And some of the best managers I've known are ex coders who understand this.
The trick is to fool the cats into forming a self organizing collective, as well as implementing ways to keep tabs on all of the cats to ensure none have gone chasing butterflies.
The specific methodology is as dependent on which cats you have as anything else.
Well ... people will cherry pick what they want out of stuff, and will NEVER implement it all according to your perfect idea. Reality simply doesn't allow for perfect implementations according to an abstract theoretical model.
That is a 100% true fact. It's true for Agile. It's true for Waterfall. It's true of religions, philosophies, and all other -isms.
At the end of the day, someone says "but you didn't do all of the things I said you should and therefore the failure of my awesomeness must be in how you did it".
Which is convenient and all, but if your system comes down to "my idea is perfect but your execution sucked" ... well, maybe your perfect idea is far too damned reliant on fundamentally unrealistic assumptions which aren't justified?
If your perfect abstraction doesn't hold up to reality, maybe it's not reality which is lacking? Or at the very least that your perfect abstraction is an incomplete theoretical model.
Yeah, people put it forward as some universally awesome technique.
Different teams, different projects, different management .. you can't simply say "yarg, teh agile" and have it work in all cases.
You don't see most other forms of engineering or building of stuff done in an agile manner .. bridge builders do not wait to design the deck until later, car makers don't just wing it an hope they'll be able to make the parts fit.
For rapid prototyping and some kinds of projects, sure.
But I've seen someone try to run a distributed project using agile techniques to build a replacement for a key piece of software with very specific requirements, and which needed to work against published interfaces.
And the end result was a project which produced a random subset of required functionality, was abysmally late, what it did do it did poorly, and then the project was cancelled. And as often as not the developers were writing the eye candy before the functionality, and adhering to the published interfaces was non-existent because the people involved decided to reinvent the wheel and decided that the existing stuff didn't matter ... because apparently the existing stuff would magically take care of itself.
Agile is a tool in the suite of project tools ... it's not universal to all projects, it doesn't produce perfect results just for being agile, and it sometimes doesn't even produce the required results.
Saying "we're going to keep throwing pieces at it and hope that in the end we wind up with what we were hoping for".
Like it or not, the waterfall method of development and project management still has its place, and it always will. And, likewise, I'm sure there are teams and projects for which agile will be an awesome fit.
And sometimes the people who decide which method to use are the least qualified to run the project -- I've seen developers insist on agile and fail to deliver anything useful, and I've seen PMs insist on waterfall and do a terrible job of managing it.
Methodology is a tool, not a magic wand.
Wait ... what? They're going to charge my phone, with electricity, with no electromagnetic fields involved?
Now, I'm not rocket surgeon, but I'm pretty much sure that sets off my bullshit detectors.
What are they charging the phone with? Unicorn farts?
Even then, though, I'm not convinced you can have verifiable voting, even if you give up the secret part.
If a "secret magic number" is all that you have to confirm that a) it's the person you expect it to be, and that b) someone isn't forcing them ... I'm still not sure you can put any trust in it.
So then you're dealing with not-secret, not-really-verifiable, still not secure.
Because surely we're not suggesting some PIN mailed to you actually proves that you are the one clicking the buttons of your own accord. It's not like those kinds of things don't have several places where the security falls apart.
I just don't think that short of some really invasive mechanisms (which would undermine the point) you can ever verify this on the internet.
Photo id in person isn't perfect, but it's quite possibly as good as you get without creating a system by which the government just needs you to submit all of your biometrics and have you vote under direct supervision.
Which undermines the whole point of a democracy in the first place.
It seems to the rest of us that whiny ACs and climate deniers who provide no evidence probably have their own political agenda.
Got facts? Provide 'em.
Got innuendo? Fuck off.
But, Brett Favre is an alien. Everybody knows that. ;-)
This is why I don't let companies do ever have direct access to my accounts.
Not my banking accounts, not my credit card, not anything. Never. Period. No way. If a company demands this, I walk away from the deal 100% of the time.
Giving companies the ability to go in and raid your money is a recipe for disaster. Tying that ability to a phone or a gift card is even worse.
You have pre-authorized the bearer of that device to go in and take your money without any oversight or authentication.
I've known far too many people who have been screwed over by companies who insist on auto-billing but have subsequently demonstrated themselves to be greedy and incompetent corporations who take more money than they're supposed to. And then fixing the problem becomes a nightmare.
So, I'll go all boohoo for people who crave their Starbucks so badly they've created a loophole where their money gets taken without them knowing it. But they did it to themselves.
And I'll continue to say this is precisely why I would never use one of them, or any of the things like Apple Pay and Google Wallet -- because the chance of it being abused, stolen, subject to corporate incompetence or spying is so utterly massive as to outweigh any perceived benefits.
Unfortunately, those of us who warn about these things get shouted down as paranoid worriers. And then people get bit in the ass and we stand here saying "well, we told you so" and laugh at you.
We live in an age where convenience and some shiny bauble will make us do things which, if you really think about it, are pretty reckless. When that has unfortunate, but predictable, consequences ... well, bummer dude.
It's a shame this happens to people. But it's not in any way surprising.
Bullshit.
Islam is completely religious, and to its adherents encompass all aspects of life ... I understand this. I have actually endeavored to read about Islam and educate myself about it ... as I have with several other religions.
But having religion encompass all aspects of your life does not make it political. It makes it religious.
So when you use the bullshit argument that "all of life in Islam is Islam, therefore if I kill you in the name of Islam it is political" you are lying through your fucking teeth. Because it is 100% done in the name of religion.
If the religion is the basis for the 'politics' (which is a white washed way of saying 'religion'), you can't turn around and claim its "political" instead of "religious". The two are completely indistinguishable.
So until your "politics" are separable from your "religion", let's be fucking honest here and say that you aren't acting out of political reasons, you are acting out of religious reasons, because the religion provides the justification and rules of your politics.
That someone needs to paint this picture to sound differently isn't my fucking problem.
But you cannot say "politics not religion" when the politics 100% derive from religion. That's an utterly meaningless distinction, and it's mostly a shell game to make it sound like it's not actually religion when it is.