Don't hit this guy with too many facts. He lives 5000 km from the nearest subsidized healthcare and doesn't realize the implications.
I've yet to see the first country in Europe (all have healthcare) where docters have even basic authority over treatment. It's all decided by ministerial boards and such.
Miles and miles away from the nearest patient. One result that I know of : you have to go personally to a facility (with... stairs) to get a wheelchair. You cannot send your mother, for they need to verify (at the top of the stairs) that you are indeed crippled. No, in case one wonders, a docter's assurance is not sufficient. And this is not Cuba I'm talking about, but a modern, prosperous quite normal European state.
(and yes, generally they're nice enough to send someone down, but not always, and that *still* necessitates passing by)
I counterclaim that the non-uniformedness of the opponents is of no consequence here. If a party undertakes an operation that puts civilian lives at risk, the importance of the operation must be so that it justifies taking that risk. These are the principles of proportionality and the protection of civilian lives at work. It's called a war. If you're fighting close to these civilians, it obviously is important.
You're, after all, risking your own life for it.
The other parts of your response are mere conspiracy theories. Is this the best you can do? No, that's the best I'm willing to do. Your claims are too stupid to be realistic, your numbers inflated beyond recognition, and the sources for them are beyond ridiculous.
Another good point : why wouldn't some foreign government (or bin laden, he certainly has the money) just buy access to an existing botnet and just kill all computers on said botnet ?
That would be the american approach too, probably. That would certainly destroy a whole of a lot of people's communications.
This would be right after they created an unhackable computer, right?
Okay, if you crack the computer used for preparing (not issuing) commands, you'd have access.
But I've yet to meet the first important signing computer that is connected to even *one* other machine. To crack it, you need access to the people controlling it.
If you hack one client machine with the bot on it then you'd have conquered just that : access to *one* machine with the bot on it. Great.
Secure DRM is not possible because you cannot reliably destroy keys. Once that becomes possible (for example : using TPM) it will become exactly as uncrackeable as the TPM module itself.
If integrated into the center of the CPU, that would be *very* very very hard. You'd need (a) an electron microscope (b) a (currently unknown) way to separate the layers of cpu chips (reliably), somehow keeping them functional with only half of their circuits
It's not impossible to build secure DRM. It's not possible as long as root has unlimited power. This does not have to mean that the MPAA has to have root on every computer, just that even "root" cannot dump the MPAA's decryption keys.
And obviously, in demonstration stages, uncrackeable DRM exists. And yes, very very smart people have tried (using for example an electron microscope) to make equal quality digital copies.
If the TPM is inside the monitor and/or speakers (which is very easy to do on HDMI monitors), that would make everything except camera capture utterly impossible. Creating analog copies, obviously, will always remain possible.
The thing about this proposed botnet though, is that its control nexus can be known.
? What difference is there between something like storm and this ?
The only requirement is that commands have to be signed, and the commands have to explicitly specify an acceptable time range for execution. You could give a usb stick with a signed command to anyone who only needs an infected computer (not at all suspicious) to start the command implementation. You could start the command "destroy all of China's computers completely" within the Chinese government with 1 unguarded usb port, and they'd never know.
If you think tracing the control nexus is so simple, then tell me : what is the control nexus for storm ?
It is *very* hard to find the control nexus, whether it uses public-key cryptography or symmetric (like storm).
...wait, I take that back. Anyone stupid enough to believe that party defines a candidate's worth is stupid enough to believe anything.
Perhaps it has something to do with :
It's "news" that all governments are clueless and corrupt at times? Come on, you can't be that clueless.
One of the parties really want to make this (insert applicable adjectives here) government responsible dictating (and by being a government monopoly : limiting) what healthcare people receive...
How many people believe this to be a good idea ? Must be near 50%.
What's next ? No lung cancer treatments if you've ever smoked ? I wouldn't be surprised.
The fact that some of the acts of one party are forbidden, doesn't mean the other party may commit crimes in response.
Yes, I claim however that shooting human shields used by irregular opponents (non-uniformed or otherwise not clearly recognizeable or people who fight in an urban zone) is NOT a crime in the geneva convention.
The other parts of your response are mere conspiracy theories.
What about Geneva Conventions, 1977 Part IV, Chapter 1, Article 51
Yes what about it ? It refers only that an army has to respect the other rules, which includes the rule that if civilians are used as human shields by a non-regular army, the use of violence against said civilians is allowed.
If you honestly read the convention you'll see it comes down to "an army must give it's opponent the chance to face it in an abandoned area, away from any civilians. If (and only if) the opponent complies, civilians are protected from harm of either of the parties". If the opponent refuses to do this, whatever their base is, even if it is a child daycare center of unrelated people, can be attacked without recourse.
This rule was once considered as being part of canon law, and is distinctly Christian in origin (e.g. both Thoraic and Sharia law consider it an acceptable tactic of war to poison the water supply of an unsuspecting city merely because they *might* oppose you)
"Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited
Just "not caring" (ie not directly attacking them...) doesn't matter in the least.
Then why does Israel continue to give the Palestinians water and fuel?
Because they're Jews. The basic doctrine that makes them do this goes something like this (I'm no Jew, don't shoot me if I get the details wrong) :
The Jews work to be the best of the people in God's image, and one way to do this is to care for all living things within the provisions set in the Torah. All humans are to be cared for, including their worst enemies, and it is utterly irrelevant how much of the help is used to attack Jews.
That's why they provide the fuel that gets converted into kassem rockets and fired into Jewish schools. Because a lot of that fuel also goes into keeping kids alive on cold nights (despite the general opinion, it gets quite cold in Gaza, certainly as cold as in, oh, say Denmark, so you really, really need the heating operational).
That's why they provide hospitals for Gazans to give birth to the very babies that will be indoctrinated with Jew hatred in every mosque and every school in Gaza and the west bank. That's why they treat even terrorists who blow themselves up making explosives.
The same goes for plants in Israel : if at all possible, the irrigation systems are extended to sustain both agrarian crops and trees and whatever that grows nearby (please don't interpret this as that I say gazans and plants are the same, people *are* more important in Jewish/Christian doctrine than plants).
This attitude is the reason Israel looks like the south of France (every last tree in Israel is irrigated), and Gaza and the west bank look like the sahara, despite being about 10km apart.
Obviously you won't find this on CNN or the BBC.
Can we not afford our own fuel?
No. Gaza has an economy that AS A WHOLE makes less money than 1 average american.
Water we have nowhere from where to get
Have you noticed the mediteranean sea ? Israel also has to get it's water, except for portions of the Golan, out of the sea.
Yes you have to create power plants to desalinize the water. But so does Israel.
but fuel we can buy. So why does Israel keep us dependent on them?
Israel is not preventing anyone in Gaza from buying fuel across the Egyptian border. How could they ?
Hamas has blown up that border twice in the last year, which is obviously not helpful. But Mubarak decided to forgive and forget.
I want Hamas to stop buying Qwsam rockets and to start buying fuel. So does everybody else.
"Article One: The Ideological Aspects The Islamic Resistance Movement draws its guidelines from Islam; derives from it its thinking, interpretations and views about existence, life and humanity; refers back to it for its conduct; and is inspired by it in whatever step it takes."
All that hamas does, including "keeping you dependant on Israel" is only what (they think) islam requires of them :
"Article Thirteen: Peaceful Solutions, [Peace] Initiatives and International Conferences [Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion"
ANY peaceful solution is, to hamas, apostacy, it's against islam, which carries the death penalty as you probably know.
I happen to think they're right. Islam does require this of muslims. Therefore the solution for palestine is simple : drop this part of islam. And acknowledge publicly that you've dropped it. Whatever excuse you want, nobody cares, because it kills too many Gazans for example. Then Gaza can start growing and caring for it's people.
You might notice that NONE of the suicide bombers ever was anyone with even a minor rank within hamas. So if you think the leadership of hamas actually believe in islam, think again (and check their bank accounts).
This has got to be against Geneva Conventions. There is nothing in the Geneva conventions about computers. In fact except for the treatment of prisoners and civilians (and casualties) in war, there isn't anything in any of the conventions.
Did you know that they really don't protect civilians under "contemporary" conditions ? It specifically states that if "the enemy" (anyone whom you're at war with) does not clearly identify itself (which is defined to mean military bases OUTSIDE of population centers and CLEARLY uniformed troops) that civilians, enemy troops AND casualties are fair game ?
As in, if there is a faction using people as human shields, any army fighting them is completely within their rights to shoot all the human shields first. (think about what rights this theoretically gives Israel in fighting Gaza, they go above and beyond what Geneva requires of them, since a genocide in Gaza would be clearly within Israel's rights under the Geneva conventions)
Even in an open war a military is completely within their rights to let a civilian population starve. Everything except direct, unprovoked attacks is not the subject of the Geneva conventions.
The convention also CLEARLY states who gets to judge (obviously without possibility of appeal) whether the provisions of the Geneva conventions allow you to shoot a certain person : the field commander. His decision is final, and he gets to be judge, jury and executioner.
Besides, there isn't a single warring faction in the world today, except the United States (and Israel, Turkey and "maybe" China (insofar you call Tibet a war, besides I doubt you will find China respecting Geneva in Africa)), that even pretend to respect the Geneva conventions. E.g. hezbollah has declared upon multiple occasions that it doesn't, nor does it ever intend to (and then they say something about some prophet not respecting them as justification).
Lots of other warring parties don't respect Geneva : the islamist government of Sudan, Egypt (in it's south), Iran, Pakistan,...
Never mind civilian computers being fair game. These conventions date from immediately after WWII (not that anyone really thinks Hitler would have respected them if they existed, in fact he would probably have used them to his advantage, but hey, one can hope, right ?)
Also let's not forget, article 29(3) of the Human Rights :
"(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."
In other words, anyone attempting to abolish the human rights treaty (one obvious party would be islamists) does not have any human rights.
In practice you will find provisions like that in just about any constitution, in constitutions as varied as both the US constitution and the Iranian one (you know the one that requires the state to execute gays).
you risk having the CNC reverse engineered and the botnet might suddenly "belong" to someone else.
Only if you're stupid and use symmetric encryption. Such a problem would most certainly not manifest with a distributed public-key encrypted network. Obviously this is an area where even good organizations and intellient people have been known to have made utterly stupid mistakes.
But it is certainly possible to create an uncompromiseable botnet.
Actually, to be honest, I'm really surprised such a botnet doesn't exist already. Oh well, perhaps it's just one of the better hidden ones.
One thing bothers me about botnets though : they all seem to originate either in Russia or deep into China. Especially in China I find it very surprising that ip's closer to the command center of those botnets tend to trace deep inside China, and not to the coastal cities, where you'd expect the Chinese script kiddies to be.
So aren't we just kidding ourselves that other nations don't already have these ? Storm might very well be Putin's botnet.
He was commander of that army. He both ordered the capture of these women (as you say), he oversaw their imprisonment (that would be including rape), and oversaw their impregnation.
Talk about clinging to a thin thread.
Let's see who would have responsability : -> bush orders american soldiers to capture some random iraqi women because their husbands are socialists (or whatever political dispute) -> he orders them to be imprisoned, and somehow said soldiers want to rape these women, but they don't have any condoms -> they go and ask bush whether they can only rape them if they have condoms -> president bush states that they can rape away without condoms
Let's hear you say that president bush has no responsability at all for what happened to those women. Furthermore, since only ordering someone to capture women and stating that they can rape them if they please... do you have a wife/daughter ? Let's see you deny responsability of the guy that makes it happen to YOUR wife.
Because you are only motivated by wanting to say that there is nothing bad in islam. Obviously that it is permissible to impregnate and rape prisoners IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF ISLAM (which is the only truth), makes that a bit hard to defend.
But let's hear you say "if president bush orders the capture of my daughter, and when the soldiers ask him for condoms, he states that they can rape her without condoms, that he has *no* responsability for what happens whatsoever, nor did any of that imply anything. Nor will I hold anything said soldiers do after that against the american military".
Talk about clinging to a mere shimmer of a straw of hope. Man you are utterly insane. But let's see you say that you would accept the same excuse in real life. If you do that, obviously everybody here will know just how much of a lunatic you are. Even if you claim "that is a totally different situation", you'd show your utter ignorance.
You know how you know you're lying to yourself ? When you're making the other guys point for him. Let's illustrate
But here's the thing - the hadith you quoted isn't about rape, muslims only believe the strong hadith are definitive about what mohamed said or did or at most what he allowed to occur in his presence, not about what anyone else did.
So he allowed, in his presence, muslims to impregnate captured women, obviously against their will, merely because they politically disagreed with him and he was using them as political leverage against someone else. Come to think of it, that's one of the things terrorists still do today. And you agree in half your sentences that this is an essential part of the message of islam, the other half being incoherent "I don't think this is fair" cries.
I do not ask you to be politically correct. I ask you not to use direct insults in a conversation. Again, you have difficulty separating clearly different things. Perhaps re-read the next post you make a few times ?
Pay attention purple-dork - Mohamed was not asked if raping prisoners was OK. Nor does it say he participated, condoned or knew about it. Hell, Mo even ended up formally marrying one of the women captured in this particular battle - not something a guy does to someone he has treated like shit unless he's eeeeeeeeeeevil, right purple-dork?
Please elaborate a bit further. Who was commanding these people ? Who gave the orders to capture these women and -at least passively- allowed them to be raped.
Clearly this commander guy must have given his explicit approval to the practice.
If that commander were to be... you know... important or something that approval might... you know... mean something. Like Jesus refusing to stone that women, despite that being the common practice.
So... let's hear the answer, and this time without ad-hominems if you please.
Also please explain why you were so mysteriously in the dark about who this commander was, and why you thought that this specific peace of context was to be dropped.
It's real clever you know mixing two words. Really intelligent and stuff. What exactly does it contribute to the situation ? Do you think I will give you a free pass if you insult me ? That you know requires actual violence.
Is it alright to rape women you've kidnapped for ransom ? (in case anyone doubted, the muslim prophet answered this literal question, and guess what his answer was... Never mind whether it's okay to kidnap people for ransom in islam)
Let's see you defend that one. Btw, these are "sahih" (authentic) hadith, and they are part of the belEvery last one is accepted as an utterly moral beliefs of every last denomination of islam, including the "very moderate" baha'i and ahmadiyya sects. So please don't claim "this one is falsified".
I never said Muslims don't believe in the Quran. I am simply stating that the old testament has just as outdated lines in it and no one assumes Jews or Christians believe in any of them except a few fundamentalists. If you are so narrow minded to have never had the discussion with Muslims, then it would explain why you don't know that most Muslims do not believe in the literal meaning of those lines.
Again you start with unfounded assumptions. You really think I've never discussed this with muslims.
Here's how it generally goes :
"Is religious killing justified, for example killing all the men of a city and raping all the women, is that justified if they don't believe ?"
"No"
"So your prophet, who did this, is a monster ?"
"No"
"Here's the text describing it..." * (note that the muslim prophet started over 10 major military campaigns, and several dozen smaller ones, each ending in genocide comitted by muslims, so there's more than enough material)
"He did it with permission from allah"
"Do you haver permission from allah ?"
At this point you generally get a "yes", "only in islamic countries", or an attack (once even a physical attack), generally ad-hominem, or like you crying "mistranslation". It is not mistranslated. None of the answers are anywhere near remotely acceptable.
Please be a bit more careful with making statements about what I have and have not done. Why don't you try for yourself to discuss this with some muslims.
There is nothing wrong with teaching children that keeping to a certain moral code makes one better. That's the truth.
Unfortunately that's not exactly what islam is doing.
Islam teaches kids that they're superior, because allah has commanded them to kill everyone else. That they are superior because they can kill everyone else. That is a basic feature of islam.
Please don't equate "you're a better kid if you behave" with "try to kill everyone else, always use violence and always betray anyone different from you".
They are not AT ALL the same thing. Also we both know which one of these statements is Christian, and which is muslim.
besides the fact that most religions have lines in them like your quote from the quran (that most modern people don't believe), your classification of the Vedas is just ignorant (I'm not saying this with spite, just as a statement).
I am sorry, but once people start claiming that "muslims don't believe in the quran", I sort-of tune out.
So why don't you tell me why just about every muslim country still has a discriminatory legal system (or worse : death penalty for leaving islam) ? In fact, there have been lots of demands of introducing a discriminatory legal system in western countries. Just to give one example :
And there have been racist killings, lots of them, based on the quran in western countries.
I won't accept arguments that state that muslims don't believe in the quran. It's offensive, to muslims, and to my intelligence. Muslims do believe the quran is the literal word of allah. That's what they all claim, that's what they scream when they blow up some random families for imagined "crimes". That's what they say while they stone women to death in Iran. That's what every mosque service starts with : you can't just wave it away like you do.
As for blaming castes on the British, that's just low. If that's true, please explain why Britain does not have a caste system based on ethnicity (a factor you conveniently left out : castes are actually directly racist, as they're based on things like skin color and physical features : you are born into a caste and can never leave it. Being part of certain castes has an influence on what things are crimes in a lot of Indian states. That makes those laws directly racist : different laws for blacks and whites (literally))
This is your reply. These quotes are (in some magical, mysterious, and above all : unspecified and thus unverifiable way) mistranslated (which is the same as misinterpreted btw).
Explain to us how YOU can believe that those quotes, some of them mistranslated and all of them completely out of context, have any meaning at all except to provide you with a shovel to dig yourself deeper and deeper.
Ah so you agree completely with everything I say ? (you just "mistranslate" and "take out of context" the things you THINK you disagree with, we'll be fixing your idiotic idea where you think you have any choice in the matter with a "human-rights" court case soon)
Isn't that a nice way to argue ? I like it.
Oh wait, you also insinuated that I am evil for doing so. You are also the devil, sir.
By the way, where is your defense of christianity? All I see is you jousting at windmills and setting up strawmen about islam.
I learned from the best (you), that ad-hominems are the best way to respond to this sort of argument. You are completely incapable of understanding anything correctly. You are an idiot.
All I see you do is setting up straw-men around my windmills. Please stop doing that. It takes the wind out of my mills. Or at least make them smaller.
(If you respond with an actual argument, I will do likewise, perhaps you could start with why you think that literal quotes are strawmen arguments)
Christianity is not an exception to the rule, and certainly not an utter one. Your argument is biased and offensive. It is unreasonable to cast an entire religion as racist, especially based on one line with no given context. A religion consists of its holy texts, its followers, its prophets, and its history.
Fair enough : some context.
First, let's take a look at how the meaning of the quran is built up. It is the LITERAL word of their "god", and here's what he has to say about interpretation :
"[3:7] He sent down to you this scripture, containing literal verses - which constitute the essence of the scripture - as well as multiple-meaning or allegorical verses."
So this means the quran contains 2 things : (1) stories and (2) laws, to be interpreted literally.
Now let's give some context, shall we :
"[8:55] The worst creatures in the sight of GOD are those who disbelieved; they cannot believe. [8:56] You may reach agreements with them, but they violate their agreements every time; they are not righteous. [8:57] Therefore, if you encounter them in war, you shall set them up as a deterrent example for those who come after them, that they may take heed. [8:58] When you are betrayed by a group of people, you shall mobilize against them in the same manner. GOD does not love the betrayers. [8:59] Let not those who disbelieve think that they can get away with it; they can never escape. [8:60] You shall prepare for them all the power you can muster, and all the equipment you can mobilize, that you may frighten the enemies of GOD, your enemies, as well as others who are not known to you; GOD knows them. Whatever you spend in the cause of GOD will be repaid to you generously, without the least injustice. [8:61] If they resort to peace (as defined in the "dhimmi" system), so shall you, and put your trust in GOD. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient. [8:62] If they want to deceive you, then GOD will suffice you. He will help you with His support, and with the believers."
These are clearly laws, to be interpreted literally, stating that consistent violence is to be used against all who disbelieve, because "they are the worst beasts on earth". This violence can temporarily be reduced to only psychological violence (ie. threats and terror), but it can never end. Here's another nice one :
"[9:111] GOD has bought from the believers (the muslims) their lives and their money in exchange for Paradise. Thus, they fight in the cause of GOD, to kill and get killed."
Explain to me how you can believe this to be the literal word of god, and not commit acts of religious violence, because this is something I do not get at all.
The same argument (and worse) can trivially be made with the texts of the vedas.
It is disturbing to me that in your efforts to cast Christianity as the only non-racist religion, you have simultaneously cast Hinduism and Islam as racist in their entirety.
That *should* disturb you. Hopefully enough to honestly check for yourself whether it's true or not. To check this using actually valid references, to read about this, the history, the applicable laws, and what changed when and how.
Specifically of intrest to answer this question are the "dhimmi" system in islam (and how portions of it are applied by current governments, e.g. the death penalty for leaving islam) and the "caste" laws of pre-modern India. If you want to be truly horrified at how bad religious law can get, then check out the "honor"-laws, specifically about the resolution of murder between samurai and plebs, in the Japanese feudal period. Then compare this to, oh, say the Magna Charta, or canon law.
I hope you actually do this, and are not "horrified" because of simple facts. Nobody's horrified that the sky is blue, you should not be horrified that people of different cultures are... (tadaa)... different, and think different.
Hate crime is when an act was done in order to create hatred, violence or fear towards a group. When a white guy beats a black guy up because the black guy took his wallet that's normal assault, when a white guy beats a black guy up because he's black that's a hatecrime as it depends on an arbitrary trait of the victim that is shared with a crapload of people. Hatecrimes are worse than regular crimes because the perpetrator will likely do it again when encountering another member of the target group or may be attempting to get others to do the same.
So teaching someone from the quran, which contains the following statement, and states that it is to be taken literally, is a hate crime ?
Judge for yourself whether or not teaching this to 5-year-olds is meant to create hate :
"Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve (8:55)"
The vedas (hinduism) are, in this respect even worse, for they push ethnicity-based racism (the caste system).
Actually the inquisition regularly spoke people free. There are lots of records of this.
Not to be nit-picky. The inquisition was also the first court in history that would refuse to convict people before facing them : Before the inquisition, you accused some stranger in front of a "judge" (mostly the guy with the most swords at his command) and he would send out an army to go and kill him... or he'd kill you. Depending on whatever he liked.
*That's* what the inquisition stopped, that's what it replaced.
It's not up to our moral standard, but the inquisition was an improvement on what came before it.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't hit this guy with too many facts. He lives 5000 km from the nearest subsidized healthcare and doesn't realize the implications.
... stairs) to get a wheelchair. You cannot send your mother, for they need to verify (at the top of the stairs) that you are indeed crippled. No, in case one wonders, a docter's assurance is not sufficient. And this is not Cuba I'm talking about, but a modern, prosperous quite normal European state.
I've yet to see the first country in Europe (all have healthcare) where docters have even basic authority over treatment. It's all decided by ministerial boards and such.
Miles and miles away from the nearest patient. One result that I know of : you have to go personally to a facility (with
(and yes, generally they're nice enough to send someone down, but not always, and that *still* necessitates passing by)
You're, after all, risking your own life for it. The other parts of your response are mere conspiracy theories. Is this the best you can do? No, that's the best I'm willing to do. Your claims are too stupid to be realistic, your numbers inflated beyond recognition, and the sources for them are beyond ridiculous.
True enough, but it would not work if the bots themselves are running on uncontrolled PC's. You could then at least parse all the control information.
Then you could find out *what* (part of) the command is as it's executing.
But that's a bit like "hmmm it appears they're shooting at us" when rockets start exploding around you, wouldn't it ?
Another good point : why wouldn't some foreign government (or bin laden, he certainly has the money) just buy access to an existing botnet and just kill all computers on said botnet ?
That would be the american approach too, probably. That would certainly destroy a whole of a lot of people's communications.
This would be right after they created an unhackable computer, right?
Okay, if you crack the computer used for preparing (not issuing) commands, you'd have access.
But I've yet to meet the first important signing computer that is connected to even *one* other machine. To crack it, you need access to the people controlling it.
If you hack one client machine with the bot on it then you'd have conquered just that : access to *one* machine with the bot on it. Great.
Secure DRM is not possible because you cannot reliably destroy keys. Once that becomes possible (for example : using TPM) it will become exactly as uncrackeable as the TPM module itself.
If integrated into the center of the CPU, that would be *very* very very hard. You'd need
(a) an electron microscope
(b) a (currently unknown) way to separate the layers of cpu chips (reliably), somehow keeping them functional with only half of their circuits
It's not impossible to build secure DRM. It's not possible as long as root has unlimited power. This does not have to mean that the MPAA has to have root on every computer, just that even "root" cannot dump the MPAA's decryption keys.
And obviously, in demonstration stages, uncrackeable DRM exists. And yes, very very smart people have tried (using for example an electron microscope) to make equal quality digital copies.
If the TPM is inside the monitor and/or speakers (which is very easy to do on HDMI monitors), that would make everything except camera capture utterly impossible. Creating analog copies, obviously, will always remain possible.
The thing about this proposed botnet though, is that its control nexus can be known.
? What difference is there between something like storm and this ?
The only requirement is that commands have to be signed, and the commands have to explicitly specify an acceptable time range for execution. You could give a usb stick with a signed command to anyone who only needs an infected computer (not at all suspicious) to start the command implementation. You could start the command "destroy all of China's computers completely" within the Chinese government with 1 unguarded usb port, and they'd never know.
If you think tracing the control nexus is so simple, then tell me : what is the control nexus for storm ?
It is *very* hard to find the control nexus, whether it uses public-key cryptography or symmetric (like storm).
Perhaps it has something to do with :
It's "news" that all governments are clueless and corrupt at times? Come on, you can't be that clueless.
One of the parties really want to make this (insert applicable adjectives here) government responsible dictating (and by being a government monopoly : limiting) what healthcare people receive
How many people believe this to be a good idea ? Must be near 50%.
What's next ? No lung cancer treatments if you've ever smoked ? I wouldn't be surprised.
The fact that some of the acts of one party are forbidden, doesn't mean the other party may commit crimes in response.
Yes, I claim however that shooting human shields used by irregular opponents (non-uniformed or otherwise not clearly recognizeable or people who fight in an urban zone) is NOT a crime in the geneva convention.
The other parts of your response are mere conspiracy theories.
What about Geneva Conventions, 1977 Part IV, Chapter 1, Article 51
...) doesn't matter in the least.
Yes what about it ? It refers only that an army has to respect the other rules, which includes the rule that if civilians are used as human shields by a non-regular army, the use of violence against said civilians is allowed.
If you honestly read the convention you'll see it comes down to "an army must give it's opponent the chance to face it in an abandoned area, away from any civilians. If (and only if) the opponent complies, civilians are protected from harm of either of the parties". If the opponent refuses to do this, whatever their base is, even if it is a child daycare center of unrelated people, can be attacked without recourse.
This rule was once considered as being part of canon law, and is distinctly Christian in origin (e.g. both Thoraic and Sharia law consider it an acceptable tactic of war to poison the water supply of an unsuspecting city merely because they *might* oppose you)
"Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited
Just "not caring" (ie not directly attacking them
Then why does Israel continue to give the Palestinians water and fuel?
:
Because they're Jews. The basic doctrine that makes them do this goes something like this (I'm no Jew, don't shoot me if I get the details wrong) :
The Jews work to be the best of the people in God's image, and one way to do this is to care for all living things within the provisions set in the Torah. All humans are to be cared for, including their worst enemies, and it is utterly irrelevant how much of the help is used to attack Jews.
That's why they provide the fuel that gets converted into kassem rockets and fired into Jewish schools. Because a lot of that fuel also goes into keeping kids alive on cold nights (despite the general opinion, it gets quite cold in Gaza, certainly as cold as in, oh, say Denmark, so you really, really need the heating operational).
That's why they provide hospitals for Gazans to give birth to the very babies that will be indoctrinated with Jew hatred in every mosque and every school in Gaza and the west bank. That's why they treat even terrorists who blow themselves up making explosives.
The same goes for plants in Israel : if at all possible, the irrigation systems are extended to sustain both agrarian crops and trees and whatever that grows nearby (please don't interpret this as that I say gazans and plants are the same, people *are* more important in Jewish/Christian doctrine than plants).
This attitude is the reason Israel looks like the south of France (every last tree in Israel is irrigated), and Gaza and the west bank look like the sahara, despite being about 10km apart.
Obviously you won't find this on CNN or the BBC.
Can we not afford our own fuel?
No. Gaza has an economy that AS A WHOLE makes less money than 1 average american.
Water we have nowhere from where to get
Have you noticed the mediteranean sea ? Israel also has to get it's water, except for portions of the Golan, out of the sea.
Yes you have to create power plants to desalinize the water. But so does Israel.
but fuel we can buy. So why does Israel keep us dependent on them?
Israel is not preventing anyone in Gaza from buying fuel across the Egyptian border. How could they ?
Hamas has blown up that border twice in the last year, which is obviously not helpful. But Mubarak decided to forgive and forget.
I want Hamas to stop buying Qwsam rockets and to start buying fuel. So does everybody else.
They claim a certain prophet does not want this. Here's the way Hamas puts it in their charter
First, why they think the way they think :
"Article One: The Ideological Aspects
The Islamic Resistance Movement draws its guidelines from Islam; derives from it its thinking, interpretations and views about existence, life and humanity; refers back to it for its conduct; and is inspired by it in whatever step it takes."
All that hamas does, including "keeping you dependant on Israel" is only what (they think) islam requires of them :
"Article Thirteen: Peaceful Solutions, [Peace] Initiatives and International Conferences
[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion"
ANY peaceful solution is, to hamas, apostacy, it's against islam, which carries the death penalty as you probably know.
I happen to think they're right. Islam does require this of muslims. Therefore the solution for palestine is simple : drop this part of islam. And acknowledge publicly that you've dropped it. Whatever excuse you want, nobody cares, because it kills too many Gazans for example. Then Gaza can start growing and caring for it's people.
You might notice that NONE of the suicide bombers ever was anyone with even a minor rank within hamas. So if you think the leadership of hamas actually believe in islam, think again (and check their bank accounts).
Did you know that they really don't protect civilians under "contemporary" conditions ? It specifically states that if "the enemy" (anyone whom you're at war with) does not clearly identify itself (which is defined to mean military bases OUTSIDE of population centers and CLEARLY uniformed troops) that civilians, enemy troops AND casualties are fair game ?
As in, if there is a faction using people as human shields, any army fighting them is completely within their rights to shoot all the human shields first. (think about what rights this theoretically gives Israel in fighting Gaza, they go above and beyond what Geneva requires of them, since a genocide in Gaza would be clearly within Israel's rights under the Geneva conventions)
Even in an open war a military is completely within their rights to let a civilian population starve. Everything except direct, unprovoked attacks is not the subject of the Geneva conventions.
The convention also CLEARLY states who gets to judge (obviously without possibility of appeal) whether the provisions of the Geneva conventions allow you to shoot a certain person : the field commander. His decision is final, and he gets to be judge, jury and executioner.
Besides, there isn't a single warring faction in the world today, except the United States (and Israel, Turkey and "maybe" China (insofar you call Tibet a war, besides I doubt you will find China respecting Geneva in Africa)), that even pretend to respect the Geneva conventions. E.g. hezbollah has declared upon multiple occasions that it doesn't, nor does it ever intend to (and then they say something about some prophet not respecting them as justification).
Lots of other warring parties don't respect Geneva : the islamist government of Sudan, Egypt (in it's south), Iran, Pakistan,
Never mind civilian computers being fair game. These conventions date from immediately after WWII (not that anyone really thinks Hitler would have respected them if they existed, in fact he would probably have used them to his advantage, but hey, one can hope, right ?)
Also let's not forget, article 29(3) of the Human Rights :
"(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."
In other words, anyone attempting to abolish the human rights treaty (one obvious party would be islamists) does not have any human rights.
In practice you will find provisions like that in just about any constitution, in constitutions as varied as both the US constitution and the Iranian one (you know the one that requires the state to execute gays).
you risk having the CNC reverse engineered and the botnet might suddenly "belong" to someone else.
Only if you're stupid and use symmetric encryption. Such a problem would most certainly not manifest with a distributed public-key encrypted network. Obviously this is an area where even good organizations and intellient people have been known to have made utterly stupid mistakes.
But it is certainly possible to create an uncompromiseable botnet.
Actually, to be honest, I'm really surprised such a botnet doesn't exist already. Oh well, perhaps it's just one of the better hidden ones.
One thing bothers me about botnets though : they all seem to originate either in Russia or deep into China. Especially in China I find it very surprising that ip's closer to the command center of those botnets tend to trace deep inside China, and not to the coastal cities, where you'd expect the Chinese script kiddies to be.
So aren't we just kidding ourselves that other nations don't already have these ? Storm might very well be Putin's botnet.
He was commander of that army. He both ordered the capture of these women (as you say), he oversaw their imprisonment (that would be including rape), and oversaw their impregnation.
... do you have a wife/daughter ? Let's see you deny responsability of the guy that makes it happen to YOUR wife.
Talk about clinging to a thin thread.
Let's see who would have responsability :
-> bush orders american soldiers to capture some random iraqi women because their husbands are socialists (or whatever political dispute)
-> he orders them to be imprisoned, and somehow said soldiers want to rape these women, but they don't have any condoms
-> they go and ask bush whether they can only rape them if they have condoms
-> president bush states that they can rape away without condoms
Let's hear you say that president bush has no responsability at all for what happened to those women. Furthermore, since only ordering someone to capture women and stating that they can rape them if they please
Because you are only motivated by wanting to say that there is nothing bad in islam. Obviously that it is permissible to impregnate and rape prisoners IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF ISLAM (which is the only truth), makes that a bit hard to defend.
But let's hear you say "if president bush orders the capture of my daughter, and when the soldiers ask him for condoms, he states that they can rape her without condoms, that he has *no* responsability for what happens whatsoever, nor did any of that imply anything. Nor will I hold anything said soldiers do after that against the american military".
Talk about clinging to a mere shimmer of a straw of hope. Man you are utterly insane. But let's see you say that you would accept the same excuse in real life. If you do that, obviously everybody here will know just how much of a lunatic you are. Even if you claim "that is a totally different situation", you'd show your utter ignorance.
Let's see, I'm curious.
You know how you know you're lying to yourself ? When you're making the other guys point for him. Let's illustrate
But here's the thing - the hadith you quoted isn't about rape, muslims only believe the strong hadith are definitive about what mohamed said or did or at most what he allowed to occur in his presence, not about what anyone else did.
So he allowed, in his presence, muslims to impregnate captured women, obviously against their will, merely because they politically disagreed with him and he was using them as political leverage against someone else. Come to think of it, that's one of the things terrorists still do today. And you agree in half your sentences that this is an essential part of the message of islam, the other half being incoherent "I don't think this is fair" cries.
I do not ask you to be politically correct. I ask you not to use direct insults in a conversation. Again, you have difficulty separating clearly different things. Perhaps re-read the next post you make a few times ?
Pay attention purple-dork - Mohamed was not asked if raping prisoners was OK. Nor does it say he participated, condoned or knew about it. Hell, Mo even ended up formally marrying one of the women captured in this particular battle - not something a guy does to someone he has treated like shit unless he's eeeeeeeeeeevil, right purple-dork?
... you know ... important or something that approval might ... you know ... mean something. Like Jesus refusing to stone that women, despite that being the common practice.
... let's hear the answer, and this time without ad-hominems if you please.
Please elaborate a bit further. Who was commanding these people ? Who gave the orders to capture these women and -at least passively- allowed them to be raped.
Clearly this commander guy must have given his explicit approval to the practice.
If that commander were to be
So
Also please explain why you were so mysteriously in the dark about who this commander was, and why you thought that this specific peace of context was to be dropped.
It's real clever you know mixing two words. Really intelligent and stuff. What exactly does it contribute to the situation ? Do you think I will give you a free pass if you insult me ? That you know requires actual violence.
Is it alright to rape women you've kidnapped for ransom ? (in case anyone doubted, the muslim prophet answered this literal question, and guess what his answer was ... Never mind whether it's okay to kidnap people for ransom in islam)
Let's see you defend that one. Btw, these are "sahih" (authentic) hadith, and they are part of the belEvery last one is accepted as an utterly moral beliefs of every last denomination of islam, including the "very moderate" baha'i and ahmadiyya sects. So please don't claim "this one is falsified".
I never said Muslims don't believe in the Quran. I am simply stating that the old testament has just as outdated lines in it and no one assumes Jews or Christians believe in any of them except a few fundamentalists. If you are so narrow minded to have never had the discussion with Muslims, then it would explain why you don't know that most Muslims do not believe in the literal meaning of those lines.
..." * (note that the muslim prophet started over 10 major military campaigns, and several dozen smaller ones, each ending in genocide comitted by muslims, so there's more than enough material)
Again you start with unfounded assumptions. You really think I've never discussed this with muslims.
Here's how it generally goes :
"Is religious killing justified, for example killing all the men of a city and raping all the women, is that justified if they don't believe ?"
"No"
"So your prophet, who did this, is a monster ?"
"No"
"Here's the text describing it
"He did it with permission from allah"
"Do you haver permission from allah ?"
At this point you generally get a "yes", "only in islamic countries", or an attack (once even a physical attack), generally ad-hominem, or like you crying "mistranslation". It is not mistranslated. None of the answers are anywhere near remotely acceptable.
Please be a bit more careful with making statements about what I have and have not done. Why don't you try for yourself to discuss this with some muslims.
There is nothing wrong with teaching children that keeping to a certain moral code makes one better. That's the truth.
Unfortunately that's not exactly what islam is doing.
Islam teaches kids that they're superior, because allah has commanded them to kill everyone else. That they are superior because they can kill everyone else. That is a basic feature of islam.
Please don't equate "you're a better kid if you behave" with "try to kill everyone else, always use violence and always betray anyone different from you".
They are not AT ALL the same thing. Also we both know which one of these statements is Christian, and which is muslim.
besides the fact that most religions have lines in them like your quote from the quran (that most modern people don't believe), your classification of the Vedas is just ignorant (I'm not saying this with spite, just as a statement).
I am sorry, but once people start claiming that "muslims don't believe in the quran", I sort-of tune out.
So why don't you tell me why just about every muslim country still has a discriminatory legal system (or worse : death penalty for leaving islam) ? In fact, there have been lots of demands of introducing a discriminatory legal system in western countries. Just to give one example :
Canada
And there have been racist killings, lots of them, based on the quran in western countries.
I won't accept arguments that state that muslims don't believe in the quran. It's offensive, to muslims, and to my intelligence. Muslims do believe the quran is the literal word of allah. That's what they all claim, that's what they scream when they blow up some random families for imagined "crimes". That's what they say while they stone women to death in Iran. That's what every mosque service starts with : you can't just wave it away like you do.
As for blaming castes on the British, that's just low. If that's true, please explain why Britain does not have a caste system based on ethnicity (a factor you conveniently left out : castes are actually directly racist, as they're based on things like skin color and physical features : you are born into a caste and can never leave it. Being part of certain castes has an influence on what things are crimes in a lot of Indian states. That makes those laws directly racist : different laws for blacks and whites (literally))
This is your reply. These quotes are (in some magical, mysterious, and above all : unspecified and thus unverifiable way) mistranslated (which is the same as misinterpreted btw).
Explain to us how YOU can believe that those quotes, some of them mistranslated and all of them completely out of context, have any meaning at all except to provide you with a shovel to dig yourself deeper and deeper.
Ah so you agree completely with everything I say ? (you just "mistranslate" and "take out of context" the things you THINK you disagree with, we'll be fixing your idiotic idea where you think you have any choice in the matter with a "human-rights" court case soon)
Isn't that a nice way to argue ? I like it.
Oh wait, you also insinuated that I am evil for doing so. You are also the devil, sir.
By the way, where is your defense of christianity? All I see is you jousting at windmills and setting up strawmen about islam.
I learned from the best (you), that ad-hominems are the best way to respond to this sort of argument. You are completely incapable of understanding anything correctly. You are an idiot.
All I see you do is setting up straw-men around my windmills. Please stop doing that. It takes the wind out of my mills. Or at least make them smaller.
(If you respond with an actual argument, I will do likewise, perhaps you could start with why you think that literal quotes are strawmen arguments)
Christianity is not an exception to the rule, and certainly not an utter one. Your argument is biased and offensive. It is unreasonable to cast an entire religion as racist, especially based on one line with no given context. A religion consists of its holy texts, its followers, its prophets, and its history.
... (tadaa) ... different, and think different.
Fair enough : some context.
First, let's take a look at how the meaning of the quran is built up. It is the LITERAL word of their "god", and here's what he has to say about interpretation :
"[3:7] He sent down to you this scripture, containing literal verses - which constitute the essence of the scripture - as well as multiple-meaning or allegorical verses."
So this means the quran contains 2 things : (1) stories and (2) laws, to be interpreted literally.
Now let's give some context, shall we :
"[8:55] The worst creatures in the sight of GOD are those who disbelieved; they cannot believe.
[8:56] You may reach agreements with them, but they violate their agreements every time; they are not righteous.
[8:57] Therefore, if you encounter them in war, you shall set them up as a deterrent example for those who come after them, that they may take heed.
[8:58] When you are betrayed by a group of people, you shall mobilize against them in the same manner. GOD does not love the betrayers.
[8:59] Let not those who disbelieve think that they can get away with it; they can never escape.
[8:60] You shall prepare for them all the power you can muster, and all the equipment you can mobilize, that you may frighten the enemies of GOD, your enemies, as well as others who are not known to you; GOD knows them. Whatever you spend in the cause of GOD will be repaid to you generously, without the least injustice.
[8:61] If they resort to peace (as defined in the "dhimmi" system), so shall you, and put your trust in GOD. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient.
[8:62] If they want to deceive you, then GOD will suffice you. He will help you with His support, and with the believers."
These are clearly laws, to be interpreted literally, stating that consistent violence is to be used against all who disbelieve, because "they are the worst beasts on earth". This violence can temporarily be reduced to only psychological violence (ie. threats and terror), but it can never end. Here's another nice one :
"[9:111] GOD has bought from the believers (the muslims) their lives and their money in exchange for Paradise. Thus, they fight in the cause of GOD, to kill and get killed."
Explain to me how you can believe this to be the literal word of god, and not commit acts of religious violence, because this is something I do not get at all.
The same argument (and worse) can trivially be made with the texts of the vedas.
It is disturbing to me that in your efforts to cast Christianity as the only non-racist religion, you have simultaneously cast Hinduism and Islam as racist in their entirety.
That *should* disturb you. Hopefully enough to honestly check for yourself whether it's true or not. To check this using actually valid references, to read about this, the history, the applicable laws, and what changed when and how.
Specifically of intrest to answer this question are the "dhimmi" system in islam (and how portions of it are applied by current governments, e.g. the death penalty for leaving islam) and the "caste" laws of pre-modern India. If you want to be truly horrified at how bad religious law can get, then check out the "honor"-laws, specifically about the resolution of murder between samurai and plebs, in the Japanese feudal period. Then compare this to, oh, say the Magna Charta, or canon law.
I hope you actually do this, and are not "horrified" because of simple facts. Nobody's horrified that the sky is blue, you should not be horrified that people of different cultures are
Hate crime is when an act was done in order to create hatred, violence or fear towards a group. When a white guy beats a black guy up because the black guy took his wallet that's normal assault, when a white guy beats a black guy up because he's black that's a hatecrime as it depends on an arbitrary trait of the victim that is shared with a crapload of people. Hatecrimes are worse than regular crimes because the perpetrator will likely do it again when encountering another member of the target group or may be attempting to get others to do the same.
So teaching someone from the quran, which contains the following statement, and states that it is to be taken literally, is a hate crime ?
Judge for yourself whether or not teaching this to 5-year-olds is meant to create hate :
"Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve (8:55)"
The vedas (hinduism) are, in this respect even worse, for they push ethnicity-based racism (the caste system).
Which will do real wonders for the credibility of the laws and the institution enforcing them amongst all non-Jewish Canadians.
Obviously, these laws are broken and need to be repealed to be replaced with sane versions.
Or not replaced at all. Let people have their opinions.
Actually the inquisition regularly spoke people free. There are lots of records of this.
... or he'd kill you. Depending on whatever he liked.
Not to be nit-picky. The inquisition was also the first court in history that would refuse to convict people before facing them : Before the inquisition, you accused some stranger in front of a "judge" (mostly the guy with the most swords at his command) and he would send out an army to go and kill him
*That's* what the inquisition stopped, that's what it replaced.
It's not up to our moral standard, but the inquisition was an improvement on what came before it.
"Human rights" courts, are not.