Did I defend extremist Muslims, the Taliban or Iran? Please tell me where I did. Curious, I get involved in Amnesty International in part to stop discrimination against gays, women, people of all religions and political background.
You defended the religion itself. The only thing that makes "extremist" muslims extremist is their adherence to that religion, and it's commands for massacring.
What makes a muslim extremist is islam. What may make a muslim moderate is, for example, capitalism (e.g. tourism).
The exact same goes for violent muslim regimes. What makes them violent is that specific religion.
So yes, you defended extremist muslims and sharia law. You defended the stoning of women. You see, they're both parts of what you defended.
You're like someone stating how he loves cars, and can't understand why people find it strange that you hate wheels and engines. The first does not exist without the other. There is no islam without sharia. There is no islam without stonings, "violent muslim regimes" and other reprehensible things. It just doesn't exist.
Firstly, most religious people nevertheless seem to have a functioning system of morality. They're typically highly inventive when reconciling it with their religion, reinterpreting and ignoring it as necessary to enable themselves to function as normal upstanding human beings. And that's just the ones who've gone so far as to actually read the text they're supposedly living their lives by.
In order for this sentence to be true, there needs to be a universal, singular and unchanging (over time) definition of "upstanding human beings" in a moral context.
That definition would form, obviously, an ideology, and a religion.
So what you're saying, in essence, is that it doesn't matter that people profess hate, and keep killing one another, in the end they'll follow your religion.
And that formulation exposes the statement for the stupidity that it is. There is NO universal standard for human behavior. There are religions (and anything that actively steers human behavior is a religion in this view), with consequences. Communism would be a religion in this view, as would capitalism, in addition to the traditionally accepted ideologies. This obviously also means that there are consequences to following certain religions. This makes one religion better than another. There are also consequences to your neighbours/"society" following certain religions, which is what makes some religions totalitarian and others support freedom.
Islam is a bad (has terrible consequences/quality of life for it's adherents as evidenced by the many failed muslim states) totalitarian (will be imposed by society with physical violence if given the chance, again see any muslim country) religion.
So why don't you answer the question. WHAT is that magical description of a "upstanding moral human being" that you claim every muslim will spontaneously accept in lieu of islam and it's massacres ?
I hope you have a DAMN good answer. I really do. But I fear the evident is true : that you're unable to imagine situations you're not directly confronted with.
Why do people hate others so easily? Is it the media, the propaganda, what? Just get over it, there are a lot people out there which are different than you but guess what, they mean you no harm. What the fuck is wrong with you people?
From the quran : "all non-muslims are the filthiest animals on the planet. When one irritates you, do not just kill one, but kill enough, so that they know their place".
(chapter 8, verse 55 and following).
This is not an isolated, lonely, out of context verse. The entire book is full of hate. About 2/3rds of the quran is devoted to hate against specific groups, including a few passages that institute hate of people with black skin.
And people think the bible is bad... and that muslims should be "tolerated". Tolerating muslims is like "tolerating" Hitler. Not tolerant at all.
This is a logical inverse error (p implies q, therefore q implies p).
And your point is a logical fallacy, because it deliberately obsures information that would render it invalid. Yes the absolute is wrong, there are non-muslim terrorists. However the point was simply : does believing in allah (the choice a muslim make), believing in islamic doctrine, make someone more likely to be a terrorist ?
And the answer is a simple, and overwhelming, yes. Maths has quite a bit to say about the problem, more than just "you can't reverse the decution". You CAN reverse the deduction, if you don't require 100% certainty.
In fact reversing the deduction is the very basis of everyone's spam checker here. Let's use Bayes theorem and calculate how much claiming belief in islam's paedophile prophet changes the chance of being a terrorist :
You have 2 partitions in the population that you want to compare for overlap : muslim vs non-muslim and terrorist versus non-terrorist. Let's say 90% of the terrorists are muslim (which is generous, since it's closer to 99% in the last 10-20 years) and simply fill in the values. Let's say there are 10.000 terrorists we should catch (which is most certainly an understatement), and 900 million muslims (which is certainly an overestemate if you exclude secular muslims, and the various sects that don't commit terrorism, in fact it might easily be only half that). 6 billion people alive (which is an underestimate, some people say 7 billion is already passed).
terrorist divisions : 90% muslim = 9000 people 10% non-muslim = 1000 people
So the chance that someone is a terrorist given that he/she is muslim is :
P(T | M) = P(T AND M) / P(M) = (9000 / 900 million) / (6 billion / 900 million) = 1e-5 / 7 > 1e-6
Given that someone's muslim there's 1.5 chance in a million that he is currently attempting to randomly kill others. (meaning in the US there are at least 7 people hard at work killing other americans for allah, given the 99% figure, that would be 70 people for america alone, and for europe the figures are just dismal)
Given that someone's not muslim the chances that he(/she) is trying to kill others is 0.25 chance in a million.
So there we have it : that someone's muslim raises the chance that he's trying to kill others randomly by a factor of 6.
And that's given very, very kind numbers to begin. If we were to take 99% of the terrorists as muslims, which is closer to the true numbers that would make muslims 60 times more likely to be terrorists.
You also, obviously need to take into account the absolute values of these chances, which are small. But clearly, bayes, a neutral system because it does not have politics, it is a fucking equation, would use the fact that someone's muslim to try and assess the probability that he's a terrorist.
It would probably be less important than someone's age (there has yet to be a terrorist over 40), but more important than his/her nationality or looks.
So there's the verdict : belief in islamic doctrine makes someone at least 6 times (and more likely 60 times) more likely to be someone who likes to randomly kill innocent people.
Microsoft won't be alone in that. Disappearance of microsoft will not be a happy event for nerds : it will be a disaster.
Hopefully consumers remain accustomed to paying for software even when microsoft dies, or the market that pays our salaries shrinks by 90% or so. Even if companies continue to pay it will still be a large portion that dies.
Your logic is the only one that's flawed. Clearly an indicator of how terrorist someone is is his (/her) faith. Or rather : his/her ideology. Compared to christianity, islam is a political party, after all. That's what "no separation between mosque and state" means.
Let's just do what any intelligent algorithm does : look at the statistics, and derive from there without ANY regard for any political sensibilities, current, past. Imagined or real. If it turns out that being a muslim is a good indicator of trying to attack innocents, then let's use it ! Why, exactly, must people die (that's what happens if security checks have a false negative), just so you can feel good about yourself ?
Let's just look at the statistics, year over year. The year after muslims stop killing innocents "for their faith", the searches of muslims stop.
THAT would be fair. Excluding them from checks would be stupid, dangerous and grossly racist (towards both them and everyone else).
After world-war 2 holocaust victims were imprisoned due to cholera infections. Not all were infected, but the tests were too expensive to separate the infected from the rest, so this added allied imprisonment was for more than a few of them a death sentence. And if they hadn't done that, several millions of innocents would have died in all major cities, because the economy didn't allow for any large-scale treatment of people. And they would have died for no good reason other than politicians feeling good.
Let's not be idiots, just because you're too narrow-minded to admit that, yes the obvious truth is indeed true : ideology matters. Religions and political theories are not equal : some kill to prove they're right. Some love. Some simply work. islam is in the first category.
And let's not kid ourselves, the faith that is eradicating black people for their skin color in darfur is not (at all) tolerant. Tolerating racist killers is not tolerance at all.
And this is *totally* safe right ? Inside the box is a 52,000 kwh magnetic field. Around that box we have metal (a car) and magnets (an electrical motor).
Does anyone really need convincing of exactly what will happen when the box is pierced by metal ?
Yes it's electrical energy, so the driver might get thoroughly cooked instead of thrown out of the car.
The problem with what you "advise" is that it's impossible for most people on the internet. 2 factor security is prohibitiverly expensive for just about everyone. The only thing semi-doable for personal security is using an rfid token.
You cannot secure websites or fora using 2 factor security. It's not reasonable. Therefore, the hash is all you have.
But salting only protects against rainbow tables. It does not protect -at all- against, say a wordlist or brute force attack, nor does it slow that attack down.
In other words, salting or no salting, weak password are easily cracked given the hash.
With a salt you encrypt "$salt$password" and then store both the result and the salt : "$salt$hash"
You can prove security by using information theory. For example, it is trivial to prove that OTP's the length of the plaintext are secure.
There's just not enough information to hack anything at all. Every last bit is random.
The problem is that you want to encrypt 512 gig of known data using a 1kb key and still have it impossible to determinte the key given both the ciphertext and the plaintext.
That said, many algorithms (including DES) are known to be secure IF the plaintext (what you encrypt) is kept secret (CBC variant, obviously ECB is not).
Of course "plaintext kept secret" means SECRET. In other words if the plaintext starts with "GET / HTTP/1.1" 50% of the time (like any VPN connection), it's not secret. Secret means that there isn't a single predictable bit in the plaintext, which tends to be a rather harsh demand (although zipping plaintext first really adds a lot to the security in practice).
Well Obama supporters not only used government resources to find "Joe the plumber", they did so -> illegaly (violating privacy) -> on multiple locations -> multiple times
And news organisations accepted and reported the stolen information.
Politics suck. Obamatrons and Huckabots alike.
Besides even internal wikipedia pages (why don't you check the page about wikipedia's "honorable" founder) are fucked up by politics and threats. The amount of people getting banned for saying something bad about wikipedia itself is over a hundred now.
People should remember what wikipedia gives them : the opinion of the loudest minority. The politically correct "improved truth". Nothing more. Nothing else.
You can say that, but Japan has the longest lifespan in the world, specifically because of how they handle their health care. So the principal you cite is clearly flawed.
Humor us, tell us what healthcare has to do with battery manufacturing.
Also one white raven does not mean that they're not black. You could disagree with that statement of course. If not we could say "look what happened to the soviet social care system". And point to the 100 million dead.
Not a single argument raised. Ad-hominems, insults, "the past"... obviously any references are "mysteriously" absent.
As for "playing my game" : you seem more than willing to. Personally I think idiotic, weak responses avoiding everything like yours do more to convince people of the truth than anything else.
And as for your last inquiry : no I do not remember you. Why, exactly, should I bother ? There are millions of idiots just like you on the internet. Most are more fun than you.
Muslims are the filthiest animals on earth (literally from the quran, 8:55, with "infidels" replaced by "muslims")
(do you think this - and by this, i mean by extention the quran - is racist ?)
Extremists like you are exactly the same as muslim extremists.
Comments on slashdot are "exactly" the same as continuous massacres. Do you seriously believe this ? I could say your comment insults me, therefore justifying me massacring your entire family. After all, "it's exactly the same".
Your comment insults me, for calling attention to the plain ruthless facts. I even point to primary sources. And you'd rather deny primary sources, because that makes the world so much more comfortable. And then you call me extremist, setting me on equal moral footing as a paedophilic massacrer for... making a comment ? Are you insane ?
It's funny how you never actually challenge the facts. They just have to be different (or what ? you're going to cry ?). Of course you "just don't care". Making the point that assing about people unwilling to fight for their freedom that much stronger. People like you complaining about freedom in China is beyond ridiculous. If you were Chinese, you'd refuse to believe you don't have freedom. If you lived in saudi arabia you'd justify stonings, claim they make women more free. Because to do otherwise, would be "extremist".
You won't even believe that fighting for freedom is necessary. That's "extremist" nonsense. And most people "just don't care".
That last part might be true. But for all our sakes, I hope that it's not.
The truth is simple : you're a coward. Denying reality so you can "just not care".
You know that islam actually has content. It's not just a name. Being a muslim means considering this a virtue. This act is as influential on muslims as Jesus' not throwing stones was on christians. Of course the paedophile prophet has his opinion on the matter.
Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) came to the Jews and said: What do you find in Torah for one who commits adultery? They said: We darken their faces and make them ride on the donkey with their faces turned to the opposite direction (and their backs touching each other), and then they are taken round (the city). He said: Bring Torah if you are truthful. They brought it and recited it until when they came to the verse pertaining to stoning, the person who was reading placed his hand on the verse pertaining to stoning, and read (only that which was) between his hands and what was subsequent to that. Abdullah b. Salim who was at that time with the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Command him (the reciter) to lift his hand. He lifted it and there was, underneath that, the verse pertaining to stoning. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) pronounced judgment about both of them and they were stoned. Abdullah b. 'Umar said: I was one of those who stoned them, and I saw him (the Jew) protecting her (the Jewess) with his body.
He is, after "Hitler's mufti" (google it) of course, the most influential 20th century imam.
Please explain how any of this lays "blame for everything" at the feet of muslims. I merely state a few facts of their moral system, nothing more.
That you are afraid of the truth is your problem, not mine. Facts are facts. These facts don't change (that was, after all, the purpose of writing them down). That they're "inconvenient truths" and quickly end any discussion about whether muslims should be allowed to carry out "religious duties", even among muslims themselves*, does not change them.
* many muslims, obviously, want out. But that carries the death penalty in the paedophilic religion.
Heh, merely a refusal to die for the freedom that created "the west".
And given how the media portrays the us, which is almost equal to "the west", who can possibly blame them ? You are americans, according to time magazine, you are oppressors, oil thieves, baby killers, prison rapists, invaders, torturers (of innocent terrorists) and worse. And no, they do not mean us soldiers or any president, they mean americans.
So why would anyone want to die to become the same thing ?
It's all a lie, obviously. Because otherwise they'd have to blame, oh, say muslims, for what... muslims... did. But everybody knows perfectly well it's a lie. Of course it just so happens that this islam thing really does encourage the rape of children, after all a certain massacrer did so. But no, it's americans, the people who read this, who are monsters, who rape innocent iraqi girls in us prisons.
So nobody wants to die for freedom. And that's what it takes... that's what it took even in America... that's what it takes in China. Go talk to a Chinese kid, there are plenty in any college or university, and you'll see the truth in this.
Did you write the actual code that evaluated the problem ?
If so, you only passed parts of the thinking to the computer. Lots of people have computers do more these days (like giving them any combination of dozens upon dozens of algorithms to choose from).
Slashdot Mirror
Did I defend extremist Muslims, the Taliban or Iran? Please tell me where I did. Curious, I get involved in Amnesty International in part to stop discrimination against gays, women, people of all religions and political background.
You defended the religion itself. The only thing that makes "extremist" muslims extremist is their adherence to that religion, and it's commands for massacring.
What makes a muslim extremist is islam. What may make a muslim moderate is, for example, capitalism (e.g. tourism).
The exact same goes for violent muslim regimes. What makes them violent is that specific religion.
So yes, you defended extremist muslims and sharia law. You defended the stoning of women. You see, they're both parts of what you defended.
You're like someone stating how he loves cars, and can't understand why people find it strange that you hate wheels and engines. The first does not exist without the other. There is no islam without sharia. There is no islam without stonings, "violent muslim regimes" and other reprehensible things. It just doesn't exist.
Firstly, most religious people nevertheless seem to have a functioning system of morality. They're typically highly inventive when reconciling it with their religion, reinterpreting and ignoring it as necessary to enable themselves to function as normal upstanding human beings. And that's just the ones who've gone so far as to actually read the text they're supposedly living their lives by.
In order for this sentence to be true, there needs to be a universal, singular and unchanging (over time) definition of "upstanding human beings" in a moral context.
That definition would form, obviously, an ideology, and a religion.
So what you're saying, in essence, is that it doesn't matter that people profess hate, and keep killing one another, in the end they'll follow your religion.
And that formulation exposes the statement for the stupidity that it is. There is NO universal standard for human behavior. There are religions (and anything that actively steers human behavior is a religion in this view), with consequences. Communism would be a religion in this view, as would capitalism, in addition to the traditionally accepted ideologies. This obviously also means that there are consequences to following certain religions. This makes one religion better than another. There are also consequences to your neighbours/"society" following certain religions, which is what makes some religions totalitarian and others support freedom.
Islam is a bad (has terrible consequences/quality of life for it's adherents as evidenced by the many failed muslim states) totalitarian (will be imposed by society with physical violence if given the chance, again see any muslim country) religion.
So why don't you answer the question. WHAT is that magical description of a "upstanding moral human being" that you claim every muslim will spontaneously accept in lieu of islam and it's massacres ?
I hope you have a DAMN good answer. I really do. But I fear the evident is true : that you're unable to imagine situations you're not directly confronted with.
Search "pact of Umar" for the definition of "peace". Google it.
The peace minorities have under muslim rule is like the peace jews had under nazi rule. It certainly was peaceful, in the end, on the many graveyards.
Why do people hate others so easily? Is it the media, the propaganda, what? Just get over it, there are a lot people out there which are different than you but guess what, they mean you no harm. What the fuck is wrong with you people?
From the quran : "all non-muslims are the filthiest animals on the planet. When one irritates you, do not just kill one, but kill enough, so that they know their place".
(chapter 8, verse 55 and following).
This is not an isolated, lonely, out of context verse. The entire book is full of hate. About 2/3rds of the quran is devoted to hate against specific groups, including a few passages that institute hate of people with black skin.
And people think the bible is bad ... and that muslims should be "tolerated". Tolerating muslims is like "tolerating" Hitler. Not tolerant at all.
This is a logical inverse error (p implies q, therefore q implies p).
And your point is a logical fallacy, because it deliberately obsures information that would render it invalid. Yes the absolute is wrong, there are non-muslim terrorists. However the point was simply : does believing in allah (the choice a muslim make), believing in islamic doctrine, make someone more likely to be a terrorist ?
And the answer is a simple, and overwhelming, yes. Maths has quite a bit to say about the problem, more than just "you can't reverse the decution". You CAN reverse the deduction, if you don't require 100% certainty.
In fact reversing the deduction is the very basis of everyone's spam checker here. Let's use Bayes theorem and calculate how much claiming belief in islam's paedophile prophet changes the chance of being a terrorist :
You have 2 partitions in the population that you want to compare for overlap : muslim vs non-muslim and terrorist versus non-terrorist. Let's say 90% of the terrorists are muslim (which is generous, since it's closer to 99% in the last 10-20 years) and simply fill in the values. Let's say there are 10.000 terrorists we should catch (which is most certainly an understatement), and 900 million muslims (which is certainly an overestemate if you exclude secular muslims, and the various sects that don't commit terrorism, in fact it might easily be only half that). 6 billion people alive (which is an underestimate, some people say 7 billion is already passed).
terrorist divisions :
90% muslim = 9000 people
10% non-muslim = 1000 people
So the chance that someone is a terrorist given that he/she is muslim is :
P(T | M) = P(T AND M) / P(M) = (9000 / 900 million) / (6 billion / 900 million) = 1e-5 / 7 > 1e-6
Given that someone's muslim there's 1.5 chance in a million that he is currently attempting to randomly kill others. (meaning in the US there are at least 7 people hard at work killing other americans for allah, given the 99% figure, that would be 70 people for america alone, and for europe the figures are just dismal)
P(T | NM) = P(T AND NM) / P(NM) = (1000/5100000000) / (5100000000/6000000000) = 1.960784313725490196e-07 / 0.85 = 2.3e-7
Given that someone's not muslim the chances that he(/she) is trying to kill others is 0.25 chance in a million.
So there we have it : that someone's muslim raises the chance that he's trying to kill others randomly by a factor of 6.
And that's given very, very kind numbers to begin. If we were to take 99% of the terrorists as muslims, which is closer to the true numbers that would make muslims 60 times more likely to be terrorists.
You also, obviously need to take into account the absolute values of these chances, which are small. But clearly, bayes, a neutral system because it does not have politics, it is a fucking equation, would use the fact that someone's muslim to try and assess the probability that he's a terrorist.
It would probably be less important than someone's age (there has yet to be a terrorist over 40), but more important than his/her nationality or looks.
So there's the verdict : belief in islamic doctrine makes someone at least 6 times (and more likely 60 times) more likely to be someone who likes to randomly kill innocent people.
Microsoft won't be alone in that. Disappearance of microsoft will not be a happy event for nerds : it will be a disaster.
Hopefully consumers remain accustomed to paying for software even when microsoft dies, or the market that pays our salaries shrinks by 90% or so. Even if companies continue to pay it will still be a large portion that dies.
It will not at all be a happy event.
Your logic is the only one that's flawed. Clearly an indicator of how terrorist someone is is his (/her) faith. Or rather : his/her ideology. Compared to christianity, islam is a political party, after all. That's what "no separation between mosque and state" means.
Let's just do what any intelligent algorithm does : look at the statistics, and derive from there without ANY regard for any political sensibilities, current, past. Imagined or real. If it turns out that being a muslim is a good indicator of trying to attack innocents, then let's use it ! Why, exactly, must people die (that's what happens if security checks have a false negative), just so you can feel good about yourself ?
Let's just look at the statistics, year over year. The year after muslims stop killing innocents "for their faith", the searches of muslims stop.
THAT would be fair. Excluding them from checks would be stupid, dangerous and grossly racist (towards both them and everyone else).
After world-war 2 holocaust victims were imprisoned due to cholera infections. Not all were infected, but the tests were too expensive to separate the infected from the rest, so this added allied imprisonment was for more than a few of them a death sentence. And if they hadn't done that, several millions of innocents would have died in all major cities, because the economy didn't allow for any large-scale treatment of people. And they would have died for no good reason other than politicians feeling good.
Let's not be idiots, just because you're too narrow-minded to admit that, yes the obvious truth is indeed true : ideology matters. Religions and political theories are not equal : some kill to prove they're right. Some love. Some simply work. islam is in the first category.
And let's not kid ourselves, the faith that is eradicating black people for their skin color in darfur is not (at all) tolerant. Tolerating racist killers is not tolerance at all.
Vmware is complicated, doesn't always work. New versions. License files. ...
And virtualbox ? apt-get install virtualbox
done/done
Perhaps you'd consider reading exactly how charge is stored in a capacitor (in a ... <tadaa> magnetic field).
You could of course power a laptop with a wireless 3g connection (60W) for 50000/60 hour = 1.5 months. Given occasional microwave use, say 1 month.
And this is *totally* safe right ? Inside the box is a 52,000 kwh magnetic field. Around that box we have metal (a car) and magnets (an electrical motor).
Does anyone really need convincing of exactly what will happen when the box is pierced by metal ?
Yes it's electrical energy, so the driver might get thoroughly cooked instead of thrown out of the car.
The problem with what you "advise" is that it's impossible for most people on the internet. 2 factor security is prohibitiverly expensive for just about everyone. The only thing semi-doable for personal security is using an rfid token.
You cannot secure websites or fora using 2 factor security. It's not reasonable. Therefore, the hash is all you have.
But salting only protects against rainbow tables. It does not protect -at all- against, say a wordlist or brute force attack, nor does it slow that attack down.
In other words, salting or no salting, weak password are easily cracked given the hash.
With a salt you encrypt "$salt$password" and then store both the result and the salt : "$salt$hash"
This is only true if you consider math to be "discovered" as opposed to "made".
That way the cracks were only "non-existant" in the same way america was non-existant in the 14th century.
You can prove security by using information theory. For example, it is trivial to prove that OTP's the length of the plaintext are secure.
There's just not enough information to hack anything at all. Every last bit is random.
The problem is that you want to encrypt 512 gig of known data using a 1kb key and still have it impossible to determinte the key given both the ciphertext and the plaintext.
That said, many algorithms (including DES) are known to be secure IF the plaintext (what you encrypt) is kept secret (CBC variant, obviously ECB is not).
Of course "plaintext kept secret" means SECRET. In other words if the plaintext starts with "GET / HTTP/1.1" 50% of the time (like any VPN connection), it's not secret. Secret means that there isn't a single predictable bit in the plaintext, which tends to be a rather harsh demand (although zipping plaintext first really adds a lot to the security in practice).
Obama's campaigns don't have access to Ohio government resources like some in
So what exactly would you call access to the state's driving license database for critics of their campaign ?
Ebay must be truly grand these days ...
Well Obama supporters not only used government resources to find "Joe the plumber", they did so
-> illegaly (violating privacy)
-> on multiple locations
-> multiple times
And news organisations accepted and reported the stolen information.
Politics suck. Obamatrons and Huckabots alike.
Besides even internal wikipedia pages (why don't you check the page about wikipedia's "honorable" founder) are fucked up by politics and threats. The amount of people getting banned for saying something bad about wikipedia itself is over a hundred now.
People should remember what wikipedia gives them : the opinion of the loudest minority. The politically correct "improved truth". Nothing more. Nothing else.
Sort of like Soviet news sources.
You can say that, but Japan has the longest lifespan in the world, specifically because of how they handle their health care. So the principal you cite is clearly flawed.
Humor us, tell us what healthcare has to do with battery manufacturing.
Also one white raven does not mean that they're not black. You could disagree with that statement of course. If not we could say "look what happened to the soviet social care system". And point to the 100 million dead.
Better to change the regulatory climate to be competitive with China and let the battery manufacturers come here.
Much cheaper. Much more jobs.
Not a single argument raised. Ad-hominems, insults, "the past" ... obviously any references are "mysteriously" absent.
As for "playing my game" : you seem more than willing to. Personally I think idiotic, weak responses avoiding everything like yours do more to convince people of the truth than anything else.
And as for your last inquiry : no I do not remember you. Why, exactly, should I bother ? There are millions of idiots just like you on the internet. Most are more fun than you.
Muslims are the filthiest animals on earth (literally from the quran, 8:55, with "infidels" replaced by "muslims")
(do you think this - and by this, i mean by extention the quran - is racist ?)
Extremists like you are exactly the same as muslim extremists.
Comments on slashdot are "exactly" the same as continuous massacres. Do you seriously believe this ? I could say your comment insults me, therefore justifying me massacring your entire family. After all, "it's exactly the same".
Your comment insults me, for calling attention to the plain ruthless facts. I even point to primary sources. And you'd rather deny primary sources, because that makes the world so much more comfortable. And then you call me extremist, setting me on equal moral footing as a paedophilic massacrer for ... making a comment ? Are you insane ?
It's funny how you never actually challenge the facts. They just have to be different (or what ? you're going to cry ?). Of course you "just don't care". Making the point that assing about people unwilling to fight for their freedom that much stronger. People like you complaining about freedom in China is beyond ridiculous. If you were Chinese, you'd refuse to believe you don't have freedom. If you lived in saudi arabia you'd justify stonings, claim they make women more free. Because to do otherwise, would be "extremist".
You won't even believe that fighting for freedom is necessary. That's "extremist" nonsense. And most people "just don't care".
That last part might be true. But for all our sakes, I hope that it's not.
The truth is simple : you're a coward. Denying reality so you can "just not care".
I do not blame muslims for everything. I merely state facts.
Does islam encourage the rape of children ? Well here's the description of what the paedophile prophet did to a 9 year old he had bought :
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/006.sbt.html#001.006.298
You know that islam actually has content. It's not just a name. Being a muslim means considering this a virtue. This act is as influential on muslims as Jesus' not throwing stones was on christians. Of course the paedophile prophet has his opinion on the matter.
Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) came to the Jews and said: What do you find in Torah for one who commits adultery? They said: We darken their faces and make them ride on the donkey with their faces turned to the opposite direction (and their backs touching each other), and then they are taken round (the city). He said: Bring Torah if you are truthful. They brought it and recited it until when they came to the verse pertaining to stoning, the person who was reading placed his hand on the verse pertaining to stoning, and read (only that which was) between his hands and what was subsequent to that. Abdullah b. Salim who was at that time with the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Command him (the reciter) to lift his hand. He lifted it and there was, underneath that, the verse pertaining to stoning. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) pronounced judgment about both of them and they were stoned. Abdullah b. 'Umar said: I was one of those who stoned them, and I saw him (the Jew) protecting her (the Jewess) with his body.
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/017.smt.html#017.4211
But don't take that from me, the one about paedophilia in islam, after all Carter's best friend, ayatollah khomeini, put it so much better :
http://www.shariati.com/messages/1608.html
He is, after "Hitler's mufti" (google it) of course, the most influential 20th century imam.
Please explain how any of this lays "blame for everything" at the feet of muslims. I merely state a few facts of their moral system, nothing more.
That you are afraid of the truth is your problem, not mine. Facts are facts. These facts don't change (that was, after all, the purpose of writing them down). That they're "inconvenient truths" and quickly end any discussion about whether muslims should be allowed to carry out "religious duties", even among muslims themselves*, does not change them.
* many muslims, obviously, want out. But that carries the death penalty in the paedophilic religion.
Heh, merely a refusal to die for the freedom that created "the west".
And given how the media portrays the us, which is almost equal to "the west", who can possibly blame them ? You are americans, according to time magazine, you are oppressors, oil thieves, baby killers, prison rapists, invaders, torturers (of innocent terrorists) and worse. And no, they do not mean us soldiers or any president, they mean americans.
So why would anyone want to die to become the same thing ?
It's all a lie, obviously. Because otherwise they'd have to blame, oh, say muslims, for what ... muslims ... did. But everybody knows perfectly well it's a lie. Of course it just so happens that this islam thing really does encourage the rape of children, after all a certain massacrer did so. But no, it's americans, the people who read this, who are monsters, who rape innocent iraqi girls in us prisons.
So nobody wants to die for freedom. And that's what it takes ... that's what it took even in America ... that's what it takes in China. Go talk to a Chinese kid, there are plenty in any college or university, and you'll see the truth in this.
Did you write the actual code that evaluated the problem ?
If so, you only passed parts of the thinking to the computer. Lots of people have computers do more these days (like giving them any combination of dozens upon dozens of algorithms to choose from).
So all current buidlings are designed by God/Darwin ?
Didn't think so.