I *don't* think that I'm ignorant about Islam. I have a minor in religious studies, I've read parts of the Korean, I know people who are islamic, I've read arabic/islamic news sources (translated), I've investigated it as a religion.
The fact is that I can't find a single islamic person who says Israel has a right to exist. The Korean is full of information telling people how to treat non-muslims (i.e. very poorly). Most islamics that I meet in this country give money to islamic "charities" that promote terrorism. Most christians do not do anything remotely similar. I'm reading that in England, muslim immigrants are demanding things like separate courts and separate laws for muslim defendents - and they are getting them too. In France, the muslims are a large enough part of the population to sway an election. I am very worried about islam in this country! Just as I would be if Nazism were becoming popular.
I am not that worried about Bush's religious views because he isn't religious, unless you count the worship of money as a religion.
The catholic church isn't telling people to become bombers or mobsters. Islam *is* telling people to become terrorists and to support terrorists and they are doing it in large numbers. Your statement of 99.99% of islamic people not being terrorists is plain wrong.
I also think certain christian groups should be outlawed. For example, groups that advocate violence against physicians or who have been involved in shootings and bombings. Also groups that oppose medical care and do not take their children to doctors when they need to should be shut down. This is not most christians - these are dangerous fringe groups.
And I agree that there are certain christian groups that could and should be outlawed. If you are advocating racism, committing acts of violence, etc. then your group is not one that should be around.
As to the comment about mormons, I am talking about now, not a hundred years ago. There may be some splinter groups that are not part of the main mormon church which should be outlawed if they are engaged in violence, etc. The main part of the morman church is non-violent today and should be left alone.
I think that reasonable people could regulate religion to make sure that groups are non-violent and not engaging in hate speech.
Actually, I know a lot about the history of the middle east and Islam - and I do listen to the news. And, no I am not a Bush supporter. I am an atheist personally. My best friend is Iranian. In fact, he is a member of the Iranian royal family. His whole family was forced to flee because of the Islamicist takeover there. (They are Ba'hai, not Islamic.)
I also personally know a lot of people who are Islamic. Some of them are reasonable, but from others I've heard crazy racist ranting against Israel and Jews.
Given all that, in the environment we are in today (not during the crusades, or some other time), I think there are certain religious groups that are in fact dangerous to have around. Islam being one.
OK, then how come all I read about Islam in the papers is about people blowing themselves up and declaring Jihad on Israel? I read all kinds of stuff about the Jewish faith that is non-violent. Same for most Christian denominations. Same for Mormons.
If there's no connection between al Qaeda and Iraq, why in the world would these terrorists be so upset about Iraq
The most immediate reason is that we have troops in Saudi Arabia which is where Mecca and Medina are.
IMHO, I'd like to see some group of Americans blow up some Islamic holy site as payback.
Also, I can't understand why we allow this kind of crap in our own country. Why aren't we passing a constitutional amendment to outlaw Islam in the US?
I am not saying this to troll. I honestly think that Islam is a terrible ideology that poisons the mind. In fact, I don't think a religion that tells people to blow themselves up is a good one. Freedom of religion is one thing, but there are certain groups (such as various cults) that carry it too far. I heard on the radio that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the US right now. That is scary!
I think we ought to be able to outlaw certain violent cults and religions in the US.
The company I work for doesn't even buy any desktop systems anymore (except for Macintosh systems - which don't come from the IT department.) All our PC systems are Dell laptops - even for folks who have no reason to travel away from their desks.
Not true. You take the IP address, find out who "owns" it. It will be such and such ISP. You then get the ISP to tell you who the subscriber is, get their address, give that to the police and they go bust the guy.
This has happened before. They found a guy who had been committing burgarlies this way.
btw I'm not sure at what step the police take over. You probably need to be the police with a warrant to get the isp to give you the name of the subscriber.
I'd like to ask you a question. This is not a troll, I honestly want some information.
I am a long time Mac developer. I have written or contributed to many commercial software applications for older versions of Mac OS and also for MacOS X. I have some experience with Unix (and getting more all the time with OS X). I am not, nor have ever been a system admin. I don't think I really "grok" the kinds of issues that system admins have to deal with.
So, my question is this: what specifically is better about suse 9.3 (or any other distro) than MacOS X?
To my non-system administrator eye, the X Serve looks pretty damn cool. I watched the webcast of the event where they introduced them and I was impressed with the ease at which you could "get at" the hardware other features of the system. In the past, I have "administered" (purchased, helped setup, etc.) a Mac file server running MacOS 9 for a Mac development team. I can easily see that some of the features of the XServe would have been very helpful in overcoming problems we had then. For example, the XServe runs nicely when "headless" whereas our old desktop Mac cum server did not run well at all when headless - we had to buy a special piece of hardware into tricking it to run headless and it didn't work very well. The ease of setting up RAID on the XServe would have been nice. Our (3rd party) backup system did not work very well on our "server" (which was a plain G4 tower). We mainly used it to serve some internal web pages, hold our source code repository, and hold various files for the group to access. For our needs an XServe, had it been available at the time, would have been better.
I have heard, though, that real system admins are *not* impressed with the X Serve and think its either a joke or way overpriced for what you get.
I would be very interested in hearing specific things that my non-admin mind can understand about what kinds of features system admins are looking for in Unix systems.
Come on. Everyone knows there was no murder before video games were invented - except those murders caused by pinball machines, rock n roll, and before that, pool and billards.
I can't imagine that! Anytime I get a report of bad behavior of my daughter, I confront her about it. Fortunately for me, she is the kind of kid who always wants to do the right thing. If she really did something wrong and I confront her, she usually cries and apologizes.
When she was 3 she took some candy from a store and we (my wife and I) made her go back and tell the manager and apologize. She has never done anything like that since.
My example was about how southern racists screwed themselves because they were idiots and how many non-racists in the north moved the democratic party in the morally right direction on civil rights, but at the expense of no longer being the majority party.
And you can't argue that the democrats didn't tear into each other over the issue of viet nam. Because of that, the 1968 convention became a fiasco and we fielded a very weak presidential candidate (Humphrey) and (gasp!) lost because of it.
And even though I am a democrat and think highly of President Carter, I think his handling of the hostage crisis in Iran was very bad and cost our party a lot of respect. The iranians violated international law, attacked our embassy - which is a serious attack against our country, and he's there negotiating. I'm sorry, that's just not the approach I can support.
I think Iran/Contra was a horrible scandle and its what I would expect from the republican party: inept, corrupt, and bungling.
However, I do not think the way to win elections is by bringing up Iran/Contra. Nor do I think it is by attacking G. Gordon Liddy and brining up Watergate. Who the hell is going to care?
I think the way for democrats to win elections is by fielding strong candidates who can clearly articulate the positions of the party that resonate with voters.
Yeah, that's what I want! I want a game that is moderately hard. I should start out doing OK and within 15 minutes be able to beat the computer. Then, I want to increase the difficulty level and make it slightly harder. After 10 hours I'm going to loose interest anyway.
You aren't making any sense. What part of what I said was "one sided" or "Republican"?
Yes, I know about Iran/Contra. However, I don't think it is all that important that it be taught in high school history. History more recent than 1900 is too politicized to be taught fairly in school.
And where the heck did Iran/Contra come up in this thread? All I was originally talking about is that it *is* possible to be "liberal" and a "christian fundamentalist" and that it was common in the democratic party prior to 1980.
You are making some presumptions about what my views are.
Students in school are free to pray silently during any classroom break.
It is my right not be forced to pray. When there was school-led prayer, people were forced to pray. Kids who did not pray were singled out and beaten up. I know that because my father, who is an atheist, had that happen to him in school.
Fortunately, by the time I got to school, we weren't forced to pray. Of course, I still was threatened by the Christian kids if they found out I was an atheist. They would threaten to "kick my ass" or "have god strike me blind" and various things.
Fortunatley I knew how to fight. (And so did my dad.)
Sorry you took what i said wrong. It was not my intention to write some definitive history of america, nor am I a republican (I am a registered democrat and I have never voted for a republican for any public office ever.)
You are accusing me of "distortions" about topics I didn't mention and "omissions" in a freaking post to slashdot - not some definitive text on history. Give me a break.
My take on the three southern states that flipped btw is that the national party nominated kennedy - the racists would not accept a catholic as president. All three states voted for Stom Thurmond in 1960 causing (depending on how you look at it) Kennedy to eak out a win. If they had voted for Nixon, then Kennedy would have lost. If they had voted Kennedy, he would have at least had to maintain status quo by not supporting civil rights. So, they ended up screwing themselves because kennedy could support civil rights because he didn't have any reason to feel loyal to a part of his party that wasn't loyal to him. In response, these people eventually moved to republican party causing it to become the majority party in those states. To me, that is simply a dispassionate account of what happened.
I think Carter's handing of the hostage crisis was the last nail in the coffin for the democrats. It was pure dumb luck that we were able to have Clinton in office for 8 years. We have Ross Perot to thank for the first four years. The republicans picked Bob Dole who was the weakest possible candidate they could have fielded in 1996.
Slashdot Mirror
In fact, I used to roadie for Glenn Danzig!
I was merely calling you ignorant!
I *don't* think that I'm ignorant about Islam. I have a minor in religious studies, I've read parts of the Korean, I know people who are islamic, I've read arabic/islamic news sources (translated), I've investigated it as a religion.
The fact is that I can't find a single islamic person who says Israel has a right to exist. The Korean is full of information telling people how to treat non-muslims (i.e. very poorly). Most islamics that I meet in this country give money to islamic "charities" that promote terrorism. Most christians do not do anything remotely similar. I'm reading that in England, muslim immigrants are demanding things like separate courts and separate laws for muslim defendents - and they are getting them too. In France, the muslims are a large enough part of the population to sway an election. I am very worried about islam in this country! Just as I would be if Nazism were becoming popular.
I am not that worried about Bush's religious views because he isn't religious, unless you count the worship of money as a religion.
The catholic church isn't telling people to become bombers or mobsters. Islam *is* telling people to become terrorists and to support terrorists and they are doing it in large numbers. Your statement of 99.99% of islamic people not being terrorists is plain wrong.
I also think certain christian groups should be outlawed. For example, groups that advocate violence against physicians or who have been involved in shootings and bombings. Also groups that oppose medical care and do not take their children to doctors when they need to should be shut down. This is not most christians - these are dangerous fringe groups.
Yes, jail time and re-education.
And I agree that there are certain christian groups that could and should be outlawed. If you are advocating racism, committing acts of violence, etc. then your group is not one that should be around.
As to the comment about mormons, I am talking about now, not a hundred years ago. There may be some splinter groups that are not part of the main mormon church which should be outlawed if they are engaged in violence, etc. The main part of the morman church is non-violent today and should be left alone.
I think that reasonable people could regulate religion to make sure that groups are non-violent and not engaging in hate speech.
Actually, I know a lot about the history of the middle east and Islam - and I do listen to the news. And, no I am not a Bush supporter. I am an atheist personally. My best friend is Iranian. In fact, he is a member of the Iranian royal family. His whole family was forced to flee because of the Islamicist takeover there. (They are Ba'hai, not Islamic.)
I also personally know a lot of people who are Islamic. Some of them are reasonable, but from others I've heard crazy racist ranting against Israel and Jews.
Given all that, in the environment we are in today (not during the crusades, or some other time), I think there are certain religious groups that are in fact dangerous to have around. Islam being one.
Why are you defending suicide cults?
OK, then how come all I read about Islam in the papers is about people blowing themselves up and declaring Jihad on Israel? I read all kinds of stuff about the Jewish faith that is non-violent. Same for most Christian denominations. Same for Mormons.
If there's no connection between al Qaeda and Iraq, why in the world would these terrorists be so upset about Iraq
The most immediate reason is that we have troops in Saudi Arabia which is where Mecca and Medina are.
IMHO, I'd like to see some group of Americans blow up some Islamic holy site as payback.
Also, I can't understand why we allow this kind of crap in our own country. Why aren't we passing a constitutional amendment to outlaw Islam in the US?
I am not saying this to troll. I honestly think that Islam is a terrible ideology that poisons the mind. In fact, I don't think a religion that tells people to blow themselves up is a good one. Freedom of religion is one thing, but there are certain groups (such as various cults) that carry it too far. I heard on the radio that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the US right now. That is scary!
I think we ought to be able to outlaw certain violent cults and religions in the US.
The war on terror is history repeating itself. It is just like the war on High Prices in which Wal-Mart has been engaged for many years.
The company I work for doesn't even buy any desktop systems anymore (except for Macintosh systems - which don't come from the IT department.) All our PC systems are Dell laptops - even for folks who have no reason to travel away from their desks.
Not true. You take the IP address, find out who "owns" it. It will be such and such ISP. You then get the ISP to tell you who the subscriber is, get their address, give that to the police and they go bust the guy.
This has happened before. They found a guy who had been committing burgarlies this way.
btw I'm not sure at what step the police take over. You probably need to be the police with a warrant to get the isp to give you the name of the subscriber.
They want their coding paradigm back.
You should take our special package tour: 10 Turkish prisons in 10 years.
I'd like to ask you a question. This is not a troll, I honestly want some information.
I am a long time Mac developer. I have written or contributed to many commercial software applications for older versions of Mac OS and also for MacOS X. I have some experience with Unix (and getting more all the time with OS X). I am not, nor have ever been a system admin. I don't think I really "grok" the kinds of issues that system admins have to deal with.
So, my question is this: what specifically is better about suse 9.3 (or any other distro) than MacOS X?
To my non-system administrator eye, the X Serve looks pretty damn cool. I watched the webcast of the event where they introduced them and I was impressed with the ease at which you could "get at" the hardware other features of the system. In the past, I have "administered" (purchased, helped setup, etc.) a Mac file server running MacOS 9 for a Mac development team. I can easily see that some of the features of the XServe would have been very helpful in overcoming problems we had then. For example, the XServe runs nicely when "headless" whereas our old desktop Mac cum server did not run well at all when headless - we had to buy a special piece of hardware into tricking it to run headless and it didn't work very well. The ease of setting up RAID on the XServe would have been nice. Our (3rd party) backup system did not work very well on our "server" (which was a plain G4 tower). We mainly used it to serve some internal web pages, hold our source code repository, and hold various files for the group to access. For our needs an XServe, had it been available at the time, would have been better.
I have heard, though, that real system admins are *not* impressed with the X Serve and think its either a joke or way overpriced for what you get.
I would be very interested in hearing specific things that my non-admin mind can understand about what kinds of features system admins are looking for in Unix systems.
financially or morally?
I think they were pretty much always morally bankrupt, so we're waiting for a judge to declare that to be so.
Come on. Everyone knows there was no murder before video games were invented - except those murders caused by pinball machines, rock n roll, and before that, pool and billards.
That by itself has nothing to do with the hydroponics. That has to do with hybridization.
I can't imagine that! Anytime I get a report of bad behavior of my daughter, I confront her about it. Fortunately for me, she is the kind of kid who always wants to do the right thing. If she really did something wrong and I confront her, she usually cries and apologizes.
When she was 3 she took some candy from a store and we (my wife and I) made her go back and tell the manager and apologize. She has never done anything like that since.
The stigma against X rated movies is unfortunate, as in the public mind, an X rated film is pornographic.
That's why they got rid of the R rating and replaced it with NC-17 which means the same thing. Have you been living in a cave somewhere?
I heard all the 911 victims were "little Eichmans".
My example was about how southern racists screwed themselves because they were idiots and how many non-racists in the north moved the democratic party in the morally right direction on civil rights, but at the expense of no longer being the majority party.
And you can't argue that the democrats didn't tear into each other over the issue of viet nam. Because of that, the 1968 convention became a fiasco and we fielded a very weak presidential candidate (Humphrey) and (gasp!) lost because of it.
And even though I am a democrat and think highly of President Carter, I think his handling of the hostage crisis in Iran was very bad and cost our party a lot of respect. The iranians violated international law, attacked our embassy - which is a serious attack against our country, and he's there negotiating. I'm sorry, that's just not the approach I can support.
I think Iran/Contra was a horrible scandle and its what I would expect from the republican party: inept, corrupt, and bungling.
However, I do not think the way to win elections is by bringing up Iran/Contra. Nor do I think it is by attacking G. Gordon Liddy and brining up Watergate. Who the hell is going to care?
I think the way for democrats to win elections is by fielding strong candidates who can clearly articulate the positions of the party that resonate with voters.
you just want the computer to let you win
Yeah, that's what I want! I want a game that is moderately hard. I should start out doing OK and within 15 minutes be able to beat the computer. Then, I want to increase the difficulty level and make it slightly harder. After 10 hours I'm going to loose interest anyway.
...that I'm using my neighbors WiFi network.
Network name: Linksys
No wep key...
Woo hoo! No cable fees for soft_guy!
You aren't making any sense. What part of what I said was "one sided" or "Republican"?
Yes, I know about Iran/Contra. However, I don't think it is all that important that it be taught in high school history. History more recent than 1900 is too politicized to be taught fairly in school.
And where the heck did Iran/Contra come up in this thread? All I was originally talking about is that it *is* possible to be "liberal" and a "christian fundamentalist" and that it was common in the democratic party prior to 1980.
You are making some presumptions about what my views are.
Students in school are free to pray silently during any classroom break.
It is my right not be forced to pray. When there was school-led prayer, people were forced to pray. Kids who did not pray were singled out and beaten up. I know that because my father, who is an atheist, had that happen to him in school.
Fortunately, by the time I got to school, we weren't forced to pray. Of course, I still was threatened by the Christian kids if they found out I was an atheist. They would threaten to "kick my ass" or "have god strike me blind" and various things.
Fortunatley I knew how to fight. (And so did my dad.)
Sorry you took what i said wrong. It was not my intention to write some definitive history of america, nor am I a republican (I am a registered democrat and I have never voted for a republican for any public office ever.)
You are accusing me of "distortions" about topics I didn't mention and "omissions" in a freaking post to slashdot - not some definitive text on history. Give me a break.
My take on the three southern states that flipped btw is that the national party nominated kennedy - the racists would not accept a catholic as president. All three states voted for Stom Thurmond in 1960 causing (depending on how you look at it) Kennedy to eak out a win. If they had voted for Nixon, then Kennedy would have lost. If they had voted Kennedy, he would have at least had to maintain status quo by not supporting civil rights. So, they ended up screwing themselves because kennedy could support civil rights because he didn't have any reason to feel loyal to a part of his party that wasn't loyal to him. In response, these people eventually moved to republican party causing it to become the majority party in those states. To me, that is simply a dispassionate account of what happened.
I think Carter's handing of the hostage crisis was the last nail in the coffin for the democrats. It was pure dumb luck that we were able to have Clinton in office for 8 years. We have Ross Perot to thank for the first four years. The republicans picked Bob Dole who was the weakest possible candidate they could have fielded in 1996.
The way to do it would be abolish banks. Your employer should have to pay you in gold which you would carry around in bags to pay for things.