So not only could he not secure his black site, he couldn't even secure the files on his own laptop. It makes you wonder how he ever got it running in the first place.
Well, that's a big part of his defense: "How could someone so stupid be the kingpin and mastermind the government is making him out to be?" I'm starting to believe it myself.
Yeah, I had to walk a mile-and-a-quarter to school everyday, by myself! During Summer vacation, my mother would force me to go outside, and stay outside, until suppertime! With no supervision! Wow, I'm only realizing now, I really was neglected as a child. Of course, all the other kids were neglected in exactly the same way. It's a miracle we weren't all abducted!
In all seriousness, I can only pity the way kids grow up today. And everyone wonders why they're so fat.
I would like to take the time to point out to anyone thinking of doing this: Anyone claiming to be a hit man is actually a cop. That probably goes for anyone claiming to be a teenage girl who is interested in your online sexual advances, as well. Hope I've saved you some trouble.
You are right that news is not their "primary" function, but the fact that a comedy program does a better job of covering the news than do most cable news outlets really says something, doesn't it? I decided to have a look at that poll they do each year, where they show how informed people are, based on their news source. I wondered if the Daily Show was included. Turns out Daily Show viewers are second only to NPR listeners. I suspect it's for the same reason - both do in-depth coverage of issues. It is unfortunate that, while their listeners are first and second most informed, they are last and second-to-last in numbers.
So we need to discard the current political thinking based on, "ALL the rich people got rich by being smart and working hard. ALL the poor people are poor because they are dumb and lazy".
Right. A lot of smart, hard-working people do not get rich. And, about one-third of wealthy people get rich by inheritance. Another thing to consider is that there is simply not enough room at the top for everybody. The rich cannot become rich without the poor. They are the ones who both make and buy the widgets. This is also the simple reason why so-called trickle-down economics haven't worked. Supply is useless without demand.
Wow, I'm amazed they would charge their guests for wifi access. Even the cheapest, sleaziest, motels have "free" wifi. Are they the only hotel doing this? Reminds me of the time when some motels made their televisions coin-operated.
While you are absolutely correct, I sometimes wish for a more prescriptivist approach. After all, we are now left with no good synonym for "literally." Perhaps we'll have to start using reduplication, and say, "literally literally?"
Can't you just cop dope on the street corner in the hood like the rest of us joes? I suppose thats harder if you live in a really rural area though...
The street corner in the 'hood typically has one of two products, neither of which some people will want. Online drug markets have a wide selection of interesting and unusual products. For instance, opium is almost never imported into the US because of the bulk vs profit factor. Thanks to prohibition, it's much more profitable to turn it into heroin, and so it's rarely seen "on the street." But, you can order yourself a nice chunk online, and be assured of the quality because of the site's rating and comment system. Online, you have access to a World market where you can pick and choose from a wide variety, whereas, on the street - not so much.
But I2P is not more difficult to use than Tor. There is no "extra hassle".
With the Tor Browser, there's almost no setup involved, just a few preference settings as I recall. My mother could use Tor if she needed to. I can't imagine her figuring out how to setup I2P on her own. So sure, if you know your way around a computer you can do it, but it's definitely more involved than Tor.
Right. There were already drug markets on I2P, and mostly flying under the media radar. Now, Silk Road will bring the same notoriety to I2P that was brought to Tor. I don't blame Silk Road, of course. But, here's to hoping we're approaching the day when it's no longer thought appropriate to lock people in cages, simply because they want to get high.
One wonders how, for thousands of years, writers managed to convey the tone of their writing without emoticons. Have we become worse writers, or denser readers? It's a form of laziness, isn't it?
Yeah, I didn't even know length made a difference. Is that for real? I thought girth was the issue, and otherwise you just rolled 'em out as far as they would go.
According to most (credible) sources, Aisha was married when she was 6 or 7. And she was 9 when Muhammad raped her.
I like your citation. But I did remember this imperfectly, and had to look it up again. There is only one source, the Hadiths, which say that the nikah (betrothal) took place when Aïsha was six, and that she "entered his household" at the age of nine. This information was taken from Bukhari, and purports to be a quote from Aïsha. The other line from Bukhari states, “Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed [alone] for two years or so. He married Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.”
Even Muslims question the authenticity of those hadiths, (which were collected about a hundred years after Mohammed's time). From Maulana Muhammad Ali:
“A great misconception prevails as to the age at which Aisha was taken in marriage by the Prophet. Ibn Sa‘d has stated in the Tabaqat that when Abu Bakr [father of Aisha] was approached on behalf of the Holy Prophet, he replied that the girl had already been betrothed to Jubair, and that he would have to settle the matter first with him. This shows that Aisha must have been approaching majority at the time. Again, the Isaba, speaking of the Prophet’s daughter Fatima, says that she was born five years before the Call and was about five years older than Aisha. This shows that Aisha must have been about ten years at the time of her betrothal to the Prophet, and not six years as she is generally supposed to be. This is further borne out by the fact that Aisha herself is reported to have stated that when the chapter [of the Holy Quran] entitled The Moon, the fifty-fourth chapter, was revealed, she was a girl playing about and remembered certain verses then revealed. Now the fifty-fourth chapter was undoubtedly revealed before the sixth year of the Call. All these considerations point to but one conclusion, viz., that Aisha could not have been less than ten years of age at the time of her nikah, which was virtually only a betrothal. And there is one report in the Tabaqat that Aisha was nine years of age at the time of nikah. Again it is a fact admitted on all hands that the nikah of Aisha took place in the tenth year of the Call in the month of Shawwal, while there is also preponderance of evidence as to the consummation of her marriage taking place in the second year of Hijra in the same month, which shows that full five years had elapsed between the nikah and the consummation. Hence there is not the least doubt that Aisha was at least nine or ten years of age at the time of betrothal, and fourteen or fifteen years at the time of marriage.”
Now, if you're being honest, doesn't that make a lot more sense? Although it's been some years, I've read quite a bit on the topic, (yes, western writers, too), and nothing led me to believe there's anything to this charge. It just doesn't make sense in any context. Remember, we're talking about Mohammed's favorite wife, and an impressive woman in her own right, not some victim, and the daughter of his right-hand man. Believe me, I am no fan of religion. It seems to me there is plenty of awful stuff to pick on - no need to gild the lily when it comes to religion! - but I wouldn't put any stock in this one.
Which is why it's pointless to argue with these people. Faith is considered a virtue by many conservatives, and you cannot sway faith or belief with logic or facts. You are dealing with willful ignorance, not simple ignorance, so, any attempt at "education" will always fall on deaf ears. You can never have a meaningful debate when facts cannot be agreed upon.
It is unfortunate that the Republican Party has chosen to pander to this constituency, but, many Republican politicians privately accept the science on climate change and evolution, in spite of their public stance, so we need to encourage them to act correctly, while giving them room to do so gracefully, rather than trying to change minds which will not be changed.
Let us not forget the sound of the national anthem, followed by the test tone and test screen - the purpose of which was, presumably, so that you could stay up till 02:00 AM in order to adjust your television correctly. Or maybe to wake up anyone who had fallen asleep.
For some reason after a Christian zealot beheaded his roommate in Stillwater, I never heard my pastor denouce that kind of violence perpeuated in Christianity's name.
I'm guessing your pastor will denounce that kind of violence if he learns significant amount of his congregation thought killing a man for practicing witchcraft was acceptable.
Why does it have to be his own congregation? There are plenty of Christians promoting the killing of child "witches" right now. If we demand Muslims speak up about other Muslims, it's only logical to expect the same of Christians. But we (within the Christian culture) don't, because we're expected to be able to see the difference between Christian lunatics, and the garden variety. We demand this of others because:ignorance. The fact is, all peoples have used, and continue to use, their scriptures to justify evil deeds. Christians like to forget their own not-so-distant past, and ignore their more radical contemporary adherents.
This charge of pedophilia is pure ignorance, an unwarranted slur. Pedophilia is, first off, sex with prepubescent children - not sexually mature teenagers. While the Prophet married Aisha when she was nine, it was not consummated until she was sexually mature. This is still a not uncommon practice in some societies, and was quite acceptable almost everywhere in the seventh century. Even today in the US, girls as young as 13 are allowed to marry. I realize we are in the midst of a media-driven pedophilia and "sex crime" panic, and that pedophilia is being redefined to include people who are sexually mature, and only one or two years apart in age, but you're not obligated to join in.
You discredit any legitimate argument you might have when you toss in bullshit and insults. There is plenty of "real" stuff to complain about, don't you think? Besides, all religions are pretty awful.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's get our approximates right!
A couple = ~2
A few = ~3
Several = ~7
That's why you also encrypt sensitive files separately.
This.
So not only could he not secure his black site, he couldn't even secure the files on his own laptop.
It makes you wonder how he ever got it running in the first place.
Well, that's a big part of his defense: "How could someone so stupid be the kingpin and mastermind the government is making him out to be?" I'm starting to believe it myself.
How do you figure? Isn't it helicopter parenting which produces nerds?
Yeah, I had to walk a mile-and-a-quarter to school everyday, by myself! During Summer vacation, my mother would force me to go outside, and stay outside, until suppertime! With no supervision! Wow, I'm only realizing now, I really was neglected as a child. Of course, all the other kids were neglected in exactly the same way. It's a miracle we weren't all abducted!
In all seriousness, I can only pity the way kids grow up today. And everyone wonders why they're so fat.
I would like to take the time to point out to anyone thinking of doing this: Anyone claiming to be a hit man is actually a cop. That probably goes for anyone claiming to be a teenage girl who is interested in your online sexual advances, as well. Hope I've saved you some trouble.
Right, most news outlets bury corrections.
You are right that news is not their "primary" function, but the fact that a comedy program does a better job of covering the news than do most cable news outlets really says something, doesn't it? I decided to have a look at that poll they do each year, where they show how informed people are, based on their news source. I wondered if the Daily Show was included. Turns out Daily Show viewers are second only to NPR listeners. I suspect it's for the same reason - both do in-depth coverage of issues. It is unfortunate that, while their listeners are first and second most informed, they are last and second-to-last in numbers.
Read it and weep:
http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2012...
So we need to discard the current political thinking based on, "ALL the rich people got rich by being smart and working hard. ALL the poor people are poor because they are dumb and lazy".
Right. A lot of smart, hard-working people do not get rich. And, about one-third of wealthy people get rich by inheritance. Another thing to consider is that there is simply not enough room at the top for everybody. The rich cannot become rich without the poor. They are the ones who both make and buy the widgets. This is also the simple reason why so-called trickle-down economics haven't worked. Supply is useless without demand.
Wow, I'm amazed they would charge their guests for wifi access. Even the cheapest, sleaziest, motels have "free" wifi. Are they the only hotel doing this? Reminds me of the time when some motels made their televisions coin-operated.
While you are absolutely correct, I sometimes wish for a more prescriptivist approach. After all, we are now left with no good synonym for "literally." Perhaps we'll have to start using reduplication, and say, "literally literally?"
Actually, it is one of the better sources of news.
Not sure if stupid or just trolling.
Why can't it be both?
To have a market, you have to have competition. What we have now are monopolies, so it's rather difficult to say that it's "working."
Can't you just cop dope on the street corner in the hood like the rest of us joes? I suppose thats harder if you live in a really rural area though...
The street corner in the 'hood typically has one of two products, neither of which some people will want. Online drug markets have a wide selection of interesting and unusual products. For instance, opium is almost never imported into the US because of the bulk vs profit factor. Thanks to prohibition, it's much more profitable to turn it into heroin, and so it's rarely seen "on the street." But, you can order yourself a nice chunk online, and be assured of the quality because of the site's rating and comment system. Online, you have access to a World market where you can pick and choose from a wide variety, whereas, on the street - not so much.
At least, that's what I've heard.
But I2P is not more difficult to use than Tor. There is no "extra hassle".
With the Tor Browser, there's almost no setup involved, just a few preference settings as I recall. My mother could use Tor if she needed to. I can't imagine her figuring out how to setup I2P on her own. So sure, if you know your way around a computer you can do it, but it's definitely more involved than Tor.
Right. There were already drug markets on I2P, and mostly flying under the media radar. Now, Silk Road will bring the same notoriety to I2P that was brought to Tor. I don't blame Silk Road, of course. But, here's to hoping we're approaching the day when it's no longer thought appropriate to lock people in cages, simply because they want to get high.
Why are you typing useless, anonymous, comments? Don't you realize the problems of the World haven't yet been fixed?
One wonders how, for thousands of years, writers managed to convey the tone of their writing without emoticons. Have we become worse writers, or denser readers? It's a form of laziness, isn't it?
Informative article there.
Yeah, I didn't even know length made a difference. Is that for real? I thought girth was the issue, and otherwise you just rolled 'em out as far as they would go.
According to most (credible) sources, Aisha was married when she was 6 or 7. And she was 9 when Muhammad raped her.
I like your citation. But I did remember this imperfectly, and had to look it up again. There is only one source, the Hadiths, which say that the nikah (betrothal) took place when Aïsha was six, and that she "entered his household" at the age of nine. This information was taken from Bukhari, and purports to be a quote from Aïsha. The other line from Bukhari states, “Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed [alone] for two years or so. He married Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.”
Even Muslims question the authenticity of those hadiths, (which were collected about a hundred years after Mohammed's time). From Maulana Muhammad Ali:
“A great misconception prevails as to the age at which Aisha was taken in marriage by the Prophet. Ibn Sa‘d has stated in the Tabaqat that when Abu Bakr [father of Aisha] was approached on behalf of the Holy Prophet, he replied that the girl had already been betrothed to Jubair, and that he would have to settle the matter first with him. This shows that Aisha must have been approaching majority at the time. Again, the Isaba, speaking of the Prophet’s daughter Fatima, says that she was born five years before the Call and was about five years older than Aisha. This shows that Aisha must have been about ten years at the time of her betrothal to the Prophet, and not six years as she is generally supposed to be. This is further borne out by the fact that Aisha herself is reported to have stated that when the chapter [of the Holy Quran] entitled The Moon, the fifty-fourth chapter, was revealed, she was a girl playing about and remembered certain verses then revealed. Now the fifty-fourth chapter was undoubtedly revealed before the sixth year of the Call. All these considerations point to but one conclusion, viz., that Aisha could not have been less than ten years of age at the time of her nikah, which was virtually only a betrothal. And there is one report in the Tabaqat that Aisha was nine years of age at the time of nikah. Again it is a fact admitted on all hands that the nikah of Aisha took place in the tenth year of the Call in the month of Shawwal, while there is also preponderance of evidence as to the consummation of her marriage taking place in the second year of Hijra in the same month, which shows that full five years had elapsed between the nikah and the consummation. Hence there is not the least doubt that Aisha was at least nine or ten years of age at the time of betrothal, and fourteen or fifteen years at the time of marriage.”
Now, if you're being honest, doesn't that make a lot more sense? Although it's been some years, I've read quite a bit on the topic, (yes, western writers, too), and nothing led me to believe there's anything to this charge. It just doesn't make sense in any context. Remember, we're talking about Mohammed's favorite wife, and an impressive woman in her own right, not some victim, and the daughter of his right-hand man. Believe me, I am no fan of religion. It seems to me there is plenty of awful stuff to pick on - no need to gild the lily when it comes to religion! - but I wouldn't put any stock in this one.
Which is why it's pointless to argue with these people. Faith is considered a virtue by many conservatives, and you cannot sway faith or belief with logic or facts. You are dealing with willful ignorance, not simple ignorance, so, any attempt at "education" will always fall on deaf ears. You can never have a meaningful debate when facts cannot be agreed upon.
It is unfortunate that the Republican Party has chosen to pander to this constituency, but, many Republican politicians privately accept the science on climate change and evolution, in spite of their public stance, so we need to encourage them to act correctly, while giving them room to do so gracefully, rather than trying to change minds which will not be changed.
People still turn to commercial radio for new music? I thought commercial radio's been irrelevant since the mid-seventies?
Let us not forget the sound of the national anthem, followed by the test tone and test screen - the purpose of which was, presumably, so that you could stay up till 02:00 AM in order to adjust your television correctly. Or maybe to wake up anyone who had fallen asleep.
For some reason after a Christian zealot beheaded his roommate in Stillwater, I never heard my pastor denouce that kind of violence perpeuated in Christianity's name.
I'm guessing your pastor will denounce that kind of violence if he learns significant amount of his congregation thought killing a man for practicing witchcraft was acceptable.
Why does it have to be his own congregation? There are plenty of Christians promoting the killing of child "witches" right now. If we demand Muslims speak up about other Muslims, it's only logical to expect the same of Christians. But we (within the Christian culture) don't, because we're expected to be able to see the difference between Christian lunatics, and the garden variety. We demand this of others because:ignorance. The fact is, all peoples have used, and continue to use, their scriptures to justify evil deeds. Christians like to forget their own not-so-distant past, and ignore their more radical contemporary adherents.
This charge of pedophilia is pure ignorance, an unwarranted slur. Pedophilia is, first off, sex with prepubescent children - not sexually mature teenagers. While the Prophet married Aisha when she was nine, it was not consummated until she was sexually mature. This is still a not uncommon practice in some societies, and was quite acceptable almost everywhere in the seventh century. Even today in the US, girls as young as 13 are allowed to marry. I realize we are in the midst of a media-driven pedophilia and "sex crime" panic, and that pedophilia is being redefined to include people who are sexually mature, and only one or two years apart in age, but you're not obligated to join in.
You discredit any legitimate argument you might have when you toss in bullshit and insults. There is plenty of "real" stuff to complain about, don't you think?
Besides, all religions are pretty awful.