writer of "Hello Mudduh, Hello Faddah." The apocryphal story is that after being sued for one of his songs being similar (structure? tune?) to a copyrighted work, he copyrighted a work consisting of the b-flat note.
If Apple bought that copyright, Creative wouldn't have much that could be played using their patent.
Or maybe they could buy the rights to John Cage's 4'33", and sue anyone who produced an MP3 player which was silent when not playing MP3s.
educate me with authoritative references, instead of unsubstantiated claims and ad hominem attacks?
How are Jews and Christians treated under Islamic rule? Why do we not hear quick and widespread denunciation of calls for Jihad?
You aren't really serious in your claims that Ruby Ridge and Waco were about taxes, are you? Although the "authorities" may have included that in their rationalizations, it should be obvious that there were much more significant social and political issues involved, regardless of whether one feels the actions were justified or not.
Thank you. I had not decided, but was researching the various viewpoints regarding Islam and violence. Comments here were what appeared to me to be the most frequently encountered ones when Googling on the subject. You've helped settle the matter.
The IRS doesn't kill people for not paying taxes. Christian churches don't kill people for failing to tithe or for failing to fulfill contribution pledges. I'm not aware of any other state or religion which expouses death for failing to make a monetary payment.
From this you have shown that Islam is more violent than modern secular or Christian societies, in the most extreme way possible.
the stated sources, do you have anything to add? I'm not going to a "hindu website," per se, just using Google. There are many more websites giving the view that jizya is levied as a tribute or retribution payment.
Wikipedia? As an unbiased source? Please. Nonetheless, there we find this:
The Hedaya (or al Hidayah), states that jizya means "retribution", and defines it as "a species of punishment, inflicted upon infidels on account of their infidelity, whence it is termed Jizyat"
Perhaps you can inform us whether zakat must also be paid under penalty of death?
The Firesign Theatre told us this in the early '70's - "Everything You Know Is Wrong."
They also predicted Slashdot - "I think we're all Bozo's on this bus."
you claim that the jizyah tax "is essentially the non-muslim version of zakat." But that doesn't seem to be the case. According to the source at http://voi.org/books/jihad/app2.htm, the jizyah was about 10 times the amount of the zakat. From searching, it appears that the standard for zakat is about 2.5%, so even your own example of a 10% jizya proves a discriminatory difference.
The same article quotes the Hidayah as stating:
"...a species of punishment, inflicted upon infidels on account of their infidelity, whence it is termed Jizyat, which is derived from Jizya, meaning retribution.
That sure doesn't sound like a simple alm to pay for government services.
Just the simple fact that jizyat is obviously different (in name, in rate and in who is subject to it) from zakat argues against any claim of them being essentially the same. Furthermore, the amount for jizyat is not specified in the Quran, and hence set by a government (Khilafah), in which the taxees are not allowed to participate.
that an historical report is different from a generalized command.
The Biblical quote you give is an historical report of a specific event. The Quran text was a generalized command.
Furthermore, mainstream Christian belief is that the "New Testament" gives the rules for the religion, essentially replacing any given in the Old Testament, which is relegated to being a historical narrative. (note that the 10 commandments are re-iterated in the New). Mainstream Christianity also believes the Bible is subject to interpretation and not necessarily literal truth, fundamentalism is a minority view. Witness current debate within the Christian community over evolution vs. 7 day creation.
AFAIK, mainstream Islam believes in the literal truth of the Quran and Liberal Islam is the minority view.
That's not to say extreme violence hasn't been practiced by Christians claiming Biblical support, such as the Crusades or the Inquisition. I believe most, if not all, Christians would today repudiate those actions. While there are certainly Christians today practicing violence, any doing it in the name of their religion are an extreme minority.
Modern Islamic calls for Jihad and violence against "infidels" are prevalent, although certainly not universal.
As with most things, there are shades of grey. But it seems that the balance shows mainstream (when considered globally) Islam promoting violence against non-believers.
Feel free to correct my understanding, I don't claim to be an expert in either religion.
The Quran has many passages directing violence toward non-believers. Here's one:
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them"
(Quran Sura 9:29-30)
Feel free to find a different translation, I believe that this one accurately reflects the original meaning.
"Status of this Memo...This RFC is a tutorial on the TCP/IP protocol suite, focusing particularly on the steps in forwarding an IP datagram from source host to destination host through a router. It does not specify an Internet standard."
Note the specific and correct first use of "TCP/IP protocol suite." No proper name has ever been given to the entire suite of Internet protocols, so the need has been filled through the use of terms such as "TCP/IP based" or "Internet Protocol suite." Such terms are often simplifed to "TCP/IP" or "IP" for sake of brevity, at the expense of correctness, as is the case in RFC1180. Subsequent usage there is of an abbreviated form, suitable for a tutorial, although technically incorrect.
You're obviously unaware of the nature of RFCs. Historically, anyone could write anything and submit it as an RFC, correctness be damned. As RFC30 states: "The content of a NWG note may be any thought, suggestion, etc. related to the HOST software or other aspect of the network. Notes are encouraged to be timely rather than polished...These standards (or lack of them) are stated explicitly for two reasons. First, there is a tendency to view a written statement as ipso facto authoritative, and we hope to promote the exchange and discussion of considerably less than authoritative ideas." For you to base an argument on RFC1180 being somehow authoritative in regard to terminology simply demonstrates your lack of understanding of both RFCs and the reason for RFC1180, which is not to define terminology, but to describe the IP forwarding process.
If you examine the actual standards (i.e. STD5/RFC791/IP and STD7/RFC793/TCP) you will not find the terms used with such imprecision. Since the trigger for this thread branch is UDP, it's helpful to examine STD6/RFC768. It is clear from a reading that UDP works with IP, but is separate and distinct from TCP. UDP is no more a part of TCP/IP than is 802.3 Ethernet, although they're commonly used together.
I won't even call you an idiot, because you're obviously thinking, just ignorant of the facts.
I'll also point out that Internet is capitalized when used to refer to the global internet based on the IP suite of protocols. When not capitalized, it can refer to any network, not limited to those based on IP. IPX, Decnet, Appletalk, OSI suites of protocols can all be used to form internets.
the two most commonly encountered protocols in the suite of Internet protocols. TCP/IP does NOT correctly refer to anything except TCP and IP, and certainly does not refer to UDP.
I will grant you that it's common for tyros to incorrectly use TCP/IP to refer to the entire suite, as you have. That does not, however, make it correct. Being a well defined technical terms (read the RFCs), any argument that some "popular use" definition takes precedence is invalid.
that the strength of an algorithm is a constant. As has been shown, new attacks are always possible, so at some point in the future, the situation may be reversed and A be weaker than B. By using multiple means, the chance of a failure due to a new attack is reduced.
It's like that cardboard used glue which changes to an acid after a couple of years, except you didn't know in advance. You would have been better off using just paper.
to copy to audio CD-Rs, which can be purchased for $0.70 each or less. When you buy those, you're automatically paying a royalty tax (3% of wholesale) to copy content, so copy all your friend's CDs and save 95%. The RIAA should be more careful about what it wishes for - they pushed for the legislation which allows this.
18 USC, Chapter 10, Subchapter A, Section 1008 clearly states:
"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."
(and CSS, or whatever STANDARDs are necessary to provide the desired functionality).
Screw the browser incompatibilities. Develop to the standards and let people complain to the browser developers if they have a problem working with an standards compliant site.
Some amendments specifically restrain the Federal Government, and allow states to decide. The First Amendment is an example, placing a restriction on "congress."
Other parts of the Bill of Rights, however, (are supposed to) ensure that individual rights are protected, regardless of the governmental will of the states. The Second is one example, where rights are given specifically to "the people." This is not merely a restriction on the Federal Government, but on the individual States as well, since such enumerated rights exist completely independent of any government.
Of course, the whole Bill of Rights is soundly ignored these days. The Supremes have said that red is green, and 'taint no-one can say otherwise.
Yes, the contract was established in Washington, but the contractractual arrangement could never have been established in California, so does it still have force when the worker moves to California and seeks employment? Can a contract, that is valid in Washington be enforced in California where it is invalid? Is the contract prejudicial if applied to the employee who lives in Washington but not one who immigrates to California?
So if I sign a contract to borrow $100K in one state, all I have to do is move to another state if I don't want to pay it back, because the contract would be invalid there? Wowza! Why didn't someone tell me this before?
many accesses are random, and access time is determined by the time it takes to move the heads to the new track, plus the time it takes for the desired sector to rotate under the heads. RPM makes a difference in the latter, since it is on average 1/2 the rotation time, regardless of the number of bits on a track.
Really, DST is ridiculous, and will be more so if it's made to be in effect the majority of the year. It's a zero sum game - it has no effect on available day/night, and certainly doesn't "save daylight." Businesses should change their hours if they are affected by changing sunrise/sunset times.
A full size IP packet is about 65K bytes long. A TCP ACK/NAK is about 20 bytes (both are subject to link layer overhead). In the real world, the overall size of a TCP packet will be limited to 1500 octets because it's going over Ethernet.
So to run TCP at 50 MBps full speed would require (50Mb*20/1500=) 667Kbps reverse channel for ACKs.
But, TCP alone does not IP make. You can send all the UDP you want without needing to NAK in the other direction, which makes your basic premise completely flawed.
a right in the US. ref. 4th Amendment. Also, http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/rightsof/pri vacy.htm Of course, just because a right exists, doesn't mean it's honored by our government. Amazingly enough, the link given above points to an official US government site.
Remember, a copy is defined in the law as a material object. It is impossible to download a copy just as it is impossible to download a glass of water. Rather, the computer at the receiving end IS the copy -- its memory is the tangible object in which the intangible work is fixed.
So then it is the recipient who is making the copy, not the person holding the original?
Slashdot Mirror
If Apple bought that copyright, Creative wouldn't have much that could be played using their patent.
Or maybe they could buy the rights to John Cage's 4'33", and sue anyone who produced an MP3 player which was silent when not playing MP3s.
Just ask Dave Cutler.
How are Jews and Christians treated under Islamic rule? Why do we not hear quick and widespread denunciation of calls for Jihad?
You aren't really serious in your claims that Ruby Ridge and Waco were about taxes, are you? Although the "authorities" may have included that in their rationalizations, it should be obvious that there were much more significant social and political issues involved, regardless of whether one feels the actions were justified or not.
The IRS doesn't kill people for not paying taxes. Christian churches don't kill people for failing to tithe or for failing to fulfill contribution pledges. I'm not aware of any other state or religion which expouses death for failing to make a monetary payment.
From this you have shown that Islam is more violent than modern secular or Christian societies, in the most extreme way possible.
Wikipedia? As an unbiased source? Please. Nonetheless, there we find this:
Perhaps you can inform us whether zakat must also be paid under penalty of death?
and will continue to, at least until BPL destroys all HF communications. http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/08/30/1/?nc= 1
The Firesign Theatre told us this in the early '70's - "Everything You Know Is Wrong." They also predicted Slashdot - "I think we're all Bozo's on this bus."
The same article quotes the Hidayah as stating:
That sure doesn't sound like a simple alm to pay for government services.Just the simple fact that jizyat is obviously different (in name, in rate and in who is subject to it) from zakat argues against any claim of them being essentially the same. Furthermore, the amount for jizyat is not specified in the Quran, and hence set by a government (Khilafah), in which the taxees are not allowed to participate.
that an historical report is different from a generalized command.
The Biblical quote you give is an historical report of a specific event. The Quran text was a generalized command.
Furthermore, mainstream Christian belief is that the "New Testament" gives the rules for the religion, essentially replacing any given in the Old Testament, which is relegated to being a historical narrative. (note that the 10 commandments are re-iterated in the New). Mainstream Christianity also believes the Bible is subject to interpretation and not necessarily literal truth, fundamentalism is a minority view. Witness current debate within the Christian community over evolution vs. 7 day creation.
AFAIK, mainstream Islam believes in the literal truth of the Quran and Liberal Islam is the minority view.
That's not to say extreme violence hasn't been practiced by Christians claiming Biblical support, such as the Crusades or the Inquisition. I believe most, if not all, Christians would today repudiate those actions. While there are certainly Christians today practicing violence, any doing it in the name of their religion are an extreme minority.
Modern Islamic calls for Jihad and violence against "infidels" are prevalent, although certainly not universal.
As with most things, there are shades of grey. But it seems that the balance shows mainstream (when considered globally) Islam promoting violence against non-believers.
Feel free to correct my understanding, I don't claim to be an expert in either religion.
Feel free to find a different translation, I believe that this one accurately reflects the original meaning.
"Status of this Memo...This RFC is a tutorial on the TCP/IP protocol suite, focusing particularly on the steps in forwarding an IP datagram from source host to destination host through a router. It does not specify an Internet standard."
Note the specific and correct first use of "TCP/IP protocol suite." No proper name has ever been given to the entire suite of Internet protocols, so the need has been filled through the use of terms such as "TCP/IP based" or "Internet Protocol suite." Such terms are often simplifed to "TCP/IP" or "IP" for sake of brevity, at the expense of correctness, as is the case in RFC1180. Subsequent usage there is of an abbreviated form, suitable for a tutorial, although technically incorrect.
You're obviously unaware of the nature of RFCs. Historically, anyone could write anything and submit it as an RFC, correctness be damned. As RFC30 states: "The content of a NWG note may be any thought, suggestion, etc. related to the HOST software or other aspect of the network. Notes are encouraged to be timely rather than polished...These standards (or lack of them) are stated explicitly for two reasons. First, there is a tendency to view a written statement as ipso facto authoritative, and we hope to promote the exchange and discussion of considerably less than authoritative ideas." For you to base an argument on RFC1180 being somehow authoritative in regard to terminology simply demonstrates your lack of understanding of both RFCs and the reason for RFC1180, which is not to define terminology, but to describe the IP forwarding process.
If you examine the actual standards (i.e. STD5/RFC791/IP and STD7/RFC793/TCP) you will not find the terms used with such imprecision. Since the trigger for this thread branch is UDP, it's helpful to examine STD6/RFC768. It is clear from a reading that UDP works with IP, but is separate and distinct from TCP. UDP is no more a part of TCP/IP than is 802.3 Ethernet, although they're commonly used together.
I won't even call you an idiot, because you're obviously thinking, just ignorant of the facts.
I'll also point out that Internet is capitalized when used to refer to the global internet based on the IP suite of protocols. When not capitalized, it can refer to any network, not limited to those based on IP. IPX, Decnet, Appletalk, OSI suites of protocols can all be used to form internets.
the two most commonly encountered protocols in the suite of Internet protocols. TCP/IP does NOT correctly refer to anything except TCP and IP, and certainly does not refer to UDP.
I will grant you that it's common for tyros to incorrectly use TCP/IP to refer to the entire suite, as you have. That does not, however, make it correct. Being a well defined technical terms (read the RFCs), any argument that some "popular use" definition takes precedence is invalid.
that the strength of an algorithm is a constant. As has been shown, new attacks are always possible, so at some point in the future, the situation may be reversed and A be weaker than B. By using multiple means, the chance of a failure due to a new attack is reduced.
It's like that cardboard used glue which changes to an acid after a couple of years, except you didn't know in advance. You would have been better off using just paper.
18 USC, Chapter 10, Subchapter A, Section 1008 clearly states: [emphasis added]
(and CSS, or whatever STANDARDs are necessary to provide the desired functionality). Screw the browser incompatibilities. Develop to the standards and let people complain to the browser developers if they have a problem working with an standards compliant site.
It's YOU who are spinning things. The exact quote is:/ president.2000/transcript.gore/
"I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
It was uttered by Al on 3/9/99, in a CNN interview. The transcript is at http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09
just like the Federal Reserve Banks. HAW! HAW! Good joke, though, that you believe what they tell you.
Some amendments specifically restrain the Federal Government, and allow states to decide. The First Amendment is an example, placing a restriction on "congress."
Other parts of the Bill of Rights, however, (are supposed to) ensure that individual rights are protected, regardless of the governmental will of the states. The Second is one example, where rights are given specifically to "the people." This is not merely a restriction on the Federal Government, but on the individual States as well, since such enumerated rights exist completely independent of any government.
Of course, the whole Bill of Rights is soundly ignored these days. The Supremes have said that red is green, and 'taint no-one can say otherwise.
many accesses are random, and access time is determined by the time it takes to move the heads to the new track, plus the time it takes for the desired sector to rotate under the heads. RPM makes a difference in the latter, since it is on average 1/2 the rotation time, regardless of the number of bits on a track.
Really, DST is ridiculous, and will be more so if it's made to be in effect the majority of the year. It's a zero sum game - it has no effect on available day/night, and certainly doesn't "save daylight." Businesses should change their hours if they are affected by changing sunrise/sunset times.
but spam is not just UCE. Spam is any unsolicited bulk email.
A full size IP packet is about 65K bytes long. A TCP ACK/NAK is about 20 bytes (both are subject to link layer overhead). In the real world, the overall size of a TCP packet will be limited to 1500 octets because it's going over Ethernet.
So to run TCP at 50 MBps full speed would require (50Mb*20/1500=) 667Kbps reverse channel for ACKs.
But, TCP alone does not IP make. You can send all the UDP you want without needing to NAK in the other direction, which makes your basic premise completely flawed.
a right in the US. ref. 4th Amendment.i vacy.htm
Also, http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/rightsof/pr
Of course, just because a right exists, doesn't mean it's honored by our government. Amazingly enough, the link given above points to an official US government site.
So then it is the recipient who is making the copy, not the person holding the original?