It's not just that not all commonly used products include encryption, it's that there's no standard infrastructure for key exchange.
In a standard GPG encryption scheme, each user creates a private key and a public key. Anyone who wishes to send them a message must request their public key in order to do the encryption, and then the private key is used to do the decryption. (Sometimes to save computation time the message is actually encrypted with a symmetrical key, and then the key--which is shorter than the message--is encrypted with the public key. But that's mainly an implementation detail, and the need for key exchange still stands.)
However, if I'm reading my mail in Thunderbird on a personal SMTP server hosted on my own DSL connection, and I want to send an encrypted email to you at your GMail address, I first need to request your public key for encryption. As it stands, there is no standard method for my server, when I click the "encrypt" button, to submit a request to Google's server and then receive in response a public key for encryption. Currently only integrated solutions, such as Microsoft Exchange or Lotus, where all the email is being routed through a single server that can hand out keys, can have this approach.
It would require either a call-and-response system, where Server A could send a specially formatted email to Server B which would then send another specially formated email back to Server A containing the public key, or a registry lookup system, where each user would register their public key with a public keyserver which would act like a DNS, translating email addresses into public keys for systems that request them. Both types of systems have the requirement that everyone you send email to be able to use the same system. If I'm sending an email from my home SMTP server to your GMail account, either my SMTP server has to be able to communicate with GMail in a meaningful way, or both servers (mine and GMail's) need to be set up to talk to the same system of keyservers. I imagine a workable system would include both, just like TCP/IP and DNS.
Only when such a system is used by the majority of email systems will encryption ever be universally available.
Re:Taxes are already everywhere. Why more?
on
Internet Tax Imminent?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I go to the store, and I purchase a television. I pay 8% sales tax. Is this enough? The store pays 35% taxes anually on their operating income (not revenue). Is this enough? The store bought their televisions at a wholesale price from a distributor, and paid a sales tax. Is this enough? The distributor pays 35% tax anually on their operating income. Is this enough? The distributor bought the televisions from the manufacturer, and paid a sales tax. Is this enough? The manufacturer bought components from various suppliers, and paid a sales tax. Is this enough? The manufacturer pays 35% annually on their operating income. Is this enough? The suppliers buy raw material to manufacture their products, and pay a sales tax. Is this enough? The suppliers pay 35% annually on their operating income. Is this enough? The producers of the raw materials pay 35% anually on their operating income. Is this enough?
This is not including all the sales tax paid on the purchase of refining/manufacturing/administrative equipment, the property taxes paid by the various companies for their facilities, the taxes paid on utilities, the levies on various products for various political reasons, or the income tax paid by the employees of each of the companies. I'd say the system is fully covered, from every angle, sometimes doubly so.
But the difference is that all of these taxes are enacted by people *we* elected. The tea party was about taxes enacted by people who we didn't elect; in fact we had no say in the election proceedings at all. Puerto Rico might have a beef with taxation without representation, but those of us who live in a bona-fide state do not.
Taxation is high, but that's an orthogonal issue to the need for a tea party.
Is it a violation of privacy for the DMV to have your name and address on record associated with your VIN number, which is printed on your car (most likely in several places)? The VIN number is a government-mandated registration (also applicable to firearms) that some people probably don't agree with. The majority clearly don't have a problem with it. I don't have a problem with it.
Is it a violation of privacy for a pharmacy to print your name on every bottle of perscription medication you buy? Some pharmacies probably don't put names on bottles of pills, but many still do. And every time I walk into a pharmacy just to buy Sudafed (over the counter!), the great state of Washington feels the need to register my name and address under the assumption that I am secretly running a meth lab instead of just trying to stave off my allergies. I consider that a gross violation of my privacy.
I hear your frustrations, because I've been there before. I've been running Gentoo exclusively on all of my varied machines for a little over 4 years now, and non-exclusively (dual booting Windows) for almost 6.
But Gentoo is not a distribution. It's really more of a meta-distribution. It can be tailored to just about anything you want, but you need to be willing to take ownership of it and work with it.
If you're looking for your server to Just Work (tm), then by all means, go get SuSe or Mandriva or Ubuntu or Fedora or some other distro with precompiled binaries and a slick installer program. Gentoo's not for everyone. But, if you're looking for fine-grained control over your operating system with some handy scripts to help you out along the way, then you have to be willing to get your hands a little dirty.
I picked up Gentoo as an educational tool; I figured building it from scratch was the best way to learn about Linux, and I was right. Since then, I've stayed with Gentoo because I like the flexibility it gives me, and because at heart I really just enjoy building things. Right now I have Gentoo installed on two servers, a desktop and a laptop at home, and I'm working on building a tiny MythTV frontend that will boot from a USB key (under 100MB). Gentoo's flexible enough to allow me to do that, but then again, I'm willing to sit with it until it's right.
Gentoo never has been and never will be a Just Works (tm) operating system. It's for the hobbyists, the administrators, the students: anyone who wants a much finer grain control over their system. If that's not for you, then no one at Gentoo will hold a grudge.
Re:"Email is bankrupt" != "Wilson's email bankrupt
on
Is Email 'Bankrupt'?
·
· Score: 1
Standard Slashdot practice.
Misleading 'Title'?
Posted by Editor on 10:02 AM May 25th, 2007 from the slightly-tangentially-related-joke dept.
Some_user writes: "News story containing information about a tech-related company was reported in this link which is actually a link to a blog with a link to a blog with a link to a blog containing a post by a guy who read the headline on a bus advertisement as he was crossing the street. Further information is available also in this blog and this blog. Cursory and slightly misleading analysis follows initial statement, leading to a specious conclusion. Slippery slope question to spark flamewars?
That's easy to do when you're using GMail and have (effectively) inifinite storage space. But I don't.
In my office environment, I'm using the corporate-mandated Exchange/Outlook combo, with a whopping 20MB available for both inbox and calendar. If I don't move it out of the inbox, the inbox stops being functional. And I get so much email that does truly need to be saved for months (and sometimes years) at a time due to the length of our customer programs, that if I dumped it all into a single personal folder in Outlook, the resulting file would be so large that Outlook would eventually corrupt it, and hog memory doing it.
Why, Microsoft, why can't I search in more than one personal folder at once?!
(And before you ask, no, I can't just forward everything to a GMail account with a reply-to header added on outgoing. That's a violation of export compliance laws. My email has to stay within the corporate firewall, or be encrypted outside it.)
I think you're underestimating Dell's power in the market. When you assume that Dell only has to pick from existing hardware and existing drivers, of course their selection is limited. It would be the same way with Windows if Windows had less than 5% marketshare.
The difference is, Dell can go to their hardware suppliers and say, "we want to buy your product, but we really need you to create a Linux driver for it. If you can't do that, we will buy from someone else." Dell is a big enough account for some of these suppliers that *someone* will be willing to develop a driver for Linux in order to score the Dell account. The more hardware that has Linux drivers, the more computers Dell can offer with Linux, and the more divers that get written for Linux.
Hardware is just silicon. All it needs is a driver to work on any operating system. The reason Linux lags right now is that the hardware companies only develop drivers for Windows, based solely on marketshare. Once Linux sales pick up at Dell, that will start to change.
Music, movies, even books have an almost $0 reproduction cost. What is the point of this. There's tons of things that have very little actual reproduction cost that have a high cost to produce the first one. And if you go into any story about copyright on Slashdot, you will find lots of threads making the same claim about movies/music/books: they break the current economic model. And these people are right. The only reason people still pay for these things is that they are perceived to have value, same for software.
Even things like CPUs, which have an extremely high development cost, have an actual very low per unit cost to reproduce. That is, once the chip is designed, and the fab is built, the materials to actually produce a chip are nil. The difference with the chip is that there truly is scarcity, in that you can't fab a Pentium in your garage, even if you had the plans. The fixed costs (factory, machines, software running the machines, etc.) are very high during pruduction; even if the raw materials for the chip and the electricity required to run the machines to make the chip is very low, the cost of running the factory is *not* low. The marginal costs are low, but the fixed costs are not.
Even an automobile, when you break it down to it's bare parts, is worth almost nothing. I'm sure anybody who has had a car scrapped can tell you that the scrap yard dealer will probably give you around $500 for something that was once bought for $20,000. Again, the cost of the parts is low compared to the cost of the car, but that's not the only cost associated with manufacture. There are additional marginal costs such as labor and machine hours, and there fixed costs associated with keeping the factory up and running. On top of that, there are distribution and sales costs, and that's before the car makes it to a dealer, which has additional costs of its own to cover, including building overhead, insurance, salaries, etc. You get the picture.
With software (and other information resources like music, movies, etc.) the only fixed costs are actually sunk costs: the development, which all happens *before* manufacture. After that, the fixed cost for producing additional copies (over the internet or as pressed CDs) is very low compared to development, and the marginal costs approach zero.
The GP's point was that software is being sold as if it's a product that is manufactured, when in reality the cost structure associated with its creation lends it more readily to being a service. The customer should not pay for the software itself, which is not really a scarce product in the economic sense of the word, they should pay for the development of the software, which is a service.
The Simpsons is not offered on iTMS because the revenue Fox would see from selling it would be much, much less than the ad revenue they currently see in its Sunday night time slot, per person viewing. You and I both know that the show has been steadily declining in quality in the last decade, but from Fox's point of view it's still a cash cow.
American wireless companies should drop the price of text down to a fair price (pennies) in order to encourage its use. Not only is this the fair market price, but it would help the adoption of a great complementary technology to direct voice communication. Oh, I get it now. You're assuming that the oligopoly of cell phone providers in this country (there are only four) actually give a flying chair what the market thinks of their service.
It's only a no-brainer when the objective of taxation is to reduce usage of the taxed items. In our case, the government is much more likely to tax something that will not go away, in order to guarantee a revenue stream for whatever other large-government projects they can cook up.
If you tax the bad things, the bad things will eventually go away, and thus so will the taxes.
You know, if they spent half the time and resources they do in their witch hunts on a education/PR campaign they would have much better results. Oh yeah? How much do you pay attention to those commercials at the front of DVDs that call you a dirty, filthy pirate?
O RLY? 17 USC 1201 trumps 17 USC 107 through 109 in at least the Second Circuit. No, it doesn't.
Check out paragraph (c):
(1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.
(2) Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish vicarious or contributory liability for copyright infringement in connection with any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof.
(3) Nothing in this section shall require that the design of, or design and selection of parts and components for, a consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing product provide for a response to any particular technological measure, so long as such part or component, or the product in which such part or component is integrated, does not otherwise fall within the prohibitions of subsection (a)(2) or (b)(1).
(4) Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish any rights of free speech or the press for activities using consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing products. Emphasis mine. Basically, it says that you're not allowed to circumvent technological schemes designed to protect against copyright violations, except if you are specifically mentioned by the Librarian of Congress in (a)(1)(C) OR if your breaking of that technology is defensible as a non-infringing use, such as fair use. DeCSS lost because the judge was a wanker and decided not to question the laws set by Congress, and the three judges on the appeals court upheld his decision, even though questioning Congress is exactly their friggin' job.
A coworker of mine (who is not what I would call "computer literate") recently bought a Dell Inspiron, and it came with XP Home and a free upgrade to Vista (I don't remember the version). She upgraded the computer to Vista, just like the box said she should, and promptly decided she hated it. Even on her beefy laptop, it was slow and sluggish, and she didn't like all the security prompts interrupting her work.
So she brought it in to the office and asked me (resident computer geek) to reinstall XP. Here is a person who doesn't know anything "under the hood" about computers, and had not heard anything about Vista; but she hated it anyway, and hated it enough to go out of her way to get rid of it.
You can be sure from now on she will tell everyone she knows not to get Vista.
In light of this, I was amused when I heard a news report about Microsoft's first quarter earnings. Profits were high, and an MS spokesperson attributed this to "brisk sales of Vista". But I want to know... how many of those sales were of OEM versions to companies like Dell who probably purchase licenses in advance? Those licenses might never sell, and Dell will quit buying more. I think the first quarter earnings might be slightly inflated because of standard advance purchase practices, but it will all even out as the OEMs realize that no one wants Vista.
Now, the only problem is that implementing and debugging a computer from scratch could be a rather time consuming undertaking. But the parent was not talking about implementing and debugging a computer from scratch. He was talking about a Dell-style OEM store, but at the circuit level instead of the component level. When you visit Dell.com and customize a computer, choosing mobo, hard disk, cd burner, monitor, etc., all the troubleshooting has been done for you. You just choose options that are presented, and they assemble it for you.
Now imagine that on a much finer-grain scale, allowing you to choose even the on-board options. Choose a processor, a sound chipset, a wireless chipset, a video chipset, an IDE interface, and a LAN chipset. The OEM then literally builds a motherboard to exactly your specs and sends it to you.
It doesn't even have to be limited to consumer-type PCs. I could see lots of embedded applications using this same technique (robot wars, DVRs, carputers, portable music/video players, etc.).
I think the trouble comes about when we start to think of evolution as a "force". Evolution is not the driving force behind change; instead, outside forces in the environment (temperature, weather, resources, competitors, etc.) create natural selection, which drives change. Evolution is merely the description of that change.
...let's just say I'm against islam... I really hope you meant to say "extremist Islam." If not, then you sir need to go do some more reading and research.
Islamic Terrorists:Islam::KKK:Christianity
Other than that, your post was spot-on. Anyone who believes that God is on their side while they commit terrible acts against other people is a nut, no matter what religion they use to justify it.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, that's Heisenburg.
It's not just that not all commonly used products include encryption, it's that there's no standard infrastructure for key exchange.
In a standard GPG encryption scheme, each user creates a private key and a public key. Anyone who wishes to send them a message must request their public key in order to do the encryption, and then the private key is used to do the decryption. (Sometimes to save computation time the message is actually encrypted with a symmetrical key, and then the key--which is shorter than the message--is encrypted with the public key. But that's mainly an implementation detail, and the need for key exchange still stands.)
However, if I'm reading my mail in Thunderbird on a personal SMTP server hosted on my own DSL connection, and I want to send an encrypted email to you at your GMail address, I first need to request your public key for encryption. As it stands, there is no standard method for my server, when I click the "encrypt" button, to submit a request to Google's server and then receive in response a public key for encryption. Currently only integrated solutions, such as Microsoft Exchange or Lotus, where all the email is being routed through a single server that can hand out keys, can have this approach.
It would require either a call-and-response system, where Server A could send a specially formatted email to Server B which would then send another specially formated email back to Server A containing the public key, or a registry lookup system, where each user would register their public key with a public keyserver which would act like a DNS, translating email addresses into public keys for systems that request them. Both types of systems have the requirement that everyone you send email to be able to use the same system. If I'm sending an email from my home SMTP server to your GMail account, either my SMTP server has to be able to communicate with GMail in a meaningful way, or both servers (mine and GMail's) need to be set up to talk to the same system of keyservers. I imagine a workable system would include both, just like TCP/IP and DNS.
Only when such a system is used by the majority of email systems will encryption ever be universally available.
I go to the store, and I purchase a television. I pay 8% sales tax. Is this enough?
The store pays 35% taxes anually on their operating income (not revenue). Is this enough?
The store bought their televisions at a wholesale price from a distributor, and paid a sales tax. Is this enough?
The distributor pays 35% tax anually on their operating income. Is this enough?
The distributor bought the televisions from the manufacturer, and paid a sales tax. Is this enough?
The manufacturer bought components from various suppliers, and paid a sales tax. Is this enough?
The manufacturer pays 35% annually on their operating income. Is this enough?
The suppliers buy raw material to manufacture their products, and pay a sales tax. Is this enough?
The suppliers pay 35% annually on their operating income. Is this enough?
The producers of the raw materials pay 35% anually on their operating income. Is this enough?
This is not including all the sales tax paid on the purchase of refining/manufacturing/administrative equipment, the property taxes paid by the various companies for their facilities, the taxes paid on utilities, the levies on various products for various political reasons, or the income tax paid by the employees of each of the companies. I'd say the system is fully covered, from every angle, sometimes doubly so.
But the difference is that all of these taxes are enacted by people *we* elected. The tea party was about taxes enacted by people who we didn't elect; in fact we had no say in the election proceedings at all. Puerto Rico might have a beef with taxation without representation, but those of us who live in a bona-fide state do not.
Taxation is high, but that's an orthogonal issue to the need for a tea party.
Must be an old picture. Check out the gas prices down the street.
Is it a violation of privacy for the DMV to have your name and address on record associated with your VIN number, which is printed on your car (most likely in several places)? The VIN number is a government-mandated registration (also applicable to firearms) that some people probably don't agree with. The majority clearly don't have a problem with it. I don't have a problem with it.
Is it a violation of privacy for a pharmacy to print your name on every bottle of perscription medication you buy? Some pharmacies probably don't put names on bottles of pills, but many still do. And every time I walk into a pharmacy just to buy Sudafed (over the counter!), the great state of Washington feels the need to register my name and address under the assumption that I am secretly running a meth lab instead of just trying to stave off my allergies. I consider that a gross violation of my privacy.
I'm not sure where the line is.
Shouldn't we pump them first?
I hear your frustrations, because I've been there before. I've been running Gentoo exclusively on all of my varied machines for a little over 4 years now, and non-exclusively (dual booting Windows) for almost 6.
But Gentoo is not a distribution. It's really more of a meta-distribution. It can be tailored to just about anything you want, but you need to be willing to take ownership of it and work with it.
If you're looking for your server to Just Work (tm), then by all means, go get SuSe or Mandriva or Ubuntu or Fedora or some other distro with precompiled binaries and a slick installer program. Gentoo's not for everyone. But, if you're looking for fine-grained control over your operating system with some handy scripts to help you out along the way, then you have to be willing to get your hands a little dirty.
I picked up Gentoo as an educational tool; I figured building it from scratch was the best way to learn about Linux, and I was right. Since then, I've stayed with Gentoo because I like the flexibility it gives me, and because at heart I really just enjoy building things. Right now I have Gentoo installed on two servers, a desktop and a laptop at home, and I'm working on building a tiny MythTV frontend that will boot from a USB key (under 100MB). Gentoo's flexible enough to allow me to do that, but then again, I'm willing to sit with it until it's right.
Gentoo never has been and never will be a Just Works (tm) operating system. It's for the hobbyists, the administrators, the students: anyone who wants a much finer grain control over their system. If that's not for you, then no one at Gentoo will hold a grudge.
# ln -snf
Standard Slashdot practice.
Misleading 'Title'?
Posted by Editor on 10:02 AM May 25th, 2007
from the slightly-tangentially-related-joke dept.
Some_user writes:
"News story containing information about a tech-related company was reported in this link which is actually a link to a blog with a link to a blog with a link to a blog containing a post by a guy who read the headline on a bus advertisement as he was crossing the street. Further information is available also in this blog and this blog. Cursory and slightly misleading analysis follows initial statement, leading to a specious conclusion. Slippery slope question to spark flamewars?
|> defectivebydesign, hahaha, mafiaa, 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0 (tagging beta)
That's easy to do when you're using GMail and have (effectively) inifinite storage space. But I don't.
In my office environment, I'm using the corporate-mandated Exchange/Outlook combo, with a whopping 20MB available for both inbox and calendar. If I don't move it out of the inbox, the inbox stops being functional. And I get so much email that does truly need to be saved for months (and sometimes years) at a time due to the length of our customer programs, that if I dumped it all into a single personal folder in Outlook, the resulting file would be so large that Outlook would eventually corrupt it, and hog memory doing it.
Why, Microsoft, why can't I search in more than one personal folder at once?!
(And before you ask, no, I can't just forward everything to a GMail account with a reply-to header added on outgoing. That's a violation of export compliance laws. My email has to stay within the corporate firewall, or be encrypted outside it.)
I think you're underestimating Dell's power in the market. When you assume that Dell only has to pick from existing hardware and existing drivers, of course their selection is limited. It would be the same way with Windows if Windows had less than 5% marketshare.
The difference is, Dell can go to their hardware suppliers and say, "we want to buy your product, but we really need you to create a Linux driver for it. If you can't do that, we will buy from someone else." Dell is a big enough account for some of these suppliers that *someone* will be willing to develop a driver for Linux in order to score the Dell account. The more hardware that has Linux drivers, the more computers Dell can offer with Linux, and the more divers that get written for Linux.
Hardware is just silicon. All it needs is a driver to work on any operating system. The reason Linux lags right now is that the hardware companies only develop drivers for Windows, based solely on marketshare. Once Linux sales pick up at Dell, that will start to change.
With software (and other information resources like music, movies, etc.) the only fixed costs are actually sunk costs: the development, which all happens *before* manufacture. After that, the fixed cost for producing additional copies (over the internet or as pressed CDs) is very low compared to development, and the marginal costs approach zero.
The GP's point was that software is being sold as if it's a product that is manufactured, when in reality the cost structure associated with its creation lends it more readily to being a service. The customer should not pay for the software itself, which is not really a scarce product in the economic sense of the word, they should pay for the development of the software, which is a service.
The Simpsons is not offered on iTMS because the revenue Fox would see from selling it would be much, much less than the ad revenue they currently see in its Sunday night time slot, per person viewing. You and I both know that the show has been steadily declining in quality in the last decade, but from Fox's point of view it's still a cash cow.
It's ok, we understand you're new here.
It's only a no-brainer when the objective of taxation is to reduce usage of the taxed items. In our case, the government is much more likely to tax something that will not go away, in order to guarantee a revenue stream for whatever other large-government projects they can cook up.
If you tax the bad things, the bad things will eventually go away, and thus so will the taxes.
Why wouldn't you just use the text of the DMCA itself as the key? Then the government can't publish it!
Pasting the text of this page into a word processor, I learn that it is 177,926 characters long, with spaces. That's a 1,423,408-bit key.
Better get started.
Check out paragraph (c): (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.
(2) Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish vicarious or contributory liability for copyright infringement in connection with any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof.
(3) Nothing in this section shall require that the design of, or design and selection of parts and components for, a consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing product provide for a response to any particular technological measure, so long as such part or component, or the product in which such part or component is integrated, does not otherwise fall within the prohibitions of subsection (a)(2) or (b)(1).
(4) Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish any rights of free speech or the press for activities using consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing products. Emphasis mine. Basically, it says that you're not allowed to circumvent technological schemes designed to protect against copyright violations, except if you are specifically mentioned by the Librarian of Congress in (a)(1)(C) OR if your breaking of that technology is defensible as a non-infringing use, such as fair use. DeCSS lost because the judge was a wanker and decided not to question the laws set by Congress, and the three judges on the appeals court upheld his decision, even though questioning Congress is exactly their friggin' job.
You're right, word of mouth is important.
... how many of those sales were of OEM versions to companies like Dell who probably purchase licenses in advance? Those licenses might never sell, and Dell will quit buying more. I think the first quarter earnings might be slightly inflated because of standard advance purchase practices, but it will all even out as the OEMs realize that no one wants Vista.
A coworker of mine (who is not what I would call "computer literate") recently bought a Dell Inspiron, and it came with XP Home and a free upgrade to Vista (I don't remember the version). She upgraded the computer to Vista, just like the box said she should, and promptly decided she hated it. Even on her beefy laptop, it was slow and sluggish, and she didn't like all the security prompts interrupting her work.
So she brought it in to the office and asked me (resident computer geek) to reinstall XP. Here is a person who doesn't know anything "under the hood" about computers, and had not heard anything about Vista; but she hated it anyway, and hated it enough to go out of her way to get rid of it.
You can be sure from now on she will tell everyone she knows not to get Vista.
In light of this, I was amused when I heard a news report about Microsoft's first quarter earnings. Profits were high, and an MS spokesperson attributed this to "brisk sales of Vista". But I want to know
Now imagine that on a much finer-grain scale, allowing you to choose even the on-board options. Choose a processor, a sound chipset, a wireless chipset, a video chipset, an IDE interface, and a LAN chipset. The OEM then literally builds a motherboard to exactly your specs and sends it to you.
It doesn't even have to be limited to consumer-type PCs. I could see lots of embedded applications using this same technique (robot wars, DVRs, carputers, portable music/video players, etc.).
I think the trouble comes about when we start to think of evolution as a "force". Evolution is not the driving force behind change; instead, outside forces in the environment (temperature, weather, resources, competitors, etc.) create natural selection, which drives change. Evolution is merely the description of that change.
Evolution is not a mechanism, it's a result.
...let's just say I'm against islam... I really hope you meant to say "extremist Islam." If not, then you sir need to go do some more reading and research.Islamic Terrorists:Islam::KKK:Christianity
Other than that, your post was spot-on. Anyone who believes that God is on their side while they commit terrible acts against other people is a nut, no matter what religion they use to justify it.
...the placenta (held by the reporter... Let me be the first to say:Ew.
Humanity.