Think of her children on the playground, "Your mommy is a slut!" or "You're a bastard!"
When your definition of morality is defined by playground taunts you pretty much have no standing in the debate. But I do have to hand it to you, in a discussion about adult sexuality you still found a way to work in that mainstay of cliches, "but think of the children!"
sorry, this is a part of OSS culture I entirely fail to understand.
It's the AOL-ization of linux. Lots of people without much technical ability, but lots of time on their hands to talk about it. So you get a focus on the trivial because all they can understand.
Another display of random ad hominems without even a token attempt at refuting what I said.
Gee, a perfect example of islamofreak active ignorance: You actually quoted the summary of my refutation but you claim not 'even a token attempt at refuting what you said.'
a very large jump from almost half of all reported rapes in Sweden are committed by people who are foreign born to almost half of rapists in sweden are muslim.
Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously when you are so blatantly stupid?
And here's what a former Muslim terrorist from Egypt has to say.
Lol, Tawfik Hamid is a publicity hound who charges at least $13K per speaking appearance. The guy's got conflict interest written all over him - any exaggeration just means more money. Plus, his story is more than a little shakey - claiming that he was a muslim fundamentalist who married a non-muslim woman who never converted? That would never fly if he had really been a fundie.
And in Norway and Sweden, most perpetrators are Muslims, and they commit an incredibly disproportionate amount of them. Then there's the issue of culture: is rape a part of Canadian culture? No, but it's a part of Islamic culture. Significant difference.
Another display of islamofreak lack of critical thinking, reinforced by blog group think.
I didn't bother to refute them because there is plenty of evidence available to anyone who knows how to read with a critical eye. The reason I mentioned the Aisha debate in the first place to hook the islamofreaks, not to indulge them.
It's also strange that you accuse the American school system, when it doesn't even teach anything negative or "offensive" about Islam.
More islamofreak self-identification through obvious misinterpretation.
I criticized the american school system for focusing on tests and self-love rather than teaching the invaluable skill of critical thinking. Something you have evidently failed to learn too.
For those that think the current border is "cruel" because of the harsh desert and mean ranchers, this is better. People will cross when the chance of death is only a few percent. They won't cross if death would be nearly certain. Thus, fewer people die.
That only works if they believe the alternative is better.
I am quite willing to believe that a very low double digit percentage of illegal aliens feel that 'staying home' is a fate worse than death. People who think that way will still take their chances, even in the face of almost certain death. As my girl Janis once opined, "Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose..."
...are not required. The DMZ does not have people wandering around the undergrowth, even with human gaurds you will be shot (armed or otherwise). All it needs to sense is a warm object.
Just why do you think we are talking about the GPL?
What we are talking about is the claim that the APSL is just for "code inspection" and not actual modification and redistribution. As far as I am concerned it is the ability to modify and redistribute the modified software with minimal to no restrictions that define the general definition of "Open Source" - and "look but don't touch" does not.
Newspapers don't have zero marginal cost for later printings, but I suspect that the main cost is still for the first copy (reporters and editors versus programmers).
And whether someone takes one or takes a hundred copies of a "free" paper has no impact on the cost of that first copy and since the copies themselves are "free" taking 100 of them only affects the paper's ability to recoup those "first copy costs" in a very roundabout and indirect fashion.
The american justice system works perfectly for those that designed it. It's a system for and by the rich. The single biggest factor in whether you win or lose a case is how much money you have to spend on it.
I used to think that a career change from software developer to lawyer would be a fairly easy and natural progression. After all both professions are all about understanding the rules and figuring out the more optimal paths that both follow the rules and produce the desired result. It ought to be a cinch.
Except for one crucial difference.
In the software world each code path either works or is broken - there may be multiple paths that produce the same result, but their correctness is black and white. In the legal world, nothing is black and white. What "works" one day, may be broken the next day depending on who the observers are (judge, different lawyers, etc).
That kind of behavior is so totally effed up from an engineer's perspective that only an insane engineer could ever become a good lawyer. The law is really just a huge collective bong party - everybody toking up and then speculating out loud about their deepest philosophical insights into the universe. It all comes down to how well you can convince other people that the words of the law mean what you want them to mean and not what someone else wants them to mean.
People all laughed when Clinton (a lawyer, like most politicians) made that statement about "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" But given the context that the law is all about arguing over the meaning of words, it is perfectly natural that he would say that. Still totally effed up, but in a perfectly natural way.
While those copies are being offered for free, they were not produced for free. This is why so many of such free papers now bear a label similar to "Take one, if you want more, contact the editor."
In the software world, the open source plaintiffs could argue that, while their product is offered for free, it was not produced for free. That, and the license under which the defendant agreed to use the software specifically states that they must follow the terms of the license in order to use the software.
Unfortunately, just like any other analogy to physical (or more technically rivalrous) products, this one falls apart because only the first copy of the 'free' software cost anything significant to produce. All subsequent copies have close to zero marginal cost, and in this case even that marginal cost is borne by the defendant.
Linux weenies consistently miss the point of Darwin. It's not another BSD distro, it's ther for the convenience of Mac developers who have to work with kernel code, such as driver writers and third-party hardware manufacturers.
Can you blame the linux weenies for expecting that when Apple talks about Open Source that they actually mean the same thing as everyone else who uses the term?
My bet is that the democrats learned a thing or two after the funny business around Gore's loss in 2004 and ran their own cheats this time around mostly balancing things out. Notice how the exit polls this time around were once again as accurate as they have always been except for 2004.
Of course maybe 'they' just figured out how to rig the exit polls to better cover their tracks... paranoid speculation is great fun.
The initial question was whether someone wants to help MS "at their expense", and one's "wants and desires" most certainly *do* come into play here. If I don't want to help MS at my expense (for example), even if after my contribution has been made, I *still* don't want to see MS benefit. That's the point. Not that it is somehow going to cost me more after the fact.
Then it is clearly up to the person not to give away their efforts in the first place. When you give away code anyone can benefit - nambla, shin-ri-kyo, the pope, or nelson mandela -- anyone. If a person isn't prepared to let everyone use the results of his work, he shouldn't be giving it away in the first place. Just because he may not have thought through the implications beforehand is no excuse.
But there's more than just my past expense, there's my present and future expense. Will I want to further contribute to a project that I now know is going to be used against me?
That's circular reasoning, since there is no additional expense incurred by MS's use, by definition it is not being used against you. MS's benefit is not your loss, it is not a zero-sum game.
With one vote that wasn't counted among a town of 80, that's an error rate of 1.25%, based on population.
So if that error rate is taken nationally... the USA has about 300 million people, with a 1.25% error rate in vote counts, there could be as many as 4 million votes that are either lost or counted for an opponent if the same sort of problems can occur... 4 MILLION!
That's enough to sway the outcome of almost any national election.
Because of the "winner takes all" nature of the electoral system, it is possible to rig a national election with much, much less than 4 million. Taking the recent congressional election as an example both Montana and Virginia were won with margins of less than 10,000 votes each. Less than 5,000 votes "flipped" the other way in each of those two states would have been enough to change control of the US Senate.
When you consider the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on running the various campaigns, it is almost inevitable that someone out there will decide that "investing" a couple of hundred thousand, even a million or two, in bribes to an insider at the voting machine company would be a good strategic move for their candidate.
Yes, there is. The expense is the initial work put into it, as well as any ongoing and future efforts. If I toss pennies in a fountain, my expense is the same, no matter what happens to the pennies, but I don't want the mall to just pocket the change, I want it to help some charity. In other words, I wanted a charity to benefit at my expense, not the mall.
You seem unclear on the concept - whatever is done with the pennies after you toss them into the fountain has absolutely zero impact on any expense that you incurred by throwing them into the fountain in the first place. Your "wants" and "desires" about what happens to those pennies afterwards don't have any effect either.
Yes I'm going to tell you that prophet was 1. a pedophile : he fucked a girl called "aisha" when she was 7 year old
You sure took the bait, hook, line and sinker - you went straight for it, first thing and didn't even bother to try refute my points about your abject ignorance of even the basics of islam.
Islamofreaks like you just love the pedo meme, probably because you are a closet pedo yourself looking to project your feelings of guilt on to someone else and away from your own perverted cravings. You love it so much that whenever anyone even hints at the Aisha debate, you can't resist going all whacko and self-identifying as a total loon. Just look at how rambling and ignorant the rest of your post gets:
Even the presence of the bottles would be a clear violation of palestine's law
Cite the statute. Come on, its so "clear" surely you can do it? Well, you can't because it is not illegal to have alcohol in palestine, much less bottles. See this story about a successful microbrewery in palestine. What a piss-poor attempt at back-tracking on your part - as if breaking a law, that doesn't even exist, would somehow equate to "idiotic hypocrisy."
(not beating your wife regularly would be another violation). That's islam.
After that, I don't think it would be possible for you to say anything that would make you appear more stupid than you just did.
More ignorant ramblings. I think you meant to say that in Arabic "islam" means NAMBLA didn't you?. The idea that "islam" means 'oppression' is random islamofreak circle-jerking. Islam means submission to God - which is pretty much the definition of any other monotheistic religion, and most polytheistic ones too.
2. a person who murdered hundreds of people in cold blood, when they were no threat to him : khaybar, the rounded up all the men there, had them dig their own grave in the center of medina, and had them beheaded before his eyes one by one. Then he ordered muslims to rape their women.
Yeah, whatever freakazoid. You are clearly a product of the american public school system where critical thinking has long since ceased to be a taught skill, replaced with multiple choice tests and feeling good about yourself. Sure must be nice to have an irrational hatred you can share with all your buddies, it just kinda makes you feel special don't it?
And then read the comment, on that same page, from the author of that blog about YOU Christophe Devriese and others just like you:
THIS IS NOT ABOUT ISLAM. the problem with writing a criticism about anything regarding the middle east is a person gets a lot of ignorant people from dhimmiwatch and sandmonkey fans who are incapable of critical thought and just search frantically for confirmation of the pearls of wisdom that drop from the mouth of that imbecile, george bush.
now, i don't actually think that egypt has sharia law in place regarding the rules of evidence (i'll check on that in a few minutes though). few islamic countries do, just like israel has not codified the startlingly misogynistic laws of the Torah. this is because they do not accord with modern thought. as for western countries, it is only lately, very lately, that they have lifted their own outstandingly sexist laws regarding the prosecution of sexual assault. egypt isn't a developing country for nothing.
i'd like to also point out that when i was studying sexual assault in canada, perpetrators of the worst offences were often white. but what do you care? apparently arabs and muslims have now replaced blacks as dangers to women. these things happen everywhere...the only difference is that in other places where the rule of law means anything these things are prosecuted. but i'm sure the effects of poverty, a stagnant political and legal system, a patriarchal culture don't matter to the likes of you enlightened commenters and watchers of Fox news, am i right? elle was right. read her comment with a modicum of attention.
i'd also like to stress, for the numerous illiterates who commented, that i simply translated malek's account. that whole bit about veiled versus unveiled women was not authored by me. that said, if you would (say) read, you would note that i think he meant that he was astonished that the masses, known for making this odious distinction, did not do so, not that he himself held that view. i've met the guy, and he's not like that, even if so many arab guys (and western guys) think that clothing is a defence for sexual assault. i could go on at length about the widespread nature of myths surrounding consent, but this doesn't seem like an educated crowd so i won't bother. Go on hating a religion you know nothing about and places you've never been to. searching for reasons only wastes time better spent in bombing innocent arab civilians.
I have 'been-dere-done-dat' and it is quite frustrating...it is oddly apropos that my CAPCHA code for this post is "futile"!
I am starting to think that slashdot is partially-sentient.
Recently, I had to be out of country for a few weeks and my laptop did not have my slashdot cookie so I just went AC. Somehow, the captchas for many of my AC posts were seemingly highly relevant to the discussion at hand. Maybe the mind just wants to see connections where none exist, but it was eerie.
A cop at home, or in civilian clothes walking down the street, has the same rights as anyone else, including the right to privacy
Try kicking that cop in civilian clothes in the shin and you'll find yourself charged with assaulting an officer, a crime that carries a lot stronger penalties than assaulting anyone else.
I had a friend who got drunk and got in a tussle with a couple of bouncers at a bar. She (yes, she - never underestimate the capacity for mayhem when someone impedes the path of a drunk 100lbs girl with a full bladder) ended up charged with assaulting an officer because these two (apparently power-tripping) bouncers were off-duty cops.
Don't let me even get started on the issue of "professional courtesy..."
Wrong on both counts. You can, however, be a hypocrite. Many claim to be muslims who in fact, are not (in fact that's probably 95% of all muslims, just read a saudi blog for example, or notice the idiotic hypocrisy in a palestinian terrorist throwing a molotov cocktail in a BEER BOTTLE to an Israeli soldier). Problem is that they do believe in applying that law.
A muslim recites the basic tenet of islam, which implies following the koran and surah.
Recites? I don't think that words means what you think it means. While you are at it, Suras ARE the Quran, not some separate set of documents.
Are you an islamic scholar? An imam? Even a muslim for chrissakes? No. Then who the Gehenna are you to be lecturing on who is and who is not a muslim? Are going to start telling us that Mohammed was a pedophile, too?
There are 5 requirements to be a muslim. Anything beyond those is subject to interpretation. Following the instructions of the quran follows from the first requirement - believing that mohammed was a true prophet, but just like any other religious text it is subject to enormous amounts of interpretation - even if the words itself, unlike the bible, are not. Just ask a Sufi what he thinks about it versus what a Sunni versus a Shia versus the hundreds of subsects of each.
As for the hypocrisy of throwing a beer bottle molotov cocktail? Presumably you are referring to the common practice of not drinking alcohol. I don't think you understand the concept of molotov cocktails - they are not a russian beverage that you actually drink.
Nothing about using a bottle requires that one drink the contents. In many places, beer is cheaper than water - for example Switzerland has a law on the books that requires restaurants to provide water for less than the cheapest beer they carry because they were not doing it on their own. Considering just how messed up the economy is palestine, not to mention the relative scarcity of potable water, it ain't hard to believe the same pricing inversion has happened there too.
If the honest response to a legal question is that "It comes down to the judge on any given day," or "you can be sued for anything," or "depends on how good your lawyer is," then we aren't really dealing with Professionals in law. (All parties-- lawmakers, judges, lawyers, and police.)
It seems to me that the most important development in all of legal history - codification of the law (popular history marks it as the creation of the Code of Hammurabi) has been eroded into non-existence. Essentially, we are right back were we started with "the law" being whatever the various authority figures say it is at any particular moment.
Recall that from the information so far the investigation is into planned attack on planes with explosives by people with no tickets, no passports, no back door onto a plane, no explosives, no explosive components and no equipment to manufacture explosives.
Does everyone on Slashdot have zero respect for intellectual property or just a few moderators? I am an ISV and make a living by selling my software. I contribute to and use open source solutions but open source is not the solution to everything.
Open source is not the solution to anything -- it is just the natural outgrowth of the fact that software is non-rivalrous.
The idea that software, or really any sort of information, can be feasibly contained and made artificially scarce is a solution in search of a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Think of her children on the playground, "Your mommy is a slut!" or "You're a bastard!"
When your definition of morality is defined by playground taunts you pretty much have no standing in the debate. But I do have to hand it to you, in a discussion about adult sexuality you still found a way to work in that mainstay of cliches, "but think of the children!"
sorry, this is a part of OSS culture I entirely fail to understand.
It's the AOL-ization of linux. Lots of people without much technical ability, but lots of time on their hands to talk about it. So you get a focus on the trivial because all they can understand.
Gee, a perfect example of islamofreak active ignorance: You actually quoted the summary of my refutation but you claim not 'even a token attempt at refuting what you said.'
Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously when you are so blatantly stupid?
And here's what a former Muslim terrorist from Egypt has to say.
Lol, Tawfik Hamid is a publicity hound who charges at least $13K per speaking appearance. The guy's got conflict interest written all over him - any exaggeration just means more money. Plus, his story is more than a little shakey - claiming that he was a muslim fundamentalist who married a non-muslim woman who never converted? That would never fly if he had really been a fundie.
And in Norway and Sweden, most perpetrators are Muslims, and they commit an incredibly disproportionate amount of them. Then there's the issue of culture: is rape a part of Canadian culture? No, but it's a part of Islamic culture. Significant difference.
Another display of islamofreak lack of critical thinking, reinforced by blog group think.
You and your fellow perverts (it's always a sex crime with you islamofreaks isn't it? mohammed's a pedo, muslims are rapists, yadda, yadda, yadda) have made a very large jump from almost half of all reported rapes in Sweden are committed by people who are foreign born to almost half of rapists in sweden are muslim.
I didn't bother to refute them because there is plenty of evidence available to anyone who knows how to read with a critical eye. The reason I mentioned the Aisha debate in the first place to hook the islamofreaks, not to indulge them.
It's also strange that you accuse the American school system, when it doesn't even teach anything negative or "offensive" about Islam.
More islamofreak self-identification through obvious misinterpretation.
I criticized the american school system for focusing on tests and self-love rather than teaching the invaluable skill of critical thinking. Something you have evidently failed to learn too.
For those that think the current border is "cruel" because of the harsh desert and mean ranchers, this is better. People will cross when the chance of death is only a few percent. They won't cross if death would be nearly certain. Thus, fewer people die.
That only works if they believe the alternative is better.
I am quite willing to believe that a very low double digit percentage of illegal aliens feel that 'staying home' is a fate worse than death. People who think that way will still take their chances, even in the face of almost certain death. As my girl Janis once opined, "Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose..."
...are not required. The DMZ does not have people wandering around the undergrowth, even with human gaurds you will be shot (armed or otherwise). All it needs to sense is a warm object.
Oh yeah? That's not the way it was in JSA (Joint Security Area) and movies are always accurate!
Just why do you think we are talking about the GPL?
What we are talking about is the claim that the APSL is just for "code inspection" and not actual modification and redistribution. As far as I am concerned it is the ability to modify and redistribute the modified software with minimal to no restrictions that define the general definition of "Open Source" - and "look but don't touch" does not.
There is a lot more to being a smart adult or even a smart kid than simple technical savvy. Around here, that's just a minimum baseline.
Newspapers don't have zero marginal cost for later printings, but I suspect that the main cost is still for the first copy (reporters and editors versus programmers).
And whether someone takes one or takes a hundred copies of a "free" paper has no impact on the cost of that first copy and since the copies themselves are "free" taking 100 of them only affects the paper's ability to recoup those "first copy costs" in a very roundabout and indirect fashion.
I used to think that a career change from software developer to lawyer would be a fairly easy and natural progression. After all both professions are all about understanding the rules and figuring out the more optimal paths that both follow the rules and produce the desired result. It ought to be a cinch.
Except for one crucial difference.
In the software world each code path either works or is broken - there may be multiple paths that produce the same result, but their correctness is black and white. In the legal world, nothing is black and white. What "works" one day, may be broken the next day depending on who the observers are (judge, different lawyers, etc).
That kind of behavior is so totally effed up from an engineer's perspective that only an insane engineer could ever become a good lawyer. The law is really just a huge collective bong party - everybody toking up and then speculating out loud about their deepest philosophical insights into the universe. It all comes down to how well you can convince other people that the words of the law mean what you want them to mean and not what someone else wants them to mean.
People all laughed when Clinton (a lawyer, like most politicians) made that statement about "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" But given the context that the law is all about arguing over the meaning of words, it is perfectly natural that he would say that. Still totally effed up, but in a perfectly natural way.
Unfortunately, just like any other analogy to physical (or more technically rivalrous) products, this one falls apart because only the first copy of the 'free' software cost anything significant to produce. All subsequent copies have close to zero marginal cost, and in this case even that marginal cost is borne by the defendant.
Linux weenies consistently miss the point of Darwin. It's not another BSD distro, it's ther for the convenience of Mac developers who have to work with kernel code, such as driver writers and third-party hardware manufacturers.
Can you blame the linux weenies for expecting that when Apple talks about Open Source that they actually mean the same thing as everyone else who uses the term?
My bet is that the democrats learned a thing or two after the funny business around Gore's loss in 2004 and ran their own cheats this time around mostly balancing things out. Notice how the exit polls this time around were once again as accurate as they have always been except for 2004.
Of course maybe 'they' just figured out how to rig the exit polls to better cover their tracks... paranoid speculation is great fun.
The initial question was whether someone wants to help MS "at their expense", and one's "wants and desires" most certainly *do* come into play here. If I don't want to help MS at my expense (for example), even if after my contribution has been made, I *still* don't want to see MS benefit. That's the point. Not that it is somehow going to cost me more after the fact.
Then it is clearly up to the person not to give away their efforts in the first place. When you give away code anyone can benefit - nambla, shin-ri-kyo, the pope, or nelson mandela -- anyone. If a person isn't prepared to let everyone use the results of his work, he shouldn't be giving it away in the first place. Just because he may not have thought through the implications beforehand is no excuse.
But there's more than just my past expense, there's my present and future expense. Will I want to further contribute to a project that I now know is going to be used against me?
That's circular reasoning, since there is no additional expense incurred by MS's use, by definition it is not being used against you. MS's benefit is not your loss, it is not a zero-sum game.
Because of the "winner takes all" nature of the electoral system, it is possible to rig a national election with much, much less than 4 million. Taking the recent congressional election as an example both Montana and Virginia were won with margins of less than 10,000 votes each. Less than 5,000 votes "flipped" the other way in each of those two states would have been enough to change control of the US Senate.
When you consider the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on running the various campaigns, it is almost inevitable that someone out there will decide that "investing" a couple of hundred thousand, even a million or two, in bribes to an insider at the voting machine company would be a good strategic move for their candidate.
Yes, there is. The expense is the initial work put into it, as well as any ongoing and future efforts. If I toss pennies in a fountain, my expense is the same, no matter what happens to the pennies, but I don't want the mall to just pocket the change, I want it to help some charity. In other words, I wanted a charity to benefit at my expense, not the mall.
You seem unclear on the concept - whatever is done with the pennies after you toss them into the fountain has absolutely zero impact on any expense that you incurred by throwing them into the fountain in the first place. Your "wants" and "desires" about what happens to those pennies afterwards don't have any effect either.
Islamofreaks like you just love the pedo meme, probably because you are a closet pedo yourself looking to project your feelings of guilt on to someone else and away from your own perverted cravings. You love it so much that whenever anyone even hints at the Aisha debate, you can't resist going all whacko and self-identifying as a total loon. Just look at how rambling and ignorant the rest of your post gets:
Cite the statute. Come on, its so "clear" surely you can do it?
Well, you can't because it is not illegal to have alcohol in palestine, much less bottles. See this story about a successful microbrewery in palestine. What a piss-poor attempt at back-tracking on your part - as if breaking a law, that doesn't even exist, would somehow equate to "idiotic hypocrisy."
After that, I don't think it would be possible for you to say anything that would make you appear more stupid than you just did.
More ignorant ramblings. I think you meant to say that in Arabic "islam" means NAMBLA didn't you?. The idea that "islam" means 'oppression' is random islamofreak circle-jerking. Islam means submission to God - which is pretty much the definition of any other monotheistic religion, and most polytheistic ones too.
Yeah, whatever freakazoid. You are clearly a product of the american public school system where critical thinking has long since ceased to be a taught skill, replaced with multiple choice tests and feeling good about yourself. Sure must be nice to have an irrational hatred you can share with all your buddies, it just kinda makes you feel special don't it?
http://forsoothsayer.blogspot.com/2006/10/mass-se
And then read the comment, on that same page, from the author of that blog about YOU Christophe Devriese and others just like you:
I have 'been-dere-done-dat' and it is quite frustrating ...it is oddly apropos that my CAPCHA code for this post is "futile"!
I am starting to think that slashdot is partially-sentient.
Recently, I had to be out of country for a few weeks and my laptop did not have my slashdot cookie so I just went AC. Somehow, the captchas for many of my AC posts were seemingly highly relevant to the discussion at hand. Maybe the mind just wants to see connections where none exist, but it was eerie.
A cop at home, or in civilian clothes walking down the street, has the same rights as anyone else, including the right to privacy
Try kicking that cop in civilian clothes in the shin and you'll find yourself charged with assaulting an officer, a crime that carries a lot stronger penalties than assaulting anyone else.
I had a friend who got drunk and got in a tussle with a couple of bouncers at a bar. She (yes, she - never underestimate the capacity for mayhem when someone impedes the path of a drunk 100lbs girl with a full bladder) ended up charged with assaulting an officer because these two (apparently power-tripping) bouncers were off-duty cops.
Don't let me even get started on the issue of "professional courtesy..."
Wrong on both counts. You can, however, be a hypocrite. Many claim to be muslims who in fact, are not (in fact that's probably 95% of all muslims, just read a saudi blog for example, or notice the idiotic hypocrisy in a palestinian terrorist throwing a molotov cocktail in a BEER BOTTLE to an Israeli soldier). Problem is that they do believe in applying that law.
A muslim recites the basic tenet of islam, which implies following the koran and surah.
Recites? I don't think that words means what you think it means. While you are at it, Suras ARE the Quran, not some separate set of documents.
Are you an islamic scholar? An imam? Even a muslim for chrissakes? No. Then who the Gehenna are you to be lecturing on who is and who is not a muslim? Are going to start telling us that Mohammed was a pedophile, too?
There are 5 requirements to be a muslim. Anything beyond those is subject to interpretation. Following the instructions of the quran follows from the first requirement - believing that mohammed was a true prophet, but just like any other religious text it is subject to enormous amounts of interpretation - even if the words itself, unlike the bible, are not. Just ask a Sufi what he thinks about it versus what a Sunni versus a Shia versus the hundreds of subsects of each.
As for the hypocrisy of throwing a beer bottle molotov cocktail? Presumably you are referring to the common practice of not drinking alcohol. I don't think you understand the concept of molotov cocktails - they are not a russian beverage that you actually drink.
Nothing about using a bottle requires that one drink the contents. In many places, beer is cheaper than water - for example Switzerland has a law on the books that requires restaurants to provide water for less than the cheapest beer they carry because they were not doing it on their own. Considering just how messed up the economy is palestine, not to mention the relative scarcity of potable water, it ain't hard to believe the same pricing inversion has happened there too.
It seems to me that the most important development in all of legal history - codification of the law (popular history marks it as the creation of the Code of Hammurabi) has been eroded into non-existence. Essentially, we are right back were we started with "the law" being whatever the various authority figures say it is at any particular moment.
Don't forget no viable plan to explode the non-existent explosives.
The idea that software, or really any sort of information, can be feasibly contained and made artificially scarce is a solution in search of a problem.