Ok, for the sake of argument let's assume there is no god, that the described events in the bible are mythology and that no god instructed the 9/11 attacks. Could it be possible in that scenario that men with a grudge against america use their religious power to convince other men to blow themselves up in an attack against their enemy's. This was not unheard of before (for example Japanese kamikaze), but the promise of martyrdom for their faith might help convince these guys to do what they did (and note: convinced by another mortal man).
The conflict that went on before this between western (Christian) nations and eastern (Islamic) nations is deeply rooted in the Palestine conflict. Is is strange that religion is used as a weapon against the other side what the dividing line is so easy? And did you know that the western countries (US and UK most) introduced religion in this conflict??? The reason Israel exists today is because of Christian beliefs and statements in the bible... they made claim on a piece of land based on a religious book. And I sure as hell do not believe god told them to drive the Palestinians from their land to create a new 'promised land', that was also mortal man there.
Seriously, did you even read the post? The answer to your question follows exactly what you quoted: "... Only humans will, and only humans will follow these orders and be stupid enough to believe they are actually morally better than others while committing atrocities."
That describes 9/11 *exactly*. Religion is just a means to power for some in this game of politics and hatred.
Ignorant fucknut, he makes an argument about your example of 19th century science that it is a great discovery but in no way an accurate model and you respond by bashing his (admittedly not lyric) writing style. That may have won an argument on the playground but you fail to address his post or clarify your reference to Fourier. This is the main problem with global warming 'science'... there is no real science without debate, this whole 'one movement, one cause - follow blindly and don't ask questions (oh yeah and we need some of your money)' is more like organized religion.
Apologies fot the namecalling, I am always interested in an interesting discussion and in such should refrain from this language, but when you're just trolling you can more or less expect it.
On a more scientific note: it's just like the Stefan–Boltzmann law that works great for a perfect black body, but only a rough approximation of reality. That does not mean it's useless, it can for example be used to estimate the added greenhouse effect over the normal warming a black body would have (which results in a little over 30 degrees added from the top of my head, of which CO2 is at most a couple percent, note that this is not percent of greenhouse gas but percent of the total observed greenhouse effect). This does not negate the CO2 effect, but limits it because CO2 alone can for example never add 10 degrees on average (so alarmist claims like that are always BS). I challenge you as a scientist to retort.:)
Excellent argument. You point out one of the reasons why a lot of people have (and had) problems with the global warming response:
- Ad-hominem fallacy - Anyone who does not agree is a crackpot. When this is the mindset it makes me doubt since this is not science but an ad-hominem attack.
- Fudged numbers - I understand this does not mean malice, but especially reluctance to find out the causes or let other scientists help find it raises doubt.
- Financial gain - Al Gore made a lot of money, and a proposal for 'carbon tax' will give the government a financial gain. Like I doubt any statement that greatly benefits the person who made it this raises doubt.
- Science incomplete - CO2 is a greenhouse gas (of many), but the model is not yet complete, there are a lot of unknown factors. By claiming this is the ultimate cause you blind yourselves to other possibilities which have not been sufficiently refuted (partially because of first reason, actual scientists who disagree or even raise valid questions are ridiculed).
I for one doubt some of the explanations given why the earth is warming up, and have been digging a little deeper and crunching the numbers... the results are unsettling, what if CO2 is not the main cause of the rise in temperature? If you are investing a lot in CO2 reduction you might be wasting resources that can be used for better purposes. We can better start by making changes that everyone agrees with, like reducing fuel consumption will lead to better air quality (not CO2 but other byproducts and fine particles). Forcing people to pay a tax or to buy imaginary 'carbon offsets' (fuck, how stupid are some people) is not a way to a solution, it's a way to monetize a problem...
Religion is fine, it's a good guideline and can learn people more than regular fairy-tales. The problem people have with religion is with organized religion, or more precise religious leaders. Any man telling another man what to do in the name of any deity is dangerous, and when you think about it incredibly stupid... Christians for example feel like they have a personal relation with Jesus, but they never follow his words or the underlying morale, they instead follow the words of man who use their position of religious power to spread hate and fear.
No deity will ever tell anyone to do something horrible! Only humans will, and only humans will follow these orders and be stupid enough to believe they are actually morally better than others while committing atrocities.
For the record: I'm a convinced atheist, but just as I cringe at the sight of fundamentalist religious people I equally dislike fundamentalist atheists who claim moral superiority and condemn religion. I firmly believe in freedom of religion, that allows you to choose to be an atheist nowadays, the only guideline here should be 'Live and let live'. People can live as they please and follow any rule from over two millennia old if they like, they just don't have the right to tell other people to do so, thats the other side of the equation... they have to let others live the way they want too! Sadly both the hardcore religious as well as the hardcore atheists fail at this second part.
Anything that kicks extreme ass or is really cute and fluffy has a tremendous wallet-opening magic power. This is why environmentalists want to protect any creature that possesses these magical properties. It's a shame most people know the unicorn is already extinct otherwise they could make a fortune of mythical proportions.
WMWifiRouter FTW! Program works great, I get several Mbps over 3G with multiple laptops...
Only disadvantage I found: This requires massive power (3G, Wifi, CPU), even while charging my battery *slowly* drains.
What they stand behind is: the name does not matter, neither do the corporate tirants who want to bury TPB... it's about the fact that the search engine is just as legal as any other search engine and they defend this at any cost (they know they are now even more guilty by association). The name is poorly chosen indeed, but that should not be a reason for a witch hunt!
You might be contend with the restrictions imposed, we are not. I have dozens of DVDs *still in the plastic wrapping*, I just buy movies that are good but when I want to watch them again why would I go trough the trouble of finding the DVD and sitting trough the fucking adverts? The only thing I'm concerned about is if I can honestly say to myself that I do the good thing here, and I think I do. The entertainment industry (music/movies/series/games) gets shitloads of my hard earned cash, and in return I expect to be entertained as was promised in exchange for that money. Why would they care if I stick in the DVD or play the torrent, they've got their cash???
And of course I downloaded crap without buying it, but guess what: in the offline-era I might have borrowed it from a friend but sure as hell never bought. One good example: the only reason I downloaded music was because there was no acceptable unrestricted download format for years... but now there is and since then I happily purchase CD's for download as MP3. It has never been about stealing or about not wanting to pay, it's about me being a consumer and a fan who was severely disappointed in the lack of unrestricted content. It has taken the better part of two decades for the industry to start listening, but give it another decade and we might finally get what we demanded all along... And if they don't listen to our money's vote we will unite and use our democratic vote... let's see how the industry likes it when the consumers are actually represented! I for one have put down my autograph supporting the Pirate Party.
There are C 'chosen' lands based on number of religions (X) for any number of personal 'god(s)' (D) times the 'constant' of self-absorbed-ness of said religion (K).
This leads to the conclusion that given a sufficient supply of religious nuts in power that are too self-centered this number will by definition increase until:
C > #Countries
This of course resulting in religiously motivated wars for land where multiple religions make 'holy' claims to.
You are completely right, but sadly most people don't understand this... In my previous post I linked to a comment about Obama's alledged atheism that really cracked me up.:)
All of our presidents have been Christians and the majority of the Supreme Court and both houses of Congress are Christians.
All that shows is that all politicians *claim* to be devout Christians, which is not surprising given the fact that the united states discriminates against atheists.
Last time I heard the atheism is political suicide, which is mostly due to religious propaganda and bigotry. The list of qualities people seem to like in politicians looks like: white males > colored males > women > fundamentalists > racists > gays > sex offenders > atheists... Everyone is happy that it's possible to have a black president, but I will only be amazed when the first *publicly* atheist president is elected. Note the 'public' since there have been enough 'alledged' atheist presidents... I say alledged since both atheists and christians 'claim' these presidents for their camp, but knowing the aforementioned bias against atheism it's no big surprise that any atheist president would hide this fact.
Especially ironic since the US has no problems using the forbidden word 'genocide' when teaching Turkey a lesson about the Armenian genocide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide). But when you look at the death toll of 1-1.5 million for the Armenians, and the (conservatively estimated) 2-15 million Native Americans it looks like the US has won first prize in this ugly game.
And somehow exactly what the US accuses Turkey of they do themselves, the genocide is denied and the word is even forbidden... they especially invented a new word 'democide' (which is genocide which is supposedly technically not used to eradicate a specific culture, but more generic organized killings and thus supposedly a less ugly word).
Oh yeah, and thank god for Wikipedia, and it's as-of-yet uncensored historic information, whatever the flaws it can still be used too look up just about anything with enough accuracy. A student in Texas just needs search what happened to all the 'Indians' and you end up at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Native_American_genocide.
The US was not alone in this 'genocidal era', but especially when you condemn the Jewish and Armenian genocide you can't possibly pretend to have clean hands... Every country has some ugly history, and the countries that attempt hide it nowadays are just writing some new ugly history in future hindsight...
That's exactly how it's done, and coincidentally also the plot for the upcoming Hollywood movie "Hacking to Kill" where Steven Seagal jumps onto the moving out-of-control-VIP-car and rips the computer (with engine and all) out of the car with his teeth... It's the only way to be sure.:)
Getting the brakes to fail at any time after the car is in motion would be impressive.
Using this hack an attacker could probably let the brakes fail the moment you go over 100mph, as well as disabling steering-assist and traction control, and maybe even floor the gas pedal... This is the ultimate 'digital brake line cut' turning the vehicle into a crippled metal cage of death hurling to whatever is in front of it with (most likely) lethal consequence.
Way to miss the point indeed. If an issue such as this is not taken seriously no-one in charge of automobile security will ever know to get the source.
And besides; if you have exactly one minute would you be able to screw with the car without any professional finding a trace of it on a thorough inspection? The point is that most physical flaws (and attack vectors) are known and will be found, but this software flaw is new so no-one expects it or checks for it... Messing with a car only has a point from an attackers point of view if it is not detected until it's too late.
There are some real-world scenario's where this can be used... A cut break-line will be detected by professionals, just like explosives, and every car is inspected prior to leaving with a VIP. So cutting the break line on the presidents limo probably won't get an attacker anywhere. But if the attacker could load software that stalls the engine or cuts the brakes at a predefined time (and place) the attackers can kidnap or kill the VIP without any advance indication that the car has been compromised.
FTA: "In one attack that the researchers call 'Self-destruct' they launch a 60 second countdown on the driver's dashboard that's accompanied by a clicking noise, and then finally warning honks in the final seconds. As the time hits zero, the car's engine is killed and the doors are locked. This attack takes less than 200 lines of code -- most of it devoted to keeping time during the countdown."
Remove the clicking and countdown and no-one will know the car is sabotaged until it's too late.
When I would be in charge of securing the president or other VIPs during transport I would want to be able to know if the vehicle has undetectable security flaws like this... The problem is that you don't even know if the software might have been compromised in the months/years that the car has been in service.
Copyrape - 1. the process of pirating copyrighted software as an act of defiance in the face of corporate tyranny. "If you've been fucked over by the game industry, you can always copyrape their software to get even..."
Sure, but to which problem. If there are better ways to accomplish those goals are you still interested, or are you only here for the tech?
Basically yes, to try and find a solution for a seemingly impossible solution intrigues me. But it always leads to interesting political and social issues too. I don't really care either way if I vote with paper or computer, but I would like to know how they compare in theory. Problem is there is no clear accurate boundary for defining a correct voting system where the will of the voters is represented, so there is no real way to compare these issues aside from theoretical objections...
The word faith accurately describes this situation since I stand behind the democratic principles not matter what, even in the face of conflicting evidence suggesting our current political systems are not nearly as democratic as is being suggested. I try to take an open look and make the distinction between theory and practice. Just like communism failed in practice democracy is (maybe not as much but nonetheless) susceptible to human ways of self-interest.
My reason 'why' is 'why not?', any concept is worth entertaining in theory...
I like your style and you give me some good insights. But please don't take me too seriously, I don't...;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, for the sake of argument let's assume there is no god, that the described events in the bible are mythology and that no god instructed the 9/11 attacks. Could it be possible in that scenario that men with a grudge against america use their religious power to convince other men to blow themselves up in an attack against their enemy's. This was not unheard of before (for example Japanese kamikaze), but the promise of martyrdom for their faith might help convince these guys to do what they did (and note: convinced by another mortal man).
The conflict that went on before this between western (Christian) nations and eastern (Islamic) nations is deeply rooted in the Palestine conflict. Is is strange that religion is used as a weapon against the other side what the dividing line is so easy? And did you know that the western countries (US and UK most) introduced religion in this conflict??? The reason Israel exists today is because of Christian beliefs and statements in the bible... they made claim on a piece of land based on a religious book. And I sure as hell do not believe god told them to drive the Palestinians from their land to create a new 'promised land', that was also mortal man there.
Seriously, did you even read the post? The answer to your question follows exactly what you quoted: ... Only humans will, and only humans will follow these orders and be stupid enough to believe they are actually morally better than others while committing atrocities."
"
That describes 9/11 *exactly*. Religion is just a means to power for some in this game of politics and hatred.
Ignorant fucknut, he makes an argument about your example of 19th century science that it is a great discovery but in no way an accurate model and you respond by bashing his (admittedly not lyric) writing style. That may have won an argument on the playground but you fail to address his post or clarify your reference to Fourier. This is the main problem with global warming 'science'... there is no real science without debate, this whole 'one movement, one cause - follow blindly and don't ask questions (oh yeah and we need some of your money)' is more like organized religion.
:)
Apologies fot the namecalling, I am always interested in an interesting discussion and in such should refrain from this language, but when you're just trolling you can more or less expect it.
On a more scientific note: it's just like the Stefan–Boltzmann law that works great for a perfect black body, but only a rough approximation of reality. That does not mean it's useless, it can for example be used to estimate the added greenhouse effect over the normal warming a black body would have (which results in a little over 30 degrees added from the top of my head, of which CO2 is at most a couple percent, note that this is not percent of greenhouse gas but percent of the total observed greenhouse effect). This does not negate the CO2 effect, but limits it because CO2 alone can for example never add 10 degrees on average (so alarmist claims like that are always BS). I challenge you as a scientist to retort.
Excellent argument. You point out one of the reasons why a lot of people have (and had) problems with the global warming response:
- Ad-hominem fallacy - Anyone who does not agree is a crackpot. When this is the mindset it makes me doubt since this is not science but an ad-hominem attack.
- Fudged numbers - I understand this does not mean malice, but especially reluctance to find out the causes or let other scientists help find it raises doubt.
- Financial gain - Al Gore made a lot of money, and a proposal for 'carbon tax' will give the government a financial gain. Like I doubt any statement that greatly benefits the person who made it this raises doubt.
- Science incomplete - CO2 is a greenhouse gas (of many), but the model is not yet complete, there are a lot of unknown factors. By claiming this is the ultimate cause you blind yourselves to other possibilities which have not been sufficiently refuted (partially because of first reason, actual scientists who disagree or even raise valid questions are ridiculed).
I for one doubt some of the explanations given why the earth is warming up, and have been digging a little deeper and crunching the numbers... the results are unsettling, what if CO2 is not the main cause of the rise in temperature? If you are investing a lot in CO2 reduction you might be wasting resources that can be used for better purposes. We can better start by making changes that everyone agrees with, like reducing fuel consumption will lead to better air quality (not CO2 but other byproducts and fine particles). Forcing people to pay a tax or to buy imaginary 'carbon offsets' (fuck, how stupid are some people) is not a way to a solution, it's a way to monetize a problem...
Religion is fine, it's a good guideline and can learn people more than regular fairy-tales. The problem people have with religion is with organized religion, or more precise religious leaders. Any man telling another man what to do in the name of any deity is dangerous, and when you think about it incredibly stupid... Christians for example feel like they have a personal relation with Jesus, but they never follow his words or the underlying morale, they instead follow the words of man who use their position of religious power to spread hate and fear.
No deity will ever tell anyone to do something horrible! Only humans will, and only humans will follow these orders and be stupid enough to believe they are actually morally better than others while committing atrocities.
For the record: I'm a convinced atheist, but just as I cringe at the sight of fundamentalist religious people I equally dislike fundamentalist atheists who claim moral superiority and condemn religion. I firmly believe in freedom of religion, that allows you to choose to be an atheist nowadays, the only guideline here should be 'Live and let live'. People can live as they please and follow any rule from over two millennia old if they like, they just don't have the right to tell other people to do so, thats the other side of the equation... they have to let others live the way they want too! Sadly both the hardcore religious as well as the hardcore atheists fail at this second part.
A runaway joke just turned interesting... :)
Do you have any information about this hidden key (I suppose it wasn't just named '_KEY3')?
At least there are strict laws against giving your DNA involuntarily.
Please leave your DNA with the school nurse...
Anything that kicks extreme ass or is really cute and fluffy has a tremendous wallet-opening magic power. This is why environmentalists want to protect any creature that possesses these magical properties. It's a shame most people know the unicorn is already extinct otherwise they could make a fortune of mythical proportions.
WMWifiRouter FTW! Program works great, I get several Mbps over 3G with multiple laptops...
Only disadvantage I found: This requires massive power (3G, Wifi, CPU), even while charging my battery *slowly* drains.
The research was probably touched by his noodly appendage.
Do these indicate that there're evil spies operating in China, doing espionage in my city?
Maybe... depends... do they serve McNuggets?
What they stand behind is: the name does not matter, neither do the corporate tirants who want to bury TPB... it's about the fact that the search engine is just as legal as any other search engine and they defend this at any cost (they know they are now even more guilty by association). The name is poorly chosen indeed, but that should not be a reason for a witch hunt!
You might be contend with the restrictions imposed, we are not. I have dozens of DVDs *still in the plastic wrapping*, I just buy movies that are good but when I want to watch them again why would I go trough the trouble of finding the DVD and sitting trough the fucking adverts? The only thing I'm concerned about is if I can honestly say to myself that I do the good thing here, and I think I do. The entertainment industry (music/movies/series/games) gets shitloads of my hard earned cash, and in return I expect to be entertained as was promised in exchange for that money. Why would they care if I stick in the DVD or play the torrent, they've got their cash???
And of course I downloaded crap without buying it, but guess what: in the offline-era I might have borrowed it from a friend but sure as hell never bought. One good example: the only reason I downloaded music was because there was no acceptable unrestricted download format for years... but now there is and since then I happily purchase CD's for download as MP3. It has never been about stealing or about not wanting to pay, it's about me being a consumer and a fan who was severely disappointed in the lack of unrestricted content. It has taken the better part of two decades for the industry to start listening, but give it another decade and we might finally get what we demanded all along... And if they don't listen to our money's vote we will unite and use our democratic vote... let's see how the industry likes it when the consumers are actually represented! I for one have put down my autograph supporting the Pirate Party.
C = X * D * K
There are C 'chosen' lands based on number of religions (X) for any number of personal 'god(s)' (D) times the 'constant' of self-absorbed-ness of said religion (K).
This leads to the conclusion that given a sufficient supply of religious nuts in power that are too self-centered this number will by definition increase until:
C > #Countries
This of course resulting in religiously motivated wars for land where multiple religions make 'holy' claims to.
You are completely right, but sadly most people don't understand this... In my previous post I linked to a comment about Obama's alledged atheism that really cracked me up. :)
All of our presidents have been Christians and the majority of the Supreme Court and both houses of Congress are Christians.
All that shows is that all politicians *claim* to be devout Christians, which is not surprising given the fact that the united states discriminates against atheists. Last time I heard the atheism is political suicide, which is mostly due to religious propaganda and bigotry. The list of qualities people seem to like in politicians looks like: white males > colored males > women > fundamentalists > racists > gays > sex offenders > atheists... Everyone is happy that it's possible to have a black president, but I will only be amazed when the first *publicly* atheist president is elected. Note the 'public' since there have been enough 'alledged' atheist presidents... I say alledged since both atheists and christians 'claim' these presidents for their camp, but knowing the aforementioned bias against atheism it's no big surprise that any atheist president would hide this fact.
P.S. here is the old poll: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/black_president_more_likely_than_mormon_or_atheist_
P.P.S. read the first comment about Obama's atheism (gave me a laugh), funny that 'politicians will do anything for votes' can't be put in perspective by the faithful: http://salaswildthoughts.blogspot.com/2008/08/is-obama-atheist.html
Especially ironic since the US has no problems using the forbidden word 'genocide' when teaching Turkey a lesson about the Armenian genocide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide). But when you look at the death toll of 1-1.5 million for the Armenians, and the (conservatively estimated) 2-15 million Native Americans it looks like the US has won first prize in this ugly game.
And somehow exactly what the US accuses Turkey of they do themselves, the genocide is denied and the word is even forbidden... they especially invented a new word 'democide' (which is genocide which is supposedly technically not used to eradicate a specific culture, but more generic organized killings and thus supposedly a less ugly word).
I'd say that the US democide is more successful than most other genocides in eradicating a thriving culture (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_American_indigenous_peoples#Genocide_debate and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history#Americas).
Oh yeah, and thank god for Wikipedia, and it's as-of-yet uncensored historic information, whatever the flaws it can still be used too look up just about anything with enough accuracy. A student in Texas just needs search what happened to all the 'Indians' and you end up at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Native_American_genocide.
The US was not alone in this 'genocidal era', but especially when you condemn the Jewish and Armenian genocide you can't possibly pretend to have clean hands... Every country has some ugly history, and the countries that attempt hide it nowadays are just writing some new ugly history in future hindsight...
When they know how to use the hardware it should be trivial to flash the internal software... But there are enough posts describing this already.
That's exactly how it's done, and coincidentally also the plot for the upcoming Hollywood movie "Hacking to Kill" where Steven Seagal jumps onto the moving out-of-control-VIP-car and rips the computer (with engine and all) out of the car with his teeth... It's the only way to be sure. :)
Getting the brakes to fail at any time after the car is in motion would be impressive.
Using this hack an attacker could probably let the brakes fail the moment you go over 100mph, as well as disabling steering-assist and traction control, and maybe even floor the gas pedal...
This is the ultimate 'digital brake line cut' turning the vehicle into a crippled metal cage of death hurling to whatever is in front of it with (most likely) lethal consequence.
Way to miss the point indeed. If an issue such as this is not taken seriously no-one in charge of automobile security will ever know to get the source.
And besides; if you have exactly one minute would you be able to screw with the car without any professional finding a trace of it on a thorough inspection? The point is that most physical flaws (and attack vectors) are known and will be found, but this software flaw is new so no-one expects it or checks for it... Messing with a car only has a point from an attackers point of view if it is not detected until it's too late.
FTA: "In one attack that the researchers call 'Self-destruct' they launch a 60 second countdown on the driver's dashboard that's accompanied by a clicking noise, and then finally warning honks in the final seconds. As the time hits zero, the car's engine is killed and the doors are locked. This attack takes less than 200 lines of code -- most of it devoted to keeping time during the countdown."
Remove the clicking and countdown and no-one will know the car is sabotaged until it's too late. When I would be in charge of securing the president or other VIPs during transport I would want to be able to know if the vehicle has undetectable security flaws like this... The problem is that you don't even know if the software might have been compromised in the months/years that the car has been in service.
Rapists? Wouldn't the crime become: 'Copyrape' :-)
Copyrape - 1. the process of pirating copyrighted software as an act of defiance in the face of corporate tyranny.
"If you've been fucked over by the game industry, you can always copyrape their software to get even..."
Sure, but to which problem. If there are better ways to accomplish those goals are you still interested, or are you only here for the tech?
Basically yes, to try and find a solution for a seemingly impossible solution intrigues me. But it always leads to interesting political and social issues too. I don't really care either way if I vote with paper or computer, but I would like to know how they compare in theory. Problem is there is no clear accurate boundary for defining a correct voting system where the will of the voters is represented, so there is no real way to compare these issues aside from theoretical objections...
;-)
The word faith accurately describes this situation since I stand behind the democratic principles not matter what, even in the face of conflicting evidence suggesting our current political systems are not nearly as democratic as is being suggested. I try to take an open look and make the distinction between theory and practice. Just like communism failed in practice democracy is (maybe not as much but nonetheless) susceptible to human ways of self-interest.
My reason 'why' is 'why not?', any concept is worth entertaining in theory...
I like your style and you give me some good insights. But please don't take me too seriously, I don't...