Did some reading of boot0. I guess the mask ROM is memory mapped to 0xFFFF0000, so there doesn't need to be a non-ARM bootloader to load Starlet's memory.
Does Starlet automatically jump to 0xFFFF0000 after Power-On Reset? Seems weird, cos I thought most processors start at address 0 after POR. I see that 0xFFFF0000 vectors to _reset, which jumps to j_boot0_main, which jumps to boot0_main, leaving no opportunities for vectoring anywhere else, unless something else vectors to 0xFFFF0000 first instead of jumping there after POR.
I did some research and you're right, bad NAND = no boot1.
I also saw the decompiled boot0. It's pretty slim so I imagine someone would have seen something by now if anything was there to find. My guess is that if Starlet hangs then all is lost. It seems weird, though, for them to dump the error code out of the debug port in the panic subroutine, but have no way to use this knowledge to fix a problem.
However...AHB allows multiple bus masters. You wouldn't need an alternative boot0 if you had some masked silicon that could bus master the AHB if Starlet hangs. The question is would the alternate bus master load Starlet code and then reboot it, or just have some facility to write directly to NAND? I'm not familiar with the initialization routines for getting the various devices up and running without boot2, but you don't seem excited about the prospect.
Has anyone considered whether there's some bootloader (not ARM-based) that loads boot0 from the ROM mask into Starlet's memory for execution? Or does Starlet have a bus that reads directly from ROM? Maybe it could load an alternate boot0 under some condition. Pure speculation.
JTAG would be ideal, but I read in other posts that you haven't seen it yet. Fear of piracy could lead them to forsake this entirely, but this seems stupid, but then again they seem entirely prone to severe stupidity... (strncmp signing checks? flashing without checksums? seriously!)
Does Hollywood have multiple power rails? I know some FPGAs have, for example, 3.3, 2.5, and 1.2 V rails. You can indefinitely postpone the boot process by holding one or the other of the rails low. So if Hollywood had another power rail, and the regulator for that rail had a shutdown pin, there could be some dirty tricks that could keep Hollywood from booting up, and thus prevent it from driving the NAND control pins, while still powering the 3.3V rail for the NAND. I doubt this is something Nintendo would have planned, though, and there's no telling if Hollywood might be sensitive to how various voltages ramp up.
In order to flash a bricked Wii, you need BootMii installed as boot2. This Nintendo update over-wrote boot2 for everyone, BootMii or otherwise, so anyone who runs it no longer has BootMii as boot2. If you could perform the update without overwriting boot2, you would keep BootMii and thus the ability to flash your NAND.
But the problem is that when Nintendo goes to overwrite boot2, they don't validate the checksum and some percentage of the installs will botch. And if boot2 hangs, there's pretty much nothing else left to do, because boot2 starts everything else.
I'm not even going to pretend that I know enough about Wii hardware to give you suggestions, but for your entertainment I shall muse...if I understand correctly the problem is Starlet fails to boot when boot2 is corrupted and thus won't turn on Broadway and we get screwed.
What if there was some other way to access the bus that's attached to the NAND and issue commands to the NAND without going through Starlet? Bushing's diagram leads me to believe that there could be a remote possibility that a backup-boot-loader could check for the existence of a file on the USB/Wifi/SD (but not the drive or GCN cards) and try to flash that into NAND.
Maybe boot1 could do some check for external files?
It's a long shot, but if you saw any activity on any of the peripherals attached to the AHB bus with a broken boot2, it could be an attempt to load a backup image for flashing.
I think he meant that the light always goes at a single speed speed through the non-linear optical medium.
velocity = wavelength * frequency
When you double the wavelength, you halve the frequency, and the velocity stays constant.
If you used refraction to slow down the light by half (relative to the speed of light in air), which would in turn compress the wavelength by half, the frequency/color would stay constant, and as soon as your photons return to the air medium, their velocity would double, the wavelength would expand, and the light would still be infrared.
We should continue this in email before the comment section of this article closes. For my gmail account name is the same as my slashdot account name.
Then what is the context? Don't say there is more context if you do not know. Say, "I don't know."
If you read what I said, there's conditionals like "if", "bet", etc. I don't know their culture at all, and I don't feel like taking the time to learn it. The difference between you and I is that I assume there is more context because in my experience with old mythologies you need to learn what life is like for the people who practice a religion, or it won't make any sense why they do the things that they do. Unlike me, you assume that there is no cultural context to add to the quote. However, like me, you aren't taking the time to verify 100%.
You know, rather than just focusing on the excerpt I decided to read the whole thing [blogspot.com] carefully, should have done that before, sorry again. Hasan [name altered to keep him alive] seems to be a bit off his rocker. Apparently, everything that happens in Iran is due to outsiders.
I was hoping you would. I do agree with your general view that they seem to place excess blame on outsiders.
However, it's less crazy than you think, especially when you consider the tawdry past of the United States' interference in other countries' business. It takes more than one hand to count the number of times that the US has engaged in "regime change" in other countries. In fact, we've already done it to Iran before. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
I didn't really care for much of whatever else this guy said, because I tend to think that anyone who is trying to place blame on others probably deserves a share of it himself. The Iranian leadership was internally treating their own people pretty brutally, and it's sad that they don't acknowledge it. But the media were making a circus of their protest, just like they made a circus of Iraq, and it was not helping their cause.
The only point I was really interested in was how a Muslim "preacher" manages to deal with his unbeliever brother. It's pointing out how trivial it is to "go find someone who says something on the Internet" - you find one that says kill unbelievers and I find one that says leave unbelievers alone. Who is right, then?
I wonder, if we asked all the Muslims one by one, whether they should kill unbelievers, what would be their answer? This concurrent poll (pdf) taken in 2006 doesn't ask exactly that, but it does discover - among other amazing revelations - that Americans are twice as likely to justify attacking innocent people as are Iranians (page 10)
You deny reality, attacks were ordered and carried out.
Deny reality? Are you kidding me? No, I'm being rational about this. If you watch the video, the very first words out of the host's mouth are "your own leader said 'I condemn the killing of innocent people'". It sounds to me, when watching this interview on BBC, that they went out of their way to find a crazy who could twist words to justify an insane point of view. Notice how there's only one "Mullah", I wonder if that's because he's the only one they found who would spout this non-sense and they didn't want a rational one on who would look at the other guy like he's nuts.
And if that Mullah were serious, why isn't he trying to kill the host sitting across from him?
Please put link in for a well know Christian leader suggesting we should kill Muslims.
Not quite what you asked for, but this describes a group of "former Muslims" who are regularly trotted out by evangelicals to espouse the dangers of Muslims, saying they "all" need to be "converted or eradicated". They've been on Fox News. I found it by googling christians kill muslims.
I knew you would correctly point out the context is war. This war is against unbelievers, infidels, us specificly.
They mention specifically slaying people who attack their mosques, and how they're only hostile to oppressors.
That's all the context there is.
That's all the context a Westerner like you or I see. I bet there's more to it, if we had proper knowledge of their culture.
He says the same thing as the British Mullah "I will never have conflict with my brother."
That is not what was said. The context of the question involved the brother's secular lifestyle - you know, his brother is an unbeliever. His response was, and I quote, "Whoever truly understands Islam will never wage war against you for not believing."
If you listen to the British Mullah Mr. Anjum Chaudri when asked if he supports the actions of his brothers to kill innocents...
I've heard Mullahs say that there are no innocents so it's perfectly ok to take these actions...
I'm just listening to Mullahs and they are very clear in their statements, which seem to agree with the scriptures. The bottom line is that they are at war with us, millions shout "Death to America." School children write essays on the subject and are raised to be the "pitbulls" you describe above. If you disagree with them they will eventually come for you.
You'll either have to take back your religion and concentrate on the Great Jihad, the struggle of self. Or, fight them.
"I've heard Mullahs". Do you know how funny that sounds? Can you imagine someone saying "I've heard preachers talk about waging a holy war on Islam" in reference to some evangelical preacher going off on YouTube?
If I found a preacher on YouTube who advocated murdering innocent people because they practice Islam, would anyone who follows his orders (or "fatwa") be Christian? No, quite the opposite.
It's the same way with Muslims (imagine that, the other people are just like us!)
Remember, there are crazies everywhere - every religion, every nation, every race, they all have people who spout insanity and they are not representative of the larger group which they claim to be.
If you knew any Muslims in the flesh, I think you might find that you are more obsessed with jihad than they are.
The software program flow is inherently sequential, and requires lots of belly-rubbing and head-patting in order to work in parallel.
The hardware program flow is the exact opposite. It is inherently parallel, with everything happening all the time. The effort required is to force the parallel world to behave in a sequential manner.
I agree entirely with the parent; go with a Xilinx Spartan 3 board. They're cheap, relatively powerful, and Xilinx offers the ISE WebPack for free. It comes with a ton of tools, which you can use to generate cores for doing things like FIR filters and FFTs, or looking at the low-level implementation of your hardware, or programming devices.
Don't forget to get a JTAG cable. They're very useful for downloading designs into the board. These will cost a little extra, but you might be able to get them with the dev board.
LEARN TO LOVE THE DOCUMENTATION! This is VERY, VERY important. Xilinx has a TON of documentation and application notes that describe everything about their chips, and I cannot stress how important it is to read as much documentation as possible.
The docs for XST (the Xilinx synthesizer that takes HLD code and turns it into netlists) describe the design flow, which is important because you need to know how to constrain your design, and what the inputs are for various stages of the design flow and how they connect (synth, translate, map, place, route, downloading into the Flash memory or directly into the FPGA, etc).
The data sheets for the FPGAs describe the awesome wealth of features, which for Spartan 3-era chips include: dual-port 2k block RAMs, single-cycle 18x18 block multipliers, Digital Clock Managers, Digitally Controlled Impedance, Partial Reconfiguration, and so on. Some other FPGAs (specifically some Virtex models) are even more wild, with on-die "hard processors" surrounded by the FPGA fabric.
In fact, you should go get the data sheets for every part on the Spartan 3 board - the memory chips, the LCD, all of it. If you're going to design with FPGAs, then datasheets should be as precious to you as the One Ring was to Gollum.
You should also try to learn what the FPGA fabric looks like. Common logic blocks, slices, flip flops, interconnect, global clock resources, where the DCMs and BRAMs are, the layout of an I/O pad, and so on.
When it comes to studying, I suggest looking for some tips on coding style for the language you end up choosing. You should also study things like combinatorial and sequential logic, finite state machines, datapath and control. You might even do well to read a book about microprocessor architecture design, because there is a lot of overlap. In fact, some books work together with FPGA dev boards, so you can build your own processor from scratch and add features (make it pipelined, add branch prediction and hazard protection, and so on).
You could also explore this "soft processor" development by using pre-packaged soft cores, like PicoBlaze or MicroBlaze. You can put all kinds of processors together, even asymmetrically, using smaller ones for small tasks and bigger ones for big tasks. This might help if you're stuck in the software design flow mindset.
On the one hand, you say that someone won't destroy their own worth in order to kill their enemies. Mind you, if you waste your wealth on leveling people you don't like, you won't be able to take care of your loved ones anymore, and you will still end up ruining the lives of innocent people.
Then, on the other hand, you turn around and say that they won't give a nuclear weapon away to destroy those same enemies, because it might hurt the ones they love and kill innocent people.
You sound like a conspiracy theorist. If if is so important for you to spread your message, then you should be more careful in how you present the argument. Drink that in, and digest it, please.
When I read 2.190-2.193, the impression I get is "you can kill people who try to kill you,", especially given 2.192. That seems like a reasonable thing, and certainly not "go kill people who aren't Muslims".
As far as the other quote, I'm not sure there's enough context to properly judge the sentiment there. But I remember reading an interview with an Iranian cleric whose brother is secular. His reply was lengthy and surprisingly rational; here's an excerpt.
We will only fight those who are enemies of humanity, those who humiliate others, abuse them, make mental and physical slaves of them, or think of them as lesser beings.
I believe that as human beings, we should worship and praise our creator. But this service to God shouldn't be of the kind that harms others. For example, you can say that you're secular, that you don't believe in a god, and you don't believe in worship. You don't think it's required of you. So your ideology is different. But based on this, we will never clash with each other. Whoever truly understands Islam will never wage war against you for not believing. This is why I will never have a conflict with my brother.
However, if someone's ideology says that I am a lesser person, that he rules over me, or he's my boss, we will probably clash with each other.
I'm assuming you're not one who would be happy at the thought of killing Muslims, but I assure you there are plenty of folks in the US who think Muslims are a pretty awful bunch; my own father says they are like pitbulls - the pitbulls are bred to fight and the Muslims are bred to hate America. Like those who would call us the Great Satan, Islamophobes are just confused sheep who listened to the wrong person when forming an opinion.
If someone hated us so much and had that much spare wealth, it'd be easier for them to buy a black market nuke and donate it to al-Qaida than it would be to try and buy a majority ownership in enough companies to cause us severe harm.
Your condescending tone ("my boy", "you don't understand", etc) combined with the conspiracy theory attitude at the end ("I want you to think about this") reduce the impact of any message you wanted to deliver.
Individual human nature might drive individuals to do some crazy things, but you'd need a lot of people working together and they'd need to be extremely careful because if even one wrong person finds out, the whole world will know. It becomes a problematic trade-off; without enough people, they don't have enough cash to do what you suggest, but with enough people, it's too hard to keep secrets.
Seriously, what are the odds that a sufficiently large group of people who are wealthy enough to buy majority ownership of most American companies are all demented enough to throw away their fortunes in order to destroy an entire country full of people who enable those fortunes will keep this whole scheme a secret? One individual, sure. Five or ten, maybe. But hundreds of billionaires?
People who love money that much aren't going to waste it all just to destroy someone they don't like. If they mismanaged the hell out of things, they just lost all their cash that they used to buy the country.
The Saudis have a vested interest in our economy. So does China. Without the US economy to drive, the price of oil would plummet, and China wouldn't have anyone to sell their stuff to. In fact, I would wager that most wealthy people are wealthy because of the US and they aren't going to waste their wealth destroying their cash cow.
Besides, we don't need foreigners to screw up our companies, we do it ourselves.
They would need access to a lot of nuclear weapons, which are pretty costly. Iran hasn't even made one bomb yet, let alone many, and North Korea's economy is supported by their weapons programs so they certainly aren't giving out nukes for free.
But, let's say they take out one American city. Katrina beat them to it already, but life moved on pretty well for the rest of the country.
Two? Well, Japan survived after we took out two of their cities with nuclear weapons.
To take multiplie cities, you'd need to do it simultaneously. Once you took out one, we would be on super-high alert everywhere else.
Oh, and you should read this NYT article that summarizes from the IG report how the warrantless surveillance program produced just about no intelligence, but a lot of wild goose chases.
They also discuss how the warrantless surveillance made us less safe because the information was limited to only a few people due to the secrecy surrounding a program of questionable legality. This prevented the intelligence from being used more widely by more agencies; most of the leads provided were vague and without context so as not to allude to the questionable nature of its acquisition. Note that this problem would not exist had the program been done with FISC approval, because there would be no dancing around how you got a hold of the intel.
Okay. Now, they need more guns than us. Considering that the US spends about as much on defense as the rest of the nations on Earth, I don't think that will be a problem.
Then, how do they get here?
By airplane? I think it would cost a lot of money to fly a sufficiently large force across the oceans.
By car? The ocean makes that a bit difficult.
By sea? We could see them coming a mile away.
What if they nuke us, or engage in chemical warfare? I think that would be on a fairly limited scale, given the size of the US. Even if only a portion of it goes out, life will go on, just like after Katrina wiped out New Orleans.
Further, how many muslims are really going to be down with murdering? It's sortof against the rules, which is why it's only "extremists" who actually go out and kill people, because it's usually the extremists who feel obliged to ignore things like "thou shalt not kill", of which I'm pretty sure there's an Islamic equivalent.
If you want to pick nits about the definition of legal, then how about this. They could have gotten wiretaps that were consistent with the statutory law passed by the legislative branch and upheld by the judicial branch, rather than using some half-baked Unitary Executive Theory to justify ignoring clear case law and legislation involving national security wiretaps.
Normally, OLC opinions are peer-reviewed; this one was not. Even the head of OLC was unaware of this memo; it's that secret. Whenever other people at OLC finally got to review the memo, they pulled it because it was so god-awful.
They found a low-level OLC lawyer who would tell the administration anything they wanted, clearly ignoring the judicial branch's Supreme Court precedent set in Youngstown; imagine writing an opinion on whether abortion is legal, and not citing Roe v. Wade. Additionally, there was specific language directly in the FISA statute limiting Presidential war-time powers that Yoo ignored.
The only reason it was "presumed legal" was because they went out of their way to avoid standard operating procedure with such legal opinions so that no serious lawyers could put a stop to it, like they eventually did when it finally came out. And for that matter, they were engaged in warrantless surveillance weeks before Yoo's memo was issued.
The administration got a hack lawyer to say it was legal. It was so hacky that other administration officials who came on board later had no choice but to revoke the legal justifications used for the program. Any legitimate legal scholar who reads that opinion will point out that it's complete bullshit (it makes me wonder how many people they had to ask before they found one who would write the bullshit they wanted to hear)
Allow me to extend your analogy. You ask your passenger to tell you there's no one in your blind spot. The passenger looks over his shoulder and sees that there's a car in your blind spot, but tells you to change lanes anyway.
Oh, and good intentions cannot be used to find someone not guilty, only to mitigate their punishment.
1) Yes, I expect the government to go before a judge and ask if they can wiretap a foreign target, because that's how we make sure they aren't wiretapping domestic targets. Remember, once they have the warrant, they don't need to ask a judge anymore.
2) Even if they're so lazy that they can't bother to get warrants for wiretapping known terrorists, there's still the emergency retroactive warrants.
3) Even Pentagon officials admit that the "charity" spent the majority of its money feeding hungry people, teaching poor people, and helping sick people. Only a small portion of it was skimmed by a few terrorist sympathizers who infiltrated the charity.
4) Actually, we don't let them continue to campaign. We had many of their branches in foreign countries shut down.
5) Do you seriously think that a handful of fools wearing sandals and turbans who hide in caves are going to take down 300 million people? Can you imagine the size of the force that would be needed to invade American soil? It's moot, anyway, because you're more likely to die of colon cancer in Wisconsin than you are to die from a terrorist attack.
See my other post in this thread. Not all of al-Haramain's money went to al-Qaida. A lot of it went to very poor people for food, education, or health care. Only a small minority of it was skimmed by a few sympathizers.
That's the problem with the guilt-by-association game. If you're a large charity and any one of your employees helps al-Qaida, your whole charity's image is permanently tarnished, even if your employee was acting outside of official capacity.
No, no, no, we don't care about any of that. Some very, very important people tell us that these other people are evil, so why should we care if their rights get trampled on? They're only terrorists, just like Wakil.
"A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."
Slashdot Mirror
Did some reading of boot0. I guess the mask ROM is memory mapped to 0xFFFF0000, so there doesn't need to be a non-ARM bootloader to load Starlet's memory.
Does Starlet automatically jump to 0xFFFF0000 after Power-On Reset? Seems weird, cos I thought most processors start at address 0 after POR. I see that 0xFFFF0000 vectors to _reset, which jumps to j_boot0_main, which jumps to boot0_main, leaving no opportunities for vectoring anywhere else, unless something else vectors to 0xFFFF0000 first instead of jumping there after POR.
I'm honored with your reply. ^_^
I did some research and you're right, bad NAND = no boot1.
I also saw the decompiled boot0. It's pretty slim so I imagine someone would have seen something by now if anything was there to find. My guess is that if Starlet hangs then all is lost. It seems weird, though, for them to dump the error code out of the debug port in the panic subroutine, but have no way to use this knowledge to fix a problem.
However...AHB allows multiple bus masters. You wouldn't need an alternative boot0 if you had some masked silicon that could bus master the AHB if Starlet hangs. The question is would the alternate bus master load Starlet code and then reboot it, or just have some facility to write directly to NAND? I'm not familiar with the initialization routines for getting the various devices up and running without boot2, but you don't seem excited about the prospect.
Has anyone considered whether there's some bootloader (not ARM-based) that loads boot0 from the ROM mask into Starlet's memory for execution? Or does Starlet have a bus that reads directly from ROM? Maybe it could load an alternate boot0 under some condition. Pure speculation.
JTAG would be ideal, but I read in other posts that you haven't seen it yet. Fear of piracy could lead them to forsake this entirely, but this seems stupid, but then again they seem entirely prone to severe stupidity... (strncmp signing checks? flashing without checksums? seriously!)
Does Hollywood have multiple power rails? I know some FPGAs have, for example, 3.3, 2.5, and 1.2 V rails. You can indefinitely postpone the boot process by holding one or the other of the rails low. So if Hollywood had another power rail, and the regulator for that rail had a shutdown pin, there could be some dirty tricks that could keep Hollywood from booting up, and thus prevent it from driving the NAND control pins, while still powering the 3.3V rail for the NAND. I doubt this is something Nintendo would have planned, though, and there's no telling if Hollywood might be sensitive to how various voltages ramp up.
In order to flash a bricked Wii, you need BootMii installed as boot2. This Nintendo update over-wrote boot2 for everyone, BootMii or otherwise, so anyone who runs it no longer has BootMii as boot2. If you could perform the update without overwriting boot2, you would keep BootMii and thus the ability to flash your NAND.
But the problem is that when Nintendo goes to overwrite boot2, they don't validate the checksum and some percentage of the installs will botch. And if boot2 hangs, there's pretty much nothing else left to do, because boot2 starts everything else.
I'm not even going to pretend that I know enough about Wii hardware to give you suggestions, but for your entertainment I shall muse...if I understand correctly the problem is Starlet fails to boot when boot2 is corrupted and thus won't turn on Broadway and we get screwed.
What if there was some other way to access the bus that's attached to the NAND and issue commands to the NAND without going through Starlet? Bushing's diagram leads me to believe that there could be a remote possibility that a backup-boot-loader could check for the existence of a file on the USB/Wifi/SD (but not the drive or GCN cards) and try to flash that into NAND.
Maybe boot1 could do some check for external files?
It's a long shot, but if you saw any activity on any of the peripherals attached to the AHB bus with a broken boot2, it could be an attempt to load a backup image for flashing.
I think he meant that the light always goes at a single speed speed through the non-linear optical medium.
velocity = wavelength * frequency
When you double the wavelength, you halve the frequency, and the velocity stays constant.
If you used refraction to slow down the light by half (relative to the speed of light in air), which would in turn compress the wavelength by half, the frequency/color would stay constant, and as soon as your photons return to the air medium, their velocity would double, the wavelength would expand, and the light would still be infrared.
I know this is ./
It's the current directory...?
We should continue this in email before the comment section of this article closes. For my gmail account name is the same as my slashdot account name.
Then what is the context? Don't say there is more context if you do not know. Say, "I don't know."
If you read what I said, there's conditionals like "if", "bet", etc. I don't know their culture at all, and I don't feel like taking the time to learn it. The difference between you and I is that I assume there is more context because in my experience with old mythologies you need to learn what life is like for the people who practice a religion, or it won't make any sense why they do the things that they do. Unlike me, you assume that there is no cultural context to add to the quote. However, like me, you aren't taking the time to verify 100%.
You know, rather than just focusing on the excerpt I decided to read the whole thing [blogspot.com] carefully, should have done that before, sorry again. Hasan [name altered to keep him alive] seems to be a bit off his rocker. Apparently, everything that happens in Iran is due to outsiders.
I was hoping you would. I do agree with your general view that they seem to place excess blame on outsiders.
However, it's less crazy than you think, especially when you consider the tawdry past of the United States' interference in other countries' business. It takes more than one hand to count the number of times that the US has engaged in "regime change" in other countries. In fact, we've already done it to Iran before. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
I didn't really care for much of whatever else this guy said, because I tend to think that anyone who is trying to place blame on others probably deserves a share of it himself. The Iranian leadership was internally treating their own people pretty brutally, and it's sad that they don't acknowledge it. But the media were making a circus of their protest, just like they made a circus of Iraq, and it was not helping their cause.
The only point I was really interested in was how a Muslim "preacher" manages to deal with his unbeliever brother. It's pointing out how trivial it is to "go find someone who says something on the Internet" - you find one that says kill unbelievers and I find one that says leave unbelievers alone. Who is right, then?
I wonder, if we asked all the Muslims one by one, whether they should kill unbelievers, what would be their answer? This concurrent poll (pdf) taken in 2006 doesn't ask exactly that, but it does discover - among other amazing revelations - that Americans are twice as likely to justify attacking innocent people as are Iranians (page 10)
You deny reality, attacks were ordered and carried out.
Deny reality? Are you kidding me? No, I'm being rational about this. If you watch the video, the very first words out of the host's mouth are "your own leader said 'I condemn the killing of innocent people'". It sounds to me, when watching this interview on BBC, that they went out of their way to find a crazy who could twist words to justify an insane point of view. Notice how there's only one "Mullah", I wonder if that's because he's the only one they found who would spout this non-sense and they didn't want a rational one on who would look at the other guy like he's nuts.
And if that Mullah were serious, why isn't he trying to kill the host sitting across from him?
Please put link in for a well know Christian leader suggesting we should kill Muslims.
Not quite what you asked for, but this describes a group of "former Muslims" who are regularly trotted out by evangelicals to espouse the dangers of Muslims, saying they "all" need to be "converted or eradicated". They've been on Fox News. I found it by googling christians kill muslims.
Show us these prominent crazies y
I knew you would correctly point out the context is war. This war is against unbelievers, infidels, us specificly.
They mention specifically slaying people who attack their mosques, and how they're only hostile to oppressors.
That's all the context there is.
That's all the context a Westerner like you or I see. I bet there's more to it, if we had proper knowledge of their culture.
He says the same thing as the British Mullah "I will never have conflict with my brother."
That is not what was said. The context of the question involved the brother's secular lifestyle - you know, his brother is an unbeliever. His response was, and I quote, "Whoever truly understands Islam will never wage war against you for not believing."
If you listen to the British Mullah Mr. Anjum Chaudri when asked if he supports the actions of his brothers to kill innocents...
I've heard Mullahs say that there are no innocents so it's perfectly ok to take these actions...
I'm just listening to Mullahs and they are very clear in their statements, which seem to agree with the scriptures. The bottom line is that they are at war with us, millions shout "Death to America." School children write essays on the subject and are raised to be the "pitbulls" you describe above. If you disagree with them they will eventually come for you.
You'll either have to take back your religion and concentrate on the Great Jihad, the struggle of self. Or, fight them.
"I've heard Mullahs". Do you know how funny that sounds? Can you imagine someone saying "I've heard preachers talk about waging a holy war on Islam" in reference to some evangelical preacher going off on YouTube?
If I found a preacher on YouTube who advocated murdering innocent people because they practice Islam, would anyone who follows his orders (or "fatwa") be Christian? No, quite the opposite.
It's the same way with Muslims (imagine that, the other people are just like us!)
Remember, there are crazies everywhere - every religion, every nation, every race, they all have people who spout insanity and they are not representative of the larger group which they claim to be.
If you knew any Muslims in the flesh, I think you might find that you are more obsessed with jihad than they are.
The software program flow is inherently sequential, and requires lots of belly-rubbing and head-patting in order to work in parallel.
The hardware program flow is the exact opposite. It is inherently parallel, with everything happening all the time. The effort required is to force the parallel world to behave in a sequential manner.
I agree entirely with the parent; go with a Xilinx Spartan 3 board. They're cheap, relatively powerful, and Xilinx offers the ISE WebPack for free. It comes with a ton of tools, which you can use to generate cores for doing things like FIR filters and FFTs, or looking at the low-level implementation of your hardware, or programming devices.
Don't forget to get a JTAG cable. They're very useful for downloading designs into the board. These will cost a little extra, but you might be able to get them with the dev board.
LEARN TO LOVE THE DOCUMENTATION! This is VERY, VERY important. Xilinx has a TON of documentation and application notes that describe everything about their chips, and I cannot stress how important it is to read as much documentation as possible.
The docs for XST (the Xilinx synthesizer that takes HLD code and turns it into netlists) describe the design flow, which is important because you need to know how to constrain your design, and what the inputs are for various stages of the design flow and how they connect (synth, translate, map, place, route, downloading into the Flash memory or directly into the FPGA, etc).
The data sheets for the FPGAs describe the awesome wealth of features, which for Spartan 3-era chips include: dual-port 2k block RAMs, single-cycle 18x18 block multipliers, Digital Clock Managers, Digitally Controlled Impedance, Partial Reconfiguration, and so on. Some other FPGAs (specifically some Virtex models) are even more wild, with on-die "hard processors" surrounded by the FPGA fabric.
In fact, you should go get the data sheets for every part on the Spartan 3 board - the memory chips, the LCD, all of it. If you're going to design with FPGAs, then datasheets should be as precious to you as the One Ring was to Gollum.
You should also try to learn what the FPGA fabric looks like. Common logic blocks, slices, flip flops, interconnect, global clock resources, where the DCMs and BRAMs are, the layout of an I/O pad, and so on.
When it comes to studying, I suggest looking for some tips on coding style for the language you end up choosing. You should also study things like combinatorial and sequential logic, finite state machines, datapath and control. You might even do well to read a book about microprocessor architecture design, because there is a lot of overlap. In fact, some books work together with FPGA dev boards, so you can build your own processor from scratch and add features (make it pipelined, add branch prediction and hazard protection, and so on).
You could also explore this "soft processor" development by using pre-packaged soft cores, like PicoBlaze or MicroBlaze. You can put all kinds of processors together, even asymmetrically, using smaller ones for small tasks and bigger ones for big tasks. This might help if you're stuck in the software design flow mindset.
It's only somewhat arbitrary
Oops, I meant to say "On the one hand, you say that someone will destroy their own worth in order to kill their enemies."
On the one hand, you say that someone won't destroy their own worth in order to kill their enemies. Mind you, if you waste your wealth on leveling people you don't like, you won't be able to take care of your loved ones anymore, and you will still end up ruining the lives of innocent people.
Then, on the other hand, you turn around and say that they won't give a nuclear weapon away to destroy those same enemies, because it might hurt the ones they love and kill innocent people.
You sound like a conspiracy theorist. If if is so important for you to spread your message, then you should be more careful in how you present the argument. Drink that in, and digest it, please.
When I read 2.190-2.193, the impression I get is "you can kill people who try to kill you,", especially given 2.192. That seems like a reasonable thing, and certainly not "go kill people who aren't Muslims".
As far as the other quote, I'm not sure there's enough context to properly judge the sentiment there. But I remember reading an interview with an Iranian cleric whose brother is secular. His reply was lengthy and surprisingly rational; here's an excerpt.
We will only fight those who are enemies of humanity, those who humiliate others, abuse them, make mental and physical slaves of them, or think of them as lesser beings.
I believe that as human beings, we should worship and praise our creator. But this service to God shouldn't be of the kind that harms others. For example, you can say that you're secular, that you don't believe in a god, and you don't believe in worship. You don't think it's required of you. So your ideology is different. But based on this, we will never clash with each other. Whoever truly understands Islam will never wage war against you for not believing. This is why I will never have a conflict with my brother.
However, if someone's ideology says that I am a lesser person, that he rules over me, or he's my boss, we will probably clash with each other.
I'm assuming you're not one who would be happy at the thought of killing Muslims, but I assure you there are plenty of folks in the US who think Muslims are a pretty awful bunch; my own father says they are like pitbulls - the pitbulls are bred to fight and the Muslims are bred to hate America. Like those who would call us the Great Satan, Islamophobes are just confused sheep who listened to the wrong person when forming an opinion.
If someone hated us so much and had that much spare wealth, it'd be easier for them to buy a black market nuke and donate it to al-Qaida than it would be to try and buy a majority ownership in enough companies to cause us severe harm.
Your condescending tone ("my boy", "you don't understand", etc) combined with the conspiracy theory attitude at the end ("I want you to think about this") reduce the impact of any message you wanted to deliver.
Individual human nature might drive individuals to do some crazy things, but you'd need a lot of people working together and they'd need to be extremely careful because if even one wrong person finds out, the whole world will know. It becomes a problematic trade-off; without enough people, they don't have enough cash to do what you suggest, but with enough people, it's too hard to keep secrets.
Seriously, what are the odds that a sufficiently large group of people who are wealthy enough to buy majority ownership of most American companies are all demented enough to throw away their fortunes in order to destroy an entire country full of people who enable those fortunes will keep this whole scheme a secret? One individual, sure. Five or ten, maybe. But hundreds of billionaires?
People who love money that much aren't going to waste it all just to destroy someone they don't like. If they mismanaged the hell out of things, they just lost all their cash that they used to buy the country.
The Saudis have a vested interest in our economy. So does China. Without the US economy to drive, the price of oil would plummet, and China wouldn't have anyone to sell their stuff to. In fact, I would wager that most wealthy people are wealthy because of the US and they aren't going to waste their wealth destroying their cash cow.
Besides, we don't need foreigners to screw up our companies, we do it ourselves.
They would need access to a lot of nuclear weapons, which are pretty costly. Iran hasn't even made one bomb yet, let alone many, and North Korea's economy is supported by their weapons programs so they certainly aren't giving out nukes for free.
But, let's say they take out one American city. Katrina beat them to it already, but life moved on pretty well for the rest of the country.
Two? Well, Japan survived after we took out two of their cities with nuclear weapons.
To take multiplie cities, you'd need to do it simultaneously. Once you took out one, we would be on super-high alert everywhere else.
Oh, and you should read this NYT article that summarizes from the IG report how the warrantless surveillance program produced just about no intelligence, but a lot of wild goose chases.
They also discuss how the warrantless surveillance made us less safe because the information was limited to only a few people due to the secrecy surrounding a program of questionable legality. This prevented the intelligence from being used more widely by more agencies; most of the leads provided were vague and without context so as not to allude to the questionable nature of its acquisition. Note that this problem would not exist had the program been done with FISC approval, because there would be no dancing around how you got a hold of the intel.
Okay. Now, they need more guns than us. Considering that the US spends about as much on defense as the rest of the nations on Earth, I don't think that will be a problem.
Then, how do they get here?
By airplane? I think it would cost a lot of money to fly a sufficiently large force across the oceans.
By car? The ocean makes that a bit difficult.
By sea? We could see them coming a mile away.
What if they nuke us, or engage in chemical warfare? I think that would be on a fairly limited scale, given the size of the US. Even if only a portion of it goes out, life will go on, just like after Katrina wiped out New Orleans.
Further, how many muslims are really going to be down with murdering? It's sortof against the rules, which is why it's only "extremists" who actually go out and kill people, because it's usually the extremists who feel obliged to ignore things like "thou shalt not kill", of which I'm pretty sure there's an Islamic equivalent.
Presumed legal, indeed.
If you want to pick nits about the definition of legal, then how about this. They could have gotten wiretaps that were consistent with the statutory law passed by the legislative branch and upheld by the judicial branch, rather than using some half-baked Unitary Executive Theory to justify ignoring clear case law and legislation involving national security wiretaps.
Normally, OLC opinions are peer-reviewed; this one was not. Even the head of OLC was unaware of this memo; it's that secret. Whenever other people at OLC finally got to review the memo, they pulled it because it was so god-awful.
They found a low-level OLC lawyer who would tell the administration anything they wanted, clearly ignoring the judicial branch's Supreme Court precedent set in Youngstown; imagine writing an opinion on whether abortion is legal, and not citing Roe v. Wade. Additionally, there was specific language directly in the FISA statute limiting Presidential war-time powers that Yoo ignored.
The only reason it was "presumed legal" was because they went out of their way to avoid standard operating procedure with such legal opinions so that no serious lawyers could put a stop to it, like they eventually did when it finally came out. And for that matter, they were engaged in warrantless surveillance weeks before Yoo's memo was issued.
The administration got a hack lawyer to say it was legal. It was so hacky that other administration officials who came on board later had no choice but to revoke the legal justifications used for the program. Any legitimate legal scholar who reads that opinion will point out that it's complete bullshit (it makes me wonder how many people they had to ask before they found one who would write the bullshit they wanted to hear)
Allow me to extend your analogy. You ask your passenger to tell you there's no one in your blind spot. The passenger looks over his shoulder and sees that there's a car in your blind spot, but tells you to change lanes anyway.
Oh, and good intentions cannot be used to find someone not guilty, only to mitigate their punishment.
1) Yes, I expect the government to go before a judge and ask if they can wiretap a foreign target, because that's how we make sure they aren't wiretapping domestic targets. Remember, once they have the warrant, they don't need to ask a judge anymore.
2) Even if they're so lazy that they can't bother to get warrants for wiretapping known terrorists, there's still the emergency retroactive warrants.
3) Even Pentagon officials admit that the "charity" spent the majority of its money feeding hungry people, teaching poor people, and helping sick people. Only a small portion of it was skimmed by a few terrorist sympathizers who infiltrated the charity.
4) Actually, we don't let them continue to campaign. We had many of their branches in foreign countries shut down.
5) Do you seriously think that a handful of fools wearing sandals and turbans who hide in caves are going to take down 300 million people? Can you imagine the size of the force that would be needed to invade American soil? It's moot, anyway, because you're more likely to die of colon cancer in Wisconsin than you are to die from a terrorist attack.
6) ...it's lose, not loose.
See my other post in this thread. Not all of al-Haramain's money went to al-Qaida. A lot of it went to very poor people for food, education, or health care. Only a small minority of it was skimmed by a few sympathizers.
That's the problem with the guilt-by-association game. If you're a large charity and any one of your employees helps al-Qaida, your whole charity's image is permanently tarnished, even if your employee was acting outside of official capacity.
Right, because it's okay to violate the rights of bad guys. We never, ever get the "bad guy" designation wrong. Just ask Haji Sahib Rohullah Wakil
It's not like the vast majority of the donations to al-Haramain went to feed hungry Somalis, teach poor Indonesians, or help sick Kenyans. It couldn't possibly be that there were a few sympathizers working in al-Haramain were skimming the money for al-Qaida.
No, no, no, we don't care about any of that. Some very, very important people tell us that these other people are evil, so why should we care if their rights get trampled on? They're only terrorists, just like Wakil.
"A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."
I hope the keypad isn't connected to the computer via the USB bus