Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Submission + - Carbon Dating Shows Koran May Predate the Prophet Muhammad 4

HughPickens.com writes: Brian Booker writes at Digital Journal that carbon dating suggests that the Koran, or at least portions of it, may actually be older than the prophet Muhammad himself, a finding that if confirmed could rewrite early Islamic history and shed doubt on the "heavenly" origins of the holy text. Scholars believe that a copy Koran held by the Birmingham Library was actually written sometime between 545 AD and 568, while the Prophet Mohammad was believed to have been born in 570 AD and to have died in 632 AD. It should be noted, however, that the dating was only conducted on the parchment, rather than the ink, so it is possible that the quran was simply written on old paper. Some scholars believe, however, that Muhammad did not receive the Quran from heaven, as he claimed during his lifetime, but instead collected texts and scripts that fit his political agenda. "This gives more ground to what have been peripheral views of the Koran's genesis, like that Muhammad and his early followers used a text that was already in existence and shaped it to fit their own political and theological agenda, rather than Muhammad receiving a revelation from heaven," says Keith Small, from the University of Oxford's Bodleian Library. "'It destabilises, to put it mildly, the idea that we can know anything with certainty about how the Koran emerged," says Historian Tom Holland. "and that in turn has implications for the history of Muhammad and the Companions."

Submission + - New Technical Details About Clinton Servers Raise More Questions->

An anonymous reader writes: Breitbart reports that, "Records reveal that Hillary Clinton’s private clintonemail.com server shared an IP address with her husband Bill Clinton’s email server, presidentclinton.com ... Hillary’s clintonemail.com server and the Foundation-run presidentclinton.com email server have exactly the same IP address, and the same SSL certificate (which an organization purchases for an email server to verify its trustworthiness). The fact that both of these email servers have the same IP address means that they were operating on the same network, and sharing physical space. ... the servers were probably operating on the same machine. ... Hillary’s server and Bill’s Foundation-run server also shared a different IP address during her tenure as Secretary of State." The Daily Caller notes, "Clinton has also told a slightly different story about the origin of the server setup. Rather than being something she brought over from her failed presidential campaign, Clinton said in March that “the system we used was set up for President Clinton’s office.”"
Link to Original Source

Submission + - LILO Bootloader Development To End-> 2

An anonymous reader writes: For any longtime Linux users, you probably remember the LILO bootloader from Linux distributions of many years ago. This bootloader has been in development since the 90's but development is finally ending. A homepage message reads, "I plan to finish development of LILO at 12/2015 because of some limitations (e.g. with BTFS, GPT, RAID). If someone want to develop this nice software further, please let me know ..."
Link to Original Source

Comment Re:Yes? And? (Score 1) 266

You've got a lot of this backwards.

Iraq had a functioning government, military, and police forces when the US withdrew around 2011, and had them for years before. The level of violence was minor at the time. The corruption in Iraq and unwillingness to engage in political compromise made it difficult for the government to function effectively which left opportunities for ISIS. It would have been better if the US had been able to stay, but domestic politics on both sides made that unlikely.

The US was hardly involved in Syria early on, and that is part of the problem. There were more moderate groups that the Obama administration ignored, and they lost a huge amount of ground.

ISIS is essentially an offshoot of al Qaeda, but appears to be surpassing it in some important ways. The US had nothing to do with founding either al Qaeda or ISIS.

Fighters for al Qaeda have come from around the world, and they fight around the world. ISIS fighters have come from around the world, but they are fighting in a much smaller area.

Islamic radicalism has been a growing problem for decades. The many oppressive and dysfunctional or otherwise troubled regimes and societies in the Arab and Muslims worlds made that almost inevitable. Blaming the US is largely misguided, but you could thank the Soviet Union.

Comment Re:Yes? And? (Score 1) 266

I could really condense your post down to one argument: "Our enemies at present do not wage war lawfully and fulfill the obligations necessary for them to receive the full rights and protections of the Geneva Conventions."

FTFY

There actually is a point to this, and you keep missing it. This isn't simply a question of "nastiness," but of obligations. Even the Germans in WW2 attempted to meet their obligations when fighting at least the Western Allies (US, UK, France, etc.). As I stated before, that obligation is imposed as part of the enforcement mechanism. If you don't care about them meeting their obligations then you shouldn't care about them not receiving full benefit of the treaties. It is just that simple.

Comment Re:Yes? And? (Score 1) 266

You've got this wrong, including that nonsense about "systematically disappearing people." This isn't a question of some South American Junta oppressing poor peasants. It is a war against the barbarians of our age.

Guerrilla tactics were known when the treaties were drawn up so your comment about uniforms is nonsense. It takes very little to comply with the treaty. Armbands, a chain of command, and waging war lawfully is about what it takes. You're claiming that is too much? Nonsense. Tell me, what forces ISIS to behead people or burn them alive? Do you think that it is too much to expect them to not commit atrocities? That isn't a theoretical question, the issue is one played out daily by those barbarians.

Isis sex slaves: 19 women executed for refusing to have sex with militant fighters
ISIS burns 4 hog-tied men alive in new video
ISIS Declares War On ‘The Cross’: 21 Christians Beheaded in Barbaric New Video from the Islamic State

Guantanamo isn't a secret prison, it is well known. The prisoners even receive Red Cross visits. But if the enemy combatants want the full rights and protections of the treaty then they need to abide by it. That is a basic enforcement mechanism built into it. Maybe they could start small, like simply not burning people alive and behead them. They could work their way up to no mass rape and sex slavery.

Far too many people here are outraged when a terrorist leader is killed by a missile as if it were an epic crime of the ages to prevent those evil men from attacking innocent civilians. But those same people who are outraged about terrorists being killed are often wholly indifferent to mass rape, murder, and torture of captives, hostages, and innocents by al Qaeda, ISIS, and the like. How do you think that will go? How do you think it will go now that more and more of them are showing up in Europe? Once the "oxen being gored" are European I expect some "rapid evolution" of views.

Do you know what ISIS is considering doing to captured pilots? (You know they burned one alive, right?) It is an old practice of the Turkish Caliphate, the Ottoman Empire: death by impaling.

Muslims Are Calling To Revive An Ancient Horrifying Execution Method Against U.S. Led Coalition Pilots

They'll probably put video of it on Youtube.

Comment Re:Yes? And? (Score 1) 266

How fitting that you use the word "zombie" .... I think this deals with that nonsense. Pay special attention to the section "Sweden and extradition".

The legal mythology of the extradition of Julian Assange - Why the “zombie facts” of Assange supporters are wrong

It is about sexual assault, pure and simple.

Comment Re:Yes? And? (Score 1) 266

Less than 800 prisoners in total have been held in Guantanamo, and at present there are only about 120 left there. They have been held there legally. You're taking nonsense.

It is stupid to think that Assange is going to end up in Guantanamo. He isn't a member or associate of al Qaeda, nor does anyone seriously assert that, and those are the only people that end up in Guantanamo.

I can't spare you or take from you a quality you possess.

Comment Re:Yes? And? (Score 1) 266

They are in a prisoner of war camp.
Criminal courts are completely irrelevant regarding prisoner of war status. Not even the same body of law.
Guilt or innocence are irrelevant. The question is, are they enemy combatants? Once again, not a question of criminal law.
No, the term "extra-judicial imprisonment" doesn't apply since it isn't a judicial question to begin with. All that is required is that a competent tribunal approve their detention, and that has occurred.

Would Britain have been helpless in the face of an invading German army unless they littered or something? You know, a criminal offense? Were the German and Italian prisoners held by Britain held illegitimately (minus those held for littering, or rape)?

You might have exhausted this line of thought, do you care to go on about torts committed by al Qaeda and the proper thing is to sue them? Or maybe move on to some admiralty offense? Or perhaps environmental law? I would have to assume that chopping off the heads of Christians in the surf as ISIS have been doing lately is going to mean untreated blood polluting the waters which may be an offense under environmental legislation. Perhaps that environmental outrage will finally stir up people of certain political persuasions against them when the head chopping won't.

I think something like 30% of the "totally innocent" prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay there were released went back to the battlefield and terrorism.

Comment Re:You win! (Score 1) 266

I'm sure. But anyway ..... The US doesn't operate by a parliamentary system in which members of parliament become ministers in charge of government ministries after their faction is able for form a government. The executive and legislative branches are completely separate. In the US if the chairman of the House agriculture committee thinks you should be captured or killed I doubt there is much to worry about since he or she has essentially no means to enforce that. Not even the head of the armed services committee could do anything by order. That can't be said if it is the head of the FBI or CIA that says it. And in either case there is always a question of legality. Making war against al Qaeda is one thing, dealing with Assange is completely different. There is zero chance he'll be attacked with a drone by the US government or sent to Gitmo, unless he wants to join al Qaeda or ISIS.

"Bond reflected that good Americans were fine people and that most of them seemed to come from Texas." - Ian Fleming, "Casino Royale"

Working...