Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Project as Litter Prevention? (Score 2) 32

I notice that they took these samples from cigarettes and chewing gum. Seems to me that if you leave something like that in a public space, there's no privacy concern.

Huh? Is this some kind of moral equivalency thing? The most trivial of litterbugs deserve to have their DNA analyzed and cataloged? Seems way out of proportion to me.

Comment Re:Pathetic. (Score 1, Insightful) 841

Why are so many people so willing to accept "rampant left bias" but refuse to see the rampant corporate bias?

Maybe it has something to do with who is complaining. Here's a simplified theory:

Conservatives, by definition, want to conserve the status quo. So they are not going to be happy about news reporting on any changes.

Progressives, by definition, want to see a change in the status quo. So any reporting on the way things are is nothing new to them - they wouldn't be progressives if they didn't already think the status quo sucked.

So you get one group getting their views challenged and another getting their views reinforced. Seems plausible that the one getting their views challenged would be motivated to find allternate explanations that don't conflict with their world view.

Comment Re:Video is mostly factually correct (Score 1) 188

Well, the people reading will clearly see that you have no understanding of abrogation

Will they? When al-Qaradawi himself said it doesn't work the way you claim it does, when he was specifically talking about verse 9:5 and he said it in arabic on al jazeera that kind of makes it seem like I have a much better gasp of the topic than you do.

Come back with the verse that abrogates 9:5 and then we can talk.

Hey, if your man al-Qaradawai said 9:5 is abrogated by the other versus, what more is needed?

With regard to your Al Azhar quote. What you don't understand is that people are free to practice their religion - but *only as second class dhimmis who must pay an extortion tax of jizya or be at risk of being killed*

Oh, so now the taco defense does not apply? You are changing your interpretation as you go. Your new explanation is still just as ridiculous. If that was what was going on then it would mean the Christian churches in egypt were happy to be second class religions. Never mind the actual wording of the declaration -- "absolute equality in rights and duties." Not secondary in rights - equal.

You know what makes more sense? That Al-Azhar said what they mean.

Hmm. How 9:5 is read when taking into account 9:4 is usually interpreted this way, "fight all unbelievers that you don't have a treaty with. If you have a treaty then fight those that have breached the treaty. If you have a treaty and its conditions are still met, then leave them alone for up to four months" (hudna).

Given that the context was war with various pagan tribes, then yes killing the enemies you have not signed a treaty with seems pretty reasonable. Even if it is a gimme, you still can't explain away 9:6 commanding the muslims to take the non-believers to somewhere that they are safe.

You know what really cracks me up? How you started using my name over and over again instead of referring to me with a pronoun. It's like you just woke up to the fact that you are on a stage after I pointed it out to you. You are so transparent. It is funny, but sad.

Comment Re:Video is mostly factually correct (Score 1) 188

Al taqiyya for non-Muslims (notice the EU domain) and guillable Westerners (like you). That's not the position in Arabic and in documents published for Muslims to read.

Remeber all those christian churches that signed on? They are in egypt. They speak arabic. They signed on to the original arabic document. They wouldn't be fooled by a bogus english translation because they read the english version.

I suspected you would try the taco defense. That's the one that trumps any critical thinking. Anybody who says anything that disagrees with you is lying. Even the very same people that you cite as an authoritative. Do you understand how circular that reasoning is? There is literally nothing that can change your mind. It is the same thing as the salem witch trials. That ain't science, that is mindless bigotry.

I never expected you to honor your side of the deal. But for anyone else reading along, they can see your hypocrisy for what it is.

Comment Re:Stress (Score 1) 230

Mayhaps part of the problem is that some of the drone-related operations are so blatantly wrong that soldiers who are executing them must feel the inevitable guilt. Not "was it right or was it wrong?", but "why did I just kill a group of civilians on purpose?".

I think that is probably true. Not that I believe that deserves a medal or anything, but I am willing to believe that for a normally adjusted human, killing someone, even by remote control, is very destructive to the pysche.

I watched a video a of person dying because I thought it was a very important event, that her death ought to be witnessed by as many people as possible. It was far more intense than I ever expected, even though it was no hollywood shoot-out or anything like the way death is portrayed in video games or movies. Even today I still get broken up any time I think about it.

So not only do I think that it is entirely possible for drone operators to be affected by the things they do, I think it is a good thing. It means that we haven't been able to completely take the humanity out of war, not yet at least.

Comment Re:Video is mostly factually correct (Score 1) 188

Their choice is to become Muslims (join the evil crew; which is evil), submit as dhimmis ...

If they don't do these things then they are liable to be killed. How is that not evil?

First verse 9:5 is specific to one group of treaty breakers, not everyone as specified in 9:4 "Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. ..."

The following verse 9:6 says "If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. ..." In other words, don't hurt the guy, preach to him and then let him go.

I expect you've got your twisted reasons for saying the verses before and after 9:5 don't count. So I've got more:

2:256 "There is no compulsion in religion"

--That's pretty straight-forward.

18:29 "so let whosoever will believe, and let whosoever will disbelieve"

-- Looks like even atheists are welcome.

6:108 "Do not revile those unto whom they pray beside God, lest they wrongfully revile God through ignorance"

-- Basically the golden rule for religion - treat others religions as you would your own religion. Hardly a recipe for religious subjugation.

60:8 "God does not forbid you to be kind to those who do not take arms against you. God loves those who are just"

-- Also pretty straight-forward. If people aren't attacking you, you should not attack them.

An non-abrograted commandment to kill all Muslims even if they are not a threat to believers. This is evil.

Abrogation - that's a new one since I last ran into your brethren. If you can't dispute the text, pretend it doesn't count. Looks like that AC had you pegged on that one. But, unsurprisingly even that newest form of delusion doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

My understanding of Sura 9 is the same as Osama bin Laden's and Quradhawi's and Qtub's and Al Azhar's. We agree it all means the same thing and abrogates the other verses.

You've listed Yusuf Al-Quradhawi and the al-Azhar University as sources of proof that verse 9:5 is the real deal that over-rides everything else, that all of the other verses about freedom of religion don't count. Al-Qaradawi is a pretty popular islamic theologian, he even has a show on al jazeera, kinda like glenn beck had a show on fox. While al-Azhar University in Egypt is arguably the "chief centre of Arabic literature and Islamic learning in the world." So when those two say something it must be true, right? They are your go to guys in this argument.

So, here's what al-Qaradawi actually has to say about 9:5:

  • "...aggression on Muslims and not disbelief is the basis for Muslim warfare... There is disagreement on the so-called Sayf aya (the verse of the sword). Some claimed that it abrogated 200 verses of the Quran among which are the forgiveness and tolerance. But there are those who say that the Sword verse itself is abrogated."
    Who is an authority on Islam Robert Spencer or Al Qaradawi?

And here is the official position of al-Azhar University on the freedom of religion. Not just one or two professors who might be cranks, this statement has the full force and standing of the authority of al-Azhar itself.

  1. Freedom of belief and the right connected to it of full citizenship (muwatana) for everyone, based [in turn] on absolute equality in rights and duties, is considered the cornerstone of the modern social order. This freedom is guaranteed by diriment and ever valid religious texts and by explicit constitutional and juridical principles. The Omnipotent in fact says, be He exalted and magnified: 'No compulsion is there in religion. Rectitude has become clear from error' (2:256); 'so let whosoever will believe, and let whosoever will disbelieve' (18:29). It follows that any form of compulsion in religion, persecution or discrimination in its name, is condemned as a crime. Each individual in society has the right to embrace the ideas he prefers, provided it does not harm the right of the society to preserve the heavenly faiths. In fact, the three divine religions have their own holy character (qadasa). Individuals are free to practise their own rites without offending the sensibility of others, violating the sacredness (hurma) of the three religions in word or in facts, and without making an attempt on public order.

    Since the Arab fatherland is the cradle of the heavenly Revelation and the protector of the divine religions, it is particularly committed to safeguarding their holy character, to respecting their rites and to protecting the rights of their faithful, in freedom, dignity and brotherhood. From the right to religious freedom derives the recognition of the legitimacy of pluralism (taâaddud), the protection of the right to difference as well as to each citizen's duty to respect the sensibility of others and their equality, on the solid basis of citizenship, participation and equal opportunities in rights and duties.
    Declaration by al-Azhar and the intellectuals on the legal ordinances of fundamental freedoms

Even the christian churches in Egypt endorsed Al-Azhar's statement:


So, not only does your guy Al-Qaradawi disagree with your claims about 9:5's command for compulsion in religion, he thinks there is a pretty good chance that 9:5 is abrogated itself. Then al-Azhar University totally yanks the rug out from under you by specifically declaring that freedom of religion is the right of all citizens.

That about wraps it up. I look forward to your silence.

Comment Re:Monsanto takes .. (Score 1) 419

The farmers knew it was Monsanto "tainted" because they sprayed the crop with glyphosate. That makes no sense whatsoever unless they knew it was GMO.

I didn't say they were ignorant. I said they did not sign a contract with monsanto nor did the grain elevator they purchased them from advertise them as monsanto seeds. In other words there was no conspiracy.

Comment Re:Video is mostly factually correct (Score 1) 188

I have provided you a link with a thorough analysis of the positions for and against 9:5.

No, you don't get to just link to so some random website and say "that is my argument." You want to cite proof for your claims about 9:5, that's fine. But until you make a straight-forward testable claim, then there is nothing to debate.

Put all your cards on the table and we duke it out right here.

Now for all your talk you still have not a single skerrick of counter evidence

Because you have not held up your side of the deal yet.

Answer the question - why is 9:5 evil? Not what evil things did Mohamed do, not what evil things did Osama do, not what evil things are in some other verse or some other hadith. Stay focused and make a specific point.

You are free to give up and walk away if you are unable to fulfill the requirements of the deal.

Comment Re:Monsanto takes .. (Score 5, Informative) 419

When farmers purchase Monsanto seeds, they sign a contract and agree, in writing, not to save seed.

No, when farmers purchase Monsanto seeds from MONSANTO they sign a contract like that. This case has nothing to do with that scenario.

This guy bought seed from the local grain elevator - seed that was sold on the open market without Monsanto's involvement and no advertising that the seed was monsanto tainted seed. He had no contract with Monsanto for those seeds or any of their precursors.

Comment Re:Video is mostly factually correct (Score 1) 188

No, why you consider it not evil?

The terms of the deal are you pick a verse that you think is indisputably evil. Claiming that something that so many people argue over is self-evident is ridiculous.

If you can't articulate why it is evil, then you can't complain when nobody pays you heed. If you aren't all about hate, then you sure need to be about the persuasion.

Comment Re:It's like a high speed arms race (Score 1) 32

A logical way to fix the vulnerability is to have more sophisticated detection at the border gateways into your private network.

That sort of functionality has seemed like a no-brainer to me for about a decade. I desperately want something that runs on my home router that monitors all connections, in and out, with both real-time in a user-friendly interface (not just a eyeball destroying table of ip addresses and port numbers but some sort of graphical summary) and generates reports on a hourly/daily/weekly basis. It should also incorporate a nice high-level way to kill off some behaviours - don't make me manually write a bunch of iptables rules for each case.

So far everything I've seen that comes close in either native firmware or any of the DD-WRT variants is still terribly painful to use, if it is functional at all.

Comment Re:So he is not using the UN, just the UN (Score 1) 232

Being set up by the DOC and being private are unrelated concepts, and in the case of ICANN, both are true.

Being a private organization does not exclude it from working on behalf of government. ICANN was created by the Dept of Commerce and continues to perform its work under contract to the Dept of Commerce. making it effectively just another part of the US Government.

Comment Re:Video is mostly factually correct (Score 1) 188

Would you quit with the blather and just make your point? This is like pulling teeth.

At least now you've actually cited a single verse. But so what if it is the justification for "jihad" (and especially "cultural jihad" when you claim to have no problem with "cultural muslims"). Be specific as to what you think verse 9:5 means that is evil because I sure as shit am not going to argue with on multiple points - you don't get to cite 9:5 and when you lose that one weasel about the definition of jihad.

Why is 9:5 evil?

Slashdot Top Deals

Adding features does not necessarily increase functionality -- it just makes the manuals thicker.