Eh, who cares? So he had a big evangelical moment and saw Jesus, great, wonderful. This book continues to contain information that can be useful to people, and this is the same "book-burning" way of thinking that is so prevalent in conservative religious communities. While the document is injected with immature content throughout in terms of the motivations for the activities upon which it instructs, it contains practical knowledge that can be used for good or evil.
This knowledge cannot and should not be erased because an individual, even the original author, has concluded that violence is under no circumstance an acceptable way to prosecute change.
it contains practical knowledge that can be used for good or evil
How can said practical knowledge be used for good? In the real world, I mean, not hypothetical-land? Where do you suggest I should plant my homemade bomb in order to make the world a better place, really?
You don't have to have a "big evangelical moment" to see that this book's main contribution to the world has been a bunch of teenagers blowing up either mailboxes or their own hands.
If you happen to scroll down further, you might end up reading a review[1] of a person who's college ROTC instructor used this same book as training material.
For most everyone working a 9-5 in the city with a middle-class family in the suburbs, no this book won't have any practical day to day application. But the review I'm referencing is quoted as saying, "Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it,". Having the book and being knowledgable about it's contents can be argued to be akin to keeping 30 days of food in storage for emergencies.
Yeah, sorry, wrong. The best-known lesson of this book was "you can walk into a series of hardware stores and drug stores and acquire the materials needed to make a cool explosion inside of a trash can, no questions asked, even if you're in Tulsa and you're 13". Unfortunately, that wasn't all you needed to know about the topic to blow up garbage cans safely.
You may have the impression that, like "Steal This Book", this was an interesting compendium of ideas no normal person would ever put into use. The problem was, it actually included a lot of ideas that stupid kids like me certainly would put to use.
I did have the impression that under the right circumstances, in the right climate, the book was a very useful reference. I never said that the book was safe. You may have have the impression, or experience to argue for, the dangers of this book because of certain events that may have occurred, or possibly could have occurred, after you read it at about the same age I read it.
If I may, let me abstract both of our arguments:
I say that the book is a good tool, under certain preconditions, that may help one in time of emergency. I'm talking about the book as a reference, as a tool, and a guide. And by its nature, anyone with some common sense knows that it is not a complete, concise work. There are thousands of pages omitted regarding safety. But it can point one in the right direction when it is the only thing available.
You say that the book is dangerous because 13 year old kids from Tulsa can buy materials off the shelf of retail stores and build bombs, with the possibility of killing or severely injuring themselves. You are arguing that the product of the actions derived from use of the book in an irresponsible manner are unsafe, and thus no one should have access to the material described within the book. If this is not what you are arguing about, please clarify.
The book isn't inherently dangerous. It also is not inherently safe, having it on my shelf does not make my home or family more prepared for survival than yours, if you didn't have this book on your shelf. Nor does it make my house more dangerous to be in. This book is a tool, just like a machette or toaster oven. Just because a 13 year old puts shredded newspaper in a toaster and burns his family's house down doesn't make toasters dangerous. Corollary, a 13 year old reading this book doesn't become a violent madman, until that person acts on the ideas and methods of building bombs to take to school. It is the action, like building a bomb, that is the danger, even for people trained and experienced in the field.
With every liberty man has been given a burden also comes with. We shouldn't prevent this book from being published because the fear of it being used irresponsibly is too great. We should be teaching respect and safety to the ideas presented within. No one answer will win this argument.
You think I'm arguing that the book should be burned. I'm not; I'm saying that it was irresponsible to write and publish a book with haphazard and amateurish demolitions instructions, and calamitously irresponsible to make that book available to teenagers. I also said, earlier, that the book launched my career, which I'm quite happy with. My feelings about the book are complicated.
It should go without saying that there are many tools that, unlike toaster ovens, are not generally provided to children without supervision --- regardless of whether they can cough up the cash to buy them.
Spanish inquisition and something about making rats burrowing into pregnant jews or something. Not that religious values are bad and the bible should be removed from print or anything...
"But the most infamous event was when the captured men of Otranto were given the choice to convert to Islam or die; 800 of them held to their Christian faith and were beheaded en masse at a place now known as the Hill of the Martyrs. The Turkish fleet then went on to attack the cities of Vieste, Lecce, Taranto, and Brindisi, and destroyed the great library at the Monastero di San Nicholas di Casole, before returning to Ottoman territory in November."
"...it will surely surprise those who believe that millions of people died in the Spanish Inquisition to learn that throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, less than three people per year were sentenced to death by the Inquisition throughout the Spanish Empire, which ranged from Spain to Sicily and Peru. Secular historians given access to the Vatican’s archives in 1998 discovered that of the 44,674 individuals tried between 1540 and 1700, only 804 were recorded as being relictus culiae saeculari. The 763-page report indicates that only 1 percent of the 125,000 trials recorded over the entire inquisition ultimately resulted in execution by the secular authority, which means that throughout its infamous 345-year history, the dread Spanish Inquisition was less than one-fourteenth as deadly on an annual basis as children’s bicycles."
This material, however, is far from being complete - for example, the tribunal of Cuenca is entirely omitted, because no relaciones de causas from this tribunal has been found, and significant gaps concern some other tribunals (e.g. Valladolid). Many more cases not reported to Suprema are known from the other sources (e.g. no relaciones de causas from Cuenca has been found, but its original records has been preserved), but were not included in Contreras-Hennigsen's statistics for the methodological reasons.
This assumes the Vatican's paperwork, for a span of 160 years, at over 200 years old, does not consider any individuals sentenced to long prison sentences or galleys, whom have died during imprisonment or service, deaths.
Also, any prisoner that died pretrial is not counted, nor anyone wearing a sanbenito that was beaten to death in public.
Nor any jew, muslim, or dislikable person killed pretrial because of religous hatred.
You don't happen to have a link to the 763 page report, do you?
First of all, I think your comment would have been more effective and to-the-point if you had left off your first paragraph.
Second, I'm surprised to see a regular contributor to Hacker news saying something like this:
> there are religious contributors to the site who may not enjoy being caricatured.
That seems like a poor reason to avoid saying something that you believe is true and contributes to the discussion (especially in a public forum like this).
Third, the statement "violence...is not an effective way to achieve ends," is just a platitude. It most definitely has been effective, and is sometimes an effective way to achieve ends. Rome seemed to take care of it's Carthage problem pretty well. You can certainly argue whether or not this is a moral way to achieve ends, but that is not what you said.
You are talking about fideism, not religion. Lots of religious folks (I am not religious) value knowledge as much as non-religious people do. Faith has nothing to do with it (see Kierkegaard)
Making such sweeping generalizations -- painting the entire concept of religion with the actions of a relatively few fundamentalists -- isn't very charitable. And it invites pointless debate, as other commenters have pointed out.
Actually, the book has a lot of completely incorrect information. For example, it has a recipe for bananadyne. That's what I find offensive about it. I wouldn't trust any of the other recipes to not just blow up in your face even if executed correctly, since the author didn't test them to begin with.
That was the first thing I thought when I read the headline. Ranks up there with Who Represents (www.whorepresents.com) and Pen Island (www.penisland.com).
Edit: I still think it is a good idea, but the domain name lends itself to obvious jokes.
Not being a native speaker it never occurred to me and all my native speaker friends to whom I mentioned the domain name never said a word. I think maybe it's not all that disastrous.
That's still not a good answer. My use of "sequel" or "S.Q.L" depends on many factors. For a non-technical crowd, or one that I otherwise know is unfamiliar with the topic, it's always S.Q.L. Similarly, If I'm throwing around many terms in a technical discussion, I will often use S.Q.L., that being the clearer form. I say "sequel" in the context of "let's take a look at this sequel here..."
Every time I've entertained the idea of joining a startup, it's always an "all we need is a developer" situation, or its cousin, the "we had a great developer (who invariably stunk) who'll get you up to speed."
So it seems I'd have to go it alone, and my ideas are too big for my time. If I had some simpler ideas I'd definitely see if they held water, however. I definitely have the application, server, and DB skills to make it happen.
