Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Won't make too much difference (Score 4, Informative) 440

I take the BART every day to work (Fremont to SF). While many stations are underground, when the trains leave the stations they are above-ground and can use normal (non-BART controlled) reception. Most of the time, the BART travels above-ground, not underground. (Also, even with the underground antennas on, the reception is still terrible, so you wouldn't want to make a call anyway.) Also, the wifi sucks, i just use tethering.

Comment Too late... (Score 1) 212

A little background info: Aaron Barr was the CEO of HBGary Federal, a smaller company made by HBGary to do government contracts. HBGary only owned about 15% of HBGary Federal. However, both companies shared username/password information for Aaron Barr, which is why Anonymous easily hacked into HBGary after hacking into HBGary Federal. Anonymous released the HBGary Federal e-mails immediately, and then later on released HBGary's e-mails. My comment: Before Anonymous released HBGary's emails, Penny (the president of HBGary) actually made a deal with Anonymous: If Aaron Barr was fired and his salary given to the Bradley Manning defense fund, then Anonymous would not release the HBGary e-mails. If only Barr had stepped down a bit earlier, HBGary could've possibly saved millions of dollars.

Comment Re:Or, put another way... (Score 1) 531

> I dunno, but it seems to me that dogmatic, xenophobic, recidivist behaviour is on the rise > worldwide -- Islam certainly has no corner on the market for running amok, not now, and not > historically, and the term "Christian" probably carries as much negative baggage through > the years as "Muslim" does.

This quote is a good example of an all too common species of politically correct fool. So much wrong with it. It assumes time is immaterial. That events in the dark past are indisinguishable from current events and carry the exact same moral weight. That persons, events and movements must be judged with the exact same modern politically correct intolerant eye.

We are still crawling up from the muck, people and events must be viewed from the perspective of the time they occured in. For example the US Founders lived in a time when slavery was accepted as normal and had been since recorded history began. Individual liberty of any sort was a REVOLUTIONARY idea. After exhausting peaceful means they became violent revolutionaries. And most of them understood the inherent conflict between slavery and "All Men are created equal..." but also realized the new nation wasn't ready to follow where that line of thought lead. But notice that less than a century later the only places still practicing slavery were parts of Africa and the Middle East outside the range of the British Navy. Christianity did some nasty things but went through the Enlightenment, pretending that didn't happen and judging it as if that didn't happen and that the religion of the Inquisition still exists unchanged is daft.

Islam didn't experience the Enlightenment and rejects it today. The past is just that, past; we have a problem in the here and now as a result. Islam's rejection of the foundational principles of modern civilization is a problem NOW. Coexistance isn't even possible because of their expansionist and supremisist ideas. We in the West either abandon our civilization and accept Sharia or sooner or later (and with Nukes spreading it better be sooner) we are going to be forced to end Islam as it is currently known and practiced. That means Ann Coulter's solution of "Invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." It will be the worst human rights atrocity in recorded history but I'm damned if I see a better solution. We just don't have the time left to embark on a psyops action to slowly pervert their religion so as to remove the nastier bits.

So if it comes down to them or me I'm picking me and mine. Politically incorrect selfish bastard that I am. Future generations can flagelate themselves like the modern campus set do now about the American Indians, the Monroe Doctrine, ending WWII with the Bomb, the Cold War or any of that other stuff. So long as it IS civilization having that discussion in the future and not some starving primitives worshiping an insane child molester in a radioactive wasteland. And they will be sort of 'right' in that by the more advanced civilization our hard choices will allow them to build what we will do in our day will BE wrong... but still making the same mistake modern scholars keep making of judging us by their standards. So be it.

This comment is so factually incorrect and historically bankrupt it staggers me. Islam and Muslim scientists and thinkers were the reason behind the Enlightenment. The Dark Age of Europe was the Golden Age of the Islamic civilization. Medicine, algebra, geometry, philosophy, and many other fields were founded by or greatly advanced through Muslim scientists and thinkers. Even the idea of empiricism came from Islam - the concept was taught to the Western scientist by Moorish scholars, by his own admitting. In the century after Islam, the Muslim people experienced the greatest turnaround of scientific and cultural progress the world has ever seen in history. Read some books every once in a while. It's quite discouraging to know that some of the great minds in science and technology can also be some of the blindest followers when it comes to history and humanities topics.

Comment Re:Flow of Information (Score 1) 531

...Of course, part of the problem with this whole discussion is that the participants apparently haven't even studied 'Shariah law'. People just believe whatever Fox, CNN, etc., says or implies, and consider themselves political commentators. I have in fact studied Shariah law at UC Berkeley. Shariah law gave women many rights that women did not have until very recently, for example, the right to own property, the right to work, and many other things. In fact, in some aspects, the Shariah law gives more rights to women than Western law. For example, according to Shariah, a woman could be a millionaire but she does not have to spend a single cent of her money on providing for her own needs or the household needs. Instead, her husband (though he may be a very poor man) is responsible for providing for the entire family's needs. The husband cannot demand a single cent from the wife. That's just one example...if you study it, you would find many more. Something "upholders of Western freedom and democracy" can learn from.

Comment Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks (Score 1) 1224

They haven't "been killing each other since the Sunni-Shia split in the 7th Century", for most of their existence they've peacefully interacted with one another. Before the current conflict in Iraq, intermarriage between Sunnis and Shias in Iraq was common. They lived side-by-side peacefully for most of their existence; however these days people brainwashed by Western media don't know.

Comment Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks (Score 5, Informative) 1224

I'm a practicing Muslim ("fundamentalist" if you prefer) but most Muslims and Islamic scholars do not espouse the RevolutionMuslim kind of ideology. The statements by RevolutionMuslim are mostly for intimidation purposes and will most likely have no bearings in reality.

Comment Alright, so I'm a Muslim (Score 0, Flamebait) 1224

so I thought I'd comment on this. 1) RevolutionMuslim.com is as you say a "radical website," although from my understanding the majority of Muslims and Islamic scholars do not agree with the ideas promoted by this website. 2) Every religion/system of beliefs/philosophy etc has extremists willing to violently get their objectives done. 3) According to Islam as interpreted by authentic Islamic scholars, Muslims living in a non-Muslim state must abide by its laws as they have signed an agreement (citizenship, green card, etc.) with the country to do so. The only exception is with laws which require a Muslim to violate the Shariah (Islamic law). (Living in the United States all my life, I haven't found any such laws and am commonly told by Muslim immigrants that practicing Islam in the United States is easier than in some Muslim countries.) 4) Such demands made by salafi-jihadi Muslims are primarily for rhetoric purposes (i.e. to "scare" people) and will most likely have no basis in reality. Of course, that said, I'm not going to be an apologist. The creators of South Park should obviously have more concern and sensitivity towards Muslim sentiments. The members of a pluralistic society should learn to respect one another and not deliberately provoke / intimidate one another. Somehow it seems to me that people only selectively have the Western belief "I can do whatever I want, as long as I don't hurt others." When it comes to insulting Muslims or Islamic beliefs, "freedom of speech" is cried, yet "respect for all people" is forgotten. Muslims often take their way of life more seriously than Christians or Jews. Islam is a complete way of life, not a ritual that's done once a week.

Comment Alright, I'm a Muslim, (Score 2, Informative) 1131

so I thought I'd comment on this. 1) RevolutionMuslim.com is as you say a "radical website," although from my understanding the majority of Muslims and Islamic scholars do not agree with the ideas promoted by this website. 2) Every religion/system of beliefs/philosophy etc has extremists willing to violently get their objectives done. 3) According to Islam as interpreted by authentic Islamic scholars, Muslims living in a non-Muslim state must abide by its laws as they have signed an agreement (citizenship, green card, etc.) with the country to do so. The only exception is with laws which require a Muslim to violate the Shariah (Islamic law). (Living in the United States all my life, I haven't found any such laws and am commonly told by Muslim immigrants that practicing Islam in the United States is easier than in some Muslim countries.) 4) Such demands made by salafi-jihadi Muslims are primarily for rhetoric purposes (i.e. to "scare" people) and will most likely have no basis in reality. Of course, that said, I'm not going to be an apologist. The creators of South Park should obviously have more concern and sensitivity towards Muslim sentiments. The members of a pluralistic society should learn to respect one another and not deliberately provoke / intimidate one another. Somehow it seems to me that people only selectively have the Western belief "I can do whatever I want, as long as I don't hurt others." When it comes to insulting Muslims or Islamic beliefs, "freedom of speech" is cried, yet "respect for all people" is forgotten. Muslims often take their way of life more seriously than Christians or Jews. Islam is a complete way of life, not a ritual that's done once a week.
Google

New Chrome Beta Adds Privacy Controls, Translation Option 181

billandad writes "Anyone would think the timing was deliberate; just as Microsoft is forced into giving users the option to switch from IE via the browser ballot screen, so Google introduces a new Chrome beta with enhanced privacy features to chisel away at Microsoft's market share. '... you can control how browser cookies, images, JavaScript, plug-ins, and pop-ups are handled on a site-by-site basis. For example, you can set up cookie rules to allow cookies specifically only for sites that you trust, and block cookies from untrusted sites.' The new beta also adds language detection, and will prompt the user to translate a page if it's written in a foreign tongue."

Slashdot Top Deals

God made the integers; all else is the work of Man. -- Kronecker

Working...