Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: Heat, Thought, Time
It's the incredible edible, heavy-investment waffle double gainer! steevo.com writes: "Intel has decided to stay with Rambus. Say it ain't so! Details are at C-NET.
Time was when ... wilkinsm writes: "When I tuned my shortwave to 5 Mhz today, I learned that NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) is currently doing a open survey on the time and frequency user community. I encourage all of you unix admins that use the network time protocol to show your support and fill the online survey out."
Has the code been tossed out with the bathwater? nonAI writes: "The Israeli company, which promoted a competition against an AI, closed its gates, as reported by an Israeli economic magazine (sorry, babelfish doesn't help). That's the end for the Child Machine HAL."
Now imagine you know of a freewheeling, opinionated discussion board ... Wael Islam, a member and volunteer with IslamWay.com, writes with some words on the objections B'nai Brith Canada raised to postings on IslamWay's message boards.
"In IslamWay.com discussion board we've more than 4000 Member and at the time of the media attack there was more than 28,000 posts!! Bnai Brith didn't only take one of the posts, but even took a statement out of context to prove that IslamWay.com is a terrorist website! ...
... The discussion post was between two people who were fighting each others by words, one called the other one that you are a hypocrite, so the other one was very angry so he told him - I'm just giving the meaning- : Let's see who is the hypocrite, Come with me to Afghanistan and let's train ourselves there .. so the person meant that army exercises will be a way to prove who is the coward and who is the brave!"
The people who attacked IslamWay.com based on the Discussion Board post didn't clarify that it was mentioned in the discussion board, and they just said a post on IslamWay.com."
Of course, we could require that all public communications be approved in advance, licensed, and inoffensive.
Please resume watching your educational audio-visual materials. echoSpades writes: "I guess I wasn't the only one to be annoyed with Apple's DVD playback. Apple's website has a small text link to info about a class action suit against them: 'There is a proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit against Apple Computer, Inc. involving issues with DVD playback in earlier models of the Apple iMac DV, iMac DV SE and Power Mac G4 computers."
...and Islam Way is a terrorist site.
Or neither is true. But the same argument has been used against both. The difference is, when Microsoft and the Church of Scientology attacked Slashdot, they used the DMCA. Islam Way was attacked with the threat of new legislation.
The fact is, every weblog is going to have a seamy underside. Hopefully the public will not be so easily swayed by emotion as to outlaw weblogs because of the comments posted by a handful of fools.
"A coward is incapable of causing destruction; it is the prerogative of the brave" - Mahatma Ghandi
Intel packages the new P4's with RDRAM or SDRAM, so what's the big deal? If you want rambus, pay for it! If not, get the SDRAM. Let's let the market decide which one is better. Intel really only has to explain itself to its investors. It has to prove itself to its customers!
Ahh, class action lawsuits. As has been pointed out on numerous Mac-related web sites, the problems with Apple's software DVD player were fixed in later versions of the software (included with 9.0.4, 9.1, and 9.2)
This software was available as a free download. I believe it was even included with the Software Update control panel (so that with minimum user input, it would update itself), also as a free download.
So now Apple settles this lawsuit, and they have to provide the software for free (been there, done that, now they just have to provide the CD) and provide support on the update.
It seems that the only real winners in this lawsuit are the lawyers. Apparently they get a cut based on possible takers. So they figure there are 100,000 people effected by the bum software. They figure that 20,000 might take Apple up on their over-priced offers. They get a cut of those 20,000 people's purchases, even if they do not actually buy the items in question.
Strange...
Anyway, this just shows commercial software places "Do not 'Release early, release often.'" - you might get sued if it is too buggy, even if you provide free updates.
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
Because everyone would be to worried about keeping warm. Everyone should move up here to the antartic, and build igloo's. Except of course for Steve Jobs, as one poster already pointed out, he would turn everything into fruity coloured "I-Gloo's." I will have none of that. So come up north, and join me as I keep warm next to my nice wood burning stove. We can hunt polar bears, and download stare at the Pr0n K1ng's pr0n. I stole it from him! All of it! He has none left!
According to Rambus CFO Bob Eulau, the deal was less for the 'financial' implications, but rather was about the 'strategic' implications. Although the 'ole chipmonster gets complete access to Rambus' patents for fixed quarterly payments, Rambus gets the important longterm test of ...uh... not dying tomorrow as users realize that RDRAMs speed increase doesn't quite make up for the fact that one can purchase gigs of DDR SDRAM for the same price as megs of RDRAM. Oh well, there are always the lawsuits to support them... The company has spent millions pursuing patent infringement suits against three memory makers.
Like we have never seen this before.!
But be sure to thank them for the free advertising! Especially once it is made clear the the comments were rhetorical questions in the middle of a heated discussion.
The may feel rather silling about it after the fact.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
...So long as you're running 4 or 8 chips in parallel. :-P
I don't know why Intel is cutting its own throat, tying its processor to the most expensive memory around, especially since that same memory is holding the processor back. I suppose they signed some agreement years ago and now they're stuck.
I read over (I must admit rather quickly) some stuff regarding the B'nai article. The IslamWay site made some rather slight attacks at Jews in thier response.
This leads me to two questions:
1) From all that we have seen on the news lately with Islamic scholars, Islam means peace and the Q'uran teaches that a Muslim should respect his Christian and Jewish brothers and love them since we all come from the same God. It goes back to Islam teaching that Abraham and Jesus were in the same vein as Muhammed as prophets. Why is then that there is such a thread of hate when it comes to Muslims and Jews? I understand the biblical aspect of the conflict (It goes back to Cain and Able if I remember my studies). But sitting that aside, why the hate?
2) Again, on the news, we keep hearing that true Islam does not teach Jihaad but the concept had to come from somewhere, correct? I can't find any unbiased reporting and I don't have a copy of the Quran here with me to check myself. If Jihaad is indeed mentioned in the Quran, what are the circumstances surrounding it and what are the justifications.
I understand that many Muslims are saying that Bin Laden has hijacked TRUE Islam but where did he get the ideas for Jihaad? Where did this all start? (not his hatred of the US but the concept of a holy war at all costs.
Further more, I've read all the passages about killing innocents and how it is forbidden but if a Jihaad is allowed does that bypass that rule?
I guess this is really a question for someone versed in Islamic apolegetics but it can't hurt to ask.
And no one post any bullshit condeming all religions and the typical comments we get on slashdot about religious people being sheep. It doesn't float.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
Good thing they got rid of HAL before he reached his teenage years. You think dealing with him is hard now, well you just wait and see what he's like at 15!
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
GWB: organic intelligence by some Americans.
funny how their fake "18 month old healthy baby boy" seems to have more decision making power and intelligence than our "uh, uh, um, uh, uh..."* pres.
woops. unity, right, not diessention, sorry.
*as quoted today in yet another mind poppingly whiny, gramatically incorrect, uninspiring presidential speech.
Watching and listening to the speeches in the House of Parliament today, I was very much relieved. Positions by the major leaders included (these are not quotes):
Jean Cretien: We will not curtail freedoms in this country in order to stop terrorism. Airport inconveniances, sure, but he very strongly said that we could not benefit from a reaction out of fear and hate, and that while a responce was deserved, we would not let anyone force us into an action that was not well thought out.
Stockwell Day: This action must be resolved, and it will be resolved (quoting Sir Winston Churchill) through 'blood, toil, sweat, and tears', but we will not give up our way of life, because when terror is allowed to flourish, the terrorists have won.
Alexa McDonough: Terrorists thrive on martyrs, and we must provide a measured, thought-out, and diplomatic action to counter this threat of terrorism.
Joe Who?: We must seriously reconsider things in this country, and not hold anything over if it needs to be changed - including funding for areas of government, laws, and so forth.
All in all, some quite rousing speeches (considering who was giving them), and definitely a lot that made me feel proud to be Canadian. What Ottawa's responce will actually be, we will have to wait and see.
--Dan
And GWB was the man who is quoted as saying that he thought he would concentrate on domestic affairs from now on. I guess foreign affairs implied too many "furriners with funny accents", and almost none of them had a lobby group.
Guess what Bushie baby, from now it's foreign affairs morning, foreign affairs noon and foreign night, except for a few panic-stricken moments that will involve domestic security!
By the way, would any Republicans reading this care to expound at length on the wisdom of airline de-regulation. Include in your discussion an explanation of how bankrupt airlines can compete fairly or at all. Include a paragraph on the security efforts that nearly bankrupt airlines are likely to be willing to pay for! Discuss the cost of bailing out bankrupt airlines and the tax increases that will be required. Oh well, there is a precedent for that isn't there?
Like anything the whole has to be judged as a whole. But non-violence and no peace with non-muslim's is very superficially evident. From the Koran:
Al-Maidah 5:33*The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger,
and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: *execution,
or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides*,
or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy
punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;*
Al-Maidah 5:51 O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends
and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he
amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah
guideth not a people unjust.
(be tolerant?)
Sura At-Tawba 9:29 Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that
forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge
the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until
they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
(People of the Book refers to the Jews, the forbidden includes alcohol)
Sura At-Tawba 9:30 The Jews call 'Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the
son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate
what the unbelievers of old used to say. God's curse be on them: how they
are deluded away from the Truth!
(curse upon Jews & Christians who won't covert)
Sura At-Tawba 9:38 O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked
to go forth in the cause of God, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer
the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this
life, as compared with the Hereafter.
(suicide or extreme risk of death in the name God)
Sura At-Tawba 9:39 Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put
others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For God hath
power over all things.
Those who wish to research further can do so at http://www.al-quran.org.uk
On with tonight's rant:
There is a lot of debate, analysis, planning, work, sacrifice and struggle ahead for America in its battle against global terrorism. The first few days, in the wake of the September 11, 2001 tragedy, I saw well reasoned debate, much of which I agreed with. America seemed to have the right attitude about rooting out the fanatical zealots that had wrought so much death, destruction, suffering, and which if unchecked will cause far more. Four or five days later I see we are dangerously off message. Everywhere I look now I see American flag waving, and often accompanied with the phrase "God Bless the USA."
Nationalism and religious extremism is what motivated these misguided men. We must not answer it with nationalism and extremism of our own. This must not become Our-God versus Their-God. Say that we have one of the best governmental systems in the world, if not the best, and I will not argue. Extend this to say we are right and just because God favors our form of government or vise versa, and you will be no better than they, using religion to guide us into acts of retribution instead of justice.
Am I saying not to retaliate? No. I think terrorism must be rooted out everywhere for the sake of a safer and most just world. We cannot stop at fighting Islamic extremists in middle-east locations. We must tell the IRA, no more. We must look within our own borders and stop soldiers of fortune, eager to engage in the fight for the sake of the fight. We must not turn a blind eye to the plight of lower Africa just because we have no pressing concerns there, not just because it is right, but also because one day we will have interests there.
We must make sure our governmental agencies are not funding terrorists for short-term goals by calling them freedom fighters. Perhaps they are, but if we support them covertly, we are no better than those we must now deal with. If a cause is just then America must not be secretive or indirect in its support. We may have to choose our fights, and these may from time to time involve the practicality of considering if American interests are at stake (we cannot be everywhere at one), but the first question must always be "is this just?" The second question must then always be "is this a just way to achiever our goals?"
I warrant if you where to burn an American flag in public at the moment, you risk being put in the hospital if not the morgue. My point is not the burning the American flag is a good thing to do, but that it is easy to do the absolute wrong thing for what you think are just reasons, in this case assaulting someone because they have disrespected a symbol you hold dear. Certainly, the terrorists that have fought and died think they are doing the right thing. Dismissing them as evil, and making their Holy War our Holy War will pull us down into a morass from which there is no escape.
War must from time to time be waged by freedom loving people, but don't do it in God's name and don't make the American flag a surrogate for God. God is not for war of any kind. Most of Christianity's most cherished biblical figures are martyrs that refused to fight. I do not advocate turning the other cheek in this case, but to persecute a war with God in the rallying cry will surely keep us from our most basic goal here -- to prevent religious fanaticism from motivating men to barbaric acts.
Letter To Iran
I wonder if we couldn't file a suit against the DVD-CCA that region encoding and CSS encryption is false advertising, unfair competition, and that playback is unacceptable? That they're marketing DVDs that don't playback well in players purchased around the world?
...is to impose their own brand of censorship. That way they don't have to run the risk of embarassing articles such as this one being read by thinking individuals.
You're using her as bait, Master!
In the Topaki Palace Museum in Istanbul is a letter from Mohammed to the head of the Egyptian Coptic Christians explaining (according to the translation posted with it) that those Christians could either (1) convert or (2) be killed. Since Muslim practice follows not just the Koran but also the examples from Mohammed's life (and from the example of the customs of the community around him), and since Mohammed seemed to offer genocide to the Coptic Christians in this instance ... well, I'm not a Jew or Christian either, but neither Moses nor Jesus is on record threatening genocide towards nonbelievers. Moses may have drowned an Egyptian army, but they were chasing him.
/. believes in pure evil that can't be explained, let us at least consider that there may be serious flaws in Islam, particularly concerning the evil that can be explained in its false founding prophet, who was an empire builder using religion as a cover, somewhat as Lenin, Mao and Pol Pot used Marx, all of whom managed to say some beautiful things. And Marx, like Mohammed, had a vision of an impossible paradise, that led people to die, and to act against others, in explainably evil ways.
Of course, we should recognize the Copts were not innocent in the eyes of Mohammed, since they failed to convert. Nor can we be.
Dan Rather was just on Letterman crying about how this isn't about Islam, but just "pure evil that can't be explained." Since I doubt anyone reading
They hate us because we have good lives here, now; not in a worker's utopia beyond the fall of capitalism, and not in a Muslim heaven beyond the end of life. We are not as harsh as their prophet; their choice is not to convert or be killed. But their choice is certainly to cease attacking us or be killed, because if they come after us they will find themselves like the army chasing Moses. Self-defense is not genocide. If they're there when the Red Sea closes, it's their own damn fault.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
I could not find any evidence that Artificial Intelligence NV, the creators of HAL, has "closed its gates".
Their site is up, the Machine Learning Challenge is still under way and there is even a new article about HAL, with logs of HAL's interactions with its teachers.
Since no link was supplied, I think it is safe to assume for now the original poster is just misinformed.
What If IslamWay.com Really Was A Terrorist Board? Wouldn't it be better to leave it in place and have the CIA monitor it?
In the wake of the attacks, there are just far too many people letting their emotions do the driving.
Take the attacks on Arab-Americans for instance. Not only are these vigilante idiots mistaking Sihks for Moslems, they are totally forgetting what Arab-Americans (even if persecuted) will probably end up doing for us in ways that we can only begin to imagine and may never know about becase many operations will be secret.
What am I talking about? I'm talking about the Tuskeegee Airmen, The Navajo Code Talkers, and the Japanese "Nisei" who fought in Europe.
If you don't understand the last paragraph, do some reading and get back to me. Then let me know if it still makes sense to vandalize Mosques and shoot people who look like Arabs.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I'm deeply disturbed at the news I'm reading on the tech websites that B'Nai Brith Canada is treating a single incident of exagerrated speech as a call to terrorism, and in turn accusing the website where such speech occurred as itself encouraging terrorism and thus liable to hate speech controls.
As an avid internet user for the past ten years, I have grown used to childish excesses of speech. These are a small cost to pay for genuine free exchange of ideas. Any effort to require editorial control of public exchanges on the internet is tantamount to the elimination of the new freedom that the internet affords every individual, to be a publisher as well as a consumer of information. No one can police any facility that allows people to say what they will - there are too many people.
In these grim times, it is good to remember that there are good people and bad people in every community. I don't want all Jews to have to shut up because one Jew may say something offensive, however offensive it may be. I can't see how we can rightfully do anything but extend the same right to every other community.
The internet allows people to contact people, to break out of the narrow constraints of the mass media. If we are to ever learn to live together in peace, there is hardly a better tool. The new freedom of speech that the internet affords has its costs, but its potential is enormous. This is a delicate time in the history of the internet, as many people are focussing on the difficulties and ignoring the immense potential.
The tragic events of the last year and especially the last week result from too little communication, not too much. Please don't join the forces that want to limit communication to the few and the powerful.
sincerely
Michael Tobis, Ph.D.
mt
1. bin Laden is reported to be extremely wealthy.
2. bin Laden is the head of a very sophisticated terrorist organization with contacts all over the world.
3. bin Laden probably uses highly sophisticated communication equipment to keep in contact with his network
4. bin Laden has eluded caputure for the last 10 years.
5. bin Laden is the prime suspect in the greatest acts of terrorism in history.
and finally
6. bin Laden is using a public web site that even my grandmother could monitor to recruit members to his cause.
Point 6 doesn't quit fit.
The US has done a lot of bad things, but this is stupidly one-sided.
Starts in 1948, long after the Jews had been kicked out of their homeland in the first place (makes it look like they just came into a foreign land and took it)
"U.S. blocks Sadat's efforts to reach a peace agreement with Egypt." Completely forgetting Carter at Camp David. Of course, no mention of the peace deal with Arafat.
The dam? Hmmm, you deal with my enemy, should I keep giving you money?
About the airliner, let's just say there are a lot of questions out on that one that make it look like a provoked incident by Iran. The ship was threatened militarily from sea and air, putting it into defensive mode, and Iran sent that airliner straight at the ship it the middle of it all.
"U.S.-backed rebels in Afghanistan fire on civilian airliner," like we're responsible for a rebel with an itchy trigger finger on his Stinger. These people were fighting for their freedom, we helped.
"U.S. rejects any diplomatic settlement of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. (for example, rebuffing any attempt to link the two regional occupations, of Kuwait and of Palestine)" And why should we have accepted? They invaded and refused to get out, end of story. To fall to a tactic like that would be essentially giving into terrorism in that all someone has to do to get their way is invade a country and negotiate from there.
"Washington makes it known that the sanctions would remain as long as Saddam remains in power." Okay, let him stop his weapons program and cooperate fully and see what happens.
This is very insightful. In fact, as I understand it, the concent of jihad lay dormant for many many centuries, and was only revived in the 1980s. The revival was for the reason that you state: for the Afghans to fight the Soviets.
What is almost incredible is that this revival was brought about by the CIA. The CIA wanted to find a way to motivate the Afghans to fight the Soviets (this was during the cold war, remember). So the CIA pondered how to do this, and eventually came up with the idea of reviving the (largely-forgotten) notion of jihad. More details are available here.
Regardless of whether the message was a pissing contest, you can clearly see from the wording of the message that it was not an incitement to terrorism.
If I happened to be discussing this terrible incident in a restaurant, and just to make a point, as part of my conversation, I happened to utter the words "I am a terrorist...I am planning to attack a large target," would that instantaneously make me into a terrorist? Of course not. I would simply be invoking the hypothetical situation wherein I was a terrorist. I would be invoking this hypothetical situation in order to expound some (anti-terrorist) point I wanted to make.
I should point out that, as of this day, the words "I am a terrorist" are forever emblazoned in the Slashdot discussion archives. Perhaps in a few days, someone will come across my comment and report it to the US government, saying simply that terrorist elements are operating on Slashdot, hiding encrypted messages in the comments. And that will be the end of slashdot.