No one stopped to think about the consequences of using thousands of ICBMs as transportation devices,
Not a problem with hydrogen or nuclear powered rockets.
or the industrial waste generated by wall-sized televisions and domed cities
Wall-sized televisions using OLEDs don't generate a lot of waste. And city domes are recyclable.
Plastic was magical - we hadn't yet realized how toxic it could be, or how addicted we would become to it.
There's nothing inherently toxic about plastic.
Just imagine how unbearably warn and clammy a dome would be under bright summer sun
That depends on how the dome is constructed and how it is cooled.
(or how quickly it would be discolored by dust storms and acid rain)
Self-cleaning surfaces avoid those problems.
or how poorly wildlife would coexist with a stream of automated bullet cars zipping along plastic roads
Well, that's easy to deal with. The real issue is that going 300mph in air just isn't very efficient no matter what you do; therefore, a ground network of evacuated tunnels may be the real answer.
Somehow, we need to figure out how to do with less - much less - while figuring out how to tread less heavily on the earth. It might be an impossible task.
I don't share your limited view of the future. There is nothing inherently ecologically unsound about domed cities or wall-sized televisions or high speed transportation. We simply need to think about environmental impact before deploying a technology widely, but we also shouldn't be afraid to try out new ideas on a limited scale to get some idea of what works and what doesn't.
based solely on the actions of some people who claim to follow its message.
Not at all. We aren't talking about a few self-identified muslims committing evil deeds in the name of Islam, we are talking about widely recognized clerics and Islamic governments committing human rights violations and mass murder in the name of Islam.
Hmmm...you are clueless when it comes to Islam. The whole concept of "church" is unacceptable. One of the ideas the prophet defended is that, authority will eventually be abused for political reasons, and only a fool would trust an institution who's going to tell you how to live you life.
No, you're clueless, because you assume that church membership implies church authority. That's actually the exception among religions. In most cases, declaring your membership in a particular church simply declares what interpretation and set of principles you adhere to.
Now, which is it for you? Are you a Reform Muslim? Or are you more of an Al Qaeda Muslim? How do you personally address the fact that the Koran contradicts Dutch human rights principles?
What you just wrote is at the essence of the problem and the reasoning behind modern Islamophobia.
It's not "islamophobia", it's a simple requirement that you put your cards on a table before you immigrate, rather than giving us wishy-washy statements about how everybody can interpret the Koran themselves.
I have no more responsibilities than a Christian to denounce the torching of abortion clinics or a Jew to dissociate him/herself from Zionism.
Except when dealing with clueless Muslims, Christians rarely declare themselves to be just "Christians", but instead part of specific denominations and churches. When I declare myself to be, say, a Lutheran, I'm taking a position on ethics and religion. If Lutheran ministers started to advocate killing people, I would leave the church. You just refuse to make an equivalent commitment and clear statement yourself.
And you didn't answer the question as to how you're envisaging to deal with Muslims who are citizens. I know for a fact that there are a lot of them. Do you give them signs to display prominently? Stack 'em up in camps? Boats? And if so, how do you plan on getting away with that legally?
We should work towards educating, integrating, and assimilating the Muslims that are already here. We should demand a clear commitment to the fundamental principles of our liberal democracies from every citizen. And if Muslims violate the freedoms of other citizens, they should be punished, just like anybody else, and not be permitted to hide behind inappropriate notions of "religious freedoms".
So what you are basically saying, is that you reserve the right to call the Quran all sort of names - or even ban it
I don't want to "ban" the Koran any more than I want to ban "Mein Kampf". The best way to deal with evil is to bring it into the light of day, not to try to hide it.
And I don't need to "reserve the right to call the Koran all sort of names", I already have that right. My ancestors fought hard for the right to offend other religions when they freed themselves from the tyranny of the pope, and we sure as hell aren't going to let Muslims re-institute that kind of tyranny again.
Finally, I take advantage of that right because I find the vision of the relationship between man and God expressed in the Koran to be reprehensible and offensive. If you are allowed to preach that filth in public, then I should be allowed to oppose it in public.
Sure, Southern Baptist Pat Robertson called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez and said Ariel Sharon's stroke was God's punishment.
I despise Pat Robertson, but that's not the same thing. Robertson wasn't pronouncing a death sentence, he was making a statement about US government policy (and quickly apologized and retracted it).
If the KKK has Baptists (certainly not Catholics judging by its history), does it count?
No. The issue is not whether people who identify as some religion do bad things (every religion has those), but whether they are part of doctrine and accepted practice.
If I created a movie that went out of it's way to deeply criticize baptist Christians, it's probably not unreasonable for me to be afraid of visiting the deep south in the US.
Can you give examples of baptist Ministers pronouncing death sentences? Can you give examples of film makers or cartoonists being killed by baptist terrorists? Can you name any baptist terrorist organizations?
There's a slight chance the film will not be inflammatory and hateful (quit the ad hominem sic please, we're all Dutch here.)
Based on Wilders statements, it's pretty clear what the film will be showing: atrocities committed in the name of Islam (both historically and contemporarily), as well as an analysis of the language of the Koran itself. Of course, that will be "inflammatory" to Muslims; what is wrong with that? There is no indication that it will be "hateful". Can you point to a single actually hateful thing Wilders has said about Muslims?
As a white Dutch guy, I'm proud of our multi cultural roots, and our multi cultural society.
With attitudes like yours, the Netherlands won't have a multi-cultural society much longer: free speech and freedom of religion requires the freedom to offend people. Questioning the moral and spiritual foundation of a religion must be protected in a free society, and, of course, it is offensive and inflammatory for adherents of that religion. Protestants fought hard for that right, and we're not going to abandon it.
If Wilders wants to make "valid points" he is free to do so but not as part of our parliament
If the Netherlands is still a democracy, then Wilders has the right to represent the people who elected them.
People tend to think that he represents all of Holland, which is very far from the truth. This is not good advertisement for our nation.
You are not a good advertisement for your nation either, because your vision of multi-culturalism is undemocratic.
There is no such thing as "the Muslims", but many Muslims clearly are.
Really? I thought that it was the dutch ***christian*** prime minister, and the other ***christian*** party (sorry don't remember the name) who were just some weeks ago trying to maintain legal restrictions to "blasphemy".
You are quite right that it is an embarrassment that European nations nominally still have "Christian" parties and blasphemy laws. However, these are relics of little practical significance, which is why people are trying to get rid of them.
Also, let's not forget that Plame was made so "miserable" (to use your adjective) at being "outed" that, in order to avoid more public intrusion into her life, her husband wrote a book about the whole affair
Why shouldn't he? Her career had been destroyed, they might as well make the best of it.
But don't let that get in the way of you screaming, frothing, and vituperating that it's all the fault of some vast right-wing Bush Conspiracy(tm).
Who's talking about a "vast conspiracy"? A member of the Bush administration leaked the name of an undercover CIA operative to press after her husband criticized the administration. None of your waffling is going to change it.
Except that non-discrimination laws (like all other human rights) aren't limited to citizens in the Netherlands. Most nations aren't that barbaric.
There is no human right to immigrate. Nations can discriminate on immigration in ways that would be unacceptable in employment or the legal system. Every nation does.
Furthermore, Islam and Sharia law themselves contradict modern human rights; why should any nation that's concerned about human rights admit people who declare themselves to adhere to principles that contradict human rights?
The Bush administration wanted to destroy Valerie Plame's career, in retribution for her husband's criticism. And they succeeded. That's an absolutely chilling abuse of power by the US government, for the purpose of stifling free speech.
It's nice that Valerie Plame has been able to make up for what was done to her through book deals, but that doesn't erase the original injustice or abuse of power.
Although, somehow, I seriously doubt you have the linguistic or historical knowledge to speak of the "the ethics expressed in the Koran".
Actually, I do, and I'm familiar with the apologetic interpretations of the Koran, but even if they were justifiable, they are irrelevant. What is relevant is how modern readers actually interpret the Koran and how they will act based on it.
With regards to the "restrictions on immigration" you want to impose, how do you go about that without essentially violating the principles of a liberal democracy? I don't know where you're from, but the principles on which the modern state of Netherlands don't allow one to discriminate based on faith
If a church issues death threats against citizens, then that church has gone beyond what is acceptable under freedom of religion. And if you declare yourself to be a member of such a church, your freedom of religion ends.
Islamic spiritual leaders have issued (and carried out!) death threats, and if you declare yourself to be a Muslim without further qualifications, then you declare yourself to be a member of an organization with branches that engage in terrorism. If you and other Muslims want to disassociate themselves from the terrorism and violence of some parts of Islam, then it is your responsibility to make the necessary distinctions between the different branches of Islam and be completely clear about where your loyalties lie.
The only practical way would be to not let anybody in, but in that case, it is your country that will suffer. Let's face it, immigration policies weren't designed out of charity.
That's a nice fiction, but non-discrimination doesn't apply to immigrants, since immigrants aren't citizens. You don't have a right to immigrate and countries can be quite selective about their immigrants.
It would be reasonable and legal for a country to ask Muslim immigrants to prove that they do not support the death sentences imposed by some of their religion's spiritual leaders. If you can't provide clear and convincing evidence, there is no reason to let you immigrate.
but the fact of the matter is that people are gonna do whatever they're gonna do in this life, and no amount of vehemently Islamophobic documentaries is going to change that
"Islamophobic" implies an irrational fear of Islam, but I don't think that applies here. Wilders raises the question of whether the ethics expressed in the Koran is compatible with modern liberal democracies, and he concludes that it isn't (and I tend to agree with him). That's an important part of a public political debate. For example, nations might impose restrictions on immigration of Muslims or the practice of Islam, perhaps permitting only liberal or reform versions of the religion.
In fact, he says that the vast majority of Muslims are good people; his problem is with the Koran and the fundamental tenets of the religion.
I believe it probably shows islam in a less than admirable light...
Yes, that's basically it. I suspect that this isn't actually all that different from what you have already seen in many news programs and historical programs about Islam; the bloody history of Islam, the belligerent language in the Koran, its use as justification for terrorism, and the oppression of women are hardly news to anybody. The only reason this film is causing a stir is because its creator explicitly states a political agenda.
But if the film, say, encourages people to go out and punch a muslim, then yes, it should be banned.
Your use of the term "encourages" is vague.
If the film tells people directly to go out an punch a Muslim, then perhaps it should be banned. But based on interviews with the author, it's pretty clear that it doesn't.
What the film does do is make an argument that Islam is an inherently violent and fascist religion, and it shows atrocities committed in the name of Islam in recent years. That may make some people angry and encourage them to go out and "punch a Muslim", but it is not a justification for banning the film.
In fact, Wilders does not condemn all Muslims, he condemns Islam. There's a difference. He's basically saying that there are many good, law-abiding Muslims who have found some kind of accommodation between the Koran and modern, liberal democracies. But that doesn't change the fundamental nature of the Koran.
I think anybody should be free to practice whatever religion they like, as long as they don't harm anybody else or infringe on anybody else's right. But we cannot let Muslim fundamentalists attempt to dictate what can and cannot be said about Islam. To me, there is nothing holy about Mohammed or the Koran, and I have the right to pick it apart and criticize it any way I want to, even if it is offensive to Muslim.
What's ironic about the Muslim position is that Muslims say incredibly offensive and blasphemous things day after day. For example, Muslims deny that Jesus is the son of God and died for the sins of humanity; it is difficult to imagine something more blasphemous and offensive to say to a Christian. Let's not even talk about all the flag and effigy burning, and all the vitriol, these people are heaping on the West.
Muslims have gotten used to living in countries where their own religion dominates all public life and all speech. We cannot allow their censorship and attitudes to spread to the rest of the world. The ability to criticize and offend other religions is an integral part of free speech and religious freedom.
In case you hadn't noticed, WebKit is now developed in a public repository with contributors from the Qt and GTK teams and the likes of Nokia and Adobe.
I had noticed. It took a lot of complaining and pushing by the open source community to make this happen.
Uh, what? Apple wrote Launchd from scratch
Precisely.
How about working on a new, fast, C/C++/Objective-C compiler with link-time optimisations and JIT support under a BSD license, developed in a repository not hosted by Apple? Oh, wait, they're already doing that.
So what? How does that address the problem that Apple keeps making incompatible stuff and doesn't give a damn about standards?
You're right on that point. EEG response is very fast but it's too much sensitive to electromagnetic interference and artifacts like blinking, talking, etc.
Not just that, but they aren't even trying to get anything more specific than general arousal.
Its a pretty nice world when the biggest philosophical battles of one's life are software license issues huh? I mean some folks decide to fight against governmental corruption or tyranny or disease and hunger.
I'm sorry you are too stupid to understand how, in developed countries, software licenses are a key issue in governmental corruption, the threat of tyranny, and poverty.
But you, you're fighting the good fight to make sure that folks can freeload on software!
It's not about "freeloading". It's about the ability to communicate freely. It's about preserving privacy. It's about being able to obtain and distribution information about government corruption and abuse of power. It's about being able to give poor folks unfettered access to computing. It's about education and lifting people out of poverty.
A world dominated by the likes of Microsoft and Apple would create a permanent underclass, hinder education, and facilitate widespread government corruption and invasion of privacy.
Qt (4.+) and Gnome gets Webkit html rendering which is
It also wasn't created by Apple originally, and the history of KHTML/Webkit mainly demonstrates Apple's unwillingness to work with the FOSS community.
I have a easy "benchmark" for you. Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launchd , that is a technology which is offered free, open source and allows things like Automatically running X11 if it is "needed" and can even stop things on demand.
Apple didn't invent launchd technology, they just did what they always do: make something incompatible themselves.
Which distro uses that technology which is offered for free? Why not?
Why not? Because launchd a solution targeted for OS X; it ignores the needs of UNIX and open source software, and because there are better alternatives available. If Apple had wanted to create a useful open source init replacement, they would have had to create an actual open source project with a community of users, engage different Linux distributions, and respond to their needs. Instead, Apple just dumps their source code over the fence and says "here, take it or leave it". People left it.
Therotically, if you have a greatly written software in GNU/X11 environment, you can "install" it with drag and drop and may even have a icon for it. You can actually race with Cocoa based applications.
Porting GNU/X11 code to OS X is a significant amount of work. And Apple rigged it so that any X11 application loses in a race with Cocoa applications: X11 support on OS X is slow and poorly integrated with the rest of the desktop.
I wonder what else Apple has to do to prove their commitment to open source.
Slashdot Mirror
No one stopped to think about the consequences of using thousands of ICBMs as transportation devices,
Not a problem with hydrogen or nuclear powered rockets.
or the industrial waste generated by wall-sized televisions and domed cities
Wall-sized televisions using OLEDs don't generate a lot of waste. And city domes are recyclable.
Plastic was magical - we hadn't yet realized how toxic it could be, or how addicted we would become to it.
There's nothing inherently toxic about plastic.
Just imagine how unbearably warn and clammy a dome would be under bright summer sun
That depends on how the dome is constructed and how it is cooled.
(or how quickly it would be discolored by dust storms and acid rain)
Self-cleaning surfaces avoid those problems.
or how poorly wildlife would coexist with a stream of automated bullet cars zipping along plastic roads
Well, that's easy to deal with. The real issue is that going 300mph in air just isn't very efficient no matter what you do; therefore, a ground network of evacuated tunnels may be the real answer.
Somehow, we need to figure out how to do with less - much less - while figuring out how to tread less heavily on the earth. It might be an impossible task.
I don't share your limited view of the future. There is nothing inherently ecologically unsound about domed cities or wall-sized televisions or high speed transportation. We simply need to think about environmental impact before deploying a technology widely, but we also shouldn't be afraid to try out new ideas on a limited scale to get some idea of what works and what doesn't.
Do you seriously think that people only started developing SETI@Home-like technologies in 1999? Systems like that had been around for years.
based solely on the actions of some people who claim to follow its message.
Not at all. We aren't talking about a few self-identified muslims committing evil deeds in the name of Islam, we are talking about widely recognized clerics and Islamic governments committing human rights violations and mass murder in the name of Islam.
Hmmm...you are clueless when it comes to Islam. The whole concept of "church" is unacceptable. One of the ideas the prophet defended is that, authority will eventually be abused for political reasons, and only a fool would trust an institution who's going to tell you how to live you life.
No, you're clueless, because you assume that church membership implies church authority. That's actually the exception among religions. In most cases, declaring your membership in a particular church simply declares what interpretation and set of principles you adhere to.
Now, which is it for you? Are you a Reform Muslim? Or are you more of an Al Qaeda Muslim? How do you personally address the fact that the Koran contradicts Dutch human rights principles?
What you just wrote is at the essence of the problem and the reasoning behind modern Islamophobia.
It's not "islamophobia", it's a simple requirement that you put your cards on a table before you immigrate, rather than giving us wishy-washy statements about how everybody can interpret the Koran themselves.
I have no more responsibilities than a Christian to denounce the torching of abortion clinics or a Jew to dissociate him/herself from Zionism.
Except when dealing with clueless Muslims, Christians rarely declare themselves to be just "Christians", but instead part of specific denominations and churches. When I declare myself to be, say, a Lutheran, I'm taking a position on ethics and religion. If Lutheran ministers started to advocate killing people, I would leave the church. You just refuse to make an equivalent commitment and clear statement yourself.
And you didn't answer the question as to how you're envisaging to deal with Muslims who are citizens. I know for a fact that there are a lot of them. Do you give them signs to display prominently? Stack 'em up in camps? Boats? And if so, how do you plan on getting away with that legally?
We should work towards educating, integrating, and assimilating the Muslims that are already here. We should demand a clear commitment to the fundamental principles of our liberal democracies from every citizen. And if Muslims violate the freedoms of other citizens, they should be punished, just like anybody else, and not be permitted to hide behind inappropriate notions of "religious freedoms".
So what you are basically saying, is that you reserve the right to call the Quran all sort of names - or even ban it
I don't want to "ban" the Koran any more than I want to ban "Mein Kampf". The best way to deal with evil is to bring it into the light of day, not to try to hide it.
And I don't need to "reserve the right to call the Koran all sort of names", I already have that right. My ancestors fought hard for the right to offend other religions when they freed themselves from the tyranny of the pope, and we sure as hell aren't going to let Muslims re-institute that kind of tyranny again.
Finally, I take advantage of that right because I find the vision of the relationship between man and God expressed in the Koran to be reprehensible and offensive. If you are allowed to preach that filth in public, then I should be allowed to oppose it in public.
Sure, Southern Baptist Pat Robertson called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez and said Ariel Sharon's stroke was God's punishment.
I despise Pat Robertson, but that's not the same thing. Robertson wasn't pronouncing a death sentence, he was making a statement about US government policy (and quickly apologized and retracted it).
If the KKK has Baptists (certainly not Catholics judging by its history), does it count?
No. The issue is not whether people who identify as some religion do bad things (every religion has those), but whether they are part of doctrine and accepted practice.
It also haunts your ISP, your E-mail provider, and probably your backdoor-infested commercial OS.
A permanent underclass of folks who can't afford a $700 Mac Mini or a $350 Dell Desktop running Vista? Are you serious here?
Who cares about the cost of a Mac Mini or a Dell Desktop. At issue is access to knowledge, information, and education.
Here's a hint for you, I grew up poor in the ghetto so I know what I'm talking about here.
Well, and I guess it shows.
If I created a movie that went out of it's way to deeply criticize baptist Christians, it's probably not unreasonable for me to be afraid of visiting the deep south in the US.
Can you give examples of baptist Ministers pronouncing death sentences? Can you give examples of film makers or cartoonists being killed by baptist terrorists? Can you name any baptist terrorist organizations?
There's a slight chance the film will not be inflammatory and hateful (quit the ad hominem sic please, we're all Dutch here.)
Based on Wilders statements, it's pretty clear what the film will be showing: atrocities committed in the name of Islam (both historically and contemporarily), as well as an analysis of the language of the Koran itself. Of course, that will be "inflammatory" to Muslims; what is wrong with that? There is no indication that it will be "hateful". Can you point to a single actually hateful thing Wilders has said about Muslims?
As a white Dutch guy, I'm proud of our multi cultural roots, and our multi cultural society.
With attitudes like yours, the Netherlands won't have a multi-cultural society much longer: free speech and freedom of religion requires the freedom to offend people. Questioning the moral and spiritual foundation of a religion must be protected in a free society, and, of course, it is offensive and inflammatory for adherents of that religion. Protestants fought hard for that right, and we're not going to abandon it.
If Wilders wants to make "valid points" he is free to do so but not as part of our parliament
If the Netherlands is still a democracy, then Wilders has the right to represent the people who elected them.
People tend to think that he represents all of Holland, which is very far from the truth. This is not good advertisement for our nation.
You are not a good advertisement for your nation either, because your vision of multi-culturalism is undemocratic.
Open society? The muslims are against that?
There is no such thing as "the Muslims", but many Muslims clearly are.
Really? I thought that it was the dutch ***christian*** prime minister, and the other ***christian*** party (sorry don't remember the name) who were just some weeks ago trying to maintain legal restrictions to "blasphemy".
You are quite right that it is an embarrassment that European nations nominally still have "Christian" parties and blasphemy laws. However, these are relics of little practical significance, which is why people are trying to get rid of them.
Richard Armitage was the Deputy Secretary of State under Colin Powell.
So, you agree then that I'm right and you're wrong.
Thus your claim that Bush was somehow behind this rings quite hollow.
I made no such claim. I said that a member of the Bush administration leaked the name, which you just confirmed.
The facts are explicitly not on your side in this statement.
How difficult is this to grasp?
Richard Armitage leaked her name (and probably others as well).
Richard Armitage was a member of the Bush administration.
Also, let's not forget that Plame was made so "miserable" (to use your adjective) at being "outed" that, in order to avoid more public intrusion into her life, her husband wrote a book about the whole affair
Why shouldn't he? Her career had been destroyed, they might as well make the best of it.
But don't let that get in the way of you screaming, frothing, and vituperating that it's all the fault of some vast right-wing Bush Conspiracy(tm).
Who's talking about a "vast conspiracy"? A member of the Bush administration leaked the name of an undercover CIA operative to press after her husband criticized the administration. None of your waffling is going to change it.
Except that non-discrimination laws (like all other human rights) aren't limited to citizens in the Netherlands. Most nations aren't that barbaric.
There is no human right to immigrate. Nations can discriminate on immigration in ways that would be unacceptable in employment or the legal system. Every nation does.
Furthermore, Islam and Sharia law themselves contradict modern human rights; why should any nation that's concerned about human rights admit people who declare themselves to adhere to principles that contradict human rights?
Don't be such a moron.
The Bush administration wanted to destroy Valerie Plame's career, in retribution for her husband's criticism. And they succeeded. That's an absolutely chilling abuse of power by the US government, for the purpose of stifling free speech.
It's nice that Valerie Plame has been able to make up for what was done to her through book deals, but that doesn't erase the original injustice or abuse of power.
Although, somehow, I seriously doubt you have the linguistic or historical knowledge to speak of the "the ethics expressed in the Koran".
Actually, I do, and I'm familiar with the apologetic interpretations of the Koran, but even if they were justifiable, they are irrelevant. What is relevant is how modern readers actually interpret the Koran and how they will act based on it.
With regards to the "restrictions on immigration" you want to impose, how do you go about that without essentially violating the principles of a liberal democracy? I don't know where you're from, but the principles on which the modern state of Netherlands don't allow one to discriminate based on faith
If a church issues death threats against citizens, then that church has gone beyond what is acceptable under freedom of religion. And if you declare yourself to be a member of such a church, your freedom of religion ends.
Islamic spiritual leaders have issued (and carried out!) death threats, and if you declare yourself to be a Muslim without further qualifications, then you declare yourself to be a member of an organization with branches that engage in terrorism. If you and other Muslims want to disassociate themselves from the terrorism and violence of some parts of Islam, then it is your responsibility to make the necessary distinctions between the different branches of Islam and be completely clear about where your loyalties lie.
The only practical way would be to not let anybody in, but in that case, it is your country that will suffer. Let's face it, immigration policies weren't designed out of charity.
That's a nice fiction, but non-discrimination doesn't apply to immigrants, since immigrants aren't citizens. You don't have a right to immigrate and countries can be quite selective about their immigrants.
It would be reasonable and legal for a country to ask Muslim immigrants to prove that they do not support the death sentences imposed by some of their religion's spiritual leaders. If you can't provide clear and convincing evidence, there is no reason to let you immigrate.
but the fact of the matter is that people are gonna do whatever they're gonna do in this life, and no amount of vehemently Islamophobic documentaries is going to change that
"Islamophobic" implies an irrational fear of Islam, but I don't think that applies here. Wilders raises the question of whether the ethics expressed in the Koran is compatible with modern liberal democracies, and he concludes that it isn't (and I tend to agree with him). That's an important part of a public political debate. For example, nations might impose restrictions on immigration of Muslims or the practice of Islam, perhaps permitting only liberal or reform versions of the religion.
Well, no one has seen the film yet...which means no one knows if it says to 'punch a muslim'....however, I kinda doubt it does
You can get an idea of what his position is by listening to an interview with him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0jUuzdfqfc
In fact, he says that the vast majority of Muslims are good people; his problem is with the Koran and the fundamental tenets of the religion.
I believe it probably shows islam in a less than admirable light...
Yes, that's basically it. I suspect that this isn't actually all that different from what you have already seen in many news programs and historical programs about Islam; the bloody history of Islam, the belligerent language in the Koran, its use as justification for terrorism, and the oppression of women are hardly news to anybody. The only reason this film is causing a stir is because its creator explicitly states a political agenda.
Seriously, anyone have any examples of the Federal Government limiting free speech since 9/11? Anyone?
Valerie Plame. The Federal government basically said: if you speak out against us, we're going to use all our powers to make your lives miserable.
The Plame case was a far worse offense than what Nixon did, yet the Bush administration just got away with it.
But if the film, say, encourages people to go out and punch a muslim, then yes, it should be banned.
Your use of the term "encourages" is vague.
If the film tells people directly to go out an punch a Muslim, then perhaps it should be banned. But based on interviews with the author, it's pretty clear that it doesn't.
What the film does do is make an argument that Islam is an inherently violent and fascist religion, and it shows atrocities committed in the name of Islam in recent years. That may make some people angry and encourage them to go out and "punch a Muslim", but it is not a justification for banning the film.
In fact, Wilders does not condemn all Muslims, he condemns Islam. There's a difference. He's basically saying that there are many good, law-abiding Muslims who have found some kind of accommodation between the Koran and modern, liberal democracies. But that doesn't change the fundamental nature of the Koran.
I think anybody should be free to practice whatever religion they like, as long as they don't harm anybody else or infringe on anybody else's right. But we cannot let Muslim fundamentalists attempt to dictate what can and cannot be said about Islam. To me, there is nothing holy about Mohammed or the Koran, and I have the right to pick it apart and criticize it any way I want to, even if it is offensive to Muslim.
What's ironic about the Muslim position is that Muslims say incredibly offensive and blasphemous things day after day. For example, Muslims deny that Jesus is the son of God and died for the sins of humanity; it is difficult to imagine something more blasphemous and offensive to say to a Christian. Let's not even talk about all the flag and effigy burning, and all the vitriol, these people are heaping on the West.
Muslims have gotten used to living in countries where their own religion dominates all public life and all speech. We cannot allow their censorship and attitudes to spread to the rest of the world. The ability to criticize and offend other religions is an integral part of free speech and religious freedom.
In case you hadn't noticed, WebKit is now developed in a public repository with contributors from the Qt and GTK teams and the likes of Nokia and Adobe.
I had noticed. It took a lot of complaining and pushing by the open source community to make this happen.
Uh, what? Apple wrote Launchd from scratch
Precisely.
How about working on a new, fast, C/C++/Objective-C compiler with link-time optimisations and JIT support under a BSD license, developed in a repository not hosted by Apple? Oh, wait, they're already doing that.
So what? How does that address the problem that Apple keeps making incompatible stuff and doesn't give a damn about standards?
happens during the day that when I watch highly repetitive patterns I slip into stereo mode which takes some effort to get out off.
That's pretty common and happens to anybody, whether they have watched SIRDS previously or not.
You do more than that though, you teach yourself to perform certain actions by controlling your brainwaves.
Well, all they are looking for in the EEG is alpha waves. Being able to induce alpha waves voluntarily is probably a good thing.
You're right on that point. EEG response is very fast but it's too much sensitive to electromagnetic interference and artifacts like blinking, talking, etc.
Not just that, but they aren't even trying to get anything more specific than general arousal.
Its a pretty nice world when the biggest philosophical battles of one's life are software license issues huh? I mean some folks decide to fight against governmental corruption or tyranny or disease and hunger.
I'm sorry you are too stupid to understand how, in developed countries, software licenses are a key issue in governmental corruption, the threat of tyranny, and poverty.
But you, you're fighting the good fight to make sure that folks can freeload on software!
It's not about "freeloading". It's about the ability to communicate freely. It's about preserving privacy. It's about being able to obtain and distribution information about government corruption and abuse of power. It's about being able to give poor folks unfettered access to computing. It's about education and lifting people out of poverty.
A world dominated by the likes of Microsoft and Apple would create a permanent underclass, hinder education, and facilitate widespread government corruption and invasion of privacy.
Qt (4.+) and Gnome gets Webkit html rendering which is
It also wasn't created by Apple originally, and the history of KHTML/Webkit mainly demonstrates Apple's unwillingness to work with the FOSS community.
I have a easy "benchmark" for you. Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launchd , that is a technology which is offered free, open source and allows things like Automatically running X11 if it is "needed" and can even stop things on demand.
Apple didn't invent launchd technology, they just did what they always do: make something incompatible themselves.
Which distro uses that technology which is offered for free? Why not?
Why not? Because launchd a solution targeted for OS X; it ignores the needs of UNIX and open source software, and because there are better alternatives available. If Apple had wanted to create a useful open source init replacement, they would have had to create an actual open source project with a community of users, engage different Linux distributions, and respond to their needs. Instead, Apple just dumps their source code over the fence and says "here, take it or leave it". People left it.
Therotically, if you have a greatly written software in GNU/X11 environment, you can "install" it with drag and drop and may even have a icon for it. You can actually race with Cocoa based applications.
Porting GNU/X11 code to OS X is a significant amount of work. And Apple rigged it so that any X11 application loses in a race with Cocoa applications: X11 support on OS X is slow and poorly integrated with the rest of the desktop.
I wonder what else Apple has to do to prove their commitment to open source.
A lot more than what they are doing.