They never said there was a genetic mutation. Their use of the word was perfectly correct.
Mutation 1. The act or process of being altered or changed. 2. An alteration or change, as in nature, form, or quality. 3. Genetics.
1. A change of the DNA sequence within a gene or chromosome of an organism resulting in the creation of a new character or trait not found in the parental type.
2. The process by which such a change occurs in a chromosome, either through an alteration in the nucleotide sequence of the DNA coding for a gene or through a change in the physical arrangement of a chromosome.
3. A mutant. 4. Linguistics. The change that is caused in a sound by its assimilation to another sound, such as umlaut.
Re:Job Market for Techs is tough, certs or not
on
IT Certifications Summary
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I found it rough as well to find employment after I graduated from college. Neary every employer that I talked with either over the phone or during an interview did not want me because I lacked experience (biggest joke I heard) or was lacking in what they percieved as "knowledge of the industry."
This is not meant to be a flame, but if your attitude during interviews is at all similar to that of your post, I wouldn't hire you either.
You seem to view the interviewer as the 'Boss' in a computer game: an enemy standing for you and advancement to the next level. Instead, why not look at the interviewer as a resource? After all they're working in an industry, or for a company. you're interested in getting into. They know about the internal workings of the company, and what jobs might be available and what qualifications they require. Take advantage of your time with them by asking THEM questions. If the interviewer's non-tech, ask them about the company, everything from what they're like to work for, to who they're biggest clients and competiors are. If they're IT management, ask them about the project or issue the department's most focused on now, and expects to be focused on in the future. At best it'll give you a great opening, ("You're having problems with database speed? What a coincidence! My senior project was optimizing the university database and I increased its speed by X%."), and at worst you'll have scored some brownie points (what techie doesn't like to talk about they're latest project/problem?) and learned a little more about what's going on in the inside.
If it seems clear you're not going to get the job, don't stop there. Ask for their advice. Are there any other jobs they know of that might be more appropriate for you? What would they suggest you do to improve your chances of finding the kind of job you're looking for?
You're accomplishing a number of things by taking this attitude. First you're making the interviewer like you more. You're taking them out of the adverserial roles too many interviewees put them in, you're taking an interest in what they have to say and treating the with respect. All of that makes them feel good, and though it shouldn't, that does influence who they finally recommend. Second, you get a chance to show them that there's more to you than what's on your resume. Third, you're showing initiative, interest, and ambition, all good things in a prospective employee. Finally, even if you don't get this job, you've improved your chances of getting the next job or the one after that. By the thirtieth interview, when you're intelligently discussing the industry with an insider's knowledge gleaned from the 29 previous interviews, nobody's going to be too worried about you lack of knowledge of the industry anymore.
I know I'll probably get modded down as off-topic, strangely enough, that's one of the reasons I'm posting this. Call it a protest against biased moderators who have only modded the posts on one side of this debate off-topic, while leaving the other side alone, or even modding them up.
Well, to get back on topic with this off-topic topic.
What's that supposed to mean? That Israel are the bad guys?
Of course that's what it's supposed to mean. The question is: is that what it does mean? Are those numbers even accurate? If so why not post a attribution? (I checked the link. There's no sign of those numbers there). Even if they did have some basis in reality, they'd still just be raw statistics, not very meaningful out of context. For example, do the numbers include suicide bombers or careless bomb makers? What about those killed as collaborators by their own people?
The one thing that should be clear to anyone following recent events, is that the situation cannot continue as it is. The only paths open seem to be compromise or mutual destruction. In such a situation, demonizing either side shows a remarkable callousness towards everyone involved.
Excellent points. But there's another, perhaps even more important distinction between deCSS and the smartcard cracking: the former has legitimate applications (e.g. watching videos under Linux), while the latter doesn't.
To use your safe combination example, it's the difference between publishing only the company address (could be used by robbers, but also by customers with a legitimate need to write to or visit the company) and publishing the safe combination as well (useful only to robbers).
It's not about the music industry it's about Disney protecting the rights of the American public. As Eisner himself put it, "These same digital technologies can enable a level of piracy that would undermine our capacity to produce films and entertainment, undermine deployment of broadband networks, undermine the digital television transition, and ultimately result in fewer choices and options for American consumers."
Thank goodness we have people like Eisner standing up for our rights to purchace entertainment at premium prices.
Let's assume that an OEM can have a 25% markup on it's machines and still remain competitive, and that assembly, support, advertising, etc. costs an average of $50/machine, and a Windows liscense costs $50.
Now if the OEM is selling machines for $1,000, it's grossing $200. Subtract $100 for expenses, and they've still got $100 profit.
If the price drops to $350, they're making only $70 per machine, which means they can't turn a profit if Windows is included.
Unfortunately, this doesn't mean that OEMs will all stop including Windows, or even that MS will have to drop the price. All they have to do is move the expense out of the initial purchase. They could give the OS away free to the OEMs with a three-month subscription. That way the OEMs could offer a machine that works out of the box, and three months later, the consumer starts paying Microsoft
I fear however that they might be in for a surprise when the apparently "self shredded" messages pop up at all those likely and unlikely places like backup tapes, swap files, printouts and the like.
It doesn't matter. None of the copies will be readable either. From the article:
"Authentica and other companies make online shredding systems that scramble e-mail messages and limit access to the software key needed to decrypt them. To make messages "disappear," access to the key is withdrawn after a given time."
There's nothing revolutionary about the melding of art and technology. It has always existed (and continues to exist in a field called 'architecture'. Architects have always had to wrestle with the same sorts of questions that now face and web designers, and the latter could learn a lot from the ideas generated by the former. American architect Louis Sullivan's famous dictum, "Form follows function" is applicable to web design as well. In both disciplines, the goal is to create something asthetically beautiful, technically sound, comfortable, and useful.
This "bug" (actually an enhancement suggestion) would mirror Mozilla's image blocking features for Flash objects. Users would be able to block Flash from all sites, selected sites, or enable a pop-up asking whether a site is permitted to run Flash.
It sounds like a perfect solution for people who want to keep Flash available while avoiding "Shoshkeles" and the like.
If this works, maybe I'll try it myself next April:
"Dear IRS, Instead of a check, enclosed please find 800 copies of my latest shareware valued at $40.00 each. I'm sure you'll agree that the benefit to society of making my software available to hundreds of schools serving hundreds of thousands of children far outweighs some petty cash payment."
I guess you're not the tech guy I talked to last time I called RoadRunner. He told me they didn't support Linux because it only had a command line interface and couldn't run a browser. The PC guy they sent out was even worse. He told me I didn't have to worry about worms because the RoadRunner network would catch them before they could get to my computer.
I have no complaints about the service overall (they got the problem fixed by the next morning) but the level of ignorance I saw that day was frightening.
IIS 6 will have been through their Prefix program. Installing it will also have a wizard which will ask you what services you want.
Which means that now lazy/incompetent admins will just click 'Yes' all the time during the install. (They're not going to want to risk leaving out something they might need.)
Granted, this is better than 'include everything by default', but only marginally.
From the article:
"tech crimes enter into a new area because all the government has to rely on is the expertise of the company.... Generally, they are the kinds of cases the government wouldn't even know about if they hadn't been contacted by the victim,"
I think it's clear from the context that he meant that in this sort of case, the government wouldn't know that there was a violation of law unless the victim told them.
If a police officer saw me beating soneone up, I think he'd be able to figure out that I was breaking the law without the victim having to explain it to him. On the other hand I doubt that the average cop or D.A. who saw the program would think it was illegal unless Adobe told them it was.
Having stuff flash at me while I'm trying to read, is so annoying that I simply won't put up with it. If you use animated gifs, I'll turn of image loading. If you use Flash, I'll wait till it's finished playing. If you refuse to provide content without flashing ads, I'll go elsewhere.
Conversely, if you avoid annoying me, I'll probably let you stick around and might even pay attention to what you have to say.
There seem to be two main paridigms for online advertising, I'll call them Amazon/Google (AG) and DoubleClick (DC). AG ads are unobtrusive (static images or text), targeted (related the the webpage I requested), and informative ("Click here to purchase this book"). DC ads are intrusive (flashing), untargeted (random banners), and obscure ("We'll make you happier/sexier/richer!!"). As retailers become savvier, looking more at generated sales and less at the number of click-thrus, they'll turn more and more to AG ads. Until then, I don't care how technically sophisticated your ad-loading software gets. If it annoys me, I'll find a way to avoid it.
I'm sorry, but all I see in this 'news' is Microsoft's spin doctors working overtime to try to defuse opposition.
"On the Internet, this means that an AOL or Yahoo login could someday be just as valid for accessing Microsoft's MSN..."
Or they may never be valid at all.
"the company is open to an industry group...taking the lead role if it becomes necessary."
Not that they're going to allow it, they're just willing to discuss it right now.
"As the story develops and more questions are asked, some of this may change, but at a high level this appears to be Microsoft responding to critics."
Nothing in this article is necessarily true, but rest assured that Microsoft is doing its best to convince you to trust them.
"Microsoft has yet to sign any of the major players to join its trust federation, although talks are supposed to be underway. If companies like AOL see this as a valid attempt to make the handling of user security and personal information into new Internet standards, they might join. Or they might abstain simply to try to gain some competitive leverage over Microsoft."
If none of this ever happens and Microsoft retains its lock on user info, blame AOL.
Seeing a plane crash into a building on TV is one thing. Seeing it across the river (I live in NJ) is another.
And seeing the crowds of people walking zombie-like northward after the attack, and walking through neighborhoods that look like a war zone (I live in Manhattan) is still another.
This is an extraordinary time and it calls for extraordinary measures. If a cloak of secrecy has to surrond military and intelligence activities for a time, I support that. If we need to add security in airprots and restrict flight patterns, so be it. But I'm not ready to role over and play dead on civil liberties.
Before we accept any dimination of our rights, we need to be sure that 1) they're really going to improve our security, and 2) the 'cure' won't be worse than the 'disease'.
Ok, a lot of the songs have lyrics mentioning war violence, fire, planes, NYC or death, but there are probably thousands of songs that fit those categories which didn't make the list.
How does "What A Wonderful World" fit in? A song about finding beauty in simple everyday things? How could that be anything but comforting? Ditto, "Morning Has Broken".
What about "Obla Di, Obla Da"? I can't think of a single 'triggering' word in that song. How could it be more disturbing than "Hapiness is a Warm Gun", "Run For Your Life" or "Helter Skelter" (none of which made the list)?
Note to moderators: The post I'm responding to is currently at 0 (anonymous coward). Its author is connected with islamway.com, and clarifies its use of the word 'jihad'. Please mod it up so that others can read it.
--------
Thank you for your interesting, well reasoned response. Obviously, we disagree strongly on many points, but I'm heartened to see that even in the emotional wake of recent events, rational, mutually respectful discussion is still possible.
Please excuse my freaking stupidity, but how do I click on the link if I don't READ it? I think you've actually made my point for me. If the site only gets paid for hits, then it doesn't matter whether I SEE the ad or not. If I don't click through, they don't get paid.
...I guess I am a victim of my own ignorance. Its nice to see that Islamic organizations feel the same way about the incident last Tuesday as the rest of us.
Unfortunately, that's not the whole truth either (See my response in this thread, "Re:IslamWay.com = Terrorism ?!")
My son came home today telling me how he was going beat up all the Muslim and Arab kids in school. I guess I have more evidence to convince him that he shouldn't do that.
You shouldn't need evidence at all. Simply remind him that terrorists are bad, not because of their religious or political beliefs, but because they attack innocent people. If your son beats up Muslim and Arab schoolchildren, he is no better than a terrorist himself.
Terrorism springs from blind hatred. If people like your son fall into hatred, terrorism will have won. If he really wants to strike a blow against terrorism, he must treat all people with kindness and respect and judge them on the basis of their own actions, not on what they look like or how they choose to pray. The real weapons against terrorism are not bombs or fists or wiretaps, but decency, generosity, and respect.
As far as I am concerned, this says it all... Islam forbids killing unless it is in self-defense.
Islam might forbid it but islamway.com does not.
From Is Jihad only permitted for the purpose of defense?:
"Allah commands waging all-out Jihad against polytheists and fighting them even in their lands 'until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah' (Al-Baqarah: 193).... [Everyone] should realize that contemporary thinkers are wrong in claiming that Jihad has been permitted only for the purpose of defense (counter-attack)."
It was certainly not their attitude when terrorists killed 100 people in Kashmir (India) when they published this message which exhorts people to "come forward, join Jaish-i-Muhammads allallahu `alaihe wassalaam and enjoy the taste of this glorious Jihad."
If you have any lingering doubts as to islamway.com's attitudes, check out this article praising the Taliban for destroying the Buddhist statues.
For the record I'm opposed to censorship, both online and off, and agree with those who have suggested that's it's better to permit (and watch) such sites than to send them underground.
But make now mistake, islamway.com is an extremist group, advocating violence under the banner of 'jihad'.
If you don't mind ripping people off for their hard work then junkbusters and popup removers are certainly useful.
So if I turn off ads I'm "ripping people off for their hard work"??????? What if I don't use junkbusters, but just scroll past the ad without looking? What if I look at the ads, but don't read them carefully, or read them but don't click through? What if I buy a newspaper and throw out the advertising inserts? What if I'm watching tv and I leave the room during the commercials?
I'm so ashamed! It turns out I've been ripping of hard-working people on a daily basis for years. I promise that from now on, I'll read every ad in every webpage, magazine and newspaper I see, and if I have to pee, I'll wait until the commercial is over.
Re:How to manage popup windows in the new Mozilla
on
Mozilla 0.9.4 Released
·
· Score: 1
Here's how to eliminate popups in Mozilla 0.9.4:
Add this line to user.js:
user_pref("dom.disable_open_during_load", true);
If you don't have user.js, create it in the directory where prefs.js resides.
I find it funny that very
little media has given us a detailed
background of the history and possible
motivations of the terrorists.
I find it perfectly natural in light of the fact no one has yet admitted responisibility, much less presented their reasons.
Until they do, attempts to attribute motivations will be, at best, speculation, and at worst hateful diatribes by people trying to cash in on this tragedy to further their own political aims.
Slashdot Mirror
They never said there was a genetic mutation. Their use of the word was perfectly correct.
Mutation
1. The act or process of being altered or changed.
2. An alteration or change, as in nature, form, or quality.
3. Genetics.
1. A change of the DNA sequence within a gene or chromosome of an organism resulting in the creation of a new character or trait not found in the parental type.
2. The process by which such a change occurs in a chromosome, either through an alteration in the nucleotide sequence of the DNA coding for a gene or through a change in the physical arrangement of a chromosome.
3. A mutant.
4. Linguistics. The change that is caused in a sound by its assimilation to another sound, such as umlaut.
I found it rough as well to find employment after I graduated from college. Neary every employer that I talked with either over the phone or during an interview did not want me because I lacked experience (biggest joke I heard) or was lacking in what they percieved as "knowledge of the industry."
This is not meant to be a flame, but if your attitude during interviews is at all similar to that of your post, I wouldn't hire you either.
You seem to view the interviewer as the 'Boss' in a computer game: an enemy standing for you and advancement to the next level. Instead, why not look at the interviewer as a resource? After all they're working in an industry, or for a company. you're interested in getting into. They know about the internal workings of the company, and what jobs might be available and what qualifications they require. Take advantage of your time with them by asking THEM questions. If the interviewer's non-tech, ask them about the company, everything from what they're like to work for, to who they're biggest clients and competiors are. If they're IT management, ask them about the project or issue the department's most focused on now, and expects to be focused on in the future. At best it'll give you a great opening, ("You're having problems with database speed? What a coincidence! My senior project was optimizing the university database and I increased its speed by X%."), and at worst you'll have scored some brownie points (what techie doesn't like to talk about they're latest project/problem?) and learned a little more about what's going on in the inside.
If it seems clear you're not going to get the job, don't stop there. Ask for their advice. Are there any other jobs they know of that might be more appropriate for you? What would they suggest you do to improve your chances of finding the kind of job you're looking for?
You're accomplishing a number of things by taking this attitude. First you're making the interviewer like you more. You're taking them out of the adverserial roles too many interviewees put them in, you're taking an interest in what they have to say and treating the with respect. All of that makes them feel good, and though it shouldn't, that does influence who they finally recommend. Second, you get a chance to show them that there's more to you than what's on your resume. Third, you're showing initiative, interest, and ambition, all good things in a prospective employee. Finally, even if you don't get this job, you've improved your chances of getting the next job or the one after that. By the thirtieth interview, when you're intelligently discussing the industry with an insider's knowledge gleaned from the 29 previous interviews, nobody's going to be too worried about you lack of knowledge of the industry anymore.
I know I'll probably get modded down as off-topic, strangely enough, that's one of the reasons I'm posting this. Call it a protest against biased moderators who have only modded the posts on one side of this debate off-topic, while leaving the other side alone, or even modding them up.
Well, to get back on topic with this off-topic topic.
What's that supposed to mean? That Israel are the bad guys?
Of course that's what it's supposed to mean. The question is: is that what it does mean? Are those numbers even accurate? If so why not post a attribution? (I checked the link. There's no sign of those numbers there). Even if they did have some basis in reality, they'd still just be raw statistics, not very meaningful out of context. For example, do the numbers include suicide bombers or careless bomb makers? What about those killed as collaborators by their own people?
The one thing that should be clear to anyone following recent events, is that the situation cannot continue as it is. The only paths open seem to be compromise or mutual destruction. In such a situation, demonizing either side shows a remarkable callousness towards everyone involved.
Excellent points. But there's another, perhaps even more important distinction between deCSS and the smartcard cracking: the former has legitimate applications (e.g. watching videos under Linux), while the latter doesn't.
To use your safe combination example, it's the difference between publishing only the company address (could be used by robbers, but also by customers with a legitimate need to write to or visit the company) and publishing the safe combination as well (useful only to robbers).
Thank goodness we have people like Eisner standing up for our rights to purchace entertainment at premium prices.
Unfortunately, this doesn't mean that OEMs will all stop including Windows, or even that MS will have to drop the price. All they have to do is move the expense out of the initial purchase. They could give the OS away free to the OEMs with a three-month subscription. That way the OEMs could offer a machine that works out of the box, and three months later, the consumer starts paying Microsoft
True, the story is AP's, but the headline appears to be Excite's.
Compare: AP headline: Google Introduces New Program
Excite headline: Google Lets Sites Bid for Rankings
Is it just me, or does the Excite headline imply that Google's ranking system is being corrupted by money?
It doesn't matter. None of the copies will be readable either. From the article:
"Authentica and other companies make online shredding systems that scramble e-mail messages and limit access to the software key needed to decrypt them. To make messages "disappear," access to the key is withdrawn after a given time."
There's nothing revolutionary about the melding of art and technology. It has always existed (and continues to exist in a field called 'architecture'. Architects have always had to wrestle with the same sorts of questions that now face and web designers, and the latter could learn a lot from the ideas generated by the former. American architect Louis Sullivan's famous dictum, "Form follows function" is applicable to web design as well. In both disciplines, the goal is to create something asthetically beautiful, technically sound, comfortable, and useful.
This "bug" (actually an enhancement suggestion) would mirror Mozilla's image blocking features for Flash objects. Users would be able to block Flash from all sites, selected sites, or enable a pop-up asking whether a site is permitted to run Flash.
It sounds like a perfect solution for people who want to keep Flash available while avoiding "Shoshkeles" and the like.
If this works, maybe I'll try it myself next April:
"Dear IRS, Instead of a check, enclosed please find 800 copies of my latest shareware valued at $40.00 each. I'm sure you'll agree that the benefit to society of making my software available to hundreds of schools serving hundreds of thousands of children far outweighs some petty cash payment."
I could save a fortune this way. Go Microsoft!
I guess you're not the tech guy I talked to last time I called RoadRunner. He told me they didn't support Linux because it only had a command line interface and couldn't run a browser. The PC guy they sent out was even worse. He told me I didn't have to worry about worms because the RoadRunner network would catch them before they could get to my computer.
I have no complaints about the service overall (they got the problem fixed by the next morning) but the level of ignorance I saw that day was frightening.
IIS 6 will have been through their Prefix program. Installing it will also have a wizard which will ask you what services you want.
Which means that now lazy/incompetent admins will just click 'Yes' all the time during the install. (They're not going to want to risk leaving out something they might need.)
Granted, this is better than 'include everything by default', but only marginally.
Only if taken out of context.
From the article:
"tech crimes enter into a new area because all the government has to rely on is the expertise of the company.... Generally, they are the kinds of cases the government wouldn't even know about if they hadn't been contacted by the victim,"
I think it's clear from the context that he meant that in this sort of case, the government wouldn't know that there was a violation of law unless the victim told them.
If a police officer saw me beating soneone up, I think he'd be able to figure out that I was breaking the law without the victim having to explain it to him. On the other hand I doubt that the average cop or D.A. who saw the program would think it was illegal unless Adobe told them it was.
Having stuff flash at me while I'm trying to read, is so annoying that I simply won't put up with it. If you use animated gifs, I'll turn of image loading. If you use Flash, I'll wait till it's finished playing. If you refuse to provide content without flashing ads, I'll go elsewhere.
Conversely, if you avoid annoying me, I'll probably let you stick around and might even pay attention to what you have to say.
There seem to be two main paridigms for online advertising, I'll call them Amazon/Google (AG) and DoubleClick (DC). AG ads are unobtrusive (static images or text), targeted (related the the webpage I requested), and informative ("Click here to purchase this book"). DC ads are intrusive (flashing), untargeted (random banners), and obscure ("We'll make you happier/sexier/richer!!"). As retailers become savvier, looking more at generated sales and less at the number of click-thrus, they'll turn more and more to AG ads. Until then, I don't care how technically sophisticated your ad-loading software gets. If it annoys me, I'll find a way to avoid it.
I'm sorry, but all I see in this 'news' is Microsoft's spin doctors working overtime to try to defuse opposition.
"On the Internet, this means that an AOL or Yahoo login could someday be just as valid for accessing Microsoft's MSN..."
Or they may never be valid at all.
"the company is open to an industry group...taking the lead role if it becomes necessary."
Not that they're going to allow it, they're just willing to discuss it right now.
"As the story develops and more questions are asked, some of this may change, but at a high level this appears to be Microsoft responding to critics."
Nothing in this article is necessarily true, but rest assured that Microsoft is doing its best to convince you to trust them.
"Microsoft has yet to sign any of the major players to join its trust federation, although talks are supposed to be underway. If companies like AOL see this as a valid attempt to make the handling of user security and personal information into new Internet standards, they might join. Or they might abstain simply to try to gain some competitive leverage over Microsoft."
If none of this ever happens and Microsoft retains its lock on user info, blame AOL.
Seeing a plane crash into a building on TV is one thing. Seeing it across the river (I live in NJ) is another.
And seeing the crowds of people walking zombie-like northward after the attack, and walking through neighborhoods that look like a war zone (I live in Manhattan) is still another.
This is an extraordinary time and it calls for extraordinary measures. If a cloak of secrecy has to surrond military and intelligence activities for a time, I support that. If we need to add security in airprots and restrict flight patterns, so be it. But I'm not ready to role over and play dead on civil liberties.
Before we accept any dimination of our rights, we need to be sure that 1) they're really going to improve our security, and 2) the 'cure' won't be worse than the 'disease'.
Ok, a lot of the songs have lyrics mentioning war violence, fire, planes, NYC or death, but there are probably thousands of songs that fit those categories which didn't make the list.
How does "What A Wonderful World" fit in? A song about finding beauty in simple everyday things? How could that be anything but comforting? Ditto, "Morning Has Broken".
What about "Obla Di, Obla Da"? I can't think of a single 'triggering' word in that song. How could it be more disturbing than "Hapiness is a Warm Gun", "Run For Your Life" or "Helter Skelter" (none of which made the list)?
Note to moderators: The post I'm responding to is currently at 0 (anonymous coward). Its author is connected with islamway.com, and clarifies its use of the word 'jihad'. Please mod it up so that others can read it.
--------
Thank you for your interesting, well reasoned response. Obviously, we disagree strongly on many points, but I'm heartened to see that even in the emotional wake of recent events, rational, mutually respectful discussion is still possible.
Please excuse my freaking stupidity, but how do I click on the link if I don't READ it? I think you've actually made my point for me. If the site only gets paid for hits, then it doesn't matter whether I SEE the ad or not. If I don't click through, they don't get paid.
Unfortunately, that's not the whole truth either (See my response in this thread, "Re:IslamWay.com = Terrorism ?!")
My son came home today telling me how he was going beat up all the Muslim and Arab kids in school. I guess I have more evidence to convince him that he shouldn't do that.
You shouldn't need evidence at all. Simply remind him that terrorists are bad, not because of their religious or political beliefs, but because they attack innocent people. If your son beats up Muslim and Arab schoolchildren, he is no better than a terrorist himself.
Terrorism springs from blind hatred. If people like your son fall into hatred, terrorism will have won. If he really wants to strike a blow against terrorism, he must treat all people with kindness and respect and judge them on the basis of their own actions, not on what they look like or how they choose to pray. The real weapons against terrorism are not bombs or fists or wiretaps, but decency, generosity, and respect.
Islam might forbid it but islamway.com does not.
From Is Jihad only permitted for the purpose of defense?:
"Allah commands waging all-out Jihad against polytheists and fighting them even in their lands 'until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah' (Al-Baqarah: 193).... [Everyone] should realize that contemporary thinkers are wrong in claiming that Jihad has been permitted only for the purpose of defense (counter-attack)."
It was certainly not their attitude when terrorists killed 100 people in Kashmir (India) when they published this message which exhorts people to "come forward, join Jaish-i-Muhammads allallahu `alaihe wassalaam and enjoy the taste of this glorious Jihad."
If you have any lingering doubts as to islamway.com's attitudes, check out this article praising the Taliban for destroying the Buddhist statues.
For the record I'm opposed to censorship, both online and off, and agree with those who have suggested that's it's better to permit (and watch) such sites than to send them underground.
But make now mistake, islamway.com is an extremist group, advocating violence under the banner of 'jihad'.
So if I turn off ads I'm "ripping people off for their hard work"??????? What if I don't use junkbusters, but just scroll past the ad without looking? What if I look at the ads, but don't read them carefully, or read them but don't click through? What if I buy a newspaper and throw out the advertising inserts? What if I'm watching tv and I leave the room during the commercials?
I'm so ashamed! It turns out I've been ripping of hard-working people on a daily basis for years. I promise that from now on, I'll read every ad in every webpage, magazine and newspaper I see, and if I have to pee, I'll wait until the commercial is over.
Here's how to eliminate popups in Mozilla 0.9.4:
Add this line to user.js:
user_pref("dom.disable_open_during_load", true);
If you don't have user.js, create it in the directory where prefs.js resides.
I find it funny that very
little media has given us a detailed
background of the history and possible
motivations of the terrorists.
I find it perfectly natural in light of the fact no one has yet admitted responisibility, much less presented their reasons.
Until they do, attempts to attribute motivations will be, at best, speculation, and at worst hateful diatribes by people trying to cash in on this tragedy to further their own political aims.