Really ? Then why don't we see paedophilic rape in the mohamed article, even when that act is verifiable in the writings muslims teach kids ? The centrality of slavery in the muslim faith... complete black hole, despite the fact that slavery is still practiced in nearly half of muslim countries, including saudi arabia (by the name of involuntary service contracts, "slavery" is abolished, but in name only)...
These omissions are not limited to islam. Why don't we see details like, oh, the caste system in the article on Hinduism ? Note that being Dalit is also de-facto slavery. Or at least, Americans would identify the average contract offered to a dalit as a slavery contract. That's about as verifiable as it gets, yet no mention is made : it hurts people's feelings.
Other realities are downplayed, in favor of popular myths. The articles about the crusades make single small note about their cause : they were a response to muslim invasion. This is not mentioned in the article about "the crusades" only in the one telling about "the first crusade". They are portrayed not as the defensive response to agression that they were, but as a massively offensive and cruel undertaking (of course no mention is made of the initial attacks that provoked the crusades, those, of course, must have been just peachy)
Wikipedia merely gives popular opinion on a topic. If you're looking to get better informed on wikipedia then on, oh say national geographic, you're looking in the wrong place. Popular myths win out over hard facts, verifiable or no.
I'm not sure that is true at all. There was a lot of opposition to Hitler in the 1930s. But even assuming it were, so what. This is 2009 and in 2009 the overwhelming majority of reliable sources don't have a pro-Nazi position.
So the truth changes according to political opinion of the day ? (I'm just taking this example, the muslim racism or titanic examples would serve just as well)
I find that a very, very uncomfortable thought. Truth is truth. From now until kingdom come.
I guess we need to take down the page about the Titanic sinking. Or about Hitler being a bad guy, since the media most certainly did not support that point prior to at least 1941. Guess we need to take down the "fake" label on the "protocols of the elders of zion" pages since there is scarcely any media source in the non-western world that acknowledges it's fake (Iran's papers are certainly not alone in still considering them accurate)
You see, "the vast majority of well-respected media" is a moving, very ill-defined target.
It would be better to state all viewpoints. Yes there is much open racism against jews all over the muslim world, and against hindus and against christians, but why not let them tell their story ? Clearly you're not stopping that sort of racism with censorship.
That's because for 99.99% of people neutral just means their viewpoint.
This is, of course, the essence of postmodern thought. Reality "does not exist outside of observation", so you change the observation for the better... which obviously mostly leads to bad decisions that cause disasters in the real world.
Also many arguments are considered non-neutral for reasons of political expediency. Because they offend, no matter how true they are, like the fact that Judaism prescribes stoning women for various crimes. Especially the salient detail that just about the entire world, including nearly all Jews, agrees with... shall we say... the modification made to the Jewish faith by that unnameable "J" guy. Jews don't want to admit that they follow this guy in any way, and they certainly don't want to admit they prefer that guy over the contents of the Torah. Same goes for 99% of muslims.
Or the fact that the islamic prophet mohamed killed over 12000 people for religious reasons (well he also stole goods, water and money from them). He also raped a 9-year old girl (sources cite ages from 6 to 11, and one extremely unlikely to be true source states 13). The fact that these murders, paedophilic rape and massacrers are celebrated, not denied, by muslims is another one that you will not find on wikipedia, no matter how true.
But these are just some random examples. On a neutral page, these would be considered relevant facts and reported like the important facts they are (since they are not under dispute, they're merely taboo's. Like the fact that women and men are biologically not eachother's equals and that this brings limitations for both sides, or that human races differ in more than merely their skin color. Some races are faster, stronger, better in the cold or hot, or... gasp... smarter).
There's also many ways to put facts. If you were to ask, for example, which religion has caused the most death you could state the truth : that no religion ever matched the death toll the communist state-enforced atheism demanded, although islam comes close. You see what goes wrong ? It "hits much too close to home" for many slashdotters, who fear associations, which may or may not exist, between the ideology of either atheism or socialism, and the death toll that's in the historical record.
Show me any way of determining "valid" viewpoints, other than "any viewpoint is valid, no matter how stupid", and I'll show you a totalitarian ideology.
They tried to censor criticism of Scientology or otherwise promote their cult.
What exactly do you think a viewpoint is ?
It would be better to give scientology itself a page about themselves that only they can edit, that is labeled as such.
Of course, in the real world only 1 single viewpoint is correct. However, we do not know what that correct viewpoint is, so we'll have to make do with multiple and letting people judge for themselves. There are multiple viewpoints in this world, how about letting more than 1 be represented on wikipedia ?
That's what a real democraticized encyclopedia would do.
Since the EU is very "democratic" (meaning the -mostly appointed- ministers of foreign affairs of the EU countries make the real decisions*), Sweden has a choice : pass the law, or leave the EU (meaning switching away from the euro, no more free trade,...)
In the EU, you only have to convince 12 non-elected commisioners to create a dictatorship. Individual member countries have long lost control over both their own law and their territorial sovereignty. They cannot legally say no to the EU.
Many Europeans (imho rightly) fear what's going to happen with this body. It's already created a segregated society in the locations where it's located : Brussels, Strasbourg, Luxenburg and Frankfurt. There is zero contact between the fonctionnaires and the local population, which is logical in a way, since they're an unelected body.
* yes they're appointed -indirectly- by an elected body, I know. Still it's not the same as a real democracy.
A good question is whether it would be feasible to receive these signals in a handheld device. Pulsars may not be eternal, but they're quite close indeed to that ideal, certainly much more so than any satellite we'd ever put in orbit.
In other words : could this be used as a GPS system on earth ? I believe 1 meter is more accurate than even recent GPS devices provide. Also, could this be used to have instant clock-sync in just about any computer in 3 components (an RC circuit to tune to the correct frequency) ?
Any Muslim is free to marry whomever he or she wants.
Say, what's this "honor killing" thing ? Note I mean the honor killing thing that ALL islamic schools agree is permissible, after all it constitutes executing someone who stops being muslim (by knowingly violating sharia as a muslim, which carries a death sentence).
People sure have a huge need to deny the truth about any religion. I don't understand why Christianity (and often Judaism) have to be described as malevolent, even in cases where they weren't (like the crusades), and other religions, like islam, buddhism, hinduism and others have to be described as much better than they are, ignoring even recent history.
Noting that attacks like 9/11 on America have a long history, and to be exact, a long islamic history is utterly forbidden. Stating that the first islamic attack on America, executed with the purpose of kidnapping american citizens and selling them as slaves, was nearly 300 years ago is sooo incorrect. Stating that there have been constant, religiously sanctioned by mohammedans, if not outright religiously motivated, assaults on America for over 300 years is considered such bad form. It's also the truth.
Just because the longest existing muslim theocracy practiced slavery, including the capturing of black slaves in African villages, abusing them sexually, even children, for over a millenium, means...
nothing at all.
The fact that the central figure of islam, the paedophile prophet did the same, including raping female slaves, means nothing.
After all, that would be like saying Jesus Christ not stoning a woman has anything to do with Christianity's opinion of stoning women. Pure bullshit.
Judea, at the time, was part of the Roman Empire, and governed by a Roman governor you may have heard of, Herodes.
Slavery existed everywhere in the Roman Empire, including in Judea. Jews, at the time (and up until the 10th century), engaged in slave trade, with full agreement from the Torah. That agreement from the Torah is still there, it's just Jews don't actually do that part of Judaism anymore, just like many parts of Judaism are dropped.
The most well known example of Judaism that's been "cancelled" (whatever you'd call this), is the stoning of women. This Jewish rule was cancelled by Jesus Christ, and is not practiced in Christianity, but in sharia law, the hadith that muslims use as a reason for stoning women clearly indicates the origin of the rule : the Torah.
There is even the contemporary question about the resumption of the punishment of stoning in Judaism, when the temple is rebuilt by the Jewish messiah, which, in Jewish theology, could occur at any time.
Can you also tell me where the minorities are within these "very tolerant" muslim countries ?
For tolerant nations, there sure a a lot of Christians and Jews disappearing in Iran, in addition to non-majority muslims, tons of Hindus disappearing in Pakistan, blacks disappearing in Sudan ? The berbers are all but vanished in Morocco, disappearing in Algeria ? Why are Copts getting persecuted in Egypt ? Why are so many Thais missing in northern malaysia ?
Not that this list of contemporary persecutions is VERY far from complete.
I thought these were tolerant nations and peoples ? Maybe it's just me, but I thought that persecution, and especially the obvious extermination programs these muslims are running, would exclude them from the label "tolerant"...
Of course, don't let the obviousness on the truth stand between you and your political ideology.
You are going so far off-topic it's not even funny. You're also spreading lies.
Let's take the examples of the crusades as "Christian agression". Let's see... what were the crusades ?
The First Crusade was launched in 1095 by Pope Urban II with the primary goal of responding to the appeal from Byzantine Emperor Alexius I. The Emperor requested that western volunteers come to their aid and repel the Seljuk Turks from Anatolia, modern day Turkey. An additional goal soon became the principal objective - the Christian reconquest of the sacred city of Jerusalem and the Holy Land and the freeing of the Eastern Christians from Islamic rule. Both knights and peasants from many nations of Western Europe travelled over land and by sea t
So the crusades were a defensive action, by one brand of Christianity on behalf of another (which obviously is extremely contradictory with your claims about tolerance)...
Labeling the crusades Christian agression is like labeling Poland's actions during the september campaign of 1939 as offensive.
Both the nazis, soviets and muslims, obviously label these acts as massively agressive, a position that has been gaining ground for some reason that defies logic.
I am neither Christian nor Muslim. From what I've seen and from what I've read no religion (or atheism, or metaphysical quasi-religions such as the Marxist dieletic) has a monopoly on good or evil. Certainly your view of Islam as being intrinsically evil and backwards might be tenable if you look at the last 300 years (when most of the Muslim world hasn't done much) but when you take a longer view the result is very different.
Religions are, first and foremost, DEFINITIONS of good (and evil). The disagreement is first and foremost about that.
Stoning of women, for example, is an obvious islamic good, and a christian evil. Slavery is an islamic good and a christian evil.
The fact that you invoke Paul's acquiescence to slavery as an American defending islamic slavery is beyond hypocritical. Paul was, in case you forgot, executed by a force that pushed slavery on the world, because he gave slaves the dangerous idea that they were the equals of their masters, even if any contract, even a slavery contract had to be respected.
You, on the other hand, do not have such a massive army pushing slavery breathing down your neck. And yet you do not even manage Paul's level of moral concern. Nowhere in your diatribe defending muslim slavery do we find the evident claim Paul was executed : that slaves are human beings, no more and no less than their masters. Even with an army abolishing slavery defending you, you cannot unequivocally state that slavery is a bad thing.
If further illustration of the anti-slavery nature of Christianity is necessary, just look at what happened immediately after the introduction of Christianity in just about every country : the abolishment of slavery. Ireland is perhaps the most well known example of this, because the introduction of Christianity in many countries is not well described. But one might state simply : the entirety of western europe was a slave society in the year 100, when Christianity started spreading. By 700 slavery was abolished everywhere, save for ireland and the northlands, who were not christianized.
Perhaps an even better example would be Northern africa. Slavery was thoroughly embedded in that country in the year 100. Christianity spread, and it was abolished completely before 200 years passed. 300 years northern africa would remain peaceful under christian rule.
But, as we already have established, today northern africa is moslem, and is a slave society. Even for the non-slaves it is a horribly segregated society (much like the islamic enclaves in Europe btw).
But back to Paul, whom you so forgetfully attack : Even worse than the aforementioned difference, with the world's most powerful and anti-slavery army protecting you, you
You might note how just about every religion, most known the Hindu faith, but also islam, prescribe a caste based society. Judaism, Buddhism (search "despite this" to skip the excuses section, this is the bbc, after all), and the Japanese faiths by large also include slavery. But no religion is quite as pro-slavery as islam, especially contemporary islam.
Christianity started out as a religion amongst Roman slaves and was very opposed to the slave system from day one.
The Hindu caste system. This system exists and is operational in many parts of india.
The classes of non-muslims in islamic countries. In addition to that, there is the muslim slave trading system. Note that while the wikipedia page tries to minimize the muslims that accept slavery, however they include all sunni schools, representing over 90% of all muslims worldwide. Also, slavery is practiced today in Mecca, the center of the islamic world. Officially called slavery until 1970, today the name translates to something like involuntary contractees. Fortunately there is "some" (make of it what you want) popular opposition brewing in the muslim world to the exploitation of "involuntary workers", especially against exploitation of the sexual kind. It is, however, not outlawed, and it won't get outlawed any time soon (the gulf's economies depend on it. Especially Dubai's, but in reality all do, including Kuwait's)
There are lots of countries where muslims openly practice slavery (and call it slavery), including but not limited to : Chad, Mauritania, Niger, Mali and Sudan.
Involuntary service contracts, however exist everywhere in the gulf, Kuwait, Jordan and Syria.
Iran, despite it's horrible name and extremely objectionable nuke policy, is actually the most progressive (and tolerant) muslim country in existence, with the possible exception of the secular Turkey.
Given that Iran is just about the most open islamic country, their anti-Jews retoric must be interpreted not especially as a sign of the antisemitic nature of Iran itself, but rather how antisemitic and intolerant even a very progressive muslim country is.
Note that EVERY major religion EXCEPT Christianity actively encourages the subjugation or extermination of non-believers in one form or another. There generally are rules relating to master vs slaves relations, treatment of the captured (though they often include the right of the master to kill the servant), but all religions regulate slavery, and explicitly do not outlaw it, with the exception of Christianity. Christians are to convince non-Christians peacefully, through love and reasoning, yadda yadda you probably know the lines.
Note that, even with the exceptional theoretical difference in Christianity, all cultures, including Christianity (though modestly compared to other religions), engaged in slavery. The culture that outlawed slavery and castes, and eradicated it everywhere in the world, with the exception of a few muslim countries, as any American should know, the Christians that won the American civil war (against other Christians, who did support slavery... nevertheless no other culture ever went to war over slaves).
Note that one of the consequences of the American civil war was the start of constant terrorist attacks on American ships by the muslims ("barbary pirates" is a name for ottoman muslims) that supplied the southerners' slaves. They lost their income, which basically ended the caliphate's access to the products of the American industrial machine. As a reaction to the attacks Thomas Jefferson bought himself a quran, read it, and proceeded to create the American Marine and bomb the shit out of Northern Africa, writing these words (th
Perhaps these scientists need a dose of reality. And the writers need a bit of separating capability :
1) AI researchers robots taking over the world:
Yes, Ben Goertzel
No answer, prof. Anette (Peko) Hosoi (but : a T-1000 is likely)
Yes, Bob Mottram, but : not anywhere close to it. First humans will replace themselves slowly by intelligent machines, then humans will lose function (and intrest), then humans will die or get killed
Yes, John Weng, will happen soon in fact
No, Daniel H. Wilson, but RC terminators will be a reality real soon now
2) SF writers robots taking over the world:
No, David Brin, why: uninteresting story
No, J. Storrs Hall, there's no reason
No, Vinge Vernor, equally likely as alien invasion, nuclear war america-russia,...
If you actually read the article you will find it much more on the "yes" side of the point.
Also, all the strict "No" votes were by people whose business is fantasy. The more grounded in the real world, the more likely they are to say yes : the ones actually implementing working, useful AI sytems all said yes. The academics said unlikely and the science fiction writers said no.
I doubt this attack supposes access to the original subscriber's simcard, so if it's a cloning attack it's cloning a simcard *without* access to the Ki number.
Even now clearly the over-the-air gsm protocol allows for this hack. Perhaps 1100 phones will be in short supply, but clearly the protocol itself is vulnerable.
If they found the 1100 flaw, how hard could it be to duplicate the flaw in a something like a 800 Mhz tuner + fpga ?
Since when do people follow international law about who's a civilian ?
The only international treaties on the subject only give the moniker "civilians" to people who are BOTH not participating in a conflict AND keeping their distance from any combatant.
In other words, a population with terrorists amongst them do not qualify as civilians.
We just demand ridiculous things from today's soldiers. The treaties, if you were to actually read them, are quite clear. One person in a demonstration is using a gun ? According to international law, any present military force gets to fire into the crowd until this guy stops.
The treaty even makes the additional observation that there is exactly 1 person who can make that decision : the commander on the ground. He also doesn't have to be right, and in order to convict such a commander a consistent pattern and clear motive would have to be established. A single instance of ordering firing into a crowd after a loud bang would most certainly not cut it.
ANY group that fights non-uniformed, not clearly distinguished from civilians, is comitting a war crime, and justifies the use of lethal force against ANYONE close to them, both by any defending force and any offensive force.
The treaties are firmly grounded in reality, and the realities of being in a situation where lethal force is being used and you can't distinguish friend from foe just aren't good. It's just that today's people aren't realists anymore, and have never had to face any consequences from a real war. They demand godlike moral judgement, much more than you could reasonably expect from anyone, and much more than they'd apply themselves in life or death situations.
And the robots will be the scapegoats for following the "wrong" orders... orders that were obviously given by accident, like "kill all Jews", that sort of thing... and if other people will accept that sort of "bad robot" excuse (or pretend because "they only hate what Israel's doing" for example), those robots will be used in many a war indeed. After all, Jews are merely the best known Jews. There's Darfuri Christians, there's Copts, there's Kashmiri, there's Black people in muslim countries, there's Dalits... lots of Jews around the world.
Of course "early enough" often means during fetal development. Actually it depends on the complexity of the signal. It is not a problem to add a compas that stimulates one of 9 nerves to a 100 year old man.
For a video signal, it's been shown to require a brain younger than 2 years. 5 years would still give something, but not quite the same as an earlier implantation.
It will most certainly not work, however, on the average slashdotter.
It would still be useful in many situations, even without recognition. Night vision, for one, is a popular use for them. Assisted aiming of guns is another use that's coming into fashion. Aiming of guns that you don't hold into your hand.
Personally I'd rather have a neural interface, that way I can use my eyes for normal stuff. while having aux video channels for other stuff.
And, pray tell, which optical nerves (they obviously have to be optical nerves) would you use for that ?
Unless you implant "aux video channels" close to the real optical nerves in feutuses (ie. before the myelin channel forms) this is not going to work. You can send in video channels into the brain all you want but you will not experience this as actually seeing the channel unless this information is properly coded into the optical nerve...
How is that anti-intellectual ? Perhaps you should visit a campus once. Note the large presence of, shall we say, people who exonerate people like massacrers like Che Guevara and blame all of society's ills on the military. Or whoever they are sure won't retaliate (note for example, the dead silence about Sri Lanka's misdeeds since that government sued and, shall we say, lightly persuaded, a BBC press team to leave).
Unless of course, you're claiming that campuses don't have intellectuals. That newspapers don't have intellectuals.
Can one please be allowed to articulate a displeasure between certain extremely hypocritical portions of society ? The part that's hiding behind the biggest guns of the world screaming about how evil their government is, knowing both that said government won't retaliate and knowing full well that there are real problems in the world. The government of, oh, say Sudan, is a much, much bigger problem than even the worst ever US government. But only one of those gets any action.
Funny thing about weather -- it tends to defy attempts at short-term prediction. If (as opposed to cherry-picking a small subset of data selected to make one's point) one uses an adequately-sized dataset, the trends are quite clear [noaa.gov]. Moreover, as opposed to overstating the effects of climate change in the last few years, the IPCC's estimates for both sea level increase and reduction in mass of the ice sheets of Greenland and Antartica have been far less than what is actually observed.
You completely sidestep the issue. The IPCC has had models for a long time. They're basically the same models they're using now. So surely we can trust those models, right ?
Well 2005 just barely fitted in the 95% confidence interval of the IPCC, 2006, 2007, and 2008 all failed to fall withing the 98% confidence interval of the IPCC "optimistic" forecast (they were all better, co2 rised, temperature dropped, this was supposed to be impossible. And if I might be so blunt, the models STILL don't explain the drop, while the cooling keeps getting extended every month).
In physics, such a result would lead to the destruction of the theories. It would be considered the equal of a theory that cars fall into the sky when dropped of a cliff.
The trends in the temperature data are only clear if you look at them for certain time intervals, and only rather specific time intervals will give you a rising temperature. Very few time intervals will lend credence to the "co2 leads to temperature increase" claims.
Here is a graph that contains, at a reasonable resolution, the long term temperature data of a specific region:
Now, look at the graph. Suppose you were to look at the last 10 years (not very clear I know), you would see a stable, ever so slightly declining temperature.
If you look at the last 100 years you see an "impressive" (but not that consequential) rise in temperature (though you can evidently see that the cause, whatever it is, is not co2).
If you look at the last 1000-10000 years, you would see an even larger massive increase in temperature (that's because 10000 years ago fell straight into an ice age. In this time interval we see rising temperatures, but much evidence contradicting the co2-temperature relationship. Co2 concentration was the highest at the start of the last ice age. Contrary to what people like to think, there is no real explanation for ice ages. The theory involving the gulfstream explains at best a 4 degree drop in western europe, but nothing more, yet everyone both knows that ice at one point pierced the border of texas, a point that should have heated up in that theory, *and* everyone believes that the gulfstream blocking theory is correct. Also I would like to make the point that europe is not a synonym for "the world". Yes we have much more accurate readings for europe than for the rest of the world, that does not mean only europe deserves an explanation.
Lastly if you look at the last 100000 years you would clearly see a (single) oscillation in temperatures.
If you look at the last few million years you would, correctly*, conclude, as the "oh no another ice age is going to start" crowd did in the 1980-1990's, that it's just about time (give or take 1000 years) for another ice age to start. You would also correctly conclude that the stagnation that global temperature has recently encountered has a very good chance of being indicative of the start of a new ice age.
So unfortunately, scientifically defensible predictions of temperature are all over the map. The IPCC's models explicitly reject the older information because we frankly haven't got a clue about what caused them, and that doesn't model all that well.
* if you extend the graph with a fourier analysis, it would indeed drop "just about now" (again the error margin for the drop is a few hundred years)
Slashdot Mirror
Really ? Then why don't we see paedophilic rape in the mohamed article, even when that act is verifiable in the writings muslims teach kids ? The centrality of slavery in the muslim faith ... complete black hole, despite the fact that slavery is still practiced in nearly half of muslim countries, including saudi arabia (by the name of involuntary service contracts, "slavery" is abolished, but in name only) ...
These omissions are not limited to islam. Why don't we see details like, oh, the caste system in the article on Hinduism ? Note that being Dalit is also de-facto slavery. Or at least, Americans would identify the average contract offered to a dalit as a slavery contract. That's about as verifiable as it gets, yet no mention is made : it hurts people's feelings.
Other realities are downplayed, in favor of popular myths. The articles about the crusades make single small note about their cause : they were a response to muslim invasion. This is not mentioned in the article about "the crusades" only in the one telling about "the first crusade". They are portrayed not as the defensive response to agression that they were, but as a massively offensive and cruel undertaking (of course no mention is made of the initial attacks that provoked the crusades, those, of course, must have been just peachy)
Wikipedia merely gives popular opinion on a topic. If you're looking to get better informed on wikipedia then on, oh say national geographic, you're looking in the wrong place. Popular myths win out over hard facts, verifiable or no.
I'm not sure that is true at all. There was a lot of opposition to Hitler in the 1930s. But even assuming it were, so what. This is 2009 and in 2009 the overwhelming majority of reliable sources don't have a pro-Nazi position.
So the truth changes according to political opinion of the day ? (I'm just taking this example, the muslim racism or titanic examples would serve just as well)
I find that a very, very uncomfortable thought. Truth is truth. From now until kingdom come.
I guess we need to take down the page about the Titanic sinking. Or about Hitler being a bad guy, since the media most certainly did not support that point prior to at least 1941. Guess we need to take down the "fake" label on the "protocols of the elders of zion" pages since there is scarcely any media source in the non-western world that acknowledges it's fake (Iran's papers are certainly not alone in still considering them accurate)
You see, "the vast majority of well-respected media" is a moving, very ill-defined target.
It would be better to state all viewpoints. Yes there is much open racism against jews all over the muslim world, and against hindus and against christians, but why not let them tell their story ? Clearly you're not stopping that sort of racism with censorship.
That's because for 99.99% of people neutral just means their viewpoint.
This is, of course, the essence of postmodern thought. Reality "does not exist outside of observation", so you change the observation for the better ... which obviously mostly leads to bad decisions that cause disasters in the real world.
Also many arguments are considered non-neutral for reasons of political expediency. Because they offend, no matter how true they are, like the fact that Judaism prescribes stoning women for various crimes. Especially the salient detail that just about the entire world, including nearly all Jews, agrees with ... shall we say ... the modification made to the Jewish faith by that unnameable "J" guy. Jews don't want to admit that they follow this guy in any way, and they certainly don't want to admit they prefer that guy over the contents of the Torah. Same goes for 99% of muslims.
Or the fact that the islamic prophet mohamed killed over 12000 people for religious reasons (well he also stole goods, water and money from them). He also raped a 9-year old girl (sources cite ages from 6 to 11, and one extremely unlikely to be true source states 13). The fact that these murders, paedophilic rape and massacrers are celebrated, not denied, by muslims is another one that you will not find on wikipedia, no matter how true.
But these are just some random examples. On a neutral page, these would be considered relevant facts and reported like the important facts they are (since they are not under dispute, they're merely taboo's. Like the fact that women and men are biologically not eachother's equals and that this brings limitations for both sides, or that human races differ in more than merely their skin color. Some races are faster, stronger, better in the cold or hot, or ... gasp ... smarter).
There's also many ways to put facts. If you were to ask, for example, which religion has caused the most death you could state the truth : that no religion ever matched the death toll the communist state-enforced atheism demanded, although islam comes close. You see what goes wrong ? It "hits much too close to home" for many slashdotters, who fear associations, which may or may not exist, between the ideology of either atheism or socialism, and the death toll that's in the historical record.
Show me any way of determining "valid" viewpoints, other than "any viewpoint is valid, no matter how stupid", and I'll show you a totalitarian ideology.
They tried to censor criticism of Scientology or otherwise promote their cult.
What exactly do you think a viewpoint is ?
It would be better to give scientology itself a page about themselves that only they can edit, that is labeled as such.
Of course, in the real world only 1 single viewpoint is correct. However, we do not know what that correct viewpoint is, so we'll have to make do with multiple and letting people judge for themselves. There are multiple viewpoints in this world, how about letting more than 1 be represented on wikipedia ?
That's what a real democraticized encyclopedia would do.
Since the EU is very "democratic" (meaning the -mostly appointed- ministers of foreign affairs of the EU countries make the real decisions*), Sweden has a choice : pass the law, or leave the EU (meaning switching away from the euro, no more free trade, ...)
In the EU, you only have to convince 12 non-elected commisioners to create a dictatorship. Individual member countries have long lost control over both their own law and their territorial sovereignty. They cannot legally say no to the EU.
Many Europeans (imho rightly) fear what's going to happen with this body. It's already created a segregated society in the locations where it's located : Brussels, Strasbourg, Luxenburg and Frankfurt. There is zero contact between the fonctionnaires and the local population, which is logical in a way, since they're an unelected body.
* yes they're appointed -indirectly- by an elected body, I know. Still it's not the same as a real democracy.
A good question is whether it would be feasible to receive these signals in a handheld device. Pulsars may not be eternal, but they're quite close indeed to that ideal, certainly much more so than any satellite we'd ever put in orbit.
In other words : could this be used as a GPS system on earth ? I believe 1 meter is more accurate than even recent GPS devices provide. Also, could this be used to have instant clock-sync in just about any computer in 3 components (an RC circuit to tune to the correct frequency) ?
Any Muslim is free to marry whomever he or she wants.
Say, what's this "honor killing" thing ? Note I mean the honor killing thing that ALL islamic schools agree is permissible, after all it constitutes executing someone who stops being muslim (by knowingly violating sharia as a muslim, which carries a death sentence).
People sure have a huge need to deny the truth about any religion. I don't understand why Christianity (and often Judaism) have to be described as malevolent, even in cases where they weren't (like the crusades), and other religions, like islam, buddhism, hinduism and others have to be described as much better than they are, ignoring even recent history.
Noting that attacks like 9/11 on America have a long history, and to be exact, a long islamic history is utterly forbidden. Stating that the first islamic attack on America, executed with the purpose of kidnapping american citizens and selling them as slaves, was nearly 300 years ago is sooo incorrect. Stating that there have been constant, religiously sanctioned by mohammedans, if not outright religiously motivated, assaults on America for over 300 years is considered such bad form. It's also the truth.
Just because the longest existing muslim theocracy practiced slavery, including the capturing of black slaves in African villages, abusing them sexually, even children, for over a millenium, means ...
nothing at all.
The fact that the central figure of islam, the paedophile prophet did the same, including raping female slaves, means nothing.
After all, that would be like saying Jesus Christ not stoning a woman has anything to do with Christianity's opinion of stoning women. Pure bullshit.
Judea, at the time, was part of the Roman Empire, and governed by a Roman governor you may have heard of, Herodes.
Slavery existed everywhere in the Roman Empire, including in Judea. Jews, at the time (and up until the 10th century), engaged in slave trade, with full agreement from the Torah. That agreement from the Torah is still there, it's just Jews don't actually do that part of Judaism anymore, just like many parts of Judaism are dropped.
The most well known example of Judaism that's been "cancelled" (whatever you'd call this), is the stoning of women. This Jewish rule was cancelled by Jesus Christ, and is not practiced in Christianity, but in sharia law, the hadith that muslims use as a reason for stoning women clearly indicates the origin of the rule : the Torah.
There is even the contemporary question about the resumption of the punishment of stoning in Judaism, when the temple is rebuilt by the Jewish messiah, which, in Jewish theology, could occur at any time.
Of course, why would anyone think he's against Jews ?
Can you also tell me where the minorities are within these "very tolerant" muslim countries ?
For tolerant nations, there sure a a lot of Christians and Jews disappearing in Iran, in addition to non-majority muslims, tons of Hindus disappearing in Pakistan, blacks disappearing in Sudan ? The berbers are all but vanished in Morocco, disappearing in Algeria ? Why are Copts getting persecuted in Egypt ? Why are so many Thais missing in northern malaysia ?
Not that this list of contemporary persecutions is VERY far from complete.
I thought these were tolerant nations and peoples ? Maybe it's just me, but I thought that persecution, and especially the obvious extermination programs these muslims are running, would exclude them from the label "tolerant" ...
Of course, don't let the obviousness on the truth stand between you and your political ideology.
You are going so far off-topic it's not even funny. You're also spreading lies.
Let's take the examples of the crusades as "Christian agression". Let's see ... what were the crusades ?
The First Crusade was launched in 1095 by Pope Urban II with the primary goal of responding to the appeal from Byzantine Emperor Alexius I. The Emperor requested that western volunteers come to their aid and repel the Seljuk Turks from Anatolia, modern day Turkey. An additional goal soon became the principal objective - the Christian reconquest of the sacred city of Jerusalem and the Holy Land and the freeing of the Eastern Christians from Islamic rule. Both knights and peasants from many nations of Western Europe travelled over land and by sea t
So the crusades were a defensive action, by one brand of Christianity on behalf of another (which obviously is extremely contradictory with your claims about tolerance) ...
Labeling the crusades Christian agression is like labeling Poland's actions during the september campaign of 1939 as offensive.
Both the nazis, soviets and muslims, obviously label these acts as massively agressive, a position that has been gaining ground for some reason that defies logic.
I am neither Christian nor Muslim. From what I've seen and from what I've read no religion (or atheism, or metaphysical quasi-religions such as the Marxist dieletic) has a monopoly on good or evil. Certainly your view of Islam as being intrinsically evil and backwards might be tenable if you look at the last 300 years (when most of the Muslim world hasn't done much) but when you take a longer view the result is very different.
Religions are, first and foremost, DEFINITIONS of good (and evil). The disagreement is first and foremost about that.
Stoning of women, for example, is an obvious islamic good, and a christian evil. Slavery is an islamic good and a christian evil.
The fact that you invoke Paul's acquiescence to slavery as an American defending islamic slavery is beyond hypocritical. Paul was, in case you forgot, executed by a force that pushed slavery on the world, because he gave slaves the dangerous idea that they were the equals of their masters, even if any contract, even a slavery contract had to be respected.
You, on the other hand, do not have such a massive army pushing slavery breathing down your neck. And yet you do not even manage Paul's level of moral concern. Nowhere in your diatribe defending muslim slavery do we find the evident claim Paul was executed : that slaves are human beings, no more and no less than their masters. Even with an army abolishing slavery defending you, you cannot unequivocally state that slavery is a bad thing.
If further illustration of the anti-slavery nature of Christianity is necessary, just look at what happened immediately after the introduction of Christianity in just about every country : the abolishment of slavery. Ireland is perhaps the most well known example of this, because the introduction of Christianity in many countries is not well described. But one might state simply : the entirety of western europe was a slave society in the year 100, when Christianity started spreading. By 700 slavery was abolished everywhere, save for ireland and the northlands, who were not christianized.
Perhaps an even better example would be Northern africa. Slavery was thoroughly embedded in that country in the year 100. Christianity spread, and it was abolished completely before 200 years passed. 300 years northern africa would remain peaceful under christian rule.
But, as we already have established, today northern africa is moslem, and is a slave society. Even for the non-slaves it is a horribly segregated society (much like the islamic enclaves in Europe btw).
But back to Paul, whom you so forgetfully attack : Even worse than the aforementioned difference, with the world's most powerful and anti-slavery army protecting you, you
You might note how just about every religion, most known the Hindu faith, but also islam, prescribe a caste based society. Judaism, Buddhism (search "despite this" to skip the excuses section, this is the bbc, after all), and the Japanese faiths by large also include slavery. But no religion is quite as pro-slavery as islam, especially contemporary islam.
Christianity started out as a religion amongst Roman slaves and was very opposed to the slave system from day one.
The Hindu caste system. This system exists and is operational in many parts of india.
The classes of non-muslims in islamic countries. In addition to that, there is the muslim slave trading system. Note that while the wikipedia page tries to minimize the muslims that accept slavery, however they include all sunni schools, representing over 90% of all muslims worldwide. Also, slavery is practiced today in Mecca, the center of the islamic world. Officially called slavery until 1970, today the name translates to something like involuntary contractees. Fortunately there is "some" (make of it what you want) popular opposition brewing in the muslim world to the exploitation of "involuntary workers", especially against exploitation of the sexual kind. It is, however, not outlawed, and it won't get outlawed any time soon (the gulf's economies depend on it. Especially Dubai's, but in reality all do, including Kuwait's)
There are lots of countries where muslims openly practice slavery (and call it slavery), including but not limited to : Chad, Mauritania, Niger, Mali and Sudan.
Involuntary service contracts, however exist everywhere in the gulf, Kuwait, Jordan and Syria.
Iran, despite it's horrible name and extremely objectionable nuke policy, is actually the most progressive (and tolerant) muslim country in existence, with the possible exception of the secular Turkey.
Given that Iran is just about the most open islamic country, their anti-Jews retoric must be interpreted not especially as a sign of the antisemitic nature of Iran itself, but rather how antisemitic and intolerant even a very progressive muslim country is.
Note that EVERY major religion EXCEPT Christianity actively encourages the subjugation or extermination of non-believers in one form or another. There generally are rules relating to master vs slaves relations, treatment of the captured (though they often include the right of the master to kill the servant), but all religions regulate slavery, and explicitly do not outlaw it, with the exception of Christianity. Christians are to convince non-Christians peacefully, through love and reasoning, yadda yadda you probably know the lines.
Note that, even with the exceptional theoretical difference in Christianity, all cultures, including Christianity (though modestly compared to other religions), engaged in slavery. The culture that outlawed slavery and castes, and eradicated it everywhere in the world, with the exception of a few muslim countries, as any American should know, the Christians that won the American civil war (against other Christians, who did support slavery ... nevertheless no other culture ever went to war over slaves).
Note that one of the consequences of the American civil war was the start of constant terrorist attacks on American ships by the muslims ("barbary pirates" is a name for ottoman muslims) that supplied the southerners' slaves. They lost their income, which basically ended the caliphate's access to the products of the American industrial machine. As a reaction to the attacks Thomas Jefferson bought himself a quran, read it, and proceeded to create the American Marine and bomb the shit out of Northern Africa, writing these words (th
Perhaps these scientists need a dose of reality. And the writers need a bit of separating capability :
1) AI researchers
robots taking over the world:
Yes, Ben Goertzel
No answer, prof. Anette (Peko) Hosoi (but : a T-1000 is likely)
Yes, Bob Mottram, but : not anywhere close to it. First humans will replace themselves slowly by intelligent machines, then humans will lose function (and intrest), then humans will die or get killed
Yes, John Weng, will happen soon in fact
No, Daniel H. Wilson, but RC terminators will be a reality real soon now
2) SF writers ...
robots taking over the world:
No, David Brin, why: uninteresting story
No, J. Storrs Hall, there's no reason
No, Vinge Vernor, equally likely as alien invasion, nuclear war america-russia,
If you actually read the article you will find it much more on the "yes" side of the point.
Also, all the strict "No" votes were by people whose business is fantasy. The more grounded in the real world, the more likely they are to say yes : the ones actually implementing working, useful AI sytems all said yes. The academics said unlikely and the science fiction writers said no.
I doubt this attack supposes access to the original subscriber's simcard, so if it's a cloning attack it's cloning a simcard *without* access to the Ki number.
How would that work ?
Even now clearly the over-the-air gsm protocol allows for this hack. Perhaps 1100 phones will be in short supply, but clearly the protocol itself is vulnerable.
If they found the 1100 flaw, how hard could it be to duplicate the flaw in a something like a 800 Mhz tuner + fpga ?
Heh like the part of the summary :
would break the open standards based interoperability that the marketplace, especially governments, is demanding.'
the marketplace, especially governments ... hello ?
What are you, Stalin ?
Since when do people follow international law about who's a civilian ?
The only international treaties on the subject only give the moniker "civilians" to people who are BOTH not participating in a conflict AND keeping their distance from any combatant.
In other words, a population with terrorists amongst them do not qualify as civilians.
We just demand ridiculous things from today's soldiers. The treaties, if you were to actually read them, are quite clear. One person in a demonstration is using a gun ? According to international law, any present military force gets to fire into the crowd until this guy stops.
The treaty even makes the additional observation that there is exactly 1 person who can make that decision : the commander on the ground. He also doesn't have to be right, and in order to convict such a commander a consistent pattern and clear motive would have to be established. A single instance of ordering firing into a crowd after a loud bang would most certainly not cut it.
ANY group that fights non-uniformed, not clearly distinguished from civilians, is comitting a war crime, and justifies the use of lethal force against ANYONE close to them, both by any defending force and any offensive force.
The treaties are firmly grounded in reality, and the realities of being in a situation where lethal force is being used and you can't distinguish friend from foe just aren't good. It's just that today's people aren't realists anymore, and have never had to face any consequences from a real war. They demand godlike moral judgement, much more than you could reasonably expect from anyone, and much more than they'd apply themselves in life or death situations.
And the robots will be the scapegoats for following the "wrong" orders ... orders that were obviously given by accident, like "kill all Jews", that sort of thing ... and if other people will accept that sort of "bad robot" excuse (or pretend because "they only hate what Israel's doing" for example), those robots will be used in many a war indeed. After all, Jews are merely the best known Jews. There's Darfuri Christians, there's Copts, there's Kashmiri, there's Black people in muslim countries, there's Dalits ... lots of Jews around the world.
It's sad but that's human nature.
Of course "early enough" often means during fetal development. Actually it depends on the complexity of the signal. It is not a problem to add a compas that stimulates one of 9 nerves to a 100 year old man.
For a video signal, it's been shown to require a brain younger than 2 years. 5 years would still give something, but not quite the same as an earlier implantation.
It will most certainly not work, however, on the average slashdotter.
It would still be useful in many situations, even without recognition. Night vision, for one, is a popular use for them. Assisted aiming of guns is another use that's coming into fashion. Aiming of guns that you don't hold into your hand.
I'm thinking the next use will be a sort of gps.
Personally I'd rather have a neural interface, that way I can use my eyes for normal stuff. while having aux video channels for other stuff.
And, pray tell, which optical nerves (they obviously have to be optical nerves) would you use for that ?
Unless you implant "aux video channels" close to the real optical nerves in feutuses (ie. before the myelin channel forms) this is not going to work. You can send in video channels into the brain all you want but you will not experience this as actually seeing the channel unless this information is properly coded into the optical nerve ...
which would still obsure your vision ...
How is that anti-intellectual ? Perhaps you should visit a campus once. Note the large presence of, shall we say, people who exonerate people like massacrers like Che Guevara and blame all of society's ills on the military. Or whoever they are sure won't retaliate (note for example, the dead silence about Sri Lanka's misdeeds since that government sued and, shall we say, lightly persuaded, a BBC press team to leave).
Unless of course, you're claiming that campuses don't have intellectuals. That newspapers don't have intellectuals.
Can one please be allowed to articulate a displeasure between certain extremely hypocritical portions of society ? The part that's hiding behind the biggest guns of the world screaming about how evil their government is, knowing both that said government won't retaliate and knowing full well that there are real problems in the world. The government of, oh, say Sudan, is a much, much bigger problem than even the worst ever US government. But only one of those gets any action.
Funny thing about weather -- it tends to defy attempts at short-term prediction. If (as opposed to cherry-picking a small subset of data selected to make one's point) one uses an adequately-sized dataset, the trends are quite clear [noaa.gov]. Moreover, as opposed to overstating the effects of climate change in the last few years, the IPCC's estimates for both sea level increase and reduction in mass of the ice sheets of Greenland and Antartica have been far less than what is actually observed.
You completely sidestep the issue. The IPCC has had models for a long time. They're basically the same models they're using now. So surely we can trust those models, right ?
Well 2005 just barely fitted in the 95% confidence interval of the IPCC, 2006, 2007, and 2008 all failed to fall withing the 98% confidence interval of the IPCC "optimistic" forecast (they were all better, co2 rised, temperature dropped, this was supposed to be impossible. And if I might be so blunt, the models STILL don't explain the drop, while the cooling keeps getting extended every month).
In physics, such a result would lead to the destruction of the theories. It would be considered the equal of a theory that cars fall into the sky when dropped of a cliff.
The trends in the temperature data are only clear if you look at them for certain time intervals, and only rather specific time intervals will give you a rising temperature. Very few time intervals will lend credence to the "co2 leads to temperature increase" claims.
Here is a graph that contains, at a reasonable resolution, the long term temperature data of a specific region :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg
Now, look at the graph. Suppose you were to look at the last 10 years (not very clear I know), you would see a stable, ever so slightly declining temperature.
If you look at the last 100 years you see an "impressive" (but not that consequential) rise in temperature (though you can evidently see that the cause, whatever it is, is not co2).
If you look at the last 1000-10000 years, you would see an even larger massive increase in temperature (that's because 10000 years ago fell straight into an ice age. In this time interval we see rising temperatures, but much evidence contradicting the co2-temperature relationship. Co2 concentration was the highest at the start of the last ice age. Contrary to what people like to think, there is no real explanation for ice ages. The theory involving the gulfstream explains at best a 4 degree drop in western europe, but nothing more, yet everyone both knows that ice at one point pierced the border of texas, a point that should have heated up in that theory, *and* everyone believes that the gulfstream blocking theory is correct. Also I would like to make the point that europe is not a synonym for "the world". Yes we have much more accurate readings for europe than for the rest of the world, that does not mean only europe deserves an explanation.
Lastly if you look at the last 100000 years you would clearly see a (single) oscillation in temperatures.
If you look at the last few million years you would, correctly*, conclude, as the "oh no another ice age is going to start" crowd did in the 1980-1990's, that it's just about time (give or take 1000 years) for another ice age to start. You would also correctly conclude that the stagnation that global temperature has recently encountered has a very good chance of being indicative of the start of a new ice age.
So unfortunately, scientifically defensible predictions of temperature are all over the map. The IPCC's models explicitly reject the older information because we frankly haven't got a clue about what caused them, and that doesn't model all that well.
* if you extend the graph with a fourier analysis, it would indeed drop "just about now" (again the error margin for the drop is a few hundred years)