Well, I don't think anyone else has said this, so I will.
Being abruptedly discarded by an organisation after you gave them 21 years service is rather shabby. Being treated as a potential threat at the same time is just unspeakable.
One would think that a 21 year association with an organisation would at least entitle you to being treated with some respect. Its not as if they didn't know who you were, and how you would react.
Loyalty should always be rewarded, not kicked in the teeth. In a nutshell, for what its worth (which is very little, I'm afraid), I feel for you.
A masterful understatement. You wouldn't happen to be English, by any chance?
"anti-Semetic FUD"
What an idiotic response. Criticism of Israel does not imply anti-semitic views. Gosh, pure disgust with Israel does not, in itself, imply anti-semitic views. One could reasonably argue that one can despise Israel for its persistantly brutal activities, without needing to hold any negative views on Jews and Judaism (its hard to find another state which has been so consistantly repressive against civilians within its control).
The more people like you jump up and shout "anti-Semite, anti-Semite" at anyone who even remotely criticises Israel, then you just lessen the effectiveness of that charge. Which is a shame.
Racism, and racist views, are to be deplored. Calling someone a racist or more specifically, and anti-Semite, without justification, is also to be deplored. Its almost as bad as the original 'crime' itself.
Completely irrational ravings, replete with half-truths and outright lies. You are just shouting from the 'raving anti Muslim' hymn book, without any realisation that much of what you say is completly untrue.
There is so much nonsense in what you say, and such bile in the world view behind it, that I just cannot even start to refute it. Its like trying to convince a committed Nazi why they shouldn't regard Slavs and Jews as sub-human. No matter what one says, they wouldn't get it.
You didn't even understand what little I tried to convey. I don't love the Taliban - never said that I did. Reforms in Iran? You have no clue about what society is actually like in Iran, or what level of empowerment the people there do or do not have.
Being deeply ignorant about a subject or a people isn't great - but noone can know everything about everything. However, being deeply ignorant about a people, and simultaneously holding strong and harsh views about them is simply unconscionable.
In a sick sort of way, you really are as much of a fundamentalist as those you despise. You started off by lauding the scientific spirit as one which holds knowledge and the quest for knowledge as everything. And yet you cannot bear to subject your own world view to an examination by the facts.
Here's one fact to throw a spanner in your works. Digest this, and see how it fits in your perspective on things.
Some of the Prophet (peace be upon him) most famous sayings: "The ink of the scholar is more holy than the blood of the martyr" "You should go even to the walls of China for learning' "The man who educates 2 daughters has built a wall in between himself and hell"
I dare you to dip your toe in the water and educate yourself about the reality of Islam and Muslims, before you continue to preach nonsense about them.
Do that with an OPEN MIND (as all good scientists would), and then preach what you like. Until then, keep your opinions to yourself.
Whatever I say to you simply goes in one ear and out the other - with no processing in between. There is only so much I can say to a brick wall. This conversation is at an end.
I am a fool for responding futher, but here goes...
Islam IS a practical religon. It does NOT hinder scientific progress. It is NOT the reason why Muslims are in their current state.
Whatever effect organised Christian churches and beliefs have had/do have on Western society has got NOTHING to do with the dynamic of Islam in Muslim societies.
Islam != Christianity Islam + civil society != Christianity + civil society
You are essentially arguing that Muslims should relegate Islam because Christianity holds back scientific progress. Unbelievably stupid!
"I've long argued that a democracy in the middle east is possible and have supported President Bush's efforts to bring Democracy to Iraq."
That is the problem in a nutshell. You impose your beliefs on others. You impose your own value systems, and your own solutions on others. What works for you may in fact be worse than the initial problem, when applied to others.
Yes, Muslims need to uplift themselves. Part of that is finding out what kind of governmental and civil structure works today. FOR THEM.
It took the West centuries of internecine warfare before they came to some kind of conclusion over the role of THEIR church in THEIR states. Following that, it was Westerners who then created a whole other set of 'isms, which plunged the world into chaos for most of the 20th century.
And you judge us as having failed because, a scant half century or so after independence (varies across countries), we are still groping around for the right solution?
Hypocritical in the extreme.
For Muslims to uplift themselves, its an evolutionary process. With many setbacks. One critical element is the absolute need to work this out amongst ourselves.
Give us ONE decade without your snouts in our affairs, and then come back and see. Regimes which govern against the dictates of Islam, and exploit their own people, need to be allowed to fall - and not propped up by outsiders.
Its illuminating that you allude to the same ignorant arguments about Iran. I am NOT a Shia. I do criticise many things which happen in Iran. But the important thing is that they are working it out themselves. Gradually. They went from one extreme (the Shah) to the other (immediate aftermath of the Revolution), and are now starting to regulate the pendulam shifts.
They do have elections. They do have a genuine discourse within their state. They do have freedom (freedoms within, and freedom from most forms of Western interference). How they will continue to evolve will be interesting to see. These things take time.
How much could the Taliban have modified their extremism over the years, after an Afghan civil war had been concluded, would also have been interesting.
You seem to think that because someone or some group is incapable of going in, taking over a country, and slapping into place a system of Islamic governance which works flawlessly from day one is proof positive that it can never work.
What utter tosh.
And instead, you are yours are going around the Middle East, demanding that they adopt your systems and your beliefs, and bombing and slaughtering all those who disagree and stand in your way. And I haven't even mentioned oil.
Err, just who are the fundamentalists exactly? And who is fighting for freedom?
So much nonsense that its hard to know where to start...
1) My mention of the Mongol invasion was simply a statement of historical fact. You implied that it was Islam which stopped Arab scientific progress. I INFORMED you that: a) Arabs started progressing scientifically AFTER they became Muslim, not before b) Arab scientific progress WAS more or less stopped in its tracks after the Mongol invasions.
Those are facts. Easily researched. So, in conclusion, I do not agree with your assertion that Islam was the reason for stagnation.
Whether you approve of how the Arab world handled the aftermath of the Mongols is neither here nor there.
2) I did not blame the current state of the Muslim Ummah on the Mongols or the Crusades. I put those events into their proper historical perspective. They happened, they had a profound and lasting effect. Thats called history.
Your logic is faulty if you imply from that that I was arguing that this excuses the current state of the Muslim world. I didn't even broach that topic.
3) Each dominant civilisation stands on the shoulders of the dominant civilisations which preceeded it. The Egyptians built on the Mesopotamians. The Greeks built on the Egyptians. The Romans built on the Greeks. The Arabs built on what the Greeks, Chinese and Indians provided. Europe built on the advances made by the Arabs.
At each stage, the rate of progress increases. Civilisation and technological prowess, generally speaking, tends to follow a linearly upward path.
Consequently, comparing the rate of progress made by the US is misleading - tantamount to dishonesty. They built on the foundations others had laid (see above, as well as the British).
The successor dominant civilisation to the US will themselves, in all likelihood exceed the rate of progress achieved by the Americans.
4) "You have to accept scientific findings when they clash with religious findings"
Really? Are you actually aware of a significant instance where Islam actually contradicted scientific findings?
Or are you just assuming that because Christianity (to take an example) was incompatible with many facets of scientific progress over the centuries (Copernicus, Galileo, etc), that the same must be true of Islam as well?
An ignorant assumption.
5) "In the west, if someone asks a question, the thing to do is to run an experiment and find out. In Islam, the thing to do, is ask a cleric, who makes something up."
This is just so stupid that I hardly know how to respond.
6) "It's time for Islamic countries to stop blaming their failures on everyone else but
themselves."
I wasn't. To paraphrase (for your benefit), I would propose that its time for people like you to stop heaping half-baked, false accusations against Islam and Muslims when you are so ignorant of the matters at hand.
In conclusion: You have 2 paths you can follow.
1) Realise that your world view is not as informed as you thought it was, come down off your pedestal and learn some more before spouting nonsense. You may become a better person for it.
2) Stay in your current blinkered mindset. Keep persuading yourself that you are not a bigot. Continue to associate with like minded people who will make you feel better about your beliefs. Keep your TV tuned to Fox News 24/7. You'll feel better about yourself - even if it is all hogwash.
In either case, there really is no point in arguing the matter further with people like you. So, lets stop here.
You are completly ignoring the effects of the Mongol Holocaust. What Europe suffered was just a side show compared to the deluge that hit Islam. Afghanistan was turned into a man-made desert within one generation. Cities and states were ransacked. Libraries were burnt, and entire educated classes were put to the sword.
In effect, the Muslim Ummah (a better term to use for this discussion than 'Islam') never really recovered. Learning and scientific endeavour were put back by CENTURIES.
Example: Arab secretaries post 1500CE were unable to decrypt documents which their predecessors 3 centuries previous could have done in their sleep (see Kahn's "The Code Book").
Example: Damascus and Baghdad today ARE SMALLER than they were pre-Mongol invasion.
The Mongol Holocaust, coming right at the end of the Crusades, really put most of the Arab world into a deep freeze, from which it is just now starting to emerge (long process).
2) scientific progress was held back to prevent upsetting 'religous power centers'.
I get really tired of hearing these kind of ignorant statements from non-Muslims. If 'religous powers-that-be' were so against scientific progress, than can you explain HOW the Arabs progressed from a people whose only cultural achievements were linguistic (poetry, etc), to becoming the worlds dominant scientific civilisation, all AFTER becoming Muslim?
There is a strong 'pro-learning' and 'pro-scientific endeavour' in Islamic thought. Hadiths (sayings) from the Prophet (pbuh) can be brought up as testimony.
But I suspect that it is futile to re-argue these again, ad-infinitum. The accepted wisdom today is that Islam is a backward religon, whose yoke needs to be overturned before any real progress can be made. You can file this 'widom' under other such truths as: 'Iraq has weapons of mass destruction', and 'Most Muslim males are terrorists'.
If people can construct such a world view while remaining blissfully IGNORANT of the religon/people/culture they are condemning, than no amount of debate will change their minds, so why bother.
PS: I'm not saying that this completely applies to you. I don't know you. But the points you made, when expanded upon, tend to fall into the above camp.
Others have already responded to you with very informative posts (which deserve a 5 rating far more than yours, I'm afraid) detailing how you are quite incorrect with specific regard to algebra.
On a more general note - all civilisations who made great scientific strides did so by first learning from predecessor civilisations. Where would the ancient Greeks have been without the Egyptians (see Herodotus for a frank assessment of the 'debt' due).
Learning from others does NOT mean that one does not then extend and expand on what one has learned.
With specific regards to Islamic civilisation(s) between the 8th and 14th centuries CE, I'm afraid that you are quite wrong to state that they were simply dumb librarians, without the ability to expand upon what they had inherited.
In many sciences, they DID make great, original strides. In fact, it was this striving which led them to seek out ancient and foreign treatises on the matters at hand.
Both activities were parallel, and complemented each other.
Most of your 'opinions', and the general gist of your arguments, reek of so much 'anti-Islamism' that I really don't want to comment on it any further.
However, as to your, and others, supposedly feigned 'ignorance' as to how Arab civilisation lost the pre-eminent role it had enjoyed, I would encourage you to augment your sadly limited knowledge of history, and research the topic "The Mongol Holocaust".
To simplify, what Europe suffered from the Mongols was simply a residual force. The Middle East took the full brunt of the Khan's hordes. Afghanistan was transformed, in one generation, into a man-made desert. Just that fact boggles the mind. Research it.
Damascus and Baghdad are SMALLER today, than they were in pre-Mongol times. Again, this is telling. Research it.
In a nutshell, Arab civilisation never recovered. As as example, to take a subject which should be at the heart of most Slashdotters - the depth of knowledge in the field of cryptography went backwards by centuries (see Kahn's book). Yes, the conquerors did convert to Islam within a couple of generations (another example of how Islam was NOT propogated by the sword, despite the generally-accepted propoganda), but power had irrevocably shifted from the Arabs and Seljuks, to the various Turko-Mongolian tribes, and the Ottomans. The same emphasis on education, learning, sciences etc was not there. The Arab heartland gradually drifted into a slumber from which it is only now starting to awaken from. Muslim dynmaism was shifted, for the next few centuries, from the center to the perihpery (India, Asia Minor and the Balkans, etc).
> For 1,500 years, Christianity has been the > accepted "normal" religion throughout most of > the developed world
If you read the introduction to ibn Khaldun's 'Muqaddimah' (one of the great sociological/historical works of human history), you will find that he rails against those 'fools' who describe the past using the mindset of the present. And that is exactly what you have done in the above quote!
For example, for most of the shared history between the Islamic and Christian worlds, the Christian world was NOT 'the developed world'. Prior to the Mongol Holocaust, the Muslim world outstripped Europe in most areas of scientific endevour.
And I haven't even mentioned China/Egypt/India in comparison to Christian Europe in pre-Muslim times.
I suggest that you may like to revise the '1500 years' part of your sentence.
You're right about '--color=auto' (you really dont want those escape sequences if the destination is not a terminal - what if you're redirecting output to a file, for example), but you'll find that less will interpret escape sequences with the '-r' option.
So, `ls --color=yes | less -r` will work just fine.
BTW, if you don't have access to either pinfo or konqueror, and can't stand (dont blame you) the regular info viewer, then try this (don't remember where I originally got this from):
i() {
info "$1" --subnodes --output - 2>/dev/null | less }
I have this in a more comprehensive wrapper, which does other stuff like setting term & screen titles, etc - but the above function should suffice. Particularly useful if you are looking for something specific, and want to search directly for it.
I'm tempted to use a harsher tone than this, but I think I will refrain for the moment. You need to re-read my post before claiming that you have been "insulted".
Upon re-reading it, you may find that the only term I used which could remotely be described as "insulting" was the word 'clueless', and that word was used in conjunction with some Gentoo advocates (even though I am one myself - which is why I feel it is ok to criticise one's own).
Your post certainly did not put you in the category of 'clueless gentoo advocate', so I am mystified as to why you think you were insulted.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that all Gentoo boxes must have a cronjob running `emerge world`, or else the Gentoo thought police will be around to confiscate the hardware!
If you are setting up a server, then you will likely have a minimal set of software installed, depending on the task at hand (no X, KDE, etc). So, its not an unreal prospect to hit upon a set of versions which (through careful research) are confirmed to be the most recent *stable* versions available. For everything else (glibc, etc), it is usually (though not always) a good idea to work with the latest available, to take advantage of the latest bug fixes, etc.
USE flags really help (hand in hand with careful package selection) in minimising software cruft.
After that point, the only upgrades necessary would be for security vulnerabilities.
Ok, so its not Debian stable, or OpenBSD. But it certainly isn't an alternative which should be dismissed out of hand either (again - it really depends on what *kind* of server you are trying to deploy).
Whenever Gentoo comes up in a Slashdot discussion, I find all too many examples of the following: 1) (some) clueless gentoo advocates, who bang on about amazing speed optimisations derived from being a source based distribution. I'm not sure how many of them have ever looked at the gcc flags in an rpm's specfile before. There are *so* many things which really impress me about Gentoo as a Linux distribution, without even having to mention gcc optimisation. 2) knee-jerk, standardised criticism's of Gentoo, made without much knowledge of, or experience in, the distribution itself.
I have tried out {Free,Net,Open}BSD (within vmware instances, and on an old laptop), and although I am by no means a seasoned user (I 'played' with them out of curiosity), I do agree with you on a couple of points:
1) The poor choice of root shell is annoying. Yes, it is easily rectifiable - but thats not really an excuse, is it. Yes, you can sudo, or `sudo su` from within your favourite (not superuser) shell, but again, thats not the point. There's no reason for such a brain dead choice. 2) I cannot fathom why OpenBSD thinks it is better to go without a standard set of service control scripts, in a standard location (whats wrong with/etc/init.d anyway - having it does not imply a full Sys V init scheme!). Thats 'nostalgia' taken to ridiculous extremes. Yes, again - an experienced user would have his own workaround for this (probably a set of generic shell functions, making the creation of new start/stop/status/* scripts rather trivial), but again - there's no reason why this can't have been done for you.
The various *BSD's do contain some very good ideas. After spending being with RedHat since before the 5.0 days, I found myself drifting more and more away from the *standard* setup (rewriting parts of the startup sequence, etc), but that just made upgrades more painful (my bad - that tought me a good lesson!). After finding Gentoo a couple of years ago, I was so impressed at the intelligence behind much of the work in/etc (intelligent init.d scripts with dependencies, rc.conf, etc) - and a lot of that has to do with knowledge gained from BSD (so kudos to those guys). And I haven't mentioned how much portage owes to the various BSD ports (I would think that it is closer in spirit to NetBSD's pkgsrc than anything, but thats splitting hairs).
I would say however (and this is the main rationale behind posting this rambling mess of a message!) that I am: 1) very disappointed by the tenor of the article in question. Just how many times can you say 'BSD base comes from one source, while a base Linux system comes from a multitude of sources' before it starts to become silly repititon? When a proper framework is put around the disparate efforts of oss coders from around the globe, and I'm thinking primarily of Debian and Gentoo here, then it is nowhere near as chaotic as some BSD zealots like to imply. I mean, how can one seriously imply that Debian stable (for example) is an unholy, chaotic mess of uncoordinated software? 2) very disappointed by the tenor of the some of the replies you have recieved. Hardly anything constructive was mentioned. A very sad indictment.
For the record, I am on the whole still impressed by many aspects of BSD-land. Just cut out the childish over-defensive attitude, and continuous ignorant carping about what Linux users are like.
To be honest, my reply is rather misplaced in this thread - and wasn't really a criticism on any opinions given in the parent post. I was just rather annoyed at something else I had read, and that frustration manifested itself in that post.
I humbly disagree with your definition of the term 'terrorism'. Terrorism simply means "a Muslim with a gun". Whether he is attacking or defending, he is a terrorist. Whether he is justified, or not, he is a terrorist.
Do not be misled by pale imitations, who fail the 'Muslim' test:
- the Irish (IRA) cannot be regarded as terrorists, nor can their longtime backers in the US be considered "supporters of terror". 1500 innocent victims in Northern Ireland be damned... - US-Cubans who are behind the hijacking/destruction of Cuban airliners are similarly not to be considered as terrorists. They can't be, when they are actively assisted and protected by the US. - Stern gang et al can not be considered terrorists. After all, they were fighting the good fight *against* Muslims. Even when they take out a hotel with just under 100 British soldiers. - an Israeli tank/gunship pumping shells into civilian areas cannot be regarded as terrorism. Palestinians who detonate bombs in civilian areas however, are. If you disagree with this logic, then you obviously senile/anti-semitic/anti-american/take your pick... - >10,000 dead Kashmiri civilians in the last decade is not 'terrorism', its just collatoral damage.
I simply want to comment on what you said, namely:
> Those people were (for the great majority of them) > captured while bearing arms against American servicemen.
Is that supposed to be a crime?
The hostages at Guantanamo were members of a standing army of the Taliban, which at that time claimed to be the official government and army of Afghanistan. Some countries recognised that claim, most didn't - but the fact is that on the ground, the Taliban *were* the ruling authority of most of Afghanistan.
That ruling authority was invaded by the US (I am not trying to pass moral judgement on the invasion itself, or 9/11 - simply recounting *facts*). These people were captured while fighting against that invasion.
Again, I ask - how is that a *crime*? They were on the other side, and they lost. That does not make them criminals (or heroes). Bearing arms against the US army is not a crime, in itself (particularly when you are being invaded).
Ask yourself this - would Vietnam be justified in indefinately holding American soldiers, as prisoners without any hope of a trial, after the conclusion of their war with the US, simply because 'they were captured while bearing arms against Vietnamese servicemen' ?
All too often, I think most (thankfully, not all) Americans have such a blinkered view of morality and logic, that I shudder.
I know nothing of Eric personally, so cannot comment on his 'personality'. However, I would like to make the following points:
1) he is to be lauded for his contributions to the common good (busybox & uclibc), as are all contributors to open-source software. If companies take advantage and profit from his (and other) open-source projects without complying with the basic requirements of the license, then they deserve to be highlighted - and action should be taken if all else fails. The analogy I would make is that its akin to stealing from a charitable fund - even more despicable than stealing from a bank (which is bad enough itself).
2) I wish there weren't so many USERS of open-source software who felt the need to denigrate the coders who create the software they use (I'm thinking of the mplayer devs as well). Yes, sometimes OSS coders can be difficult to communicate with on a personal level, but I think we lose sight of the fact that WE are benefiting from THEIR generosity (time & effort). I can only imagine how galling it must be for someone to pour their heart and soul into a project, for the common good, and find that they become the subjects of personal attack from (some) of the very people who benefit from their labours. A little gratitude, or understanding, would not go amiss.
3) I have always felt that denigrating someone in a public forum, over matters which may have occured in private between the 2 parties, tends to say more about the accuser than it does about the accused. Just a thought you might like to ponder...
PS: I reiterate that I do not know Eric personally, nor the mplayer developers.
Philistines != Palestinians. Where did you get that idea from? Because the names sound somewhat familiar? The Philistines were just one of a number of semitic peoples living in the Middle East at the time (of which the Hebrews were one). They all fought amongst one another - genocide and slavery was not a one way street (read the Old Testament to find out what the Hebrews themselves did at times).
I could add that the genetic link between modern day Palestinians and their millenia-ago counterparts is equally as tenuous as the genetic link between modern day Israelis and their Biblical ancestors (read David Ben Gurion, and his notes on the 'Khazars' as being the precursors of most of European Jewry).
How anyone can think that events over 2 millenia ago can justify either killing others, or taking their land, is totally beyond me.
BTW, Philistines, contrary to popular belief, were not actually 'culturally backward', as archeological evidence has since demonstrated. Its always a bad idea to judge a people entirely through the eyes of their enemies (at that time).
I wonder - is such a blind hatred for truth and the facts a necessary prerequisite for (probably - I'm making an educated guess based upon your post) someone who can justify policies and behaviour towards others (ie: Israel v Arabs) which are almost as evil as those which yourselves suffered from not to long ago (Western Europe v European Jews)?
(waiting for the usual taunts of 'anti-semitic', etc)...
Well, the term 'Paki' has very different connotations than the other terms you mentioned. In the UK, 'Paki' is equivalent to 'wog' or 'nigger'. Still think its ok?
On the other hand, if you look at what the term 'Pak' actually means ('spiritually pure'), then I'm not sure one should take it as an offence. I guess it never occurred to English racists to check their diction for suitable offensiveness (thats the English for you...)
As for me, the biggest complaint I have against the Aussies is that you blokes keep winning at cricket, and are so bloody abnoxious about it:). Bunch of kangaroo-loving, smelly, convict-descendent, sheep-shagging (oh wait, thats the Welsh...) load of....
Hmm, can you tell I'm bitter about the cricket?
(PS: for those of you who left your sense of humour at home, the above comments were meant in jest. Except for the fact that they are absolutely true!)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I don't think anyone else has said this, so I will.
Being abruptedly discarded by an organisation after you gave them 21 years service is rather shabby. Being treated as a potential threat at the same time is just unspeakable.
One would think that a 21 year association with an organisation would at least entitle you to being treated with some respect. Its not as if they didn't know who you were, and how you would react.
Loyalty should always be rewarded, not kicked in the teeth. In a nutshell, for what its worth (which is very little, I'm afraid), I feel for you.
"Israel is a bit more forceful"
A masterful understatement. You wouldn't happen to be English, by any chance?
"anti-Semetic FUD"
What an idiotic response. Criticism of Israel does not imply anti-semitic views. Gosh, pure disgust with Israel does not, in itself, imply anti-semitic views. One could reasonably argue that one can despise Israel for its persistantly brutal activities, without needing to hold any negative views on Jews and Judaism (its hard to find another state which has been so consistantly repressive against civilians within its control).
The more people like you jump up and shout "anti-Semite, anti-Semite" at anyone who even remotely criticises Israel, then you just lessen the effectiveness of that charge. Which is a shame.
Racism, and racist views, are to be deplored. Calling someone a racist or more specifically, and anti-Semite, without justification, is also to be deplored. Its almost as bad as the original 'crime' itself.
Hmm, what do we have here?
Completely irrational ravings, replete with half-truths and outright lies. You are just shouting from the 'raving anti Muslim' hymn book, without any realisation that much of what you say is completly untrue.
There is so much nonsense in what you say, and such bile in the world view behind it, that I just cannot even start to refute it. Its like trying to convince a committed Nazi why they shouldn't regard Slavs and Jews as sub-human. No matter what one says, they wouldn't get it.
You didn't even understand what little I tried to convey. I don't love the Taliban - never said that I did. Reforms in Iran? You have no clue about what society is actually like in Iran, or what level of empowerment the people there do or do not have.
Being deeply ignorant about a subject or a people isn't great - but noone can know everything about everything. However, being deeply ignorant about a people, and simultaneously holding strong and harsh views about them is simply unconscionable.
In a sick sort of way, you really are as much of a fundamentalist as those you despise. You started off by lauding the scientific spirit as one which holds knowledge and the quest for knowledge as everything. And yet you cannot bear to subject your own world view to an examination by the facts.
Here's one fact to throw a spanner in your works. Digest this, and see how it fits in your perspective on things.
Some of the Prophet (peace be upon him) most famous sayings:
"The ink of the scholar is more holy than the blood of the martyr"
"You should go even to the walls of China for learning'
"The man who educates 2 daughters has built a wall in between himself and hell"
I dare you to dip your toe in the water and educate yourself about the reality of Islam and Muslims, before you continue to preach nonsense about them.
Do that with an OPEN MIND (as all good scientists would), and then preach what you like. Until then, keep your opinions to yourself.
Whatever I say to you simply goes in one ear and out the other - with no processing in between. There is only so much I can say to a brick wall. This conversation is at an end.
I am a fool for responding futher, but here goes...
Islam IS a practical religon. It does NOT hinder scientific progress. It is NOT the reason why Muslims are in their current state.
Whatever effect organised Christian churches and beliefs have had/do have on Western society has got NOTHING to do with the dynamic of Islam in Muslim societies.
Islam != Christianity
Islam + civil society != Christianity + civil society
You are essentially arguing that Muslims should relegate Islam because Christianity holds back scientific progress. Unbelievably stupid!
"I've long argued that a democracy in the middle east is possible and have supported President Bush's efforts to bring Democracy to Iraq."
That is the problem in a nutshell. You impose your beliefs on others. You impose your own value systems, and your own solutions on others. What works for you may in fact be worse than the initial problem, when applied to others.
Yes, Muslims need to uplift themselves. Part of that is finding out what kind of governmental and civil structure works today. FOR THEM.
It took the West centuries of internecine warfare before they came to some kind of conclusion over the role of THEIR church in THEIR states. Following that, it was Westerners who then created a whole other set of 'isms, which plunged the world into chaos for most of the 20th century.
And you judge us as having failed because, a scant half century or so after independence (varies across countries), we are still groping around for the right solution?
Hypocritical in the extreme.
For Muslims to uplift themselves, its an evolutionary process. With many setbacks. One critical element is the absolute need to work this out amongst ourselves.
Give us ONE decade without your snouts in our affairs, and then come back and see. Regimes which govern against the dictates of Islam, and exploit their own people, need to be allowed to fall - and not propped up by outsiders.
Its illuminating that you allude to the same ignorant arguments about Iran. I am NOT a Shia. I do criticise many things which happen in Iran. But the important thing is that they are working it out themselves. Gradually. They went from one extreme (the Shah) to the other (immediate aftermath of the Revolution), and are now starting to regulate the pendulam shifts.
They do have elections. They do have a genuine discourse within their state. They do have freedom (freedoms within, and freedom from most forms of Western interference). How they will continue to evolve will be interesting to see. These things take time.
How much could the Taliban have modified their extremism over the years, after an Afghan civil war had been concluded, would also have been interesting.
You seem to think that because someone or some group is incapable of going in, taking over a country, and slapping into place a system of Islamic governance which works flawlessly from day one is proof positive that it can never work.
What utter tosh.
And instead, you are yours are going around the Middle East, demanding that they adopt your systems and your beliefs, and bombing and slaughtering all those who disagree and stand in your way. And I haven't even mentioned oil.
Err, just who are the fundamentalists exactly? And who is fighting for freedom?
So much nonsense that its hard to know where to start...
1) My mention of the Mongol invasion was simply a statement of historical fact. You implied that it was Islam which stopped Arab scientific progress. I INFORMED you that:
a) Arabs started progressing scientifically AFTER they became Muslim, not before
b) Arab scientific progress WAS more or less stopped in its tracks after the Mongol invasions.
Those are facts. Easily researched. So, in conclusion, I do not agree with your assertion that Islam was the reason for stagnation.
Whether you approve of how the Arab world handled the aftermath of the Mongols is neither here nor there.
2) I did not blame the current state of the Muslim Ummah on the Mongols or the Crusades. I put those events into their proper historical perspective. They happened, they had a profound and lasting effect. Thats called history.
Your logic is faulty if you imply from that that I was arguing that this excuses the current state of the Muslim world. I didn't even broach that topic.
3) Each dominant civilisation stands on the shoulders of the dominant civilisations which preceeded it. The Egyptians built on the Mesopotamians. The Greeks built on the Egyptians. The Romans built on the Greeks. The Arabs built on what the Greeks, Chinese and Indians provided. Europe built on the advances made by the Arabs.
At each stage, the rate of progress increases. Civilisation and technological prowess, generally speaking, tends to follow a linearly upward path.
Consequently, comparing the rate of progress made by the US is misleading - tantamount to dishonesty. They built on the foundations others had laid (see above, as well as the British).
The successor dominant civilisation to the US will themselves, in all likelihood exceed the rate of progress achieved by the Americans.
4) "You have to accept scientific findings when they clash with religious findings"
Really? Are you actually aware of a significant instance where Islam actually contradicted scientific findings?
Or are you just assuming that because Christianity (to take an example) was incompatible with many facets of scientific progress over the centuries (Copernicus, Galileo, etc), that the same must be true of Islam as well?
An ignorant assumption.
5) "In the west, if someone asks a question, the thing to do is to run an experiment and find out. In Islam, the thing to do, is ask a cleric, who makes something up."
This is just so stupid that I hardly know how to respond.
6) "It's time for Islamic countries to stop blaming their failures on everyone else but
themselves."
I wasn't. To paraphrase (for your benefit), I would propose that its time for people like you to stop heaping half-baked, false accusations against Islam and Muslims when you are so ignorant of the matters at hand.
In conclusion:
You have 2 paths you can follow.
1) Realise that your world view is not as informed as you thought it was, come down off your pedestal and learn some more before spouting nonsense. You may become a better person for it.
2) Stay in your current blinkered mindset. Keep persuading yourself that you are not a bigot. Continue to associate with like minded people who will make you feel better about your beliefs. Keep your TV tuned to Fox News 24/7. You'll feel better about yourself - even if it is all hogwash.
In either case, there really is no point in arguing the matter further with people like you. So, lets stop here.
Again, I will have to strongly disagree with you.
1) Why did their 'progress' stop?
You are completly ignoring the effects of the Mongol Holocaust. What Europe suffered was just a side show compared to the deluge that hit Islam. Afghanistan was turned into a man-made desert within one generation. Cities and states were ransacked. Libraries were burnt, and entire educated classes were put to the sword.
In effect, the Muslim Ummah (a better term to use for this discussion than 'Islam') never really recovered. Learning and scientific endeavour were put back by CENTURIES.
Example: Arab secretaries post 1500CE were unable to decrypt documents which their predecessors 3 centuries previous could have done in their sleep (see Kahn's "The Code Book").
Example: Damascus and Baghdad today ARE SMALLER than they were pre-Mongol invasion.
The Mongol Holocaust, coming right at the end of the Crusades, really put most of the Arab world into a deep freeze, from which it is just now starting to emerge (long process).
2) scientific progress was held back to prevent upsetting 'religous power centers'.
I get really tired of hearing these kind of ignorant statements from non-Muslims. If 'religous powers-that-be' were so against scientific progress, than can you explain HOW the Arabs progressed from a people whose only cultural achievements were linguistic (poetry, etc), to becoming the worlds dominant scientific civilisation, all AFTER becoming Muslim?
There is a strong 'pro-learning' and 'pro-scientific endeavour' in Islamic thought. Hadiths (sayings) from the Prophet (pbuh) can be brought up as testimony.
But I suspect that it is futile to re-argue these again, ad-infinitum. The accepted wisdom today is that Islam is a backward religon, whose yoke needs to be overturned before any real progress can be made. You can file this 'widom' under other such truths as:
'Iraq has weapons of mass destruction', and
'Most Muslim males are terrorists'.
If people can construct such a world view while remaining blissfully IGNORANT of the religon/people/culture they are condemning, than no amount of debate will change their minds, so why bother.
PS: I'm not saying that this completely applies to you. I don't know you. But the points you made, when expanded upon, tend to fall into the above camp.
Others have already responded to you with very informative posts (which deserve a 5 rating far more than yours, I'm afraid) detailing how you are quite incorrect with specific regard to algebra.
On a more general note - all civilisations who made great scientific strides did so by first learning from predecessor civilisations. Where would the ancient Greeks have been without the Egyptians (see Herodotus for a frank assessment of the 'debt' due).
Learning from others does NOT mean that one does not then extend and expand on what one has learned.
With specific regards to Islamic civilisation(s) between the 8th and 14th centuries CE, I'm afraid that you are quite wrong to state that they were simply dumb librarians, without the ability to expand upon what they had inherited.
In many sciences, they DID make great, original strides. In fact, it was this striving which led them to seek out ancient and foreign treatises on the matters at hand.
Both activities were parallel, and complemented each other.
Most of your 'opinions', and the general gist of your arguments, reek of so much 'anti-Islamism' that I really don't want to comment on it any further.
However, as to your, and others, supposedly feigned 'ignorance' as to how Arab civilisation lost the pre-eminent role it had enjoyed, I would encourage you to augment your sadly limited knowledge of history, and research the topic "The Mongol Holocaust".
To simplify, what Europe suffered from the Mongols was simply a residual force. The Middle East took the full brunt of the Khan's hordes. Afghanistan was transformed, in one generation, into a man-made desert. Just that fact boggles the mind. Research it.
Damascus and Baghdad are SMALLER today, than they were in pre-Mongol times. Again, this is telling. Research it.
In a nutshell, Arab civilisation never recovered. As as example, to take a subject which should be at the heart of most Slashdotters - the depth of knowledge in the field of cryptography went backwards by centuries (see Kahn's book). Yes, the conquerors did convert to Islam within a couple of generations (another example of how Islam was NOT propogated by the sword, despite the generally-accepted propoganda), but power had irrevocably shifted from the Arabs and Seljuks, to the various Turko-Mongolian tribes, and the Ottomans. The same emphasis on education, learning, sciences etc was not there. The Arab heartland gradually drifted into a slumber from which it is only now starting to awaken from. Muslim dynmaism was shifted, for the next few centuries, from the center to the perihpery (India, Asia Minor and the Balkans, etc).
> For 1,500 years, Christianity has been the
> accepted "normal" religion throughout most of
> the developed world
If you read the introduction to ibn Khaldun's 'Muqaddimah' (one of the great sociological/historical works of human history), you will find that he rails against those 'fools' who describe the past using the mindset of the present. And that is exactly what you have done in the above quote!
For example, for most of the shared history between the Islamic and Christian worlds, the Christian world was NOT 'the developed world'. Prior to the Mongol Holocaust, the Muslim world outstripped Europe in most areas of scientific endevour.
And I haven't even mentioned China/Egypt/India in comparison to Christian Europe in pre-Muslim times.
I suggest that you may like to revise the '1500 years' part of your sentence.
You're right about '--color=auto' (you really dont want those escape sequences if the destination is not a terminal - what if you're redirecting output to a file, for example), but you'll find that less will interpret escape sequences with the '-r' option.
So, `ls --color=yes | less -r` will work just fine.
He said 'news site'. I doubt whether Fox qualifies in that regard!
Goebbels would be proud of his modern-day disciples at News International.
ssh -> screen -> multiple mutt instances
;)
Works a treat, from any location. Sometimes the simplest solutions are the best
Very nicely put. Likely to fall on deaf ears, but I wholeheartedly support the opinions you have expressed.
Bravo.
Ok - any misunderstandings have been cleared up. I appreciate your last post :)
I'm tempted to use a harsher tone than this, but I think I will refrain for the moment. You need to re-read my post before claiming that you have been "insulted".
Upon re-reading it, you may find that the only term I used which could remotely be described as "insulting" was the word 'clueless', and that word was used in conjunction with some Gentoo advocates (even though I am one myself - which is why I feel it is ok to criticise one's own).
Your post certainly did not put you in the category of 'clueless gentoo advocate', so I am mystified as to why you think you were insulted.
Imagining things, are we?
I should add that my rant against clueless Gentoo advocates was NOT a reference to the parent of this thread :)
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that all Gentoo boxes must have a cronjob running `emerge world`, or else the Gentoo thought police will be around to confiscate the hardware!
If you are setting up a server, then you will likely have a minimal set of software installed, depending on the task at hand (no X, KDE, etc). So, its not an unreal prospect to hit upon a set of versions which (through careful research) are confirmed to be the most recent *stable* versions available. For everything else (glibc, etc), it is usually (though not always) a good idea to work with the latest available, to take advantage of the latest bug fixes, etc.
USE flags really help (hand in hand with careful package selection) in minimising software cruft.
After that point, the only upgrades necessary would be for security vulnerabilities.
Ok, so its not Debian stable, or OpenBSD. But it certainly isn't an alternative which should be dismissed out of hand either (again - it really depends on what *kind* of server you are trying to deploy).
Whenever Gentoo comes up in a Slashdot discussion, I find all too many examples of the following:
1) (some) clueless gentoo advocates, who bang on about amazing speed optimisations derived from being a source based distribution. I'm not sure how many of them have ever looked at the gcc flags in an rpm's specfile before. There are *so* many things which really impress me about Gentoo as a Linux distribution, without even having to mention gcc optimisation.
2) knee-jerk, standardised criticism's of Gentoo, made without much knowledge of, or experience in, the distribution itself.
I have tried out {Free,Net,Open}BSD (within vmware instances, and on an old laptop), and although I am by no means a seasoned user (I 'played' with them out of curiosity), I do agree with you on a couple of points:
/etc/init.d anyway - having it does not imply a full Sys V init scheme!). Thats 'nostalgia' taken to ridiculous extremes. Yes, again - an experienced user would have his own workaround for this (probably a set of generic shell functions, making the creation of new start/stop/status/* scripts rather trivial), but again - there's no reason why this can't have been done for you.
/etc (intelligent init.d scripts with dependencies, rc.conf, etc) - and a lot of that has to do with knowledge gained from BSD (so kudos to those guys). And I haven't mentioned how much portage owes to the various BSD ports (I would think that it is closer in spirit to NetBSD's pkgsrc than anything, but thats splitting hairs).
:
1) The poor choice of root shell is annoying. Yes, it is easily rectifiable - but thats not really an excuse, is it. Yes, you can sudo, or `sudo su` from within your favourite (not superuser) shell, but again, thats not the point. There's no reason for such a brain dead choice.
2) I cannot fathom why OpenBSD thinks it is better to go without a standard set of service control scripts, in a standard location (whats wrong with
The various *BSD's do contain some very good ideas. After spending being with RedHat since before the 5.0 days, I found myself drifting more and more away from the *standard* setup (rewriting parts of the startup sequence, etc), but that just made upgrades more painful (my bad - that tought me a good lesson!). After finding Gentoo a couple of years ago, I was so impressed at the intelligence behind much of the work in
I would say however (and this is the main rationale behind posting this rambling mess of a message!) that I am
1) very disappointed by the tenor of the article in question. Just how many times can you say 'BSD base comes from one source, while a base Linux system comes from a multitude of sources' before it starts to become silly repititon? When a proper framework is put around the disparate efforts of oss coders from around the globe, and I'm thinking primarily of Debian and Gentoo here, then it is nowhere near as chaotic as some BSD zealots like to imply. I mean, how can one seriously imply that Debian stable (for example) is an unholy, chaotic mess of uncoordinated software?
2) very disappointed by the tenor of the some of the replies you have recieved. Hardly anything constructive was mentioned. A very sad indictment.
For the record, I am on the whole still impressed by many aspects of BSD-land. Just cut out the childish over-defensive attitude, and continuous ignorant carping about what Linux users are like.
Yes I did.
To be honest, my reply is rather misplaced in this thread - and wasn't really a criticism on any opinions given in the parent post. I was just rather annoyed at something else I had read, and that frustration manifested itself in that post.
I humbly disagree with your definition of the term 'terrorism'. Terrorism simply means "a Muslim with a gun". Whether he is attacking or defending, he is a terrorist. Whether he is justified, or not, he is a terrorist.
... ...
Do not be misled by pale imitations, who fail the 'Muslim' test:
- the Irish (IRA) cannot be regarded as terrorists, nor can their longtime backers in the US be considered "supporters of terror". 1500 innocent victims in Northern Ireland be damned
- US-Cubans who are behind the hijacking/destruction of Cuban airliners are similarly not to be considered as terrorists. They can't be, when they are actively assisted and protected by the US.
- Stern gang et al can not be considered terrorists. After all, they were fighting the good fight *against* Muslims. Even when they take out a hotel with just under 100 British soldiers.
- an Israeli tank/gunship pumping shells into civilian areas cannot be regarded as terrorism. Palestinians who detonate bombs in civilian areas however, are. If you disagree with this logic, then you obviously senile/anti-semitic/anti-american/take your pick
- >10,000 dead Kashmiri civilians in the last decade is not 'terrorism', its just collatoral damage.
I simply want to comment on what you said, namely:
> Those people were (for the great majority of them)
> captured while bearing arms against American servicemen.
Is that supposed to be a crime?
The hostages at Guantanamo were members of a standing army of the Taliban, which at that time claimed to be the official government and army of Afghanistan. Some countries recognised that claim, most didn't - but the fact is that on the ground, the Taliban *were* the ruling authority of most of Afghanistan.
That ruling authority was invaded by the US (I am not trying to pass moral judgement on the invasion itself, or 9/11 - simply recounting *facts*). These people were captured while fighting against that invasion.
Again, I ask - how is that a *crime*? They were on the other side, and they lost. That does not make them criminals (or heroes). Bearing arms against the US army is not a crime, in itself (particularly when you are being invaded).
Ask yourself this - would Vietnam be justified in indefinately holding American soldiers, as prisoners without any hope of a trial, after the conclusion of their war with the US, simply because 'they were captured while bearing arms against Vietnamese servicemen' ?
All too often, I think most (thankfully, not all) Americans have such a blinkered view of morality and logic, that I shudder.
I know nothing of Eric personally, so cannot comment on his 'personality'. However, I would like to make the following points:
...
1) he is to be lauded for his contributions to the common good (busybox & uclibc), as are all contributors to open-source software. If companies take advantage and profit from his (and other) open-source projects without complying with the basic requirements of the license, then they deserve to be highlighted - and action should be taken if all else fails. The analogy I would make is that its akin to stealing from a charitable fund - even more despicable than stealing from a bank (which is bad enough itself).
2) I wish there weren't so many USERS of open-source software who felt the need to denigrate the coders who create the software they use (I'm thinking of the mplayer devs as well). Yes, sometimes OSS coders can be difficult to communicate with on a personal level, but I think we lose sight of the fact that WE are benefiting from THEIR generosity (time & effort). I can only imagine how galling it must be for someone to pour their heart and soul into a project, for the common good, and find that they become the subjects of personal attack from (some) of the very people who benefit from their labours. A little gratitude, or understanding, would not go amiss.
3) I have always felt that denigrating someone in a public forum, over matters which may have occured in private between the 2 parties, tends to say more about the accuser than it does about the accused. Just a thought you might like to ponder
PS: I reiterate that I do not know Eric personally, nor the mplayer developers.
Honestly, I don't know where to begin.
...
Philistines != Palestinians. Where did you get that idea from? Because the names sound somewhat familiar? The Philistines were just one of a number of semitic peoples living in the Middle East at the time (of which the Hebrews were one). They all fought amongst one another - genocide and slavery was not a one way street (read the Old Testament to find out what the Hebrews themselves did at times).
I could add that the genetic link between modern day Palestinians and their millenia-ago counterparts is equally as tenuous as the genetic link between modern day Israelis and their Biblical ancestors (read David Ben Gurion, and his notes on the 'Khazars' as being the precursors of most of European Jewry).
How anyone can think that events over 2 millenia ago can justify either killing others, or taking their land, is totally beyond me.
BTW, Philistines, contrary to popular belief, were not actually 'culturally backward', as archeological evidence has since demonstrated. Its always a bad idea to judge a people entirely through the eyes of their enemies (at that time).
I wonder - is such a blind hatred for truth and the facts a necessary prerequisite for (probably - I'm making an educated guess based upon your post) someone who can justify policies and behaviour towards others (ie: Israel v Arabs) which are almost as evil as those which yourselves suffered from not to long ago (Western Europe v European Jews)?
(waiting for the usual taunts of 'anti-semitic', etc)
Well, the term 'Paki' has very different connotations than the other terms you mentioned. In the UK, 'Paki' is equivalent to 'wog' or 'nigger'. Still think its ok?
...)
:). Bunch of kangaroo-loving, smelly, convict-descendent, sheep-shagging (oh wait, thats the Welsh ...) load of ....
On the other hand, if you look at what the term 'Pak' actually means ('spiritually pure'), then I'm not sure one should take it as an offence. I guess it never occurred to English racists to check their diction for suitable offensiveness (thats the English for you
As for me, the biggest complaint I have against the Aussies is that you blokes keep winning at cricket, and are so bloody abnoxious about it
Hmm, can you tell I'm bitter about the cricket?
(PS: for those of you who left your sense of humour at home, the above comments were meant in jest. Except for the fact that they are absolutely true!)