in 1830 the French invaded Algeria and incorporated it into France. Algeria was "French soil." They reduced the Algerian population (which they brutalized and exploited) to marginal people under the colonial thumb. The French government of Algeria allowed hundreds of thousands to perish of famine in the 1870s. Go watch "The Battle of Algiers" for more. Algerians hate the French, so no wonder someone over there named it enemy number 1.
The rioting didn't start on account of that, it started on account of two youths getting killed and the police blamed, and a government official making incendiary remarks.
"And, if the rioting has nothing to do with Islam, then why are local Muslim leaders offering to talk to the rioters and stop the violence?" The FLU has nothing to do with Islam, but that hasn't stopped my mosque leaders from issuing a bulletin asking the community to get immunized. The Muslim leaders are helping to manage the community.
Well, back up your claim then! Does Apple have some sort of ActiveX installed? Unusually open default permissions? Open ports? Simple buffer overflows that make it worse than Windows or Linux? i said inherently MORE secure. I didn't say unbreachable. What makes the Mac less secure than Windows' or Red Hat's default installation?
It's not 3% of the market, it's at least 5% of new computer sales, and something like 24% of the computer installed base (likely higher now, that was before the iMac became a bestseller).
So you're saying something as uncommon as lack of bounds checking is WORSE than the Blaster and Slammer worms? When has a Mac infected other Macs on the network? When has a Mac become a zombie machine? When have Macs been used to launch a DDOS attack?
Safari warns you if what you are downloading is a program. If you download a widget, it will ask you if you want to install, then preview it in a box, and then offer you the options "keep" and "delete." Safari will only open "safe" files, ie images, movies and PDFs, if the option is enabled in Safari's preferences (it is by default).
If you download a malicious app, the OS will warn you if it tries to access the Keychain (passwords). even if it was malware, a properly configured Mac will have permissions set so the app could only wipe out the Home folder, and maybe Applications. All of these make the Mac safe. How does windows compare?
Oh come on, Apple closes all its ports by default, and even has the standard *nix firewall built in. There hasn't been a root-kit spotted in the wild yet, despite selling millions of Macs a year. The number of Mac virsues in the last 8 years I can count on one hand.
Macs are inherently more secure. Please show me where the Mac has auto-executing macros in Mail, or User permissions that allow an application to erase the OS.
Your 'click anything' meme is outdated. This isn't MacOS 9 anymore, the system folders are under a different set of Unix permissions than your home folder. A virus or malware would only wipe out the home and maybe Applications folder on a properly configured system.
One reason? Ok, how about a system that runs MS Office natively as well as *nix apps? A POSIX-compliant system that runs games like Doom 3 and the Star Wars games? A system where I can run Simcity 4, or RollerCoaster Tycoon, Skype, and X11 all natively? You get the best of Linux (the tools) as well as the best of the Windows (the popular apps).
iLife would be my second reason for you to switch, there's nothing comparable on Windows or Linux.
Those are my reasons that would likely apply to you. I personally like the Quicktime, the Aqua UI, and the Cocoa environment that allows my apps to interoperate.
Current Macs are hardly more expensive than PCs. Show me a good laptop for $1000 USD comparable to an iBook, or a pre-assembled PC with monitor and keyboard for less than the price of an eMac. Maybe it's $200 cheaper tops, certainly not the 2-10X figure you cite.
the fact remains that Iraq was not stupid enough to actually attack us. And we weren't smart enough not to do anything about them, destabilizing the region by doing it unilaterally was a risk. We know that there was very weak and circumstantial evidence connecting terrorist groups to Iraq, we know that Osama Bin Laden called Saddam Hussein an "infidel" because Saddam Hussein was secular and executed people who went to the mosque too often, and we ignored the evidence against WMDs.
Why would Iraqi intelligence support an assassination attempt, when everyone knows Iraq would be blamed (right after Gulf War) and would lead to a sequel of the Gulf War (which no Iraqi wanted after losing so bad). It's just an accusation, and I don't take it as credible, and certainly not cause enough for a full-scale invasion and war in which 20,000+ (by US military count, which is the minimum) civillians died.
If that's the case, why didn't we invade Cuba or nuke Russia for being somehow linked to the Kennedy assassination?
North Korea attempted to expand its borders, but why was it considered less of a threat than Iraq? North Korea actually has nukes to threaten with.
The attempted assassination of a US president? You mean the alleged plot that an Iraqi man confessed under torture by Kuwaitis? The man was allegedly angry because he lost his family to a US bombing strike. Aside from the fact that people will say anything under torture, how does this link to Iraq? A lone vigilante doesn't have any link to the government of Iraq.
If the Iraq fiasco was about eliminating threats to America, there were many more that had priority. North Korea's nuclear program was well-established as a real thing, and they test-fired an empty missile that landed in Alaska. If it was for humanitarian reasons, other places like Darfur took precedence. If it was for solving regional conflict that was aggravating the area, then Israel-Palestine would take precedence.
Also, the anger is over the US administration claiming that Iraq as an "imminent threat" that "there is a link between Iraq and what happened on 9/11" and that Iraq was seeking Uranium from Africa. All of these proved completely false. The American people were promised that it wouldn't take more troops to keep the peace than to win the war, and that Iraq would finance itself, and that Americans would be greeted as liberators.
That's not what is says. Show me the actual verses. You're just spouting what the detractors say.
[5:82] "...And you will find that the closest people in friendship to the believers are those who say, "We are Christian."
Nothing about subjugating other nations. And I don't think I've ever heard any Muslim call it tribute, anyone who lives in an actual Islamic state has to pay taxes, Muslims pay their charity tax (zakat) and non-Muslims have to pay similar for citizenship.
You didn't hear any protests because it simply wasn't covered in American news. International news did pick up on these events. How about the people in Arab countries who donated blood after 9/11 because Qaradawi suggested it? What about the flower bouquets people sent in sympathy to the American embassy in Kuwait, so many that they ringed the fence?
Well, you have a point that stocking so many DVDs causes problems, especially since many aren't that popular. Having an online store is a great idea, because it won't distract from the popular hits on sale.
However, music stores at malls and such have a very large selection of music, including obscure, and they don't seem to have a problem.
There is no video iPod. There is only iPod, with a larger screen and longer battery life. So even if nobody wants videos, people will still buy iPods for the audio. Seems like a hard idea for Apple to lose.
The iTunes Music store only sells AAC files, but it's grabbed the vast majority of the market (like 80% of sales). I suspect the Divx problem will be the same. I'll recode a few of my files to fit the iPod.
"Alas, for Kansas's educational reputation, the damage may be done. "We've heard anecdotally that our students are getting much more scrutiny at places like medical schools. I get calls from teachers in other states who say things like 'You rubes!'" Williamson says. "But this is happening across the country. It's not just Kansas anymore."
First, a history lesson. In 1999 a group of religious fundamentalists won election to the Kansas State Board of Education and tried to introduce creationism into the state's classrooms. They wanted to delete references to radiocarbon dating, continental drift and the fossil record from the education standards. In 2001 more-temperate forces prevailed in elections, but the anti-evolutionists garnered a 6-4 majority again last November.
Radiocarbon dating and fossils, I suppose they thought it contradicted the bible. Continental Drift? Who would dispute that?
Funny, in America all we saw were ads in situations where people would NEVER use it, like giving wedding vows to the priest while standing next to him.
Push-to-Talk? What countries have telecoms that offer that? The US is far behind in cellular technology, but this feature has existed on at least 2 US carriers (Nextel/Sprint and Verizon wireless) for some time now.
But what part of the HIPAA regulations? The PHI I've seen all has "internal staff use only" stamped on it, an iPod with a screen lock shouldn't be much different.
Radiologists print X-Rays out and store them in unlocked, unencrypted manila folders. They even put them in their cars and take them home to write their reports. HIPAA laws aren't violated (as long as they don't show them to other people), so what's the worry?
Please tell me where you saw a single person claim that there are non-Muslim suicide bombers in the middle east. You're just strawmanning the issue here.
Slashdot Mirror
in 1830 the French invaded Algeria and incorporated it into France. Algeria was "French soil." They reduced the Algerian population (which they brutalized and exploited) to marginal people under the colonial thumb. The French government of Algeria allowed hundreds of thousands to perish of famine in the 1870s. Go watch "The Battle of Algiers" for more. Algerians hate the French, so no wonder someone over there named it enemy number 1.
The rioting didn't start on account of that, it started on account of two youths getting killed and the police blamed, and a government official making incendiary remarks.
"And, if the rioting has nothing to do with Islam, then why are local Muslim leaders offering to talk to the rioters and stop the violence?" The FLU has nothing to do with Islam, but that hasn't stopped my mosque leaders from issuing a bulletin asking the community to get immunized. The Muslim leaders are helping to manage the community.
Well, back up your claim then! Does Apple have some sort of ActiveX installed? Unusually open default permissions? Open ports? Simple buffer overflows that make it worse than Windows or Linux? i said inherently MORE secure. I didn't say unbreachable. What makes the Mac less secure than Windows' or Red Hat's default installation?
They did, and called it Windows Media Player. It sucks.
It's not 3% of the market, it's at least 5% of new computer sales, and something like 24% of the computer installed base (likely higher now, that was before the iMac became a bestseller).
So you're saying something as uncommon as lack of bounds checking is WORSE than the Blaster and Slammer worms? When has a Mac infected other Macs on the network? When has a Mac become a zombie machine? When have Macs been used to launch a DDOS attack?
Safari warns you if what you are downloading is a program. If you download a widget, it will ask you if you want to install, then preview it in a box, and then offer you the options "keep" and "delete." Safari will only open "safe" files, ie images, movies and PDFs, if the option is enabled in Safari's preferences (it is by default).
If you download a malicious app, the OS will warn you if it tries to access the Keychain (passwords). even if it was malware, a properly configured Mac will have permissions set so the app could only wipe out the Home folder, and maybe Applications. All of these make the Mac safe. How does windows compare?
Oh come on, Apple closes all its ports by default, and even has the standard *nix firewall built in. There hasn't been a root-kit spotted in the wild yet, despite selling millions of Macs a year. The number of Mac virsues in the last 8 years I can count on one hand.
Macs are inherently more secure. Please show me where the Mac has auto-executing macros in Mail, or User permissions that allow an application to erase the OS.
Your 'click anything' meme is outdated. This isn't MacOS 9 anymore, the system folders are under a different set of Unix permissions than your home folder. A virus or malware would only wipe out the home and maybe Applications folder on a properly configured system.
One reason? Ok, how about a system that runs MS Office natively as well as *nix apps? A POSIX-compliant system that runs games like Doom 3 and the Star Wars games? A system where I can run Simcity 4, or RollerCoaster Tycoon, Skype, and X11 all natively? You get the best of Linux (the tools) as well as the best of the Windows (the popular apps).
iLife would be my second reason for you to switch, there's nothing comparable on Windows or Linux.
Those are my reasons that would likely apply to you. I personally like the Quicktime, the Aqua UI, and the Cocoa environment that allows my apps to interoperate.
portable mp3 players had been around for years, and none of them had become a runaway bestseller like the iPod.
I can see what you mean, the portable TVs had awful reception, but a portable DVD player was quite useful on long trips.
Current Macs are hardly more expensive than PCs. Show me a good laptop for $1000 USD comparable to an iBook, or a pre-assembled PC with monitor and keyboard for less than the price of an eMac. Maybe it's $200 cheaper tops, certainly not the 2-10X figure you cite.
the fact remains that Iraq was not stupid enough to actually attack us. And we weren't smart enough not to do anything about them, destabilizing the region by doing it unilaterally was a risk. We know that there was very weak and circumstantial evidence connecting terrorist groups to Iraq, we know that Osama Bin Laden called Saddam Hussein an "infidel" because Saddam Hussein was secular and executed people who went to the mosque too often, and we ignored the evidence against WMDs.
Why would Iraqi intelligence support an assassination attempt, when everyone knows Iraq would be blamed (right after Gulf War) and would lead to a sequel of the Gulf War (which no Iraqi wanted after losing so bad). It's just an accusation, and I don't take it as credible, and certainly not cause enough for a full-scale invasion and war in which 20,000+ (by US military count, which is the minimum) civillians died.
If that's the case, why didn't we invade Cuba or nuke Russia for being somehow linked to the Kennedy assassination?
North Korea attempted to expand its borders, but why was it considered less of a threat than Iraq? North Korea actually has nukes to threaten with.
The attempted assassination of a US president? You mean the alleged plot that an Iraqi man confessed under torture by Kuwaitis? The man was allegedly angry because he lost his family to a US bombing strike. Aside from the fact that people will say anything under torture, how does this link to Iraq? A lone vigilante doesn't have any link to the government of Iraq.
If the Iraq fiasco was about eliminating threats to America, there were many more that had priority. North Korea's nuclear program was well-established as a real thing, and they test-fired an empty missile that landed in Alaska. If it was for humanitarian reasons, other places like Darfur took precedence. If it was for solving regional conflict that was aggravating the area, then Israel-Palestine would take precedence.
Also, the anger is over the US administration claiming that Iraq as an "imminent threat" that "there is a link between Iraq and what happened on 9/11" and that Iraq was seeking Uranium from Africa. All of these proved completely false. The American people were promised that it wouldn't take more troops to keep the peace than to win the war, and that Iraq would finance itself, and that Americans would be greeted as liberators.
That's not what is says. Show me the actual verses. You're just spouting what the detractors say.
[5:82] "...And you will find that the closest people in friendship to the believers are those who say, "We are Christian."
Nothing about subjugating other nations. And I don't think I've ever heard any Muslim call it tribute, anyone who lives in an actual Islamic state has to pay taxes, Muslims pay their charity tax (zakat) and non-Muslims have to pay similar for citizenship.
Council of American-Islamic Relations condemns 9/11 in national full-page newspaper ad the next day.
Ayatollah Muhammad Husain Fadlallah of Lebanon condemns Osama Bin Laden.
Grand Imam of Al-Azhar seminary, Shaikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, condemns Osamah Bin Laden (Plus official text)
Prominent Pakistani Cleric Tahir ul Qadri condemns Bin Laden.
Television preacher Yusuf Al-Qaradawi condemns Al Qaeda
Spanish Muslim Clerical authorities Issue Fatwa against Osamah Bin Laden. There are on the order of 250,000 Muslims in Spain.
High Mufti of Russian Muslims calls for Extradition of Bin Laden. Russian Muslims are 15% of the population there, so this is not a pro forma thing.
List of Muslim condemnations of Terrorist attacks. Also Scholars of Islam and the tragedy of 9/11 attacks
Expressions of grief and sympathy in the Arab world after 9/11. (Includes candlelight vigils in Tehran, anti-terrorism protests in Bangladesh)
Iraqi blogger Riverbend recalls the sympathy she felt on 9/11
You didn't hear any protests because it simply wasn't covered in American news. International news did pick up on these events. How about the people in Arab countries who donated blood after 9/11 because Qaradawi suggested it? What about the flower bouquets people sent in sympathy to the American embassy in Kuwait, so many that they ringed the fence?
Well, you have a point that stocking so many DVDs causes problems, especially since many aren't that popular. Having an online store is a great idea, because it won't distract from the popular hits on sale.
However, music stores at malls and such have a very large selection of music, including obscure, and they don't seem to have a problem.
There is no video iPod. There is only iPod, with a larger screen and longer battery life. So even if nobody wants videos, people will still buy iPods for the audio. Seems like a hard idea for Apple to lose.
The iTunes Music store only sells AAC files, but it's grabbed the vast majority of the market (like 80% of sales). I suspect the Divx problem will be the same. I'll recode a few of my files to fit the iPod.
Radiocarbon dating and fossils, I suppose they thought it contradicted the bible. Continental Drift? Who would dispute that?
Funny, in America all we saw were ads in situations where people would NEVER use it, like giving wedding vows to the priest while standing next to him.
Push-to-Talk? What countries have telecoms that offer that? The US is far behind in cellular technology, but this feature has existed on at least 2 US carriers (Nextel/Sprint and Verizon wireless) for some time now.
But what part of the HIPAA regulations? The PHI I've seen all has "internal staff use only" stamped on it, an iPod with a screen lock shouldn't be much different.
Radiologists print X-Rays out and store them in unlocked, unencrypted manila folders. They even put them in their cars and take them home to write their reports. HIPAA laws aren't violated (as long as they don't show them to other people), so what's the worry?
Please tell me where you saw a single person claim that there are non-Muslim suicide bombers in the middle east. You're just strawmanning the issue here.