Google said that yes, they're encrypting it and claim that iChat has a bug and erroneously displays the insecure warning. " your password is always secure with Google Talk."
What were their false statements? Did they say the iPod battery never needed replacing (like the Palm V)? Did they say it was easy to open?
Yeah, they didn't mention it, but that's not the same as a false statement. Apple's older archived iPod page doesn't say anything misleading, only that it's a Lithium Polymer battery that lasts 10 hours of continuous playtime.
No, I actually understood the gnostic Christian themes in the movie, and the Neo-Messiah connections, and the "life is a simulacrum" theory they laid out. What I didn't like was weak and pretentious way the film ended, the way the characters wound up in the end, and the not-so-subtle crucifixion theme in the third movie. In short, the ending wasn't happy enough for me. I could be more specific, but I don't want a spoiler.
You're incorrect, "Music *about* the Quran" is definitely not banned. Music concerning Islam, Allah (swt), and the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is plentiful, and they go by the categories of Nasheeds, Naats, and Nazims (I forget which is which). It's considered a sin to put the Quran's verses to the tune of Music, but that didn't stop the Sufi rock band Junoon in Pakistan from doing it on TV.
I don't know why you think Iran shuns technology, Iran has a lot of colleges and technical schools, engineers, and high internet penetration. Persian blogs are more populous than a lot of Western countries. They also have a renowned film community, Persian films win international film festival awards. Don't confuse Islam with Christianity, Islam never had a serious problem with science the way Christianity did.
Female circumcision is still practiced today IN AFRICA, by not only a small amount of Muslims but Christians and Animists as well. It's not a religious thing, it's an African tradition and the Islamic scholars have condemned the practice for ages.
Husbands are allowed to kill their wives only on suspicion of cheating? That doesn't make sense, Islamic law requires 4 witnesses before an adulterer gets the death penalty. I don't believe what you said, please show me proof.
You can't blame Islam when different religions live together.
Terrorism and fanaticism is not specific to Islam. All religions produce violent adherents. For example, Buddhist monks of Mandalay committed rioting, arson, and killing innocent people over a stone thrown into a Buddhist monastery, as happened in Burma in October of 2002. Poor minority Muslims were beaten up and killed because of alleged disrespect to the sacred monastery, someone threw a stone and the monks mistakenly blamed the Muslims. Wait, what about the "Bloodthirsty Jewish terrorist" (Ariel Sharon's words, not mine) who opened fire on a bunch of innocent Arabs on a bus just last week?
Your "qualitative analysis" is all screwed up. 1.5 Billion Muslims in the world today, and you're blaming the interpretation of Islam for a handful of incidents. Do you blame the entire Catholic church of about the same number of followers because of a bunch of priests? Do you avoid airplanes because out of the thousands flying in the sky this very second, you only hear about plane crashes? Go and read about "Availability Heuristic," because that's the mistake you're making.
Kashmir is a controversial issue, and you can fault India just as much as Pakistan or even more. What is India doing to the population, making them suffer?
When were Bengalis evicted or their land taken? They asked for independence because of taxation issues and a desire for greater control in government.
Saudi Arabia hasn't evicted anyone nor stole their land. Notice how there are still churches and even synagogues existing in Saudi Arabia. Who are you talking about?
Afghanistan? Who was evicted and killed? All I can think of was how Afghanis were the victims of Soviet invasion.
The Pakistan government didn't forcibly evict anyone or kill them and take their land during partition. I didn't study India, but I imagine they didn't either. How about now? Are you going to blame Kashmir on Pakistan? Kashmir has a majority Muslim population, the Pakistani army is not inside it, only the Indian one is. (If you're going to say that the Pakistani army is secretly in Kashmir, the Indian government once claimed that Osama Bin Laden is hiding in Kashmir, so it's hard to take that seriously).
Look, even if it happened once, you're blowing it tremendously out of proportion. Islam wasn't spread by the sword. Indonesia is the world's largest Muslim country, but Muslim armies never reached that far, the people converted on their own. India was under Muslim rule for centuries, but the country is now 85% Hindu, and historians agree the Muslim rulers never tried to forcibly mass convert. (Forcible conversion is a sin in Islam) There was never a Spanish Inquisition in the Muslim world.
"This is exactly how most of the muslim countries were founded from 700 AD to 1700 AD."
Oh really, please name one. (I get the feeling you're going to say Pakistan. Even Pakistan didn't sell people's homes or shoot them. Hindus and Sikhs still live there, and if you're going to blame the turmoil of emigration from partition on them, the people emigrating India also had the same sort of struggle. The violence in Gujarat is enough to say that the Hindus are just as bad or worse when it comes to atrocities blamed on the South Asian Muslims) Any countries that had Muslim armies forcibly evict or kill people and take their land?
You're dropping names that are incorrect and in the minority view. There is no Dar-ul-Islam (Lands of Islam) at the moment, because there is no genuine Islamic government (ie. Pakistan is a dictatorship, Sudan is corrupt, many Sunnis don't believe Iran to be a correct Islamic State). If there is no Dar-ul-Islam, then there is no dar-ul-harb. (Land of war. BTW, you misspelled harb)
For those who aren't familiar, a lot of critics have taken an old medieval scholarly opinion that divided the world into Muslim rule and non-Muslim rule. It no longer applies today, because Muslim rule is no longer (and if you're going to challenge me on that, please tell me which country has both a caliph and sharia)
I don't believe you can find a Muslim who would say "true Muslims are supposed to conquer land" in order to add to the land of Islam. All of the religious groups are focusing on other things, like the restoration of the caliphate or spiritual rejuvenation of the Ummah. Your sources are all wrong, Muslims don't follow what you're saying, no matter what Anti-Muslim critics claim.
The "major" interpretation eh? What makes you the expert? Do you read CAIR's survey's of Muslims in America? Have you studied the concepts of fiqh and ijtehad and can you tell me in detail how the Muslims have "changed" since then? The Quran is unchanged since then. How are Muslims today somehow less Cosmopolitan than in 7th century AD? If anything, I'd say they are more cosmopolitan now than before.
I think you're succumbing to the availability heuristic concerning Islam, you only hear about the bad Muslims, not the good ones. The "major interpretation" of Islam today is against terrorism, so what are you talking about?
I'd be more worried about the Mercury vapor that's released when you break a fluorescent light. Mercury can cause brain damage, it's what made the Mad Hatter mad.
That's just a stereotype, it isn't true. All the Muslim governments condemned the London attack. Newspapers like the Financial Times mentioned it but then discussed a few negative individual responses in chat rooms, as though the Egyptian foreign minister was only as important as some guy in an internet cafe. You seem to dismiss any condemnations of terror unless they are unconditional. Fine, Al-Muhajabah has an excellent roundup. Did the London bombers get a martyrs funeral? I don't think so.
MEMRI is selective and biased against the Arab press, and that it highlights pieces that cast Arabs, especially committed Muslims, in a negative light.
The organization cleverly cherry-picks the vast Arabic press, which serves 300 million people, for the most extreme and objectionable articles and editorials. It carefully does not translate the moderate articles. Juan Cole looked at newspapers that ran both tolerant and extremist opinion pieces on the same day, and checked MEMRI, to find that only the extremist one showed up. It would sort of be as though al-Jazeera published translations of Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Jerry Falwell on Islam and the Middle East, but never published opinion piences on the subject by William Beeman or Dick Bulliet.
People who read MEMRI are being given an unbalanced view of the region as a result. In some instances the translations are not very good, but the main objection is the selectiveness of the material. MEMRI is one of a number of public relations campaigns essentially on behalf of the far rightwing Likud Party in Israel that tries to shape American perceptions of Muslims and the Middle East in a negative direction.
It would be just as easy to set up a translation service that zeroed in on racist and "Greater Israel" statements in the Hebrew Israeli press and made the articles available in English, while ignoring more liberal newspapers like Haaretz. If most educated Americans heard the raving against "ha-aravim" (the Arabs) that goes on among West Bank settlers, they'd be completely taken aback by the bigotted terms of reference. Much of such Likudnik discourse is not different in kind from what one hears from the Ku Klux Klan about minorities in this country.
If you talk to someone who ACTUALLY READS Arab Press (like Dar Al-Hayat or As-Sharq Al-Awsat, you're not going to find extremist imams in the mainstream, contrary to what MEMRI is tricking you into believing. (BTW, no imam is going to say "Allah needs warriors." Allah needs nobody.)
"Religion is as its followers do: nonviolent Muslims need to wake up, Islam's soul is being murdered."
Of course nonviolent Muslims need to wake up, and they already did. They've been in a living nightmare for the past 3 years. All this profiling, questioning, hate crimes, attacks on their religion, etc. Muslims are WIDE awake and working on it. CAIR's membership is growing. Record numbers of Muslims voted in the last US election. Petition drives are popular, CAIR's "Not in the Name of Islam" petition now has 689,706 signatures since I last checked the front page. Look at the American Muslims' fatwa against terrorism. These worldwide condemnations stretch back to 9/11 and before. Terrorism is the most evil thing one can do to tarnish the image and honor of Islam, and Muslims don't stand for it. Indonesia had a demonstration against terrorism, and Palestinians had a massive demonstration Against suicide bombings. Iran had a candlelight vigil after 9/11, as did mosques in America.
Muslims are helping, they call the police on other Muslims. How do you think the "Lackawana Six" were apprehended? A Muslim neighbor called the police and said they were at a training camp. If you think Muslims aren't doing anything, you're mistaken, but I don't blame you. I didn't see CNN polling Muslims or MSNBC knocking on people's doors and asking their opinion of Osama Bin Laden. Muslims don't support Al Qaeda. Do you think Christians are quiet when abortion clinics are bombed or IRA blows something up? Everyone knows the religious leaders are against this stuff, I guess they won't print it as news.
It's not cause and effect that's the hard part. Even babies with a light switch understand that. The issue is that people don't double-click at the right speed, or click and accidentally drag, or click and accidentally highlight, or accidentally click the wrong mouse button, and can't figure out how to dismiss the contextual menu without either making it reappear elsewhere, or accidentally clicking at something underneath the cursor. Go watch an unexperienced person try to use a PC, it's painful to watch.
You haven't spent time teaching computer classes at an Apple Store or local library, have you?
Double-clicking isn't easy for lots of people to learn. If you try teaching, you'll be pulling your hair out by the end of the day, because people either double-click too slow, so lightly, or accidentally drag when they click.
I never said click and hold, or control-click was more intuitive. The point is that MacOS users didn't need to do those actions in the first place for almost all the functions. They're all found in menus or keyboard commands.
Yeah, they're freaking geniuses if you can tell me that they understood a mouse intuitively and without the need for any PC training sessions by you or anyone, including that "Video Professor" who sells his CDs on late-night TV. Mac users generally don't need mouse lessons.
Nobody said that a single-button UI is the best and only way to use it. Plenty of Mac users I know have multiple-button mice. However, computer newbies frequently get confused over right and left mouse buttons. I've seen many older family members give up in frustration as they keep calling up menus that they cant shake away with their mouse.
The one-button option is good, you can use the computer with it and not be deprived of any features. Windows requires 2 buttons, or else you can't access certain portions of the OS. OS X supports multiple buttons, but doesn't require them, making it easy for grandmothers and powerful for Maya users.
Slashdot Mirror
You're thinking Steve Ballmer, not Steve Jobs
Don't forget The Manhole!
How could you run the keys over with the car, if that is the key needed to start the car?
My cell phone doesn't provide replacement batteries, either. I don't get what the deal is, are people mad their warranty didn't cover it?
Yeah, they didn't mention it, but that's not the same as a false statement. Apple's older archived iPod page doesn't say anything misleading, only that it's a Lithium Polymer battery that lasts 10 hours of continuous playtime.
No, I actually understood the gnostic Christian themes in the movie, and the Neo-Messiah connections, and the "life is a simulacrum" theory they laid out. What I didn't like was weak and pretentious way the film ended, the way the characters wound up in the end, and the not-so-subtle crucifixion theme in the third movie. In short, the ending wasn't happy enough for me. I could be more specific, but I don't want a spoiler.
It's not ripping it off if PARC gives it to you, like they allowed Apple engineers to come in and look, multiple times.
I'm sure Apple will release an updated Final Cut by next year, when they sell an x86 Mactel.
Generic iBook AC adaptors are cheaper, I once paid only $50.
I don't know why you think Iran shuns technology, Iran has a lot of colleges and technical schools, engineers, and high internet penetration. Persian blogs are more populous than a lot of Western countries. They also have a renowned film community, Persian films win international film festival awards. Don't confuse Islam with Christianity, Islam never had a serious problem with science the way Christianity did.
Female circumcision is still practiced today IN AFRICA, by not only a small amount of Muslims but Christians and Animists as well. It's not a religious thing, it's an African tradition and the Islamic scholars have condemned the practice for ages.
Husbands are allowed to kill their wives only on suspicion of cheating? That doesn't make sense, Islamic law requires 4 witnesses before an adulterer gets the death penalty. I don't believe what you said, please show me proof.
You can't blame Islam when different religions live together. Terrorism and fanaticism is not specific to Islam. All religions produce violent adherents. For example, Buddhist monks of Mandalay committed rioting, arson, and killing innocent people over a stone thrown into a Buddhist monastery, as happened in Burma in October of 2002. Poor minority Muslims were beaten up and killed because of alleged disrespect to the sacred monastery, someone threw a stone and the monks mistakenly blamed the Muslims. Wait, what about the "Bloodthirsty Jewish terrorist" (Ariel Sharon's words, not mine) who opened fire on a bunch of innocent Arabs on a bus just last week?
Your "qualitative analysis" is all screwed up. 1.5 Billion Muslims in the world today, and you're blaming the interpretation of Islam for a handful of incidents. Do you blame the entire Catholic church of about the same number of followers because of a bunch of priests? Do you avoid airplanes because out of the thousands flying in the sky this very second, you only hear about plane crashes? Go and read about "Availability Heuristic," because that's the mistake you're making.
Kashmir is a controversial issue, and you can fault India just as much as Pakistan or even more. What is India doing to the population, making them suffer?
When were Bengalis evicted or their land taken? They asked for independence because of taxation issues and a desire for greater control in government.
Saudi Arabia hasn't evicted anyone nor stole their land. Notice how there are still churches and even synagogues existing in Saudi Arabia. Who are you talking about?
Afghanistan? Who was evicted and killed? All I can think of was how Afghanis were the victims of Soviet invasion.
The Pakistan government didn't forcibly evict anyone or kill them and take their land during partition. I didn't study India, but I imagine they didn't either. How about now? Are you going to blame Kashmir on Pakistan? Kashmir has a majority Muslim population, the Pakistani army is not inside it, only the Indian one is. (If you're going to say that the Pakistani army is secretly in Kashmir, the Indian government once claimed that Osama Bin Laden is hiding in Kashmir, so it's hard to take that seriously).
Look, even if it happened once, you're blowing it tremendously out of proportion. Islam wasn't spread by the sword. Indonesia is the world's largest Muslim country, but Muslim armies never reached that far, the people converted on their own. India was under Muslim rule for centuries, but the country is now 85% Hindu, and historians agree the Muslim rulers never tried to forcibly mass convert. (Forcible conversion is a sin in Islam) There was never a Spanish Inquisition in the Muslim world.
"This is exactly how most of the muslim countries were founded from 700 AD to 1700 AD."
Oh really, please name one. (I get the feeling you're going to say Pakistan. Even Pakistan didn't sell people's homes or shoot them. Hindus and Sikhs still live there, and if you're going to blame the turmoil of emigration from partition on them, the people emigrating India also had the same sort of struggle. The violence in Gujarat is enough to say that the Hindus are just as bad or worse when it comes to atrocities blamed on the South Asian Muslims) Any countries that had Muslim armies forcibly evict or kill people and take their land?
You're dropping names that are incorrect and in the minority view. There is no Dar-ul-Islam (Lands of Islam) at the moment, because there is no genuine Islamic government (ie. Pakistan is a dictatorship, Sudan is corrupt, many Sunnis don't believe Iran to be a correct Islamic State). If there is no Dar-ul-Islam, then there is no dar-ul-harb. (Land of war. BTW, you misspelled harb)
For those who aren't familiar, a lot of critics have taken an old medieval scholarly opinion that divided the world into Muslim rule and non-Muslim rule. It no longer applies today, because Muslim rule is no longer (and if you're going to challenge me on that, please tell me which country has both a caliph and sharia)
I don't believe you can find a Muslim who would say "true Muslims are supposed to conquer land" in order to add to the land of Islam. All of the religious groups are focusing on other things, like the restoration of the caliphate or spiritual rejuvenation of the Ummah. Your sources are all wrong, Muslims don't follow what you're saying, no matter what Anti-Muslim critics claim.
The "major" interpretation eh? What makes you the expert? Do you read CAIR's survey's of Muslims in America? Have you studied the concepts of fiqh and ijtehad and can you tell me in detail how the Muslims have "changed" since then? The Quran is unchanged since then. How are Muslims today somehow less Cosmopolitan than in 7th century AD? If anything, I'd say they are more cosmopolitan now than before.
I think you're succumbing to the availability heuristic concerning Islam, you only hear about the bad Muslims, not the good ones. The "major interpretation" of Islam today is against terrorism, so what are you talking about?
I'd be more worried about the Mercury vapor that's released when you break a fluorescent light. Mercury can cause brain damage, it's what made the Mad Hatter mad.
excellent reply, thanks.
MEMRI is selective and biased against the Arab press, and that it highlights pieces that cast Arabs, especially committed Muslims, in a negative light.
The organization cleverly cherry-picks the vast Arabic press, which serves 300 million people, for the most extreme and objectionable articles and editorials. It carefully does not translate the moderate articles. Juan Cole looked at newspapers that ran both tolerant and extremist opinion pieces on the same day, and checked MEMRI, to find that only the extremist one showed up. It would sort of be as though al-Jazeera published translations of Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Jerry Falwell on Islam and the Middle East, but never published opinion piences on the subject by William Beeman or Dick Bulliet.
People who read MEMRI are being given an unbalanced view of the region as a result. In some instances the translations are not very good, but the main objection is the selectiveness of the material. MEMRI is one of a number of public relations campaigns essentially on behalf of the far rightwing Likud Party in Israel that tries to shape American perceptions of Muslims and the Middle East in a negative direction.
It would be just as easy to set up a translation service that zeroed in on racist and "Greater Israel" statements in the Hebrew Israeli press and made the articles available in English, while ignoring more liberal newspapers like Haaretz. If most educated Americans heard the raving against "ha-aravim" (the Arabs) that goes on among West Bank settlers, they'd be completely taken aback by the bigotted terms of reference. Much of such Likudnik discourse is not different in kind from what one hears from the Ku Klux Klan about minorities in this country.
If you talk to someone who ACTUALLY READS Arab Press (like Dar Al-Hayat or As-Sharq Al-Awsat, you're not going to find extremist imams in the mainstream, contrary to what MEMRI is tricking you into believing. (BTW, no imam is going to say "Allah needs warriors." Allah needs nobody.)
Ok, but why speak of canceling flights now? Because a few bits of fabric are poking out? There's been an error on every flight so far.
Of course nonviolent Muslims need to wake up, and they already did. They've been in a living nightmare for the past 3 years. All this profiling, questioning, hate crimes, attacks on their religion, etc. Muslims are WIDE awake and working on it. CAIR's membership is growing. Record numbers of Muslims voted in the last US election. Petition drives are popular, CAIR's "Not in the Name of Islam" petition now has 689,706 signatures since I last checked the front page. Look at the American Muslims' fatwa against terrorism. These worldwide condemnations stretch back to 9/11 and before. Terrorism is the most evil thing one can do to tarnish the image and honor of Islam, and Muslims don't stand for it. Indonesia had a demonstration against terrorism, and Palestinians had a massive demonstration Against suicide bombings. Iran had a candlelight vigil after 9/11, as did mosques in America.
Muslims are helping, they call the police on other Muslims. How do you think the "Lackawana Six" were apprehended? A Muslim neighbor called the police and said they were at a training camp. If you think Muslims aren't doing anything, you're mistaken, but I don't blame you. I didn't see CNN polling Muslims or MSNBC knocking on people's doors and asking their opinion of Osama Bin Laden. Muslims don't support Al Qaeda. Do you think Christians are quiet when abortion clinics are bombed or IRA blows something up? Everyone knows the religious leaders are against this stuff, I guess they won't print it as news.
It's not cause and effect that's the hard part. Even babies with a light switch understand that. The issue is that people don't double-click at the right speed, or click and accidentally drag, or click and accidentally highlight, or accidentally click the wrong mouse button, and can't figure out how to dismiss the contextual menu without either making it reappear elsewhere, or accidentally clicking at something underneath the cursor. Go watch an unexperienced person try to use a PC, it's painful to watch.
You haven't spent time teaching computer classes at an Apple Store or local library, have you?
Double-clicking isn't easy for lots of people to learn. If you try teaching, you'll be pulling your hair out by the end of the day, because people either double-click too slow, so lightly, or accidentally drag when they click.
I never said click and hold, or control-click was more intuitive. The point is that MacOS users didn't need to do those actions in the first place for almost all the functions. They're all found in menus or keyboard commands.
Yeah, they're freaking geniuses if you can tell me that they understood a mouse intuitively and without the need for any PC training sessions by you or anyone, including that "Video Professor" who sells his CDs on late-night TV. Mac users generally don't need mouse lessons.
Nobody said that a single-button UI is the best and only way to use it. Plenty of Mac users I know have multiple-button mice. However, computer newbies frequently get confused over right and left mouse buttons. I've seen many older family members give up in frustration as they keep calling up menus that they cant shake away with their mouse.
The one-button option is good, you can use the computer with it and not be deprived of any features. Windows requires 2 buttons, or else you can't access certain portions of the OS. OS X supports multiple buttons, but doesn't require them, making it easy for grandmothers and powerful for Maya users.