Aah now here is where I can make the distinction that very few are able to get. The distinction between what capitalism "really is" and a market driven economy. You see, they are not the same thing.
Modern capitalism is "if you have money, do whatever you can to make more". This, over time, creates a ruling class of business people who are essentially the government.
A market economy is an economy where market forces dictate resource allocation and the government prevents abuses of financial power to circumvent market forces.
But like I said, this is a fine distinction, and I am yet to meet a self-professed capitalism believer able to see the difference.
You see, while I applaud the fact that you're well traveled, I can't for the life of me see how you say things like this: "Capitalism breeds democracy." Where in the US do you see democracy? Where in the UK? Where in Australia? I'm sorry, capitalism breeds nothing but rule by the rich, and the only people who assert otherwise are the rich or their most devoted pawns.
The Iraq war is a great example. The "coalition of the willing" are supposedly democratic countries. The Iraq war protests were the largest protests in history, public opinion against it before the war was as expressive as it can get short of civil war. In Australia, with regards to the Telstra sale, our Prime Minister actually said "I am aware that the public has reservations about the sale [of Telstra], but they have elected me and I will do what I think is in the best interest of the country". Democracy my arse. In a system where there are only two parties likely to win, and both have virtually indistinguishable agendas, I challenge you to say say that that is a _really_ democracy and keep a straight face.
I have lived outside my country, I am from South Africa originally and I have lived in Saudi Arabia (my parents are doctors they did work for a military hospital there for one year back in 1994) and now live in Australia. I love traveling, I have visited many countries, and when I am abroad I don't just do the tourist thing, I try to learn a bit of the local language and get to know the locals as more than just shopkeepers.
I really think your social views will be disregarded by anyone but the most cynical of money worshipers when you say things like "Pinochet was good for the country". I, and no other human being on Earth, would say that any economic gain is worth having leaders like Pinochet. I know many Chileans, and not one says anything nice about that guy. In fact, I know several who lost family members to either public shootings or the disappearances. Furthermore, I don't believe Chile was a basket case before Pinochet anyway, you'd have to be a pretty aggressive revisionist historian to argue that Allende was bad for the country either socially or economically.
I am not some left wing hippie, I believe in market forces. But having a background in economics I understand that fetters need to be placed on the market to prevent harm coming out of it. You don't have to be a left wing hippie to not believe in Fundamentalist Marketism.
I'm sorry, but nobody here believes you. Mainly because, unless you are mistaking "product activation" with "entering a serial number", what you have described is just not possible.
Windows XP (and indeed any remotely recent versions of MS software) will just not allow you to reactivate a product if there is either a different motherboard detected. I have been told by Microsoft staff that especially with Windows Small Business Server (*shudder*), not even a CPU upgrade is allowed by the license. When a server died, the MS rep told me, in these words more or less exactly, that "That license lived and died with that machine." and flatly refused to entertain any arguments, including the one that went something like "but the server is 2 weeks old!".
Windows XP will behave in a similar manner. Even if you *do* manage to get it authorized, lets say the auth servers like you, know that by installing it on different hardware is a breach of the EULA, and at that stage you may as well just use a cracked copy anyway.
and from my experiences around the world the more capitalistic and democratic the society, the better the general welfare of the populace
I find it interesting that you consider capitalism and democracy to be even remotely linked. Have you traveled much? I suggest going to Chile, Thailand, Venezuela or Bhutan for your next holiday to see examples of very non-capitalist places where the people are on the whole quite happy with life. Relative to GDP per capita, the US, being the world's shining example of capitalism at work, has the highest rate of homelessness and citizens living in poverty in the world (~12% of US citizens live in poverty, yet it is currently the wealthiest nation on Earth in absolute terms). While you may believe that capitalism = happy people, all the evidence I am able to see indicates otherwise.
Great. Another third grader enters the discussion.
Now THAT, my friend, is how you do an ad hominem attack.
No, that's a rant with no content and lots of empty vitriol. My previous post wasn't any kind of attack, it would best be described as a "scathing response". I assume you think that my "particular brand of kool-aid" is a reference to my small minded arguments and single track arguments, and that by calling me a "small minded prick" you are accusing me of not being able to see some kind of bigger picture.
I spend a fair amount of money and effort to be a responsible conservationist
Please explain to me your view on the subject. Properly rebut the points I have raised and the many references I used to support them. What do you do that makes you, in your own mind, able to claim the title of "responsible conservationist".
Just because I'm ignorant of this particular subject (...) doesn't make me stupid, or wrong.
Actually, in this case I think it does. This stuff isn't complex. The carbon cycle isn't brain surgery, petroleum use and concepts like "net release" are fairly simple and absolute climatic change versus rate of climatic change is a fairly unsophisticated distinction. If you are unable to grasp even the basics of this subject, then perhaps you should STFU, DIAF or both. Perhaps, if you were to do the latter, the CO2 release would be worth it.
Personally, I think you are not only not versed in this subject, but you're also ignorant of economics. Claiming that the one side is being sensationalist while having an equally uninformed view of the other is pretty stupid. Did you perhaps think that the other side, who have billions to lose, may perhaps be spreading sensationalism to protect their vast personal vested interests? Oh no, that can't be the case, it's only hippies who spread FUD. Corporations neverdo that. Perhaps you'd be little less protective of big money if you realized that the economic impact of "doing something" won't be hundreds of thousands of lost jobs. Even if it were, do you really think that multi-millionaire CEOs care about you and your friends' jobs? No, they care about their profit margins. News flash: You're more of a mindless sensationalist than the left wing hippies you so loudly criticize, there is no evidence whatsoever that the cost of being environmentally friendly is lost profits. In fact here is an example showing just the opposite, and here's an article written in 1998 so you can see the progress that has been made.
There's an example of "doing something" that's not only good for the environment, but economically great too. Oh, and it's a 13 year old project. Now, what was that about all this environmental stuff being new, misunderstood and economically dubious?
OK so because we don't understand the precise nature of the harm we *may* be causing to the Earth we should not bother doing anything until we actually know for certain? That my friend is like the man standing on the top deck of a sinking ship and saying to the people panicking around him "I won't accept that we are in any danger until I see water at my feet."
Oh, and the environmental impact of humans on the world *has* been extensively studied ever since hunter-gatherers realized they couldn't hunt and gather indiscriminately forever. The climatic effects of human activity have been studied and known for years. Just not by you, apparently.
Err... you'd want to watch the gearing ratio. Using a friction pin against the wheel, say the friction pin was large at 5cm in diameter, that's still an insanely high gearing ratio. The motor would put out hundreds of volts and probably fry your phone. Perhaps using an intermediate battery as a voltage regulator would be a good idea.
Slashdot is a blog about technology. In the last year or two, there have been interesting developments where the old, boring battery industry has started interacting with technology. I hear they have managed to wire a "lead acid voltaic cell" to a "digital timepiece" in order to allow a person to tell the time when they are not close to a grid powered clock. This device can be carried on a trolley pulled by horses miles away from mains power. Amazing stuff, really.
4kW is trivial when you consider that the gym probably draws 100kW at peak times, perhaps more. Lighting alone (most gyms use those huge halogen lamps) can be 300W per lamp. Aircon, prolly say 5kW conservatively. TVs, equipment, cleaning gear, pool pumps and other things will take another big bite. No, 4kW is trivial. Those small foot heaters you can buy for $20 in at the hardware store draw up to 2kW alone. So, by your math, 10 people are needed to keep my feet warm? Waste, waste waste.
And then there's the energy required to manufacture all that custom low volume shit they needed to make the whole human powered electricity stuff work. I'm guessing the whole thing is a stunt that is net negative environmentally.
I was going to say "Yea but does it run Linux?", but I thought I could avoid the resulting -1 Redundant mod down to hell by saying "Yea, but are there Vista drivers for it?" instead.
Yea but the joke just wouldn't have worked with turkeys, as turkeys don't fly. Alternatively he could have said "a duck flying through and coming out the other side as deep fried yum cha". However then we have the geographical incongruity of yum cha being served in Nigeria. Perhaps you and I, caring so much about the minutia of this analogy, could travel to Nigeria to research the presence of birds with flight capabilities in the area that are also prepared for consumption using either a baking or frying method by the local populace. Then we would be able to better correct the OP's blatant disregard for accuracy when using analogies such as this.
The cost of building useful supporting electronics around a DSP capable of implementing a direct sampling receiver at 60MHz would be prohibitive
Not the cost of the units, but the cost of doing anything useful with them. For a person NOT integrating the parts into mass-produced items, it's only suitable for people doing something simple as a hobby, or for learning. I would *guess* that building anything to solve a problem in practice would take an incredibly large amount of time and skill, both of which are valuable resources even if they are your own. Cost of parts is only the total cost if you consider your time to be worthless. Making a DSP output a nice spectrograph of the airwaves wandering past your house is fine, making one that can perform underwater imaging is a different kettle of fish. Building something that can do that and then writing the code for it would not be a one man job, and it would not be cheap.
Lunch money for public high school over 10 years: $10,000
To be honest, I am unsure what exactly "forbidden months" is a reference to. However, IAAM (I am a Muslim), and I can assure you that it is not an instruction to kit up and start shooting the day a treaty expires. There are enough references elsewhere in this chapter and in the Quran that say that there is no compulsion in religion (i.e., a man cannot force another man to become Muslim), explaining that this just creates resentful slaves and not productive members of a Muslim community. Specifically, if it says you must fight Pagans just because they are Pagans, then I don't see how in the following sentence it can say to grant them asylum and assist their passage into a safe area without forcing their conversion. If you would like I can find you many more examples of this, just let me know.
Back to the "forbidden months" thing, I shall lend my very superficial interpretation to this: It is said in the first line that all who agree to live peacefully are declared immune from attack, therefore, all months in which non-Muslims do not invade or engage in aggressive action are the "forbidden months" for war. Remember, this is a translation of poetry, so the language won't read like modern English. I would guess that "forbidden months" means those times in which you have not been attacked. So where it says But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) it is saying fight, slay and beleaguer if the time of peace has ended. Please remember that I am far from a Quranic scholar, there are people who devote decades to this stuff, much of which cross-relates to chapters and verses in other places in the Quran so I may be missing something. I know someone who could answer this for us comprehensively, and I would be more than happy to pass this question on if you like.
Sura 9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
Not so much inaccurate as incomplete. If you look through just about any writing and cherry pick a selected sentence, you can make it sound like more or less anything you want. Have you read the chapter you are quoting from? Forgive me for assuming, but I'll assume you haven't and shed some light for you.
That whole chapter refers to defense. It is about fighting those who fight Muslims. The whole chapter is about who can and cannot be fought militarily. It opens with the line A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances: which indicates that non-Muslims who have an agreement to live peacefully are declared immune from war. Furthermore, non-Muslims who ask Muslims for asylum are to be granted it: If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure.
Another reference to fighting in response to aggression: Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you?
Kinda timely to help me make my point that communities that are even slightly disadvantaged are far more likely to fall further and further behind, rather than catch up. The slightest of social ills can lead to catastrophic results for communities if left unchecked. Imagine the difficulty of trying to catch up when you're a black African or a native American freshly stripped of your culture and downtrodden since the times of your grandparents.
"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and his messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be to be killed or crucified, or to have their hands and feet chopped off on opposite sides, or to be expelled out of the land. Such will be their humiliation in the world, and in the next world they will face an awful horror." (Koran, 5:33-34)
This one explicitly states that it is the punishment due to those who wage war against Muslim people. The line that follows it: Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. indicates that even if people did wage war against a Muslim nation, if they ask for forgiveness, they are to be spared the punishment. So, this quote is saying "if you are attacked, fight back, but forgive them if they say sorry". Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
"When we decide to destroy a population, we send a definite order to them who have the good things in life and yet sin. So that Allah's word is proven true against them, then we destroy them utterly." (Koran, 17:16-17)
This is actually a reference to Allah's own administration of justice. A plague of locusts, floods or other disasters Sodom and Gomorrah style. Throughout the Quran, the regal "We" is used when (as Muslims believe) Allah is referring to himself. The line before reads: nor would We visit with Our Wrath until We had sent an apostle (to give warning). which suggests that the intent of the verse is to say that if people are given a message and they ignore it, they can expect locusts, floods or sulphur raining down from the sky. Nothing like "hey guys go kill people you don't like", it's more like God saying "ignore me and I shall punish you!". Pretty standard Godly thing to say, really.
"Remember Allah inspired the angels: I am with you. Give firmness to the believers. I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: you smite them above their necks and smite all their fingertips off of them." (Koran, 8:12)
A reference to what the angels will supposedly do. If you don't believe in angels, you have nothing to worry about.
I don't see any incitement for Muslims to run around killing people, as convenient as it may be for you to believe that such incitement is to be found. Here's a full text translation for you to read, if you find anything else you think amounts to an incitement to kill infidel scum feel free to point it out. Here's a spoiler tho: Allah, just like the Christian God, commands adherence to the general principle that Thou Shalt Not Kill, hence you will not find places where it says "Kill These Guys just 'Coz".
I have to disagree with you in this. While yes, there is theoretical equality and equal opportunity in north America, which is supposed to provide the same opportunities for descendants of native Americans as it does for non-native Americans, being from South Africa I am keenly aware that it takes more than a constitutional change that says "All are equal before the law" to repair the damage done to a culture ravaged by militant European colonialism.
I shall use South Africa as my example for this, as I have never met a native American before, nor have I ever even been to North America. The black population in SA has been brutalized in an unimaginable manner. Their society was deliberately and systematically disrupted for the purposes of creating a sub-class of socially disorganized, uneducated and politically disenfranchised people. For a look into history, watch movies that were made in the 80s, my personal favorite, despite bad performances by the actors, is Cry Freedom, which is remarkably historically accurate.
This systematic and violent social disruption has created an entire population of brutalized people, with very little sense of right and wrong in a civilized sense, next to no insight into family and social order, and who pass on this dog-eat-dog value system to their children. This endemic problem takes not years or even decades to solve. It will likely remain for many, many generations.
Civilizations are grown organically over periods of centuries, if their values are destroyed and their structures undermined, it cannot be replaced with a piece of paper saying that all men are created equal, it takes generations of nurturing and assisted growth, before a population can regain a sense of order and morality. Rehabilitating an individual is hard and may not even be possible in that individual's lifetime. Likewise, rehabilitating a population often fails, and it is equally likely than not that the civilization will be lost, its people either dying out or losing their previous identity altogether. Countless examples of this can be found in history, and South Africa is one. It is unlikely that the Zulu or Nkhosa tribes will ever regain their original cultures or values. This is not just because of modernization, there are plenty of examples of cultures that have modernized without losing their essence such as India, Thailand and much of Latin America, but the black African kingdoms were stripped of their social order, subjugated, and brutalized, and no amount of equal opportunity legislation will assist them in forming a functional social order in which their children are born, raised and educated. The government can provide schools, but schools are not enough to counter the effects of the shattering of family ties and loss of social awareness. The best we can now hope for, is that black Africa adopts the social order and values of its old European overlords, which was perhaps the whole idea in the first place. After all, imperialism's goal is the remaking of other civilizations in the image of the imperial power. In Africa, the British and Dutch have succeeded in destroying all that makes Africa Africa, and replaced it with a dysfunctional extension of the European order.
Applying this to our discussion earlier, what makes a native American unique is not the fact that he has a round face, olive skin and long hair. It is his ideas, his language and his culture that make him who he is and without that, he's just another American. Access to jobs won't change the fact that their parents were from a generation that barely survived, let alone passed on the knowledge how to raise a family and instill values. These things are the lifeblood of a people, and if they are lost, history shows they are rarely ever regained.
Slashdot Mirror
Aah now here is where I can make the distinction that very few are able to get. The distinction between what capitalism "really is" and a market driven economy. You see, they are not the same thing.
Modern capitalism is "if you have money, do whatever you can to make more". This, over time, creates a ruling class of business people who are essentially the government.
A market economy is an economy where market forces dictate resource allocation and the government prevents abuses of financial power to circumvent market forces.
But like I said, this is a fine distinction, and I am yet to meet a self-professed capitalism believer able to see the difference.
You see, while I applaud the fact that you're well traveled, I can't for the life of me see how you say things like this: "Capitalism breeds democracy." Where in the US do you see democracy? Where in the UK? Where in Australia? I'm sorry, capitalism breeds nothing but rule by the rich, and the only people who assert otherwise are the rich or their most devoted pawns.
The Iraq war is a great example. The "coalition of the willing" are supposedly democratic countries. The Iraq war protests were the largest protests in history, public opinion against it before the war was as expressive as it can get short of civil war. In Australia, with regards to the Telstra sale, our Prime Minister actually said "I am aware that the public has reservations about the sale [of Telstra], but they have elected me and I will do what I think is in the best interest of the country". Democracy my arse. In a system where there are only two parties likely to win, and both have virtually indistinguishable agendas, I challenge you to say say that that is a _really_ democracy and keep a straight face.
I have lived outside my country, I am from South Africa originally and I have lived in Saudi Arabia (my parents are doctors they did work for a military hospital there for one year back in 1994) and now live in Australia. I love traveling, I have visited many countries, and when I am abroad I don't just do the tourist thing, I try to learn a bit of the local language and get to know the locals as more than just shopkeepers.
I really think your social views will be disregarded by anyone but the most cynical of money worshipers when you say things like "Pinochet was good for the country". I, and no other human being on Earth, would say that any economic gain is worth having leaders like Pinochet. I know many Chileans, and not one says anything nice about that guy. In fact, I know several who lost family members to either public shootings or the disappearances. Furthermore, I don't believe Chile was a basket case before Pinochet anyway, you'd have to be a pretty aggressive revisionist historian to argue that Allende was bad for the country either socially or economically.
I am not some left wing hippie, I believe in market forces. But having a background in economics I understand that fetters need to be placed on the market to prevent harm coming out of it. You don't have to be a left wing hippie to not believe in Fundamentalist Marketism.
The hardware was built by me, the mobo was faulty and was replaced under warranty. MS wouldn't issue a new key for it though.
Aah the middle class. How you like to rant about the laziness of the classes below you and how easy they have it.
Dude, you're so silly. Marvin *can* profit. Here's how:
...
1 Decide to break Alice and Bob's public keys
2
3 Profit!
It's a tried, tested and proven formula.
I'm sorry, but nobody here believes you. Mainly because, unless you are mistaking "product activation" with "entering a serial number", what you have described is just not possible.
Windows XP (and indeed any remotely recent versions of MS software) will just not allow you to reactivate a product if there is either a different motherboard detected. I have been told by Microsoft staff that especially with Windows Small Business Server (*shudder*), not even a CPU upgrade is allowed by the license. When a server died, the MS rep told me, in these words more or less exactly, that "That license lived and died with that machine." and flatly refused to entertain any arguments, including the one that went something like "but the server is 2 weeks old!".
Windows XP will behave in a similar manner. Even if you *do* manage to get it authorized, lets say the auth servers like you, know that by installing it on different hardware is a breach of the EULA, and at that stage you may as well just use a cracked copy anyway.
I find it interesting that you consider capitalism and democracy to be even remotely linked. Have you traveled much? I suggest going to Chile, Thailand, Venezuela or Bhutan for your next holiday to see examples of very non-capitalist places where the people are on the whole quite happy with life. Relative to GDP per capita, the US, being the world's shining example of capitalism at work, has the highest rate of homelessness and citizens living in poverty in the world (~12% of US citizens live in poverty, yet it is currently the wealthiest nation on Earth in absolute terms). While you may believe that capitalism = happy people, all the evidence I am able to see indicates otherwise.
Because, of course, right now the third world is full of food and nobody goes hungry.
Well sorry, but it didn't sound like it at all. Text kinda sucks for conveying tone.
Great. Another third grader enters the discussion.
No, that's a rant with no content and lots of empty vitriol. My previous post wasn't any kind of attack, it would best be described as a "scathing response". I assume you think that my "particular brand of kool-aid" is a reference to my small minded arguments and single track arguments, and that by calling me a "small minded prick" you are accusing me of not being able to see some kind of bigger picture.
Please explain to me your view on the subject. Properly rebut the points I have raised and the many references I used to support them. What do you do that makes you, in your own mind, able to claim the title of "responsible conservationist".
Actually, in this case I think it does. This stuff isn't complex. The carbon cycle isn't brain surgery, petroleum use and concepts like "net release" are fairly simple and absolute climatic change versus rate of climatic change is a fairly unsophisticated distinction. If you are unable to grasp even the basics of this subject, then perhaps you should STFU, DIAF or both. Perhaps, if you were to do the latter, the CO2 release would be worth it.
Personally, I think you are not only not versed in this subject, but you're also ignorant of economics. Claiming that the one side is being sensationalist while having an equally uninformed view of the other is pretty stupid. Did you perhaps think that the other side, who have billions to lose, may perhaps be spreading sensationalism to protect their vast personal vested interests? Oh no, that can't be the case, it's only hippies who spread FUD. Corporations never do that. Perhaps you'd be little less protective of big money if you realized that the economic impact of "doing something" won't be hundreds of thousands of lost jobs. Even if it were, do you really think that multi-millionaire CEOs care about you and your friends' jobs? No, they care about their profit margins. News flash: You're more of a mindless sensationalist than the left wing hippies you so loudly criticize, there is no evidence whatsoever that the cost of being environmentally friendly is lost profits. In fact here is an example showing just the opposite, and here's an article written in 1998 so you can see the progress that has been made.
There's an example of "doing something" that's not only good for the environment, but economically great too. Oh, and it's a 13 year old project. Now, what was that about all this environmental stuff being new, misunderstood and economically dubious?
OK so because we don't understand the precise nature of the harm we *may* be causing to the Earth we should not bother doing anything until we actually know for certain? That my friend is like the man standing on the top deck of a sinking ship and saying to the people panicking around him "I won't accept that we are in any danger until I see water at my feet."
Oh, and the environmental impact of humans on the world *has* been extensively studied ever since hunter-gatherers realized they couldn't hunt and gather indiscriminately forever. The climatic effects of human activity have been studied and known for years. Just not by you, apparently.
Err... you'd want to watch the gearing ratio. Using a friction pin against the wheel, say the friction pin was large at 5cm in diameter, that's still an insanely high gearing ratio. The motor would put out hundreds of volts and probably fry your phone. Perhaps using an intermediate battery as a voltage regulator would be a good idea.
Slashdot is a blog about technology. In the last year or two, there have been interesting developments where the old, boring battery industry has started interacting with technology. I hear they have managed to wire a "lead acid voltaic cell" to a "digital timepiece" in order to allow a person to tell the time when they are not close to a grid powered clock. This device can be carried on a trolley pulled by horses miles away from mains power. Amazing stuff, really.
4kW is trivial when you consider that the gym probably draws 100kW at peak times, perhaps more. Lighting alone (most gyms use those huge halogen lamps) can be 300W per lamp. Aircon, prolly say 5kW conservatively. TVs, equipment, cleaning gear, pool pumps and other things will take another big bite. No, 4kW is trivial. Those small foot heaters you can buy for $20 in at the hardware store draw up to 2kW alone. So, by your math, 10 people are needed to keep my feet warm? Waste, waste waste.
And then there's the energy required to manufacture all that custom low volume shit they needed to make the whole human powered electricity stuff work. I'm guessing the whole thing is a stunt that is net negative environmentally.
Remind me again why you treadmill people don't just go outside?
A commercial airliner has crashed killing all 182 passengers on board as well as 8 flight crew. Investigators have recovered 191 flight recorders.
I was going to say "Yea but does it run Linux?", but I thought I could avoid the resulting -1 Redundant mod down to hell by saying "Yea, but are there Vista drivers for it?" instead.
Yea but the joke just wouldn't have worked with turkeys, as turkeys don't fly. Alternatively he could have said "a duck flying through and coming out the other side as deep fried yum cha". However then we have the geographical incongruity of yum cha being served in Nigeria. Perhaps you and I, caring so much about the minutia of this analogy, could travel to Nigeria to research the presence of birds with flight capabilities in the area that are also prepared for consumption using either a baking or frying method by the local populace. Then we would be able to better correct the OP's blatant disregard for accuracy when using analogies such as this.
NOTE:
Not the cost of the units, but the cost of doing anything useful with them. For a person NOT integrating the parts into mass-produced items, it's only suitable for people doing something simple as a hobby, or for learning. I would *guess* that building anything to solve a problem in practice would take an incredibly large amount of time and skill, both of which are valuable resources even if they are your own. Cost of parts is only the total cost if you consider your time to be worthless. Making a DSP output a nice spectrograph of the airwaves wandering past your house is fine, making one that can perform underwater imaging is a different kettle of fish. Building something that can do that and then writing the code for it would not be a one man job, and it would not be cheap.
Lunch money for public high school over 10 years: $10,000
College education: $100,000
Ability to read: Priceless.
To be honest, I am unsure what exactly "forbidden months" is a reference to. However, IAAM (I am a Muslim), and I can assure you that it is not an instruction to kit up and start shooting the day a treaty expires. There are enough references elsewhere in this chapter and in the Quran that say that there is no compulsion in religion (i.e., a man cannot force another man to become Muslim), explaining that this just creates resentful slaves and not productive members of a Muslim community. Specifically, if it says you must fight Pagans just because they are Pagans, then I don't see how in the following sentence it can say to grant them asylum and assist their passage into a safe area without forcing their conversion. If you would like I can find you many more examples of this, just let me know.
Back to the "forbidden months" thing, I shall lend my very superficial interpretation to this: It is said in the first line that all who agree to live peacefully are declared immune from attack, therefore, all months in which non-Muslims do not invade or engage in aggressive action are the "forbidden months" for war. Remember, this is a translation of poetry, so the language won't read like modern English. I would guess that "forbidden months" means those times in which you have not been attacked. So where it says But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) it is saying fight, slay and beleaguer if the time of peace has ended. Please remember that I am far from a Quranic scholar, there are people who devote decades to this stuff, much of which cross-relates to chapters and verses in other places in the Quran so I may be missing something. I know someone who could answer this for us comprehensively, and I would be more than happy to pass this question on if you like.
Not so much inaccurate as incomplete. If you look through just about any writing and cherry pick a selected sentence, you can make it sound like more or less anything you want. Have you read the chapter you are quoting from? Forgive me for assuming, but I'll assume you haven't and shed some light for you.
That whole chapter refers to defense. It is about fighting those who fight Muslims. The whole chapter is about who can and cannot be fought militarily. It opens with the line A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances: which indicates that non-Muslims who have an agreement to live peacefully are declared immune from war. Furthermore, non-Muslims who ask Muslims for asylum are to be granted it: If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure.
Another reference to fighting in response to aggression: Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you?
But don't take my word for it, you can find the whole chapter translated here.
I was just reading the news when I came across these:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/plea-for-ac tion-to-help-the-poor/2007/02/25/1172338469211.htm l
http://www.theage.com.au/ed_docs/Dropping_off_the_ Edge.pdf
Kinda timely to help me make my point that communities that are even slightly disadvantaged are far more likely to fall further and further behind, rather than catch up. The slightest of social ills can lead to catastrophic results for communities if left unchecked. Imagine the difficulty of trying to catch up when you're a black African or a native American freshly stripped of your culture and downtrodden since the times of your grandparents.
This one explicitly states that it is the punishment due to those who wage war against Muslim people. The line that follows it: Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. indicates that even if people did wage war against a Muslim nation, if they ask for forgiveness, they are to be spared the punishment. So, this quote is saying "if you are attacked, fight back, but forgive them if they say sorry". Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
This is actually a reference to Allah's own administration of justice. A plague of locusts, floods or other disasters Sodom and Gomorrah style. Throughout the Quran, the regal "We" is used when (as Muslims believe) Allah is referring to himself. The line before reads: nor would We visit with Our Wrath until We had sent an apostle (to give warning). which suggests that the intent of the verse is to say that if people are given a message and they ignore it, they can expect locusts, floods or sulphur raining down from the sky. Nothing like "hey guys go kill people you don't like", it's more like God saying "ignore me and I shall punish you!". Pretty standard Godly thing to say, really.
A reference to what the angels will supposedly do. If you don't believe in angels, you have nothing to worry about.
I don't see any incitement for Muslims to run around killing people, as convenient as it may be for you to believe that such incitement is to be found. Here's a full text translation for you to read, if you find anything else you think amounts to an incitement to kill infidel scum feel free to point it out. Here's a spoiler tho: Allah, just like the Christian God, commands adherence to the general principle that Thou Shalt Not Kill, hence you will not find places where it says "Kill These Guys just 'Coz".
I have to disagree with you in this. While yes, there is theoretical equality and equal opportunity in north America, which is supposed to provide the same opportunities for descendants of native Americans as it does for non-native Americans, being from South Africa I am keenly aware that it takes more than a constitutional change that says "All are equal before the law" to repair the damage done to a culture ravaged by militant European colonialism.
I shall use South Africa as my example for this, as I have never met a native American before, nor have I ever even been to North America. The black population in SA has been brutalized in an unimaginable manner. Their society was deliberately and systematically disrupted for the purposes of creating a sub-class of socially disorganized, uneducated and politically disenfranchised people. For a look into history, watch movies that were made in the 80s, my personal favorite, despite bad performances by the actors, is Cry Freedom, which is remarkably historically accurate.
This systematic and violent social disruption has created an entire population of brutalized people, with very little sense of right and wrong in a civilized sense, next to no insight into family and social order, and who pass on this dog-eat-dog value system to their children. This endemic problem takes not years or even decades to solve. It will likely remain for many, many generations.
Civilizations are grown organically over periods of centuries, if their values are destroyed and their structures undermined, it cannot be replaced with a piece of paper saying that all men are created equal, it takes generations of nurturing and assisted growth, before a population can regain a sense of order and morality. Rehabilitating an individual is hard and may not even be possible in that individual's lifetime. Likewise, rehabilitating a population often fails, and it is equally likely than not that the civilization will be lost, its people either dying out or losing their previous identity altogether. Countless examples of this can be found in history, and South Africa is one. It is unlikely that the Zulu or Nkhosa tribes will ever regain their original cultures or values. This is not just because of modernization, there are plenty of examples of cultures that have modernized without losing their essence such as India, Thailand and much of Latin America, but the black African kingdoms were stripped of their social order, subjugated, and brutalized, and no amount of equal opportunity legislation will assist them in forming a functional social order in which their children are born, raised and educated. The government can provide schools, but schools are not enough to counter the effects of the shattering of family ties and loss of social awareness. The best we can now hope for, is that black Africa adopts the social order and values of its old European overlords, which was perhaps the whole idea in the first place. After all, imperialism's goal is the remaking of other civilizations in the image of the imperial power. In Africa, the British and Dutch have succeeded in destroying all that makes Africa Africa, and replaced it with a dysfunctional extension of the European order.
Applying this to our discussion earlier, what makes a native American unique is not the fact that he has a round face, olive skin and long hair. It is his ideas, his language and his culture that make him who he is and without that, he's just another American. Access to jobs won't change the fact that their parents were from a generation that barely survived, let alone passed on the knowledge how to raise a family and instill values. These things are the lifeblood of a people, and if they are lost, history shows they are rarely ever regained.