"...a man that at least has enough testicles to put his name on a proposal."
Personally I prefer writing with my hand:)
(sorry for the early morning weirdo humour, no offense intended to queenb**ch or anyone with highly dexterous testicles)
Back on topic: if the likes of Raymond Kurzweil and Aubrey de Grey are on track perhaps hanging around until the 2040ies will be enough? Here's to trying!
The way I was thinking people would be paid standard rates for the mandatory Google text-ads (as well as additional ones of course). If someone creates a great site they'll get a nice revenue stream relative to click-through. So yes in practice Google would be paying people to sign up but as a win-win at small cost to Google.
Benefits for Google include: - an expanded reach for their advertisements as the cost of entry for people becomes nil (or extremely close to it) except for time & effort. The "GoogleBox" sign-up & support pages should of course provide plenty of text-ads focusing on web-authoring etc.;) - at least slightly greater control against click-fraud since they're hosting the site (ease of logging and comparing IP/MAC between site-hits and ad-hits which might make at least some kinds of click-fraud either unsuccessful or prohibitly expensive) - avoiding caching while providing the possibility of deeper levels of data mining in relation to targeting ads - implied in the above a possible first-public-use of semantic targeting processes since they have full access to all data at any time in a completely different way than sending out spiders/crawlers and waiting for partial results or a somewhat old cache (I can't really say if this will provide enough of a difference to be a valid point but my guess is it would be) - instant full access would also open for a qualitative jump of search-indexing of hosted sites...
I'm sure there can be more positives I haven't thought of and it all seems to be available at a very low cost to Google.
This has to be done right and not exclude people, Google should want to aim for diversity as the concept of their take on advertising is based on micro-targeting the long (and wide) tail of content. It's important to note that the idea rests on avoiding inhibiting great site design, content, and possibilities the way your average free hosting provider or even Blogger does. To avoid throwaway websites it might be necessary with some sort of a small initial deadline for a site to reach one of several metrics to get greenlighted, I'm not sure... well... this would all have to be Beta in the start anyway lol;)
With a hosting plan including enough goodies like support for a wide variety of client and server scripting solutions etc. it would probably be more than enough to attract people. If successful they might also want to make alternatives quelling privacy concerns for "smallish" sites that have such (webshops, small businesses etc.), i.e. solutions seperating out confidential content and giving control over it to the content-owner (there might be other solutions as well depending on the situation; for example some degree of partnering if Google provides a payment solution for a webshop).
I agree it might be a good idea for Google's TOC to ban non-google commercial for-money advertising except for referral programs like Amazon links etc. which is part advertisement and part information/ease of use (needs to be differentiated from voluntary non-commercial ads like f.eks. an image-link to slashdot or a game you love etc.). I think it probably would be in Google's own interest not to be too strict (like removing the possiblity of having a PayPal graphic for donation etc.) or they could simply make it go through them and approve any ad as long as they get to take something like 0.1% of the value in the process (a simpler solution). Anyway if done right I doubt it would put that many people off and if they want more ad revenue they can also sign up for more Google text-ads or banners.
You might not be interested and I wouldn't recommend what I outlined so far for most (or possibly any) businesses out there but that's actually a small piece of the market for hosting. Most sites have no real confidential data to worry about (tons of different communities, forums, game-sites, individual sites etc. ad nauseum).
But actually it wouldn't be that hard for Google to draw up a contract which made it less worrysome to do something like set up a webshop or run a small business webpage on the site; seperate private customer information from the rest and keep that under lock and key (making the user encrypt it without giving Google the key). This could easily be done while evading abuse by either Google or the content-owner.
Blogger is extremely limited as is almost all free hosting providers to date, neither compare to what I'm talking about.
I've been wondering for a while if free webhosting (with or without normal domain names) wouldn't be a perfect fit for Google's business model, it would fit snugly with Gmail for domains.
- Google already has plenty of hardware and there might not be much need for additional hardware as becoming a hosting provider would remove the necessity of caching those sites (why cache something you have direct access to?) - Google text advertising could easily be a mandatory part of any hosted websites (perhaps a minimum of 5 text-ads) - however there should be no invisible frames, toolbars or similar unless a user/content owner/provider actually wants it (opt-in) - mycoolsite.google.com or similar (I wouldn't actually expect them to use google.com for this) as free domain names (naturally with Google's control/TOC and approval) as well as support for regular domain names - the TOC would allow for or mandate that sites do such-and-such for example in regard to robots.txt or better meta-info (and of course the Google-hosted site would have to agree to be siphoned for data) - Google could sell (or also swap for ad revenue) ordinary domain names as well as different levels of mirroring, guaranteed bandwidth levels, statistics & analysis, increased hosting space and so on. Imo they would be smart to include such as php, python, and ruby by default - if Google provided/made a micropayment system things would possibly become even simpler if a site was already hosted by Google
Unlimited hosting space as well as (transparent to/readable by Google) database support might actually be the best idea. I'm sure it would blow away plenty of the competitors for those not overly concerned about having Google dissecting every little piece of your website for information on a daily basis.
Doesn't Google already own Blogger? However Blogger is limited in comparison to a normal website. This is but a tiny step really, a win-win situation increasing Google's reach while providing a service essentially for free (just like Gmail).
I'm not too afraid of the internet becoming googlenet:) the above would seamlessly coexist with other solutions imo.
First of all I want to say that it's nice to see a muslim posting on Slashdot. I've seen buddist, christian, jewish, atheist, and agnostic faiths/posters here before and now also Islam. I knew there had to be muslim nerds out there in the big world as well:)
"P.S. What if I said I was typing this on vi?
P.S.S. Which I was running through emacs?"
*dons flameretardant suit* *clears throat* moderates use any editor including such as pico or mg:)
Jokes aside I want to emphasize how the cartoon issue is seen by many westerners (including me); as an attack on freedom of expression. I can understand that some or many muslims feel offended to various degrees but that is part and parcel of freedom of expression in most western cultures (most people are offended in one way or the other all the time but almost all accept it as the price of freedom for all views) -- hence my additional signature.
Now in my opinon most western muslims do get it and I'm not in any way suggesting they shouldn't voice their opinion and affront at what they perceive to be blasphemous; that is their right of freedom of expression right there. However muslims in general need to get comfortable with insult (intended or not) in just the same way everybody else does.
Quickly here's what I consider extreme and moderate: extreme (few) = killing over opinion, believing violence is an approriate form of normal expression, believing everyone who disagrees are subhuman infidels or similar moderate (many) = accepting difference, accepting disagreement, accepting freedom of expression
- Wahhaabis and Talibanis have managed to make a solid reputation for themselves as very extreme - I've never heard of a Sufi extremist (but know that many other muslims do not like the Sufi at all) - just these past days there has been clashes between Sunni and Shia resulting in deaths, and there has been an inter-muslim suicide bombing in Pakistan
It's hard for me (and a lot others) as a non-muslim, non-christian, non-jewish, religious person (however believeing in the god of Abraham, same as those faiths) to regard those who treaten, kill and plot violence in the name of Islam as actual muslims (have a look at the atrocities commited in Holland). To me (and I hope most christians, jews and muslims) anyone killing in the name of god is a blasphemer. But it really should not surprise anyone that many people feel reserved towards muslims (and Islam) until they get to know people on a personal level; a disproportionate amount of violence is done under the guise of Islam, however falsly and manipulative.
Absolutely, a library is a great institution and well worth a visit as well as support.
I used to visit a main library fairly regularily when younger (sometimes daily), but these days I don't have the opportunity to do so. As to finding unknown authors/books/writing I've made many discoveries on the net (short fiction is great for that purpose imo).
-- this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
When I want a new book and don't know which one I go to a bookstore and browse. It works for the most part. A bit too well actually; I've taken to avoiding bookstores as I really can't afford the spending spree it usually triggers:)
Yes, I can also go to Amazon and browse as well as read comments but I rarely do that. Something about the total of preferences of others not fitting that closely with my own, not that I should always trust my own taste in books either but I've only been disappointed by something like three books (which turned out to be completely worthless to me) and I own close to 3000.
These days I mostly read freely (and legally) available short fiction and classics on the net (there's a lot of it out there).
-- this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
It might not be an issue about freedom of expression to you. That's fair, you have as much right to your own opinon on the subject as anyone. However you've already fallen way down a slipperly slope if you fail to recognize that to many others (including me) it actually is a matter of freedom of expression.
Freedom of expression is closely related to the right to disagree. I hope both you and I agree that everyone has a right to disagree, and if you don't agree with that I will still voice my opinon that you have that right to disagree.
Is it xenophobic to disagree? Saying so smacks of ideological propaganda imo because if we can't discuss and disagree, even if it offends, then how are anybody at all who disagree supposed to be able to live together? According to Jyllands-Posten their point was self-censorship on muslim issues and I agree that such a point is both important as well as timely; and it implies a need for debate and acceptance of disagreement. I've had good relations to plenty of muslim and immigrant coworkers, friends, aquaintances, teachers, students (I've been a teacher), and even a nice lebanese girlfriend I was with years ago, but I would not be able to have a good relation to any of them if I was xenophobic or afraid to talk, discuss, or even disagree with them if so was the case.
Disclaimer: Norwegian here (so this is a reply from a somewhat norwegian perspective) & I've posted about the cartoons before on Slashdot (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=176319&cid=14 646689). Also I do support freedom of speech even if I often get offended by it myself (I consider flagburning a part of freedom of speech). Hell I've long ago gotten used to offensive stuff and ridicule: it's a natural price for having opinons that go against the flow. I'm not too fond of organized religion, I'm anti-nazi, anti-socialism/communism, pro-Bush, pro-Iraq war, pro-individualism, pro-transparency, pro-F/OSS and in the opinion of some by implication pro-schizophrenia lol:) Oh yeah and I don't fear the puzzle palace...
As others have pointed out they're not silent in the west, and a lot of them are fed up with having to distance themselves from fruitloops calling themselves muslims in other parts of the world. Anyone can get fed up if they always have to defend actions they have nothing to do with but which others link them to by some common denominator. That being said one can't exactly fault people for asking either; it's part of getting to know someone to ask about their opinons isn't it?
But take a look at those few non-cleric muslims who have spoken in favour of freedom of speech concerning the cartoons in the middle east. In slightly more relaxed countries like Egypt and Jordan they've been sued and harassed. It is no wonder that the silent majority (at least I hope it's a majority) "down there" are afraid of voicing opinion that run counter to an extremist interpretation of Islam. It's even more understandable if it's something they don't give much tought; almost all muslims in those countries live in extremely homogenized countries where almost everybody is a muslim, that's not an environment conducive to thinking about freedom of expression of those that think differently.
Speaking up in a place like Syria or Iran is tantamount to germans voicing criticism against the treatment of jews in 1940: you've got to be extremely brave to do it and you've got to expect very bad consequences of doing so. I wish they would speak up but I can't but sympathize that they don't; it so much simpler to just go with the flow and if necessary blame Israel, the US, or the EU, or Denmark, or Norway, or *insert scapegoat de jour here* for everything one doesn't like from time immemorial. Yes some people do the same here in the west; stupidity knows no boundaries of culture, gender, or ideology.
There's a lot of info that's not getting attention either in the west or in muslim countries: - some pretty hefty misunderstandings by danish imams and muslims (however the situation is different in Denmark than in Norway, from my perspective I would say that the communities in Denmark are much more disjointed). Some danish imams when talking about the matter to fellow believers in the muslim world managed to mix up the issue with completely non-relevant pictures and impressions exaggerating their "victimization". Some of those issues didn't have the least to do with anything about Islam (or at least the prophet Mohammed) and to such a level that one can wonder if they had ulterior motives -- it's either that or they have almost no understanding of the country and continent they're living in. - the rumour mill in the arab world, but elsewhere as well, ran completely out of control: there's a lot of misinformation out there that's 100% false and exaggerated - a severe lack of knowledge about how important the concept of freedom of expression is in the west, what the background and philosophy is, what it actually means. There's a need for an introduction to Voltaire - a severe lack of knowledge about how the relation between free press and the state is in western democracies - a severe lack of understanding about the fact that in the west you are not (as an individual or as a state) expected
But why not? I suggest you check with: - Yale University, where he got his bachelor's degree in history - Harvard University, where he got his Master of Business Administration (MBA... how come there's no Bush PHB jokes on Slashdot?!)
Next up his wife: - Southern Methodist University where she got her bachelor's degree in education (there's more than one dirty joke there harr-harr) - University of Texas at Austin where she got her master's degree in library science (I didn't know of that one)
Let's go further and check Cheney out too: - University of Wyoming, Bachelor of Arts and also political science (artsy guy eh? I bet he smoked plenty of pot;P) - University of Wyoming, Master of Arts (more pot!), political science (more Che!) *big grin*
Seems he enjoyed UoW a lot since he stayed pot there:)
Lynne Cheney: - Colorado College, Bachelor of Arts degree with highest honors (I see a connection here) - University of Colorado, Master of Arts (ding!) - University of Wisconsin, a Ph.D. with a specialization in 19th-Century British literature (Whoa! And she has written eight books + lots of other stuff)
Personally I think there's material for a lot of pot humour here (someone send Cheech & Chong to JibJab). Btw I'm pro-Bush.
Disclaimer: I've never smoked pot:)
On topic: good to see the guy lose his NASA PR job.
-- this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
"Has the Big Bang been established as scientific fact? Not saying it isn't, just would like some more info."
I'll make this easy and then I'll complicate it:) (and don't anyone dare take only the easy bit!!)
(easy bit) Nothing* has been established as scientific fact. I repeat; nothing*. Those who want to argue this please sign up for Philosophy of Science classes at your local university. In short science shouldn't take the validity of existing answers for granted, even the most well-established theories (and even laws) should be (and are) open for scrutiny.
* excluding abstract axiomatic systems of logical tautology like (most) mathematics and certain logic systems -- it's a bit special
(complicated bit) However there are a huge number of things (including the theory of the Big Bang) that almost all scientists would agree is extremely close to fact and which in practice usually is treated as fact (it's impossible to question absolutely everything all the time).
(further complicated bit (this one's voluntary)) Some scientists disagree (actually they all disagree - it's just a matter of what the subject at hand is lol;) ) and there are other scientific theories about the universe available as alternatives to the Big Bang theory. Those theories might very well at some stage actually accumulate more evidence/predictive abilities/support and replace the Big Bang theory. As science is (or at least tries very hard to be) non-dogmatic that might very well happen when we (as a species) figure more stuff out. Or it might not of course.
All the above are not weaknesses of science, they are the strenghts of science.
-- this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
Actually it was a very good idea on day one, but then came day two, three, four, five... and suddenly the shuttle was mounted on the side of the boosters & a host of other things.
Then somewhere around day 10000 almost everyone was using their 10/20 hindsight (no way it's anything close to 20/20 on average) to agree it was always a clusterfuck and should have been foreseen as such on day one.
What can we learn from this? Mostly that 10/20 hindsight will never go out of fashion, secondly that any average Joe do not appreciate the existence of learning curves nor that it usually takes many repeated mistakes before anyone actually learns.
-- this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
No, this has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with the fact that NASA exists in the real world.
That's the same world where you and I exist; even if you would happen to a billionaire (I'm certainly not one) there is always some level beyond which you have to prioritize, beyond which you can't have everything. Most people learn this as little toddlers however a lot of (or all) politicans love forgetting it if it can get them elected:)
In the system which NASA exists that power of priority is in the hands of Congress (mainly) & Senate, however in this case it is NASA itself which is rearranging and reprioritizing at their own discretion.
Yes, one can argue for more money to NASA (even if they've already gotten more). Yes, I support "pet" projects of my own (like the Dawn mission which is on hold, and that's just a start; if I started listing all the things I'd like to see it would keep me occupied for the rest of my life) and I would of course love to see them get a massive increase in support. But neither changes the fact of how the world works or that there are other things than NASA which needs funding and/or which a majority of the elected representatives across any boundary deem important enough to manage to agree upon.
Enter the current plethora of private space initiatives; it's the only solution because it strives and directly aims to be economically profitable (something which 1. simply isn't NASAs job and 2. for the most part wouldn't even be legal for NASA as they as part of the US government aren't allowed to for example hold patents).
To sum it up: if you don't expect "this kind of thing" from anyone and everyone, always, you're going to be constantly disappointed (and to no gain for anyone including yourself).
-- this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
Sorry but I call bs on wood & ceramics being a germ breeding ground.
Let's take the example of a chopping board. Compared to a plastic chopping board (unless you clean it with chlorine or similar nasty ideas) the wood board will have less germs (even if you wash/clean/scrub it less often - but why would anyone do that?) because the wood actually is naturally anti-bacterial. I'm sorry I have no link to provide to back this up but I've seen tests done on this.
Now that's a chopping board which of course gets cuts and scratches from normal use (which works against the plastic ones and in favour of the wood ones), the same would go for various wooden kitchen utensils. As to other uses of wood there is absolutely no reason one cannot lacquer them (which is almost always done in some fashion or the other, even for pencils) and such finishes give anything of wood a surface texture that's usually even smoother than plastic and as such easier to clean if there is a need for it.
Ceramics? I guess it depends on the finish as I can agree that "raw" porous ceramics without any kind of finish (think standard unglazed flower pots) would make for a nice home for germs (provided they find something to live off) but you don't really use such a flower pot as your coffee mug do you? Those nice shiny (glazed), usually humorously decorated coffee mugs, guess what, they're almost always made of ceramics... stoneware ain't no problem.
If you have problems with germs in your coffee mug I recommend washing it more often;) j/k (yeah I know, there's always some coworkers that like their little biology experiments lol)
Or were you thinking of your bathroom tiles?:)
And both women and men shaved (different places hopefully) before the invention of plastic (or Gilette) whitout getting broken glass in their bathtubs... believe it or not most people did not (have to) look like hairballs before you and I (or even our grandparents) were born lol:)
-- this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
Yup, if he actually had any kind of solid proof (that is: not pandering to those who desperately want to believe him) he would be turning over said proof (which had better amount to something more substantial than his hindsight) as well as himself to any court system of his own choosing. It needs not be an U.S. one, I suggest a european country like Belgium, France, or perhaps Russia? Or maybe instead going to the Republic of South Africa or a south american country like Brazil? But countries like Iran or NK wouldn't give much credibility. The aim of his should be to stand trial for (at best involuntary) complicity in the hoax. That would be something, that could make heads roll if it avoids becoming a showtrial (Venezuela or Cuba wouldn't be much point).
What's more if I was a U.S. resident with such proof I would immediately seek asylum abroad someplace after having moved out of the U.S. and going into hiding (or is he saying that anyone with such proof wouldn't be perfectly "accidented" if the administration really is what he claims it to be?).
It's hard to take him seriously since he's not at least doing those things (I'm sure other actions would be advisable as well).
"Reality" can always be discussed but selfcongruence is a must, at least in my book.
*mods "news" +5 fruitcake*
-- this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
"...of course the Big Bang is a theory." "The question is whether it should be called as such."
I disagree. Let's call a spade a spade (at least in scientific papers) as this is to the benefit of science itself. Over time it might even help educate about the different meaning of the word theory within and outside science (and it's not like it's the only word which has radically different meanings depending). Not that it's any big problem if it slips once in a while but science is a dynamic endeavour and for a species that have a tendency to love rigid "truths" it's good to be reminded of that dynamic property no matter who one are (scientist or not).
However I completely agree with your last sentence (and it would have been nice if the NYT/this discussion had homed in on that exclusively).
-- this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
Nice to see someone mention this. Not that it justifies anything but it's wise to remember that bias (or worse) can and does come from any direction and seldom (if ever) for any good reason (i.e. it's usually at least 90% pure emotions).
All that aside on a personal note my faith wouldn't suffer the slightest if in the future some sort of steady-state universe becomes the ruling scientific theory (which might very well happen in our lifetime). As far as I'm concerned science extends and extrapolates on the beauty and diversity of this universe any which way (and by implication my reverence and love of God).
-- this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
I sympathize and I want you to know that there must be plenty of others like you & me out there (in all shades and variations) even if it might not provide much comfort. All this even though I'm pro-Bush myself (and religious although not subscribing to any organised religion). Actually a large part of the reason for my choice to be "non-organized" is the frustration of being "grouped" with opinions I don't necessarily agree with.
Anyway here's to trying to remove purely ideological or religious (though not ethical) pressures on science, whatever direction they might come from.
You are putting the finger on a very important problem: that opinons which should be (at least presently) regarded as more or less obvious (in this case that it is a scientific theory which implies that it is not (yet at least) absolutist "fact" (if one even wants to argue that anything ever can be said to anything such) suddenly becomes extremely contentious if someone one doesn't like/agree with in other matters is saying it. It's only human and we all fall into that trap from time to time but it really is something we would all benefit from trying to avoid: we would drastically reduce the amount of noise to signal in any discussion (and as such improve the efficiency and intelligence of such even if those involved end up agreeing to disagree -- nothing wrong with that).
Now I'm a pro-Bush religious (no organised religion) norwegian but in the posts I've read so far I've seen various arguments against this and that person within NASA etc. blaiming them for misusing the agency for political aims and so forth and those allegations might be perfectly true and correct (I don't have enough info to decide) and if so such actions are absolutely wrong imho but I would hope and encourage people to take your stance instead of letting their opinons on the theory of the big bang be clouded by politics.
If those being criticized act(ed) like they're said to do there should be plenty of other things to criticize them for rather than wanting the inclusion of the categorisation 'theory' in conjunction with any mention of the Big Bang. Doing so might even garner broader support since it clarifies the objectable issues! And even better; if the case it might also make the persons guilty of such understand the criticism, perhaps even modify themselves...
Sorry for the overly verbose reply but you simply made my day, thanks:)
-- this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
I've seen a two of the cartoons (did some extensive googling days ago):
- one is a completely innocent depiction in typical cartoon style (think Newsweek cartoons or any other major newspaper political comment cartoon) of a line of smoking (as from having blown up) suicide bombers in front of the gates of heaven. A robed muslim (not necessarily Mohammed) is blocking their path saying something like "sorry we're out of virgins". Not exactly highbrow but nothing especially bad either compared to many ordinary political cartoons in arab media.
- the second I've seen I do understand that muslims will find offensive just like most israelis (and others) will find offensive any superimposition of swasticas on a star of David (and I'm sure you know that isn't exactly rare). It's a cartoon portrait of a muslim/arabic man with black beard and a black turban with a lighted fuse sticking out of it. That in itself shoudln't be too offensive but if you add the supposition that it's the prophet Mohammed (afaik that wasn't even alluded to by the publishers) it gets a bit worse. However what is really offensive (imo) is that on the turban there is an arabic caligrafic which is said to be (I don't read arabic so I'm not sure) the first pillar of Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahada) thus implying that when the fuse reaches the bomb the first pillar of Islam is destroyed. I see how that can be extremely offensive yet mostly of all imo because it has a certain truth to it: the "islamic" terrorism will, if not fought and conquered by muslims themselves, destroy Islam.
Almost all westeners finds something in the media that they (can) take offense at, just like the rest of us those who are muslim need to understand that freedom of speech implies the right to offend even if considered blasphemous to some religion and I think most of them actually do understand it (at least most of those living in the west).
SFGate had an article/blogentry with the second cartoon: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blog id=15&entry_id=2796 (didn't manage to find the other one again and there should be others as well -- I think Die Welt has printed them all in a recent issue and since that is a fairly large and wellknown german newspaper it might be available at your local library or university library).
As to how Mohammed looked nobody knows (the BBC link in my original post addresses this issue briefly). Yes, it makes the whole shebang even more absurd:)
-- this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
Slashdot Mirror
"...a man that at least has enough testicles to put his name on a proposal."
:)
Personally I prefer writing with my hand
(sorry for the early morning weirdo humour, no offense intended to queenb**ch or anyone with highly dexterous testicles)
Back on topic: if the likes of Raymond Kurzweil and Aubrey de Grey are on track perhaps hanging around until the 2040ies will be enough? Here's to trying!
Uh... what else would you call a spayed? :)
The way I was thinking people would be paid standard rates for the mandatory Google text-ads (as well as additional ones of course). If someone creates a great site they'll get a nice revenue stream relative to click-through. So yes in practice Google would be paying people to sign up but as a win-win at small cost to Google.
;)
;)
:)
Benefits for Google include:
- an expanded reach for their advertisements as the cost of entry for people becomes nil (or extremely close to it) except for time & effort. The "GoogleBox" sign-up & support pages should of course provide plenty of text-ads focusing on web-authoring etc.
- at least slightly greater control against click-fraud since they're hosting the site (ease of logging and comparing IP/MAC between site-hits and ad-hits which might make at least some kinds of click-fraud either unsuccessful or prohibitly expensive)
- avoiding caching while providing the possibility of deeper levels of data mining in relation to targeting ads
- implied in the above a possible first-public-use of semantic targeting processes since they have full access to all data at any time in a completely different way than sending out spiders/crawlers and waiting for partial results or a somewhat old cache (I can't really say if this will provide enough of a difference to be a valid point but my guess is it would be)
- instant full access would also open for a qualitative jump of search-indexing of hosted sites...
I'm sure there can be more positives I haven't thought of and it all seems to be available at a very low cost to Google.
This has to be done right and not exclude people, Google should want to aim for diversity as the concept of their take on advertising is based on micro-targeting the long (and wide) tail of content. It's important to note that the idea rests on avoiding inhibiting great site design, content, and possibilities the way your average free hosting provider or even Blogger does. To avoid throwaway websites it might be necessary with some sort of a small initial deadline for a site to reach one of several metrics to get greenlighted, I'm not sure... well... this would all have to be Beta in the start anyway lol
With a hosting plan including enough goodies like support for a wide variety of client and server scripting solutions etc. it would probably be more than enough to attract people. If successful they might also want to make alternatives quelling privacy concerns for "smallish" sites that have such (webshops, small businesses etc.), i.e. solutions seperating out confidential content and giving control over it to the content-owner (there might be other solutions as well depending on the situation; for example some degree of partnering if Google provides a payment solution for a webshop).
I agree it might be a good idea for Google's TOC to ban non-google commercial for-money advertising except for referral programs like Amazon links etc. which is part advertisement and part information/ease of use (needs to be differentiated from voluntary non-commercial ads like f.eks. an image-link to slashdot or a game you love etc.). I think it probably would be in Google's own interest not to be too strict (like removing the possiblity of having a PayPal graphic for donation etc.) or they could simply make it go through them and approve any ad as long as they get to take something like 0.1% of the value in the process (a simpler solution). Anyway if done right I doubt it would put that many people off and if they want more ad revenue they can also sign up for more Google text-ads or banners.
Sorry for the long reply
You might not be interested and I wouldn't recommend what I outlined so far for most (or possibly any) businesses out there but that's actually a small piece of the market for hosting. Most sites have no real confidential data to worry about (tons of different communities, forums, game-sites, individual sites etc. ad nauseum).
But actually it wouldn't be that hard for Google to draw up a contract which made it less worrysome to do something like set up a webshop or run a small business webpage on the site; seperate private customer information from the rest and keep that under lock and key (making the user encrypt it without giving Google the key). This could easily be done while evading abuse by either Google or the content-owner.
Blogger is extremely limited as is almost all free hosting providers to date, neither compare to what I'm talking about.
I've been wondering for a while if free webhosting (with or without normal domain names) wouldn't be a perfect fit for Google's business model, it would fit snugly with Gmail for domains.
:) the above would seamlessly coexist with other solutions imo.
- Google already has plenty of hardware and there might not be much need for additional hardware as becoming a hosting provider would remove the necessity of caching those sites (why cache something you have direct access to?)
- Google text advertising could easily be a mandatory part of any hosted websites (perhaps a minimum of 5 text-ads)
- however there should be no invisible frames, toolbars or similar unless a user/content owner/provider actually wants it (opt-in)
- mycoolsite.google.com or similar (I wouldn't actually expect them to use google.com for this) as free domain names (naturally with Google's control/TOC and approval) as well as support for regular domain names
- the TOC would allow for or mandate that sites do such-and-such for example in regard to robots.txt or better meta-info (and of course the Google-hosted site would have to agree to be siphoned for data)
- Google could sell (or also swap for ad revenue) ordinary domain names as well as different levels of mirroring, guaranteed bandwidth levels, statistics & analysis, increased hosting space and so on. Imo they would be smart to include such as php, python, and ruby by default
- if Google provided/made a micropayment system things would possibly become even simpler if a site was already hosted by Google
Unlimited hosting space as well as (transparent to/readable by Google) database support might actually be the best idea. I'm sure it would blow away plenty of the competitors for those not overly concerned about having Google dissecting every little piece of your website for information on a daily basis.
Doesn't Google already own Blogger? However Blogger is limited in comparison to a normal website. This is but a tiny step really, a win-win situation increasing Google's reach while providing a service essentially for free (just like Gmail).
I'm not too afraid of the internet becoming googlenet
First of all I want to say that it's nice to see a muslim posting on Slashdot. I've seen buddist, christian, jewish, atheist, and agnostic faiths/posters here before and now also Islam. I knew there had to be muslim nerds out there in the big world as well :)
:)
6 466896 821926 83025
"P.S. What if I said I was typing this on vi?
P.S.S. Which I was running through emacs?"
*dons flameretardant suit* *clears throat* moderates use any editor including such as pico or mg
Jokes aside I want to emphasize how the cartoon issue is seen by many westerners (including me); as an attack on freedom of expression. I can understand that some or many muslims feel offended to various degrees but that is part and parcel of freedom of expression in most western cultures (most people are offended in one way or the other all the time but almost all accept it as the price of freedom for all views) -- hence my additional signature.
Now in my opinon most western muslims do get it and I'm not in any way suggesting they shouldn't voice their opinion and affront at what they perceive to be blasphemous; that is their right of freedom of expression right there. However muslims in general need to get comfortable with insult (intended or not) in just the same way everybody else does.
Quickly here's what I consider extreme and moderate:
extreme (few) = killing over opinion, believing violence is an approriate form of normal expression, believing everyone who disagrees are subhuman infidels or similar
moderate (many) = accepting difference, accepting disagreement, accepting freedom of expression
- Wahhaabis and Talibanis have managed to make a solid reputation for themselves as very extreme
- I've never heard of a Sufi extremist (but know that many other muslims do not like the Sufi at all)
- just these past days there has been clashes between Sunni and Shia resulting in deaths, and there has been an inter-muslim suicide bombing in Pakistan
It's hard for me (and a lot others) as a non-muslim, non-christian, non-jewish, religious person (however believeing in the god of Abraham, same as those faiths) to regard those who treaten, kill and plot violence in the name of Islam as actual muslims (have a look at the atrocities commited in Holland). To me (and I hope most christians, jews and muslims) anyone killing in the name of god is a blasphemer. But it really should not surprise anyone that many people feel reserved towards muslims (and Islam) until they get to know people on a personal level; a disproportionate amount of violence is done under the guise of Islam, however falsly and manipulative.
Other posts by me on the topic (too much to include here but it explains my opinons more widely and with a bit more depth):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=176319&cid=14
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=176824&cid=14
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=176824&cid=14
--
this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
Absolutely, a library is a great institution and well worth a visit as well as support.
I used to visit a main library fairly regularily when younger (sometimes daily), but these days I don't have the opportunity to do so. As to finding unknown authors/books/writing I've made many discoveries on the net (short fiction is great for that purpose imo).
--
this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
When I want a new book and don't know which one I go to a bookstore and browse. It works for the most part. A bit too well actually; I've taken to avoiding bookstores as I really can't afford the spending spree it usually triggers :)
Yes, I can also go to Amazon and browse as well as read comments but I rarely do that. Something about the total of preferences of others not fitting that closely with my own, not that I should always trust my own taste in books either but I've only been disappointed by something like three books (which turned out to be completely worthless to me) and I own close to 3000.
These days I mostly read freely (and legally) available short fiction and classics on the net (there's a lot of it out there).
--
this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
I forgot to add my additional sig...
--
this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
It might not be an issue about freedom of expression to you. That's fair, you have as much right to your own opinon on the subject as anyone. However you've already fallen way down a slipperly slope if you fail to recognize that to many others (including me) it actually is a matter of freedom of expression.
Freedom of expression is closely related to the right to disagree. I hope both you and I agree that everyone has a right to disagree, and if you don't agree with that I will still voice my opinon that you have that right to disagree.
Is it xenophobic to disagree? Saying so smacks of ideological propaganda imo because if we can't discuss and disagree, even if it offends, then how are anybody at all who disagree supposed to be able to live together? According to Jyllands-Posten their point was self-censorship on muslim issues and I agree that such a point is both important as well as timely; and it implies a need for debate and acceptance of disagreement. I've had good relations to plenty of muslim and immigrant coworkers, friends, aquaintances, teachers, students (I've been a teacher), and even a nice lebanese girlfriend I was with years ago, but I would not be able to have a good relation to any of them if I was xenophobic or afraid to talk, discuss, or even disagree with them if so was the case.
Disclaimer: Norwegian here (so this is a reply from a somewhat norwegian perspective) & I've posted about the cartoons before on Slashdot (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=176319&cid=14 646689). Also I do support freedom of speech even if I often get offended by it myself (I consider flagburning a part of freedom of speech). Hell I've long ago gotten used to offensive stuff and ridicule: it's a natural price for having opinons that go against the flow. I'm not too fond of organized religion, I'm anti-nazi, anti-socialism/communism, pro-Bush, pro-Iraq war, pro-individualism, pro-transparency, pro-F/OSS and in the opinion of some by implication pro-schizophrenia lol :) Oh yeah and I don't fear the puzzle palace...
As others have pointed out they're not silent in the west, and a lot of them are fed up with having to distance themselves from fruitloops calling themselves muslims in other parts of the world. Anyone can get fed up if they always have to defend actions they have nothing to do with but which others link them to by some common denominator. That being said one can't exactly fault people for asking either; it's part of getting to know someone to ask about their opinons isn't it?
But take a look at those few non-cleric muslims who have spoken in favour of freedom of speech concerning the cartoons in the middle east. In slightly more relaxed countries like Egypt and Jordan they've been sued and harassed. It is no wonder that the silent majority (at least I hope it's a majority) "down there" are afraid of voicing opinion that run counter to an extremist interpretation of Islam. It's even more understandable if it's something they don't give much tought; almost all muslims in those countries live in extremely homogenized countries where almost everybody is a muslim, that's not an environment conducive to thinking about freedom of expression of those that think differently.
Speaking up in a place like Syria or Iran is tantamount to germans voicing criticism against the treatment of jews in 1940: you've got to be extremely brave to do it and you've got to expect very bad consequences of doing so. I wish they would speak up but I can't but sympathize that they don't; it so much simpler to just go with the flow and if necessary blame Israel, the US, or the EU, or Denmark, or Norway, or *insert scapegoat de jour here* for everything one doesn't like from time immemorial. Yes some people do the same here in the west; stupidity knows no boundaries of culture, gender, or ideology.
There's a lot of info that's not getting attention either in the west or in muslim countries:
- some pretty hefty misunderstandings by danish imams and muslims (however the situation is different in Denmark than in Norway, from my perspective I would say that the communities in Denmark are much more disjointed). Some danish imams when talking about the matter to fellow believers in the muslim world managed to mix up the issue with completely non-relevant pictures and impressions exaggerating their "victimization". Some of those issues didn't have the least to do with anything about Islam (or at least the prophet Mohammed) and to such a level that one can wonder if they had ulterior motives -- it's either that or they have almost no understanding of the country and continent they're living in.
- the rumour mill in the arab world, but elsewhere as well, ran completely out of control: there's a lot of misinformation out there that's 100% false and exaggerated
- a severe lack of knowledge about how important the concept of freedom of expression is in the west, what the background and philosophy is, what it actually means. There's a need for an introduction to Voltaire
- a severe lack of knowledge about how the relation between free press and the state is in western democracies
- a severe lack of understanding about the fact that in the west you are not (as an individual or as a state) expected
Just install the program on an OpenBSD behind an OpenBSD-based firewall :)
Since the topic is scientific theories I guess your post makes you a Republican :)
--
this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
Lol :)
;P)
:)
:)
But why not? I suggest you check with:
- Yale University, where he got his bachelor's degree in history
- Harvard University, where he got his Master of Business Administration (MBA... how come there's no Bush PHB jokes on Slashdot?!)
Next up his wife:
- Southern Methodist University where she got her bachelor's degree in education (there's more than one dirty joke there harr-harr)
- University of Texas at Austin where she got her master's degree in library science (I didn't know of that one)
Let's go further and check Cheney out too:
- University of Wyoming, Bachelor of Arts and also political science (artsy guy eh? I bet he smoked plenty of pot
- University of Wyoming, Master of Arts (more pot!), political science (more Che!) *big grin*
Seems he enjoyed UoW a lot since he stayed pot there
Lynne Cheney:
- Colorado College, Bachelor of Arts degree with highest honors (I see a connection here)
- University of Colorado, Master of Arts (ding!)
- University of Wisconsin, a Ph.D. with a specialization in 19th-Century British literature (Whoa! And she has written eight books + lots of other stuff)
Personally I think there's material for a lot of pot humour here (someone send Cheech & Chong to JibJab). Btw I'm pro-Bush.
Disclaimer: I've never smoked pot
On topic: good to see the guy lose his NASA PR job.
--
this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
"Has the Big Bang been established as scientific fact? Not saying it isn't, just would like some more info."
:) (and don't anyone dare take only the easy bit!!)
;) ) and there are other scientific theories about the universe available as alternatives to the Big Bang theory. Those theories might very well at some stage actually accumulate more evidence/predictive abilities/support and replace the Big Bang theory. As science is (or at least tries very hard to be) non-dogmatic that might very well happen when we (as a species) figure more stuff out. Or it might not of course.
I'll make this easy and then I'll complicate it
(easy bit) Nothing* has been established as scientific fact. I repeat; nothing*. Those who want to argue this please sign up for Philosophy of Science classes at your local university. In short science shouldn't take the validity of existing answers for granted, even the most well-established theories (and even laws) should be (and are) open for scrutiny.
* excluding abstract axiomatic systems of logical tautology like (most) mathematics and certain logic systems -- it's a bit special
(complicated bit) However there are a huge number of things (including the theory of the Big Bang) that almost all scientists would agree is extremely close to fact and which in practice usually is treated as fact (it's impossible to question absolutely everything all the time).
(further complicated bit (this one's voluntary)) Some scientists disagree (actually they all disagree - it's just a matter of what the subject at hand is lol
All the above are not weaknesses of science, they are the strenghts of science.
--
this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
Actually it was a very good idea on day one, but then came day two, three, four, five... and suddenly the shuttle was mounted on the side of the boosters & a host of other things.
Then somewhere around day 10000 almost everyone was using their 10/20 hindsight (no way it's anything close to 20/20 on average) to agree it was always a clusterfuck and should have been foreseen as such on day one.
What can we learn from this? Mostly that 10/20 hindsight will never go out of fashion, secondly that any average Joe do not appreciate the existence of learning curves nor that it usually takes many repeated mistakes before anyone actually learns.
--
this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
No, this has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with the fact that NASA exists in the real world.
:)
That's the same world where you and I exist; even if you would happen to a billionaire (I'm certainly not one) there is always some level beyond which you have to prioritize, beyond which you can't have everything. Most people learn this as little toddlers however a lot of (or all) politicans love forgetting it if it can get them elected
In the system which NASA exists that power of priority is in the hands of Congress (mainly) & Senate, however in this case it is NASA itself which is rearranging and reprioritizing at their own discretion.
Yes, one can argue for more money to NASA (even if they've already gotten more). Yes, I support "pet" projects of my own (like the Dawn mission which is on hold, and that's just a start; if I started listing all the things I'd like to see it would keep me occupied for the rest of my life) and I would of course love to see them get a massive increase in support. But neither changes the fact of how the world works or that there are other things than NASA which needs funding and/or which a majority of the elected representatives across any boundary deem important enough to manage to agree upon.
Enter the current plethora of private space initiatives; it's the only solution because it strives and directly aims to be economically profitable (something which 1. simply isn't NASAs job and 2. for the most part wouldn't even be legal for NASA as they as part of the US government aren't allowed to for example hold patents).
To sum it up: if you don't expect "this kind of thing" from anyone and everyone, always, you're going to be constantly disappointed (and to no gain for anyone including yourself).
--
this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
Sorry but I call bs on wood & ceramics being a germ breeding ground.
;) j/k (yeah I know, there's always some coworkers that like their little biology experiments lol)
:)
:)
Let's take the example of a chopping board. Compared to a plastic chopping board (unless you clean it with chlorine or similar nasty ideas) the wood board will have less germs (even if you wash/clean/scrub it less often - but why would anyone do that?) because the wood actually is naturally anti-bacterial. I'm sorry I have no link to provide to back this up but I've seen tests done on this.
Now that's a chopping board which of course gets cuts and scratches from normal use (which works against the plastic ones and in favour of the wood ones), the same would go for various wooden kitchen utensils. As to other uses of wood there is absolutely no reason one cannot lacquer them (which is almost always done in some fashion or the other, even for pencils) and such finishes give anything of wood a surface texture that's usually even smoother than plastic and as such easier to clean if there is a need for it.
Ceramics? I guess it depends on the finish as I can agree that "raw" porous ceramics without any kind of finish (think standard unglazed flower pots) would make for a nice home for germs (provided they find something to live off) but you don't really use such a flower pot as your coffee mug do you? Those nice shiny (glazed), usually humorously decorated coffee mugs, guess what, they're almost always made of ceramics... stoneware ain't no problem.
If you have problems with germs in your coffee mug I recommend washing it more often
Or were you thinking of your bathroom tiles?
And both women and men shaved (different places hopefully) before the invention of plastic (or Gilette) whitout getting broken glass in their bathtubs... believe it or not most people did not (have to) look like hairballs before you and I (or even our grandparents) were born lol
--
this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
Yup, if he actually had any kind of solid proof (that is: not pandering to those who desperately want to believe him) he would be turning over said proof (which had better amount to something more substantial than his hindsight) as well as himself to any court system of his own choosing. It needs not be an U.S. one, I suggest a european country like Belgium, France, or perhaps Russia? Or maybe instead going to the Republic of South Africa or a south american country like Brazil? But countries like Iran or NK wouldn't give much credibility. The aim of his should be to stand trial for (at best involuntary) complicity in the hoax. That would be something, that could make heads roll if it avoids becoming a showtrial (Venezuela or Cuba wouldn't be much point).
What's more if I was a U.S. resident with such proof I would immediately seek asylum abroad someplace after having moved out of the U.S. and going into hiding (or is he saying that anyone with such proof wouldn't be perfectly "accidented" if the administration really is what he claims it to be?).
It's hard to take him seriously since he's not at least doing those things (I'm sure other actions would be advisable as well).
"Reality" can always be discussed but selfcongruence is a must, at least in my book.
*mods "news" +5 fruitcake*
--
this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
"...of course the Big Bang is a theory."
"The question is whether it should be called as such."
I disagree. Let's call a spade a spade (at least in scientific papers) as this is to the benefit of science itself. Over time it might even help educate about the different meaning of the word theory within and outside science (and it's not like it's the only word which has radically different meanings depending). Not that it's any big problem if it slips once in a while but science is a dynamic endeavour and for a species that have a tendency to love rigid "truths" it's good to be reminded of that dynamic property no matter who one are (scientist or not).
However I completely agree with your last sentence (and it would have been nice if the NYT/this discussion had homed in on that exclusively).
--
this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
Nice to see someone mention this. Not that it justifies anything but it's wise to remember that bias (or worse) can and does come from any direction and seldom (if ever) for any good reason (i.e. it's usually at least 90% pure emotions).
All that aside on a personal note my faith wouldn't suffer the slightest if in the future some sort of steady-state universe becomes the ruling scientific theory (which might very well happen in our lifetime). As far as I'm concerned science extends and extrapolates on the beauty and diversity of this universe any which way (and by implication my reverence and love of God).
--
this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
I sympathize and I want you to know that there must be plenty of others like you & me out there (in all shades and variations) even if it might not provide much comfort. All this even though I'm pro-Bush myself (and religious although not subscribing to any organised religion). Actually a large part of the reason for my choice to be "non-organized" is the frustration of being "grouped" with opinions I don't necessarily agree with.
6 50800
Anyway here's to trying to remove purely ideological or religious (though not ethical) pressures on science, whatever direction they might come from.
p.s. to do this I think it paramount to clarify issues ref. my other post/reply http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=176384&cid=14
--
this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
Thank you! You give me hope for humanity.
:)
You are putting the finger on a very important problem: that opinons which should be (at least presently) regarded as more or less obvious (in this case that it is a scientific theory which implies that it is not (yet at least) absolutist "fact" (if one even wants to argue that anything ever can be said to anything such) suddenly becomes extremely contentious if someone one doesn't like/agree with in other matters is saying it. It's only human and we all fall into that trap from time to time but it really is something we would all benefit from trying to avoid: we would drastically reduce the amount of noise to signal in any discussion (and as such improve the efficiency and intelligence of such even if those involved end up agreeing to disagree -- nothing wrong with that).
Now I'm a pro-Bush religious (no organised religion) norwegian but in the posts I've read so far I've seen various arguments against this and that person within NASA etc. blaiming them for misusing the agency for political aims and so forth and those allegations might be perfectly true and correct (I don't have enough info to decide) and if so such actions are absolutely wrong imho but I would hope and encourage people to take your stance instead of letting their opinons on the theory of the big bang be clouded by politics.
If those being criticized act(ed) like they're said to do there should be plenty of other things to criticize them for rather than wanting the inclusion of the categorisation 'theory' in conjunction with any mention of the Big Bang. Doing so might even garner broader support since it clarifies the objectable issues! And even better; if the case it might also make the persons guilty of such understand the criticism, perhaps even modify themselves...
Sorry for the overly verbose reply but you simply made my day, thanks
--
this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
I guess the topic would be overclocking gone wrong? ;)
--
this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
I've seen a two of the cartoons (did some extensive googling days ago):
g id=15&entry_id=2796 (didn't manage to find the other one again and there should be others as well -- I think Die Welt has printed them all in a recent issue and since that is a fairly large and wellknown german newspaper it might be available at your local library or university library).
:)
- one is a completely innocent depiction in typical cartoon style (think Newsweek cartoons or any other major newspaper political comment cartoon) of a line of smoking (as from having blown up) suicide bombers in front of the gates of heaven. A robed muslim (not necessarily Mohammed) is blocking their path saying something like "sorry we're out of virgins". Not exactly highbrow but nothing especially bad either compared to many ordinary political cartoons in arab media.
- the second I've seen I do understand that muslims will find offensive just like most israelis (and others) will find offensive any superimposition of swasticas on a star of David (and I'm sure you know that isn't exactly rare). It's a cartoon portrait of a muslim/arabic man with black beard and a black turban with a lighted fuse sticking out of it. That in itself shoudln't be too offensive but if you add the supposition that it's the prophet Mohammed (afaik that wasn't even alluded to by the publishers) it gets a bit worse. However what is really offensive (imo) is that on the turban there is an arabic caligrafic which is said to be (I don't read arabic so I'm not sure) the first pillar of Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahada) thus implying that when the fuse reaches the bomb the first pillar of Islam is destroyed. I see how that can be extremely offensive yet mostly of all imo because it has a certain truth to it: the "islamic" terrorism will, if not fought and conquered by muslims themselves, destroy Islam.
Almost all westeners finds something in the media that they (can) take offense at, just like the rest of us those who are muslim need to understand that freedom of speech implies the right to offend even if considered blasphemous to some religion and I think most of them actually do understand it (at least most of those living in the west).
SFGate had an article/blogentry with the second cartoon: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blo
As to how Mohammed looked nobody knows (the BBC link in my original post addresses this issue briefly). Yes, it makes the whole shebang even more absurd
--
this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it