The "ground zero mosque" was neither at ground zero nor a mosque, but "Islamic community center in Manhattan" did not promote the associations that those who created this "controversy" were after, so they made up this "ground zero mosque" crap and were so skillful with their propaganda that most people still believe it.
And I forgot to mention that part of the outrage was due to the grandiose of the project, its huge price tag, and it being named "Corboba" - that was taken as triumphalism.
Anyway, I don't care too much about the Islamic center itself, I am just explaining the POV of those who do care. Conflating this opposition with Nazi hate is Michael Moore level of sensationalism.
Finally there's a legitimate concern. I in particular wouldn't care about it, because Amazon isn't interested in the names of my photos; and a big company like Amazon wouldn't sell the data (they would lose far more in brand damage than the petty change they would gain by selling the data).
Anyway, the details are still being worked out; this is the _beta_ stage of a _non-LTS_ release. There is time for Canonical to think and evaluate. Today, it is already easy to opt out (sudo apt-get remove unity-lens-shopping), and Canonical will possibly make it even easier (or even switch to opt-in).
One of the primary causes of malware is drive-by intrusion via compromised or unmaintained ad servers. Instead of worrying about free antivirus (which by definition rarely catches real 0-day threats), I'd get an ad blocker, or a utility like the paid version of Malwarebytes which blocks malicious website IPs. Block the IPs and what spits out the malware, don't bother playing whack-a-mole against the latest polymorphic stuff.
I find it wrong to freeload on sites that cost time and money to maintain. So I don't adblock. I do run Ubuntu, Firefox and Noscript though. Do you think I'm safe?
Here are the domains in my noscript whitelist (minus some personal domains that I omitted for privacy)
This tests a lot of antivirus and shows you their detection rate, false-positive rate, etc.
I myself promote Avira Antivir, which is lightweight, does well on AV-Comparatives.org, and is gratis.
Of course, the best solution is to install Ubuntu; if you choose it, I can give you free support over email.
And remember: any Windows antivirus (even, to a lesser degree, Ubuntu) will only attenuate the problem. You are _not_ safe just because you have a good antivirus (or run Ubuntu). You _must_ take care: don't go to rogue sites, don't execute untrusted executables, don't use pirated software, etc.
They say it by using terms like "Ground Zero Mosque" for something that is neither at ground zero nor a mosque
That's splitting hairs. It is two blocks from the WTC, and this fits a broad definition of "Ground zero".
Opposing an Islamic Center - let's avoid the hair-splitting about "is a Mosque! It is not! It is too!" - two blocks from the WTC is _very_ different from saying "Muslims cannot have a mosque anywhere in NYC". Conflating these two attitudes is Michael Moore level of sensationalism.
Oh, by the way: once a community of Carmelite nuns wanted to build a convent near Auschwitz, to pray for the souls of those martyred there. Jews were offended (even though the Carmelite nuns had nothing to do with the Shoah), and Pope John Paul II asked the nuns to build their convent elsewhere. Was this a sign of anti-Catholic hatred?
What is a showstopper is when I can't find basic stuff like the calculator because it's been moved from a simple accessories pulldown menu and hidden in some goofy app picker.
Click the Ubuntu icon (or press Super, or press Super-A), type cal, hit Enter. Or press Super-A (or right-click the Ubuntu Icon and choose Applications), click Filter Results, choose Accessories.
This is just his nature. He is a sleazeball. That's why so many of us were so hesitant to use Ubuntu way back when it started rising. Do we really want to get an OS from this glorified PHB? What slimy crap is he going to pull next? On the upside, he also has some really stupid ideas about the direction of the UI, so it doesn't hurt to just walk away. Just walk away.
Wow, that is the first time I have seen this. Please drink a glass of water, relax.
If what you are implying was true, I wouldn't have a Linux Mint machine right next to me (though, admittedly, this one is stripped-down Debian testing with XFCE).
I also trust Ford to build a car that won't get me killed in a car crash, I trust them do keep that up with spare parts, recalls and authorized service centers. It doesn't mean I want them to install a GPS tracker in my car so they can "improve my experience". Saying you should trust Ubuntu because they already 0wn your computer isn't exactly a confidence builder.
It is easy to turn off, and it is open source, so everyone can audit it.
As long as it's not pushing forced ads, I have no problem with Ubuntu setting up a shopping network and app sales.
They have to make money somehow and this seems like one of the less offensive services they could implement.
This is seen as a problem because certain free software extremists* are too leftist and they hate the idea of a company making profit.
* Don't get me wrong, I love open source. I strongly promote Linux, Libreoffice, Firefox, Chrome and 7zip. My laptop uses open source exclusively (to the best of my knowledge). I just don't think that companies are necessarily evil.
Faster? Heh. You've obviously never tried Unity lenses.
Unity lenses are speedy on my laptop (Corei3-350M, 2GiB RAM, magnetic 320GB HD), except when I have 100+ Firefox tabs open and the system is swapping heavily.
I picked a religious example, because Iranian censorship is rooted in religion, and because we have many people of strong faith in this country who have fought against the teaching of evolution in the schools. It's an easy example; I was being intellectually lazy. But when people of strong faith feel that their religion is being threatened, it's not insane to expect them to push back.
Christianity has been threatened since long, long ago.
You say that Christianity is not Islam; I agree that today it seems to be a much gentler religion. But it wasn't always that way. Consider Galileo, or Giordano Bruno.
First: the Galileo case was less bad (I'm _not_ saying it wasn't bad!) than people think. Galileo thought that the Sun was the center of the _Universe_. He did not have good arguments for his theory - he thought that the tides prove that the Earth orbits the Sun, but this was _wrong_. In fact, we now know that the tides are primarily caused by the gravity of the _Moon_. He also couldn't answer the objections of his opponents - if the Earth moves, then why don't we detect a parallax of the stars? (We now know that the stars are so far away that the parallax is very hard to see with the naked eye). Nevertheless, he was authorized to promote his idea as a scientific hypothesis. But some Aristotelian philosophers and theologians criticized him and, unfortunately, he entered into that fight. He started using theological arguments. He was forbidden (this is where the mistake of the Church authorities begin) to challenge the established Aristotelian philosophy and theology. He then _forged a signature_ to publish a book that did just that - challenged theology and Aristotelian philosophy. Because of the forgery, he was sentenced to _house arrest_; he died a good Catholic and his daughter became a nun. The whole process was still _bad_, I agree, but blessed John Paul II has already apologized for this. Also,
Second: please read about the Council Vatican II(1962-1965). it was an extremely important Church council, which enacted a lot of needed reforms. Certain old bad practices (such as supporting authoritarian governments which censored heresies) were condemned for good. And once an idea has been promulgated by an Ecumenical Council, it stays _forever_.
Also, America has an established tradition of separation of Church and state, and radical free speech. American free speech is so radical that you can deny the Holocaust, or picket funerals. And the Supreme Court is very "conservative" in the sense of not overturning previous decisions. It would be _very_ hard for the Supreme Court to change its mind and start allowing ideological/political/religious censorship.
Well, that same poll also has some positive aspects. * If a presidential candidate does not believe in evolution, 53% of American voters would not care, 29% would be _less_ likely to vote for him/her, and only 15% would me more likely to vote for him/her. * Only 20% oppose evolution being taught in public school science classes, and 61% support it.
When I googled for it the Huffington Post link was the first one that came up. Laziness on my part again. Next time I'll be more careful and cite the original source.
Thank you very much for listening to me, and also for being polite.
But as you can see, 46% polled by Gallup believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." That most certainly is Young Earth Creationism.
Not exactly. Young Earth Creationism states that the _Earth_ is a few thousand years old. It conflicts with quite a lo
No, the current "hate" is of the sort "Any mosque built in New York City is a Ground Zero mosque and a deliberate and malicious attempt to mock good (Christian) Americans, because it's impossible that there might be groups of Muslims in New Yorn City who actually want to practice their religion, and even if they are they need to respect our nutty theories".
I have never seen a respected conservative say that.
If you dont think hate is being generated here in the USA by "news channel talk show hosts" or "radio talk show hosts", then you havent been paying attention. It takes generations to remove hate from a culture, but it only takes a few years to generate it.
The current "hate" is of the sort "I don't want a ground zero Mosque just like a Japanese wouldn't want Disneyland Hiroshima" The Nazi kind of "hate" is of the sort "Retards and cripples must die, because they are inferior. Jews must all die, because they are monsters"
If you think that these two attitudes are remotely similar, then you are horribly sensationalist.
in the United States. Large swaths of the country are deeply religious, by which I mean some stripe of Christianity.
Which is completely different from Islam.
They have grown increasingly suspicious (if not downright scornful) of scientists and educators who challenge their views and threaten to corrupt the views of their children. I suspect that many of these folks sincerely see unrestricted search engines and an uncensored internet as tools of the devil. How far would public opinion have to tip before *all* searches are "safe" searches, and the "sanitized" web becomes the norm?
Oh please. No respected Christian opposes freedom of expression for scientific, religious, philosophical, or political ideas. At most, a few of them oppose hardcore pornography (which is not ideological or political censorship).
It seems unthinkable. But when 46% of the U.S. population earnestly believes that humans were created in their present form within the last 10,000 years, you have to be open to what happens if that number goes to 56%, or 96%.
The argument you are implying is a huge non sequitur. Believing that humans were created by God (which by the way is different from young-Earth creationism) has nothing to do with supporting censorship.
Please don't cite Huffington post. Not only they promote ridiculous pseudoscience (homeopathy, detoxification and vaccine-causes-autism)*, but their political views make Michael Moore and Oliver Stone look like reasonable thinkers.
Six years ago I wrote this journal entry [slashdot.org]. I'm more fearful today than then that a new Hitler will arise, and no less convinced that the chances are equal that such a Hitler will come from the West as they are from the Middle East
In that journal, you speak of criticism of Islam as "racial hatred". This is absurd; a person who criticizes Islam is no more racist than a person who criticizes communism. A religion (or ideology) is not a race.
And I would love the Left to practice what it preaches; they ostensibly hate religious intolerance and portray conservatives as "islamophobics", but they do not hesitate to demonize politicians who participated in an Opus Dei retreat.
I clarify that I do not support the sort of sensationalist anti-Islam rhetoric that you see on FrontPage Magazine. I am just highlighting the hypocrisy of those who ostensibly fight for Equality(TM) and Tolerance(TM), yet see no problem in demonizing orthodox Catholics, Evangelicals, and (the most bizarre part, since these people pretend to love the poor) rural Americans, who are despised as "hillbillies", "toothless hicks", "inbred", etc.
I would love the concept of tolerance to be practiced with coherence and reason.
but they just assume that I am an idiot who just doesn't know how to use a computer.
And this is why Linux will never be more than just an "alternative" desktop OS. Because its user base is always assumed to just KNOW how everything works, and if you pose a question that some neckbeard thinks is "stupid", he'll let you know it, and you'll be the focal point of mockery and derision.
Some Linux users are like that. But it seems to me that askubuntu.com is quite newbie-friendly.
Oh, and I WILL be modded down for this, and it WILL validate my point even more.
It's time you learned to use google, like the rest of us. Only a complete idiot would be unable to find citations for that without my help. Congratulations.
First: ad hominem is the mark of those who lack convincing logical arguments. Second: I don't want a source that describes the soil damage from modern agriculture. I want a source that compares the soil damage from old agriculture (which sometimes includes burning) with the soil damage from modern agriculture. And since you are the one attacking modern agriculture, the onus to find sources is on you. You made the claim, you need to back it up. Failing to provide the source and hurling insults instead is completely absurd.
Mecanization is awesome for society
Yes, just look at how it's helped your spelling.
English is my second language.
In a world in which it has been decided that each of us must work, mechanization is not awesome. It simply leads to unemployment for which we are criminalized.
As long as there are unprovided-for human wants, there will be jobs. And human wants are pretty much infinite.
Slashdot Mirror
Please see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3138413&cid=41441927
And I forgot to mention that part of the outrage was due to the grandiose of the project, its huge price tag, and it being named "Corboba" - that was taken as triumphalism.
Anyway, I don't care too much about the Islamic center itself, I am just explaining the POV of those who do care. Conflating this opposition with Nazi hate is Michael Moore level of sensationalism.
Please see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3140615&cid=41442941
Finally there's a legitimate concern. I in particular wouldn't care about it, because Amazon isn't interested in the names of my photos; and a big company like Amazon wouldn't sell the data (they would lose far more in brand damage than the petty change they would gain by selling the data).
Anyway, the details are still being worked out; this is the _beta_ stage of a _non-LTS_ release. There is time for Canonical to think and evaluate.
Today, it is already easy to opt out (sudo apt-get remove unity-lens-shopping), and Canonical will possibly make it even easier (or even switch to opt-in).
I use Noscript (and Ubuntu) too, but I wonder if it is worth it.
Anyway, is there a known-good whitelist I can download?
I find it wrong to freeload on sites that cost time and money to maintain. So I don't adblock. I do run Ubuntu, Firefox and Noscript though. Do you think I'm safe?
Here are the domains in my noscript whitelist (minus some personal domains that I omitted for privacy)
[had to put two domains per line because of Slashdot filter]
2mdn.net addthis.com
amazonaws.com
amung.us chartbeat.com
cloudfront.net disqus.com
doubleclick.net fbcdn.net
firstdata.com firstdata.lv
flashgot.net
fsdn.com fyre.co
gmodules.com google-analytics.com
google.com google.com.br
googleapis.com googlecode.com
googletagservices.com googleusercontent.com
googlezeitgeist.com gravatar.com
gstatic.com identi.ca
informaction.com jqueryui.com
livefyre.com maone.net
mywot.com mywot.net
passport.com passport.net
passportimages.com paypal.com
paypalobjects.com persona.org
pinterest.com polldaddy.com
rating-widget.com securecode.com
securesuite.net sharethis.com
siteadvisor.com sitemeter.com
slashdot.org statcounter.com
status.net stumbleupon.com
topsy.com ubuntu.com
vimeo.com vimeocdn.com
w3techs.com wikimedia.org
wikipedia.org wlxrs.com
wmtips.com wordpress.com
yahoo.com yahooapis.com
yimg.com youtube-nocookie.com
youtube.com ytimg.com
about:blank about:startpage
[UNTRUSTED]
ad4game.com atdmt.com
klout.com quantserve.com
By the way, is there some known-good whitelist I can download?
http://av-comparatives.org/
This tests a lot of antivirus and shows you their detection rate, false-positive rate, etc.
I myself promote Avira Antivir, which is lightweight, does well on AV-Comparatives.org, and is gratis.
Of course, the best solution is to install Ubuntu; if you choose it, I can give you free support over email.
And remember: any Windows antivirus (even, to a lesser degree, Ubuntu) will only attenuate the problem. You are _not_ safe just because you have a good antivirus (or run Ubuntu). You _must_ take care: don't go to rogue sites, don't execute untrusted executables, don't use pirated software, etc.
Good luck.
That's splitting hairs. It is two blocks from the WTC, and this fits a broad definition of "Ground zero".
Opposing an Islamic Center - let's avoid the hair-splitting about "is a Mosque! It is not! It is too!" - two blocks from the WTC is _very_ different from saying "Muslims cannot have a mosque anywhere in NYC". Conflating these two attitudes is Michael Moore level of sensationalism.
Oh, by the way: once a community of Carmelite nuns wanted to build a convent near Auschwitz, to pray for the souls of those martyred there. Jews were offended (even though the Carmelite nuns had nothing to do with the Shoah), and Pope John Paul II asked the nuns to build their convent elsewhere. Was this a sign of anti-Catholic hatred?
Christians have to suck it up too.
Click the Ubuntu icon (or press Super, or press Super-A), type cal, hit Enter.
Or press Super-A (or right-click the Ubuntu Icon and choose Applications), click Filter Results, choose Accessories.
Wow, that is the first time I have seen this. Please drink a glass of water, relax.
People tolerate Mint because (AFAIK) there is no company behind it. See http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3140159&cid=41441261
It is easy to turn off, and it is open source, so everyone can audit it.
This is seen as a problem because certain free software extremists* are too leftist and they hate the idea of a company making profit.
* Don't get me wrong, I love open source. I strongly promote Linux, Libreoffice, Firefox, Chrome and 7zip. My laptop uses open source exclusively (to the best of my knowledge). I just don't think that companies are necessarily evil.
Unity lenses are speedy on my laptop (Corei3-350M, 2GiB RAM, magnetic 320GB HD), except when I have 100+ Firefox tabs open and the system is swapping heavily.
Christianity has been threatened since long, long ago.
First: the Galileo case was less bad (I'm _not_ saying it wasn't bad!) than people think. Galileo thought that the Sun was the center of the _Universe_. He did not have good arguments for his theory - he thought that the tides prove that the Earth orbits the Sun, but this was _wrong_. In fact, we now know that the tides are primarily caused by the gravity of the _Moon_. He also couldn't answer the objections of his opponents - if the Earth moves, then why don't we detect a parallax of the stars? (We now know that the stars are so far away that the parallax is very hard to see with the naked eye). Nevertheless, he was authorized to promote his idea as a scientific hypothesis. But some Aristotelian philosophers and theologians criticized him and, unfortunately, he entered into that fight. He started using theological arguments. He was forbidden (this is where the mistake of the Church authorities begin) to challenge the established Aristotelian philosophy and theology. He then _forged a signature_ to publish a book that did just that - challenged theology and Aristotelian philosophy. Because of the forgery, he was sentenced to _house arrest_; he died a good Catholic and his daughter became a nun. The whole process was still _bad_, I agree, but blessed John Paul II has already apologized for this. Also,
Second: please read about the Council Vatican II(1962-1965). it was an extremely important Church council, which enacted a lot of needed reforms. Certain old bad practices (such as supporting authoritarian governments which censored heresies) were condemned for good. And once an idea has been promulgated by an Ecumenical Council, it stays _forever_.
Also, America has an established tradition of separation of Church and state, and radical free speech. American free speech is so radical that you can deny the Holocaust, or picket funerals. And the Supreme Court is very "conservative" in the sense of not overturning previous decisions. It would be _very_ hard for the Supreme Court to change its mind and start allowing ideological/political/religious censorship.
Well, that same poll also has some positive aspects.
* If a presidential candidate does not believe in evolution, 53% of American voters would not care, 29% would be _less_ likely to vote for him/her, and only 15% would me more likely to vote for him/her.
* Only 20% oppose evolution being taught in public school science classes, and 61% support it.
Thank you very much for listening to me, and also for being polite.
Not exactly. Young Earth Creationism states that the _Earth_ is a few thousand years old. It conflicts with quite a lo
I have never seen a respected conservative say that.
The current "hate" is of the sort "I don't want a ground zero Mosque just like a Japanese wouldn't want Disneyland Hiroshima"
The Nazi kind of "hate" is of the sort "Retards and cripples must die, because they are inferior. Jews must all die, because they are monsters"
If you think that these two attitudes are remotely similar, then you are horribly sensationalist.
Which is completely different from Islam.
Oh please. No respected Christian opposes freedom of expression for scientific, religious, philosophical, or political ideas. At most, a few of them oppose hardcore pornography (which is not ideological or political censorship).
The argument you are implying is a huge non sequitur. Believing that humans were created by God (which by the way is different from young-Earth creationism) has nothing to do with supporting censorship.
Please don't cite Huffington post. Not only they promote ridiculous pseudoscience (homeopathy, detoxification and vaccine-causes-autism)*, but their political views make Michael Moore and Oliver Stone look like reasonable thinkers.
* http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4283
In that journal, you speak of criticism of Islam as "racial hatred". This is absurd; a person who criticizes Islam is no more racist than a person who criticizes communism. A religion (or ideology) is not a race.
And I would love the Left to practice what it preaches; they ostensibly hate religious intolerance and portray conservatives as "islamophobics", but they do not hesitate to demonize politicians who participated in an Opus Dei retreat.
I clarify that I do not support the sort of sensationalist anti-Islam rhetoric that you see on FrontPage Magazine. I am just highlighting the hypocrisy of those who ostensibly fight for Equality(TM) and Tolerance(TM), yet see no problem in demonizing orthodox Catholics, Evangelicals, and (the most bizarre part, since these people pretend to love the poor) rural Americans, who are despised as "hillbillies", "toothless hicks", "inbred", etc.
I would love the concept of tolerance to be practiced with coherence and reason.
Some Linux users are like that. But it seems to me that askubuntu.com is quite newbie-friendly.
Yeah, right.
My screen locks after suspend, and it doesn't fix the problem for me.
My Core i3 laptop didn't have this problem before 12.04. It appeared with 12.04.
These nuclear-phobic countries will be out-competed by China.
Try insulting the Party in China.
First: ad hominem is the mark of those who lack convincing logical arguments.
Second: I don't want a source that describes the soil damage from modern agriculture. I want a source that compares the soil damage from old agriculture (which sometimes includes burning) with the soil damage from modern agriculture. And since you are the one attacking modern agriculture, the onus to find sources is on you. You made the claim, you need to back it up. Failing to provide the source and hurling insults instead is completely absurd.
English is my second language.
As long as there are unprovided-for human wants, there will be jobs. And human wants are pretty much infinite.