Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 12 Feb 2007 07:20 T Wake wrote: > "Phil Carmody" <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > news:87hcu08fjs.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org... > >>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: >> >>>Phil Carmody wrote: >>> >>>>So you're saying that the ancient tracts don't matter, then? >>>>If so, why did you start this subthread by posting references to a >>>>document 1200 years old? >>> >>>Matters to some, not to others. Islam doesn't seem to >>>evolve because "Allah wrote the Koran and handed it to >>>Mohammed, It is not to be interpreted." >> >>What's the Koran got to do with this? >> > > > As an aside, the same could be said about the Bible. From the wonders of > wiki: > > Christianity regards the Bible, a collection of canonical books in two > parts, the Old Testament and the New Testament, as authoritative: written by > human authors under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and therefore the > inerrant Word of God.[43] > > (Source 43 reads Catechism of the Catholic Church, Inspiration and Truth of > Sacred Scripture (�105-108); Second Helvetic Confession, Of the Holy > Scripture Being the True Word of God; Chicago Statement on Biblical > Inerrancy) > > Despite this, Catholicism has evolved. Yes, it took ~325 years to hammer out the concept of the Trinity, a now central idea in Christianity, then another ~1200 years for the first large scale reformation complete with blood letting to happen. The book _Infidel_ should be required reading for all participants in this thread. I'm ordering my copy today. I saw a TV interview of the author. <http://www.amazon.com/Infidel-Ayaan-Hirsi-Ali/dp/0743289684/ref=pd_rhf_f_1/104-6161607-2161540> "From The Washington Post's Book World/washingtonpost.com Reviewed by Anne Applebaum "'I am Ayaan, the daughter of Hirsi, the son of Magan.' "In the first scene of Infidel, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a child of 5, sitting on a grass mat. Her grandmother is teaching her to recite the names of her ancestors, as all Somali children must learn to do. "Get it right," her grandmother warns. "They are your bloodline. . . . If you dishonor them you will be forsaken. You will be nothing. You will lead a wretched life and die alone." "Thus begins the extraordinary story of a woman born into a family of desert nomads, circumcised as a child, educated by radical imams in Kenya and Saudi Arabia, taught to believe that if she uncovered her hair, terrible tragedies would ensue. It's a story that, with a few different twists, really could have led to a wretched life and a lonely death, as her grandmother warned. But instead, Hirsi Ali escaped -- and transformed herself into an internationally renowned spokeswoman for the rights of Muslim women. "The break began when she slipped away from her family on her way to a forced marriage in Canada and talked her way into political asylum in Holland, using a story she herself calls "an invention." Soon after arriving, she removed her head scarf to see if God would strike her dead. He did not. Nor were there divine consequences when, defying her ancestors, she donned blue jeans, rode a bicycle, enrolled in university, became a Dutch citizen, began to speak publicly about the mistreatment of Muslim women in Holland and won election to the Dutch parliament. "But tragedy followed fame. In 2004, Hirsi Ali helped a Dutch director, Theo van Gogh, make a controversial film, "Submission," about Muslim women suffering from forced marriages and wife beating. Van Gogh was murdered by an angry Muslim radical in response, and Hirsi Ali went into hiding. The press began to explore her past, discovering the "inventions" that she had used to get her refugee status. The Dutch threatened to revoke her citizenship; the American Enterprise Institute offered her a job in Washington. And thus she came to be among us. "Even the bare facts of this unusual life would make fascinating reading. But this book is something more than an ordinary autobiography: In the tradition of Frederick Douglass or even John Stuart Mill, Infidel describes a unique intellectual journey, from the tribal customs of Hirsi Ali's Somali childhood, through the harsh fundamentalism of Saudi Arabia and into the contemporary West. Along the way, Hirsi Ali displays what surely must be her greatest gift: the talent for recalling, describing and honestly analyzing the precise state of her feelings at each stage of that journey. "She describes how she felt as a teenager, voluntarily wearing a hijab, a black cloak that hid her body: "It sent out a message of superiority: I was the one true Muslim. All those other little girls with their little white headscarves were children, hypocrites." She writes of meeting her husband-to-be's family: "I concentrated on behaving properly: Speaking softly, being polite, avoiding shame to my parents. I felt empty." "She also describes how horrified she felt as an adult after Sept. 11, 2001, reaching for the Koran to find out whether some of Osama bin Laden's more blood-curdling statements -- "when you meet the unbelievers, strike them in the neck" -- were direct quotations. "I hated to do it," she wrote, "because I knew that I would find bin Laden's quotations in there." And there were consequences: "The little shutter at the back of my mind, where I pushed all my dissonant thoughts, snapped open after the 9/11 attacks, and it refused to close again. I found myself thinking that the Quran is not a holy document. It is a historical record, written by humans. . . . And it is a very tribal and Arab version of events. It spreads a culture that is brutal, bigoted, fixated on controlling women, and harsh in war." "That moment led Hirsi Ali to her most profound conclusion: that the mistreatment of women is not an incidental problem in the Muslim world, a side issue that can be dealt with once the more important political problems are out of the way. Rather, she believes that the enslavement of women lies at the heart of all of the most fanatical interpretations of Islam, creating "a culture that generates more backwardness with every generation." "Ultimately, it led to her most controversial conclusion too: that Islam is in a period of transition, that the religion as it is currently practiced is often incompatible with modernity and democracy and must radically transform itself in order to become so. "We in the West," she writes, "would be wrong to prolong the pain of that transition unnecessarily, by elevating cultures full of bigotry and hatred toward women to the stature of respectable alternative ways of life." That sentiment, when first expressed in Holland, infuriated not only Hirsi Ali's compatriots but also Dutch intellectuals uneasy about criticizing the immigrants in their midst, particularly because both Hirsi Ali and Theo van Gogh went further than the usual criticism of radical, political Islam: Both believed that even "ordinary" forms of Islam, such as those practiced in Hirsi Ali's Somalia, contain elements of discrimination against women that should not be tolerated in the West. Thanks to this belief in female equality, Hirsi Ali now requires permanent bodyguards. But having "moved from the world of faith to the world of reason," Hirsi Ali now says she cannot go back. "Still, she describes herself as lucky: "How many girls born in Digfeer Hospital in Mogadishu in November 1969 are even alive today?" she asks rhetorically. "And how many have a real voice?" To that, it's worth adding another question: How many women with Hirsi Ali's experience of radical Islam have emerged to tell their stories? And how many can do so with such clarity and insight? Infidel is a unique book, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a unique writer, and both deserve to go far." "Copyright 2007, The Washington Post. All Rights Reserved."
From: Phil Carmody on 12 Feb 2007 07:44 kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes: > In article <87ejow2v23.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, > Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes: > [...] > >> > If you want to complain here it's not about > >> >the lack of othogonality, rather the dearth of registers. > >> >Remember, x86 is thirty years old. > >> > >> AX, BX, CX, DX, IS, IP, DS, ES Thats 8 16 bit registers. That > >> isn't a serious shortage. The fact that you can't use the DS and ES as > >> would make sense and that the memory operations were so slow made it so > >> that you always felt short on registers. > > > >You're rusty. 7 GPRs plus a stack register. 4 segment registers which > >are not GPRs at all. > > No, I'm pointing out that the segment registers are 16 bit registers that > can't be used for normal stuff. They are special purpose but only serving > to implement a stupid idea. They could have been just more 16 bit > registers. You're pointing out that there are 12 16-bit registers including the segment registers by saying that there are 8 16-bit registers? You're weird. > >Before modern pipelined versions, it was much quicker to use memory > >operands > > No, it was "a lot less slow" not "much quicker". The memory operations > forced a trip through the ALU. This dragged the speed way down. Oh dear, you can't even understand the concept of a sentence. You can't quote a sentence "A is faster than B" down to "A is faster than" and then compare A to C. Read what I wrote: > > than loading into a register, working on it there, and writing > >it back out again. Of course, if you were going to do more than one > >thing then the overhead of the load and store was amortized, and > >registers would be preferable. > > You had to load the CX register to do a LOOP. What's LOOP got to do with anything? You're completely hatstand. Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./.
From: Phil Carmody on 12 Feb 2007 07:47 unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: > Ken Smith wrote: > > In article <OtidnQWNJOAtcVTYnZ2dnUVZ8qrinZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > > T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > [.....] > > > >> yes, but I am confused on terminology. With a Windows XP machine, > >> what you do call the OS? > > The Linux on the other partition. > > A properly installed Linux uses all the available > partitions. Wrong. (But about what I expected from an ignoramus like yourself.) A properly installed linux uses all the partitions which the system administrator wants linux to be able to use, and none that the system administrator doesn't want linux to be able to use. Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./.
From: unsettled on 12 Feb 2007 08:18 Phil Carmody wrote: > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: > >>Ken Smith wrote: >> >>>In article <OtidnQWNJOAtcVTYnZ2dnUVZ8qrinZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>>T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>[.....] >>> >>> >>>>yes, but I am confused on terminology. With a Windows XP machine, >>>>what you do call the OS? >>> >>>The Linux on the other partition. >> >>A properly installed Linux uses all the available >>partitions. > > > Wrong. (But about what I expected from an ignoramus like yourself.) > > A properly installed linux uses all the partitions which the system > administrator wants linux to be able to use, and none that the system > administrator doesn't want linux to be able to use. As usual, you redefine the discussion to suit yourself. Be happy.
From: Ken Smith on 12 Feb 2007 09:46
In article <87wt2n1r6j.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes: >> In article <87ejow2v23.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, >> Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes: >> [...] >> >> > If you want to complain here it's not about >> >> >the lack of othogonality, rather the dearth of registers. >> >> >Remember, x86 is thirty years old. >> >> >> >> AX, BX, CX, DX, IS, IP, DS, ES Thats 8 16 bit registers. That >> >> isn't a serious shortage. The fact that you can't use the DS and ES as >> >> would make sense and that the memory operations were so slow made it so >> >> that you always felt short on registers. >> > >> >You're rusty. 7 GPRs plus a stack register. 4 segment registers which >> >are not GPRs at all. >> >> No, I'm pointing out that the segment registers are 16 bit registers that >> can't be used for normal stuff. They are special purpose but only serving >> to implement a stupid idea. They could have been just more 16 bit >> registers. > >You're pointing out that there are 12 16-bit registers including the >segment registers by saying that there are 8 16-bit registers? You are wrong about the number of registers. This is where your error is based. Look at: http://www.electronics.dit.ie/staff/tscarff/8086_registers/8086_registers.html And count how many 16 bit general purpose registers. There are 4 according to Intel. The confusion usually happens because the 4 16 bit registers are divided into 8 8 bit registers. > >You're weird. > >> >Before modern pipelined versions, it was much quicker to use memory >> >operands >> >> No, it was "a lot less slow" not "much quicker". The memory operations >> forced a trip through the ALU. This dragged the speed way down. > >Oh dear, you can't even understand the concept of a sentence. > >You can't quote a sentence "A is faster than B" down to >"A is faster than" and then compare A to C. > >Read what I wrote: I did you said "much quicker". Since quick doesn't apply to either, it is the wrong term to use. Burning up 22 an extra IIRC clock cycles does not qualify as quick. >> > than loading into a register, working on it there, and writing >> >it back out again. Of course, if you were going to do more than one >> >thing then the overhead of the load and store was amortized, and >> >registers would be preferable. >> >> You had to load the CX register to do a LOOP. > >What's LOOP got to do with anything? You haven't been following the discussion. I used the case of a REP prefix used inside a loop as the example of why the 8086's instruction set was so poorly designed. The CX and the REP both use the CX so the CX must be loaded for the REP inside the loop. This means that the current CX contents must be saved, the CX loaded, the REP done and the CX restored. This is a lot of extra work. > >You're completely hatstand. > >Phil >-- >"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank >so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of >/In God We Trust, Inc./. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |