The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by pumkinandstorm.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by bjornenlinda.

Yes.

Did a little bit of probing around and as far as I can tell, the problem is most likely NoScript. Disabling it doesn't change a thing, but a clean FF seems to work, at least until I add NS again.

Anyways, the problem is on my end, that's pretty clear. Mobile version on my S2 works without a problem.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Barseps.

Debate, yay! Let's take this in order:

@00Scud00 You don't actually disagree with me it seems. Christian fundamentalism is (almost) as dangerous as Islam fundamentalism imo, with the tiny caveat that Jesus' message was mostly pacific passive-aggressive, à la "be nice to everyone here, me and Dad will torture our enemies in the afterlife", whereas Muhammed's was very much "death to the infidel, by our hand and/or God's" (e.g. s2:191-3; s4:89; 5:33; 9:52, etc). As for nation-building, it is more rooted in Islam - if only by virtue of being what their holiest figure did, contrary to the "kingdom-of-heaven-is-not-on-earth" Jesus (of course, Christianity's inherent One Truth totalitarianism is, as history shows, a perfect backup ideology for colonizing and war-weilding as well.
Of course people growing up with Islam will, for the most part, adhere to the good and ignore (sadly, instead of revolting against) the evil, just like with any other religion. That does not change the inherent wrongness and dangerousness of the ideology itself.
"You're condemning an entire belief system and billions of Muslims based on a statistically small group of whackjobs, doesn't sound very scientific to me. the comparatively greater (observable and quantifiable) numbers of threats/acts of violence done in the name of Islam than those in the name of other religious ideologies in this point in history " FTFClarity. If I mention >100'000person-riots demanding the deaths of atheist bloggers, which religious beliefs are most likely to be at the source there? Proportionally, which religious beliefs have, today, the most negative effects on women? Which population of ex-"religion" is most likely to receive death threats and/or be killed for religious reasons? I could go on, but I think the point is made that, proportionally, Islam is the greatest cause of religious-fueled harm today.

@Yogi, apples and oranges dear, not to mention your very narrow definition of Islam's toll (the sunnis bombed by chiites and vice-versa, and all the honour-killing victims, to name only a couple, would not agree with you). The US-wrought massacres in the ME are unforgiveable, no doubt about it, but most of the excuses made to justify it were secular, not religious. Fundamentalist Islam is above all a threat to its immediate neighbours (usually other muslims). Islamist terrorism is only one aspect of the ideology's dangers, and takes its greatest toll in Africa and the ME. Counting only US victims is terribly self-centered.

@SDGundamX Hello old debate-buddy; I will freely admit that I do not want to spend days and days compiling exact numbers of "victims of Islam" vs "victims of other religions", and I think it is rather a dismissive tactic to demand such data. That is why I formulated the question differently in the response above to 00Scud00: take a look at the state of the world, and simply compare. Does this paint all of Islam in a broad brush? You think it does, I do not. I do not find it contradictory to accept the wide variety of "Islams" and Islamic practices/interpretations while arguing that the core fundamentals of Islam, i.e. the founding texts and exemplary figures, can and sadly often do lead to or are invoked to motivate violence and unethical behaviour, and that at this point in history it is the one that does so the most. I do not imply that there is "one" practice of Islam, that is you projecting. There are, however, a set of texts at the core of Islam, and with it a set of beliefs (as you yourself point out).
There is a reason why "moderate" Christians, Muslims, etc. are called "moderate": they only "moderately" adhere to that core. And yes, Muslims disagree with eachother about how to live/interpret that core, and sometimes (like the Christians and Jews etc. before them) kill eachother over their disagreements.

Is there good stuff to be found in those fundamentals? Yes, of course, but they are basics of human empathy and animal morality, and do not require holy validation (this applies for all religious fundamentals of course).

You and many others seem to be unable to dissociate "hating an ideology" from "hating every individual who adheres to it, no matter to what degree". It is noteworthy that the people who accuse others of painting Islam/Muslims "with one broad stroke" are often guilty of implying exactly that when they make that accusation: "you express dislike of Islam and/or the acts of certain Muslims, ergo you can only be expressing dislike for all of them, because one=all!"

As for equating Islam with danger, there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is to equate Muslim people with danger, and yes, there is a huge difference, one that people like myself think so obvious as to not have to spell it out until opposing voices accuse us of not making that difference, often because they themselves cannot. When the fundamentals say "believing something other than Islam is worse than murder" and "kill the non-believer", it is a dangerous ideology. Thankfully we know that the majority of individuals will eschew that part of the fundamentals, gaining the "moderate" achievement. This does not diminish the danger inherent in the fundamentals.

@Babymech It is not ignorant to say that Chechens have been bombed, massacred, and isolated, and are poor as all get-out. It is ignorant to suggest that these are the only possible reasons a culture might have violent strains running through it, and that one should by all means not look towards the beliefs that explicitly command killing people who don't believe what you do. Moreover, my history is pretty rusty, but of all the many places and peoples the US has bombed and massacred, I don't remember Chechnya being among them. The Boston bombing may have been political in nature, but suggesting that it can only be so and cannot have religious motivations is simplistic and counter to, well, reality.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Barseps.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Hybrid.

>> ^direpickle:

>> ^Deano:
I've read a few takes on the trial that say this is all good news for Samsung. If you accept that they copied then it's just cost them $1bn to become second in the market. And they're appealing that in any case. Their marketing budget alone is $3bn.
Meanwhile Microsoft "innovated" with Windows Phone and they're nowhere. Look where Palm and Nokia are. Following in Apple's footsteps was the smartest move.
And yes, do a bleeding decent Picard voice!

$1B, and what could turn into a permanent injunction against sales of some of its top-of-the-line products. That's a killer. Won't know until December, though.
Well, it's mostly last-generation stuff. But I imagine they still sell Galaxy S2s.


It's not going to kill Samsung or fundamentally hurt them in any way. And they'll be appealing this for years. I'd understand if the Galaxy S3 was affected but it's not.
I know I'd prefer to be in Samsung's position rather than say RIM.

>> ^Deano:

I've read a few takes on the trial that say this is all good news for Samsung. If you accept that they copied then it's just cost them $1bn to become second in the market. And they're appealing that in any case. Their marketing budget alone is $3bn.
Meanwhile Microsoft "innovated" with Windows Phone and they're nowhere. Look where Palm and Nokia are. Following in Apple's footsteps was the smartest move.
And yes, do a bleeding decent Picard voice!


$1B, and what could turn into a permanent injunction against sales of some of its top-of-the-line products. That's a killer. Won't know until December, though.

Well, it's mostly last-generation stuff. But I imagine they still sell Galaxy S2s.

>> ^nach0s:

The end part (conversation with an old woman) played during/after the credits on S2/E5 of his show Louie. It was awesome--she played an absent-minded relative who he took his daughters to visit. She kept casually saying really racist things and was generally daft and awkward. It was great to see the actress's real personality in the credits. Props to Louie for including it.


She was the most interesting old lady I really liked that Louie included that because I could've listened to her all day. Sometimes the best part of a Louie episode to me is watching that last bit after I've watched the episode, Louie is really doing everything right with his show, and I'm so grateful we have it and will continue to have it.