|
Post by Ave` on Oct 29, 2007 1:42:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hapalicious on Oct 29, 2007 2:01:05 GMT -5
maybe they do...but not in the best of ways. i fail to see how having entirely computerized classrooms is the best way to finance education. Where are these "entirely computerized classrooms" in Islamic countries? you were talking about wealthy islamic countries... i was thinking something along the line of say...dubai? you quoted out of context...Do you care to cite sources that say Islamic countries buy the most diamond-studded headphones? handphones not headphones. and anyone who s sold luxury goods (have you?? ) will agree with the fact that millionaires from the UAE will buy the most ostentatious and lavish close-to-ridicule items out there. if you wish to quote me out of context again...just a reminder to say wealth is being spent ostentatiously and as long as i don t see any discoveries or major research being done and money being invested in the latter...i still maintain that despite the potential wealth, unless they have the above, they re not in a position to gain world power. Why is it that you started arguing that Islamic countries don't spend money on education, but now say that spending money on education is "ostentatious"? way to take things out of context ! i NEVEEEEEEEEEEEEER said spending money on education was ostentatious. i said the way they did was. ie: they spend it on technology moreso than the actual research. again...you still have to show me what sort of conceptual un-patentable discoveries they made. Do Western nations produce lasting advances, or are advances today just a fleeting advantage? e.g. after spending billions of dollars on developing blu-ray discs, do they offer a lasting advantage, or will they be subsumed by better USB drives? i ve made my point on this issue earlier on. better this than nothing... and eventually, between the "USB drive research" (that actually happens to be important since it advances technology) and seedless grape experiment they come up with something genius. my point : better this than nothing. conceptual un-patentable research that comes in the shape of thin air just like your response to my question on the matter.If new housing cannot be built because of land use restrictions, gas prices become more expensive because of arbitrary "carbon emission taxes", is it economic progress? The result is increased homelessness, higher consumer prices, lowered standards of living. wow...so you think homelessness and low standards of living are due to hippies ?You seem to be hung up on the "silicone coral reef" example, but do you care to cite a source for this? My research shows that Dubai is not using silicone; "the reef will be constructed using geo-synthetic containers filled with sand or stones and sunk to form a horseshoe shape on the seabed. " www.ead.ae/en/?T=4&ID=390 ok....does that change the point i was making? can you still not draw a parallel ? again : my point is that research/patents/discoveries/technological advances is what makes a country "powerful" i was asking for evidence that they were big on research/education and merely cited this example to show they displayed the wealth more than they invested it in lasting enterprises...Furthermore, I would like to see proof that building coral beds benefits the economy of Japan, as opposed to creating more shipping hazards.
|
|
|
Post by haplotype on Oct 29, 2007 2:36:28 GMT -5
Where are these "entirely computerized classrooms" in Islamic countries? you were talking about wealthy islamic countries... i was thinking something along the line of say...dubai? you quoted out of context... So where are these "entirely computerized classrooms" in Dubai? Again, I ask for a reliable source as opposed to hearsay. Your original sentence was "what i meant to say is that wealth is being spent on very ostantacious things...be it tallest skycrapers, most diamond studded handphones or education itself." How is this quoting you out of context? So if a school in the Western world spends more on classroom technology rather than research, are they "spending ostentatiously"? I never said they have made them yet. We are talking about the future here. Indeed, patents for software or genes have no concrete shape or form. The vast array of "inventors" who hoard patents in such topics have served to slow innovation, for they make a living from suing companies. www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3500546www.techdirt.com/articles/20040810/1014215.shtmlEnvironmentalism is really about raising real estate values. Since "advanced" economies have fewer industries, they are engaging in the zero-sum game of raising real estate prices while blocking new development. In other words, there is no "silicone coral reef". You created a straw man argument of someone making coral reefs somewhere, as if it has any effect on the economy.
|
|
|
Post by Altan on Oct 29, 2007 5:34:49 GMT -5
I would say the start of the Islamic Century started at the end of the 19th Century. I think the reason it declinened for a bit was Europe finding of the New Worlds and all the resources and power to dominate and colonize the World for the last 500 years. With all the new resources came more capital came the enlightrnent, came industrialization and more superior technology to dominate whatever sphere of the world.
Islam is not a Racial Nationalistic Movement like what is making India and China try to outcompete the West but it is a Religious Movement that is very diverse and extremely large and uniform. With core values and core ideas that are pretty sucessful in the long term.
|
|
|
Post by hapalicious on Oct 29, 2007 9:15:11 GMT -5
you were talking about wealthy islamic countries... i was thinking something along the line of say...dubai? you quoted out of context... Again, I ask for a reliable source as opposed to hearsay. does everything NEEDS to have a source ESPECIALLY in this case ? what source will i be able to find ? trust me, big companies don t post on the net the fact that they make special designs for these people in particular that are more showy and more expensive since noone but the clients and the people who make them get to see them. what...? you need stats and figures ? you clearly haven t been behing the scenes and don t know that or try hard to ignore it but sheks or people who became incredibly wealthy in the UAE from oil wells or what not are spending their money in much more extravagant ways than anyone. yes....money corrupts one soul....we all knew. keep trying to prove billionaires there haven t fallen for the consumerist ideal of living and "moral depravity"Your original sentence was "what i meant to say is that wealth is being spent on very ostantacious things...be it tallest skycrapers, most diamond studded handphones or education itself." How is this quoting you out of context? and my original sentence...in the context itself meant to be understood the way i later explained it...poor syntax made it sound "bad" but you obviously understood what i meant as you obviously misquoted me again and cut out my explanation of it ....So if a school in the Western world spends more on classroom technology rather than research, are they "spending ostentatiously"? i take it that if you re asking this you re agreeing? i m not here to define my choice of words but to make the point that research is more important than the facilities. of course you need high tech to conduct research but.......argh. you get the point...stop clinging on straws.I never said they have made them yet. We are talking about the future here. Indeed, patents for software or genes have no concrete shape or form. The vast array of "inventors" who hoard patents in such topics have served to slow innovation, for they make a living from suing companies. www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3500546www.techdirt.com/articles/20040810/1014215.shtmlwhy am i reading this again ? to prove that discoveries come in un patentable shape?Environmentalism is really about raising real estate values. Since "advanced" economies have fewer industries, they are engaging in the zero-sum game of raising real estate prices while blocking new development. In other words, there is no "silicone coral reef". You created a straw man argument of someone making coral reefs somewhere, as if it has any effect on the economy. haha...too funny...i did not create this argument and my point remains the same if it s silicon or not. ok, i got it, it s not silicon, i just remembered reading about it in some newspaper and interpreted as silicon...something artificial. it still is something artificial though it s not silicon. big deal ! my point is UNchanged !
you know....you re just begging for sources for things that don t even have sources...statistics are not reliable "sources" imho and i won t go looking for stats that prove money is mostly spent on lavish pleasures as i know, having worked for such people and having been "behind the scenes" that it is. i am not talking of personal experience, i m talking about Dior, Chanel and all these luxury brands having special designs that are more showy and more expensive for what they call "arab sheks" (though not all are sheks). so unless you re an "arab shek" or you ve made gold toilet stools the likeliness of you seeing this is zero.
that s the only thing you ve managed to attack me on. that and the fact that i said making research on coral reef was more beneficial than silicon coral which happens not to be silicon but some other artificial procedure.
the whole point of my posts was to say that unless research is being made and everyone ends up being educated, as wealthy as oil makes them, it won t last long enough for them to remain in a position of power. japan goes to show that resources aren t everything and that a country s wealth and power stems moreso in their people (educated) than the rich elite or oil wells that COULD empower them to the extent ypu re talking about.
and all you came up with was : not all research is patentable and some of it is very abstract and conceptual.......... *ellipses.......................................................*
|
|
|
Post by haplotype on Oct 29, 2007 9:42:28 GMT -5
So are you suggesting that Western billionaires do not spend extravagantly? How much publicity do Sheiks receive in the West when they donate to Islamic charities? Or does the Western media only talk about Islamic charities all being terrorist organizations?
Apparently, you are arguing that a school that spends on classroom technology rather than research is "ostentatious". So is it wrong for a school to have more overhead projectors, online resources, etc. for students? Should all the money just go to professors?
No, I do not agree with your assertion.
Your original claim was that it is impossible for technology to take abstract, conceptual forms.
Actually, you came up with the "silicone coral reefs".
You realize that silicone is a very different material from silicon, right?
Sand is made out of silicon dioxide. Is sand "artificial"?
I would have thought that something as specific as a "silicone coral reef" would have a source.
Are you saying you are an "arab shek"? What is a "shek"?
It sounds like you could use more lessons in both basic grammar and chemistry. Your sentence makes no sense.
How do you know that Muslims aren't being educated? Are you a shining example of Western education?
|
|
|
Post by haplotype on Oct 29, 2007 9:58:04 GMT -5
Coral reefs are a habitat. Preserving them means preserving the species which inhabit them. This means preserving biodiversity. Biodiversity is beneficial to the ecology of the planet and therefore beneficial to those living on it, including us. Western nations have made a fundamentalist religion out of "preserving biodiversity". It remains to be shown how having more ugly clams and fish benefits anyone other than white scuba divers. Depite the claims made by environmentalists of "new substances found from nature", the track record for this has been poor. Western pharmaceutical companies have spent decades looking through substances in exotic natural environments, but have found very little. Today's drug molecules are designed from scratch in laboratories; whether the substance happens to exist in nature or not is moot. If a greater portion of Earth is covered by deserts, then it benefits Islamic cultures. I can't think of any technology which hasn't/won't eventually been/be replaced by newer, better technology. The technology itself may not provide a lasting benefit, but the research that went into it does. How does the research that went into blu-ray DVD's provide lasting benefit? Any ideas related to blu-ray DVD's have been locked away in patents, and will prevent future researchers from doing anything useful with the research.
|
|
|
Post by Ave` on Oct 29, 2007 10:15:22 GMT -5
If Im not mistaken your point is that country that makes researchers and educated ppl like Japan could not be empowered by country with rich elites or oil wells. right? Well, at least one of the researcher making the coral reefs for the palm is a Japanese. What Im trying to say is just by being the one who provide the intellect doesnt make your country invincible. Youre just giving a service for the country who can afford it. Just like how the intellects in India go to to America and work at silicon valley. They are giving their service to other country. Japan, your perfect example, for one is declining. Yes that is a true fact for someone who knows Japan well. There are more old ppl the young ones being born. National level fraud where citizens lose theyre life penchants which prolly leads to the recent Prime Minister developing possibly stress inflicted decease which force him to step down. I could go on... If a country has money it can atrract intellects become a melting pot and prosper. p/s: there a toilet made of gold here in Japan and gold poop. Did you know?? :] from search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ek20070320wh.html
|
|
|
Post by dapper on Oct 29, 2007 10:39:10 GMT -5
Islamic societies have the benefit of avoiding the mistakes made by modernized Western or Asian societies, which are obsessed with sex and materialism. Western/Asian societies today practice a form of secular fundamentalism, where the media constantly bombards people with sexual imagery. Modern secular societies are characterized by their cultural self-hatred, in which people are "proud" of abandoning their traditions, identities, and morals, defying cultural norms for the sake of it. In secular societies where people who do not practice body piercings, extramarital sex, or take drugs are mocked for being "frigid", where practicing patriotism is equated with "fascism", fewer people have children, and few children are raised properly, can such countries expect to have a sustainable future? Oh good! I love satire! Nothing makes the point clearer! Sadly, the uncivilized and backwards parts of the middle east are creating a lot of problems in the world. Fortunatley, the entire driver behind their power is based on nothing but one, lone natural resource, and it is the one that the rest of the world is really racing to put to bed. So, Islamic century? Well, given that you have to go back to the year 1300 to find anything productive out of that region, other than oil and talented individuals who leave for Europe and the USA, it's pretty safe to say that the current flurry of radicalism is akin to the last, gasping flops of a fish out of water.
|
|
|
Post by haplotype on Oct 29, 2007 11:25:17 GMT -5
Sadly, the uncivilized and backwards parts of the middle east are creating a lot of problems in the world. In other words, the Middle East's higher birth rates and growing talent pool is causing problems for other "advanced" countries with their shrinking, aging populations. Other nations have spent many decades researching other sources of energy, but they remain both expensive and unreliable. The only credible alternative to oil is nuclear energy, but Western nations have suppressed development of this due to their Hiroshima Complex. Westerners spend all their time talking about the "hydrogen economy"; hydrogen is a storage medium, not a source of energy. It is not even a very good storage medium, given its low energy density and propensity for leakage. If the Middle East runs out of oil, then Muslims will have greater incentives to develop their human resources, so the West's troubles will not end there. It remains to be shown how the West or East Asia hopes to continue innovating, when their populations are both shrinking and getting older. Through their own "environmentalism" and "anti-imperialism", their cultures are increasingly opposed to economic expansion. Such countries are headed toward a future of wasting all their resources on tending their decadent gardens, while Muslim countries will focus on expansion.
|
|
|
Post by haplotype on Oct 29, 2007 12:11:44 GMT -5
You're viewing this very narrowly though. It's not just about drugs. Ecologies are like one long chain, where every part depends on another. Removing these ugly clams could very well affect another species and in turn another and so on and so forth. It is very possible that eventually one or more 'useful' species will be impacted by the elimination of said clams. An article of faith. Every time we clean our kitchen, we are guilty of an ecological holocaust, killing billions of bacteria. Ultimately, Western environmentalism is based on an irrational belief system of a Pagan "Gaia" Earth Mother. The Earth does not care if an undersea volcano erupts and kills billions of corals, nor has it cared if earthquake-generated tsunamis destroy forests, or meteorites slam into Earth and kill 99% of life. Another question, does it even matter anymore which nation invents what? Inventions are quickly disseminated through the global economy, copied legally or illegally. What matters more is what nations choose to do with it. Do Western nations use USB drives to make it easier to steal credit card information, stash kiddie porn? That becomes a moral question.
|
|
|
Post by haplotype on Oct 29, 2007 12:31:30 GMT -5
Of course Earth doesn't care. You asked how it would affect people. I answered you. It remains to be shown how destroying or building a coral reef has any effect on people, other than making white environmentalists whine about it. Poor ethics can and do harm nations. In a world where technological innovations are instantly disseminated, manufactured in other countries, what matters is how people choose to use the tools. While Westerners today speak of a Machiavellian free market global economy, the consequence of this that they are unwilling to see is that morals will matter more than ever.
|
|
|
Post by marshmallow on Oct 29, 2007 14:09:21 GMT -5
I would say the start of the Islamic Century started at the end of the 19th Century. I think the reason it declinened for a bit was Europe finding of the New Worlds and all the resources and power to dominate and colonize the World for the last 500 years. With all the new resources came more capital came the enlightrnent, came industrialization and more superior technology to dominate whatever sphere of the world. Islam is not a Racial Nationalistic Movement like what is making India and China try to outcompete the West but it is a Religious Movement that is very diverse and extremely large and uniform. With core values and core ideas that are pretty sucessful in the long term. Indeed. Past Islamic empires were quite successful in integrating and assimilating different cultures and races. All up, as a guy, life wouldn't be too bad under Islam. I can legally own sex slaves, and if I rape a woman, the state will clean up my mess and execute her. Where do I sign up? sorry but this is sheer ignorance
|
|
|
Post by hapalicious on Oct 29, 2007 18:09:32 GMT -5
So are you suggesting that Western billionaires do not spend extravagantly? How much publicity do Sheiks receive in the West when they donate to Islamic charities? Or does the Western media only talk about Islamic charities all being terrorist organizations? Apparently, you are arguing that a school that spends on classroom technology rather than research is "ostentatious". So is it wrong for a school to have more overhead projectors, online resources, etc. for students? Should all the money just go to professors? No, I do not agree with your assertion. Your original claim was that it is impossible for technology to take abstract, conceptual forms. Actually, you came up with the "silicone coral reefs". You realize that silicone is a very different material from silicon, right? Sand is made out of silicon dioxide. Is sand "artificial"? I would have thought that something as specific as a "silicone coral reef" would have a source. Are you saying you are an "arab shek"? What is a "shek"? It sounds like you could use more lessons in both basic grammar and chemistry. Your sentence makes no sense. How do you know that Muslims aren't being educated? Are you a shining example of Western education? well...you have a ball dissecting other people s posts playing on different interpretations, pinpointing grammar errors and clinging onto the facts i got from reading but that my memory failed to re-transmit properly and that you so valiantly googled to prove me wrong ! the way you quote me or reply makes it sound as if i held a grudge against islam which i most certainly don t ... i d rather not reply since you have a way of twisting my words or interpreting them in the worst of ways. i have absolutely no qualms with that religion, never meant to sound like you make me out to sound, i simply don t think the 21st century is going to be that of Islam. if such thing was to happen, i doubt it ll take place in this century. merely what i wanted to express. though apparently i poorly did. on another note, i could pinpoint the flaws of your first post as much as you ve enjoyed dissecting mine and you still haven t answered my question : are you talking about muslim countries or islam as a religion ? and if so...why oppose it to the "rise of asia" which incidentally holds the largest muslim nation ? way to intermingle ethnicity, religion and nationality ! i do apologize about the grammar especially the mispelling of the word sheik. i typed this response fast, i m not using my regular keyboard and am still adapting, did not proof read or spell-checked and to be honest, though i had no idea how to spell the word...i did not check how to. just a thought though. the reason why economists probably didn t make such a big deal of the 21st century being the "islamic century" is probably because despite the wealth and resources, the likeliness of it becoming true is not as high as that of their other predictions. but of course, the doctor you are would know better !
|
|
|
Post by Ave` on Oct 29, 2007 21:41:02 GMT -5
First and foremost, in order to realize 21st islamic century. Islamic countries must unite. I quote what former Malaysian Prime Minister Dato. Dr. Mahathir said in a OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference) meeting.
He concluded that because Islamic countries do not unite, they are weak. Before the eve of the infamous war in Iraq, Dr. Mahathir spoke again in a OIC meeting that muslim countries could prevent this by stricting oil import to countries that support the war. However this did not take place because of some greedy arab leaders who refuse. Tbh, I dont trust the sheiks to rule the islamic century and I think you understand why. Some middle east country sell out to western country.
|
|