... the obligatory urine colour chart. The one in my workplace fell off the urinal-wall sometime ago and has since been left lying next to the basins, how's that for inviting poor behaviours?
23 posts • joined 10 Jun 2011
Ah, it's interesting, that one. The poll was run for "24 hours" on their "support site" and "attracted 557 responses" (presumably predominately from customers who need support for whatever reason) - it doesn't say all responses were from customers, or .co.uk holders, or .co.uk holders who weren't already aware of the situation (i.e. customers who might appreciate the "protection"). It says "90% of respondents with .co.uk domains" - but not how many of the 557 hold .co.uk domains.
So, benefit of the doubt - let's say every single respondent was a unique customer with a .co.uk who was not aware of the situation. That would suggest 90% = 501 customers. Elsewhere on their website they claim "one million websites use our services" and "over 3 million domains registered". So let's say they have 1 million customers using 3 million domains. Those 501 therefore represent 0.05% of their total customer base. This is described by them as "extensive customer research".
A few months ago I contacted 123-reg support as my hosted site became unreachable.
"Aha! Looks like you have some code injected malware!" they said
"Aha! Looks like your server's been breached then", I replied, "as my site is 100% HTML."
"Security is customers responsibility" they advised, "but you can buy our SiteScanner service to validate your web site if you like?"
"Erm, no, rogue PHP files are appearing on my site and redirecting it, that's nothing to do with my HTML files, is it?"
"It could be because you've not changed your FTP password for a while..."
Anyway, after a few more weeks of having to regularly go and repair my site I've moved to another host and will be taking my (admittedly negligible) business elsewhere.
(For the lurking reps pretending to give a toss, a bit of googling and looking at the logs suggests it's a Joomla exploit)
I play badminton in a small club of 20 people. We use Excel to pick the games (all doubles matches), it picks teams based on giving everyone equal time on court or equal number of games, mixing up the teams as much as possible and keeping the strength of teams relatively balanced. It was fun getting it to work and more fun proving it worked by analysing the games played when disbelievers insisted it wasn't being fair :)
I still have a 7210 as a backup phone which gets brought back into service occasionally. Despite providing much amusement to my colleagues, it doesn't liberate me like you suggest but I do get where you're coming from. Nonetheless my working day is longer and my customer service reduced when I'm without my smartphone and its 'net connection - which suggests to me the rest of the world is also moving to the proxy virtual realm you allude to. Depressing, innit!
I'm surprised Alistair can go any length of time without 3G/Wifi - I consider myself an average user but even I use 3G / Wifi dozens of times a day for work and leisure - flipping into Settings every time would get tedious quickly!
I have to charge daily since replacing the battery which is easily accommodated in my routine, before replacing the battery (with the phone at 3-4 years old) I'd struggle to get eight hours out of it.
Thanks for the response - I will check out the links and may be back if I think there's anymore to add without repeating a stalemate position. For now, my immediate response to your reply is that it still seems that Islam encourages free thinking but if the conclusion is different to that prescribed by the Quran then it's still wrong and should be ignored. Summarised succinctly by this (shortened but not taken out of context):
>Once you have made the determination that God does exist and that Islam is the truth [and] that
>the Quran is the word of God, then ... what He says goes.. whether or not you understand.
>>No, that's because nobody disagrees with that.
>There have been plenty who did.
>>The bit that's being disputed is...
OK, circular argument here, so no point continuing as neither of us have anything new to add. Agree to disagree on how people have interpreted your original post?
>Atheism has nothing also to do with logic and reason.. it does not specify that you have to use either.
>You can equally toss a coin to decide if you want.
I don't really understand that assertion - why could one not equally use a coin toss to decide whether or not to follow Islam? Regardless, is it not fair to assume that neither atheists nor Muslims have reached their conclusions via an arbitrary process? Muslims have accepted the Quran unquestioningly as the word of God (correct me if I'm wrong) and atheists have applied logic and reason to the evidence available (I'd speculate that's the main process).
>Further, I would say that most do not decide on what is right and wrong. They merely use whatever is already
>defined for them, based on whichever society they live in, whatever are the prevailing views of the time.
>Within the context of that society, what it allows, atheists make a choice. Which is no different from anyone
>else, ie. the level of the choice being made.
And presumably no different to those that have their right/wrong decisions defined by their Holy Book and reinforced by their society? Different set of rules for the right/wrong, but same blind application of the rules without personal consideration of whether they are truly right or wrong? The difference is, the atheists can, may and I personally think *do* make that consideration, whilst those believing they are following their God's will, will not question it.
>So for example, there will be very few if any who will ever go back to first principals and try and address why
>lying is bad, or taking some else's land is bad.
Again I'm failing to see your point - but it sounds like you disagree with my last assertion above ("can, may and ...*do*..."). Even if you're right (I don't think you are) and atheists don't make these analyses, then their actions are dictated simply by what they see others doing - again how is this worse or different than people not making the analysis because they are carrying out Gods word so don't need to question it? My argument is based on the premise that atheists *do* employ logic and reason out of necessity as they don't have a position supplied to them by a religion.
But let's test the theory a bit - please explain using first principles why lying and stealing are bad? As an atheist my explanation would be based on the goal of a peaceful, harmonious existence with all the other humans we're forced to share our planet with and lying and stealing are demonstrably not conducive to that goal. I think as a Muslim your explanation will boil down to, "God says so"? (If that sounds facile, it's not meant to)
>Even you are saying that logic and reason are what you are basing you conclusions on.. Why use
>it is just one tool out of many that can be employed (what kind of logic?).. why is it first on your list..
Seems most appropriate to me, what other tools would you propose?
>do you think that no one else can employ the same tool.. so in the case of Islam... we are told time and time
>again in the Quran to think, to understand, to see behind what is on the surface.. to contemplate deeply...
Well that's at odds with most of the criticisms levelled at Islam on here, so please clear something up for me - murdering the US ambassador and Libyans, was that the result of (a) reasoning, free will, etc ('All things considered, I believe this is the right thing to do') or (b) religious reprisal ('I don't need to consider whether this is right or wrong, God has made that decision for me and I'm doing as instructed') ?
> so I
> could quite justifyably say that muslims are required to make use of such tools (whether we do or not, is a
>different matter) ... however, the atheist has no such reason to make use of these tools.
Agreed, the atheist does not have the reason of being ordered to by their religion to make use of those tools - they do so of their own volition, so the conclusion they reach may be something different to what their religious equivalent is obligated to conclude.
>If, as you suggest above, its your logic and reason that is primary, and atheism is just as a result of the use of
> these tools.. even then you have a problem. Why employ these, is it perhaps logical to use logic? or only
> sensible to be reasonable.
Yes, I think I am making those assumptions, that logic is logical and reason is sensible. I think those are difficult concepts to dispute and...
>One persons reason is not anothers, neither is logic always correct.
... I think this statement is an attempt to dispute them, which fails in my opinion as I don't necessarily disagree with this either.
>As to it clearing the way to allow rational behaviour, the example of the comments here are evidence against
>this... since plenty have seen fit to use all sorts of foul language. Is that rational behaviour? I'd suggest it is
>one step removed from physical violence.. which is the same thing these same people are decrying.
But by your own admission, it is at least one step removed, hence more rational than *not* using logic and reason. Predictably I'd argue that using foul language is actually much more than one step removed from murder, however.
>Islam makes the claim, that revelation trumps logic, reason etc..
And logic and reason make the claim that Islam is probably wrong.
>The only way to confirm or reject this claim, is to study the Quran. If the Quran is truly the Gods word,
>then it is only rational to follow it.
That conclusion is not the result of logic and reason - it is the result of assuming the Quran is the God's word. What if that assumption is wrong? Then it may be irrational to follow it. You state that Islam promotes deep contemplation, yet not about whether or not Islam is 'correct' it seems - that has to be taken as a given?
>What most atheists do, is they reject, perhaps Christianity, and because of the little that they know about
>that faith, they decide that all the rest must be the same... and so with one brush, they tar the lot as
>unfortuanately, for the one who claims to think for themselves.. you do not have this as a get out..
>your claim itself requires you to weigh each claiment on its merits.. Islam is not Christianity, nor is the Quran
> the Bible.
I disagree - I think atheists may reach their position a number of ways, but regardless the result is the rejection of a concept of a divine creator, so I'd say it's not relevant whether your "reject one religion, reject them all" observation is correct or not, as Islam is still based on there being a creator. You seem to be saying atheists would embrace Islam if they only understood it?
>Further, I'd suggest its in your own interests, purely from a worldly perspective, to have some understanding
Agreed and I am interested, hence continuing this debate despite being pretty certain we're not going to change each other's minds.
>>I said that atheism does not give you any basis for right and wrong.
>>Nobody has yet been able to show otherwise.
No, that's because nobody disagrees with that. The bit that's being disputed is where you assert that "atheism does not give you any basis for right and wrong" therefore atheists have no basis for right and wrong (you said it here: "For a bunch of people who do not even have a basis for good or bad, right or wrong, atheist appear to love...") - obviously atheists *do* have a basis for right and wrong, it is just not a result of, nor related to, their absence of religious faith. Rather, their absence of faith is a result of the same source of their basis of right and wrong - principally logic and reason.
Driving my car (or, holding the irrefutable belief that my car can transport me places) gives me no basis for determining right and wrong, but I can't conclude that all drivers have no basis for right and wrong, merely that driving a car doesn't provide it.
"I've never had a speeding ticket, infringement notice, been the cause of an accident (some fool ran into me though)"
Would that have been just after you were brake-testing them for "fun" by any chance (as per your earlier comment)?
You might not be the cause of the accident as far as liability goes, but as a friend of mine discovered, the fun soon vanishes when the other driver fails to stop and they're in a stolen car.
Similar thing happened to my father - had a low-speed accident caused by a stupid human error on the part of the other driver. Two occupants in the car unhurt, just a bit of paint scrapage, exchanged details and drove off. By the time it got to court there were three people claiming whiplash, the car had been written off and the bill for 'a friends' recovery services was also being chucked in for good measure. Thankfully a bit of sense prevailed and they lost their claims, but sadly none were subsequently prosecuted for fraud.
Obviously the race of the other parties is totally irrelevant so I'll leave it to the reader to guess.
As a layman maybe my expectations are unrealistic, but I thought the panoramas in the sample shots were particularly poor in terms of the joining of the pictures. Then again I don't really understand why manufacturers bloat their firmware with such features in these cameras considering the target market who I'd have thought would rather post-process in Photoshop, etc. Is it just me?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019