Below is my response to what I consider a typical well-intentioned but dangerously naive liberal view of world politics:
The article is here (read before continuing): Can't Tell A Koran By Its Cover
My response to the editor:
You are (willfully?) overgeneralizing. You find *some* obscure (and to me, suspect) examples of Buddhists committing aggression and equate it with the vast amounts of (murderous) aggression committed by Muslims. Then you draw the (obviously) false and dangerous conclusion that a person's religion tells us "nothing" and is thus irrelevant. *Every* datapoint we have (even the "laws" of Physics) are only an imperfect approximation of reality. We still need these datapoints to make judgements about every-day decisions ("do I buy skim- or whole milk?"). We must make decisions with limited data. That is our reality.
I will say that there is the real danger of taking too few datapoints (when more are readily available) and making life decisions with them. Unfortunately, you don't take this viewpoint and chose to be as extreme as the right-wingers you so despise.
BTW: Why doesn't TomPaine.com allow publicly viewable comments on their articles? Are they afraid of contrary viewpoints? It wouldn't be the first time.
PS. I am probably going to unsubscribe from their newsletter. They simply publish too much oversimplified one-sided junk. Too bad, because the left needs intelligent and articulate representatives - like Keith Olbermann.
08 January 2007
05 January 2007
Question: "For how many days was I at risk from a published exploit to a known bug?".
Answer: In 2006, the score was:
- Internet Explorer: 286 days (78%)
- Firefox: 9 days (2.5%).