Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Businesses The Internet Government Politics

UK To Train Pro-West Islamic Groups To Game Google 469

Posted by timothy
from the raisins-not-virgins dept.
Hugh Pickens writes "The British government's Office of Security and Counter-Terrorism (OSCT), a 200-strong Home Office unit created 18 months ago, has said in meetings it wants to 'flood the internet' with 'positive' interpretations of Islam and plans to train government-approved groups in search engine optimization techniques, which it is hoped will boost their profile online and battle radicalization. A Home Office spokesman confirmed search engine optimization training is part of the government's anti-radicalization strategy. 'In order to support mainstream voices, we work with local partners to help develop their communication, representational and leadership skills. This support could include media training, which can help make their voices heard more widely, and support the development of skills which allow communities to be more effective in debate.' However the effectiveness of search engine optimization in reducing traffic to extremist websites has been dismissed by academics. A report produced by the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation (ICSR) said young Muslims were much more likely to be directed to extremist material online by web forums and offline associates than by Google or other search engines. 'Tweaking the results for supposedly extremist terms would be largely ineffectual, not least because it is unlikely that any but the most callow wannabe terrorist would use a mainstream search engine to find banned material.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK To Train Pro-West Islamic Groups To Game Google

Comments Filter:
  • Islam, eh? (Score:2, Informative)

    Islam is the Middle East's response to the Mormon religion/cult. Islam was created by the Arab "prophet" Muhammad, yet another guy who heard voices in his head. These voices told him that his religion was a continuation of Judaism and Christianity and that those who followed these outdated religions should be converted or killed. Since he forgot about Zoroastrianism, he apparently thought that his religion was the third and final in the monotheistic trilogy. And being the third, it is inevitably the most sh

    • Re:Islam, eh? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by palegray.net (1195047) <philip.paradis@NoSpAm.palegray.net> on Monday April 13, 2009 @06:30AM (#27554437) Homepage Journal
      For once I'm going to have to encourage the mods to actually read an incendiary post (re: parent) in its entirety and do some fact-checking before modding the poster down. There's actually not anything I can find in this post with respect to actual citations and recent events at the hands of fanatics that isn't true. Thought some may find it deeply disturbing and distasteful, including peaceful adherents to the faith, the last paragraph is pretty much beyond factual dispute.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Really?

        >Islam is the Middle East's response to the Mormon religion/cult.

        False. Islam came first.

        And the rest of the statements go downhill from there. Considering that was the first line and proven false, I'd say yes, flamebait or troll. Anyone who wanted to actually create a thought-provoking post on it without using falsehood or inflammatory speech could do so with just a few seconds of logical though applied to the situation.

        So, mod down, try again.

    • What the fuck? (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by u38cg (607297)
      I can only presume that this is a troll with some well co-ordinated sock-puppetry. Seriously, if this is the kind of bullshit Slashdot finds insightful, I'm out of here.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      It's mostly the same, in some accounts even less ghastly than the old testament (human sacrifice, child abuse etc. etc.)

      The main problem with Islam comes from the fact that it has failed miserably to adapt to the twenty first century, where all other countries are moving towards increased secularism and freedom of choice, Islamic countries are still stuck in a medieval religious model circa 1200 a.d.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Nazlfrag (1035012)

      Well, if we're going by chemical, biological and nuclear weapons use the Christian west is far, far more bloodthirsty than the most fanatical Muslim has ever been.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Eli Gottlieb (917758)

      Have a bit more damned respect. So far all you've done is declare Muslims infidels that we other people need to annihilate. How about you actually meet some Muslims (the construction makes perfect sense in Arabic or any other Semitic language, by the way*) and talk to them about their religion before you judge the whole thing!

      * Seriously, when you're using linguistics as a reason not to like someone, you've jumped into irrational hate. Stop it.

  • Imagine (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Alarindris (1253418) on Monday April 13, 2009 @06:03AM (#27554337)
    Dear Religion,

    You are a pain in the ass. Please go away soon.

    Imagine there's no countries.
    It isn't hard to do.
    Nothing to kill or die for,
    And no religion too.
    Imagine all the people,
    Living life in peace.

    Love,
    Sane People
    • You jest, but your point is well taken. Gaming a search engine into delivering happy shiny results from a search on a major worldwide religion isn't going to stop fanatical adherents to said faith from blowing themselves and others up. This has got to be one of the worst cases of public sector idiocy I've ever seen.
      • Re:Imagine (Score:4, Funny)

        by MrMr (219533) on Monday April 13, 2009 @06:41AM (#27554489)
        This has got to be one of the worst cases of public sector idiocy I've ever seen
        Really?. The UK has an official state religion [wikipedia.org]; Top that.
        • Really?. The UK has an official state religion; Top that.

          The US has a state religion but pretends not to; Top that.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by dintech (998802)

          Either your geography is bad or you didn't even look at that map. Notice it's just England, not the whole UK that has a state religion. Scotland, Wales and Northern Island, which are also constituent parts of the UK, don't have a state religion. Please stop calling the UK England and vice versa. They're NOT the same thing.

      • Hell no, I'm serious. I'm sick of having voodoo and superstition shoved down my throat and being frowned upon for resisting it.
      • Re:Imagine (Score:4, Insightful)

        by rtb61 (674572) on Monday April 13, 2009 @07:19AM (#27554665) Homepage

        Their biggest mistake is failing to understand the militant Islamic movement. It has far less to do with religion and far more to do with male chauvinist pigs, the misogynists. Their underlying hatred of the west has far more to do with the equality of women than it does with prophets and gods.

        No amount of propaganda or reason will change their attitudes, there is no middle ground by which they can be approached. They see the independence of women on western media and they feel threatened and they know that their abusive lifestyles are at risk, life styles based upon dominance and abuse and that is the way they react to that threat, with arrogance and violence.

        They simply use the masquerade of religious belief to hide behind, a mask to hide the violent lusts that drive actions. They have very reason to feel threatened, their immoral and unethical lifestyles are coming to an end and those that refuse to change will either spend the rest of their lives in prison or perish in their violent struggle.

        So the government needs to basically get down and dirty, and break that association and expose the underlying motivation of destructive militant religious movements (to be fair here, the same can be said for fundamentalist Christianity as for Islam).

        • Re:Imagine (Score:5, Insightful)

          by stdarg (456557) on Monday April 13, 2009 @08:39AM (#27555133)

          Their biggest mistake is failing to understand the militant Islamic movement. It has far less to do with religion and far more to do with male chauvinist pigs, the misogynists. Their underlying hatred of the west has far more to do with the equality of women than it does with prophets and gods.

          You think it's genetic or something? That no matter how these people were raised, no matter what belief system they have, they would still be chauvinists?

          It's a minor distinction because I agree with you that Islam and chauvinism are intertwined. I just think it's pretty clear that the overarching belief system into which you are born has a big impact on your attitude towards women, not the other way around.

          So the government needs to basically get down and dirty, and break that association and expose the underlying motivation of destructive militant religious movements (to be fair here, the same can be said for fundamentalist Christianity as for Islam).

          There are LOTS of fundamentalist Christians in the US and how much terrorism are they responsible for? Compare that to the number of fundamentalist Muslims also in the US who were arrested for terrorism plots. It's nice and PC to add "oh and also Christianity" but it's not very realistic.

          • Re:Imagine (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Watson Ladd (955755) on Monday April 13, 2009 @11:31AM (#27557223)
            ~10 Muslims were arrested for terrorist plots in the US. In the same time frame hundreds of doctors have been threatened, and some have been murdered, for providing women with abortions. Let's not forget the murder of Matthew Sheppard. There are 2 abortion providers in Mississippi, all the others have been forced out of Mississippi by harassment. In Mississippi many pharmacies do not carry oral contraceptives. Doctors who prescribe the morning after pill frequently find their patients cannot find the drug. The Christians in the United States do not resort to terrorism because they have already won.
        • by WgT2 (591074)

          Fundamentalist Christians are violent? And they're violent because they hate women?

          Are you confused?

          To be fair, I think you make a very valid point about radical Islamist, but whatever their impetus, they are clearly emboldened by Koranic verses demanding death to infidels as well as the subjugation of women. But, you just don't find those parallels in the New Testament.

    • If religion is a pain in the arse then you are doing it wrong.
    • Unfortunately, the same thing works replacing "no religion" with "homogenised religion".

    • Re:Imagine (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jmv (93421) on Monday April 13, 2009 @07:30AM (#27554707) Homepage

      I've been told that in some places in the US, the song gets edited to say "And *one* religion too". Kind of changes the intent a bit, doesn't it.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I'm going to invoke Godwin's Law in this comment, but I think it's worth mentioning:

      In the 20th century, both Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany imagined - and tried to create - societies where there was no religion. Consider the number of people who suffered and died under both regimes. I'm not sure where the view originated that the world's problems are caused by people of a religious belief, but there are two very striking counter-examples.

      Some people have used religion as a reason for committing atrocities.

      • Re:Imagine (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13, 2009 @08:11AM (#27554925)

        In the 20th century, both Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany imagined - and tried to create - societies where there was no religion.

        Wrong. Nazi Germany did not [nobeliefs.com]. The storm troopers' belt buckles used to say, "Gott mit Uns." [wikipedia.org]

        That's propaganda put about by the believers to try to persuade people that atheism leads to totalitarian fascism.

    • Re:Imagine (Score:5, Insightful)

      by digitig (1056110) on Monday April 13, 2009 @07:50AM (#27554829)

      Dear Religion, You are a pain in the ass. Please go away soon.

      Although religious nutjobs are an easy target, please try to remember that the problem is with the "nutjob", not the "religious", and the atheists can field a fair number of nutjobs too. Militant atheist Sam Harris, according to "The End of Faith" apparently wants to see humanity exterminated, religious and atheist alike, rather than allow religion to continue to exist, which comes over as "nutjob" to me. And "The End of Faith" comes with an endorsement from Richard Dawkins (although I don't know whether Dawkins endorses that particular bit). Basically, if somebody wants to kill me because my beliefs differ from theirs, or as collateral damage getting to somebody whose beliefs differ from theirs, I don't care whether they're religious or atheist, I'm opposed to them.

      So how about: "Dear persecution in the name of ideology, you are a pain in the ass. Please go away soon."

      • Maybe more like "Dear wilful ignorance". It's not the persecution or ideology that bothers me, it's the blatant denial of reality.
        • by digitig (1056110)
          To be honest, I don't care whether people live in their own fantasy worlds or not, as long as they leave me alone and in particular don't try to kill me. And the atheists are not above wilful ignorance -- in "The End of Faith", Sam Harris insists that his own ethical position is based on assumptions about human nature that are so obvious that it "need not be validated by a controlled study" (p192) -- this in a chapter on "The Science of Good and Evil" (my emphasis), so the "science" on which Harris calls fo
      • by stdarg (456557)

        You're right in theory but naming a handful of militant atheists is like blowing in the wind. There are thousands and thousands of Muslims who are actively engaging in floggings, stonings, beheadings, suicide bombings, and the like. You can watch videos of it online. Have you seen any atheist beheading videos lately? And then behind the thousands of active terrorists there are millions and millions of Muslims who support, rationalize, and defend their behavior. Millions out of 1.5 billion or whatever is a s

  • by XavierItzmann (687234) on Monday April 13, 2009 @06:04AM (#27554339)
    So, when will a 200-strong unit UK government office flood the internet with 'positive' interpretations of Buddhism?

    After all, don't we want young Buddhists to be much less likely to be directed to extremist material online?

    Oh, sorry, forgot the UK government only sponsors your religion when you are violent. If you are peaceful, you are on your own. Do your own damn PR!

    "it wants to 'flood the internet' with 'positive' interpretations of Islam and plans to train government-approved groups in search engine optimization techniques"

    • by Thanshin (1188877) on Monday April 13, 2009 @06:18AM (#27554395)

      Dear UK government.

      As has been proved over and over, we gamers are violent.

      Our Google-fu is mighty, but we don't have apropiate sites of reunion. The sensible action would be to pay for the construction of gaming churches where gamers can go to get involved in a friendly community and thus avoid further killing sprees.

      Yours dearly, F4T4L M4SS4KRE.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13, 2009 @06:33AM (#27554443)

      So, when will a 200-strong unit UK government office flood the internet with 'positive' interpretations of NuLabour.
      So, when will a 200-strong unit UK government office flood the internet with 'positive' interpretations of ID cards
      So, when will a 200-strong unit UK government office flood the internet with 'positive' interpretations of more CCTV cameras
      So, when will a 200-strong unit UK government office flood the internet with 'positive' interpretations of bonuses for rich crooks running banks
      So, when will a 200-strong unit UK government office flood the internet with 'positive' interpretations of more taxes to improve things (their bank accounts)
      So, when will a 200-strong unit UK government office flood the internet with 'positive' interpretations of 3 entire towns wiped out to build Heathrow's 3rd runway
      So, when will a 200-strong unit UK government office flood the internet with 'positive' interpretations of Phorm style monitoring of all communications
      So, when will a 200-strong unit UK government office flood the internet with 'positive' interpretations of Big Brother, for their gain and their rich friends gain, at our expense.
      etc... etc.. etc...

      The people in power are put there by us and work for us. They are not there to manipulate us, yet that is what they are doing relentlessly. Yet still, so many people fail to see the danger in not defending against these corrupt people in power gaining ever more power over us all. The people in power are building their own Plutocracy (ruled by the rich), which since the finacial collapse, is looking ever more like a Kleptocracy (ruled by thieves). These power seekers in power don't want a democracy, they want to be the people in power to dictate to us all for their own gain at our expense, literally.

  • by Kupfernigk (1190345) on Monday April 13, 2009 @06:04AM (#27554341)
    For the British Government. I find myself again having to explain to non-UK readers that we do not elect the Prime Minister, and owing to our elective dictatorship system, the present Prime Minister has never, in fact, been voted for by anybody outside the Scottish province of Fife. The Home Office is run by someone, Jacqui Smith, who makes Condoleeza Rice look like the greatest liberal brain on the planet (and charges the taxpayer $3000 a month for her sleeping in her sister's spare bedroom). Unfortunately, just like you with GWB, we can do nothing about it until next year. Until late 2010 then, be ready for a stream of "how stupid can the British Government get?" stories.
    • by kestasjk (933987) *
      This wouldn't have happened under Cameron's government.... right? The only thing that clown can find to complain about are "scandalous" e-mails and demand resignations and apologies
    • by abigsmurf (919188) on Monday April 13, 2009 @07:34AM (#27554741)

      I don't think you grasp what a dictator is, nor how our electoral system works.

      Our country is run by the party, not by the prime minister. The Prime Minister is just the appointed representative/head of the party. Don't like the decisions a part makes? Don't vote for them. If the party doesn't like what the prime Minister does, they do a vote of no confidence or vote against his law changes. The PM only has as much power as the party allows.

    • by blackest_k (761565) on Monday April 13, 2009 @08:31AM (#27555071) Homepage Journal

      I can't see how it will stop in 2010 regardless of who is in power, the only difference will be which asshat is in power. Obviously the political parties will offer us all something that we like the sound of and try to bury the unpopular policies. So a new government comes in or gets restored they then make some show of implementing or delaying implementing the popular policies that got them to power and at the same time doing things we distinctly dislike.

      While you can argue that perhaps that it seems reasonable for a general election to be called on change of prime minister, its not backed up in practice

      http://tutor2u.net/blog/index.php/politics/comments/unelected-prime-ministers-the-political-and-constitutional-importance/ [tutor2u.net]

      "'When a party in government replaces its leader, there is no need for the new prime minister to call an early general election. Macmillan waited 2¾ years, and Callaghan three years until he was forced to hold one by a Commons vote of no confidence. Douglas Home waited a year, and John Major 15 months, but they were near the five-year limit before an election has to be called. Eden called an election almost immediately after taking office, but the parliament was more than 3½ years old. After succeeding the dying Bonar Law in May 1923, Baldwin went to the polls within six months on the issue of tariff reform, only a year into the Parliament, but lost - an unhappy precedent.' "

      So its a bit of a mixed bag theres been a few unelected prime ministers from both sides. John Major was the last Conservative Prime minister to do so.
      If Gordon Brown wasn't Prime Minister, it would probably still be Tony Blair but definitely not David Cameron till at least 2010.

       

  • Sharia Courts? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Daemonax (1204296)
    Hasn't the British government been allowing Sharia courts to operate in Britain for some time?

    If they want to battle "radical" Islam then how about getting rid of the Sharia Courts? How about really clamping down on female genital mutilation happening in Britain and to British citizens?

    Tweaking some search results, that's pathetic. Islam is a danger to civilized nations, so trying to weaken it is fine, but this pathetic, it will do next to nothing.
    • Re:Sharia Courts? (Score:5, Informative)

      by 1u3hr (530656) on Monday April 13, 2009 @06:38AM (#27554463)
      hasn't the British government been allowing Sharia courts to operate in Britain for some time?

      Only in civil cases if BOTH parties agree to accept its judgement:

      Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996. Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

      Obviously this could not apply to normal criminal matters (theft, violent crime, etc). So no hands chopped off for theft, no adulterers stoned to death. It's just arbitration, where the arbitrator happens to be Muslim.

      • Re:Sharia Courts? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Patch86 (1465427) on Monday April 13, 2009 @06:56AM (#27554565)

        It's worth highlighting that that legislation allows pretty much any body to be used as arbitrators in civil cases, as long as both parties agree to be bound by its outcome.

        It "allows Sharia courts" only insofar as it allows you to appoint anyone to solve your dispute for you.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          It "allows Sharia courts" only insofar as it allows you to appoint anyone to solve your dispute for you.

          Of course, all these poor near illeterate immigrant women brought up in a strict male dominant hierarchy will know their rights and refuse to "appoint" these mullahs, imams, muftis as their arbitrator and seek the full protection from the agents of the crown. Yup, these groups have a sterling reputation for standing up to peer pressure & social pressure, defy ostracization. Their fiercely independe

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by stdarg (456557)

            Exactly! The noble-minded defenders of "mutual consent to arbitration" also ignore the gangs patrolling the ghettos where these immigrants live that enforce sharia themselves. What do you think happens to people who live there who DON'T agree to arbitration by a sharia court? They deal with the sharia gang.

      • by h4rm0ny (722443)

        In practice, the pressure in a community can force people to go along with sharia law even though it is far from in their best interests. This is principally for women in divorce cases, adultery cases, domestic abuse cases and basically anything where a woman is facing a man in the court. The UK government has washed its hands of this and made it much harder for women in Islamic communities in the UK.
    • by auric_dude (610172) on Monday April 13, 2009 @06:40AM (#27554481)
      Not as bad as it sounds http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7233040.stm [bbc.co.uk] as you can see other religions can also pass judgements upon small non-criminal sectors of the law meanwhile all criminal matters are reserved for the UK's state courts.
    • by daem0n1x (748565)

      Genital mutilation is not Muslim. It's an ancient Egyptian tradition from the time of the Pharaohs. It's widespread across mid-Africa and it has been incorporated in the Muslim traditions of some communities. As far as I know, it's not used in the Arab world, except for Egypt.

  • A gov't that created the standards we know and love as ITIL.

    A group of paranoid Orwellian Facists.

    A religous group that's a political powder keg.

    And THE big brain.

    Starring Michael Palin, Eric Idle, Terry Jones and John Cleese, in a film written by Graham Chapman and directed by Terry Gilliam.

    Honestly, the UK just writes this stuff for the satirists.
  • Nice idea, but... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Omegamogo (1388313)
    Problem is, the mainstream Muslims aren't the ones that need to be targeted, but the high-risk volatile ones. The rest of us don't feel anything about the west more than either some admiration on the liberal-side of the political spectrum, or some casual antipathy on the religious/conservative side of politics.

    I live in Saudi Arabia. Which doesn't seem to have much of a global image as being progressive these days, and I can still tell you that most grad students these days want to study either in Canada or
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sumdumass (711423)

      They aren't really targeting the mainstream Muslims. The intent of this is to sweep the radicals under the rug or put them in the back or the room so noone can look at them.

      By flooding the search engines to bring up search results only pointing to the mainstream Muslim sites, they are attempting to stop little Johny from getting bored, finding an extremist site, becoming brainwashed, strapping a bomb to his balls in some ignorant belief of 72 virgins as a reward when he is too young to realize they will be

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Omegamogo (1388313)
        Actually, the virgins thing is a bit of a misconception of sorts. It's based on a very unreliable quotation of Muhammad (Hadith) passed around via a chain of narrators as long as your arm before it was written down.

        Back on topic, that DOES appear to be the goal of this venture I guess, in a social equivalent of the Security By Obscurity model, but it's kind of futile. Extremist sites may change the religious/political orientation of someone impressionable, but the actual "terrorist trigger" is usually a mem
        • by stdarg (456557)

          Now YOU are being misleading. The Koran does promise these rewards, it just doesn't make reference to the specific NUMBER.

          Another thing that is ignored by most people is that you get access to virgin boys, not just virgin women. It's pretty disgusting. It's a great insight into the culture though and helps explain why saudi men seem to love holding hands so much. (e.g. check out Bush in this article: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0426/dailyUpdate.html [csmonitor.com])

  • re-write TFA (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Jalfro (1025153) on Monday April 13, 2009 @06:39AM (#27554477)
    It looks to me as if the Register has got this one wrong. The original criticisms were of negative tweaks against extremist sites by the government, as the quote they use in their article illustrates. This is about positive tweaking to promote genuine Islamic sites - and it's only, apparently part of a wider strategy of supporting peaceful interpretations of Islam, exactly what the original report recommended.
    • Re:re-write TFA (Score:4, Insightful)

      by sumdumass (711423) on Monday April 13, 2009 @07:14AM (#27554647) Journal

      No matter how you look at it, it's the government promoting one religion over another and attempting to bury their speech to make it happen.

      It seems that you agree with the end goal which I sort of do too. But what happens when this action is taken to squash all other religions or negative but rightly placed speech against the government or to create a state religion or lead the people to believe a certain thing in order to pass an otherwise unpopular law that the people wouldn't stand for? I mean could you imagine doing a search on the interweb for Iraq and finding only the "Saddam tried to get yellow cake" or "Iraq has WMDs that terrorists want or can get" sites and articles and being led to believe that Iraq posed a great enough threat to the world that an immediate war was required to limit the potential damage because the government decided to optimize the search engines to get a certain message across and hide others?

      Why, if that happened, we might see a couple of otherwise well mannered countries start a war.

  • This would be a hillarious joke for april fools day, but if they want to counter radical muslims this way won't work.

    Muslims mostly tend to build local social groups mostly in favour of their origin-region(not country), these social groups are mostly not
    radical but, from our point of view their views onto the world differ hughly from ours(*).

    But in such communities radical thoughts and comments will occur as a common understanding of that the western society tries to supress the islam.

    And here is the catch,
    • by tjstork (137384)

      these social groups are mostly not
      radical but, from our point of view their views onto the world differ hughly from ours(*)

      That would, uh, mean they are radical.

      • by burni (930725)
        Yes you got me, but I used radical in the meaning of willing to harvest money for terrorists or propaganda or try to push people into a certain group.

        Would be the term "militant" more accurate.
      • They are conservative in the context of their own cultures. You (presumably American) may well not realise, this, but as a country of 300 million out of 7 billion, worldwide your cultural views are a small minority. I like many things about the US, have worked there, and have worked for years for US companies in the UK, but I am very English, and the cultural differences between me and most North Americans are huge. This does not make me a radical. It makes me a moderate, centre left Englishman who wants to
        • by tjstork (137384)

          You (presumably American) may well not realise, this, but as a country of 300 million out of 7 billion, worldwide your cultural views are a small minority.

          Yeah, but, when one of those other 7 billion people come to the USA, then, they are radicals if they do not act like Americans.

          Which, btw, includes allowing in immigrant groups and letting them gradually assimilate. We did it with the European Jews, the Chinese, the West Indians, the Indians, the Pakistanis, and now others from other Muslim countries.

          I th

    • by 140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) on Monday April 13, 2009 @08:39AM (#27555119) Journal
      You make the assumption that these muftis, mullahs and imams, whose power and pay check comes from these immigrant muslim population will stand on the side lines when you develop your trust without betraying them. These leaders of the community fear their flock melting and merging into the larger British (or American) society. You assume they will allow this trust to develop and not nip in the bud.

      Please sit down, it might come as a shock to you. Muslims who get educated and understand their rights and don't want to be under the thumb of these muftis, quietly leave. They usually marry non moslems, typically Hindu Indians, give their children neutral non muslim names, and allow them to grow up to be regular subjects of the crown. Who is left behind under the thumb of these muftis and mullahs are those who don't understand their rights, who cant/wont resist oppression. That is why the ocean is salty. Water evaporates and leaves salt behind. That is why the muslim immigrant groups in the West have higher concentration of radicals.

  • If a faith is getting gamed, what else is been dropped or pushed up on google?
    Does google actively provide help with this faith based optimisation?
    So the USA has used assassins and the UK wants to try OSCT funded apostasy?
    From :
    http://www.google.com/corporate/tenthings.html [google.com]
    "Placement in search results is never sold to anyone."
    Someone at google just recalls the scary start up days and that wonderful visit from the nice people in suits?
    " Instead of relying on a group of editors or solely on the f
  • Some may wish to use http://us.ixquick.com/eng/privacy-policy.html [ixquick.com] when searching for things those in power may well not like.
  • by jmv (93421) on Monday April 13, 2009 @07:27AM (#27554695) Homepage

    ...as pro-evolution content on the web is succeeding at making the creationists go away.

  • by master_p (608214) on Monday April 13, 2009 @07:52AM (#27554837)

    Many more people die from heart attacks and car accidents each year. Why the big fuss over terrorism?

    • by ScentCone (795499)
      Many more people die from heart attacks and car accidents each year. Why the big fuss over terrorism?

      Because it only takes a handful of people to kill thousands of other people who were otherwise decades away from having a heart attack, and very unlikely to die in a car accident. And because our economy is already structurally built to handle random traffic deaths and the inevitable cardiac events in a certain percentage of the population - those things aren't disruptive in the large scheme of things. Bu
    • by stdarg (456557)

      I agree with the other posters. I would say it's a matter of justice. Heart attacks aren't unjust but publicly beating a young girl because she didn't consent to marriage with a taliban leader is disgusting and fills most people with rage (video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbrkTeVJlnQ [youtube.com])

  • We've seen religious manipulation of Google before. Years back, the scientologists created the world's largest website to flood the search engine's results and prevent people from seeing all the references to the god "Xenu" and the cult's historically criminal behavior at the top of websearches on Scientology. Technologically, it was a fascinating effort: Google apparently had to stop scanning it and retool in order to handle sites that large.

FORTRAN is for pipe stress freaks and crystallography weenies.

Working...