Thursday, February 16, 2006

POP QUIZ!!

Question of the day!!!


first, we have kilobyte (KB), then MegaByte(MB).... then some genius invented MP3 and we have to use GigaByte(GB) to store... Then i heard that we have TeraByte....


The question is... what come after that?



answer is at the bottom of this post....












think la.....


























i said think, dun scroll..........

















ok la... let you see la...































Tuesday, February 14, 2006

When I Fall In Love

Love is not as simple as you think now. TV-shows like Smallville often caught my heart, with all the love triangle, hatred, jealousy and bla bla bla.

The question is, how do you define love? Are you being loved?


I would like to dedicate this song, to all my frens out there. Valentineless or not, today is to celebrate the existance of love, not to support rich merchants with their sales.

There's always someone for you out there. Just look harder.




WHEN I FALL IN LOVE
by Frank Sinatra

When I fall in love
It will be forever
Or I'll never fall in love

In a restless world
Like this is
Love is ended before it's begun
And too manyMoonlight kisses
Seem to cool in the warmth of the sun

When I give my heartI give it completely
Or I'll never give my heart

And the moment I can feel that you feel that way too
Is when I fall in love with you






Happy Valentines Day to everyone.

Monday, February 13, 2006

Yet another issue on cencorship...




Another article of my weekend reading.............











Google Under the Gun

For access to China, the Web giant agreed to censor itself. Why the company made a hard bargain




When web surfers from the city of Shenzhen, in southern China, visit a government website, they are greeted by two adorable cartoon figures, a tiny policeman and policewoman with friendly smiles, no noses (for some reason) and huge melting blue anime eyes. These little rascals' names are Jingjing and Chacha (jingcha is Mandarin for police), and they are there to remind Web surfers to behave themselves because the Internet cops are always watching.
Westerners tend to think of the Web the way we think of the moon: it looks the same everywhere, and when you're on it you can pretty much do whatever you want. But seen from China, the Web is very different. Beijing employs a force of 30,000 Internet censors 24/7, blocking access to many sites expressing nonapproved opinions on hot-button issues like Taiwanese independence and the Falun Gong religious sect. When Western Web surfers search for images of "Tiananmen" on Google, they get row upon row of tanks, the indelible afterimage of the tragedy of 1989. Do the same search when you're in China, and you get a snapshot of U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez and his wife posing in Tiananmen Square on a p.r. trip.


The Web giant Google reminded everybody very publicly last week how differently things work in China. Google launched a Chinese version of itself, Google.cn, that is heavily censored to comply with Communist Party regulations. For a company with the unofficial motto "Don't be evil," a company that has picked up the fallen standard of Internet idealism, that was a bit of a shocker. Did the virtuous Google just sell out its honor?

The harder you look at it, the harder it gets to decide. First you have to figure out what exactly Google just did. Google already has a Chinese-language version of Google.com--it has had one since 2000. But the authorities weren't fond of it, so they blocked access to its cached pages, Google's stored copies of websites, which could be used to view otherwise censored material. Using its online filters--the so-called Great Firewall of China--the government also made Google run annoyingly slowly, and sometimes not at all. The new site, Google.cn, is physically based in China and runs speedily and reliably, but its contents are censored by Google to accord with government preferences. (A warning label informs the user of this arrangement.) So basically, China's Web surfers have a choice: they can use slow, relatively uncensored Google.com or speedy, sanitized Google.cn.

Certainly the decision caused some hair tearing at Google headquarters in Mountain View, Calif. "It's never obvious what to do in these situations," Google co-founder Larry Page told TIME. "One of the principles we believe pretty strongly is that having really good access to information for people is a great way of improving the world." But in the end Google chose to dance with the dragon--presumably the cha-cha. "Filtering our search results clearly compromises our mission," the company's official statement says. "Failing to offer Google search at all to a fifth of the world's population, however, does so far more severely."

Sounds like a simple enough trade-off. But once you start picking at the edges, you discover a very tangled Web. First, Google's choice may have a plausible ethical rationale. But it is now a publicly owned company, and the decision also stands to earn it truckloads of yuan. China has 111 million Internet users, a number that grew a plump 18% in 2005. Granted, so far few Chinese have credit cards, but when they do, Google's shareholders are going to be peeved if it doesn't host a chunk of the ads that will woo them. And the owners showed their ire last week, not over censorship, but over the crass fact that Google's profit increased a mere 82% in its last quarter. That's not enough for a $433 stock, which became a $381 stock in the days after the announcement. Google may foster a perception that it is beyond the muck of the marketplace, but Wall Street is rapidly getting wise to the less poetic realities of the situation.

Yet it really isn't just about the money. One of the pervasive myths of the information age is that the Internet is a kind of magic spray that when applied to totalitarian states causes democracy to spontaneously blossom forth. "Westerners saw the Internet as this garage-door opener that you could point at closed regimes and open them," says Tim Wu, a professor at Columbia Law School and co-author of the forthcoming book Who Controls the Internet?
The authorities in Beijing have a more realistic take on the power of the Net. They realize that most people aren't going to use it to rally for democracy; they're going to do what Americans do: gossip about celebrities, check the weather, play games and score porn. So the Internet police mostly leave that stuff alone. Wu says the state of the Chinese Internet is even more ominous than total control: "It feels almost normal, so people don't think about what it is they can't get." If anything, the Web has been a galvanizing force for Chinese nationalism. The anti-Japanese riots that broke out last year over a Japanese textbook that underplayed wartime atrocities in China were largely organized online--with government sanction.


And to Google's credit, there are companies that have made far worse bargains in China and haven't got half the public spanking for it. In December the Chinese government took offense at the contents of a blog hosted by Microsoft's MSN service. Microsoft promptly clamped it shut, noting that the company had to obey the law of the land. Earlier last year Beijing investigated a man who used Yahoo! for his e-mail. Yahoo! promptly handed over his computer's IP address. Yahoo! now has one less customer: the man got 10 years for leaking "state secrets."

Moreover, Google's censored version of itself is hardly foolproof. Information is like a toddler: it goes everywhere and gets into everything, and you can't stop it all the time. Chinese doctors were swapping damning e-mails about SARS long before the government would admit there was a problem. Just fooling around with spelling and capitalization can outfox China's online filters, and there's free software available that can give Jingjing and Chacha the slip; Google's free Web Accelerator Tool does that quite nicely.

By some estimates China has 4 million bloggers--are 30,000 Internet police really going to keep them under wraps? Sooner or later the government is going to lose the fight. Being evil just isn't as easy as it used to be, and whether or not Google's actions are ethical in principle, we should all get over the idea that the future of the People's Republic hangs on a bunch of search results.
Global corporations have always had to balance ethical, cultural and legal considerations with financial ones; asking them to define ethical foreign policy is like looking to professional athletes to develop steroid-test rules. As Page puts it, self-servingly but accurately, "It's pretty hard for companies to act as governments. To some extent that's a good thing for the U.S. State Department to be doing. I'm not sure that's our role."


For Google, getting a foothold in the Chinese market now may well be vital for its survival 20 years hence. So it's not surprising that it would trade that financial confidence for a little ethical dustup. The real risk is that some of that dust will stick to Google's snowy-white brand identity. Google trades on its image as a different kind of company. It became a little clearer last week that there can be only one kind of company: the kind that makes money.


Search on Google.Com

Search on Google.Cn



Seems like people dun care about us surfing porn or online betting anymore. hahaha..

Your Taboo, Not Mine....

What you are going to read maybe offending. But for the sake of freedom of speech and writting (typing, in this case) somebody's going to publish it.











just keep your finger crossed that i will not be killed from this day after...













Here's the article....

Your Taboo, Not Mine

The furor over cartoons of Muhammad reveals the zealot's double standard
Feb. 13, 2006


The iconic image of last week was in the Gaza Strip. It was of a Palestinian gunman astride the local office of the European Union. All the diplomatic staff had fled, tipped off ahead of time. The source of the militant's ire? A series of satirical cartoons originally published in Denmark. Yes, cartoons.


A Danish paper, a while back, had commissioned a set of cartoons depicting the fear that many writers and artists in Europe feel when dealing with the subject of Islam. To Western eyes, the cartoons were not in any way remarkable. In fact, they were rather tame. One showed Muhammad with his turban depicted as a bomb--not exactly a fresh image to describe Islamic terrorism. Another used a simple graphic device: it showed Muhammad surrounded by two women in full Muslim garb, their eyes peering out from an oblong space in their black chadors. And on Muhammad's face there was an oblong too, blacking out his eyes. The point was that Islam has a blind spot when it comes to women's freedom. Crude but powerful: exactly what a political cartoon is supposed to be.


The result was an astonishing uproar in the Muslim world, one of those revealing moments when the gulf between our world and theirs seems unbridgeable. Boycotts of European goods are in force; demonstrators in London held up signs proclaiming EXTERMINATE THOSE WHO MOCK ISLAM and BE PREPARED FOR THE REAL HOLOCAUST; the editor of the French newspaper France-Soir was fired for reprinting the drawings; Afghan President Hamid Karzai condemned the publication; and protesters set fire to the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus. The Egyptian ambassador to Denmark expressed disbelief that the government would not prevent further reprinting. Freedom of the press, the Egyptian explained, "means the whole story will continue and that we are back to square one again. The government of Denmark has to do something to appease the Muslim world."


Excuse me? In fact, the opposite is the case. The Muslim world needs to do something to appease the West. Since Ayatullah Khomeini declared a death sentence against Salman Rushdie for how he depicted Muhammad in his book The Satanic Verses, Islamic radicals have been essentially threatening the free discussion of their religion and politics in the West. Rushdie escaped with his life. But Pim Fortuyn, a Dutch politician who stood up against Muslim immigrant hostility to equality for women and gays, was murdered on the street. Theo van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who offended strict Muslims, was killed thereafter. Several other Dutch politicians who have dared to criticize the intolerance of many Muslims live with police protection.


Muslim leaders say the cartoons are not just offensive. They're blasphemy--the mother of all offenses. That's because Islam forbids any visual depiction of the Prophet, even benign ones. Should non-Muslims respect this taboo? I see no reason why. You can respect a religion without honoring its taboos. I eat pork, and I'm not an anti-Semite. As a Catholic, I don't expect atheists to genuflect before an altar. If violating a taboo is necessary to illustrate a political point, then the call is an easy one. Freedom means learning to deal with being offended.


Blasphemy, after all, is commonplace in the West. In America, Christians have become accustomed to artists' offending their religious symbols. They can protest, and cut off public funding--but the right of the individual to say or depict offensive messages or symbols is not really in dispute. Blasphemy, moreover, is common in the Muslim world, and sanctioned by Arab governments. The Arab media run cartoons depicting Jews and the symbols of the Jewish faith with imagery indistinguishable from that used in the Third Reich. But I have yet to see Jews or Israelis threaten the lives of Muslims because of it.


And there is, of course, the other blasphemy. It occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, when fanatics murdered thousands of innocents in the name of Islam. Surely, nothing could be more blasphemous. So where were the Muslim boycotts of Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan after that horrifying event? Since 9/11 mosques have been bombed in Iraq by Islamic terrorists. Where was the rioting condemning attacks on the holiest of shrines? These double standards reveal something quite clear: this call for "sensitivity" is primarily a cover for intolerance of others and intimidation of free people.


Yes, there's no reason to offend people of any faith arbitrarily. We owe all faiths respect. But the Danish cartoons were not arbitrarily offensive. They were designed to reveal Islamic intolerance--and they have now done so, in abundance. The West's principles are clear enough. Tolerance? Yes. Faith? Absolutely. Freedom of speech? Nonnegotiable.
> Visit Andrew Sullivan's blog, the Daily Dish, at
time.com


Whose fault is it? The cartoon? The press? The people? The third world's mindset? History has showed us that every war ends on the round table. Can we all just behave like a civilised human being. Can we all just die with old age, and not because of war? (hahah)























Wednesday, February 08, 2006

Disgrace!!

Saw this in the local paper today..

Moral crusaders turn molesters

BY MARC LOURDES

KUALA LUMPUR: A group of moral crusaders had the tables turned on them when they were arrested by the police for allegedly molesting a woman they had caught for khalwat.
A 21-year-old banquet supervisor and his 17-year-old sales assistant girlfriend, who were at her brother's home in Kg Sungai Penchala, had a shock when the men kicked open the door and stormed into the house.
Brickfields OCPD Asst Comm Mohd Dzuraidi Ibrahim said the men, aged between 24 and 44, beat up the boyfriend when he tried to explain that they had not been doing anything wrong, causing him to suffer injuries to his face, eyes and body.
“They then broke into the bathroom where the girl was taking a shower and allegedly groped and fondled her.
“One of the men also slapped her,” said ACP Mohd Dzuraidi.
The men then dragged the couple to the Brickfields police district headquarters to lodge a police report against them for khalwat.
However, they received a nasty surprise when police arrested them instead after the girl lodged a report against them.





What a disgrace!! I got no further comments. But I am sure you all do.

Monday, February 06, 2006

seen the pictures, sang this song...



心很空天很大云很重我很孤单却赶不走
捧着她的名字她的喜怒哀乐往前走多久了
一个人心中只有一个宝贝久了之后她变成了眼泪
泪一滴在左手凝固成为寂寞往回看有什么

那女孩对我说
说我保护她的梦
说这个世界对她这样的不多
她渐渐忘了我但是她并不晓得遍体鳞伤的我一天也没再爱过

那女孩对我说
说我是一个小偷
偷她的回忆塞进我的脑海中
我不需要自由只想背着她的梦一步步向前走她给的永远不重

一个人心中只有一个宝贝久了之后她变成了眼泪
泪一滴在左手凝固成为寂寞往回看有什么

那女孩对我说
说我保护她的梦
说这个世界对她这样的不多
她渐渐忘了我但是她并不晓得遍体鳞伤的我一天也没再爱过

那女孩对我说
说我是一个小偷
偷她的回忆塞进我的脑海中
我不需要自由只想背着她的梦一步步向前走她给的永远不重

那女孩对我说
保护她的梦说这个世界对她这样的不多
她渐渐忘了我但是她并不晓得遍体鳞伤的我一天也没再爱过

那女孩对我说说我是一个小偷
偷她的回忆塞进我的脑海中
我不需要自由只想背着她的梦一步步向前走她给的永远不重

Friday, February 03, 2006

Funny menus...

Things that we missed while we are stuck here in Malaysia...













Instead of having classy name, wouldn't it be nice to have your customer laughing while ordering their food....?