Well, then I don't get the quote:

Quote

who are eternally obliged by Allah in the Koran to ensure that Islamism is the dominant religion and legal system, and that it is enforced (typically under threat of barbaric punishment or pain of death) in any society/culture where they find themselves

I know that Mullahs in many cases pervert parts of the Koran to make such things necessary- but I've never seen any argument that stands up to the light of reason.  In fact, most of the Muslims that I know look down on this perversion of the Koran, which is why I was a bit befuddle about your comments.  In your study of the Koran have you come upon something that I haven't in my admittedly limited exposure to it?

I think this is off-topic, though I have tried to bring it back on topic (below). I would suggest we consider getting this and any related religious discussion shifted to its own topic.

In response to your comment:
Yes, exactly so - you probably would not "get the quote" if you were relatively ignorant on the subject.

However, where you say:

I know that Mullahs in many cases pervert parts of the Koran to make such things necessary...

- your ignorance would seem to have led you into making a statement that I suspect you would be unable to substantiate at all. It is such a deeply offensive statement as well. We are talking here about very devout Islamic scholars whose faith is unquestionable. They would be committing a crime and a gross blasphemy if they perverted any part of Allah's word, and that - depending on the severity - is something that could even be punishable by death.
No, those Mullahs had better be correct, truthful and accurate in their work, for, otherwise - and especially if they have deliberately perverted Allah's word - they will burn in Hell for eternity after they die.
Islamists are forbidden by Allah to lie, cheat or steal to/from other Islamists. Every good Muslim who has read, understood and learned the Koran knows that Islam draws a clear distinction between two worlds - the world of Islam (Dar al-Islam) and the world of heresy (Dar al-Harb). They are antithetical.
Muslims are all Dar al-Islam, though some Islamic sects - notably Wahabism - are very orthodox and hold that Allah's word (in the Koran) must be followed to the letter. That explains why you will sometime read reports of one Islamic sect killing members of another. For example, the Bahaiists (a Muslim-based sect) are often reported as being variously persecuted and murdered, and having their mosques blown up, by other (e.g., orthodox Wahabist) Muslims. The Bahaiists embrace all other religions and are not at all hegemonic - as opposed to the orthodox Wahabists, who are obliged to push towards Islamic supremacy and a global Caliphate. The Bahaiists produce the Interfaith Explorer that I mentioned above

We are talking about religious belief here, so it is irrational by definition (QED), and therefore we cannot insist that it must make rational sense. If we do so insist, then the usual statement that you might get at this point is along the lines of "Trust in Allah, who is all knowing - whereas we are not." Simply put, that means that you need to believe or "have faith" - and there's always an implicit potential threat in there. It's a very circular argument.

However, a closer study of especially the Koran - and maybe later the Hadith, and Shariah law - will probably reveal to the open-minded reader in search of understanding (as opposed to refutation) that the Islamic religio-political ideology is a precise, self-sustaining and self-regenerating, near-perfect construct. Perfection is of course what one might expect if the construct is Allah's wish and his word.

Once you understand the religion, you can see very clearly that what Islamists do nearly always makes perfect sense - i.e., it is in line and consistent with the Koran, and doing things like cutting off an Infidel's head with a knife is an honourable thing to do, as it emulates the prophet Mohammed (pbuh) who is known to have personally similarly lopped off the heads of over 500 Infidels and enemies of Islam. Emulating the prophet Mohammed (pbuh) in action in your life is regarded as being an incredibly honourable thing to do, and a sure-fire way of getting a ticket to Paradise when you die.

Islamists are so consistent that the most surprising thing to me about 911 was not the act of killing all those people (which was a deliberate and cowardly act of war and a crime), but that the US FAA and the US Defense agencies had not seen it coming.That is, after the evidence of the crash of Egypt Air Flight 990 on Oct. 31, 1999. Thus 911 was predictable, but yet I heard Condoleezza Rice say on a TV show only the other night (The Late Show with David Letterman) that "We didn't suspect that anyone would do this" (OWTTE). I don't believe it.

It seems to me that, as a species, we create religio-political ideologies and then somehow allow ourselves to be enthralled and enslaved by that creation. We want to have "Leaders" but get tyrants of one form or another - e.g., individual tyrants/despots, or bureaucracies.
So we invented the hegemonic Soviet version of Communism/Marxism, and the non-hegemonic Chinese Communism, and our old friend Capitalism. All these are infants in the historical sense. The two most successful religio-political ideologies, and that have stood the test of time, are Christianity (2,000 years old) and Islamism (1,400 years old). Christianity has had its teeth pulled, and anyway is arguably not as perfect a system a Islamism. And  Islamism remains as the one with the potential to blow the others away.

At least with Islamism, effectively stealing from or ripping off people as in Products designed to fail, or lending money at interest (usury) are illegal and may be punishable by death.
So maybe the quick approach to stopping the practice of Planned Obsolescence could be to convert to Islamism and get it over with...oh, but wait...    

Quote from: IainB on November 08, 2011, 02:07 PM

your ignorance would seem to have led you into making a statement that I suspect you would be unable to substantiate at all.

One last statement- or rather, two words.  Radical Wahhabism.  And I'll leave it at that, as I do know what I am talking about on that regard, and we will have to agree to disagree.

I don't think IainB meant any offense with that statement, he's just been on a roll here lately with the rules of debate logic thing. I've actually been enjoying the discussing ... Albeit quietly as I've never had the time to read the Koran so haven't anything relevant to add.

Quote from: wraith808 on November 08, 2011, 03:30 PM

Quote from: IainB on November 08, 2011, 02:07 PM

your ignorance would seem to have led you into making a statement that I suspect you would be unable to substantiate at all.

One last statement- or rather, two words.  Radical Wahhabism.  And I'll leave it at that, as I do know what I am talking about on that regard, and we will have to agree to disagree.

I don't think IainB meant any offense with that statement, he's just been on a roll here lately with the rules of debate logic thing. I've actually been enjoying the discussing ... Albeit quietly as I've never had the time to read the Koran so haven't anything relevant to add.

In case @Stoic Joker had inferred that I might have been rude/offensive, I would just like to say that I had no intention of so being. I was merely taking at face value the comment about relative ignorance:

I know that Mullahs in many cases pervert parts of the Koran to make such things necessary- but I've never seen any argument that stands up to the light of reason.  In fact, most of the Muslims that I know look down on this perversion of the Koran, which is why I was a bit befuddle about your comments.  In your study of the Koran have you come upon something that I haven't in my admittedly limited exposure to it?

There is an admission of ignorance of the thing being discussed. The emboldened bit poses a redundant question which is answered in the same question - i.e., It would be reasonable to suppose that if you admitted to having had only a limited exposure to the Koran, then someone who had studied the thing for 11 years would very likely "have ... come upon something that..." you hadn't. (That's why I did not bother attempting an answer to that Q.)

Then the confirmation of ignorance is tacitly made (no denial), together with a statement:

One last statement- or rather, two words.  Radical Wahhabism.  And I'll leave it at that, as I do know what I am talking about on that regard, and we will have to agree to disagree.

- so there is a claim to special knowledge that something is a fact, but without proof. So the overall gist of this seems to be a now qualified set of statements:

I am relativey ignorant about the Koran, having had an "admittedly limited exposure to it".
I do know what I am talking about as regards "Mullahs in many cases pervert parts of the Koran to make such things necessary".
I know that Mullahs - "Radical Wahhabists" - in many cases pervert parts of the Koran to make such things [in reference to Allah's directive for Islamic supremacy] necessary.
By implication, I refute the truth of [Allah's directive for Islamic supremacy], despite being ignorant of where this might be detailed in the Koran.
So I hold to my statement (without substantiation) that Mullahs - "Radical Wahhabists" - in many cases pervert parts of the Koran, but am not prepared/able to substantiate it.

It would not be correct to call this a good example of a valid argument - for anything, really.
Furthermore it is a smear - i.e., it makes an easy and deliberately unsubstantiated and fundamentally offensive allegation about the Mullahs - one which they are not here to defend themselves from. Regardless of what our opinion might be regarding Islamists, we do not know whether this allegation is true nor, if it is true, then to what extent it is true.

I do not wish to convey here the impression that I am "standing up for" or supporting the spiritual or moral integrity of Islamic Mullahs/Imams generally here, nor for that matter that I would stand up for Roman Catholic priests - it being a matter of record that both these groups at least have a propensity for what the Western laws call pedophilia - i.e., to bugger little boys and/or rape little girls. They also rape mature women. That is reprehensible to me, yet they often seem to be allowed to get away with it with little or no punishment, sometimes especially because it may not directly breach the religious laws (deemed to come from God/Allah) that they uphold as supreme - e.g., what we in the West call "pedophilia" is effectively de rigueur for Muslim men with little girls, as it is a behaviour that emulates the prophet Mohammed (pbuh), who reportedly married Aisha at age 6 or 7. So there's nothing "wrong" with it, d'you see? It's religious custom, innit? Oh, so that's all right then, best beloved.

Some people might say that this sort of thing would make the individual Imam/priest "unfit to perform the role of Imam/priest", but how silly would that statement be?
I mean, it's akin to saying that because you commited some crime - sexual or otherwise - then you are not fit to go around talking about your imaginary friend to anyone who wants to listen and who might actually even believe in the same imaginary friend. Eh? That's surely a non sequitur. Why shouldn't they be free to do this, despite whatever crime they may have commtted? What has one thing got to do with the other?

Fortunately, I think there is no law - not yet in the Western world, at any rate - that prohibits people from walking around or standing on platforms talking about their imaginary friends and myths about these imaginary friends. Even though they are unequivocally being irrational in their belief (QED), psychiatrists do not certify these people as being insane nor keep them locked up in lunatic asylums (though some religious orders effectively save the psychiatrists the trouble by doing that to themselves anyway - i.e., by cloistering themselves in convents or monasteries).

So, whilst we are bellyaching about and discussing the more obscene aspects of Corporations producing products designed to fail, why don't we consider treating, for example, religions, priests, soothsayers and Aboriginal bone-pointing medicine-men all the same - as legal entities (persons) - regardless of whether they are:

• Corporations e.g., including organised/mainstream religions such as the RC Church, the C of E, Islamists, Scientologists, or
• individuals: e.g., including wandering Hindu fakirs/mendicants and medicine-men, palmists, astrologers and other soothsayers/fortune-tellers?

The laws enabling this already exist to some extent in the UK, in the form of the UK Trade Descriptions Act.
The Corporation could thus be obliged to include in their product/service description the caveat that:

"Design obsolescene" may affect/reduce the useful working lifespan of the product/service beyond any period of warranty.

This would be similar to the obligatory UK Financial Disclosures Act which mandates that  any offer to buy or "invest" in a financial services product (e.g., a with-profits life policy) must be accompanied by a specific statement which (from memory) says something to the effect that:

"No warranty express or implied is offered that the value of your investment will rise. The value of your investment may rise or fall."

This is a bit like the Government Health Warnings on retail tobacco products, I suppose:

"Smoking can damage your health."
or the less equivocal:
"Smoking Kills."

- except it would probably be something more along the lines of, for example:

"Investing may be damaging to your financial health."

Now, if the product or service that you advertise yourself as providing is not described honestly (factually, truthfully, accurately and correctly), then that is illegal and you may find yourself facing quite a hefty fine. That could include, for example: faith healing; saving your soul; being given 72 virgins in Paradise; climbing aboard the alien spaceship flying in the tail of the Hale-Bopp comet; providing relief from the past problems caused us by the spirits of space aliens, so that you can realise Operating Thetan, etc.
Prof. Richard Dawkins has already recommended this as a useful approach, when he said a while back in an article in the UK Sunday Times newspaper that, "Astrologers should be prosecuted under the trade descriptions act".

I couldn't agree more.    

Whatever.

But unfortunately some do, just as some Christians pervert the bible (and I'm assuming that the same goes on in other religions, i.e. humans are humans and religion is a powerful tool).

Hopefully, we can leave us Pastafarians out of all that!

Well... I suppose it's possible that some perversions go on... Though I've never heard of anyone putting ketchup on spaghetti... That truly is perverse!

This incident turned out not to be blasphemy.

Well, and then there are those luke-warm pastafarians that don't wear full pirate regalia... I'm guilty...

Yeah... I guess we pastafarians are debased humans too.

Yes, John Lennon had a lot to answer for, according to  Mark Chapman.

Quote from: Renegade on November 09, 2011, 04:55 AM

Hopefully, we can leave us Pastafarians out of all that!

Is that the group that worship Dawkin's Spaghetti Monster?

BLASPHEMER~! BLASPHEMER~!

His noodly goodness doesn't belong to anyone!

Arrr... I say we make Carol walk the plank~!

This incident turned out not to be blasphemy.

Another Testiment of His Word? He has his noodles in many pots.

Quote

Hopefully, we can leave us Pastafarians out of all that!

I can't see the image!  What's the image!

I have found some details and facts about what I referred to above regarding capacitors failing in computers:

• The Great Capacitor Scam
• Capacitor plague

These two do not quite tell the same story, but what becomes apparent or can be supposed is that:

• One or more Taiwanese companies which were large-scale producers of electrolytic capacitors deliberately engaged in a practice of producing those capacitors using an incorrect electrolyte formula, which, under normal operation, slowly caused the production of hydrogen gas, leading to bulging/deformation of the capacitor's case, and eventual cracking or sometimes explosion of the case, releasing the electrolyte either slowly over a period of time, or all at once, respectively.
• It may be that the reason for the manufacture of faulty electrolytic capacitors was industrial espionage "gone wrong": several Taiwanese electrolyte manufacturers began using a stolen formula that was incomplete, and lacked ingredients needed to produce a stable capacitor.
• This seemed to affect all (most?) PC manufacturers' motherboards except where the motherboards were made in Japan - in the latter case, the Japanese manufacturers always adhered to the use of the correct correct electrolyte formula.
• The Taiwanese motherboards would typically fail after about 3 years.
• It wasn't just computer motherboards that were affected, but other electrical equipment too.
• By inference, it could be that Japanese-made electrical equipment may be manufactured without this manufacturing defect.
• Somebody (i.e., the consumer) has ultimately effectively been ripped off.
• It is unclear whether, or to what extent this practice still prevails. Certainly the computer manufacturers are not likely to admit to it, and can avoid fault/liability by blaming their Taiwanese parts manufacturers.

The Taiwanese motherboards would typically fail after about 3 years.

Asrock US based company but taiwani manufactured motherboards, fails in 1 year. I found CMOS battery ending after every 6 months on this board also USB ports die in 1-2 years.

Been my experience with ASROCK boards too - run for years without issue. I was under the impression that ASROCK was a budget part of ASUS - if that is true then ASROCK boards seem, in my experience, to last longer than ASUS boards.

My preferred manufacturer now is Gigabyte having had a series of very expensive ASUS boards fail within the 3 year warranty and ASUS unable to produce a replacement and only received a partial refund even though the boards still had nearly a year of warranty to run. I also built office systems from ASUS Barebones boxes for a while and for one build got three DOA boxes - quality control at ASUS has really dropped off.

Strangely I have never seen USB ports fail on a motherboard until this year and so far this year I have seen 4 computer with BEEP CODE errors from faulty USB ports.

Some of the

I have found some details and facts about what I referred to above regarding capacitors failing in computers:

• The Great Capacitor Scam
• Capacitor plague

These two do not quite tell the same story, but what becomes apparent or can be supposed is that:

• One or more Taiwanese companies which were large-scale producers of electrolytic capacitors deliberately engaged in a practice of producing those capacitors using an incorrect electrolyte formula, which, under normal operation, slowly caused the production of hydrogen gas, leading to bulging/deformation of the capacitor's case, and eventual cracking or sometimes explosion of the case, releasing the electrolyte either slowly over a period of time, or all at once, respectively.
• It may be that the reason for the manufacture of faulty electrolytic capacitors was industrial espionage "gone wrong": several Taiwanese electrolyte manufacturers began using a stolen formula that was incomplete, and lacked ingredients needed to produce a stable capacitor.
• This seemed to affect all (most?) PC manufacturers' motherboards except where the motherboards were made in Japan - in the latter case, the Japanese manufacturers always adhered to the use of the correct correct electrolyte formula.
• The Taiwanese motherboards would typically fail after about 3 years.
• It wasn't just computer motherboards that were affected, but other electrical equipment too.
• By inference, it could be that Japanese-made electrical equipment may be manufactured without this manufacturing defect.
• Somebody (i.e., the consumer) has ultimately effectively been ripped off.
• It is unclear whether, or to what extent this practice still prevails. Certainly the computer manufacturers are not likely to admit to it, and can avoid fault/liability by blaming their Taiwanese parts manufacturers.

I just want to chime in that the last Asus motherboard I bought had a blurb stating it used Japanese capacitors, for this reason. It sounds like Asus may have corrected the problem (by finding a different source), although I too have had good experience with ASRock, although it doesn't mean much because I've only bought a couple of their boards.

Interesting and relevant post from ARS: Wasteful and unethical: why we hate crippled products

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Quote

Wasteful and unethical: why we hate crippled products
By John Timmer | Published February 14, 2012 5:06 PM

In the world of consumer electronics, it's common for companies to create a range of products that are all variations on a theme, containing slightly faster processors or a bit more memory. These products serve two important functions for their producers: they put the price of entry within reach of more consumers, and they induce those with a bit more cash to take steps up the product ladder and purchase a more expensive version. However, a study that has just been released by the Journal of Consumer Research suggests that the companies that take this tack have to be careful about how they go about things. Creating a product range by crippling an existing product can work against the company if word filters out.

The study was motivated in part because of a classic example that backfired. IBM once produced a pair of laser printers that differed solely in terms of their rate of output. The lower page-per-minute version, however, actually required that IBM install a specialized chip that throttled the normal printer's output—it took more work to produce, and cost more to make. That approach did not go over well with purchasers, and the authors are able to cite a history of similar products that resulted in a distinctive (and derogatory) vocabulary: "crippleware," "product sabotage," "anti-features," "defective by design," and "damaged goods."

Nevertheless, there are clearly products on the market—Apple's various i-products, to give a prominent example—that sell well despite the same sort of product differentiation. What explains the difference? The authors hypothesized that it comes down to a matter of perception. Consumers are willing to accept this sort of tiered pricing if they feel it's fair, but tend to frown on it if they feel the method of producing the difference was unethical or unfair. The study they conducted indicated they were right, but that the perception of what's ethical could be influenced in some unexpected ways.

To start with, they simply confirmed the effect by describing a new instance of IBM's approach to crippling a product to a study population, while creating a control group that was told the higher output printer was the one that required more effort to make. People generally felt that paying for an enhancement was reasonable, but responded poorly when it took effort to reduce a product's capabilities, rating that process as not only unfair, but unethical. In fact, they found it so bothersome that they preferred a competitor's product.

Through a series of experiments, however, the authors found a number of ways that companies could reduce (though not eliminate) the negative perceptions of their action. For example, the "everybody's doing it" excuse worked; when people were told that most manufacturers crippled features of low-end phones via software, the study's participants were more tolerant of the practice. Keeping the high- and low-end products distinct, even if it was purely through a cosmetic feature (case color on an MP3 player), also cut down on the sense of dissatisfaction.

It was also clear that people cared a great deal about how the difference came about. For example, simply cutting an internal connection to cripple the low-end product was worse than removing the hardware that supported the feature entirely. The timing of the disabling also mattered. The study's participants were more tolerant of a DVD player that had a high-quality video chip disabled early in the manufacturing process than they were when the chip was disabled as the last step.

In addition to providing some sense of the subtleties of consumer thinking, these studies helped eliminate an alternative explanation for the negative response: consumers don't like waste. It's more wasteful, for example, to remove and destroy a component than it is to leave it in place and cut the connection. Yet the latter approach bothered the study's participants much more.

It's easy to think that little details like this would never make their way into a consumer's brain, and thus are irrelevant to product marketing. But the sudden attention paid to the conditions at places like Foxconn (which manufactures products for Apple and other consumer electronics companies) suggest that companies can't take this for granted. The authors also point out that social media has the potential to take obscure details and turn them into widespread public outrage.

All of which suggests that companies should probably expect that their approach to creating a product range might eventually become the subject of online discussion. And, if they have chosen a process that violates some of the principles laid out by the experiments above, they might end up facing a consumer backlash.

Journal of Consumer Research, 2012. DOI: Not yet available.