f--r--e--e

My Sweet 16 School Musical

2008-12-31T20:56:00.000-08:00

Play more free dress up games!

Super Text Twist

2008-12-31T20:55:00.001-08:00

Super Text Twist®
Play Games
at Shockwave

15 Flash Games only 50K

2008-12-31T20:24:00.002-08:00

12 Cool Games

2008-12-31T20:24:00.001-08:00

Free Flash Mini Arcade

2008-12-31T20:21:00.000-08:00

spit ball warrior

2008-12-31T20:20:00.000-08:00

pachis ruckus

2008-12-31T20:19:00.000-08:00

manta bomber

2008-12-31T20:11:00.000-08:00

Foxy Sniper

2008-12-31T20:01:00.000-08:00

Play Games at AddictingGames

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT MUHAMMAD (PEACE BE UPON HIM) THE PROPHET OF ISLAM

2008-12-31T00:57:00.000-08:00

A lecture by Ahmed Deedat

SAY:
"DO YOU SEE ? WHETHER THIS MESSAGE BE FROM ALLAH (God Almighty), AND YET YOU REJECT IT,
AND A WITNESS FROM AMONG THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL¹ BORE WITNESS OF ONE LIKE HIM......."

(SURA AHQAF) Holy Qur'an 46:10.

1. This refers to Moses. See Yusuf Ali's commentaries Nos. 4783/4 to this verse.

Mr.Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen,
The subject of this evening's talk* - "What the BIBLE says about MUHAMMAD (Peace be upon him)" - will no doubt come as a surprise to many of you because the speaker is a Muslim. How does it come about that a Muslim happens to be expounding prophecies from the Jewish and Christian Scriptures ?
As a young man, about 30 years ago, I attended a series of religious lectures by a Chriatian theologian, a certain Rev. Hiten, at the "Theatre Royal", Durban in South Africa.

* This is the text of a lecture delivered by the author in the early 1970's.

Pope or Kissinger?
This Reverend gentleman was expounding Biblical prophecies. He went on to prove that the Christian Bible foretold the rise of Soviet Russia, and the Last Days. At one stage he went to the extent of proving that his Holy Book did not leave even the Pope out of its predictions. He expatiated vigorously in order to convince his audience that the "Beast 666" mentioned in the Book of Revelation the last book of the New Testament was the POPE, who was the Vicar of Christ on earth. It is not befitting for us Muslims to enter into this controversy between the Roman Catholics and the Protestants. By the way, the latest Christian exposition of the "Beast 666" of the Christian Bible is Dr.Henry Kissinger¹. Christian scholars are ingenious and indefatigable in their efforts to prove their case.
Rev. Hiten's lectures led me to ask that if the Bible foretold so many things - not even excluding the "Pope" and "Israel" - then surely it must have something to say about the greatest benefactor of mankind², the Holy Prophet Muhammed (may the peace of Allah be upon him).

As a youngster I set out to search for an answer. I met priest after priest, attended lectures, and read everything that I could lay my hands relating to the fields of Bible prophecies. Tonight I am going to narrate to you one of these interviews with a dominee³ of the Dutch Reformed Church.

1. Christian exegesists give progressive numerical values by sixes, to the English alphabet and add up to get the total 666. i.e.A=6,B=12,C=18, D=24 and so on. Progression by 6's because the number of the Beast in the Bible is "666". Try it for Dr.Kissinger.

2. The writer has just delivered another talk in the City Hall, Durban on the 10th December, 1975 on the subject "Muhummed the Greatest".

3. "Dominee" is the Afrikaans equivalent of priest, parson and predikant.

Lucky Thirteen
I was invited to the Transvaal¹ to deliver a talk on the occasion of Birthday celebration of the Holy Prophet Muhammed. Knowing that in that province of the Republic, the Afrikaans language is widely spoken, even by my own people, I felt that I ought to acquire a smattering of this language so a s to feel a little "at home" with the people. I opened the telephone directory and began phoning the Afrikaans-speaking Churches. I indicated my purpose to the priests that I was interested in having a dialogue with them, but they all refused my request with "Plausible" excuses. No.13 was my lucky number. The thirteenth call brought me pleasure and relief. A dominee Van Heerden agreed to meet me at his home on the Saturday afternoon that I was to leave for Transvaal.

He received me on his verandah with a friendly welcome. He said if I did not mind, he would like his father-in-law from the Free State (a 70 year old man) to join us in the discussion. I did not mind. The three of us settled down in the dominee's library.

1. One of the Provinces of the Republic of South Africa.

Why nothing?
I posed the question: "What does the Bible say about Muhummed?" Without hesitation he answered, "Nothing!" I asked: "Why nothing? According to your interpretation the Bible have so many things to say about the rise of Soviet Russia and about the Last Days and even about the Pope of the Roman Catholics?" He said, "Yes, but there was nothing about Muhummed!" I asked again, "Why nothing? Surely this man Muhummed who had been responsible for the bringing into being a world-wide community of millions of Believers who, on his authority, believe in:

(1) the miraculous birth of Jesus,
(2) that Jesus is the Messiah,¹
(3) that he gave life to the dead by God's permission, and that he healed those born blind and the lepers by God's permission.

Surely this book (the Bible) must have something to say about this great Leader of men who spoke so well of Jesus and his mother Mary?" (Peace be upon them both).

The old man from the Free State replied. "My son, I have been reading the Bible for the past 50 years, and if there was any mention of him, I would have known it."

1. The word "Messiah" comes from the Arabic and Hebrew word masaha which means to rub, to massage, to annoint. The religious significance is "the one who is anointed" - priests and kings were anointed in consecration to their offices. Messiah translated Christ does not mean God. Even the heathen Cyrus is called "Christ" in the Bible, (Isaiah 45:1)

Not One by name!
I enquired: "According to you, are there not hundreds of prophecies regarding the coming of Jesus in the Old Testament." The dominee interjected: "Not hundreds, but thousands!" I said, "I am not going to dispute the 'thousand and one' prophecies in the Old Testament regarding the coming of Jesus Christ, because the whole Muslim-world has already accepted him without the testimony of any Biblical prophecy. We Muslims have accepted the de facto Jesus on the authority of Muhummed alone, and there are in the world today no less than 900,000,000¹ followers of Muhummed who love, respect and revere this great Messenger of God -Jesus Christ- without having the Christians to convince them by means of their Biblical dialectics. Out of the 'thousands' of prophecies referred to, can you please give me just one single prophecy where Jesus is mentioned by name? The term 'Messiah', translated as 'Christ', is not a name but a title. Is there a single Prophecy where it says that the name of the Messiah will be JESUS, and that his mother's name will be MARY, that his supposed father will be JOSEPH THE CARPENTER; that he will be born in the reign of HEROD THE KING, etc. etc.? No! There are no such details! Then how can you conclude that those 'thousand' Prophecies refer to Jesus (Peace be upon him)?"

1. This was first written in 1976.

What is Prophecy?
The dominee replied: "You see, prophecies are word-pictures of something that is going to happen in the future. When that thing actually comes to pass, we see vividly in these prophecies the fulfilment of what had been predicted in the past." I said: "What you actually do is that you deduce, you reason, you put two and two together." He said: "Yes." I said: "If this is what you have to do with a 'thousand' prophecies to justify your claim with regards to the genuineness of Jesus, why should we not adopt the very same system for Muhummed?"¹ The dominee agreed that it was a fair proposition , a reasonable way of dealing with the problem.

I asked him to open up Deuteronomy, chapter 18, verse 18, which he did. I read from memory the verse in Afrikaans, because this was my purpose in having a little practice with the language of the ruling race in South Africa.²

'N PROFEET SAL EK VIR HULLE VERWEK UIT DIE MIDDE VAN HULLE BROERS, SOOS JY IS, EN EK SAL MY WOORDE IN SY MOND LE, EN HY SY SAL AAN HULLE SE ALLE WAT EK HOM BEVEEL. Deut.18: 18.

The English translation reads as follows:-

"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren,
like unto thee,
and I will put my words in his mouth;
and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."

(HOLY BIBLE) Deuteronomy 18:18.

1. Muhummed is mentioned by name in the Song of Solomon 5:16. The Hebrew word used there is Muhammuddim. The end letters IM is plural of respect majesty and grandeur. Minus "im" the name would be Muhamud translated as "altogether lovely" in the Authorised Version of the Bible or 'The Praised One' 'the one worthy of Praise' i.e. MUHUMMED!(P.B.U.H)

2. If this booklet is translated into any language, please change the Afrikaans words into the local dialect; and do not try a free hand translation of the Biblical quotation. Obtain a Bible in the language in which translation is being made and transcribe exactly as the words occur in that Bible.

Prophet Like Moses
Having recited the verse in Afrikaans, I apologised for my uncertain pronunciation, The dominee assured me that I was doing fine. I enquired: "To whom does this prophecy refer?" Without the slightest hesitation he answered: "JESUS!" I asked: "Why Jesus?... his name is not mentioned here." The dominee replied: "Since prophecies are word-pictures of something that is going to happen in the future, we find that the wordings of this verse adequately describe him. You see the most important words of this prophecy are 'SOOS JY IS' (like unto thee), - LIKE YOU - like Moses, and Jesus is like Moses. I questioned: "In which way is Jesus like Moses?" The answer was: "In the first place Moses was a JEW and Jesus was also a JEW; secondly, Moses was a PROPHET and Jesus was also a PROPHET - therefore Jesus is like Moses and that is exactly what God had foretold Moses - "SOOS JY IS". "Can you think of any other similarities between Moses and Jesus?" I asked. The dominee said that he could not think of any. I replied: "If these are the only two criteria for discovering a candidate for this prophecy of Deuteronomy 18:18, then in that case the criteria could fit any one of the following Biblical personages after Moses:- Solomon, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Malachi, John the Baptist etc., because they were also ALL "Jews" as well as "Prophets". Why should we not apply this prophecy to any one of these prophets, and why only to Jesus? Why should we make fish of one and fowl of another?" The dominee had no reply. I continued: "You see, my conclusions are that Jesus is most unlike Moses, and if I am wrong I would like you to correct me."

Three Unlikes
So saying, I reasoned with him:

"In the FIRST place Jesus is not like Moses, because, according to You - 'JESUS IS A GOD', but Moses is not God. Is this true?" He said: "Yes." I said: "Therefore, Jesus is not like Moses!

"SECONDLY, according to You - 'JESUS DIED FOR THE SINS OF THE WORLD', but Moses did not have to die for the sins of the world. Is this true?" He again said: "Yes." I said: "Therefore Jesus is not like Moses!"

"THIRDLY, according to You - 'JESUS WENT TO HELL FOR THREE DAYS', but Moses did not have to go there. Is this true?" He answered meekly: "Y-e-s." I concluded: "Therefore Jesus is not like Moses!"

"But dominee," I continued: "these are not hard facts, solid facts, they are mere matters of belief over which the little ones can stumble and fall. Let us discuss something very simple, very easy that if your little ones are called in to hear the discussion, would have no difficulty in following it, shall we?" The dominee was quiet happy at the suggestion.

CHAPTER TWO

Eight Irrefutable Arguments

Father and Mother
(1) "Moses had a father and a mother. Muhummed also had a father and a mother. But Jesus had only a mother, and no human father. Is this true?" He said: "Yes." I said: "DAAROM IS JESUS NIE SOOS MOSES NIE, MAAR MUHUMMED IS SOOS MOSES!" Meaning: "Therefore Jesus is not like Moses, but Muhummed is like Moses!" (By now the reader will realise that I was using the Afrikaans language only for practice purposes. I shall discontinue its use in this narration).

Miraculous Birth
(2) "Moses and Muhummed were born in the normal, natural course, i.e. the physical association of man and woman; but Jesus was created by a special miracle. You will recall that we are told in the Gospel of St. Matthew 1:18 ".....BEFORE THEY CAME TOGETHER,(Joseph the Carpenter and Mary) SHE WAS FOUND WITH CHILD BY THE HOLY GHOST." And St.Luke tells us that when the good news of the birth of a holy son was announced to her, Mary reasoned: "...HOW SHALL THIS BE, SEEING I KNOW NOT A MAN? AND THE ANGEL ANSWERED AND SAID UNTO HER, THE HOLY GHOST SHALL COME UPON THEE, AND THE POWER OF THE HIGHEST SHALL OVERSHADOW THEE..." (Luke 1:35). The Holy Qur'an confirms the miraculous birth of Jesus, in nobler and sublimer terms. In answer to her logical question:

" O MY LORD! HOW SHALL I HAVE A SON WHEN NO MAN HATH TOUCHED ME? "
The angel says in reply:
"EVEN SO: ALLAH CREATETH WHAT HE WILLETH:
WHEN HE HATH DECREED A PLAN,
HE BUT SAITH TO IT "BE,"
AND IT IS " ¹

(HOLY QUR'AN, 3:47).

It is not necessary for God to plant a seed in man or animal. He merely wills it and it comes into being. This is the Muslim conception of the of birth of Jesus. (When I compared the Qur'an and the Biblical versions of the birth of Jesus to the head of the Bible Society in our largest City, and when I enquired: "Which version would you prefer to give your daughter, the QUR'ANIC version or the BIBLICAL version?" The man bowed his head and answered: "The Qur'anic.") In short, I said to the dominee: "Is it true that Jesus was born miraculously as against the natural birth of Moses and Muhummed?" He replied proudly: "Yes!" I said: "Therefore Jesus is not like Moses, but Muhummed is like Moses. And God says to Moses in the Book of Deuteronomy 18:18 "LIKE UNTO THEE" (Like You, Like Moses) and Muhummed is like Moses."

1. Please open the Holy Qur'an 3:42 and 19:16 where the birth of Jesus is spoken about; read it with the commentry, note the high position which Jesus and his mother occupy in Islam.

Marriage Ties
(3) "Moses and Muhummed married and begat children, but Jesus remained a bachelor all his life. Is this true?" The dominee said: "Yes." I said: "Therefore Jesus is not like Moses, but Muhummed is like Moses."

Jesus Rejected by his People
(4) "Moses and Muhummed were accepted as prophets by their people in their very lifetime. No doubt the Jews gave endless trouble to Moses and they murmured in the wilderness, but as a nation, they acknowledged that Moses was a Messenger of God sent to them. The Arabs too made Muhummed's life impossible. He suffered very badly at their hands. After 13 years of preaching in Mecca, he had to emigrate from the city of his birth. But before his demise, the Arab nation as a whole accepted him as the Messenger of Allah. But according to the Bible: 'He (Jesus) CAME UNTO HIS OWN, BUT HIS OWN RECEIVED HIM NOT.' (John 1:11). And even today, after two thousand years, his people- the Jews, as a whole, have rejected him. Is this true?" The dominee said: "Yes." I said: "THEREFORE JESUS IS NOT LIKE MOSES, BUT MUHUMMED IS LIKE MOSES."

"Other-Wordly" Kingdom
(5) "Moses and Muhummed were prophets as well as kings. A prophet means a man who receives Divine Revelation for the Guidance of Man and this Guidance he conveys to God's creatures as received without any addition or deletion. A king is a person who has the power of life and death over his people. It is immaterial whether the person wears a crown or not, or whether he was ever addressed as king or monarch: if the man has the prerogative of inflicting capital punishment - HE IS A KING. Moses possessed such a power. Do you remember the Israelite who was found picking up firewood on Sabbath Day, and Moses had him stoned to death? (Numbers- 15:13). There are other crimes also mentioned in the Bible for which capital punishment was inflicted on the Jews at the behest of Moses. Muhummed too, had the power of life and death over his people.

There are instances in the Bible of persons who were given gift of prophecy only, but they were not in a position to implement their directives. Some of these holy men of God who were helpless in the face of stubborn rejection of their message, were the prophets lot, Jonah, Daniel, Ezra, and John the Baptist. They could only deliver the message, but could not enforce the Law. The Holy Prophet Jesus (Peace p.b.u.h) also belonged to this category. The Christian Gospel clearly confirms this: when Jesus was dragged before the Roman Governor, Pontius Pilate, Charged for sedition, Jesus made a convincing point in his defence to refute the false charge: JESUS ANSWERED, "MY KINGDOM IS NOT OF THIS WORLD': IF MY KINGDOM WERE OF THIS WORLD, THEN WOULD MY SERVANTS FIGHT, THAT I SHOULD NOT BE DELIVERED TO THE JEWS; BUT NOW IS MY KINGDOM NOT FROM HENCE" (John 18:36) This convinced Pilate (A Pagan) that though Jesus might not be in full possession of his mental faculty, he did not strike him as being a danger to his rule. Jesus claimed a spiritual Kingdom only; in other words he only claimed to be a Prophet. Is this true?" The dominee answered: "Yes." I said: "Therefore Jesus is not like Moses but Muhummed is like Moses."

No New Laws
(6) "Moses and Muhummed brought new laws and new regulations for their people. Moses not only gave the Ten Commandments to the Israelites, but a very comprehensive ceremonial law for the guidance of his people. Muhummed comes to a people steeped in barbarism and ignorance. They married their step-mothers; they buried their daughters alive; drunkenness, adultery, idolatry, and gambling were the order of the day. Gibbon describe the Arabs before Islam in his "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", THE HUMAN BRUTE, ALMOST WITHOUT SENSE, IS POORLY DISTINGUISHED FROM THE REST OF THE ANIMAL CREATION.' There was hardly anything to distinguish between the "man" and the "animal" of the time; they were animals in human form.

"From this abject barbarism, Muhummed elevated them, in the words of Thomas Carlysle, "into torch-bearers of light and learning.' 'TO THE ARAB NATION IT WAS AS A BIRTH FROM DARKNESS INTO LIGHT. ARABIA FIRST BECAME ALIVE BY MEANS OF IT. A POOR SHEPHERD PEOPLE, ROAMING UNNOTICED IN ITS DESERTS SINCE THE CREATION OF THE WORLD. SEE, THE UNNOTICED BECOMES WORLD NOTABLE, THE SMALL HAS GROWN WORLD-GREAT. WITHIN ONE CENTURY AFTERWARDS ARABIA WAS AT GRANADA ON ONE HAND AND AT DELHI ON THE OTHER. GLANCING IN VALOUR AND SPLENDOUR, AND THE LIGHT OF GENIUS, ARABIA SHINES OVER A GREAT SECTION OF THE WORLD. ..." The fact is that Muhummed gave his people a Law and Order they never had before.

As regards Jesus, when the Jews felt suspicious of him that he might be an impostor with designs to pervert their teachings, Jesus took pains to assure them that he had not come with a new religion - no new laws and no new regulations. I quote his own words: 'THINK NOT THAT I AM COME TO DESTROY THE LAW, OR THE PROPHETS: I AM NOT COME TO DESTROY, BUT TO FULFIL. FOR VERILY I SAY UNTO YOU, TILL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS, ONE JOT OR ONE TITLE SHALL IN NO WISE PASS FROM THE LAW, TILL ALL BE FULFILLED.'(Mathew 5:17-18). In other words he had not come with any new laws or regulation he came only to fulfil the old law. This what he gave the Jews to understand- unless he was speaking with the tongue in his cheek trying to bluff the Jews into accepting him as a man of God and by subterfuge trying to ram a new religion down their throats. No! This Messenger of God would never resort to such fo ul means to subvert the Religion of God. He himself fulfilled the laws. He observed the commandments of Moses, and he respected the Sabbath. At no time did a single Jew point a finger at him to say, 'why don't you fast' or 'why don't you wash your hands before you break bread',which charges they always levied against his disciples, but never against Jesus. This is because as a good Jew he honoured the laws of the prophets who preceded him. In short, he had created no new religion and had brought no new law like Moses and Muhummed. Is this true?" I asked the dominee, and he answered: "Yes." I said: "Therefore, Jesus is not like Moses but Muhummed is like Moses."

How they Departed
(7) "Both Moses and Muhummed died natural deaths, but according to Christianity, Jesus was violently killed on the cross.¹ Is this true?" The dominee said: "Yes." I averred: "Therefore Jesus is not like Moses but Muhummed is like Moses."

Heavenly Abode
(8) "Moses and Muhummed both lie buried in earth, but according to you, Jesus in heaven. Is this true?" The dominee agreed. I said: "Therefore Jesus is not like Moses but Muhummed is like Moses."

1. For a full exposition of this topic, see "CRUCIFIXION OR CRUCI-FICTION?".

CHAPTER THREE

Further Proofs

Ishmael The First Born
Since the dominee was helplessly agreeing with every point, I said, "Dominee, so far what I have done is to prove only one point out of the whole prophecy- that is proving the phrase 'LIKE UNTO THEE' - 'Like You' - 'Like Moses'. The Prophecy is much more than this single phrase which reads as follows : "I WILL RAISE THEM UP A PROPHET FROM AMONG THEIR BRETHREN LIKE UNTO THEE......." The emphasis is on the words- "From among their brethren." Moses and his people, the Jews, are here addressed as a racial entity, and as such their 'brethren' would undoubtedly be the Arabs. You see, the Holy Bible speaks of Abraham as the "Friend of God". Abraham had two wives - Sarah and Hagar. Hagar bore Abraham a son - HIS FIRST-BORN- '......And Abraham¹ called HIS SON'S name, which Hagar bare Ishmael.' (Genesis 16:15). 'And Abraham took Ishmael HIS SON......" (Genesis 17:23). 'And Ishmael HIS SON was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.'(Genesis 17:25). Up to the age of THIRTEEN Ishmael was the ONLY son and seed of Abraham, when the covenant was ratified between God and Abraham. God grants Abraham another son through Sarah, named Isaac, who was very much the junior to his brother Ishmael.

1. According to the Bible, Abraham's name was Abram before it was changed by God to Abraham.

Arabs and Jews
If Ishmael and Isaac are the sons of the same father Abraham, then they are brothers. And so the children of the one are the BRETHREN of the children of the other. The children of Isaac are the Jews and the Children of Ishmael are the Arabs - so they are BRETHREN to one another. The Bible affirms, 'AND HE (ISHMAEL) SHALL DWELL IN THE PRESENCE OF ALL HIS BRETHREN.' (Genesis 16:12). 'AND HE (ISHMAEL) DIED IN THE PRESENCE OF ALL HIS BRETHREN.(Genesis 25:18). The children of Isaac are the brethren of the Ishmaelites. In like manner Muhummed is from among the brethren of the Israelites because he was a descendant of Ishmael the son of Abraham. This exactly as the prophecy has it- 'FROM AMONG THEIR BRETHREN'.(Deut.18:18). There the prophecy distinctly mentions that the coming prophet who would be like Moses, must arise NOT from the 'children of Israel' or from 'among themselves', but from among their brethren. MUHUMMED THEREFORE WAS FROM AMONG THEIR BRETHREN!

Words in the Mouth
"The prophecy proceeds further:'.......AND I WILL PUT MY WORDS INTO HIS MOUTH.......' What does it mean when it is said 'I will put my words in your mouth'? You see, when I asked you (the dominee) to open Deuteronomy chapter 18, verse 18, at the beginning, and if I had asked you to read, and if you had read: would I be putting my words into your mouth?" The dominee answered: "No." "But," I continued: "If I were to teach you a language like Arabic about which you have no knowledge, and if I asked you to read or repeat after me what I utter i.e.

( I read them in Arabic )

Would I not be putting these unheard words of a foreign tongue which you utter, into your mouth?" The dominee agreed that it was indeed so. In an identical manner, I said, the words of the Holy Qur'an, the Revelation vouchsafed by the Almighty God to Muhummed, were revealed.

History tells us that Muhummed was forty years of age. He was in a cave some three miles north of the City of Mecca. It was the 27th night of the Muslim month of Ramadaan. In the cave the Archangel Gabriel commands him in his mother tongue: 'IQRA' which means READ! or PROCLAIM! or RECITE! Muhummed is terrified and in his bewilderment replies " MA ANA BEQARA which means I AM NOT LEARNED! The angel commands him a second time with the same result. For the third time the angel continues.

Now Muhummed, grasps, that what was required of him was to repeat! to rehearse! And he repeats the words as they were put into his mouth:

These are the first five verses which were revealed to Muhummed which now occupy the beginning of the 96th chapter of the Holy Qur'an.

The Faithful Witness
Immediately the angel had departed, Muhummed rushed to his home. Terrified and sweating all over he asked his beloved wife Khadija to 'cover him up!' He lay down, and she watched by him. When he had regained his composure, he explained to her what he had seen and heard. She assured him of her faith in him and that Allah would not allow any terrible thing to happen to him. Are these the confessions of an impostor? Would impostors confess that when an angel of the Lord confronts them with a Message from on High, they get fear-stricken, terrified, and sweating all over, run home to their wives? Any critic can see that his reactions and confessions are that of an honest, sincere man, the man of Truth- 'AL-AMIN' - THE Honest, the Upright, the Truthful.

During the next twenty-three years of his prophetic life, words were 'Put into his mouth', and he uttered them. They made an indeliable impression on his heart and mind: and as the volume of the Sacred Scripture (Holy Qur'an) grew, they were recorded on palm-leaf fibre, on skins and on the shoulder-blades of animals; and in the hearts of his devoted disciples. Before his demise these words were arranged according to his instructions i n the order in which we find them today in the Holy Qur'an.

The words (revelation) were actually put into his mouth, exactly as foretold in the prophecy under discusion: 'AND I WILL PUT MY WORDS IN HIS MOUTH.' (Deut. 18:18).

Un-lettered Prophet
Muhummed's experience in the cave of Hira, later to be known as Jabal-un Noor - The Mountain of Light, and his response to that first Revelation is the exact fulfilment of another Biblical Prophecy. In the Book of Isaiah, Chapter 29, verse 12, we read: "AND THE BOOK" (al-Kitaab,al-Quran the 'Reading', the 'Recitation') "IS DELIVERED TO HIM THAT IS NOT LEARNED," (Isaiah 29:12) "THE UNLETTERED PROPHET " (Holy Qur'an 7:158) and the biblical verse continues : "SAYING, READ THIS, I PRAY THEE:" (the words "I pray thee", are not in the Hebrew manuscripts; compare with the Roman Catholics' "Douay Version and also with the "Revised Standard Versions") "AND HE SAITH, I AM NOT LEARNED." ("I am not learned." is the exact translation of the Arabic words MA ANA BEQARA which Muhummed uttered twice to the Holy Ghost - the Archangel Gabriel, when he was commanded : IQRAA "READ!").

Let me quote the verse in full without a break as found in the "King James Version," or the "Authorised version" as it is more popularly known "AND THE BOOK IS DELIVERED TO HIM THAT IS NOT LEARNED, SAYING, READ THIS I PRAY THEE: AND HE SAITH, I AM NOT LEARNED." (Isaiah 29:12).

Important note :
It may be noted that there were no Arabic Bibles in existence in the 6th Century of the Christian Era when Muhummed lived and preached! Besides, he was absolutely unlettered and unlearned. No human had ever taught him a word. His teacher was his Creator:

Without any human learning, 'he put to shame the wisdom of the learned'."

(12) There are today Arabic Bibles in Fourteen different scripts and dialects for the Arabs alone. See "The Gospels in many tongues".

Grave Warning
"See!" I told the dominee, "how the prophecies fit Muhummed like a glove. We do not have to stretch prophecies to justify their fulfilment in Muhummed."

The dominee replied, "All your expositions sound very well, but they are of no real consequence, because we Christians have Jesus Christ the "incarnate" God, who has redeemed us from the Bondage of Sin!"

I asked, "Not important?" God didn't think so! He went to a great deal of trouble to have His warnings recorded. God knew that there would be people like you who will flippantly, light-heartedly discount his words, so he followed up Deuteronomy 18:18 with a dire warning: "AND IT SHALL COME TO PASS, " (it is going to happen) "THAT WHOSOEVER WILL NOT HEARKEN UNTO MY WORDS WHICH HE SHALL SPEAK IN MY NAME, I WILL REQUIRE IT OF HIM. (in the Catholic Bible the ending words are - "I will be the revenger", I will take vengeance from him - I will take revenge!) "Does not this terrify you? God Almighty is threatening revenge! We shake in our pants if some hoodlum threathens us, yet you have no fear of God's warning?"

"Miracle of Miracles! in the verse 19 of Deuteronomy chapter 18, we have a further fulfilment of the prophecy in Muhummed! Note the words-'.....MY WORDS WHICH HE SHALL SPEAK IN MY NAME," In whose name is Muhummed speaking?" I opened Yusuf Ali's translation of the Holy Qur'an, at chapter 114- 'Sura Nas', or Mankind - the last chapter, and showed him the formula at the head of the chapter:

and the meaning: "IN THE NAME OF GOD, MOST GRACIOUS, MOST MERCIFUL." And the heading of chapter 113:

and the meaning: "IN THE NAME OF GOD, MOST GRACIOUS, MOST MERCIFUL". And every chapter downwards 112 , 111, 110.......was the same formula and the same meaning on every page, because the end SURAS (chapters) are short and take about a page each.

"And what did the prophecy demand?' ......WHICH HE SHALL SPEAK IN MY NAME and in whose name does Muhummed speak? 'IN THE NAME OF GOD, MOST GRACIOUS MOST MERCIFUL.' The Prophecy is being fulfilled in Muhummed to the letter

"Every chapter of the Holy Qur'an except the 9th begin with the formula: IN THE NAME OF GOD, MOST GRACIOUS, MOST MERCIFUL.' The Muslim begins his every lawful act with the Holy formula. But the Christian begins: "In the name of the Father, son and holy ghost.'"¹

Concerning Deuteronomy chapter eighteen, I have given you more than 15 reasons as to how this prophecy refers to Muhummed and NOT to Jesus.

1. The Christian theologians are ignorant of even the "name of God. Because "God" is not a name, and "Father" is also not a name. See "WHAT IS HIS NAME?".

CHAPTER FOUR

New Testament Also Confirms

Baptist Contradicts Jesus
In New Testament times, we find that the Jews were still expecting the fulfilment of the prophecy of 'ONE LIKE MOSES', refer John 1:19-25. When Jesus claimed to be the Messiah of the Jews, the Jews began to enquire as to where was Elias? The Jews had a parallel prophecy that before the coming of the Messiah, Elias must come first in his second coming. Jesus confirms this Jewish belief:

".......ELIAS TRULY SHALL FIRST COME, AND RESTORE ALL THINGS. BUT I SAY UNTO YOU, THAT ELIAS IS COME ALREADY, AND THEY KNEW HIM NOT,...THEN THE DISCIPLES UNDERSTOOD THAT HE SPAKE UNTO THEM OF JOHN THE BAPTIST." (Matthew 17:11-13).

According to the New Testament the Jews were not the ones to swallow the words of any would-be Messiah. In their investigations they underwent intense difficulties in order to find their true Messiah. And this the Gospel of John confirms: "AND THIS IS THE RECORD OF JOHN,"(the Baptist) "WHEN THE JEWS SENT PRIESTS AND LEVITES FROM JERUSALEM TO ASK HIM, WHO ART THOU? AND HE CONFESSED AND DENIED NOT; BUT CONFESSED, I AM NOT THE CHRIST." (This was only natural because there can't be two Messiahs¹ at the same time. If Jesus was the Christ then John couldn't be the Christ!) "AND THEY ASKED HIM, WHAT THEN? ART THOU ELIAS? AND HE SAITH, I AM NOT." (Here John the Baptist contradicts Jesus! Jesus says that John is "Elias" and John denies that he is what Jesus ascribes him to be. One of the TWO (Jesus or John), God forbid!, is definitely not speaking the TRUTH! On the testimony of Jesus himself, John the Baptist was the greatest of the Israelite prophets: "VERILY I SAY UNTO YOU, AMONG THEM THAT ARE BORN OF WOMEN THERE HAS NOT RISEN A GREATER THAN JOHN THE BAPTIST:... "(Matthew 11:11).

We Muslims know John the Baptist as Hazrut YAHYAA Alai-his-salaam (peace be upon him). We revere him as a true prophet of Allah. The Holy Prophet Jesus known to us as Hazrut ISAA Alai-his-salaam (peace be upon him), is also esteemed as one of the mightiest messenger of the Almighty. How can we Muslims impute lies to either of them? We leave this problem between Jesus and John for the Christians to solve, for their "sacred scriptures" abound in discrepancies which they have been glossing over as the "dark sayings of Jesus"(15). We Muslims are really interested in the last questions posed to John the Baptist by the Jewish elite- "ART THOU THAT PROPHET? AND HE ANSWERED, NO." (John 1:21)

1. The Jews were expecting a single Messiah not two.

2. See the "TIMES" Magazine December 30th, 1974, article "How true is the Bible?" And also see "50,000 Errors in the Bible?" a reproduction from the Christian Magazine "AWAKE!" September 8, 1957.

Three Questions!
Please note that three different and distinct questions were posed to John the Baptist and to which he gave three emphatic "NO'S" as answers. To recapitulate:-

1) ART THOU THE CHRIST?
2) ART THOU ELIAS?
3) ART THOU THAT PROPHET?

But the learned men of Christendom somehow only see two questions implied here. To make doubly clear that the Jews definitely had T-H-R-E-E separate prophecies in their minds when they were interrogating John the Baptist, let us read the remonstrance of the Jews in the verses following:

"AND THEY ASKED HIM, AND SAID UNTO HIM, WHY BAPTIZEST THOU THEN, IF THOU BE
a) NOT THAT CHRIST,
b) NOR ELIAS,
c) NEITHER THAT PROPHET?" (John 1:25)

The Jews were waiting for the fulfilment of THREE distinct prophecies: One, the coming of CHRIST. Two the coming of ELIAS, and Three, the coming of THAT PROPHET.

"That Prophet"
If we look up any Bible which has a concordance or cross-references, the we will find in the marginal note where the words "the Prophet", or "that Prophet" occur in John 1:25, that these words refer to the prophecy of Deuteronomy 18:15 and 18. And that 'that prophet' - 'the prophet like Moses' - "LIKE UNTO THEE", we have proved through overwhelming evidence that he was MUHUMMED and not Jesus!

We Muslims are not denying that Jesus was the "Messiah", which word is translated as "Christ".¹ We are not contesting the "thousand and one prophecies" which the Christians claim abound in the Old Testament foretelling the coming of the Messiah. What we say is that Deuteronomy 18:18 does NOT refer to Jesus Christ but it is an explicit prophecy about the Holy Prophet MUHUMMED!"

The dominee, very politely parted with me by saying that it was a very interesting discussion and he would like me very much to come one day and address his congregation on the subject. A decade and half has passed since then but I am still awaiting that privilege.

I believe the dominee was sincere when he made the offer, but prejudices die hard and who would like to loose his sheep?

1. How the word Messiah was transmuted to Christ?. See "Christ in Islam"

The Acid Test
To the lambs of Christ I say, why not apply that acid test which the Master himself wanted you to apply to any would be claimant to prophethood? He had said: "BY THEIR FRUITS YE SHALL KNOW THEM. DO MEN GATHER GRAPES FROM THE THORNS, OR FIGS FROM THE THISTLES? EVERY GOOD TREE WILL BEAR GOOD FRUIT AND EVERY EVIL TREE WILL BEAR EVIL FRUIT....BY THEIR FRUITS YE SHALL KNOW THEM. (Matthew 7:16-20).

Why are you afraid to apply this test to the teachings of Muhummed? You will find in the Last Testament of God - the Holy Qur'an - the true fulfilment of the teachings of Moses and Jesus which will bring to the world the much-needed peace and happiness. "IF A MAN LIKE MOHAMED WERE TO ASSUME THE DIC TATORSHIP OF THE MODERN WORLD, HE WOULD SUCCEED IN SOLVING ITS PROBLEMS THAT WOULD BRING IT THE MUCH NEEDED PEACE AND HAPPINESS."
(George Bernard Shaw)

The Greatest!
The Weekly Newsmagazine "TIME" dated July 15, 1974, carried a selection of opinions by various historians, writers, military men, businessmen and others on the subject: "Who Were History's Great Leaders?" Some said that it was Hitler; others said - Gandhi, Buddha, Lincoln and the like. But Jules Masserman, a United States psychoanalyst put the standards straight by giving the correct criteria wherewith to judge. He said:
"LEADERS MUST FULFIL THREE FUNCTIONS:-
(1) Provide for the well-being of the led,
(2) Provide a social organization in which people feel relatively secure
and
(3) Provide them with one set of beliefs."

With the above three criteria he searches history and analyses - Hitler, Pasteur, Gaesar, Moses, Confucius and the lot, and ultimately concludes:

"PEOPLE LIKE PASTEUR AND SALK ARE LEADERS IN THE FIRST SENSE. PEOPLE LIKE GANDHI AND CONFUCIUS, ON ONE HAND, AND ALEXANDER, CAESAR AND HITLER ON THE OTHER, ARE LEADERS IN THE SECOND AND PERHAPS THE THIRD SENSE. JESUS AND BUDDHA BELONG IN THE THIRD CATEGORY ALONE. PERHAPS THE GREATEST LEADER OF ALL TIMES WAS MOHAMMED, WHO COMBINED ALL THREE FUNCTIONS. To a lesser degree, MOSES DID THE SAME."

According to the objective standards set by the Professor of the Chicago University, whom I believe to be Jewish, - JESUS and BUDDHA are now - here in the picture of the "Great Leaders of Mankind", but by a queer coincidence groups Moses and Muhummed together thus adding further weight to the argument that JESUS is not like MOSES, but MUHUMMED is like MOSES: Deut.18:18 "LIKE UNTO THEE" - Like MOSES!

Reverend James L. Dow in Collins Dictionary of the Bible gives further proof, that JESUS is not like MOSES, but MUHUMMED is like Moses: "AS A STATESMAN AND LAWGIVER MOSES IS THE CREATOR OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE. HE FOUND A LOOSE CONGLOMERATION OF SEMITIC PEOPLE, NONE OF ......

*Also in "THE ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF RELIGION", Moses is looked upon in the different traditions. Under Moses in Islam; we read

"MOSES IS HIGHLY REGARDED IN ISLAM AS THE GREAT PROPHET WHO FORETOLD THE COMING OF MUHAMMAD, HIS SUCCESSOR...THERE IS MUCH IN THE LIFE OF MUHAMMAD THAT IS IMPLICITLY REMINISCENT OF THE MOSES TRADITION.

P121, THE ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF RELIGION, Mircea Eliade (EDITOR IN CHIEF)
Volume 10, Macmillean Publishing Company

In conclusion, I end with a quotation of a Christian Reverend the commentator of the Bible, followed by that of his Master:

"THE ULTIMATE CRITERION OF A TRUE PROPHET IS THE MORAL CHARACTER OF HIS TEACHING."
(Prof. Dummelow.)

"BY THEIR FRUITS YE SHALL KNOW THEM."
(Jesus Christ)

COME LET US REASON TOGETHER

SAY:"O PEOPLE OF THE BOOK!
COME TO COMMON TERMS AS BETWEEN US AND YOU:
THAT WE WORSHIP NONE BUT GOD;
THAT WE ASSOCIATE NO PARTNERS WITH HIM;
THAT WE ERECT NOT, FROM AMONG OURSELVES,
LORDS AND PATRONS OTHER THAN GOD."
IF THEN THEY TURN BACK,
SAY:"BEAR WITNESS THAT WE (AT LEAST)
ARE MUSLIMS (BOWING TO GOD'S WILL)."

(SURA AL-I-'IMRAN) Holy Qur'an 3:64

"PEOPLE OF THE BOOK" is the respectful title given to the Jews and the Christians in the Holy Qur'an. The Muslims is here commanded to invite - "O People of the Book!" - O Learned People! O People who claim to be the recipients of Divine Revelation, of a Holy Scripture; let us gather together onto a common platform - "that we worship none but God", because none but God is worthy of worship, not because "THE LORD THY GOD IS A JEALOUS GOD VISITING THE INIQUITY OF THE FATHERS UPON THE CHILDREN UNTO THE THIRD AND FOURTH GENERATION OF THEM THAT HATE ME." (Exodus 20:25). But because He is our Lord and Cherisher, our Sustainer and Evolver, worthy of all praise, prayer and devotion.

In the abstract the Jews and the Christians would agree to all the three propositions contained in this Qur'anic verse. In practice they fail. Apart from doctrinal lapses from the unity of the One True God, (ALLAH Subhanahu wa ta-ala) there is the question of a consecrated Priesthood (among the Jews it was hereditary also), as if a mere human being - Cohen or Pope, or Priest, or Brahman, - could claim superiority apart from his learning and the purity of his life, or could stand between man and God in some special sense. ISLAM DOES NOT RECOGNISE PRIESTHOOD!

The Creed of Islam is given to us here in a nutshell from Holy Qur'an:

Say ye: "We believe in Allah,
And the revelation given to us,
And to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac,
Jacob, and the Tribes,
And that given to Moses and Jesus
And that given to (all)
Prophets from their Lord:
We make no difference
Between one and another of them:
And we bow to Allah (in Islam)."

(SURA BAQARA) Holy Qur'an 2:136.

The Muslim position is clear. The Muslim does not claim to have a religion peculiar to himself. Islam is not a sect or an ethnic religion. In its view all Religion is one, for the Truth is one. IT WAS THE SAME RELIGION PREACHED BY ALL THE EARLIER PROPHETS. (Holy Qur'an 42:13). It was the truth taught by all the inspired Books. In essence it amounts to a consciousness of the Will and Plan of God and a joyful submission to that Will and Plan. IF ANYONE WANTS A RELIGION OTHER THAN THAT, HE IS FALSE TO HIS OWN NATURE, AS HE IS FALSE TO GOD'S WILL AND PLAN. Such a one cannot expect guidance, for he has deliberately renounced guidance.

Lotto Syndicates | The Positives And Negatives

2008-12-31T00:54:00.001-08:00

It is widely appreciated that a lotto syndicate is without doubt the wisest way to play a part in any lotto if you are looking to enhance your probability of winning. In reality, more than one quarter of all lotto jackpot wins are secured by lotto syndicates. These lottery syndicates are typically formed by groups of work colleagues or friends who have the one aim of improving their chances of winning the lottery. Playing together in this way gives each participant of the syndicate a greater number of winning chances but at the same time ensuring each person's spend is kept to a minimum.

Being a syndicate member can come with a significant odds benefit markedly if the syndicate has a greater quantity of individuals taking part. In spite of this, being a syndicate member does have its downside.

The first and almost certainly the most apparent negative side of a syndicate is the fact that all prize money is shared amongst all players in the syndicate equally. Therefore, the greater number of syndicate members there are, the less cash each of these members will receive. As a result, a substantial lottery syndicate triumph may only generate a sufficient amount of cash for each member to pay for a holiday or a new dining room suite; but definitely not a sufficient amount to quit the day job and buy a luxury yacht! As long as each participant is aware of this eventuality then everybody should be cheerful.

The second catch with lotto syndicates directly relates to the point made above. Stories can occasionally be seen in the media relating to a greedy syndicate member(s) who is loathed to distribute the syndicate winnings to colleagues and attempt to keep it all for them self. This can undoubtedly be a massive dilemma if the syndicate has been set up informally. If this is the case, every syndicate member has then got to show in legal terms that they have indeed been duped. There have also been instances where a syndicate member has lost their share of a syndicate payout due to tardy or non payment of their syndicate payment. There have been a number of cases where legal action has taken place as a result of this happening.

The third setback that may happen if no formal syndicate agreement is in place is that of inheritance tax issues. If the head of the syndicate collects the prize money and then "gifts" each member their equal share, then this tax could become an issue for all the syndicate members.

Problems such as this can be reduced thus simplifying the whole process. If the syndicate is put together using a lottery syndicate contract then any of the scenarios highlighted here will cause no further problems. Such syndicate agreements can be downloaded from your lotto provider's internet site and in many cases can be collected from your lotto retailer.

There is no real doubt that the benefits of joining a lottery syndicate far outweigh the negative aspects involved. If the syndicate is put together in a legal manner as mentioned, the only things you truly have to be bothered about are paying your money each week and deciding what you will do with the funds when your lottery syndicate gets lucky.

islamic free download

2008-12-31T00:50:00.000-08:00

100.rar

1g.zip

46dg.rar

a-malem-0--500--0.zip

BNBAZ.zip

ayaam1.zip

ataa.rar

ali_book.zip

Christianity.zip

bukari_pdf_complete.zip

book2_e.zip

brmja.zip

book7_e.zip

Essentialright.zip

fshl1.rar

3039537/ertka1.rar

estkara.rar

emama3.zip

IslamItsFoundationsAndConcepts.zip

hoshan.zip

husaeen.zip

jarya.zip

hohaan8.rar

ketaan1.rar

klaeed_s.zip

kwamh2.zip

kashf2.zip

laysamena.rar

shaba55.zip

Sira3-ma3a-Almala7ida.zip

mutkuf.rar

slamtsader.zip

muslim_pdf_partial.zip

mun_3.rar

mun_2.rar

murbi2.rar

mun_1.rar

Mohammad.zip

mfased2.zip

meraaath.rar

mnhj_sh.rar

m155a.zip

MauriceBucaille.zip

syaha2.rar

3040250/srssfaali.rar

Tahawya.rar

sryaan1.rar

t54.rar

tnzeeh9.rar

3040285/zawji2.rar

TheFundamentalsofTawheed.zip

taymiya.rar

zada.rar

2869.rar

9ss.rar

3r.rar

2699.rar

54kk.rar

beralwalden.rar

abn_audulwahab_b.zip

14701.rar

3040390/ahkam9.rar

54770.zip

dustoora.rar

eklae3.rar

dd8.zip

ebnkaem_m.rar

f44f.rar

g44.rar

gaseem7.rar

fwaeedmuhuma.rar

faleh.rar

frontpaeg.rar

hashyata.rar

gaseem8.rar

habeeb2.zip

jar8.rar

kaseel_amwal.rar

kasem2.rar.html

kasem3.rar.html

kasem1.rar

kasem4.rar

kebar6.zip

ktareen.rar

mnazel.zip

mk12.zip

msh_m.rar

mohoor7.rar

mst11.rar

muwata.zip

olom.rar

orooz1.zip

Ommah.rar

snabeel.rar

roaya2.rar

slaah_n.rar

saool-3.rar

sakt.rar

wabeel.rar

tnkeh2.zip

wasfalnar.rar

teb6.rar

takryap.zip

2919.zip

15547.zip

2890.zip

2943.zip

yoseef1.zip

15593.zip.html

mtaleea.zip

15547.zip

knoz_2.rar

mnbddl.rar

u22.rar

omryaa.rar

mtaleea.zip

Slots Games And Casinos. Common Slots Games Myths

2008-12-31T00:48:00.000-08:00

For quite a while now now, slots games make up a big part of total casino revenues all over the world. Slots games are so popular because they are the easiest casino games to play, do not require any additional knowledge and have the highest payout rate compared to other gambling games in the casino. And you will find slots games just in any casino, be it in Las Vegas, Monte Carlo or somewhere in Asia.

You'll see hundreds of slot machines right after you enter the casino. They all look very attractive so that you would want to sit down right away and play slots games, without going to the table games. Slot machines may look alike, but beware, payout percentages and winning combinations differ from one machine to another. Read the rules on the machine first, before playing it. If you aren't quite sure you want to play any particular slots game there will always be many others to enjoy.

If you want to play slots games, you'll have to drive all the way to Las Vegas or Atlantic City or any other territory near you where gambling is permitted. There you will find hundreds and thousands of slot machines that will suit any type of player, from rookie to a high roller. But if you don't want to waste your time on travelling anywhere, there's a good option for you. Online casinos offer 24/7 access to thousands of casino games, progressive and straight slots, 3-reel and 5-reel slot machines, free slots and payed games. All you need to do is enter a website and choose a slot game that suits you best.

Common Slots Games Myths

Slots games are probably the most popular and at the same time the most misunderstood casino game both online and in real world. To understand the game better, you have to know the principles it is based on. And the main principle of all slots games, be it in an online casino, a video slot game or a land-based slot machine, is RNG.

RNG (random number generator) is a small chip, which determines all the combinations and payouts in any of slots games, and you cannot affect it in any way.

Slots Games Myth 1 — There's an equal chance for all combinations

All slots games are programmed for a certain amount of winning and losing combinations. And the truth is that there are far less big winning combinations than those of loosing. Here's how it works:

Lets' say that number 1 gives you the best winning combination, and the numbers that follow have a decreasing amount of win. The RNG in all of the slots games will have the following program for determining your combination.

1,2,2,3,3,3,4,4,4,4,5,5,5,5,5,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,7,7,7,7,7 and so on.

In other words, the bigger is the amount of the combination, the smaller are the chances you will hit that combination. And you will get loosing combinations far more often than those that will pay you.

Slot Machine Myth 2 — Hitting a near miss shows that you will soon hit it big

In slots games there are a lot of combinations when you're are just one symbol away from the jackpot. Many players tend to believe that it's a sign you will hit big the next roll. To our disappointment, it remains only a belief and has nothing to do with reality.

Strategies and Tactics for Roulette Betting

2008-12-31T00:14:00.000-08:00

A famous quote by Albert Einstein is one where he reputes "You cannot beat a roulette table unless you steal money from it." Many strategists have tried to develop winning systems for roulette. Because there are so many even-money bets in roulette, many have been inspired over the years to attempt to beat the game using one or more variations of what is called the Martingale betting strategy. This strategy is where the gambler doubles his/her bet after every loss. The idea is that the first win will recover all previous losses and also win a profit equal to the original bet. Unfortunately, this betting strategy if flawed due to the probably and inevitable long-term consequence and potentially large financial loss.

Another strategy is known as the Fibonacci system. Here bets are calculated according to Fibonacci sequence. The Fibonacci system is largely based on a natural number progression sequence. It works by starting with the number 1 and then adding the previous two numbers in order to get the next number. A player will start with a bet of one unit and then keep betting that one until they lose. Once a loss occurs, they move up the Fibonacci ladder and after a win, the player backs up one level. Upon winning two consecutive bets, the system is considered to be completed and they start again from the beginning. Even with this strategy, no such system can statistically overcome the edge the house has over the player. This strategy, however, has been proven to be one of the safest betting systems. The problem; however is that most of the winning bets will happen while betting on one unit only. This makes betting for the high rollers boring even if the system does tend to prove profitable.

Another strategy, noted not to win money, has been described as an enjoyable roulette betting method by LA Times editor Andres Martinez in his book on Las Vegas "24/7". It is called the "dopey experiment". The idea behind the strategy is to divide an individual's roulette session bankroll into 35 units and then bet this unit on a particular number for 35 consecutive spins. The number of hits in that time, the gamble wins back the original bankroll and can play more spins with house money. The probability of winning, however, is 6068% with 35 spins. This is assuming a double zero wheel with 38 pockets.

A common misconception involves green numbers. It is believed that these are "house numbers" and by betting on them, one will gain the house edge. It is true, in fact, that the house's advantage comes from the green numbers because ea game without them would be statistically fair. They are, however, no different than any other number. The odds of them, as well as any other number coming up are all the same. So although different strategies and tactics exist at an attempt to increase the player's odds; it's still all chance.

OpenOffice.org: Knowing when to use Impress

2008-12-31T00:11:00.000-08:00

With Labour Day past, we back in the season of slide shows -- million of them daily in both academia and business. For over a decade now, slide shows have become an accepted prop for public speaking, regardless of whether they are useful or well-designed, and the trend shows no sign of slowing. You can, of course, just acquiesce and accept that as soon as you click to the first slide, most of your audience will sigh deeply and sit back low in their chairs. But, if you really want to make slide shows work for you, you'll think before opening up the Impress wizard.

The most famous criticism of slide shows is Edward Tufte's essay, "The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint." His viewpoint is brutally (and comically) succinct: Slide shows are a one-way form of communication, and "usually weaken verbal and spatial reasoning, and almost always corrupt statistical analysis." In his equally famous poster, he likens a slide show to an old Soviet May Day rally, with a dictator haranguing squares of troops. Almost equally well known is the Gettysburg PowerPoint Presentation, which strips Lincoln's famous speech of its rhetorical power and replaces it with a set of banal bullet points.

There are, of course, situations where the natural tendencies of slide shows are useful. For instance, if you are assembling a trade fair demo that is going to loop continuously, you're in a situation where one way communication is inevitable.

Similarly, if you're an assistant professor teaching an introductory course to 600 students, you're not going to get much interaction no matter what you do. Probably, too, you have to convey a lot of information in a short time, so you don't especially want interruptions. Nor are you likely to be doing more than introducing concepts, so the risk of over-simplifying them will usually be small.

In other situations, though, whether a slide show is useful is less easy to decide. The trick in making the decision is to observe when the natural tendencies of slide shows are suitable for what you are presenting, and when they are not. That in itself is a radical idea in an era when slide shows are given as a matter of course. But, if a slide show doesn't suit your need, you are far more likely to communicate successfully by not using one than by building one just to meet expectations.
Deciding when to use Impress by purpose

One of the simplest ways to decide whether you should be using a slide show is to ask

yourself if any of the following situations will apply:

* You are lecturing and don't expect much interaction with your audience for whatever reason.
* You are giving brief, general instructions before moving on to other ways of interacting with your audience.
* You have illustrations -- pictures, charts, or diagrams -- that will help your audience understand what you are talking about.
* Your information falls naturally into small, fixed categories without over-simplification.
* Your slide show is only one way in which you will interact with your audience -- and, preferably, will be relatively brief.
* Your audience is older, deeply interested in the subject, or already expert in the subject -- that is, if it is likely to have a longer attention span.
* Your presentation is 15 minutes or less.

Conversely, if any of the following situations apply, you should probably reconsider the whole idea of a slide show:

* Interaction with your audience is an important part of your presentation.
* You need to interact with members of your audience individually.
* Language -- either rhetoric, as in a poem, or deep analysis of meaning, such as in a legal document -- is important to your presentation.
* Your information is complex or abstract, so that it doesn't fit naturally onto slides with 5-8 short bullet points on them.
* The slide show is your only presentation method.
* Your audience is younger, mildly interested, or being introduced to the subject -- that is, more likely to become restless during a presentation.
* Your presentation is longer than 15 minutes.

In both lists, you should probably not base your decision on a single factor. However, if you think about each of the points on the list, you shouldn't take long to realize whether a slide show will help your presentation or drag it down.
Guarding against one-way communication

Once you have decided to prepare a slide show, your challenges are just beginning. Except in cases in which you actually want one-way communication of simple ideas, you need to struggle against the limitations of slide show as a medium all through your preparation.

The simplest way to avoid these limitations is to avoid developing a presentation that is a summary of everything you have to say. Not only will your audience pay more attention to the slide shows than to you, but, unless you are very careful, you are likely to start reading the slides -- in other words, to stop reacting to your audience and breaking your ideas up into the bullet points on the slides.

When that happens, you might as well just send your presentation along and not bother to appear in person. You certainly won't be adding anything to the slide show by being its animated mouthpiece.

Instead of making your slide show a summary of your talk, use Impress at what it's good for: that is, presenting graphics for your audience. Write the notes for your presentation, then mark the places where a graphic might help your audience's understanding (it might help to ask yourself where you might put a graphic if you were writing an essay rather than a slide show). Do the same for any keywords or citations that your audience might want to know how to spell or to look up later for themselves. Add a title page, and possibly a summary of key points at the end, and that is all your slide show is likely to need.

Admittedly, preparing a slide show of this kind will feel awkward -- even wrong -- if you are used to presentations that are basically your notes. What everyone else is doing has a way of quickly seeming the only correct way to do things, regardless of whether it is effective or not. But if you persevere, you will find that this style of slide show dramatically changes your relation with your audience during the presentation.

Without a summary of your notes on the screen, both you and your audience will spend less time staring at the screen and more time looking at each other. As a result, the audience is more likely to stay attentive, and will probably ask more questions. Chances are, too, that you will notice the audience reaction and know when to depart from your notes to explain or emphasize more, or to invite more questions.

Of course, for inexperienced users, the kind of slide show I am suggesting is not as safe as the stereotypical summary. It forces you to focus more on your audience, and denies you the comfort of clinging to your slides. But it is far more likely to succeed in conveying information -- which is, after all, what you are supposed to be doing. If you try it, I think you'll be surprised at how much more effective your presentations will become.

Tables in OpenOffice.org Impress: New and Unstylish

2008-12-31T00:07:00.000-08:00

Impress Tables are one of the most welcome features in the recently-released OpenOffice.org 3.0. Using them is straightforward, but they have their limitations, and you may miss one or two useful features before you learn your way around their somewhat awkward interface. Many of these limitations and bits of awkwardness are the direct result of the tools for using tables falling short of true styles, of the kind available for paragraphs in Writers or drawing objects in Draw.

The addition of tables is good news because, like slide shows in general, tables are all about the visual display of information. However, before version 3.0, tables required a series of kludges in Impress. First, you had to create separate text boxes, add borders and shading to each one. Then, you had to maneuver the text boxes next to each other, and group them together so that you could position the table as a whole. If you were wise, you would save the result as a template so you wouldn't have to repeat this process, but the initial set up was tedious, and in practice you would have to tweak your template for individual slide shows.

With OpenOffice.org 3.0, all that is swept away. As on an HTML page, you are now free to use tables as a quick way to extend Impress' limited format options.

However, before you breathe too deep a sigh of relief, be aware that, unlike an HTML page, Impress does not support nesting one table in another. Try to nest tables, and the most recently added one just floats about the other one. Nor can you add simple formulae to table cells, the way you can in Writer. In fact, aside from the initial creation of tables, the days of tweaking aren't over unless you are either very lucky or easily satisfied.

Adding tables

You have two ways to add tables in Impress:

The easiest way to add a table to an Impress slide is to select Insert -> Table, and select the number of rows and columns to add. The result is a table in the center of the page that you will almost certainly want to resize before using. The table is colored in the currently selected table style, and, in many cases, you will probably want to change that as well, so that the table matches or contrasts with your slide design.

If you want more color selection, or a change in the default color, you can create a table by clicking the Table Design tab in the Task Pane on the right side of the editing window. From there, you can choose from eleven basic designs for blue, gray, green and orange shading. If you squint, you will notice that the designs vary in what rows and columns are shaded. In each case, your selection adds a table in the default five columns and two rows.

After you add a table from the Table Design tab, you can adjust its shading using the Show controls. For example, you can shade (or unshade) the Header row, the first and last column, and the final or Total row. More elaborately, you shade every other row or column by selecting Banded Rows or Banded Columns.

What you cannot do -- although the table designs are listed as "Styles" -- is alter the designs. Nor are table styles listed in the Styles and Formatting floating window. In other words, Impress' table designs resemble Writer's autoformats for tables in that they fall short of the full versatility of styles for paragraphs or pages. Their chief advantage over Writer autoformats is that you can add rows or columns and have the shading pattern automatically adjust itself.

On the other hand, Writer allows you to create and store your own autoformats, while Impress does not. Really, neither implementation is as thorough as it should be.

Customizing tables

No matter how you add a table to a slide, you will probably need to tweak it. The only difference in the two insertion methods is that usingthe table designs in the Task Pane may save you some time in shading.

To customize a table, click anywhere within it. If you want to adjust a particular cell, click within it; if you want to adjust a group of cells, select them with the mouse (depending on the color scheme, you might have trouble seeing what is selected).

When a table is selected, a border of backslashes with green handles displays around it. Pass the mouse over the border until a cursor consisting of four arrows is visible, and you can drag the mouse around on the slide. Drag on one of the handles, and you can resize the table in the same way as you do a window on a desktop.

In addition, whenever you select a table, the Table floating task bar pops up. This task bar has a counterpart in Writer, although the features are slightly different in the two applications. From this task bar, you can make the adjustments that would be part of tables styles, if they existed.

For most Impress users, the most important feature in the tool bar is probably is the Color setting. From the combo box, you can choose whether you want a colored, hatched or gradient background, or even a graphic or a clear background. As well, you can choose the color, gradient, or hatching to use.

Nearly as important is the Borders feature. Its combo box opens to reveal a variety of small diagrams that allow you to set which sides of the table or the selected rows and columns have visible borders. Just to the left, you can set the color of the table's border, and the line styles used.

If you are using a table as a quick way to design, you probably want to opt for an invisible border, along with a clear background. You will still be able to see the table cells while you are editing, but if you want to see how the slide will actually appear in the presentation, you will need to go to File -> Preview in Web Browser or Slide Show -> Slide Show.

Other options on the floating tool bar allow you to split or merge cells, set how cell content is aligned, or add or delete cells.

Conclusion

Customization of tables takes time, so the creation of templates is always a good idea. Probably the most useful template you can create is a slide show with a slide that has a small table with a clear background and invisible borders -- partly because this is a versatile format, but also because, with this selection, you are unlikely to be distracted or confused by the need to undo other formatting. However, you can also include in the template additional slides that have tables with other table formats on them. All you need to do is copy and paste the slides as needed, and delete the unused slides with tables before you finish the presentation.

Tables in Impress were overdue, and help to place the application on a par with Microsoft PowerPoint at long last. For that reason, I appreciate having them, as well as the time they save.. But I also hope that, in another point release or two, OpenOffice.org will take the next logical step and implement true table styles in Impress (and Writer, too, for that matter). Only then will Impress tables become as convenient as they ought to be.

Examining the compilation process. part 3.

2008-12-31T00:02:00.000-08:00

The last two articles that I wrote for Linuxjournal.com were about the steps that GCC goes through during the compilation process and were based on a software development class I taught a few years ago. I hadn't intended for this to be a three part series, but it's been pointed out that I didn't cover the make utility and I think it's almost negligent to discuss software development and not discuss make. Since I don't like to think of myself as negligent, I decided to extend the series to one more article.

If you only have a simple project with less than, say, 5 source files, you probably don't need to use the make utility. You can simply compile your project with a shell script like the one I'm using for a small 3D graphics program I'm writing as part of another article for Linux Journal. Take a look.

#!/bin/bash
g++ ./game.cpp -lIrrlicht -lGL -lXxf86vm -lXext -lX11 -ljpeg -lpng -o game

This is pretty easy. We have a single source file, a few libraries and a final executable. Scripting the compilation of this project saves us from having to type that mammoth command line in every time we make a change to the program.

But what happens when your project has several, perhaps hundreds of source files of hundreds or thousands of lines of code each? Sometimes, it can take several minutes or even hours to compile a very large project. What if you find an important bug in your program and have to make this change:?

Change a = a+b;

into a = a-b;

This one character change means you have to recompile the whole project! Now while waiting for a project to recompile is a wonderful excuse to go drink a beer, it's a very inefficient use of your time as a software developer.

The ability to only recompile those parts of our project that actually need to be recompiled is what we get from using the make utility. Let's take a look at how this works.

The make utility uses a file called a Makefile to determine which parts of our project need to be recompiled. Essentially, the Makefile specifies which files depend on each other, and how to regenerate a given file if we need to. Let's take a look at an example. Here is a simple Makefile.

main: main.o f.o
gcc main.o f.o -o main

main.o: main.c
gcc -c main.c -o main.o

f.o: f.c
gcc -c f.c -o f.o

The general format of a Makefile is a target, a list of dependencies for that target, and a command line used to regenerate the target if any of the dependencies have been modified.

From this Makefile, we can see a few things. For example, the executable file, main, is dependent upon both main.o and f.o. When we need to regenerate main, perhaps because either main.o or f.o have changed, we use the command, “gcc main.o f.o -o main”. In turn, main.o is dependent upon main.c. When a change is made to main.c, main.o needs to be regenerated and the Makefile tells us how this is done. It turns out that if main.c changes and we have to regenerate main.o, we also have to relink the results in order to regenerate the final executable. Make takes care of the recursive nature of the problem for us.

The f.o target is similar.

After creating this Makefile and typing make for the first time, we had to recompile the entire project from scratch:

# make
gcc -c main.c -o main.o
gcc -c f.c -o f.o
gcc main.o f.o -o main

This resulted in an executable call “main.” However, let's say we make a change to f.c. When we rerun make, we see this:

# make
gcc -c f.c -o f.o
gcc main.o f.o -o main

We see that main.c isn't recompiled this time since it didn't change. The file, f.c is recompiled into f.o and then relinked with the existing main.o. The result is another, updated, executable called main.

If for some reason, we wanted to recompile main.c, we could ask make to do it for us by typing:

make main.o

In this case, make would consult the Makefile in the current directory and figure out what needs to be done in order to regenerate the main.o target.

So by using the make utility, we can save ourselves from having to watch as, potentially, several unnecessary recompilations take place.

If that was all we could expect from the make utility, it would be a tremendous time saver. But there is more. Make allows us to define variables and use them within our Makefile. For example, take a look at an excerpt from one of my other projects:

OBJ = network.o config.o protocol.o parsers.o events.o users.o
CPPFLAGS = -DTEXT_CLIENT
CXXFLAGS = -O3 -ffast-math -Wall
LDFLAGS = -lenet

game: $(OBJ) main.cpp
g++ $(CPPFLAGS) $(CXXFLAGS) \
main.cpp $(OBJ) $(LDFLAGS) -o game

Here we see a few things of interest. First, we define a few variables, OBJ, CPPFLAGS, CXXFLAGS, LDFLAGS. These variables are then used later in the Makefile where we describe how to remake the “game” target.

For the sake of clarity, let's see what happends to the command line specified in this Makefile snippet. We start out with:
g++ $(CPPFLAGS) $(CXXFLAGS) main.cpp $(OBJ) $(LDFLAGS) -o game

Se can see the references to the variables that we defined earlier, so let's go ahead and substitute their values in. When we do, we end up with:

g++ -DTEXT_CLIENT -O3 -ffast-math -Wall main.cpp network.o config.o protocol.o parsers.o events.o users.o -lenet

I think you get the idea about how variables work inside a Makefile. In real life, variables might be used in several places in the Makefile and thus save us a lot of time and spare us from the potential of making a trivial, but devastating typing mistake.

We also see that we can make the command line easier to read by ending it with the '\' character and continuing it on the next line. It's a simple fact: Any code that is easy to read is less prone to errors, and our Makefile is no different.

Ok, so far, the make utility sounds like a really cool thing. But what kinds of problems can we have with it?

The common mistake people make... with make, is that they leave out a dependency. For example, let's say you have a file, foo, that depends upon another file, bar.o, but you forget to list it in the dependencies for foo.

Now, if bar.o doesn't exist, you will simply get some linking error messages and you'll know right away that you've left something out.

However, what if you've been compiling by hand until the project grew large enough to warrant using make? Now bar.o already exists, but isn't mentioned as a dependency for foo. In this case, everything will seem to work just fine, until you find a bug in bar.o. So, you go into the files that are used to generate bar.o and you fix your bug and recompile. You find that you have the same symptoms. You think that maybe you forgot to save your changes so you do it again. Same bug. This time you put a few debugging print statements in your code and recompile. Same bug and NO DEBUGGING OUTPUT! If you happen to be prone to swearing, this is where it begins. Fortunately, once you've made this mistake once, you tend to remember it, and the symptoms and you don't get bitten again.

Header files, or .h files if you write in C, can lead to some problems with make. In this case, it's common to have header files that contain the prototypes of all of your external functions and data types. Many times, programmers get lazy and put ALL of their prototypes in a single file, which causes them to have to include this file in all of the rest of their source files. The header file becomes a dependency for every file in the project. In this case, the programmer has created a situation where any change to that file requires the entire project to be recompiled. Some times, this is just the nature of the problem at hand, other times, that single header file could be split up into separate files for use in separate modules.

It's quite common for a programmer to use make to provide himself with the luxury of removing all executables and object files from his project, thus necessitating a complete recompile. Typically, a programmer would add a target like this to his Makefile:

clean:
rm *.o main

Then the programmer can simply type “make clean” and get a completely clean slate. Similarly, it's common to have an “install” target so that an end user can type “make install” and have the software automatically installed for them.

As you can see, the make utility is a wonderful time saver. It can help a programmer ensure that the files that need to be recompiled, are recompiled, and that only those files that need to be recompiled, are recompiled. This article wasn't as detailed as the previous two in this series, but I hope this artciel rounds out our discussion of the compilation process.

The November Cornucopia: One Month In Linux Audio

2008-12-30T23:56:00.000-08:00

This week I'm your straight reporter bringing you news of of updates, upgrades, and new releases in the world of Linux audio software. Development in this world is continuously productive, so I'll present only a selection of the Linux sound and music applications and utilities announced in the month of November in the year 2008.

Csound Delights

Steven Yi has updated his Java-based blue composition environment to version 0.125.0 (Figure 1), bringing more excellent tools into the Csound workshop. Notable features include a remarkable microtonal piano roll display (with support for Scala intonation files), a set of widgets for constructing synthesizer control panels, scriptability via Python, and support for nested objects and timelines. Andres Cabrera's qutecsound is a more traditional front-end GUI for Csound (Figure 2), with the added attraction of a design based upon Matt Ingall's very cool and very popular MacCsound. Qutecsound version 0.3.7 was released as I wrote this article, so I built and installed it on my notebook's Ubuntu 8.10 system. It works perfectly.

Figure 1: blue Figure 2: QuteCsound

The Common Scene

Professor Heinrich (Rick) Taube has been busy exhancing the capabilities of his projects. Common Music 3 now incorporates Bill Schottstaedt's sndlib to support audio and MIDI realtime output and faster-than-realtime file creation within a CM process. Meanwhile, Maestro Schottstaedt has further advanced his Snd soundfile editor to version 10.2. This version is primarily a maintenance release, but it does include Kjetil Mattheussen's code for OSC support.

Torsten Anders has been active in the Common community for many years. Recently he released version 0.9.7 of Strasheela, his own "highly expressive constraint-based music composition system". Strasheela'a interface is the Oz programming language, and it is capable of creating output files in MIDI, Csound, and LilyPond formats. If you'd like to explore an unusual approach to music composition, check out Strasheela.

Use And Use Again

Code re-use can be a wonderful thing, especially when deployed as in Hermann Meyer's guitarix (Figure 3), which the author refers to as "a simple Linux rock guitar amplifier for JACK". He may like to think of it as simple, but I'd call it "rockin' cool". Guitarix leverages the powers of a few LADSPA plugins, Fons Adriaensen's awesome jconv convolution engine for high-quality reverberation, Steve Harris's neat meterbridge, and Kjetil Matheussen's jack_capture recording utility. The whole package was prototyped in the FAUST DSP development environment and has recently seen its second release as version 0.03.0.

Figure 3: Guitarix 0.3.0

I've reviewed Rakarrack here already, so I'll refer readers to that earlier article for details regarding this excellent effects processor for Linux-based guitarists. As with guitarix, the developers of Rakarrack have assembled a variety of audio processing modules written by other developers (mainly from the works of the redoubtable Paul Nasca and Stefan Westerfeld) and bundled them into an easy-to-use GUI. Version 0.3.0 is now available, so get it, install it, and shred on.

The Zyn project is also based on code from Paul Nasca's fantastic ZynAddSubFX synthesizer. However, unlike guitarix, the Zyn project is focused on separating the synthesis bits from the original instrument and redeploying them as LV2 plugins. To that end the project has released the zynjacku host for LV2 softsynth plugins (Figure 4) and the lv2rack host for LV2 effects plugs.

Figure 4: zynjacku

Some development aims at reviving whole projects rather than the re-use of their codebases. Notable recent resuscitations include the fondly-remembered jMax software synthesis environment and the seq24 MIDI sequencer. No public releases are available yet for jMax Phoenix (as it's now known), but Maurizio De Cecco kindly sent a prototype for my consideration. This pre-release is currently short on functions, but I was happy to see the old familiar jMax GUI appear on my modern machines. Meanwhile, as we wait for the first real release from the jMax development team we can whittle away the hours playing with the improvements in seq24. Developer Ivan Hernandez has gathered a team of programmers and other contributors to bring seq24 into the new world of Linux audio, you can check out the fruits of their labors in the latest release of version 0.9.0.

Notably New And Updated On LAA

The Linux Audio Announce list is the top source for newly-released and updated Linux audio software. The following selection is only a small serving from the recent announcements, and I apologize if your favorite updated app isn't mentioned. Alas, I have only so much space in these articles, and there's just too much going on the Linux audio world for one man to stay completely current. I'll do my best though, so read on for at least some of the news and reports from LAA.

Krzystof Foltman leads the pack with his updated Calf Audio Plugins. Version 0.0.17 offers an original suite of effects and dynamics processors along with a couple of simple synthesizers. The Calf processors and synths are available as standalone programs (Figure 5) and as plugins for various Linux audio plugin formats, but they are recommended for use by LV2 hosts such as Ardour 2.7 (see below) or the lv2rack (see above).

Figure 5: Calf Multichorus

Speaking of LV2: Developer Dave Robillard has updated his SLV2, which he describes as "a library to make the use of LV2 plugins as simple as possible for applications". SLV2 simplifies the addition of LV2 into new and existing applications, and I urge all developers to consider adding support for this important emerging standard. In my opinion it's high time to move forward from LADSPA: LV2 is the future of Linux audio plugins, and we need more applications support for it.

The Buzztard project continues forward with its goal of providing a complete replacement for the popular (and dead-as-in-dead) Buzz music module tracker. The latest release (version 0.4.0) brings new support for wavetables in tracker plugins, increased compatibility with existing Buzz machines, and some spiffy improvements to its GUI (Figure 6). I'll have more to say about Buzztard in a future article and interview with lead developer Stefan Kost, coming soon to your nearest Linux Journal On-line.

Figure 6: Buzztard 0.4.0

Sometimes I'm surprised by reports of new and updated Linux audio software, but I certainly didn't expect Chris Bagwell's announcement for the release of version 14.2.0 of the venerable SoX, a very useful suite of audio processing tools. Like Snd, SoX has been around forever, and I'm pleased to see that it is thriving still. SoX is an extremely flexible application, and its laundry list of features is too long to quote here, so just visit its Web site, install the software, and check out all the new stuff. To paraphrase John Lennon, SoX may be old but it's definitely not boring.

With release version 1.4a Bob van de Poel's Musical MIDI Accompaniment (MMA) is another fully mature member of the Linux sound software arsenal. MMA is a generator for MIDI files for accompanying singers and instrumentalists, similar to the Band In A Box accompaniment generator. Unlike that popular program MMA is a text-based application, very easy to use, but if you must have a GUI you can try LeMMA, Gek Low's graphic front-end for MMA (Figure 7).

Figure 7: LeMMA

Version 0.5.0 of Piano Booster (Figure 8) marks the first release of this interesting software. Piano Booster is a training assistant for instrumentalists who want to improve their music reading skills, very similar to the excellent Solfege ear-training program. Check out the Piano Booster on YouTube video for a good demonstration of the program's basic operations. By the way, Solfege was also updated in early November, adding support for Csound and MMA to its already considerable strengths.

Figure 8: Piano Booster

NASPRO is Stefano D'Angelo's entry into the growing ranks of modular sound processing frameworks. Version 0.1.1 is only its second release, I haven't tried it yet, but I was impressed with the screenshot of Jack Rack running plugins from the Audacious media player. I'll be watching this project (LV2 support is planned), and I hope that the developers can reach every stop on their ambitious roadmap.

Tardigrade Inc. (aka Florent Berthaut aka Hitmuri) has updated the Tapeutape virtual sampler and the Tranches beat mangler. These programs are excellent examples of small tools that are practical and powerful. Both programs allow MIDI control, both require JACK, and both are available in command-line or simple GUI versions.

Steve Harris's TimeMachine is another fine example of a small program that does one thing and does it very well indeed. TimeMachine function essentially as a recording daemon that "traps" the last ten seconds of audio input and records it upon command. Steve designed TimeMachine to replace a similar function on his now-defunct minidisc recorder, but the utility has become a favorite primary recording tool for many users. Among its other virtues version 0.3.1 adds WAV file format support and start/stop via OSC commands.

One more mini: jackctlmmc is a small program that maps MMC (MIDI Machine Control) commands to the JACK transport system. MMC commands are implemented on many external mixers and recording systems, so controlling their operations through JACK would be helpful to users with MMC-enabled hardware. The first release of jackctlmmc is a command-line utility, a Qt-based GUI is planned.

I'm a great fan of Lucio Asnaghi's JOST

multi-format plugin host, and just as I put the final touches to this report I discovered that JOST has been bumped to version 0.5.3. The new features list includes MIDI parameter control for all supported plugin types, controller automation, new plugins, new GUI enhancements, and more. Alas, it doesn't include more time for me to test it, but I always look forward to getting into the latest JOST.

Yes, I saved the biggest and best for last in this list. Ardour has moved forward to version 2.7 (Figure 9) in its unstoppable march towards Ardour 3.0. The 2.7 announcement page lists all the new stuff, including expanded support for OSX, many interface enhancements, support for Wii controllers, and per-track OSC control of solo/mute/record-enable status and track gain. To my tastes Ardour gets more delicious with every release (and just wait until you see what the devs have cooking for version 3).

Figure 9: Ardour 2.7

At The System Level

Audio system software may not be cool and sexy, but it is absolutely essential stuff. Linux audio applications depend on libraries, daemons, and other system software that may be unknown to the normal user. However, the capabilities and restrictions of system-level software determines much of the capabilities and possibilities of the higher-level applications. As the audio system software improves, so improve the applications. I'm pleased to report that November saw some significant activity at this level.

The ALSA project released version 1.0.18a (see the Changelog for details), and JACK 0.115.6 has finally arrived. Many users will sigh with relief, and even the JACK developers have opined that the 0.109.2 release may have been a mistake. No matter now, the new version is here, and the upgrade is highly recommended (I'm already running it on all three of my studio machines). Moving right along: The LASH session handler has been updated to version 0.6.0rc2. This release includes extended support for the D-Bus system, and testers are needed. Ditto for the latest release from the FFADO project. Version 1.999.40 is a release candidate for wide-usage testing, so if you're running a supported FireWire audio device, help the team and check out the new package.

The Planet And Music

Audio-centric Linux distributions abound, but few have the longevity and consistency of Fernando Lopez-Lezcano's superb PlanetCCRMA. The Planet's packages are available now for Fedora 8 and 9, but I was surprised to see the announcement for PlanetCCRMA on Fedora 10. Alas, my attempt at installing Fedora 8 on my new notebook failed, so maybe it's time to look at a newer release. I'd like to re-visit the Planet, it's always been among the most stable and well-engineered of all the Linux audio bundles. It's also the distro of choice for many of the Ardour developers, so there you go.

I'll finish this report by pointing my readers to some of the music announced on the Linux Audio Users (LAU) mail list. Listen up, LAU's become a veritable nest of singing birds :

The LAM Remix - Patrick Shirkey jam-mixes music from the LAU list and the LAM site.
LA-It Podcast - An Italian-language podcast on Linux audio software and music made with it.
Me And My Cronies Trio - A new CD from the prolific Ken Restivo.
Laute Minne macht dich hinne - New music from Nils Gey.
Stille hvisken - Excellent song from Atte André Jensen & Co.
32 (Instrumental), 68, and 36 - Three new pieces from David Collins.
Ascensio Nudae Beatae and Aura Amara - Two Csound compositions from yours truly.
MoonWalk - Cool "world fusion" music from Svend-Erik Kjaer Madsen.

More music made with Linux can be found on LAM and on the various fora and lists associated with specific Linux audio programs, such as the Ardour and Rosegarden user forums. The Csound mail-list often includes links to works created with the Linux version of Csound.

Saving the Net: How to Keep the Carriers from Flushing the Net Down the Tubes

2008-12-30T23:52:00.000-08:00

We're hearing tales of two scenarios--one pessimistic, one optimistic--for the future of the Net. If the paranoids are right, the Net's toast. If they're not, it will be because we fought to save it, perhaps in a new way we haven't talked about before. Davids, meet your Goliaths.

This is a long essay. There is, however, no limit to how long I could have made it. The subjects covered here are no less enormous than the Net and its future. Even optimists agree that the Net's future as a free and open environment for business and culture is facing many threats. We can't begin to cover them all or cover all the ways we can fight them. I believe, however, that there is one sure way to fight all of these threats at once, and without doing it the bad guys will win. That's what this essay is about.

Here's a brief outline of the article. If you want to go straight to the solution, skip to the third section:

Scenario I: The Carriers Win
Scenario II: The Public Workaround
Scenario III: Fight with Words and Not Just Deeds

Scenario I: The Carriers Win

Be afraid. Be very afraid. --Kevin Werbach.

Are you ready to see the Net privatized from the bottom to the top? Are you ready to see the Net's free and open marketplace sucked into a pit of pipes built and fitted by the phone and cable companies and run according to rules lobbied by the carrier and content industries?

Do you believe a free and open market should be "Your choice of walled garden" or "Your choice of silo"? That's what the big carrier and content companies believe. That's why they're getting ready to fence off the frontiers.

And we're not stopping it.

With the purchase and re-animation of AT&T's remains, the collection of former Baby Bells called SBC will become the largest communications company in the US--the new Ma Bell. Verizon, comprised of the old GTE plus MCI and the Baby Bells SBC didn't grab, is the new Pa Bell. That's one side of the battlefield, called The Regulatory Environment. Across the battlefield from Ma and Pa Bell are the cable and entertainment giants: Comcast, Cox, TimeWarner and so on. Covering the battle are the business and tech media, which love a good fight.

The problem is that all of these battling companies--plus the regulators--hate the Net.

Maybe hate is too strong of a word. The thing is, they're hostile to it, because they don't get it. Worse, they only get it in one very literal way. See, to the carriers and their regulators, the Net isn't a world, a frontier, a marketplace or a commons. To them, the Net is a collection of pipes. Their goal is to beat the other pipe-owners. To do that, they want to sell access and charge for traffic.

There's nothing wrong with being in the bandwidth business, of course. But some of these big boys want to go farther with it. They don't see themselves as a public utility selling a pure base-level service, such as water or electricity (which is what they are, by the way, in respect to the Net). They see themselves as a source of many additional value-adds, inside the pipes. They see opportunities to sell solutions to industries that rely on the Net--especially their natural partner, the content industry.

They see a problem with freeloaders. On the tall end of the power curve, those 'loaders are AOL, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and other large sources of the container cargo we call "content". Out on the long tail, the freeloaders are you and me. The big 'loaders have been getting a free ride for too long and are going to need to pay. The Information Highway isn't the freaking interstate. It's a system of private roads that needs to start charging tolls. As for the small 'loaders, it hardly matters that they're a boundless source of invention, innovation, vitality and new business. To the carriers, we're all still just "consumers". And we always will be.

"Piracy" is a bigger issue to the cargo sources than to the carriers. To the carriers, "fighting piracy" is a service offering as well as a lever on regulators to give carriers more control of the pipes. "You want us to help you fight piracy?", the transport companies say to the content companies. "Okay, let's deal." And everybody else's freedoms--to invent, to innovate, to do business, to take advantage of free markets and to make free culture--get dealt away.

The carriers have been lobbying Congress for control of the Net since Bush the Elder was in office. Once they get what they want, they'll put up the toll booths, the truck scales, the customs checkpoints--all in a fresh new regulatory environment that formalizes the container cargo business we call packet transport. This new environment will be built to benefit the carriers and nobody else. The "consumers"? Oh ya, sure: they'll benefit too, by having "access" to all the good things that carriers ship them from content providers. Is there anything else? No.

Crocodile grins began to grow on the faces of carriers as soon as it became clear that everything we call "media" eventually would flow through their pipes. All that stuff we used to call TV, radio, newspapers and magazines will just be "content" moving through the transport layer of the pipe system they own and control. Think it's a cool thing that TV channels are going away? So do the carriers. The future à lá carte business of media will depend on one medium alone: the Net. And the Net is going to be theirs.

The Net's genie, which granted all those e-commerce wishes over the past ten years, won't just get shoved back in the bottle. No, that genie will be piped and priced by the packet. The owners of those pipes have a duty to their stockholders to make the most of the privileged position they've been waiting to claim ever since they got blind-sided, back in the 80s and 90s. (For an excellent history of how the European PTTs got snookered by the Net and the Web, see Paul F. Kunz' Bringing the World Wide Web to America.) They have assets to leverage, dammit, and now they can.

Does it matter that countless markets flourish in the wide spaces opened by agreements and protocols that thrive at the grace of carriage? Or that those markets are threatened by new limits, protections and costs imposed at the pipe level?

No.

Thus, the Era of Net Facilitation will end. The choke points are in the pipes, the permission is coming from the lawmakers and regulators, and the choking will be done. No more free rides, folks. Time to pay. It's called creating scarcity and charging for it. The Information Age may be here, but the Industrial Age is hardly over. In fact, there is no sign it will ever end.

The carriers are going to lobby for the laws and regulations they need, and they're going to do the deals they need to do. The new system will be theirs, not ours. The NEA principle--Nobody owns it, Everybody can use it, Anybody can improve it--so familiar to the Free Software and Open Source communities will prove to be a temporary ideal, a geek conceit. Code is not Law. Culture is not Free. From the Big Boys' perspective, code and culture are stuff nobody cares about.

That's us: Nobody.

The new carrier-based Net will work in the same asymmetrical few-to-many, top-down pyramidal way made familiar by TV, radio, newspapers, books, magazines and other Industrial Age media now being sucked into Information Age pipes. Movement still will go from producers to consumers, just like it always did. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Literally.

The deals that matter will be done between tops of pyramids. Hey, it's easier to do business with the concentrated few than the dispersed many. The Long Tail can whip itself into a frenzy, but all the tech magazines and blogs in the world are no match for the tails and teeth of these old sharks. (Hey, Long Tailer, when's the last time you treated your erected representatives to private movie screenings, drafted their legislation, ghosted their committee reports, made a blockbuster movie or rolled fiber across oceans?)

Google and Yahoo and Amazon and eBay and e-commerce and free software and open source and blogging and podcasting and all the rest of that idealistic junk have had their decade in the sun. Hell, throw in Apple and Microsoft, too. Who cares? Them? Doesn't matter how big they are. They don't matter. They're late to the game.

We all know the content business got clobbered by this peer-to-peer crap. But the carriers took a bath by building out the Net's piped infrastructure. They sank $billions by the dozen into fiber and copper and routers and trunks, waiting for the day when they'd be in a position to control the new beast fleshed on the skeleton that they built.

That Day Has Come.

It came earlier this month, when the November 7, 2005, issue of BusinessWeek hit the Web's streets. In that issue are "Rewired and Ready for Combat" and "At SBC, It's All About 'Scale and Scope'", which features an interview with Edward Whiteacre, CEO of SBC. Here's the gist of it:

How concerned are you about Internet upstarts like Google (GOOG), MSN, Vonage, and others?
How do you think they're going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?
The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! (YHOO) or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!
What's your approach to regulation? Explain, for example, the difference between you and Verizon in how you are approaching regulatory approval for Telco TV [digital-TV service offered by telecoms].
The cable companies have an agreement with the cities: They pay a percentage of their revenue for a franchise right to broadcast TV. We have a franchise in every city we operate in based on providing telephone service.
Now, all of a sudden, without any additional payment, the cable companies are putting telephone communication down their pipes and we're putting TV signals. If you want us to get a franchise agreement for TV, then let's make the cable companies get a franchise for telephony.
If cable can put telephone down their existing franchise I should be able to put TV down my franchise. It's kind of a "what's fair is fair" deal. I think it's just common sense.
What if the regulators don't agree?
Then there won't be any competition--there will be a cable-TV monopoly.
I know you're a competitive person. Who are your biggest competitors?
Our big competition in the future is with the cable companies. Verizon's going to be a player, and certainly I want to compete. And I want our shareowners to do better than anyone else.

If I were BusinessWeek, I'd ask:

What about the free and open marketplace that has grown on the Net itself? Do you have any interest in continuing to support that? Or in lobbying forms of deregulation that foster it? Or are you just in a holy war with the cable companies inside the same old regulatory environment you've known since forever?

I'd ask:

If you were to buy, say, Level 3, would you start to filter and restrict content at the transport level, to extract the profits you want, without regard for other market consequences? Would Cisco, builder of the great Firewall of China, help out?

I'd ask:

Which do you prefer: The regulatory environment where your business has adapted itself for more than a century, or a completely free and open marketplace like the rest of us enjoy sitting on top of your pipes?

Whiteacre's answers, of course, would be less relevant than the obvious vector of his company's intentions. For a summary of that, let's return to Lauren Weinstein of People for Internet Responsibility:

Of course, the truth of the matter is that the telcos have been moving rapidly through massive consolidation--and a range of other tactics--to create an environment where "competition" will only be a pale reflection of what we were originally promised, with only a few gigantic players in control of all telecom resources and policies. Like the robot cop in Terminator 2 that reformed from blown-apart mercurial blobs of metal, the "golden age" of telecom competition is already giving way to empire.

Don't blame BusinessWeek for not asking the important questions or for missing the Carriers vs. Net story. Biz pubs love to cover vendor sports. And there's certainly a big story here.

Great distraction, vendor sports. While we're busy watching phone and cable giants fight over a closed battlefield that ought to be open, we miss Net-hostile moves by other parties that result in other lost freedoms.

Take ICANN, for instance, where a new .com Registry Agreement allows Verisign to raise the rates for .com names by 7% annually, and to operate .com in perpetuity, and to "mak[e] commercial use of, or collect, traffic data regarding domain names or non-existent domain names", and to reap other rewards for what few other than Verisign would agree is a good job. Bret Faucett summarizes the darkest shadow across the noir scenario we've already described:

The theme running through all of these is that ICANN and Verisign are treating the .COM registry as a private resource. It's not. The root servers and TLD servers are public resources. We should treat them like that.

Bret has one of the most eloquent voices in the wilderness of clues the Big Boys would rather avoid. So does Susan Crawford, who was just, perhaps miraculously, named to the ICANN board.

For Bret, Susan and the rest of the restless natives of this new world, what matters most is Saving the Net--keeping it a free and open marketplace for everybody--while also making sure that carriers of all kinds can compete and succeed while providing much of the infrastructure on which that marketplace resides. That means we need to understand the Net as more than a bunch of pipes and business on the Net as more than transporting and selling "content".

This isn't a trivial issue. It's a matter of life and death for the Net itself. How are we going to fight?

Read on.

Scenario II: The Public Workaround

The deathblow comes from the muni Wi-Fi efforts. It doesn't matter whether they are viable or not--all they need do is give local connectivity the moral high ground and represent a grass roots effort that the legislature not only can't ignore but can embrace. --Bob Frankston

In ancient telco lingo, "bypass" is anything that works around the phone system itself. Susan Crawford wisely encourages bypassing not only the system but the whole notion of fixing it with "Network Neutrality" agreements or legislation. In response to the questions, "What, if any, version of common carriage rules should govern Internet communications platforms? More specifically, can some concept of Network Neutrality be defined and enforced proactively in the form of prescriptive regulations?", she answers,

I think this is the wrong question. It assumes the limited world of online access providers we've got, makes them into "communications platforms," and then suggests we need to make rules about them. Not very imaginative. I have lost faith in our ability to write about code in words, and I'm confident that any attempt at writing down network neutrality will be so qualified, gutted, eviscerated, and emptied that it will end up being worse than useless. Besides, I'm sure there are very good reasons to manage networks, and writing down the difference between management and incremental control of users' experiences is an impossible task.
The only way around this issue is to avoid it by encouraging the development of alternative online access methods, and being careful not to let the incumbents call them illegal. Let the dinosaurs huddle together in the snow, controlling and commoditizing to their hearts' content. We're made of better stuff. It should be no more illegal to have an open wireless network in your house than to practice the piano with the windows open. And having an open wireless network can lead to a community mesh network and a host of devices that open immediately to others, connecting us to the world.
If that's not possible, then the second best solution is structural separation, paying off the carriers for their stranded costs and moving to open utility platforms. BT seems to think that's a fine idea; why couldn't it work here?

Muni Wi-Fi is a form of bypass. So are other government-sponsored or assisted workarounds.

So are the private ones. If Om Malik and Business 2.0 are sniffing the right trail, that's what we'll get from Google. Here's what Om said on August 25, 2005, in "Free Wi-Fi? Get Ready for GoogleNet":

What if Google wanted to give Wi-Fi access to everyone in America? And what if it had technology capable of targeting advertising to a user's precise location? The gatekeeper of the world's information could become one of the globe's biggest Internet providers and one of its most powerful ad sellers, basically supplanting telecoms in one fell swoop. Sounds crazy, but how might Google go about it?
First it would build a national broadband network--let's call it the GoogleNet--massive enough to rival even the country's biggest Internet service providers. Business 2.0 has learned from telecom insiders that Google is already building such a network, though ostensibly for many reasons. For the past year, it has quietly been shopping for miles and miles of "dark", or unused, fiber-optic cable across the country from wholesalers such as New York's AboveNet. It's also acquiring superfast connections from Cogent Communications and WilTel, among others, between East Coast cities including Atlanta, Miami, and New York. Such large-scale purchases are unprecedented for an Internet company, but Google's timing is impeccable. The rash of telecom bankruptcies has freed up a ton of bargain-priced capacity, which Google needs as it prepares to unleash a flood of new, bandwidth-hungry applications. These offerings could include everything from a digital-video database to on-demand television programming.

One contact in a Position to Know tells me that Google's purpose isn't bypass, but advertising. That's their revenue model, and if you follow the money--as well as the company's development and acquisition vectors--you get to a place where highly targeted advertising pays for everything. Should this be a problem? There are damn few large companies taking the Net's side here. If Google gets to be a major carrier as well as the major search engine and advertising pump it is today, that sure as hell beats the alternatives. Especially when Google is fighting the incumbents on the battlefield we call Congress.

For example, there's an Internet regulation bill working its way through the House of Representatives right now as part of a broad effort to replace the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which pretty much everybody agrees is in woeful need of an upgrade. Naturally, lawmakers and the lobbyists who employ them want more laws, more regulation, more favoritism. So, Brett Glass points out, "like earlier versions, it subjects all ISPs and VoIP providers to intensive Federal regulation and requires them to register before providing service. It also preempts state and local control over rights of way".

Google isn't merely against bills like this, it's opposing them publicly. Vint Cerf, Google's Chief Internet Evangelist, sent an open letter this past Wednesday to the Energy and Commerce Committee, speaking out against this bill and others like it. The key paragraphs:

The remarkable social impact and economic success of the Internet is in many ways directly attributable to the architectural characteristics that were part of its design. The Internet was designed with no gatekeepers over new content or services. The Internet is based on a layered, end-to-end model that allows people at each level of the network to innovate free of any central control. By placing intelligence at the edges rather than control in the middle of the network, the Internet has created a platform for innovation. This has led to an explosion of offerings--from VOIP to 802.11x wi-fi to blogging--that might never have evolved had central control of the network been required by design.
My fear is that, as written, this bill would do great damage to the Internet as we know it. Enshrining a rule that broadly permits network operators to discriminate in favor of certain kinds of services and to potentially interfere with others would place broadband operators in control of online activity. Allowing broadband providers to segment their IP offerings and reserve huge amounts of bandwidth for their own services will not give consumers the broadband Internet our country and economy need. Many people will have little or no choice among broadband operators for the foreseeable future, implying that such operators will have the power to exercise a great deal of control over any applications placed on the network.
As we move to a broadband environment and eliminate century-old non- discrimination requirements, a lightweight but enforceable neutrality rule is needed to ensure that the Internet continues to thrive. Telephone companies cannot tell consumers who they can call; network operators should not dictate what people can do online.
I am confident that we can build a broadband system that allows users to decide what websites they want to see and what applications they want to use--and that also guarantees high quality service and network security. That network model has and can continue to provide economic benefits to innovators and consumers--and to the broadband operators who will reap the rewards for providing access to such a valued network.
We appreciate the efforts in your current draft to create at least a starting point for net neutrality principles. Google looks forward to working with you and your staff to draft a bill that will maintain the revolutionary potential of the broadband Internet.

Significantly, Vint Cerf, often called "The father of the Net", is the prime author of TCP/IP, the core protocol suite that the Net itself employs.

Bills such as this one travel through a pro-market Congress on the strength of "deregulation" claims by carriers, which are made on television as well as in the halls of Congressional office buildings. As Lauren Weinstein reports:

the telephone companies' alliance has again been flooding the airwaves with "unleash the phone companies" advertising. These follow their usual line: We see happy consumers using futuristic communications devices and services and are told that our telecom laws are only slightly more recent than the invention of plumbing. Allow for true market-based competition without all of those inconvenient regulations, the commercials say, and it'll truly be a wonderful world indeed! And there's not a phone bill in sight!

Of course, the carriers are plainly anti-market and have been for the duration. Such is the nature of corporate species that have thrived exclusively in a highly controlled regulatory environment.

Regulatory habitats are by nature anti-market as well, regardless of the pro-market leanings of their top officials. This is why regulatory reform itself is inherently nutty. This point was made expertly last Wednesday by Susan Crawford:

I want to persuade us that all of this talk about convergence over the last few years is not true. Stepping away from interpretation of the 1996 Act itself, it seems to me that telephone services are fundamentally different from the internet, and the notion of carrying particular social policies over from the telephone world to the internet (without taking into account what the internet is) is already proving to be hopelessly wrongheaded, needlessly expensive, and shortsighted.
The question assumes that we need "an effective framework to govern the internet." There's a lot of law that already applies online, and I have not seen a demonstration that more new law is needed--and, in any event, it's not the FCC that is in the best position to do it. If we're going to depart from the central Section 230 notion that the online world is unfettered by special-purpose federal or state laws, that should be a conscious choice. Right now, it's all ad hoc, backwards looking, and unprincipled. And destructive. E911 and CALEA certainly fit this description, and I have a feeling that universal service will too when it erupts from the Commission.
We need a sustained national conversation about all this--maybe we'll end up with this same approach, but I'd like to think not. Why can't we be both more hopeful and emphatic--take the lead, around the world--about the approach to the internet that we want?...
What happened to our leadership on internet policy? When did we lose the ability to walk and slide back into the sea? We experimented and tugged and pulled and came up with the idea of linking machines together with a common language, making it possible for humans to interact in unprecedented ways. Now we're turning those machines back into the machines we thought we were escaping--telephones, cable systems, and televisions--using insiders' language so that we can hide what's going on from the general public. What happened?

Glad you asked, Susan. I have the answer.

Scenario III: Fight with Words and Not Just Deeds

All due credit to the EFF, Creative Commons and every other organization in the pro-Net alliance, but there isn't much hope of changing hearts and minds as long as we think and talk in the transport language of the telcos, cablecos and "content" producers. When we do that, we lose. Case in point: Eldred vs. Ashcroft. Larry Lessig and other good guys fought the good fight on Eldred and lost when the Supremes sided 7-2 with Ashcroft. In January, 2003, I suggested that one reason the good guys lost was, literally, linguistic:

I've been trying to collect my thoughts about the Eldred decision. At this point I think there are several contexts that need to be explored.
One is legal--constitutional, really. Larry and the lawbloggers (sounds like a good name for a band) are all over that one.
Another is political. The Sony Bono Act was a political creation in the first place, and the Supreme Court decision in its favor was a political victory for Hollywood (yes, print publishers had some interest in it, but the story plays as a Hollywood victory, complete with quotes from Jack Valenti and Hillary Rosen).
The third is metaphorical. I believe Hollywood won because they have successfully repositioned copyright as a property issue. In other words, they successfully urged the world to understand copyright in terms of property. Copyright = property may not be accurate in a strict legal sense, but it still makes common sense, even to the Supreme Court. Here's how Richard Bennett puts it:
The issue here isn't enumeration, or the ability of Congress to pass laws of national scope regarding copyright; the copyright power is clearly enumerated in the Constitution. The issue, at least for the conservative justices who sided with the majority, is more likely the protection of property rights. In order to argue against that, Lessig would have had to argue for a communal property right that was put at odds with the individual property right of the copyright holder, and even that would be thin skating at best. So the Supremes did the only possible thing with respect to property rights and the clearly enumerated power the Constitution gives Congress to protect copyright.
Watch the language. While the one side talks about licenses with verbs like copy, distribute, play, share and perform, the other side talks about rights with verbs like own, protect, safeguard, protect, secure, authorize, buy, sell, infringe, pirate, infringe, and steal.
This isn't just a battle of words. It's a battle of understandings. And understandings are framed by conceptual metaphors. We use them all the time without being the least bit aware of it. We talk about time in terms of money (save, waste, spend, gain, lose) and life in terms of travel (arrive, depart, speed up, slow down, get stuck), without realizing that we're speaking about one thing in terms of something quite different. As the cognitive linguists will tell you, this is not a bad thing. In fact, it's very much the way our minds work.
But if we want to change minds, we need to pay attention to exactly these kinds of details.
"The Commons" and "the public domain" might be legitimate concepts with deep and relevant histories, but they're too arcane to most of us. Eric Raymond has told me more than once that the Commons Thing kinda rubs him the wrong way. Communist and Commonist are just a little too close for comfort. Too social. Not private enough. He didn't say he was against it, but he did say it was a stretch. (Maybe he'll come in here and correct me or enlarge on his point.) For many other libertarians, however, the stretch goes too far. Same goes for conservatives who subscribe to the same metaphorical system in respect to property.
So the work we have cut out for us isn't just legal and political. It's conceptual. Until we find a way to win that one, we'll keep losing in Congress as well as the courts.
Helpful reading on a similar (and to some degree related) case: Metaphor, Morality, and Politics, Or, Why Conservatives Have Left Liberals In the Dust, by George Lakoff.

Larry Lessig replied:

Doc has a brilliant and absolutely correct diagnosis at the American Open Technology Consortium website about how we lost in Eldred. Copyright is understood to be a form of simple property. The battle in Eldred thus sounded like a battle for and against property. On such a simple scale, it was clear how the majority of the Court would vote. Not because they are conservative, but because they are Americans. We have a (generally sensible) pro-property bias in this culture that makes it extremely hard for people to think critically about the most complicated form of property out there--what most call "intellectual property." To question property of any form makes you a communist. Yet this is precisely our problem: To make it clear that we are pro-copyright without being extremists either way.
So deep is this confusion that even a smart, and traditionally leftist social commentator like Edward Rothstein makes the same fundamentally mistake in a piece published Saturday. He describes the movement, of which I am part, as "countercultural," "radical," and anti-corporate. Now no doubt there are some for whom those terms are true descriptors. But I for one would be ecstatic if we could just have the same copyright law that existed under Richard Nixon.
Our problem is, as Doc rightly points out, that we have so far failed to make it clear to the world who the radicals in this debate are.

The radicals in Larry's proximal debate are copyright extremists of the Sonny Bono school, which favors extension of copyright to "forever less one day". In this debate the radicals are the carriers. We need to fight them, just as Larry and crew need to fight the copyright extremists: by re-framing the subject.

To start we acknowledge the necessity of the transport metaphor; but also its insufficiency.

Of course, at its base level the Net is a system of pipes and packets. But it's not only packets, or "content" or anything for that matter). Understanding the Net only in transport terms is like understanding civilization in terms of electrical service or human beings only in terms of atoms and molecules. We miss the larger context.

That context is best understood as a place. When we speak of the Net as a "place" or a "space" or a "world" or a "commons" or a "market" with "locations" and "addresses" and "sites" that we "build", we are framing the Net as a place.

Most significantly, the Net is a marketplace. In fact, the Net is the largest, most open, most free and most productive marketplace the world has ever known. The fact that it's not physical doesn't make it one bit less real. In fact, the virtuality of the Net is what makes it stretch to worldwide dimensions while remaining local to every desktop, every point-of-sale device, every ATM machine. It is in this world-wide marketplace that free people, free enterprise, free cultures and free societies are just beginning to flourish. It is here that democratic governance is finally connected, efficiently, to the governed.

It is on and not just through--prepositions are key here--the Net that governments will not only derive their just powers from the consent of the governed but benefit directly from citizen involvement as well.

As a place, the Net has always been independent of the carriage on which it relies, which is one reason it also encourages and rewards independence. The independence of the Net and its inhabitants is precisely what accounts for countless new businesses and improved old ones.

The architecture of the Net's world is End-to-End (See "End to End Arguments in System Design" by J.H. Saltzer, D.P. Reed and D.D. Clark). In "The Rise of the Stupid Network", which he wrote for the benefit of his employer while he was still at AT&T, David Isenberg says "The Internet breaks the telephone company model by passing control to the end user. It does this by taking the underlying network details out of the picture." In "World of Ends", David Weinberger and I added:

The Internet is Stupid.
The telephone system, which is not the Internet (at least not yet), is damn smart. It knows who's calling whom, where they're located, whether it's a voice or data call, how far the call reaches, how much the call costs, etc. And it provides services that only a phone network cares about: call waiting, caller ID, *69 and lots of other stuff that phone companies like to sell.
The Internet, on the other hand, is stupid. On purpose. Its designers made sure the biggest, most inclusive network of them all was dumb as a box of rocks.
The Internet doesn't know lots of things a smart network like the phone system knows: Identities, permissions, priorities, etc. The Internet only knows one thing: this bunch of bits needs to move from one end of the Net to another.
There are technical reasons why stupidity is a good design. Stupid is sturdy. If a router fails, packets route around it, meaning that the Net stays up. Thanks to its stupidity, the Net welcomes new devices and people, so it grows quickly and in all directions. It's also easy for architects to incorporate Net access into all kinds of smart devices--camcorders, telephones, sprinkler systems--that live at the Net's ends.
That's because the most important reason Stupid is Good has less to do with technology and everything to do with value...
Adding value to the Internet Lowers its Value.
Sounds screwy, but it's true. If you optimize a network for one type of application, you de-optimize it for others. For example, if you let the network give priority to voice or video data on the grounds that they need to arrive faster, you are telling other applications that they will have to wait. And as soon as you do that, you have turned the Net from something simple for everybody into something complicated for just one purpose. It isn't the Internet anymore.
All the Internet's value grows on its edges.
If the Internet were a smart network, its designers would have anticipated the importance of a good search engine and would have built searching into the network itself. But because its designers were smart, they made the Net too stupid for that. So searching is a service that can be built at one of the million ends of the Internet. Because people can offer any services they want from their end, search engines have competed, which means choice for users and astounding innovation.
Search engines are just an example. Because all the Internet does is throw bits from one end to another, innovators can build whatever they can imagine, counting on the Internet to move data for them. You don't have to get permission from the Internet's owner or systems administrator or the Vice President of Service Prioritization. You have an idea? Do it. And every time you do, the value of the Internet goes up.
The Internet has created a free market for innovation. That's the key to the Internet's value.

The term "world of ends" was inspired by Craig Burton's characterization of the Net's "stupid" end-to-end architecture as a three-dimensional zero. "In fact," he says, "there's no other way to visualize a place comprised of nothing but ends, all zero distance from each other, where all the intelligence is on the outside". He adds, "It's important to remember that zero is the value here. You can't get in the middle of this world and say 'This zero isn't valuable enough. I'm going to improve it.' That would be like jumping in the middle of the Earth and saying 'I'm going to improve on this gravity business'."

While the Net's nature is a world-wide place, the Web's nature is a world-wide publishing system. The Web was invented by Tim Berners-Lee, a scientist who wanted a simple way documents could be published and read, anywhere in the world, without restriction by physical location or underlying transport system. That's why it has hypertext protocols, "languages" and "formatting" standards. It's also why we "write", "author" and "mark up" "documents" called "pages" and "files" which we "post", "publish" or "put up" so others can "index", "catalog" and "browse" them.

To sum up, the Net has all these natures:

transport system (pipes)
place (or world)
publishing system

--and others as well. But those aren't at war with one another, and that's what matters most.

Right now #1 is at war with #2 and #3, and that war isn't happening only in the media and in congressional hearing rooms. It's happening in our own heads. When we talk about "delivering content to consumers through the Net", rather than "selling products to customers on the Net", we take sides with #1 against #2. We unconsciously agree that the Net is just a piping system. We literally devolve: our lungs turn to gills, our legs turn into flippers, and we waddle back into the sea--where we are eaten by sharks.

What I'm talking about here isn't "just semantics" or trivial in any other way. It's fundamental, especially to lawmaking and regulation.

For example, if we describe speech and publishing, that stuff the First Amendment protects as "content", then the rights granted to speech become subordinate to regulations governing carriage. Look into the metaphors used by the Supreme Court in its decision in favor of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, et. al., in that group's suit against Brand X. Internet Services, et. al.:

The Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, defines two categories of entities relevant here. "Information service" providers--those "offering"; a capability for [processing] information via telecommunications, 47 U.S.C. § 153(20)--are subject to mandatory regulation by the Federal Communications Commission as common carriers under Title II of the Act. Conversely, telecommunications carriers--i.e., those "offering" telecommunications for a fee directly to the public "regardless of the facilities used," §153(46)--are not subject to mandatory Title II regulation. These two classifications originated in the late 1970's, as the Commission developed rules to regulate data-processing services offered over telephone wires. Regulated "telecommunications service" under the 1996 Act is the analog to "basic service" under the prior regime, the Computer II rules. Those rules defined such service as a "pure" or "transparent" transmission capability over a communications path enabling the consumer to transmit an ordinary-language message to another point without computer processing or storage of the information, such as via a telephone or a facsimile. Under the 1996 Act, "[i]nformation service" is the analog to "enhanced" service, defined by the Computer II rules as computer-processing applications that act on the subscriber's information, such as voice and data storage services, as well as "protocol conversion," i.e., the ability to communicate between networks that employ different data-transmission formats.
In the Declaratory Ruling under review, the Commission classified broadband cable modem service as an "information service" but not a "telecommunications service" under the 1996 Act, so that it is not subject to mandatory Title II common-carrier regulation. The Commission relied heavily on its Universal Service Report, which earlier classified "non-facilities-based" ISPs--those that do not own the transmission facilities they use to connect the end user to the Internet--solely as information-service providers. Because Internet access is a capability for manipulating and storing information, the Commission concluded, it was an "information service." However, the integrated nature of such access and the high-speed wire used to provide it led the Commission to conclude that cable companies providing it are not "telecommunications service" providers. Adopting the Universal Service Report's reasoning, the Commission held that cable companies offering broadband Internet access, like non-facilities-based ISPs, do not offer the end user telecommunications service, but merely use telecommunications to provide end users with cable modem service.

Disregard for now the opacity of the prose and even the complete absence of the place and publishing metaphors that define the Net and the Web. Just look at the time scale involved. There are a series of regulatory regimes here, beginning with the Telecommunications Act of 1934. Today we operate under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Reforms of that act are likely to remain law for a long time.

Meanwhile, we have Section 1464 (Broadcasting Obscene Language) in CHAPTER 71 - OBSCENITY in PART I - CRIMES of TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE of the United States Code, which forced the FCC to rationalize stomping all over the First Amendment. Look at the headings under Chapter 71, and you'll find that most of the sections (including 1464) begin with transportational verbs: Mailing, Importation, Broadcasting, Distribution, Transfer.

Thanks to the transport metaphor, the FCC can punish forms of speech it calls "obscene", "profane" or "indecent" and explain it in a document titled "content.html". The same victory of pipes over place accounts for this tortured entry in its Obscenity, Indecency & Profanity FAQ:

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Section 326 of the Communications Act prohibit the FCC from censoring broadcasters. The FCC does not, therefore, monitor particular programs or particular performers, but rather enforces the prohibition on obscenity, indecency and profanity in response to complaints.

Thanks to the transport metaphor, even relatively pro-market and pro-Net regulators, such as former FCC Chairman Michael Powell, speak about "consumers" having "rights" to "access" and "attach" to "connections" about which they should have "choices". In fact, the whole case for "protecting consumers" from bad content and its sources is framed in terms that reify the Net as a system of pipes.

One reason transport trumps place is that business itself is largely, though not entirely, conceived in shipping terms. The "value chain" is a transportational notion. We speak of "loading" goods into "channels" for "distribution" to "end users" or "consumers". We even talk about "delivering" services.

On the other hand, we have understood markets as places since marketplaces were the only kinds of markets we had. The metaphors that come naturally to Wall Street are helpful here. When we speak of "bulls", "bears" and "invisible hands", we assume those beings operate in an place-like environment. When we say markets have feelings--"excitement", "fear", "anticipation", "reaction"--we assume those happen in an environment (that is, a place) as well. Even "Wall Street" is ontologically locational. It is a real place that serves, by what cognitive linguistics call metonymy, for the whole stock market, which we also conceive of as a place.

Experience counts. Humans are physical beings. All of us who use the Net experience it as a place. Prepositions are revealing. We go on the Net, not through it.

In Metaphors We Live By, George Lakoff and Mark Johnson write:

... even where there is no natural physical boundary... we impose boundaries--marking off territory so that it has an inside and a bounding surface... There are few human instincts more basic than territoriality.

We who know and understand the territorial nature of the Net need to appeal to the same territorial sense in those we hope to win over with our arguments.

Advocating and saving the Net is not a partisan issue. Lawmakers and regulators aren't screwing up the Net because they're "Friends of Bush" or "Friends of Hollywood" or liberals or conservatives. They're doing it because one way of framing the Net--as a transport system for content--is winning over another way of framing the Net--as a place where markets and business and culture and governance can all thrive. Otherwise helpful documents, including Ernest Partridge's "After the Internet" fail because they blame "Bush-friendly conservative corporations" and appeal only to one political constituency, in this case, progressives. Freedom, independence, the sovereignty of the individual, private rights and open frontiers are a few among many values shared by progressives and conservatives. All are better supported, in obvious ways, by the Net as a place rather than as a transport system.

This is especially true of the Net as a place where free and open markets thrive. This is the Net that we built, where we have sites and locations and domains.

It is also important to describe what the Net is and how it works from the standpoint of technology itself: specifically those that create and enlarge the Net and its services. So we're talking here not just about HTTP and HTML but also XML and RSS. These reify the Net as a place where people and organizations speak and publish and produce and govern and build businesses and perform services. These are made possible, we should make clear, by the end-to-end nature of the Net and by the even-endedness of every participant.

We should avoid getting trapped by arguments about peer-to-peer sharing that drop us into the mud-pit of Hollywood's "piracy" fears and residual disdain by conservative lawmakers (still the majority) for anything that smacks of Communism. Unfortunately, that means we should also avoid talking about the Net as a "commons" except with those who understand the concept.

We need to make clear that the Public Domain is the market's underlying geology--a place akin to the ownerless bulk of the Earth--rather than a public preserve in the midst of private holdings. This won't be easy, but it can be done.

We need to stress the fact that the primary "end" in the Net's end-to-end architecture is the individual. The Net's success is due far more to the freedoms enjoyed by individuals than to the advantages enjoyed by large companies whose existence predates the Net.

We need to remind policy makers that the Net's biggest success stories--Amazon, Google, eBay and Yahoo--are the stories of Bezos, Page, Brin, Omidyar, Yang and Filo.

We need to make clear that the Net is the best public place ever created for private enterprise, and that the success of the Net owes infinitely more to personal initiative than to the mesh of pipes in the ground beneath it.

We need to show how the Net has its own nature, and that this nature is too dynamic--too original, too wild and free, too self-creating and self-correcting--for new lawmaking to comprehend, much less control.

We need to stress how the pipe-centric view of the world is responsible for the crippled and asymmetrical "consumer" service the carriers call "broadband". By restricting upstream use of the Net and biasing service to downstream "content delivery", the carriers have effectively outlawed personal and small business enterprise on the Net. This is one area where the carriers have been persistently clueless and hostile to the Net since the beginning, and we need to call them on it. (Required reading: John Perry Barlow's Death From Above, written in March 1995.)

I could go on, but I'd rather leave that up to the rest of you.

These are ideas, of course. I present them forcefully because I believe we--the technical community--are being called to fight for a world we made and continue to make. And one which is under grave threat.

That threat appears in many forms, all of which are easy to blame and attack. But all those forms are expressions of a simple concept: that the Net is, above all, a system of pipes. Those pipes are in fact below, not above. They support a World of Ends, but they don't define it.

Unless we let them.

A few final words about deeds. Right now we face a number of deadlines on anti-Net legislation being lobbied through Congress by what David Berlind calls "Tellywood", with help from the carriers. He explains the situation expertly:

So, in November 2003, the FCC instated a rule that, as of July 1, 2005, required all television receivers to include the anti-piracy technology. But prior to that day of reckoning, saying the FCC didn't have the authority to make such a rule, a federal court struck the mandate down on May 6. But the ruling wasn't a complete victory because it also said that Congress could pass a law to the same effect. So then, Congress got into the act (literally and figuratively). In June 2005, on the heels of the federal court's decision, Tellywood's lobbies looked to revive the mandate by getting the Senate to sneak an amendment into a largely unrelated spending bill (Gee, deja vu. Certain Massachusetts' Congresspeople are looking to screw the OpenDocument Format with the same unrelated-bill-ammendment technique). But the "fair rights lobby" [sic] raised a stink and the Senate Appropriations Committee thankfully punted. Then, in September, 20 members of Congress who were clearly looking out for the fair use rights of the people they represent (not) called for a reinstatement of the broadcast flag mandate. Earlier this month however, some members of the U.S. House of Representatives remained unconvinced that such broadcast flag legislation wouldn't marginalize fair use rights.
As if it isn't bad enough that certain Congresspeople are looking to stifle fair use rights with broadcast flag related legislation, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) are pushing two other fair-use rights limiting bills on Congress.

David goes on to talk about how the RIAA helped author the HD Radio Content Act of 2005, which would prevent you from recording anything off the digital signals slated to replace the analog ones still on radios today. He adds:

As if the HD Radio Content Protection Act of 2005 doesn't tighten the noose enough, there's also the Analog Content Security Preservation Act of 2005. A November 3, 2005-dated draft of the proposed legislation is available from the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The idea behind this legislation, which has the backing of the MPAA, is to make it illegal for consumer device manufacturers not to plug the infamous analog hole (another hole in the leaky dam).

The list goes on. Read it. Then contact your Congresspeople. Tell them to keep the Net open and free and to vote against any legislation meant to protect any industry from "threats" they see coming from a new world they refuse to understand.

Effective Communication Skills: Sending Your Message

2008-12-30T23:49:00.001-08:00

"I know you think you understand what I said. But I don’t think you understand that what I said is not what I meant."

Effective communication is key to getting our messages across to others both at work and in our personal relationships. It maximizes the impact of our message while minimizing misunderstanding and defensiveness.

1. Clearly own your messages by using "I" statements, such as "I feel...". Personal ownership includes taking responsibility for the ideas and feelings that you express. People disown messages when they use phrases such as "most people..." or "you know...", which can lead others to become defensive when they think you are talking for them.

2. Make your messages complete and specific. Include all information the other person needs to understand you, such as assumptions you are making, intentions for telling them, etc. For example, don't just say, "I want you to change", be specific about what you mean by change, in what ways.

3. Ensure your body language matches what you are saying. Face the person; maintain eye contact, pay attention to the tone and level of your voice. People respond to our non-verbal communication more than our verbal because non-verbal messages are stronger and more accurate of our feelings. We can hear what we say, but not always see what we do.

4. Ask for feedback concerning the way others are perceive your messages. Ask them what they heard you say and what meaning they attached to it.

5. Right time and right place. Find a time and place that works well for both people involved. When someone is rushing out the door to catch a bus or when they are getting ready for bed after a long busy day may not be the best times to have a conversation. Discussing private issues in the busy lunchroom or in the elevator may not be the best choice of locations.

6. Think before you speak. Decide what you want to say before you speak. Think it through. How might the other person respond? What is your intention? Is it really what you meant to say?

7. Ensure you have the other person’s attention. Wait until they are off the phone or until the TV is turned off. Ensuring you have eye contact helps you to know that they are paying attention to you.

A Guide To Successful Commercial Property Loan Application

2008-12-30T23:47:00.000-08:00

Whether it is the expansion of the existing business or the start of a new business, a commercial property loan helps businesses acquire real estate such as land to set up manufacturing plant, office space, space for staff quarters etc. Much like a home mortgage, the property purchased is held as collateral against the loan. However there is a major difference between commercial mortgages and home mortgages. While home mortgages are relatively easy to obtain, commercial mortgage approval requires a thorough scrutiny of the papers, credit report and financial viability of the company and of the location, condition, and viability of the property you're interested in buying.

A solid business plan and careful evaluation of the property are essential for getting approval for a commercial property loan. Here is how you can improve your chances of getting approval for your commercial property loan application.

Choose the right property

The characteristics of the property are the first crucial aspects any lender would scrutinise. So choose a property which is legally clean, situated in a good location, has all the required environmental approvals and is in good condition. Take the help of your real estate agent to evaluate foot and vehicle traffic, zoning regulations, and previous uses of the property.

Prepare for the application well

There will be minute scrutiny of all the papers you have submitted along with the application. Hence prepare detailed financial reports, including balance sheets, tax documents, and sales records, to show the overall health of your business.

Following is a discussion of some basic aspects of what are considered as well-prepared documents:

• Keep your income tax returns regular and complete. You would need to furnish at least the last two years’ tax returns. So they should be complete in all respects.

• If you have applied for an extension, make sure that you have the extension ready and it has not expired.

• In case of an extension, complete the year end financial statements in all respects.

• You would need to provide your bank statements for the last three months.

• In case you are looking at refinancing your commercial property loan, you would need to furnish your pay off statements, survey, title policy, and appraisal to the lender, so keep them ready.

• Prepare and produce the costs of building the new facility, staffing, and insurance, as well as contingency plans in case you fall behind your goals.

• Get your latest personal credit report and in case of any negativity, clear it or have a valid explanation incorporated. Do have the documentary proof to back the explanation ready. Choose the right lender

Since the terms and conditions including the interest rate will differ from lender to lender, it is important to approach a lender who will not only fulfil your requirements, but will also offer attractive interest rates and easy terms and conditions.

A good pointer is the experience as a lender and proven successful businesses as references. Brokers can be of great help as they are networked with most of the lenders providing commercial mortgages in the UK.

Also, a good and experienced lender usually helps the borrower to hunt for a good property and prepare the necessary papers. Plus, the lender should be willing to guide you through the process of gathering information and applying for your commercial property loan.