Propa

Beberapa projek yang menarik perhatian aku :

1-P1 15Malaysia Video by WiMAX. Melibatkan banyak pihak & international punya penglibatan. Klik webite P1 WiMAX http://www.p1.com.my/

2-Citizen Tube : Obama punya part kat youtube. See how that person uses the 'youtube' & make a 'something'. - Klik http://www.citizentube.com/

Negara-negara maju telah lama ke hadapan. Aku pernah 'gado' dengan kawan aku yg belajar kt oversea. Dia condemn habis habisan kerajaan kita sekarang. Bagi aku, condemn boleh tapi janganlah terlampau sampai melibatkan politik. Kawan aku tu taksub politik. Lebih spesifik dia condemn streamyx atau TM Malaysia. Hmm...

Bagi aku, benda2 macam ni melibatkan banyak pihak. Semua pihak harus bekerjasama baru kita boleh menaikkan negara kita. Contoh yang paling simple, kedai makan. Tauke kedai makan memang bagus & beri service yang memuaskan. Tapi, bila ada pekerja mereka bagi servis yang teruk kepada pelanggan mereka. 1 kedai tersebut akan dapat kesan yang buruk. Itu contoh kecil. Boleh diaplikasikan dengan status negara kita.

Kesimpulan, kita semua jangan penting diri sendiri. Peringatan untuk diriku juga.

p/s- aku tgh pk nk jual ke tak htc tytn II ni........ laku x agak2 ye...

Media & Politik

Politicians and political commentators everywhere are obsessed with the media. Bill Clinton's aides are trying to recruit sympathetic radio talk show hosts in the belief that right wing radio was the key to the recent Republican landslide. The Italian political elite is still in awe of Berlusconi's media influence. 'TV is everywhere,' one expert commented recently. 'In the last decade it has literally hypnotised Italians'. Meanwhile American Republican Newt Gingrich is proclaiming that the new cable technology is the basis of a revolutionary new 'hyper-democracy'.

But this obsession runs deepest on the left. The British Labour Party has been fascinated with the media for years. The leadership have used the notion of an all powerful media as a key justification for shifting the party to the right. Kinnock spent the best part of the 1980s hounding socialists out of the party and ditching radical policies claiming this would make the party 'media friendly'. By the 1992 election shadow ministers were complaining that media consultants were actually setting the party's agenda.

When Labour lost in 1992 Kinnock predictably blamed 'the Conservative supporting press'. Since Blair, 'the media's choice', has taken over, he has been wining and dining the media moguls and his colleagues have been loudly welcoming the commercially led 'communications revolution'.
Their argument is simple. If the media corporations are all powerful, then it is only sensible to mould policy to the media's whims and throw out all principles and all ambition for change. This has been the path taken by the Labour Party and a good deal of the left internationally over the last ten years. The consequence in Britain is that working people no longer have a parliamentary party that even talks in terms of basic working class demands for cheap housing, improved benefits, or comprehensive education.

Meanwhile, those who look for fundamental change are hampered by the suspicion that it is impossible to compete with the media corporations for the hearts and minds of the mass of the population.
That is why it is vital that socialists challenge the often unspoken assumptions of the media pessimists: that the media is always the main source of people's information and understanding about the world, that people religiously believe all it says, and that the mass media itself, the factory for ruling class ideas, can never be disrupted.

Inside the media

How does the ruling class try to ensure it gets its message across in the media? For most of the left, it's automatic. Ownership equals control: 'money and power are able to filter out the news fit to print, marginalise dissent, and allow the government and the dominant interests to get their messages across to the public'.

In fact it is not that simple. The media employs real people living in a messy world. Establishment control relies on a delicate balance between intervention and wider social determinants. The state and media managements are prepared to intervene directly. When necessary, they censor programmes, plant stories, rig statistics and bribe journalists. In his recent book about Scargill, The Enemy Within, Seumas Milne points out that a number of national industrial correspondents are in regular contact with MI5, and that there was a direct intelligence input into the the 1990 Maxwell funded media campaign against Scargill. In 1985 it emerged finally that M15 had been routinely vetting recruits to the BBC.

Censorship is widespread, particularly at times of 'national crisis'. During the General Strike in 1926 no representative of organised labour was allowed on air. Even Ramsay MacDonald was banned. During the Second World War the BBC was told not to include the Internationale in the popular Sunday evening concert of Allied national anthems and during the Gulf War an absurd list of pop songs were banned from the air, as were pictures of soldiers 'in agony or severe shock' or patients 'suffering from severe disfigurements'.

Censorship continues in 'normal times'. There are more than 40 documented cases of programmes on Northern Ireland being cut or banned outright since 1988 alone. At least five Panorama programmes on subjects as diverse as Tory party funding, fraud in Westminster Council and arms trading with Iraq have been pulled, delayed or cut in recent years. When The Cook Report set up a sting operation on parliamentary lobbyist Ian Greer Associates, which showed the lobbyists believed they could 'deliver' Michael Portillo and John Major for commercial interests, the programme sank without trace.

The government also uses backroom pressure to ensure media chiefs stay in line. After one meeting with top BBC officials about coverage of the Falklands War, MPs who had been present were telling tales of 'blood on the walls' and 'roasting them alive'. One of them, Alan Clarke, bragged, 'It is good for people in these sort of positions to be roughed up... it's quite funny, those sort of self satisfied creeps on big salaries and fixed contracts, when they have a nasty time'.

However, if the media is too obviously controlled or manipulated, it can become fairly useless for the ruling class. In Eastern European countries, for example, before the upheavals at the end of the 1980s, state run broadcasting was regarded as a joke. People either ignored TV and radio altogether, or where possible tuned into foreign stations. In Italy Berlusconi's blatant control of large sections of the media became a focus for opposition: in the words of BBC correspondent David Walter, 'Berlusconi's domination of the media, which was such an asset to his campaign, has now become a liability'.
The strength of the media in many 'advanced' countries is that it appears to be 'free', 'independent', 'neutral' or at least 'balanced' when it is really none of those things. Direct censorship and state control have to be used sparingly if this illusion is to be maintained. Instead the ruling class rely on a number of other mechanisms to ensure their values and priorities prevail.

The Global Electronic Village

The era of the technological age is upon us. We communicate in seconds with e-mails and fax's. Information of every type is accessible to anyone with a modem from what was originally intended to be a government network for research projects, now called the Internet. The average person is able to create, advertise and publish easily for an audience of millions on the World Wide Web. Thoughts and ideas are exchanged, discussed and argued across thousands of chat channels, muds and newsgroups for every possible topic ever imagined. Businesses, educators and fortune hunters all stumble over each other to see who can best exploit the new opportunities.

The global electronic village is open for business and the garish neon 24 hour sign seems to keep blinking an urgent message: "New Frontier: Danger Ahead."

The philosophy of the Internet comes from its originators; laid back computer programmers, information and technology addicts. They wanted to create something special. Something no one business, government or group could control. A true democracy circumventing normal channels and reaching to the deepest grass roots. A frontier where anyone could go out and make it, where those with common interests could connect with each other and ignore the normal barriers of race, nationality, and tradition. An ideology of community, working together exchanging ideas, and making the world a better place was their vision.

Noble beginnings, and this too was in the minds of the Muslims when we first joined the rush. Many were even part of the original builders, software engineers, and programmers, due to many Muslims themselves being in the Computer Science Information fields. We began mailing lists, newsgroups, chat lines, and web pages about Islam. Here was one place where we could actually get the true message of Islam to the outside world. Through the net, we could influence those who never would have encountered Islam or only received their information from the media, orientalists or anti-Islam propagandists. We could reach others and share and discuss ideas to help bring the Ummah closer. Muslims separated and spread out all over could feel the intimacy of being an e-mail or modem's dial away from each other. It would open new heights in our ability to organize and plan events, to share knowledge, articles, experiences.

What we forgot though, was to read the sign.

Excellent Islamic homepages sprung up, but so too did the Ahmadiyya, Nation of Islam, and every other deviant sect's. To the point where doing a search on Islam, may indeed give you 72 links to different views, along with a host of anti-Islam sites giving blatantly false information and arguments by missionaries.

Newsgroups to discuss Islam are inundated with non-Muslims who's jobs seem to be to attack and divide Muslims at every turn, instead of discussing Islam. Bitter fights among the Muslims involving everything from Aqeedah to prayer to censorship have continued for years. Control of the newsgroup soc.religion.islam is a prime example. At one point, during the election of moderators, accusations of voting fraud and hacking were reported to school and police authorities. The job of co-moderating, effectively controlling all content and discussion in the newsgroup was then given to a non-Muslim regular.

MSA-net and other mailing lists too have had their share of contending with special interests threatening to destroy it. Faced with lawsuits against the university that hosted the listserv, by a Sufi group complaining about the Shurah council banning them due to their violation of the rules, the list was then moved to an all Muslim owned site. Groups, not individuals dominate the e-mail list much of the time. Sufis, Hizb-ut-tahrir, Salafees, Shia, Islamic organizations, etc. all post their own agendas.

Muslim chat rooms and muds such as Isnet are especially the hang outs for high school and college age Muslims. They are places for them to talk to other Muslims like themselves from all over the United States and elsewhere. For many, it may have the benefit of being an alternative to other non-Islamic activities, but it is also highly addictive and highly unregulated. Flirting and private on-line relationships are pervasive. Also, among some of the Internet chat channels such as channel Islam is a very anti-Kuffar sentiment, with scripts such as "Muslim pulls out a baseball bat, Muslim smashes Jew over the head, Muslim wipes off the blood."

The few who control the Islam channel kick and ban arbitrarily whoever disagrees with their opinion or definition of Islam. Where the potential for Dawah is at its greatest, the reputation of being narrow-minded and hypocritical has increased clashes and hacking between even the different Muslim channels, such as Islam versus Pakistan versus Bangladesh.

No scholars or Sheikhs are present on any of these mediums. There are no authorities or any kind of collaborative effort on the part of Muslims. Advice and Fatwas to non-Muslims and Muslims are given out by basically anyone and dangerously lacking in references or scholarly wisdom and knowledge.

Despite everything, there are many positives to Muslims being on the Internet. In fact it has influenced many in good ways, from just increasing their Iman and knowledge to eventually leading people to Shahadah. This new technology has been a breakthrough in communication among Muslims. Conferences and events are well publicized and organizational logistics have been enhanced significantly and economically. Muslim activism is spread on- line. News is obtained directly from Muslim sources and not western media. Even the announcements of Ramadan and Eid are quickly distributed and followed.

Students, sisters, those who live in far flung communities or even places where there are very few Muslims or any who might not otherwise be Islamically active, can get the information they need and try to stay in touch with their Islam. Hundreds of articles and books are available, from the Quran on-line in Indonesian to Ibn Taymeeyah's Essay on the Jinn to How to make Istakhara prayer.

So, while on the surface it may seem like a glittering tool, the reality of today makes one question the direction of Muslims on the net and highlights and points out the cracks in our Ummah dramatically.

Half due to ignorance, half due to avoidance, Islamic organizations and scholars refuse to get involved or try to create a presence or authority on the net. Muslim programmers and computer professionals do not use their knowledge to improve the content or build amazing Islamic programs like they could be. Muslims are not using it to its full Dawah potential and are not looking beyond their egos to work with one another in Shurah to make it a place of not just fun, but of benefit for themselves and others.

Facing all these positives and negatives, Muslims in cyberspace are at a turning point. The net and modern technology have created situations that are unlike any we have had to face in the past. As a microcosm and extension of our Muslim society, understanding and helping solve our problems on the net can be a first step in understanding the Muslims as a whole, our differences and how to resolve them.

If we find unity on the Internet, there is hope for our Ummah yet.

Waktu Kritikal

Hari ini 12/1/2010.

Berbaki lagi 2 minggu utk exam.

Tiba masa aku tumpu 100% kerja-kerja akademik.

Sem lepas, aku plan tak nak involve sgt2 dh aktiviti sosial.

Tetapi, jawatan telah diberikan kpdku.

Jawatan suatu tanggungjawab, yang harus dilaksana sebaiknya.

Inyaallah aku buat setakat termampu.

Semalam aku tak dapat datang 2nd IPhA Office Bearers Meeting.

Ada discussion on AICA, boleh je aku xdtg discussion tu tetapi,

serba salah pula & aku perlu pilih prioriti.

Akademik @ Non-akademik?

Kadang-kadang aku 'down' pasal aktiviti non-akademik ni...

Sebab apa? sebab macam-macam ragam manusia aku tempuhi.

Yang ok, ok la... Yang tak ok?hu.....

Dulu, aku berhadapan dengan classmate aku je.

Sekarang, mostly aku deal with other batches.

Kerjasama diorang sangat aku perlukan utk memastikan perjalanan sesuatu projek berjalan dengan lancar.

Bagi aku, masa itu sangat berharga..

Semalam ada kelas kaunseling, aku dipilih utk jadi 'counselor',

lagi sekali aku gagal, kata madam aku bkn counselor tapi nk judge orang.

Benar, aku memang tak suka dgr keluhan orang.
Bila aku dengar saja, aku cuba cari penyelesaian.
Kadang-kadang, even tengah makan @ mandi, otakku memikirkan penyelesaian yang harus aku lakukan. Akhirnya, dah jadi habit bagi ku. Aku perlu seimbang.....