Slashdot Mirror

I think you mean "critique".

Firstly, I want to highlight that your "I think you mean" was brilliant. So perfect 4 words! You are an inspiration for me and for the rest of the world; not just about English usage, but in general! We need more people like you! You are a solver, a getting-it-done person, a genius, the 4-word answer to any problem... You are the one! LOL.

Note that my post isn't completely incorrect because "critic" is an archaic form of "critique". I might even say that my reference was a proof of knowledge rather than of ignorance (nah! It was certainly ignorance :)).

Thanks for helping me improve my English. In fact, I do things on these lines quite often: using the version which is more similar to Spanish, my mother tongue, without giving too much thought to it (even despite the huge number of so-called "false friends"). I did make a mistake (here and quite a few times before, because I always use "critic" rather than "critique" as both adjective and noun), which I will correct in the future.

Lastly, I want to highlight that finding my spelling/grammar errors in internet is very easy. Usually, I correct them, but doing such a thing in Slashdot isn't possible; that's why you should take a look at some my old posts here.

It is a noun in this context as well (scroll down a little: "noun: the act of making an attack while parrying one (as in boxing); also : a blow thus given in boxing")

You state that the AC used these words wrong, but you do not, at any point demonstrate this. I will do one better, by demonstrating the AC's correctness in direct contradiction to your vacuous insults. Specifically.....

Myth: "an idea or story that is believed by many people but that is not true" and "a story that was told in an ancient culture to explain a practice, belief, or natural occurrence"
Both definitions align well with the AC's use, and fit well in this context.

Supernatural: unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc.
Fits perfectly as the AC used it, in this context. Next we have....

Evidence: something which shows that something else exists or is true
Pretty much nails it. The AC used these words correctly, and made a clear and plain explanation using them. You did nothing of the sort.

In addition, you claim that the AC has a "confused idea of philosophical systems and epistemology, especially limits and objections to empiricism and materialism". You don't explain yourself. You don't quote the AC, and then provide definitions of these things, and show the disparity. You don't offer anything but insult. You may as well have claimed that the AC confused science with law, or economics with psychology, as the statements would be equally baseless given the material provided.

So..what...are you trying to say that the presence of "objections to empiricism and materialism" somehow invalidate the need to substantiate a claim with evidence? Sounds pretty ridiculous, but that is my best guess as to what you are trying to get at. If I am dead wrong here, then you have failed to make yourself clear. It is not because I am an idiot, it is because you failed to explain yourself. Reading it again won't make any difference because the content is not there.
If, on the other hand, I am right about what you are claiming, then your claim is ridiculous, and the burden is on you to make a compelling argument that justifies the claim.

Lastly, you again insult by saying that the AC should go back to school. Well, you apparently need to go back to school, to learn how to provide arguments with actual substance to them, rather than just insult after insult with nothing to back them up.

Calling someone else stupid does not make you smart.

You state that the AC used these words wrong, but you do not, at any point demonstrate this. I will do one better, by demonstrating the AC's correctness in direct contradiction to your vacuous insults. Specifically.....

Myth: "an idea or story that is believed by many people but that is not true" and "a story that was told in an ancient culture to explain a practice, belief, or natural occurrence"
Both definitions align well with the AC's use, and fit well in this context.

Supernatural: unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc.
Fits perfectly as the AC used it, in this context. Next we have....

Evidence: something which shows that something else exists or is true
Pretty much nails it. The AC used these words correctly, and made a clear and plain explanation using them. You did nothing of the sort.

In addition, you claim that the AC has a "confused idea of philosophical systems and epistemology, especially limits and objections to empiricism and materialism". You don't explain yourself. You don't quote the AC, and then provide definitions of these things, and show the disparity. You don't offer anything but insult. You may as well have claimed that the AC confused science with law, or economics with psychology, as the statements would be equally baseless given the material provided.

So..what...are you trying to say that the presence of "objections to empiricism and materialism" somehow invalidate the need to substantiate a claim with evidence? Sounds pretty ridiculous, but that is my best guess as to what you are trying to get at. If I am dead wrong here, then you have failed to make yourself clear. It is not because I am an idiot, it is because you failed to explain yourself. Reading it again won't make any difference because the content is not there.
If, on the other hand, I am right about what you are claiming, then your claim is ridiculous, and the burden is on you to make a compelling argument that justifies the claim.

Lastly, you again insult by saying that the AC should go back to school. Well, you apparently need to go back to school, to learn how to provide arguments with actual substance to them, rather than just insult after insult with nothing to back them up.

Calling someone else stupid does not make you smart.

You state that the AC used these words wrong, but you do not, at any point demonstrate this. I will do one better, by demonstrating the AC's correctness in direct contradiction to your vacuous insults. Specifically.....

Myth: "an idea or story that is believed by many people but that is not true" and "a story that was told in an ancient culture to explain a practice, belief, or natural occurrence"
Both definitions align well with the AC's use, and fit well in this context.

Supernatural: unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc.
Fits perfectly as the AC used it, in this context. Next we have....

Evidence: something which shows that something else exists or is true
Pretty much nails it. The AC used these words correctly, and made a clear and plain explanation using them. You did nothing of the sort.

In addition, you claim that the AC has a "confused idea of philosophical systems and epistemology, especially limits and objections to empiricism and materialism". You don't explain yourself. You don't quote the AC, and then provide definitions of these things, and show the disparity. You don't offer anything but insult. You may as well have claimed that the AC confused science with law, or economics with psychology, as the statements would be equally baseless given the material provided.

So..what...are you trying to say that the presence of "objections to empiricism and materialism" somehow invalidate the need to substantiate a claim with evidence? Sounds pretty ridiculous, but that is my best guess as to what you are trying to get at. If I am dead wrong here, then you have failed to make yourself clear. It is not because I am an idiot, it is because you failed to explain yourself. Reading it again won't make any difference because the content is not there.
If, on the other hand, I am right about what you are claiming, then your claim is ridiculous, and the burden is on you to make a compelling argument that justifies the claim.

Lastly, you again insult by saying that the AC should go back to school. Well, you apparently need to go back to school, to learn how to provide arguments with actual substance to them, rather than just insult after insult with nothing to back them up.

Calling someone else stupid does not make you smart.

The Wikipedia article you cite seems to be semi confused about whether 300GHz-3THz is "Tremendously High Frequency" radiation (1mm - 100um) or "Terahertz" radiation.

It's both. Like many things, that band has more than just one name.

And 3THz to 300THz most certainly does include near ultraviolet...

I said 300 GIGAhertz, not 300 TERAhertz.

Your confusion is understandable, given the unfortunate etymology of the phrase "terahertz radiation". But, etymology is often misleading.

Ultimately, the only way to be sure about the meaning of a term of art like this, is to look it up. While not every source I have found agree with the precise frequency range specified by the article I linked, all agree that the upper end of the band in question is somewhere in the infrared, and that it does not include visible light (let alone ultraviolet).

since you're mister snarky today

There is nothing sarcastic or mocking (the definition of "snark") in either of my comments in this thread. I simply pointed out your error. The fact that you automatically perceive that as "snarky" comes across either as proud or insecure (I will not speculate as to which).

Strictly speaking, Finland is a Nordic country, not a Scandinavian one. Scandinavia is Sweden, Norway, and Denmark.

Scandinavia

1. peninsula N Europe occupied by Norway & Sweden

2. Denmark, Norway, Sweden —sometimes also considered to include Iceland, the Faeroe Islands, & Finland

Brobdingnagian
adjective Brobdingnagian \bräb-di-na-g-n, -dig-na-\
: marked by tremendous size


Now that's a ten-dollar word. I learned something new today.

So, you must be using the alternative definition of automatic pilot, which is, "a state or condition in which activity or behavior is regulated automatically in a predetermined or instinctive manner "

So, let's say we have a truck driver doing his job on automatic pilot, do you honestly expect that driver to be paying close attention to the dangers on the road?

Words have meanings:

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Drivel

They can't RTFA because it's published $Nature$, hence paywalled.


publish:
transitive verb

1 a : to make generally known
b : to make public announcement of

2 a : to disseminate to the public
b : to produce or release for distribution; specifically : print 2c
c : to issue the work of (an author)

I guess 2 out of 5 isn't bad. Wait, that's a failing grade.

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/by%20(all)%20rights

Hate to break this to you, but words mean things and "regime" simply means "[form of] government" or "management".

And I would argue that the factors you cite, contrary to what you imply, constitute a *very* good reason to take Putin and his agenda *very* seriously indeed.

--Zontar (posting AC because mod points)

The Korean "man", which incidentally is actually pronounced with a long "a" to rhyme with the English word "on", is the same as 1,000 but can be translated as "infinite" in many situations. For example, a fountain pen is translated into Korean as a "1,000 year pen" or "man-youn-pil" (see here).

The "bang", which is also pronounced with a long "a" to rhyme with the English word "on", means a "place" or a "room", as others here have noticed.

Thus this word (as with many Korean words) is a portmanteau, in this case loosely meaning "infinite places", which makes the translation to the English word "everywhere" fairly reasonable.

All that said, like most of the posters here, I think this choice of branding is truly hilarious.

I'm not sure about that. Americans redefine English in ways they see fit, but are not what English means. In every Slavic language autopilot means automatic&autonomous pilot, which means self-driving.
If it is not self-driving (automatic) but it provides some assistance, it is assisted driving/piloting, but not automatic piloting (autopilot).

You can also check what autopilot means even in English - a device for automatically steering ships, aircraft, and spacecraft.

Stop saying autopilot isn't autopilot, when you have arbitrary substituted the meaning of autopilot with driver assist.

Just because so many are wrong don't change the meaning of the word.

I disagree. Definitions of words change all the time because a large number of people agree to a new meaning. One example is Decimate. Originally, this meant to kill 1/10th of a population - from the ancient Roman use of Decimation as a means of punishment of a group at once, such as punishment for desertion. Over time, people at large associated "decimate" with a disaster affecting large groups, and later the assumed meaning shifted to "destroy almost all of something."

And I watched that definition change over my lifetime. When I was in middle school, we learned "decimate" meant "one in ten" (hence "deci").

So over the span of thirty or forty years, "decimate" has changed from 10% to something like 90%.

The current definition:

Decimate
verb (used with object), decimated, decimating.

1. to destroy a great number or proportion of:
The population was decimated by a plague.

2. to select by lot and kill every tenth person of.

That person could be the neighbor, it could be the owner of a stolen cell phone, it could be the administrative contact for a domain the IP address is in. "Someone" is not "the person who posted the link", but that someone could help identify who that really was, using other information in addition to the IP address.

The chance that "someone", not being whoever posted the link or uploaded the file, could identify who did either of those things is exceedingly small.

Fishing Expedition
noun 1 : a legal interrogation or examination to discover information for a later proceeding
2 : an investigation that does not stick to a stated objective but hopes to uncover incriminating or newsworthy evidence

Well, this isn't a legal interrogation or examination, so definition #1 is right out. Definition #2, on the other hand...

Now, if you want a legal definition, I've got that covered, as well.

Also known as a "fishing trip." Using the courts to find out information beyond the fair scope of the lawsuit. The loose, vague, unfocused questioning of a witness or the overly broad use of the discovery process. Discovery sought on general, loose, and vague allegations, or on suspicion, surmise, or vague guesses. The scope of discovery may be restricted by protective orders as provided for by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Emphasis mine, pay special attention to the italicized bold. In this case, they're not using the courts, but they are seeking information based on suspicion, surmise, and vague guesses. Once they seek a court order, their actions will be converted from a dictionary-defined fishing expedition to a legally-defined fishing expedition. Either way, it is what it is.

Does that mean I'm supporting the uploader of the file, or the link sharer? Certainly not. Nor does the preceding statement mean I'm not supporting either, or both; I'm simply calling things what they are. None of this means, either, that I am attacking Atlantic or their efforts. Yes, this is a warranted fishing expedition, they were harmed (and here I am pro-copyright-reform) and have every right to seek restitution; however, they also have a responsibility to do so within existing legal frameworks.

That is to say, they must seek a court order for the information. Reddit is under no obligation to cooperate without one and would be irresponsible to do so; and, as we're talking about Reddit, I'm honestly surprised they've done the right thing here. Once Atlantic obtains a court order, which they very certainly should do and I fully believe they can do very easily given the evidence they have already, they'll get the information they seek through legal means.

This framework is in place for the protection of all parties, not just the accused. It certainly benefits the accused, especially when the accused is actually innocent, which is a primary reason for it. However, it also protects the accuser and any parties who provide them information or services; that court order essentially says "a Judge agrees that we have a case here" and shields the accuser and their sources from liability should their investigation lead to the wrong person.

While Atlantic certainly can try to press forward without a court order, it would be unwise to do so, just as it was unwise to approach Reddit without one in the first place. It shows disregard for the legal system, which is not a position you want to be in when you intend to prosecute someone in the near future. Judges tend not to appreciate disrespect.

Simple Definition of inalienable - impossible to take away or give up. And full definition - "incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred"

Nobody's talking about the US constitution here, which in fact did violate human rights in many ways (women, slaves, non-landowners).

However, now that you brought it up, the government regularly infringes on the right of free speech. Chelsea Manning, search warrants with gag orders, etc.

When a private organization chooses what to print and what not to print on its platform that is editing.

Nope.

Check the dictionary definition.

Something which controls heading and speed but which does not take complete responsibility for the vehicle. And do you know what we call a device like that? We call it an autopilot. [...] Buy a fucking dictionary, and spend some time with it.

I will if you will. Let's try Merriam-Webster:

a device that steers a ship, aircraft, or spacecraft in place of a person

Or, we could look at Wiktionary:

A mechanical, electrical, or hydraulic system used to guide a vehicle without assistance from a human being.

"a device that steers a ship, aircraft, or spacecraft in place of a person" -- Merriam-Webster

Gee, how could anyone be confused about that?

Just this morning I saw a large Honda clearly labeled "Pilot". Somehow, I wasn't confused into thinking it was going to the airport to steer an aircraft.

In all fairness, the typical sales rep in China will tell the customer all manner of nonsense to land the sale. I wouldn't be surprised if an undercover expose shows them leading buyers to think the car is fully autonomous.

"a device that steers a ship, aircraft, or spacecraft in place of a person" -- Merriam-Webster

Gee, how could anyone be confused about that?

"Feed On Bagels"?

("Fob" is not an acronym, lackwit.)

You're being a jackass. Here's the relevant dictionary definition of resolution, emphasis mine: "a measure of the sharpness of an image or of the fineness with which a device (as a video display, printer, or scanner) can produce or record such an image usually expressed as the total number or density of pixels in the image." FHD is 1920x1080 pixels, so has a total resolution of 2,073,600 pixels. UHD is 3840x2160, with a resolution of 8,294,400 pixels (I can be a jackass just like msauve: UHD is something incorrectly called "4K", but 4K is 4096x2160 pixels, with a resolution of 8,847,360 pixels.) 8k has 7680x4320 images, with a resolution of 33,177,600 pixels.

And, yes, msauve now has to buy us all an 8k video camera, for being so pedantic.

"Unlimited" to Verizon means "unlimited as long as you use less than 300 kilobits per second continuously". Which just happens to be almost exactly the minimum bandwidth for a Skype video call. Ponder that for a moment.

Sure, I'll ponder that for a moment, then point out that you seem to think there are people that literally Skype 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 12 months every year, never stopping to eat, sleep, go to the bathroom, etc. I suspect many/most customers lead more balanced lives then that.

It is, since how otherwise do you describe "a large amount of water that moves very quickly in one direction" (m-w entry)?

Now you are catching on! I don't deal in pedantry, or wishful thinking.

Pederasty has nothing to do with it.

Microsoft lied (again), pure and simple. Some people (stupidly/greedily, IMHO) took them at their word.

So, since "Unlimited" doesn't equal "Unlimited" in your personal "User's Guide To The Real Meanings Of Common Words", what, pray tell, would you put the "limit" of "Unlimited" at? Because the accepted, common-use definition (which is what a Court would use) is (according to Merriam-Webster) :

1: lacking any controls : unrestricted

2: boundless, infinite

3: not bounded by exceptions : undefined

Definitions 1 and 2 and 3 seem to apply here. That's not being "pedantic"; it is applying accepted, mainstream common-language meanings to common, mainstream common-language words. Sorry if that doesn't fit with your meaning of how language works; but it's the one that most people would use.

And besides, how is a person to really know when they exceed "your" limit of "Unlimited"?

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Android has 71% of the MOBILE market in Europe, including OEM-cusromized versions which aren't what Google published.
Personally, I wouldn't call less than 71% "complete control of the entire supply".

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grate

intransitive verb
2: to cause irritation : jar "a voice that grates on the nerves"

And Tesla is kinda asking for problems calling their driver assist package 'Autopilot'.

Perhaps the problem is that your personal definition of Autopilot leads you to believe that it can do more than it can, so here's an actual definition:

"a device for automatically steering ships, aircraft, and spacecraft" source

In an airplane, the autopilot feature keeps the plane on the specified path (analogous to in the same lane), and maintains the set speed.
 
It does NOT handle the situation of when another plane is approaching on a collision course, or if the pilot needs to change course. It also doesn't help the pilot when the airplane is taxiing (analogous to driving a car off of a highway on main roads).

Autopilot is actually a very apt description of what Tesla's driver assist package is capable of.

Intercourse: physical sexual contact between individuals that involves the genitalia of at least one person; "anal intercourse", "oral intercourse". You were saying?

Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

Socialism: 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

So no, in an economy that's actually socialist (not just commonly called "socialist" by people, like the Nordic countries), you can't privately own a business. Capitalism allows one to use money to make more money, but it's not part of the definition.

Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

Socialism: 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

So no, in an economy that's actually socialist (not just commonly called "socialist" by people, like the Nordic countries), you can't privately own a business. Capitalism allows one to use money to make more money, but it's not part of the definition.

WOW! 229 words and not a single true fact.

Trying to keep the discussion from going too much astray, let's focus on the nationality claim:

Nationality: a group of people who share the same history, traditions, and language, and who usually live together in a particular country

Care to cite any evidence for your claims? There are several nationality markers, the things that make a group of people a nation. Care to show that the Arabs who lived in pre-Israel Palestine had those distinctly from other Arabs, and in common with Jews?

Shachar

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Merriam Webster or anonymous coward... whom should I trust?

Another AC chiming in - the original AC is correct. Your dictionary link is certainly the definition of Anyway, but TFS has used anyway incorrectly. The quote from the Arista investor should be that they are "trying to slow them down any way they can", i.e. suggesting that Cisco are trying many things to slow Arista down, which is itself incorrect; Cisco is using lawsuits to slow Arista down, which I would say doesn't constitute an exhaustive list of ways Cisco could be trying to slow Arista down.

A correct use of anyway in this headline would have been "Cisco Are Trying to Slow Arista Down, Anyway, They Can". Which would also be a more appropriate headline for TFS too, seeing as they've won a number of their court cases against Arista.

Merriam Webster or anonymous coward... whom should I trust?

If only there were some type of a book or service that you could use to look up a definition of the kibosh...

So you're saying that he should have used the internet to find the definition of the word? I'm confused. Isn't that what he just did?

If only there were some type of a book or service that you could use to look up a definition of the kibosh...

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

That's your own made-up definition.

In that case, I'm a dictionary.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

"one who believes that there is no deity

  [...]
How agnostic Differs from atheist
Many people are interested in distinguishing between the words agnostic and atheist. The difference is quite simple: atheist refers to someone who believes that there is no god (or gods), and agnostic refers to someone who doesn't know whether there is a god, or even if such a thing is knowable. ".

P.S. It's a bit arrogant lecturing someone else about *their* native language. Especially when you're completely wrong.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

I don't have a specific belief that there is no god, neither do I have any belief that there might be a god. I don't have any beliefs at all. I am a non-believer. A non-theist. An a-theist.

However, I am an arrogant asshole. You'll just have to live with that.

That's your own made-up definition.

In that case, I'm a dictionary.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

"one who believes that there is no deity
  [...]
How agnostic Differs from atheist
Many people are interested in distinguishing between the words agnostic and atheist. The difference is quite simple: atheist refers to someone who believes that there is no god (or gods), and agnostic refers to someone who doesn't know whether there is a god, or even if such a thing is knowable. ".

P.S. It's a bit arrogant lecturing someone else about *their* native language. Especially when you're completely wrong.

These are cars: https://www.google.ca/search?q...
These are aircraft: https://www.google.ca/search?q...
These are flying car: https://www.google.ca/search?q...

If you are still confused, here's some definitions.
Car: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... http://www.oxforddictionaries.... http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Aircraft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... http://www.oxforddictionaries.... http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Flying car: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I fail to see where the term 'car' is being used to refer to something that flies.

These are cars: https://www.google.ca/search?q...
These are aircraft: https://www.google.ca/search?q...
These are flying car: https://www.google.ca/search?q...

If you are still confused, here's some definitions.
Car: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... http://www.oxforddictionaries.... http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Aircraft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... http://www.oxforddictionaries.... http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Flying car: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I fail to see where the term 'car' is being used to refer to something that flies.

Uhm, no. When my Uncle fobids me to tell the family he slept with the neighbour, that is censorship.
When a company tells me not to talk about anything, but leave it to the PR department, that is censorship.
Me telling my mom to 'shuuut uuuuup' when she tells everybody how cute I was as a baby? Censorship!

Just because it is allowed, logical, legal and even morally right does not mean it has a different name.

So yes, if /. deletes my postings, it is called censorship.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.dictionary.com/brow... and many more places.

not to mention the progressives who are anti-individual freedom and pro-nanny state.Freedom of your own body (abortion) but don't have freedom to decide whether or not to wear seat belts.

Vs the conservatives, who support freedom to own a gun but want the government policing the media to stop people saying dirty words?

Have you considered that maybe both of you are right?

"Freedom" is a concept so abstract that it's impossible to even agree on a definition.

Actually, it's very simple: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.

Freedom is what liberals & conservatives are against. They may allow you some token freedoms, but usually with ulterior motives. Conservatives tout free market principles then bail out banks that are "too big to fail," because they know where their kickbacks come from. Liberals say they are "pro-choice" because they're cool with women doing what they want with their bodies, UNLESS the woman wants to smoke cigarettes/meth/whatever or eat food with trans fats or GMOs. I think the real concern for them though is population control.

You
http://www.dictionary.com/brow...
Are
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Wrong
http://www.oxforddictionaries....

Grok is a perfectly acceptable, defined, word contained in the dictionaries that record the meanings of the english language. Language evolves, get over it.

Self determination: free choice of one's own acts or states without external compulsion

The form of government you suggest is not the form of government the Jews chose. This has a bunch of historical reasons, but those are irrelevant. Saying "choose what you want, so long as it is this model that works for a completely different group of people" is, by definition, not self determination.

I'll also add that the current liberal fashion is to frown upon nation states. This has not been the case in 1948, when Israel was formed. Looking at the trends currently taking place in Europe, I doubt this fashion will still be around in ten years' time. In fact, quite a bit of Europe's current problems are due to the fact that this fashion took hold enough for Europe to change the definition for its member states, which were, almost all of them, nation states up until that change. That happened about ten years ago. You tell me how well that worked for them.

You will excuse me if I don't give my vote to parties suggesting Israel make the same change in any upcoming elections.

Shachar

First of all, from the fact we moved on to other issues, I take it I've convinced you on the "antisemitism" claim.

That looks pretty close to apartheid to me.

Apartheid: racial segregation

I've snipped all the definitions that are only related to South Africa, and I'm sure we agree those are irrelevant here.

Your accusations include controlling borders and movement (called "a siege", not racial segregation), building settlements (not racial segregation) and opposing a Palestinian state (negotiation stance, not racial segregation) while not giving full citizens rights (occupation, not racial segregation). The only accusation that has any racial segregation tint to it is the separate roads claim.

To see whether this is a result of racial segregation or not, I suggest we have to consider two questions:
1. Is the separation based on race, or on other criteria?
2. Is there any other reason, beside racial, for this separations?

I'll start with the second question. Israel claims that the separate roads are due to security concerns, and not due to racial reasons. Do you have anything to counter that claim?

The first one is even simpler to disprove. Are Palestinians who ARE Israeli citizens also segregated? The answer is a resounding "no". The law prohibits discrimination based on religion and race, and there are Israeli Arabs in the Knesset, in the government, as judges in court (including in the supreme court, including presiding over cases where the defendants are a former prime minister and a former president), as doctors, including managing divisions where the other doctors are Jewish, etc.

Given all that, the only way you can say that Israel is an apartheid state is if you ignore the facts AND what apartheid actually means.

And precise meaning is important. Apartheid was a policy enacted by South Africa where whites would keep blacks away from white's lives. It carries an appalling association to any moral human being who cares about equality. The Palestinian propaganda is bastardizing this term to mean "whatever it is that Israel is doing", because they want you to carry those sentiments, rightly associated with apartheid, and associate them with Israel.

Shachar