Slashdot Mirror


RMS Cancels Lectures In Israel

Eesh writes "Globes and Haaretz report that Stallman cancelled his plans for lecturing in Israeli universities as part of a visit to the Palestinian Authority, due to threats by the Palestinian organizers that they won't be paying for his trip if he does so. Globes write: 'Stallman was scheduled to visit Israel in July and to speak at Haifa University, Tel Aviv University and Shenkar College. The Palestinians initiated the visit, but when they understood that Stallman would also be speaking at Israeli universities they told him they would no longer fund the trip. In response, Stallman announced that he would cancel the speaking engagements in Israel, and would be satisfied with visiting the Palestinian Authority regions only.'" Here's the email from RMS and response from the Israeli organizer. Hopefully RMS will brush off being named "Linux founder" by Haaretz. Update: 05/29 19:39 GMT by T : Oops! As user Windrip points out below, it's Globes, not Haaretz, which attributed Linux to RMS.

413 of 609 comments (clear)

  1. makes sense by roman_mir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe if universities in Israel want to have him speak there, they should invite him at a different time and by him some other tickets?

    1. Re:makes sense by mrxak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. Is it a dick move by the Palestinians? Absolutely. But it really is their right, after all, they are paying for his trip and they can put whatever conditions on it they'd like.

      Now, whether or not he should have, at that point, decided not to go at all, because he's being used as a political pawn, I suppose we can argue about that. But at the end of the day, he agreed to the trip as the Palestinians wanted, then decided he'd also do some other things on their dime, they said no way, so he decided to stick to the original agreement. I can't really fault him for that.

      If Israeli universities want to pay for him to come in a week later, then they are free to do that.

    2. Re:makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Palestineans paying? Not really. They are funded by the EU.

    3. Re:makes sense by GCsoftware · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unlike the Israelis who don't get any foreign funding whatsoever, especially not for weapons. Nope, perish the thought.

    4. Re:makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Israeli ? Not really. Their land was stolen.

      All land was stolen, ultimately.

    5. Re:makes sense by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Nice way to put a quick end to any so called controversy over this, but read all the bullshit politics in the subsequent posts for a good laugh anyway. After all, the submission is trolling just for that. It will now drag out to 200+ comments from a bunch of rabid idiots..

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    6. Re:makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      yeah. After all, Palestinians are not Semites!

    7. Re:makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1


      But it really is their right, after all, they are paying for his trip and they can put whatever conditions on it they'd like.

      Uh, I guess. That's kind of a weak argument. "I have the right to be a total dickweed" isn't saying a hell of a lot. It's also not exactly a "right", it's just power.

      so he decided to stick to the original agreement. I can't really fault him for that.

      I can. For a guy that's fought for freedom, he's got a funny way of showing it. He's essentially giving power to Palestine by letting them control his movements.

    8. Re:makes sense by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not this bullshit again. Being against Israel is not the same as being antisemitic, there are plenty of reasons to be anti-Israel considering all the lousy crap they've done and continue to do in that region. And accusing Palestinians of "antisemitism" is especially dumb, as Palestinians are just as Semitic as the Israelis are.

    9. Re:makes sense by medcalf · · Score: 1, Insightful
      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    10. Re:makes sense by stanlyb · · Score: 1, Informative

      Unlike Israel that is funded by USA.

    11. Re:makes sense by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      In fact, Palestinians are semits. You guy need to read some history first, and then comment.

    12. Re:makes sense by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Maybe one day these two countries will outgrow this kind of petty disputes and see such things as opportunities rather than occasions to fight. Let's hope...

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    13. Re:makes sense by amiga3D · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Trying to pick a bad guy in the region is pretty easy. It's pretty much all bad. I've seen no one that doesn't have blood on their hands.

    14. Re:makes sense by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      But i just wonder, when your boss pays you to go in California for some work trip, do you by some strange accident also go in Colombia???? i know i know, your boss is the same dick and is against the freedom.

    15. Re:makes sense by slartibartfastatp · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I really do believe people on palestinian universities are responsible for all evil made in behalf of Palestin. Makes a lot of sense.

      --
      -- --
    16. Re:makes sense by paiute · · Score: 1

      In fact, Palestinians are semits. You guy need to read some history first, and then comment.

      http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=whoosh

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    17. Re:makes sense by camperslo · · Score: 1

      This time was just over money, but there have been others who cancelled appearances when reminded of political issues. A very timely example is Gil-Scott Heron who passed away May 27, 2011.
      From wikipedia:

      'In 2010 he was due to play a gig in Tel Aviv, but this attracted criticism from Palestinian groups who stated "Your performance in Israel would be the equivalent to having performed in Sun City during South Africaâ(TM)s apartheid era... We hope that you will not play apartheid Israel." In response he cancelled the gig.'

      Being a talented jazz musician and political poet, he undoubtedly had mixed feelings when some labeled him the grandfather of rap. What he did wasn't a thing for the kids, although he reached some of them too. He brought attention to what was going on in South Africa, he's the man who coined the phrase "The revolution will not be televised".

      (an early track "Winter in America")
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcHOq8i5Pyk

      http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2011/05/20115287194489734.html

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8362518.stm

      https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Gil-Scott_Heron

    18. Re:makes sense by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That is true, but when your government charter specifically and explicitly calls for the murder of all JEWS and blames them for secretly being behind pretty much every war or revolution that ever happened in the world while referencing the protocols of the elders of zion it's pretty obvious that in this case they are anti-israel specifically because they are anti-jew.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    19. Re:makes sense by sarhjinian · · Score: 1

      Yes, by the Egyptians, Assyrians, Hittities, Bablylonians, Romans, Ottomans and so forth. Oh, wait, did you mean recently?

      The point is, if we're going to let Israel (or the Palestinians) off the hook for what they're doing today because of what's been done to them in the past, we've got a long, long history to adjudicate. Possibly we could exclude the Inuit from having make reparations, but it's not clear yet.

      Middle East history could best be described as "An eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye....". At some point one hopes they're realize the current strategy is not working.

      --
      --srj/mmv
    20. Re:makes sense by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Unlike many other countries ... also funded by the USA. But people like you never mention that when talking about other countries, only Israel gets called on the carpet for that anytime money is in question. Funny that.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    21. Re:makes sense by creat3d · · Score: 1

      "Anti-semitism", the one-size-fits-all solution that cleans all dirty misguided thoughts regarding the sacred promised land! GTFO.

      --
      Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.
    22. Re:makes sense by ZipK · · Score: 2

      But at the end of the day, he agreed to the trip as the Palestinians wanted, then decided he'd also do some other things on their dime, they said no way, so he decided to stick to the original agreement.

      The reporting suggests that the original agreement did not have a "you will not visit Israel on a trip that we're funding" clause in it. The story suggests that RMS agreed to give some lectures for the Palestinians, and only later, when he added stops in Israel, did the Palestinians attach additional conditions; RMS then subsequently accepted these additional conditions.

    23. Re:makes sense by guysoft · · Score: 1

      I forwarded this exact request to the Hebrew University Student union. Hope to cut the bureaucracy and actually get that indeed done.

    24. Re:makes sense by ZipK · · Score: 1

      But i just wonder, when your boss pays you to go in California for some work trip, do you by some strange accident also go in Colombia???? i know i know, your boss is the same dick and is against the freedom.

      Employees who travel for business frequently mingle personal and business travel at their own additional expense. When traveling long distances, employees often take the opportunity to stay on in an interesting location, or prepend or append travel to other countries that are more easily and affordably reached from the business destination. Unless there's a scheduling issue that prevents you from using vacation days, why would your boss care?

    25. Re:makes sense by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Makes as much sense as saying that people in Israeli Universities are responsible for all evil made on behalf of Israel. I was pretty much being sarcastic. I don't really give a shit where RMS talks so much as I'm just tired of people bitching about Israel like there is no fault on the other side. The only solution for this from the side of the Palestinians seems to be the total destruction of the State of Israel.

    26. Re:makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And if Stallman were going to correctly counter the dick move, he would cancel the speaking arrangement in Palestinian territory too. Just give them the, "oh, sorry, my trip and speaking were not planned to be political in nature. But since you have made them such, I cannot accept the trip and will not be speaking. Thanks anyway."

    27. Re:makes sense by digitig · · Score: 1

      That is true, but when your government charter specifically and explicitly calls for the murder of all JEWS and blames them for secretly being behind pretty much every war or revolution that ever happened in the world while referencing the protocols of the elders of zion

      [citation needed] (FWIW, the government charter specifically recognizes some Jews as Palestinian).

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    28. Re:makes sense by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1

      Why is antisemitism a bad thing? Hating Republicans/Democrats or any other political/economical faction is ok. The jews are just an economical/political faction. It's not about their choice of invisible man in the sky, it's about politics. So, yeah, I am anti-semitic just as I am anti-capitalism.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    29. Re:makes sense by bjourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

      'In 2010 he was due to play a gig in Tel Aviv, but this attracted criticism from Palestinian groups who stated "Your performance in Israel would be the equivalent to having performed in Sun City during South Africaâ(TM)s apartheid era... We hope that you will not play apartheid Israel." In response he cancelled the gig.'

      There is no factual error in that quote. Israel is an apartheid state.

    30. Re:makes sense by DMiax · · Score: 1

      Then do everyone a favour and name them! You don't want to look like you are spreading false information right? And by the way, the palestinian authority was "called on the carpet" first in this thread.

    31. Re:makes sense by snowgirl · · Score: 3, Funny

      Trying to pick a bad guy in the region is pretty easy. It's pretty much all bad. I've seen no one that doesn't have blood on their hands.

      I hear that Pontius Pilate was the last person with clean hands in that region...

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    32. Re:makes sense by Raenex · · Score: 1

      I get what you're saying but keep in mind that Semitic peoples include a large number of groups, not only the jewish people.

      Read your own link:

      "The term "anti-Semitic" (or "anti-Semite") overwhelmingly refers to Jews only. It was coined in 1879 by German journalist Wilhelm Marr in a pamphlet called, "The Victory of Germandom over Jewry". Using ideas of race and nationalism, Marr argued that Jews had become the first major power in the West. He accused them of being liberals, a people without roots who had Judaized Germans beyond salvation. In 1879 Marr founded the "League for Anti-Semitism".[2]"

    33. Re:makes sense by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      If I ever meet RMS, I'd like to confront him on his misunderstanding of economics, I think that beyond the future of HURD, that would be the only interesting thing to talk about with the guy.

    34. Re:makes sense by twidarkling · · Score: 1
      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    35. Re:makes sense by SlashV · · Score: 1

      only Israel gets called on the carpet for that anytime money is in question. Funny that.

      Yeah funny... I wonder why that is.

    36. Re:makes sense by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Whatever you mean? All of his speeches are political.

    37. Re:makes sense by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      Antisemitism is, first and foremost, racism. Disagreeing with Isreal's politics isn't antisemitic.

    38. Re:makes sense by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 1

      In this specific example, the Palestinians paying for rms's speech don't want him to speak in Israel on their dime, Israel being the country that has occupied the Palestinian territories for 50 years and even now continues to expand fenced "settlements" with armed guards in their country, setting up military checkpoints within their borders, telling them who can and can't pass, denying access to medical care in many cases.
      Is that valid criticism or is it too harsh for you? Anything but the most timid criticism of Israel is classified as "antisemitism" according to your quote, as it was intended of course.

    39. Re:makes sense by DMiax · · Score: 1

      Usually if you are invited by a university the last thing that you are supposed to do is visit another university in the same trip, even if it is in the same city. This applies everywhere in any field: my first hand experience is physics academia. RMS should have refused the invitation immediately, or put the universities in contact. This could have been an occasion for collaboration , instead he was careless and created this impasse.

    40. Re:makes sense by makomk · · Score: 2

      There is no factual error in that quote. Israel is an apartheid state.

      Pretty much, yeah. All the arguments against this that I've seen seem to fundamentally misunderstand either how apartheid actually worked in South Africa or just how little independence Palestine actually has...

    41. Re:makes sense by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Are you talking about the Palestinian Authority or the Hamas?

    42. Re:makes sense by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      It means that even Stallman can be bought.

      It makes sense for him to try to make the most efficient use of the long distance travel. Sure, he should be paying for any costs not associated with the Palestinian talk.

    43. Re:makes sense by MrMarket · · Score: 1

      Palestineans paying? Not really. They are funded by the EU.

      Israelis paying? Not really. They are funded by the US.

    44. Re:makes sense by TRACK-YOUR-POSITION · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But people like you never mention that when talking about other countries, only Israel gets called on the carpet for that anytime money is in question.

      As an AC said, two posts up is someone complaining about Palestinian money coming from the EU.

      But more to the point, Israel receives more US foreign aid, including military aid, then any other country. That's not even including all of the support we give to dictators in the region so that they'll take a softer stance towards Israel. That's also not including the costs of all the hate directed our way because we're supporting hated dictators.

      Supporting Israel has cost America a lot of blood and treasure, but they don't seem to respect us for it.

    45. Re:makes sense by poetmatt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How is israel an apartheid state? Is it not the same middle eastern people that every other country surrounding them is?

    46. Re:makes sense by Machtyn · · Score: 1

      Was he really going to be visiting Israel on Palestinian coin? I kind of doubt it. I imagine that the Israeli college would have picked up the tab for their part of his trip. If that wasn't the case, I agree, it is the Palestinian Authority's right to disallow that. Though, I would argue that RMS should refuse both trips at this point on the basis of intolerance.

    47. Re:makes sense by sirlark · · Score: 1

      The only difference I can find is that the Palestinian authorities are less complicit than the bantustan authorities were, although considering recent releases by wikileaks, even this difference is dubious

    48. Re:makes sense by cavreader · · Score: 2

      You are the prime example on how someone can ignore every fact you encounter that does not support your world view. The palestinians represent the longest and most rewarded scam of the century. They are receiving billions of dollars a year from the EU, US, and Arab countries and the majority of that money never gets to those who need it. The Palestinians were sacrificed by the entire middle east as way to attack Israel which didn't involve getting humiliated by the IDF for a fourth time. The "occupied lands" and the people living there were not Palestinians since they never accepted the UN partitioning there by voiding any borders defined in the agreement. The people living there were citizens of Jordan, Egypt, and Syria after their military ass kicking. The Arabs never agreed with the UN resolution for land divisions but now they want a fucking do over having lost every war of conquest the have launched in 65 years. They could not even defeat Israel at a time when the Soviet Union was supplying the Arabs with all the latest military weapons accompanied by military advisers. And before 1973 the US was not supplying Israel with anything. In 1973 the US re-supplied Israel but they sure as hell didn't send troops or provide them with equivalent weaponry. The Arabs take the cake when it comes to rewriting history and unfortunately they have convinced a lot of people that their interpretation of history is correct. Most of the school books in the Middle East state that Israel attacked the Arab states in 1973 which is 100% verifiably false however the Arabs are raising new generations on lies all targeted at destroying Israel. But hopefully the Arabs will step over the line with their attacks against school buses and Israeli sub-divisions and Israel can finally put them out of their misery once and for all.

    49. Re:makes sense by Sun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, there is a great difference between apartheid (discrimination of citizens based on race), occupation (governing by military force over population) and siege (preventing/filtering produce as part of an ongoing war effort).

      The Palestinians in the west bank are under occupation (with quite extensive autonomy in most internal affairs). The Palestinians in Gaza are under a military siege. They are not occupied, at all. The Palestinians living inside Israel are equal rights citizens. No apartheid at all. If you want to contradict these statements, please bring forward the facts on which you rely.

      All of this does not matter to the question of artists canceling appearances. If an artist does not want to appear in Israel, that's fine. An artists who cancels is being suckered into making a political statement under the guise/threat of avoiding making one. A singer performing in Paris does not mean the singer supports France's laws against traditional Muslim wear. A singer performing in New York does not mean the singer supports the USA's aggressive intellectual property foreign policy. Yet, for some reason, a singer appearing in Tel-Aviv is told that this will be interpreted as supporting the occupation.

      Not appearing in Israel does not make a political statement. Appearing in Israel does not make a political statement. A statement is only made when an artist schedules an appearance, and then cancels. The statement can be interpreted as "I live under a rock and only now found out what Israel is doing", or as "I don't have a spine and am too afraid of outside pressure to tell people whom my performance schedule is none of their business to go to hell".

      Shachar

    50. Re:makes sense by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well I don't know about him, and call me weird, but I don't think we should be giving a damn dime when it comes to foreign aid when our infrastructure is falling down, we are drowning in debt, we have a huge trade deficit with pretty much everybody, massive unemployment and underemployment, folks losing their homes left and right, borders leaking like sieves, blowing money like shit through a goose on pointless MIC crap like the Osprey, need I go on?

      As far as Israel goes i'm proud to say that I believe that AIPAC should be listed as a lobbying firm for a foreign power and STRICTLY controlled, and BTW I'm also damned sick of anybody that is against militaristic Zionism being labeled as antisemitic by AIPAC and Southern Poverty Law Center. As someone whose grandfather helped liberate one of the camps in Poland I find it fucking sick that these douchebags would use the dead to further their own Neocon ambitions, or that they are allowed to so blatantly bribe our elected officials and wield so much power over OUR government!

      When you have the candidates for both parties going to kiss the booty of AIPAC before running you can see where the paranoid get their ZOG ideas from because AIPAC and SPLC have too God damned much power over OUR government. If American Jews want to send their money to Israel? Fine, go right ahead. But you should be able to take money out of my pocket to support a regime I don't believe in, nor allow their lobbyists to have more control and access than We, the People do!

      Finally, just to piss off the Neocons and Xtians allow me to say this: Basing our Mid East policies on "Jesus won't come back!" is dumb as fuck! You have people dying, billions being blown, and enemies being made all over the region, because our entire ME policy is tied into whether or not a 2000+ year old dead guy, written about on sheep skins by goat herders, has a place to park his fluffy cloud on some mythical day where his dead ass comes floating on down from heaven. Protip" If your "God" is so fucking weak he can't even get a parking spot without the US MIC backing his ass up then your "God" is pretty damned pathetic. And the fact that both sides kiss the AIPAC booty and cause so much suffering because of scribblings written by primitives is fucking idiotic!

      Fuck Israel and every other country with their hand out. We should cut our military by half, quit blowing our money on bling bling MIC tech like its still the cold war, and spend OUR money on OUR people, period. As much as I don't agree with Glenn Beck on...well pretty much anything, the man did say one thing insightful. He said it is high time we in the USA decided to "Be Switzerland" and stay the hell out of everyone's business. As he said we have been sticking our noses in other people's business for a century and caused NOTHING but misery, dictators like Mubarak, and suffering wherever we went. it is high time to "Be Switzerland". Oh and before any Xtians believe that "When the Jews return to Zion" line they might just want to look up what it says about 'The Whore of Babylon" which with our sellout congress critters and stirring up shit everywhere is what we are acting like.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    51. Re:makes sense by BZ · · Score: 2, Informative

      Glad you asked for a citation, but you did not say which part... Taking them one at a time:

      Murder of all jews: Hamas charter Article 7, last paragraph and following Hadith.

      Blames them for being behind wars and revolutions: Hamas charter Article 22 (which explicitly blames "the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there" on the Jews, as well as World War I and World War II).

      Protocols of the Elders of Zion: Hamas charter article 32, which says: Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.

      You can get the full text of the Hamas charter at several of the References on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Charter but here are two of those just for your convenience:

      http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/880818a.htm
      http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm
      http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

      Or were you talking about some other charter? There are several different charters around in Gaza and the West Bank; the Hamas one is the one for the group that had a plurality (though not majority) of the votes in the one election held so far and the group that is the government of Gaza at the moment.

    52. Re:makes sense by creat3d · · Score: 1

      What is anti-freemasonry?

      --
      Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.
    53. Re:makes sense by Sun · · Score: 1

      No. "Controlling the borders" is what "siege" means.

      Occupation means to control the actual area. No soldiers on territory pretty much equals no occupation.

      Shachar

    54. Re:makes sense by bjourne · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Palestinians in the west bank are under occupation (with quite extensive autonomy in most internal affairs). The Palestinians in Gaza are under a military siege. They are not occupied, at all. The Palestinians living inside Israel are equal rights citizens. No apartheid at all. If you want to contradict these statements, please bring forward the facts on which you rely.

      The Israeli arabs are citizens of Israel in the name only. Recently, there was a fairly well published case of an arab being sentenced for rape for having consensual sex with a jewish woman. She went to the police when she found out that he was arab not jewish and he was sentenced to 18 months in jail for "rape by deception." The occupation/colonization project of the West Bank has been going on for over 40 years so to not call it an apartheid system is insincere.

      All of this does not matter to the question of artists canceling appearances. If an artist does not want to appear in Israel, that's fine. An artists who cancels is being suckered into making a political statement under the guise/threat of avoiding making one. A singer performing in Paris does not mean the singer supports France's laws against traditional Muslim wear. A singer performing in New York does not mean the singer supports the USA's aggressive intellectual property foreign policy. Yet, for some reason, a singer appearing in Tel-Aviv is told that this will be interpreted as supporting the occupation.

      Ah, the old "why are you protesting against us and not against every other shit state in the world, you must be anti-semites!"-argument. FYI, there were fierce protests against the olympics being held in China, against various events in Morocco and Turkey and so on. Also note that rms is not a random singer, but a political activist who has spent his life promoting software freedom. It would not be out of character for him to protest against the the occupation of Palestine.

    55. Re:makes sense by TRACK-YOUR-POSITION · · Score: 1

      Not sure what your intention was, but note that Israel receives more aid than Egypt, and the reason we gave Egypt so much money is because they made peace with Israel.

    56. Re:makes sense by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      Hamas, since they're the current governing body with the most power.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    57. Re:makes sense by The+Dawn+Of+Time · · Score: 1

      It can also be interpreted as "When people learn how repugnant Israel actually is, they shun them."

    58. Re:makes sense by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1

      Huh? As a mathematician who travels quite frequently I have never ever had any issues with that. I would simply stop going to a place where people have such problems!

    59. Re:makes sense by lordandmaker · · Score: 1

      Ah, the old "why are you protesting against us and not against every other shit state in the world, you must be anti-semites!"-argument

      No, the old playing-a-gig-in-the-country-doesn't-suggest-support-for-every-policy-of-that-country's-government statement. There was nothing about zionism or anti-semitism there at all. He even referred to it as 'occupation'!

    60. Re:makes sense by gtall · · Score: 1

      U.S. foreign aid to Israel $2.3 Billion a year. Israel GDP: $200 Billion. Israel wouldn't really miss the aid in dollar terms. However, about 98% of that is military. I suspect it is mostly advanced weaponry.

      So the implication that somehow Israel wouldn't have an economy without the U.S. is misleading...unless you mean Israel existing without the U.S. military behind it.

    61. Re:makes sense by radtea · · Score: 1

      Trying to pick a bad guy in the region is pretty easy. It's pretty much all bad. I've seen no one that doesn't have blood on their hands.

      My attitude toward the Palestinian/Israel thing is to believe everything both sides say. It comes far closer to the truth than listening to one side or the other, and it throws partisans for a loop when you say, "Yeah, I believe all of that. Now let's talk about Israeli war crimes" or "Totally true, every bit, but you've left out all the stuff about state-sponsored Palestinian terrorists blowing up school children."

      The thing is, both bunches of vicious idiots believe that the other side's actions are an automatic justification for their own atrocities, and they really can't wrap their heads around the idea that that might not be the case.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    62. Re:makes sense by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Unless it's land that's still occupied--and run--by the original settlers' descendants. Perhaps there are such places in Africa, or in out-of-the-way places with no strategic value.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    63. Re:makes sense by Nimey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One can dislike Israel without being anti-Semitic. As I read someone say to a Jewish kid they'd grown up with, "we don't dislike you because you're Jewish. We dislike you because you're an asshole.", and he was, and Israel is.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    64. Re:makes sense by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      And accusing Palestinians of "antisemitism" is especially dumb, as Palestinians are just as Semitic as the Israelis are.

      The word "antisemitism" is a modern coinage invented to specifically mean hatred of Jews.

      I'm sure you think you're very clever with your minimal knowledge of Latin, but you can't simply break modern pseudo-classical words into fragments, literally translate them, then reassemble them again and expect the literal meaning to match up with modern usage.

      Pornography is drawings of whores, right? Wrong. Some of them are just sluts.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    65. Re:makes sense by JabrTheHut · · Score: 1

      Nope, sorry, you've got the wrong end of the stick. US foreign aid to Israel is anywhere from 10% to 25% of the Israeli government's entire spend, per year. It varies a bit, but there were a couple of years in the 90s where it was almost 50% if you counted the loan guarantees, direct loans, military aid, non-military aid, special construction projects funded entirely by the US, etc. The US is currently debating how badly to cut, but no one in power is suggesting 10% of the US budget be cut.

      --
      Work like no one is watching. Dance like you've never been hurt. Make love like you don't need the money.
    66. Re:makes sense by JabrTheHut · · Score: 1

      This dispute's not petty. People die over this dispute. I'm for the Palestinians on this - over the last few years Israel's army has demolished university buildings, closed universities for extended periods of time, banned students from travel, both in and between Palestinian areas and outside them, and imprisoned, shot or killed students and lecturers. Tell me again why Palestinian universities should fund RMS to give talks at Israeli universities?

      --
      Work like no one is watching. Dance like you've never been hurt. Make love like you don't need the money.
    67. Re:makes sense by makomk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, there is a great difference between apartheid (discrimination of citizens based on race), occupation (governing by military force over population) and siege (preventing/filtering produce as part of an ongoing war effort).

      It's not that clear a distinction. The black regions of South Africa during apartheid were nominally independent states too, just with nothing resembling an independant economy or political system - much like Palestine. What's more, there was a very definite campaign of ethnic cleansing used to drive out the non-Jewish residents of what became Israel proper. As for the difference between occupation and siege... which it's closer to at the time seems to vary depending on the mood of Israeli politicians

      The Palestinians living inside Israel are equal rights citizens.

      Nominally equal. In practice they don't really have much in the way of political representation, the major parties have to be restrained from outlawing any political party that tries to represent them by the courts, there's fairly impressive racism in employment and housing and provision of services to majority-Arab cities, etc... (To be fair, a lot of this isn't unique to Israel - the US at least has similar race problems.)

    68. Re:makes sense by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Having or not a free speech of RMS because he was passing by to give a speech in your neighboring country is petty in my book.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    69. Re:makes sense by camperslo · · Score: 1

      All of this does not matter to the question of artists canceling appearances. If an artist does not want to appear in Israel, that's fine. An artists who cancels is being suckered into making a political statement under the guise/threat of avoiding making one.

      More so than other artists that cancelled, I think Gil-Scott Heron would have delivered strong messages in his performance. As much as any performer I can think of, he has a long history of fighting racism. I'm not sure Santana and Elvis Costello would have delivered significant messages in their music had they not cancelled.

      It's unfortunate that Gil-Scott Heron won't be around to perform either for the troops or general public there at some future date.

      I can appreciate that the rest of the world may underestimate how difficult some policy decisions can be when we mostly lack diverse and in depth news sources. (showing more violence isn't showing more depth) I think it would be to Israels advantage to make LBA and/or other English language broadcasters more widely available (direct streaming, livestation etc.) While some internal political conflict and problems may seem an embarrassing thing to show internationally, those who have seen conflicts between political parties and groups elsewhere might at least be a little more sympathetic to the political pressure (suicide?) that sometimes cripples major policy changes.

      The high level of activity in the middle-east is motivated more people to try and look a little deeper than the 'short on facts, long on pundit posturing' coverage we're mostly handed.

      There are some serious issues that should at least be discussed widely. Failure to do so erodes credibility. Even friends question friends.

      http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/report-44-of-israeli-jews-support-rabbis-edict-forbidding-rentals-to-arabs-in-safed-1.333825

      http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/23/world/la-fg-israel-intolerance-20110123

      http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=219464

      http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20Editorials/2010/July/12%20o/Deteriorating%20Conditions%20for%20Israeli%20Arab%20Citizens%20By%20Stephen%20Lendman.htm

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yermi-brenner/learning-from-the-rabbis-_b_821393.html

    70. Re:makes sense by tjonnyc999 · · Score: 1

      I wonder if this trip will be paid for out of the $ 400,000,000.00 the US had given to Hamas.

    71. Re:makes sense by Omestes · · Score: 2

      That "test" is a bit moronic. First, it wouldn't really be testing for "antisemitism" new or otherwise, it would be testing for "Anti-Israelism". These are still two seperate beasts, even if both are equally idiotic. One can still hate Israel with an irrational passion and not really hate Jews themselves as an ethic or religious group. There are groups of people who hate everything about the US (calling it the "great satan" and such), but might not hate Christians (the majority religious) or ex-European mutts (out main ethnic group).

      One can hate Israel without hating Jews or Judaism.

      The first “D” is the test of demonization. When the Jewish state is being demonized; when Israel’s actions are blown out of all sensible proportion; when comparisons are made between Israelis and Nazis and between Palestinian refugee camps and Auschwitz – this is anti- Semitism, not legitimate criticism of Israel.

      This is the least objectionable criteria, but it is still a bit flawed. What happens if there are, indeed, legitimate, and educational, comparisons between Israel and other heinous acts throughout history? I'm not saying we can compare it to Nazi Germany yet, and indeed that comparison is distasteful, but that doesn't bar the fact that someday that may be a valid topic, and some may legitimately think so, and should be allowed to present their case without being gagged by the specter of racism.

      Again, as a disclaimer, I doubt their case will hold much water, and it might belay their own irrational problems with the state and people of Israel.

      The second “D” is the test of double standards. When criticism of Israel is applied selectively; when Israel is singled out by the United Nations for human rights abuses while the behavior of known and major abusers, such as China, Iran, Cuba, and Syria, is ignored; when Israel’s Magen David Adom, alone among the world’s ambulance services, is denied admission to the International Red Cross – this is anti-Semitism.

      This is utterly fallacious. If the topic at hand is the practices of Israel, I shouldn't have to include ten pages of disclaimers stating that they aren't alone in being prone to occasional asshattery. Yes, other countries are capable of bad decisions and abuse, this does nothing to make any single one of there actions okay. It completely silences conversation, since in order to critique Israel I would have to first critique every other country which has ever done any similar action. We wouldn't expect the same criteria if I was going to critique Syria or Myanmar or any other less "important" country with faults. How dare you critique Myanmar without critiquing Israel as well! (I'm not comparing this two, ala your first law, just highlighting the inanity)

      Its like the fallacy that you can't care about this social problem without acting againstt ALL social problems as well.

      The third “D” is the test of delegitimization: when Israel’s fundamental right to exist is denied – alone among all peoples in the world – this too is anti-Semitism.

      No, its anti-Israel, not antisemitism still. More so, it is just plain naive, Israel is here to stay for good or ill (depending on your views). I personally think Israel's government is bad, bordering on "evil". I have absolutely nothing against Jews, or even your average Israeli, I just dislike your Government. I feel the same about the Palestinians, but to a very slightly lesser degree since they have inflicted a smaller body count of innocent people than the Israeli government. Again notice the disclaimers, disclaimers I should not have to include, and wouldn't include if discussing any other country but Israel. I also REALLY dislike the U.S. government, but I obviously don't dislike Americans (I'm dating one, all my best friends are American, my parents are American, hell... I

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    72. Re:makes sense by jon_doh2.0 · · Score: 1

      Except Israel is a Jewish state, and that is the basis for many of the problems.

    73. Re:makes sense by bky1701 · · Score: 1

      Here's what I never get. Is Israel a theorcracy? Because the United States has no business propping up a religious government, and if Israel is oppressing in the name of religion, they deserve to not only lose support, but all else they have coming to them.

      ...or are they a secular democracy, as supporters claim, that are not necessarily built on religion? In such a case, you can't claim that being anti-Israel has any connection to Antisemitism.

      Either they are built on religion or not, you can't have it both ways and remain honest. And taking it either way doesn't justify their behavior. But hey, did I expect supporters of one of the most oppressive and violent modern governments to be honest? Guess not.

    74. Re:makes sense by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      I'm not trolling... it was an honest joke, because it's widely considered to be where the expression "clean hands" came from... or at least the expression "I wash my hands of this".

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    75. Re:makes sense by gnomic · · Score: 2

      The Israeli arabs are citizens of Israel in the name only. Recently, there was a fairly well published case of an arab being sentenced for rape for having consensual sex with a jewish woman. She went to the police when she found out that he was arab not jewish and he was sentenced to 18 months in jail for "rape by deception." The occupation/colonization project of the West Bank has been going on for over 40 years so to not call it an apartheid system is insincere.

      So you claim that Israeli arabs are not true and equal citizens of Israel precisely because you happened to hear about a verdict you disagree with, and which you never bothered to read.

      The "rape by deception" charge was actually a plea bargain. And that "consensual sex" is what the defendant told the press, right after the trial where he plead guilty. And of course the appeal that followed was all about the severity of the sentence, not the factually established evidence (the one for example, where the victim was left in a pool of blood, naked).
      But hey, why let the details get in your way. It must have been a racist Judge. Not a single one but the whole political system must have been based on racism.

      And now for the inconvenient truth.
      There is not a single civil and political right that is not equally shared by all Israeli citizens.
      Yet there are inequalities in civil duties. For example, Israeli arabs (and not just arabs) are exempt from the compulsory military service, while still allowed to volunteer.

      I am not trying to sell the idea that Israeli democracy is pure and perfect. It certainly isn't.
      And much more must be done to integrate better different parts of the Israeli society.
      But to clam that 20% of the citizens are "citizens in the name only" is idiocy at best and shameless propaganda at worst.

    76. Re:makes sense by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1

      http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/politics/us-foreign-aid.htm

      How's Egypt work for you?

      Guess why Egypt received US money - yup, because they left Israel alone. Gee, I wonder what will happen now.

      --
      Fandroids hate facts.
    77. Re:makes sense by exomondo · · Score: 1

      But it really is their right, after all, they are paying for his trip and they can put whatever conditions on it they'd like.

      It's the right of proprietary software developers to put whatever conditions they want on their software, Stallman opposes this as a blow to freedom, but it seems freedom isn't so important when you get a free (in terms of cost) trip to israel even if it it restricts freedom.

    78. Re:makes sense by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Trying to pick a bad guy in the region is pretty easy. It's pretty much all bad. I've seen no one that doesn't have blood on their hands.

      I hear that Pontius Pilate was the last person with clean hands in that region...

      I think he'd be disappointed that Pilates took so long to catch on.

    79. Re:makes sense by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1

      Palestineans paying? Not really. They are funded by the EU.

      Israelis paying? Not really. They are funded by the US.

      So basically the same thing - only that Palestinians don't have a thriving economy of their own.

      --
      Fandroids hate facts.
    80. Re:makes sense by J+Story · · Score: 2

      The Gaza border is now open permanently to Egypt. Is it therefore under siege?

    81. Re:makes sense by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      So, just for the sake of the argument, lets suppose your boss paid your business trip to meet some guys from MS, to discuss some details about their BING search engine, and you, decide that you could also go and meet some guys from GOOGLE, and discuss what, their search engine....... I have to tell you, the next day your resume will be once more active.

    82. Re:makes sense by Micklat · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe, but it seems far more plausible to me that it's the other way around - Hamas are murderous anti-semites because this movement developed under the occupation, amongst the people who suffered the Naqba. As Moshe Dayan famously said, we can't blame them for hating us, as we took their homes and fields from them (not in those precise words, but that was his intent).

    83. Re:makes sense by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      In fact, you are forgetting something very important, almost all of the arabs in Israel does not have the right to be elected.......In any language, it is called discrimination, or just "not citizens".

    84. Re:makes sense by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      This is why I basically operate on a time expiration. If a certain amount of time has passed, you cease to have any bitching rights that land was stolen from your ancestors. Oh, some folks stole land from people 20-30 years ago? That's a big problem, they might have a case. Oh, some people are bitching because they had that land a few hundred or thousand years ago? Too fucking bad.

    85. Re:makes sense by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Disliking Israel's political policies and being antisemitic are two separate things.

    86. Re:makes sense by Alimony+Pakhdan · · Score: 1

      Either your parents or your teachers failed you.

    87. Re:makes sense by Alimony+Pakhdan · · Score: 1

      Well put.

    88. Re:makes sense by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      Knock, Knock.
      Who's there?
      Troll.
      Troll, who?
      Apparently, this is a troll. WTF?

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    89. Re:makes sense by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      How is israel an apartheid state?

      "The crime of apartheid is defined by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity 'committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."

      Israel's relationship with Palestine is an exactly an institutionalized and intentional regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over another.

      According to the UN's Special Rapporteur for Palestine, the "general structure of apartheid that exists in the Occupied Palestinian Territories ... makes the allegation increasingly credible despite the differences between the specific characteristics of South African apartheid and that of the Occupied Palestinian Territories regime."

      Is it not the same middle eastern people that every other country surrounding them is?

      Your question seems to be garbled -- perhaps a typographical error?

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    90. Re:makes sense by velsin.lionhart · · Score: 1

      You sir are arguing utilizing a well debunked trope. Palestinians can be antisemitic as this term is properly understood as meaning "being prejudiced against jews." Therefore it is not a "dumb" accusation. If this is due to your ignorance, than okay, now you know better, however, it is more likely that you are an apologist and for that there is no cure.

    91. Re:makes sense by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      I like this comment

      I am not disappointed that you will not give the talks - That is your legitimate right. When we had the same goals we set it and now we do not. That might happen and even though it is not pleasant it is not totally unacceptable.

      However, personally I start to doubt your truthfulness about freedom. Boycotting the Israeli Universities since you get funds from Palestinians means that you accepted the Palestinians proprietary license. Neither you nor them want to help their neighbor. That is the meaning of what you are doing.

      Oh boy, you should really re-consider the meaning of freedom given the agreements you make.

      You chose the "Free beer" giving up the "Free of speech" and that disappoints me very much since it has to do with the genuinity implementation of your own presented ideas.

      Oh, snap!

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    92. Re:makes sense by Jiro · · Score: 1

      As usual, the media doesn't report the followups widely enough, and people don't bother looking for them because they may discover that the truth isn't so anti-Israel.

      It turned out that the Arab had forcibly raped her, but it was plea bargained down to "rape by deception" as an alternative to cross-examining the woman. She had been a prostitute and had been abused by her father and it it would be easy to make her look bad in court (as well as being traumatic).

      http://www.mideastyouth.com/2010/09/05/israel-rape-by-deception-turns-out-to-be-brutal-rape-of-a-vulnerable-and-abused-woman/

    93. Re:makes sense by Sun · · Score: 1

      It's not that clear a distinction. The black regions of South Africa during apartheid were nominally independent states too, just with nothing resembling an independant economy or political system - much like Palestine.

      So I suppose that the elections where Hammas won were orchestrated by Israel? <sarcasm>Now everything makes so much sense!</sarcasm>

      What's more, there was a very definite campaign of ethnic cleansing used to drive out the non-Jewish residents of what became Israel proper.

      "Very definite" ignores the complexities of the debate over what actually happened there.

      Either way, you fail to satisfy an important prerequisite for apartheid - racial discrimination. If some Palestinians are denied rights while others, of the same race, religion and ethnicity, are not, then this is a geographical discrimination, not a racial one. "Geographical discrimination" is sometimes referred to as "separate states".

      In South African apartheid, was there any black who had the right to vote?

      Nominally equal. In practice they don't really have much in the way of political representation, the major parties have to be restrained from outlawing any political party that tries to represent them by the courts,

      I honestly don't think I understood the last part of that statement. Arab parties are subject to the same rules regarding how many votes they require in order to be represented, and the Arab citizen's votes are counted the same way as everyone else's. When trying to count representation, please remember that a non-insignificant percentage of the Arab population is voting for non-sectorial parties, and those parties also tend to have Arab representation. I won't tell you the numbers even themselves out, but I also don't think that that is the purpose of a democracy.

      there's fairly impressive racism in employment and housing and provision of services to majority-Arab cities, etc... (To be fair, a lot of this isn't unique to Israel - the US at least has similar race problems.)

      And is not called an apartheid for it, for the very simple reason that no form of government is perfect. Israel is, however, over criticized, with flaws (some real, some not) magnified without any proportion, until statements like "apartheid" seem to make sense to otherwise smart well informed people such as yourself.

      If you are not buying the racial criteria (despite it appearing in as a central requirement in every single definition of the word "apartheid" I've seen), then lets play a little game. I'll post a series of questions which, to me, define what a racist state is. Feel free to add to them. Let's throw those at a few countries and see what happens. For the sake of this discussion, I think we can agree that apartheid SA and Nazi Germany (I claim Goodwin's legitimate use exception here) were, indeed, racist. I'd also like a list of a few commonly agreed non-racist countries from you.

      Let A be the ruling race (Arie for the Nazies, white for SA, Jews for Israel) and B be the "other" race (Jews for the Nazies, black for SA and Arabs for Israel), here are a few criteria:

      1. Can a B judge preside over a case involving an A?
      2. Can a B citizen vote (assuming an A citizen can)?
      3. Can a B citizen be voted (same assumption)?
      4. Can a random B citizen go everywhere a random A citizen can?

      Like I said, feel free to add to those.

      Shachar

    94. Re:makes sense by Sun · · Score: 1

      The reason he forgot that is because it isn't true. Not even remotely.

      There are Arabs in the Knesset, and have been since Israel's inception, both as sectorial, single agenda, parties and as part of the larger, more generic ones (which, obviously, have a majority of Jews).

      Get your facts right.

      Shachar

    95. Re:makes sense by Sun · · Score: 1

      I wasn't aware of this definition. So Israel fails it for two reasons. I always though that the very fact that "racial" is not the criteria was enough to point out that this isn't apartheid, but now you also put in made up crimes against humanity...

      Do list them, by all means. I'll give you a fair warning, however. So far, anyone that tried answering that question for me made one (or more) of three fallacies:

      1. Listing acts that are deemed regular and accepted acts of warfare, regularly performed by anyone in similar circumstances (NATO, the US, etc.). Examples - bombing near a school during cast led, or the Gaza "freedom" flotilla.

      2. Listing acts that were merely alleged by the Palestinians, but never actually happened. Examples - the Jenin "massacre" and Muhammed a-Dura.

      3. Listing acts that were sporadic acts of individuals (i.e. - fishing an example that did not reflect on any general activity of policy), who were subsequently tried and punished by the Israeli courts (jail time actually served).

      I think you can see why any example that falls under the above three is irrelevant.

      Shachar

    96. Re:makes sense by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      When you leave voluntarily because your buddies are planning to come through and kill everything civilian and military alike but lose the fight it seems disengenuous to bitch about not getting your shit back.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    97. Re:makes sense by qbrick · · Score: 1

      Well, swedish penguin, following your logic and your word usage, since the swedish governement is either unable or unwilling to protect your fellow jewish citizens from being attacked by hateful islamic immigrants, it is absolutely appropriate to be anti-Sweden from now on, isn't it?

    98. Re:makes sense by Micklat · · Score: 1

      Well, that was expected. A couple of points:

      1. As far as I know, it is not seriously disputed that many of the refugees did not leave voluntarily. If you don't know what I'm talking about, please read about Ramle, Lod, Al-Majdal and (more recently) Imwas, Yalo and Bayt Nuba.

      https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus
      https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Exodus_from_Lydda

      If you read Hebrew, I'd also suggest this wikipedia article:

      https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/he/wiki/%D7%9C%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9F#.D7.91.D7.9E.D7.9C.D7.97.D7.9E.D7.AA_.D7.94.D7.A2.D7.A6.D7.9E.D7.90.D7.95.D7.AA

      In most cases that I'm aware of, the bulk of the exodus occurred shortly before or after conquest, which undermines your proposed explanation - if the refugees' motives in leaving were as you propose, then one would expect them to evacuate somewhat ahead of the fighting.

      2. There are several proposed explanations for the mass emigration and it's quite plausible that most of the causes suggested had played a part. Can you point out to any study that managed to conclusively quantify the motives of the refugees? Is such a study even possible, being as you wouldn't really expect them to be honest about their motives at the time, if their motives are what you say they were?

      3. Returning to the original question of Hamas ideology, the motives that the refugees had are in fact entirely tangential. If we wish to understand why Hamas has the ideology it has, we must ask how the Palestinians perceived their history, rather than ask what actually happened. This is not to say that "what actually happened?" is not an important question in its own right - it certainly is. It's just not as relevant a question to understanding the origins of Hamas' ideology as the question "what did the Palestinians believe about the Nakba?".

    99. Re:makes sense by Micklat · · Score: 1

      That's a false analogy if I ever saw one. Stallman is not an employee of a Palestinian university, and is under no obligation to act according to anybody else's agenda (unlike the employee in your analogy, which is supposed to work on behalf of his employer). Stallman had a deal with the university, and then the university added a new clause. Stallman chose to accept this clause, which I think is not unreasonable, all things considered. But that doesn't mean he's bound by loyalty to the Palestinian university as an employee would have been.

    100. Re:makes sense by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Wrong charter.

      SOE said "government charter".

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    101. Re:makes sense by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Hamas, since they're the current governing body with the most power.

      Hamas are a political perty, ruling in part of palestine, not a governing body.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    102. Re:makes sense by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      So your argument is that the current ruling party is not the current governing body?

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    103. Re:makes sense by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Except those "3Ds" are bullshit. The first D means that Israel can build all the concentration camp style containments it wants and you can't say shit because it makes you antisemitic! The second D is the classic fallacy 'you can't judge me because there are other bad people in the world" and I shouldn't have to explain why that one is bullshit, nor is there a "douchebag law' that says you must give equal time to hating every douchebag country on the planet, and finally the whole excuse of why Israel supposed deserves that land is because of a religion most who were kicked out of their homes don't believe in and I doubt VERY seriously you could trace even a single Jew's lineage far back enough to give a legitimate claim to being one of the original tribes. IIRC the vast majority of Jews alive today can be traced back to eastern Europe and Asia NOT the ME. To say they have a legitimate claim to that land would be like me saying I should own Peru because my native American ancestors crossed it getting here 10,000 years ago!

      So as you can see, at least if you aren't blinded by politics, that the "3Ds" are just another way of legitimizing Zionism. Now while I say that Britain originally didn't have the right to give other people's land away, anymore than they had the right to all the appeasement giving of others land before WWII, now that they are there I would say they have the right to the pre 67 borders. But since being established they have gone on a systematic land grab that has started multiple conflicts and is costing lives and homes to this day. Allow me to quote: " We would send a tractor to plough someplace where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was" yet to point out this douchebaggery is similar to the false flags and provocation that the crazy Austrian used to build support for the invasion of Poland would labeled antisemitic and that's bullshit!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    104. Re:makes sense by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      So your argument is that the current ruling party is not the current governing body?

      The democratic party is the governing body of the United States of America?

      In fact that's a poor analogy.

      Is the California Republican party the ruling body of the United States of America?

      (Since Hamas only rule in Gaza, not the whole of Palestine).

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    105. Re:makes sense by DMiax · · Score: 1

      We wanted to invite a Nobel Prize that was in town. He replied: sure, but I feel it would be bad to do it on the other university dime. We booked another flight a few days later. I suspect this applies more to the well known people than to no-ones like me... In my case probably no one would ever care :)

    106. Re:makes sense by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      TBH, it wasn't much of a joke either.

      Granted, but it was hardly in any way classifiable as a "troll". Bad jokes != trolling.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    107. Re:makes sense by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 1

      Been watching FOX News much? You're welcome to be anti-Sweden all you want.
      Personally I don't care about such silly labels as "jewish", "muslim" or "christian". We're all people, and we better start behaving as such. The reason muslims hate Israel is not because of your damn religion, it's because you've been occupying their damn land for 50 years and making life hell for those who dare to live there. At the same time, demagogues have conflated Israel and the Jewish religion to the degree that many don't care about the difference anymore, including calling any and all criticism of Israel "antisemitic"..
      I don't condone violence, but that goes for both sides of this damn conflict, but you might expect more restraint from a "democratic" nation with the obvious upper hand, that has the weapons to wipe out the entire Palestinian territories.

    108. Re:makes sense by WaywardGeek · · Score: 1

      How is israel an apartheid state? Is it not the same middle eastern people that every other country surrounding them is?

      Yes, it is the same. Israel can't help becoming like it's neighbors. Syria isn't looking like a great place to ask for freedom right now. With a blockade of Gaza and over 40 years of occupation of the West bank, Israel is responsible for brutal oppression of over three million people. Is this worse than Israel's neighbors? Maybe not, but that doesn't make it right. One major difference - Israel is a democracy, and their people can vote for leaders who will end the occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza blockade. In Syria, I only blame the rulers. I've been to Israel and very much like the people there, but they have a strange blindness that keeps them from seeing that what they are doing is wrong. That blindness exists here in the US as well. I debated just last night with a Jewish friend over the occupation of the west bank. It is so strange to have intelligent freedom-loving friends who support unending military occupation.

      --
      Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
    109. Re:makes sense by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      Actually your comparison IS a poor analogy but not for the reason you think. When hamas took over gaza it wasn't elected individuals moving into an established form of government it was Hamas as a whole taking over with it's own organizational structure and everything.

      So yes, Hamas is the current governing body of Gaza and I would say Palestine in general since they seem to have a lot more influence right now than the PA.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    110. Re:makes sense by WaywardGeek · · Score: 1

      It means that even Stallman can be bought.

      I challenge you to try and buy him. In my experience, he's glad to have income, but only if there is exactly zero compromise to his freedom. He sticks to this principle literally to a fault. Freedoms like being allowed to modify software embedded in electronic devices don't show up on the list of most protester's demands. RMS will give up a life with a good income, but never control over his personal data.

      Anyway, TFA's title is wrong. It should have said GNU/Linux, and then it would have been accurate. RMS did found GNU, the original and successful effort to rewrite Unix as free software. GNU code makes up far more of most GNU/Linux systems like Debian than does the Linux kernel. I think RMS could have used a good class in marketing. GNU, a hard to pronounce recursive acronym, never had a chance to get implanted in Joe Sixpack's mind. Linux... now that's easy to say. "Guh-new-slash-linux". Now there's a phrase taking the world by storm :-)

      --
      Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
    111. Re:makes sense by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      Yup but israeli academics they don't boycott people uplifting the Palestinians either

    112. Re:makes sense by Larryish · · Score: 1

      The worst part of the emails between RMS and the Israeli person was the following:

      "Boycotting the Israeli Universities since you get funds from Palestinians"

      Boycotting? Really?

      Seems like the Israeli person is trying to manufacture drama.

    113. Re:makes sense by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel
      Regarding this article:
      According to a study commissioned by the Arab Association of Human Rights entitled "Silencing Dissent," over the past three years, eight of nine of these Arab Knesset members have been beaten by Israeli forces during demonstrations.[114] Most recently according to the report, legislation has been passed, including three election laws [e.g., banning political parties], and two Knesset related laws aimed to "significantly curb the minority [Arab population] right to choose a public representative and for those representatives to develop independent political platforms and carry out their duties"[115]
      And something that you cannot find "easy" trough google, there is one very simple, but very effective discrimination law, which says that you could be elected only if you went in the army, which is done by 100% of the jews, and about 1% by the arabs in Israel......Simple, and very effective, ain't so? And when i see Arab president in Israel, then i will start to get the facts right, maybe.

    114. Re:makes sense by qbrick · · Score: 1

      Great example of vulgar-marxist black-white thinking rough-and-ready painted in rainbow colors. Why should a vulnerable society under attack like Israel behave in accordance to your Swedish arcadian gardenplot democracy.
      BTW the shameful events in Malmà have been broadcasted and drilled down by left-liberal german tele. Now you can accuse me of putting too much emphasis on the history of my country, wouldn't be surprised, since you even do not have the balls to say, 'yes, islamic immigrants threatened and hunted down jewish citizens, yes, swedish executive did nothing to stop that, officials of the city of Malmà replied what you just replied ("don't THOSE jews deserve a bit of mistreatment, considered what THEY are doing to the palestinians!"), yes a lot of swedish jews fleed the country, because they didn't feel accepted there any more and yes, this is all shameful'.

    115. Re:makes sense by BZ · · Score: 1

      Hamas _is_ the de-facto government of Gaza, and is the group that the largest number of Palestinians actually voted for.

      The government charter per se means nothing much, since negotiations don't happen with "the Palestinian Government" in practice but with various groups that seize control of it..

    116. Re:makes sense by Sun · · Score: 1

      And when i see Arab president in Israel, then i will start to get the facts right, maybe.

      I'm glad we at least agree your facts are not right.

      So you have one commissioned report, one claimed law which does not sit well with the fact that the only party ever to be disqualified from running for parliament was an extreme right wing party that advocated expelling Arabs (disqualified for promoting racism), another law about army service that the reason you cannot find in Google is because you also cannot find it in the Israeli law book.

      Oh, and the Arab Israeli President's name was Majallie Whbee. He was not directly elected. He was a second replacement (merely a minister), but the actual president (Kazav) had to take a coerced voluntary leave pending decision whether to charge him with rape (he was, since then, charged and convicted, now waiting his appeal that, if rejected, will mean service a sentence of 5 years in prison), and the first replacement, head of parliament, was off abroad or similarly unavailable.

      Of course, I can understand your confidence in this criteria not being met. After all, minority religion head of states are so common all over the world, that obviously this should be the criteria for non-discriminating state.

      Shachar

    117. Re:makes sense by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      Man, you need to remove your pink glasses. YOU cannot find in Google. I don't need to, because i did read their laws, and also did read they requirements for becoming an Israel citizen. And a lot of other first hand conversations. Anyway, it is funny how you twist my words, are you by chance some politician!!!

    118. Re:makes sense by Sun · · Score: 1

      It comes far closer to the truth than listening to one side or the other, and it throws partisans for a loop

      Yeah, well, not so much.

      I try to do my share whenever I see such discussions. At least initially, most of my time was spent researching claims made by the pro-Palestinian side. I decided that while I will defend Israel wherever I can, I will not lie and will not try to put a pretty face on things that are not pretty.

      As such, I can tell you that automatically believing everything that pro-Palestinian side says is a bad policy. They are not hesitating to blow out of proportion, misrepresent, lie, and in some cases downright stage, anti-Israeli propoganda.

      I'm not saying everything the Palestinian supporters is a lie, or even wrong. Some of the things they claim Israel has done are true. Some of them I disagree with, while others I think were a sad necessity of the time. These, however, tend to drown in a sea of irrelevant, backward, circular logic babble.

      The Israeli side, and I will restrict myself to the official one (hot headed "advocates" that do more damage than good are not an exclusive Palestinian phenomena, unfortunately) tries, for the most part, to speak the truth. There are exceptions, but they are that - exception.

      This is not always easy. When Mohammed a-Dura was shot, the entire scene was staged during an actual shootout between Palestinians and the IDF. A bot caught in the cross-fire and shot dead is not implausible under such circumstances. So the IDF did the decent thing and said that it did happen. Later, investigation showed that it was impossible for this boy to be shot the way he supposedly was under these circumstances. So the IDF offered a retraction. Of course, it is too late by then.

      There were also mistakes in the other direction. A few years ago the IDF showed aerial photos allegedly showing Palestinian loading rockets into a UNRA vehicle. UNRA responded that these were stretchers. The IDF did another analysis of the photos, and came out with a statement that it could not rule out that these were, indeed, stretchers.

      On the Palestinian side, such things never happen. EVERYTHING is Israel's fault. Hammas had a misfire during a military parade. Israel was blamed, despite no IDF aircraft being seen in the vicinity. They got to the point where an AlJaseera interviewer practically laughed at the face of a Hammas spokesman. Hammas reaction - they were disappointed that AlJaseera was promoting anti-Hammas news. They got so used to the Arab stations reissuing whatever junk the dump there, that any scent of actual journalism was considered treason.

      So, no, your supposedly fair policy isn't fair, and wouldn't throw off, at least me, personally, for a second. My usual answer to discussions of Israeli war crimes is "if it's allowed by the Geneva convention, and actively done by any country at war in even remotely similar conditions, how is it a crime?"

      Shachar

    119. Re:makes sense by Sun · · Score: 1

      Israel is a nation state. Much like England, Italy, Romania and almost all the rest of the world. In fact, it is easier to count the countries that are not nation states. France is one. Most claim the USA is another, but I've seen others claim that the USA used to be one, but since developed a nation called "American". There are also bi-national countries and multi-national countries. They are, generally, in trouble keeping their coherency. It can be mild cultural clashes, such as Canada, or violent civilian wars, like Lebanon.

      In a nation state, that nation is recognized in some way. If done properly, the only place you will find this recognition are the symbols (such as the flag - a cross on Switzerland's, Arabic and a sword on Saudia Arabia's, and the David star on Israel's, the hymn, and the declarations), and the immigration laws (if you know French, it is easier for you to become a citizen in Canada, and so on).

      Israel is a Jewish state. Its charter, as is being implemented in its immigration laws, is to provide a safe haven for every Jew in the world that needs it. Many claim that this is proof that it is racist, but that does not live up to scrutiny once compared with all the other nation states in the world. Once a citizen, the law does not, generally, distinguish between which nation and what religion you are. Where distinctions do happen, they are there to adapt to reality, and are almost exclusively favoring the minorities. For example, Arabs (as well as some other minority groups) are exempt from mandatory army service.

      To summarize - Israel is a Jewish state. This does not mean it oppresses in the name of religion, but does mean that some of the criticism it receives is due to antisemitism.

      Shachar

    120. Re:makes sense by anyGould · · Score: 1

      Agreed that Stallman made the right call (I'm presuming that he doesn't feel like paying for his own trip).

      Sadly, the whole exchange reminds of the two kids in the playground trying to make everyone else pick a side - "you're with us or against us" crap.

    121. Re:makes sense by anyGould · · Score: 1

      It means that even Stallman can be bought.

      Only if you really try to twist the meaning.

      Let's move the setting - say the University of Alberta (in Edmonton) was the one paying the trip. Stallman decides, hey, I'm in Canada - I'm going to drive down the highway to U Calgary while I'm here and do a few speeches there as well.

      Calgary is happy with this - they get Stallman without having to pay to get him there. U of A is a little miffed - they're paying all the bills, but they're losing out on value. They call up Stallman and say "hey, we're not really thrilled with paying for you to come and give speeches to our rival school as well - if we're paying the bill, we don't want you going there".

      What do you do?

      (In either case, I don't think you can peg this on Stallman - if anything, he's in a better place now because he's not trying to get extra cash on PA's dime.)

    122. Re:makes sense by bstender · · Score: 1

      Nice racist troll anonymous. Plying the old Jewish notion that Palestinians are actually sub-human which helps to excuse the ongoing campaign of oppression to the world, (and to themselves).

      The real difficulty is that the Palestinians are prevented from fashioning a functioning economy by their oppressors.

      --
      look sig is kool
    123. Re:makes sense by bstender · · Score: 1

      Jeez the defense of Israel requires some tortured logic doesn't it?

      Boycotting Israel is a definite political statement and more and more artists are making that statement loud and clear.

      --
      look sig is kool
    124. Re:makes sense by Sun · · Score: 1

      Most artists canceling shows in Israel quote "not wanting to make a political statement" as the reason. Those artists that make statement about boycotting Israel don't schedule appearances there to begin with.

      Which means exactly what I said before - artists are told that appearing in Israel is making a political statement (which it isn't), and are thus suckered into canceling their appearance (which, ironically, is making exactly the sort of political statement they were trying to avoid making).

      Shachar

    125. Re:makes sense by bjourne · · Score: 1

      That's called damage control propaganda. Think for yourself for a second. The victim is found frightened, bruised and laying in a puddle of blood but authorities fail to prosecute the perpetrator for aggravated rape and has to settle for a plea bargain of "rape by deception". That's a story for the fanatics who refuse to take of their blind folds to believe in. It doesn't take away from the fact that the verdict was racist, and that the court made it a crime to omit to mention your non-jewish ethnicity when having sex with jewish women in Israel.

    126. Re:makes sense by bstender · · Score: 1

      Whether they avoid the grandstanding or not, obviously they're choosing which side of history to be on but more likely attempting to avoid as much of the noise and blackballing from the colonialist gangsters as possible than your explanation for everything; "they're just ignorant". and it also allows some space for those Jewish fans out there who don't necessarily want to talk about the horror.

      and appearing in Israel IS a political statement at this point. Boycott is the best weapon civil society has to help end this tragic situation. any interaction with Israel as a normal state is an act of support.

      --
      look sig is kool
    127. Re:makes sense by Sun · · Score: 1

      Spoken like a true advocate of collective punishment.

      Shachar

    128. Re:makes sense by Risen888 · · Score: 1

      A singer performing in New York does not mean the singer supports the USA's aggressive intellectual property foreign policy. Yet, for some reason, a singer appearing in Tel-Aviv is told that this will be interpreted as supporting the occupation.

      And it's not a very difficult reason to discern, if you were willing to try. France does not base its entire regional and international policy around its stance toward Muslim garb. The United States isn't shooting people in the streets over patents.

      --
      Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
    129. Re:makes sense by Sun · · Score: 1

      You are proving my point. Your entire view of Israel is through the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You are not able to see anything which is Israeli which is unrelated to it. Even if you were right that Israel's actions are bad (a point which, as I said elsewhere in this thread, is far from being uncontested), this is not ALL that Israel is doing. Israel is not only its foreign policy or its military. Just like France or the USA are more complicated than a single agenda which might bother us about it. A singer appearing in Israel is nothing more than that - a singer on an international tour, unless they decide to make it more by making some statement in some way.

      In essence, what you are advocating here is collective punishment. In your eyes, Israel is doing something bad, and therefor all Israelis must suffer the consequences.

      Shachar

    130. Re:makes sense by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Two countries? Two peoples, yes, but whether one of the countries really exists is questionable, considering it's been occupied by the other for quite some time now (with much of it being annexed completely), and most of its day to day life exists mostly at the mercy of the other.

    131. Re:makes sense by Xest · · Score: 1

      "Exactly. Is it a dick move by the Palestinians? Absolutely. But it really is their right, after all, they are paying for his trip and they can put whatever conditions on it they'd like."

      Yes, sadly it's also indicative of why there are so many problems in the region and it's sad that even academia have fallen into the trap of pursuing such a vicious circle.

      My view? the sensible option would've been to split the cost with the Israeli universities, cheaper for everyone, and everyone benefits, academic benefits as a whole, but god forbid there be any cooperation.

      Palestinians, Israelis, they're both as bad as each other and frankly deserve each other. They bring it upon themselves, and academia of all places should recognise the importance of building bridges and this is precisely the type of scenario where such a thing, no matter how small, could have been done.

    132. Re:makes sense by bstender · · Score: 1

      You like to pose in the lofty chair of an impartial judge, but your corruption is clear. The irony of condemning boycott on the grounds of it being collective punishment is simply a moral dilemma, not unlike the dilemma of whether to kill the madman who is unloading his automatic weapon at the mall. ie. killing a person to stop them from killing people. The sad thing is that this analogy also points out that boycott is much too tame a measure for the mad dog that calls itself "Israel".

      --
      look sig is kool
    133. Re:makes sense by Risen888 · · Score: 1

      You are proving my point. Your entire view of Israel is through the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You are not able to see anything which is Israeli which is unrelated to it.

      That's right. They're shooting people in the streets. I couldn't care less about what else they're doing.

      Israel is not only its foreign policy or its military.

      Like hell. Israel lives and dies by the occupation. It is central to their very way of life. Bulldozing people's houses, taking over their land, and shooting their kids in the street is their main deal.

      Just like France or the USA are more complicated than a single agenda which might bother us about it.

      You are comparing apples and Honda Civics. Is France bulldozing the houses of women who wear the veil? If you wanted to make a comparison to, say, the United States' continuing occupation of Afghanistan, that'd be a lot more valid. And likewise, there are a lot of people around the world who do see the US in terms of our foreign policy. And as much as I'd love to, I can't call that invalid.

      But talking about veils and patents and trying to compare that in some meaningful way to a domestic and regional policy based on land theft and murder is ridiculous.

      In essence, what you are advocating here is collective punishment.

      Two responses to that.

      1. I never advocated anything. I explained why people would see certain actions through a certain light.
      2. How in the fuck can you use the phrase "collective punishment" in a conversation about the Palestinian occupation without just collapsing in self ridicule?

      --
      Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
    134. Re:makes sense by Risen888 · · Score: 1

      Well, that sounds like a test that will flag all criticism of Israel's occupation policy as anti-Semetic, which I can only assume it was designed to do.

      The first “D” is the test of demonization. When the Jewish state is being demonized; when Israel’s actions are blown out of all sensible proportion; when comparisons are made between Israelis and Nazis and between Palestinian refugee camps and Auschwitz – this is anti- Semitism, not legitimate criticism of Israel.

      Well, at least we got Godwin out of the way.

      The second “D” is the test of double standards. When criticism of Israel is applied selectively; when Israel is singled out by the United Nations for human rights abuses while the behavior of known and major abusers, such as China, Iran, Cuba, and Syria, is ignored; when Israel’s Magen David Adom, alone among the world’s ambulance services, is denied admission to the International Red Cross – this is anti-Semitism.

      Cuba? Cuba?! That well known bloodthirsty occupier Cuba?! WTF. Of course I'm more "selective" than that. That's fucking stupid.

      The third “D” is the test of delegitimization: when Israel’s fundamental right to exist is denied – alone among all peoples in the world – this too is anti-Semitism.

      Why on earth a made-up state should have some sort of "right to exist" on land that someone else was just living on a minute ago is completely beyond me. In the modern world, there has never been a state of Israel until the victorious powers of World War II spun it out of whole cloth and gave them other people's land. Of course they have no right to exist.

      --
      Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
    135. Re:makes sense by Sun · · Score: 1

      What I see is someone who is so fond of taking the moral high ground, that you do not seem to care whether your views were formed by incomplete cooked information, and yet so sure of them that you are willing to condemn a whole nation. Since nothing I'm going say will even make you reconsider the facts you throw around so easily, I think we can close the discussion here.

      Enjoy your moral purity.

      Shachar

    136. Re:makes sense by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      There was compromise to his freedom -- compromise to give another talk he wanted to give.

    137. Re:makes sense by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Calgary is happy with this - they get Stallman without having to pay to get him there. U of A is a little miffed - they're paying all the bills, but they're losing out on value. They call up Stallman and say "hey, we're not really thrilled with paying for you to come and give speeches to our rival school as well - if we're paying the bill, we don't want you going there".

      I don't think I'm really twisting anything. If he agreed to this theoretical case, then they would be buying him in the exact same way.

      As long as U of A isn't paying *anything* extra whatsoever if he's doing the other talk, I think it's fine. Would it be best if both schools cooperated and split the costs? Yeah, but as I said originally, I think this would just be more efficient use of the travel time.

    138. Re:makes sense by anyGould · · Score: 1

      Calgary is happy with this - they get Stallman without having to pay to get him there. U of A is a little miffed - they're paying all the bills, but they're losing out on value. They call up Stallman and say "hey, we're not really thrilled with paying for you to come and give speeches to our rival school as well - if we're paying the bill, we don't want you going there".

      I don't think I'm really twisting anything. If he agreed to this theoretical case, then they would be buying him in the exact same way.

      As long as U of A isn't paying *anything* extra whatsoever if he's doing the other talk, I think it's fine. Would it be best if both schools cooperated and split the costs? Yeah, but as I said originally, I think this would just be more efficient use of the travel time.

      I think the issue is of competition - if I'm paying for Famous Person A to come over and speak, I would be less than thrilled if a rival institution gets him without paying all those costs.

    139. Re:makes sense by Risen888 · · Score: 1

      What I see is someone who is so fond of taking the moral high ground, that you do not seem to care whether your views were formed by incomplete cooked information

      Hey, way to punt and reply to nothing I said. Well done.

      yet so sure of them that you are willing to condemn a whole nation

      Could you cite where I did that? Kthx. This "If you're against Israeli occupation, you're a Jew-hater" schtick is tired as hell.

      --
      Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
    140. Re:makes sense by Sun · · Score: 1

      Hey, way to punt and reply to nothing I said. Well done.

      In your reply you confirmed what I accused you of doing (judging Israel by this one criteria, and nothing else), and called it justified because of various claimed atrocities. Since you confirmed my claim, there is nothing to reply to on that front. I did point out that your alleged atrocities are based on misinformation and propaganda, but that I doubted that you were willing to open your presuppositions to discussions, so I will (in retrospect, only try to) step away from the discussion.

      Could you cite where I did that? Kthx.

      A fair request (and the only reason I did reply). You claim Israel do various atrocities, and yet you claim Israelis should not receive certain type of visitors. When I point out that this is collective punishment, you respond:

      I couldn't care less about what else they're doing.

      Israel lives and dies by the occupation. It is central to their very way of life.

      Hope that is enough references.

      This "If you're against Israeli occupation, you're a Jew-hater" schtick is tired as hell.

      I never accused you of hating Jews (to use your own words - please cite references). I accused you of being misinformed and of having been fed from propaganda. You, however, hear this accusation, despite it never been made. The most likely explanation, were I to guess, is that it is easier to call me paranoid than to face my accusations on their merit. In other words (again, yours), you are punting. Well done :-).

      If you wish to re-check your presuppositions, please feel free to contact me via email. I think this public forum has run its course, and we are so off topic (which was, may I remind you, that RMS is willing to accept proprietary license type restrictions on his travels) that this is really getting redundant. If not, have a good life.

      Shachar

    141. Re:makes sense by Risen888 · · Score: 1

      A fair request (and the only reason I did reply). You claim Israel do various atrocities, and yet you claim Israelis should not receive certain type of visitors. When I point out that this is collective punishment, you respond [snip]

      At no time did I forward any opinion on whether "Israelis should...receive certain types of visitors." You may be confusing me with a poster further up the chain.

      If you wish to re-check your presuppositions, please feel free to contact me via email. I think this public forum has run its course, and we are so off topic (which was, may I remind you, that RMS is willing to accept proprietary license type restrictions on his travels)

      I certainly don't see it like that. As the saying goes, "Your dime, your time." Of course whoever is paying RMS's way to the middle east should have some say over what he does with their money. If an Israeli organization wanted to pay for RMS to come speak there and he refused, then I would certainly look at that differently.

      FTR, I do apologize for getting kinda heated here. It's a charged topic, and the environment of Slashdot really encourages shit getting out of hand. I mean, I stand by what I said, but that's no reason for me to be a dick. If your posted email address is correct, I would welcome further dialog.

      --
      Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
    142. Re:makes sense by Swamii · · Score: 1

      Your last paragraph shows your true colors; you believe Israel has no right to exist and is a "made-up" state. That's anti-Semitism.

      If you doubt this is anti-Semitism, step back for a moment and ask yourself this: do you apply that standard to any other nation? Do you deny any other nation in the world the right to exist?

      If you don't, you're singling out the Jews: anti-Semitism.

      --
      Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
    143. Re:makes sense by Sun · · Score: 1

      (which was, may I remind you, that RMS is willing to accept proprietary license type restrictions on his travels)

      I certainly don't see it like that. As the saying goes, "Your dime, your time."

      The question is not whether the Palestinian had a practical right to put up that demand, just like the question was never whether proprietary software had the practical right not to release their source code. The question was whether they have the moral right to, and more to the point, whether, given the demand was made, whether RMS should have still accepted those terms, rather than say "no thank you".

      Whatever your stance on either the software freedom question or the Palestinian academic boycott questions is, RMS made it abundantly clear what his position on the software terms question is - no one should accept such terms. And yet, when it comes to the academic boycott question, not only is he not opposed to it (and I am perfectly willing to accept that people have to choose their battles), he is giving in to it.

      Read the Israeli organizer's account of things. When he thought he was coming, he made sure that no one was mentioning Linux without prefixing GNU to it, and no one was talking about any proprietary software anywhere in the same gathering. He asks, and because he's a popular speaker, also receives, inordinate amount of control over the entire trip, and if any of his conditions are not met, he'd cancel in a heartbeat. And yet, those conditions he accepts. I think the article is right to question his purity of heart.

      If your posted email address is correct, I would welcome further dialog.

      My posted email is correct. I am looking forward to your correspondence. Please clearly mark the subject with the word "Slashdot" so I can catch it if my spam filter mistreats it.

      Shachar

    144. Re:makes sense by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      The west bank is littered with people intent to jihad and fling missiles into the heart of israel. Are you truly surprised that they are actively using military force to prevent this? Would you rather they say "please, taliban and PLO, send missiles into jerusalem/tel aviv"?

      To focus on this as "military occupation" is to belie the scenario there. While israel is not innocent in their strategies, to point a finger at them is the wrong group to focus on here.

  2. So cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Can't he buy himself plane tickets?

    1. Re:So cheap by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What are you talking about, it's RMS, I am even surprised he takes a plane at all unless it's Free (and also free).

    2. Re:So cheap by Joe+Jay+Bee · · Score: 3, Funny

      Something about transportation wants to be free.

    3. Re:So cheap by ArAgost · · Score: 2

      Why should he? It's not like he's going there on vacation.

    4. Re:So cheap by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Surprises me too, flying on a plane designed in CATIA, running closed, custom flight software.

      Still, if he wants to get there on time it's probably better than compiling your own plane and realising that your engines are missing the libenginepylon dependency.

    5. Re:So cheap by exomondo · · Score: 1

      it's probably better than compiling your own plane

      i LOL'd

    6. Re:So cheap by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, RMS doesn't have much money. He's not very greedy, you know. BTW, it is completely usual in academia to buy an economy class ticket and pay for accommodation for keynote speakers.

      However, the reaction of the Palestinians is quite asshole-like and very unusual and unprofessional. I hope that RMS will address this issue in his speech there.

  3. Ahh .. the elephant in the room of free speech by OzPeter · · Score: 1

    Someone has to pay for the beer.

    I'll give props to RMS in this case.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:Ahh .. the elephant in the room of free speech by VortexCortex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The "Free" in "Free software" stands for freedom, not cost; RMS has been very clear on this point, but he also seems to be ignorant of the fact that the best beer is also Free as in Freedom. IMHO, the saying should be "Free as in Freedom not Free as in promotional".

      It would be best to get the message out as broadly as possible, in this case RMS is taking what he can get to give as best he can. Better to speak to some than to none.

      I make Free Software. I also make Free Beer. At the local brewers club we exchange our carefully recorded recipes for different brews. We bring free samples of our fee free beer, and we share it Freely with anyone in attendance, both in bottle and in recipe. We have a great time "tasting" different brews: Some do wind up in the swill bucket, while other brews are favored, and their recipes are copied and reproduced again later by those who favor the beer. We make improvements and offer suggestions; Some of my brews have come back to me after being improved and I've had better beer, and better friends, because of it.

      It does cost us to make the beer, much like it costs us to make the software, or to make the speeches -- I think it's only fair trade that we receive reimbursement for our labors. In RMS's case: In exchange for speeches about Software Freedoms he accepts money and/or travel expenses. In the case of our brew club I exchange my beer for theirs; For friends and neighbors I exchange free beer for camaraderie and the occasional tool loan.

      "Free as in Beer" means something very much like "Free as in Freedom" to a home brewer like myself.

    2. Re:Ahh .. the elephant in the room of free speech by klapaucjusz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'll give props to RMS in this case.

      So now he's set the precedent that when you pay for RMS' trip, you're entitled to dictate what he does in his free time. Smart move.

    3. Re:Ahh .. the elephant in the room of free speech by twidarkling · · Score: 1

      But the entire point of the saying is to change people's perception as to the meaning of the word "Free." So why would they pick something that's still possible to cause confusion over, because I've never seen "free as in $0" beer. If anything, they should have picked "Free as in air" or something similar that you don't actually have to pay for ever, rather than relying on the kindness of others to give up something.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    4. Re:Ahh .. the elephant in the room of free speech by dvice_null · · Score: 2

      > "Free as in air" or something similar that you don't actually have to pay for ever

      Canned air, $20:
      http://www.nextag.com/canned-air/products-html

    5. Re:Ahh .. the elephant in the room of free speech by quenda · · Score: 1

      But beer is not free-as-in-freedom either in Palestine. Unless you mean alcohol-free beer. Or find a Christian village.

    6. Re:Ahh .. the elephant in the room of free speech by Unipuma · · Score: 1

      Well, lets put this in an example that would also apply to the average person:

      You live on mainland North America and have a wedding in Hawaii. You hire a band, and pay for their airfare and hotel for two nights to come over and play there.
      I think you would be pissed off if they used the trip you payed for to get an adjoining gig on the island.

      You wouldn't mind if they used their free time to see a bit of the island, but you'd be annoyed if they used it for commercial purposes.

    7. Re:Ahh .. the elephant in the room of free speech by anyGould · · Score: 1

      I think you would be pissed off if they used the trip you payed for to get an adjoining gig on the island.

      And just to be clear, that they're doing another wedding gig for that couple you can't stand that lives across the street.

    8. Re:Ahh .. the elephant in the room of free speech by Risen888 · · Score: 1

      If he's getting a paid flight to the middle east to give paid talks, it's not free time. It's work time. If the Israelis want to pay him to give talks, then they can have some of his work time too.

      --
      Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
  4. What a mess. by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think in that situation, I'd be inclined to say "a plague on both your houses", and go to Brazil.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:What a mess. by Bloodwine77 · · Score: 2, Funny

      His neckbeard feels more at home in the middle east

    2. Re:What a mess. by Mana+Mana · · Score: 1

      > I'd be inclined to say "a plague on both your houses"

      aaaa!bullshit! Apparently you need Letitia Baldrige to reacquaint you with the maxim, don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

  5. It's Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Stallman expects the rest of us to live some live of software purity, never compromising on closed software, despite the fact that we often do so for pragmatic reasons like getting paid, getting the job done etc. Yet here is he, quite prepared to give into bullying terms when it suits him.

    1. Re:It's Ironic by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Stallman expects the rest of us to live some live of software purity

      I am not so sure about that one:

      http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware

      in particular,

      We don't insist that users of GNU, or contributors to GNU, have to live by this rule. It is a rule we made for ourselves. But we hope you will follow it too, for your freedom's sake.

      Yes, he hopes that other people will follow in his organization's footsteps, but it is not something he insists on. Elsewhere on the GNU and FSF websites, I have seen remarks that indicate an understanding that some people may not have a choice in using proprietary software. Yes, RMS campaigns for a further expansion of free software use, and tries to make people aware of what they are forfeiting when they agree to proprietary software licenses, but that does not mean that he insists that everyone agree with him or that he has no concept that people may be forced to use proprietary software.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:It's Ironic by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 3, Insightful

      despite the fact that we often do so for pragmatic reasons like getting paid

      +1

      How does Stallman pay his bills, anyway? AFAIK, MIT doesn't pay him. Is it all from paid speaking gigs? BTW, Speeches Want To Be Free.

    3. Re:It's Ironic by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1, Troll

      He saves a lot of money by not buying soap, shampoo, or shaving supplies.

    4. Re:It's Ironic by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The first question you need to ask is, "What are Stallman's bills?" The man does not have a permanent residence, as far as I know, and his travel expenses are paid for by the people who invite him to come speak. For the most part, it appears that the only things he would have to pay for in life are food and clothing, and even then it is likely that other people cover that for him. Essentially, he appears to be living the same lifestyle as Socrates.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    5. Re:It's Ironic by roman_mir · · Score: 5, Informative

      RMS is not all of GNU, so here is his personal thoughts on the matter

      Richard Stallman: What about them? The programmers writing non-free software? They are doing something antisocial. They should get some other job.

      Any more questions?

    6. Re:It's Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's a politician's statement. Designed for least controversy. Senators do that all the time. What really matters is RMS's consistent behavior, not some sanitized webpage written by him. And IMO his actions show a very different opinion.

    7. Re:It's Ironic by roman_mir · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Also from the same source you can figure out that the man is totally ignorant of the way economy functions, of what the sound monetary and economic policy should be (free market capitalism):

      JA: You mean what if all the programming jobs were outsourced to foreign countries?

      Richard Stallman: Yes, what if they all go? This may actually happen. When you start thinking about things like total levels of employment, you've got think about all the factors that affect it, not blame it all on one factor. The cause of unemployment is not someone or society deciding that software should be free. The cause of the problem is largely economic policies designed to benefit only the rich. Such as driving wages down.

      - clearly RMS is a Marxist in his overall thinking, but MAYBE he can actually learn something about this topic if he only had an opportunity to, but he never had that opportunity.

      'Driving down wages' is not a goal in itself. Wages are often not the most significant cost to the business. The most significant cost is corporate and payroll and medical and other taxes and various governmental regulations, that are normally designed to reduce and destroy competition and to provide the politicians with a large chunk of the monopoly money.

      As to 'driving down wages' - I will argue that it is part of the thinking for a business, but in absence of government destroying free market, this part of the thinking would be very constraint, as competition would be very high without government involvement and without inflation that government causes by printing money. The companies would not get as large as they get when there is a government around, that is willing and insisting in participating in the business via various schemes - taxes, subsidies, regulations, etc. Also while wages may be going down in more developed countries if businesses move out of them, they increase in less developed countries, where businesses enter the economy and start producing and hiring there. But to be able to benefit from such a move, the business needs to have some economy of scale and very good protection against competition in the former place of business, which comes from good ties with the government, who wants the control over the business and cash flow.

      You know, it's no coincidence that we're having all this outsourcing. That was carefully planned. International treaties were designed to make this happen so that people's wages would be reduced.

      - again, this was done because the government is large and distorts the economic forces in the first place. The large corporations that benefit from the treaties certainly get various help from many governments of the world, who control their competition, reduce their taxes, making them very difficult to compete with, while raising regulations, which affects the starting businesses dis-proportionately, because they do not have such economies of scale and cannot really afford 10 more compliance officers in the company.

      JA: Can you cite specific examples?

      Richard Stallman: FTAA. The World Trade Organization. NAFTA. These treaties are designed to reduce wages by making it easy for a company to say to various countries, "which of you will let us pay people the least? That's were we're headed." And if any country starts having a somewhat increased standard of living, companies say "oh, this is a bad labor climate here. You're not making a good climate for business. All the business is going to go away. You better make sure that people get paid less. You're following a foolish policy arranging for workers of your country to be paid more. You've got to make sure that your workers are the lowest paid anywhere in the world, then we'll come back. Otherwise we're all going to run away and punish you."

      - the problem with RMS, is that he sees the government as the force, that MUST be in business of setting economic and

    8. Re:It's Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Eventually socialistic/Marxist type government crashes the economy by overconsumption and by not letting the market to restructure (like the 1939 and 2000 and 2008 bail outs have clearly shown in USA).

      I always think it's funny when people claim that the bailouts were somehow "socialist" - letting the tax-payer pay for the mistakes of big business by cutting support for the poor and privatizing public services and goods is probably one of the most un-socialist things I can think of.

    9. Re:It's Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wow. Pretty selective quoting there. Maybe I can improve on it.

      JA: What about the programmers...

      Richard Stallman: What about them? The programmers writing non-free software? They are doing something antisocial. They should get some other job.

      JA: Such as?

      Richard Stallman: There are thousands of different jobs people can have in society without developing non-free software. You can even be a programmer. Most paid programmers are developing custom software--only a small fraction are developing non-free software. The small fraction of proprietary software jobs are not hard to avoid.

      JA: What is the distinction there?

      Richard Stallman: Non-free software is meant to be distributed to the public. Custom software is meant to be used by one client. There's no ethical problem with custom software as long as you're respecting your client's freedom.

      The next point is that programmers are a tiny fraction of employment in the computer field. Suppose somebody developed an AI and no programmers were needed anymore. Would this be a disaster? Would all the people who are now programmers be doomed to unemployment for the rest of their lives? Obviously not, but this doesn't stop people from exaggerating the issue.

    10. Re:It's Ironic by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I provided the link, I provided the sentence, nothing selective about it.

      The quote concerns proprietary software, not custom software, he does make the distinction.

    11. Re:It's Ironic by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      I said socialistic/Marxist government crashes the economy, and then it starts pumping money into it trying to push prices up for things that failed and that must die (so the market says - it must die.)

      As to whether the act of pumping the money into failing businesses and asset bubbles is socialist/Marxist or no, I am not making that judgment, but what leads to the problem in the first place is socialistic/Marxist government.

      Now, whether US government was or is Marxist - no. However it is socialistic in the sense, that it figured out that it can do whatever it wants if it prints money and taxes income to buy votes, and buying votes from the mob is the most socialistic thing.

    12. Re:It's Ironic by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      I feel the same way about telemarketers and U-verse salesmen. It's easy enough to move the bar.

      Although I would save my ire for those coders that know they are helping trap people and destroy the free market. Tools built on open protocols and formats are not nearly as despicable as software that's specifically designed to take away my right to avoid it.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    13. Re:It's Ironic by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      what takes away your right to avoid software? I don't understand what you are saying.

    14. Re:It's Ironic by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      cast him as a villain rather than addressing his arguments?

      - go away, AC.

      In either case, where in my comment am I casting him as a 'villain'? He is misguided, but he is not a villain.

    15. Re:It's Ironic by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      and your point is?

      RMS believes proprietary software programmers need to find other jobs, which is what I pointed out, but he does not have a problem with programmers building custom software, which was not the question. Why don't you post under your /. nick?

    16. Re:It's Ironic by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      You may want to wake up and see the absolute truth in the post you criticize.
      The wolf cry of anti-semitism has been made far too aften, no one really believes it any more but Israelis and thier sycophant supporters.

    17. Re:It's Ironic by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      No food costs necessary. He seems to be happy eating toe cheese.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    18. Re:It's Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The book No Logo explains that the Philippines have laws that protect labor standards, but these laws count for nothing any more. They decided to set up "enterprise zones" - that's the euphemism they used for "sweat shop zones" - where companies are exempt from these rules for the first two years. And as a result, no company lasts for more than two years. When their exemption runs out, the owners shut it down and they start another.

      - that's sound business but also a way for government officials to get good bribes.

      This is the kind of world you're arguing for and you think RMS is nuts? You are not rational.

      Furthmore, if disagreeing with the radical viewpoint that the 40 hour work week, child labor laws, safety standards, and all other workers' rights gains made in the last few hundred years should be thrown out because they are a strangling burden on honest corporations qualifies someone as stupid, I imagine you must encounter a lot of stupid people. The problem is on your end.

    19. Re:It's Ironic by roman_mir · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Another AC?

      Maybe you want to log in and make the points again, I am not going to fight windmills here.

    20. Re:It's Ironic by waives · · Score: 1

      I provided the link, I provided the sentence, nothing selective about it.

      The quote concerns proprietary software, not custom software, he does make the distinction.

      maybe not selective, but still pretty douchey of you.

    21. Re:It's Ironic by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      Can he sell recordings of his paid speeches, or must those be made available for free?

    22. Re:It's Ironic by protektor · · Score: 1

      It is very much a socialist type response. The idea that a business is too big to fail and therefore must be bailed out is by the very fact of messing with the free market system and saying that the government knows better than the free market and even better than the public or the company owners, so it must take action. There is absolutely no such thing as a company that is too big fail. The idea that the government needs to prop-up or take control of a company is at the heart of it, socialism. It is saying everyone needs this and it doesn't matter that they screwed up and put themselves out of business we are going to step into the market place and not allow it to self correct, but instead we are going to make everyone pay for this for the good of everyone. The reality is that it is better for the company to fail and allow either another market force to take its place or another company to step in and take their place that is better run and more reactive to the market and their customers. The second the government steps in and says they know better than the marketplace and better than the buying public, who spends their hard earned cash, is the moment the government begins the march toward socialism.

      Free Markets absolutely work and they work extremely well. They absolutely punish the crap companies and reward the inventive and companies who are proactive to market changes. The problem is the US does not have free markets. The government is involved in every market to create artificial barriers to entry. Every time the government regulates a market, they screw with the free market and create artificial barriers to enter the market. You want good competition to drive prices down to allow consumers to be able to buy more with their dollars then you must remove artificial barriers. That does not mean allow companies to make and sell unsafe products that the public has no idea they are unsafe. The free market is about allowing consumers to make informed choices. The most common example of this is the Ford Pinto. The question/problem isn't that Ford didn't spend another $15 for a different gas tank to stop rear-end accidents causing fires. The problem is that Ford did not fully disclose all the risks of their product allowing consumers to be fully informed and to choose what level of risk they are comfortable with and at what price. If I make a toaster that only works 40% of the time and disclose that and sell it for $5, then I should absolutely have the right to sell such a product and if you think the risks (not working all the time) at that given price is worth it to you, then you should be able to buy it as well. If the marketplace thinks that sucks and no one buys then I go out of business, just like I should. That is the free market, the consumer decides what fails and what lives in the marketplace, not the government or anyone else. If your business model doesn't allow you to react to the changes in the market and consumer's buying habits that change, well then that company absolutely should go out of business no matter it's size or how many people it employs. The government absolutely can not be in the business of propping up failed business models, nor can the government be using the courts and legal system to freeze the hands of time and allow companies to operate without taking into account the market and public's changes. Perfect example of this is copyright holders. Consumer's want to buy entertainment online so they can buy whatever they want, whenever they want. If entertainment companies can't adjust to this change in the market then they absolutely should go out of business and the government should not step in and try to turn back the time of the marketplace to something in the past, just because a company made more money 5-10 years ago compared to now. Companies either give consumers what they want at a fair price or they go out of business and that is exactly the way it should be. Banks make stupid loans, they absolutely should go out of business for being stupid with their money. Banks sell mor

    23. Re:It's Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Don't pretend to be objective about the economy when you are pushing for a completely bankrupt model (that is the laissez faire capitalism you worship). As for the supposed marxism in RMSs statements you should RTFM. RMS clearly says that he is not for abolishing corporations. What sort of marxism would support that? Oh and don't come back and say that the Soviet Union did this or that, the SU model was a bureaucratic state capitalist model with central planning. Its very sad to see so many discussions in /. talking about all the latest facts and then seeing commenters ranting about marxism using 1950s propaganda as a source.

    24. Re:It's Ironic by thebigbadme · · Score: 2

      dude, you're missing the point of pro-labor laws. Higher wages shouldn't make things cost more, they should make anyone not directly providing the work have less profit. Of course, under a pro-capitalist economic system, this isn't what happens.

      A person may be free to not have a job with a low wage, but really that can become a life-or-death choice, and thus really isn't a choice.

      "Free markets" only provide freedom to the people who control the means of production, not freedom for the people who actually provide the labor of production.

      --
      "It's the Law of the Universe, and I'm the sheriff." Slash-cott 2/10-2/17
    25. Re:It's Ironic by peppepz · · Score: 1
      RMS is probably ignorant of the way economy functions, but you're definitely ignorant about the meaning of the word "marxism".

      Low wages are a good thing? Good luck having your cancer cured when you earn $600 per month.

      Freedom needs to be universal? Good luck making lower prices than your overseas competitors when they have the freedom to kill their employees and you haven't.

      Rights need to be universal (and they have a price). Under that condition, we can have fair competition.

    26. Re:It's Ironic by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      What is it that you don't like? The link? The quote? Or is it the message?

      Elaborate.

    27. Re:It's Ironic by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Good luck having your cancer cured when you earn $600 per month.

      - pre-1965 USA health care was cheap, as most people paid for most Dr. visits out of pocket, it was maybe 5 bucks a trip.

      At the same time the insurance cost was very low and private companies had more business than Blue Shield/Cross by the choice of the customers, as a family of 4 could have yearly insurance for $25/year, with $500 deductible, covering up to $50K/year in costs, while at the same time, the most expensive yearly cancer treatments, with full hospitalization was $20K/year.

      So if a person lived at the time, had that insurance and got cancer, he'd have to pay 500 deductible, which was less than your proposed 600/month, and then he'd be able to have the most expensive year of treatment, and there was enough money left for another 1.5 treatments of the same type.

      Low wages are an excellent thing, provided that the government is not inflating money supply (printing), not borrowing and not taxing income, not regulating businesses, which forces businesses to compete for your money and without gov't inflation, the prices go down and your money buy more, which was what USA had in 19 century - deflation in money supply relative to the population, growth of the dollar by x2 and decreasing prices year to year, while USA was becoming the manufacturing powerhouse of the world and inventing new things, innovating, increasing efficiencies, all thanks to the government staying AWAY from the economy.

      --
      As to 'rights' being 'universal' - what is that all about?

    28. Re:It's Ironic by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Higher wages shouldn't make things cost more, they should make anyone not directly providing the work have less profit.

      - no, what the laws are for is to give the majority of the voters reason to elect those, who push these laws forward.

      When you have government involved in business, it's all about money and votes for the politicians, and it's easy to be popular when you advocate taking profit from those greedy rich bastards, running the business, and give it to those hardworking, honorable workers.

      However for those very workers, voting this way is about short term profit and not about long terms sustainability of the business. Maybe you noticed that in USA there are almost no trade unions left in private businesses (if there are at all today), but the only place where the unions are thriving is the government? That's because the unions eventually cause the business either to fold, as it cannot compete under those conditions or to move, and then jobs disappear altogether. Government, however, does not need to balance its books. Gov't took the advice of Keynes to the extreme, even he wouldn't be for what passes for his ideology today: run huge deficits during times good and run enormous deficits during times bad. He was for running deficits during times bad but paying debts out during good times. But where are the money in that for politicians? There must be no unions in government, AFAIC, because there is no employer at the table.

      Employer gets the shaft, when the government unions negotiate with politicians - it's basic racket: politicians give unions whatever unions want in exchange for votes. The actual employer - tax payer, gets the bill.

      As I said in previous comment (which will be moderated down to oblivion, they always do that for no reason, other than they don' tlike the message): higher wages are not the main component of the business cost today. Government regulations, taxes, cost of compliance, cost of inflation upon the savings are the main components.

      But you missed my point entirely: absent government destroying the free market, the market pushes prices down and money becomes more valuable, as USA had in 19 century, which started with a dollar that was half the value as by the time the century was over, and prices went down, and businesses thrived even though competition was very high, and innovation and inventions were done privately all the time, improving efficiencies, and eventually causing USA to become the wealthiest country of the world: all without government involvement. Then 1913 came, and became the beginning of the economic and fiscal end for the USA. The crisis of 2008 and today didn't start in the last decade, it started with the invention of IRS, income taxes and Fed - printing money and then letting US Treasury to borrow from the Fed.

      As to profit motive - that's the only motive that improves the economy, it's the only motive that increases efficiency, because people are trying to optimize for their own profit. Why else would they ever do that? They didn't do that in the country I was born in: USSR.

      "Free markets" only provide freedom to the people who control the means of production, not freedom for the people who actually provide the labor of production.

      - ideologically driven nonsense. Free market improves the quality of life for the entire population, creates all the wealth, and the more wealth there is, the cheaper it is (not money - products and services) as markets compete for customers (and not for government help).

      Free market capitalism was the system that took a poor country and made it wealthy, took the farmers and their kids (who worked starting from tender age of 4-5 before the industrial revolution just as well), took women (who were baby factories, not people), took the still existing slaves (who were by the way, government approved form of property) and turned that around:

      children eventually needed more and more specialized education, otherwise t

    29. Re:It's Ironic by peppepz · · Score: 1

      Good luck having your cancer cured when you earn $600 per month.

      - pre-1965 USA health care was cheap,

      I'm too young to remember 1965 - I'm talking about the present time, especially in developing countries which seem to get to do all the manufacturing these days.

      So if a person lived at the time, had that insurance and got cancer, he'd have to pay 500 deductible, which was less than your proposed 600/month, and then he'd be able to have the most expensive year of treatment, and there was enough money left for another 1.5 treatments of the same type.

      And then pay the power, gas, water, telephone bills? Buy food and clothes for the kids? Pay fuel, maintenance and insurance for the cars (assuming no public transportation in this scenario)? Housing? And education for the children?

      As to 'rights' being 'universal' - what is that all about?

      Our industries cannot compete if they have to pay the cost of individual rights which are not recognised overseas.

      For example, the right for labourers not to be fried while working in a factory, which translates to more expensive security systems. Or the right for the population not to fall ill because of living near a factory, which translates to more expensive disposal procedures for noxious waste.

      Can we keep the life style we've got used to if our whole manufacturing industry walks away towards developing countries? In this scenario, what should we base our economy on, tertiary only?

    30. Re:It's Ironic by tchernobog · · Score: 1

      >

      Now, whether US government was or is Marxist - no. However it is socialistic in the sense, that it figured out that it can do whatever it wants if it prints money and taxes income to buy votes, and buying votes from the mob is the most socialistic thing.

      Sorry, I lost you here. I believed socialists countries like Sweden or Norway did not in fact buy votes from the mob; they provide good basic services to all people, such as education, healthcare, etc. What you are referring to is a part of populism and of lobbying, and has nothing to do with the fine socialist tradition we have in North Europe.

      And if you think of socialism in a negative way, see it like this: I got to school for free, to the university for free (because of merit, of course), I get cured for free. I am more than happy to give back more than 50% of my income in taxation, because the services are all there were I to need it, or my family.

      Contrast with the US, what you call "a socialist" country. As far as I know, if you get ill and you don't have insurance it's your damn business. Or look at the sorry state of the education system (I've recently seen a nice movie, "Waiting for superman", on the subject).

      Really, that statement does not make sense, and is offensive to me. You seem to be stuck in the McCarthy-ist era.

      --
      42.
    31. Re:It's Ironic by bye · · Score: 1

      the man is totally ignorant of the way economy functions

      You simply disagree with him. That is not grounds to call someone else with a differing opinion "totally ignorant".

      Especially since you show rather basic misunderstandings about how the economy works.

      Such as:

      Work creates wealth - products and services

      Not really. 'Work' is an activity by humans, and as such it does many things, and often it actually actively destroys total 'business wealth' as you seem to be defining it. (google for 'creative destruction')

      Work is an activity of humans who trade time and effort in exchange of some sort of compensation. Sometimes "enjoyment" or "feeling fulfilled" is the only form of compensation: ask charity workers.

      It has no forced connection whatsoever to your (rather rigid) views about 'wealth', 'business' and 'money'.

      So you have absolutely no basis to call someone else ignorant on this topic.

    32. Re:It's Ironic by bye · · Score: 1

      Well, you certainly tried hard to hide RMS's distinction between publicly distributed and privately distributed closed source work.

      That is a rather important distinction, which becomes clear from the full context quote.

      So, while I happen to disagree with RMS on this, I still think you did not quote his opinion fairly.

    33. Re:It's Ironic by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      No, if I "tried hard", I would have not provided the link to the source. I provided the exact sentence, didn't take it out of context, didn't cut it in any place, it was the complete response to one concrete question.

      The question was about proprietary software, RMS makes a distinction between that and custom made software. The question in this thread was about proprietary software. Your silly allegations are without any merit.

    34. Re:It's Ironic by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I believed socialists countries like Sweden or Norway did not in fact buy votes from the mob; they provide good basic services to all people, such as education, healthcare, etc. What you are referring to is a part of populism and of lobbying, and has nothing to do with the fine socialist tradition we have in North Europe.

      - politicians are buying the votes by catering to the majority - labor and by screwing the minority - business owners, it's very simple.

      As to Sweden and Norway - yes, those are quite socialist, and I would not for a second want to live there, I moved from USSR to Israel, then Canada and US and then to Lucerne and Asia, because for me it is important to have freedom to do business, I want as little government intrusion into my business as possible. Sweden and Norway, by the way, are slowly moving away from their super-socialist ways, because they know they can't survive like that, eventually they'll be crashed, like Greece and Portugal, because in reality, those who build businesses compete globally today, and global competition will not care about your local social obligations, which will make your business uncompetitive because of high taxes, various business regulations and various labor laws that distort the market and cause prices to rise always for running business, making hiring in places, that have too much of that unattractive and impossible to survive in.

      And if you think of socialism in a negative way,

      - oh, of-course I do. I was born in the USSR and I can't stand even the slightest mentioning of socialist ideology. To me left wing socialism is about as attractive as a system as right wing fascism - state controlling the businesses in order to maintain power through the rule of the mob.

      I got to school for free

      - not free. You did not pay the price, but it was not free. The sacrifice came in form of higher costs of products/services in the market through less choice, due to government involvement, lower quality, monopolization of the market, destruction of competition, reduction of profit and thus reduction of savings and thus reduction in new businesses, that could benefit from those savings, which eventually leads to stagnation, and as the social obligations eventually become unbearable, this leads to destruction of currency, because one thing the mob cannot stand, is reduction of their supposedly 'free' services, but subsidies, as I mentioned in earlier comments, cannot last forever.

      If government creates an environment, in which it can extract enough savings capital from the work of others, so that subsidies can be given to population to buy votes (or to keep your preferred type of society, if you don't like the way I put it), then it means simply this: government is reducing the efficiency of the market and is mis-allocating resources for reasons that are political, which eventually will destroy the economy of that society (and rate of destruction varies from country to country) and then it's very likely, that the money itself will be debased, again, as the mob cannot stand the reduction of its 'free' services, so money will be borrowed and printed and mis-allocated towards those 'free' services.

      I am for a sound economy, I am for free market capitalism, because that's the system that has shown to provide such economy without the intervention of the governments and in fact even despite those interventions. I want a sound economy, I want innovation, inventions, products and services - which are wealth, to be produced by the free market due to capital savings, not government enforcement, which is destructive to the economy and eventually to the wealth of the society.

      Contrast with the US, what you call "a socialist" country.

      - over 25% of the people are on food stamps, 50% of the lower income population pays no income taxes, while the majority of those taxes are paid by the top 25%, the political structure, that

    35. Re:It's Ironic by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I'm too young to remember 1965 - I'm talking about the present time, especially in developing countries which seem to get to do all the manufacturing these days.

      - history should really be learned, it's important to have perspective. Of-course they don't teach real history in government paid for schools, because how would that push the agenda forward, that government needs to be involved in economy at all?

      For example talking about manufacturing and history: USA became the manufacturing powerhouse of the world in 19 century, when capital was fleeing other nations to come to USA, because of the lack of government involvement in economy in USA. Gov't was small, it was paid for by excise/alcohol taxes. It involved itself only in the largest enterprises - mainly rail roads, shipping companies and military, so most of the rest of the economy was Free, while government was creating robber barons and tycoons of the world in a small number of industries.

      So USA was borrowing money in total, but the borrowed money was borrowed mostly privately from abroad and the money was used to build up production capacity - factories, machines, etc. Eventually this investment started generating enough profit to pay back the old loans, and USA started producing so much, that over 19 century the value of the dollar went up by x2, while high level of competition between businesses, pushed prices down, so there was generally deflation in amount of available credit and prices were falling, but the wealth was growing. Wealth is production capacity - products and services that people have access to in the economy, and the lowering prices were great for the poor. The middle class appeared from urbanization (small businesses/professionals), the women became mostly free, as they didn't have to be baby making machines for the farmers anymore, as the economy shifted from 95% food production, to only 5% food production. The entire concept of child labor, women's rights, slave labor, none of it could really be addressed by a poor society, that had most people just at subsistence level.

      Mid-19 century was the time that businesses in USA started providing some types of health insurance (people normally paid out of pocket, as quality and competition were going up for medical care, and prices were very affordable), so selling insurance was hard, but people bought certain types that covered mostly accidents. By 1960s, more people in USA were in private insurance than in Blue Shield/Cross, as private insurance provided better and cheaper coverage, but most people paid for medical procedures out of pocket, because it was cheap.

      BTW., many say that medical treatment became more expensive because there was lots of innovation: new medications, machines, etc. - pure nonsense. The reason prices went up and keep doing so is government money in that, which provide ability to get that money for those companies. Electronics are more sophisticated every year, yet prices fall (especially on older models), people still keep buying today, they don't wait until next year to get a TV 15% cheaper. The new medical equipment is no more complex than a new microprocessor or a car, the new medical equipment makes procedures faster, safer, with better outcomes - in real market the prices would be falling quickly.

      FDA is a huge reason why prices for medical equipment and medications and procedures are so high. Proving efficacy as well as safety is unnecessarily expensive. The money that comes out of government pockets (and really by destroying the economy via printing/borrowing/taxing) pushes prices up in all things government touches, from insurance to medical treatments, to education, to military, to transportation, to energy, to food production, to housing, to failed business valuations, etc.etc. yet people do not understand this and keep believing that rising prices is in their best interest (Fed is fighting for inflation and they are winning that fight, and even most /. readers believe this is

    36. Re:It's Ironic by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Wealth is products and services that economy provides.

      I >wrote on this enough times here not to care to repeat the same thing over again.

      Of-course you can deny all of what I wrote by saying I am 'ignorant' on the topic, but there is nothing else I need to tell you, beyond what I wrote in those other responses. Your opinion is your opinion.

    37. Re:It's Ironic by bye · · Score: 1

      The links to past statements you made do not (at all) answer the core statements I made, which were:

      'Work' is an activity by humans, and as such it does many things, and often it actually actively destroys total 'business wealth' as you seem to be defining it. (google for 'creative destruction')

      Work is an activity of humans who trade time and effort in exchange of some sort of compensation. Sometimes "enjoyment" or "feeling fulfilled" is the only form of compensation: ask charity workers.

      It has no forced connection whatsoever to your (rather rigid) views about 'wealth', 'business' and 'money'.

      Which I have posted in stark contrast to your statement, which was:

      Work creates wealth - products and services

      So, because you left my arguments unchallenged I still maintain my position that your statement is false and that you have no basis to lecture others about how human civilization and in particular the economy works.

    38. Re:It's Ironic by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      1. Works is activity by humans or by machines or even by other living creatures that is done to achieve some goal. Normally the goal is something tangible.

      2. Whether work is done for pay or for other reasons, there is no major difference, again there is some goal that needs to be achieved, so somebody is trying to achieve it and that's work, (which is opposed to leisure, when people's goal is not to achieve any particular goal, but to enjoy some activity, because they like it.)

      3. Work has a very rigid connection to creation of products and services.

      Your argument is empty, that's why you get no satisfaction.

    39. Re:It's Ironic by bye · · Score: 1

      You indeed did not 'try hard'.

      The quote was nevertheless misleading as presented, it was taken out of fair context. Linking to the full context is not equivalent to quoting fairly. The press does this all the time: quoting people out of context while still linking to the original source. Most of the readers obviously do not double check whether the quote is fair, so this technique is rather efficient at misleading.

      Note, I do not claim that you quoted out of context intentionally. (the press does this rather consciously)

    40. Re:It's Ironic by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      The quote was nevertheless misleading as presented, it was taken out of fair context

      - nope. It was fully in context.

      Richard Stallman: What about them? The programmers writing non-free software? They are doing something antisocial. They should get some other job.

      - He repeated the question that was asked of him to clarify, didn't get an objection from the reporter and then he answered the question in short form.

      There is nothing out of context there.

      Note, I do not claim that you quoted out of context intentionally. (the press does this rather consciously)

      - and what would be my motivation even to try and take his words out of context? Did I pass a moral judgment in that comment on the merits of his statement? Nope. That comment is very short, you won't find anything there beyond his statement and the fact that I pointed out that he is not th entire GNU movement.

      You should go, have outrage at something else, this cow has been milked dry I think.

    41. Re:It's Ironic by bye · · Score: 1

      Another interesting statement you made is that:

      "wealth gold"

      Do you realize that today a gold backed currency is actually theft from future generations ?

      Do you deny that, or do you claim that such theft is justified?

    42. Re:It's Ironic by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      "wealth gold" - doesn't make sense.

      Wealth is work and gold is money, if you are going to quote me back to me, get your freaking quotes right, OK?

      Do you realize that today a gold backed currency is actually theft from future generations ?

      - no, currency that is not backed by any work or something tangible is theft from future generations, because such currency ends up creating enormous inflation, which both: pushes production out to places, where the value of money is not destroyed as much, and secondly because destruction of currency leads to giant debt, which those future generations then get stuck with.

      What possible justification can you provide to your asinine assertion?

      Do you deny that you have no idea on the subject of economics and are still trying to participate in the discussion, where you clearly do not belong?

    43. Re:It's Ironic by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Now you got me distracted.

      Wealth is production capacity - products and services we create. But it is all the things society needs to survive and be prosperous - plentiful production capacity.

      Gold is a way to store wealth, define unit of account and as a medium of exchange - it's money.

      Fiat is the flawed, regressed expression of promise notes, which once were backed by real money - gold, but eventually the politicians found way around it, and that was the real default, when US government stopped exchanging dollars for gold as they promised, so when they say that US cannot default, they are lying, US has defaulted already, when they got off the gold standard.

      The thefts is perpetrated by the government, who steals the purchasing power of all dollars that are already in existence, and that's why the sensible thing to do is not to be in fiat.

    44. Re:It's Ironic by bye · · Score: 1

      [...]
      2. Whether work is done for pay or for other reasons, there is no major difference, again there is some goal that needs to be achieved, so somebody is trying to achieve it and that's work, (which is opposed to leisure, when people's goal is not to achieve any particular goal, but to enjoy some activity, because they like it.)

      3. Work has a very rigid connection to creation of products and services.

      Your argument is empty, that's why you get no satisfaction.

      Well, you err in two main ways here.

      Firstly, above you assume that leisure is separate from work, while it's almost always not: work is generally a dynamic trade-off between leisure and survival/compulsion, and humans generally try to find types of work for themselves that serve both purposes.

      This alone puts a large hole into your "work creates wealth" argument.

      Work is a lot more than about directly measurable material/intellectual output - and you will misanalyse the economy in very significant ways if you do not put them into your mental model.

      Secondly, you err in assuming that the only material output of work is 'products and services'.

      That is not so, there are major other categories such as human knowledge (of which free software is, incidentally, a significant part of) - which is neither a product, nor a service, it is an intellectual achievement of humanity that can be turned into products or services. (There are other results of work as well, which are neither 'products' nor 'services' and if you want to understand the economy you need to understand those factors as well.)

      These two basic mistakes inevitably put you on a rigid, narrow, materialistic pathway (that, funnily enough, is quite similar to how communists have argued some 100 years ago) that both under-recognizes group intellectual achievements and over-credits individual achievements and over-simplifies individual behaviour.

      Is it any surprise that you do not seem to understand RMS's arguments? :-)

    45. Re:It's Ironic by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      you assume that leisure is separate from work, while it's almost always not.... find types of work for themselves that serve both purposes.

      - having a satisfying job is still working to some productive end. You can't redefine leisure as work, don't try.

      Work is a lot more than about directly measurable material/intellectual output -

      - work is always about directly measurable material/intellectual output.

      Even completely abstract math is work, which produces a theory or a proof - product of that work. This means the rest of your comment is meaningless once again, and you don't get the satisfaction.

    46. Re:It's Ironic by bye · · Score: 1

      (sorry about the messed up paraphrased quote, it was supposed to be "gold is wealth", as you correctly guessed.)


      currency that is not backed by any work or something tangible is theft from future generations, because such currency ends up creating enormous inflation

      That is almost true, with a very important distinction: enormous inflation is mainly theft from past generations: those who have already earned part of their "wealth" in the official currency and are thus cheated by that currency's purchasing power dropping dramatically.

      But I think you are missing the full story here, so let me outline it. There are two extreme outcomes of money supply flow excesses:

      To much inflation (hyperinflation), which is mainly theft from past generations

      Too little (negative real inflation or deflation), which is mainly theft from future generations: it throttles economic activity and encourages unfair hoarding.

      So if you want a fair society, one which rewards hard work fairly, regardless of where and when you were born (do you want one? I have to ask because it's not a given.), then we have to find a middle-of-the-road of value for inflation which neither steals from past (through too high inflation), nor from future generations (through too low inflation).

      In a simplified model this 'ideal' value for inflation is roughly at the rate of growth of the economy: this does not let past work devalue (whatever is inflated away is won back by you owning currency of a country that is N percent stronger).

      (This all is hard to measure and the definition is subjective, so there's always a lot of arguing about it, but nevertheless this is the fairest outcome.)

      Now where does gold stand in this picture? If you argue a classic gold standard, with a fixed monetary base then it's sadly close to the extreme deflation end of it: it causes a real negative inflation rate of the growth of the country. It's not the worst hyper-deflation outcome, but it's close to it: it perpetually steals at least growth% amount of resources from future generations, per year.

      Gold is forced redistribution of wealth to those who already have amassed gold...

      Also note how historic precedent shows us this concept in action: for example the 19th century 'gilded age' period in the USA was very prosperous, partly because gold production was growing the money supply in a steady fashion. Once this "gold growth" positive effect levelled off, somewhere near the end of the 19th century, the US economy started to stagnate: frequent bank crashes, periods of high unemployment and other signs of economic distress - all resulting in needless human suffering. (This is very simplified: a civil war and boom/bust cycles elsewhere on the globe were significant factors as well)

      Today, with a largely constant gold supply (most of the easily extractable gold has already been mined), going back to a gold standard would be disastrous: we'd have deflation hard-coded for eternity, with today's ruling elite hoarding most of the gold, and future generations would have less and less of a chance to have a fair part of the pie.

      Note, gold has been used by past ruling elites to maintain their wealth for hundreds of years (with no real work performed after the initial act of acquiring wealth): much of medieval Europe was on the gold standard and as a result of hundreds of years of deflation wealth got concentrated/redistributed into very few hands. Newcomers had almost no chance to acquire sufficient wealth to be players - most of the existing gold was already distributed and new production of gold was very small.

    47. Re:It's Ironic by peppepz · · Score: 1

      - history should really be learned, it's important to have perspective.

      I agree, I didn't mean to say that the past isn't relevant, just that it wasn't what I was referring to.

      Of-course they don't teach real history in government paid for schools

      Well, you can consider yourself lucky if they teach some history at least. Where I live, there's a push to change public schools into some kind of "introduction to labour" courses, and humanistic subjects such as history are no longer first class citizens.

      FDA is a huge reason why prices for medical equipment and medications and procedures are so high. Proving efficacy as well as safety is unnecessarily expensive.

      Do you mean that it could be less expensive, or that it is unnecessary at all? Pharmaceutical industries are known for having abused of their position in the past.

      - I still don't understand what you are saying here.

      You don't have a right to employment, to a car, etc. What rights do individuals in China lack today, that make them more competitive than the US citizens are in USA?

      My confusion comes out of your way to define what a right is, because in USA there are no positive rights, there are only negative rights, and those rights all have to do with the relationship between the individual and the government (collective).

      Wait, how is the particular form chosen by the founders of the USA to protect your rights relevant to this matter? I don't really know if your Constitution explicitly enumerates all of your rights, or instead it "punches holes" into what your government might do to restrict them. But I am deeply convinced that the final result of the whole body of laws, regulations, customs of your country is such that currently, across the whole territory of the States, you have right to personal physical integrity, against both the government and private persons. Likewise, you have right to private property, it doesn't matter if it's the government taking your stuff or a thief breaking in your house. I suppose that's the reason why the government manages the police and the armed forces who, unlike doctors or engineers, won't ask for your credit card before helping you.

      The rights to have a house, a job, transportation, healthcare etc. are sometimes called "socialist rights" and as such they are probably recognized by China, on paper. But I wasn't referring to them, let's stick to the basic ones. For instance, the right to physical integrity means that you can't operate a factory that harms the health of the people living in its surroundings; and the difference between western countries and developing countries, is that in our case this right is actually enforced by passing laws that uphold it, and administering penalties to those who don't observe them. This becomes an handicap for our companies because the "proper way" to behave is usually not the "cheapest way".

    48. Re:It's Ironic by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      enormous inflation is mainly theft from past generations

      - well yes, if they hold the flawed fiat, and those of us who have a clue do not do such a stupid stupid ridiculous, dumb, thing.

      Too little (negative real inflation or deflation), which is mainly theft from future generations: it throttles economic activity and encourages unfair hoarding.

      - 19 century USA calls, says you are wrong.

      There was deflation at the time, dollar was gaining value, prices were dropping, total wealth - production capacity was increasing, the future generations got a better outcome from that than the past.

      So if you want a fair society, one which rewards hard work fairly, regardless of where and when you were born (do you want one? I have to ask because it's not a given.), then we have to find a middle-of-the-road of value for inflation which neither steals from past (through too high inflation), nor from future generations (through too low inflation).

      - I don't want anything that somebody defines as 'fair'.

      I want an equal opportunity, which requires that the government stays out of our lives, otherwise it protects the old interests in all forms: from SS to the retirees, to subsidies to their preferred monopolies.

      Inflation is the disease that the government pushes upon the society, as inflation drives savings out and destroys productivity and thus wealth, leaves society in the hands of government, who then borrows and causes huge debts to be accumulated and then the future generations are stuck what that debt that can never be repaid.

      In a simplified model this 'ideal' value for inflation is roughly at the rate of growth of the economy: this does not let past work devalue (whatever is inflated away is won back by you owning currency of a country that is N percent stronger).

      - all fiat currencies are flawed, as none of them are backed by anything substantial. Some are weaker and some are stronger relative to each other, but in the inflationary environment of government printing presses, all of them lose to gold.

      Now where does gold stand in this picture? If you argue a classic gold standard, with a fixed monetary base then it's sadly close to the extreme deflation end of it: it causes a real negative inflation rate of the growth of the country. It's not the worst hyper-deflation outcome, but it's close to it: it perpetually steals at least growth% amount of resources from future generations, per year.

      - ridiculous assertion, in the face of the fact, which you are unwilling to confront, that the USA of 19 century had real deflation, money was growing in value while productivity and wealth was increasing and society was becoming more affluent due to real competition and mostly absent government.

      Gold is forced redistribution of wealth to those who already have amassed gold...

      - gold is not wealth, it's money. So as somebody works and makes their money, they re-invest (as again, history proves) to make more money, and this allows businesses to take that loan and invest.

      What valuable currency, such as gold does, it forces the businesses to be risk averse and really to make sure their business is sound. Government printing free money, gives wrong incentives and moral hazards, and businesses start gambling, resulting in inflation of asset bubbles (because free money is inflating the value of fiat, so store of value has to be shifted somewhere else).

      No, the reason that there were bank runs had nothing to do with absence of gold, it had everything to do with banks trying to cheat their way into bigger earnings via fractional reserve, those banks then often collapsed, but while it affected that bank and the depositors in it, the banks were never 'too big to fail', as they become under the flawed fiat and controlling government.

      Today, with a largely co

    49. Re:It's Ironic by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Well, you can consider yourself lucky if they teach some history at least.

      - whatever they taught me back in the USSR, I didn't believe most of it and I was right. Everybody is out to indoctrinate you in their own propaganda, but hey, nobody can force you to believe one thing or another if you can think and do your own studying.

      Do you mean that it could be less expensive, or that it is unnecessary at all? Pharmaceutical industries are known for having abused of their position in the past.

      - what I mean in reality of-course is that FDA should not even exist. But at the very least, it must not be in business preventing inventions/drugs/equipment from hitting the store-shelves once they prove safety.

      FDA forces the companies to prove various levels of efficacy, I know because I unfortunately dealt with some of that through my early stocks, which I don't own anymore because of that, that was years ago. This pushes prices up severely, but in reality what should be done is that efficacy should be left up to the doctors to decide, who normally share their information, and then we must be able to evaluate the doctors on their performance in the market place as well.

      I don't really know if your Constitution explicitly enumerates all of your rights,

      - it's totally broken. The original didn't enumerate anything, but then they started adding 'amendments', totally f'd up people's understanding of what rights are.

      In reality individuals have all rights, and Constitution only specifies what rights belong to the government and what is the dynamic between the individual rights and the collective powers, but not the rights themselves.

      But rights are all negative, as in: the government is not allowed to kill you for example, without due process, you see? It's not that gov't allows you to live, it's that it's not allowed to kill you without due process, to take away your possessions without due process, to incarcerate you without due process, etc.

      Original purpose of the Federal gov't, which was ratified (agreed upon) by separate States was to maintain enough military to protect against invasion and to provide a working justice system for criminal and contract law. That was it. That's what the separate States agreed upon. This was eventually broken, usurped and totally subverted, so I am quite surprised that there still no second civil war happening right now, to break out of the union.

      For instance, the right to physical integrity means that you can't operate a factory that harms the health of the people living in its surroundings; and the difference between western countries and developing countries, is that in our case this right is actually enforced by passing laws that uphold it, and administering penalties to those who don't observe them. This becomes an handicap for our companies because the "proper way" to behave is usually not the "cheapest way".

      - there is a huge misunderstanding on this by pretty much most people in the world.

      You see, poor economies in poor countries cannot afford high levels of technology, that would allow them to keep the pollution to a minimum, but very highly technologically developed countries do not need an incentive due to the profit motive, because for them it just makes sense to keep the process as efficient as possible, this really means energy efficiency. The second most important part, which is almost always misunderstood is that the concept of private property must be respected for the free market capitalism to work, but this really relies on the court system, that's the real main purpose of a government - to provide a way to do recourse in case of damage.

      Instead what the gov't ended up doing is removing the personal liability from companies' management by setting up a corporation, which literally exists to limit personal liability.

      This is the huge problem that the government has created - remove

    50. Re:It's Ironic by bye · · Score: 1


      - 19 century USA calls, says you are wrong.

      There was deflation at the time, dollar was gaining value, prices were dropping,

      You are quite wrong about historic facts. Firstly, even measured in norminal price levels you are wrong: check the historic inflation rate for the US.

      The period of 1800-1900 was evidently not "deflation at the time".

      The dollar was gaining in value, firstly because almost every other civilized country on the western hemisphere was growing at that time, secondly because it was backed by an inflating supply of gold (the US was one of the biggest gold producers at the time), thirdly because the US had a very rapid influx of population, lots of migrating workers eager to increase the international value of the fixed supply of dollars.

      Take away the increasing supply in gold backed by gold mines and take away the increasing value of exports fuelled by cheap immigrants you get a stagnating economy: for example France, the last holdout with the gold standard after the Great Depression, was the slowest to recover from the Great Depression.

    51. Re:It's Ironic by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      You give me a link, I'll give one back to you, it's called the 'inflation calculator'. Put in the starting date at 1800, the end date at 1913 and use 1 dollar and calculate inflation rate.

      Here is what it produces:

      What cost $1 in 1800 would cost $0.58 in 1913.

      Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 1913 and 1800,
      they would cost you $1 and $1.76 respectively.

      then put in start date at 1914 and end date at 2010, still use 1 dollar, and here is what you get:

      What cost $1 in 1914 would cost $21.50 in 2010.

      Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2010 and 1914,
      they would cost you $1 and $0.05 respectively.

      Now, I disagree with the way they calculate current inflation. I calculated that it is 76% just from 2003, but whatever, their calculator is informative anyway, and your comment:

      The period of 1800-1900 was evidently not "deflation at the time".

      - is again, a fail.

      The dollar was gaining in value, firstly because almost every other civilized country on the western hemisphere was growing at that time, secondly because it was backed by an inflating supply of gold (the US was one of the biggest gold producers at the time), thirdly because the US had a very rapid influx of population, lots of migrating workers eager to increase the international value of the fixed supply of dollars.

      - you even contradict yourself. Gold cannot simply go up in value due to US being the biggest producer of it. The more of it is produced, the less relative value it has.

      As to France - its a huge socialist state, whenever I go there (every now and then), I am amazed at the disparity between the grandeur of the past and the poverty derived from this failing social experiment they started with their revolutions. Well, at least they didn't go full 'USSR' there, they had some sense.

      Again, stick to your fiat, I really wish you good luck with that strategy.

    52. Re:It's Ironic by bye · · Score: 1

      - gold is not wealth, it's money. So as somebody works and makes their money, they re-invest (as again, history proves) to make more money, and this allows businesses to take that loan and invest.

      You are wrong here too. Let me show you how.

      Gold is a globally largely fixed amount of physical matter, so if you fix the value of a growing, dynamic, ever expanding economy to this fixed amount of matter then necessarily you are giving gold fiat value out of thin air: 10 years down the line, even if you did not do anything productive with that gold, it will be worth a bigger pie of the world economy ...

      Let me give you a simplified example: lets say we have an economy of 1000 people with 1000 pounds of gold as "money", and at a given point in time one specific person owns 1 pound of gold. Lets observe what happens to this person.

      Fair enough model to discuss, right?

      Fast forward 10 years. 999 people have worked hard and the economy has done well and it has grown by 7.2% every year. At the end this compounds to 100% of growth over the 10 year period: fantastic result!

      Lets go back to the person who has stored 1 pound of gold 10 years ago. That person did nothing productive in those 10 years. But his 1 pound of gold will now still be worth 0.1% of all the wealth of this economy: which has doubled over the past 10 years!

      Is this a fair result in your opinion? Someone who has not worked hard during those 10 years, someone who did nothing else but kept money away from productive investments , is rewarded with a 100% return? In those 10 years a sizeable portion of the economy's value was redistributed to this passive owner of gold: this is neither fair (it's a pyramid scheme: the first ones in get most of the benefits) nor productive (it stifles investment).

      This is why a fixed money supply and gold in particular is theft from future generations and redistribution of wealth all in one.

    53. Re:It's Ironic by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Full scale nonsense, as it was never observed in history of capitalist US market, that those with money were not interesting in growing it through investment into businesses, which grew the US economy over 19 century. Your entire premise that that people do not want to increase their capital through investing their money is completely false on the face of the fact that on the gold standard, USA became the most productive and efficient economy in 19 century, while gold was increasing in price.

      You can't fight the facts.

    54. Re:It's Ironic by bye · · Score: 1

      What cost $1 in 1914 would cost $21.50 in 2010.

      And the average per capita income went up even more (and you can buy products were unimaginable or cost a fortune in 1914), so what's your complaint, that the numbers are increasing? :-)

    55. Re:It's Ironic by bye · · Score: 1


      Gold cannot simply go up in value due to US being the biggest producer of it. The more of it is produced, the less relative value it has.

      That was my point: the (finite) jump in gold production was a hidden stimulus to the economy in essence: money printed 'out of thin air'!

      Gold was a money equivalent, so any new gold mined increased the effective money supply.

      The price level was not a direct function of the money supply: as I mentioned there was also a heavy influx of new workers (immigrants) and 'more people, more products, for the same amount of money' is an obvious deflationary force.

      So the inflationary effect of more gold combined with the deflationary effects of more people working for the same number of dollars, combined with supply/demand shortages in war times created the kind of fluctuating inflation/deflation picture you can see throughout the 19th century, in the graph I linked to.

      But doing what you suggest: combining a growing economy while coupling money to a fixed amount of gold, would result in deflation - not good. You need a steadily increasing supply of gold to keep such a system near full productive capacity: that is unfortunately not possible with gold.

    56. Re:It's Ironic by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      And the average per capita income went up even more (and you can buy products were unimaginable or cost a fortune in 1914), so what's your complaint, that the numbers are increasing? :-)

      - why don't you think at least for once and examine your own premise.

      Prior to 1965 (and prior to 1913) people paid for their own medical expenses to get whatever state of the art current medical professionals could provide.

      Now people can't afford their own insurance we are told, yet you are saying that the inflation allowed the wages to increase by the same margin as the rest of the costs?

      Now lets see about the other part of it: innovation.

      19 century started without machines, electricity, telegraph, phones, people ate 1 maybe 2 times a day at most, food was scarce, it was poor and variety was very low. Clothing was expensive, there was not enough medical professionals, schools were primitive, mostly dealing with basic reading/writing/arithmetic and religion. Children were working in the farms since age of 4-5, women had scores of kids.

      20 century started with indoor plumbing, housing, varieties of cheap plentiful food, cheap clothing, washing machines, sewing machines, vacuum cleaners, refrigerators, even cars and airplanes were in development. People were even launching small rockets for the hell of it. The medical professionals were accessible and competitive, so prices were low, the dollar was buying 2 times as much of the same products as it was buying 100 years prior, the children didn't HAVE to work anymore, women didn't have to bear multiple kids, they were thinking finally about their own right, suffrage was gaining momentum.

      So when you talk about unimaginable things today, that are mostly the product of FREER markets found in electronics, you are completely missing the fact that 100 years in 19 century basically created most of what allowed civilization even to start moving towards globalization and telecommunications and computers, all of this work was done in 19 century because of the development under free market capitalism.

    57. Re:It's Ironic by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Well, they are still producing millions of ounces a year, somewhere around 2.5 thousand metric tons of the stuff, it's not going anywhere for as long as we need the money.

      However even with a completely fixed amount of gold in the world, the economy would still be better off than what fiat offers today, with the politicians printing it to cover their debts and thus destroying the value of money for the entire globe.

      Again: gold is not wealth, gold is store of value and even if the production totally stopped (unlikely), the only effect would be that the current reserves would be gaining value.

      This is a good thing, as money needs to be as scarce as possible, to make the investments in ways, that avert risk and that maximize profits.

      Eventually if people couldn't use gold because they wouldn't have access to it, they could then come up with their competing ways to trade - but in any case it must not be government created fiat, it must be totally market driven competing system. Gold is not the ONLY material that can be used as store of value, medium of exchange and means of trade.

      In principle there should be a way to use ANYTHING that has value as money - so having a bank, that would hold your gold or your copper or your cotton or your coal, etc., and then having your debit/credit card that would be backed by those commodities.

      Or you could have shares of companies used as money (because they are money, and fiat is like a share in the Federal reserve bank, it's worthless, but it is a share of that worthless entity).

      I don't have a problem with people trading in commodities or in production capacity via company's shares, but I do have a problem with fiat that is printed by politicians.

      Again, you can hold your fiat, I hold what I believe is best for me.

      good luck.

    58. Re:It's Ironic by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      ha ha ha ha ha - too funny.

      This is not very useful of-course yet, as the Fed will want a cut from any appreciation of the price of the metal in USD, though any appreciation is purely due to the dilution of the value of the fiat, so this is just theft, still, it will be interesting to see where this will go and how the Fed will be challenged in court to try and prevent the Fed from collecting the capital gain tax from the gold appreciating due to the inflation.

    59. Re:It's Ironic by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      yet another worthless AC.

    60. Re:It's Ironic by bye · · Score: 1

      Full scale nonsense, as it was never observed in history of capitalist US market, that those with money were not interesting in growing it through investment into businesses, which grew the US economy over 19 century. Your entire premise that that people do not want to increase their capital through investing their money is completely false on the face of the fact that on the gold standard, USA became the most productive and efficient economy in 19 century, while gold was increasing in price.

      What was not observed, a ruling class sitting on their hoard of gold and letting everyone else do the hard work? FYI, almost all of medieval Europe was on the gold standard and centuries were spent under that model :-)

      You are also not willing to (or unable to) address the fact that the USA in the 19th century was not experiencing deflation only (I linked to the historic data, there were inflationary periods as well), nor was the US on the regular gold standard: massive amounts of gold was mined, which 'stimulated' the economy for decades.

      As I mentioned it before, the economic model of the 19th century US 'gold standard' was in fact surprisingly close to a central bank printing money: it's just that instead of a central bank it was nature that threw a (meanwhile, unfortunately, exhausted) supply of gold at us.

      None of these historic facts fit into your crude, simplified model of how economies and money works in general.

      So I still maintain that you have no basis to criticise RMS in such a tone. While I do not agree with RMS, he is at least fairly self-consistent.

    61. Re:It's Ironic by bye · · Score: 1


      As I mentioned it before, the economic model of the 19th century US 'gold standard' was in fact surprisingly close to a central bank printing money: it's just that instead of a central bank it was nature that threw a (meanwhile, unfortunately, exhausted) supply of gold at us.

      To further underline this observation, and to give you a perspective about how immensely huge the "gold stimulus" was in the 19th century US:

      During much of the 19th century the US mined a very steady amount of gold per year, which stimulated the economy and which printed money out of thin air (erm, rock).

      In 1800 US population was barely above 5 million people. By 1820 this has almost doubled to 9 million. Industrial scale mining of gold started after the 40s and production was racked up to about 65 metric tons per year. The 1820 GDP of the US was barely above 10 billion dollars (2009 dollars). 65 metric tons were about two million troy ounces of gold per year, which stimulated about 2 billion dollars per year (2009 dollars). That is a stimulus of about 20% of GDP .

      With that kind of monetary stimulus no wonder that the 19th century US economy took off like a rocket, despite the civil war!

      The "gilded age" economic wonder came to a halt after the 1893 crash and deflation: by that time the (fixed mount) "gold stimulus" faded away in effect and was only around 1-2% of the GDP.

      The result was the crash of the "panic of 1893" and the crippling years of deflation after that. Hard money and an inflexible monetary base started showing its disadvantages.

      By switching to the gold standard you would condemn the world to the same fate. Not very smart from you.

  6. Re:He should not get shat on for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Stallman has done more damage to the free software movement than Microsoft has or could.

    I should have the freedom to choose any software license I want. I've had enough of his my-way-or-the-highway thinking.

  7. ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Eddie says "However, personally I start to doubt your truthfulness about freedom." .

    He should have said, "I understand, and we want you to come talk at our universities. Lets discuss making travel arrangements for another date."

    I believe, and this article highlights, the palestinians value freedom enough to pay for it, while Israel expects it to be handed to them, and protected for them by and with other peoples money.

    1. Re:ha by mooingyak · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Eddie pointed out the hypocrisy pretty accurately IMHO. RMS is willing to accept conditions on his travel and speaking plans that he would find completely unacceptable in software.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    2. Re:ha by hrimhari · · Score: 2

      Let me get this straight.

      Because some Palestinians invited him to speak and are paying for all his expenses.
      Because some Palestinians are not happy that their money would end up funding his speaks in Israel and would rather not pay anything if he chooses to do so.
      Because some Israeli can make arrangements for another visit (but instead insist in playing the hypocrisy card).
      Considering that if he accepts the Palestinian terms he will do what was originally agreed: talk to these Palestinians.
      Considering that if he doesn't accept the terms he wouldn't go to Israel anyway.

      Because of all that, he's hypocritical?

      I'm baffled by this kind of logic.

      --
      http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
    3. Re:ha by Aldenissin · · Score: 2

      Software is different than travel. If you ask me for a ride or I offer one to the store, and I say no, I don't want you also to go somewhere else while we are out on foot but to stay with me, is that unreasonable? You're comparing apples to oranges.

      A better solution would be to ask Isreal if they would like to fund the trip, and then if they agree offer to speak in both places. That gives Isreal the chance to make Palestine look bad and say don't bother coming. If both parties agree, then it makes Palestine look bad. If Israel refuses to fund the trip, then they have no reason to complain. No matter what the man said in the email, he is disappointed, or angry that RMS would not just refuse to spread his message to either side. Sometimes you have to show some love to those that aren't, that is the only way to defeat hate, is with love.

      --
      Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
    4. Re:ha by vajorie · · Score: 2

      I'm baffled by this kind of logic.

      That's because there's no logic in hate-based politics.

    5. Re:ha by mooingyak · · Score: 2

      I'm baffled by this kind of logic.

      That's because there's no logic in hate-based politics.

      Now that's a gross misrepresentation of this statement:

      RMS is willing to accept conditions on his travel and speaking plans that he would find completely unacceptable in software.

      I'd have the EXACT same position if you swapped the roles of the Palestinians and Israelis, or if it were two other random groups who happen to be geographically proximate and don't like each other.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    6. Re:ha by ZipK · · Score: 2

      If you ask me for a ride or I offer one to the store, and I say no, I don't want you also to go somewhere else while we are out on foot but to stay with me, is that unreasonable?

      Whether or not it's reasonable, it's a poor analogy to Stallman's trip to the mid-East. How about if you ask me to take the bus to the cleaners to drop off some laundry, and you offer to pay for the roundtrip bus fare. After I complete the trip to the cleaners, I decide to walk next door to get some coffee, but you object and demand that I return immediately from the drop off at the cleaners. Is that reasonable?

    7. Re:ha by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      Because some Palestinians invited him to speak and are paying for all his expenses.

      This by itself is good, and I'm glad he accepted.

      Because some Palestinians are not happy that their money would end up funding his speaks in Israel and would rather not pay anything if he chooses to do so.

      It's their money, they can do what they want with it.
      It's also his life, and he can choose what conditions to accept money under.
      He has unequivocally stated that control belongs to the end user. Here he's been told they don't want to pay for his trip if he does something that has no bearing on what they've asked him to come and do. Accepting these terms is what makes him a hypocrite. He should have refused the terms.

      The rest:

      Because some Israeli can make arrangements for another visit (but instead insist in playing the hypocrisy card).
      Considering that if he accepts the Palestinian terms he will do what was originally agreed: talk to these Palestinians.
      Considering that if he doesn't accept the terms he wouldn't go to Israel anyway.

      is irrelevant.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    8. Re:ha by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      I'm not really an RMS fan, and I think much of what he says amounts to incoherent word-games, but I'd say the end-user is the Palestinian authority here, not RMS himself. And he's always been very clear that you don't have to give people the code without paying for it (even if GPL-licensed software is effectively given for free after one sale to somebody willing to redistribute for free -- and the Palestinians are not doing that). I don't see any hypocrisy here.

    9. Re:ha by tftp · · Score: 1

      Here he's been told they don't want to pay for his trip if he does something that has no bearing on what they've asked him to come and do. Accepting these terms is what makes him a hypocrite. He should have refused the terms.

      I can support canceling the whole trip only if RMS pays his own money for the airfare. Then the PA would be only paying for him physically driving a hundred miles and speaking. PA would be not in control of what he does before and after.

      But here most likely PA pays for everything, starting and ending with the cab fare to/from the airport in the USA. They pay for his entire trip. If so, it gives them the right to dictate what he does while being employed.

      Good employers understand the needs of employees and accept some amount of personal work done on the company dime. But in this case PA has some disagreements with Israel, and RMS should have known that his plans to double-dip can't be well received.

    10. Re:ha by Aldenissin · · Score: 1

      Still is apples and oranges, which is my point, that even mine was not a good one. Saying someone can't get a refreshment is one thing. Perhaps in even yours, it is if their is a tight schedule on the buses and you may miss it. It is impolite of them to not allow him to do as he pleases since he is a guest, but it is still their option. Is it fair that one university pays for a lecturer and nearby ones want to have them as a speaker although they don't want to contribute? How about companies that compete instead of universities? This is more what is happening here. It just happens they have wartime political and as well as locational rivalries. I am not even asking if that matters, because that is irrelevant directly to my point.

      --
      Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
    11. Re:ha by hrimhari · · Score: 1

      RMS is willing to accept conditions on his travel and speaking plans that he would find completely unacceptable in software.

      I'd have the EXACT same position if you swapped the roles of the Palestinians and Israelis, or if it were two other random groups who happen to be geographically proximate and don't like each other.

      At least that's coherent.

      The weak link in this parallel is that these Palestinians are not prohibiting him from passing on his message. Anyone can still read and probably listen to his positions on free software online or make their own arrangements to have him in person.

      Transposing that to software would be like paying him for delivering free software on your doorstep, in person, and hearing that your money would be paying for the same delivery to your disaffection who can very well pay for their own hard copies or negotiate sharing the fees.

      --
      http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
    12. Re:ha by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2

      Not married, huh? I'm willing to accept conditions on my travel plans that I would find completely unacceptable in software, mainly because it beats the hell out of sleeping on the couch. As people keep pointing out, these are two wholly separate parts of a person's life, and it's not at all hypocritical to manage them differently.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    13. Re:ha by mdragan · · Score: 1

      You don't seem to understand what Free Software means. To make a real analogy between Free Software and this situation would mean that RMS would have to give the sources of his speech to the Palestinian university (give sources to those to whom you give/sell the binaries), under condition that if the Palestinian university wants to give the speech to someone else in original form or modified, they would also have to give the sources to their speech. That's it, that's all that an analogy with Free Software would imply. Free Software doesn't impose any obligation on "to whom" you can/must distribute.

    14. Re:ha by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I agree (I need to dwell on this some more), but I accept that's there's at least an argument to be made that he's acting consistently within his own stated philosophy.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    15. Re:ha by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      Free Software doesn't impose any obligation on "to whom" you can/must distribute.

      If I've released some code under the GPL, I can't tell anyone who NOT to distribute it to.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    16. Re:ha by dbIII · · Score: 1

      If you wander into a war zone it's not polite to be seen to associate too much with who your hosts see as their enemy - especially if they are paying for you to visit in the first place.
      Common sense really.
      This is only a news story because one side is paticularly quick to find fault and has the ear of the media.

  8. Real reason by Jethro · · Score: 5, Funny

    They refuse to call it "GNU/Israel".

    --


    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    1. Re:Real reason by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's YHWH/Israel.

      Only it's the other way around - YHWH is the kernel, and Israel is the userland. ~

    2. Re:Real reason by Jethro · · Score: 1

      Heh.

      RMS actually contacted our local Linux LUG, and offered to come over and give a talk for us, for free, provided we rename our LUG explicitly have "GNU/Linux User's Group" in the title.

      That was pretty much unanimously rejected.

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
  9. Bad call IMO... by nweaver · · Score: 2

    This now sets a precedent that RMS will respond to fiscal pressure, as he's established that the head of FSF will change who he says it to based on who's paying.

    Far better for RMS to have refused the trip entirely. Yes, it would have canceled the Israeli university talks anyway, but it would have at least said that he's unwilling to be bullied or change who he talks to.

    And for those who say "He could go on a separate time on Israeli money": There is a huge logistical cost in his time and effort involved in traveling halfway across the globe. A trip like this takes two days near dead for travel time & jetlag alone.

    This is a cost which RMS, not the Palestinians, is presumably paying. It makes sense, if this cost is incurred, to also give talks at Israeli universities, as this cost is something the Palestinians presumably aren't paying for, he is.

    If, instead, the Palestinians are paying for his travel time as well as his ticket, this makes the precedent even worse.

    --
    Test your net with Netalyzr
    1. Re:Bad call IMO... by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're drawing a pretty broad conclusion from this one specific event. Had he agreed to *never* have any dealings with Israel then I'd agree there's a problem. All he did was to cancel lectures on this specific trip that is being paid for people kind of entitled to make such a demand - regardless of how petty it may be. I don't see how this is a civil liberties or freedom thing when he's voluntarily traveling on their ticket.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    2. Re:Bad call IMO... by glodime · · Score: 1

      You got modded insightful, but it seems that you missed RMS' entire point for creating GNU, FSF and GPL. He was and still is protesting the coercion that software developers place on their end users. Here the people spending money on his travel are in a very analogous way coercing RMS to alter his travel plans and activities while in the reason. Yet RMS is not protesting, he is choosing to metaphorically press the "accept the term of the EULA" buttons for pragmatic reasons. RMS criticizes those that accept limiting license agreements on software. He should expect criticism when he chooses to accept limiting terms in his agreements on other topics. He in fact brushed off such criticism claiming they are invalid due to semantics.

      See:
      Response to RMS decision sent to RMS:
      http://hamakor.org.il/pipermail/discussions/2011-May/002978.html

      RMS reply to criticism:
      http://hamakor.org.il/pipermail/discussions/2011-May/003024.html

    3. Re:Bad call IMO... by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      But that's software. If we follow the argument that he's violating his own principles then we'd have to conclude that contracting to develop software to specs provided by the people paying for it would also be a problem - even if it were released under GPL.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    4. Re:Bad call IMO... by glodime · · Score: 1

      That's where his overall position is weak. Following it to the extreme does not allow for pragmatism such as your example. RMS highlights valid concerns for software and copyright license issues, but I think that he is wrong about the absolute value of his position. I value free software and personal freedom in general but not above many issues, such as my need to pay rent, eat and preference to socialize and enjoy my limited time in life when possible.

  10. Re:RMS Titanic by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

    "Richard Stallman" is his birth name, but "rms" (all lower-case) is his chosen identity. Kinda like "Norma Jeane Baker" versus "Marilyn Monroe", or "Robert Zimmerman" versus "Bob Dylan".

  11. And the Palestinian women by sv_libertarian · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Will they be there, listening to Stallman, or will they be carefully segregated from their sexual superiors?

    1. Re:And the Palestinian women by rawler · · Score: 1

      Are you sure they would want to?

      And yes, I happen to think that the whole RMS Sexism debacle was blown a little out of proportion, but it damaged his reputation as a speaker wherever gender-neutrality is desired.

    2. Re:And the Palestinian women by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      I agree. In USA there is no gender discrimination. That's why there are no female software developers at all. But it is not because of the gender discrimination, but because they are not smart enough, right????

    3. Re:And the Palestinian women by vajorie · · Score: 1

      Will they be there, listening to Stallman, or will they be carefully segregated from their sexual superiors?

      Oww, you wanna save them girls don't you? And while there, perhaps you might wanna visit a few spots?.. I mean, common... who can blame you for saving those poor helpless women from those brown filthy savages, right?..

    4. Re:And the Palestinian women by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      Oh, women are so smart many of them decide not to go into a career in software after dabbling with it for a while. Most women simply aren't interested in writing software and being a doctor, lawyer, politician or mother is what they aspire to. It has nothing to do with discrimination or intelligence, encouragement, or education - it has all to do with the fact that writing software has no interest for most of them. Yet everyone has to bring out the "gender discrimination" bollox (I know you were joking, it was a good joke too).

    5. Re:And the Palestinian women by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      Actually i don't. I do know some women developers, who are literally fighting to stay in this business, and who has to show that they are at least 2 times better developers than....who, the male developers!!! Anyway, i gave you some very simple test for discrimination, it is called statistic. It was the same thinking that stopped many women to become pilots (because they are not interested, yea yea, i know i know), but for some strange reason now there are even space pilots who are (oh my god) female, could you believe it??? Maybe it is because they are now interested!!!

    6. Re:And the Palestinian women by sv_libertarian · · Score: 1

      What the heck are you smoking? I made no reference to skin tone, but rather was referring to the radical islamic ideals that segregate women. Nice way to try and change the topic though.

  12. Stupid move, rms by Stormwatch · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In his place, if someone tried to manipulate me like that, I'd do the opposite -- give them a big fat "fuck you" and go meet the other side instead, even if I had to pay for the trip.

    1. Re:Stupid move, rms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, but then again, you are a nobody and people do not show up to hear you speak, do they?

    2. Re:Stupid move, rms by creat3d · · Score: 1

      Even if the other side is in the middle of carrying out a genocide on a population they're illegally occupying?

      --
      Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.
  13. "The funds for my travel to Israel are coming from Palestinians who invited me to give talks for them."

    Only RMS would jump right into the middle of such a hot mess. Perhaps he can ask the Syrian government for a free bus trip to the Israeli border like the "Nabka Day" protesters.

    Four killed on Israel's border with Syria
    Israeli-Palestinian violence marks "Nabka" day

    Um yeah....isn't there some free software you could like...video stream the lectures to everyone?

  14. nothing ironic about it by t2t10 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Stallman expects the rest of us to live some live of software purity, never compromising on closed software,

    Free software is about receiving source code along with software and being able to modify and redistribute the software. There is nothing inconsistent about Stallman's behavior: you can get paid for software, you can create proprietary software, etc. if you like. Some of your business models may not work with free software, but that's not Stallman's intent, that's just a consequence.

    Yet here is he, quite prepared to give into bullying terms when it suits him.

    The Palestinians are paying for the trip and they get to set the conditions they pay for; that's the way all invited talks work. "No side trips" is a common condition for invited talks.

    What's actually going on is that Israel is forcing foreign scientists wanting to visit the Palestinian territories to travel through Israel, and then saying "oh, we made you come here, why don't you also give some lectures for free". Imagine the US used military force to keep international planes from landing in Canada and then asked foreign scientists diverted through the US to also give free talks in the US; it would be quite outrageous.

    The situation is made even worse because the Palestinians are so poor compared to Israel. For Israeli universities to piggy-back on a trip paid for by the Palestinians ought to be a huge embarrassment for Israel.

    The obvious thing would be for Israel to pay for the entire trip, including the trip to the Palestinian territories. That would be the obvious, right and peaceful thing to do. Apparently, Israel isn't interested in that.

    I hope Israel will turn around and do the right thing.

    1. Re:nothing ironic about it by SchroedingersCat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Palestinians are paying for the trip and they get to set the conditions they pay for; that's the way all invited talks work. "No side trips" is a common condition for invited talks.

      Nonsense. Are they requiring him to get on a plane and land in US? I don't know what kind of deal RMS got for himself but I am pretty sure it is quite uncommon that organizers require you to go back to country of origin after the engagement is over. He should have negotiated fee for giving talks like 1k/hour and pay for his trip himself and not be restricted in his movements.

    2. Re:nothing ironic about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I hope Israel will turn around and do the right thing.

      Israel could say "oh, we still want you to visit us, so we will fund your trip if Palestinians withdraw their funding. And we will allow you to visit them too."

      Now that would be the right thing.

    3. Re:nothing ironic about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Noam Chomsky was barred entry into Palestinian territories (entry and exit to which is controlled by Israel) last year:

      My daughter and I, along with two old friends, were going to Ramallah from Amman and were stopped at the border, waited several hours, several hours of interrogation, and finally my daughter and I were denied entry.

      The reasons are quite straightforward. I’ve spoken at Bir Zeit University before, but in every prior occasion, it was a side trip, when I was visiting Israel and giving talks at Israeli universities. This time differs in one respect. I was—I had an invitation from Bir Zeit, and I accepted it gladly, as in many other cases, and I had no intention of going on to speak in Israel as well this time. That’s the only difference. So, essentially, what Israel is saying is that they insist on the right to determine who is allowed to just visit a Palestinian university at their invitation and talk.

      http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/17/denied_entry_israel_blocks_noam_chomsky

    4. Re:nothing ironic about it by Shipud · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Wow. So many untruths, Where to start?

      "What's actually going on is that Israel is forcing foreign scientists wanting to visit the Palestinian territories to travel through Israel, and then saying "oh, we made you come here, why don't you also give some lectures for free". Imagine the US used military force to keep international planes from landing in Canada and then asked foreign scientists diverted through the US to also give free talks in the US; it would be quite outrageous."

      It would also be outrageous is Israel is doing it, which it isn't. I would ask you to find citations for that ever happening. And what is this about "Israel paying"? When a scientist is invited to speak at an academic institution the institution is paying. There is zero government involvement. There is also no involvement from other institutes, unless they are pooling resources for an event (say, a conference).

      " 'No side trips' is a common condition for invited talks".

      I am an associate professor and I have been invited to give hundreds of talks, at institutes and companies in the US and in many other countries. I have never heard of this "Common Condition".

      At most I ask my paying hosts for accurate dates, telling them I will be travelling more. I have never encountered any kind of objection to that, nor a request to share the primary travel venue. Of course, I do not ask for extra travel or Room & Board for the "side" travels.

      "Apparently, Israel isn't interested in that."

      Again what is "Israel" the university of Tel Aviv? The University of Haifa (which, BTW, in which the majority of students are Palestinians)? The Israeli Immigration authorities? The Mossad? El-Al?

      --
      /sdrawkcab si gis siht
    5. Re:nothing ironic about it by HonestButCurious · · Score: 1

      The obvious thing would be for Israel to pay for the entire trip, including the trip to the Palestinian territories. That would be the obvious, right and peaceful thing to do. Apparently, Israel isn't interested in that.

      I hope Israel will turn around and do the right thing.

      http://hamakor.org.il/pipermail/discussions/2011-May/003030.html

    6. Re:nothing ironic about it by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      So wrong. You can enter the West Bank from Jordan (admittedly through an Israeli-controlled checkpoint). You fly to Amman rather than Tel Aviv. I know, I've done it.

    7. Re:nothing ironic about it by yariv · · Score: 2

      The statement about Palestinians being the majority of University of Haifa's students is not true. About 20% of the students are Arabs, from what I know (but I didn't find any formal numbers). The vast majority of those are Israeli citizens. There is a large minority in Israel of Arabs (about 20%). they usually define themselves as Palestinians, but they are still Israeli citizens. There are almost no citizens of the Palestinian Authority in Israeli universities, if there are any at all.

      This doesn't change the actual point, that the universities are not Israel, of course.

      One more thing, is the point of going through Israel. The Palestinian Authority have no international airport, Israel will probably not allow one to be opened in any case, but there might be other reasons. As a result, visitors will go either through the Israeli Ben-Gurion airport, or through Jordan. BG is closer, but you will have to go through Israel. This might be what the GP is referring to. The reason Israel won't allow an international airport is that it currently holds all the checkpoints, including the Alenby bridge on the Jordan border. This control is considered important to hold certain weapons, mainly missiles but also mortars, away from the Palestinian Territories. Such weapons would allow Palestinians to target the BG airport and the suburbs of Tel-Aviv.

    8. Re:nothing ironic about it by deodiaus2 · · Score: 1

      >>University of Haifa (which, BTW, in which the majority of students are Palestinians)
      Next, I guess you will be telling me that the majority of the NYC's lawyers are not Jewish!

    9. Re:nothing ironic about it by Micklat · · Score: 1

      Well, there was the case of Chomsky recently, mentioned above. I don't know that it's government policy though, as I haven't heard of other cases, and the fact that Chomsky was barred entrance might be a case of profound stupidity (coupled with an arbitrary and immoral exercise of power) rather than a consistent policy.

    10. Re:nothing ironic about it by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      It would also be outrageous is Israel is doing it, which it isn't. I would ask you to find citations for that ever happening. And what is this about "Israel paying"? When a scientist is invited to speak at an academic institution the institution is paying. There is zero government involvement.

      All nine Israeli universities are public.

    11. Re:nothing ironic about it by anyGould · · Score: 1

      The obvious thing would be for Israel to pay for the entire trip, including the trip to the Palestinian territories

      Hell, go half-and-half. Call up whoever the coordinator is on the Palestinian side is, say "hey, I hear you got Stallman coming, and we'd like him to do some talks over here too. Can we cover half the travel costs?"

      Of course, the whole thing is so obviously a political football, that it'll never happen.

    12. Re:nothing ironic about it by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      It would also be outrageous is Israel is doing it, which it isn't. I would ask you to find citations for that ever happening.

      Citations? Are you kidding? What rock are you living under? The Palestinians have no control over international travel; Israel controls who goes in and who comes out.

      And what is this about "Israel paying"? When a scientist is invited to speak at an academic institution the institution is paying. There is zero government involvement.

      Yes, that's what "Israel paying" means in this context: Israeli academic institutions should pay for it.

      At most I ask my paying hosts for accurate dates, telling them I will be travelling more. I have never encountered any kind of objection to that, nor a request to share the primary travel venue. Of course, I do not ask for extra travel or Room & Board for the "side" travels.

      Many companies and universities that reimburse trips require a simple round trip ticket.

      Again what is "Israel" the university of Tel Aviv?

      Whatever Israeli universities or academic institutions are involved in this, obviously.

      What is wrong with you people? Are you so blinded by your hatred for the Palestinians that even simple English sentences become too difficult to parse and understand for you? Has demagoguery become such a way of life for you that you deliberately misinterpret whatever statement anybody makes?

    13. Re:nothing ironic about it by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      I am pretty sure it is quite uncommon that organizers require you to go back to country of origin after the engagement is over

      Organizers frequently only pay for a simple round-trip ticket, and some have "no side trip rules".

      He should have negotiated fee for giving talks like 1k/hour and pay for his trip himself and not be restricted in his movements.

      How does that solve anything? The Palestinians could have uninvited him all the same.

      Besides, you're missing the bigger picture here. This is not a symmetric situation. The Palestinians are incredibly poor compared to the Israelis. It's an embarrassment for any Israeli institution to attempt to piggy-back a free side-trip onto a trip paid for by the Palestinians. It's not a question of "rights" or "obligations", it's a question of basic decency and common sense, in particular for a group of professionals that purport to be part of an international community that supposedly transcends political boundaries.

    14. Re:nothing ironic about it by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      This doesn't change the actual point, that the universities are not Israel, of course.

      Referring to the Israeli universities and institutions involved in this as "Israel" is an instance of metonymy; it is appropriate and correct. It obviously does not refer to the state of Israel (since that wouldn't make any sense in this context). I chose it both because the actual thing being referred to is a cumbersome phrase, and to emphasize the connection with Israel, since that is the relevant attribute of these institutions in this context.

      Shipud's misinterpretation and self-righteous indignation is just another indication of the inability of Israelis and Palestinians even to engage in normal conversation about their situation anymore.

  15. This ain't an on/off switch by zaanan · · Score: 1

    Ever taken a side trip on a biz trip? Mightn't he have done that? Could have been the plan, articles don't say. Love how ev1's siding w/ pals by default.

  16. Re:RMS Titanic by meerling · · Score: 1

    yeah, RMS, like various ships, or the root mean square, or risk management solutions, or roosevelt middle school, or so many others.
    Only an idiot or an egotistical jerk that's also an idiot would refer to themselves by a tla (that's three letter acronym).

    No, I've never met the guy, but if he really refers to himself as rms, the previous comments stand. If it's just the media doing this, then those 'reporters' are the ones the comments refer to.

  17. How about a fair compromise instead? by rawler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Easy solution;

    Both parties want him to Speak, let both parties pay half each. If both parties refuse, stay home, if only one accepts, then go there.

    I fully understand why the Palestinians do not wish to pay the "Israeli" share, and the other way around. However, splitting the costs is fair, and all parties win.

    Sure, I realize it might be impolite if the Palestinians had already been promised a visit, but I think at least the option of splitting costs should be proposed.

    1. Re:How about a fair compromise instead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      what you propose would be reasonable. Unfortunately we are dealing with Palestinians and Israeli's here. The word "reasonable" has been long gone from their vocabularies.

    2. Re:How about a fair compromise instead? by YaHooL · · Score: 1

      This is a brilliant idea. It is even field proven in the area's past :)

    3. Re:How about a fair compromise instead? by YaHooL · · Score: 1

      Completely agree beside of one exception:

      I guess Israel's academia is no better than its military or (most of) its politicians

      The Academia in Israel is actually considered to be one of the last remaining "Strongholds of the left wing" (I guess it only applies to the Tel-Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa universities) and are regularly attacked by the Israeli media because of it.

    4. Re:How about a fair compromise instead? by seriesrover · · Score: 1

      If they were able to do that then they probably wouldn't be in the larger mess they are in now.

    5. Re:How about a fair compromise instead? by rawler · · Score: 1

      Well, give them a chance.

      Considering objecting in such a straight-forward scenario would probably be a PR-problem for the refusing party, it might just work. Just make sure both parties understand their decision is public.

    6. Re:How about a fair compromise instead? by seriesrover · · Score: 2

      But thats the problem...I'm sorry, but the Palestinians *aren't* within their rights to not let him go to Israel - they're paying for him to come over and give a talk, which I'm sure he'll do to their satisfaction, so obviously they're ok with the terms. They don't 'own' him. All I see is spite coming from the Palestinian side - no amount of giving them a chance is going to remove that. My sentiments would be exactly the same if a company paid for someone to go to a conference half way around the world and then refused them a couple of days vacation to see the sights.

    7. Re:How about a fair compromise instead? by glodime · · Score: 1

      Another member of the mailing list supports funding the trip and placing no restrictions on RMS' activities. Not everyone agrees of course.

      See:
      http://hamakor.org.il/pipermail/discussions/2011-May/003030.html

    8. Re:How about a fair compromise instead? by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Awesome. They're finally going to cut RMS in half.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    9. Re:How about a fair compromise instead? by SpaceCracker · · Score: 1

      How about a fair compromise instead?

      Fair compromise? In the Middle East? Give me a break.

      I fully understand why the Palestinians do not wish to pay the "Israeli" share, and the other way around.

      Do you now?...

      ...splitting the costs is fair, and all parties win.

      Win-win is for pu**ies. "Real men" play sum-zero games.

      Sure, I realize it might be impolite...

      Impolite you say? This ain't some Victorian ballroom with Mozart playing in the background. C'mon man, wake up!

      ... I think at least the option of splitting costs should be proposed.

      It's not about the money. In the Middle East it never is about the money. Yeah, both sides can bear the cost, but that's not the point.
      The dominant mentality is "Everyone hates me, I'm a victim of a grave injustice, they're out to get me and I'd rather die than do something that will benifit the ba****ds."
      In my view ths hold true not just for the Arab-Israeli conflict, but also between other divisions by nationality/ethnic group/tribe/_____ (fill in the blank) in the region.
      It seems like some groups' sole excuse for existance is to hate someone else and kill yourself in the attempt to kill a few of them along.

      --
      sigo ergo sum
    10. Re:How about a fair compromise instead? by oamasood · · Score: 1

      True; easy solution. Instead, the Israeli professor chose to insult RMS and question his dedication to 'freedom'.

  18. RMS's bills and bio by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 4, Informative

    > How does Stallman pay his bills, anyway?

    (For a detailed answer, you could read a biography about him: http://static.fsf.org/nosvn/faif-2.0.pdf )

    Some organisations pay him for the talks he gives. He also won some awards in the 90s which came with chunky cash prizes which he said he would invest.

    His bills probably aren't too big anyway. He asks his hosts to pay his travel and accommodation (usually staying with someone in their house rather than in a hotel). He has no kids, which saves him a lot of money.

    FSF doesn't pay him any salary.

    1. Re:RMS's bills and bio by StripedCow · · Score: 1

      And he saves on shaving cream.

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    2. Re:RMS's bills and bio by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 1

      > Hopefully not in companies using non-free software.

      No worries, the awards were for his contribution to free software. The specifics can be found here:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman#Recognition

      (But the two wouldn't be equivalent anyway - when you work for a company, you do what they want, but receiving an award doesn't require you to do the company's bidding.)

    3. Re:RMS's bills and bio by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      I think he meant investing the awards INTO companies writing non-free software, not getting the awards FROM them

  19. Re:The Jews trying to get RMS at bargain prices? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Refrain from talking about things you have no idea about. Rocks, weapons of mass destruction!

  20. Re:The Jews trying to get RMS at bargain prices? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Rockets =/= rocks. The Palestinians toss plenty of those. You should also check the definition of a WMD before spouting more worthless bullshit.

    That said, I don't favor either side. They are equally culpable. Just because one has more powerful toys does not make them the worse of the two. If you support either side, you're a sucker.

  21. Politics aside ... by Meneguzzi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, opinions about the right or wrongness of Israel aside, it is a well known fact that Israeli universities are pretty well funded and staffed (especially if compared to Palestinian ones).
    They already have top class academics working for them and plenty of funding to bring other academics to visit them pretty regularly. I have had the privilege to meet many famous Israeli academics, but I am yet to meet a Palestinian one.
    If we just ignore the politics for a little while, I can see why an underfunded Palestinian university might feel cheated if they are paying for a guy to come from across the world to give a lecture, and the guys across the border who have lots more funding and better staff than they have tried to amortize Israeli costs of bringing a foreign academic by using Palestinian money. After all, they could have offered to split the bill or something.
    On top of that, I'm not sure about the situation right now, but until very recently, Israel (which controls Palestinian borders and tax collection) was withholding tax money from the Palestinian Authority because they were in reconciliation talks with Hamas. Again, ignoring politics, but looking at a very real cashflow issue that their universities might be having, I can see why they might resent this move.

    --
    www.meneguzzi.eu/felipe
    1. Re:Politics aside ... by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You ignore the fact that rockets and mortar shells are still fired daily from Hamas controlled territory and are deliberately targeted at Israeli civilian towns with no military purpose.

      You also ignore the fact that despite this Israel transports sick Palestinians from the same hostile territory for treatment at Israeli facilities and pays for their treatment.

      Then you ignore the fact that Israel has been paying the Palestinian Authority (and arming and training their Police) for all that time and have just stopped due to the recent political union between the PA (who Israel with deal with) and Hamas (who have sworn to destroy Israel and have never stated any other intention in Arabic [they will say anything in English, but never in Arabic]).

      Then there is the fact that Israeli Universities have money because their country is hell-bent on making money, not on wiping the Palestinians off the face of the Earth (unlike Hamas). There are plenty of Arab Israeli citizens who have the same rights as everyone else (although they're not very well trusted). The Israelis actually spent their effort making things (eg. Intel CPUs and CPU designs, desalination equipment, weapons etc) that the rest of the World will pay for. The Palestinians make nothing significant for export in their territory (the first thing the Palestinians did when the Israelis unilaterally withdrew from Gaza was smash the greenhouses and infrastructure that was left in perfectly working order, when they could have made a lot of money exporting food in the region).

      Israel is far from perfect, and makes plenty of mistakes, but admit to yourself you have such a poor understanding of what is going on in the region that you come across as an ill-informed anti-Semite. Disclaimer: I come from a country about as far away as it is to be, am not Jewish, but have visited Israel and all the countries that neighbour it. Israel is trying to survive in a very rough and unreasonable neighbourhood.

    2. Re:Politics aside ... by Meneguzzi · · Score: 2

      I feel really sorry for you if you have made this interpretation about my comment, despite all my explanations to ignore the politics of the matter. At no point in my comment did I make a judgement of value on Israel, nor did I state anything that was not factually true. I did not make a value judgement on the Israeli position to withhold tax money from the PA, but I did state that a logical consequence of this decision is that Palestinian Universities would likely be affected by their government collecting less money.
      Of course it is hard to separate politics from everything else in this region, but my argument was that there seems to be purely economical reasons for this decision, and that other institutions in countries with a similar disparity in wealth (regardless of an ongoing ethno-religious conflict) could have reacted in a similar way.

      If it was not clear, let me clarify further. If you replaced Israel and Palestine for, say, Brazil and Paraguay, which are two countries that border each other, and where there is some dependency between the two of them (since Paraguay is landlocked, it depends on its neighbour for many shipping routes), and both of them have very different living standards and investment in academia. If the poorest country invites somebody to come give a lecture and pay for the flight for a guy coming from across the globe to come, and the richer neighbour decides to take advantage of this trip to invite the same lecturer to come to their country right after without offering to help with the trip costs, would it not feel unfair from a purely economical point of view?

      --
      www.meneguzzi.eu/felipe
    3. Re:Politics aside ... by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      Mucho gracias/obrigado. Thanks for taking the time to clarify. However, while some might consider it "unfair", from a global view it is optimizing the cost of one trip and one lot of burnt fuel. Too bad we humans are still thinking in our little tribes ...

    4. Re:Politics aside ... by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      > Really? When was the last one? Was it 3 days ago? Was it the first for 2 weeks?
      So you think it is acceptable at any time? You fail right there. Please examine your own prejudices. If you can't see this for the evil it is then there is something wrong. The end does not justify the means

      >So you know where Israel's military bases are, right? You know there's a camp on the outskirts of Sderot, right? It's still not ok, because the weapons fired by Palestinians are wildly inaccurate, and can and do go anywhere, but if you're going to claim the moral high ground, don't build your military bases right next to civilian towns.
      Fail again. The Gaza Palestinians are not targeting any installations. Their *stated* aim is to kill Israeli civilians and bring terror to the life of the civilians. Man, you can't recognize evil when it stares you in the face - now that is warped. Also, everyone places bases near the hosting town (you will find them in your own country) for the convenience of their servicemen. The target for Hamas has never been those bases but the towns. In contrast, Hamas and Hezbollah both place their sites in schools and residential blocks deliberately. Examine your own prejudices. If you can't see this for the evil it is then there is something wrong with your worldview. Even if you think the Israelis are wrong the end does not justify the means.

      >Actually, you'll find that Israel hasn't paid a penny, it's all been the US and EU.
      Incorrect. Israel collects tax on behalf of the PA and gives that tax portion to the PA. It is a shame you don't know the realities of the basic economics over there.

      > You've read or listened to the original Arabic, have you? Or did you read it from the much-discredited MEMRI? You really should check your sources, or apply critical thinking.

      Ad hominem attack (and no, I did not read MEMRI). Have you listened to the Arabic? Can you provide me with a factual counter to this statement? Or are you talking about how you would like it to be, rather than recognising the duplicity of Hamas' true position. Examine the facts and then please examine why your own prejudices cause you to ignore them.

      > Sorry, but this is just a pro-Israel rant, and not a very good one either.

      Sigh. You can't counter the facts I presented so you resort to this. Fail. Give me facts to disprove the mindless smashing of the greenhouses, and I will listen with an *open mind*, otherwise your are making indirect and ad-hominem arguments that can't counter the facts I have given - a result of your *closed mind* and inability to see that *both* sides have done bad things and good things, and that one side keeps its fanatics (mostly) in check while the other doesn't. Neither side is perfect but if you would like to dismantle Israel and expel its inhabitants that is not a realistic solution. The only solution is for both sides to negotiate the borders, both sides to recognise the legitimacy of each other, and both sides to renounce violence. Anything else is bullshit. Time you started researching to the facts by going there for some time (as I did when I went to these places in person, and met Lebanese Hezbollah guys in person, and Palestinians in person, and Israelis in person, it certainly changed my view of things, since the reporting by Western media is so bad and distorted by agendas from both sides).

    5. Re:Politics aside ... by superwiz · · Score: 1

      You can't state facts which are side effects of Israel winning wars and then say that Israel is responsible for those facts as if they had no context. The winning side in any war has to do more damage than the losing side. Israel wins. Good for them. They didn't cause these wars to happen, but they did win them. And, yes, Palestinians are waging a war on Israel.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    6. Re:Politics aside ... by JabrTheHut · · Score: 1

      So, just to get it straight, it's irrelevant that a cease-fire has been agreed and is holding, it's irrelevant that the Israeli army is using it's own civilians as human shields, and it's irrelevant who the money belongs to when the Israeli government gives it or withholds it from the Palestinian Authority. While I'd love to point out, again, exactly where you've gone wrong or even add to it, you're genuinely not going to get it. I could spend hours pointing out the Israeli accusations of Hamas using human shields, and then point to known instances of the Israeli army using human shields, both Palestinian, Israeli Arab and Jewish, but you genuinely don't care. The existence of the cease-fire was both unknown and irrelevant to you. You don't even care who owns the money the PA that was transferred to the PA. All you care about it saying that the Gaza Palestinians are evil. Very open minded of you. Do please go on and defend Israel's actions some more, it will be amusing if nothing else.

      --
      Work like no one is watching. Dance like you've never been hurt. Make love like you don't need the money.
    7. Re:Politics aside ... by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      Ah, the pathetic last cry of the desperate, when no other excuse for Israel's murderous collective punishment will do, raise anti semitism to deflect criticism. Anti semite does not mean anti Israel. I have nothing against Jews at all, but lots of dislike for Israle ACTIONS.

      Israel fires modern weapons into civilian areas, killing lots of civlians, conducts extrajudicial assasination in
      third countries regularly, fired phosphorus weapons on civilians. They are worse than the so called terrorists.
      Israle is a terrorist nation from its formation, remeber the stern gang and Irgun, assasinating UN people, shooting up the
      US liberty etc.....

      Sycophants like you may still support the corrupt aparthied regime, but the rest of the world is fast seeing thru the constant propagnda at the morally bankrupt Israel. Thats why the UN general assembly will act agaist these scum in September.

      I no longer see the so called terrorism as anything other than freedom fighting using the tactics that were used by Israel itself at its formation. The hypocracy of Israels supporters is astonishing.

      Make a difference, boycott Israel.

      BDS for the win!!!

    8. Re:Politics aside ... by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      "Palestinians are waging a war on Israel."

      Would you sit back and allow your land to be stolen more and more each year.

      So you theory is might is right eh? What a typically US/Israel attitude.

    9. Re:Politics aside ... by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      The Israel lobby has mod points again I see, they hate to see the truth about their foul nation revealed.

    10. Re:Politics aside ... by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1
      So what is the solution then? dissolve the "scum" State of Israel? boycott Israel to what end? announce a new State of Palestine without a need to renounce violence from *both* the Israelis and Palestinians? I mean, you are against injustice but how would *you* solve the situation?

      If you had been there you would see it is nothing like South Africa and the Israeli Arabs have all the rights and privileges of any other citizen.

      > but the rest of the world is fast seeing thru the constant propagnda at the morally bankrupt Israel
      And the political position of the Palestinian factions are any less morally corrupt? Fortunately many of those in decision making power have been to the region (as I have) and have a vastly better idea of the reality than yourself. Personally I hope the Palestinians get a their own state, and then use that to further themselves instead of gird themselves for more war - which incidentally is what most moderate Israelis also hope for (there are always extremist exceptions of course, but we're talking about the average person).

  22. Re:RMS Titanic by Tacvek · · Score: 1

    From his website:

    "Richard Stallman" is just my mundane name; you can call me "rms".

    He usually uses "Richard Stallman" or "Richard M. Stallman" for formal correspondence.

    However in informal contexts like email signatures he is very likely to just use "rms".
    This is not unlike a "Robert" being known informally as "Bob", except that this is a
    nickname for the full name, not just the the first name.

    --
    Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
  23. stupid... by advocate_one · · Score: 1

    I'd have told the palestinians to grow up and get a life... it would be my travel arrangements or tough sh1t no visit at all...

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  24. Not Ha'aretz by Windrip · · Score: 1, Informative
    More pig-ignorant editorializing from /. editors.

    One of the posts in the linked thread goes to some Israeli biz-pub.

    The Ha'aretz article about RMS' decision doesn't mis-attribute "Linux Founder" to RMS.

    The error is in another publication

    1. Re:Not Ha'aretz by nadavwr · · Score: 1

      Globes is owned by Haaretz

  25. He didn't create the problem, it was thrown at him by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's nothing in the free *software* philosophy about what conditions can be put on plane tickets. There's a hint in the name - it's about software, not planes.

    His lousy options were to cancel the Israel gigs, or cancel the Israel and the Palestinian gigs. He went for the former, and apologised.

    This isn't news at all. This part of his work must be pretty frustrating for him.

  26. This should be a non-story by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

    Yet here is he, quite prepared to give into bullying terms when it suits him.

    I'm sorry, but: what?

    I think a group that is in a heavily-embargoed, poverty-ridden country has every right to be furious at their scraped-together funds being used for speaking engagements in the highly-privileged nation that is doing the embargoing.

    The fact that RMS went and booked the other speaking engagements shows that he truly has no political sensitivities, and has been the wrong person to represent the FSF for quite some time.

    1. Re:This should be a non-story by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > that RMS went and booked the other speaking engagements shows that he truly has no political sensitivities

      By booking engagements in Israel, he showed that he looks past sectarian boundaries and sees people, each of which deserves freedom in their use of computers.

      RMS writes extensively about politics:

      http://stallman.org/archives/polnotes.html

      Israel and Palestine are one of the most recurring topics.

  27. When drawn into a boycott... by sciencewatcher · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Since RMS consequently rejects any piece of software that restricts his rights or movements, the only right thing to do would be to reject the Arab invitation to visit the former British mandate of Palestine. Of course the Israeli invitees then should pick up the tab to pay for his travel expenses to Israel. The Israelis did not restrict RMS's whereabouts and should be lauded for their policy of sticking to freedom for all, including the Arabs.

    1. Re:When drawn into a boycott... by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      Since RMS consequently rejects any piece of software that restricts his rights or movements, the only right thing to do would be to reject the Arab invitation to visit the former British mandate of Palestine. Of course the Israeli invitees then should pick up the tab to pay for his travel expenses to Israel. The Israelis did not restrict RMS's whereabouts and should be lauded for their policy of sticking to freedom for all, including the Arabs.

      I'm still trying to figure out what percentage of your comment is sarcasm.

  28. Sounds to me like... by deblau · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Palestinians don't believe in freedom of speech. RMS should cancel his entire trip; his talk would be wasted on them anyway.

    --
    This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
    1. Re:Sounds to me like... by plastick · · Score: 1

      I agree 100%. Stallman backed down like a coward to politics.

    2. Re:Sounds to me like... by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      The people, or the government?

    3. Re:Sounds to me like... by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      Wow it's sooooo wrong for me to be quoting the fucking Bible but:

      - Matthew 9:12. On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.
      - Matthew 9:13. But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
      - Mark 2:17. On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
      - Luke 5:32. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

      RMS can go to Israel later just not on the Palestinians' money. The nerve from the Israelite organizer for criticizing RMS while refusing to pay for this travel.

      Cue antisemitism accusations in 3...

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    4. Re:Sounds to me like... by SpaceCracker · · Score: 1

      60 years of oppression by neighbors tends to do that to a people.

      That's the point you missed. In the 44 years since the 6 day war (1967) the Palestinians have enjoyed plenty of free speach... ... as opposed to the citizens of all the other countries in the region (Egypt, Lybia, Syria, Yemen, to name a few)

      --
      sigo ergo sum
  29. Good decision I think. by hackus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    However, even a turkey could see that would cause problems given the plans the "New World Order" has for the region.

    I would have not accept funds in the first place from any political organization over there for transportation.

    I would have a independent source of funds for travel expenses. I would then ask for donations from both sides when I got there to pay for the trip.

    Richard runs the risk of looking like he is choosing sides by doing this, even though he might not feel that way about the politics of the region.

    I say that because his mission is somewhat political due to the economics he will be discussing and social systems that make open source software very profitable as well as technically superior than close source commercial software.

    -Hack.

    --
    Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
    1. Re:Good decision I think. by lennier · · Score: 1

      However, even a turkey could see that would cause problems given the plans the "New World Order" has for the region.

      TV pro wrestling is ruining everything.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    2. Re:Good decision I think. by SpaceCracker · · Score: 1

      ...turkey...

      You leave Turkey out of this discussion or they'll send a flotilla at you.

      --
      sigo ergo sum
  30. Re:One more reason I hate free software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sounds like the only other thing you hated this vehemently was your own foreskin.

  31. Why is he choosing sides on this at all? by McGruff · · Score: 1

    I have no idea why RMS is choosing to pick sides in this at all. That has nothing to do with the Free Software movement and a little bit to do with censorship. If someone doesn't want to pay for the trip now, that's their business but RMS is allowing himself to be held hostage. Cancel both trips or find alternative funding.

          It's free as in FREEDOM, not free as in do as (the metaphorical I) say. Allowing the Free Software movement to be a pawn in any of this is not in the interests of the movement.

          There really seems to be something in the water in that region that makes people crazy. It might not be a bad thing to not send Stallman, regardless. He might play his recorder at them and start an incident.

    1. Re:Why is he choosing sides on this at all? by Alereon · · Score: 1

      Going back in history a bit (since there are very few analogous situations today), but imagine if during the 1980s the citizens of West Berlin had agreed to bring RMS there to speak at their own expense, and he made the decision to cross the Berlin Wall to speak to the supporters of the Soviet regime that had them surrounded by a wall. Now imagine an alternate history where West Berlin wasn't supported by the Western powers, the Berlin airlift never happened, and instead the West Berliners lived in horrible conditions and every month the East Germans bulldozed another West German city block to make room for houses to reward the most vehement and violent Socialists. Hopefully this gives you a bit of an idea of what this must feel like to the Palestinians. You have the right to be upset when you pay to bring someone to talk to you and he uses your money to give the same benefits to your oppressors.

    2. Re:Why is he choosing sides on this at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oh please. You really should read up on the history of the region before you make analogies like that. While I support the Palestinian cause to get a land of their own, both they and the Israelis are and have always been the unwilling pawns in someone else's political game. And the fact that Israelis have managed to build a highly developed society in the little piece of desert they turned into a blooming oasis is commendable. The Palestinians aren't as much the victims of Israel, as of their Arab neighbors' manipulations and schemes. About 2/34rd of the territory originally (1948) intended for the Palestinian state is now part of Jordan, and nobody's even asking to give it back. All the fight is over the remaining third. This is so typical of cynical hypocrisy that the rest of the world is treating both sides with.

      Anyway, if I were him, I'd just cancel the whole thing.

    3. Re:Why is he choosing sides on this at all? by twidarkling · · Score: 2

      Except as pointed out, the payment is coming from UN financial support of the area, so your little "imagine if" scenario fell apart after the "wasn't supported by the West."

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    4. Re:Why is he choosing sides on this at all? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      And the fact that Israelis have managed to build a highly developed society in the little piece of desert they turned into a blooming oasis is commendable.

      Yes, you can do a lot with a tiny strip of area when it gets infused with massive amounts of foreign capital!

  32. Re:The Jews trying to get RMS at bargain prices? by Krigl · · Score: 1

    And yes, even US protesters have been slaughtered by Israelis.

    Um, if you step in front of armoured bulldozer with a very limited view in an attempt to block it with your own body and get bulldozed, it's not called "being slaughtered" but "competing for Darwin Award".

    The More You Know.

    P.S. Also check out Wikipedia for some WMD's measures and usage. You'd be surprised how relatively small they usually are and how little they are used in Israeli-Palestinian conflict (not at all). As for rocks being thrown by Palestinian kids, you shouldn't omit rockets and mortar shells sent by their older compatriots, if you want to be fair (I know, I know, you don't, but I am such a hopeless case and sometimes give a benefit of doubt even where obviously wasted). Not mentioning the issue of proper training in stone throwing and suicide bombing for a modern army; they're really better off with machine guns and F-15s usable against anyone than wasting part of the practice on the stone age/WWII warfare methods useless against regular armies.

    --
    Troll 2.0 Fear my asocial networking!
  33. Re:Standard behavior by thasmudyan · · Score: 2

    That's why they give you the option to get the stamp on a separate piece of paper that you can just take out of your passport when you no longer need it.

  34. Re:He should not get shat on for this by ZankerH · · Score: 2

    I should have the freedom to choose any software license I want. I've had enough of his my-way-or-the-highway thinking.

    Are you saying you don't?

  35. Re:RMS Titanic by orkysoft · · Score: 1

    I thought he only used the middle M when writing science fiction? :-)

    --

    I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
  36. The organizer has a good point by mpsmps · · Score: 1
    For those who didn't RTFA, after the organizer said that he respected RMS' right to cancel the talk and that happens, he did make good points about why RMS' decision is disappointing for his fans.

    You chose the "Free beer" giving up the "Free of speech" and that disappoints me very much since it has to do with the genuinity implementation of your own presented ideas.

    Elsewhere in the response he gives the details

    Boycotting the Israeli Universities since you get funds from Palestinians means that you accepted the Palestinians proprietary license. Neither you nor them want to help their neighbor.

    I agree, and my respect for RMS' idealism is lessened.

    1. Re:The organizer has a good point by anyGould · · Score: 1

      Elsewhere in the response he gives the details

      Boycotting the Israeli Universities since you get funds from Palestinians means that you accepted the Palestinians proprietary license. Neither you nor them want to help their neighbor.

      I agree, and my respect for RMS' idealism is lessened.

      And I would agree if it was an actual boycott. But it's not. At least, I've seen no mention that RMS will *never* go to Israel, or is prohibited from going there.

      Alternatively, you are boycotting all other companies besides your employer since you don't do work for them. Shame on you.

  37. Travel to Palestine...? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

    I wonder how he'll do with the travel side of the equation - When someone lands at Ben Gurion and then states an intention to speak in Palestine, one typically faces an extensive set of invasive questions - Questions that I suspect someone like Stallman may be unwilling to answer. If that's the case, he may find himself back on the next flight to the USA.

    1. Re:Travel to Palestine...? by tftp · · Score: 1

      When someone lands at Ben Gurion and then states an intention to speak in Palestine, one typically faces an extensive set of invasive questions - Questions that I suspect someone like Stallman may be unwilling to answer.

      Wouldn't those questions be asked when you leave? It's a screening for terrorists on airplanes. Customs want to know very simple things - "What is the purpose of your visit?", "Who invited you?", "Where you are going to stay?" etc. etc. There is zero secret in any of that. Customs officers may not like RMS, his plans, and the PA in general, but what reasons may they legally have to send him back? He'd have to be declared an "undesirable person" in some way, a threat to the country, and I doubt that it can be done just over some discussion about politics. One needs some specific information about intended wrongdoing against the country. UK may be an exception, though.

      There are arabs flying into Israel; some of them live in PA. Questioning them is probably far more shocking, and their political views are probably opposite to those of customs officers, for a good reason. Still, it's not a good enough cause to keep them away.

    2. Re:Travel to Palestine...? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 3, Informative

      Have you ever flown into Ben Gurion? It's a very different experience... I arrived, with a friend, with Egyptian and Jordanian visas (in Arabic) in our passports. We were separated, then questioned - Very expertly and professionally. There wasn't any arrogance like you might find entering the USA or Canada, but the questions were very persistent...

      "Where are you going?"
      "Do you know anyone in Egypt? In Jordan?"
      "How long have you known your friend?"
      "Who are you meeting there?"
      "Why is it you have a Canadian passport, and your friend has a British Passport?"

      You got the sense you were interacting with human lie detectors. Answers like "It's none of your business" would not have gone down well.

    3. Re:Travel to Palestine...? by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      First of all you don't have to come through Tel Aviv. You can come across the Allenby Bridge from Amman, Jordan. The Palestinians may get some questions but it is the Pakistanis or Pakistani decendants who get the worst questioning (with some justification, given recent history). I know, I watched as they make a Pakistani-decended US citizen wait while they did an Interpol check (although, I also got the same checks having travelled from Syria, despite coming from harmless New Zealand). So really, they're paranoid of everyone (with good reason) - and it isn't as unfairly discriminatory as most people think (remember, Israel is a nation of immigrants from every point on the globe), pretty much every foreigner gets the same questions.

    4. Re:Travel to Palestine...? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      You can come across the Allenby Bridge from Amman, Jordan

      Sure, but then you get the same set of questions you would have flying into Ben Gurion, only this time at the land crossing. I'm not suggesting the questioning isn't fair, and in my experience it's certainly more intelligent & professional than the questions I've experienced at North American border entry points, but nevetheless the questions require you to give up more privacy than Stallman may be willing to...

    5. Re:Travel to Palestine...? by isorox · · Score: 1

      Have you ever flown into Ben Gurion? It's a very different experience... I arrived, with a friend, with Egyptian and Jordanian visas (in Arabic) in our passports. We were separated, then questioned - Very expertly and professionally. There wasn't any arrogance like you might find entering the USA or Canada, but the questions were very persistent...

      You got the sense you were interacting with human lie detectors. Answers like "It's none of your business" would not have gone down well.

      Certainly not my experience *entering* the country, but I use my Israel/USA passport, not my Pakistan/Egypt passport. They barely look at the pages.

      On the way out it's a completely different story -- expectI had I had otook over an hour before check in last time, and that was without the queue before the first xray machine (we had a shipping agent). Yes, they are human lie detectors. No plane has been subject to an attack leaving TLV. They're as succesful as the TSA

  38. Tempest in a Teapot: by Hartree · · Score: 1

    I'm hardly a Stallman fan, but this seems a bit blown out of proportion.

    As others have said, go to the Israeli universities on another trip.

    Of course, he could do the payback thing and get the Israelis to pay for his second trip, schedule appearances in the Palestinian territories and then cancel them.

    Would be a nice symmetry to that.

    1. Re:Tempest in a Teapot: by MeateaW · · Score: 1

      Even more burn might be to schedule the israel trip on israel funds, and convince the israelis to *allow* him to speak in palestinian territories, all the way saying: "thanks israel for being so awesome". THAT would be the true burn.

  39. Re:He was willing to speak in Israel at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Never mind that Muslims enjoy more rights in Israel than they do in countries that are officially Islamic, except maybe Turkey.

  40. Re:He should not get shat on for this by creat3d · · Score: 1

    Sounds like we got a free-thinker on our hands, boys! You know what you have to do.

    --
    Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.
  41. Re:The Jews trying to get RMS at bargain prices? by erroneus · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Isreal, this nation of "victims" has been growing its borders "in defense" of itself for decades. To see how Israel started and what it has become is astounding. When China does it, its wrong. When the US does it, it's wrong. When Israel does it it's wrong.

    And it's good you know something about the bulldozer story. Did you catch how she was alive the first time they ran her over? Yeah, they ran her over three times. That story by itself was enough to polarize me against Israel and what they are doing. The complete lack of humanity behind such actions are beyond my imagination and seriously remind me of the atrocities claimed by the Jews in WW2. The victims of cruelty and disgusting slaughter have become the victimizers and butchers.

    Could they have pulled her away by force? You bet! Where the occupants of that location even armed? No, they weren't. What could possibly excuse it? "the bulldozer driver couldn't see"??? Are you kidding me? The driver and the person who gave the order both knew what was going on.

  42. On palestinian money? by chelip · · Score: 1

    So they basically wanted Stallman to speak payed by pallestinian money and AFTER palestinians had the idea of him speaking first. If they want him to speak at their universities THEY can organize another event and THEY can pay for it. They didnt like it when someone else won the pressuring/boycot game also, tipical.

  43. Re:The Jews trying to get RMS at bargain prices? by creat3d · · Score: 1

    The Palestinians toss plenty of rockets? You mean like that video Israel released as part of a propaganda campaign that was obviously CG? Or are there more out there?

    --
    Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.
  44. "Linux founder" by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    Ooh, burn.

    1. Re:"Linux founder" by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The gnu/linux prefix has done it's intended task yet again.

  45. Re:He was willing to speak in Israel at all? by eshefer · · Score: 1

    right now, their ruling party is islamic, and they are eroding the secular nature turkey. it's just a matter of time.

  46. Re:The Jews trying to get RMS at bargain prices? by ZipK · · Score: 1

    The Jews aren't a race. They're a religion.

    Except in the U.S. where the Supreme Court affirmed Jews as a race for the purposes of claiming racially-based discrimination.

  47. Re:He should not get shat on for this by twidarkling · · Score: 2

    Really? Not really. A great deal of the community follows his licence recommendations, and without that licence, often projects will flounder. Further, it leads to in-fighting over what licences should be used and which advances the cause of OSS the most, and that's the height of idiocy, because the answer is simply "all and none." Fighting over what licence is best is useless and redirects effort from where it should be, which is heightening the profile of OSS.

    --
    Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
  48. Re:He was willing to speak in Israel at all? by Sir+Homer · · Score: 1, Troll

    So all Israeli Jews are European? Really? Really?

    Arab-Islamic terrorists like Hamas want the total extermination of the Jewish people and conquest of the world. Israel has every right to defend themselves from such psychopaths.

  49. Re:Key lesson by rossz · · Score: 1, Interesting

    That was in 1948. What is happening today? In case you haven't noticed, Israel has done everything they could to bring peace to the region. They gave up large tracts of land hoping it would bring peace. It didn't. The terrorist simply moved their rocket launch points up to the new borders.

    --
    -- Will program for bandwidth
  50. Re:He was willing to speak in Israel at all? by toriver · · Score: 1

    PA != Hamas. Dammit, at least try to keep up.

  51. misunderstandig by jjohn_h · · Score: 2

    >>> ...misunderstand either how apartheid actually worked in South Africa or ... >>>

    The majority opinion in SA is that Israel is an apartheid state.

  52. Re:He cancelled the wrong speaking engagement by toriver · · Score: 1

    Can you prove that the PA or Palestinian universities as such are "terrorist assholes"? No? Then why do you think such a group is behind this condition for paying for the trip?

    As for the other way around, the Israelis do not take lightly on people who express a desire to visit the Palestinian territories.

  53. Re:He was willing to speak in Israel at all? by makomk · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Where do you get that? Interfaith marriage is not illegal in Israel, and non-jews can certainly own land.

    I'm guessing slightly mangled second-hand information. The current state of affairs is that interfaith marriages are legally recognised by Israel, but it's impossible to actually conduct a legal interfaith marriage within Israel (or indeed any kind of secular marriage), due to the political influence of orthodox Judaism IIRC. Oh, and while it is legal for non-Jews to own land, a lot of the land is owned by organisations that are forbidden to lease to non-Jews or to sell it outright to anyone.

  54. Re:He was willing to speak in Israel at all? by Squiddie · · Score: 1

    That may be, but that doesn't change the fact that they are second class citizens in Israel.

  55. Re:The Jews trying to get RMS at bargain prices? by HellYeahAutomaton · · Score: 1

    The other (greedy) Middle Eastern countries are bullies to Israel. Its about size.
    Saudi Arabia is 103.75x bigger than Israel.
    Syria is 8.9x bigger than Israel.
    Jordan (a Palestinian state) is 4.3x bigger than Israel.

    No, they should not be carving up any of the little land they have for the Palestinians or anyone else.
    You can save your sympathies. Rachel Corrie knew what she was doing when she put herself in harm's way and made herself a martyr. She deserved to die.
    Nobody (Muslim Arabs) wants the Palestinians in their countries so they picked the smallest target. http://gentwarrior.blogspot.com/2009/07/nobody-wants-them.html [blogspot.com]

  56. Hypocrisy in action... by dskoll · · Score: 1

    Imagine if the situation had been reversed: Suppose an Israeli university had sponsored Stallman and then threatened to pull funding if he went on to speak at a Palestinian university. Do you think Stallman would have made the same choice? Do you think posters would say they "understand" the position of the Israeli university?

    Unfortunately, Stallman (who is normally very consistent in his behaviour and his beliefs) has messed up this time. He's compromised freedom for the sake of politics.

  57. Re:The Jews trying to get RMS at bargain prices? by erroneus · · Score: 2

    Irony of irony, I don't hate Jews. I actually like Jews. Jews are generally good people. They eat terrific food and so I also eat Jewish food quite often. I disagree with their religion, of course -- I'm atheist. But as people go, I generally get along well with them. Their self-loathing is a bit annoying, but apart from that, I find them largely nice, intelligent and interesting people -- at least the ones I know which are generally east coast, northern, city dwellers.

    What I hate is abusive government run by power-mad psychopaths. The list is LONG on who I feel is described under that criteria... and I'm still holding out a little hope that Obama is simply struggling to survive in a tainted and corrupt network of US politics, but I have no illusions that the US government is just as bad or worse in many ways.

  58. Re:He was willing to speak in Israel at all? by toriver · · Score: 1

    No, the political branch of Hamas is also called Hamas. They were voted into power in Gaza because of the perceived corruption and disliked foreign-relations of the PA, remember?

  59. Nope, wrong by Cyberax · · Score: 3, Informative

    Apartheid by definition is racial segregation within borders of a country.

    That's what happens in Israel. Palestine Authority is not a country but a part of Israel, however its citizens are denied the right to move freely within the borders of Israel.

    1. Re:Nope, wrong by Sun · · Score: 1

      Palestine Authority is not a country but a part of Israel, however its citizens are denied the right to move freely within the borders of Israel.

      Care to give any reference to support this claim?

      Shachar

    2. Re:Nope, wrong by Cyberax · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What exactly?

      Palestine citizens need special permissions to move past checkpoints. That's why the wall was built.

      And Palestine is NOT a separate state. That's also not controversial at all.

    3. Re:Nope, wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Jewish only roads. Making children travel many kms and going through police checks when they used to just be able to walk a half km to school. You should disguise yourself as a Palestinian and take a look around.

      I'm not naive enough to post this under my log-in so I'll choose AC. Arguing with the Jewish people on a moderated forum gets you marked into oblivion.

    4. Re:Nope, wrong by Sun · · Score: 1

      Only Palestinians who are not Israeli citizens. Palestinians who are Israeli citizens may go wherever any citizen may go. In fact, there are quite a few places I cannot go that Israeli Arabs go all the time. People (Palestinian or otherwise) who are not Israeli citizens are restricted from entering Israel. You may not like it (heck, I may not like it), but this clearly shows that any discrimination, if existing, is not racial, thus completely negating the "apartheid" claim.

      In any case, that is not what the wall is for. The wall is to prevent suicide bombers from skipping the blocks and going in. It has been most effective, dropping the number of suicide attacks to near zero as soon as it was constructed, forcing some (mostly in Gaza) to switch to ballistic missiles, and others (mostly in the west bank) to actually improve their own lives.

      Shachar

    5. Re:Nope, wrong by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Duh.

      The question is: why not ALL Palestinians are Israeli citizens?

      There might be (bad) reasons for it, but it's still apartheid. Just like in the South Africa - they had their reasons too.

  60. Pork dodging dick snippers, the lot of 'em by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    As an AC said, two posts up is someone complaining about Palestinian money coming from the EU.

    Well that's what would bother me more, give that it's my money.

    As to taking sides on the issue, there's enough faults either way that you couldn't fit a discarded foreskin between them.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  61. Re:Key lesson by dweinst · · Score: 1

    Read your own link... immediately following the assasination, Lehi (the militant group in question) was forcibly disarmed and dismantled. If only the PA would do the same with Hamas. The day the Palestinians have their own Altalena (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altalena), choose to centralize their authority, and reject terrorism is the day negotiations should begin, and not a day sooner.

    This of course doesn't even consider the other big caveat to your point... Bernadotte saved Western European nationals (starting in May '45, when the biggest threat was friendly fire from Allied bombing) , a very few of which happened to be Jews, and he did nothing to save the vast majority of concentration camp victims, who were Eastern European Jews, and who were left in the DP camps, with nowhere to run. Nor of course, the complete utter failure of the Red Cross (of which he was the Swedish VP) to monitor and publicize the atrocities in the camps during the war.

  62. Re:The Jews trying to get RMS at bargain prices? by dweinst · · Score: 1

    Sort of like the imaginary bunkers in Sderot I'd imagine right? Or the anti-tank rocket fired at a yellow school bus full of high schoolers?

  63. Re:The Jews trying to get RMS at bargain prices? by dweinst · · Score: 1

    How many bulldozers in US construction sites need to be armoured 'cause they're being shot at? Armour tends to cut down on your visibility, as well as your inclination to get out of the cab. Lying down in front of an armored 'dozer exposes you to risk - nuff said. Even then, the death was accidental, unlike what the Palestinians do with their heavy construction equipment (http://www.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2008-07-02-voa7-66670317.html). As always - if the Israelis were genocidal, they've been the most ineffecitve practitioners in history. Take a look at the extremely broad nature of Israeli politics, Israeli media, the judiciary, and their education - there's absolutely no basis to accuse Israel of genocidal or even murderous intentions. They want to live in peace in a dangerous neighborhood, and the day the Arabs decide they want peace, Israel will make extraordinary concessions to achieve it (see Sinai, Gaza).

  64. Re:He was willing to speak in Israel at all? by dweinst · · Score: 1

    Name a right they lack compared to Israeli Jews? The biggest difference is tthat they're not subject to the draft, though they can volunteer. Big hardship there....

  65. Re:The Jews trying to get RMS at bargain prices? by Shoe+Puppet · · Score: 1

    Equating some Israelis to "The Jews" is a pretty sure sign of being anti-semitic...

    --
    (+1, Disagree)
  66. Re:The Jews trying to get RMS at bargain prices? by JabrTheHut · · Score: 1

    At least Israel is defending its borders...

    Would you care to point out where those borders are? Israel refuses to state them, and I'm sure the UN would like to know where to draw the line in September...

    --
    Work like no one is watching. Dance like you've never been hurt. Make love like you don't need the money.
  67. Re:He was willing to speak in Israel at all? by JabrTheHut · · Score: 1

    It's disturbing to me that RMS, a person who has dedicated his life to freedom, would be willing to speak in Palestine at all. It is ruled by people who deny the right to live to anyone who don't follow a bloodthirsty religion that aims to dictate all parts of its believers' life -- that's pretty much the definition of "totalitarian".

    Was one of his speaking engagements in Bethlehem, a majority Christian city? Maybe you should learn a bit more about Palestine and Palestinians, who are majority Muslim but have a vary large and varied set of minorities, including Christian, Druze and Bedouin, living with them.

    I will give up the point above about Israelis being more even handed - they do appear to be equal opportunity oppressors of Palestinians, and will oppress regardless of race, religion or gender.

    --
    Work like no one is watching. Dance like you've never been hurt. Make love like you don't need the money.
  68. Re:Key lesson by Falconhell · · Score: 1

    They gave up large trackts of land they had now right to, like most of Israel. I dont support land thieves,
    which Israle is entirely made up of. Israel of course was won by terrorism, which its supporters conveniently forget.

  69. Re:He was willing to speak in Israel at all? by Falconhell · · Score: 1

    Well said sir, but the pro Israel mods dont like the truth.

  70. Re:the downside of free by Falconhell · · Score: 1, Troll

    Israel is far worse. Did you miss where they kill 10X the number of Palestiniansthan Palestinians kill them?

    Israel was formed by the actions of terrorists, so it is particularly rich of them to complain about it when their own actions are returned. I can see only one reason for blind support such as yours.

  71. Re:The Jews trying to get RMS at bargain prices? by Falconhell · · Score: 1

    It is watching the facts unfold for the last 30 years that has turned me from a strong supporter of Israle, to frankly
    someone who would like to see it wiped from the earth.

    ISRAELS OWN actions lead to me to my feeling NOTHING else.

  72. Re:The Jews trying to get RMS at bargain prices? by Falconhell · · Score: 1

    Accidental? You ust be blind. It was Murder nothing less. Still there always seem to be plenty of posters who only arrive to defend Israel form any criticism.

  73. Re:ISRAEL = AL QAEDA by countertrolling · · Score: 1

    You,sir, shall burn in the fiery depths for your failure to adhere to the established narrative.. Welcome to my nightmare

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  74. What a candyass thing to do by dragonard · · Score: 1

    What Stallman does in his spare time in the Middle East is his business, not the Palestinian Authority.

    Giving into the PA's demand was a wimpy thing to do, particularly from someone the likes of Eric Stallman, who has been known to take controversial stances because it was the right thing to do.

  75. Re:The Jews trying to get RMS at bargain prices? by bug1 · · Score: 1

    "The complete lack of humanity behind such actions are beyond my imagination and seriously remind me of the atrocities claimed by the Jews in WW2."

    Cant disagree... this is how i see it.

    Jewish people are historically amongst the most persecuted groups of people known.

    In recent times, the Palestinian people should be considered to be amongst the most persecuted groups of people.

    To look at this rationally for a second, shouldnt Jewish society, knowing the horrors of such persecution be the most vocal _supporters_ of Palestinians. After all, they should be able to empathize.

    Unfortunately, people, particularly groups of them, donâ(TM)t always act rationally. In this case, its more like "the sins of the father are revisited on the son".

    They where treated badly, so they think that makes it ok for them to treat other people badly, AFAIK its a classic psychological condition.

      The state of Israel is the bastard son of NAZI's.

  76. Re:Key lesson by jon_doh2.0 · · Score: 1

    "Israel has done everything they could to bring peace to the region."

    What is wrong with you? You absolute muppet, Israeli policy makers would laugh behind your back at your credulity.
    They wouldnt even pay for such propaganda, as its glaring falsity would only highlight the opposite.

  77. Common Practice by Douglas+Goodall · · Score: 1
    My father told me when he heard I was going to visit Isreal, to have them stamp a post-it in my passport instead of one of the normal pages. He would do the same thing if he visited other countries in the region. Was that sneaky, or just polite not rub someone's noses in an issue that is bothersome to them? Years ago I worked briefly with an Isreali consultant building point of sale terminals for use in a mall. As it turns out, I let them stamp my passport as I had no foreseeable need to visit any neighboring countries, and in fact I could have applied for a replacement passport had I felt it was an issue.

    These days I have a different point of view and I simply wouldn't do any business in the region because ancient passions have caused all concerned to behave in a non-linear way. To put it bluntly. I have no desire to fly into an airport where the plane is met by a tank and soldiers wielding automatic weapons. Whether it is Israel, or Germany, or Japan for that matter. These days, RMS could have attended virtually on a big screen.

    1. Re:Common Practice by alantus · · Score: 1

      Didn't notice I was an anonymous coward, reposting after logging in.

      Yes, its true that most arab countries won't let you in if your passport has an Israeli stamp or visa. I would never go to any of these countries anyway, so I don't care. Just out of principle I will get my passport stamped if I go to Israel.

      I remember that the list of countries was in Wikipedia, but strangely it was removed. If only I could figure out how to use Wikipedia's revision system I could find out the reason behind this.

      Based on this old revision, the countries to blame for this moronic behavior are: Algeria, Iran, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

      This was a good opportunity for RMS to put his words to work and he just messed up.
      Hopefully he'll rectify and cancel his trip altogether.

  78. Re:He was willing to speak in Israel at all? by Wumpus · · Score: 1

    It's interesting to note (*) that the current state of affairs regarding marriage in Israel is more unpopular among secular Jews who want to marry other secular Jews without the overbearing involvement of an orthodox rabbi than among people who are interested in marrying someone of a different faith. The latter seem to be better organized and have better parliamentary representation, so something might actually change on their behalf.

    (*) Interesting to me, at least...

  79. Re:RMS Titanic by wrook · · Score: 2

    Everybody that I know that knows him personally (which I don't) calls him Richard. I've had a few brief email conversations with him and he didn't sign the emails at all. RMS is his login name. Back in the olden days (which, through the fog of memory, I think I may have been party to) programmers used to refer to each other by their login name. Many people (even me) used to sign their emails with their login name (which would have been the same as their email address). Back when "finger" was the way to check up on what people were doing, it was important to know people's login name.

    I still use my normal login name (which isn't wrook, BTW) on a lot of forums and there are people who I've talked with for decades that don't know me by any other name. I've almost certainly referred to myself that way online. That doesn't mean that I use it in daily conversation.

  80. "Freedom"? No respect. by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

    Ya know, this lost me a lot of respect for RMS. I can understand his need to make a living through speaking engagements (assuming that's what he's doing here), but for a man who's visible life and career has been almost completely focused on "free as in speech", this is somewhat of a backwards move.

    Israel, an atomic state with military hardware which rivals anything in the rest of the west and with one of the best military forces to boot, is bombarded on an almost daily basis by rockets and attacked by "Palestine"/Muslim extremists intent on killing Israelis. Yes, the Israelis retaliate, but given their capabilities it is, at best, "measured".

    The Palistine promoters are trying to silence RMS speech in Israel for political reasons. RMS succumbed for financial/prestige reasons. Isn't this precisely the issue behind RMS's ranting and raving?

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  81. Re:Why do people pretend to be stupid to make a po by rawler · · Score: 2

    What is your real game here?

    Not playing any game. I'm clearly not involved, or able to really advice anyone on this topic. Just voicing my opinion. This is slashdot.

    Who are you trying to depict as unreasonable?

    The one refusing an objectively fair compromise. Both, either, or neither, I don't care. For reference, I don't have much bias in the question, I think both sides are partly responsible for the situation.

    The point of the proposal is to force both individually to accept, or depict themselves as unreasonable. Doubly so if the other part accepts. I'm not pointing fingers.

  82. Re:the downside of free by superwiz · · Score: 1

    Killing 10x more of your enemies than they kill of you is how wars are won. My support for Israel is not blind, it is well-informed and well-justified.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  83. Re:He was willing to speak in Israel at all? by An+Elephant · · Score: 1

    There are about as many Jews in israel whose origins are in Arab and North-African countries as Jews of European descent. The claim that the state was erected "in order to oppress the people of the region" is patently false.

    While Israel has its faults, many of which related to how it treats its internal non-Jewish minority as well as the semi-occupied west bank, your presentation of its origins and current state are completely misinformed and misguided.

    In particular, Israeli prime minister (not president) Netanyahu made nothing like the statement you quote for him. His vision for the end of the conflict is unacceptable to Palestinians, but that's ok; no Palestinian leader has ever accepted any solution that is consistent with the existence of a Jewish state in the region.

  84. You must live in a very big bubble by arcite · · Score: 1

    Majority consensus of the world is that Israel is a virtual Apartheid state, so by consensus you are quite wrong. Continue living with your delusions at your peril.

    1. Re:You must live in a very big bubble by Sun · · Score: 1

      Let's see if I got this straight. You cannot disprove my arguments based on merit, so you are making the (unsubstantiated) claim that the majority agrees with you, implying the majority is always right.

      If the majority thinks something which is contradicted by objective study of the claims, it just means that the majority is either misinformed or prejudiced. If your point was that Israel is being unfairly judged, you made it well.

      Shachar

  85. RMS: "just" supporting academic boycott by An+Elephant · · Score: 1

    In a letter to one of the Israeli Activists, RMS writes:

    I saw that you sent an E-mail message canceling
    all of your talks in Israel in the upcoming visit.

    Not all of them -- only the ones at universities. It is the
    universities that the funders object to. I have one planned talk
    which is not at a university, which I still plan to give.

    Apparently RMS is OK with an academic boycott, as long as he gets to talk to somebody.

  86. Re:The Jews trying to get RMS at bargain prices? by erroneus · · Score: 1

    True. Israel does not need to exist. It was stirring up trouble from the very beginning and has been a constant source of hell for the whole world since. Has it been "worth it" so far? Has their been a net benefit to the world since it all started?

    Still, right now too many generations have been born there. They are there now and it would be pointless to "move them" again. The world now needs to condemn and even fight back against Israel for violating international law. They need to return behind their borders and learn to live in peace without being an aggressive country.

    I don't pretend to think it is as simple as all that, but I think we are underestimating the Palestinians a little. And the borders of Israel were defined by the UN long ago. They need to go back. The need to stop destroying the homes of people outside of their borders and they most definitely need to stop building new settlements in these same places which were supposedly cleared to create a safe zone between Israel and the outside. They violate their own law as well as international law. They are lawless and it is past time to bring them into account.

  87. A lot of BS on this thread by inthealpine · · Score: 1

    I haven't seen this much BS on one thread since the last global warming post. Palestinians will never be a State because Hamas, who is back by Iran, has in their charter that Israel and Israelis should be destroyed. Arabs of whatever sect have just as much right over Israel's land as they would over Spain's land. If you think Israel has no right to it, then Spain has no right to their land.
    Israelis controlled much more than they have now far longer ago that the idea of a 'Palestinian State' was ever conjured up. I don't like giving $4Billion a year to Israel as much as the next guy (or any other country for that matter), but pretending like the Palestinians have some kind of claim to that land when King David ruled that land around 1000ish BC is delusional.
    Israel won the land they have now from a war that was launched against them from 3 different Arab 'states' (I know, odd of Arabs to start a war). Israeli kicked their ass and the land was ceded to them. Anyone here in the US ready to give up the south west US states because Mexicans are pissed that they lost a war long ago?
    In closing I'd like to say that if you walk in the Arab controlled parts of Israel, you (assuming you are a westerner) will likely be harassed if not maimed or killed. This is the reality of the Arab world and is why a US journalist covering the 'democracy uprising' or 'freedom uprising' in Egypt was rapped in the middle of the day, in the middle of the 'freedom protests' where everyone could see. They yelled JEW! JEW! JEW! as she was raped.
    If you all want to pretend like war wont be launched against Israel as soon as there is a sign of weakness, you are a fool. If you think the Palestinians will ever accept the US in any way shape or form other than as an enemy, you will find disappointment at every turn.

    --
    "In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
    1. Re:A lot of BS on this thread by bstender · · Score: 1

      You haven't seen this much BS on one thread, so you decided to see if you could top it in one POST:)
      every single point in your post is raving bullshit...the claims to the land, the charter of Hamas, the 'rape'...everything! it's like you copied and pasted from some thread on Ha'aretz.
      to troll properly on slashdot you need to retain some amount of debatability mixed with a more measured delivery.

      --
      look sig is kool
  88. Re:the downside of free by Falconhell · · Score: 2

    Dont mention that most are civilians, where is the declaration of war?

      Why do you support murdering land thieves who gained their country thru terrorism?

  89. I luv ham by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    My attitude toward the Palestinian/Israel thing is to believe everything both sides say.

    If one side say, "They started it!" and the other side say, "No, it was them!", then how does that work?

    Seems like less effort to simply not believe any of them.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  90. Re:He should not get shat on for this by Risen888 · · Score: 1

    Are you saying BSD is dying?

    --
    Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
  91. Re:Israel has an opportunity by bstender · · Score: 1

    "This move by Palestinian Authority it won't make any friends in Israel"
    this is a familiar formula in situations of oppressor vs. oppressed, it was a major stumbling block for the blacks in america, hoping that if you were "extra nice" they would stop oppressing you and/or, if you aren't extra nice, they will oppress you worse. Bicyclists of today are in the same boat as you hear car drivers openly threatening death and dismemberment for crimes of impoliteness..."not staying in their place" (off of "their" roadway). Fairness and equal rights are anathema to those enjoying domination and control. it's foolish to play that game, you must fight for your rights.

    --
    look sig is kool
  92. BDS isn't a unix varient by Smiths · · Score: 1

    In 2006, the Palstenian civil society called for supporters of their cause to boycott, divest and sanction Israel whom is denying rights to over 4 million people who live in Israel based on thier religion.

    Had the Palestenians not pulled the funding they would have been breaking their own boycott.

  93. Re:the downside of free by Falconhell · · Score: 1

    It cannot pssibly be well infromed if you havent recognised the war crimes Israelis regularly commit.

    I supported Israel strongly 30 years ago. Their OWN actions have eroded that support to the point where I would happy to see Israel disappear from the planet and become a multi faith democratic state.

    I suggest you look at examples like this:

      http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/barbarity-wielded-in-the-name-of-israel-s-eternal-capital-1.364876

    The rest of the world is rapidly waking up to the constant lies and propaganda of Israel, except apparently you!

  94. What are children supposed to do over the summer? by tepples · · Score: 1

    child labor laws

    What are children supposed to do over extended vacations from school? What's the best way to teach children the value of work? Strict laws against child labor interfere with both of these.

  95. If both candidates are pro-fiat by tepples · · Score: 1

    The thefts is perpetrated by the government, who steals the purchasing power of all dollars that are already in existence, and that's why the sensible thing to do is not to be in fiat.

    If both candidates in a given election are pro-fiat, what can a private citizen do, other than not buying Chrysler?