Always soldiers, huh? Let me guess, you're one of those assholes who defines a 6 year old Israeli kid as a solider, because, had he survived, he would have been a soldier in the future.
Just come out with it: you hate Jews, and you wish Hitler had finished the job. That's all you really need to say. All this beating around the bush just muddles the issue. Stick up for your beliefs!
And this emotional outburst is why we can never have rational discussion about world politics. Anyone who disagrees with your position is automatically cast aside as an anti-Semite.
Because I do agree with you that those statistics that the parent presented are heavily biased, and that there are a lot of Israeli civilians who have been killed and this fact should be acknowledged. A simple Google search would bring up bus and night club bombings that clearly shows that civilians on the Israeli side have been killed.
But way to put the brakes on any future discourse.
I honestly believe that a safeguard against preemptive aggression is a fundamental right that every sovereign nation should have. It's why any country has a standing military. The fact that Iran should even feel threatened by the US justifies this safeguard, not the other way around. Just like how America did not need permission to arm themselves with nuclear weapons, and actually used a couple when it felt necessary to win WWII, proves this. Do you honestly believe that any amount of UN treaties or protocols would actually prevent the United States from ever using a nuclear weapon if it ever felt the need to in the future? U.N. treaties certainly did not stop France from allegedly helping Israel develop their nuclear program.
America's invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was a giant kick in Iran's butt. With US troops operating within two bordering countries, Iran felt it was necessary to hasten their nuclear ambitions. Why did the U.S. invade two nations that had virtually no real military, but continues to avoid North Korea, who even shelled South Korea? The biggest response that could be mustered by South Korea and the US were war games? Seriously? That's precisely why Iran feels the need to develop their nuclear program. Also, the fact that Iranian scientists are getting assassinated (a very disgusting, cowardly move) shows that this safeguard is necessary. I consider assassinating scientists and civilians as terrorism. I would be equally appalled if contractors for Northrop Grumman or Lockheed Martin were to be killed using that same logic.
I do agree with you though that Iran is not a democracy. Every election that they've had has been a sham. The last leader that they democratically elected was over 50 years ago, and he was overthrown and replaced with a dictator. Their government kills and maims more of their own citizens in political prisons than you could ever imagine. While I wholeheartedly agree that the world would be a better place if the current Iranian government was not in power, I do not agree with assassinating scientists, especially since many of them have no choice but to either work on government-sponsored projects or to try to defect, but risk getting their families that they leave behind killed if they manage to escape. Some of the scientists actually support opposition movements, and are stuck in a really bad situation.
I hope that you can understand my position. I dislike the government of Iran since it's my relatives over there that are always at risk of getting killed if they speak out, but am also disgusted by US aggression and double-standards, which I also see as a threat to my relatives over there. It was bad enough wondering if each missile lobbed by Iraq in the 1980s would actually hit one of my relatives' residence. Now I have to worry the same about an Israeli strike or a U.S. invasion.
You can download almost all of Oracle's software right from their website for personal or educational use. You are expected to have a license though if you use it to conduct any business transactions. I believe that they also have a 'lite' edition of their database in case you wanted to also try that out. From their website:
Software Downloads
Developers:
All software downloads are free, and most come with a Developer License that allows you to use full versions of the products at no charge while developing and prototyping your applications, or for strictly self-educational purposes. You can buy products with full-use licenses at any time from the online Store or from your sales representative.
Customers:
If you already have a commercial license you should download your software from our E-Delivery site, which is specifically designed for customer fulfillment. For patches, see My Oracle Support.
Geez when did the parent say that we should all go to China? Isn't the whole point of a democracy that we can point out these problems and try to fix them so that we can avoid becoming like a country that has less freedoms?
As citizens, you get the government that you tolerate. If we become complacent simply because we're better than country X, then slowly over time, we'll become country X.
And when little Roshanjam, the 9th son of Shaniqua who has 8 other half-brothers and no daddy for any of them, gets into fights and gangs and knifes people and someone actually hauls him in, there she is crying and screaming "racism" and unwilling to accept that no, her kid is a criminal little punk who has his head straight up his own ass.
and
and in the meantime the deadbeat shithead parents are busy getting a lawyer and spinning sob stories to the media about how their "good little angel" is getting a bad rap because of the "racist teacher who obviously hates them."
How is he telling the truth when the poster has to create completely bullshit scenarios to prop up his argument? Unless he actually knows of a little Roshanjam, who is the 9th son of Shaniqua who has 8 other half-brothers and no daddy for any of them? Heck, the entire post was made up of hypothetical examples. Why not use a real life example, there are plenty out there.
It's trolling when he has to pull completely hypothetical situations out of his ass to prop up an argument, which shows that he's more interested in getting a rise out of people than he is interested in making a point. It almost sounds like he's advocating personal responsibility, but yet he makes a sweeping racial generalization. I agree with personal and parental responsibility and not creating a nanny state, but even I can see that making a legitimate point was not the poster's primary intention.
The platform is still open. Google hasn't banned you from installing this particular app onto your android device, just removed the possibility of buying it from their market. You can still acquire the app through the developer or from an alternative market and install it on your phone as a third-party app. The question is whether it was ethical for Google to remove the app, since you could have potential good uses for it. I can't argue for or against the ethics of removing the app from their market, but this particular case does not make the platform less open.
For elected leaders I can maybe understand that logic, but that doesn't make the least bit of sense for police officers. Would you prefer there to be some sort of draft for police officers? So the cop responding to your 911 intruder call is some scared housewife or accountant who got drafted last month and is liable to shoot the first thing that moves when they come through the door?
Sounds like a promising police academy movie sequel.
Well according to the article, the court ruled that he owes Facebook the money, not the government. I guess it makes sense -- he used their network to distribute and profit off of the spam. He did so by tricking users into giving him their login credentials, and once he had that, he would run programs to send out the millions of spam messages. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone will see a dime out of this.
Iran is not a completely crazy country. Sure, the leadership is run by corrupt figures who use religious zealotry to organize the poor in order to remain in power, but that's no different than many Western countries. But many Iranians are middle class kinds of people, not the raving lunatics who want to nuke the rest of the world like they portray on TV. It's certainly possible that if the current leaders were to stumble on the national stage that the poor might see them for who they are, and violently remove them from power.
Wow. This sounds like you live in Iran, since you know so much.
You do live in Iran, don't you?
I mean, you've at least been to Iran once, haven't you?
Ah, I see.
I've been to Iran three times since 2003, and I can agree with the person that you are responding to. I've been to three major cities - Tehran, Esfahan, and Shiraz. I do have relatives there, so I may be biased. The majority of the people that I've met and spoken to are moderates who are stuck under the thumb of an oppressive regime. Every time they try protest, the government mobilizes their armed thugs to quash it. And since weapons are banned in Iran, the citizens have no means of defending themselves.
It's one of the biggest reasons why I fully support the second amendment. People seriously have no idea how good it is in America to be able to purchase a gun to protect yourself. Sure, the government will always be allowed to have higher powered shit, but at least the people have SOMETHING to defend themselves with. And the total population of people will always outnumber the government.
Anyway, the people there are very moderate. Islam is their main religion because it's what they're born into, but many Iranians, especially those who move overseas, later adopt a more spiritual view on religion than a hardcore stance. In one of the recent protests, people were chanting "No help for Hezbollah, no help for Palestine, support the Iranian people". The people are pissed that the government is spending money on propping up those groups rather than spending it on infrastructure. The political mood there has been, for the last decade, really sickening and every year that goes by, the people get more restless.
Change is bound to happen, and hopefully it happens before anything really bad occurs in that region.
When you ask these same kids how they feel about the Jap-camps the USA had in those days they look at you as if they see water burn.
The US's internment camps were certainly wrong, but if you think they were anything like Nazi Germany's concentration camps, you're almost as stupid as your history teacher was.
According to this article, 4chan was thought to be behind the data breach. There's even a screen shot in the article taken from the forums, though there's nothing in there that says what they were planning on doing specifically. Regardless of how the data was exposed, they deserve the potential half a million pound fine for keeping so much personal data on people in unencrypted files.
Actually, they're pretty lucky if they get away with only a half a million pound fine.
The book burning is barely a real political statement, its not an artistic performance, and its certainly not warranted. It's some groaty, pissed-off redneck reminiscent of the side-character Skeeter in South Park -- the guy who hangs out in the bar going "we don't take kindly to your kind around here." In this case its "hey, intolerant Muslims! we don't take kindly to your kind around here!" Just because he has a legal right to proceed with his moronic plan, the irony of which, I'm sure, is probably much too subtle to have an impression on him, doesn't mean that, you, I, Rackspace, or anyone else has to facilitate his stupidity.
And killing people because of a perceived insult is... what... exactly ?
muslims once again demonstrates what assholes they are. I will, incidentally, retract this statement if any decent-sized group of muslims stands up and defends this book burning.
While he's not exactly defending the burning, he's advocating turning the other cheek and bringing up the point that destroying the Quran won't destroy its message. Still, news like this never makes the front page, and gets buried because it wouldn't sell.
It's called Persian. You don't go around saying "in espanol it's called..." do you?
THANK YOU! Here's a PDF that lays out some of the arguments against calling the language Farsi. We don't go around calling the English that people from Boston speak as "Bostonese", do we?
If they actually had 15,000 documents on Israeli operations in the West Bank, then Wikileaks would release it. It's hard to be balanced if you don't have anyone on the inside feeding you the classified documents. It's not as if Julian Assange puts on a ski mask and sneaks through the ventilation systems of Langley or the Pentagon and swipes documents while nobody is looking.
If someone from Mossad or Shin-Bet has the access to such documents and forwards them to Wikileaks, then expect it to be posted once verified.
I have to agree with you here, even failed attacks cause mass hysteria. Just look at the security theater at airports in the US. (I can only speak for the country I live in.) With every failed attack, they tack on another ridiculous "security procedure" that does nothing but make us think that they're doing something useful. To make things worse, then the US requires airports abroad to have similar procedures and regulations to even be allowed within US airspace.
Though you didn't pose your question to me, I do not find that terrorism requires any competence. Terrorism is simply a desperate way to achieve a political goal. Because they do not have the resources that a government with a standing army has, they choose whatever method that they can get away with, and that's usually hijackings or suicide bombings. Even unsuccessful attacks cause enough of a panic within a general population to change government policy and disrupt everyday life.
Any idiot with homemade bombs can do this. 9/11, on the other hand, did require competence. The plot was hatched around 1996, though some of it was also luck because the FBI, CIA, and local law enforcement did not talk to each other. (I believe at least one of the would-be hijackers was pulled over before 9/11, for example.)
But would we feel any different about groups such as al-Qaeda if they were a real government and had a standing army, and sent battalions and regiments into battle ? Do we hate their tactics, or their goals?
These random asides on Slashdot sometimes remind me of reading a Wikipedia article, and then getting distracted by one of the links, and then that link spawns another ten more links, and so on.
I know what you're trying to say, but I respectfully disagree. I've always felt that every side has a story or a cause, else they wouldn't risk their lives to do it. In some cases, their cause may be morally reprehensible to us, but there's always something that drives them to do whatever it is that they do. I get frustrated with the media because they like to lump people into "good guy vs. bad guy" categories, and it's usually "terrorists blow up bus, 50 die" or something like that.
Well, why did they do it? What was their motive? If you're going to give the story air time, then you're already legitimizing their barbaric tactics, so you might as well tell us the whole story so that we understand what the root cause of all this is. We could just blow up everyone who is a threat to us, but that is similar to treating the symptom, but if we don't treat the underlying cause, it will never get better.
Still, you did make a point. In what cases do you feel that a story would only have one side? I don't want to dismiss your point outright.
Journalism is neutral, bullets aren't. If you embed with combat forces in a war zone, you're likely to get killed. Don't piss and moan when this happens.
Or, you know, identify your targets before shooting at them? In some cases, that's impossible. In the case of the Apache helicopter attack, the Apache wasn't being shot at, and at their range, they should have been able to make out the camera tripods.
Slashdot Mirror
Always soldiers, huh? Let me guess, you're one of those assholes who defines a 6 year old Israeli kid as a solider, because, had he survived, he would have been a soldier in the future.
Just come out with it: you hate Jews, and you wish Hitler had finished the job. That's all you really need to say. All this beating around the bush just muddles the issue. Stick up for your beliefs!
And this emotional outburst is why we can never have rational discussion about world politics. Anyone who disagrees with your position is automatically cast aside as an anti-Semite.
Because I do agree with you that those statistics that the parent presented are heavily biased, and that there are a lot of Israeli civilians who have been killed and this fact should be acknowledged. A simple Google search would bring up bus and night club bombings that clearly shows that civilians on the Israeli side have been killed.
But way to put the brakes on any future discourse.
I have mixed feelings about this.
I honestly believe that a safeguard against preemptive aggression is a fundamental right that every sovereign nation should have. It's why any country has a standing military. The fact that Iran should even feel threatened by the US justifies this safeguard, not the other way around. Just like how America did not need permission to arm themselves with nuclear weapons, and actually used a couple when it felt necessary to win WWII, proves this. Do you honestly believe that any amount of UN treaties or protocols would actually prevent the United States from ever using a nuclear weapon if it ever felt the need to in the future? U.N. treaties certainly did not stop France from allegedly helping Israel develop their nuclear program.
America's invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was a giant kick in Iran's butt. With US troops operating within two bordering countries, Iran felt it was necessary to hasten their nuclear ambitions. Why did the U.S. invade two nations that had virtually no real military, but continues to avoid North Korea, who even shelled South Korea? The biggest response that could be mustered by South Korea and the US were war games? Seriously? That's precisely why Iran feels the need to develop their nuclear program. Also, the fact that Iranian scientists are getting assassinated (a very disgusting, cowardly move) shows that this safeguard is necessary. I consider assassinating scientists and civilians as terrorism. I would be equally appalled if contractors for Northrop Grumman or Lockheed Martin were to be killed using that same logic.
I do agree with you though that Iran is not a democracy. Every election that they've had has been a sham. The last leader that they democratically elected was over 50 years ago, and he was overthrown and replaced with a dictator. Their government kills and maims more of their own citizens in political prisons than you could ever imagine. While I wholeheartedly agree that the world would be a better place if the current Iranian government was not in power, I do not agree with assassinating scientists, especially since many of them have no choice but to either work on government-sponsored projects or to try to defect, but risk getting their families that they leave behind killed if they manage to escape. Some of the scientists actually support opposition movements, and are stuck in a really bad situation.
I hope that you can understand my position. I dislike the government of Iran since it's my relatives over there that are always at risk of getting killed if they speak out, but am also disgusted by US aggression and double-standards, which I also see as a threat to my relatives over there. It was bad enough wondering if each missile lobbed by Iraq in the 1980s would actually hit one of my relatives' residence. Now I have to worry the same about an Israeli strike or a U.S. invasion.
You can download almost all of Oracle's software right from their website for personal or educational use. You are expected to have a license though if you use it to conduct any business transactions. I believe that they also have a 'lite' edition of their database in case you wanted to also try that out. From their website:
Software Downloads
Developers:
All software downloads are free, and most come with a Developer License that allows you to use full versions of the products at no charge while developing and prototyping your applications, or for strictly self-educational purposes. You can buy products with full-use licenses at any time from the online Store or from your sales representative.
Customers:
If you already have a commercial license you should download your software from our E-Delivery site, which is specifically designed for customer fulfillment. For patches, see My Oracle Support.
Geez when did the parent say that we should all go to China? Isn't the whole point of a democracy that we can point out these problems and try to fix them so that we can avoid becoming like a country that has less freedoms?
As citizens, you get the government that you tolerate. If we become complacent simply because we're better than country X, then slowly over time, we'll become country X.
And when little Roshanjam, the 9th son of Shaniqua who has 8 other half-brothers and no daddy for any of them, gets into fights and gangs and knifes people and someone actually hauls him in, there she is crying and screaming "racism" and unwilling to accept that no, her kid is a criminal little punk who has his head straight up his own ass.
and
and in the meantime the deadbeat shithead parents are busy getting a lawyer and spinning sob stories to the media about how their "good little angel" is getting a bad rap because of the "racist teacher who obviously hates them."
How is he telling the truth when the poster has to create completely bullshit scenarios to prop up his argument? Unless he actually knows of a little Roshanjam, who is the 9th son of Shaniqua who has 8 other half-brothers and no daddy for any of them? Heck, the entire post was made up of hypothetical examples. Why not use a real life example, there are plenty out there.
It's trolling when he has to pull completely hypothetical situations out of his ass to prop up an argument, which shows that he's more interested in getting a rise out of people than he is interested in making a point. It almost sounds like he's advocating personal responsibility, but yet he makes a sweeping racial generalization. I agree with personal and parental responsibility and not creating a nanny state, but even I can see that making a legitimate point was not the poster's primary intention.
Sort of. Here is the official response.
Thanks, Gene Ray.
google bans stuff...
from its own market.
They have every right to ban whatever they feel like banning from their market. In this case, Google claims that the app went against their policy.
which is only one
Not quite. There are alternatives.
enjoy platform openness
The platform is still open. Google hasn't banned you from installing this particular app onto your android device, just removed the possibility of buying it from their market. You can still acquire the app through the developer or from an alternative market and install it on your phone as a third-party app. The question is whether it was ethical for Google to remove the app, since you could have potential good uses for it. I can't argue for or against the ethics of removing the app from their market, but this particular case does not make the platform less open.
For elected leaders I can maybe understand that logic, but that doesn't make the least bit of sense for police officers. Would you prefer there to be some sort of draft for police officers? So the cop responding to your 911 intruder call is some scared housewife or accountant who got drafted last month and is liable to shoot the first thing that moves when they come through the door?
Sounds like a promising police academy movie sequel.
Well according to the article, the court ruled that he owes Facebook the money, not the government. I guess it makes sense -- he used their network to distribute and profit off of the spam. He did so by tricking users into giving him their login credentials, and once he had that, he would run programs to send out the millions of spam messages. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone will see a dime out of this.
Iran is not a completely crazy country. Sure, the leadership is run by corrupt figures who use religious zealotry to organize the poor in order to remain in power, but that's no different than many Western countries. But many Iranians are middle class kinds of people, not the raving lunatics who want to nuke the rest of the world like they portray on TV. It's certainly possible that if the current leaders were to stumble on the national stage that the poor might see them for who they are, and violently remove them from power.
Wow. This sounds like you live in Iran, since you know so much.
You do live in Iran, don't you?
I mean, you've at least been to Iran once, haven't you?
Ah, I see.
I've been to Iran three times since 2003, and I can agree with the person that you are responding to. I've been to three major cities - Tehran, Esfahan, and Shiraz. I do have relatives there, so I may be biased. The majority of the people that I've met and spoken to are moderates who are stuck under the thumb of an oppressive regime. Every time they try protest, the government mobilizes their armed thugs to quash it. And since weapons are banned in Iran, the citizens have no means of defending themselves.
It's one of the biggest reasons why I fully support the second amendment. People seriously have no idea how good it is in America to be able to purchase a gun to protect yourself. Sure, the government will always be allowed to have higher powered shit, but at least the people have SOMETHING to defend themselves with. And the total population of people will always outnumber the government.
Anyway, the people there are very moderate. Islam is their main religion because it's what they're born into, but many Iranians, especially those who move overseas, later adopt a more spiritual view on religion than a hardcore stance. In one of the recent protests, people were chanting "No help for Hezbollah, no help for Palestine, support the Iranian people". The people are pissed that the government is spending money on propping up those groups rather than spending it on infrastructure. The political mood there has been, for the last decade, really sickening and every year that goes by, the people get more restless.
Change is bound to happen, and hopefully it happens before anything really bad occurs in that region.
When you ask these same kids how they feel about the Jap-camps the USA had in those days they look at you as if they see water burn.
The US's internment camps were certainly wrong, but if you think they were anything like Nazi Germany's concentration camps, you're almost as stupid as your history teacher was.
Good job of proving santax's point.
According to this article, 4chan was thought to be behind the data breach. There's even a screen shot in the article taken from the forums, though there's nothing in there that says what they were planning on doing specifically. Regardless of how the data was exposed, they deserve the potential half a million pound fine for keeping so much personal data on people in unencrypted files.
Actually, they're pretty lucky if they get away with only a half a million pound fine.
Don't worry, Canonical will eventually get around to using that as an Ubuntu release name.
The book burning is barely a real political statement, its not an artistic performance, and its certainly not warranted. It's some groaty, pissed-off redneck reminiscent of the side-character Skeeter in South Park -- the guy who hangs out in the bar going "we don't take kindly to your kind around here." In this case its "hey, intolerant Muslims! we don't take kindly to your kind around here!" Just because he has a legal right to proceed with his moronic plan, the irony of which, I'm sure, is probably much too subtle to have an impression on him, doesn't mean that, you, I, Rackspace, or anyone else has to facilitate his stupidity.
And killing people because of a perceived insult is ... what ... exactly ?
muslims once again demonstrates what assholes they are. I will, incidentally, retract this statement if any decent-sized group of muslims stands up and defends this book burning.
Here you are:
Imam says reaction to Koran burning should be peaceful
While he's not exactly defending the burning, he's advocating turning the other cheek and bringing up the point that destroying the Quran won't destroy its message. Still, news like this never makes the front page, and gets buried because it wouldn't sell.
You're calling someone who just defended prison sentences for those that cross a border illegally a lefty ?? Are you fucking serious?
You're already at +5, but if only I had mod points. Consider this a +1 perfection.
It's called Persian. You don't go around saying "in espanol it's called..." do you?
THANK YOU! Here's a PDF that lays out some of the arguments against calling the language Farsi. We don't go around calling the English that people from Boston speak as "Bostonese", do we?
Ah, good old appeal to emotion. Works like a charm, every time.
Person 1: "I support the death penalty"
Person 2: "You wouldn't support it if your child was put on death row!!"
Person 1: "I am against the death penalty"
Person 2: "You wouldn't be against it if the murderer had killed your child!!"
If they actually had 15,000 documents on Israeli operations in the West Bank, then Wikileaks would release it. It's hard to be balanced if you don't have anyone on the inside feeding you the classified documents. It's not as if Julian Assange puts on a ski mask and sneaks through the ventilation systems of Langley or the Pentagon and swipes documents while nobody is looking.
If someone from Mossad or Shin-Bet has the access to such documents and forwards them to Wikileaks, then expect it to be posted once verified.
I have to agree with you here, even failed attacks cause mass hysteria. Just look at the security theater at airports in the US. (I can only speak for the country I live in.) With every failed attack, they tack on another ridiculous "security procedure" that does nothing but make us think that they're doing something useful. To make things worse, then the US requires airports abroad to have similar procedures and regulations to even be allowed within US airspace.
Though you didn't pose your question to me, I do not find that terrorism requires any competence. Terrorism is simply a desperate way to achieve a political goal. Because they do not have the resources that a government with a standing army has, they choose whatever method that they can get away with, and that's usually hijackings or suicide bombings. Even unsuccessful attacks cause enough of a panic within a general population to change government policy and disrupt everyday life.
Any idiot with homemade bombs can do this. 9/11, on the other hand, did require competence. The plot was hatched around 1996, though some of it was also luck because the FBI, CIA, and local law enforcement did not talk to each other. (I believe at least one of the would-be hijackers was pulled over before 9/11, for example.)
But would we feel any different about groups such as al-Qaeda if they were a real government and had a standing army, and sent battalions and regiments into battle ? Do we hate their tactics, or their goals?
These random asides on Slashdot sometimes remind me of reading a Wikipedia article, and then getting distracted by one of the links, and then that link spawns another ten more links, and so on.
Not that I'm complaining, :-)
Google will make sure that Zynga stays.
I know what you're trying to say, but I respectfully disagree. I've always felt that every side has a story or a cause, else they wouldn't risk their lives to do it. In some cases, their cause may be morally reprehensible to us, but there's always something that drives them to do whatever it is that they do. I get frustrated with the media because they like to lump people into "good guy vs. bad guy" categories, and it's usually "terrorists blow up bus, 50 die" or something like that.
Well, why did they do it? What was their motive? If you're going to give the story air time, then you're already legitimizing their barbaric tactics, so you might as well tell us the whole story so that we understand what the root cause of all this is. We could just blow up everyone who is a threat to us, but that is similar to treating the symptom, but if we don't treat the underlying cause, it will never get better.
Still, you did make a point. In what cases do you feel that a story would only have one side? I don't want to dismiss your point outright.
Journalism is neutral, bullets aren't. If you embed with combat forces in a war zone, you're likely to get killed. Don't piss and moan when this happens.
Or, you know, identify your targets before shooting at them? In some cases, that's impossible. In the case of the Apache helicopter attack, the Apache wasn't being shot at, and at their range, they should have been able to make out the camera tripods.