Ad hominem is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it (direct quote from wikipedia).
So, for example, if I say "all of your numbers are wrong, from the number of dead yearly to the number of years this conflict is going on", and you reply with "you are blind with hate", then that's diverting the discussion from the content to the participants. I've marked the references to help you see the shift from discussing the arguments to discussing the people. That's what ad hominem is.
Feel free to walk away from this discussion, if you so wish. Please do not try to convince me this is my fault, however. If you do not wish to continue the discussion, for whatever reason, simply don't.
For myself, I'll try to figure out what twisted/. option in my profile marks all of your comments as having score 5 when I'm logged in and score 2 when I'm not. Obviously, that does not match my desires.
You know, my previous response to you was terribly disrespectful, and that was wrong. I apologize, and I'm going to try again.
The apology is accepted. I will point out, however, that all of your replies, even the one you correctly identified as disrespectful, got +5. A great testament to the quality of moderation in Israel related discussions here. In all fairness, the lack of relevant moderation does swing both ways.
The deeper level was probing the real problem of having a Jewish state in the midst of people with whom it has a few thousand years of pent up blood debt.
I'm only going to say it here, but this applies to every single time you use numbers in your reply. Get your facts straight. The above sentence would sound completely silly with the correct number of years. "having a Jewish state in the midst of people with whom it has a few decades of pent up blood debt" just doesn't sound as compelling.
The historical truth is that, when Zionism was founded, and when immigration to Israel actually started, there was no reason to assume the Arab population would object. The Arabs never had self governance of the land, the country was extremely thinly populated, and plans were made to integrate the existing Arab population into the Jewish state. The slogan was "land without people for people without land". Attempts were made (obviously unsuccessful) to create agreements with Arab leaders, and the British government was granting the Arabs similar promises for self government as they did in the Balfur declaration, at the Zionist encouragement.
The Arabs themselves did not immediately object either. The core of the Arab resistance to Jewish presence in Palestine was a man called Haj Amin El Husseini, who was breading violence long before he decided to direct it at Jews, and who won the day over other, more moderate voices in the Arab society by killing Arabs.
In that sense, the first part of your first paragraph in your first comment was literally correct. Israel is a lightening rod for fundamentalists; a lightening rod does not create lightening, it only gives them a convenient target.
It's OK if Israel thinks the blood is justified -- not my culture, not my place to judge
I believe the concept of "self defense" exists even in your culture. The inference from your comment is that you think Israel is shedding blood as a decision, but I'll take that statement more serious only after you show you have better familiarity with the facts of the conflict, both historical and current.
except they're doing it with a piece of my paycheck, and my nation's name. That part of it makes it my legitimate concern.
You are right that the American aid to Israel is your concern as an American citizen, but if you want to make an informed decision about it, I suggest you be more, how shall I put it, informed.
Economically, the US military aid to Israel should be framed like this: The US is giving Israel (and, in particular, the IDF), a free hand in choosing how to spend X billions of $ on the US economy. Furthermore, since the companies from which the IDF buys know that they are selling using US aid money, the prices given are not exactly your market prices. When the IDF buys a computer mouse from IBM using aid money, it costs substantially more than when you buy that very same mouse.
You may still think that needs to be terminated, but at least know the real cost.
So, how exactly do you suggest I contribute to my country ceasing to exist,
I was not genuinely suggesting that your country must cease to exist, though I do think -- considering the tens of thousands who die every year -- it is an option that should be on the table for discussion.
Well, you seem to be changing your mind over that point quite a lot. Also, you used a number, which means it's wrong (unless you include people who die from hea
You are right that Rabin wasn't the only one. It is also true that, had he not been assassinated, he'd have been crashed so badly in the following election that the left wing in Israel might have gotten a clue. However, a lot of the problems we currently face are a direct result of the Oslo agreements, and, more specifically, the way they were not enforced by Israel. This is 100% on Rabin's plate.
How dare you spell out what so many Israel haters are trying so hard to have us believe they do not mean. Seriously. I mean:
If Israel continues to flagrantly choose not to cease its existence of its own volition, it should be caused to cease to exist in the interest of eliminating the raison d'etre of so many terrorist organizations.
So, how exactly do you suggest I contribute to my country ceasing to exist, so those poor peaceful neighbors of mine not become raving fundamentalists by my mere existence? I hope me shooting myself in the head will be deemed a sufficient contribution, humble though it is. I would follow your advice in the last line of your comment, but I suspect technical impossibility, and I fail to see how it would bring about the desired result anyways.
Shachar
P.s. I actually thought you were being sarcastic at people like you by your first paragraph. Your second paragraph made your intentions clear, though.
P.P.s. I need a clarification. Should all Israelis shoot themselves in the head, or just the Jewish ones?
Please, no. All Yitzhak Rabin brought us was international love, another premature Nobel piece price, and lots and lots and lots (several hundreds) of Israelis dead from terror attacks. He also allowed fellow Nobel piece price partner Yasser Arrafat to use his personal helicopter to arm terrorist, make a fool of him, us, and the process for which he got the price, destroy any semblance of trust between the Israelis and the Palestinians. In fact, if it weren't for Rabin, we could have had piece by now (i.e. - about five minutes after Arrafat died).
Don't get me wrong. I think the current government is horrible for Israel, both because of the way it treats the piece process and because of a foreign minister for which "diplomacy" is a word that follows "diploma" in the dictionary. It is still better than the horrible but well loved Rabin government.
Technically, the DMCA does not force YouTube to take down a video once a DMCA takedown notice is filed. This is just a technicality, however.
The DMCA is offering Google a very lucrative price here, which is total amnesty from infringement done by YouTube users. This is referred to as the "safe harbor" clause. The price is, however, conditioned on Google taking down videos that a content owner says are infringing. Google may decide not to take down such a video, but it then loses the safe harbor. A service like YouTube cannot function if it is the target of law suites.
The end result is that, while technically the DMCA does not force Google to take down videos based on an unsubstantiated take down claim, effectively that is precisely what it does.
Having said that...
The DMCA has a very simple procedure. Content owner files a take down notice, user files a counter notice. Once these two steps are taken, the video can remain up while Google still enjoys a safe harbor. We can therefor conclude that the blame for the first time the video was taken down is on UMG, but the second time is squarely on Google's shoulders, as is the threat to suspend the account.
Man, I'm sorry, you sound like you mean well, but your historical facts are so far off that I can't make sense of your conclusion. If my reply misses your point completely, then please consider the possibility that you have not made it well.
First, your timeline is totally skewed. Judaism, at large and in the eastern end of the Mediterranean in particular, is verifiably at least 3,000 years old. We have archeological evidence to place Jews in the region in ancient times that is beyond dispute. The USA, by comparison, is a 235 years old toddler. Even if you meant "Zionism" rather than "Judaism", that still dates back to the early 80's of the 19th century, long before the Soviet Union was formed, never mind meddled in other people's business. The USA's foreign policy didn't include the middle east during that time either. Mussolini showed zero interest in the Middle East, and Hitler's direct meddling in the Jewish-Arab conflict hardly deserves a minor side note.
As for Iran, prior to being an Islamic republic, it was a monarchy governed by a Shah. As such, I find it hard to understand which democratic leader was removed by the US. Iran became Islamic in 1979, when both Hitler and Mussolini were long dead.
So, I'm sorry, but if you had a point, it was lost somewhere within the historical inaccuracies.
Except Iran is not, and has never, fought directly with Israel. Instead, it is providing funding and "moral support" (in the form of instructions) to Hizbullah, and, to a lesser extent, Hammas. When the Israeli northern border heats up, it is only because Iran decided it's time for it to.
But with this level of abstraction, Israeli leaders will find it hard to use unconventional weapons (no personal knowledge, but I'm assuming nuclear is not the only one Israel, or for that matter, Iran, have) against Iran as a reaction to attacks, no matter how severe, against Israel.
Also, when advocating Israel disarm itself, please bear in mind that Israel's nuclear arsenal has already saved it from likely extinction once. In 1973, Israel was under an arms embargo. When the Yom Kipur war broke, things got really really bad, until Israel allowed US spy satellites to capture images of missile silos ready for launch, which rushed a shipment of supplies to Israel. With such a precedence, with Israel depending on foreign arms to defend itself, and with political climate toward Israel shifting like it does, getting Israel to disarm itself is a tough sell.
You are, of course, right. Exposure allows for informed decision.
Except that there is a problem. Exposure also allows for propagating hate and inciting violence. Where do you draw the line?
In my country (Israel), Holocaust denial is not outlawed. Then again, the Holocaust is well studied and well known by the general population, and your chances of those messages being well received are not particularly high. With little chance of such exposure actually inciting anything, it's not a difficult (non)decision to not block it.
In Germany, on the other hand, Holocaust denial is outlawed. With all of my zeal for free speech, I find it hard to fault them for it. There is a proverb in Hebrew: "A cat burned by boiling water will be weary of lukewarm ones".
I think an optimal policy is to allow everything, and then block things that actually incite hate and violence.
Quantity differences of this scale turns this into an important qualitative difference.
Police has so many patrol units, so many cops. If it takes two cops + 1 patrol unit 24/7 to track an individual, the cops will, due to budget considerations, only do so in cases where they have a reasonably high level of confidence that actual crime did or will take place. This, BTW, works better to limit a police state than a warrant, that is often rubber stamped anyways.
If, on the other hand, tracking someone's every movement is as simple as buying a $1000 gadget, then we must have oversight preventing the police from tracking too many people, or this will turn into a police state.
Not much experience, one way or the other. I did have a client, once, who decided to pay me emergency fees in addition to activating their existing RH contract to solve a problem. The problem turned out to be documented in a RH KB article, which required recompiling (I think it was) perl in order to solve. That is not what I call support. If there's a problem like that, offer the RPM. The reason they called me was because they were dissatisfied with RH support in the past.
This was back around 2004, so things might have changed since. Still, my advice is: If a 3rd party product demands RedHat in order to provide support (as many CAD, VLSI and other proprietary products do), go with RedHat. Centos will not do under those conditions. If not, Debian is a better community distribution anyways.
I think we can safely assume this is not what the original poster meant.
Like it or not, there IS an idiom in the English language which attributes "raises the question"'s meaning to "begging the question". The interesting question is where that came from, which is not addressed at least by the wikipedia article (it is addressed, but not explored).
I think the source of the expression is with subject and object reversed. It is the question that begs to be asked. This is not exactly the same as "raises the question", as it is much stronger.
I know a few people who work for Samsung doing open source projects (EFL and such). They are devoting, pretty much, all of their paid time to that open source project.
If Steve Kondik was hired by Samsung in order to work on CM, expect more output from him, not less.
he was condemned for his homosexuality by the state he helped so much
If I understand the story correctly, he was condemned for his homosexuality by the state because he helped so much. The British (for lack of a better word) intelligence were worried he'll be up for blackmail due to his sexual tendencies, and were worried due to the sheer amount of top-secret information he knew (the fact the Enigma was cracked was not made public until the mid-70s). So they did the most obvious thing to do - they made his life hell. Army intelligence at its best.
"We deployed our software at customer site; it was problematic and buggy, and led to downtime and multiple redesigns, patches and redeployments."
I do not expect the whole truth from companies' marketing divisions. Just the truth. If, after you have removed all unsuccessful installations you have nothing left, keep you mouth shut.
It's akin to keep claiming that the earth is the center of the universe 200 years after Galileo was punished for saying otherwise. Don't put such feats of, well, belief beyond the Catholic church.
CDROMs are formatted in a filesystem called ISO-9660, which is not FAT. There are extensions to this format (Juliet, RockRidge), and these, too, are not FAT.
Huawei phones, when connected to a PC, show themselves as a CDROM containing the drivers for their sync technology. If you select to share your internal SD Card, then an ADDITIONAL DoK appears to the PC.
I believe they were not the first to do such a thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Ad hominem is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it (direct quote from wikipedia).
So, for example, if I say "all of your numbers are wrong, from the number of dead yearly to the number of years this conflict is going on", and you reply with "you are blind with hate", then that's diverting the discussion from the content to the participants. I've marked the references to help you see the shift from discussing the arguments to discussing the people. That's what ad hominem is.
Feel free to walk away from this discussion, if you so wish. Please do not try to convince me this is my fault, however. If you do not wish to continue the discussion, for whatever reason, simply don't.
For myself, I'll try to figure out what twisted /. option in my profile marks all of your comments as having score 5 when I'm logged in and score 2 when I'm not. Obviously, that does not match my desires.
Shachar
And yet it is me who is accused of ad hominum...
Well done!
Shachar
You know, my previous response to you was terribly disrespectful, and that was wrong. I apologize, and I'm going to try again.
The apology is accepted. I will point out, however, that all of your replies, even the one you correctly identified as disrespectful, got +5. A great testament to the quality of moderation in Israel related discussions here. In all fairness, the lack of relevant moderation does swing both ways.
The deeper level was probing the real problem of having a Jewish state in the midst of people with whom it has a few thousand years of pent up blood debt.
I'm only going to say it here, but this applies to every single time you use numbers in your reply. Get your facts straight. The above sentence would sound completely silly with the correct number of years. "having a Jewish state in the midst of people with whom it has a few decades of pent up blood debt" just doesn't sound as compelling.
The historical truth is that, when Zionism was founded, and when immigration to Israel actually started, there was no reason to assume the Arab population would object. The Arabs never had self governance of the land, the country was extremely thinly populated, and plans were made to integrate the existing Arab population into the Jewish state. The slogan was "land without people for people without land". Attempts were made (obviously unsuccessful) to create agreements with Arab leaders, and the British government was granting the Arabs similar promises for self government as they did in the Balfur declaration, at the Zionist encouragement.
The Arabs themselves did not immediately object either. The core of the Arab resistance to Jewish presence in Palestine was a man called Haj Amin El Husseini, who was breading violence long before he decided to direct it at Jews, and who won the day over other, more moderate voices in the Arab society by killing Arabs.
In that sense, the first part of your first paragraph in your first comment was literally correct. Israel is a lightening rod for fundamentalists; a lightening rod does not create lightening, it only gives them a convenient target.
It's OK if Israel thinks the blood is justified -- not my culture, not my place to judge
I believe the concept of "self defense" exists even in your culture. The inference from your comment is that you think Israel is shedding blood as a decision, but I'll take that statement more serious only after you show you have better familiarity with the facts of the conflict, both historical and current.
except they're doing it with a piece of my paycheck, and my nation's name. That part of it makes it my legitimate concern.
You are right that the American aid to Israel is your concern as an American citizen, but if you want to make an informed decision about it, I suggest you be more, how shall I put it, informed.
Economically, the US military aid to Israel should be framed like this: The US is giving Israel (and, in particular, the IDF), a free hand in choosing how to spend X billions of $ on the US economy. Furthermore, since the companies from which the IDF buys know that they are selling using US aid money, the prices given are not exactly your market prices. When the IDF buys a computer mouse from IBM using aid money, it costs substantially more than when you buy that very same mouse.
You may still think that needs to be terminated, but at least know the real cost.
So, how exactly do you suggest I contribute to my country ceasing to exist,
I was not genuinely suggesting that your country must cease to exist, though I do think -- considering the tens of thousands who die every year -- it is an option that should be on the table for discussion.
Well, you seem to be changing your mind over that point quite a lot. Also, you used a number, which means it's wrong (unless you include people who die from hea
You are right that Rabin wasn't the only one. It is also true that, had he not been assassinated, he'd have been crashed so badly in the following election that the left wing in Israel might have gotten a clue. However, a lot of the problems we currently face are a direct result of the Oslo agreements, and, more specifically, the way they were not enforced by Israel. This is 100% on Rabin's plate.
Shachar
How dare you spell out what so many Israel haters are trying so hard to have us believe they do not mean. Seriously. I mean:
So, how exactly do you suggest I contribute to my country ceasing to exist, so those poor peaceful neighbors of mine not become raving fundamentalists by my mere existence? I hope me shooting myself in the head will be deemed a sufficient contribution, humble though it is. I would follow your advice in the last line of your comment, but I suspect technical impossibility, and I fail to see how it would bring about the desired result anyways.
Shachar
P.s.
I actually thought you were being sarcastic at people like you by your first paragraph. Your second paragraph made your intentions clear, though.
P.P.s.
I need a clarification. Should all Israelis shoot themselves in the head, or just the Jewish ones?
Sh.
Freudian slip?
%s/piece/peace/g over the entire previous post.
Shachar
A Freudian slip is when you mean one thing, but say your mother.
Please, no. All Yitzhak Rabin brought us was international love, another premature Nobel piece price, and lots and lots and lots (several hundreds) of Israelis dead from terror attacks. He also allowed fellow Nobel piece price partner Yasser Arrafat to use his personal helicopter to arm terrorist, make a fool of him, us, and the process for which he got the price, destroy any semblance of trust between the Israelis and the Palestinians. In fact, if it weren't for Rabin, we could have had piece by now (i.e. - about five minutes after Arrafat died).
Don't get me wrong. I think the current government is horrible for Israel, both because of the way it treats the piece process and because of a foreign minister for which "diplomacy" is a word that follows "diploma" in the dictionary. It is still better than the horrible but well loved Rabin government.
Shachar
Technically, the DMCA does not force YouTube to take down a video once a DMCA takedown notice is filed. This is just a technicality, however.
The DMCA is offering Google a very lucrative price here, which is total amnesty from infringement done by YouTube users. This is referred to as the "safe harbor" clause. The price is, however, conditioned on Google taking down videos that a content owner says are infringing. Google may decide not to take down such a video, but it then loses the safe harbor. A service like YouTube cannot function if it is the target of law suites.
The end result is that, while technically the DMCA does not force Google to take down videos based on an unsubstantiated take down claim, effectively that is precisely what it does.
Having said that...
The DMCA has a very simple procedure. Content owner files a take down notice, user files a counter notice. Once these two steps are taken, the video can remain up while Google still enjoys a safe harbor. We can therefor conclude that the blame for the first time the video was taken down is on UMG, but the second time is squarely on Google's shoulders, as is the threat to suspend the account.
Shachar
Man, I'm sorry, you sound like you mean well, but your historical facts are so far off that I can't make sense of your conclusion. If my reply misses your point completely, then please consider the possibility that you have not made it well.
First, your timeline is totally skewed. Judaism, at large and in the eastern end of the Mediterranean in particular, is verifiably at least 3,000 years old. We have archeological evidence to place Jews in the region in ancient times that is beyond dispute. The USA, by comparison, is a 235 years old toddler. Even if you meant "Zionism" rather than "Judaism", that still dates back to the early 80's of the 19th century, long before the Soviet Union was formed, never mind meddled in other people's business. The USA's foreign policy didn't include the middle east during that time either. Mussolini showed zero interest in the Middle East, and Hitler's direct meddling in the Jewish-Arab conflict hardly deserves a minor side note.
As for Iran, prior to being an Islamic republic, it was a monarchy governed by a Shah. As such, I find it hard to understand which democratic leader was removed by the US. Iran became Islamic in 1979, when both Hitler and Mussolini were long dead.
So, I'm sorry, but if you had a point, it was lost somewhere within the historical inaccuracies.
Shachar
Except Iran is not, and has never, fought directly with Israel. Instead, it is providing funding and "moral support" (in the form of instructions) to Hizbullah, and, to a lesser extent, Hammas. When the Israeli northern border heats up, it is only because Iran decided it's time for it to.
But with this level of abstraction, Israeli leaders will find it hard to use unconventional weapons (no personal knowledge, but I'm assuming nuclear is not the only one Israel, or for that matter, Iran, have) against Iran as a reaction to attacks, no matter how severe, against Israel.
Also, when advocating Israel disarm itself, please bear in mind that Israel's nuclear arsenal has already saved it from likely extinction once. In 1973, Israel was under an arms embargo. When the Yom Kipur war broke, things got really really bad, until Israel allowed US spy satellites to capture images of missile silos ready for launch, which rushed a shipment of supplies to Israel. With such a precedence, with Israel depending on foreign arms to defend itself, and with political climate toward Israel shifting like it does, getting Israel to disarm itself is a tough sell.
Source for the story: The Samson Option
Shachar
So why is a raven like a writing desk?
Shachar
Who waits to see if the moderators get the joke....
You are, of course, right. Exposure allows for informed decision.
Except that there is a problem. Exposure also allows for propagating hate and inciting violence. Where do you draw the line?
In my country (Israel), Holocaust denial is not outlawed. Then again, the Holocaust is well studied and well known by the general population, and your chances of those messages being well received are not particularly high. With little chance of such exposure actually inciting anything, it's not a difficult (non)decision to not block it.
In Germany, on the other hand, Holocaust denial is outlawed. With all of my zeal for free speech, I find it hard to fault them for it. There is a proverb in Hebrew: "A cat burned by boiling water will be weary of lukewarm ones".
I think an optimal policy is to allow everything, and then block things that actually incite hate and violence.
Shachar
Quantity differences of this scale turns this into an important qualitative difference.
Police has so many patrol units, so many cops. If it takes two cops + 1 patrol unit 24/7 to track an individual, the cops will, due to budget considerations, only do so in cases where they have a reasonably high level of confidence that actual crime did or will take place. This, BTW, works better to limit a police state than a warrant, that is often rubber stamped anyways.
If, on the other hand, tracking someone's every movement is as simple as buying a $1000 gadget, then we must have oversight preventing the police from tracking too many people, or this will turn into a police state.
Shachar
Not much experience, one way or the other. I did have a client, once, who decided to pay me emergency fees in addition to activating their existing RH contract to solve a problem. The problem turned out to be documented in a RH KB article, which required recompiling (I think it was) perl in order to solve. That is not what I call support. If there's a problem like that, offer the RPM. The reason they called me was because they were dissatisfied with RH support in the past.
This was back around 2004, so things might have changed since. Still, my advice is: If a 3rd party product demands RedHat in order to provide support (as many CAD, VLSI and other proprietary products do), go with RedHat. Centos will not do under those conditions. If not, Debian is a better community distribution anyways.
Full disclosure - I am a Debian Developer.
Shachar
I think we can safely assume this is not what the original poster meant.
Like it or not, there IS an idiom in the English language which attributes "raises the question"'s meaning to "begging the question". The interesting question is where that came from, which is not addressed at least by the wikipedia article (it is addressed, but not explored).
Shachar
I think the source of the expression is with subject and object reversed. It is the question that begs to be asked. This is not exactly the same as "raises the question", as it is much stronger.
Shachar
Who is not a native English speaker
I know a few people who work for Samsung doing open source projects (EFL and such). They are devoting, pretty much, all of their paid time to that open source project.
If Steve Kondik was hired by Samsung in order to work on CM, expect more output from him, not less.
Shachar
he was condemned for his homosexuality by the state he helped so much
If I understand the story correctly, he was condemned for his homosexuality by the state because he helped so much. The British (for lack of a better word) intelligence were worried he'll be up for blackmail due to his sexual tendencies, and were worried due to the sheer amount of top-secret information he knew (the fact the Enigma was cracked was not made public until the mid-70s). So they did the most obvious thing to do - they made his life hell. Army intelligence at its best.
Shachar
You say that to your co-workers, in private. You do not go on record saying that to a reporter.
Shachar
"We deployed our software at customer site; it was problematic and buggy, and led to downtime and multiple redesigns, patches and redeployments."
I do not expect the whole truth from companies' marketing divisions. Just the truth. If, after you have removed all unsuccessful installations you have nothing left, keep you mouth shut.
Shachar
To the best of my knowledge, Talal Abu Rahma still holds his job with France 2.
Shachar
It's akin to keep claiming that the earth is the center of the universe 200 years after Galileo was punished for saying otherwise. Don't put such feats of, well, belief beyond the Catholic church.
Shachar
-1 non-intelligible
I know, don't complain about lack of options, but sometimes I wish /.'s moderation system had better resolution...
CDROMs are formatted in a filesystem called ISO-9660, which is not FAT. There are extensions to this format (Juliet, RockRidge), and these, too, are not FAT.
Shachar
Huawei phones, when connected to a PC, show themselves as a CDROM containing the drivers for their sync technology. If you select to share your internal SD Card, then an ADDITIONAL DoK appears to the PC.
I believe they were not the first to do such a thing.
Shachar