Easy-- UK owned the land in Palestine by conquering it (and 25% of the rest of the land mass of the world).
I inferred that you had a problem with that and merely suggested that your philosophy is hopelessly flawed--anarchy doesn't work.
If it hadn't been the British, then who? And, how do you know that they would've been better? There is no such thing as a 'void of power' as those are quickly filled (and you may be surprised to find that the substitution is in many cases worse than the substituted).
I think most of the expansion happened in 1967 when all the Arab nations gathered around Israel and attempted to exterminate it. And, even then most of the land that Israel gained in self-defense was given back after the war!
Second-- the number of Palestinians in the area in 1947 were very low (even a lower percentage than Jews who had started moving back in large numbers in the 1880s).
You're making it sound as if Palestinians flocked in the area as soon as they smelt Jews just to start some trouble.
That's exactly what I'm saying. They have in fact flocked into the area to 'start trouble' and to try to lay claim to the land. Don't tell me that you couldn't see through all the shenanigans of Yasser Arafat over the years (who himself happened to be from Egypt).
Well, Israel is in control of a lot of land around there. [And has become the worlds #1 producer of fruit in what was previously a barren desert]. The point is not what value there is there now, but what value there was there *before* the Jews moved back.
And, is it all that likely that there would be many more natural resources in the upper half of Gaza than there is in the lower half?
About India--I think they have a very valid point. About Tibet--is that even true? From my understanding, the Chinese have been more 'iron-fisted' than the native Tibetans ever dreamed of.
If you are looking for a perfect world, unfortunately, I think you will be disappointed. You are not going to do away with nations conquering other nations so if you have some sort of hippie pipe dream (no pun intended) it'd probably be best to dispose of it and face reality sometime soon.
Yes, empires and the like do many evil things (things which we should denounce), but to deny that they ever do good is simply willful blindness. In this case, the UK owned the land and gave it to whomever it saw fit (which happened to be the persecuted Jews). If it hadn't been the UK but another authority, there's quite a good chance that you'd have just as many qualms with it. In fact, what you are advocating really seems like anarchy (which if you can imagine will never last very long--in the absence of authority strong men rise up and become the 'authority' you so want to eliminate).
Those analogies are all well and good except for one thing--Jews started moving back there in the latter half of the 19th century and by the time 1947 rolled around, they were a larger part of the population than native 'Palestinians' (whatever they are). And, they *paid* for the land they occupied. Then, finally, you must remember that the UK 'owned' the entire territory (a holdover from its imperial days) and was free to give it to whomever it saw fit.
Or, would you have preferred that the UK gave up all of its territories worldwide to whom you saw fit (and also Spain, France, etc)? Good luck with that.
The land was a barren wasteland/desert before the Jews moved back there in large numbers. No one wanted it until Israel started prospering and now there does not seem to be any shortage of 'refugee Palestinians' crossing over from Jordan and neighboring countries.
What former inhabitants? It was a wasteland/desert!! Oh, you mean those 'Palestinians' who rushed across the border from Jordan claiming to be refugees? Well, they don't quite cut it in my opinion given their transparent motives.
Well, I think that ID itself could simply be nothing more than critique of Darwinism (and so in that sense, they are 'opposites'). ID essentially claims: 'X could not possibly have evolved by any random process' whereas evolution (or at least the popular notion of it) claims 'There is at least one random process whereby X could have evolved'.
But, yea, the word evolution is used in most places to generally refer to both its micro- and macro- forms as well as abiogenesis (and ID only objects to the macro- form and abiogenesis).
ID vs Evolution? Really? Apparently you haven't read the philosophy of science involved in the debate. It's pretty clear to anyone with critical thinking skills that whatever demarcation criteria you choose will at the same time exclude *both* ID and evolution or result in obvious inconsistencies in your 'science'. If you want balance, then stop hiding behind demarcation criteria which are engineered to exclude an obvious explanation in favor of more outlandish (and possibly more entertaining and comforting to some) ideas.
Very true. And, these attacks are not all that sophisticated to begin with--why bother wasting lots of expensive time truly 'hacking' when there is so much low hanging fruit that can be gotten with simplistic techniques. Even these 'adaptations' are simple hardcodes and not dynamic ones.
So now Darwin's theory programs you? That's actually not a bad wording to describe 'science education' concerning Darwin--too bad more naturalists are not this honest!
A port knocking scheme is exactly what should be implemented to combat this. It would not be very hard at all to make it completely automated on both the server and client sides (and the knock sequence could even be loosely based on the time--say to a precision of 15 minutes).
I'm betting it was teenage girls as they're the only ones who wouldn't already know that (and also the least likely to be listening to a slashdotter under normal circumstances).
Slashdot Mirror
My sentiments exactly. ;-)
So, there, I match your 3 and raise you one (and there's plenty more where these came from).
And for the humor-impaired--the listing of 'Gates' is a joke
Easy-- UK owned the land in Palestine by conquering it (and 25% of the rest of the land mass of the world).
I inferred that you had a problem with that and merely suggested that your philosophy is hopelessly flawed--anarchy doesn't work.
If it hadn't been the British, then who? And, how do you know that they would've been better? There is no such thing as a 'void of power' as those are quickly filled (and you may be surprised to find that the substitution is in many cases worse than the substituted).
It's just not cost-effective to do so. Many of the checks are in hardware and would require expensive equipment and time to hack.
This isn't intended for the developed world. See: this
Second-- the number of Palestinians in the area in 1947 were very low (even a lower percentage than Jews who had started moving back in large numbers in the 1880s).
You're making it sound as if Palestinians flocked in the area as soon as they smelt Jews just to start some trouble.
That's exactly what I'm saying. They have in fact flocked into the area to 'start trouble' and to try to lay claim to the land. Don't tell me that you couldn't see through all the shenanigans of Yasser Arafat over the years (who himself happened to be from Egypt).
Well, Israel is in control of a lot of land around there. [And has become the worlds #1 producer of fruit in what was previously a barren desert]. The point is not what value there is there now, but what value there was there *before* the Jews moved back.
And, is it all that likely that there would be many more natural resources in the upper half of Gaza than there is in the lower half?
About India--I think they have a very valid point. About Tibet--is that even true? From my understanding, the Chinese have been more 'iron-fisted' than the native Tibetans ever dreamed of.
If you are looking for a perfect world, unfortunately, I think you will be disappointed. You are not going to do away with nations conquering other nations so if you have some sort of hippie pipe dream (no pun intended) it'd probably be best to dispose of it and face reality sometime soon.
Yes, empires and the like do many evil things (things which we should denounce), but to deny that they ever do good is simply willful blindness. In this case, the UK owned the land and gave it to whomever it saw fit (which happened to be the persecuted Jews). If it hadn't been the UK but another authority, there's quite a good chance that you'd have just as many qualms with it. In fact, what you are advocating really seems like anarchy (which if you can imagine will never last very long--in the absence of authority strong men rise up and become the 'authority' you so want to eliminate).
Those analogies are all well and good except for one thing--Jews started moving back there in the latter half of the 19th century and by the time 1947 rolled around, they were a larger part of the population than native 'Palestinians' (whatever they are). And, they *paid* for the land they occupied. Then, finally, you must remember that the UK 'owned' the entire territory (a holdover from its imperial days) and was free to give it to whomever it saw fit.
Or, would you have preferred that the UK gave up all of its territories worldwide to whom you saw fit (and also Spain, France, etc)? Good luck with that.
Gaza isn't even what is disputed. Israel has already given it up.
The land was a barren wasteland/desert before the Jews moved back there in large numbers. No one wanted it until Israel started prospering and now there does not seem to be any shortage of 'refugee Palestinians' crossing over from Jordan and neighboring countries.
What former inhabitants? It was a wasteland/desert!! Oh, you mean those 'Palestinians' who rushed across the border from Jordan claiming to be refugees? Well, they don't quite cut it in my opinion given their transparent motives.
I think you need a history lesson. Amazon's one-click was submitted in Fall of 1997--hardly the primitive networking days you describe.
Well, I think that ID itself could simply be nothing more than critique of Darwinism (and so in that sense, they are 'opposites'). ID essentially claims: 'X could not possibly have evolved by any random process' whereas evolution (or at least the popular notion of it) claims 'There is at least one random process whereby X could have evolved'.
But, yea, the word evolution is used in most places to generally refer to both its micro- and macro- forms as well as abiogenesis (and ID only objects to the macro- form and abiogenesis).
ID vs Evolution? Really? Apparently you haven't read the philosophy of science involved in the debate. It's pretty clear to anyone with critical thinking skills that whatever demarcation criteria you choose will at the same time exclude *both* ID and evolution or result in obvious inconsistencies in your 'science'. If you want balance, then stop hiding behind demarcation criteria which are engineered to exclude an obvious explanation in favor of more outlandish (and possibly more entertaining and comforting to some) ideas.
Dick Morris. Isn't that 'interesting' enough?
I would hope the same, but they've been outcompeted for years. Do you really think that throwing money at the problem will help it?
I think we should stop delaying the inevitable death of these dinosaurs and let lighter weight alternatives grow up in their place.
Didn't you get the memo? The 'big 3' are essentially bankrupt.
Maybe she is unmarried?
Very true. And, these attacks are not all that sophisticated to begin with--why bother wasting lots of expensive time truly 'hacking' when there is so much low hanging fruit that can be gotten with simplistic techniques. Even these 'adaptations' are simple hardcodes and not dynamic ones.
So now Darwin's theory programs you? That's actually not a bad wording to describe 'science education' concerning Darwin--too bad more naturalists are not this honest!
A port knocking scheme is exactly what should be implemented to combat this. It would not be very hard at all to make it completely automated on both the server and client sides (and the knock sequence could even be loosely based on the time--say to a precision of 15 minutes).
Actually, I think the point is that these worms do port scans--just not exhaustive ones (as that would be infeasible).
I'm betting it was teenage girls as they're the only ones who wouldn't already know that (and also the least likely to be listening to a slashdotter under normal circumstances).
Or his brothers/superiors.