No, I am talking about Muslims in general. It's pretty hard to tell the difference between "normal" Muslims and "fanatical" ones.
Well, I live in Europe, and due to immigration, there are plenty of them, I know a bunch, and to me it's not that hard:
Those who want to kill people or/and themselves : fanaticals
Those who believe in their religion, in peace, and in love (with different degrees of tolerance to non-believers, like in all religions) : not fanaticals
see? that was easy. And none of my Muslim friends wants to/has killed anyone yet.
They're not a minority.
What do you know ? What do I know ? How do you know ?
France has been engaged in various military operations for a long time now (mostly in Africa), and several European countries have or had troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, and other places.
Yeah, you're right, I forgot about that. Still, it's not wars they started, it's mostly help to allies's troops, for diplomatic reasons. I was talking about willingness to start a war from nothing, or take part in a major conflict with a great number of their troops (more like the USA in WWII)
That's not how fanatic Muslims see it.
Just wanted to make this clear for what follows:
You underestimate the power of religious fanaticism.
No, as I stated before:
only exceptions are people weak against religious/political/media propaganda
(I changed manipulation with propaganda, I think that word expresses better what I wanted to say)
those fanatic Muslims are that very exception I was talking of, and my point was that they are only minority. But if you can convince me that in those countries most people are Muslims and most of them are fanatics, I would agree, and be wrong stating that civilians did not wanted to be at war.
After a great war, civilians who lost their families, houses and so are willing to build their country back, live in peace and forget about war, forever.
Germans could want a WWII, only because WWI did not affected German civilians the way WWII did, most of WWI happened outside German soil, and on France's one. People in Germany felt frustrated when their government gave up on a war civilians didn't even see with their eyes, they could not conceive a war can be lost abroad one's country, and wanted revenge to political restrictions made by the "winners" of that war they did not see they were loosing.
That's how Hitler could hit people with his hate speech, otherwise, people would have slap his face with ruins of their house shouting "didn't we suffered enough ??";)
Now, France and Germany are strong friends, and really not willing to get into a war again.
There is this famous french popular quote, after WWI : "Plus jamais ca." ("never again."), I think we all feel the same across the world, after a real war.
The US keeps voting YES to wars because they never had to feel bombs above their heads, nor their parents.
Though it's a terrible tragedy in human history, WTC was nothing compared to a war on one's soil.
only exceptions are people weak against religious/political/media manipulation, and that's mostly an education level problem, the US weren't at war against Afghanistan, or Irak as far as I know, they were at war with a minority of religious terrorists, a dictator, and the people the dictator had under control. I don't think intellectuals and non-manipulated civilians and farmers ever wanted a fight against world's no.1 army...
I don't know about Vietnam, but the USAÂdid a really good job helping Japan after the war, I have been told in school that US people sent in Japan after the war felt terrible about what war did to the country and did their best, for the good of Japanese people. Really.
Please if you disagree, don't mod me down : I'm young, and still have much to learn, instead reply and feed me with the facts I don't know... AC, I'm looking at you.
And also... What happened to the idea that once you served your time your debt to society is paid?
If only I got Insightful mod points left...
This app is Sick, as sick as I am of those "they did it wrong, they have no rights anymore, let's just torture them to death for our own revenge and enjoyment !"
Those people were stated "OK" and "not a danger for the society" by our Judges, psychiatrist etc, they are trying to get integrated again in society, to be given another chance to be good-doing, good-thinking people, how in hell are they supposed to get integrated in a society that publicly tracks their movements, and points their fingers at them saying "this one is bad, baaaad, and we should stay faaar from him ! Don't get close, he'll rape you !"
This is just wrong, this can't do any good, and at best, this is useless, there is no point in tracking, escaping and fearing someone that has been released because he wasn't a threat to his surrounding.
Trust the system or change it. If the system says "this guy is ok to live free", don't act as if you were his next prey...
The best way to turn a human being into an animal, is to treat him like an animal.
and am more so worried about the weakest link in the chain: the human factor
that's why I'll never trust nuclear weapons.
With conventional weapons, we can always step back at time (or little after time), attackers are not isolated from main command when sent, and a spoofed war declaration can be reverted, even after one accidental bombing (this creating some serious diplomatic issues though...)
With nuclear weapons, no stepping back of any way (that I know), and after the first strike, the war is over, or forever.
Since I don't know much more than what movies told me I may be wrong and will be looking for expert's contribution, but I'm afraid I'm not that wrong...
... are trying to impurify all of our precious bodily fluids !
Bastards !
yeah, that's my way of showing why I disagree with nuclear strikes, without repeating the same message that Kubrick's movie told us long time ago
I assume my point here is pretty obvious (if you have seen the movie, of course.)
I'm sorry, I've been using Linux for 5 years now, so I'm a little bit ahead of your world...
Just tell me when you get to the package manager revolution, or at least the trustful and reliable software era.
Sub Commander: "Enemy vessel has locked on and fired anti-sub missile. Impact in 10 seconds.
Impact in 9 seconds.
Impact in 8 seconds.
Impact in 7 seconds.
Impact in 12 seconds.
Impact in 2 seconds.
Impact in 1 seconds.
Impact in about an hour.
Impact in 4 minutes.
-- BOOM
Finished copying 2MegaTons file "Missile.snk" from "Vessel" to "Your Ass".
why ? Is the amount of gamers dramatically decreasing ? Are they running out of money ? Are they doing bad marketing moves ?
I don't play it, so I'm honestly curious
However, the piracy party seem to be saying that all content should be available to everyone for free, entirely legally.
"Legally" is the key. They don't want to legalize ways to infringe copyrights, they want movies to move from copyright to Creative Common or similar.
Who is going to go make a big-budget film when they can't make any money out of it?
The fact that you don't pay for each movie doesn't mean that those movies aren't paid for.
You don't pay for each movie you watch on TV, but they are paid by other, less agressive, means (commercials[even though this one IS agressive:p], paying for the channels you watch, etc).
I'm not saying this is the way to go, but this is an example that could actually be modified and adapted to the internet.
I don't know exactly how, it's their job to figure it out.
...having that "Disable Advertising" checkbox from Slashdot:)
"As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable advertising. "
Thank you for preventing my Gentoo Linux system for being infec...
How could the Eye Toy possibly have 3D recognition with only one "eye" ?
With that 3D recognition, nearly perfect movement tracking (even in the dark, with people walking between you and the device), exact player recognition, all those 70 strategic points of the body tracked in real-time, and real 3D head-tracking perspective implemented in games, you actually can do much more than what the Eye Toy would ever be able to do...
What the Eye Toy basically did was play with the visual effects that a moving object can produce in a video... That's pretty much it.
There is no way you can do a controller out of that:)
Am I the only one not understanding a word nor the point of those graphics, but still going to print them as posters and put them everywhere in my bedroom ?
If fingerprints had no value (to survive/reproduce) in any way, species with and without fingerprints would be equal in the natural selection.
That would imply that when a monkey would be born without those (genetic mutation somewhere), there would be no reason for him to be less likely to survive and reproduce than his peers having fingerprints, and when he would procreate, it would create a variation of those monkeys having no fingerprints.
If we have fingerprints, it's genetically possible to be born without, so it's very likely that that mutation existed in the history of evolution, and that one of those specimen procreated, creating that fingerprint-less type of monkey/man.
My point is : if it's likely to have happened that way, the only reason not to have any fingerprint-less man or monkey on earth, is that at one moment in evolution, fingerprints gave an advantage to increase the survival and reproduction rate over the other alternatives.
I may be wrong, but that's how I understood the Darwinian model in science class...
Slashdot Mirror
No, I am talking about Muslims in general. It's pretty hard to tell the difference between "normal" Muslims and "fanatical" ones.
Well, I live in Europe, and due to immigration, there are plenty of them, I know a bunch, and to me it's not that hard :
Those who want to kill people or/and themselves : fanaticals
Those who believe in their religion, in peace, and in love (with different degrees of tolerance to non-believers, like in all religions) : not fanaticals
see? that was easy. And none of my Muslim friends wants to/has killed anyone yet.
They're not a minority.
What do you know ? What do I know ? How do you know ?
France has been engaged in various military operations for a long time now (mostly in Africa), and several European countries have or had troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, and other places.
Yeah, you're right, I forgot about that. Still, it's not wars they started, it's mostly help to allies's troops, for diplomatic reasons.
I was talking about willingness to start a war from nothing, or take part in a major conflict with a great number of their troops (more like the USA in WWII)
That's not how fanatic Muslims see it.
Just wanted to make this clear for what follows :
You underestimate the power of religious fanaticism.
No, as I stated before :
only exceptions are people weak against religious/political/media propaganda
(I changed manipulation with propaganda, I think that word expresses better what I wanted to say)
those fanatic Muslims are that very exception I was talking of, and my point was that they are only minority. But if you can convince me that in those countries most people are Muslims and most of them are fanatics, I would agree, and be wrong stating that civilians did not wanted to be at war.
After a great war, civilians who lost their families, houses and so are willing to build their country back, live in peace and forget about war, forever.
;)
Germans could want a WWII, only because WWI did not affected German civilians the way WWII did, most of WWI happened outside German soil, and on France's one. People in Germany felt frustrated when their government gave up on a war civilians didn't even see with their eyes, they could not conceive a war can be lost abroad one's country, and wanted revenge to political restrictions made by the "winners" of that war they did not see they were loosing.
That's how Hitler could hit people with his hate speech, otherwise, people would have slap his face with ruins of their house shouting "didn't we suffered enough ??"
Now, France and Germany are strong friends, and really not willing to get into a war again.
There is this famous french popular quote, after WWI : "Plus jamais ca." ("never again."), I think we all feel the same across the world, after a real war.
The US keeps voting YES to wars because they never had to feel bombs above their heads, nor their parents.
Though it's a terrible tragedy in human history, WTC was nothing compared to a war on one's soil.
only exceptions are people weak against religious/political/media manipulation, and that's mostly an education level problem, the US weren't at war against Afghanistan, or Irak as far as I know, they were at war with a minority of religious terrorists, a dictator, and the people the dictator had under control. I don't think intellectuals and non-manipulated civilians and farmers ever wanted a fight against world's no.1 army...
I don't know about Vietnam, but the USAÂdid a really good job helping Japan after the war, I have been told in school that US people sent in Japan after the war felt terrible about what war did to the country and did their best, for the good of Japanese people. Really.
Please if you disagree, don't mod me down : I'm young, and still have much to learn, instead reply and feed me with the facts I don't know... AC, I'm looking at you.
Somebody mod him up, he's wrong, has no point, but made me laugh so hard :')
In fact, you're not far from reality, they use America's Army, for that...
And I want you to hit AT&T as hard as you can !
And also... What happened to the idea that once you served your time your debt to society is paid?
If only I got Insightful mod points left...
This app is Sick, as sick as I am of those "they did it wrong, they have no rights anymore, let's just torture them to death for our own revenge and enjoyment !"
Those people were stated "OK" and "not a danger for the society" by our Judges, psychiatrist etc, they are trying to get integrated again in society, to be given another chance to be good-doing, good-thinking people, how in hell are they supposed to get integrated in a society that publicly tracks their movements, and points their fingers at them saying "this one is bad, baaaad, and we should stay faaar from him ! Don't get close, he'll rape you !"
This is just wrong, this can't do any good, and at best, this is useless, there is no point in tracking, escaping and fearing someone that has been released because he wasn't a threat to his surrounding.
Trust the system or change it. If the system says "this guy is ok to live free", don't act as if you were his next prey...
The best way to turn a human being into an animal, is to treat him like an animal.
Still, they[miscosoft & yahoo] do are more trustful about your privacy than Google...
:)
PS: I'm using Yauba right now, it's pretty powerful
I would upgrade to a Macintosh and abandon the Microsoft/ActiveX/Exploder trojanware completely
Yeah, like if mac was better at security fixes...
No matter how careful you are, Murphy's Law is always around...
I would'n thust weapons with no human control eighter...
Just look at how easily antiviruses erase innocent files.
and am more so worried about the weakest link in the chain: the human factor
that's why I'll never trust nuclear weapons.
With conventional weapons, we can always step back at time (or little after time), attackers are not isolated from main command when sent, and a spoofed war declaration can be reverted, even after one accidental bombing (this creating some serious diplomatic issues though...)
With nuclear weapons, no stepping back of any way (that I know), and after the first strike, the war is over, or forever.
Since I don't know much more than what movies told me I may be wrong and will be looking for expert's contribution, but I'm afraid I'm not that wrong...
... are trying to impurify all of our precious bodily fluids !
Bastards !
yeah, that's my way of showing why I disagree with nuclear strikes, without repeating the same message that Kubrick's movie told us long time ago
I assume my point here is pretty obvious (if you have seen the movie, of course.)
... Do they still exist ?
I'm sorry, I've been using Linux for 5 years now, so I'm a little bit ahead of your world...
Just tell me when you get to the package manager revolution, or at least the trustful and reliable software era.
*no offense.*
They got ThermoNuclear Missiles --
-- we got... Clippy.
wait, what ?
Sub Commander: "Enemy vessel has locked on and fired anti-sub missile. Impact in 10 seconds.
Impact in 9 seconds.
Impact in 8 seconds.
Impact in 7 seconds.
Impact in 12 seconds.
Impact in 2 seconds.
Impact in 1 seconds.
Impact in about an hour.
Impact in 4 minutes.
-- BOOM
Finished copying 2MegaTons file "Missile.snk" from "Vessel" to "Your Ass".
Thanks for using MIcrosoft Windows Vista.
Why rely on a web browser, which was first developed to view static, magazine-like pages that have links to other pages?
That's why they created Google Chrome (browser), Isn't it ? Designed to view non-static, non-magazine-like pages that run JS and html5 stuff.
why ?
Is the amount of gamers dramatically decreasing ? Are they running out of money ? Are they doing bad marketing moves ?
I don't play it, so I'm honestly curious
However, the piracy party seem to be saying that all content should be available to everyone for free, entirely legally.
"Legally" is the key. They don't want to legalize ways to infringe copyrights, they want movies to move from copyright to Creative Common or similar.
Who is going to go make a big-budget film when they can't make any money out of it?
The fact that you don't pay for each movie doesn't mean that those movies aren't paid for.
:p], paying for the channels you watch, etc).
You don't pay for each movie you watch on TV, but they are paid by other, less agressive, means (commercials[even though this one IS agressive
I'm not saying this is the way to go, but this is an example that could actually be modified and adapted to the internet.
I don't know exactly how, it's their job to figure it out.
Maybe an author writing a nice novel would be helpful too.
You mean something like 1984 ?
From wikipedia : Publication date 8 June 1949
It's around for quite a while now...
...having that "Disable Advertising" checkbox from Slashdot :)
"As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable advertising. "
Thank you for preventing my Gentoo Linux system for being infec...
Oh, wait...
How in Hell can this post be modded 5 informative ?
Did I land in a world where reporting typos were capital "+5 values" pieces of information ?
Sure I did, it's called Slashdot and I love it.
How could the Eye Toy possibly have 3D recognition with only one "eye" ?
:)
With that 3D recognition, nearly perfect movement tracking (even in the dark, with people walking between you and the device), exact player recognition, all those 70 strategic points of the body tracked in real-time, and real 3D head-tracking perspective implemented in games, you actually can do much more than what the Eye Toy would ever be able to do...
What the Eye Toy basically did was play with the visual effects that a moving object can produce in a video... That's pretty much it.
There is no way you can do a controller out of that
Am I the only one not understanding a word nor the point of those graphics, but still going to print them as posters and put them everywhere in my bedroom ?
'cuz dude, it's so beautiful !
If fingerprints had no value (to survive/reproduce) in any way, species with and without fingerprints would be equal in the natural selection.
That would imply that when a monkey would be born without those (genetic mutation somewhere), there would be no reason for him to be less likely to survive and reproduce than his peers having fingerprints, and when he would procreate, it would create a variation of those monkeys having no fingerprints.
If we have fingerprints, it's genetically possible to be born without, so it's very likely that that mutation existed in the history of evolution, and that one of those specimen procreated, creating that fingerprint-less type of monkey/man.
My point is : if it's likely to have happened that way, the only reason not to have any fingerprint-less man or monkey on earth, is that at one moment in evolution, fingerprints gave an advantage to increase the survival and reproduction rate over the other alternatives.
I may be wrong, but that's how I understood the Darwinian model in science class...