I'm not aware of anywhere in the US where a police officer cannot ask a woman wearing a face covering to remove it, if he has stopped her for a traffic violation...
5.5? My 7850k replaced an Intel P4 @3.1. At 5Ghz I would need liquid nitrogen cooling. Not worth it imo. I'll take a hign end xeon over any skylake or other I7 flagship any day all day. Thanks for pushing my envelope and opening my eyes.
You missed the point...
A 2.4GHz Core2Duo would crush that P4 outright, even in single thread work.
A P4 955 EE running at 3.64GHz (dual core) is outright crushed by a 3.3Ghz Core2Duo, sometimes by a factor of 4.
Clock speed is just one measure of performance. A Skylake 6700K is, even at stock speeds, generally faster than anything AMD makes, even overclocked.
And of course the counter point is that it is illegal for a police officer to order you to remove religious attire, (they would need a court order even if they have a compelling interest) so for the purpose of identification prior to any probable cause for an invasive search they have a hard time showing that the attire is not included in what they have to identify. If they can't tell her to take it off, how is having a picture of the naked skin underneath going to assist in identification?
Let me guess... You spoke respectfully to the officer, stopped when he said stop, answered his questions, and when it was obvious you were doing nothing wrong, he let you on your way, because actually that is what most cops do.
Well, your statement on the surface is simply wrong...
You used "anyone", and all it takes is one person to make that an incorrect statement.
I went from Windows 7 to Windows 10 on all my work computers and I never, ever want to go back, Windows 10 is a great improvement in many ways over Windows 7.
You run under the assumption that peace is possible. It is only possible if both sides want it.
It might be the solution, if it can't be stopped any other way.
The decision for us to commit much greater atrocities is not "in the hands of the clerics and other muslim [sic] leaders around the world". They are not responsible for our actions, we are.
Sure it is... you waving it away and saying it isn't doesn't change that...
^ This is part of the problem. They aren't cleaning up their own house. If they were just killing each other, no one in the West would care. But they are killing us, and that isn't acceptable.
If they don't stop it, we will, and it won't be pretty.
We started this bloody awful mess
Ahh, the "blame us for the evil people's actions" reply...
These people have been savage and violent for thousands of years. We weren't much better a few hundred years ago, but we cleaned up our act. It is time for them to do the same.
I pray we do not become the evil we abhor.
So do I, but I also pray that these attacks stop. If they don't stop, then perhaps the terrible becomes possible.
If the attacks that Israel suffers happened in the US at the same rate, this would already have been over. We wouldn't accept what they do for 5 minutes, we wouldn't have to. Now Israel isn't totally innocent in that, I get that... but the US has the power and the ability to do something about it in a way that Israel does not.
As long as enough people choose to dehumanize their fellow human beings then there will be no end to the escalating violence on both sides.
Unless one side wins. You seem to be under the assumption that this has to continue forever. It doesn't. While they don't have the actual ability to beat us outright, the same is not true in reverse.
If you pray for anything, pray that they buy a clue and figure that out before they push it too far.
Actually, everyone should be shocked and outraged by someone being mistreated because someone else's prejudices.
Really? Should they?
When those prejudices are based on numbers and statistics?
Except that won't help because that old white lady didn't carefully examine crime statistics to determine the correlation between skin color and criminal tendencies.
Are you so sure that isn't the case? Black people commit more violence (per-capita) than white people do. That is a well known fact.
Her fears are caused by racist baggage she's carrying around from her youth, from around or preceding the Civil Rights movement. That, in turn, is leftover from attempts to justify slavery.
That sounds like black propaganda, you're making assumptions about her fears, where as her fears are based on numbers and the fact that black people do in fact commit more crime than white people do, at least the violent kind.
The black community needs more Dr. Martin Luthar King's are fewer Louis Farrakhan's:
"Farrakhan is an anti-Semite who routinely accuses Jews of manipulating the U.S. government and controlling the levers of world power. Farrakhan blames Jews for the slave trade, plantation slavery, Jim Crow, sharecropping and general black oppression. Farrakhan's tone grew more belligerent in June 2010, when he sent letters to several leaders of the Jewish community as well as the Southern Poverty Law Center demanding that they realize the evils they have perpetrated and that they work to further Farrakhan's goals. The letter ended with a threat to "ruin and destroy your power and influence here and throughout the world" if his terms were not met."
People like him do not serve the black community. White people (of which I am one) are happy to accept black people into our world, if they behave like civilized human beings.
A good example is Colin Powell, another would be Condoleezza Rice. Neither are perfect people, but both are examples of how black people should conduct themselves. I would vote for either one of them to be President.
And sadly, spirits can't be killed by bullets. Islamic terrorism didn't die with bin Laden, it didn't die with Jihad John, and it won't die no matter how many of their ilk are killed.
Just to address this point... that is true, using the means we are currently employing to deal with the problem. All our bombs are just making the problem worse...
That being said, I don't see Saudi Arabia's army fighting ISIS, I don't see Iran's army fighting them, and I don't see anyone but the West doing anything about it...
If peaceful Muslims don't wish to be lumped into the same group as the bad ones, then they need to start addressing this problem, not the West.
There may come a point where these attacks and the threat of ISIS grows to the point where average people in the West turn to their leaders and say, "do something about this, make it stop, whatever it takes..."
Islamic terrorism can of course be killed by violence, you simply have to kill all Islamic people. In the world. All of them, then you won't have any more of them.
It might reduce the world's population by a billion or two or three, but it does solve the problem, if in a horrible, terrible way.
So before you claim that bullets don't solve the problem, consider that nuclear weapons might.
I am not endorsing that as a solution, I'm simply pointing out that if you kill everyone who is your enemy, then you no longer have enemies. If the Muslim world doesn't get a handle on these extremists and put a stop to it, the West will do it for them, and the response will only grow until it turns into all out war.
IOW, your reaction to dehumanize the people who did this plays right into their hands. ISIS was created by and survives on atrocities committed by the West. I'm not saying this justifies the attack. I'm saying that from a pragmatic perspective dehumanizing the attackers is extremely stupid and short-sighted.
True, unless they keep doing it, in which case, putting them down becomes an option.
Not a pretty one, maybe not even a moral one, but a pragmatic one.
Someone else made the comment that you can't solve this problem by killing more people. Well, yes you can, but you have to take it to another level completely.
I hope it doesn't go there, but at the end of the day, that decision is in the hands of the clerics and other muslim leaders around the world. Are they going to start teaching their youth that this is not acceptable behavior? Are they going to start using their military forces to fight these people?
When Saudi Arabia sends in their army to fight ISIS, I'll be impressed.
There may come a point where the West grows tired of this and decides that it is too much of an existential risk to allow it to continue and grow.
If that happens, the good may be taken out with the bad. And that would be sad. But it may happen if they don't start cleaning up their own house.
ISIS keeps yanking the tail of the tiger because the only world where something like ISIS has a future is one where beasts prowl the earth and eat whomever they will. ISIS is, after all, a beast itself.
When you have a rabid dog, generally you should call the ASPCA and have it put down.
Not out of hate, but because it is the right thing to do.
The live tiles are nice, I think they are a good improvement.
As for the second part, frankly, welcome to the 21st century, if it bothers you, then why are you on the Internet? Everything is tracking you and it would be a full time job to try and avoid it.
You'd have to live a cash existence, turn off a whole lot of stuff, drive old cars, etc. to try and stop it, all for what?
There is a phrase for that, it is called "pissing in the wind".
Nothing wrong with a problem solver just tossing those ideas under the nearest troll bridge.
Actually not trolling, but not saying it in ignorance either.
Do you not even see the irony in this statement?
I do, completely, 100%...
But it is quite possible that it will come down to us or them. If those are the choices, well... I vote us...
I? Ney? The I's have it...
I'm not holding it out as a good solution, or even a moral one. Rather, survival of the fittest. It sucks, but it is quite possible they won't give us a choice in the matter.
No I totally get it... killing everyone would solve what is mostly a regional civil war.
At least dead people can't kill hundreds of civilians in Paris. It isn't a good solution, but it at least solves that problem.
Windows 10 is a nice upgrade from 7, it fixes a lot of 7's issues and brings forward many new technologies...
8 was a mess, 8.1 less so, but still not all fixed. 10 fixed what was wrong with 8 and 8.1 and moved the whole thing forward, at least from my point of view.
If you are afraid of all Muslims, it is pretty much the same as being an old white lady in the Bronx who is afraid of all black people because you think they are "more likely to commit a crime in your neighborhood." You may not be technically incorrect but you are still wrong about the vast majority of black people you see.
You are correct, but black people shouldn't be shocked when the cops give them a hard time because of the old white lady's fears.
If black people want to avoid that perception, then they need to clean up their own house and shame their own population into stopping the violence and reason for that old white lady's fears.
Likewise, if Muslims don't want to be lumped in with the "asshole Muslim population", then they need to clean house and come out loud and clear against these attacks.
If they don't, they are going to end up treated the same way a whole lot of black people are treated by white cops. It may be unfair, but being unfair isn't going to stop it.
---
There are an overwhelming majority of Muslims who believe in peaceful coexistence
I believe that... but I know a lot of white American's who DON'T believe that... The constant media coverage of "death to America" isn't helpful, and that is just the low hanging fruit...
And unfortunately, there are no massive moderate voice(s) of Islam to make the PR case to Western/Christian audiences that most Muslims are peaceful.
Then they need to find some, or they might find themselves on the wrong end of a pissed off Western Civilization who will, sooner or later, have enough of it... and we have nuclear weapons, and they don't...
I encourage the moderate voices to come forward and loudly denounce these attacks, isolate the radicals and make it socially unacceptable for what they say and do. That doesn't fix everything, but it would be a good start.
I don't know how we should respond, bombing ISIS will lead to unspeakable tragedies here, leaving ISIS alone to collapse by other means creates unspeakable tragedies there. Letting in refugees probably means some ISIS militants sneak through the cracks to carry out attacks, keeping out refugees causes a humanitarian crisis and creates resentment and homegrown terrorists. It's a balancing act with many bad outcomes.
Sad to say, the "balancing act" might be the problem.
Note: I'm not endorsing this, I'm tossing it out as a thought, I get that it has problems and isn't perfect...
But...
Perhaps we aren't using enough force to make the point. We appear soft and weak on the homefront, we use remote bombers and drones to attack them, but we really aren't doing that much damage over there. Perhaps it is time to ramp it up and make it clear that they can give up, or lose.
It is easy to say "well more bombing won't solve the problem", and that might be true, the way we do it. What if we started using nuclear weapons? The point could be made, "either join the 21st century or be exterminated".
It worked against Japan. They simply didn't get it, couldn't change, and wouldn't listen, even when we were firebombing Tokyo. It took the threat of extermination to finally get the Emperor to see reason.
It saddens me to even say that, it is a horrible thing, but we're facing a horrible situation that won't get better by being nice about it.
Regardless of whatever wrongs these people feel were done to them...
Regardless of whatever wrongs may actually have been done to them, their families, etc...
This will not help their cause, it will just make it worse. They are yanking the tail of the tiger, they will find they are unprepared for the other end when it turns around.
For all the jokes about France and surrender, the reality is they can be a tough bunch when they want to be, and they have strong allies around the world, including the USA who will come to their aid.
---
I get that western nations aren't perfect, both France and the US have done things that we shouldn't have. But this doesn't "right the wrong", it doesn't "excuse" murdering hundreds of people who were just going about their lives.
All that will really happen is the cause of these people will be harmed for a long time to come. This was a stupid attack, many more people will suffer because of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Use their Windows PC, like everyone else?
So in other words, you were talking out your bottom end and can't back it up with anything.
Got it...
You're the one who made the absolute statement...
I'm not aware of anywhere in the US where a police officer cannot ask a woman wearing a face covering to remove it, if he has stopped her for a traffic violation...
If you know of a place, I'm all ears...
5.5? My 7850k replaced an Intel P4 @3.1. At 5Ghz I would need liquid nitrogen cooling. Not worth it imo. I'll take a hign end xeon over any skylake or other I7 flagship any day all day. Thanks for pushing my envelope and opening my eyes.
You missed the point...
A 2.4GHz Core2Duo would crush that P4 outright, even in single thread work.
A P4 955 EE running at 3.64GHz (dual core) is outright crushed by a 3.3Ghz Core2Duo, sometimes by a factor of 4.
Clock speed is just one measure of performance. A Skylake 6700K is, even at stock speeds, generally faster than anything AMD makes, even overclocked.
And of course the counter point is that it is illegal for a police officer to order you to remove religious attire, (they would need a court order even if they have a compelling interest) so for the purpose of identification prior to any probable cause for an invasive search they have a hard time showing that the attire is not included in what they have to identify. If they can't tell her to take it off, how is having a picture of the naked skin underneath going to assist in identification?
Are you so sure of all that? Everywhere?
Let me guess... You spoke respectfully to the officer, stopped when he said stop, answered his questions, and when it was obvious you were doing nothing wrong, he let you on your way, because actually that is what most cops do.
Not all, mind you, but most.
What distinguishes this from deliberately bombing civilian populations during World War 2?
Nothing...
"I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal." - Curtis LeMay
Quite true, the reality is that sometimes in war you have to leave your humanity behind because the other side wants to fight.
We did not start WWII, but as long as Japan and Germany kept fighting and refused to surrender, we had to fight them.
It sucks, but that is the way it is.
Well, your statement on the surface is simply wrong...
You used "anyone", and all it takes is one person to make that an incorrect statement.
I went from Windows 7 to Windows 10 on all my work computers and I never, ever want to go back, Windows 10 is a great improvement in many ways over Windows 7.
So your solution to terrorism is mass genocide?
You run under the assumption that peace is possible. It is only possible if both sides want it.
It might be the solution, if it can't be stopped any other way.
The decision for us to commit much greater atrocities is not "in the hands of the clerics and other muslim [sic] leaders around the world". They are not responsible for our actions, we are.
Sure it is... you waving it away and saying it isn't doesn't change that...
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014...
^ This is part of the problem. They aren't cleaning up their own house. If they were just killing each other, no one in the West would care. But they are killing us, and that isn't acceptable.
If they don't stop it, we will, and it won't be pretty.
We started this bloody awful mess
Ahh, the "blame us for the evil people's actions" reply...
These people have been savage and violent for thousands of years. We weren't much better a few hundred years ago, but we cleaned up our act. It is time for them to do the same.
I pray we do not become the evil we abhor.
So do I, but I also pray that these attacks stop. If they don't stop, then perhaps the terrible becomes possible.
If the attacks that Israel suffers happened in the US at the same rate, this would already have been over. We wouldn't accept what they do for 5 minutes, we wouldn't have to. Now Israel isn't totally innocent in that, I get that... but the US has the power and the ability to do something about it in a way that Israel does not.
As long as enough people choose to dehumanize their fellow human beings then there will be no end to the escalating violence on both sides.
Unless one side wins. You seem to be under the assumption that this has to continue forever. It doesn't. While they don't have the actual ability to beat us outright, the same is not true in reverse.
If you pray for anything, pray that they buy a clue and figure that out before they push it too far.
Actually, everyone should be shocked and outraged by someone being mistreated because someone else's prejudices.
Really? Should they?
When those prejudices are based on numbers and statistics?
Except that won't help because that old white lady didn't carefully examine crime statistics to determine the correlation between skin color and criminal tendencies.
Are you so sure that isn't the case? Black people commit more violence (per-capita) than white people do. That is a well known fact.
Her fears are caused by racist baggage she's carrying around from her youth, from around or preceding the Civil Rights movement. That, in turn, is leftover from attempts to justify slavery.
That sounds like black propaganda, you're making assumptions about her fears, where as her fears are based on numbers and the fact that black people do in fact commit more crime than white people do, at least the violent kind.
The black community needs more Dr. Martin Luthar King's are fewer Louis Farrakhan's:
https://www.splcenter.org/figh...
"Farrakhan is an anti-Semite who routinely accuses Jews of manipulating the U.S. government and controlling the levers of world power. Farrakhan blames Jews for the slave trade, plantation slavery, Jim Crow, sharecropping and general black oppression. Farrakhan's tone grew more belligerent in June 2010, when he sent letters to several leaders of the Jewish community as well as the Southern Poverty Law Center demanding that they realize the evils they have perpetrated and that they work to further Farrakhan's goals. The letter ended with a threat to "ruin and destroy your power and influence here and throughout the world" if his terms were not met."
People like him do not serve the black community. White people (of which I am one) are happy to accept black people into our world, if they behave like civilized human beings.
A good example is Colin Powell, another would be Condoleezza Rice. Neither are perfect people, but both are examples of how black people should conduct themselves. I would vote for either one of them to be President.
And sadly, spirits can't be killed by bullets. Islamic terrorism didn't die with bin Laden, it didn't die with Jihad John, and it won't die no matter how many of their ilk are killed.
Just to address this point... that is true, using the means we are currently employing to deal with the problem. All our bombs are just making the problem worse...
That being said, I don't see Saudi Arabia's army fighting ISIS, I don't see Iran's army fighting them, and I don't see anyone but the West doing anything about it...
If peaceful Muslims don't wish to be lumped into the same group as the bad ones, then they need to start addressing this problem, not the West.
There may come a point where these attacks and the threat of ISIS grows to the point where average people in the West turn to their leaders and say, "do something about this, make it stop, whatever it takes..."
Islamic terrorism can of course be killed by violence, you simply have to kill all Islamic people. In the world. All of them, then you won't have any more of them.
It might reduce the world's population by a billion or two or three, but it does solve the problem, if in a horrible, terrible way.
So before you claim that bullets don't solve the problem, consider that nuclear weapons might.
I am not endorsing that as a solution, I'm simply pointing out that if you kill everyone who is your enemy, then you no longer have enemies. If the Muslim world doesn't get a handle on these extremists and put a stop to it, the West will do it for them, and the response will only grow until it turns into all out war.
A war the West would clearly win.
IOW, your reaction to dehumanize the people who did this plays right into their hands. ISIS was created by and survives on atrocities committed by the West. I'm not saying this justifies the attack. I'm saying that from a pragmatic perspective dehumanizing the attackers is extremely stupid and short-sighted.
True, unless they keep doing it, in which case, putting them down becomes an option.
Not a pretty one, maybe not even a moral one, but a pragmatic one.
Someone else made the comment that you can't solve this problem by killing more people. Well, yes you can, but you have to take it to another level completely.
I hope it doesn't go there, but at the end of the day, that decision is in the hands of the clerics and other muslim leaders around the world. Are they going to start teaching their youth that this is not acceptable behavior? Are they going to start using their military forces to fight these people?
When Saudi Arabia sends in their army to fight ISIS, I'll be impressed.
There may come a point where the West grows tired of this and decides that it is too much of an existential risk to allow it to continue and grow.
If that happens, the good may be taken out with the bad. And that would be sad. But it may happen if they don't start cleaning up their own house.
No, because the PM of Iran is not actually in charge.
ISIS keeps yanking the tail of the tiger because the only world where something like ISIS has a future is one where beasts prowl the earth and eat whomever they will. ISIS is, after all, a beast itself.
When you have a rabid dog, generally you should call the ASPCA and have it put down.
Not out of hate, but because it is the right thing to do.
Not everyone can be brought to justice... and frankly, it isn't at all clear that they have committed any "crimes" that they could be charged with...
What would you have charged Hitler with, in 1938? Who would have arrested him?
Sometimes our scale of justice and civilization don't scale to this level.
The live tiles are nice, I think they are a good improvement.
As for the second part, frankly, welcome to the 21st century, if it bothers you, then why are you on the Internet? Everything is tracking you and it would be a full time job to try and avoid it.
You'd have to live a cash existence, turn off a whole lot of stuff, drive old cars, etc. to try and stop it, all for what?
There is a phrase for that, it is called "pissing in the wind".
Would you agree that bombing a hospital in Gaza is just as unacceptable as opening up with automatic AK-47s in a Paris restaurant?
Depends on who is in the hospital.
If you told me that the top French military brass were eating dinner in that restaurant and they were the target, I'd feel differently about that too.
Nothing wrong with a problem solver just tossing those ideas under the nearest troll bridge.
Actually not trolling, but not saying it in ignorance either.
Do you not even see the irony in this statement?
I do, completely, 100%...
But it is quite possible that it will come down to us or them. If those are the choices, well... I vote us...
I? Ney? The I's have it...
I'm not holding it out as a good solution, or even a moral one. Rather, survival of the fittest. It sucks, but it is quite possible they won't give us a choice in the matter.
No I totally get it... killing everyone would solve what is mostly a regional civil war.
At least dead people can't kill hundreds of civilians in Paris. It isn't a good solution, but it at least solves that problem.
Well that's nice that you think that...
I'd point out why you're wrong, but you wouldn't listen because you have your mind made up...
What exactly is a "proper windows"?
Windows 10 is a nice upgrade from 7, it fixes a lot of 7's issues and brings forward many new technologies...
8 was a mess, 8.1 less so, but still not all fixed. 10 fixed what was wrong with 8 and 8.1 and moved the whole thing forward, at least from my point of view.
If you are afraid of all Muslims, it is pretty much the same as being an old white lady in the Bronx who is afraid of all black people because you think they are "more likely to commit a crime in your neighborhood." You may not be technically incorrect but you are still wrong about the vast majority of black people you see.
You are correct, but black people shouldn't be shocked when the cops give them a hard time because of the old white lady's fears.
If black people want to avoid that perception, then they need to clean up their own house and shame their own population into stopping the violence and reason for that old white lady's fears.
Likewise, if Muslims don't want to be lumped in with the "asshole Muslim population", then they need to clean house and come out loud and clear against these attacks.
If they don't, they are going to end up treated the same way a whole lot of black people are treated by white cops. It may be unfair, but being unfair isn't going to stop it.
---
There are an overwhelming majority of Muslims who believe in peaceful coexistence
I believe that... but I know a lot of white American's who DON'T believe that... The constant media coverage of "death to America" isn't helpful, and that is just the low hanging fruit...
And unfortunately, there are no massive moderate voice(s) of Islam to make the PR case to Western/Christian audiences that most Muslims are peaceful.
Then they need to find some, or they might find themselves on the wrong end of a pissed off Western Civilization who will, sooner or later, have enough of it... and we have nuclear weapons, and they don't...
I encourage the moderate voices to come forward and loudly denounce these attacks, isolate the radicals and make it socially unacceptable for what they say and do. That doesn't fix everything, but it would be a good start.
My favorite statements: "I do not tolerate intolerance"
A better way to put it is... "I do not tolerate violence"..
But sadly, the only way to stop someone who is violent is with more violence.
If a cop shows up to a domestic violence call, if the people are not willing to listen to reason, his only real tool at hand is violence.
Force is the only way to impose yourself on someone else against their will.
These people doing this need to stop. They can do it because it is the right thing to do, or they can do it because we make them stop.
Sadly, given the situation, the only way to make them stop would be to kill a large number of them.
I don't know how we should respond, bombing ISIS will lead to unspeakable tragedies here, leaving ISIS alone to collapse by other means creates unspeakable tragedies there. Letting in refugees probably means some ISIS militants sneak through the cracks to carry out attacks, keeping out refugees causes a humanitarian crisis and creates resentment and homegrown terrorists. It's a balancing act with many bad outcomes.
Sad to say, the "balancing act" might be the problem.
Note: I'm not endorsing this, I'm tossing it out as a thought, I get that it has problems and isn't perfect...
But...
Perhaps we aren't using enough force to make the point. We appear soft and weak on the homefront, we use remote bombers and drones to attack them, but we really aren't doing that much damage over there. Perhaps it is time to ramp it up and make it clear that they can give up, or lose.
It is easy to say "well more bombing won't solve the problem", and that might be true, the way we do it. What if we started using nuclear weapons? The point could be made, "either join the 21st century or be exterminated".
It worked against Japan. They simply didn't get it, couldn't change, and wouldn't listen, even when we were firebombing Tokyo. It took the threat of extermination to finally get the Emperor to see reason.
It saddens me to even say that, it is a horrible thing, but we're facing a horrible situation that won't get better by being nice about it.
Regardless of whatever wrongs these people feel were done to them...
Regardless of whatever wrongs may actually have been done to them, their families, etc...
This will not help their cause, it will just make it worse. They are yanking the tail of the tiger, they will find they are unprepared for the other end when it turns around.
For all the jokes about France and surrender, the reality is they can be a tough bunch when they want to be, and they have strong allies around the world, including the USA who will come to their aid.
---
I get that western nations aren't perfect, both France and the US have done things that we shouldn't have. But this doesn't "right the wrong", it doesn't "excuse" murdering hundreds of people who were just going about their lives.
All that will really happen is the cause of these people will be harmed for a long time to come. This was a stupid attack, many more people will suffer because of it.
Someone is dropping bombs from 20,000 ft onto Paris? Call CNN, that is news!