Bro, your 1.5-5x is just not true unless the Java was written by idiots (and as we old timers remember the chestnut, "You can write bad FORTRAN in any language"). Even in 2008 Java was beating C++ and approaching FORTRAN for speed, citation follows. Now you can cherry pick whatever benchmark you want and it will show C++ as faster, and I'll choose another benchmark and that will show Java as faster. That means they are about on par with regard to performance (that wasn't true in the past, but is true today).
Here's the citation about the "Current State of Java for High Performance Computing", written in 2008 (the JVM has got *much* faster since then): http://blogs.oracle.com/jag/entry/current_state_of_java_for
Please note that the report was written by INRIA, the French Scientific Supercomputing outfit - it is not a fluff whitepaper from a vendor (who will lie to make sales). If you can flaw the INRIA paper I'd be very interested to hear why you are right and they are wrong.
When people talk about benchmarks in terms of faster they mean performance not development
If your development time is so long the project stakeholders may cancel it. That is the major cause of software development failure. If you time to develop is long your time to market is also long. That can mean missed opportunity and even business death. So the long development time might be appropriate for the toy QT programs you develop, but it completely blows for large commercial projects where you have a big team and the set of people who start a project may not be the set of people who finish (people get pregnant, get sick, get promoted, all sorts of stuff). Once you start looking past just the purely technical stuff you have quite a different view of technology. That's why few people choose C++ to start a project these days.
In terms of development time, Java gets crushed by much higher level languages.
I find that most of those higher level languages tend to be fairly good at one domain. They are faster to develop in, if you are doing the problem they were designed to solve, and then they suck. The runtime performance of higher-level language blows. eg, Groovy, Ruby, Python are not in the same league as C++/C/Java/C# etc. For most modern applications it simply doesn't matter anymore, because you are waiting for a database, or the network, or user input (**slow**), or the GPU, or the memory bus, etc etc. It is only if you are stuck doing batch operations that it really matters. Now I'm waiting for you to say, "but, but, multimedia!". The reality is that multimedia should be done in hardware. I use Java+JoGL+OpenGL for this. This destroys C++ (or any other software implementation) for performance. Horses for courses my friend. That's why few people use C++ anymore - we understand it well (used it for decades) - but realise that implementing a new commercial application with it is just duh stooopidd.
Well said. I tend to make a bunch of mutable classes (eg. a MutableTableModel) that I use as a base class. It's still stinky that in order to create a decent table you need some custom classes. But for me the degree of control is worth it. I like what you can do with styling with JXTable too.
Cool. Thanks for the tip on MigLayout. If I can't ever get GridBagLayout to work for me I'll definitely take a look at MigLayout.
Funny video. I guess changing things at random is what most GUI coders do, right? That's not my workflow - but I can see how GBL would suck until you learn all the aspects that make a layout work and resize properly.
At least you seem to be in the camp that Java on the desktop still has some uses:)
If Java was so fast why do all the high performance libraries for things like multimedia not use it?
There are pure Java codecs. They work fine. It is not the C++ that is necessarily fast, but the inline assembler you can put in. In fact, the perfect analogy of using native libraries in Java is when C++ is too slow and you use inline assembler. In both cases you use a higher level abstraction for the huge productivity boost and switch to the lower level abstraction only when you really have to (which is become more and more rare these days) - when you are prepared to sacrifice portability for performance (on a single target). After doing C++ for nearly two decades I hate going back. Java is always my first choice unless I have some other reason (which is getting more and more rare these days).
I write multithreaded C++ code with Qt all the time. It is absolutely trivial. What is supposed to be tricky?
Resource management in a non-deterministic program. Releasing resources neither too early nor too late is problematic. For large data sets this is a problem (I don't know whether you are near the memory limits of your machine, or have smaller programmes) and is why very many modern environments use garbage collection to take the burden of the developer (especially as programs go from large, where any technique can work, to huge).
Thanks for the clarification. Fortunately with Java there are multiple implementations. OpenJDK is pretty much the same as Oracle (same 'DNA'), but is fully GPL and maintained by the community.
Yes, we do agree. Diverse views are good, including the perspective of the "gentler sex". However, if the motivation to alter the culture of an entire industry is simply to get more women in to technical disciplines that only a few enjoy, just so some ideology is fulfilled - then perhaps that is not a great reason.
Java has one feature that C# doesn't. This one feature makes up for all the nice-to-have little C# features. That one feature is "portability", not only of the language, but even more importantly, *all* the standard libraries. Mono goes some way to alleviating this but there are some significant libraries that Mono haven't developed and also state (according to their own pages) that they will never develop. I don't know if you have noticed it yet, but the Microsoft is just one platform in the World - and the number of platforms is burgeoning. Apart from a few platforms Java is locked out of deliberately (iOS, Xbox) Java runs pretty much whereever you need to be - with very very little porting necessary (eg. through judicious use of libraries, like JoGL,JOAL, JInput a jet combat simulator I'm developing runs not only with unmodified source on Windows+Mac+Linux+[and some tweaks for Android]; but actually runs without needing a recompile ! [I know it is not true for everyone, but for me, "Write Once, Run Anywhere" really works - even for a very complex multithreaded OpenGL/GLSL real-time application]).
I hope that sheds some light on why some of the Java devs still use it. The nice features of C# don't necessarily make up for Java's awesome portability of *all* its libraries.
I'm afraid I have to disagree. I'm writing a modern jet combat simulator in Java and the runtime speed is fine. The bottleneck is never the CPU, it is always the GPU. I also have to say that Java's performance in terms of latency is very good. The reason for this is because I'm able to create a lot of threads very easily and Java manages resource sharing very well, plus use of the language features for synchronization threads and I get to use around 20% of each of the eight cores on my machine. When I use an excellent product in a similar niche called DCS:World I do notice that it's speed is somewhat hampered by the C++ running on a single core. Now yes, multi-threading in C++ is of course possible, but it is much tricker than Java, especially the resource management.
So I think your comment is not correct. Java is comparable to C++ (sometimes faster, sometimes slower) on a single thread. When it comes to overall performance I find Java is faster overall because it is much easier to utilize all the cores in a machine with Java. In terms of gaming the performance of programming language used is nearly irrelevant - it is all down to how well you use the GPU (especially GPU memory; if you can keep stuff in VRAM then your performance is awesome).
Finally, let's move from the speed that is not that relevant (runtime) to the speed that actually matters (development time). Java is much much faster to develop in. You do have to spend some time profiling and tuning a Java program, but since you spend far far less time debugging than C++ you are still winning. I also love the JVisualVM that comes with the Sun/Oracle JDK and OpenJDK. While C++ has profilers they are a hassle to use, you have to compile your program each time you want to profile and recompile to measure different metrics. With JVisualVM you can profile any Java program without source and without recompilation since the monitors are built into the JVM (in exactly the same way as performance counters are built into operating systems these days, accessible by dtrace, strace, truss etc).
So, I think C++ is best used in niche programs where the host environment measures its memory in kilobytes. For other applications Java is more than fast enough on a single thread, has better throughput on multi-core machines, and is *much* faster to develop in (saves money, and also means something gets delivered sooner, as in, "faster time to market"). That's why Java kicks ass on the Tiobe Index - even if users only know about it from Minecraft and browser plugin issues.
Actually, once you get used to Swing it is pretty hard to go back to any other toolkit. Swing is amazingly powerful, and ever since Java 1.6.0u10 also very performant (since it is based on Java2D which is DirectX accelerated on Windows and OpenGL accelerated everywhere else). One thing you do have to be aware of with Swing is not to block the "Event Dispatch Thread". Once you learn that, and how to use GrdiBagLayout properly then you are 'away laughing'.
With the Nimbus Look & Feel the look of Swing is pretty awesome. Of course, many Swing developers have or are transitioning to Swing;'s successor, JavaFX 2. JavaFX 2 looks amazing (lots of special effects, gradients, transparency, reflections, animations etc that can be switched on very easily). JavaFX 2 does have a slightly different model for properties than Swing, so there is a bit of an impedance mismatch when you embed Swing into a JavaFX 2 UI or vice versa.
I understand many don't like the learning curve of Swing, and some of the overheads (eg. TableModels) - but it turns out these abstractions are necessary for users to be able to make custom controls (which is easier, IMHO, than other toolkits as you get a lot of control on how your custom will work exactly how you want it to).
The best thing about Swing, IMHO is not even the enormous capability for extensions. For me the best features is not only to have pixel-precise layout, but also you can make the UI resize *exactly* the way you want. While I like GWT and CSV for web stuff when I use them I always miss Swing as the later us able to work out the correct size of controls itself, and resizes exactly the way I want it (that's due to a problem in browsers computing layout [which the GWT guys called "intractable" in the browser; but Swing shows this is not the case on the desktop]).
There is a lot of life left in Java desktop technologies. I'm having a great time using OpenGL (via JoGL) in Swing to produce a modern jet combat flight sim. The ability to mix Java controls and 3D saves a lot of work (most 3D apps have to implement UI controls themselves - so end up behaving non-conventionally and looking a little odd).
That's the usual response of those who don't even want to listen to arguments that are against their narrative. You don't dispute the historical facts I provide, nor the statements from the Qur'an. Instead you simply apply the tactics of the fascist Left, simply call someone names instead of debating rationally on their points (although, its understandable, you simply don't know enough to even attempt to counter the *facts*).
Sorry about the typos. I'm ashamed. My poor excuse is that I was writing furtively at work and didn't have time to proof. My apologies for the typos (but not the content, if you can still follow it).
I think it is quite obvious that all three of these religions have different prophets and theories about the one true God, but it is hard to deny that they all share the exact same one true God.
One one level you are true, on another your statement is not true. The Muslims will talk about the "God of Abraham". This is intended to give Christians and Jews warm fuzzies and hoping some of them will jump on the "bridge between faiths" (which only goes one way, you will notice). So, at first glance your statement seems true. However, one more learned in the Qur'an will understand that they also consider the Christian Trinitarian God to be a heresy that does not describe Allah. Hence they consider Christians as heretics worshiping a false god. The false god cannot be the same as the true god, so Muslims believe (and are in fact taught) that the Christians do not worship the same god. Although strangely, Moses and Jesus were Muslims (it's bad enough when countries claim rockstars, but claiming prophets is going a bit far:) ).
However, despite claiming the "God of Abraham" the Muslims then proceed to lay out and even more evil deity that has attributes that are against attributes defined by Abraham/Judaism. Just because a claim is made does not make the claim true, claiming Allah is YHWH does not make it true. Similarly, "calling SplashMyBandit a bigot because calls Islam evil does not make the claim of bigotry true" [or even sensible, given the formal definition of what constitutes bigotry].
Consider the which starts the prayer said five times a day by Muslims, Sura. So what seems a relatively innocuous phrase is dissing both Jews and Christians - five times a day. All this is explained for you in depth, here: http://www.islam-watch.org/authors/139-louis-palme/1082-behind-the-muslim-prayers.html
My point is that Islam conforms to Shrek's definition of an ogre. It has layers. Unfortunately the layers do not get nicer the more and more you peel back. Underneath the grandiose facade of Islam is a basement with a terrible stink. Most people know the stink instinctively but don't know or care to open the door to find out why. Once you open the door you understand where the stink is coming from - the evil ideology that has already claimed 270 million lives and would gladly claim the life of every single living thing on this planet if it was thought to please Allah. Regrettably, there are people already working toward making exactly that happen (I'm looking at you Iran, who have within the last week launched and even more evil and inhuman wave of oppression - for those that have been taking notes).
In fact, the more you delve into it you will find that the characteristics that Islam attributes to their deity are almost exactly opposite to the characteristics of the God of Abraham. However, the God of Islam prides himself as the "greatest deceiver" numerous times in the Qur'an - so it is no surprise that he would produce the deceit that he was the same as the God of Abraham. The reality is that the attributes of both (fictional) deities are different. Therefore, logic dictates that the deities are different. ISLAM MAY CLAIM TO HAVE THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, BUT THEIR SCRIPTURE DEFINES A DIFFERENT BEING (a deceptive anti-God, if you will).
So you see, one can read the Qur'an but there are layers there. It is something else to understand what the words are trying to convey. Like I said, Osama bin Laden agrees on the meaning of Islam with Al Azhar (as you know, the foremost authority for Sunnis) and the Muslim Brotherhood etc etc. They
It's the opinion of one politician who, at the time he expressed it, was the equivalent of the vice president in the US. He isn't some backbencher, he's the party leader of a major bloc in the Knesset. And he's no longer in that position not because of these kind of views, but because of a corruption and bribery scandal.
His personal view is still not Government policy in Israel. Do I have to repeat that a third time? However, genocide is Government policy for Hamas, Hezbollah, and the PA.
For what it's worth, a (Jewish) friend of mine who went to Israel heard lots of talk among Israelis that thoroughly agreed with that basic view.
I've been to Israel and the West Bank and Lebanon and Syria and Jordan. The Israelis I know didn't start out hating the Palestinians. The Israelis want themselves to have a good like and would like the Palestinians to also have a good life. However, as long as the Palestinians are set on their genocide the amount of support for the Palestinian complaints has dropped dramatically in Israel. Israel continually offers a hand of permanent peace to the Arabs and it is continually rebuffed. Note that Judea and Samaria are disputed territories, so the settlements have no legal status under international law, but they are not illegal either. After the Ottoman Empire the League of Nations gave the British a mandate over the Palestine Region (it has never been a country). The British intended to split Palestine into two parts divided by the River Jordan. The eastern part, for the Arabs, became Transjordan and later The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The Western part was for Jews. Since there were mixed Jews and Arabs there (note, this was two decades before World War 2, which shows up the complete lie that Israelis are simply European Jews fleeing the European Holocaust). The British thought of partitioning the Western part into two, a Jewish state and an Arab state - with the final borders to be settled by negotiation. That negotiation hasn't happened due to various terrorist attacks (and yes, the Zionist movement is as guilty as the Islamist movement). So the borders between Jewish Palestine and Arab Palestine have not yet been set under International Law - which is why the two sides are still struggling to set the reality in the ground. Asserting things like "1967 Borders" as clueless Obama did not only ignores the reality of subsequent wars, it also has no basis in International Law. The borders still need to be negotiated. Israel is still waiting for the Palestinians to get real (the PA+Hamas still believe they can destroy Israel because "Allah is on their side" - so millions live in fear and misery - see how evil the political ideology of Islam is?)
That view is demonstrably untrue: Egypt and Jordan both have negotiated permanent peace agreements that have held up for quite some time, and Fatah (who like Hamas had dedicated themselves to destroying Israel) also no longer supports attacking Israel. Fatah's reward for being peaceful is continuously losing land to Israeli settlements.
Of course, since you've been following Egyptian news like I have, you will be well aware that the Muslim Brotherhood are mulling over abrogating that treaty. Fortunately they cannot because Islamic Governments are like all national socialist governments and mismanage finances dreadfully. So they are too distracted to start a war against Israel, yet. Rest assured the Brotherhood does intend to - and you'll probably be right there cheering them on. The Jordanians are better because the Hashemite kings want to stay in power. The next goal of the Muslim Brotherhood is to remove those kings so they can whip up the Jordanians against Israel. The Saudi Kings are to be removed as well. How can I see the future? because of documents captured in America show this (note, the MB is *very* active in the US and had great influence over policy at the Whitehouse - in both the Bush and especially the Obama Administrations
I agree with you wholeheartedly. However Islam is particularly bad because it asserts claims on non-believers. There is one religion that is an exception, it is called Jainism. It is a weird philosophy, and I don't actually agree with it as it is not practical and conducive to scientific progress, but at its fundamental level it is a religion of peace (unlike the Abrahamic religions). Here is seven and a half minutes of great insight from Sam Harris: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDMOxjHIt0U
Please clarify how I was bigoted. As far as I an see, I am consistent with *facts* such as these:
Please let me define bigot for you: "Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, and intolerance on the basis of a person's race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, language, socioeconomic status, or other status."
What contempt did I display for any *person* ? I said I hated Islam because I have studied it extensively and *understand it*. Please note that Islam is an *ideology* not a person. As such it is always able to be subject to criticism - even harsh criticism - and this never constitutes "bigotry".
How is the Muslim ideology that much different than that of the Jewish and Christian faiths when all three schools of thought believe in the exact same mythical character that governs the universe?
You read the books and cannot tell the difference? are you *sure* you read them? the differences are stark! For example: Christ commanded compassion for your enemies, Mohammed commanded death; Christ demonstrated continence and never appeared to take a wife; Muhammed had multiple wives, including slave wives, and raped Saffiya on the day he murdered her tribe and tortured her husband to death by kindling a fire on his chest while he looked for the tribes riches; in Islam is is permitted to to have sex with children because Mohammed at 54 years old had sex with Aisha at 9 lunar years (8 solar years) - and no, this was not normal even for those times; then we have the commandments for every able bodies Muslim to conduct jihad asghar against non-Muslims; then we have Mohammed ordering assassinations and permitting lying to do this (both big no-nos against the Mosaic Law); then we have the so called "Satanic verses" of Islam where Mohammed was tricked/possessed (unlike Christ who resisted Satan); then we have the claim that Islam is the direct divine and unalterable word of God (in contrast to all historical evidence, eg the 1972 Sa'ana Quran discovery that is changed from the later orthodox Caliphate version); then we have the whole historicity aspect, where the pagan Moon God illah became the single god "Allah"; then we have the sections of the Qur'an that are plagiarized from the Torah and Bible but the plagiarism is inaccurate and they get some things wrong (eg. the relationship of Mary); then we have Mohammed as a prophet of the religion when only Jews can be prophets. There are heaps more differences but I think that is enough to start. Still can't distinguish between the doctrines in the books you so proudly read?
Please also note that the Qur'an is only one third of the scriptures of Islam. You have to also have to read the hadiths to understand the religion. That's why your understanding of the differences between Christianity, Judaism and Islam is so poor and as a result you are confused and incorrectly cast around the ad-hominem of "bigot" as a result of your lack of understanding (sorry to be harsh, but you need to understand the truth - which is why you don't understand just how evil Mohammed was and the ideology of Islam is).
Anyone who knows anything about abrogation knows that Islam is an evil ideology, racist and certainly not a religion of peace. However, if we overlook that fact for a moment what is very significant is the fact that all other religions are pretty much banned from most mainstream schools (certainly Christianity and Judaism are). So you ought to ask yourself, why is Islam being pushed in US schools? Besides the obvious answer, because Islamists (eg. the Muslim Brotherhood) want this, how come the Department of Education allows this? The short answer is that the political Left have an alignment of ideology with Islam - so are indoctrination the youth of America with collectivist nonsense. What they don't understand is that they are sowing the seeds of a generation of jihadis because no one is pointing out the true facts about Islam - it is a curse in every country it touches.
Before the haters start please consider these things: I understand Islam *very* well, and *hate* it as it is against every liberty that free men (and women!) cherish; I am an atheist, no point citing Christian bias (Christianity also bunk just like Islam; however unlike Islam today Christianity way less evil); I have no problem with Muslims themselves, who are generally good people despite the brainwashing they've had in the anti-scientific nonsense of Islam; I'm not from the US, so I don't vote, or back Republicans or Democrats (although the Democrats are far more anti-Constitutional than most US people seem to be aware of).
The US is making colossal strategic mistakes. Warping schooling for politically correct subjects instead of emphasizing maths, tech and hard science is not going to result in US global leadership in the coming decades. US citizens can fix it though - vote out the bastards who are warping your schools. Demand that schools teach and promote Enlightenment values instead of barbaric Sharia. Demand that schools teach more math and science.
Fair enough criticism. Too bad you miss out some new facts that talk about issues critical for the survival of liberty. I suggest you hold you nose and plunge in.
Thanks for engaging with a respectful tone. Please allow me to reply to the best of my knowledge.
See, that to me is an indication that you aren't impartial about this. My general view on any kind of warfare is that if you ask side A, they'll be convinced that they're the moral actors and B is irredeemably evil, whereas if you ask side B, they're convinced that they're the moral actor and A is irredeemably evil.
As far as Hamas versus Israel goes, Hamas's charter specifically states that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth. I could see how you see that as irredeemably evil. On the other hand, prominent Israeli politicians (most notably Avigdor Lieberman, the Deputy PM only last year) have publicly made statements to the effect that the Palestinians should be wiped out. I could see how Palestinians see that as irredeemably evil. Also of great interest to me is that the militant Gaza hasn't shrunk whereas the basically peaceful West Bank Palestinians have been losing land to settlements steadily since about 1995, suggesting that Hamas' strategy could be seen as more effective in protecting their people's existence than Fatah's strategy.
There is an enormous gulf between the two sides. It is Hamas' stated policy to commit genocide. It is not Israel's stated policy to commit genocide. It is the opinion of one politician. In a free society you do not expect conformity to a single view. Until genocide becomes policy in Israel (hint: if you understand the founding motivations of Israel, it never will) it is clear that Hamas intends to commit genocide the first chance it gets and Israel does not (if it had intended this, the Palestinian Arabs would have been long gone - instead over a million are integrated as citizens of Israel with rights). It is a fallacy to apply "moral equivalence" between the two sides (as is done in the media to try an appear unbiased). So the question comes down to, "Do you support genocide or not?". Only one side aims to practice it.
Also of great interest to me is that the militant Gaza hasn't shrunk whereas the basically peaceful West Bank Palestinians have been losing land to settlements steadily since about 1995, suggesting that Hamas' strategy could be seen as more effective in protecting their people's existence than Fatah's strategy.
Hamas' strategy appears to work until the day they are destroyed. The opinion inside Israel, as far as I can tell, is shifting from accommodation of the Arabs to the realization that you won't ever be able to negotiate a permanent peace with people whose aim is to commit genocide on you. The unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza (previously occupied by Egypt) was brought about by leftist elements within Israeli society who convinced the skeptical majority that if only the Palestinians were given territory back their grievance would be assuaged and peace would ensure. The result was a disaster, not peace but an increasing number of rockets targetting israeli civilians coupled with lethal raids targetting border patrols - the number of rockets fired at civilians is now approaching 13000. You see the political left mistake the Hamas' motivation as caused by poverty (not true, the statistics show many very wealthy Gazans, if you care to look) or land (not true, there are 56 majority Islamic countries - and vast uninhabited areas in the region that the Palestinian Arabs [who are actually mostly Egyptian ]). The reason the withdrawal didn't work is because Hamas is primarily motivated by the Qur'an, for example Sahih Muslim Book 41 "The Last Hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews. The Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: ‘Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him;’ but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews" or the similar Kitab al-Fitan, hadith. 2239 "So that Jews will hide behind trees and the tree will say “Muslim! The
My experience is that progressives will generally seek social pressure to modify speech and conservatives will seek political pressure to modify speech
Your "experience" is wrong. It seems you are ignorant of several trends. One example is Hilliary Clinton co-sponsoring UN HRC Resolution 16/18 to *criminalize* speech that criticizes religion. Then we have the inquisition-esque "star chambers" of Human Right panels that are popping up all over the World to enforce conformity of thought to the Politically Correct progressive orthodoxy. It appears you are blind to this because you have been successfully indoctrinated to miss the real issue: invidual liberty.
The political Left has always championed the collectivist and statist model. The political Right has always championed conservative causes which (in the US) were individual liberties. That is why the Democrats from the South *opposed* the abolition of slavery and the Republicans had to fight hard to get slavery abolished. The propaganda of the Left is that conservatives are uncaring, exploitative rich white men, or racist bigots, or inbreds. That is pure propaganda but unfortunately it still finds many suckers.
Important note. In the US system Free Speech is not a political concept. It is considered and "inalienable right" that cannot be removed. What is happening, particularly under progressive governments is that all sorts of previously allowed speech is being prohibited for "cultural sensitivity", "community cohesion" or "political correctness" reasons. Free speech is being crippled, but not by conservatives. This is a natural consequence of the progressive agenda which seeks utopia - and in progressed socialist societies this is done through quasi-legal bodies (eg. the Human Rights inquisitions) and in fully developed socialist systems by force of arms (eg. China, Soviet Russia, all of the Eastern Bloc under Soviet Rule).
Important note: I'm not a US citizen so Democrat vs Republican means nothing to me. What matters is the preservation of the liberties as laid out by the US Constitution and its amendments. While Republicans ignore the Constitution when it suits them it is the latest two-term Administration that has gone turbo-charged via anti-democratic Executive Orders to get laws passed that are progressively dismantling the US Constitution. The Mule vs Elephant thing is a distraction, so don't get caught up with it. What matters is that liberties are being eroded by one party while the other party talks about individual liberty but is so busy trying to get re-elected they are failing a their core duty - to protect the liberty and welfare of their citizens.
It appears from your posting that you have greater affinity to your tribe than to the defence of liberty. That is what makes you completely blind to the rapid changes in the World (eg. the OIC dominated UN seeking to subvert the UN's founding principles; the Obama Administration creating bodies to crush diversity of thought). Don't get caught up in the propaganda demonizing those who oppose the orthodox views you do - think outside the square and judge politicians on whether they support individual liberties or not, that's the only thing that matters since Free Speech is progressively getting squeezed (although as I said, you appear to be a leftist proto-fascist that's ok with losing Free Speech and other liberties - providing it's for "the common good").
Thanks for your comment. What many don't understand is that it was trivial for *Hamas* to check the accuracy of the claim. Their rockets leave different fragments to the fragments that a surface to air missile does (by fragments, the pieces are large enough to read serial markings etc off). The BBC should not have used Hamas as a source as they have persistently been found to use 'stringers' (false sources for journalists). Hezbollah was also busted doing this during the 2006 Lebanon War.
Before you (mistakenly) absolve the BBC I suggest you read this: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/douglas-murray/2013/03/will-owen-jones-apologise/
The journalist in question, Owen Jones, it a leftists well-known for choosing anything to slander the entire nation of Israel. It is telling that the BBC lacks the discernment to identify and eliminate such people. The BBC used to be good an impartial. They still rely on that cachet but the reality today is very different. The BBC is stuffed with liberal arts graduates who unquestioningly parrot the fashionable but inaccurate claims of the Pallywood and jihadi stringers. The modern BBC has disgraced itself again - it can't even get basic journalistic tennets like "Check your facts, don't trust your sources" correct while in its quest to subtly bend opinion toward the political Left.
While 15-30 is indeed half the time of 30-60 is is still one third of the time from 15-60 (the set of all geeks). Don't bother turning in your geek badge - we need all the people we can get:)
Umm, citation needed on that. And it would hardly be surprising for a journalist to assume that explosives that strike in Gaza are much more likely to be Israeli than Hamas - Hamas firing rockets at Gaza makes about as much sense as the IDF firing explosives at Tel Aviv. I'm not suggesting Hamas are innocent here, just that they aren't that stupid.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/douglas-murray/2013/03/will-owen-jones-apologise/ http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/166054#.UU5hVVdXvXw
Notice how the left-wiung journalists at BBC are choosing to slant the news they present to you (without doing basic tradecraft like checking facts). It turns out a lot of Hamas' poorly made missiles misfire and land on their own civilians. Hamas doesn't care about the civilians, it gets to blame it on Israelis and the journalists repeat the falsehoods without checking. Rinse and repeat a few times and the moral actor (Israel) is demonized in the minds of regular folks and the evil actor (Hamas) comes out smelling like the innocent party (despite them caring neither for Israeli nor Palestinian civilians in their genocidal jihad - ps. check the Hamas Charter, it is pure evil).
A professional journalist *must check their facts* before publishing. If they can't check that facts then either don't publish, or list the possibilities. In many instances reporters covering conflicts between forces (not just Israelis, also against NATO etc) will publish articles that are inflammatory but also very wrong. Once an article has been published it is very hard to retract. That's why we get jihadis killing people because they see shamely false articles on BBC etc that accuse Israel or NATO of war crimes - yet the forces of these nations take a great deal of care to wage war humanly and within the Geneva Convention (unlike their opponents whose whole modus operandi is a complete war crime). Besides the BBC the UN is not much better (no suprise, it is dominated by the 57 countries of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation [OIC] who are all for committing geneocide against Israel because the Qur'an and hadiths expliticitly say this will be done before the Last Days).
Would I be correct in guessing you are Israeli or regularly read Israeli news sources?
Do you have any idea of how racist that sounds? as if Israelis can't report impartially, ever? Being critical of any culture is fine, provided it is fact based. Where I take umbrage is that much of the reporting these days doesn't get basic facts straight. The BBC and Al Jazeera are not high quality sources as the grandparent suggested, in fact they are quite baised because they don't fact check reports that match their narrative, just like MSNBC. That's just poor journalism.
Now yes, I do read Israeli sources since the mainstream media is so badly biased. You must also note that I also try and read translated news from the Palestinian side too - not the stuff originally in English, because that has been designed with 'taqoyya' in mind. If you read the stuff (or watch videos) translated from material originally for Palestinians you will be amazed how racist, genocidal, anti-Western, anti-Israeli and downright evil their news is. Take a look sometime at the brainwashing shows their children get. Look at the Goldstone Report from the UN, and how the UN accepted unfounded claims uncritically. Later the eponymous author of the report, Richard Goldstone withdrew his name because it was clear he was being played for propaganda purposes. The problem is, the damage had already been done to the reputation of the side that sought to avoid war crimes while the side whose modus operandi is a deliberate war crime is brushed over.
In other words, I wouldn't expect to see accurate reporting from Haaretz on the H
Even if human societies behaved like dogpacks (which they don't), simply declaring yourself "alpha" wouldn't make you...
Not dogs you ignoramus, primates. Primates societies exhibit this behaviour whether your jelly-kneed self wants to accept it or not. We are all wired for it, especially our females.
Well, anyone who's ever seen the kind of total war you're promoting or gets caught up in one might dislike you for said promotion, which doesn't really strike me as particularly childish reason
The commitment to win a war does not mean waging war against the Geneva Convention. What it means is getting the politicians out - like the ridiculous Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan. Like the lawfare where the US cannot even extradite a Syrian who aided and abbetted the 9/11 hijackers. The US has turned into a pussy country that is losing credibility all over the World. Clearly you agree with this policy because you believe the World can be healed by dialog and everyone holding hands and singing Kumbaya around a campfire. Meanwhile, Iran has installed over two dozen Shahab-3 missiles in Venezuela, is patiently working with North Korea to develop longer range missiles and the nuclear weapons to go with them. Meanwhile the current Administration has purged all training manuals of any reference to jihad (even if someone like Major Hussein goes on a rampage screaming "Allahu Akbar!" it the official report doesn't seem to know hios motivation because it is not politically correct to mention it). When Iran does strike the US, as it says it will daily, I hope they don't get the city you are in - that way you can see what a damned fool you are in this very critical juncture in history as people from the 21st Century struggle to confront a violent death-oriented ideology from the 7th.
...but I guess we can't expect great logic from someone who's proudly declaring his believe in the Sunk Cost Fallacy (also hypocrisy, since *everything* includes genocide which you just condemned "jihadists" for).
You win with the least amount of force that you have to - but you still win. Doesn't mean you start off with genocide because someone intends to do the same to you. So stop with the ridiculous projection, muppet.
Also, most people will probably not like someone who dismisses their culture, so add Muslims to the list
I have zero problem with Muslims (who are mostly goodm if misguided people). I have a complete problem with the totalitarian political ideology of Islam that is: oppressive toward women; discriminatory towards non-Muslims; anti-homosexual rights; against Freedom of Speech; against Freedom of Religion; is openly and explicitly genocidal against Jews; commands that all able bodied men conduct jihad; promotes polygamy; legalizes sexual relations with children and animals; is anti-science thanks to the mad doctrines of Al Ghazali etc etc.
Unlike wimps, I don't care what Muslims think. This is my whole point. I believe in Enlightenment values. Cultural Relativism as a much a bunch of bullshit and a menace to the continuation of liberty as Political Correctness is. Got that?
And I doubt scientists are happy with you trying to elevate their results into capital-T Truth, since that tends to hinder their work.
Before moving into the lucrative field of IT I was a practicing science (Astrophysics, if you must know) - so I don't share your "doubt" about science. Science is the evidence-based pursuit of Truth. Go and watch Richard Dawkins a bit, you will hear him repeatedly state that the only thing he cares about is Truth - it is what motivates most scientists.
Sorry, but no; having hundreds of millions of dollars does not mean you "generated" that wealth, it means that you are good at concentrating economic power into your hands - and even most often, than you were born rich.
Slashdot Mirror
Bro, your 1.5-5x is just not true unless the Java was written by idiots (and as we old timers remember the chestnut, "You can write bad FORTRAN in any language"). Even in 2008 Java was beating C++ and approaching FORTRAN for speed, citation follows. Now you can cherry pick whatever benchmark you want and it will show C++ as faster, and I'll choose another benchmark and that will show Java as faster. That means they are about on par with regard to performance (that wasn't true in the past, but is true today).
Here's the citation about the "Current State of Java for High Performance Computing", written in 2008 (the JVM has got *much* faster since then):
http://blogs.oracle.com/jag/entry/current_state_of_java_for
Please note that the report was written by INRIA, the French Scientific Supercomputing outfit - it is not a fluff whitepaper from a vendor (who will lie to make sales). If you can flaw the INRIA paper I'd be very interested to hear why you are right and they are wrong.
When people talk about benchmarks in terms of faster they mean performance not development
If your development time is so long the project stakeholders may cancel it. That is the major cause of software development failure. If you time to develop is long your time to market is also long. That can mean missed opportunity and even business death. So the long development time might be appropriate for the toy QT programs you develop, but it completely blows for large commercial projects where you have a big team and the set of people who start a project may not be the set of people who finish (people get pregnant, get sick, get promoted, all sorts of stuff). Once you start looking past just the purely technical stuff you have quite a different view of technology. That's why few people choose C++ to start a project these days.
In terms of development time, Java gets crushed by much higher level languages.
I find that most of those higher level languages tend to be fairly good at one domain. They are faster to develop in, if you are doing the problem they were designed to solve, and then they suck. The runtime performance of higher-level language blows. eg, Groovy, Ruby, Python are not in the same league as C++/C/Java/C# etc. For most modern applications it simply doesn't matter anymore, because you are waiting for a database, or the network, or user input (**slow**), or the GPU, or the memory bus, etc etc. It is only if you are stuck doing batch operations that it really matters. Now I'm waiting for you to say, "but, but, multimedia!". The reality is that multimedia should be done in hardware. I use Java+JoGL+OpenGL for this. This destroys C++ (or any other software implementation) for performance. Horses for courses my friend. That's why few people use C++ anymore - we understand it well (used it for decades) - but realise that implementing a new commercial application with it is just duh stooopidd.
Well said. I tend to make a bunch of mutable classes (eg. a MutableTableModel) that I use as a base class. It's still stinky that in order to create a decent table you need some custom classes. But for me the degree of control is worth it. I like what you can do with styling with JXTable too.
and suing Google for Android wasn't an encouraging move...
Fortunately the suit is over and Oracle pretty much learned their lesson. OpenJDK is safe to use and rely on (no vendor can kill it).
Cool. Thanks for the tip on MigLayout. If I can't ever get GridBagLayout to work for me I'll definitely take a look at MigLayout.
Funny video. I guess changing things at random is what most GUI coders do, right? That's not my workflow - but I can see how GBL would suck until you learn all the aspects that make a layout work and resize properly.
At least you seem to be in the camp that Java on the desktop still has some uses :)
If Java was so fast why do all the high performance libraries for things like multimedia not use it?
There are pure Java codecs. They work fine. It is not the C++ that is necessarily fast, but the inline assembler you can put in. In fact, the perfect analogy of using native libraries in Java is when C++ is too slow and you use inline assembler. In both cases you use a higher level abstraction for the huge productivity boost and switch to the lower level abstraction only when you really have to (which is become more and more rare these days) - when you are prepared to sacrifice portability for performance (on a single target). After doing C++ for nearly two decades I hate going back. Java is always my first choice unless I have some other reason (which is getting more and more rare these days).
I write multithreaded C++ code with Qt all the time. It is absolutely trivial. What is supposed to be tricky?
Resource management in a non-deterministic program. Releasing resources neither too early nor too late is problematic. For large data sets this is a problem (I don't know whether you are near the memory limits of your machine, or have smaller programmes) and is why very many modern environments use garbage collection to take the burden of the developer (especially as programs go from large, where any technique can work, to huge).
Thanks for the clarification. Fortunately with Java there are multiple implementations. OpenJDK is pretty much the same as Oracle (same 'DNA'), but is fully GPL and maintained by the community.
Yes, we do agree. Diverse views are good, including the perspective of the "gentler sex". However, if the motivation to alter the culture of an entire industry is simply to get more women in to technical disciplines that only a few enjoy, just so some ideology is fulfilled - then perhaps that is not a great reason.
Java has one feature that C# doesn't. This one feature makes up for all the nice-to-have little C# features. That one feature is "portability", not only of the language, but even more importantly, *all* the standard libraries. Mono goes some way to alleviating this but there are some significant libraries that Mono haven't developed and also state (according to their own pages) that they will never develop. I don't know if you have noticed it yet, but the Microsoft is just one platform in the World - and the number of platforms is burgeoning. Apart from a few platforms Java is locked out of deliberately (iOS, Xbox) Java runs pretty much whereever you need to be - with very very little porting necessary (eg. through judicious use of libraries, like JoGL,JOAL, JInput a jet combat simulator I'm developing runs not only with unmodified source on Windows+Mac+Linux+[and some tweaks for Android]; but actually runs without needing a recompile ! [I know it is not true for everyone, but for me, "Write Once, Run Anywhere" really works - even for a very complex multithreaded OpenGL/GLSL real-time application]).
I hope that sheds some light on why some of the Java devs still use it. The nice features of C# don't necessarily make up for Java's awesome portability of *all* its libraries.
That's because Java is still magnitudes slower.
I'm afraid I have to disagree. I'm writing a modern jet combat simulator in Java and the runtime speed is fine. The bottleneck is never the CPU, it is always the GPU. I also have to say that Java's performance in terms of latency is very good. The reason for this is because I'm able to create a lot of threads very easily and Java manages resource sharing very well, plus use of the language features for synchronization threads and I get to use around 20% of each of the eight cores on my machine. When I use an excellent product in a similar niche called DCS:World I do notice that it's speed is somewhat hampered by the C++ running on a single core. Now yes, multi-threading in C++ is of course possible, but it is much tricker than Java, especially the resource management.
So I think your comment is not correct. Java is comparable to C++ (sometimes faster, sometimes slower) on a single thread. When it comes to overall performance I find Java is faster overall because it is much easier to utilize all the cores in a machine with Java. In terms of gaming the performance of programming language used is nearly irrelevant - it is all down to how well you use the GPU (especially GPU memory; if you can keep stuff in VRAM then your performance is awesome).
Finally, let's move from the speed that is not that relevant (runtime) to the speed that actually matters (development time). Java is much much faster to develop in. You do have to spend some time profiling and tuning a Java program, but since you spend far far less time debugging than C++ you are still winning. I also love the JVisualVM that comes with the Sun/Oracle JDK and OpenJDK. While C++ has profilers they are a hassle to use, you have to compile your program each time you want to profile and recompile to measure different metrics. With JVisualVM you can profile any Java program without source and without recompilation since the monitors are built into the JVM (in exactly the same way as performance counters are built into operating systems these days, accessible by dtrace, strace, truss etc).
So, I think C++ is best used in niche programs where the host environment measures its memory in kilobytes. For other applications Java is more than fast enough on a single thread, has better throughput on multi-core machines, and is *much* faster to develop in (saves money, and also means something gets delivered sooner, as in, "faster time to market"). That's why Java kicks ass on the Tiobe Index - even if users only know about it from Minecraft and browser plugin issues.
Actually, once you get used to Swing it is pretty hard to go back to any other toolkit. Swing is amazingly powerful, and ever since Java 1.6.0u10 also very performant (since it is based on Java2D which is DirectX accelerated on Windows and OpenGL accelerated everywhere else). One thing you do have to be aware of with Swing is not to block the "Event Dispatch Thread". Once you learn that, and how to use GrdiBagLayout properly then you are 'away laughing'.
With the Nimbus Look & Feel the look of Swing is pretty awesome. Of course, many Swing developers have or are transitioning to Swing;'s successor, JavaFX 2. JavaFX 2 looks amazing (lots of special effects, gradients, transparency, reflections, animations etc that can be switched on very easily). JavaFX 2 does have a slightly different model for properties than Swing, so there is a bit of an impedance mismatch when you embed Swing into a JavaFX 2 UI or vice versa.
I understand many don't like the learning curve of Swing, and some of the overheads (eg. TableModels) - but it turns out these abstractions are necessary for users to be able to make custom controls (which is easier, IMHO, than other toolkits as you get a lot of control on how your custom will work exactly how you want it to).
The best thing about Swing, IMHO is not even the enormous capability for extensions. For me the best features is not only to have pixel-precise layout, but also you can make the UI resize *exactly* the way you want. While I like GWT and CSV for web stuff when I use them I always miss Swing as the later us able to work out the correct size of controls itself, and resizes exactly the way I want it (that's due to a problem in browsers computing layout [which the GWT guys called "intractable" in the browser; but Swing shows this is not the case on the desktop]).
There is a lot of life left in Java desktop technologies. I'm having a great time using OpenGL (via JoGL) in Swing to produce a modern jet combat flight sim. The ability to mix Java controls and 3D saves a lot of work (most 3D apps have to implement UI controls themselves - so end up behaving non-conventionally and looking a little odd).
That's the usual response of those who don't even want to listen to arguments that are against their narrative. You don't dispute the historical facts I provide, nor the statements from the Qur'an. Instead you simply apply the tactics of the fascist Left, simply call someone names instead of debating rationally on their points (although, its understandable, you simply don't know enough to even attempt to counter the *facts*).
Sorry about the typos. I'm ashamed. My poor excuse is that I was writing furtively at work and didn't have time to proof. My apologies for the typos (but not the content, if you can still follow it).
I think it is quite obvious that all three of these religions have different prophets and theories about the one true God, but it is hard to deny that they all share the exact same one true God.
One one level you are true, on another your statement is not true. The Muslims will talk about the "God of Abraham". This is intended to give Christians and Jews warm fuzzies and hoping some of them will jump on the "bridge between faiths" (which only goes one way, you will notice). So, at first glance your statement seems true. However, one more learned in the Qur'an will understand that they also consider the Christian Trinitarian God to be a heresy that does not describe Allah. Hence they consider Christians as heretics worshiping a false god. The false god cannot be the same as the true god, so Muslims believe (and are in fact taught) that the Christians do not worship the same god. Although strangely, Moses and Jesus were Muslims (it's bad enough when countries claim rockstars, but claiming prophets is going a bit far :) ).
However, despite claiming the "God of Abraham" the Muslims then proceed to lay out and even more evil deity that has attributes that are against attributes defined by Abraham/Judaism. Just because a claim is made does not make the claim true, claiming Allah is YHWH does not make it true. Similarly, "calling SplashMyBandit a bigot because calls Islam evil does not make the claim of bigotry true" [or even sensible, given the formal definition of what constitutes bigotry].
Consider the which starts the prayer said five times a day by Muslims, Sura. So what seems a relatively innocuous phrase is dissing both Jews and Christians - five times a day. All this is explained for you in depth, here:
http://www.islam-watch.org/authors/139-louis-palme/1082-behind-the-muslim-prayers.html
My point is that Islam conforms to Shrek's definition of an ogre. It has layers. Unfortunately the layers do not get nicer the more and more you peel back. Underneath the grandiose facade of Islam is a basement with a terrible stink. Most people know the stink instinctively but don't know or care to open the door to find out why. Once you open the door you understand where the stink is coming from - the evil ideology that has already claimed 270 million lives and would gladly claim the life of every single living thing on this planet if it was thought to please Allah. Regrettably, there are people already working toward making exactly that happen (I'm looking at you Iran, who have within the last week launched and even more evil and inhuman wave of oppression - for those that have been taking notes).
Still think Allah is the same as God and YHWH/Elohim/HaShem/Melech HaOlam? Check these out:
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/58626
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/god.htm
In fact, the more you delve into it you will find that the characteristics that Islam attributes to their deity are almost exactly opposite to the characteristics of the God of Abraham. However, the God of Islam prides himself as the "greatest deceiver" numerous times in the Qur'an - so it is no surprise that he would produce the deceit that he was the same as the God of Abraham. The reality is that the attributes of both (fictional) deities are different. Therefore, logic dictates that the deities are different. ISLAM MAY CLAIM TO HAVE THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, BUT THEIR SCRIPTURE DEFINES A DIFFERENT BEING (a deceptive anti-God, if you will).
So you see, one can read the Qur'an but there are layers there. It is something else to understand what the words are trying to convey. Like I said, Osama bin Laden agrees on the meaning of Islam with Al Azhar (as you know, the foremost authority for Sunnis) and the Muslim Brotherhood etc etc. They
It's the opinion of one politician who, at the time he expressed it, was the equivalent of the vice president in the US. He isn't some backbencher, he's the party leader of a major bloc in the Knesset. And he's no longer in that position not because of these kind of views, but because of a corruption and bribery scandal.
His personal view is still not Government policy in Israel. Do I have to repeat that a third time? However, genocide is Government policy for Hamas, Hezbollah, and the PA.
For what it's worth, a (Jewish) friend of mine who went to Israel heard lots of talk among Israelis that thoroughly agreed with that basic view.
I've been to Israel and the West Bank and Lebanon and Syria and Jordan. The Israelis I know didn't start out hating the Palestinians. The Israelis want themselves to have a good like and would like the Palestinians to also have a good life. However, as long as the Palestinians are set on their genocide the amount of support for the Palestinian complaints has dropped dramatically in Israel. Israel continually offers a hand of permanent peace to the Arabs and it is continually rebuffed. Note that Judea and Samaria are disputed territories, so the settlements have no legal status under international law, but they are not illegal either. After the Ottoman Empire the League of Nations gave the British a mandate over the Palestine Region (it has never been a country). The British intended to split Palestine into two parts divided by the River Jordan. The eastern part, for the Arabs, became Transjordan and later The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The Western part was for Jews. Since there were mixed Jews and Arabs there (note, this was two decades before World War 2, which shows up the complete lie that Israelis are simply European Jews fleeing the European Holocaust). The British thought of partitioning the Western part into two, a Jewish state and an Arab state - with the final borders to be settled by negotiation. That negotiation hasn't happened due to various terrorist attacks (and yes, the Zionist movement is as guilty as the Islamist movement). So the borders between Jewish Palestine and Arab Palestine have not yet been set under International Law - which is why the two sides are still struggling to set the reality in the ground. Asserting things like "1967 Borders" as clueless Obama did not only ignores the reality of subsequent wars, it also has no basis in International Law. The borders still need to be negotiated. Israel is still waiting for the Palestinians to get real (the PA+Hamas still believe they can destroy Israel because "Allah is on their side" - so millions live in fear and misery - see how evil the political ideology of Islam is?)
That view is demonstrably untrue: Egypt and Jordan both have negotiated permanent peace agreements that have held up for quite some time, and Fatah (who like Hamas had dedicated themselves to destroying Israel) also no longer supports attacking Israel. Fatah's reward for being peaceful is continuously losing land to Israeli settlements.
Of course, since you've been following Egyptian news like I have, you will be well aware that the Muslim Brotherhood are mulling over abrogating that treaty. Fortunately they cannot because Islamic Governments are like all national socialist governments and mismanage finances dreadfully. So they are too distracted to start a war against Israel, yet. Rest assured the Brotherhood does intend to - and you'll probably be right there cheering them on. The Jordanians are better because the Hashemite kings want to stay in power. The next goal of the Muslim Brotherhood is to remove those kings so they can whip up the Jordanians against Israel. The Saudi Kings are to be removed as well. How can I see the future? because of documents captured in America show this (note, the MB is *very* active in the US and had great influence over policy at the Whitehouse - in both the Bush and especially the Obama Administrations
I agree with you wholeheartedly. However Islam is particularly bad because it asserts claims on non-believers. There is one religion that is an exception, it is called Jainism. It is a weird philosophy, and I don't actually agree with it as it is not practical and conducive to scientific progress, but at its fundamental level it is a religion of peace (unlike the Abrahamic religions). Here is seven and a half minutes of great insight from Sam Harris:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDMOxjHIt0U
Sorry, it seems you read but don't understand. Perhaps you could start here ...
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/abs/long.html
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/int/long.html
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/science/long.html
Please clarify how I was bigoted. As far as I an see, I am consistent with *facts* such as these:
Please let me define bigot for you: "Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, and intolerance on the basis of a person's race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, language, socioeconomic status, or other status."
What contempt did I display for any *person* ? I said I hated Islam because I have studied it extensively and *understand it*. Please note that Islam is an *ideology* not a person. As such it is always able to be subject to criticism - even harsh criticism - and this never constitutes "bigotry".
How is the Muslim ideology that much different than that of the Jewish and Christian faiths when all three schools of thought believe in the exact same mythical character that governs the universe?
You read the books and cannot tell the difference? are you *sure* you read them? the differences are stark! For example: Christ commanded compassion for your enemies, Mohammed commanded death; Christ demonstrated continence and never appeared to take a wife; Muhammed had multiple wives, including slave wives, and raped Saffiya on the day he murdered her tribe and tortured her husband to death by kindling a fire on his chest while he looked for the tribes riches; in Islam is is permitted to to have sex with children because Mohammed at 54 years old had sex with Aisha at 9 lunar years (8 solar years) - and no, this was not normal even for those times; then we have the commandments for every able bodies Muslim to conduct jihad asghar against non-Muslims; then we have Mohammed ordering assassinations and permitting lying to do this (both big no-nos against the Mosaic Law); then we have the so called "Satanic verses" of Islam where Mohammed was tricked/possessed (unlike Christ who resisted Satan); then we have the claim that Islam is the direct divine and unalterable word of God (in contrast to all historical evidence, eg the 1972 Sa'ana Quran discovery that is changed from the later orthodox Caliphate version); then we have the whole historicity aspect, where the pagan Moon God illah became the single god "Allah"; then we have the sections of the Qur'an that are plagiarized from the Torah and Bible but the plagiarism is inaccurate and they get some things wrong (eg. the relationship of Mary); then we have Mohammed as a prophet of the religion when only Jews can be prophets. There are heaps more differences but I think that is enough to start. Still can't distinguish between the doctrines in the books you so proudly read?
Please also note that the Qur'an is only one third of the scriptures of Islam. You have to also have to read the hadiths to understand the religion. That's why your understanding of the differences between Christianity, Judaism and Islam is so poor and as a result you are confused and incorrectly cast around the ad-hominem of "bigot" as a result of your lack of understanding (sorry to be harsh, but you need to understand the truth - which is why you don't understand just how evil Mohammed was and the ideology of Islam is).
Today's US high school students are fed politically correct subjects like Islam (which is *very* anti-scientific thanks to the theories of Al Ghazali). Citations:
http://news.yahoo.com/texas-public-school-students-don-burqas-learn-muslim-063126528.html
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/460652.aspx
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cvMIBWoR18
Anyone who knows anything about abrogation knows that Islam is an evil ideology, racist and certainly not a religion of peace. However, if we overlook that fact for a moment what is very significant is the fact that all other religions are pretty much banned from most mainstream schools (certainly Christianity and Judaism are). So you ought to ask yourself, why is Islam being pushed in US schools? Besides the obvious answer, because Islamists (eg. the Muslim Brotherhood) want this, how come the Department of Education allows this? The short answer is that the political Left have an alignment of ideology with Islam - so are indoctrination the youth of America with collectivist nonsense. What they don't understand is that they are sowing the seeds of a generation of jihadis because no one is pointing out the true facts about Islam - it is a curse in every country it touches.
Before the haters start please consider these things: I understand Islam *very* well, and *hate* it as it is against every liberty that free men (and women!) cherish; I am an atheist, no point citing Christian bias (Christianity also bunk just like Islam; however unlike Islam today Christianity way less evil); I have no problem with Muslims themselves, who are generally good people despite the brainwashing they've had in the anti-scientific nonsense of Islam; I'm not from the US, so I don't vote, or back Republicans or Democrats (although the Democrats are far more anti-Constitutional than most US people seem to be aware of).
The US is making colossal strategic mistakes. Warping schooling for politically correct subjects instead of emphasizing maths, tech and hard science is not going to result in US global leadership in the coming decades. US citizens can fix it though - vote out the bastards who are warping your schools. Demand that schools teach and promote Enlightenment values instead of barbaric Sharia. Demand that schools teach more math and science.
Fair enough criticism. Too bad you miss out some new facts that talk about issues critical for the survival of liberty. I suggest you hold you nose and plunge in.
Thanks for engaging with a respectful tone. Please allow me to reply to the best of my knowledge.
See, that to me is an indication that you aren't impartial about this. My general view on any kind of warfare is that if you ask side A, they'll be convinced that they're the moral actors and B is irredeemably evil, whereas if you ask side B, they're convinced that they're the moral actor and A is irredeemably evil. As far as Hamas versus Israel goes, Hamas's charter specifically states that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth. I could see how you see that as irredeemably evil. On the other hand, prominent Israeli politicians (most notably Avigdor Lieberman, the Deputy PM only last year) have publicly made statements to the effect that the Palestinians should be wiped out. I could see how Palestinians see that as irredeemably evil. Also of great interest to me is that the militant Gaza hasn't shrunk whereas the basically peaceful West Bank Palestinians have been losing land to settlements steadily since about 1995, suggesting that Hamas' strategy could be seen as more effective in protecting their people's existence than Fatah's strategy.
There is an enormous gulf between the two sides. It is Hamas' stated policy to commit genocide. It is not Israel's stated policy to commit genocide. It is the opinion of one politician. In a free society you do not expect conformity to a single view. Until genocide becomes policy in Israel (hint: if you understand the founding motivations of Israel, it never will) it is clear that Hamas intends to commit genocide the first chance it gets and Israel does not (if it had intended this, the Palestinian Arabs would have been long gone - instead over a million are integrated as citizens of Israel with rights). It is a fallacy to apply "moral equivalence" between the two sides (as is done in the media to try an appear unbiased). So the question comes down to, "Do you support genocide or not?". Only one side aims to practice it.
Also of great interest to me is that the militant Gaza hasn't shrunk whereas the basically peaceful West Bank Palestinians have been losing land to settlements steadily since about 1995, suggesting that Hamas' strategy could be seen as more effective in protecting their people's existence than Fatah's strategy.
Hamas' strategy appears to work until the day they are destroyed. The opinion inside Israel, as far as I can tell, is shifting from accommodation of the Arabs to the realization that you won't ever be able to negotiate a permanent peace with people whose aim is to commit genocide on you. The unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza (previously occupied by Egypt) was brought about by leftist elements within Israeli society who convinced the skeptical majority that if only the Palestinians were given territory back their grievance would be assuaged and peace would ensure. The result was a disaster, not peace but an increasing number of rockets targetting israeli civilians coupled with lethal raids targetting border patrols - the number of rockets fired at civilians is now approaching 13000. You see the political left mistake the Hamas' motivation as caused by poverty (not true, the statistics show many very wealthy Gazans, if you care to look) or land (not true, there are 56 majority Islamic countries - and vast uninhabited areas in the region that the Palestinian Arabs [who are actually mostly Egyptian ]). The reason the withdrawal didn't work is because Hamas is primarily motivated by the Qur'an, for example Sahih Muslim Book 41 "The Last Hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews. The Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: ‘Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him;’ but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews" or the similar Kitab al-Fitan, hadith. 2239 "So that Jews will hide behind trees and the tree will say “Muslim! The
Chickens? I think they are crocodiles that intend to eat you.
My experience is that progressives will generally seek social pressure to modify speech and conservatives will seek political pressure to modify speech
Your "experience" is wrong. It seems you are ignorant of several trends. One example is Hilliary Clinton co-sponsoring UN HRC Resolution 16/18 to *criminalize* speech that criticizes religion. Then we have the inquisition-esque "star chambers" of Human Right panels that are popping up all over the World to enforce conformity of thought to the Politically Correct progressive orthodoxy. It appears you are blind to this because you have been successfully indoctrinated to miss the real issue: invidual liberty.
The political Left has always championed the collectivist and statist model. The political Right has always championed conservative causes which (in the US) were individual liberties. That is why the Democrats from the South *opposed* the abolition of slavery and the Republicans had to fight hard to get slavery abolished. The propaganda of the Left is that conservatives are uncaring, exploitative rich white men, or racist bigots, or inbreds. That is pure propaganda but unfortunately it still finds many suckers.
Important note. In the US system Free Speech is not a political concept. It is considered and "inalienable right" that cannot be removed. What is happening, particularly under progressive governments is that all sorts of previously allowed speech is being prohibited for "cultural sensitivity", "community cohesion" or "political correctness" reasons. Free speech is being crippled, but not by conservatives. This is a natural consequence of the progressive agenda which seeks utopia - and in progressed socialist societies this is done through quasi-legal bodies (eg. the Human Rights inquisitions) and in fully developed socialist systems by force of arms (eg. China, Soviet Russia, all of the Eastern Bloc under Soviet Rule).
Important note: I'm not a US citizen so Democrat vs Republican means nothing to me. What matters is the preservation of the liberties as laid out by the US Constitution and its amendments. While Republicans ignore the Constitution when it suits them it is the latest two-term Administration that has gone turbo-charged via anti-democratic Executive Orders to get laws passed that are progressively dismantling the US Constitution. The Mule vs Elephant thing is a distraction, so don't get caught up with it. What matters is that liberties are being eroded by one party while the other party talks about individual liberty but is so busy trying to get re-elected they are failing a their core duty - to protect the liberty and welfare of their citizens.
It appears from your posting that you have greater affinity to your tribe than to the defence of liberty. That is what makes you completely blind to the rapid changes in the World (eg. the OIC dominated UN seeking to subvert the UN's founding principles; the Obama Administration creating bodies to crush diversity of thought). Don't get caught up in the propaganda demonizing those who oppose the orthodox views you do - think outside the square and judge politicians on whether they support individual liberties or not, that's the only thing that matters since Free Speech is progressively getting squeezed (although as I said, you appear to be a leftist proto-fascist that's ok with losing Free Speech and other liberties - providing it's for "the common good").
Thanks for your comment. What many don't understand is that it was trivial for *Hamas* to check the accuracy of the claim. Their rockets leave different fragments to the fragments that a surface to air missile does (by fragments, the pieces are large enough to read serial markings etc off). The BBC should not have used Hamas as a source as they have persistently been found to use 'stringers' (false sources for journalists). Hezbollah was also busted doing this during the 2006 Lebanon War.
Before you (mistakenly) absolve the BBC I suggest you read this: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/douglas-murray/2013/03/will-owen-jones-apologise/
The journalist in question, Owen Jones, it a leftists well-known for choosing anything to slander the entire nation of Israel. It is telling that the BBC lacks the discernment to identify and eliminate such people. The BBC used to be good an impartial. They still rely on that cachet but the reality today is very different. The BBC is stuffed with liberal arts graduates who unquestioningly parrot the fashionable but inaccurate claims of the Pallywood and jihadi stringers. The modern BBC has disgraced itself again - it can't even get basic journalistic tennets like "Check your facts, don't trust your sources" correct while in its quest to subtly bend opinion toward the political Left.
While 15-30 is indeed half the time of 30-60 is is still one third of the time from 15-60 (the set of all geeks). Don't bother turning in your geek badge - we need all the people we can get :)
Umm, citation needed on that. And it would hardly be surprising for a journalist to assume that explosives that strike in Gaza are much more likely to be Israeli than Hamas - Hamas firing rockets at Gaza makes about as much sense as the IDF firing explosives at Tel Aviv. I'm not suggesting Hamas are innocent here, just that they aren't that stupid.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/douglas-murray/2013/03/will-owen-jones-apologise/
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/166054#.UU5hVVdXvXw
Notice how the left-wiung journalists at BBC are choosing to slant the news they present to you (without doing basic tradecraft like checking facts). It turns out a lot of Hamas' poorly made missiles misfire and land on their own civilians. Hamas doesn't care about the civilians, it gets to blame it on Israelis and the journalists repeat the falsehoods without checking. Rinse and repeat a few times and the moral actor (Israel) is demonized in the minds of regular folks and the evil actor (Hamas) comes out smelling like the innocent party (despite them caring neither for Israeli nor Palestinian civilians in their genocidal jihad - ps. check the Hamas Charter, it is pure evil).
A professional journalist *must check their facts* before publishing. If they can't check that facts then either don't publish, or list the possibilities. In many instances reporters covering conflicts between forces (not just Israelis, also against NATO etc) will publish articles that are inflammatory but also very wrong. Once an article has been published it is very hard to retract. That's why we get jihadis killing people because they see shamely false articles on BBC etc that accuse Israel or NATO of war crimes - yet the forces of these nations take a great deal of care to wage war humanly and within the Geneva Convention (unlike their opponents whose whole modus operandi is a complete war crime). Besides the BBC the UN is not much better (no suprise, it is dominated by the 57 countries of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation [OIC] who are all for committing geneocide against Israel because the Qur'an and hadiths expliticitly say this will be done before the Last Days).
Would I be correct in guessing you are Israeli or regularly read Israeli news sources?
Do you have any idea of how racist that sounds? as if Israelis can't report impartially, ever? Being critical of any culture is fine, provided it is fact based. Where I take umbrage is that much of the reporting these days doesn't get basic facts straight. The BBC and Al Jazeera are not high quality sources as the grandparent suggested, in fact they are quite baised because they don't fact check reports that match their narrative, just like MSNBC. That's just poor journalism.
Now yes, I do read Israeli sources since the mainstream media is so badly biased. You must also note that I also try and read translated news from the Palestinian side too - not the stuff originally in English, because that has been designed with 'taqoyya' in mind. If you read the stuff (or watch videos) translated from material originally for Palestinians you will be amazed how racist, genocidal, anti-Western, anti-Israeli and downright evil their news is. Take a look sometime at the brainwashing shows their children get. Look at the Goldstone Report from the UN, and how the UN accepted unfounded claims uncritically. Later the eponymous author of the report, Richard Goldstone withdrew his name because it was clear he was being played for propaganda purposes. The problem is, the damage had already been done to the reputation of the side that sought to avoid war crimes while the side whose modus operandi is a deliberate war crime is brushed over.
In other words, I wouldn't expect to see accurate reporting from Haaretz on the H
Even if human societies behaved like dogpacks (which they don't), simply declaring yourself "alpha" wouldn't make you...
Not dogs you ignoramus, primates. Primates societies exhibit this behaviour whether your jelly-kneed self wants to accept it or not. We are all wired for it, especially our females.
Well, anyone who's ever seen the kind of total war you're promoting or gets caught up in one might dislike you for said promotion, which doesn't really strike me as particularly childish reason
The commitment to win a war does not mean waging war against the Geneva Convention. What it means is getting the politicians out - like the ridiculous Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan. Like the lawfare where the US cannot even extradite a Syrian who aided and abbetted the 9/11 hijackers. The US has turned into a pussy country that is losing credibility all over the World. Clearly you agree with this policy because you believe the World can be healed by dialog and everyone holding hands and singing Kumbaya around a campfire. Meanwhile, Iran has installed over two dozen Shahab-3 missiles in Venezuela, is patiently working with North Korea to develop longer range missiles and the nuclear weapons to go with them. Meanwhile the current Administration has purged all training manuals of any reference to jihad (even if someone like Major Hussein goes on a rampage screaming "Allahu Akbar!" it the official report doesn't seem to know hios motivation because it is not politically correct to mention it). When Iran does strike the US, as it says it will daily, I hope they don't get the city you are in - that way you can see what a damned fool you are in this very critical juncture in history as people from the 21st Century struggle to confront a violent death-oriented ideology from the 7th.
...but I guess we can't expect great logic from someone who's proudly declaring his believe in the Sunk Cost Fallacy (also hypocrisy, since *everything* includes genocide which you just condemned "jihadists" for).
You win with the least amount of force that you have to - but you still win. Doesn't mean you start off with genocide because someone intends to do the same to you. So stop with the ridiculous projection, muppet.
Also, most people will probably not like someone who dismisses their culture, so add Muslims to the list
I have zero problem with Muslims (who are mostly goodm if misguided people). I have a complete problem with the totalitarian political ideology of Islam that is: oppressive toward women; discriminatory towards non-Muslims; anti-homosexual rights; against Freedom of Speech; against Freedom of Religion; is openly and explicitly genocidal against Jews; commands that all able bodied men conduct jihad; promotes polygamy; legalizes sexual relations with children and animals; is anti-science thanks to the mad doctrines of Al Ghazali etc etc.
Unlike wimps, I don't care what Muslims think. This is my whole point. I believe in Enlightenment values. Cultural Relativism as a much a bunch of bullshit and a menace to the continuation of liberty as Political Correctness is. Got that?
And I doubt scientists are happy with you trying to elevate their results into capital-T Truth, since that tends to hinder their work.
Before moving into the lucrative field of IT I was a practicing science (Astrophysics, if you must know) - so I don't share your "doubt" about science. Science is the evidence-based pursuit of Truth. Go and watch Richard Dawkins a bit, you will hear him repeatedly state that the only thing he cares about is Truth - it is what motivates most scientists.
Sorry, but no; having hundreds of millions of dollars does not mean you "generated" that wealth, it means that you are good at concentrating economic power into your hands - and even most often, than you were born rich.
Ah,