Ever heard of "Ansar al Sharia" or any other of the numerous groups that inhabited and trained in Iraq (some with Saddam's blessing, some without). There were shitloads of reasons to topple the tyrant Saddam. Of course, one would have to study history rather than the pop-narrative to understand how the Iraq war made sense on a *global* geopolitical scale.
Did you ever notice that the invasion of Iraq convinced Libya to give up its WMD programme? the invasion succeeded in many other ways (but of course, most people *must* ignore facts contrary to their worldview - it is easier to selectively ignore facts than relinquish a worldview).
Note, this is happening today with the Iranians at Parchin. It is clear the Iranians seek the *capability* to produce nuclear warheads (most probably for blackmail purposes rather than use). Your analysis is correct about being weak on inspections allowed the war to happen. However, I maintain that Saddam had already used WMDs on his Kurdish population - it would have been immoral to let that evil man stay (as long as he stayed it was an example to all other dictators that brutality ensures survival - that is just the wrong message to give to the World).
If Saddam was such a bad guy then why did we put him there?
The US did not install Saddam (don't you young folk ever read history from reliable sources?). He was backed once Iran decided to wage its stealthy war on the World.
So he could start a war against Iran thats why. Over 500,000 died in that pointless war. Nearly half a million CHILDREN died as a result of sanctions imposed by the us led security council during the 90s.
How was Saddam's policy decision the fault of the US (given that Saddam was not supplied by the US but by Russia, France, Germany and the UK - all exposed when the Americans toppled Saddam). So, if Saddam was this horrid warmonger (which is was), then why are you complaining that the US spent blood and treasure to free his people from him? You can't have it both ways Mr. Ignorant Coward.
Iraq was stable under Hussein. He was predictable, in full control of the country, the military and the population
Bullshit. Your are making excuses for a dictator and his equally evil sons. Iraq was not stable - Saddam had to periodically use chemical weapons to keep the country together. Does that look like a stable system to you? Your hatred of American foreign policy has made you blind.
At best, Iraq is a massive geo-political problem that will fester for at least a generation. At worst, it will be a base for suicidal foes of the US.
More bullshit. Don't you know about the Anbar Awakening where even the Sunni hardline tribes switched sides because they realised the US was less worse than the Iranian backed Shia? The real problem with Iraq is that Iran wasn't sorted out as well (obviously, Iran is a much tougher nut to crack). Sort out Iran and a huge about of the killings in the world will go away (especially once the Saudi petrodollars run out, in about 15 years). Jihadis require money and backing to operate. Take out Iran and Saudi Arabia financially and the flow of jihadis decreases to a manageable level. The current US strategy of appeasement is a completely mistake - which the world is likely to pay for in the long term (or possibly in the short term if you are in the US; Iran has two dozen soon-to-be-upgraded Shahab-3 ballistic missiles in Venezuela, and these are just waiting for nuclear warheads).
Which is worse, to remove the buffer between the crazy Shias and the crazy Sunnis, or to take out Saddam who was financing all sorts of crazy groups and allowing them to train on his soil. the second biggest export out of Iraq after oil was trained jihadis. Perhaps you think that if Saddam was left alone that it would have been rainbows and ponies for the Iraqi people and the world would not have been afflicted by jihadis? Well bro, you need to get clued up - the jihadis have been going for 1400 years and they're not gonna stop (especially funded by Saudi petrodollars). The smartest thing the US did was to fight on someone else's soil (removing a mass murdering dictator in the process, who had already used weapons of mass destruction against his own Kurdish population). The war against Iraq was strategic genius that the US *won*. However, there are those that keep trying to re-write the facts of history. The war against the ideology of Islam and its Third Jihad has only just begin. There is nothing the US, Israel or the West can do know except win - or capitulate (which is what the political elites are trying to convince you to do - since they are publicly ignorant about the political ideology of Islam).
Good on you for saying the truth. The political Left want to repeat history. They're convinced that if they repeat themselves enough and nobody checks the *actual facts* then people will believe the lie that Saddam was a poor underdog who would have been kind to his people (eg. not gassing Kurds or massacring Shia on an industrial scale). Keep up with the truth. Fortunately, historians will look over the *facts* and the war will be judged as having serving the interests of the Free World. The true fate of Iraq won't be known for decades (just as it took South Korea half a century to get itself sorted after the Korean War). What is clear is that removing Saddam was a lot better than leaving him in place (even if the mostly ignorant ranters can't yet see it objectively).
How can enlightened men allow even the idea of the 7th Century barbarity of Sharia to be practiced in the 21st Century. If you have any understanding of Islam you know that Sharia is not negotiable. What you are seeing now is the 'thin end of the wedge'. Even in Egypt the imams have talked about gradually increasing harsher and harsher rulings and more and more of Sharia in dragged in.
The US Constitution gives much stronger protections than traditional British Law (I know this well, I'm a Commonwealth subject with very weak free speech rights relative to the US). There have been numerous and increasing cases in the US with disputes between Muslim and non-Muslim citizens. In every case the Constitution has given way to Sharia and set precedent. By setting precedents the Islamists are able to effectively change the law without having to go through the legislature. It has gotten bad enough that some states (eg. Florida) have had to pass laws prohibiting foreign law (eg. Sharia) from applying to US citizens. Oklahoma tried but the Obama Administration slapped them down (it's getting increasingly clear what side his Administration is on). So, here's the question, you are correct that Sharia is not applied to non-Muslims yet, do you think on the present course of Britain it will take longer than ten years before it does? Unless something changes (eg. the EDL make the political elite wake up to the disguised nature of Islamic ideology) then in ten years I think there is a good chance that Sharia cases will be used in disputes between Muslims and British dhimmis. If this doesn't come to pass I will be very happy, but unfortunately I think I may well be right - Sharia is pervading Europe faster than most people think.
The real problem with Islamic fundies in UK will not come from the law. It's when they take over parts of the city by force, like those infamous "Sharia patrols" in London.
While I remember I'd better reply. IMHO the problem is not the muppets who go around on patrol. The problem is the ideology that tells them that this is the right thing to do, and the clergy that encourage such behaviour in their sermons *every Friday*. I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule but statistics show the majority of Muslims want Sharia in their home country, and eventually globally (as soon as they get the chance). The problem is more fundamental than the patrols. It is the *mainstream* of Islam to believe that they will dominate sooner or later (either by jihad [violence] or hijra [migration and demographics]).
Your law is not immutable. Remember the Middle East was Christian for hundreds of years before Islam came but now we see the Christians in various stages of extinction in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Egypt, Lebanon etc. The Eastern Roman Empire lasted for more than a millenia after the fall of Rome, but how much Byzantine culture remains in Turkey? The same could very well happen to great and fair Blighty too (and much of Western Europe). It won't happen overnight, but it can happen (and unless stopped, it will happen through sheer demographics and energetic dawah).
If you haven't seen it you might want to look up (non-binding) UN HRC Resolution 16/18 that Hiliary Clinton co-sponsored. It *criminalizes* speech critical of religion (she promised to "use good old fashioned naming and shaming" instead; this is from a US Secretary of State seeking to impose laws against the US First Amendment - unbelievable). Sooner or later a binding resolution will be passed. The OIC has been working toward it for 10 years, and will continue to do so for as many more as it takes. If you have the time, look up Major Stephen Coughlin's talks on YouTube about the OIC and how Islamic Law makes jihad legal.
Thanks for providing your insight once again (that's not sarcasm btw ; I always enjoy reading your point of view).
A commented mentioned truth as a defense. There are legal systems with growing adoption where this is not so. Witness UN HRC Resolution 16/18 that aims to *criminalize* critics of religion. Backed by none other than Hiliary Clinton. Fortunately the resolution is non-binding (for now).
Truth is not a defence under Sharia - of which the UK has 87 Sharia courts at the moment. "Slander" in Sharia constitutes anything that Muslims do not like. Truth and personal opinion are not defenses under Islamic Sharia (unlike in say, speech under US Constitutional First Amendment).
Please re-read. Verbal fight until the Muslims threw the Koran at him (that is, they assault him). He *responds* but ripping Koran up (not by assaulting them). Who goes to jail? not the guys initiating the assault.
Then we have the case of "The Innocence of Muslims" film. It is actually relatively factually correct (actually more so than many Hollywood productions) - even if the production values were lousy. Who goes to jail, a guy in the US exercising his First Amendment Rights. Meanwhile both the Muslim Brotherhood and Obama Administration exploit the film for their own ends (the latter to deflect attention from their criminal gun-running to Al Qaeda affiliated groups in Benghazi; and you thought "Fast n Furious" to drug-lord enemies was a one off). Citation: http://www.pi-news.org/2012/09/fact-check-the-innocence-of-the-muslims/
This is the 'stealth jihad' that is far far more insidious than the kinetic jihad. It is slowly but surely changing free societies where one cannot speak *facts and truth* about Islam without being prosecuted. Worse, we have people like yourself that can't even read and see the problem with who gets prosecuted for what. The published 10-year plan of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is coming along nicely. Most people are worried about a resurgence of neo-nazis when it is the rise of the totalitarian Left and their Islamist allies that is proceeding to crush individual liberties like unfettered Free Speech. Political Correctness in particular is strangling the Free World.
So wisen up please people. There is a war on for our culture and liberties. The mainstream media and political elites are lying to you (both progressive and conservative politicians). Your rights are being eroded due to misguided political correctness and the slow 'stealth jihad' of the OIC. Learn to read the news critically and correctly - Islam is on the march across the globe. Whether or not you want it in your neck of the woods it is coming. Your choices under Islam are: be killed, submit, or be discriminated against as a second-class dhimmi. You have one other choice: resist and fight for free speech and liberty.
The skeptics were right. "An Inconvenient Truth" is actually an "Inconvenient Lie". Now, it is always ok to be wrong and change your position when presented with new data that contradict your existing position. That's what science is about, after all. However, it will be interesting to see the Slashdotters that prefer to maintain their entrenched 'climate alarmist' position rather than accept that the new scientific evidence shows that the data shows that the Earth's surface temperature has stabilized - and the rise was from reasons we don't fully understand.
It is disgusting that many people lots their jobs for being skeptical about the cause and extend of global warming. There was 'blackballing' of anyone opposed to the truth about the warming. It shows how witchhunts still happen if you oppose the prevailing environmentalist/Democrat/Progressive/Socialist views that have take hold in the Western World. Once you start focussing on the evidence (and counter arguments for an against the strength of the evidence) it is hard to believe in the prevailing 'leftist' narrative. Most people want to do good, but let's get fact-based about it, eh? drop the touchy-feely stuff and demonisation of those who hold counter-views; sometimes when you really *listen* to an opponent's view you will learn something about your own position.
Please excuse me while I feel smug. Posters vilified my skeptical position made in another thread around a month ago. Thanks to Thomas Sowell's insight on the climate I became aware of scientific studies that showed the climate alarmist models didn't match the observations. Sowell is not only great for this, he also has a brilliant understanding of economics (as the prodigy of the brilliant Milton Friedman) - and the inevitable failure of collectivist systems if they dominate individual economic activity, ie. crush personal liberty and personal economic liberty (called 'capitalism').
Java can't be your first choice for implementation on the desktop. It is a single-vendor product with an uncertain future.
False. There are numerous implementations of Java: Oracle/Sun; OpenJDK, IBM, GNU GCJ+CLasspath; Apache Harmony (for libs); Kaffe; etc etc. You couldn't be more wrong. It is suprising you posted something that is so obviously false.
It isn't supplied with the major desktop OSs and many users would pick a native over Java app if given a choice.
Mostly false. All of the Java desktop apps I've supplied have been trouble free installs for users that looked better than their native counterparts (especially using things like the Nimbus theme and 'filthy rich client' Java2D hardware accelerated effects for nice aesthetics). My apps also perform very well since multi-threading (particularly resource management and object lifecycle in a multi-threaded environment is much easier in Java than C++) Given the fact that most native apps don't look like each other it is no suprise that users like Nimbus (and now JavaFX) interfaces (consider how different that newer versions of Microsoft Office look from their predecessors, yet users can cope with this). Your argument are a decade and a half out-of-date. It is clear you don't know much about modern Java at all and are just parroting anachronistic falsehoods. Time to see the new reality - after a long time computing is getting more hereterogenous, not less (both in terms of operating system and hardware eg. x64 vs ARM etc). The best technology to use is that designed to be platform neutral and Java is fairly unique in having that as a central design goal (not only for the language, but also for the huge number of standard libraries). Haters are always gonna whinge about Java (especially if they believe the bullshit Microsoft markering pumped out from a decade ago to keep you locked on Windows) - however, the Java devs are quietly getting on with solving problems once for all systems (rather than re-inventing for each target system) and *making money* through wisely choosing long-lived platform-neutral technology.
Thanks for your comment. I'm afraid I must have been unclear. The multi-threading is for all the non-rendering tasks. On 8-cores none of them get above 20% usage, which means there is very low jitter in the frame rate (which is the critical fact in what users notice). The rendering is all deferred and is not done of the CPU at all (aside from the commands to submit textures etc already in VRAM).
This is why C++ isn't going to die any time soon. Developers at the bleeding performance edge need it too much.
I agree with you. C++ is great for some niches. That niche is smaller and getting smaller. What I was saying is that for an application that is far more intensive than most (a multi-player combat flight simulator with realistic flight modelling etc) the extra development time of C++ is not worth it. For most applications C++ is not worth it. For some it is - but these are fewer than most people realise (especially many C++ proponents whose mental model of Java's speed is at least half a decade out of date). Java should be your first choice for implementation, only if you have niche requirements would C++ be worth it.
You are joking, right? Graphically intensive programs use OpenGL/GLSL and don't do it in software. Only a shitty designer chooses C++ to do graphics *in software*. I'm writing a modern multi-threaded jet combat flight simulator in Java and find that Java has several huge advantages over C++: muti-threading and in-particular multi-threaded resource management is easier in Java than C++; my development time for pieces of work is much faster than when I used to use C++ for development; I have much better tooling (I *love* JVisualVM, that comes with the JDK); with judicious use of libraries (eg. JoGL, Input, JOAL) my simulator is already cross-platform (Mac, Linux, Windows, and soon Android) with little extra effort; the runtime performance is fantastic, I'm never CPU bound because it is easy to be multi-threaded and use all the core available (modern multi-core CPUs are so powerful the GPU is always the bottleneck on my sim no matter the age of the CPU).
But let us pretend you are not doing a high-performance 3D app (where muti-threaded Java+JoGL+OpenGL kicks C++'s ass in development time) and instead want to do plain 2D. Then you can use the Adobe-designed Java2D API built into standard Java. It has very many 'advanced' features (convolutions for filtering/effects; affine transforms; easy gradients; font manipulation; composition operations; image i/o in lots of common formats etc.). Using the usual fantastic abstracted design of Java the implementation of Java2D was swapped from software to hardware in 2008. That means *all* the graphics you do with Java2D are hardware accelerated using DirectX on Windows and OpenGL everywhere else (and you don't have to change any lines of code for your graphics program to work pretty-much-seamlessly between platforms). With Java2D you can also mix with JoGL/OpenGL 3D very easily (I use this to provide 2D transparent overlays for in my 3D simulator; it is very easy to do).
This is why Java developers are astonished people are still using C++ believing it has better speed for things like graphics. If you are doing graphics in software in C++ then not only are you not hardware accelerated like Java2D, you also have more work to do to get/maintain cross-platform, have a hard time being multi-threaded to use all the CPU cores you have, and your development time is much more frustrating (easy to have macro/template issues in C++) and takes much much longer to produce something working, tested and stable. If you are still choosing C++ over Java for graphics performance you are half-a-decade out of date (eg. bad at architectural design and bad at business; since it takes more time to develop with C++, which means the same functionality costs more money).
So if you are doing graphics in C++ believing it is speedy I suggest you take a look at Java2D and JoGL (for 3D). A good Java graphics developer can make very very fast *hardware accelerated* graphical programs in little development time.
There has been some uptake in C# usage. Even more significant is Java is now back as king-of-the-heap (at least according to TIOBE). I put this down to two factors: enterprise projects deferred in the worst part of the recession now need to be implemented, and: not only does 'Java' include Java-the-language, it also includes Groovy (good for those who like the dynamic language tightrope walk) and Java-for-Android.
While C# has some very nice language features it can never make up for the fact that fundamentally it is single platform (the Mono project won't/can't implement some important libraries that would make codebases truly cross-platform, as stated by Mono's own project page).
I'm always amazed how many still prorgram in C++. After developing in it for around two decades I am glad to leave it behind except for some specialist embedded work - which is becoming increasingly unnecessary; with 32-bit systems on a chip you can use real Java and Linux to develop more complex [eg. multi-threaded networked] apps in a quarter of the time.
If C++ or C# is your preferred language then that's cool. However, if you want to get complex apps out the door as quickly as you can that utilize of lots of the modern multi-core processing power available then it is very very hard to go past Java or Groovy or any of the cross-platform languages that now run on the JVM (eg. Scala). C++ is going nowhere because it adds unnecessary complexity to solving your problem (except in cases where your available memory is measured in kilobytes; which is very rare these days). Those who still program in C++ may do so to show off their programming credentials - but they are missing the point of good design: get your app out the door as fast as you can (with as few defects as possible, which is easy given the JVM instrumentation and the fantastic JVisualVM). Oh yeah, the combination of smart Sun/Oracle engineers, runtime profiled JIT, and easy use of multi-core means a properly written Java program will outperform most single-threaded C++ programs (multi-threaded programs in C++ are less common than in Java due to the pain of using the third-party C++ resource and thread management).
A sharia court could not order someone to be stoned to death here without all involved being arrested for murder.
Take a step back and listen to how wrong that is. No matter what the faith of anyone is, no one should be stoned for murder in the 21st Century. The Sharia courts are promoting discrimination, one set of laws for Muslims, another for dhimmi Britons. The goal should be that *all* British citizens are subject to the same laws and have the same rights and responsibilities. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights should apply to everyone and not the (OIC) Cairo Declaration of Human Rights (which basically says you have fsck all). The goal should be to have different cultures converge on Enlightenment values for everyone - yet this is the exact opposite of what is happening in Britain - and in your apparently well meaning but incredibly misguided way you agree with the institutionalisation of divisive and discriminatory systems based on belief. In the long term it doesn't help the Muslims and doesn't help non-Muslims either. It is cultural relativism that allows such muddle thinking, but this relativism is wrong on a fundamental level. Enlightenment culture is superior to Islamic ideology (which is, at its core, both politicaly totalitarian and fundamentally evil). People talk about "reforming Islam" but they refused to see the truth of the matter - rather than reform Islam simply enforce the superior laws and liberties of Enlightenment culture on all people in Britain - without discrimination as to race, gender, orientation or creed. If you want Sharia you can go live in Saudi, Iran or Afghanistan. Stop being a pussy and stand up for Enlightenment liberties and freedoms. It is morally right to do so.
Kick ass post, man! Every point a gem, and the "you have such a short attention span that you do not see trends if they advance slowly enough." very, very insightful. I agree with your points wholeheartedly.
FTFY. The political right is just as bad and Orwellian. Try standing up at a Tea Party conference and say that a single payer healthcare system is the best (with supporting evidence), and all three of the attendees will shout you down for being a socialist.
The mainstream right is indeed Orwellian. However libertarians are decidedly anti-Orwellian. I used to believe as you do about the Tea Party. Then I discovered the economic geniuses of Milton Freedman and Thomas Sowell. Take a look at Sowell on YourTube and come back to me, please.
On YouTube there is a great video by Ayaan Hirsi Ali showing how targetting the headdress is missing the point (sorry, can't provide a direct link for you, currently at work). Why don't you ask yourself why they didn't ban female genital mutilation instead? why don't they take a serious stance on the hate speech in Friday sermons are mosques in Europe? what about the stuff that actually matters? As usual, the politicians want to be seen to be doing something (ban headscarves) rather than provide leadership and takle the root of the problem (that is, the evil totalitarian *political* ideology called Islam [the superstitious parts are a small part of totality of Islam]).
Thanks for your post. I don't know if you know the content of Obama's speech in Cairo, or his actions in reserving place in the front row for the then-banned Muslim Brotherhood, but his actions were a clear sell-out of ally Mubarak. It was disgusting. The US had many other options than simply installing Islamists in power. They could have assisted in a transition and promoted secular democratic forces (which instigated the revolution and the Brotherhood now suppress). So I disagree with your conclusion. The US could have done a much better job.
Here's a link to an Egyptian source crowing about how they have Muslim Brotherhood members inside the White House: http://www.investigativeproject.org/3869/egyptian-magazine-muslim-brotherhood-infiltrates
This should have been front page news around the World, but wasn't. Senator Bachmann called for an investigation of Muslim Brotherhood penetration of the White House but was pooh-poohed, yet her points were real. You can find more information by googling Frank Gaffney's site http://www.muslimbrotherhoodinamerica.com/ I also highly recommend any of Stephen Coughlin's excellent videos on YouTube outlining the Islamist doctrine. Note that the Obama Administration have done a complete purge of anyone giving analysis of the Islamist/OIC strategy (and Sharia legal basis for jihad) because it runs counter to their (leftist) narrative. eg. see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6lmUlT38_U This is why the World is losing against the form of Islamism that matters, 'cultural jihad' (not the terrorism, but the progressive long-term islamicization of culture).
That should be enough references to get you started. Come back to me if you'd like more.
Are you Israeli? It's just a random guess but I notice from another post you made you are worried about Sharia Law in Europe. I always find the idea of that preposterous since we have far to long and established traditions of drinking alcohol as part of our culture. There is about a 0% chance of us all becoming teetotal, especially here in the UK where I come from.
That's a bit racist, don't you think? I'm a native New Zealander actually. I just happen to be paying attention to what is going on. Unfortunately formerly great news outfits in the UK like the BBC have now dropped neutral journalism and show a huge leftist bias in the articles they choose to publish (and more importantly, the news events they choose not to publish). I understand how people in the UK would miss the information that matters given the selection bias of your mainstream media. Were you aware that 87 Sharia courts now operate in Britian. One law for Muslims (in certain matters) and one for other Britons. Were you aware that most school canteens now only serve halal meat? It is funny you talk about the drinking culture, especially when videos like this "Muslim Patrol" are emerging with increasing regularity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw2w7ACogaY
Yes, it is just some idiots. The interesting thing is the police do nothing and the politicians do not comment that it is an unacceptable affront to Enlish liberties. The trend will continue downwill I'm afraid.
The only people in Europe who carp on about things like Sharia Law are morons like Geert Wilders who are just making it all up in order to try and get elected.
Wilders is an opportunist for sure. Doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong. I suggest you take a megaphone and repeat the phrase "Europe will never have Sharia Law" and so so in Birmingham, Malmo or Marsailles. Take out life insurance and please make me the beneficiary. Even if you survive, how many politicians (except for Geert Wilders) do you think would stand up for your righ
What the hostile response? I don't get it. I have a different point of view to you and you feel the need to insult? What specifically do you disagree with in my post? we can debate like reasonable people, you know.
Slashdot Mirror
Ever heard of "Ansar al Sharia" or any other of the numerous groups that inhabited and trained in Iraq (some with Saddam's blessing, some without). There were shitloads of reasons to topple the tyrant Saddam. Of course, one would have to study history rather than the pop-narrative to understand how the Iraq war made sense on a *global* geopolitical scale.
Did you ever notice that the invasion of Iraq convinced Libya to give up its WMD programme? the invasion succeeded in many other ways (but of course, most people *must* ignore facts contrary to their worldview - it is easier to selectively ignore facts than relinquish a worldview).
Note, this is happening today with the Iranians at Parchin. It is clear the Iranians seek the *capability* to produce nuclear warheads (most probably for blackmail purposes rather than use). Your analysis is correct about being weak on inspections allowed the war to happen. However, I maintain that Saddam had already used WMDs on his Kurdish population - it would have been immoral to let that evil man stay (as long as he stayed it was an example to all other dictators that brutality ensures survival - that is just the wrong message to give to the World).
If Saddam was such a bad guy then why did we put him there?
The US did not install Saddam (don't you young folk ever read history from reliable sources?). He was backed once Iran decided to wage its stealthy war on the World.
So he could start a war against Iran thats why. Over 500,000 died in that pointless war. Nearly half a million CHILDREN died as a result of sanctions imposed by the us led security council during the 90s.
How was Saddam's policy decision the fault of the US (given that Saddam was not supplied by the US but by Russia, France, Germany and the UK - all exposed when the Americans toppled Saddam). So, if Saddam was this horrid warmonger (which is was), then why are you complaining that the US spent blood and treasure to free his people from him? You can't have it both ways Mr. Ignorant Coward.
Iraq was stable under Hussein. He was predictable, in full control of the country, the military and the population
Bullshit. Your are making excuses for a dictator and his equally evil sons. Iraq was not stable - Saddam had to periodically use chemical weapons to keep the country together. Does that look like a stable system to you? Your hatred of American foreign policy has made you blind.
At best, Iraq is a massive geo-political problem that will fester for at least a generation. At worst, it will be a base for suicidal foes of the US.
More bullshit. Don't you know about the Anbar Awakening where even the Sunni hardline tribes switched sides because they realised the US was less worse than the Iranian backed Shia? The real problem with Iraq is that Iran wasn't sorted out as well (obviously, Iran is a much tougher nut to crack). Sort out Iran and a huge about of the killings in the world will go away (especially once the Saudi petrodollars run out, in about 15 years). Jihadis require money and backing to operate. Take out Iran and Saudi Arabia financially and the flow of jihadis decreases to a manageable level. The current US strategy of appeasement is a completely mistake - which the world is likely to pay for in the long term (or possibly in the short term if you are in the US; Iran has two dozen soon-to-be-upgraded Shahab-3 ballistic missiles in Venezuela, and these are just waiting for nuclear warheads).
Which is worse, to remove the buffer between the crazy Shias and the crazy Sunnis, or to take out Saddam who was financing all sorts of crazy groups and allowing them to train on his soil. the second biggest export out of Iraq after oil was trained jihadis. Perhaps you think that if Saddam was left alone that it would have been rainbows and ponies for the Iraqi people and the world would not have been afflicted by jihadis? Well bro, you need to get clued up - the jihadis have been going for 1400 years and they're not gonna stop (especially funded by Saudi petrodollars). The smartest thing the US did was to fight on someone else's soil (removing a mass murdering dictator in the process, who had already used weapons of mass destruction against his own Kurdish population). The war against Iraq was strategic genius that the US *won*. However, there are those that keep trying to re-write the facts of history. The war against the ideology of Islam and its Third Jihad has only just begin. There is nothing the US, Israel or the West can do know except win - or capitulate (which is what the political elites are trying to convince you to do - since they are publicly ignorant about the political ideology of Islam).
Good on you for saying the truth. The political Left want to repeat history. They're convinced that if they repeat themselves enough and nobody checks the *actual facts* then people will believe the lie that Saddam was a poor underdog who would have been kind to his people (eg. not gassing Kurds or massacring Shia on an industrial scale). Keep up with the truth. Fortunately, historians will look over the *facts* and the war will be judged as having serving the interests of the Free World. The true fate of Iraq won't be known for decades (just as it took South Korea half a century to get itself sorted after the Korean War). What is clear is that removing Saddam was a lot better than leaving him in place (even if the mostly ignorant ranters can't yet see it objectively).
The real problem with Islamic fundies in UK will not come from the law. It's when they take over parts of the city by force, like those infamous "Sharia patrols" in London.
While I remember I'd better reply. IMHO the problem is not the muppets who go around on patrol. The problem is the ideology that tells them that this is the right thing to do, and the clergy that encourage such behaviour in their sermons *every Friday*. I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule but statistics show the majority of Muslims want Sharia in their home country, and eventually globally (as soon as they get the chance). The problem is more fundamental than the patrols. It is the *mainstream* of Islam to believe that they will dominate sooner or later (either by jihad [violence] or hijra [migration and demographics]).
Your law is not immutable. Remember the Middle East was Christian for hundreds of years before Islam came but now we see the Christians in various stages of extinction in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Egypt, Lebanon etc. The Eastern Roman Empire lasted for more than a millenia after the fall of Rome, but how much Byzantine culture remains in Turkey? The same could very well happen to great and fair Blighty too (and much of Western Europe). It won't happen overnight, but it can happen (and unless stopped, it will happen through sheer demographics and energetic dawah).
If you haven't seen it you might want to look up (non-binding) UN HRC Resolution 16/18 that Hiliary Clinton co-sponsored. It *criminalizes* speech critical of religion (she promised to "use good old fashioned naming and shaming" instead; this is from a US Secretary of State seeking to impose laws against the US First Amendment - unbelievable). Sooner or later a binding resolution will be passed. The OIC has been working toward it for 10 years, and will continue to do so for as many more as it takes. If you have the time, look up Major Stephen Coughlin's talks on YouTube about the OIC and how Islamic Law makes jihad legal.
Thanks for providing your insight once again (that's not sarcasm btw ; I always enjoy reading your point of view).
A commented mentioned truth as a defense. There are legal systems with growing adoption where this is not so. Witness UN HRC Resolution 16/18 that aims to *criminalize* critics of religion. Backed by none other than Hiliary Clinton. Fortunately the resolution is non-binding (for now).
their decision is only binding if both parties agree.
Long may it stay that way! Unless current trends change not going to put money down that it will.
Truth is not a defence under Sharia - of which the UK has 87 Sharia courts at the moment. "Slander" in Sharia constitutes anything that Muslims do not like. Truth and personal opinion are not defenses under Islamic Sharia (unlike in say, speech under US Constitutional First Amendment).
Please re-read. Verbal fight until the Muslims threw the Koran at him (that is, they assault him). He *responds* but ripping Koran up (not by assaulting them). Who goes to jail? not the guys initiating the assault.
Then we have the case of "The Innocence of Muslims" film. It is actually relatively factually correct (actually more so than many Hollywood productions) - even if the production values were lousy. Who goes to jail, a guy in the US exercising his First Amendment Rights. Meanwhile both the Muslim Brotherhood and Obama Administration exploit the film for their own ends (the latter to deflect attention from their criminal gun-running to Al Qaeda affiliated groups in Benghazi; and you thought "Fast n Furious" to drug-lord enemies was a one off). Citation: http://www.pi-news.org/2012/09/fact-check-the-innocence-of-the-muslims/
Then we have the case in Spain of a young film maker (Imran Firasat) being persecuted by the Spanish Government for making an historically accurate film about Mohammed. He is being chucked out of the country where he will almost certainly be killed. So much for political asylum for truth speakers in the EU. Citation: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/03/sharia-in-action-in-spain-muhammad-filmmaker-to-be-prosecuted-after-muslims-complain-to-government-a.html
This is the 'stealth jihad' that is far far more insidious than the kinetic jihad. It is slowly but surely changing free societies where one cannot speak *facts and truth* about Islam without being prosecuted. Worse, we have people like yourself that can't even read and see the problem with who gets prosecuted for what. The published 10-year plan of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is coming along nicely. Most people are worried about a resurgence of neo-nazis when it is the rise of the totalitarian Left and their Islamist allies that is proceeding to crush individual liberties like unfettered Free Speech. Political Correctness in particular is strangling the Free World.
So wisen up please people. There is a war on for our culture and liberties. The mainstream media and political elites are lying to you (both progressive and conservative politicians). Your rights are being eroded due to misguided political correctness and the slow 'stealth jihad' of the OIC. Learn to read the news critically and correctly - Islam is on the march across the globe. Whether or not you want it in your neck of the woods it is coming. Your choices under Islam are: be killed, submit, or be discriminated against as a second-class dhimmi. You have one other choice: resist and fight for free speech and liberty.
The evidence is piling up that after a short period of warming the Earth's surface temperature is no longer increasing. In fact, in the Southern Hemisphere there is a slight decrease. Here is an easy-to-digest article discussing the data and illustrating how the climate models (that the scare mongering is based off) are very wrong: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294560/The-great-green-1-The-hard-proof-finally-shows-global-warming-forecasts-costing-billions-WRONG-along.html
The skeptics were right. "An Inconvenient Truth" is actually an "Inconvenient Lie". Now, it is always ok to be wrong and change your position when presented with new data that contradict your existing position. That's what science is about, after all. However, it will be interesting to see the Slashdotters that prefer to maintain their entrenched 'climate alarmist' position rather than accept that the new scientific evidence shows that the data shows that the Earth's surface temperature has stabilized - and the rise was from reasons we don't fully understand.
It is disgusting that many people lots their jobs for being skeptical about the cause and extend of global warming. There was 'blackballing' of anyone opposed to the truth about the warming. It shows how witchhunts still happen if you oppose the prevailing environmentalist/Democrat/Progressive/Socialist views that have take hold in the Western World. Once you start focussing on the evidence (and counter arguments for an against the strength of the evidence) it is hard to believe in the prevailing 'leftist' narrative. Most people want to do good, but let's get fact-based about it, eh? drop the touchy-feely stuff and demonisation of those who hold counter-views; sometimes when you really *listen* to an opponent's view you will learn something about your own position.
Please excuse me while I feel smug. Posters vilified my skeptical position made in another thread around a month ago. Thanks to Thomas Sowell's insight on the climate I became aware of scientific studies that showed the climate alarmist models didn't match the observations. Sowell is not only great for this, he also has a brilliant understanding of economics (as the prodigy of the brilliant Milton Friedman) - and the inevitable failure of collectivist systems if they dominate individual economic activity, ie. crush personal liberty and personal economic liberty (called 'capitalism').
Java can't be your first choice for implementation on the desktop. It is a single-vendor product with an uncertain future.
False. There are numerous implementations of Java: Oracle/Sun; OpenJDK, IBM, GNU GCJ+CLasspath; Apache Harmony (for libs); Kaffe; etc etc. You couldn't be more wrong. It is suprising you posted something that is so obviously false.
It isn't supplied with the major desktop OSs and many users would pick a native over Java app if given a choice.
Mostly false. All of the Java desktop apps I've supplied have been trouble free installs for users that looked better than their native counterparts (especially using things like the Nimbus theme and 'filthy rich client' Java2D hardware accelerated effects for nice aesthetics). My apps also perform very well since multi-threading (particularly resource management and object lifecycle in a multi-threaded environment is much easier in Java than C++) Given the fact that most native apps don't look like each other it is no suprise that users like Nimbus (and now JavaFX) interfaces (consider how different that newer versions of Microsoft Office look from their predecessors, yet users can cope with this). Your argument are a decade and a half out-of-date. It is clear you don't know much about modern Java at all and are just parroting anachronistic falsehoods. Time to see the new reality - after a long time computing is getting more hereterogenous, not less (both in terms of operating system and hardware eg. x64 vs ARM etc). The best technology to use is that designed to be platform neutral and Java is fairly unique in having that as a central design goal (not only for the language, but also for the huge number of standard libraries). Haters are always gonna whinge about Java (especially if they believe the bullshit Microsoft markering pumped out from a decade ago to keep you locked on Windows) - however, the Java devs are quietly getting on with solving problems once for all systems (rather than re-inventing for each target system) and *making money* through wisely choosing long-lived platform-neutral technology.
Thanks for your comment. I'm afraid I must have been unclear. The multi-threading is for all the non-rendering tasks. On 8-cores none of them get above 20% usage, which means there is very low jitter in the frame rate (which is the critical fact in what users notice). The rendering is all deferred and is not done of the CPU at all (aside from the commands to submit textures etc already in VRAM).
This is why C++ isn't going to die any time soon. Developers at the bleeding performance edge need it too much.
I agree with you. C++ is great for some niches. That niche is smaller and getting smaller. What I was saying is that for an application that is far more intensive than most (a multi-player combat flight simulator with realistic flight modelling etc) the extra development time of C++ is not worth it. For most applications C++ is not worth it. For some it is - but these are fewer than most people realise (especially many C++ proponents whose mental model of Java's speed is at least half a decade out of date). Java should be your first choice for implementation, only if you have niche requirements would C++ be worth it.
You are joking, right? Graphically intensive programs use OpenGL/GLSL and don't do it in software. Only a shitty designer chooses C++ to do graphics *in software*. I'm writing a modern multi-threaded jet combat flight simulator in Java and find that Java has several huge advantages over C++: muti-threading and in-particular multi-threaded resource management is easier in Java than C++; my development time for pieces of work is much faster than when I used to use C++ for development; I have much better tooling (I *love* JVisualVM, that comes with the JDK); with judicious use of libraries (eg. JoGL, Input, JOAL) my simulator is already cross-platform (Mac, Linux, Windows, and soon Android) with little extra effort; the runtime performance is fantastic, I'm never CPU bound because it is easy to be multi-threaded and use all the core available (modern multi-core CPUs are so powerful the GPU is always the bottleneck on my sim no matter the age of the CPU).
But let us pretend you are not doing a high-performance 3D app (where muti-threaded Java+JoGL+OpenGL kicks C++'s ass in development time) and instead want to do plain 2D. Then you can use the Adobe-designed Java2D API built into standard Java. It has very many 'advanced' features (convolutions for filtering/effects; affine transforms; easy gradients; font manipulation; composition operations; image i/o in lots of common formats etc.). Using the usual fantastic abstracted design of Java the implementation of Java2D was swapped from software to hardware in 2008. That means *all* the graphics you do with Java2D are hardware accelerated using DirectX on Windows and OpenGL everywhere else (and you don't have to change any lines of code for your graphics program to work pretty-much-seamlessly between platforms). With Java2D you can also mix with JoGL/OpenGL 3D very easily (I use this to provide 2D transparent overlays for in my 3D simulator; it is very easy to do).
This is why Java developers are astonished people are still using C++ believing it has better speed for things like graphics. If you are doing graphics in software in C++ then not only are you not hardware accelerated like Java2D, you also have more work to do to get/maintain cross-platform, have a hard time being multi-threaded to use all the CPU cores you have, and your development time is much more frustrating (easy to have macro/template issues in C++) and takes much much longer to produce something working, tested and stable. If you are still choosing C++ over Java for graphics performance you are half-a-decade out of date (eg. bad at architectural design and bad at business; since it takes more time to develop with C++, which means the same functionality costs more money).
So if you are doing graphics in C++ believing it is speedy I suggest you take a look at Java2D and JoGL (for 3D). A good Java graphics developer can make very very fast *hardware accelerated* graphical programs in little development time.
There has been some uptake in C# usage. Even more significant is Java is now back as king-of-the-heap (at least according to TIOBE). I put this down to two factors: enterprise projects deferred in the worst part of the recession now need to be implemented, and: not only does 'Java' include Java-the-language, it also includes Groovy (good for those who like the dynamic language tightrope walk) and Java-for-Android.
While C# has some very nice language features it can never make up for the fact that fundamentally it is single platform (the Mono project won't/can't implement some important libraries that would make codebases truly cross-platform, as stated by Mono's own project page).
I'm always amazed how many still prorgram in C++. After developing in it for around two decades I am glad to leave it behind except for some specialist embedded work - which is becoming increasingly unnecessary; with 32-bit systems on a chip you can use real Java and Linux to develop more complex [eg. multi-threaded networked] apps in a quarter of the time.
If C++ or C# is your preferred language then that's cool. However, if you want to get complex apps out the door as quickly as you can that utilize of lots of the modern multi-core processing power available then it is very very hard to go past Java or Groovy or any of the cross-platform languages that now run on the JVM (eg. Scala). C++ is going nowhere because it adds unnecessary complexity to solving your problem (except in cases where your available memory is measured in kilobytes; which is very rare these days). Those who still program in C++ may do so to show off their programming credentials - but they are missing the point of good design: get your app out the door as fast as you can (with as few defects as possible, which is easy given the JVM instrumentation and the fantastic JVisualVM). Oh yeah, the combination of smart Sun/Oracle engineers, runtime profiled JIT, and easy use of multi-core means a properly written Java program will outperform most single-threaded C++ programs (multi-threaded programs in C++ are less common than in Java due to the pain of using the third-party C++ resource and thread management).
A sharia court could not order someone to be stoned to death here without all involved being arrested for murder.
Take a step back and listen to how wrong that is. No matter what the faith of anyone is, no one should be stoned for murder in the 21st Century. The Sharia courts are promoting discrimination, one set of laws for Muslims, another for dhimmi Britons. The goal should be that *all* British citizens are subject to the same laws and have the same rights and responsibilities. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights should apply to everyone and not the (OIC) Cairo Declaration of Human Rights (which basically says you have fsck all). The goal should be to have different cultures converge on Enlightenment values for everyone - yet this is the exact opposite of what is happening in Britain - and in your apparently well meaning but incredibly misguided way you agree with the institutionalisation of divisive and discriminatory systems based on belief. In the long term it doesn't help the Muslims and doesn't help non-Muslims either. It is cultural relativism that allows such muddle thinking, but this relativism is wrong on a fundamental level. Enlightenment culture is superior to Islamic ideology (which is, at its core, both politicaly totalitarian and fundamentally evil). People talk about "reforming Islam" but they refused to see the truth of the matter - rather than reform Islam simply enforce the superior laws and liberties of Enlightenment culture on all people in Britain - without discrimination as to race, gender, orientation or creed. If you want Sharia you can go live in Saudi, Iran or Afghanistan. Stop being a pussy and stand up for Enlightenment liberties and freedoms. It is morally right to do so.
Kick ass post, man! Every point a gem, and the "you have such a short attention span that you do not see trends if they advance slowly enough." very, very insightful. I agree with your points wholeheartedly.
FTFY. The political right is just as bad and Orwellian. Try standing up at a Tea Party conference and say that a single payer healthcare system is the best (with supporting evidence), and all three of the attendees will shout you down for being a socialist.
The mainstream right is indeed Orwellian. However libertarians are decidedly anti-Orwellian. I used to believe as you do about the Tea Party. Then I discovered the economic geniuses of Milton Freedman and Thomas Sowell. Take a look at Sowell on YourTube and come back to me, please.
On YouTube there is a great video by Ayaan Hirsi Ali showing how targetting the headdress is missing the point (sorry, can't provide a direct link for you, currently at work). Why don't you ask yourself why they didn't ban female genital mutilation instead? why don't they take a serious stance on the hate speech in Friday sermons are mosques in Europe? what about the stuff that actually matters? As usual, the politicians want to be seen to be doing something (ban headscarves) rather than provide leadership and takle the root of the problem (that is, the evil totalitarian *political* ideology called Islam [the superstitious parts are a small part of totality of Islam]).
Thanks for your post. I don't know if you know the content of Obama's speech in Cairo, or his actions in reserving place in the front row for the then-banned Muslim Brotherhood, but his actions were a clear sell-out of ally Mubarak. It was disgusting. The US had many other options than simply installing Islamists in power. They could have assisted in a transition and promoted secular democratic forces (which instigated the revolution and the Brotherhood now suppress). So I disagree with your conclusion. The US could have done a much better job.
Here's a link to an Egyptian source crowing about how they have Muslim Brotherhood members inside the White House: http://www.investigativeproject.org/3869/egyptian-magazine-muslim-brotherhood-infiltrates
This should have been front page news around the World, but wasn't. Senator Bachmann called for an investigation of Muslim Brotherhood penetration of the White House but was pooh-poohed, yet her points were real. You can find more information by googling Frank Gaffney's site http://www.muslimbrotherhoodinamerica.com/
I also highly recommend any of Stephen Coughlin's excellent videos on YouTube outlining the Islamist doctrine. Note that the Obama Administration have done a complete purge of anyone giving analysis of the Islamist/OIC strategy (and Sharia legal basis for jihad) because it runs counter to their (leftist) narrative. eg. see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6lmUlT38_U
This is why the World is losing against the form of Islamism that matters, 'cultural jihad' (not the terrorism, but the progressive long-term islamicization of culture).
That should be enough references to get you started. Come back to me if you'd like more.
Are you Israeli? It's just a random guess but I notice from another post you made you are worried about Sharia Law in Europe. I always find the idea of that preposterous since we have far to long and established traditions of drinking alcohol as part of our culture. There is about a 0% chance of us all becoming teetotal, especially here in the UK where I come from.
That's a bit racist, don't you think? I'm a native New Zealander actually. I just happen to be paying attention to what is going on. Unfortunately formerly great news outfits in the UK like the BBC have now dropped neutral journalism and show a huge leftist bias in the articles they choose to publish (and more importantly, the news events they choose not to publish). I understand how people in the UK would miss the information that matters given the selection bias of your mainstream media. Were you aware that 87 Sharia courts now operate in Britian. One law for Muslims (in certain matters) and one for other Britons. Were you aware that most school canteens now only serve halal meat? It is funny you talk about the drinking culture, especially when videos like this "Muslim Patrol" are emerging with increasing regularity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw2w7ACogaY
Yes, it is just some idiots. The interesting thing is the police do nothing and the politicians do not comment that it is an unacceptable affront to Enlish liberties. The trend will continue downwill I'm afraid.
The only people in Europe who carp on about things like Sharia Law are morons like Geert Wilders who are just making it all up in order to try and get elected.
Wilders is an opportunist for sure. Doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong. I suggest you take a megaphone and repeat the phrase "Europe will never have Sharia Law" and so so in Birmingham, Malmo or Marsailles. Take out life insurance and please make me the beneficiary. Even if you survive, how many politicians (except for Geert Wilders) do you think would stand up for your righ
What the hostile response? I don't get it. I have a different point of view to you and you feel the need to insult? What specifically do you disagree with in my post? we can debate like reasonable people, you know.