The same thing can be said for Hamas. The issue is that the solution must be acceptable to the Israelis as well as the Palestinians. According to the Hamas Charter the only acceptable solution for Palestinians and Palestine is the destruction of Israel. This is not acceptable to Israel and never will be. Until Hamas drops this demand there can be no solution that is acceptable to both sides. Israel does not have the power to make Hamas change its mind; only Hamas can do that. Considering that the Hamas differentiates itself from Fatah over this issue, Fatah accepts the existence of Israel, I doubt very much that Hamas will make this change. Israel is more powerful than the Palestinians but they do not control the actions or objectives of the Palestinians.
If you want to find a solution to the Palestinian problem you have to look at it from both sides. The Israelis are not without blame but they are willing to negotiate with Palestinians for peace. Hamas is not willing to do that and until there can be negotiations where both sided exist there can be no peace.
The way I look at the Israeli/Palastinian conflict is like a small dog nipping at the heals of a bull. The small dog does it long enough eventually the bull is going to stomp it. Hamas continually fires rockets at and sends suicide bombers into Israel. Eventually Israel gets pissed off and retaliates by rocket attacks or invasion. Some people see that as an overreaction. Others see it as justified. What do you think Israel should do about the bombings and rocket attacks? Ignoring them is not an option as no party anywhere wouldl be able to hold power while ignoring the death of their citizens.
Currently the most controversial thing Israel is doing is requiring inspection of all goods going into the Gaza Strip. They are doing this to decrease the amount of rocket making and tunnel building material entering the Gaza Strip and thereby decreasing the number of rockets falling on Israel. The fact that it causes hardship for the people of the Gaza Strip is their own fault as they voted for Hamas and should accept the consequences of their vote. I bet if they voted Hamas out and stopped all rocket attacks on Israel that the borders would be open. Israel does not have the power to do this; only the Palestinians do.
There is a huge difference between might and power. Israel has the might to oppress the Palestinians and minimize the loss of Israeli lives but the Palestinians have the power to stop it by ceasing attacks on Israel and negotiating in good faith. Who do you think should make the first move?
Funny how you seem to see only the surface of things. I find it astounding that you seem to hold that "might is right". If one country can invade and take over another it's just fine. Here are a few facts that you seem to miss. 1. The Jewish Immigrants during the British Mandate purchased their lands. 2. During Partition quite a few Jewish families were forced of their land in the Palestinian areas. 3. Since you seem to think might(conquest) is right, does that mean that Israel should own the Sinai, South Lebanon, and all Palestinian land since they conquered them by force? 4. Israel is a country was founded in 66CE so is not a modern nation; it is an ancient nation re-established in modern times. 5. The Holy Land is a Jewish term for Israel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Land The Holy Land (Hebrew: ; Eretz HaQodesh) is a term which in Judaism refers to the Kingdom of Israel as defined in the Tanakh. For Jews, the Land's identification of being Holy is defined in Judaism by its differentiation from other lands by virtue of the practice of Judaism often possible only in the Land of Israel. 6. Palestine was lost to the Palestinians around 1099 during the Crusades. It changes hands until it became a British Mandate after the Ottoman Turks lost WW1. So by your "conquest is OK" stance Palestine should still be British. Israel didn't take lands from the Palestinians it was given land by the UN, as you put it, a valid conqueror. 7. Modern Israel and modern Palestine were created at the same time when the British mandate ended.
Considering there were no people in North America before the Bering land bridge that point is moot. In David's time there was no such thing as diplomatic solutions that was only war. Viewing a leaders' actions through today's sensibilities is not valid. I bet if you look hard enough you will find at least one incident of genocide in every culture. Is your point that the claims of a people that have been oppressed long enough are no longer valid? Case in point; since the Europeans invaded the West coast hundreds of years before WW1 does that mean that land claims by First Nations are invalid?
The main point are; - Jews created the first settled civilization in Israel - Jewish Holy sites are in Israel - Jews from all over the world visit Israel to get in touch with their roots. - Many invaders had to deal with Jewish revolts, - there has been a continuous presence of Jews in Israel even under the invading armies of many different people. Just because it happened over a long period of time does not make it invalid
For every rule one adds to the creation of passwords one decreases the number of possibilities. For example, if an 8 character password that must be letters and numbers you are removing 52^8 all character words and 10^8 all digit words. As the number of rules get larger the number of possibilities get smaller. I agree there should be a short list of banned passwords but if the list is too big it just helps cracking.
No matter where the Jewish people have been forced to live there was always a connection to Israel through their Holy sites. There was no connection between Europeans and the West Coast until they invaded it.
A closer comparison between the situation in Israel to that of the West Coast would be if the Jews were seen as First Nations peoples. The Jews were there first. They were conquered by invaders. They were persecuted by the invaders. Their culture was attacked. Only recently through negotiation have they been given back some of their land(the First Nations through land claim treaties, the Jews through a UN resolution).
I consider the position of an organization voted in by a group of people to be the position of the people doing the voting. The Palestinians in the Gaza Strip voted for and support Hamas, an organization who's mandate is to destroy Israel. I don't see any Palestinian Authority stopping the suicide bombing or rockets attacks on Israel. By not stopping organization withing their borders from attacking Israel the Palestinian authority is aiding them
sorry but your timing is off; The partition of Israel was ratified by the UN November 29, 1947 and it came into effect at the end of the "Palestine Mandate". May 134, 1948 British troops had withdrawn from Palestine and ended the Palestine Mandate. Since Great Britain would not cooperate with the UN in a proper transition of power there was no body to take over administration of Palestine. Therefore Israel declared independence.
True, Jordan has nothing to do with the partition of Palestine. The reason parts of what was originally designated Palestinian territory now being part of Israel is a peace treaty signed in 1949. When Israel declared independence all the surrounding Arab countries attacked it. Israel won that war and all parties signed a peace treaty in 1949 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_Armistice_Agreements. The Arab countries attacks, lost the wars and lost some land as a result.
3. Here are a few dates you might look up. 611AD The Byzantine Emperor, Heraclius, promised to restore Jewish rights and received Jewish help in defeating the Persians, Between the 7th and 11th centuries, Jewish scribes, called the Masoretes and located in Galilee and Jerusalem, established the Masoretic Text, the final text of the Hebrew Bible. 1260AD Baibars banned Jews from worshipping at the Cave of the Patriarchs (the second holiest site in Judaism) until its conquest by Israel 700 years later. 1834 There was a massacre of Jews in Palestine during Muhammad Ali of Egypt's occupation There has been significant continuous Jewish presence in Palestine for a very long time.
After centuries of genocide and displacement the UN decided that Jews needed a homeland and gave them parts of Palestine. The surrounding Arabs didn't agree and have tried to destroy them ever since.
They were both started for the same reason; Egypt trying to blockade Israel by denying access to the Suez Canal and the Gulf of Aquaba. In the case of the 6 Day War Egypt threw put an UN security force and sent large forces to the Israeli border. Check out this time line, http://www.sixdaywar.co.uk/timeline.htm, and decide who really started the 6 Day War.
Steal Land; Five times in the last sixty years Israel has been invaded by its neighbours.
Drive people from their lands When Palestine was partitioned Jews in the Palestinian areas were forced from their homes.
assassinate activists around the world; If you consider Nazi scientists, PFLP leaders, PLO leaders, Hamas leaders, Black Sunday terrorists, and other terrorists to be "activists" then I guess they are guilty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_assassinations
Secretly stash nukes; For a country surrounded by countries who want to destroy them I would think that nukes might be a great protection.
Turn racism onto law: Here is a quote from the Hamas Charter "Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims." That sounds pretty racist to me.
"China, Russia or other non-western countries" are not surrounded by countries that have attacked them five times in the last sixty years. They are not bombarded with rockets from a neighbouring country. No country has stated that their goal is to wipe them from the face of the earth. All of these things are happening to Israel.
Palestinians will get no sympathy from me when with one hand they point at Israel being an oppressive regime and lob rockets with the other. Stop attacking Israel and Israel will stop attacking you. When the West Bank and the Gaza Strip can say they are a peaceful country then I will be for Israel backing off. Until then Israel is fighting for survival. Palestinians are not fighting for survival; they are fighting for the destruction of Israel.
Wars of conquest are prosecuted by aggressors. Every war Israel has been involved in has either been started by Arabs (War of Independence, Yom Kippur, War of Attrition), in response to being denied access to the Suez Canal, blockade of the Gulf of Aqaba and attacks from the Gaza Strip(Sinai War, Six day War) . The only reason Israel exists today is due to these defensive wars. The only land they occupy has been used as bases by aggressors.
The Palestinians started the war after Palestine was partitioned by the UN. They lost the war and are still fighting using terrorist techniques. Hamas does not even recognize Israel's right to exist and one of it's founding tenants is to destroy Israel.
Yes there are major issues that Israel needs to address; Jewish settlements in the West Bank, return of refugees, etc. On the other hand, suicide bombers and rocket attacks do not garner my sympathy for the Palestinians. The Palestinians in the Gaza Strip voted for Hamas and are getting what they voted for. Peace will only come when Hamas accepts Israel's right to exist and stops terrorist violence.
Just for your information I am a Gentile from Canada and have no religious reason for supporting Israel. Perhaps you should look at the history of Israel before making baseless assumptions.
It seems interesting but I have a few concerns (some have been stated in other posts but I would like to get them in one place). 1. Uneven surfaces; With such a small surface contact it is easy to lose traction. 2. Control. It seems that one can change direction at will but it seems difficult to do it accurately and more difficult to stop the device. 3. Soft surfaces; if the hemisphere is going at a constant speed would it dig into a sift surface when stopped? Sure you can stop the motor but that means you would have the same acceleration characteristics of a conventional wheel.
I would have liked to see it on bare concrete doing a slalom and stopping at a designated point.
It is possibly the irritant you breathed in is fibreglass dust but it is also possible that it is fumes from cutting too fast. Blade speed has a big impact on the dispersal of dust and fumes. If the blade moves too fast one can actually burn the fibreglass and produce irritating fumes. My suggestion would be to use a scroll saw with a vacuum attachment and cut using the slowest speed possible. Make sure you use a water filter attachment or a drywall filter in the shopvac. Drywall filters are finer than regular filters and will catch more fibres. If possible, do it outside or at least put the shopvac outside.
Not only most countries do not have "recall" laws or anything resembling impeachment, but cases when such scandals erupted and the politico in question served his full term laughing at the voters and doing all sorts of damage are aplenty. Hell, in some cases the politician was convicted in the court of law and even then still refused to resign and had to be forcibly booted out of whatever body he was a member in. Not to mention that any legal proceedings against the crook can be successfully stalled for so long that his term is likely to end before the impeachment even gets going properly.
It seems strange that in one sentence you say there is no way to get a politician out of office and the next you say politicians had to be "booted out of whatever body he was a member in". Those statements seem to be contradictory.
Furthermore, while I keep pointing out proactive measures that empower the electorate, you keep insisting on reactive, post-facto measures that not only dis-empower voters but go against the grain of the whole democracy thing by requiring censorship and other forms of muzzling media, citizens and politicians.
It seems that you may need to look into the definitions of proactive and reactive. You solution seems to be to react to something happening and stop or re do an election. The Thai solution is to proactively stop the situation from happening by having a cooling off period.
Who, pray tell, gets to decide what is "campaigning" and what is not?! Who decides what actions are in "violation" of the laws?! It is the "authorities", i.e. the members of the government - be it its judicial or executive branches - who do! Next I expect you are going to tell me that they are wholly, impeccably impartial and make such decisions from the purity of their noble hearts, completely focused on the well being of the nation and its denizens in their incorruptible minds...
You accuse me of being authoritarian. You seem to have the opposite view that anyone in authority is automatically corrupt. That is the position of an anarchist. You seem to forget that the people in authority were democratically elected. Also, the candidates you seem to be trying to protect are attempting to become the authority. It seems that your position is that somone seeking authority is worthy of protection but if they gain authority that are corrupt.
So on the one hand we have certainties, i.e. a bona-fide crook being elected when the electorate was dis-enfranchised and forbidden from knowing the truth and on the other hand we have "coulda-woulda-shoulda" voodoo whereby no one can tell what impact what statements had on the elections but the electorate still remains fully empowered to make decisions on whatever information is available, no matter its source or quality. In one corner the nanny-state is "protecting" poor wee idiot voters "from themselves" by denying all of them all information it can lay its paws on and in the other one we have a possibility that some of the voters might be misled by late game chicanery (assuming that none of the counter-measures I described repeatedly are taken).
So someone who is underhanded enough not to get caught manipulating an election with last minute falsehoods is fine with you
It is then of little surprise that I believe that empowering voters (at the risk of finding out that some of them are idiots and can't handle uncertain, last minute information) is the democratic thing to do while it is also quite obvious that you find censorship, dubious and highly corruptible "protections" of a nanny-state and general distrust of the choices of voters in favour of a blind trust in the authorities so much more your cup of tea.
That is because, quite contrary to what you believe yourself to be, you are not a proponent of democracy but rather an authoritarian.
I didn't say these materials were invented by military contractors just that their use was advanced greatly by military use. When I talked about composites I was referring more to ceramic composites originally used in space research.
How about a few more examples; Spy satellites that advanced communication satellites. The GPS constellation put up by the USDOD The computer; advanced during WW2 to break codes and calculate ballistics tables The Interstate Highway system in the US; built partly to facilitate troop movements and provide alternate airfields. The Internet; a DARPA project.
How do you think the electorate will feel the morning after when they discover that their choice did in fact happen to be a corrupt crook, only that this information was suppressed and hidden from them by the "authorities" in the name of "fairness"?! Bonus points if the crook-elect is also a personal friend of key members of these "authorities"!
That is why there are impeachment and recall laws to fix issue just like that. Also any opposing political party would demand the person resign. I so not understand the point about "authorities" since all campaigning, not just negative information, is prohibited.
Conversely, and much more likely, what would happen if a false claim was put forward at the last minute which swung the vote? Do you really think the election would be re-run? How would someone prove that the outcome was changed? There is no way to check each individual vote to see if the false report had any effect. How could one prove it was done by the candidate? Maybe it was done by a misguided supporter but still had the same effect. Without solid proof nothing will happen.
The sentence I thought I wrote but didn't come out right was as follows; "The position that any restriction on speech is censorship and therefore bad is dogmatic." Sorry but it was late and I was tired. So I was a little off on my usage.
I think the issue is that if one can not protect the sovereignty of a country then its science is a moot point. The country will soon be owned or destroyed by someone else.
War/Destruction and Knowledge/Progress are not mutually exclusive. Look at the advances in aircraft during WW2. We went from biplanes to jet planes in a scant ten years. More recently Kevlar and composites that are used in manufacturing were originally researched for military use.
This is why you shouldn't let penny-pinchers be in charge of cost estimates (or anything, for that matter). If they weren't willing to commit sufficient funds to the project, they shouldn't have done it at all.
It is just as likely that the scientists and engineers involved did not provide accurate cost estimates to the "penny-pinchers" so that the project would get approved. Management can only act on the information they are given. I can see the conversation now: Management: How much do you think it will cost? Engineers: $4B Management: I am not sure we could get that approved. Are there ways to trim things and decrease the costs? How about you try and decrease the costs. Later; Management: New budget complete? How much is the new estimate? Engineers: $1.6B. Management: Are you sure you can do it for that? Engineers: Fairly sure. Management: OK, we'll go with that.
It might be the scientists and it might be the penny-pinchers or a combination of the two; we don't know.
I almost forgot the fossil fuels used to harvest the wood, process it and transport it to where it will be burned. I realize some wood is harvested by hand with horses but most is not. The other issue is that when you plant a tree it takes years to sequester the CO2. For example, if you burn a 50 year old tree it will take another 50 years to grow another tree to that size and re-absorb the CO@ from the original tree.
The point is that wood burning stoves to not produce electricity and electricity is a poor heat source. Can you plug you electric car into a stove? Do you want apartment building heated by wood? Is air conditioning run by wood? Can you run aluminum smelters on wood? The energy crisis is a lack of electricity and not heat. Most people think "electricity" when someone says "energy production". That is why the article is deceptive.
The reason that talk about BTUs is that they are talking about all types of energy consumption even the burning of wood in home stoves. Wood is renewable but produces carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide. Just because it is renewable does not make it green. Take a look at this http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7_5.pdf
For three months in 2010 Neuclear produced 202,449 Million Kilowatthours. Hydro produced 63,295 MKwhrs. Solar, wind and geothermal combined produced 25,288 MKwhrs.
Slashdot Mirror
The same thing can be said for Hamas. The issue is that the solution must be acceptable to the Israelis as well as the Palestinians. According to the Hamas Charter the only acceptable solution for Palestinians and Palestine is the destruction of Israel. This is not acceptable to Israel and never will be. Until Hamas drops this demand there can be no solution that is acceptable to both sides. Israel does not have the power to make Hamas change its mind; only Hamas can do that. Considering that the Hamas differentiates itself from Fatah over this issue, Fatah accepts the existence of Israel, I doubt very much that Hamas will make this change. Israel is more powerful than the Palestinians but they do not control the actions or objectives of the Palestinians.
If you want to find a solution to the Palestinian problem you have to look at it from both sides. The Israelis are not without blame but they are willing to negotiate with Palestinians for peace. Hamas is not willing to do that and until there can be negotiations where both sided exist there can be no peace.
The way I look at the Israeli/Palastinian conflict is like a small dog nipping at the heals of a bull. The small dog does it long enough eventually the bull is going to stomp it. Hamas continually fires rockets at and sends suicide bombers into Israel. Eventually Israel gets pissed off and retaliates by rocket attacks or invasion. Some people see that as an overreaction. Others see it as justified. What do you think Israel should do about the bombings and rocket attacks? Ignoring them is not an option as no party anywhere wouldl be able to hold power while ignoring the death of their citizens.
Currently the most controversial thing Israel is doing is requiring inspection of all goods going into the Gaza Strip. They are doing this to decrease the amount of rocket making and tunnel building material entering the Gaza Strip and thereby decreasing the number of rockets falling on Israel. The fact that it causes hardship for the people of the Gaza Strip is their own fault as they voted for Hamas and should accept the consequences of their vote. I bet if they voted Hamas out and stopped all rocket attacks on Israel that the borders would be open. Israel does not have the power to do this; only the Palestinians do.
There is a huge difference between might and power. Israel has the might to oppress the Palestinians and minimize the loss of Israeli lives but the Palestinians have the power to stop it by ceasing attacks on Israel and negotiating in good faith. Who do you think should make the first move?
Funny how you seem to see only the surface of things. I find it astounding that you seem to hold that "might is right". If one country can invade and take over another it's just fine. Here are a few facts that you seem to miss.
1. The Jewish Immigrants during the British Mandate purchased their lands.
2. During Partition quite a few Jewish families were forced of their land in the Palestinian areas.
3. Since you seem to think might(conquest) is right, does that mean that Israel should own the Sinai, South Lebanon, and all Palestinian land since they conquered them by force?
4. Israel is a country was founded in 66CE so is not a modern nation; it is an ancient nation re-established in modern times.
5. The Holy Land is a Jewish term for Israel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Land The Holy Land (Hebrew: ; Eretz HaQodesh) is a term which in Judaism refers to the Kingdom of Israel as defined in the Tanakh. For Jews, the Land's identification of being Holy is defined in Judaism by its differentiation from other lands by virtue of the practice of Judaism often possible only in the Land of Israel.
6. Palestine was lost to the Palestinians around 1099 during the Crusades. It changes hands until it became a British Mandate after the Ottoman Turks lost WW1. So by your "conquest is OK" stance Palestine should still be British. Israel didn't take lands from the Palestinians it was given land by the UN, as you put it, a valid conqueror.
7. Modern Israel and modern Palestine were created at the same time when the British mandate ended.
Considering there were no people in North America before the Bering land bridge that point is moot. In David's time there was no such thing as diplomatic solutions that was only war. Viewing a leaders' actions through today's sensibilities is not valid. I bet if you look hard enough you will find at least one incident of genocide in every culture. Is your point that the claims of a people that have been oppressed long enough are no longer valid? Case in point; since the Europeans invaded the West coast hundreds of years before WW1 does that mean that land claims by First Nations are invalid?
The main point are;
- Jews created the first settled civilization in Israel
- Jewish Holy sites are in Israel
- Jews from all over the world visit Israel to get in touch with their roots.
- Many invaders had to deal with Jewish revolts,
- there has been a continuous presence of Jews in Israel even under the invading armies of many different people.
Just because it happened over a long period of time does not make it invalid
For every rule one adds to the creation of passwords one decreases the number of possibilities. For example, if an 8 character password that must be letters and numbers you are removing 52^8 all character words and 10^8 all digit words. As the number of rules get larger the number of possibilities get smaller. I agree there should be a short list of banned passwords but if the list is too big it just helps cracking.
Perhaps you should read a little more history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel#Babylonian.2C_Persian_and_Greek_rule_.28586_BCE_.E2.80.93_2nd_century_BCE.29
Palestine/Israel has been fought over and ruled by foreign power for most of its history. Israel was Jewish ancestral lands long before they were Palestinian ancestral lands.In fact it was only ruled by Arab Muslims between 636–1099 and Egyptian Mamluk between 13th century and 1517.There has been an Jewish presence in Israel since 1200 BCE. A good example of the is The Dome of the Rock , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dome_of_the_Rock, which was built on the site of the Second Jewish Temple, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Temple. So who was there first?
No matter where the Jewish people have been forced to live there was always a connection to Israel through their Holy sites. There was no connection between Europeans and the West Coast until they invaded it.
A closer comparison between the situation in Israel to that of the West Coast would be if the Jews were seen as First Nations peoples. The Jews were there first. They were conquered by invaders. They were persecuted by the invaders. Their culture was attacked. Only recently through negotiation have they been given back some of their land(the First Nations through land claim treaties, the Jews through a UN resolution).
I consider the position of an organization voted in by a group of people to be the position of the people doing the voting. The Palestinians in the Gaza Strip voted for and support Hamas, an organization who's mandate is to destroy Israel. I don't see any Palestinian Authority stopping the suicide bombing or rockets attacks on Israel. By not stopping organization withing their borders from attacking Israel the Palestinian authority is aiding them
You seem to forget that the reason houses are bulldozed is that they belong to the families of suicide bombers.
sorry but your timing is off;
The partition of Israel was ratified by the UN November 29, 1947 and it came into effect at the end of the "Palestine Mandate". May 134, 1948 British troops had withdrawn from Palestine and ended the Palestine Mandate. Since Great Britain would not cooperate with the UN in a proper transition of power there was no body to take over administration of Palestine. Therefore Israel declared independence.
True, Jordan has nothing to do with the partition of Palestine. The reason parts of what was originally designated Palestinian territory now being part of Israel is a peace treaty signed in 1949. When Israel declared independence all the surrounding Arab countries attacked it. Israel won that war and all parties signed a peace treaty in 1949 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_Armistice_Agreements. The Arab countries attacks, lost the wars and lost some land as a result.
Here are a couple of facts that refute your arguments;
1. There was a significant Jewish population in Palestine. From these two documents http://www.palestineremembered.com/Articles/A-Survey-of-Palestine/Story6582.html and http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Books/Story835.html the Jewish population in 1920 was 61,284 vs 486,000 Muslims So 12% is not a significant population?. Yes there was a low point during the Crusades but there has always been a significant presence.
2. 367,845 Jews legally immigrated to Palestine between 1920 and 1945, http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Books/Story835.html. A further 50,000-60,000 immigrated illegally. So you "mostly illegal" statement is false.
3. Here are a few dates you might look up.
611AD The Byzantine Emperor, Heraclius, promised to restore Jewish rights and received Jewish help in defeating the Persians,
Between the 7th and 11th centuries, Jewish scribes, called the Masoretes and located in Galilee and Jerusalem, established the Masoretic Text, the final text of the Hebrew Bible.
1260AD Baibars banned Jews from worshipping at the Cave of the Patriarchs (the second holiest site in Judaism) until its conquest by Israel 700 years later.
1834 There was a massacre of Jews in Palestine during Muhammad Ali of Egypt's occupation
There has been significant continuous Jewish presence in Palestine for a very long time.
After centuries of genocide and displacement the UN decided that Jews needed a homeland and gave them parts of Palestine. The surrounding Arabs didn't agree and have tried to destroy them ever since.
They were both started for the same reason; Egypt trying to blockade Israel by denying access to the Suez Canal and the Gulf of Aquaba. In the case of the 6 Day War Egypt threw put an UN security force and sent large forces to the Israeli border. Check out this time line, http://www.sixdaywar.co.uk/timeline.htm, and decide who really started the 6 Day War.
Steal Land;
Five times in the last sixty years Israel has been invaded by its neighbours.
Drive people from their lands
When Palestine was partitioned Jews in the Palestinian areas were forced from their homes.
assassinate activists around the world;
If you consider Nazi scientists, PFLP leaders, PLO leaders, Hamas leaders, Black Sunday terrorists, and other terrorists to be "activists" then I guess they are guilty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_assassinations
Secretly stash nukes;
For a country surrounded by countries who want to destroy them I would think that nukes might be a great protection.
Turn racism onto law:
Here is a quote from the Hamas Charter
"Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims." That sounds pretty racist to me.
They SHOT and KILLED 8 protestors on a boat in international waters,
Who were trying to break a legal blockade and attacked, using axe handles and steel pipes, a boarding party sent to inspect the ship
they even shot protestors across the border in Syria recently
who forced their way across in international border, ignored tear gas, verbal warnings and warning shots.
, so I think these protestors stopped at the airport got off lightly.
Really, it's just a murderous state,
"China, Russia or other non-western countries" are not surrounded by countries that have attacked them five times in the last sixty years. They are not bombarded with rockets from a neighbouring country. No country has stated that their goal is to wipe them from the face of the earth. All of these things are happening to Israel.
Palestinians will get no sympathy from me when with one hand they point at Israel being an oppressive regime and lob rockets with the other. Stop attacking Israel and Israel will stop attacking you. When the West Bank and the Gaza Strip can say they are a peaceful country then I will be for Israel backing off. Until then Israel is fighting for survival. Palestinians are not fighting for survival; they are fighting for the destruction of Israel.
Israel is a PITA to it neighbours by merely existing. How does Israel fix that and still exist?
Wars of conquest are prosecuted by aggressors. Every war Israel has been involved in has either been started by Arabs (War of Independence, Yom Kippur, War of Attrition), in response to being denied access to the Suez Canal, blockade of the Gulf of Aqaba and attacks from the Gaza Strip(Sinai War, Six day War) . The only reason Israel exists today is due to these defensive wars. The only land they occupy has been used as bases by aggressors.
The Palestinians started the war after Palestine was partitioned by the UN. They lost the war and are still fighting using terrorist techniques. Hamas does not even recognize Israel's right to exist and one of it's founding tenants is to destroy Israel.
Yes there are major issues that Israel needs to address; Jewish settlements in the West Bank, return of refugees, etc. On the other hand, suicide bombers and rocket attacks do not garner my sympathy for the Palestinians. The Palestinians in the Gaza Strip voted for Hamas and are getting what they voted for. Peace will only come when Hamas accepts Israel's right to exist and stops terrorist violence.
Just for your information I am a Gentile from Canada and have no religious reason for supporting Israel. Perhaps you should look at the history of Israel before making baseless assumptions.
It seems interesting but I have a few concerns (some have been stated in other posts but I would like to get them in one place).
1. Uneven surfaces; With such a small surface contact it is easy to lose traction.
2. Control. It seems that one can change direction at will but it seems difficult to do it accurately and more difficult to stop the device.
3. Soft surfaces; if the hemisphere is going at a constant speed would it dig into a sift surface when stopped? Sure you can stop the motor but that means you would have the same acceleration characteristics of a conventional wheel.
I would have liked to see it on bare concrete doing a slalom and stopping at a designated point.
It is possibly the irritant you breathed in is fibreglass dust but it is also possible that it is fumes from cutting too fast. Blade speed has a big impact on the dispersal of dust and fumes. If the blade moves too fast one can actually burn the fibreglass and produce irritating fumes. My suggestion would be to use a scroll saw with a vacuum attachment and cut using the slowest speed possible. Make sure you use a water filter attachment or a drywall filter in the shopvac. Drywall filters are finer than regular filters and will catch more fibres. If possible, do it outside or at least put the shopvac outside.
Not only most countries do not have "recall" laws or anything resembling impeachment, but cases when such scandals erupted and the politico in question served his full term laughing at the voters and doing all sorts of damage are aplenty. Hell, in some cases the politician was convicted in the court of law and even then still refused to resign and had to be forcibly booted out of whatever body he was a member in. Not to mention that any legal proceedings against the crook can be successfully stalled for so long that his term is likely to end before the impeachment even gets going properly.
It seems strange that in one sentence you say there is no way to get a politician out of office and the next you say politicians had to be "booted out of whatever body he was a member in". Those statements seem to be contradictory.
Furthermore, while I keep pointing out proactive measures that empower the electorate, you keep insisting on reactive, post-facto measures that not only dis-empower voters but go against the grain of the whole democracy thing by requiring censorship and other forms of muzzling media, citizens and politicians.
It seems that you may need to look into the definitions of proactive and reactive. You solution seems to be to react to something happening and stop or re do an election. The Thai solution is to proactively stop the situation from happening by having a cooling off period.
Who, pray tell, gets to decide what is "campaigning" and what is not?! Who decides what actions are in "violation" of the laws?! It is the "authorities", i.e. the members of the government - be it its judicial or executive branches - who do! Next I expect you are going to tell me that they are wholly, impeccably impartial and make such decisions from the purity of their noble hearts, completely focused on the well being of the nation and its denizens in their incorruptible minds ...
You accuse me of being authoritarian. You seem to have the opposite view that anyone in authority is automatically corrupt. That is the position of an anarchist. You seem to forget that the people in authority were democratically elected. Also, the candidates you seem to be trying to protect are attempting to become the authority. It seems that your position is that somone seeking authority is worthy of protection but if they gain authority that are corrupt.
So on the one hand we have certainties, i.e. a bona-fide crook being elected when the electorate was dis-enfranchised and forbidden from knowing the truth and on the other hand we have "coulda-woulda-shoulda" voodoo whereby no one can tell what impact what statements had on the elections but the electorate still remains fully empowered to make decisions on whatever information is available, no matter its source or quality. In one corner the nanny-state is "protecting" poor wee idiot voters "from themselves" by denying all of them all information it can lay its paws on and in the other one we have a possibility that some of the voters might be misled by late game chicanery (assuming that none of the counter-measures I described repeatedly are taken).
So someone who is underhanded enough not to get caught manipulating an election with last minute falsehoods is fine with you
It is then of little surprise that I believe that empowering voters (at the risk of finding out that some of them are idiots and can't handle uncertain, last minute information) is the democratic thing to do while it is also quite obvious that you find censorship, dubious and highly corruptible "protections" of a nanny-state and general distrust of the choices of voters in favour of a blind trust in the authorities so much more your cup of tea.
That is because, quite contrary to what you believe yourself to be, you are not a proponent of democracy but rather an authoritarian.
I didn't say these materials were invented by military contractors just that their use was advanced greatly by military use. When I talked about composites I was referring more to ceramic composites originally used in space research.
How about a few more examples;
Spy satellites that advanced communication satellites.
The GPS constellation put up by the USDOD
The computer; advanced during WW2 to break codes and calculate ballistics tables
The Interstate Highway system in the US; built partly to facilitate troop movements and provide alternate airfields.
The Internet; a DARPA project.
How do you think the electorate will feel the morning after when they discover that their choice did in fact happen to be a corrupt crook, only that this information was suppressed and hidden from them by the "authorities" in the name of "fairness"?! Bonus points if the crook-elect is also a personal friend of key members of these "authorities"!
That is why there are impeachment and recall laws to fix issue just like that. Also any opposing political party would demand the person resign. I so not understand the point about "authorities" since all campaigning, not just negative information, is prohibited.
Conversely, and much more likely, what would happen if a false claim was put forward at the last minute which swung the vote? Do you really think the election would be re-run? How would someone prove that the outcome was changed? There is no way to check each individual vote to see if the false report had any effect. How could one prove it was done by the candidate? Maybe it was done by a misguided supporter but still had the same effect. Without solid proof nothing will happen.
The sentence I thought I wrote but didn't come out right was as follows;
"The position that any restriction on speech is censorship and therefore bad is dogmatic."
Sorry but it was late and I was tired. So I was a little off on my usage.
I think the issue is that if one can not protect the sovereignty of a country then its science is a moot point. The country will soon be owned or destroyed by someone else.
War/Destruction and Knowledge/Progress are not mutually exclusive. Look at the advances in aircraft during WW2. We went from biplanes to jet planes in a scant ten years. More recently Kevlar and composites that are used in manufacturing were originally researched for military use.
This is why you shouldn't let penny-pinchers be in charge of cost estimates (or anything, for that matter). If they weren't willing to commit sufficient funds to the project, they shouldn't have done it at all.
It is just as likely that the scientists and engineers involved did not provide accurate cost estimates to the "penny-pinchers" so that the project would get approved. Management can only act on the information they are given. I can see the conversation now:
Management: How much do you think it will cost?
Engineers: $4B
Management: I am not sure we could get that approved. Are there ways to trim things and decrease the costs? How about you try and decrease the costs.
Later;
Management: New budget complete? How much is the new estimate?
Engineers: $1.6B.
Management: Are you sure you can do it for that?
Engineers: Fairly sure.
Management: OK, we'll go with that.
It might be the scientists and it might be the penny-pinchers or a combination of the two; we don't know.
I almost forgot the fossil fuels used to harvest the wood, process it and transport it to where it will be burned. I realize some wood is harvested by hand with horses but most is not. The other issue is that when you plant a tree it takes years to sequester the CO2. For example, if you burn a 50 year old tree it will take another 50 years to grow another tree to that size and re-absorb the CO@ from the original tree.
The point is that wood burning stoves to not produce electricity and electricity is a poor heat source. Can you plug you electric car into a stove? Do you want apartment building heated by wood? Is air conditioning run by wood? Can you run aluminum smelters on wood? The energy crisis is a lack of electricity and not heat. Most people think "electricity" when someone says "energy production". That is why the article is deceptive.
The reason that talk about BTUs is that they are talking about all types of energy consumption even the burning of wood in home stoves. Wood is renewable but produces carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide. Just because it is renewable does not make it green. Take a look at this http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7_5.pdf
For three months in 2010 Neuclear produced 202,449 Million Kilowatthours. Hydro produced 63,295 MKwhrs. Solar, wind and geothermal combined produced 25,288 MKwhrs.