Israel's ethnic cleansing is absolutely a genocide. They want to eliminate the Palestinians as a national group
Beg pardon? Ethnicity and nationality are two very different things. You can't call it ethnic cleansing if it isn't targeting an ethnicity. Google calls genocide "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation." So ethnic cleansing and national cleansing are both subsets of genocide (then you get into fun terminology twists like "religious vs. ethnic Jews"). For them to be the same thing requires that all the inhabitants of the country are the same ethnicity, and no significant populations of that ethnicity exist outside the country either.
Labeling it "genocide" supposes that the motivation of Israeli killing Palestinians is to wipe out the Palestinians as a group (can you have an "accidental genocide?"). I would think that their goal is instead to keep them suppressed so as to minimize their ability to hurt them (Israel), NOT to wipe them out. Although of course you will probably find hardliners in the population that think they *should* just wipe them all out.
Sorry about the pedantic hair-splitting, but this argument looks like it's swiftly degenerated into name-calling and moderation swing, so I'm trying to bring a little objective definition to the discussion.
Are Palestinian Arabs a distinct ethnic group from those living a few miles away in e.g. Jordan? If not, calling it "genocide" seems about as accurate as the entire concept of racial superiority.
I have a hard time attacking the immigrants when they had to defend themselves from an Arab invasion literally THE DAY the Mandate expired. Nobody will accuse the Middle East of being tactful.
Since then, actions on both sides have been more and more regrettable.
Oh. Missed the subject line that you didn't duplicate anywhere in the post. I don't change the subject 99% of the time on my posts so it's a blind spot.
I'm not going to deny that assembly CAN be faster, but my bullshit detector goes off whenever I hear somebody advocating using hand-tuned assembly as a general practice.
Have you heard of MenuetOS? I suppose the argument could be made that after 14 years, they have a leg up on HURD and ReactOS.
You could have replaced that entire comment with a single sentence just telling me your username. If I wanted to turn my brain to mush reading pages and pages and pages of fiddly assembly bits, I'd just read the link.
It's funny how every time we see an article like this, it eventually comes out in the comments that, as per standard Slashdot fare, the summary was a lie and you have to give the infection several permissions to get it to work. That's been the conclusion of literally every Linux infection article I've seen here for years (although admittedly I don't read every day), with the exception of Heartbleed I suppose.
On the other hand, having a monarch that in theory has the ability to veto any bill Parliament passes, but said privilege is in a Schroedinger state because they haven't exercised it since 1708 strikes me as a bit weird.
Is the U.K. a monarchy or a republic? Seems debatable.
(assuming since you said "bloody" you're from the UK)
Hence why I said "more or less declare war." They wanted to save face internationally while still maximizing their element of surprise, so they had to warn the U.S. without warning them.
Are you saying they further declared war "for real this time" later?
Well, technically under the Kellog-Briand Pact war itself is illegal, but I doubt the U.N. would make it illegal for you to warn the defender in advance.
Timeline of World War II (1939) -- #3 -- Britain and France both declared war on Germany. Apparently it was a final ultimatum which if not satisfied constituted war. I was under the impression if one or the other side declared it a war, the other side's opinion didn't really matter.
Another interesting note is that Japan actually sent a message for their ambassador to the U.S. to deliver to more or less declare war, that was supposed to be delivered 30 minutes before the planes hit Pearl Harbor for maximum surprise, but he couldn't transcribe it fast enough and didn't deliver the message until after the first wave hit. The U.S. et al. reciprocally declared war on Japan.
Dec 11, 1941 - "Germany and Italy declare war on the United States. The United States reciprocates and declares war on Germany and Italy."
Feel free to elaborate what you mean by either one of those flippant dismissals.
I said I didn't appreciate chest-thumping when it comes to international politics, you whined that I had picked you to reply to, and I said you were the worst offender present. Is that supposed to be the red herring or the strawman?
If former) You can't just label any opinion you don't like as a "red herring." Perhaps my observation wasn't strictly on-topic but your post basically boiled down to "my dick is bigger than Putin's." Foolish statements like that have led to many, many wars in history. If latter) See last sentence above.
If you're saying me dismissing your insistence that I "be objective" is killing a strawman, maybe that's because I don't understand what point you're trying to make, and I already applied my chest-thumping complaint to both you and the parent so I'm not even sure what we're arguing about in that case.
But hey, this is Slashdot, so if you can't reason your way out of a corner just starting hurling the names of fallacies at it until something sticks, right? You haven't tried begging the question, appeal to authority, or ad hominem yet; why don't you give those a shot.
Slashdot Mirror
Israel's ethnic cleansing is absolutely a genocide. They want to eliminate the Palestinians as a national group
Beg pardon? Ethnicity and nationality are two very different things. You can't call it ethnic cleansing if it isn't targeting an ethnicity. Google calls genocide "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation." So ethnic cleansing and national cleansing are both subsets of genocide (then you get into fun terminology twists like "religious vs. ethnic Jews"). For them to be the same thing requires that all the inhabitants of the country are the same ethnicity, and no significant populations of that ethnicity exist outside the country either.
Labeling it "genocide" supposes that the motivation of Israeli killing Palestinians is to wipe out the Palestinians as a group (can you have an "accidental genocide?"). I would think that their goal is instead to keep them suppressed so as to minimize their ability to hurt them (Israel), NOT to wipe them out. Although of course you will probably find hardliners in the population that think they *should* just wipe them all out.
Sorry about the pedantic hair-splitting, but this argument looks like it's swiftly degenerated into name-calling and moderation swing, so I'm trying to bring a little objective definition to the discussion.
Ah crap, replied to wrong comment.
Because Jews and Christians in all those other Muslim countries totally aren't second-class citizens. Nope.
The other choice that they "don't have" is not trying to wipe Israel off the map.
It has also probably killed more civilians than Hamas as its more powerful.
Wow, that's not wildly unsubstantiated or anything. Citation very much needed. Which side is the one that won't stop lobbing rockets over the border?
Are Palestinian Arabs a distinct ethnic group from those living a few miles away in e.g. Jordan? If not, calling it "genocide" seems about as accurate as the entire concept of racial superiority.
I have a hard time attacking the immigrants when they had to defend themselves from an Arab invasion literally THE DAY the Mandate expired. Nobody will accuse the Middle East of being tactful.
Since then, actions on both sides have been more and more regrettable.
Oh. Missed the subject line that you didn't duplicate anywhere in the post. I don't change the subject 99% of the time on my posts so it's a blind spot.
I'm not going to deny that assembly CAN be faster, but my bullshit detector goes off whenever I hear somebody advocating using hand-tuned assembly as a general practice.
Have you heard of MenuetOS? I suppose the argument could be made that after 14 years, they have a leg up on HURD and ReactOS.
You could have replaced that entire comment with a single sentence just telling me your username. If I wanted to turn my brain to mush reading pages and pages and pages of fiddly assembly bits, I'd just read the link.
Only a certain strata, I think. There are a lot of trolls who are welcome to stay here.
Which one of the posters in that link are we supposed to assume is you? I didn't see any APK's.
Hindsight is 20-20.
It's funny how every time we see an article like this, it eventually comes out in the comments that, as per standard Slashdot fare, the summary was a lie and you have to give the infection several permissions to get it to work. That's been the conclusion of literally every Linux infection article I've seen here for years (although admittedly I don't read every day), with the exception of Heartbleed I suppose.
angry fruit salad
Pseudo.
Not to be confused with sudo
You think that's bad, look at the Pipedot comment counts.
Soylent has its own problems, to be sure. Some of us just think that said different problems are not as bad as Slashdot's.
And, y'know, Soylent isn't owned by a media company trying to convert the site to cash.
On the other hand, having a monarch that in theory has the ability to veto any bill Parliament passes, but said privilege is in a Schroedinger state because they haven't exercised it since 1708 strikes me as a bit weird.
Is the U.K. a monarchy or a republic? Seems debatable.
(assuming since you said "bloody" you're from the UK)
"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to avoid 'too much democracy,'
So you admit we have some.
Hence why I said "more or less declare war." They wanted to save face internationally while still maximizing their element of surprise, so they had to warn the U.S. without warning them.
Are you saying they further declared war "for real this time" later?
Not if they find it to be manslaughter, no, not really.
In any language that conjugates nouns, sure. I would question whether that is really intentional, or just an artifact of the language, though.
Well, technically under the Kellog-Briand Pact war itself is illegal, but I doubt the U.N. would make it illegal for you to warn the defender in advance.
Timeline of World War II (1939) -- #3 -- Britain and France both declared war on Germany. Apparently it was a final ultimatum which if not satisfied constituted war. I was under the impression if one or the other side declared it a war, the other side's opinion didn't really matter.
Another interesting note is that Japan actually sent a message for their ambassador to the U.S. to deliver to more or less declare war, that was supposed to be delivered 30 minutes before the planes hit Pearl Harbor for maximum surprise, but he couldn't transcribe it fast enough and didn't deliver the message until after the first wave hit. The U.S. et al. reciprocally declared war on Japan.
Dec 11, 1941 - "Germany and Italy declare war on the United States. The United States reciprocates and declares war on Germany and Italy."
Feel free to elaborate what you mean by either one of those flippant dismissals.
I said I didn't appreciate chest-thumping when it comes to international politics, you whined that I had picked you to reply to, and I said you were the worst offender present. Is that supposed to be the red herring or the strawman?
If former) You can't just label any opinion you don't like as a "red herring." Perhaps my observation wasn't strictly on-topic but your post basically boiled down to "my dick is bigger than Putin's." Foolish statements like that have led to many, many wars in history.
If latter) See last sentence above.
If you're saying me dismissing your insistence that I "be objective" is killing a strawman, maybe that's because I don't understand what point you're trying to make, and I already applied my chest-thumping complaint to both you and the parent so I'm not even sure what we're arguing about in that case.
But hey, this is Slashdot, so if you can't reason your way out of a corner just starting hurling the names of fallacies at it until something sticks, right? You haven't tried begging the question, appeal to authority, or ad hominem yet; why don't you give those a shot.
good troll soup
No kidding.