Speaking of the red cross, how can you accept the fact that the red cross is begging for money in whole world to help the vitcim of the WTC while the US governement throw out 20 billions $ to "punish" ben laden?
Since when is it the United States government's responsibility to save the world?
Since the US and other rich countries created the problems. For centuries they used Africa as a slave pit. When France leave Algeria, there were one school in the whole country! It's the same everywhere. US use the man force of thousands of slaves to build its economy. It would the least thing to do to help countries from where the slave where coming.
War was the solution to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
And why? What's the price for this? How many dead people? The only reason for this war was for US to control the petrol in Kuwait. Not to help people.
Violence ended the violence of Serbia against Kosovo. That's why they used unranium-based weapon that now kill kosovars? That they bombed the Chinese ambassad, hospitals and all the power plants in the country? To help people?
the USA is not the demon some would like to portray us as.
Really?
* Hiroshima, Nagazaki: how many dead civilian?
* Vietnam war: same thing.
People still dying today in Vietnam from your napalm and nuclear weapons.
* Drest bombing: how many dead civilian?* Iraq bombing and embargo: same thing. In the worst hours, 3 children where dying each second because of US embargo.
* How many people killed and tortured by Pinochet and others dictators armed by the CIA? (same thing for Ben Laden, Talibans,...)
* How many innocent people sentenced to death by error?
* How can you justify USA that refused to sign treaties to forbid mines, chemical weapons, and to reduce polution
* USA don't respect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child by using death penalty against children (the minimum legal age to be sentenced to death is 14 in some states) and mentally deficient people
* People dying from starvation and lack of drugs everywhere in the world could be saved with only a little part of the military budget
And that's only of few items.
USA is not the only country to do so kind of things. I know that my country (France) is guilty of many crimes too. But when you see the number of people killed by USA, more or less directly, in less than 60 years, how can you still pretend USA is an humanitary country?
That's the problem... it doesn't matter what we do, the terrorists will still regard the U.S. as "The Great Satan".
For the most fanatic of them yes. But more US will behave as the master-of-the-world and more will they use bombs and weapons, more people will become anti-US fanatic.
Do you think they hate US without any reason?
The only way to stop this is to make it so that no country in the world will harbor and support terrorism
But terrorists don't need a country to act! Until you understand the real problems of the world, until US act in a less arrogant, selflish and imparialist way, terrorists will exist.
It's not by killing terrorists that you'll stop them. It's first by suppressing the reason that make people become terrorists.
And do you really think that Ben Laden is still in Kabul? Do you really think you'll be able to find him?
Bin Laden is spelt Ben Laden in french, and Iraq is often written Irak too (for both of them, it's arabic words that can't be really written in latin charset)
These are *international* laws, not simply US law. Individuals and corporations are allowed to patent their ideas and sell them.
That's false. In Europe, you can't patent *ideas*. And who make those kind of laws? USA and rich european countries. Other countries have only the right to shut up and follow. That's part of the problem: international laws are made by G8. Not by the whole world.
Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire, sometimes you get burned, and these are the results.
That's the problem. By fighting fire with fire, you just increase the fire. You can stop fire with fire. You can stop hate with bombs.
And not removing a cancer will kill the host.
Strange, the last time I heard exactly those words was in the mouth of Admiral Tolwyn in Wing Commander IV... You know the guy that use biologic weapons and say "the strong must survive" and other beautifull things like that.
By bombing Afghanistan, you won't stop the terrorists. You'll create new ones. You kill people, and appear to be even more evil for the local people. And they'll fight back the only way they can: terrorism.
WWII eliminated Nazi Germany.
And how did Hitler come to power in Germany? Because of WWI and the peace treaty that was too strict against germany. It's always the same: war lead to war.
Ben Laden invoked the 'Jihad' in his Fatwa, years before Bush uttered Crusade.
That's exactly what I'm saying: by bombing Afghanistan you act as the terrorists did. Bush you the same kind of words than Ben Laden, both of them use violence, hatred and bombs to try to solve problems.
That's why NATO use uranium-based weapon that make water undrinkable in the region? That's why they make people in Irak starve to death for 10 years with their economic blocus? That's why NATO supports countries like Turkey where Kurdish are killed just because they are Kurdish?
USA and NATO don't care about civilian damages as longs as it's not US citizens.
Are you joking?
US don't *give* anything. They ask for repayment after. Third-world countries spend so many money to repay their debt that they cannot build infrastructure and develop themselves.
And pharmaceutics groups that forbids poor countries to make their own drugs, because of patents?
And the CIA put dictators at the governement (just look at Pinochet or the Taliban), it isn't the US fault too?
USA don't even pay their national cotisations to UN...
The socialist protesters won't be happy until we feed every starving person in the world, at the expense of our own citizens and economy.
Do you know how many $ this war will cost? How many people could have been saved with just 1% of this money? Do you think their will be more terrorists against USA if USA give money to the poor or if they bomb a country?
unwilling to accept that any other point of view could contain a modicum of truth
Unwilling to accept that war is a solution? That violence can do anything else that creating more violence? Yes.
Who is calling for an holy war? For a "crusade"? Not me. It's George W. Bush.
And do you thing there really is a justice in US when a black accused to have killed a white has 4 times more risk to be sentenced to death than a white accused to kill a black?
If Ben Laden is juged in a US court, how many people in the jury will believe him to be guilty even before hearing the first proof? Do you this is justice?
In a case like that, only an international tribunal can judge. Else this won't be fair. The jury will be the same as the accusation.
The European Union chart forbids european countries to extrad people to country where death penalty is still active. (this rule, like many european rules, are not followed by every european countries, I know)
What will you do if a terrorist come to an european country? Will you bomb Paris or Berlin just because they would follow the European law?
And if Cuba or another "foe" of US ask for extradiction, will they obey?
USA is not the master of the world. They don't have the right to say: "this man is guilty, we have proof but don't want to show them, give him or we'll bomb you". There are international rules, an organisation called UN and so on.
First, the Taliban say they will give Ben Laden to US if the US government give them a proof of his culpability. It's normal. Of course I don't support Talibans, but there they are just following what is called laws and right.
Second, by bombing Afganhistan, it's not Ben Laden nor the Taliban that you kill, but the innocent people who are suffering from years due the Taliban terror.
What did happen when US bombed Irak? Innocent people were killed. Families were broken. And for the people in Irak, the ennemy was no longer the dictator Saddam Hussein but the US.
Didn't you learn from September the 11st? It's your "we-are-the-master-of-world" behavior that made those people act in a so stupid and inhuman way. By bombing Afghanistan, without a decision from the United Nations Organizations, you just create new terrorists, new fanatics all through the world. You give the Taliban a new argument to brain-wash the people living in the area.
By answering hate to hate, bomb to bomb, death to death you just increase the global hatred level, and so you create new fanatics. Not just speaking of the poor Afghan child who was at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Stop acting as the masters of the world. Stop killing people when it's your interset. Stop using hate to answer hate. Remember that the Taliban were armed and trained by the CIA. Remember that Ben Laden was a CIA agent. Remember that each day 35000 people die from hunger or poverty in the world, and that's the fault of USA, G8 and WTO. Fix those problem first, and terrorism will disappear.
First, ot was not a proof of the scalability of Mozilla, but of Bugzilla.
Second, you must notice that a "bug" for Bugzilla is not only a bug, it's also feature requests.
Remove all features requests, duplicates, and invalid bugs, and the number will drop very fast.
Third, it's not the number of actual bugs, but the number of bugs reported and fix since the start of the Mozilla project, long ago. And most of them are fixed today.
The problem with MS is not that they have thousands of bugs, is that they release products as stable with thousands of bugs. I'ld be interesting to see the number of bugs fixed by the IE team since IE 3.0 from IE 6.0, including all internal bugfixes on versions that were never released.
I don't know well windows programming, but are there a lot of differences between SDL and DirectX? Is SDL easy to develop with? Are there major functionalities in DX that are not in SDL?
Because SDL can use a lot of backends, it could be an interesting alternate solution.
So I ask you who know well these API: is there any reason for using DX instead of SDL, above the fact the SDL is not well-known by game designers?
Slashdot Mirror
Speaking of the red cross, how can you accept the fact that the red cross is begging for money in whole world to help the vitcim of the WTC while the US governement throw out 20 billions $ to "punish" ben laden?
Since when is it the United States government's responsibility to save the world?
Since the US and other rich countries created the problems. For centuries they used Africa as a slave pit. When France leave Algeria, there were one school in the whole country! It's the same everywhere. US use the man force of thousands of slaves to build its economy. It would the least thing to do to help countries from where the slave where coming.
War was the solution to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
And why? What's the price for this? How many dead people? The only reason for this war was for US to control the petrol in Kuwait. Not to help people.
Violence ended the violence of Serbia against Kosovo.
That's why they used unranium-based weapon that now kill kosovars? That they bombed the Chinese ambassad, hospitals and all the power plants in the country? To help people?
the USA is not the demon some would like to portray us as.
...)
Really?
* Hiroshima, Nagazaki: how many dead civilian?
* Vietnam war: same thing.
People still dying today in Vietnam from your napalm and nuclear weapons.
* Drest bombing: how many dead civilian?* Iraq bombing and embargo: same thing. In the worst hours, 3 children where dying each second because of US embargo.
* How many people killed and tortured by Pinochet and others dictators armed by the CIA? (same thing for Ben Laden, Talibans,
* How many innocent people sentenced to death by error?
* How can you justify USA that refused to sign treaties to forbid mines, chemical weapons, and to reduce polution
* USA don't respect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child by using death penalty against children (the minimum legal age to be sentenced to death is 14 in some states) and mentally deficient people
* People dying from starvation and lack of drugs everywhere in the world could be saved with only a little part of the military budget
And that's only of few items.
USA is not the only country to do so kind of things. I know that my country (France) is guilty of many crimes too. But when you see the number of people killed by USA, more or less directly, in less than 60 years, how can you still pretend USA is an humanitary country?
That's the problem... it doesn't matter what we do, the terrorists will still regard the U.S. as "The Great Satan".
For the most fanatic of them yes. But more US will behave as the master-of-the-world and more will they use bombs and weapons, more people will become anti-US fanatic.
Do you think they hate US without any reason?
The only way to stop this is to make it so that no country in the world will harbor and support terrorism
But terrorists don't need a country to act! Until you understand the real problems of the world, until US act in a less arrogant, selflish and imparialist way, terrorists will exist.
It's not by killing terrorists that you'll stop them. It's first by suppressing the reason that make people become terrorists.
And do you really think that Ben Laden is still in Kabul? Do you really think you'll be able to find him?
Bin Laden is spelt Ben Laden in french, and Iraq is often written Irak too (for both of them, it's arabic words that can't be really written in latin charset)
These are *international* laws, not simply US law. Individuals and corporations are allowed to patent their ideas and sell them.
That's false. In Europe, you can't patent *ideas*. And who make those kind of laws? USA and rich european countries. Other countries have only the right to shut up and follow. That's part of the problem: international laws are made by G8. Not by the whole world.
Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire, sometimes you get burned, and these are the results.
That's the problem. By fighting fire with fire, you just increase the fire. You can stop fire with fire. You can stop hate with bombs.
And not removing a cancer will kill the host.
Strange, the last time I heard exactly those words was in the mouth of Admiral Tolwyn in Wing Commander IV... You know the guy that use biologic weapons and say "the strong must survive" and other beautifull things like that.
By bombing Afghanistan, you won't stop the terrorists. You'll create new ones. You kill people, and appear to be even more evil for the local people. And they'll fight back the only way they can: terrorism.
WWII eliminated Nazi Germany.
And how did Hitler come to power in Germany? Because of WWI and the peace treaty that was too strict against germany. It's always the same: war lead to war.
Ben Laden invoked the 'Jihad' in his Fatwa, years before Bush uttered Crusade.
That's exactly what I'm saying: by bombing Afghanistan you act as the terrorists did. Bush you the same kind of words than Ben Laden, both of them use violence, hatred and bombs to try to solve problems.
Do you really think US helped Europe in an humanitary goal? Their only goal was to prevent communists to take over Europe.
civilian damange is attempted to be minimized
That's why NATO use uranium-based weapon that make water undrinkable in the region? That's why they make people in Irak starve to death for 10 years with their economic blocus? That's why NATO supports countries like Turkey where Kurdish are killed just because they are Kurdish? USA and NATO don't care about civilian damages as longs as it's not US citizens.
The US already supplies lots of humanitarian aid
Are you joking?
US don't *give* anything. They ask for repayment after. Third-world countries spend so many money to repay their debt that they cannot build infrastructure and develop themselves.
And pharmaceutics groups that forbids poor countries to make their own drugs, because of patents?
And the CIA put dictators at the governement (just look at Pinochet or the Taliban), it isn't the US fault too?
USA don't even pay their national cotisations to UN...
The socialist protesters won't be happy until we feed every starving person in the world, at the expense of our own citizens and economy.
Do you know how many $ this war will cost? How many people could have been saved with just 1% of this money? Do you think their will be more terrorists against USA if USA give money to the poor or if they bomb a country?
unwilling to accept that any other point of view could contain a modicum of truth
Unwilling to accept that war is a solution? That violence can do anything else that creating more violence? Yes.
Who is calling for an holy war? For a "crusade"? Not me. It's George W. Bush.
And do you thing there really is a justice in US when a black accused to have killed a white has 4 times more risk to be sentenced to death than a white accused to kill a black?
If Ben Laden is juged in a US court, how many people in the jury will believe him to be guilty even before hearing the first proof? Do you this is justice?
In a case like that, only an international tribunal can judge. Else this won't be fair. The jury will be the same as the accusation.
The European Union chart forbids european countries to extrad people to country where death penalty is still active. (this rule, like many european rules, are not followed by every european countries, I know)
What will you do if a terrorist come to an european country? Will you bomb Paris or Berlin just because they would follow the European law?
And if Cuba or another "foe" of US ask for extradiction, will they obey?
USA is not the master of the world. They don't have the right to say: "this man is guilty, we have proof but don't want to show them, give him or we'll bomb you". There are international rules, an organisation called UN and so on.
First, the Taliban say they will give Ben Laden to US if the US government give them a proof of his culpability. It's normal. Of course I don't support Talibans, but there they are just following what is called laws and right.
Second, by bombing Afganhistan, it's not Ben Laden nor the Taliban that you kill, but the innocent people who are suffering from years due the Taliban terror.
What did happen when US bombed Irak? Innocent people were killed. Families were broken. And for the people in Irak, the ennemy was no longer the dictator Saddam Hussein but the US.
Didn't you learn from September the 11st? It's your "we-are-the-master-of-world" behavior that made those people act in a so stupid and inhuman way. By bombing Afghanistan, without a decision from the United Nations Organizations, you just create new terrorists, new fanatics all through the world. You give the Taliban a new argument to brain-wash the people living in the area.
By answering hate to hate, bomb to bomb, death to death you just increase the global hatred level, and so you create new fanatics. Not just speaking of the poor Afghan child who was at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Stop acting as the masters of the world. Stop killing people when it's your interset. Stop using hate to answer hate. Remember that the Taliban were armed and trained by the CIA. Remember that Ben Laden was a CIA agent. Remember that each day 35000 people die from hunger or poverty in the world, and that's the fault of USA, G8 and WTO. Fix those problem first, and terrorism will disappear.
First, ot was not a proof of the scalability of Mozilla, but of Bugzilla.
Second, you must notice that a "bug" for Bugzilla is not only a bug, it's also feature requests.
Remove all features requests, duplicates, and invalid bugs, and the number will drop very fast.
Third, it's not the number of actual bugs, but the number of bugs reported and fix since the start of the Mozilla project, long ago. And most of them are fixed today.
The problem with MS is not that they have thousands of bugs, is that they release products as stable with thousands of bugs. I'ld be interesting to see the number of bugs fixed by the IE team since IE 3.0 from IE 6.0, including all internal bugfixes on versions that were never released.
I don't know well windows programming, but are there a lot of differences between SDL and DirectX? Is SDL easy to develop with? Are there major functionalities in DX that are not in SDL?
Because SDL can use a lot of backends, it could be an interesting alternate solution.
So I ask you who know well these API: is there any reason for using DX instead of SDL, above the fact the SDL is not well-known by game designers?