Smaller, lighter cars are fine in a crash with other smaller, lighter cars. But in the US the average vehicle is so heavy that the minority of people in the small cars would get squished like a pancake.
That is just nonsense. A small car can be much safer than a larger car, depending on the construction. Modern small cars use all kinds of smart tricks like: - Putting a bar in front of the engine so a non-100% frontal crash (like most are) will still use the entire front crumple zone. - Transferring the energy around the cabin, so the parts of the car that are behind you will crumple, while you are safe. - Moving the engine out of the way. The engine is a very heavy and inflexible part of the car that will get pushed into your lap during a crash. By leading it downward, it will go under you, and can move farther (and can thus be used more effectively for slow/survivable braking).
This is an example of a 'duel' between an big old car and a modern small car which shows the difference in practice:
Of course, a modern SUV or truck might be better designed than that old Volvo, although many SUVs and trucks seem to be fairly poorly designed for safety. For example, the most common cause of death when driving a SUV is rollovers (where your head is squished into the pavement), which is much less common in small cars. On the whole, big cars do tend to be a bit safer than small cars, but I doubt that you are much safer in a modern sedan or station wagon when compared to a SUV (when looking at death statistics that encompass all accident types). I wouldn't drive a Smart Fortwo in the US though (but I'm not comfortable driving that car in Europe either).
Plus US drivers seem to spend proportionately more time going at higher (highway) speeds (commutes in most other countries generally involve less highway). Particularly when they are generally used for city driving at speeds = 60 km/h anyway, you simply aren't likely to have any massively high energy impacts.
Europe isn't one big city, you know. There is plenty of highway with mostly 80-120 km/h speed limits and a lot of people use these for their commute. In my country, the roads are very heavily used and it is very hard to expand them because there is little room around them. As a result, the number of lanes available often changes for even the largest highways. So you get a lot of bottlenecks where speeds suddenly drop from 120 km/h to 0 km/h. It's no surprise that a lot of accidents happen at the end of the congestion.
Those roads always have central dividers, so head on collisions are not possible (unless someone goes against the traffic). However, plenty of 80 km/h roads do not have them. These roads usually have a lot of corners, so a badly timed overtake can cause a 160 km/h combined collision (although it probably doesn't matter what car you drive then). A lot of these roads are lined with trees and it's really no fun to drive 80 km/h into a tree.
Because of the heavy traffic and fairly dangerous road situation, there is a fairly big focus on safety. However, most Europeans understand that a small car can be quite safe. They also have to consider parking space, which is more limited in Europe; and fuel costs, which are much higher.
Wow, I am surprised they fired him for it. Contrary to all the flak the movie has been getting by many who have seen it, he was all gung ho about the movie.
I think that the problem was that the review said that you didn't miss anything by downloading the workprint. He probably would have been ok if he kept the gushing comments about the movie, but had said that you miss a lot by seeing the pirated movie.
That is the exact reasoning that has resulted in genocide in so many countries. Killing 'them' before they can kill you. Regardless of the fact that while you like to pretend that 'them' is some clearly defined and identifiable group of pure evil bastards, in reality there is a huge gray area of people who simply try to survive or have legitimate grievances that are ignored (for example, because their innocent family was murdered). This reasoning at best results in impossible objectives for the troups, part of whom start to simplify the mission: murder as many of 'the others' as possible. The result is that the opposition sees you as pure evil bastards and peace becomes impossible.
The alternative is to just go after the people who wronged you. Just like with domestic law enforcement, that means that some crimes cannot be solved and the criminals will go free. That is the price we pay for being relatively safe from being prosecuted for crimes we didn't commit. In war the same principle applies, when we act moderately, we can make peace with the large majority of 'them', which is the best way to safeguard ourselves and our families.
So when a researcher needs to create his own software to answer a particular question, is he free to release the code under the GPL or should he ask for the university lawyer before? If his software uses GPL library, I suppose the question is already answered: the software has to be under GPL. Am I correct?
No, first you need to find out who has the right to distribute the software. If you don't own the code, you may not have the right to do so. If you don't, you will need to get permission. However, if the software uses GPL libraries, the possibilities are limited. The only options are: 1. Release as GPL 2. Do not release 3. (Partial) rewrite to remove the GPL dependencies
If you want do option 1, you need to have the right to do so. If you do not own the copyright, you can secure the right by asking permission or by having a clause in your research contract. You may also have been implicitly granted permission. For example, if the university owns the software, but previously another researcher has released the software he created as open source without asking and the university later found out and accepted this without any reprimand, it can be argued that you are following university policy when doing the same. Of course, a lawyer is never going to advise you follow an implicit policy and in a conflict situation, you would need to convince the judge that this policy exists. However, it can be a rather solid defense in a conflict situation (if your fellow researcher can give you some emails with proof or such).
It also depends on the nature of the software. Software that is needed to replicate/verify your research is quite different from software that implements your theories for general use. A whole different class is software that you use to manage references or another tangential purpose that has no direct connection with the research. If the software is crucial to the research, it can be argued that releasing the source is no different from writing a paper or releasing research data. For example, various mathematical theories have only been proven by software. It makes no sense to write a paper claiming you proved the theory, without releasing the proof, which is the software + source. So in court, the judge will probably decide that you have the right to open source the software, as a normal part of your work. These proof applications are a small niche of software created by researchers though. It is more common to create software for general use that implements your theories (ie. a modelling tool using your newly invented modelling language). It is also common to use the experiences with the tool for a paper, however generally others can reimplement your tool based on all the information that you published (the modelling language specs, in the example I gave). So it would probably be difficult to argue in court that you need to release the tool as part of your normal research duties. The third category, tangentially related software tends to be relatively small tools or changes to existing software that fall through the cracks. As long as it stays small, you can nearly always get away with open sourcing it without asking. Universities are keen to profit from the actual research itself, but making money on fairly generic tools that help researchers is not on their agenda. This is for good reasons, since it makes little financial sense to sell software to other universities.
No, what he wrote is that he deliberately uses GPL libraries to make sure that the software has to be licensed under the GPL if it is distributed as is, even if there are better alternative libraries using other (suitable) licenses. That in itself is unprofessional and abusive to the employer (you are usually being paid to create good software, not to push a personal agenda).
If he was honest with the owner of the code, there would be no need to limit himself to GPL'ed libraries. You can create a project using BSD libraries only and still release it as GPL. Of course, you won't be forced to (or more accurately in this case, forcing the employer), so it will be up to the programmer to convince the employer using arguments. Clearly the GGP isn't sure that he can convince the employer, so he resorts to dishonesty.
Why not be honest and professional by putting a GPL, open source or employee code ownership clause in the contract, if you feel so strongly about this issue? Then both parties know what to expect from each other. If you accept a contract that states that the code is owned by the organization, you cannot later turn around and undercut that contract. Of course, if you signed that contract, you can still use GPL libraries in your software if those libraries are better than the alternatives and the employer accepts the consequences. Alternatively, talk to the employer and convince them of open sourcing the software.
being a derivative means it's GPL whether I technically own it or not.
No, it's not. You can freely combine GPL and proprietary code as long as you do not distribute the software. So the university can always choose to rewrite that 5% and license the code under whatever license they choose. If you release the software illegally, to try and bind the university to the GPL obligation to provide the source, you are guilty of illegal distribution of copyrighted material and the university is under no obligation to honor the GPL. In that case you could be sued by the university for illegal distribution of copyrighted material and by the people you gave the software to, for failing to uphold the GPL license (since you do not have the right to distribute the source, as you are obliged to). If they find this post of yours or similar statements made by you, they can also sue you for fraud, since you effectively tried to make them give their rights away, by using deception.
It is an interesting case what happens when you use deceptive practices to make the university release the software with GPL components. In many ways, it's like slipping drugs into the bag of a traveler without them knowing. They are completely innocent of any willful crime, but in practice courts tend to sentence them hashly, even when their arguments are reasonable, unless there is a confession by the person who planted the drugs (or other hard evidence). However, courts tend to be far more lenient to organisations than to individuals, so they can probably get out of trouble by simply no longer distributing the software.
PS. IANAL, so this could all be wrong;) PS2. By trying to abuse the GPL to violate the law, you are not doing the Free Software movement any favors. If someone tries to follow your scheme, gets into a conflict with the organization they work for and the resulting mess gets highly publicized, organizations will start equating the GPL with loss of IP, theft and fraud. Is that what you want?
I still think that is wrong. There is very little influence most workers have on the minimum time between stepping on the company grounds and actually starting to work. The distance to the workplace, the security systems and the time it takes to boot the computer are all determined by the employer. Why should a worker be responsible when the important decisions are all made by the employer? If you cannot start at an arbitrary time, IMO you should be paid from the latest moment where you can still make the shift. So if it takes at least 10 minutes from arriving at the company gate to being ready for work, you should also be paid for those 10 minutes before the shift starts (and the same at the end of the day).
The daily commute is different, because companies generally cannot reasonably alter their employees travel times in most cases, while employees can. So it is reasonable that employees are responsible for the time traveling to the company gate/door.
Are you equally sickened by the French attitude towards Americans? As a recent example I recall one of their Ministers saying something about how "Anglo-Saxon capitalism" was responsible for the current economic crisis. From my vantage point a comment like that goes back to the whole cultural inferiority complex that they seem to have regarding all things English and/or American.
Anglo-Saxon capitalism (or the more common name, the Anglo-Saxon model) is a style of capitalism that is shared by the UK, US, New Zealand and partially by Ireland and Australia, so it's just a descriptive term. It refers to a small-government, low-regulation, low-taxes, limited-redistributed economy with weak unions and a very limited safety net for the unemployed. It results in relatively high growth and low unemployment, but also in high income inequality (with "working poor"), big swings in the economy and a lack of recognition of worker rights.
Alternatives to the Anglo-Saxon model are the Nordic model, Rhineland model and Mediterranean Model. Different parts of Europe use different models, with varying levels of regulation, taxation, redistribution, union power, wellfare, pension benefits, etc. All of them have more market regulation than the Anglo-Saxon model, the lack of which is seen as a major reason for the current crisis. So the Anglo-Saxon model is being criticized for that reason.
In other words, the criticism by the French minister is aimed at the rules that allowed this crisis to happen, not at the English or Americans personally.
I traveled through Italy a few years ago. Almost without fail every single time we ran into French people they started muttering under their breaths about "those Americans". Are we really so offensive that the mere sight of us justifies that type of behavior?
Most countries in the world are stereotyped by other countries, based on their culture. These generalisations are very sensible, since they do reflect the behaviour by people from those countries, on the whole. For instance, if a Chinese person answers 'perhaps' to a question, it probably means 'no'. If a German says 'perhaps', he probably has to ponder the question longer. These are cultural differences in attitude and the use of language that exist and cannot be ignored in interhuman contact. Of course, like all generalisations, they may not hold for individuals. The stereotypes are also relative to the culture of the person that holds the stereotype and historical events.
Tourists are typically ignorant of many of the behaviour patterns that make them stand out from the local population, some of which may be considered to be offensive. Typically, expats and more culturally sensitive tourists feel embarrassed over the behaviour by their countrymen, because many tourists tend to stick out like a sore thumb. Some cultures make for very bad tourists, like the British, whose binge drinking followed by anti-social behaviour is often offensive to the locals. Americans are also often considered bad tourists, since they like to cram a lot of 'culture' in their limited vacation time (staying only a short time in one location) and do not prepare that much beforehand. The result is that do not have time to understand how to fit into the local culture, which makes them seem ignorant and shallow, which feeds a stereotype. They also do not like to experiment with foreign food and prefer US chains, which are considered unhealthy and unsophisticated, feeding other stereotypes. I could go on, but I hope that you understand that stereotypes and negative feelings towards tourists from certain countries are based on real behaviour.
When people actually conform to their stereotype, there is a tendency to say things like "Sigh, Americans:roll-eyes:" or "Bloody French". That every French person you met had such a strong reaction to you, indicates to me that you were acting very offensively, even though you might not have noticed.
You are confusing risk acceptance with intelligence. As the roads have clogged, drivers have decreased the distance between cars to use the roads more efficiently. This more than makes up for the increased accident risk (when calculated in average travel time per driver). During bad-weather conditions, people actually leave 2 second gaps (or bigger) and the congestion increases greatly. You also have to keep in mind that it is extremely rare for the car just in front of you to brake to a complete halt without anything happening in front of him. So if you can see ahead, you have longer to respond.
When you say that 'losing 3/4 a second for focus redirection is not a big deal when you drive safely,' that also means that you can get 3/4 of a second closer to the car in front of you if you decide to actually pay attention while driving. That includes not using your phone at all and completely shutting off any conversation with passengers unless the road situation is very safe (and you are leaving a big enough gap).
PS. If you really cared about your safety, you would use public transport. Driving a car 'safely' is a gazillion times more dangerous than being a bus or train passenger. So it seems that you are also sacrificing you safety (for decreased travel times?). So it seems that you are not so different from those 'raging idiots'.
We could take those IOU's and redeem them for cash. Were does that money come from? Well, since we don't have an actual reserve, we would just print it. Instant inflation, devaluing the dollar and devaluing their own portfolios.
Sure, but the consequence would be that the countries and inviduals who have dollars will exchange them for other currency, so the value of the dollar will drop like a stone. That means that oil prices in dollars will go through the roof. This will continue until American products become cheap enough for other countries to import. Of course, that won't happen if the prices rise as much as inflation, so cutbacks will have to be made (fewer jobs and lower salaries for US workers).
So, who are they going to trade them to? The US? And do what - buy bonds?/sarcasm Or are they just going to burn them then? As soon as they try buying stuff in the US, prices will be driven up. If they don't buy from the US, what are they going to do with the money?
Instead of buying goods, they may buy American companies or land. Countries from the middle east are doing the first already. Of course, they do not have the manpower to run them in their own country, so they keep them in the US (fortunately enough for US workers). China might not be so kind. Alternatively, by buying land, China could gain control of America's natural resources. Of course, you can also think big and sell a state (Alaska?).
This growing inequality is not just a figment of imagination and sooner or later must be addressed, but I'm not sure the "system shock" method is viable.
It doesn't really matter if it's viable or not if debt is too big already. It may still be possible to deflate the bubble gently, but the signs aren't good. The Chinese are no longer content with collecting debt paper. They might just buy out American companies and move them over lock, stock and barrel to China (except for the US workers of course). The result could be 50% unenployment and a collapse of the US economy.
I guess you have never driven a manual, because that doesn't make sense. A basic automatic is a disadvantage when you want to accelerate quickly, because it will shift for you, keeping your revs low (unless the gearbox is in a hyper-agressive sport mode, which would be unlikely). In a manual you will either accelerate up to the rev limit or more likely, drop a gear quickly first. The latter will allow you to accelerate far quicker and will almost always more than make up for the time lost while shifting. Assuming you don't have a severely underpowered car, it's highly unlikely that you will need to shift up at all before you have gotten to safety, since you can get a lot of speed out of one gear if you are not concerned with fuel economy and engine noise.
I suggest you ask a friend with a manual to demonstrate this when you are in his car and traffic is low. Ask him to accelerate quickly in the same gear from a somewhat slow speed (20-30 mph under the speed limit or so), without shifting up or down. Notice that you'll probably hit the speed limit long before the rev limiter. Then drop down back to the starting speed and gear and have him drop a gear before accelerating. You should notice far quicker acceleration, but you'll probably still won't hit the rev limiter before the speed limit. You can also ask him to accelerate like a automatic for comparison, shifting at the same time as an automatic would. If you ignore the shift times, you'll notice that the acceleration is far slower after an upshift than when you revved the engine.
PS. Theoretically, you can get the quickest acceleration in a dual-clutch semi-automatic gearbox with paddles. If the lower gear is already pre-selected, you can get a nearly instantaneous downshift, followed by a uninterrupted acceleration until the rev limit. Of course, that only works if the gearbox computer allows these things, which is highly uncertain.
Actually, particulate filters that trap and "burn off" diesel particulate have been around since the 1980's--Mercedes-Benz had them on US-market 300D's and 300SD's.
Those 300D/SD filters quickly clogged up and were abandoned soon after introduction. The first modern particulate filter on a production car was introduced in 2000. It's unreasonable to expect all other manufacturers to immediatly be able to produce state of the art technology in 2000, when clearly only one car manufacturer had the technology. Also, you need to keep in mind that many economy cars in Europe use diesel, so the price of the filter is important too. The 2000 car was a top of the line model, where an expensive filter could be used. For economy cars, the price of the filter needs to be much lower before it can reasonably be mandated.
I think the EU should have adopted mandatory use of particulate filters for diesel-powered automobiles as far back as 2000, just when diesel-fuelled automobiles started to increase in popularity. That would have avoided a lot of the sooty air you're getting nowadays in European cities with so many diesel cars on the streets.
The German car makers had no investment in soot filters at the time, so they were unable or at least unwilling to switch over that soon. Euro 4 was supposed to enforce the introduction of filters in 2005 by halving the particulate limits, but car makers managed to stay below those limits by adapting their engines. That's why it took until Euro 5 (2009).
I do know that all motor fuels in the USA have to meet the maximum 15 parts per million standard for sulfur compounds very soon; that may finally make it possible to use advanced deNOx catalytic converters, which will allow for the use of direct-injection gasoline engines with lean-burn operation (which can improve fuel economy as much as 8%).
2010 is not 'very soon', IMHO. In West Europe, 10 ppm max diesel will be available almost everywhere in 2009 (most Eastern European countries in the EU have exceptions so they can switch over later).
That may be true, but the generic EPA standards are biased towards petrol. Petrol engines spew a lot of hydrocarbons, such as benzene. If the situation would be reversed, where 99% of americans are using diesel, petrol would have a hard time meeting the (diesel-based) emissions standard.
In Europe, particulate filters will become mandatory for new car models in 2009 (Euro 5) and cars without may only be sold until 2011. The NOx limits will also be tightened, but will still be 2.5x higher than for petrol cars. In 2014+ (Euro 6) the NOx limit for diesel will almost be the same as for petrol. That limit is about halfway between Tier 2 Bin 8 and Tier 2 Bin 5. That should be achievable without urea, with a NOx catalyst.
In the US, all diesel will be low sulfur in late 2010 (it's already mandatory in California). That will allow for low NOx cars such as the BlueTec to be sold everywhere.
The situation in Israel is more like an abused woman who moves to a new apartment to get away from her husband who beat her. Her new neighbors say "hey, we are into this sadomasochism thing too! Let's slap that bitch around!" Only to find that she has taken self-defense training and got a gun and learned to shoot.
Your analogy totally ignores the innocent Palestianians who are victim of this situation. Most Palestinians aren't terrorists and yet they are being punished by Israel. To extend your analogy: is it OK for the abused woman to beat her children?
When the old Palestine British protectorate was divided by the United Nations in the 1940s, the smaller Jewish part was named Israel and the larger part of the territory was named Jordan. "Palestine" is actually Jordan.
No. The British controlled the region after the first world war, but they very soon split the region into Palestine and (wat later was called) Jordan. The League of Nations agreed with this split and decreed that the Jewish state was to be placed in Palestine (and thus not in Jordan). In 1947, the UN decided on a two state solution in (what was then) Palestine. In other words, they decided that there would be three seperate entities: a Jewish state in Palestine, an Arab state in Palestine and Jordan.
It's true that Jordan tried to annex the West Bank, but they agreed in 1974 that the West Bank was not part of Jordan. Gaza was never claimed by Jordan.
[...]in september 1970, the "Black September", a faction of the Jordanians tried to overthrow the government and failed. That faction are the people now known as "Palestinians".
Wrong, Palestinian nationalists were living in Jordan (many of whom were refugees from Palestine) and did indeed try to overthrow the Jordan government, after which they were kicked out. They were not Jordan citizens for the most part. After they were kicked out, Black September was formed as an terrorist organisation within Fatah/PLO. The majority of the people that we call Palestinians never lived in Jordan and were never part of Black September.
When Egypt sat down to negotiate and recognized the right of Israel to exist, they got back all the territory they had lost in the wars against Israel. If Syria and Jordan wished to negotiate, they would probably get the same results Egypt did.
Perhaps you missed the memo, but Jordan has been at peace with Israel and fully recognizes their sovereignty since 1994. However, both Syria and Jordan have fairly little to do with this particular conflict. Israel and the Palestinians do not need permission from those countries to resolve the conflict.
Pulling out completely would be fairly exceptional, so Obama's statement is not redundant or hollow. It is also in direct conflict with McCain's position, who wants permanent bases in Iraq.
Somewhat correct. The Oslo accords have many milestones along the path to Palestinian statehood, such as the ending of violent attacks on Israeli civilians. This hasn't happened.
Wrong, both parties are responsible for preventing violence against the other side. That also includes violence by israeli's against palestinians (which has never ceased either). Common sense dictates that this is a best effort responsibility (the actual treaty doesn't specify this explicitly, but the text doesn't make sense if this isn't the case).
Civilian casualties are an unavoidable part of armed conflict.
The problem is that Israel and Hamas continue to see this as an armed conflict, when it should be a peace process. In the case of Israel, there is a pathological desire to control the palestinians, which makes peace impossible and gives legitimacy to the resistance (and thus keeps strengthening it). There is simply no way the peace process can work unless restrictions are lifted so the palestinians can have jobs, travel freely and improve their lives in general.
The only way that peace can happen is when there is an agreement with the major palestinian factions (Fatah and Hamas). In the case of Hamas, only a temporary cease fire is needed (which they are willing to accept). Then major and quick improvements to the lives of ordinary palestinians need to be made: - Removing road blocks permanently - Sharing water fairly (allowing for more farming) - Allowing palestinians to use the roads in palestinian territories (even when they connect settlements) - Allowing palestinians to build houses - Allowing palestinians to work their lands, even when those are close to settlements - Allowing more palestinians to work in Israel - Opening the border with Egypt - Building a harbor in Gaza - Removing some settlements (especially those that divide palestinian territories the most)
Funds from Europe and the US can pay for the harbor and for some of the housing costs. A huge number of jobs will be created and palestinians will finally see the advantages of peace that they were promised so often, but that never materialized. This will greatly reduce the support for the resistance, which will force Hamas to choose: shrink to 1/10 their current size or 'extend' the cease fire. I'm confident the large majority of Hamas will choose the latter (they profit from the economic growth as well and want their flat screen TV's). There will probably be a small offshoot (like the Real IRA in Ireland), which will be small and can be eradicated over time with hard police work.
Most importantly though, Israel needs to accept that minor factions will use the freedoms to attack Israel/israeli's. Israel might face its most devastating terrorist attack it has ever seen, just like the Omagh bombing was the worst in Ireland's history. At that point, the international community should condemn that attack en masse and force Hamas to fully commit to the peace process by bringing all those involved to justice. It's unfortunate that this will (and probably has to) happen, but in the long run it will save more lives than simply carrying on like this with casualties every year.
On the other hand, the goal of Hamas is to cause as many civilian casualties as possible.
Actually, the violence used by Hamas is a means, not an end. For instance, one of their tactics is too kidnap israeli soldiers, which is a pretty poor tactic if you want to kill civilians, but a very good one if you want to trade the soldiers for prisoners. The goal of a peace process should be to make it in everyone's best interest not to use violence. That requires several skills which seem to be in short supply in the region right now, such as empathy and thinking ahead.
Israeli soldiers do not hide among civilians. They are uniformed, clearly identifiable and subject to command & control by the government. Compare & contrast with Hamas.
That is the difference between a resistance movement and a
The prime reason is that in the late 1940s the Arabs refused the UN partition plan which would have created two states, one arab and one israeli, with international status for jerusalem (hey, that sounds familiar, I heard it recently), and declared war. That war has not yet ended.
The palestinians have accepted a two-state solution (Oslo Accords) and so have the arab nations (Arab Peace Initiative). What happened in the 40's is not that relevant, because we cannot change the past. We can choose to take steps towards peace today and in the future. Unfortunately, too many people are coming up with excuses why they cannot make peace, instead of taking the painful steps towards a solution.
The IDF operates to protect the citizens of Israel...
According to international law, the IDF is also responsible for protecting palestinian civilians and guaranteeing their human rights. Unfortunately, they do not and allow settlers to freely attack palestinians. They also harass palestinians and disallow travel. The harassment and lack of jobs are excellent breeding grounds for the resistance. The policy of settlement expansions/ethnic cleansing executed in part by the IDF has resulted in large settlements that have greatly jeopardized the viability of a two-country solution.
I recall recently when Hamas sent 6000 rockets randomly into Israel
According to Israel, it's acceptable to murder citizens that are in the vicinity of Hezbollah or Hamas members, when the rockets the IDF uses have limited accuracy. We know that Hamas' rockets are very crude and can only be aimed for a certain town. I think that pretty much every town in Israel will have (reserve) soldiers living there, so the attacks are on military targets (who 'hide' among civilians, to use the israeli jargon). I'm perfectly willing to condemn the rocket attacks, but don't pretend that Israel is not doing the same thing.
The proportionate response would have been to send 6000 rockets randomly into Gaza.
Look up the number of palestinian civilians that are killed every year vs the number of israeli civilians and then get back to me on 'proportionality.'
Violent attacks by Arabs is not the bogeyman, they are all too real.
One of the reasons why there is no peace agreement yet is that Israel has always 'rewarded' the attackers by stopping the peace process after an attack. The result is that a minority can hold 4 million people hostage. That weakens those who want peace, because they cannot show results. The election of Hamas is a good example of what happens next.
It depends. If I am scheduled for an operation that two out of three people survive, I might disagree. Similarly, I might not want to submit to all the arbitrary rules and regulations of various religions on such flimsy evidence. Instead, I might want to be 'free' (or more accurately: guided by MY conscience).
As for offering proof, I don't need to. I'm not the wrong making the accusations, I was answering them.
Actually, you were arguing that atheists are wrong because most people believe they are (and presumably believe in God). That sounds like an accusation to me. I was responding to that allegation.
Of course starting a religion in this day and age makes you look like a kook but who is counting. It has been seen for a while where some people are attempting to use Science as a religion which is just as kooky.
Why would that be kooky? You seem to believe that a religion is best (or can even be proven) if it matches science closely. So the best 'religion' is science itself, without believing in God (unless you can prove he exists). Of course, that's not a religion at all, because you don't have strong beliefs in unproven 'facts'.
Also, I don't know any actual science religions. Scientology and the Raëlian Church are sci-fi religions, so they believe in scientific sounding bullshit, not in actual science.
And I hope you are smart enough to know that the lack of anything doesn't disprove anything. Do you understand this concept? IF you have no evidence supporting or denying something, you aren't in a position to make an authorative statement one way or another.
I never said that I believe that God doesn't exist. I simply don't believe that God exists. The people who are making the authoritive statements without evidence are the religious people, not the atheists.
As for the interference, I'm not sure I have heard any claims of GODLY interference. Perhaps you could elaborate on them some more.
Most religions state that God interacts with us and can cause material changes, such as miracles. Many Christians claim that prayer can help sick people recover, for instance. Claims like that can be tested through science.
To the Facts, what facts have been discredited?
Genesis in the Bible:
God creates night (dark) and day (light). A few days later God created the sun. This makes no sense at all, because daytime happens to the part of earth that is directed towards the sun. Without the sun there would be no day(light), so how can the sun be created after the seperation into days and nights?
The Bible states that the stars are created after the earth. This cannot be true according to science (the matter that makes up planets has to have been created in a star).
Earth and the universe were created in 6 days according to the Bible. Cosmology has very strong evidence that it took almost 14 billion years.
Koran:
Creation took 6 days. Same objection as above.
King Solomon listens to ants talk. Ants do not have the mental or physical capacity to articulate the sentences that are recorded in the Koran.
Mountains were supposedly created to prevent earthquakes. However, mountains do no such thing.
But more importantly, the sun and the moon standing still while "the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies" could be more of a metaphoric statement then an actual accounting.
Fine. But when you start to interpret religious texts so that it matches science, you cannot argue that correct facts in religious texts are proof. That would require the possibility of the text not matching science, which is impossible when you can always just change your interpretation.
Actually, no I haven't. It is reasonably established that when everyone else is saying your wrong, you are generally the one who is wrong. If you have a hard time understanding that, then you have a severe disconnect with reality.
There is absolutely no guarantee that conventional wisdom is true. For instance, conventional wisdom is that the McDonalds coffee burn lawsuit was frivolous, which is not true (if you actually look at the details of the case). I agree that conventional wisdom is true more often than not, so it's not unreasonable to hold it as true until you actually judge the arguments/evidence yourself. However, that is simply laziness (because we can't be bothered to actually look at the evidence) and you should recognize it as such. You certainly can't use your unwillingness to come up with actual evidence as proof.
Also, there is a great diversity among religions. For instance, not all religions believe in a monotheistic God. For the ones that do, the 'definition' of their God may vary a great deal, ranging from a personal God that (may) answer your prayers to an all-encompassing abstract God (Pantheism). I don't think that conventional wisdom is particularly trustworthy when there is so much diversity. It's not like 80% of the world population has exactly the same beliefs concerning religion.
There are stories that have been validated by geological finds, there are certain facts of different books that have been proven to of been true, there are facets of different religions that bring the same undisputed elements to the table.
Here is my 'provable' religion:
I believe that God created dinosaurs in the Triassic period and killed them off in the Cretaceous period. God looks like a bowl of spaghetti.
Now, I hope you can agree that the geological facts in my 'religion' do not prove that God looks like a bowl of spaghetti. Similarly, the existence of facts in religious books does not mean that God actually exists. To prove that, you need to find evidence for God. Until now, science has found no such proof. On the contrary, claims of interference by God in the world of matter have been disproven time and again. Also, many facts provided by religious texts turned out to be false after scientific examination.
No where in any of the bibles does it say everything revolves around the earth, that was solely a conscript of man.
In Joshua 10:12-14, the Bible says that the sun stopped and thus didn't go down. This is nonsense, because for the sun not to go down, the earth has to stop. The verse only makes sense if the writer believed that the sun revolved around the earth. The catholic church believed this for a very long time, until science proved this incorrect. Of course, now the catholic church simply ignores the verse.
The ability to stand hot weather without airco depends on many factors: - Genetics and physical shape, some people cope with the heat much better than others. - Hot, windy and dry weather is much easier to deal with than hot, humid weather with no wind. - Housing construction. I worked in an old church for a summer. The 1 meter thick walls kept it cooler than most airconditioned homes. In contrast, at my university there was a building that would cook the people inside at 75 deg F. - Cultural factors. People who grew up in a fairly hot climate take things easier and adapt to the heat. In some countries there is a siesta. In Iraq people sleep on their roofs.
Personally I prefer 70 deg F weather, which is a good temperature to: - Sleep comfortably - Not to have to wear too many clothes - Ride a bike to work or engage in other physical activities
We still receive spam to user accounts that were deleted years ago.
For any such e-mail accounts here that get much spam, we start filtering on those accounts and automatically add every server sending even one e-mail to any of those accounts to a 24 hour blacklist.
A normal email may very well be sent to an old email address. The address may come from a website that hasn't been updated in ages, from a contact list or even a business card. Wouldn't it be smarter to set up a few honey pots, where you deliberately put the address on a website (hidden for normal users) and use it to sign up for some free offers.
For one of my courses the professor wanted to use his new text book that had just been published, but he was embarrassed at the high price. He encouraged us to pirate the PDF version of the book. I think he got shafted by the book publisher, since he told us that he didn't actually get paid that much for every book sale.
The problem with that excuse is that the (expected) number of casualties is a very important factor in the willingness for politicians to start and continue wars. Improved armament results in: - More wars started and continued for a longer time. - More civilian casualties (who don't get the nice body armor) and aren't counted by US politicians or most of the voters. - More wounded US soldiers. Improved body armor has reduced fatalities, but not wounds to extremities. In the Vietnam war, the ratio of death vs wounded was 1:5, in Iraq it is 1:7. Assuming that politicians only care about the number of fatalities, it's likely that the number of killed soldiers will stay at about the same, 'acceptable' levels, while the number of wounded soldiers will go up.
You might argue that many armament improvements can reduce the risk to civilians, but often there are side effects which negate that improvement. The most glaring example is that due to the advanced weaponry, few opponents are willing to engage the US military openly. Guerilla warfare, (suicide) bombings and terrorist attacks, which are used as an alternative to open warfare, all increase the number of civilian casualties greatly.
Slashdot Mirror
Smaller, lighter cars are fine in a crash with other smaller, lighter cars. But in the US the average vehicle is so heavy that the minority of people in the small cars would get squished like a pancake.
That is just nonsense. A small car can be much safer than a larger car, depending on the construction. Modern small cars use all kinds of smart tricks like:
- Putting a bar in front of the engine so a non-100% frontal crash (like most are) will still use the entire front crumple zone.
- Transferring the energy around the cabin, so the parts of the car that are behind you will crumple, while you are safe.
- Moving the engine out of the way. The engine is a very heavy and inflexible part of the car that will get pushed into your lap during a crash. By leading it downward, it will go under you, and can move farther (and can thus be used more effectively for slow/survivable braking).
This is an example of a 'duel' between an big old car and a modern small car which shows the difference in practice:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3ygYUYia9I
Of course, a modern SUV or truck might be better designed than that old Volvo, although many SUVs and trucks seem to be fairly poorly designed for safety. For example, the most common cause of death when driving a SUV is rollovers (where your head is squished into the pavement), which is much less common in small cars. On the whole, big cars do tend to be a bit safer than small cars, but I doubt that you are much safer in a modern sedan or station wagon when compared to a SUV (when looking at death statistics that encompass all accident types). I wouldn't drive a Smart Fortwo in the US though (but I'm not comfortable driving that car in Europe either).
Plus US drivers seem to spend proportionately more time going at higher (highway) speeds (commutes in most other countries generally involve less highway). Particularly when they are generally used for city driving at speeds = 60 km/h anyway, you simply aren't likely to have any massively high energy impacts.
Europe isn't one big city, you know. There is plenty of highway with mostly 80-120 km/h speed limits and a lot of people use these for their commute. In my country, the roads are very heavily used and it is very hard to expand them because there is little room around them. As a result, the number of lanes available often changes for even the largest highways. So you get a lot of bottlenecks where speeds suddenly drop from 120 km/h to 0 km/h. It's no surprise that a lot of accidents happen at the end of the congestion.
Those roads always have central dividers, so head on collisions are not possible (unless someone goes against the traffic). However, plenty of 80 km/h roads do not have them. These roads usually have a lot of corners, so a badly timed overtake can cause a 160 km/h combined collision (although it probably doesn't matter what car you drive then). A lot of these roads are lined with trees and it's really no fun to drive 80 km/h into a tree.
Because of the heavy traffic and fairly dangerous road situation, there is a fairly big focus on safety. However, most Europeans understand that a small car can be quite safe. They also have to consider parking space, which is more limited in Europe; and fuel costs, which are much higher.
Wow, I am surprised they fired him for it. Contrary to all the flak the movie has been getting by many who have seen it, he was all gung ho about the movie.
I think that the problem was that the review said that you didn't miss anything by downloading the workprint. He probably would have been ok if he kept the gushing comments about the movie, but had said that you miss a lot by seeing the pirated movie.
The column has been purged from Google's cache as well, but not before someone took a screenshot of it.
That is the exact reasoning that has resulted in genocide in so many countries. Killing 'them' before they can kill you. Regardless of the fact that while you like to pretend that 'them' is some clearly defined and identifiable group of pure evil bastards, in reality there is a huge gray area of people who simply try to survive or have legitimate grievances that are ignored (for example, because their innocent family was murdered). This reasoning at best results in impossible objectives for the troups, part of whom start to simplify the mission: murder as many of 'the others' as possible. The result is that the opposition sees you as pure evil bastards and peace becomes impossible.
The alternative is to just go after the people who wronged you. Just like with domestic law enforcement, that means that some crimes cannot be solved and the criminals will go free. That is the price we pay for being relatively safe from being prosecuted for crimes we didn't commit. In war the same principle applies, when we act moderately, we can make peace with the large majority of 'them', which is the best way to safeguard ourselves and our families.
So when a researcher needs to create his own software to answer a particular question, is he free to release the code under the GPL or should he ask for the university lawyer before? If his software uses GPL library, I suppose the question is already answered: the software has to be under GPL. Am I correct?
No, first you need to find out who has the right to distribute the software. If you don't own the code, you may not have the right to do so. If you don't, you will need to get permission. However, if the software uses GPL libraries, the possibilities are limited. The only options are:
1. Release as GPL
2. Do not release
3. (Partial) rewrite to remove the GPL dependencies
If you want do option 1, you need to have the right to do so. If you do not own the copyright, you can secure the right by asking permission or by having a clause in your research contract. You may also have been implicitly granted permission. For example, if the university owns the software, but previously another researcher has released the software he created as open source without asking and the university later found out and accepted this without any reprimand, it can be argued that you are following university policy when doing the same. Of course, a lawyer is never going to advise you follow an implicit policy and in a conflict situation, you would need to convince the judge that this policy exists. However, it can be a rather solid defense in a conflict situation (if your fellow researcher can give you some emails with proof or such).
It also depends on the nature of the software. Software that is needed to replicate/verify your research is quite different from software that implements your theories for general use. A whole different class is software that you use to manage references or another tangential purpose that has no direct connection with the research. If the software is crucial to the research, it can be argued that releasing the source is no different from writing a paper or releasing research data. For example, various mathematical theories have only been proven by software. It makes no sense to write a paper claiming you proved the theory, without releasing the proof, which is the software + source. So in court, the judge will probably decide that you have the right to open source the software, as a normal part of your work. These proof applications are a small niche of software created by researchers though. It is more common to create software for general use that implements your theories (ie. a modelling tool using your newly invented modelling language). It is also common to use the experiences with the tool for a paper, however generally others can reimplement your tool based on all the information that you published (the modelling language specs, in the example I gave). So it would probably be difficult to argue in court that you need to release the tool as part of your normal research duties. The third category, tangentially related software tends to be relatively small tools or changes to existing software that fall through the cracks. As long as it stays small, you can nearly always get away with open sourcing it without asking. Universities are keen to profit from the actual research itself, but making money on fairly generic tools that help researchers is not on their agenda. This is for good reasons, since it makes little financial sense to sell software to other universities.
No, what he wrote is that he deliberately uses GPL libraries to make sure that the software has to be licensed under the GPL if it is distributed as is, even if there are better alternative libraries using other (suitable) licenses. That in itself is unprofessional and abusive to the employer (you are usually being paid to create good software, not to push a personal agenda).
If he was honest with the owner of the code, there would be no need to limit himself to GPL'ed libraries. You can create a project using BSD libraries only and still release it as GPL. Of course, you won't be forced to (or more accurately in this case, forcing the employer), so it will be up to the programmer to convince the employer using arguments. Clearly the GGP isn't sure that he can convince the employer, so he resorts to dishonesty.
Why not be honest and professional by putting a GPL, open source or employee code ownership clause in the contract, if you feel so strongly about this issue? Then both parties know what to expect from each other. If you accept a contract that states that the code is owned by the organization, you cannot later turn around and undercut that contract. Of course, if you signed that contract, you can still use GPL libraries in your software if those libraries are better than the alternatives and the employer accepts the consequences. Alternatively, talk to the employer and convince them of open sourcing the software.
being a derivative means it's GPL whether I technically own it or not.
No, it's not. You can freely combine GPL and proprietary code as long as you do not distribute the software. So the university can always choose to rewrite that 5% and license the code under whatever license they choose. If you release the software illegally, to try and bind the university to the GPL obligation to provide the source, you are guilty of illegal distribution of copyrighted material and the university is under no obligation to honor the GPL. In that case you could be sued by the university for illegal distribution of copyrighted material and by the people you gave the software to, for failing to uphold the GPL license (since you do not have the right to distribute the source, as you are obliged to). If they find this post of yours or similar statements made by you, they can also sue you for fraud, since you effectively tried to make them give their rights away, by using deception.
It is an interesting case what happens when you use deceptive practices to make the university release the software with GPL components. In many ways, it's like slipping drugs into the bag of a traveler without them knowing. They are completely innocent of any willful crime, but in practice courts tend to sentence them hashly, even when their arguments are reasonable, unless there is a confession by the person who planted the drugs (or other hard evidence). However, courts tend to be far more lenient to organisations than to individuals, so they can probably get out of trouble by simply no longer distributing the software.
PS. IANAL, so this could all be wrong ;)
PS2. By trying to abuse the GPL to violate the law, you are not doing the Free Software movement any favors. If someone tries to follow your scheme, gets into a conflict with the organization they work for and the resulting mess gets highly publicized, organizations will start equating the GPL with loss of IP, theft and fraud. Is that what you want?
I still think that is wrong. There is very little influence most workers have on the minimum time between stepping on the company grounds and actually starting to work. The distance to the workplace, the security systems and the time it takes to boot the computer are all determined by the employer. Why should a worker be responsible when the important decisions are all made by the employer? If you cannot start at an arbitrary time, IMO you should be paid from the latest moment where you can still make the shift. So if it takes at least 10 minutes from arriving at the company gate to being ready for work, you should also be paid for those 10 minutes before the shift starts (and the same at the end of the day).
The daily commute is different, because companies generally cannot reasonably alter their employees travel times in most cases, while employees can. So it is reasonable that employees are responsible for the time traveling to the company gate/door.
Are you equally sickened by the French attitude towards Americans? As a recent example I recall one of their Ministers saying something about how "Anglo-Saxon capitalism" was responsible for the current economic crisis. From my vantage point a comment like that goes back to the whole cultural inferiority complex that they seem to have regarding all things English and/or American.
Anglo-Saxon capitalism (or the more common name, the Anglo-Saxon model) is a style of capitalism that is shared by the UK, US, New Zealand and partially by Ireland and Australia, so it's just a descriptive term. It refers to a small-government, low-regulation, low-taxes, limited-redistributed economy with weak unions and a very limited safety net for the unemployed. It results in relatively high growth and low unemployment, but also in high income inequality (with "working poor"), big swings in the economy and a lack of recognition of worker rights.
Alternatives to the Anglo-Saxon model are the Nordic model, Rhineland model and Mediterranean Model. Different parts of Europe use different models, with varying levels of regulation, taxation, redistribution, union power, wellfare, pension benefits, etc. All of them have more market regulation than the Anglo-Saxon model, the lack of which is seen as a major reason for the current crisis. So the Anglo-Saxon model is being criticized for that reason.
In other words, the criticism by the French minister is aimed at the rules that allowed this crisis to happen, not at the English or Americans personally.
I traveled through Italy a few years ago. Almost without fail every single time we ran into French people they started muttering under their breaths about "those Americans". Are we really so offensive that the mere sight of us justifies that type of behavior?
Most countries in the world are stereotyped by other countries, based on their culture. These generalisations are very sensible, since they do reflect the behaviour by people from those countries, on the whole. For instance, if a Chinese person answers 'perhaps' to a question, it probably means 'no'. If a German says 'perhaps', he probably has to ponder the question longer. These are cultural differences in attitude and the use of language that exist and cannot be ignored in interhuman contact. Of course, like all generalisations, they may not hold for individuals. The stereotypes are also relative to the culture of the person that holds the stereotype and historical events.
Tourists are typically ignorant of many of the behaviour patterns that make them stand out from the local population, some of which may be considered to be offensive. Typically, expats and more culturally sensitive tourists feel embarrassed over the behaviour by their countrymen, because many tourists tend to stick out like a sore thumb. Some cultures make for very bad tourists, like the British, whose binge drinking followed by anti-social behaviour is often offensive to the locals. Americans are also often considered bad tourists, since they like to cram a lot of 'culture' in their limited vacation time (staying only a short time in one location) and do not prepare that much beforehand. The result is that do not have time to understand how to fit into the local culture, which makes them seem ignorant and shallow, which feeds a stereotype. They also do not like to experiment with foreign food and prefer US chains, which are considered unhealthy and unsophisticated, feeding other stereotypes. I could go on, but I hope that you understand that stereotypes and negative feelings towards tourists from certain countries are based on real behaviour.
When people actually conform to their stereotype, there is a tendency to say things like "Sigh, Americans :roll-eyes:" or "Bloody French". That every French person you met had such a strong reaction to you, indicates to me that you were acting very offensively, even though you might not have noticed.
You are confusing risk acceptance with intelligence. As the roads have clogged, drivers have decreased the distance between cars to use the roads more efficiently. This more than makes up for the increased accident risk (when calculated in average travel time per driver). During bad-weather conditions, people actually leave 2 second gaps (or bigger) and the congestion increases greatly. You also have to keep in mind that it is extremely rare for the car just in front of you to brake to a complete halt without anything happening in front of him. So if you can see ahead, you have longer to respond.
When you say that 'losing 3/4 a second for focus redirection is not a big deal when you drive safely,' that also means that you can get 3/4 of a second closer to the car in front of you if you decide to actually pay attention while driving. That includes not using your phone at all and completely shutting off any conversation with passengers unless the road situation is very safe (and you are leaving a big enough gap).
PS. If you really cared about your safety, you would use public transport. Driving a car 'safely' is a gazillion times more dangerous than being a bus or train passenger. So it seems that you are also sacrificing you safety (for decreased travel times?). So it seems that you are not so different from those 'raging idiots'.
We could take those IOU's and redeem them for cash. Were does that money come from? Well, since we don't have an actual reserve, we would just print it. Instant inflation, devaluing the dollar and devaluing their own portfolios.
Sure, but the consequence would be that the countries and inviduals who have dollars will exchange them for other currency, so the value of the dollar will drop like a stone. That means that oil prices in dollars will go through the roof. This will continue until American products become cheap enough for other countries to import. Of course, that won't happen if the prices rise as much as inflation, so cutbacks will have to be made (fewer jobs and lower salaries for US workers).
So, who are they going to trade them to? The US? And do what - buy bonds? /sarcasm Or are they just going to burn them then? As soon as they try buying stuff in the US, prices will be driven up. If they don't buy from the US, what are they going to do with the money?
Instead of buying goods, they may buy American companies or land. Countries from the middle east are doing the first already. Of course, they do not have the manpower to run them in their own country, so they keep them in the US (fortunately enough for US workers). China might not be so kind. Alternatively, by buying land, China could gain control of America's natural resources. Of course, you can also think big and sell a state (Alaska?).
This growing inequality is not just a figment of imagination and sooner or later must be addressed, but I'm not sure the "system shock" method is viable.
It doesn't really matter if it's viable or not if debt is too big already. It may still be possible to deflate the bubble gently, but the signs aren't good. The Chinese are no longer content with collecting debt paper. They might just buy out American companies and move them over lock, stock and barrel to China (except for the US workers of course). The result could be 50% unenployment and a collapse of the US economy.
I guess you have never driven a manual, because that doesn't make sense. A basic automatic is a disadvantage when you want to accelerate quickly, because it will shift for you, keeping your revs low (unless the gearbox is in a hyper-agressive sport mode, which would be unlikely). In a manual you will either accelerate up to the rev limit or more likely, drop a gear quickly first. The latter will allow you to accelerate far quicker and will almost always more than make up for the time lost while shifting. Assuming you don't have a severely underpowered car, it's highly unlikely that you will need to shift up at all before you have gotten to safety, since you can get a lot of speed out of one gear if you are not concerned with fuel economy and engine noise.
I suggest you ask a friend with a manual to demonstrate this when you are in his car and traffic is low. Ask him to accelerate quickly in the same gear from a somewhat slow speed (20-30 mph under the speed limit or so), without shifting up or down. Notice that you'll probably hit the speed limit long before the rev limiter. Then drop down back to the starting speed and gear and have him drop a gear before accelerating. You should notice far quicker acceleration, but you'll probably still won't hit the rev limiter before the speed limit. You can also ask him to accelerate like a automatic for comparison, shifting at the same time as an automatic would. If you ignore the shift times, you'll notice that the acceleration is far slower after an upshift than when you revved the engine.
PS. Theoretically, you can get the quickest acceleration in a dual-clutch semi-automatic gearbox with paddles. If the lower gear is already pre-selected, you can get a nearly instantaneous downshift, followed by a uninterrupted acceleration until the rev limit. Of course, that only works if the gearbox computer allows these things, which is highly uncertain.
Actually, particulate filters that trap and "burn off" diesel particulate have been around since the 1980's--Mercedes-Benz had them on US-market 300D's and 300SD's.
Those 300D/SD filters quickly clogged up and were abandoned soon after introduction. The first modern particulate filter on a production car was introduced in 2000. It's unreasonable to expect all other manufacturers to immediatly be able to produce state of the art technology in 2000, when clearly only one car manufacturer had the technology. Also, you need to keep in mind that many economy cars in Europe use diesel, so the price of the filter is important too. The 2000 car was a top of the line model, where an expensive filter could be used. For economy cars, the price of the filter needs to be much lower before it can reasonably be mandated.
I think the EU should have adopted mandatory use of particulate filters for diesel-powered automobiles as far back as 2000, just when diesel-fuelled automobiles started to increase in popularity. That would have avoided a lot of the sooty air you're getting nowadays in European cities with so many diesel cars on the streets.
The German car makers had no investment in soot filters at the time, so they were unable or at least unwilling to switch over that soon. Euro 4 was supposed to enforce the introduction of filters in 2005 by halving the particulate limits, but car makers managed to stay below those limits by adapting their engines. That's why it took until Euro 5 (2009).
I do know that all motor fuels in the USA have to meet the maximum 15 parts per million standard for sulfur compounds very soon; that may finally make it possible to use advanced deNOx catalytic converters, which will allow for the use of direct-injection gasoline engines with lean-burn operation (which can improve fuel economy as much as 8%).
2010 is not 'very soon', IMHO. In West Europe, 10 ppm max diesel will be available almost everywhere in 2009 (most Eastern European countries in the EU have exceptions so they can switch over later).
That may be true, but the generic EPA standards are biased towards petrol. Petrol engines spew a lot of hydrocarbons, such as benzene. If the situation would be reversed, where 99% of americans are using diesel, petrol would have a hard time meeting the (diesel-based) emissions standard.
In Europe, particulate filters will become mandatory for new car models in 2009 (Euro 5) and cars without may only be sold until 2011. The NOx limits will also be tightened, but will still be 2.5x higher than for petrol cars. In 2014+ (Euro 6) the NOx limit for diesel will almost be the same as for petrol. That limit is about halfway between Tier 2 Bin 8 and Tier 2 Bin 5. That should be achievable without urea, with a NOx catalyst.
In the US, all diesel will be low sulfur in late 2010 (it's already mandatory in California). That will allow for low NOx cars such as the BlueTec to be sold everywhere.
The situation in Israel is more like an abused woman who moves to a new apartment to get away from her husband who beat her. Her new neighbors say "hey, we are into this sadomasochism thing too! Let's slap that bitch around!" Only to find that she has taken self-defense training and got a gun and learned to shoot.
Your analogy totally ignores the innocent Palestianians who are victim of this situation. Most Palestinians aren't terrorists and yet they are being punished by Israel. To extend your analogy: is it OK for the abused woman to beat her children?
When the old Palestine British protectorate was divided by the United Nations in the 1940s, the smaller Jewish part was named Israel and the larger part of the territory was named Jordan. "Palestine" is actually Jordan.
No. The British controlled the region after the first world war, but they very soon split the region into Palestine and (wat later was called) Jordan. The League of Nations agreed with this split and decreed that the Jewish state was to be placed in Palestine (and thus not in Jordan). In 1947, the UN decided on a two state solution in (what was then) Palestine. In other words, they decided that there would be three seperate entities: a Jewish state in Palestine, an Arab state in Palestine and Jordan.
It's true that Jordan tried to annex the West Bank, but they agreed in 1974 that the West Bank was not part of Jordan. Gaza was never claimed by Jordan.
[...]in september 1970, the "Black September", a faction of the Jordanians tried to overthrow the government and failed. That faction are the people now known as "Palestinians".
Wrong, Palestinian nationalists were living in Jordan (many of whom were refugees from Palestine) and did indeed try to overthrow the Jordan government, after which they were kicked out. They were not Jordan citizens for the most part. After they were kicked out, Black September was formed as an terrorist organisation within Fatah/PLO. The majority of the people that we call Palestinians never lived in Jordan and were never part of Black September.
When Egypt sat down to negotiate and recognized the right of Israel to exist, they got back all the territory they had lost in the wars against Israel. If Syria and Jordan wished to negotiate, they would probably get the same results Egypt did.
Perhaps you missed the memo, but Jordan has been at peace with Israel and fully recognizes their sovereignty since 1994. However, both Syria and Jordan have fairly little to do with this particular conflict. Israel and the Palestinians do not need permission from those countries to resolve the conflict.
Nevertheless, I believe the U.S. has _always_ been committed to getting troops out as fast as possible...
Actually, the US has always tried to station/keep troops in foreign countries. Right now, US troops are in over 150 countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deployments_of_the_United_States_Military
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases
Pulling out completely would be fairly exceptional, so Obama's statement is not redundant or hollow. It is also in direct conflict with McCain's position, who wants permanent bases in Iraq.
Somewhat correct. The Oslo accords have many milestones along the path to Palestinian statehood, such as the ending of violent attacks on Israeli civilians. This hasn't happened.
Wrong, both parties are responsible for preventing violence against the other side. That also includes violence by israeli's against palestinians (which has never ceased either). Common sense dictates that this is a best effort responsibility (the actual treaty doesn't specify this explicitly, but the text doesn't make sense if this isn't the case).
Civilian casualties are an unavoidable part of armed conflict.
The problem is that Israel and Hamas continue to see this as an armed conflict, when it should be a peace process. In the case of Israel, there is a pathological desire to control the palestinians, which makes peace impossible and gives legitimacy to the resistance (and thus keeps strengthening it). There is simply no way the peace process can work unless restrictions are lifted so the palestinians can have jobs, travel freely and improve their lives in general.
The only way that peace can happen is when there is an agreement with the major palestinian factions (Fatah and Hamas). In the case of Hamas, only a temporary cease fire is needed (which they are willing to accept). Then major and quick improvements to the lives of ordinary palestinians need to be made:
- Removing road blocks permanently
- Sharing water fairly (allowing for more farming)
- Allowing palestinians to use the roads in palestinian territories (even when they connect settlements)
- Allowing palestinians to build houses
- Allowing palestinians to work their lands, even when those are close to settlements
- Allowing more palestinians to work in Israel
- Opening the border with Egypt
- Building a harbor in Gaza
- Removing some settlements (especially those that divide palestinian territories the most)
Funds from Europe and the US can pay for the harbor and for some of the housing costs. A huge number of jobs will be created and palestinians will finally see the advantages of peace that they were promised so often, but that never materialized. This will greatly reduce the support for the resistance, which will force Hamas to choose: shrink to 1/10 their current size or 'extend' the cease fire. I'm confident the large majority of Hamas will choose the latter (they profit from the economic growth as well and want their flat screen TV's). There will probably be a small offshoot (like the Real IRA in Ireland), which will be small and can be eradicated over time with hard police work.
Most importantly though, Israel needs to accept that minor factions will use the freedoms to attack Israel/israeli's. Israel might face its most devastating terrorist attack it has ever seen, just like the Omagh bombing was the worst in Ireland's history. At that point, the international community should condemn that attack en masse and force Hamas to fully commit to the peace process by bringing all those involved to justice. It's unfortunate that this will (and probably has to) happen, but in the long run it will save more lives than simply carrying on like this with casualties every year.
On the other hand, the goal of Hamas is to cause as many civilian casualties as possible.
Actually, the violence used by Hamas is a means, not an end. For instance, one of their tactics is too kidnap israeli soldiers, which is a pretty poor tactic if you want to kill civilians, but a very good one if you want to trade the soldiers for prisoners. The goal of a peace process should be to make it in everyone's best interest not to use violence. That requires several skills which seem to be in short supply in the region right now, such as empathy and thinking ahead.
Israeli soldiers do not hide among civilians. They are uniformed, clearly identifiable and subject to command & control by the government. Compare & contrast with Hamas.
That is the difference between a resistance movement and a
The prime reason is that in the late 1940s the Arabs refused the UN partition plan which would have created two states, one arab and one israeli, with international status for jerusalem (hey, that sounds familiar, I heard it recently), and declared war. That war has not yet ended.
The palestinians have accepted a two-state solution (Oslo Accords) and so have the arab nations (Arab Peace Initiative). What happened in the 40's is not that relevant, because we cannot change the past. We can choose to take steps towards peace today and in the future. Unfortunately, too many people are coming up with excuses why they cannot make peace, instead of taking the painful steps towards a solution.
The IDF operates to protect the citizens of Israel...
According to international law, the IDF is also responsible for protecting palestinian civilians and guaranteeing their human rights. Unfortunately, they do not and allow settlers to freely attack palestinians. They also harass palestinians and disallow travel. The harassment and lack of jobs are excellent breeding grounds for the resistance. The policy of settlement expansions/ethnic cleansing executed in part by the IDF has resulted in large settlements that have greatly jeopardized the viability of a two-country solution.
I recall recently when Hamas sent 6000 rockets randomly into Israel
According to Israel, it's acceptable to murder citizens that are in the vicinity of Hezbollah or Hamas members, when the rockets the IDF uses have limited accuracy. We know that Hamas' rockets are very crude and can only be aimed for a certain town. I think that pretty much every town in Israel will have (reserve) soldiers living there, so the attacks are on military targets (who 'hide' among civilians, to use the israeli jargon). I'm perfectly willing to condemn the rocket attacks, but don't pretend that Israel is not doing the same thing.
The proportionate response would have been to send 6000 rockets randomly into Gaza.
Look up the number of palestinian civilians that are killed every year vs the number of israeli civilians and then get back to me on 'proportionality.'
Violent attacks by Arabs is not the bogeyman, they are all too real.
One of the reasons why there is no peace agreement yet is that Israel has always 'rewarded' the attackers by stopping the peace process after an attack. The result is that a minority can hold 4 million people hostage. That weakens those who want peace, because they cannot show results. The election of Hamas is a good example of what happens next.
Two out of three isn't bad.
It depends. If I am scheduled for an operation that two out of three people survive, I might disagree. Similarly, I might not want to submit to all the arbitrary rules and regulations of various religions on such flimsy evidence. Instead, I might want to be 'free' (or more accurately: guided by MY conscience).
As for offering proof, I don't need to. I'm not the wrong making the accusations, I was answering them.
Actually, you were arguing that atheists are wrong because most people believe they are (and presumably believe in God). That sounds like an accusation to me. I was responding to that allegation.
Of course starting a religion in this day and age makes you look like a kook but who is counting. It has been seen for a while where some people are attempting to use Science as a religion which is just as kooky.
Why would that be kooky? You seem to believe that a religion is best (or can even be proven) if it matches science closely. So the best 'religion' is science itself, without believing in God (unless you can prove he exists). Of course, that's not a religion at all, because you don't have strong beliefs in unproven 'facts'.
Also, I don't know any actual science religions. Scientology and the Raëlian Church are sci-fi religions, so they believe in scientific sounding bullshit, not in actual science.
And I hope you are smart enough to know that the lack of anything doesn't disprove anything. Do you understand this concept? IF you have no evidence supporting or denying something, you aren't in a position to make an authorative statement one way or another.
I never said that I believe that God doesn't exist. I simply don't believe that God exists. The people who are making the authoritive statements without evidence are the religious people, not the atheists.
As for the interference, I'm not sure I have heard any claims of GODLY interference. Perhaps you could elaborate on them some more.
Most religions state that God interacts with us and can cause material changes, such as miracles. Many Christians claim that prayer can help sick people recover, for instance. Claims like that can be tested through science.
To the Facts, what facts have been discredited?
Genesis in the Bible:
Koran:
But more importantly, the sun and the moon standing still while "the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies" could be more of a metaphoric statement then an actual accounting.
Fine. But when you start to interpret religious texts so that it matches science, you cannot argue that correct facts in religious texts are proof. That would require the possibility of the text not matching science, which is impossible when you can always just change your interpretation.
Actually, no I haven't. It is reasonably established that when everyone else is saying your wrong, you are generally the one who is wrong. If you have a hard time understanding that, then you have a severe disconnect with reality.
There is absolutely no guarantee that conventional wisdom is true. For instance, conventional wisdom is that the McDonalds coffee burn lawsuit was frivolous, which is not true (if you actually look at the details of the case). I agree that conventional wisdom is true more often than not, so it's not unreasonable to hold it as true until you actually judge the arguments/evidence yourself. However, that is simply laziness (because we can't be bothered to actually look at the evidence) and you should recognize it as such. You certainly can't use your unwillingness to come up with actual evidence as proof.
Also, there is a great diversity among religions. For instance, not all religions believe in a monotheistic God. For the ones that do, the 'definition' of their God may vary a great deal, ranging from a personal God that (may) answer your prayers to an all-encompassing abstract God (Pantheism). I don't think that conventional wisdom is particularly trustworthy when there is so much diversity. It's not like 80% of the world population has exactly the same beliefs concerning religion.
There are stories that have been validated by geological finds, there are certain facts of different books that have been proven to of been true, there are facets of different religions that bring the same undisputed elements to the table.
Here is my 'provable' religion:
I believe that God created dinosaurs in the Triassic period and killed them off in the Cretaceous period. God looks like a bowl of spaghetti.
Now, I hope you can agree that the geological facts in my 'religion' do not prove that God looks like a bowl of spaghetti. Similarly, the existence of facts in religious books does not mean that God actually exists. To prove that, you need to find evidence for God. Until now, science has found no such proof. On the contrary, claims of interference by God in the world of matter have been disproven time and again. Also, many facts provided by religious texts turned out to be false after scientific examination.
No where in any of the bibles does it say everything revolves around the earth, that was solely a conscript of man.
In Joshua 10:12-14, the Bible says that the sun stopped and thus didn't go down. This is nonsense, because for the sun not to go down, the earth has to stop. The verse only makes sense if the writer believed that the sun revolved around the earth. The catholic church believed this for a very long time, until science proved this incorrect. Of course, now the catholic church simply ignores the verse.
The ability to stand hot weather without airco depends on many factors:
- Genetics and physical shape, some people cope with the heat much better than others.
- Hot, windy and dry weather is much easier to deal with than hot, humid weather with no wind.
- Housing construction. I worked in an old church for a summer. The 1 meter thick walls kept it cooler than most airconditioned homes. In contrast, at my university there was a building that would cook the people inside at 75 deg F.
- Cultural factors. People who grew up in a fairly hot climate take things easier and adapt to the heat. In some countries there is a siesta. In Iraq people sleep on their roofs.
Personally I prefer 70 deg F weather, which is a good temperature to:
- Sleep comfortably
- Not to have to wear too many clothes
- Ride a bike to work or engage in other physical activities
We still receive spam to user accounts that were deleted years ago.
For any such e-mail accounts here that get much spam, we start filtering on those accounts and automatically add every server sending even one e-mail to any of those accounts to a 24 hour blacklist.
A normal email may very well be sent to an old email address. The address may come from a website that hasn't been updated in ages, from a contact list or even a business card. Wouldn't it be smarter to set up a few honey pots, where you deliberately put the address on a website (hidden for normal users) and use it to sign up for some free offers.
For one of my courses the professor wanted to use his new text book that had just been published, but he was embarrassed at the high price. He encouraged us to pirate the PDF version of the book. I think he got shafted by the book publisher, since he told us that he didn't actually get paid that much for every book sale.
The problem with that excuse is that the (expected) number of casualties is a very important factor in the willingness for politicians to start and continue wars. Improved armament results in:
- More wars started and continued for a longer time.
- More civilian casualties (who don't get the nice body armor) and aren't counted by US politicians or most of the voters.
- More wounded US soldiers. Improved body armor has reduced fatalities, but not wounds to extremities. In the Vietnam war, the ratio of death vs wounded was 1:5, in Iraq it is 1:7. Assuming that politicians only care about the number of fatalities, it's likely that the number of killed soldiers will stay at about the same, 'acceptable' levels, while the number of wounded soldiers will go up.
You might argue that many armament improvements can reduce the risk to civilians, but often there are side effects which negate that improvement. The most glaring example is that due to the advanced weaponry, few opponents are willing to engage the US military openly. Guerilla warfare, (suicide) bombings and terrorist attacks, which are used as an alternative to open warfare, all increase the number of civilian casualties greatly.