1. Regardless of whether the UN has moral authority it has legal authority. OBEY IT.
2. Who started the 1948 war is open to much heated debate. Regardless the 55/45 Israel/Palestine, internationally recognised, division ended up a 78/22 Israel/refugee camp division.
3. "You... pick a 100% pro-Palestinian site that rages against Israel."
I did, yes. Deliberately. Gush Shalom are Israelis. Try finding a pro-Israeli site run by Palestinians. I fear I will also have to suggest that there is no such thing as a reputable news source, only those whose agenda is known to you and those whose agenda remains unkown. All information on this situation requires to be assessed with an extremely critical eye.
4. If one wants to "*limit* civilian casualties as much as possible," one does not fire military ordanance at unsuspecting civilians. There is a word for that in International Law. Terrorism.
Incidentally, I have recently come to the conclusion that the IRA were not terrorists. By always giving warning in advance and limiting attacks to military or security targets they, in my opinion, put themselves in the category of freedom fighters. Its a very thin line, which many splinter groups did cross, but is is one that almost all of our 'morally superior' democracies owe their existance to.
5. I don't think anyone ever claimed Arafat was a new Ghandi. Ghandi is not the internationally recognised standard here. The key phrase is 'legitimate armed struggle', which is what the citizens of any State have the right to engage in when their lands have been invaded by another State. The Arabs do not have to engage in peaceful resistance to retain moral legitimacy.
6. Again what has Ghandi got to do with this. Again as a citizen of one of the 'morally superior' democracies of the world YOU endorse 'legitimate armed struggle.'
I have loose ties to you, Slashdot and Linux in general. Does this means you are all culpable when I go postal?
7. You raised the Israeli economy. An economy bouyed by billions in US aid and investment. I'm fairly sure Egypt receives quite a lot of aid too, although not in the same order of magnitude I imagine, as a bribe to leave Israel alone.
I'm sure I read somewhere recently that the Israeli economy is in the shitter and has been getting steadily worse since Sharon started the second Intifada.
8. "If I was" Iraq, and one of my neighbours had nuclear weapons targeted on my cities and lied glibly about even possessing them, "my priority #1 would be to develop nuclear weapons. I'm sorry, but it's true."
Your point was Arabs are lying scumbags, my counter was, Israelis are lying scumbags with WMD's.
9. "you seem to quite clearly be dismissing the idea that liberal democracy is inherently better than Islamofascist dictatorship or theocracy."
No. I'm pointing out that you have assumed that it is. In Arab countries the rich and powerful (the ones with all the oil) do whatever they want and their is almost nothing the little guy can do about it. In liberal (? lets not get into liberal/libertarian etc, etc) democracies the rich and powerful (the ones with all the oil) do whatever they want and their is almost nothing the little guy can do about it.
Clearly democracy is a morally superior form of government.
10. "I obviously believe much of that plight is self-inflicted."
Yes the Palestinians instructed the British Mandate to allow a third of a million Zionist Jews to migrate into their country, buy up all the decent land from absentee landlords in other States, throw the residents out and ban them from ever returning or buying the land they had worked for generations back.
At the end of the Second World War, after the resident Zionists had declared war on the British in an opportunistic attempt to steal the entire State of Palestine from the Palestinians, those same Palestinians suggested that a few hundred thousand of those Zionists friend
"I've been informed that at the Clinton-brokered Camp David talks the Israeli government essentially offered the PA everything it ever wanted, including a state of its own, except for the return of the Palestinian "refugees" (which of course would be a death sentence for the state of Israel). Arafat walked away and never even made a counteroffer."
ROFLMAO.
http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/barak.html What the Palestinians want is for Israel to obey the United Nations. To return to them all the land they illegally stole in their war of agression (approximately 42% of contemporary Israel), allow all the refugees illegally forced from that land to return and to remove all the illegal settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. That territory would of course include all of East Jerusalem including the Temple Mount.
The International community has been demanding this, almost unanamously, from Israel for nearly sixty years now.
Only the obstinate support of the United States allows Israel to continue with the systematic ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
Zionists and Nazis have a lot more in common than a z in their names.
A little 'word substitution' in most news reports about occupied palestine would demonstrate that. Try replacing West Bank or Gaza with the phrase 'jewish ghetto.'
Were the British government to fire Hellfire missiles into residential Catholic areas of Belfast in retaliation for IRA violence you would be incensced. Were they to persist in doing so despite being told to stop by the United Nations I don't imagine it would take sixty years to execute a 'regime change.'
Peaceful protest only works against regimes with respect for human rights and the United Nations.
It is about as effective against the Israelis as it would be against the Khmer Rouge.
ISM recognises the Palestinian right to legitimate armed struggle. That does not mean terrorism. Think DeGaulle, George Washington, Robert the Bruce. Actually forget Robert the Bruce 'cos he was without doubt a vicious terrorist.
ISM only uses non-violent methods.
Bear in mind that you support the right to legitimate armed struggle, as do most of the rest of the civilised world.
On the subject of lying try asking the Israeli government if they possess any nuclear bombs.
How much foreign economic aid do the Arab countries receive?
"I've been informed that there is not a single functioning liberal democracy among the Arab countries"
So?
I'm informed all the Arabs are Muslims. Does that make them inferior to all the Christians?
Perhaps I should first explain what I mean by war. A war is a legal use of military force used against legitimate targets to compel another nation state to acquiesce to your demands. A terrorist action is the illegal use of military force against civilian targets to terrorise them into forcing their government to acquiesce to your demands. Any group with the ability to win a war does not engage in terrorist actions. Any gains made in war would be stripped from one by the international community at your war crimes trial.
Another poster has already pointed out that all wars involve a certain number of terrorist activities and this is lamentable. However such actions are not legal and no longer constitute any part of accepted military practice.
The purpose of your use of word substitution was quite plain to me. I was trying to point out that you were using an innappropriate substitution.
Statements A1 and A2 are true. When the word terrorist is substituted with the phrase Japanese soldier they become untrue. For your point to be made they need to remain true after the substitution. You were trying to point out that the conclusion drawn was eroneous. I agree, it was, as you rightly say, we should attempt to combat terrorism. Unfortunately the alternate propositions you make to prove the invalidity of the conclusion are themselves invalid.
The observed incidence of A occuring is not the same as its statistical likelihood. Flip a coin once and you'll see what I mean.
As to your last argument, a good statistical bet but again wrong. I live in the UK, in Scotland, which the Luftwaffe used as their main bombing route into the industrial sites of the north of England. I can walk twenty minutes from here to the pill-boxes that still stare out from Crammond Island, in 1942 the Second World War was all to real where I grew up.
The real question is, does invading Iraq (and giving exclusive contracts to exploit every economic resource in the country to our cronies) qualify as combating terrorism?
As time goes by it becomes more and more clear that the answer is no.
"The International Solidarity Movement is a Palestinian-led movement of Palestinian and International activists working to raise awareness of the struggle for Palestinian freedom and an end to Israeli occupation. We utilize nonviolent, direct-action methods of resistance to confront and challenge illegal Israeli occupation forces and policies.
As enshrined in international law and UN resolutions, we recognize the Palestinian right to resist Israeli violence and occupation via legitimate armed struggle. However, we believe that nonviolence can be a powerful weapon in fighting oppression and we are committed to the principles of nonviolent resistance.
# We support the Palestinian right to resist the occupation, as provided for by International Law;
# We call for an immediate end to the occupation and immediate compliance and implementation of all relevant UN resolutions;
# We call for immediate international intervention to protect the Palestinian people and ensure Israel's compliance with International Law.
Due to the lack of respect for Palestinian human rights and human life by the Israeli government and occupation forces, an international presence is needed to support Palestinian nonviolent resistance. Palestinian activists trying to work or protest alone face harsh punishment from Israeli forces. This has included beatings, long-term arrests, serious injury and even death. International activists are thus a resource for Palestinians, both in terms of their presence and as witnesses to the daily humiliation and injustice of the Israeli occupation. "
"It is a fact that Corrie was an activist for a group that advocated the extermination of Israel."
You are either badly misinformed or lying. Which is it?
"It just surprises that you would so immediately believe one side or the other"
Nothing immediate about it, six months of rigorous academic study of the subject. There are two narratives to be considered here, the Palestinian and the Zionist, neither are wholly accurate. The Palestinians, despite their unfortunate associations with Islam and terrorism, are for the most part correct. Might I suggest Gush Shalom ( http://www.gush-shalom.org/english/ ) as a good place to start to get an unbiased and accurate assessment of the situation in Palestine.
"I don't see how the fact that Kopel critizes a dedication in one of Moore's books somehow obliterates the mountain of evidence in 59 Deceits. "
Simply because he has already made dozens of, what sounded like, plausable statements of fact. And then he makes one that I know for a fact is total BS, suddenly all his other statements of fact start to look very doubtful.
Kopel is clearly an intelligent guy who knows how to do his research and how to differentiate between fact and propaganda. I have no doubt whatsoever that the statements he makes about Rachel Corrie are ones that he knows to be either completely false or deliberately 'spun' to give false impressions.
Clearly I can no longer trust a single word the man utters.
Statistically - In 1941 far Far FAR more Americans were killed on the highway then by a Japanese soldier.
However the likelihood of being killed by a Japanese soldier was extremely high. You are ignoring a statistical anomaly where the likelihood of A is extremely low if B is true and extremely high if B is false. In this instance B would be 'America has not lost the battle for the Pacific.'
This sort of shoddy thinking invalidates your argument. Simply performing such a word substitution does not create equivalent statements if the substituted words are not equivalent.
Clearly 'terrorist' is not equivalent to 'soldier.' A terrorist is, by definition, someone who has no hope of winning a war. People who believe they can defeat their enemy by force of arms attack military targets not civilians.
I read 59 deceits and it seemed pretty convincing.
Right up until the point he said:
" His latest book, Dude, Where's My Country, is dedicated to the memory of Rachel Corrie, an American who traveled to Israel, burned an American flag for some Palestinian children, and served as an activist for a terrorist support group called the International Solidarity Movement (ISM). The ISM which is run by the Palestinian Communist Party and which advocates the extermination of the state of Israel. She died trying to prevent an Israeli bulldozer from removing some shrubbery which was thought to cover tunnels used by terrorist bombers to enter Israel. Thus Moore dedicated his book to someone who deliberately sought to assist the terrorist murder of civilians in Israel."
That is an outright lie. A lie of such magnitude I have trouble keeping my last meal in my stomach. As for the links contained in that text, I find myself having a sudden desire to scrub my frontal lobes clean with a wire brush.
Rachel Corrie died trying to prevent Israel demolishing the homes of Palestinian refugees in direct contravention of the Geneva conventions. Those homes had nothing to do with tunnels. They were inconvenient to the nearby Israeli settlers. Settlers who were in Palestine in direct contravention of the Geneva conventions.
'Terrorist support group'!?
People like him make me want to puke.
So unfortunately, despite a promising start where I really did start to feel like Michael Moore might be deceiving me, every single other word on Mr Kopel's website has been reclasified in my mind as almost certainly outright fiction.
To obtain the necessary height would require EXACTLY the same amount of energy as just accelerating to the appropriate speed directly. Always ignoring the complication of drag of course.
Re:Sure, if you can dumb it down into a kisok...
on
A Babe in Tuxland
·
· Score: 1
'install a firewall with all outbound ports except 80 restricted as well as Mozilla being the only program allowed to access the Internet'
I've done the same with my hd's at least once and although it was a slight PITA (these things never go quite as planned) I wonder how Windows would have handled the same change...
I did an upgrade about 18 months ago where I replaced the entire system board and processor. I must have been dual booting win98 and MDK9.0 at the time. MDK just booted right up, got a lot of error messages and complaints and it probably took about an hour to get all the kinks worked out, but it worked.
"Ignorance of the law should never be accepted as an excuse to break it."
Mens rea.
doh...
(For the hard of thinking, it is an accepted principle of law throughout most of the world that one cannot be prosecuted for breaking laws you did not know you were breaking. If one is genuinely 'ignorant' of the law breaking it is not a crime.)
'Microsoft can choose to sell their product at whatever price they want to whomever they want.'
Incorrect.
Microsoft is a monopoly.
Therefore, unlike other corporations, they must adhere to a Statutory code of conduct designed to stop them abusing that power to strong-arm their way into other markets.
Everything you said after that in the parent post is a meaningless waste of electrons...
That Sun just backed SCO and implied if SCO lost or went under that they would make sure the case didn't go away?
Or is it just that I am blind to your anonymous assertion that the little guy is powerless and should just shut up and let his betters run the world for him?
'Congratulations, you just picked the greater of two evils. Have fun paying way too much for an office package that runs on all of *2* platforms'
Congratulations, welcome to Slashdot, you have just made an idiot of yourself by making unfounded assumptions.
I have no intention of EVER purchasing a word processor. I have OpenOffice and it works just fine and always will do thanks to its open licence. In addition the people I persuade not to buy StarOffice I will suggest use OpenOffice instead. Two birds with one stone, both MS and Sun lose out, Sun, ironically, to its own product.
E-mote, to move to action, nobody ever makes a decision (takes action) without the involvement of emotion, by definition.
'the people who make purchasing decisions will hear you soon enough.'
I make purchasing decisions and have just made one never to purchase StarOffice.
I certainly won't be recommending StarOffice to anyone else, in fact I will be actively putting anyone I know off making any sort of Sun hard/software purchase.
So what? There may only be one of me but large things are made up of lots of little things.
A single raindrop will change nothing, a flash flood sweeps away all in its path.
Anyone else care to explain what this actually means?
"IBM is being so hypocritical. If the issue is a non-issue, why don't they indemnify their customers? And if you don't need to indemnity, why do you have the world's largest patent litigation team inside IBM suing the bejesus out of the entire industry, holding them up for ransom on IP that you claim is yours that they have purloined. Well, go look in the mirror guys. This will tear that company asunder."
It would seem to be yet another example of a bunch of words that don't really mean anything but that appear to support your argument if the reader isn't paying much attention.
Is IBM suing the bejesus out of the entire industry?
Apparently IBM is holding the entire industry to ransom with IP that I claim is mine that IBM has, apparently, purloined.
I often answer questions like this when I am still asleep (or tripping). I can string together a grammatically correct sentence, but it means nothing, in fact it looks like something Lewis Carol wrote...
(I am still unsure who is supposed to look in the mirror or what they will find when they do so.)
My initial reaction to this is 'Fuck*rs!' Here is a multi-billion $ Corportation doing untold PR damage to the community's fight against SCO. Did you notice the bit where he implied that Sun would take on IBM themselves, or by proxy, if SCO loses?
Sun are on my list from this moment on. A new axis of evil has emerged (MS/SCO/Sun) and we will fight them on the beaches...
What's truely funny is what Burns said to the Inq just before the speach he unveiled this processor in...
"LOUIS 'THE THIRTEENTH' BURNS suffered a slight jaw-drop today as we asked him about the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition Nova told the world about over here(link to original article-crizh)
The regal one denied all knowledge of any such chip, though there was something in his startled manner that suggested otherwise. "Never heard of it," he muttered.
"Where you from?" he demanded to know.
"The INQUIRER."
"Ah, you're not Mike," he said, which of course was true.
"Anything else?" He growled.
"You still read the INQUIRER first thing every morning?"
"Yeah," he fessed. Though his kids he said were always puzzled by the amount of times his royal features gaze out from our front page, he said.
"Say Hi to Mike," he said. Hi Mike.
Burns is due on stage in a couple of hours. Will he talk about an Intel Extreme Edition Pentium 4? That remains to be seen. But if he does, I guess he's fuming right now. Best of luck Lou. "
'You can also crack the XBox hardware with a mod chip perfectly legally.'
Really?
'Perfectly legally?'
I fear MS may disagree with you there. Forgive me if I'm a bit off-base here (being Scottish I am often wrong about American legal matters), but isn't a Mod chip a 'circumvention device' as is (I presume) specified in the DMCA?
When it becomes law in the UK the EUCD will make it a criminal offence to possess, use or supply any device designed to 'circumvent' 'effective measures' to prevent the use of 'infringing' copies of protected works.
MS's legal argument is that the 'signing' crap in an XBOX is designed to prevent people using copied games. If this is the case then a Mod chip that allows you to execute 'unsigned' code is illegal.
That would be 'illegal' in any country that is a signatory to the Berne convention. If it isn't now then it will be shortly as all the signatories to the convention are committed to enacting the same laws.
Gotta love the new Democratic process.
1. Get together with representatives of every other government on Earth.
2. Don't tell your electorate about it or allow them any form of 'effective' input if they find out.
3. Invite all the vested interests on the subject and see just how much they are willing to bribe (donate to the 'charity' of your choice) you to get their own way.
4. Enter into a binding agreement with these other governments to all enact the legislation that the vested interests want for their poorly concealed 'donations'.
5. Go home and ram through laws that your electorate never asked for, were never consulted about, and can't change even if they throw you out of power.
Slashdot Mirror
and same as yesterday the whole site is plastered with ads from OSTG Techjobs in the UK.
So if things go badly today you can jump ship with a single click.
Funny I'm getting a cracking ad for a tech reqruiting agency based in the... ...UK!
Just in case it all goes pear-shaped today and you fancy leaving the country for a while...
1. Regardless of whether the UN has moral authority it has legal authority. OBEY IT.
... pick a 100% pro-Palestinian site that rages against Israel."
2. Who started the 1948 war is open to much heated debate. Regardless the 55/45 Israel/Palestine, internationally recognised, division ended up a 78/22 Israel/refugee camp division.
3. "You
I did, yes. Deliberately. Gush Shalom are Israelis. Try finding a pro-Israeli site run by Palestinians. I fear I will also have to suggest that there is no such thing as a reputable news source, only those whose agenda is known to you and those whose agenda remains unkown. All information on this situation requires to be assessed with an extremely critical eye.
4. If one wants to "*limit* civilian casualties as much as possible," one does not fire military ordanance at unsuspecting civilians. There is a word for that in International Law. Terrorism.
Incidentally, I have recently come to the conclusion that the IRA were not terrorists. By always giving warning in advance and limiting attacks to military or security targets they, in my opinion, put themselves in the category of freedom fighters. Its a very thin line, which many splinter groups did cross, but is is one that almost all of our 'morally superior' democracies owe their existance to.
5. I don't think anyone ever claimed Arafat was a new Ghandi. Ghandi is not the internationally recognised standard here. The key phrase is 'legitimate armed struggle', which is what the citizens of any State have the right to engage in when their lands have been invaded by another State. The Arabs do not have to engage in peaceful resistance to retain moral legitimacy.
6. Again what has Ghandi got to do with this. Again as a citizen of one of the 'morally superior' democracies of the world YOU endorse 'legitimate armed struggle.'
I have loose ties to you, Slashdot and Linux in general. Does this means you are all culpable when I go postal?
7. You raised the Israeli economy. An economy bouyed by billions in US aid and investment. I'm fairly sure Egypt receives quite a lot of aid too, although not in the same order of magnitude I imagine, as a bribe to leave Israel alone.
I'm sure I read somewhere recently that the Israeli economy is in the shitter and has been getting steadily worse since Sharon started the second Intifada.
8. "If I was" Iraq, and one of my neighbours had nuclear weapons targeted on my cities and lied glibly about even possessing them, "my priority #1 would be to develop nuclear weapons. I'm sorry, but it's true."
Your point was Arabs are lying scumbags, my counter was, Israelis are lying scumbags with WMD's.
9. "you seem to quite clearly be dismissing the idea that liberal democracy is inherently better than Islamofascist dictatorship or theocracy."
No. I'm pointing out that you have assumed that it is. In Arab countries the rich and powerful (the ones with all the oil) do whatever they want and their is almost nothing the little guy can do about it. In liberal (? lets not get into liberal/libertarian etc, etc) democracies the rich and powerful (the ones with all the oil) do whatever they want and their is almost nothing the little guy can do about it.
Clearly democracy is a morally superior form of government.
10. "I obviously believe much of that plight is self-inflicted."
Yes the Palestinians instructed the British Mandate to allow a third of a million Zionist Jews to migrate into their country, buy up all the decent land from absentee landlords in other States, throw the residents out and ban them from ever returning or buying the land they had worked for generations back.
At the end of the Second World War, after the resident Zionists had declared war on the British in an opportunistic attempt to steal the entire State of Palestine from the Palestinians, those same Palestinians suggested that a few hundred thousand of those Zionists friend
"I've been informed that at the Clinton-brokered Camp David talks the Israeli government essentially offered the PA everything it ever wanted, including a state of its own, except for the return of the Palestinian "refugees" (which of course would be a death sentence for the state of Israel). Arafat walked away and never even made a counteroffer."
ROFLMAO.
http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/barak.html
What the Palestinians want is for Israel to obey the United Nations. To return to them all the land they illegally stole in their war of agression (approximately 42% of contemporary Israel), allow all the refugees illegally forced from that land to return and to remove all the illegal settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. That territory would of course include all of East Jerusalem including the Temple Mount.
The International community has been demanding this, almost unanamously, from Israel for nearly sixty years now.
Only the obstinate support of the United States allows Israel to continue with the systematic ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
Zionists and Nazis have a lot more in common than a z in their names.
A little 'word substitution' in most news reports about occupied palestine would demonstrate that. Try replacing West Bank or Gaza with the phrase 'jewish ghetto.'
Were the British government to fire Hellfire missiles into residential Catholic areas of Belfast in retaliation for IRA violence you would be incensced. Were they to persist in doing so despite being told to stop by the United Nations I don't imagine it would take sixty years to execute a 'regime change.'
Peaceful protest only works against regimes with respect for human rights and the United Nations.
It is about as effective against the Israelis as it would be against the Khmer Rouge.
ISM recognises the Palestinian right to legitimate armed struggle. That does not mean terrorism. Think DeGaulle, George Washington, Robert the Bruce. Actually forget Robert the Bruce 'cos he was without doubt a vicious terrorist.
ISM only uses non-violent methods.
Bear in mind that you support the right to legitimate armed struggle, as do most of the rest of the civilised world.
On the subject of lying try asking the Israeli government if they possess any nuclear bombs.
How much foreign economic aid do the Arab countries receive?
"I've been informed that there is not a single functioning liberal democracy among the Arab countries"
So?
I'm informed all the Arabs are Muslims. Does that make them inferior to all the Christians?
Perhaps I should first explain what I mean by war. A war is a legal use of military force used against legitimate targets to compel another nation state to acquiesce to your demands. A terrorist action is the illegal use of military force against civilian targets to terrorise them into forcing their government to acquiesce to your demands. Any group with the ability to win a war does not engage in terrorist actions. Any gains made in war would be stripped from one by the international community at your war crimes trial.
Another poster has already pointed out that all wars involve a certain number of terrorist activities and this is lamentable. However such actions are not legal and no longer constitute any part of accepted military practice.
The purpose of your use of word substitution was quite plain to me. I was trying to point out that you were using an innappropriate substitution.
Statements A1 and A2 are true. When the word terrorist is substituted with the phrase Japanese soldier they become untrue. For your point to be made they need to remain true after the substitution. You were trying to point out that the conclusion drawn was eroneous. I agree, it was, as you rightly say, we should attempt to combat terrorism. Unfortunately the alternate propositions you make to prove the invalidity of the conclusion are themselves invalid.
The observed incidence of A occuring is not the same as its statistical likelihood. Flip a coin once and you'll see what I mean.
As to your last argument, a good statistical bet but again wrong. I live in the UK, in Scotland, which the Luftwaffe used as their main bombing route into the industrial sites of the north of England. I can walk twenty minutes from here to the pill-boxes that still stare out from Crammond Island, in 1942 the Second World War was all to real where I grew up.
The real question is, does invading Iraq (and giving exclusive contracts to exploit every economic resource in the country to our cronies) qualify as combating terrorism?
As time goes by it becomes more and more clear that the answer is no.
"The International Solidarity Movement is a Palestinian-led movement of Palestinian and International activists working to raise awareness of the struggle for Palestinian freedom and an end to Israeli occupation. We utilize nonviolent, direct-action methods of resistance to confront and challenge illegal Israeli occupation forces and policies.
b ow /lang__en-US/tabID__3337/DesktopDefault.aspx
As enshrined in international law and UN resolutions, we recognize the Palestinian right to resist Israeli violence and occupation via legitimate armed struggle. However, we believe that nonviolence can be a powerful weapon in fighting oppression and we are committed to the principles of nonviolent resistance.
# We support the Palestinian right to resist the occupation, as provided for by International Law;
# We call for an immediate end to the occupation and immediate compliance and implementation of all relevant UN resolutions;
# We call for immediate international intervention to protect the Palestinian people and ensure Israel's compliance with International Law.
Due to the lack of respect for Palestinian human rights and human life by the Israeli government and occupation forces, an international presence is needed to support Palestinian nonviolent resistance. Palestinian activists trying to work or protest alone face harsh punishment from Israeli forces. This has included beatings, long-term arrests, serious injury and even death. International activists are thus a resource for Palestinians, both in terms of their presence and as witnesses to the daily humiliation and injustice of the Israeli occupation. "
http://www.palsolidarity.org/portal/alias__Rain
"It is a fact that Corrie was an activist for a group that advocated the extermination of Israel."
You are either badly misinformed or lying. Which is it?
"It just surprises that you would so immediately believe one side or the other"
Nothing immediate about it, six months of rigorous academic study of the subject. There are two narratives to be considered here, the Palestinian and the Zionist, neither are wholly accurate. The Palestinians, despite their unfortunate associations with Islam and terrorism, are for the most part correct. Might I suggest Gush Shalom ( http://www.gush-shalom.org/english/ ) as a good place to start to get an unbiased and accurate assessment of the situation in Palestine.
"I don't see how the fact that Kopel critizes a dedication in one of Moore's books somehow obliterates the mountain of evidence in 59 Deceits. "
Simply because he has already made dozens of, what sounded like, plausable statements of fact. And then he makes one that I know for a fact is total BS, suddenly all his other statements of fact start to look very doubtful.
Kopel is clearly an intelligent guy who knows how to do his research and how to differentiate between fact and propaganda. I have no doubt whatsoever that the statements he makes about Rachel Corrie are ones that he knows to be either completely false or deliberately 'spun' to give false impressions.
Clearly I can no longer trust a single word the man utters.
Statistically - In 1941 far Far FAR more Americans were killed on the highway then by a Japanese soldier.
However the likelihood of being killed by a Japanese soldier was extremely high. You are ignoring a statistical anomaly where the likelihood of A is extremely low if B is true and extremely high if B is false. In this instance B would be 'America has not lost the battle for the Pacific.'
This sort of shoddy thinking invalidates your argument. Simply performing such a word substitution does not create equivalent statements if the substituted words are not equivalent.
Clearly 'terrorist' is not equivalent to 'soldier.' A terrorist is, by definition, someone who has no hope of winning a war. People who believe they can defeat their enemy by force of arms attack military targets not civilians.
I read 59 deceits and it seemed pretty convincing.
Right up until the point he said:
" His latest book, Dude, Where's My Country, is dedicated to the memory of Rachel Corrie, an American who traveled to Israel, burned an American flag for some Palestinian children, and served as an activist for a terrorist support group called the International Solidarity Movement (ISM). The ISM which is run by the Palestinian Communist Party and which advocates the extermination of the state of Israel. She died trying to prevent an Israeli bulldozer from removing some shrubbery which was thought to cover tunnels used by terrorist bombers to enter Israel. Thus Moore dedicated his book to someone who deliberately sought to assist the terrorist murder of civilians in Israel."
That is an outright lie. A lie of such magnitude I have trouble keeping my last meal in my stomach. As for the links contained in that text, I find myself having a sudden desire to scrub my frontal lobes clean with a wire brush.
Rachel Corrie died trying to prevent Israel demolishing the homes of Palestinian refugees in direct contravention of the Geneva conventions. Those homes had nothing to do with tunnels. They were inconvenient to the nearby Israeli settlers. Settlers who were in Palestine in direct contravention of the Geneva conventions.
'Terrorist support group'!?
People like him make me want to puke.
So unfortunately, despite a promising start where I really did start to feel like Michael Moore might be deceiving me, every single other word on Mr Kopel's website has been reclasified in my mind as almost certainly outright fiction.
TANSTAAFL.
To obtain the necessary height would require EXACTLY the same amount of energy as just accelerating to the appropriate speed directly. Always ignoring the complication of drag of course.
'install a firewall with all outbound ports except 80 restricted as well as Mozilla being the only program allowed to access the Internet'
RTFGrandparent
I've done the same with my hd's at least once and although it was a slight PITA (these things never go quite as planned) I wonder how Windows would have handled the same change...
I did an upgrade about 18 months ago where I replaced the entire system board and processor. I must have been dual booting win98 and MDK9.0 at the time. MDK just booted right up, got a lot of error messages and complaints and it probably took about an hour to get all the kinks worked out, but it worked.
Never did get that win98 install working again...
care to post a link?
"Ignorance of the law should never be accepted as an excuse to break it."
Mens rea.
doh...
(For the hard of thinking, it is an accepted principle of law throughout most of the world that one cannot be prosecuted for breaking laws you did not know you were breaking. If one is genuinely 'ignorant' of the law breaking it is not a crime.)
'Microsoft can choose to sell their product at whatever price they want to whomever they want.'
Incorrect.
Microsoft is a monopoly.
Therefore, unlike other corporations, they must adhere to a Statutory code of conduct designed to stop them abusing that power to strong-arm their way into other markets.
Everything you said after that in the parent post is a meaningless waste of electrons...
What right to make personal backups would this be?
What is 'copyright circumvention'?
I note from the wording that DeCSS and similar are now technically legal in the UK.
" (2) Such measures are "effective" if the use of the work is controlled by the copyright owner through -
(a) an access control or protection process such as encryption, scrambling or other transformation of the work, or
(b) a copy control mechanism,
which achieves the intended protection. "
The important phrase being 'which achieves the intended protection'.
CSS doesn't stop you copying or playing back copies so it isn't 'effective' and therefore isn't protected.
FROZEN BUBBLE!!!!
OMG that's an addictive game. Say thank you to the nice Mandrake devs.
Even my wife reboots into linux to get a fix of FB now and again.
Score:5 Funny
ROFLMAO!!
'it seems to be blinding you.'
To what?
That Sun just backed SCO and implied if SCO lost or went under that they would make sure the case didn't go away?
Or is it just that I am blind to your anonymous assertion that the little guy is powerless and should just shut up and let his betters run the world for him?
'Congratulations, you just picked the greater of two evils. Have fun paying way too much for an office package that runs on all of *2* platforms'
Congratulations, welcome to Slashdot, you have just made an idiot of yourself by making unfounded assumptions.
I have no intention of EVER purchasing a word processor. I have OpenOffice and it works just fine and always will do thanks to its open licence. In addition the people I persuade not to buy StarOffice I will suggest use OpenOffice instead. Two birds with one stone, both MS and Sun lose out, Sun, ironically, to its own product.
E-mote, to move to action, nobody ever makes a decision (takes action) without the involvement of emotion, by definition.
'the people who make purchasing decisions will hear you soon enough.'
I make purchasing decisions and have just made one never to purchase StarOffice.
I certainly won't be recommending StarOffice to anyone else, in fact I will be actively putting anyone I know off making any sort of Sun hard/software purchase.
So what? There may only be one of me but large things are made up of lots of little things.
A single raindrop will change nothing, a flash flood sweeps away all in its path.
Anyone else care to explain what this actually means?
"IBM is being so hypocritical. If the issue is a non-issue, why don't they indemnify their customers? And if you don't need to indemnity, why do you have the world's largest patent litigation team inside IBM suing the bejesus out of the entire industry, holding them up for ransom on IP that you claim is yours that they have purloined. Well, go look in the mirror guys. This will tear that company asunder."
It would seem to be yet another example of a bunch of words that don't really mean anything but that appear to support your argument if the reader isn't paying much attention.
Is IBM suing the bejesus out of the entire industry?
Apparently IBM is holding the entire industry to ransom with IP that I claim is mine that IBM has, apparently, purloined.
I often answer questions like this when I am still asleep (or tripping). I can string together a grammatically correct sentence, but it means nothing, in fact it looks like something Lewis Carol wrote...
(I am still unsure who is supposed to look in the mirror or what they will find when they do so.)
My initial reaction to this is 'Fuck*rs!' Here is a multi-billion $ Corportation doing untold PR damage to the community's fight against SCO. Did you notice the bit where he implied that Sun would take on IBM themselves, or by proxy, if SCO loses?
Sun are on my list from this moment on. A new axis of evil has emerged (MS/SCO/Sun) and we will fight them on the beaches...
Bastards!
What's truely funny is what Burns said to the Inq just before the speach he unveiled this processor in...
"LOUIS 'THE THIRTEENTH' BURNS suffered a slight jaw-drop today as we asked him about the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition Nova told the world about over here(link to original article-crizh)
The regal one denied all knowledge of any such chip, though there was something in his startled manner that suggested otherwise. "Never heard of it," he muttered.
"Where you from?" he demanded to know.
"The INQUIRER."
"Ah, you're not Mike," he said, which of course was true.
"Anything else?" He growled.
"You still read the INQUIRER first thing every morning?"
"Yeah," he fessed. Though his kids he said were always puzzled by the amount of times his royal features gaze out from our front page, he said.
"Say Hi to Mike," he said. Hi Mike.
Burns is due on stage in a couple of hours. Will he talk about an Intel Extreme Edition Pentium 4? That remains to be seen. But if he does, I guess he's fuming right now. Best of luck Lou. "
(quoted from the Inq)
He said good at it...
'You can also crack the XBox hardware with a mod chip perfectly legally.'
Really?
'Perfectly legally?'
I fear MS may disagree with you there. Forgive me if I'm a bit off-base here (being Scottish I am often wrong about American legal matters), but isn't a Mod chip a 'circumvention device' as is (I presume) specified in the DMCA?
When it becomes law in the UK the EUCD will make it a criminal offence to possess, use or supply any device designed to 'circumvent' 'effective measures' to prevent the use of 'infringing' copies of protected works.
MS's legal argument is that the 'signing' crap in an XBOX is designed to prevent people using copied games. If this is the case then a Mod chip that allows you to execute 'unsigned' code is illegal.
That would be 'illegal' in any country that is a signatory to the Berne convention. If it isn't now then it will be shortly as all the signatories to the convention are committed to enacting the same laws.
Gotta love the new Democratic process.
1. Get together with representatives of every other government on Earth.
2. Don't tell your electorate about it or allow them any form of 'effective' input if they find out.
3. Invite all the vested interests on the subject and see just how much they are willing to bribe (donate to the 'charity' of your choice) you to get their own way.
4. Enter into a binding agreement with these other governments to all enact the legislation that the vested interests want for their poorly concealed 'donations'.
5. Go home and ram through laws that your electorate never asked for, were never consulted about, and can't change even if they throw you out of power.
6. ?????
7. Democracy.
The Beeb doesn't just do great comedy tho'
If you haven't seen 'Edge of Darkness' I strongly recommend tracking down a copy and seeing just how good non-commercial television can be.