Wrong -- at least two of his three children do attend a public elementary school in a SF Bay Area city. Technically it is a public school, but when the average housing price is >$1 million in the school district, you're hardly talking about your average neighborhood elementary school; the parents pay property taxes instead of tuition.
"A reporter's job is to report the news, but reporting news doesn't mean you're a reporter."
Wrong. As soon as you publish something as news, then you are a reporter. There is no such thing as a "reporter's" badge or a reporter's license. The only difference between being a amateur or professional reporter is if you get a paycheck out of it. Any formal requirement, such as a "Reporer's Licence" would be a inherent violation of your First Amendment rights.
If PJ was not claiming to be a reporter, then you might have a leg to stand on. Unfortunately, you didn't take the 5-10 seconds to check the groklaw website and mission statement. To quote:
"IANAL. I am a journalist with a paralegal background"
"First, [Groklaw is] a journalistic enterprise..."
"For example a policeman's job is to enforce the law, but if you or I enforce the law we are vigilantes, not policemen."
Wrong again. Enforcing the law, inlcuding making citizen's arrest is not vigilantism.
"It is petty of you to deride an organization that first and foremost encourages community volunteerism and service. "
It's hardly petty to condemn visible and respected group discriminates against a significant portion of our population. The Boy Scouts can encourage community, volunteerism and service AND include gay scouts. Treating gays as second-class citizens hardly seems vital to the Boy Scout's mission. In fact, IMHO, punishing a young gay man for his sexual identity seems rather mean and petty. Aren't young gay teenager part of the community that the Boy Scouts are supposed to serve?
Regarding the right of assembly (which, need I remind people, the parent post *never* mentioned):
You can certainly be a member of the Boy Scouts. You can also join the Klu Klux Clan. That's your right under the 2nd Amendment.
The Boy Scouts are exercising their right to assemble and exclude gays. But doesn't mean that their actions are right. Should they be allowed to assemble? Absolutely. Should they recieve our support while discriminating against young gay teenagers who want to join? IMHO, absolutely not.
Why is GoldSpider's post being moderated informative? I don't get it. Oh, wait, this is Slashdot.
GoldSpider said:
"With that off my chest, might I refer you to our Bill of Rights. Specifically: "...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble""
Where did the parent post say that the Boy Scouts couldn't assemble? What the parent post said was: "They deserve neither our respect nor our money." The parent post said nothing about the second amendment or the Boy Scout's right to assemble.
Yet GoldSpider wants to imply that the poster is against the 2nd amendment. That's pretty sleazy, Mr. Spider.
Do you carry your box of tools around everywhere you go? What if you had a "universal" tool that *did* work as well as your separate hammer/screwdriver/wrench, yet only took up the same space as the smallest too?
Separate PDA, cellphone, and MP3 player? Sorry, not everyone wants to walk around with a utility belt. PDA, MP3 player, cellphone - that's three separate items to manage and keep track of.
Here's why this convergence is inevitable:
- Just entered a new contact into your PDA. Now you want to call them -- oops! That's a separate entry into your cell phone.
- You just saw something you'd love to take a picture of. You have your cell phone, but because your camera is a separate item, you almost never carry it with you. Too bad...
- You had a really great phone call with a college and now you'd really love to jot down the ideas discussed on the phone. Oops, you're not wearing your utility belt today and so your PDA is back at home...
Assuming continued improvements in technology, there's no reason why five years from now every cell-phone will have the power to run sophisticated PDA software, have a decent 3 megapixel lens, a storage capacity of 50GB+, and enough battery power to last as long as current cell phones. If that's the case, why spend your money on carrying around three separate items?
Professional journalism can give the appearance of being objective, but if you believe it is, then I've got a bridge to sell you. There is *always* bias.
Your emphasis on professionalism is retarded. All that professional means is someone was paid to write their articles. Sometimes they may be fact checked and sometimes they reviewed by a an editorial board, but the notion that being a professional automatically means a reporter has some sort of "objectivity" is laughable.
Everyone and every institution has an axe to grind, whether they admit it or not. Take a look around and pick your viewpoint, but Project Censored and Manufacturing Consent might be a good start.
As for lack of respectability, off the top of my head I can think of at least three widely read, respected blogs: DailyKos, Instapundit, Joel On Software.
99.99% of the blogs out there won't achieve the respect or visibility of some mainstream publications, but then again you could say the same thing for 95% of the newspapers out there.
Thank you for the affirmation and the (wow!) apology (pretty rare on Slashdot!).
I guess I'm lucky I was allowed to rant and did not get modded down for being flamebait.
Regarding the drives, it's very likely that they simply made a copy of the drive for forensic evidence. Deleting files and/or placing back-doors or spyware, while possible, is unlikely; see Suwain's post. Nevertheless Indymedia is taking the appropriate attitude of assuming the boxes have been hacked, and the EFF is doing the right thing by defending them against what's possibly illegal intimidation tactics.
Sounds like a classic case of "The Innovator's Dilemma" - unlike a startup who was willing to risk on a disruptive technology, there was no immediate corporate customer interested in spending big $$$ on your system, so your IBM managers did the sensible thing and pulled the plug.
Gee, if they've been confiscated & removed from the servers... NO, HE CAN'T!
Yes, he could have posted previous links. Then I could have gone to the wayback machine and checked for the posts.
But, no one, not even Indymedia has claimed that any information was removed from the servers (they just say that they're treating them as if they've been "hacked"). So what gives you the right to say the photos were confiscated?
My point is that just replying and saying "you are wrong, you are wrong, you are wrong," without proof of that is not doing anyone any good, and is probably bad for your health.
You're putting words into my mouth. I never said he was lying (look over my post again), and except for not liking his comment about posting the police officers personal information, I never disagreed with what he was saying.
The reason I posted was because:
(1) He posted a juicy story with absolutely no evidence to back it up. In fact, I'd like to believe his story -- but of course he provides no way for me to find corroborating postings or evidence. Silly me for wanting to dig further, I guess.
(2) It pissed me off further to realize people moderated his post up as informative, when it contains absolutely no information and not a single damn thing to back up Mr. Max von H's statements. Just because you'd like to believe his story (who wouldn't? Heroic protesters fighting against the oppressive regime) doesn't give you an excuse to turn your brain off.
I'm sure there's a way to manipulate the story as presented to make the actions of the police seem justifiable, although I am not a writer, so I can't think of one.
...assuming that the police actually acted the way this Max Von H. said.
At best, Mr. Max is lazy and irresponsible for not providing useful links or anything to back up some very serious charges. At worst, he's a popularity seeking liar. Given the fact that Mr. Max has provided no counter-argument, I'm starting to believe the latter.
Mod up responsibly, people. This is rumor, not information.
I was in the incriminated demonstration There's absolutely no reason to believe you.
On the right side we had peaceful demonstrators (about a million) and on the other a group of about 200 rioteers (the Black Block) helped by some suburb scum Really? A million? Any way to back that claim up?
The root of Indymedia's problems is that there are photos of some Swiss police agents (with their names and addresses, hehe)
No, not funny. A police officer's job is stressful enough without having his/her house being a target of some asshole or paranoid schizophrenic who think's he's saving the world by harrassing your kids and your home. That's juvenile bullshit.
The root of Indymedia's problems is that there are photos...
Really? Perhaps you could have posted a link to these supposed photos?
It makes me smile though to see the incriminated images have now spread to about 400 mirrors worldwide instead of 2 or 3 sites
Oh really, where are these supposed mirrors?
Our local authorities are going batshit about it, yelling they'll have ALL the servers containing those images seized..
Proof? This guy may be telling the truth, or he could be making up 95% of this. Unfortunately, Mr. Max Von H.'s post is so lacking in substance that we'll never know whether he's telling the truth or he's making up most of this to gain notoriety.
Yet another Slashdotter accuses someone of something he goes on to commit himself.
Have no clue who Twirlip is (since that's who you linked to), nor is associating him with me helpful to your argument.
So the Zionists convince the British Empire to evict the Arabs from Israel, and you think those victims should've argued in defense of their attackers?
Where do you dredge up this crap? The British *never* expelled *any* Palestinian from the areas now controlled by Israel. In fact, Britain restricted the immigration of Jews to Palestine and limited their ability to buy land. You might have had some credibility given to your argument if you had actually brought up actual historical events causing grief to Palestinians. 600-800,000 Palestinians fled Israel in 1947, during the war of Independance (in response, Arab states expelled over 800,000 Arab Jews, most of which now live in Israel). The refugee camps were not in Israel's territory until after the 1967 war (instigated by Egypt and Jordan). In both cases, the Palestianian's losses were a direct result of Arab agression. Arabs (including Arafat and the PLO) have more than their share of the blame for the Palestinian's current plight.
As I already explained, this focus on Israel is not because they're uniquely bad, but because they claim to be better than that. Yes, I do hold them to higher standards. Saudi Arabia doesn't claim to be a land of freedom or enlightenment, so it isn't worth the time to point out that they're not.
I see. It doesn't matter how nicely you play, or how much restraint you show -- it's whether or not you claim the moral high ground -- apparently, words, not actions are important to you. And in fact, if I understand your position correctly, what Israel should have done was just killed/expelled all the Palestinian refugees and then told the rest of the world that it was none of their business. Kinda like Turkey with the Kurds (again, another situation that somehow never causes much outrage?). Perhaps they should have done exactly what the Arabs would have done to them had they lost in 1948, 1967, or 1973? Would that have been satisfactory?
Why don't you allow people to talk about one country without listing off their opinion on every other nation in the world?
To hold up the double-standard by which you judge Israel. Rediculous comments like "You're wrong about that 22 Arab states. Not all of them are systemically racist" just prove my point. There's over 22 Islamic countries, but just one Jewish state, and guess who you set fit to pick on?
Israel as a Jewish state has the right exist. The Palestinians (including the PLO) do not recognize that right. Until they do, why even pretend there's a reason to compromise?
Palestinian bombs still blow up Israeli buses. Rockets still bombard Israeli homes. The major Palestinian organizations (PLO and Hamas) do not recognize Israel's right to exist. Yet you blithely suggest they should be allowed to live well inside Israel's borders. You might as well ask Israelis to slit their throats right now.
Or maybe you're a secularist. If not for a religiously-motivated desired to keep Israel a Jewish state, then Muslim "Palestinians" and others could live there perfectly peacefully.
Your ignorance of the history of Israel and the Palestinian conflict is profound.
They had that chance in 1948, and they blew it. They could have told their Arab neighbors, "leave our Jewish neighbors alone." But no, they left, hoping that Syria, Jordan, and Egypt would wipe them out.
Palestinians had over 50 years to win the trust of the Israelis as neighbors. They had over 50 years to peaceably build the infrastructure of the Gaza strip, West Bank, etc. Yet the PLO (and later Hamas) has continued to show just how unfriendly they can be, shooting rockets into Israel, bombing buses and buildings, assasinating their Olympic team. They behaved so badly that the PLO was even expelled from Jordan in 1972 for trying to start a civil war.... and yet, you want the Israelis to play nice.
Theocracy is incompatible with democracy. By defending their goal of religious-purity, you are conceding to the various attacks made against them. It's an explanation, not an excuse.
Right next door, there is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia - not even a democracy -- yet I don't hear you bewailling and moaning that fact? Where's the cries to make Saudi Arabia a secular, democratic state?
Or... how about Pakistan? Where the state religion is Islam? Somehow I hear no calls for the transformation of the Pakistani state? Where's the big outcry? How about Kuwait?
Or maybe it's because you like to hold Jews to a double standard?
Of course that's why you're spraying anti-Israeli propaganda;)
(a) Israel is building a big fuckoff wall *way outside* those borders, conveniently annexing large swathes of territory that do not belong to Israel with NO JUSTIFICATION
(a) Take a look at the map. Look at the scale. Israel is less than 50 miles across and 300 miles wide. It is smaller than California. And who's surrounding them? Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt. Israel did not have a treaty with Egypt until 1979, Jordan, until 1994. That means that this tiny country was surrounded by hostile countries. Countries that have gone to war against Israel four times betwen 1948 and 1972. Israel is small, is surrounded by hostile neighbors who explicitly have attempted to "drive the Jews into the sea." What would you do? If you say you would act any less agressively, you're either a pacifist or a liar.
(b) Israel is pursuing a systematic policy of colonising a foreign territory with 'native' Israelis
(b) Old news. They're pulling the settlers out. Though I agree with you that the settlements were wrong and stupid. The settlers are zealous idiots that have jeopardized the lives and safety of the less zealous Israeli citizen.
(c) Israelis forces are performing violent operations against civilian, terrorist and militia forces alike with no real concern as to which is which, outside its own territory, with no international sanction and indeed against international law and consensus
(c) And the exact same thing is happening in Iraq. If you have a force that hides in civilian territories, there will be civilian casualties. Unfortunately, the Hamas does not have clearly demarked buildings and uniforms for the Israeli army to combat! I'm sure if the Hamas was really concerned about their fellow Palestinian's lives they would do so. But they dont.
Let me ask you - suppose you had a neighbor who liked to throw grenades into your yard, mail you explosives in an attempt to blow you up, and has told everyone that their goal is to destroy you (this is Hamas' stated goal) and your family? How would you react?
(d) the Israeli government actually talks about maintaining the genetic purity of Israel (ah the irony) in the sense of making sure that at least 50% of Israelis are Jewish so that there can never be a 'democratic coup' inside Israel at election time
The state of Israel is a theocracy, by Jews, for Jews. The modern state of Israel might not have ever happened if it weren't for the Holocaust. Jews want to have a nation where it's safe to be Jewish, where they are never prosecuted for their religion or ancestry. As a democracy, they don't get that guarantee if the Arab population goes over 50%. Demise by war or demise by population expansion -- either way it means the end of the Jewish state.
By the way, You don't have to be born Jewish to become a citizen, so your "genetic purity" argument is bogus.
(e) Israel, unlike other nations, is completely ignored in all the hubbub from the west about nuclear proliferation despite possessing 100-200 nuclear warheads.
See my response to (a) above. It's not like it has Canada to the north and Mexico to the south. Israel, for its very survival, has to be tougher and meaner than any Arab country out there, or it will be run over and crushed.
As a Christian, I believe that homosexuality is sinful
According to what? The Bible? Or what your hate-mongering preacher spoon-fed you?
If you are planning to hate gays based on the the Old Testament purity laws in Leviticus, then you'd better follow all of them, including no blood transfusions, no clothing of mixed fibers, eating kosher, and not clipping off the edges of your beard. Otherwise you're cherry picking which parts of the Bible to follow, and that's hypocritical. Furthermore, passages in the Bible indicate that adherence on the Levitican purity laws is contrary to Jesus's teachings
Killing babies, though... man. That's a moral issue, not a religious one. Even the most vocal proponent of "choice," which is just a euphamism for "death,"
I hear something like this and I think of a kid who cries when Bambi's mother dies and later munches on a hamburger. The cute deer gets the tear in your eye while you ignore the fact you're eating the entrails of probably 200-300 different cows for your mealtime. Your heart's in the right place, but you suffer from moral myopia -- you don't take into account the larger picture involved. Mourning the death of unwanted babies while sentimental, really does nothing to fight the world's suffering.
Tell you what, instead of sensationalistic bemoaning of the unborn children, why don't you work on the following causes first?
- According to estimates, there are 800 Million people who go hungry worldwide. 1 child dies every 7 seconds from hunger.
- Over one million children were homeless in nice warm months - like October and February.
- In Africa, 16 million children are homeless due to the AIDS epidemic there.
So why don't you work on helping the kids people actually want first before harassing women facing a difficult choice?
Mrs. Roe is now wishing that she hadn't had an abortion.
Hmmm... wouldn't you have second thoughts if you'd become the nationwide target of assholes telling you how to live your life? That's succumbing to peer pressure, not a moral revelation.
Not only is it mindless killing, it is also a psychological burden to most would-have-been mothers.
Lastly, unless it's your body that's carrying the baby, it's really none of your fucking business. It's the woman's body; the woman has the right to chose to have a kid -- when she's ready, and no sooner. If you can't respect that, then you have no right to have your grubby hands (much less your penis) in a woman's womb.
Sig at the end of your Star Wars post: Does anyone else find it distasteful when a draft dodger calls into question the medals of a war hero? (Parent's sig).
What was that doing in the Star Wars posting?
Perhaps the people who modded you as troll were rightfully annoyed with you placing a political, inflammatory sig at the end of a message not in politics.slashdot.org?
One thing I like about this system is that you can trade off money for ensuring a spot during popular hours. Alternatively you can go for more money on less popular jobs/shifts.
Hopefully this will turn out to be a win-win system - less manpower to figure out schedules, and people getting the combination of money or schedule flexibility that they desire.
If you don't want to use your car, you should have picked the area you live in better
Fair argument, but you assume there was better choices to make near where the parent poster works.
...or make sacrifices so you can afford to live downtown somewhere with everything packed together.
Nonsense and balderdash. This assumes that the only downtown spaces can be person (versus car) friendly. Space-gulping pedestrian unfriendly suburban planning (or lack thereof) is *not* a given. Alternative block design and the new trend of "traditional neighborhood development (TND) bring up alternatives to cul-de-sacs, mega-mall fortresses, and strip-mall hell.
Besides, we're smart slash-dot readers, why should be feel compelled to be stuck with inferior choices when there's a possibility of smart design for our living and working communities?
Anecdote: My friend has a step-mother who never will have to work another day in her life -- she gets $100K/year just from sitting around and collecting real-estate income. The woman is neurotic beyond belief (hypochondria being the most prominent proble), is unahappily devorced, has spotty relations with her children.
We try to stay #1 economically. Consider that may not be the best end goal.
1. My time in line at Seatac -- and I've flown out 3 times since 9/11 -- have been less than 1/2 hour. If you're relying on the evening news as your only source of information, then you're a fool.
2. Your vehicle? WTF? A 10-second search at Google shows that Shuttle express has lift-equipped vans. This is less than $30.00 one way; given that you'll be paying $8.00/day for parking your own car, I don't think this would be an extravagant expense.
MS, I'm sure, is no fun. But that doesn't give you an excuse to litter Slashdot with your self-defeatist attitude. The next time, you can post how you managed to make it there, despite your disabilities.
The parent post suggested that Microsoft was the only place to create a popular software program -- I was trying to give counter-examples. I'm pretty sure Gnucash is not a popular application outside of the Linux community.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong -- at least two of his three children do attend a public elementary school in a SF Bay Area city. Technically it is a public school, but when the average housing price is >$1 million in the school district, you're hardly talking about your average neighborhood elementary school; the parents pay property taxes instead of tuition.
My post above has the entire article in a single webpage (the "printable" format).
Google cache of the "printable" version.
clicky.
Wrong. As soon as you publish something as news, then you are a reporter. There is no such thing as a "reporter's" badge or a reporter's license. The only difference between being a amateur or professional reporter is if you get a paycheck out of it. Any formal requirement, such as a "Reporer's Licence" would be a inherent violation of your First Amendment rights.
If PJ was not claiming to be a reporter, then you might have a leg to stand on. Unfortunately, you didn't take the 5-10 seconds to check the groklaw website and mission statement. To quote:
"For example a policeman's job is to enforce the law, but if you or I enforce the law we are vigilantes, not policemen."
Wrong again. Enforcing the law, inlcuding making citizen's arrest is not vigilantism.
Two strikes. Care for a third?
GoldSpider said:
"It is petty of you to deride an organization that first and foremost encourages community volunteerism and service. "
It's hardly petty to condemn visible and respected group discriminates against a significant portion of our population. The Boy Scouts can encourage community, volunteerism and service AND include gay scouts. Treating gays as second-class citizens hardly seems vital to the Boy Scout's mission. In fact, IMHO, punishing a young gay man for his sexual identity seems rather mean and petty. Aren't young gay teenager part of the community that the Boy Scouts are supposed to serve?
Regarding the right of assembly (which, need I remind people, the parent post *never* mentioned):
You can certainly be a member of the Boy Scouts. You can also join the Klu Klux Clan. That's your right under the 2nd Amendment.
The Boy Scouts are exercising their right to assemble and exclude gays. But doesn't mean that their actions are right. Should they be allowed to assemble? Absolutely. Should they recieve our support while discriminating against young gay teenagers who want to join? IMHO, absolutely not.
Why is GoldSpider's post being moderated informative? I don't get it. Oh, wait, this is Slashdot.
GoldSpider said:
"With that off my chest, might I refer you to our Bill of Rights. Specifically: "...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble""
Where did the parent post say that the Boy Scouts couldn't assemble? What the parent post said was: "They deserve neither our respect nor our money." The parent post said nothing about the second amendment or the Boy Scout's right to assemble.
Yet GoldSpider wants to imply that the poster is against the 2nd amendment. That's pretty sleazy, Mr. Spider.
Do you carry your box of tools around everywhere you go? What if you had a "universal" tool that *did* work as well as your separate hammer/screwdriver/wrench, yet only took up the same space as the smallest too?
Separate PDA, cellphone, and MP3 player? Sorry, not everyone wants to walk around with a utility belt. PDA, MP3 player, cellphone - that's three separate items to manage and keep track of.
Here's why this convergence is inevitable:
- Just entered a new contact into your PDA. Now you want to call them -- oops! That's a separate entry into your cell phone.
- You just saw something you'd love to take a picture of. You have your cell phone, but because your camera is a separate item, you almost never carry it with you. Too bad...
- You had a really great phone call with a college and now you'd really love to jot down the ideas discussed on the phone. Oops, you're not wearing your utility belt today and so your PDA is back at home...
Assuming continued improvements in technology, there's no reason why five years from now every cell-phone will have the power to run sophisticated PDA software, have a decent 3 megapixel lens, a storage capacity of 50GB+, and enough battery power to last as long as current cell phones. If that's the case, why spend your money on carrying around three separate items?
Professional journalism can give the appearance of being objective, but if you believe it is, then I've got a bridge to sell you. There is *always* bias.
Your emphasis on professionalism is retarded. All that professional means is someone was paid to write their articles. Sometimes they may be fact checked and sometimes they reviewed by a an editorial board, but the notion that being a professional automatically means a reporter has some sort of "objectivity" is laughable.
Everyone and every institution has an axe to grind, whether they admit it or not. Take a look around and pick your viewpoint, but Project Censored and Manufacturing Consent might be a good start.
As for lack of respectability, off the top of my head I can think of at least three widely read, respected blogs: DailyKos, Instapundit, Joel On Software.
99.99% of the blogs out there won't achieve the respect or visibility of some mainstream publications, but then again you could say the same thing for 95% of the newspapers out there.
Holy cow, what a rebuttal. How about the simple truth that you were wrong and you're not enough of a man to admit it?
Thank you for the affirmation and the (wow!) apology (pretty rare on Slashdot!).
:)
I guess I'm lucky I was allowed to rant and did not get modded down for being flamebait.
Regarding the drives, it's very likely that they simply made a copy of the drive for forensic evidence. Deleting files and/or placing back-doors or spyware, while possible, is unlikely; see Suwain's post. Nevertheless Indymedia is taking the appropriate attitude of assuming the boxes have been hacked, and the EFF is doing the right thing by defending them against what's possibly illegal intimidation tactics.
Take care.
Sounds like a classic case of "The Innovator's Dilemma" - unlike a startup who was willing to risk on a disruptive technology, there was no immediate corporate customer interested in spending big $$$ on your system, so your IBM managers did the sensible thing and pulled the plug.
Yes, he could have posted previous links. Then I could have gone to the wayback machine and checked for the posts.
But, no one, not even Indymedia has claimed that any information was removed from the servers (they just say that they're treating them as if they've been "hacked"). So what gives you the right to say the photos were confiscated?
My point is that just replying and saying "you are wrong, you are wrong, you are wrong," without proof of that is not doing anyone any good, and is probably bad for your health.
You're putting words into my mouth. I never said he was lying (look over my post again), and except for not liking his comment about posting the police officers personal information, I never disagreed with what he was saying.
The reason I posted was because:
(1) He posted a juicy story with absolutely no evidence to back it up. In fact, I'd like to believe his story -- but of course he provides no way for me to find corroborating postings or evidence. Silly me for wanting to dig further, I guess.
(2) It pissed me off further to realize people moderated his post up as informative, when it contains absolutely no information and not a single damn thing to back up Mr. Max von H's statements. Just because you'd like to believe his story (who wouldn't? Heroic protesters fighting against the oppressive regime) doesn't give you an excuse to turn your brain off.
I'm sure there's a way to manipulate the story as presented to make the actions of the police seem justifiable, although I am not a writer, so I can't think of one.
...assuming that the police actually acted the way this Max Von H. said.
At best, Mr. Max is lazy and irresponsible for not providing useful links or anything to back up some very serious charges. At worst, he's a popularity seeking liar. Given the fact that Mr. Max has provided no counter-argument, I'm starting to believe the latter.
Mod up responsibly, people. This is rumor, not information.
I was in the incriminated demonstration
There's absolutely no reason to believe you.
On the right side we had peaceful demonstrators (about a million) and on the other a group of about 200 rioteers (the Black Block) helped by some suburb scum
Really? A million? Any way to back that claim up?
The root of Indymedia's problems is that there are photos of some Swiss police agents (with their names and addresses, hehe)
No, not funny. A police officer's job is stressful enough without having his/her house being a target of some asshole or paranoid schizophrenic who think's he's saving the world by harrassing your kids and your home. That's juvenile bullshit.
The root of Indymedia's problems is that there are photos...
Really? Perhaps you could have posted a link to these supposed photos?
It makes me smile though to see the incriminated images have now spread to about 400 mirrors worldwide instead of 2 or 3 sites
Oh really, where are these supposed mirrors?
Our local authorities are going batshit about it, yelling they'll have ALL the servers containing those images seized..
Proof?
This guy may be telling the truth, or he could be making up 95% of this. Unfortunately, Mr. Max Von H.'s post is so lacking in substance that we'll never know whether he's telling the truth or he's making up most of this to gain notoriety.
Okay, I'll feed the troll.
Applications of Relativity:
- Nuclear power
- Global Positioning Systems
- Nuclear Weapons
To say that the Theory of Relativity had an effect on our world today would be a huge understatement.Yet another Slashdotter accuses someone of something he goes on to commit himself.
Have no clue who Twirlip is (since that's who you linked to), nor is associating him with me helpful to your argument.
So the Zionists convince the British Empire to evict the Arabs from Israel, and you think those victims should've argued in defense of their attackers?
Where do you dredge up this crap? The British *never* expelled *any* Palestinian from the areas now controlled by Israel. In fact, Britain restricted the immigration of Jews to Palestine and limited their ability to buy land. You might have had some credibility given to your argument if you had actually brought up actual historical events causing grief to Palestinians. 600-800,000 Palestinians fled Israel in 1947, during the war of Independance (in response, Arab states expelled over 800,000 Arab Jews, most of which now live in Israel). The refugee camps were not in Israel's territory until after the 1967 war (instigated by Egypt and Jordan). In both cases, the Palestianian's losses were a direct result of Arab agression. Arabs (including Arafat and the PLO) have more than their share of the blame for the Palestinian's current plight.
As I already explained, this focus on Israel is not because they're uniquely bad, but because they claim to be better than that. Yes, I do hold them to higher standards. Saudi Arabia doesn't claim to be a land of freedom or enlightenment, so it isn't worth the time to point out that they're not.
I see. It doesn't matter how nicely you play, or how much restraint you show -- it's whether or not you claim the moral high ground -- apparently, words, not actions are important to you. And in fact, if I understand your position correctly, what Israel should have done was just killed/expelled all the Palestinian refugees and then told the rest of the world that it was none of their business. Kinda like Turkey with the Kurds (again, another situation that somehow never causes much outrage?). Perhaps they should have done exactly what the Arabs would have done to them had they lost in 1948, 1967, or 1973? Would that have been satisfactory?
Why don't you allow people to talk about one country without listing off their opinion on every other nation in the world?
To hold up the double-standard by which you judge Israel. Rediculous comments like "You're wrong about that 22 Arab states. Not all of them are systemically racist" just prove my point. There's over 22 Islamic countries, but just one Jewish state, and guess who you set fit to pick on?
Israel as a Jewish state has the right exist. The Palestinians (including the PLO) do not recognize that right. Until they do, why even pretend there's a reason to compromise?
Palestinian bombs still blow up Israeli buses. Rockets still bombard Israeli homes. The major Palestinian organizations (PLO and Hamas) do not recognize Israel's right to exist. Yet you blithely suggest they should be allowed to live well inside Israel's borders. You might as well ask Israelis to slit their throats right now.
Or maybe you're a secularist. If not for a religiously-motivated desired to keep Israel a Jewish state, then Muslim "Palestinians" and others could live there perfectly peacefully.
... and yet, you want the Israelis to play nice.
Your ignorance of the history of Israel and the Palestinian conflict is profound.
They had that chance in 1948, and they blew it. They could have told their Arab neighbors, "leave our Jewish neighbors alone." But no, they left, hoping that Syria, Jordan, and Egypt would wipe them out.
Palestinians had over 50 years to win the trust of the Israelis as neighbors. They had over 50 years to peaceably build the infrastructure of the Gaza strip, West Bank, etc. Yet the PLO (and later Hamas) has continued to show just how unfriendly they can be, shooting rockets into Israel, bombing buses and buildings, assasinating their Olympic team. They behaved so badly that the PLO was even expelled from Jordan in 1972 for trying to start a civil war.
Theocracy is incompatible with democracy. By defending their goal of religious-purity, you are conceding to the various attacks made against them. It's an explanation, not an excuse.
Right next door, there is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia - not even a democracy -- yet I don't hear you bewailling and moaning that fact? Where's the cries to make Saudi Arabia a secular, democratic state?
Or... how about Pakistan? Where the state religion is Islam? Somehow I hear no calls for the transformation of the Pakistani state? Where's the big outcry? How about Kuwait?
Or maybe it's because you like to hold Jews to a double standard?
Of course that's why you're spraying anti-Israeli propaganda ;)
(a) Israel is building a big fuckoff wall *way outside* those borders, conveniently annexing large swathes of territory that do not belong to Israel with NO JUSTIFICATION
(a) Take a look at the map. Look at the scale. Israel is less than 50 miles across and 300 miles wide. It is smaller than California. And who's surrounding them? Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt. Israel did not have a treaty with Egypt until 1979, Jordan, until 1994. That means that this tiny country was surrounded by hostile countries. Countries that have gone to war against Israel four times betwen 1948 and 1972. Israel is small, is surrounded by hostile neighbors who explicitly have attempted to "drive the Jews into the sea." What would you do? If you say you would act any less agressively, you're either a pacifist or a liar.
(b) Israel is pursuing a systematic policy of colonising a foreign territory with 'native' Israelis
(b) Old news. They're pulling the settlers out. Though I agree with you that the settlements were wrong and stupid. The settlers are zealous idiots that have jeopardized the lives and safety of the less zealous Israeli citizen.
(c) Israelis forces are performing violent operations against civilian, terrorist and militia forces alike with no real concern as to which is which, outside its own territory, with no international sanction and indeed against international law and consensus
(c) And the exact same thing is happening in Iraq. If you have a force that hides in civilian territories, there will be civilian casualties. Unfortunately, the Hamas does not have clearly demarked buildings and uniforms for the Israeli army to combat! I'm sure if the Hamas was really concerned about their fellow Palestinian's lives they would do so. But they dont.
Let me ask you - suppose you had a neighbor who liked to throw grenades into your yard, mail you explosives in an attempt to blow you up, and has told everyone that their goal is to destroy you (this is Hamas' stated goal) and your family? How would you react?
(d) the Israeli government actually talks about maintaining the genetic purity of Israel (ah the irony) in the sense of making sure that at least 50% of Israelis are Jewish so that there can never be a 'democratic coup' inside Israel at election time
The state of Israel is a theocracy, by Jews, for Jews. The modern state of Israel might not have ever happened if it weren't for the Holocaust. Jews want to have a nation where it's safe to be Jewish, where they are never prosecuted for their religion or ancestry. As a democracy, they don't get that guarantee if the Arab population goes over 50%. Demise by war or demise by population expansion -- either way it means the end of the Jewish state.
By the way, You don't have to be born Jewish to become a citizen, so your "genetic purity" argument is bogus.
(e) Israel, unlike other nations, is completely ignored in all the hubbub from the west about nuclear proliferation despite possessing 100-200 nuclear warheads.
See my response to (a) above. It's not like it has Canada to the north and Mexico to the south. Israel, for its very survival, has to be tougher and meaner than any Arab country out there, or it will be run over and crushed.
As a Christian, I believe that homosexuality is sinful
According to what? The Bible? Or what your hate-mongering preacher spoon-fed you?
If you are planning to hate gays based on the the Old Testament purity laws in Leviticus, then you'd better follow all of them, including no blood transfusions, no clothing of mixed fibers, eating kosher, and not clipping off the edges of your beard. Otherwise you're cherry picking which parts of the Bible to follow, and that's hypocritical. Furthermore, passages in the Bible indicate that adherence on the Levitican purity laws is contrary to Jesus's teachings
Killing babies, though... man. That's a moral issue, not a religious one. Even the most vocal proponent of "choice," which is just a euphamism for "death,"
I hear something like this and I think of a kid who cries when Bambi's mother dies and later munches on a hamburger. The cute deer gets the tear in your eye while you ignore the fact you're eating the entrails of probably 200-300 different cows for your mealtime. Your heart's in the right place, but you suffer from moral myopia -- you don't take into account the larger picture involved. Mourning the death of unwanted babies while sentimental, really does nothing to fight the world's suffering.
Tell you what, instead of sensationalistic bemoaning of the unborn children, why don't you work on the following causes first?
- According to estimates, there are 800 Million people who go hungry worldwide. 1 child dies every 7 seconds from hunger.
- Over one million children were homeless in nice warm months - like October and February.
- In Africa, 16 million children are homeless due to the AIDS epidemic there.
- over 3 million children were abused in 2001 . 1300 died from abuse, amounting to 3 per day.
So why don't you work on helping the kids people actually want first before harassing women facing a difficult choice?
Mrs. Roe is now wishing that she hadn't had an abortion.
Hmmm... wouldn't you have second thoughts if you'd become the nationwide target of assholes telling you how to live your life? That's succumbing to peer pressure, not a moral revelation.
Not only is it mindless killing, it is also a psychological burden to most would-have-been mothers.
Ummm... bullshit.
Lastly, unless it's your body that's carrying the baby, it's really none of your fucking business. It's the woman's body; the woman has the right to chose to have a kid -- when she's ready, and no sooner. If you can't respect that, then you have no right to have your grubby hands (much less your penis) in a woman's womb.
Sig at the end of your Star Wars post:
Does anyone else find it distasteful when a draft dodger calls into question the medals of a war hero? (Parent's sig).
What was that doing in the Star Wars posting?
Perhaps the people who modded you as troll were rightfully annoyed with you placing a political, inflammatory sig at the end of a message not in politics.slashdot.org?
One thing I like about this system is that you can trade off money for ensuring a spot during popular hours. Alternatively you can go for more money on less popular jobs/shifts.
Hopefully this will turn out to be a win-win system - less manpower to figure out schedules, and people getting the combination of money or schedule flexibility that they desire.
Studies find that suburban sprawl may bad for your health due to it's probable link to obesity. Not terribly surprising since you're driving most places instead of walking.
If you don't want to use your car, you should have picked the area you live in better
Fair argument, but you assume there was better choices to make near where the parent poster works.
...or make sacrifices so you can afford to live downtown somewhere with everything packed together.
Nonsense and balderdash. This assumes that the only downtown spaces can be person (versus car) friendly. Space-gulping pedestrian unfriendly suburban planning (or lack thereof) is *not* a given. Alternative block design and the new trend of "traditional neighborhood development (TND) bring up alternatives to cul-de-sacs, mega-mall fortresses, and strip-mall hell.
Besides, we're smart slash-dot readers, why should be feel compelled to be stuck with inferior choices when there's a possibility of smart design for our living and working communities?
X years from now, what do you think are the odds a top economic ranking is will give you comfort on your death-bed?
How about the fact that we have twice the infant mortality rate than Sweden ? Or that we have twice the obesity rate of Sweden?
Anecdote: My friend has a step-mother who never will have to work another day in her life -- she gets $100K/year just from sitting around and collecting real-estate income. The woman is neurotic beyond belief (hypochondria being the most prominent proble), is unahappily devorced, has spotty relations with her children.
We try to stay #1 economically. Consider that may not be the best end goal.
1. My time in line at Seatac -- and I've flown out 3 times since 9/11 -- have been less than 1/2 hour. If you're relying on the evening news as your only source of information, then you're a fool.
2. Your vehicle? WTF? A 10-second search at Google shows that Shuttle express has lift-equipped vans. This is less than $30.00 one way; given that you'll be paying $8.00/day for parking your own car, I don't think this would be an extravagant expense.
MS, I'm sure, is no fun. But that doesn't give you an excuse to litter Slashdot with your self-defeatist attitude. The next time, you can post how you managed to make it there, despite your disabilities.
Nice try.
The parent post suggested that Microsoft was the only place to create a popular software program -- I was trying to give counter-examples. I'm pretty sure Gnucash is not a popular application outside of the Linux community.
I think your argument is correct. Who could possibly think there's other companies or organizations that build influential software that people use all the time?
No, truly, Microsoft is the only place to create influential software...