a) you're right, there's no threat, and lifting security precautions won't change a thing b) you're wrong, there is a threat, and lifting security precautions means a weekly re-run of 9/11
If b) is true you're asking thousands of people to die just so you can have a little easier time at an airport. And, frankly, anyone reading the news knows perfectly well b) is true.
What you say isn't true, btw, you have the option of paying enough to charter a flight and avoid the continental U.S. altogether. The problem isn't what the sovereign united states do, the problem is that you are prepared to accept any amount of discomfort for a few bucks.
You know, making up "undeniable fact" still constitutes making things up.
Quite frankly, lending from yourself (no matter how many "departments" are involved) is a fraudulent scheme, no matter which way you turn it. Basically the government has -somehow- gotten away with spending "we'll tax future americans" IOU's.
The government has spent the pensions of American baby boomers. That is an actual fact.
So, given the fact that the current "extreme" (heh) of capitalism can't feed even everyone...
we should switch to something else ??? Knowing full well, that every other system, both in (economic) theory and in practice produces less.
Say we switch to a system 50% less efficient but "more fair" (for some ideology's definition of fair). That means we can (maybe) keep 4 billion people alive worldwide (and that's VERY optimistic)... no more. How exactly will you organize the genocide necessary for this idea to even have a fighting chance ?
It's probably not the consumer, because when Big'n'Big Co finds a way to half their cost of production, it's not guaranteed to drive prices down. Why bother cutting prices and taking a bigger market share when you can just shovel up a pile of cash big enough to buy your competitors (or a controlling interest in their stock)? Hell, why not just collude with your competitors to keep prices artificially inflated - then everyone's happy!
Of course, that's already outlawed. So your argument is that we need more cops then ? I don't understand.
Well fuck, if it's not the middle class or the lower class, who the hell is left? Oh, right, the bourgeois. Well, as long as they're doing all right, everything is just peachy! Hurray for Capitalism!:P
And since this mobility first started, we moved from 1950's to 2010. Are you seriously claiming either the lower class or the middle class is worse off ? In most $third_world_nation, the current low class used to be killing the neighboring village in 1950. If you'd actually ask one of them, they'd tell you that there's no way in hell they want to go back. Given how much power "the bourgoisie" (that's how it's written btw) has today versus before capital mobility, I think they've lost A LOT. "The bourgoisie" (if a different bourgoisie) used to have power of life and death over cities.
Besides, today's bourgoisie either earned their own fortune somehow, or they were 1st generation children from someone who did. Before capital mobility bourgoisie meant that your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather actually did something worthwile. I assume you don't want to go back to that ?
Of course, if you haven't noticed, I seriously doubt any western (or eastern) economy had any intention of paying back it's debt since, oh, WWII. Except maybe the US up to 1980 or-so, but then the US followed other countries in the "who gives a fuck ! Money now" direction.
It does seem Ireland is in a bit of a bind. It *is* the case, however that Irish people massively benefitted from growing this debt. The sad fact of the matter is that most countries are in worse shape than the U.S. Yes, even post-Obama (the US could probably get away with financing it's social security obligations 4-5 years on borrowed money, even if there'd be hell to pay after those years). Of course, the US cannot borrow as much per-capita as other countries, due to being the main lender of last resort for other countries. One might think this was appreciated, but far from it. The sad fact is that if you bankroll other countries, you might think they'd be grateful. That doesn't seem to be true, you'll be universally despised. Why ? Because first, giving all this money gives you power, making you a scapegoat for all sorts of problems ("why can't you just give us more money"), and... of course, one day you'll stop (or being forced to stop) doing that, meaning that "due to America" massive cuts are necessary. This has happened in many countries.
Of course, historically, all bankers have always been near-universally despised. From the Persian empire, over Venice in the middle ages, to today. Also true, of course, is that bankers were the source of the wealth these countries had during their relative peaks, or at least you could say they were absolutely necessary.
You do realize that your argument falls on it's face if...
different types of people have (shock ! horror !) not the same levels of crime/terrorism/smuggling. You know... if different people were different... the method would fail
Over 99% of terror incidents were comitted by muslims. So any effective scanning method would, of course, check 99 times more muslims than normal passengers (and it will catch 99 times more muslim terrorists than all other creeds combined). Same goes for smuggling. Same goes for crime.
If you "don't profile" and search the same number of muslims versus non-muslims you are putting 990 times the burden that's necessary on both the security apparatus and non-muslims. Is this "fair" ? How ?
The fault with current methods is simply our refusal to accept reality. The only belief systems currently being used to randomly attack civilian targets, are socialism and islam. As long as we refuse to hear this blatant truth when reality is screaming it at us, that's how long we'll have to accept ever more and ever heavier intrusions into our personal life.
So you do not find my belief unacceptable, you just think you're better than me, because of my belief ?
Speaking about splinters of hypocrisy and all manner of psychological unpleasantness... it seems you have a bit of a log in your eye.
Given your massively inconsistent belief, declining to explain the impossible seems like a good move actually. Of course, it's only halfway to admitting you're the hypocrite here.
Oh, sorry for exposing the massive inconsistency inherent in your supposed "belief" : the fact that "not dictating what others are to believe" is something that seems to require a hell of a lot of dictating indeed.
So tell me, why am I so much worse than you ? Why are you so much better than me, in your belief ? Isn't that extremely racist of you ?
At least the originators of this type of thought had no fear to state the obvious : that they would have to fight, kill and die to get this. Of course, that's still a necessity. They, of course, weren't postmodernists like you, and had no qualms whatsoever about calling people, indeed entire continents, moral abominations. Of course they were right in that. They believed in the power of reason and it's ability to save the world, they even understood that Jesus Christ's help was a necessity to actually make this happen, while people like you believe reason doesn't exist, and neither does Jesus (or is that too much philosophy for you ?). Of course, ever since postmodernism exists, the use of reason in politics (and philosophy for that matter) has been on the decline, to put it mildly.
The fun thing about these moronic postmodern beliefs is that they're so inconsistent the average 2 year old can easily win any rational discussion you guys attempt to enter into.
For future reference, in your belief system, entering into a rational argument is the wrong move. Your only hope is to start throwing around words like "racist" or "fascist" and all manner of meaningless insults that might shut up your opponent. Meaningless, of course, according to your own beliefs.
Given that the basis of your belief is that all belief is meaningless, and every claim equally true and/or false, an obvious contradiction, rational argument is just not going to get you anywhere.
Given what sort of plane that a predator is - that's awfully cheap. A B-2 cost $737 million dollars, and I seriously doubt 1 B-2 could replace 55 predator drones.
Really, that's less than the US spends on an actual soldier on the ground. Much less.
Besides - what do the amounts matter ? These are not private sector companies, and nobody's even proposing this money to secure the system comes out of the profits of the firm.
Ofcourse, taxes will pay for this. We all know how frugal people are with other people's money. For some politicians that something is expensive is actually positive.
(And it's all to treat the symptoms, rather than addressing the root causes of the disease.)
The problem is of course just how politically incorrect stating exactly what "the disease" is. We all know it, and as you say, it is a matter of time until there are no alternatives left.
You can't allow people to adhere to violent, barbaric ideologies. It's not tolerant, it's moronic. Insofar as this is part of a "mainstream" religion, that religion must be eradicated or contained - before your own front door anally rapes you anytime you try to go to work.
It's not all religions - not at all - in fact it's not limited to religion. When it comes to bombings (and genocides) a certain political persuasion follows that religion holding the top spot quite closely.
Exactly - the problem, of course, is the unsaid. It must be bleedingly obvious that the only way to keep Americans safe is to eliminate the motivation for blowing people up.
Now there are seemingly 2 ways to do that a) be at peace with every ideology that has ever blown people up. b) destroy the ideologies in question
However "being at peace" means that every American must continually behave in these ways : perfectly communist (burning anything religious) and perfectly religious, for at least 2 or 3 religions. Needless to say, this is impossible.
So the only alternative is... eliminating the ideologies that, confronted with today's and tomorrow's reality, lead people to blow up others. Let's just leave open which ones they are.
The main reason to glue an FPGA to a hard-core processor is that your application-specific logic can be right next to the processor, rather than in a separate device.
That's not entirely accurate, in general closer together means better interlinks. In the xilinx and altera versions it means that they're so close that you can actually implement new processor opcodes in the fpga, implementing new operations, or controlling external peripherals in a single clock cycle.
If it's a simple device on a pci express 1x lane, what's left of this advantage ?
And then the big disadvantage of this solution enters the picture : inflexibility. A separate chip, is flexible. It can be replaced (hopefully *cough*) without affecting the rest. Your design outgrowing the chip ? Place a bigger one. With this solution, that won't work.
I am not sure you are being mentally coherent at this point. Of course the blood libel against Jews is a lie. What do you think I meant?
I think you meant it has the same level of truth as the claim that islam is genocidal. I still think that's what you meant.
The purpose was to show "how ridiculous" a fact was by comparing it to the blood libel, conveniently forgetting that you were comparing truth to lie.
Nazis claimed that other races were inferior to whites. You are sugge
1. (minor point) not whites, Germans. At it's most flexible it was "Germanic races", which does not include 90% of whites alive. It didn't even include Russians, Italians or Spaniards. 2. muslims claim, of course, that everyone else is inferior too. It is an essential part of islam that this is proven by constantly humiliating others (such as extracting tax from infidels, and even if they pay, a sword must be put on their necks at least once a year. That's sharia for you) 3. Nazis and muslims claimed (and claim if websites are to be believed) that not seeing their superiority claims as the "obvious truth that they are", means you are a racist. That you have anything against their (obviously racist) ideology means that you are a racist. Oh, and it means that you hate the poor.
You don't seem to get that Hitler was the darling of the left, akin to today's Chavez, or yesterdays Mugabe. Having anything at all against Hitler meant that you hated the poor, and were a racist, and any other insult they could get away with. The same is true today if you blame Venezuela's government for the massive death tolls "death squads" (that never seem to get any police attention, but that's not true, in fact it is often claimed by their victims they are police). If one blames this on their leftist ideology, you get the same response as criticism of Hitler elicited in 1930's America.
And let's not forget that even after the holocaust's existence became public knowledge Hitler kept the support of the American left (right up until half a month after he attacked the Soviets)
one sixth of the humans on this planet are genocidal maniacs
Do I claim that ? Please don't misrepresent my opinions. I have explicitly stated that this is false. What I believe is that at least 33% of the people on this planet support genocidal political movements, and muslims are a part of that.
As I said, I don't believe every muslim to be a genocidal maniak. I believe they support a political movement that's genocidal, they support genocide as a policy. Just like the historical muslim bastards, or the nazis, or the Russian communists, the large majority don't want to get their own hands dirty, they just want "them" dead. I would have had no fear at all dining with a nazi in 1930, and I don't expect muslims to do anything at dinner today. That doesn't make one any less despicable than the other.
It's easy to demonise people, isn't it? People like you did the same thing to the Jews, saying that they were a danger to society, that they murdered Christian children in blood rituals, that they just had to be dealt with.
Funny how your arguments keep being lies. The claim that Jews drink blood of anything is a lie. That's why it's such an unfair idiocy. There are plenty of controversial parts of Judaism, such as stoning. I both have Jewish friends and have no qualms whatsoever asking them about stoning women, or the eye-for-an-eye policy of Judaism. Believe it or not, orthodox Jews will actually proceed to have an intelligent conversation about the matter, often even admitting how they don't agree with that part of their religion.
Less orthodox Jews are like you : they lie, acting all offended. The more their "religion" is meant as a way to play the victim, the more offended they are. I've never met a rabbi that threatened me in response to a question, a habit most imams have.
I wonder : do you often use lies as arguments ? Do you think it helps your case ?
And I don't have muslim friends. You see, that's impossible. The quran specifically states that any muslim who has an infidel as a friend is an infidel (5:51). So no, I don't have muslim friends. I have a friend that comes from a muslim background though, and who plainly agrees with this assertion (believe it or not, most muslims do in fact agree that islam is cruel and barbaric, and should be destroyed, it's just that threats keep them in line).
Those threats are the real reason that the despicable nature of their religion must be stated time and time again. It is a sign to them that at least one person doesn't lie down quietly in response to islam's threats. When enough people do this, the terror and oppression will end.
The claim that muslims are comitting genocide today, for islam, and that they have done so since the paedophile prophet is the truth. That's why you can plainly state it. The claim that they support stoning, slavery, murdering slaves, raping slaves, is *the truth*. It must not be any more controversial than any other plainly true statement. That muslims are genocidal is not any more controversial than that Stalin was.
Have you ever actually engaged in conversation with any Muslims?
Of course. Both here and in muslim countries. Trust me, there's no real difference. The more orthodox the muslim in question, the more clearly the threats are present. The less orthodox, the more fatalist. Most non-orthodox muslims plainly agree that islam should be destroyed, and will even enjoy the suggestion that you have an evening without islam, with the women at the table, with their opinions asked, for once. You should try it. Don't take your wife along, no matter how much they tell you it's okay, as if they are not so liberal, they will expect her to go off into the kitchen and help, without ever talking to anyone (even to you).
Have you ever visited a Muslim country?
Again yes. Many in fact. Turkey, Morocco and Egypt. Egypt's the worst one, in case you're wondering. I'd like to visit Iran if I can, Isfahan and the northern mountains.
Now let me ask you a question : why do you think lies have the same value in argument as the truth ?
This is the second time that you compare an obvious lie (about the abott, and about the jews) to the truth. The reason you can't say Jews drink blood is because it's a lie. The reason you can't say the papacy ever had a policy of exterminating infidels, even in a single military conflict in a single city is because it's a lie.
Saying that islam is genocidal, currently comitting genocide, slavery, mass-rape, thievery ("raids") and worse and that islam has been comitting all this from day one up till today is the truth. You can say the truth.
Did you think that during WWII Germans tried to kill every Ame
What's funny about your quote is that... it's a lie. The wikipedia page you refer to, states as much. Rather you're talking about a papal general that lost control of his army, which proceeded to kill and plunder. Of course, the reality of the events doesn't illustrate your point nearly as much as your "evil abbot" propaganda.
And... the holocaust the greatest genocide ever ?
By what measure ? Press ? Because by any other measure it's really quite pathetic.
Lots of things are unique about the holocaust. For example the attempt by the socialists to hide what they were doing is unprecedented. Muslims never hid what they were doing in the partition massacres, or the Armenian massacre, or the massacres establishing the house of Saud. Even the attempted genocide on Jews of 1948 was announced proudly and loudly by islamic clerics over the radio. Or even the racist massacre on blacks taking place today in the Sudan, and to a much lower extent in "western sahara" with the help of the UN.
Although, like the muslim massacres, the holocaust's first (and only) purpose was not to kill Jews, but rather to attempt to hide the results of a totally failed policy, most of the deaths, while predictable, were not really intentional, but the result of failed food shipments. Or at least, letting prisoners starve started out as an accident. Then it became policy.
But like the nazis muslim history is filled to the brim with failed policies, to the point that the religion's structure was exterminated by 3 britisch ships in 1918, all in all by less than 500 people, fighting millions of muslims, obliterating them. And the entire thing totally imploded, but not before claiming millions of Armenian lives in a failed attempt to retain control of the core of islam (then turkey).
Some muslim genocides and their deathcounts:
muslim genocide on hindus (during the partition only) : between 6 and 10 million deaths muslim genocide on hindus (mongol history included) : between 50 and 100 million people muslim genocide on armenians : between 1 and 4 million people muslim genocide and kidnapping of blacks : some counts are as high as 100 million (all African muslim lands, were 100% black during roman times) muslim genocide on Europeans, during cordoba : between 1 and 3 million (at the very least 50% of the population they conquered)...
And here's a description of muslim "peace", by an external observer:
Fernand Braudel wrote in A History of Civilizations (Penguin 1988/1963, p.232-236), Islamic rule in India as a "colonial experiment" was "extremely violent", and "the Muslims could not rule the country except by systematic terror. Cruelty was the norm -- burnings, summary executions, crucifixions or impalements, inventive tortures. Hindu temples were destroyed to make way for mosques. On occasion there were forced conversions. If ever there were an uprising, it was instantly and savagely repressed: houses were burned, the countryside was laid waste, men were slaughtered and women were taken as slaves."
Recognize anything perhaps ? Systematic terror, torture, sudden executions... all grace the newspapers since muslims have come to these shores.
Total deathcount we have islam to thank for : about a billion people over 1500 years.
Of course, you would be right that in the 20th century the various socialist factions killed about as many people as the muslims killed in 1500 years, and so you're right that islam isn't the most murderous ideology to "grace" our Earth. However even amongst the socialist massacres of the 20th century, the holocaust doesn't compare to what either Stalin or Mao "accomplished".
At least not in deathcount. But somehow we find the holocaust more important.
As an aside : of course if we're to believe the loonies that was "corrupted" socialism (or nationalism), and the real culprit are these vary nasty individuals called Hi
You're right... when it comes to muslims, the sad fact is that Iranians are amongst the *most* tolerant muslims there are. Nevertheless, they're still genocidal.
Is there really any other word than "genocidal" to describe Iranian treatment of minorities, whether we're talking gays, religous minorities, or women, for that matter ?
Here's what wikipedia has to say about these Iranian humanitarians of yours:
The human wave tactic was implemented in the following way: The barely armed children and teenagers had to move continuously forward in perfectly straight rows. It did not matter whether they fell as canon fodder to enemy fire or detonated the mines with their bodies. The important thing was that the Basij continued to move forward over the torn and mutilated remains of their fallen comrades, going to their death in wave after wave.
( source given as Erich Wiedemann, Mit dem Paradies-Schlüssel in die Schlacht, in: Der Spiegel, no. 31/1982, p. 93. )
But as I said, when it comes to comparing muslims, you're absolutely right. Iran is without a doubt the most tolerant muslim state in existence (with malaysia as the only other candidate for that title, but I think the military threat of China has a lot to do with that). Iran's neighbors, well...
Is that clear enough ? If not, there's the Armenian massacre, the constant Saudi massacres that have barely stopped (just read their history), also read the Saudi treatment for "domestic servants" (you see islam allows slavery, including killing and raping slaves, and the paedophile prophet *did* that), the Pakistan "secession" massacres, what they try to do to Syria every 50 years or-so...
I guess the point is, when you're talking about tolerant muslims, you're talking about people about as tolerant as Ahmadinejad, who are merely in favor of *slow* extermination of minorities (except gays and ahteists, they got to go quick, even for Ahmadinejad). Of course there also exist muslims that are a *lot* less tolerant, as the open exterminations that they do in countries like Indonesia,. Sudan, Mali, Western Sahara, Algeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan prove.
Slashdot Mirror
There's of course the tiny little issue :
a) you're right, there's no threat, and lifting security precautions won't change a thing
b) you're wrong, there is a threat, and lifting security precautions means a weekly re-run of 9/11
If b) is true you're asking thousands of people to die just so you can have a little easier time at an airport. And, frankly, anyone reading the news knows perfectly well b) is true.
What you say isn't true, btw, you have the option of paying enough to charter a flight and avoid the continental U.S. altogether. The problem isn't what the sovereign united states do, the problem is that you are prepared to accept any amount of discomfort for a few bucks.
I don't entirely understand his post either, but the fundamental premise is right : SocSec is a ponzi scheme.
You know, making up "undeniable fact" still constitutes making things up.
Quite frankly, lending from yourself (no matter how many "departments" are involved) is a fraudulent scheme, no matter which way you turn it. Basically the government has -somehow- gotten away with spending "we'll tax future americans" IOU's.
The government has spent the pensions of American baby boomers. That is an actual fact.
So, given the fact that the current "extreme" (heh) of capitalism can't feed even everyone ...
we should switch to something else ??? Knowing full well, that every other system, both in (economic) theory and in practice produces less.
Say we switch to a system 50% less efficient but "more fair" (for some ideology's definition of fair). That means we can (maybe) keep 4 billion people alive worldwide (and that's VERY optimistic) ... no more. How exactly will you organize the genocide necessary for this idea to even have a fighting chance ?
It's probably not the consumer, because when Big'n'Big Co finds a way to half their cost of production, it's not guaranteed to drive prices down. Why bother cutting prices and taking a bigger market share when you can just shovel up a pile of cash big enough to buy your competitors (or a controlling interest in their stock)? Hell, why not just collude with your competitors to keep prices artificially inflated - then everyone's happy!
Of course, that's already outlawed. So your argument is that we need more cops then ? I don't understand.
Well fuck, if it's not the middle class or the lower class, who the hell is left? :P
Oh, right, the bourgeois. Well, as long as they're doing all right, everything is just peachy! Hurray for Capitalism!
And since this mobility first started, we moved from 1950's to 2010. Are you seriously claiming either the lower class or the middle class is worse off ? In most $third_world_nation, the current low class used to be killing the neighboring village in 1950. If you'd actually ask one of them, they'd tell you that there's no way in hell they want to go back. Given how much power "the bourgoisie" (that's how it's written btw) has today versus before capital mobility, I think they've lost A LOT. "The bourgoisie" (if a different bourgoisie) used to have power of life and death over cities.
Besides, today's bourgoisie either earned their own fortune somehow, or they were 1st generation children from someone who did. Before capital mobility bourgoisie meant that your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather actually did something worthwile. I assume you don't want to go back to that ?
Of course, if you haven't noticed, I seriously doubt any western (or eastern) economy had any intention of paying back it's debt since, oh, WWII. Except maybe the US up to 1980 or-so, but then the US followed other countries in the "who gives a fuck ! Money now" direction.
Just for comparison http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_deb_ext_percap-economy-debt-external-per-capita
It does seem Ireland is in a bit of a bind. It *is* the case, however that Irish people massively benefitted from growing this debt. The sad fact of the matter is that most countries are in worse shape than the U.S. Yes, even post-Obama (the US could probably get away with financing it's social security obligations 4-5 years on borrowed money, even if there'd be hell to pay after those years). Of course, the US cannot borrow as much per-capita as other countries, due to being the main lender of last resort for other countries. One might think this was appreciated, but far from it. The sad fact is that if you bankroll other countries, you might think they'd be grateful. That doesn't seem to be true, you'll be universally despised. Why ? Because first, giving all this money gives you power, making you a scapegoat for all sorts of problems ("why can't you just give us more money"), and ... of course, one day you'll stop (or being forced to stop) doing that, meaning that "due to America" massive cuts are necessary. This has happened in many countries.
Of course, historically, all bankers have always been near-universally despised. From the Persian empire, over Venice in the middle ages, to today. Also true, of course, is that bankers were the source of the wealth these countries had during their relative peaks, or at least you could say they were absolutely necessary.
You do realize that your argument falls on it's face if ...
different types of people have (shock ! horror !) not the same levels of crime/terrorism/smuggling. You know ... if different people were different ... the method would fail
Over 99% of terror incidents were comitted by muslims. So any effective scanning method would, of course, check 99 times more muslims than normal passengers (and it will catch 99 times more muslim terrorists than all other creeds combined). Same goes for smuggling. Same goes for crime.
If you "don't profile" and search the same number of muslims versus non-muslims you are putting 990 times the burden that's necessary on both the security apparatus and non-muslims. Is this "fair" ? How ?
The fault with current methods is simply our refusal to accept reality. The only belief systems currently being used to randomly attack civilian targets, are socialism and islam. As long as we refuse to hear this blatant truth when reality is screaming it at us, that's how long we'll have to accept ever more and ever heavier intrusions into our personal life.
And how long would it take before we see re-runs of 9/11 ... you know ... live ? A month ?
Re-opening known and exploited security holes goes beyond mere stupidity ... unfortunately.
We all know what the only alternative is : give up on equality, and go after the ideology. Not with words, but with violence.
So you do not find my belief unacceptable, you just think you're better than me, because of my belief ?
Speaking about splinters of hypocrisy and all manner of psychological unpleasantness ... it seems you have a bit of a log in your eye.
Given your massively inconsistent belief, declining to explain the impossible seems like a good move actually. Of course, it's only halfway to admitting you're the hypocrite here.
Oh, sorry for exposing the massive inconsistency inherent in your supposed "belief" : the fact that "not dictating what others are to believe" is something that seems to require a hell of a lot of dictating indeed.
So tell me, why am I so much worse than you ? Why are you so much better than me, in your belief ? Isn't that extremely racist of you ?
At least the originators of this type of thought had no fear to state the obvious : that they would have to fight, kill and die to get this. Of course, that's still a necessity. They, of course, weren't postmodernists like you, and had no qualms whatsoever about calling people, indeed entire continents, moral abominations. Of course they were right in that. They believed in the power of reason and it's ability to save the world, they even understood that Jesus Christ's help was a necessity to actually make this happen, while people like you believe reason doesn't exist, and neither does Jesus (or is that too much philosophy for you ?). Of course, ever since postmodernism exists, the use of reason in politics (and philosophy for that matter) has been on the decline, to put it mildly.
The fun thing about these moronic postmodern beliefs is that they're so inconsistent the average 2 year old can easily win any rational discussion you guys attempt to enter into.
For future reference, in your belief system, entering into a rational argument is the wrong move. Your only hope is to start throwing around words like "racist" or "fascist" and all manner of meaningless insults that might shut up your opponent. Meaningless, of course, according to your own beliefs.
Given that the basis of your belief is that all belief is meaningless, and every claim equally true and/or false, an obvious contradiction, rational argument is just not going to get you anywhere.
So ... wait ... let me get this straight ...
You are accusing me of having the unacceptable belief of considering certain beliefs unacceptable ?
Please elaborate ...
Unfortunately we're one security slip-up removed from support flying past the 80% figure and up into the nineties.
How about we simply attack the ideology that motivates these bombers ? But we do it effectively.
Given what sort of plane that a predator is - that's awfully cheap. A B-2 cost $737 million dollars, and I seriously doubt 1 B-2 could replace 55 predator drones.
Really, that's less than the US spends on an actual soldier on the ground. Much less.
Besides - what do the amounts matter ? These are not private sector companies, and nobody's even proposing this money to secure the system comes out of the profits of the firm.
Ofcourse, taxes will pay for this. We all know how frugal people are with other people's money. For some politicians that something is expensive is actually positive.
Exactly
(And it's all to treat the symptoms, rather than addressing the root causes of the disease.)
The problem is of course just how politically incorrect stating exactly what "the disease" is. We all know it, and as you say, it is a matter of time until there are no alternatives left.
You can't allow people to adhere to violent, barbaric ideologies. It's not tolerant, it's moronic. Insofar as this is part of a "mainstream" religion, that religion must be eradicated or contained - before your own front door anally rapes you anytime you try to go to work.
It's not all religions - not at all - in fact it's not limited to religion. When it comes to bombings (and genocides) a certain political persuasion follows that religion holding the top spot quite closely.
Exactly - the problem, of course, is the unsaid. It must be bleedingly obvious that the only way to keep Americans safe is to eliminate the motivation for blowing people up.
Now there are seemingly 2 ways to do that
a) be at peace with every ideology that has ever blown people up.
b) destroy the ideologies in question
However "being at peace" means that every American must continually behave in these ways : perfectly communist (burning anything religious) and perfectly religious, for at least 2 or 3 religions. Needless to say, this is impossible.
So the only alternative is ... eliminating the ideologies that, confronted with today's and tomorrow's reality, lead people to blow up others. Let's just leave open which ones they are.
The main reason to glue an FPGA to a hard-core processor is that your application-specific logic can be right next to the processor, rather than in a separate device.
That's not entirely accurate, in general closer together means better interlinks. In the xilinx and altera versions it means that they're so close that you can actually implement new processor opcodes in the fpga, implementing new operations, or controlling external peripherals in a single clock cycle.
If it's a simple device on a pci express 1x lane, what's left of this advantage ?
And then the big disadvantage of this solution enters the picture : inflexibility. A separate chip, is flexible. It can be replaced (hopefully *cough*) without affecting the rest. Your design outgrowing the chip ? Place a bigger one. With this solution, that won't work.
Then what is their value proposition ? "1 chip is slightly cheaper" ? That wouldn't convince many people.
If people use this, it will be for the live reprogramming feature.
If they're large enough. An FPGA h264 codec uses 100k + gates, not something found in tiny cheap low-power fpga's.
I am not sure you are being mentally coherent at this point. Of course the blood libel against Jews is a lie. What do you think I meant?
I think you meant it has the same level of truth as the claim that islam is genocidal. I still think that's what you meant.
The purpose was to show "how ridiculous" a fact was by comparing it to the blood libel, conveniently forgetting that you were comparing truth to lie.
Nazis claimed that other races were inferior to whites. You are sugge
1. (minor point) not whites, Germans. At it's most flexible it was "Germanic races", which does not include 90% of whites alive. It didn't even include Russians, Italians or Spaniards.
2. muslims claim, of course, that everyone else is inferior too. It is an essential part of islam that this is proven by constantly humiliating others (such as extracting tax from infidels, and even if they pay, a sword must be put on their necks at least once a year. That's sharia for you)
3. Nazis and muslims claimed (and claim if websites are to be believed) that not seeing their superiority claims as the "obvious truth that they are", means you are a racist. That you have anything against their (obviously racist) ideology means that you are a racist. Oh, and it means that you hate the poor.
You don't seem to get that Hitler was the darling of the left, akin to today's Chavez, or yesterdays Mugabe. Having anything at all against Hitler meant that you hated the poor, and were a racist, and any other insult they could get away with. The same is true today if you blame Venezuela's government for the massive death tolls "death squads" (that never seem to get any police attention, but that's not true, in fact it is often claimed by their victims they are police). If one blames this on their leftist ideology, you get the same response as criticism of Hitler elicited in 1930's America.
And let's not forget that even after the holocaust's existence became public knowledge Hitler kept the support of the American left (right up until half a month after he attacked the Soviets)
one sixth of the humans on this planet are genocidal maniacs
Do I claim that ? Please don't misrepresent my opinions. I have explicitly stated that this is false. What I believe is that at least 33% of the people on this planet support genocidal political movements, and muslims are a part of that.
As I said, I don't believe every muslim to be a genocidal maniak. I believe they support a political movement that's genocidal, they support genocide as a policy. Just like the historical muslim bastards, or the nazis, or the Russian communists, the large majority don't want to get their own hands dirty, they just want "them" dead. I would have had no fear at all dining with a nazi in 1930, and I don't expect muslims to do anything at dinner today. That doesn't make one any less despicable than the other.
It's easy to demonise people, isn't it? People like you did the same thing to the Jews, saying that they were a danger to society, that they murdered Christian children in blood rituals, that they just had to be dealt with.
Funny how your arguments keep being lies. The claim that Jews drink blood of anything is a lie. That's why it's such an unfair idiocy. There are plenty of controversial parts of Judaism, such as stoning. I both have Jewish friends and have no qualms whatsoever asking them about stoning women, or the eye-for-an-eye policy of Judaism. Believe it or not, orthodox Jews will actually proceed to have an intelligent conversation about the matter, often even admitting how they don't agree with that part of their religion.
Less orthodox Jews are like you : they lie, acting all offended. The more their "religion" is meant as a way to play the victim, the more offended they are. I've never met a rabbi that threatened me in response to a question, a habit most imams have.
I wonder : do you often use lies as arguments ? Do you think it helps your case ?
And I don't have muslim friends. You see, that's impossible. The quran specifically states that any muslim who has an infidel as a friend is an infidel (5:51). So no, I don't have muslim friends. I have a friend that comes from a muslim background though, and who plainly agrees with this assertion (believe it or not, most muslims do in fact agree that islam is cruel and barbaric, and should be destroyed, it's just that threats keep them in line).
Those threats are the real reason that the despicable nature of their religion must be stated time and time again. It is a sign to them that at least one person doesn't lie down quietly in response to islam's threats. When enough people do this, the terror and oppression will end.
The claim that muslims are comitting genocide today, for islam, and that they have done so since the paedophile prophet is the truth. That's why you can plainly state it. The claim that they support stoning, slavery, murdering slaves, raping slaves, is *the truth*. It must not be any more controversial than any other plainly true statement. That muslims are genocidal is not any more controversial than that Stalin was.
Have you ever actually engaged in conversation with any Muslims?
Of course. Both here and in muslim countries. Trust me, there's no real difference. The more orthodox the muslim in question, the more clearly the threats are present. The less orthodox, the more fatalist. Most non-orthodox muslims plainly agree that islam should be destroyed, and will even enjoy the suggestion that you have an evening without islam, with the women at the table, with their opinions asked, for once. You should try it. Don't take your wife along, no matter how much they tell you it's okay, as if they are not so liberal, they will expect her to go off into the kitchen and help, without ever talking to anyone (even to you).
Have you ever visited a Muslim country?
Again yes. Many in fact. Turkey, Morocco and Egypt. Egypt's the worst one, in case you're wondering. I'd like to visit Iran if I can, Isfahan and the northern mountains.
Now let me ask you a question : why do you think lies have the same value in argument as the truth ?
This is the second time that you compare an obvious lie (about the abott, and about the jews) to the truth. The reason you can't say Jews drink blood is because it's a lie. The reason you can't say the papacy ever had a policy of exterminating infidels, even in a single military conflict in a single city is because it's a lie.
Saying that islam is genocidal, currently comitting genocide, slavery, mass-rape, thievery ("raids") and worse and that islam has been comitting all this from day one up till today is the truth. You can say the truth.
Did you think that during WWII Germans tried to kill every Ame
What's funny about your quote is that ... it's a lie. The wikipedia page you refer to, states as much. Rather you're talking about a papal general that lost control of his army, which proceeded to kill and plunder. Of course, the reality of the events doesn't illustrate your point nearly as much as your "evil abbot" propaganda.
And ... the holocaust the greatest genocide ever ?
By what measure ? Press ? Because by any other measure it's really quite pathetic.
Lots of things are unique about the holocaust. For example the attempt by the socialists to hide what they were doing is unprecedented. Muslims never hid what they were doing in the partition massacres, or the Armenian massacre, or the massacres establishing the house of Saud. Even the attempted genocide on Jews of 1948 was announced proudly and loudly by islamic clerics over the radio. Or even the racist massacre on blacks taking place today in the Sudan, and to a much lower extent in "western sahara" with the help of the UN.
Although, like the muslim massacres, the holocaust's first (and only) purpose was not to kill Jews, but rather to attempt to hide the results of a totally failed policy, most of the deaths, while predictable, were not really intentional, but the result of failed food shipments. Or at least, letting prisoners starve started out as an accident. Then it became policy.
But like the nazis muslim history is filled to the brim with failed policies, to the point that the religion's structure was exterminated by 3 britisch ships in 1918, all in all by less than 500 people, fighting millions of muslims, obliterating them. And the entire thing totally imploded, but not before claiming millions of Armenian lives in a failed attempt to retain control of the core of islam (then turkey).
Some muslim genocides and their deathcounts :
muslim genocide on hindus (during the partition only) : between 6 and 10 million deaths ...
muslim genocide on hindus (mongol history included) : between 50 and 100 million people
muslim genocide on armenians : between 1 and 4 million people
muslim genocide and kidnapping of blacks : some counts are as high as 100 million (all African muslim lands, were 100% black during roman times)
muslim genocide on Europeans, during cordoba : between 1 and 3 million (at the very least 50% of the population they conquered)
And here's a description of muslim "peace", by an external observer :
Fernand Braudel wrote in A History of Civilizations (Penguin 1988/1963, p.232-236), Islamic rule in India as a "colonial experiment" was "extremely violent", and "the Muslims could not rule the country except by systematic terror. Cruelty was the norm -- burnings, summary executions, crucifixions or impalements, inventive tortures. Hindu temples were destroyed to make way for mosques. On occasion there were forced conversions. If ever there were an uprising, it was instantly and savagely repressed: houses were burned, the countryside was laid waste, men were slaughtered and women were taken as slaves."
Recognize anything perhaps ? Systematic terror, torture, sudden executions ... all grace the newspapers since muslims have come to these shores.
Total deathcount we have islam to thank for : about a billion people over 1500 years.
Of course, you would be right that in the 20th century the various socialist factions killed about as many people as the muslims killed in 1500 years, and so you're right that islam isn't the most murderous ideology to "grace" our Earth. However even amongst the socialist massacres of the 20th century, the holocaust doesn't compare to what either Stalin or Mao "accomplished".
At least not in deathcount. But somehow we find the holocaust more important.
As an aside : of course if we're to believe the loonies that was "corrupted" socialism (or nationalism), and the real culprit are these vary nasty individuals called Hi
You're right ... when it comes to muslims, the sad fact is that Iranians are amongst the *most* tolerant muslims there are. Nevertheless, they're still genocidal.
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2005/11/21/iran-two-more-executions-homosexual-conduct
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/08/06/iran-stop-abuse-political-prisoners
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/02/23/iran-end-persecution-baha
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/01/13/iran-prosecute-mortazavi-detention-deaths
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/01/09/iran-end-persecution-peaceful-activists
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/12/30/iran-end-persecution-nobel-laureate
Is there really any other word than "genocidal" to describe Iranian treatment of minorities, whether we're talking gays, religous minorities, or women, for that matter ?
Here's what wikipedia has to say about these Iranian humanitarians of yours :
The human wave tactic was implemented in the following way: The barely armed children and teenagers had to move continuously forward in perfectly straight rows. It did not matter whether they fell as canon fodder to enemy fire or detonated the mines with their bodies. The important thing was that the Basij continued to move forward over the torn and mutilated remains of their fallen comrades, going to their death in wave after wave.
( source given as Erich Wiedemann, Mit dem Paradies-Schlüssel in die Schlacht, in: Der Spiegel, no. 31/1982, p. 93. )
But as I said, when it comes to comparing muslims, you're absolutely right. Iran is without a doubt the most tolerant muslim state in existence (with malaysia as the only other candidate for that title, but I think the military threat of China has a lot to do with that). Iran's neighbors, well ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign
Is that clear enough ? If not, there's the Armenian massacre, the constant Saudi massacres that have barely stopped (just read their history), also read the Saudi treatment for "domestic servants" (you see islam allows slavery, including killing and raping slaves, and the paedophile prophet *did* that), the Pakistan "secession" massacres, what they try to do to Syria every 50 years or-so ...
I guess the point is, when you're talking about tolerant muslims, you're talking about people about as tolerant as Ahmadinejad, who are merely in favor of *slow* extermination of minorities (except gays and ahteists, they got to go quick, even for Ahmadinejad). Of course there also exist muslims that are a *lot* less tolerant, as the open exterminations that they do in countries like Indonesia,. Sudan, Mali, Western Sahara, Algeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan prove.