Rich people keep much of their money invested and keep the economy going. That is how they stay rich. That is how Americas stays strong.
Do you think having a bunch of useless Paris Hilton's is what makes out economy strong?
First off, money doesn't disappear. If there's a million dollars when someone dies and 90% of it goes to the gov't, that million dollars doesn't simply blink out of existence.
Second, labor generates wealth, not money.
People with money, make money because they own the means of production and society forces us to pay them for the use of this.
Take your idea to the extreme. Imagine I personally owned every square inch of land on the planet. All I do is sit on my ass and collect rent checks. I inherited this land from my parents and my children with inherit it from me.
Do you really think that helps society?
All it really does is suck money out of the economy. I do nothing. I get checks anyways.
This simple thought example proves how fundamentally flawed your reasoning is. If you admit that it would be bad for me to own every square inch of land on the planet, then you must then open the discussion regarding "How much is too much?" and "What do we do when some hits that limit?"
I think the question to ask is what would bring her the most joy
Now that's just unrealistic nonsense. People need to find a appropriate mix of a career that they can both enjoy, AND one that will also allow them to support themselves, pay back their student loans, and build a future for themselves. It's part of being an adult.
Simply put: You gotta eat. How many people do you think find their maximum joy as tax accountants?
I like to snowboard. It's a lot of fun. That doesn't mean I expect to make a living doing it. Yes, there are people who make a living doing it, but for every 1 that does there are 10,000 that don't. If you want to be a professional snowboarder, fine give it a shot. You might want to think up a reasonable backup plan that will keep you from flipping burgers for the rest of your life.
Or as Office Space put it:
Peter Gibbons: Our high school guidance counselor used to ask us what you'd do if you had a million dollars and you didn't have to work. And invariably what you'd say was supposed to be your career. So, if you wanted to fix old cars then you're supposed to be an auto mechanic. Samir: So what did you say? Peter Gibbons: I never had an answer. I guess that's why I'm working at Initech. Michael Bolton: No, you're working at Initech because that question is bullshit to begin with. If everyone listened to her, there'd be no janitors, because no one would clean shit up if they had a million dollars.
Going over it from the beginning *again* is intellectually insulting for anybody who's been paying attention
Right, sure. "I have a great argument to support my opinions, but I don't want to tell YOU!"
Is that really the best you have?
Take your silly reasoning to the extreme. Imagine that there were no police, no army, no fire department, no public schools. If that's really your dream, try actually living somewhere that is the reality, like Somalia.
Maybe you think it would be somehow more efficient to hire your own private army, police, teachers, and firemen, but I defy you to actually show some math and back it up.
In fact, I'm not sure despite how often that term is thrown around that MS actually hires any astroturfers, or at least I have not seen any direct evidence of this.
Is it that hard to type "Microsoft" and "Astroturf" into Google and click on one of the top links? LINK LINK LINK LINK It is pretty clear from a simple ONE MINUTE investigation that MS does hire astroturfers. Why bother to imply the opposite?
I'm probably going to get modded troll or flamebait for this, but everything I am about to say is 100% true to the best of my recollection. And no, I am not an astroturfer for MS. In fact, I'm not sure despite how often that term is thrown around that MS actually hires any astroturfers, or at least I have not seen any direct evidence of this.
It would REALLY help you to be taken seriously if you actually provided enough information for people to be able to check your story.
Phrases like "loaded with Linux" and "magical incantations that were supposed to compile and install the drivers" are EXTREMELY VAGUE.
Also, your expectations seem unrealistic. You put an OS that by itself requires 2 GB on a computer that only has 2 GB disk space. To put it bluntly: What the heck were you thinking? Of course it didn't work. Even if it did install, you would have been out of disk space the first time you created a document or applied a software patch.
Sure it would have been nice to get a warning about it, but when you're within less than one percent of the minimum, does it really take hours to determine that might be the problem?
Was is really out of the question to install an OS that only required 1GB? Wouldn't that have been the reasonable choice from the get-go?
Your comment about being afraid to edit text files seems pretty odd. If you're as tech savvy as you say, you would have experience with the Windows registry. Is that really preferable to just editing a simple text file? (Sure you can pick a specific UI feature the is in a config file in Linux and is a GUI option in windows, but I could turn around and point out a similar feature the requires registry hacking in windows.)
Say, why did you want to edit this anyways?
Actually socialism is always bad, in the long run.
So why exactly are the interstate highway system, the postal system, and your local fire department "always bad in the long run"?
I suspect that you've been marked as troll, not because of your opion, but because of your total failure to back it up.
What it comes down to is that there is this thing called "market failure". In cases of market failure it makes sense for the gov't to step in and solve the problem. This requires collective ownership of the resources necessary to solve the problem, AKA socialism.
That's what makes me think you aren't being that careful.
You did NOT say "My dog barks at someone inside my house whom I have identified as an intruder, I shoot."
We talking about potentially ending someone's life here. If you want people to think you go through a carefully thought out process before shooting someone then you should say so, instead of stating just the opposite.
If the probability of false alarm is high enough. (Fines for me.) And the probability burglary and detection is low enough, then having a system could actually be worse than not having one.
Cost or benefit of system = -1 * p_false_alarm * cost_false alarm + p_burglary * p_detection * money_saved - cost_of_system
Most of us don't have an all-knowing geek to call on for free, on-site, support. The Google search that returns 15,000 hits is of little help to the novice.
Just like plumbing, cars or even Windows PCs, most people pay someone else to fix their problems.
This is not a flaw of Linux, this is that way to world works. Microsoft certainly doesn't provide free, on-site support either.
You're making an argument based on a difference that doesn't really exist.
A lost communication with a device triggers a fault same as if you were to cut a wire. Spoofing also wouldn't work because if more than one identical ID/Serial#s also create a fault.
Then the solution appears simple:
Jam and spoof
Jam the sensor. Hit it with a hammer. Spoof the signal.
Reliable, secure communication over an untrusted channel is rarely implemented properly and quite often it relies on synchronization between the two parties.
The fundamental problem here is:
Are you willing to face a fine becuase your neighbor's microwave/PC/whatever caused your alarm to trigger?
What about dead batteries? Failed sensors?
Although I'm a believer in the right to bear arms, it sounds like you're about to make a big mistake. Please try to do a little more investigation before you kill someone.
Your claim completely ignores the existence of countries like Switzerland, which has very high rates of gun ownership and is LOWER than you on the list you just posted. Your comparison across cultures is essentailly meaningless, and I that bet deep down you knew that to begin with. America has a lot of poverty and crime issues that are simply ignored because the people in power do not consider those segments of the population to be worthwhile. More Black Men in Prison Than College, Study Finds
You seem to have this flawed assumption that prohibition makes something go away. The idea that there would be no more guns after 5 years is absurd. Gun prohibition is doomed to be just as effective as America's war on drugs. Making the assuption that by passing a law, you're going to keep 100 year old technology out of the hands of criminals is living in a fantasy word.
You seem to assume you're safer because you don't have any guns, but I repeat my challenge to back it up. I can show you data where gun ownership was legal, then it was not. Same city, same people. Crime went up.
The problem with that is that although you're employed, your labors benefit only a tiny number of people.
If these people had a hobby of say... building nice bridges in NYC.. that money could benefit millions of people and would still be redistributed.
Not saying I'm 100% against nice toys, but you're essentially trying to argue for trickle down economics and it doesn't work.
If I pay you to dig a hole and fill it back in again, yes money was transferred, but nothing useful was actually contributed to society. (Unless you're digging a grave.)
It doesn't sound very plausible.
A the fighter jet without guns would all but useless.
If it did have guns it would most likely be a violation of federal law.
And what you (and many others; you're in good company) keep overlooking is that A COUNTRY FACING ARMED INSURRECTION FROM ITS OWN PEOPLE CANNOT QUIT AND GO HOME.
Actually they can quit and go home if they're willing to give the other side what they want. It may not be desirable, but to state the it is impossible is to state something that is just not true. We did have to option of letting the south exit the union non-violently.
I am posting from Kandahar City, Afghanistan, where I am stationed for the next little while.
And you apparently don't seem to get that if what you were saying was true YOU WOULD NOT BE IN AFGHANISTAN.
If taking out these guys is such a cakewalk, why aren't you home already?
Or is the real problem at lot more difficult than you let on?
Being an occupying army in a country that just doesn't want you is a losing proposition.
You're stuck with pretty much two choices:
Kill everyone
Go home
Every one of those people you kill has a cousin or brother or an uncle who is going to be pissed. Either you're going to commit genocide (which has been successful in the past), or they will continue to fight you for roughly a thousand years. (Think Ireland.)
That is no longer the case. No militia is capable of withstanding the kind of destructive force a modern combat team (a company of mechanized infantry, a troop of tanks, and two artillery pieces) is capable of putting out.
You're thinking like a grunt, not as a person with an understanding of history. A rebel force with inferior weapons does not go head to head with a superior force. They wear you down with unexpected sudden engagements and then disappear back into the general population of the country.
Try reading about Cuba during the 1950's. The guy with the biggest and most guns doesn't automatically win.
I can just imagine someone like you lecturing how a leaky boat with 82 people on it had zero chance of overthrowing the US-backed ruler of Cuba.
Just to be clear, I'm not rooting for us to "loose" in Afghanistan, and underestimating your enemy is an easy way to ensure defeat.
It is pretty easy to argue that the long list of pogroms, genocides and the like that have occurred within the bounds of Europe show that the government cannot be relied on to guarantee even your basic right to life 100% of the time.
Maybe you don't agree with it out of some irrational fear of guns, but the statics actually show an armed populous as a net benfit to society. (The amount of crimes stopped by legal civilian gun owners is significantly large than those committed by the same.)
Can you back up you opinion with facts and logic? Or is it a purely emotional reaction to the concept of "guns", rather than a well though out consideration of the actual effects of prohibition?
Do you need a $2,000 oscilloscope or a $200,000 oscilloscope?
How many channels? What bandwidth? What characteristics will you be looking at?
I've found LeCroy to have the best interface for "power users" on their high end scopes.
For general usage any major manufacturer will be fine.
Intended usage is really important here, find out what you'll be doing with it.
I will warn you that some of the high-end Agilents are all but useless without a mouse hooked up and that's a PITA plus eats bench space. Scopes with touch screens are much better. Lower end scopes generally have all the buttons they need to be useful.
Al-Qaeda have every right to place a website on the Internet, if you don't like it's content that DONT visit it.
Free-speech is just that if you want to support it you have to also support other peoples rights to it regardless of ownership or content.
Myself, and I would think most other civilized people in the world would disagree with you there.
For example, it is illegal to threaten to kill someone. It is "only speech" but we as a society have decided that it is worth placing a limit on this speech and even throwing people in jail for doing so. There are obvious negatives to society by allowing people to go around and threaten other's lives with impunity.
In the real world, freedom of speech/religion/assembly are all naturally limited to what is reasonable. These freedoms aren't a guarantee that you can do whatever you want, whenever you want but rather exist to force the gov't to show a compelling need for the limitation of these freedoms and a means by which the reasonableness of limitations can be challenged. Compare this to parking on the street which can be limited pretty much arbitrarily because it is not a guaranteed freedom.
Well then I don't because I don't support yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, not do I support shouting "Look out! He's got a gun!" in an airplane.
If speech was TRULY free you could do those things and not get punsihed. It's just speech, after all.
I think most reasonable people agree that there are ossacions where it is necessary and desirable to limit speech. (Such as not telling the germans we cracked the code during WWII, for example.) There are cases where a compelling public good outweighs the 1st amendment.
I suggest you acutally try reading the documents you are talking about rather than continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Just as with any religion, the vast majority of followers are hippocrates or not "true believers". If you're going to enter an argument regarding the official policies of a religion, you should actually know what those are.
"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem"
"O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily God guideth not a people unjust."
"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his apostle nor acknowledge the religion of truth of the people of the Book (the Jews and the Christians) until they pay the Jizya [tax on non-Muslims] with willing submission and feel themselves subdued."
That is the "official policy" of Islam. That your buddies do not follow it does not change that fact, just as a cop not giving you a ticket does not change the speed limit. The law is the law and for Islam it does not change. Islam requires blind faith in the text and allows essentially zero room for interpretation.
"In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or force. The other religious groups (Christianity and Judaism) did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty to them, save only for purposes of defense. (Ibn Khaldun, The Muqadimmah: Ail Introduction to History, Islamic historian, 1377 AD)
Perhaps the "moderate muslims" you refer to don't beat their wives either, but that doesn't change the fact the it is specifically ok'ed by the Qur'an. These are simple facts. They are not interpretations of metaphorical stories. Islam is quite specific.
He SHOULD feel bad that the accident that he obviously thinks nothing of turned into some sort of controversy and maligned his friend, and if he felt that calling a press conference to tell people to shut up about it would help in the least he's right to do it. I would. If you wouldn't, well, I certainly wouldn't want to be your friend.
Remind me never to be your friend. Shooting someone in the face is definately your fault. The victim going on TV and apologizing for it is insane. I can see saying "I bear no ill will" but apologizing is just absurd as is "feeling bad" for being the victim or your friends carelessness that could have easily claimed your life.
Slashdot Mirror
Rich people keep much of their money invested and keep the economy going. That is how they stay rich. That is how Americas stays strong.
Do you think having a bunch of useless Paris Hilton's is what makes out economy strong?
First off, money doesn't disappear. If there's a million dollars when someone dies and 90% of it goes to the gov't, that million dollars doesn't simply blink out of existence.
Second, labor generates wealth, not money.
People with money, make money because they own the means of production and society forces us to pay them for the use of this.
Take your idea to the extreme. Imagine I personally owned every square inch of land on the planet. All I do is sit on my ass and collect rent checks. I inherited this land from my parents and my children with inherit it from me.
Do you really think that helps society?
All it really does is suck money out of the economy. I do nothing. I get checks anyways.
This simple thought example proves how fundamentally flawed your reasoning is. If you admit that it would be bad for me to own every square inch of land on the planet, then you must then open the discussion regarding "How much is too much?" and "What do we do when some hits that limit?"
Now that's just unrealistic nonsense.
People need to find a appropriate mix of a career that they can both enjoy, AND one that will also allow them to support themselves, pay back their student loans, and build a future for themselves. It's part of being an adult.
Simply put: You gotta eat. How many people do you think find their maximum joy as tax accountants?
I like to snowboard. It's a lot of fun. That doesn't mean I expect to make a living doing it. Yes, there are people who make a living doing it, but for every 1 that does there are 10,000 that don't. If you want to be a professional snowboarder, fine give it a shot. You might want to think up a reasonable backup plan that will keep you from flipping burgers for the rest of your life.
Or as Office Space put it:
Deriding Wall Street is shooting fish a barrel a this point. They, like George Bush and the Republican party, are getting what they deserve.
Really? Name a single banker or executive who will be serving time as a result of this fiasco? Can you even name one who had to return his bonus?
We've been screwed, and our response has been to write the guys who screwed us a big fat check.
Going over it from the beginning *again* is intellectually insulting for anybody who's been paying attention
Right, sure. "I have a great argument to support my opinions, but I don't want to tell YOU!"
Is that really the best you have?
Take your silly reasoning to the extreme. Imagine that there were no police, no army, no fire department, no public schools. If that's really your dream, try actually living somewhere that is the reality, like Somalia.
Maybe you think it would be somehow more efficient to hire your own private army, police, teachers, and firemen, but I defy you to actually show some math and back it up.
In fact, I'm not sure despite how often that term is thrown around that MS actually hires any astroturfers, or at least I have not seen any direct evidence of this.
Is it that hard to type "Microsoft" and "Astroturf" into Google and click on one of the top links?
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
It is pretty clear from a simple ONE MINUTE investigation that MS does hire astroturfers. Why bother to imply the opposite?
I'm probably going to get modded troll or flamebait for this, but everything I am about to say is 100% true to the best of my recollection. And no, I am not an astroturfer for MS. In fact, I'm not sure despite how often that term is thrown around that MS actually hires any astroturfers, or at least I have not seen any direct evidence of this.
It would REALLY help you to be taken seriously if you actually provided enough information for people to be able to check your story.
Phrases like "loaded with Linux" and "magical incantations that were supposed to compile and install the drivers" are EXTREMELY VAGUE.
Also, your expectations seem unrealistic. You put an OS that by itself requires 2 GB on a computer that only has 2 GB disk space. To put it bluntly: What the heck were you thinking? Of course it didn't work. Even if it did install, you would have been out of disk space the first time you created a document or applied a software patch.
Sure it would have been nice to get a warning about it, but when you're within less than one percent of the minimum, does it really take hours to determine that might be the problem?
Was is really out of the question to install an OS that only required 1GB? Wouldn't that have been the reasonable choice from the get-go?
Your comment about being afraid to edit text files seems pretty odd. If you're as tech savvy as you say, you would have experience with the Windows registry. Is that really preferable to just editing a simple text file? (Sure you can pick a specific UI feature the is in a config file in Linux and is a GUI option in windows, but I could turn around and point out a similar feature the requires registry hacking in windows.)
Say, why did you want to edit this anyways?
Actually socialism is always bad, in the long run.
So why exactly are the interstate highway system, the postal system, and your local fire department "always bad in the long run"?
I suspect that you've been marked as troll, not because of your opion, but because of your total failure to back it up.
What it comes down to is that there is this thing called "market failure". In cases of market failure it makes sense for the gov't to step in and solve the problem. This requires collective ownership of the resources necessary to solve the problem, AKA socialism.
"My dog barks, I shoot."
That's what makes me think you aren't being that careful.
You did NOT say "My dog barks at someone inside my house whom I have identified as an intruder, I shoot."
We talking about potentially ending someone's life here. If you want people to think you go through a carefully thought out process before shooting someone then you should say so, instead of stating just the opposite.
While little security is better than none
If the probability of false alarm is high enough. (Fines for me.) And the probability burglary and detection is low enough, then having a system could actually be worse than not having one.
Cost or benefit of system = -1 * p_false_alarm * cost_false alarm + p_burglary * p_detection * money_saved - cost_of_system
Most of us don't have an all-knowing geek to call on for free, on-site, support. The Google search that returns 15,000 hits is of little help to the novice.
Just like plumbing, cars or even Windows PCs, most people pay someone else to fix their problems.
This is not a flaw of Linux, this is that way to world works. Microsoft certainly doesn't provide free, on-site support either.
You're making an argument based on a difference that doesn't really exist.
A lost communication with a device triggers a fault same as if you were to cut a wire. Spoofing also wouldn't work because if more than one identical ID/Serial#s also create a fault.
Then the solution appears simple:
Jam and spoof
Jam the sensor. Hit it with a hammer. Spoof the signal.
Reliable, secure communication over an untrusted channel is rarely implemented properly and quite often it relies on synchronization between the two parties.
The fundamental problem here is:
Are you willing to face a fine becuase your neighbor's microwave/PC/whatever caused your alarm to trigger?
What about dead batteries? Failed sensors?
Any chance you're related to this guy?
Although I'm a believer in the right to bear arms, it sounds like you're about to make a big mistake. Please try to do a little more investigation before you kill someone.
You seem to assume you're safer because you don't have any guns, but I repeat my challenge to back it up. I can show you data where gun ownership was legal, then it was not. Same city, same people. Crime went up.
The problem with that is that although you're employed, your labors benefit only a tiny number of people.
If these people had a hobby of say... building nice bridges in NYC.. that money could benefit millions of people and would still be redistributed.
Not saying I'm 100% against nice toys, but you're essentially trying to argue for trickle down economics and it doesn't work.
If I pay you to dig a hole and fill it back in again, yes money was transferred, but nothing useful was actually contributed to society. (Unless you're digging a grave.)
Do you have a link on this?
It doesn't sound very plausible.
A the fighter jet without guns would all but useless.
If it did have guns it would most likely be a violation of federal law.
And what you (and many others; you're in good company) keep overlooking is that A COUNTRY FACING ARMED INSURRECTION FROM ITS OWN PEOPLE CANNOT QUIT AND GO HOME.
Actually they can quit and go home if they're willing to give the other side what they want. It may not be desirable, but to state the it is impossible is to state something that is just not true. We did have to option of letting the south exit the union non-violently.
And you apparently don't seem to get that if what you were saying was true YOU WOULD NOT BE IN AFGHANISTAN.
If taking out these guys is such a cakewalk, why aren't you home already?
Or is the real problem at lot more difficult than you let on?
Being an occupying army in a country that just doesn't want you is a losing proposition.
You're stuck with pretty much two choices:
Every one of those people you kill has a cousin or brother or an uncle who is going to be pissed. Either you're going to commit genocide (which has been successful in the past), or they will continue to fight you for roughly a thousand years. (Think Ireland.)
That is no longer the case. No militia is capable of withstanding the kind of destructive force a modern combat team (a company of mechanized infantry, a troop of tanks, and two artillery pieces) is capable of putting out.
You're thinking like a grunt, not as a person with an understanding of history.
A rebel force with inferior weapons does not go head to head with a superior force. They wear you down with unexpected sudden engagements and then disappear back into the general population of the country.
Try reading about Cuba during the 1950's. The guy with the biggest and most guns doesn't automatically win.
I can just imagine someone like you lecturing how a leaky boat with 82 people on it had zero chance of overthrowing the US-backed ruler of Cuba.
Just to be clear, I'm not rooting for us to "loose" in Afghanistan, and underestimating your enemy is an easy way to ensure defeat.
It is pretty easy to argue that the long list of pogroms, genocides and the like that have occurred within the bounds of Europe show that the government cannot be relied on to guarantee even your basic right to life 100% of the time.
Maybe you don't agree with it out of some irrational fear of guns, but the statics actually show an armed populous as a net benfit to society. (The amount of crimes stopped by legal civilian gun owners is significantly large than those committed by the same.)
Useful links:
Can you back up you opinion with facts and logic? Or is it a purely emotional reaction to the concept of "guns", rather than a well though out consideration of the actual effects of prohibition?
Do you need a $2,000 oscilloscope or a $200,000 oscilloscope?
How many channels? What bandwidth? What characteristics will you be looking at?
I've found LeCroy to have the best interface for "power users" on their high end scopes.
For general usage any major manufacturer will be fine.
Intended usage is really important here, find out what you'll be doing with it.
I will warn you that some of the high-end Agilents are all but useless without a mouse hooked up and that's a PITA plus eats bench space. Scopes with touch screens are much better. Lower end scopes generally have all the buttons they need to be useful.
Al-Qaeda have every right to place a website on the Internet, if you don't like it's content that DONT visit it. Free-speech is just that if you want to support it you have to also support other peoples rights to it regardless of ownership or content.
Myself, and I would think most other civilized people in the world would disagree with you there.
For example, it is illegal to threaten to kill someone. It is "only speech" but we as a society have decided that it is worth placing a limit on this speech and even throwing people in jail for doing so. There are obvious negatives to society by allowing people to go around and threaten other's lives with impunity.
In the real world, freedom of speech/religion/assembly are all naturally limited to what is reasonable. These freedoms aren't a guarantee that you can do whatever you want, whenever you want but rather exist to force the gov't to show a compelling need for the limitation of these freedoms and a means by which the reasonableness of limitations can be challenged. Compare this to parking on the street which can be limited pretty much arbitrarily because it is not a guaranteed freedom.
Do you have a website? and if so is it ok for me to DoS it if I disagree with your opinion?
Would you feel differently about DDOSing an Al-Qaeda recruiting site? Why? Isn't a web site just speech?
You either support free-speech of you don't
Well then I don't because I don't support yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, not do I support shouting "Look out! He's got a gun!" in an airplane.
If speech was TRULY free you could do those things and not get punsihed. It's just speech, after all.
I think most reasonable people agree that there are ossacions where it is necessary and desirable to limit speech. (Such as not telling the germans we cracked the code during WWII, for example.) There are cases where a compelling public good outweighs the 1st amendment.
For it to count as "Unauthorized impairment" it has to be unauthorized. You authorize DRM.
Not if it's a Sony music CD!
I suggest you acutally try reading the documents you are talking about rather than continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Just as with any religion, the vast majority of followers are hippocrates or not "true believers". If you're going to enter an argument regarding the official policies of a religion, you should actually know what those are.
"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem"
"O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily God guideth not a people unjust."
"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his apostle nor acknowledge the religion of truth of the people of the Book (the Jews and the Christians) until they pay the Jizya [tax on non-Muslims] with willing submission and feel themselves subdued."
That is the "official policy" of Islam. That your buddies do not follow it does not change that fact, just as a cop not giving you a ticket does not change the speed limit. The law is the law and for Islam it does not change. Islam requires blind faith in the text and allows essentially zero room for interpretation.
"In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or force. The other religious groups (Christianity and Judaism) did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty to them, save only for purposes of defense. (Ibn Khaldun, The Muqadimmah: Ail Introduction to History, Islamic historian, 1377 AD)
Perhaps the "moderate muslims" you refer to don't beat their wives either, but that doesn't change the fact the it is specifically ok'ed by the Qur'an. These are simple facts. They are not interpretations of metaphorical stories. Islam is quite specific.
That is your interpretation, but it is not mine, not is it that of the supreme court.
He SHOULD feel bad that the accident that he obviously thinks nothing of turned into some sort of controversy and maligned his friend, and if he felt that calling a press conference to tell people to shut up about it would help in the least he's right to do it. I would. If you wouldn't, well, I certainly wouldn't want to be your friend.
Remind me never to be your friend. Shooting someone in the face is definately your fault. The victim going on TV and apologizing for it is insane. I can see saying "I bear no ill will" but apologizing is just absurd as is "feeling bad" for being the victim or your friends carelessness that could have easily claimed your life.