Like what happened at turn of the last century?
on
The Future of the P.C.
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
If I recall my consumer history correctly, there was once a time when you could buy a general-purpose electric motor with all these doo-dads to hook up to it, like mixers and other household or kitchen tools. As the motors themselves got cheaper, the attachments became small devices with their own motors. I.e., instead of having one larger motor with a lot of attachments, you had an array of smaller motorized tools.
It seems that a similar transformation is occurring (has occurred?) in the computer industry. Instead of having one computer you use for everything, a multitude of small computerized devices now exists for fulfilling specific functions. Of course, a great deal of this is just natural, considering you wouldn't want to lug a desktop PC around with you whenever you wanted some tunes on the go.:-)
Well, yeah, I was ignoring radiant energy. There's also the fact that not very many asteroids are solid spheres of iron. Most have a density nearer to 4 g/cc than 8.
Also, you're right about the atmosphere thing, now that I give it some thought. I pulled the 120 number out of my hat because I thought I remembered seeing it used in a similar approximation. A much smaller number would have been nearer the mark.
Yeah, exactly. If the object actually strikes the earth, a lot of the energy will be used in the production of the gigantic crater.:-)
But the discussion (I think, anyway) was about what might happen if the asteroid was broken apart before it hit. If that happened, and the asteroid was in millions of small pieces instead of one huge piece, those small pieces might all conceivably burn up in the atmosphere before striking the ground, in which case much of the energy _would_ go to heating up the air. The earth itself would absorb some heat from the atmosphere, but that would be a very slow process compared to the sudden introduction of energy from the burning chunks of rock.
Warning! Gross oversimplifications and estimates follow!:-)
For the purposes of this problem, we'll assume the ginormous million-year doomsday rock, a 1000-m diameter chunk of iron. A 1000-meter sphere of iron has a mass of 3.30 × 10^13 kilograms. At an impact speed of, say, 30 km/s (approximately Earth's speed of orbit around the sun), that rock has a total of (1/2) * (3.30×10^13 kg) * (3×10^4 m/s)^2 = 1.5 × 10^22 Joules of kinetic energy.
Now, let's make some assumptions about the atmosphere. We'll assume the atmosphere is of uniform density, distribution, and composition, and about 120km high (not a terrible approximation, but not a good one either). The volume of the atmosphere is then (4/3) * pi * ((6.498×10^6)^3 - (6.378×10^6)^3) = 6.25 × 10^19 m^3.
The density of air at sea level is approximately 1.29 kg/m^3, so the mass of our atmosphere is then (6.25×10^19 m^3) * (1.29kg/m^3) = 8.06 × 10^19 kg.
If we assume the volume remains constant, the specific heat of the atmosphere is 716 J/kg*K, so the introduction of 1.5 × 10^22 Joules of energy will result in a temperature increase of dT = E / (m*s) = (1.5 × 10^22) / (8.06 × 10^19 kg * 716 J/kg*K) = 0.26 K
So, in summary, a 1-km diameter asteroid made entirely of iron, travelling at 30km/s relative to the Earth, and assuming all the kinetic energy was converted to thermal energy and spread evenly across the entire globe, would raise worldwide temperature by less than half a degree celsius.
Now, if we assume a rock like the one supposed to have extinguished the dinosaurs, i.e., a 10-km rock, which consequently has 1000 times the mass, then the global temperature change could be as high as 260 degrees celsius, which is where things really start cooking.
If I made any slip-ups in my math, please point them out. It's entirely possible, since I didn't bother double-checking. Although I made so many liberal assumptions anyway that if you use these numbers for anything, you're crazy. This was more a diversion into the sort of problem you'd find in an elementary physics textbook than an actual scientific exercise.:-)
Yeah, Carter was not what you would call an amazing (or popular) president. However, that's exactly why I have more respect for Mr. Carter than for almost any other president. Ah well, it seems that engineers just weren't made for high office.:-)
I mean, we also have non-Asian-themed stupid memes (Zero Wing...
Well, since Zero Wing was made in Japan, and translated by a Japanese person into a language almost resembling English, I'd say that could be considered an Asian-related meme.:-)
Seems to me that exchanging our liberty for our safety is pretty insulting to those who have exchanged their lives for our liberty.
And Oliver Wendell Holmes's statement in the Schenck v. U.S. decision, to which you refer, was based on the idea that shouting "fire" when there is none is not an act to go unpunished simply because speech is supposed to be free. I agree with that principle, but not with the Supreme Court's decision; id est, my view is something along the lines of: it's okay to shout "fire" when there really is one.
It's not so much a matter of trust. Certainly, the ideal is that the governmnent is effectively "by, for, and of the people", but the Right to Bear Arms enshrined in the Constitution is an acknowledgement that even the best-laid plans can go awry. The idea is that, so long as the people are armed, they have a last-ditch backup plan if their government begins to actively work against them and their liberties.
I think the grandparent poster misspoke when he said, "cheerfully shoot any government official that oversteps his bounds". Obviously, vigilante justice will help nothing; the only revolution that can succeed is a truly popular one, and the Right to Bear Arms exists to ensure that the people will have the means as well as the will, should that most dire of circumstances ever arise.
Naturally, political change is much more pleasantly effected through the means of political activism and voting, and the system was designed so that these may be used instead of force. As the saying goes, "There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order, starting now."
Re:Does not work with Opera 7.54
on
Google Suggest
·
· Score: 1
Hm. You're right. When I posted my first reply, I was at a computer sans Opera, so I assumed the great-grandparent poster was correct without actually being able to check for myself.:-P
Re:Does not work with Opera 7.54
on
Google Suggest
·
· Score: 1
In my experience, Opera is a really finicky browser to work with compliantly. Maybe that's a good thing, but sometimes it's just not worth the trouble when you're trying to get your site to just work with Mozilla/FF and IE. Then there's the fact that you have to pay for Opera to remove those silly ads, and the fact that not that many people use it anyway... I have the ad-loaded version of Opera for compatibility testing with my web pages, but good lord, I'd never use that thing for web browsing. All that interface seems like overkill.
It doesn't surprise me at all that Google would put Mozilla and IE compatibility before Opera. Maybe they'll support it someday though.;-)
Well, there is a program to convert SPCs to.IT format. It sounds odd with some songs, but it's still really interesting.
True, but that's still operating on an SPC700 memory dump and not a ROM image. In the ROM itself, the data that eventually finds its way into the SPC's memory is stored in various inscrutable fashions - sequenced music data of an unknown format, sound samples, and a program for the SPC700 (which is an actual coprocessor with its own instruction set). Naturally, if you just want to extract the music and listen to it, it's easy enough to let an emulator do the job; but if you're into game cracking, and you want to put your own music in a game, that's where it gets tricky.:-)
Or you can just rip all of a ROM's samples in one go with Snessor, available here.
Only problem with that is that SNESSOR rips sound samples from a ROM - it doesn't make a dump of SPC memory, which is the important bit if you actually want to be able to listen to the music. There is no feasible method for extracting the music data from the ROM itself.
Hey there's one too, what is up with having a scrollwheel that only works in certain scrolling places and not others?
That's typically an application-specific thing. For an application to respond to any given mouse message, it has to specifically handle that message. If an application was not designed to include a mouse-wheel handler for its windows or lists or what-have-you, then scrolling the wheel in those areas will do nothing.
Some frameworks automatically include basic levels of input functionality though. For example, if you're using the Win32 API or MFC to design an application that includes a text box, you don't have to specifically handle keyboard input and translate it into the contents of the text box. Similarly, any scrollable windows derived from classes in a modern framework like MFC will automatically incorporate scroll wheel handling. When you come across an app that doesn't take advantage of the scroll wheel, you can generally assume that it was either made before scroll wheel handling was a typical occurrence in application design, or that the programmer did the input handling himself (instead of relying on a framework) and was too lazy or shortsighted to bother with the wheel.
windows keeps on launching ie in a number of nefarious ways such as links embedded in outlook and sent via msn messenger
I dunno about you, but my solution to those problems would be to install Thunderbird instead of Outlook, and get rid of MSN Messenger (maybe use something like GAIM instead?). Outlook has security issues out the wazoo too. It's not just IE; Microsoft Internet software is sort of like a merry band of misfits.:)
Tell me about it. Maybe you remember the whole deal with Furbies a few years back; I was interested, so I stopped by the local K-Mart to pick one up. They had a 1 per customer limit, but when I went to the register, the elderly man in line ahead of me was dragging a frickin' bag full of the things along the ground. Also, he was wearing a trench coat, a hat, and dark sunglasses. Apparently the K-Mart staff didn't notice.:-/
As for the DS, I really don't plan to buy one until a little time has gone past, and I can find one at my leisure without having to contend with the trench coat-wearing hoarders, frantic Tickle-Me-Elmo-esque shopping mall brawls, and eBay scalpers.
If you are driving 65 in the left lane. I'm going to tailgate the heck out of you.
So, because someone's driving 5 miles per hour under the legal limit, it's okay for you to risk your life and theirs? Ask yourself this: if something (another car, an animal, or a child) suddenly entered the roadway in front of the guy you're tailgating, and they slam on the brakes, what's going to happen? You're going to be involved in a wreck, and it will be entirely your fault. You will be the one who gets shafted with the higher insurance premiums, plus a big fat black mark on your driving record, in addition to the vast inconvenience and/or injuries sustained.
I have a very simple response to tailgaters. I slow down. If they want to pass me, I will try to make it easier for them to do so. If they won't or can't pass, I will simply adjust my speed until a safe following distance is achieved. If they're 3 feet behind me, guess what the safe speed is? I won't bother with the math, but it's pretty close to walking speed. Let them endanger themselves if they want to, but I'm going to take whatever steps I must to provide for my safety.
(Although sometimes, I like to just piss them off, since they deserve it anyway... >:-)
Granted, I know how annoying it is when someone is doing less than the speed limit in the passing lane. I generally like to do about 5 mile per hour over the limit (much faster than that and the highway patrol 'round here will nab you), and when I encounter one of these slowbies, I'll make an effort to pass them. But if, for whatever reason, I can't pass, I will match their speed at a safe following distance and wait for an opening. It's really satisfying to blow past someone who's really poking along, but there's no sense risking your lives by clinging to their bumper. (Not to mention, if a bear sees you doing that, they'll bring you up for aggressive driving, which is also pretty bad for your insurance bill)
but I won't support any law to ban the practice. No matter how stupid it is.
I would think that there would be very good reasons to prohibit the remote operation of deadly weapons via the Internet... There are many stupid things that are illegal, and with good cause. It seems to me that serious potential exists for some sort of unfortunate mishap, and securing accountability in such an event might be difficult.
But then again, some people are careless with their guns even without the benefit of remote operation, so maybe this isn't anything that new at all.:-/
From the article: he Web site already offers target practice with a.22 caliber rifle and could soon let hunters shoot at deer, antelope and wild pigs.
Do they realistically expect people to be able to kill a deer with a.22? You'd need to hit it at least half a dozen times and hope it bleeds to death before it runs out of the camera's view.
...That is, if you're the kind of person who likes watching deer bleed to death.;-O
So we should just give up if someone uses civilians as human shields and let them go around killing many people because a few would die if we tried to stop them?
No, of course not. But you're not addressing my point. What I'm saying is that civilians have been deliberately targeted, by both sides, in this current and other previous conflicts. I hope I'm not the only one who thinks that's wrong.:-/
I'd also like to point out there is a difference between purposefully targeting innocent civilians and innocent civilians dieing on accident in a war situation.
Yes, that's true. Our military has done both. Have you seen this before? Furthermore, I would posit that indiscriminate bombing of areas in which civilians are known to be is little better than actually targeting civilians specifically. After all, it doesn't really make much difference to those who've had their whole families killed and lives destroyed.
If Israel had arrested Yassin, it would have been far more harder
So, because it's easier to do it with a helicopter, it's okay to put civilian lives at risk? As for "aides, bodyguards or supporters", how do you define a "supporter"? Nearly every Palestinian in the Gaza strip is a Yassin supporter, especially now that he's been martyred. Killing him may have been easier, but it won't have the best outcome.
I'm not saying that additional allowances for use of force should not be made in a time of war. But it seems to me that Israel's policies are too heavy-handed, with as little respect for civilian life as the Hamas extremists. You won't achieve peace if you retaliate against terrorism by firing missiles into crowds.
If Osama were out there and we could kill him, do you expect us to stay our hands because we've not had his trial?
Depends. If he is found in a combat situation, shoot first, ask questions later. But in another situation (say, coming out of a mosque after morning prayers), some effort to apprehend or otherwise arrest him should be made before using lethal force. These are the principles of justice encoded in our heritage and in our Law - why should we make exceptions to them? I, for one, will not let fear make that decision for me.
As far as I can tell, you say it's okay to ignore human rights because we're afraid of something, and I'm just saying it's not.
And oh, there were no innocent casualties - the only people who were killed in the vicinity were his aides and bodyguards.
What I've heard is that eight people were killed, including Yassin and his two bodyguards, plus 17 wounded. Not exactly a surgical strike. And the question remains: why kill him in a street outside of a mosque, instead of, say, at his home? Why, if not to terrorize the people as well? It's not as though Israel hasn't killed enough Palestinian civilians in shellings of refugee camps anyway. By your logic it would be just fine for a member of Hamas to kill Sharon with a rocket launcher.
In any case, the assassination of Yassin was not only a barbaric act, it was a foolish one. Do you really think it will help matters for Israel to simply begin assassinating everybody suspected of acting against them? Within hours of his death, newborns in Palestine were being named Ahmed Yassin in honor of their martyred "hero". With every violent blow and reprisal, with every home demolished by American bulldozers with Israeli drivers, a generation of young Palestinians sees the same oppression, the same merciless enemy, the same total lack of hope for peace.
This is not how you end terrorism; this is how you breed it.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems that a similar transformation is occurring (has occurred?) in the computer industry. Instead of having one computer you use for everything, a multitude of small computerized devices now exists for fulfilling specific functions. Of course, a great deal of this is just natural, considering you wouldn't want to lug a desktop PC around with you whenever you wanted some tunes on the go. :-)
Well, yeah, I was ignoring radiant energy. There's also the fact that not very many asteroids are solid spheres of iron. Most have a density nearer to 4 g/cc than 8. Also, you're right about the atmosphere thing, now that I give it some thought. I pulled the 120 number out of my hat because I thought I remembered seeing it used in a similar approximation. A much smaller number would have been nearer the mark.
Yeah, exactly. If the object actually strikes the earth, a lot of the energy will be used in the production of the gigantic crater. :-)
But the discussion (I think, anyway) was about what might happen if the asteroid was broken apart before it hit. If that happened, and the asteroid was in millions of small pieces instead of one huge piece, those small pieces might all conceivably burn up in the atmosphere before striking the ground, in which case much of the energy _would_ go to heating up the air. The earth itself would absorb some heat from the atmosphere, but that would be a very slow process compared to the sudden introduction of energy from the burning chunks of rock.
Well, let's run some numbers, shall we?
:-)
:-)
Warning! Gross oversimplifications and estimates follow!
For the purposes of this problem, we'll assume the ginormous million-year doomsday rock, a 1000-m diameter chunk of iron. A 1000-meter sphere of iron has a mass of 3.30 × 10^13 kilograms. At an impact speed of, say, 30 km/s (approximately Earth's speed of orbit around the sun), that rock has a total of (1/2) * (3.30×10^13 kg) * (3×10^4 m/s)^2 = 1.5 × 10^22 Joules of kinetic energy.
Now, let's make some assumptions about the atmosphere. We'll assume the atmosphere is of uniform density, distribution, and composition, and about 120km high (not a terrible approximation, but not a good one either). The volume of the atmosphere is then (4/3) * pi * ((6.498×10^6)^3 - (6.378×10^6)^3) = 6.25 × 10^19 m^3.
The density of air at sea level is approximately 1.29 kg/m^3, so the mass of our atmosphere is then (6.25×10^19 m^3) * (1.29kg/m^3) = 8.06 × 10^19 kg.
If we assume the volume remains constant, the specific heat of the atmosphere is 716 J/kg*K, so the introduction of 1.5 × 10^22 Joules of energy will result in a temperature increase of dT = E / (m*s) = (1.5 × 10^22) / (8.06 × 10^19 kg * 716 J/kg*K) = 0.26 K
So, in summary, a 1-km diameter asteroid made entirely of iron, travelling at 30km/s relative to the Earth, and assuming all the kinetic energy was converted to thermal energy and spread evenly across the entire globe, would raise worldwide temperature by less than half a degree celsius.
Now, if we assume a rock like the one supposed to have extinguished the dinosaurs, i.e., a 10-km rock, which consequently has 1000 times the mass, then the global temperature change could be as high as 260 degrees celsius, which is where things really start cooking.
If I made any slip-ups in my math, please point them out. It's entirely possible, since I didn't bother double-checking. Although I made so many liberal assumptions anyway that if you use these numbers for anything, you're crazy. This was more a diversion into the sort of problem you'd find in an elementary physics textbook than an actual scientific exercise.
Yeah, Carter was not what you would call an amazing (or popular) president. However, that's exactly why I have more respect for Mr. Carter than for almost any other president. Ah well, it seems that engineers just weren't made for high office. :-)
Well, since Zero Wing was made in Japan, and translated by a Japanese person into a language almost resembling English, I'd say that could be considered an Asian-related meme. :-)
And Oliver Wendell Holmes's statement in the Schenck v. U.S. decision, to which you refer, was based on the idea that shouting "fire" when there is none is not an act to go unpunished simply because speech is supposed to be free. I agree with that principle, but not with the Supreme Court's decision; id est, my view is something along the lines of: it's okay to shout "fire" when there really is one.
I think the grandparent poster misspoke when he said, "cheerfully shoot any government official that oversteps his bounds". Obviously, vigilante justice will help nothing; the only revolution that can succeed is a truly popular one, and the Right to Bear Arms exists to ensure that the people will have the means as well as the will, should that most dire of circumstances ever arise.
Naturally, political change is much more pleasantly effected through the means of political activism and voting, and the system was designed so that these may be used instead of force. As the saying goes, "There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order, starting now."
Hm. You're right. When I posted my first reply, I was at a computer sans Opera, so I assumed the great-grandparent poster was correct without actually being able to check for myself. :-P
It doesn't surprise me at all that Google would put Mozilla and IE compatibility before Opera. Maybe they'll support it someday though. ;-)
And yes, I know Douglas Adams denied writing any jokes in base-13. Maybe he didn't, but I'm still not sure it's a coincidence. :-)
True, but that's still operating on an SPC700 memory dump and not a ROM image. In the ROM itself, the data that eventually finds its way into the SPC's memory is stored in various inscrutable fashions - sequenced music data of an unknown format, sound samples, and a program for the SPC700 (which is an actual coprocessor with its own instruction set). Naturally, if you just want to extract the music and listen to it, it's easy enough to let an emulator do the job; but if you're into game cracking, and you want to put your own music in a game, that's where it gets tricky. :-)
Only problem with that is that SNESSOR rips sound samples from a ROM - it doesn't make a dump of SPC memory, which is the important bit if you actually want to be able to listen to the music. There is no feasible method for extracting the music data from the ROM itself.
That's typically an application-specific thing. For an application to respond to any given mouse message, it has to specifically handle that message. If an application was not designed to include a mouse-wheel handler for its windows or lists or what-have-you, then scrolling the wheel in those areas will do nothing.
Some frameworks automatically include basic levels of input functionality though. For example, if you're using the Win32 API or MFC to design an application that includes a text box, you don't have to specifically handle keyboard input and translate it into the contents of the text box. Similarly, any scrollable windows derived from classes in a modern framework like MFC will automatically incorporate scroll wheel handling. When you come across an app that doesn't take advantage of the scroll wheel, you can generally assume that it was either made before scroll wheel handling was a typical occurrence in application design, or that the programmer did the input handling himself (instead of relying on a framework) and was too lazy or shortsighted to bother with the wheel.
I dunno about you, but my solution to those problems would be to install Thunderbird instead of Outlook, and get rid of MSN Messenger (maybe use something like GAIM instead?). Outlook has security issues out the wazoo too. It's not just IE; Microsoft Internet software is sort of like a merry band of misfits. :)
As for the DS, I really don't plan to buy one until a little time has gone past, and I can find one at my leisure without having to contend with the trench coat-wearing hoarders, frantic Tickle-Me-Elmo-esque shopping mall brawls, and eBay scalpers.
So, because someone's driving 5 miles per hour under the legal limit, it's okay for you to risk your life and theirs? Ask yourself this: if something (another car, an animal, or a child) suddenly entered the roadway in front of the guy you're tailgating, and they slam on the brakes, what's going to happen? You're going to be involved in a wreck, and it will be entirely your fault. You will be the one who gets shafted with the higher insurance premiums, plus a big fat black mark on your driving record, in addition to the vast inconvenience and/or injuries sustained.
I have a very simple response to tailgaters. I slow down. If they want to pass me, I will try to make it easier for them to do so. If they won't or can't pass, I will simply adjust my speed until a safe following distance is achieved. If they're 3 feet behind me, guess what the safe speed is? I won't bother with the math, but it's pretty close to walking speed. Let them endanger themselves if they want to, but I'm going to take whatever steps I must to provide for my safety.
(Although sometimes, I like to just piss them off, since they deserve it anyway... >:-)
Granted, I know how annoying it is when someone is doing less than the speed limit in the passing lane. I generally like to do about 5 mile per hour over the limit (much faster than that and the highway patrol 'round here will nab you), and when I encounter one of these slowbies, I'll make an effort to pass them. But if, for whatever reason, I can't pass, I will match their speed at a safe following distance and wait for an opening. It's really satisfying to blow past someone who's really poking along, but there's no sense risking your lives by clinging to their bumper. (Not to mention, if a bear sees you doing that, they'll bring you up for aggressive driving, which is also pretty bad for your insurance bill)
I would think that there would be very good reasons to prohibit the remote operation of deadly weapons via the Internet... There are many stupid things that are illegal, and with good cause. It seems to me that serious potential exists for some sort of unfortunate mishap, and securing accountability in such an event might be difficult.
But then again, some people are careless with their guns even without the benefit of remote operation, so maybe this isn't anything that new at all. :-/
he Web site already offers target practice with a
Do they realistically expect people to be able to kill a deer with a .22? You'd need to hit it at least half a dozen times and hope it bleeds to death before it runs out of the camera's view.
...That is, if you're the kind of person who likes watching deer bleed to death. ;-O
Already times on the idea come,
One with Windows XP
That makes nevertheless nobody -
To to listen to and to
Do not look at there.
Deep, man, deep.
And then you came to Slashdot, where some worthless pedant informed you that the word you were looking for is "than," not "then." :-)
No, of course not. But you're not addressing my point. What I'm saying is that civilians have been deliberately targeted, by both sides, in this current and other previous conflicts. I hope I'm not the only one who thinks that's wrong. :-/
Yes, that's true. Our military has done both. Have you seen this before? Furthermore, I would posit that indiscriminate bombing of areas in which civilians are known to be is little better than actually targeting civilians specifically. After all, it doesn't really make much difference to those who've had their whole families killed and lives destroyed.
So, because it's easier to do it with a helicopter, it's okay to put civilian lives at risk? As for "aides, bodyguards or supporters", how do you define a "supporter"? Nearly every Palestinian in the Gaza strip is a Yassin supporter, especially now that he's been martyred. Killing him may have been easier, but it won't have the best outcome.
I'm not saying that additional allowances for use of force should not be made in a time of war. But it seems to me that Israel's policies are too heavy-handed, with as little respect for civilian life as the Hamas extremists. You won't achieve peace if you retaliate against terrorism by firing missiles into crowds.
Depends. If he is found in a combat situation, shoot first, ask questions later. But in another situation (say, coming out of a mosque after morning prayers), some effort to apprehend or otherwise arrest him should be made before using lethal force. These are the principles of justice encoded in our heritage and in our Law - why should we make exceptions to them? I, for one, will not let fear make that decision for me.
As far as I can tell, you say it's okay to ignore human rights because we're afraid of something, and I'm just saying it's not.
What I've heard is that eight people were killed, including Yassin and his two bodyguards, plus 17 wounded. Not exactly a surgical strike. And the question remains: why kill him in a street outside of a mosque, instead of, say, at his home? Why, if not to terrorize the people as well? It's not as though Israel hasn't killed enough Palestinian civilians in shellings of refugee camps anyway. By your logic it would be just fine for a member of Hamas to kill Sharon with a rocket launcher.In any case, the assassination of Yassin was not only a barbaric act, it was a foolish one. Do you really think it will help matters for Israel to simply begin assassinating everybody suspected of acting against them? Within hours of his death, newborns in Palestine were being named Ahmed Yassin in honor of their martyred "hero". With every violent blow and reprisal, with every home demolished by American bulldozers with Israeli drivers, a generation of young Palestinians sees the same oppression, the same merciless enemy, the same total lack of hope for peace.
This is not how you end terrorism; this is how you breed it.