When you hear someone criticize Israeli policies regarding the Palestinians, you are listening to a jew-hater.
And when your parents tell you not to watch so much TV and not to take drugs, it's because they hate you. Don't believe their excuses that they want to help you, it's not true.
wouldn't you be able to tell the difference between the abuse of a hundred prisoners* and the killing of a hundred thousand people?
I am -- but I'm afraid, many Arabs are not.
This abuse shouldn't have happened in the first place (I mean, I'm sorry, but I believe the guards when they say they have never heard about the Geneva Convention. But, as it has happened, the criminals (or whoever's fault that is) must be punished.
In a very visible way.
But how inanimate is a house when 91 people die when you "demolish it"?
My point is that terrorism is the last weapon of really desparate people. Sometimes, these people win, like Ben Gurion and Menachem Begin. So Israel was basically founded by early terrorists.
I'm not anti-Israel, I'm sure Ben Gurion and Begin would have preferred to fight the British in an "open battle" with tanks and soldiers, but they didn't have any of these so they chose a terrorist attack.
In this aspect, the're pretty similar the today's Palestinians.
So, what is your point? Are we still talking about Palestine? What I want to say is if a country basically just gets smaller, people know at least, where to go when they have to leave their home.
The point is that there are very, very different standards used for judging Palesina/Israel.
Well, maybe it's because nobody listens to the people in Sudan.
If you had answered those, I would have added my other questions
Go on, ask. I don't know any solutions, but I can tell you what I think. Just an irrelevant opninion.
what exactly is unfair? demolishing houses where snipers hide and shoot parents and their young kids on their way home?
It's this spiral of violence and revenge that doesn't let the region come to peace. Both sides think their terrible crimes are excused by their enemy's crimes in the past.
Terrorists are different people.
You mean people like Yosef Avni, Yisrael Levi, David Ben Gurion and Menachem Begin? 90 people killed, not bad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel
Terrorism is often the last weapon of the powerless. I don't want to excuse it, I just want to explain it.
Isn't it also unfair, illegal and cruel to strap a bomb to your chest and blow up a bus at the behest of Mr. Arafat?
Of yourse you're right.
Call me an idealist, but I still think a democratic government should not murder its assumed or real enemies (or innocent bystahnders, of course) with missiles from helicopters. There should be something like Police and a fair trial. When dealing with terrorists, is it really inevitable to use terrorist methods?
I believe not. We must show that there's a difference between totalitarian regimes and democratic governments. Something we completely failed to show in Iraq. Now the Arabian world thinks there's not much difference between Saddam's torturing or the Americans' torturing.
There were lots of land losses after WW I & II.
Land losses are one thing, but where can you go if your country basically ceases to exist?
It was not an existing country before...
But there was a strong feeling of a being a nation before. For example, Poland as as state didn't exist for hundreds of years, but the people always considered themselves a nation.
...worse treatment of non-muslims by muslims in Sudan
That's because it's in Africa. It sounds cynical, but international politics is not interested in Africa. The people in Sudan are poor, the country has little military power and there are few natural resources. I mean, how long did it take for the world to recognize what's happening in Rwanda?
It seems to me you're really simplifying a complex matter.
Of course I do. It's a posting on Slashdot, not a 20-volume encyclopedia about the history of the Middle East.
The suicide bombers from 9/11 were mostly university students, therefore much more educated than the average poulation of their countries.
The problem is, you have to be a moron not to see that what the Israeli government does to their Palestinian "brothers" by all standards unfair, illegal und cruel.
Then, if you're young and clever and have a sense of justice, you feel the urge to do something against that. If some demogugue comes along then, you're an easy victim for their propaganda.
There comes your next suicide bomber.
No mention of a Mac version...
Surely, if it can be ported to Linux, it can't be so difficult to port it to Mac OS X...?
Pleeeeeeaase?
(I really liked this game but I won't buy a PC just for that)
Thanks for the link...
Yet, what keeps MS from extending the.NET platform with copyprotected parts? This way they could slowly make the Mono-made software incompatible.
On the MS side, simply re-compile your stuff and it will run under the new, improved.NET Xtreme Platform (C) but if you use Mono, you'll be locked out...
I'm probably paranoid.
But maybe we read about a secret MS strategy email on/. in a few months advising just that. I wouldn't be surprised.
Maybe now, MS has a strong interest to promote the.NET platform, but when (or if) it has reached a certain market penetration, what keeps them from changing the protocols (or whatever-- I'm not into this thing) every few months?
Or, if this dosn't help, declare it's all copyright protected and sue Mono? DMCA, anyone? Or at least prevent them from continuing their work?
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the guys at Ximian have done great work, but you can't trust Microsoft. This is not MS-bashing, this is a lesson many companies have learned in the past-- learned the hard way.
This is very strange.
You're not the first person to point that out.
When my girlfriend accesses her Hotmail acount from my Macintosh with Mozilla (same with Firefoc, I think); after logging out a page comes that tells her to use Internet Explorer for Macinosh.
It seems there is no such message on Windows. Or even Linux? (Heck, it doesn't tell you that a "free" operating system isn't safe or soemthing?)
I'm not sure how good Gmail is going to be... better than Hotmail, yes, for sure.
But what I want is IMAP, and it doesn't sound like they're willing to provide that. It's so nice to be able to read the same emails at work and at home without some sending to self or fiddling with the mail program or whatever.
When my girlfriend accesses her Hotmail account from my Mac with Mozilla (same with Firefox, I think), after logout theres always a screen telling her to use Internet Explorer (for Macintosh).
Maybe your browser "disguises" as Internet Explorer? Or they're especially proud of their IE, Mac Version (which is stuck at version 5.2)...
As so many people have asked about my email provider... Unfortunately the provider is German, and I'm afraid you need a basic knowledge of German (or somebody to help you) to register...
The name is web.de, the address http://www.web.de. That's where you can also register.
If you have done that but can't find the server's addresses: the IMAP server's is: imap.web.de, the SMTP server has address smtp.web.de. SSL is supported.
Good luck!
I merely gave my email provider as an example, I didn't think so many people would be interested...
reminds you to use Internet Explorer each time you use it with Mozilla
belongs to MS;-)
My email provider offers pop3, imap, 12 mb storage (well, that's not much, if you pay, you get more), email forwarding etc. (some stuff I don't use, like sms when you get email). Of course, all for free and quite reliable for 3 years now.
So why always Hotmail?
"either they are mindless dolts, or they love security more than freedom."
I think that's natural. A few years ago, I met an old German lady who told me about the Nazi-time in Germany: "You can say many bad things about the time, but at least a woman could go out at night without fear."
How many Americans would be willing to sell almost useless freedoms like freedom of press or speech for individual safety?
By the way, Hitler, the elected chancellor, extended his power immensely with emergency laws... because of the dangerous situation, they said. Not unlike Bush's "War against terror" (you know, we are at war) that has brought so many things that were previously unthinkable. One advantage of this "war against terror" is, that it will never end. So there's no need to give back the liberties to the people.
In theory, you might be right.
However, this government has so far succeeded in convincing people that the "security" of the nation is more important than the rights of the individual, let alone international treaties. Okay, so I'm liberal, if this is a dirty word for so many people then something is completely wrong in this state. Somebody please tell Bush that "liberty" comes from "liberal".
You can't trust this government to protect any liberties.
Slashdot Mirror
First I read the ship's name as "Visibility"... guess that would be illogical...
Put a paper bag over your head.
How can I send the blood? All I seem to get is a smudgy monitor.
When you hear someone criticize Israeli policies regarding the Palestinians, you are listening to a jew-hater.
And when your parents tell you not to watch so much TV and not to take drugs, it's because they hate you.
Don't believe their excuses that they want to help you, it's not true.
wouldn't you be able to tell the difference between the abuse of a hundred prisoners* and the killing of a hundred thousand people?
I am -- but I'm afraid, many Arabs are not.
This abuse shouldn't have happened in the first place (I mean, I'm sorry, but I believe the guards when they say they have never heard about the Geneva Convention. But, as it has happened, the criminals (or whoever's fault that is) must be punished.
In a very visible way.
I do not understand your question.
However, if you decide not to talk about it...
Good bye. Have a nice weekend.
But how inanimate is a house when 91 people die when you "demolish it"?
My point is that terrorism is the last weapon of really desparate people. Sometimes, these people win, like Ben Gurion and Menachem Begin. So Israel was basically founded by early terrorists.
I'm not anti-Israel, I'm sure Ben Gurion and Begin would have preferred to fight the British in an "open battle" with tanks and soldiers, but they didn't have any of these so they chose a terrorist attack.
In this aspect, the're pretty similar the today's Palestinians.
One side goes once in 60 years Vs. the other that goes twice a week since I was born. Please...
Because they won... What's the point of being a terrorist if they make you Prime Minister?
In short -- you didn't answer my point.
So, what is your point? Are we still talking about Palestine? What I want to say is if a country basically just gets smaller, people know at least, where to go when they have to leave their home.
The point is that there are very, very different standards used for judging Palesina/Israel.
Well, maybe it's because nobody listens to the people in Sudan.
If you had answered those, I would have added my other questions
Go on, ask. I don't know any solutions, but I can tell you what I think. Just an irrelevant opninion.
what exactly is unfair? demolishing houses where snipers hide and shoot parents and their young kids on their way home?
It's this spiral of violence and revenge that doesn't let the region come to peace.
Both sides think their terrible crimes are excused by their enemy's crimes in the past.
Terrorists are different people.
You mean people like Yosef Avni, Yisrael Levi, David Ben Gurion and Menachem Begin? 90 people killed, not bad. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel
Terrorism is often the last weapon of the powerless. I don't want to excuse it, I just want to explain it.
Isn't it also unfair, illegal and cruel to strap a bomb to your chest and blow up a bus at the behest of Mr. Arafat?
Of yourse you're right.
Call me an idealist, but I still think a democratic government should not murder its assumed or real enemies (or innocent bystahnders, of course) with missiles from helicopters. There should be something like Police and a fair trial.
When dealing with terrorists, is it really inevitable to use terrorist methods?
I believe not. We must show that there's a difference between totalitarian regimes and democratic governments.
Something we completely failed to show in Iraq. Now the Arabian world thinks there's not much difference between Saddam's torturing or the Americans' torturing.
There were lots of land losses after WW I & II.
...worse treatment of non-muslims by muslims in Sudan
Land losses are one thing, but where can you go if your country basically ceases to exist?
It was not an existing country before...
But there was a strong feeling of a being a nation before. For example, Poland as as state didn't exist for hundreds of years, but the people always considered themselves a nation.
That's because it's in Africa. It sounds cynical, but international politics is not interested in Africa. The people in Sudan are poor, the country has little military power and there are few natural resources.
I mean, how long did it take for the world to recognize what's happening in Rwanda?
It seems to me you're really simplifying a complex matter.
Of course I do. It's a posting on Slashdot, not a 20-volume encyclopedia about the history of the Middle East.
(Has anyone ever seen Rumsfeld and bin Laden at the same time in two different places -- something to consider...)
You mean they're actually the same person...?
The suicide bombers from 9/11 were mostly university students, therefore much more educated than the average poulation of their countries.
The problem is, you have to be a moron not to see that what the Israeli government does to their Palestinian "brothers" by all standards unfair, illegal und cruel.
Then, if you're young and clever and have a sense of justice, you feel the urge to do something against that.
If some demogugue comes along then, you're an easy victim for their propaganda.
There comes your next suicide bomber.
No mention of a Mac version...
Surely, if it can be ported to Linux, it can't be so difficult to port it to Mac OS X...?
Pleeeeeeaase?
(I really liked this game but I won't buy a PC just for that)
Thanks for the link... .NET platform with copyprotected parts? This way they could slowly make the Mono-made software incompatible. .NET Xtreme Platform (C) but if you use Mono, you'll be locked out... /. in a few months advising just that. I wouldn't be surprised.
Yet, what keeps MS from extending the
On the MS side, simply re-compile your stuff and it will run under the new, improved
I'm probably paranoid.
But maybe we read about a secret MS strategy email on
Maybe now, MS has a strong interest to promote the .NET platform, but when (or if) it has reached a certain market penetration, what keeps them from changing the protocols (or whatever-- I'm not into this thing) every few months?
Or, if this dosn't help, declare it's all copyright protected and sue Mono? DMCA, anyone? Or at least prevent them from continuing their work?
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the guys at Ximian have done great work, but you can't trust Microsoft. This is not MS-bashing, this is a lesson many companies have learned in the past-- learned the hard way.
"where did the terrorists in jordan get there chemical weapons?"
Probably from the US, like OBL got his billions from the CIA...
This is very strange.
You're not the first person to point that out.
When my girlfriend accesses her Hotmail acount from my Macintosh with Mozilla (same with Firefoc, I think); after logging out a page comes that tells her to use Internet Explorer for Macinosh.
It seems there is no such message on Windows. Or even Linux? (Heck, it doesn't tell you that a "free" operating system isn't safe or soemthing?)
I'm not sure how good Gmail is going to be... better than Hotmail, yes, for sure.
But what I want is IMAP, and it doesn't sound like they're willing to provide that. It's so nice to be able to read the same emails at work and at home without some sending to self or fiddling with the mail program or whatever.
When my girlfriend accesses her Hotmail account from my Mac with Mozilla (same with Firefox, I think), after logout theres always a screen telling her to use Internet Explorer (for Macintosh).
Maybe your browser "disguises" as Internet Explorer? Or they're especially proud of their IE, Mac Version (which is stuck at version 5.2)...
As so many people have asked about my email provider... Unfortunately the provider is German, and I'm afraid you need a basic knowledge of German (or somebody to help you) to register...
The name is web.de, the address http://www.web.de. That's where you can also register.
If you have done that but can't find the server's addresses: the IMAP server's is: imap.web.de, the SMTP server has address smtp.web.de.
SSL is supported.
Good luck!
I merely gave my email provider as an example, I didn't think so many people would be interested...
I mean,
My email provider offers pop3, imap, 12 mb storage (well, that's not much, if you pay, you get more), email forwarding etc. (some stuff I don't use, like sms when you get email). Of course, all for free and quite reliable for 3 years now.
So why always Hotmail?
"either they are mindless dolts, or they love security more than freedom."
I think that's natural. A few years ago, I met an old German lady who told me about the Nazi-time in Germany: "You can say many bad things about the time, but at least a woman could go out at night without fear."
How many Americans would be willing to sell almost useless freedoms like freedom of press or speech for individual safety?
By the way, Hitler, the elected chancellor, extended his power immensely with emergency laws... because of the dangerous situation, they said.
Not unlike Bush's "War against terror" (you know, we are at war) that has brought so many things that were previously unthinkable. One advantage of this "war against terror" is, that it will never end. So there's no need to give back the liberties to the people.
In theory, you might be right.
However, this government has so far succeeded in convincing people that the "security" of the nation is more important than the rights of the individual, let alone international treaties.
Okay, so I'm liberal, if this is a dirty word for so many people then something is completely wrong in this state.
Somebody please tell Bush that "liberty" comes from "liberal".
You can't trust this government to protect any liberties.