Because it appears that part of the RIAA's adjenda is to convince people that downloading music is a criminal offense. Therefore I am trying to halt the spread of misinformation.
But don't say, "I don't want to do business with them, but I'll steal their product." The two are inseparable.
I don't know, maybe while who ever is at it they can explain why IRV is better then the Condorcet voting used by Debian (and in a purer sense by the Kettering-A Delta Chi Chapter for officer elections.)
Note: I'm clearly biased because we swapped our elections from IRV to Condorcet to fix many of the problems we were having.
NONE OF YOU ARE LAWYERS SO PLEASE STOP TRYING TO ACT LIKE THEM AND KEEP YOUR ARMCHAIR LEGAL BS TO YOURSELVES!!!!!
Wow! That made me feel much better:)
Anyway,
Most of the above argument involves US law, which is no doubt different from Icelandic law.
It does not change the fact that:
A) These people broke the law
B> The RIAA has the right to sue them
According to my lawyer (this is in the States mind you), B does not need to follow A. i.e You can still be sued if you followed all the laws to the letter.
Also, my understanding, (which is unfortunatly limited at this juncture), is that Copyright infringment is not a crime per se (i.e. there isn't some federal law somewhere making it criminal), however, it is something that you can be sued over.
So, while A is not nessessarily correct, it is now irrelevent because B, the central issue is now freestanding.
My $.02:
We should encourage the RIAA to sue as many people as possible, this lets all the laymen out there who don't care about Artists or copyrights to see the companies making up the RIAA for the thugs they truely are.
In the mean time, I'm refusing to buy any product that supports any constituant member. I don't even download their crappy music or listen to it on the radio because both of those actions still help the RIAA in the end.
you would still have the NOx-nitrogen oxides, as these are a by-product of using air (nitrogen/oxygen) for combustion with the hydrogen
Fuel Cells use an electro-chemical reaction (i.e. not combustion; if they used combustion they'd be called engines and would be much less power efficient). Actually it's the same type of reaction that occurs in your mitochondria (and for a PEM-type fuel cell it is the exact same reatcion).
Interestingly enough though, NOx and CO poisoning of the fuel cell is a major problem for many of the experimental designs (the Nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxides floating in the air inhibit the fuel cells from working properly, causing performance to rapidly degrade in many urban areas). Because of this, at least first generation fuel cell vehicles will have to have "scrubers" on them to get rid of the harmful junk (as a nice side benefit, smog ridden cities may free air cleanup). Furthermore, since efficiency is related to the concentration of Oxygen put into the fuel cell (and all but the most exotic designs choke on Nitrogen) most will have a filter to keep the Nitrogen from going into the input anyway.
He's using Diodes and Caps to change his power factor from unity (i.e. mostly resistive). Since most power companies only bill home users for "real" power. He won't be billed for the reactive power he's storing in the Caps.
So you have to ask yourself, who benefits from multi-billion dollars of investment into a Hydrogen energy infrastructure?
No one ever claimed that swapping from petroleum to Hydrogen would be more efficient. Swapping to hydrogen does have one big advantage: cars won't spew pollution into the atmosphere wherever people go with them. The pollution is localized to where the hydrogen is produced. Because of this localization more efficient and less polluting methods can be used and the emmissions restrictions can be tighter.
Now, realistically, getting the Government to mandate better quality fuels (esp Diesel) and swapping to Hybrids would have 60%-90% of the advantages with much less cost, but it seems people would rather spend billions for that last 10%.
> Do you have any references for the items you listed? I would be interested in reading some reasearch on what kind of techniques actually help reduce accidents.
Unfortunately I don't, when you start working in Active Saftey (aka Crash Prevention/Mitigation) Research for an Automotive Company they give you a few thousand pages of research reports to read. That was over 4 years ago and I just can't recal what reports that stuff was in. Especially since all of the information was on file in the company library, you just had to ask for the reasearch and they did the finding.
As far as I can remember, lots of stuff is done by the DOT (lots of analysis of what causes crashes), even more is done by European and Japanese Governments (a ton of stuff on maximizing traffic flow and how to analyze it). There isn't too much proprietary fundamental research, so that shouldn't be a problem. Most of the reasearch focuses on what causes undesirable traffic affects (crashes, backups, grid lock, etc), theoretically preventing those things that are likely to cause a crash, prevents crashes but not nearly as much effort is spent comparing the various prevention techniques (tickes v education etc).
This is getting rediculous, as I said before, in your mind this whole thing is black and white instead of shades of gray.
Before we go any further I want you to state a few things:
The Israeli People are entitled to their fundamental human rights, among them freedom from pursecution and the right of self-determination.
Violence is not an acceptable solution; terroist groups that purposefully target and attempt to kill innocent civilians are amoral. Their approach to a solution is unacceptable. Terrorist Organizations like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Al-aqsa must stop their actions.
You are correct (I've worked in Automotive Saftey Reseach). Traffic is one of the highest correlated factors in serious accidents (the reasons have to do with traffic being a string-stability type of dynamic system). Surprisingly absolute speed is not that large of a factor (because if everyone is going exactly 90, in most circumstances, there isn't going to be a crash if they are all driving "correctly").
When traffic gets heavy people start doing things like driving in lanes meant for passing, entry, and exit. They don't maintain a safe (appx. 2s, depending on car) forward headway. When they pass they fail to pass with sufficient speed (~15mph faster then the vehicle you are passing) and they almost never use their turn signals. I could go on. The really pathetic thing is that many states have unsafe driving laws that target this sort of behavior but they are rarely used.
The reason most people get out of the habit of doing these safe practices is predicted by game theory. By following those guidelines you are making the road more safe for others but not markedly improving your chances of not being in an accident. Because it is unlikely that something bad will happen to you when you do not follow them, the average person will simply ignore the rules, because the damage they are doing to others is not factored in to the decision.
The solution to the problem is to actually start punishing the people who make the road unsafe instead of trying to use traffic as a revenue source like many states do. Stressing the importance of these safe practices should be top priority, not making money off of doing things that only make the road less safe in corner cases.
I'll agree that at best it's a very rough estimate, because I don't think you can accurately capture politics on a one dimensional basis. Just curious though, how would you have estimated the 50th percentile?
You didn't overestimate this reader. I go to an engineering school and ton's of people here who play including over half of the guys in my Fraternity, the Delta Chi Kettering A Chapter.
I agree with you, it's a great, challenging game. It's also much easier to teach the basics to someone that say GURPS.
> Ah, then, now wouldn't you say that would put them *both* equally at fault? Instead of your "just blame the Palestinians" approach?
I do not blame the Palistinian PEOLE, they are repeatedly and without fail used as political pawns. It is not their fault. I do blame Arafat for showing up at Camp David, osstensibly to get a final agreement, and then walking away from the initial offer without making a counter offer or even trying to negotiate. I further blame him for ENCOURAGING the KILLING of innocent civilians as a "solution" to the Israeli refusal to capitulate unconditionally to his demands. I also blame him for siphoning millions of UN dollars that should have been going to help his people into his personal finances and those of his friends. Arafat is no Ghandi, and despite what you seem to think the Palistinians are worse for having him.
> Wait a minute... first you accuse me of parrotting tripe, and then accuse me of being trollish,
Yes, you quoted almost word for word Arafat's polictical posturing and pretend it is as your own opinion, ergo, parrot and trollish.
> then acknowlege what I said was *true*
No. I acknowledged that, like all good myths, yours was based on a kernel of truth: In theory if all the Palistinians currently living in what amounts to UN run concentration camps and all of their future children were allowed to vote in Israel and they then breed like rabbits they could overrun Israel and make it a Jewish state in name only.
> The right of return is standard among refugees;
No, the mandate of the UN High Commissioner of Refugees is to help refugees seek asylum and find safe refuge and to ensure their protection in the mean time. Furthermore most Palistinian refugees today do not meet the basic definition of a refugee. In fact because of the situation under which they were displaced, many would have been excluded from refugee status even at the time. The UNHCR has had policies for resolving situations quickly and effectivly since it was organized and has historically been one of the more successful UN endevors; unlike the UNRWA, an organization which many journalists have accused of supporting terrorist groups.
> Seing as it's *still going on*
The war that created the initial refugee problem has been over for over 50 years and the Six Day War has been over for more then 30 years. In fact, some parts of modern Israel were controlled, policed, and governed by the local Jewish majority over 120 years ago; these defense forces even came to the Aid of the Alies in both World Wars. All of those wars have long been settled and the disputes resolved. As part of the resolution of the Six Day War, Egypt gave Israel the Gaza Strip, and Jordan gave Israel the West Bank. By all logical and reasonable methods, that land is now part of Israel and has been for more then 30 years. Let me repeat that: THE WAR IS OVER, and the Arabs lost. Dispite what you may believe or may have been told, the side that looses a war is not entitled to have it's demands met.
Israel has adopted a policy that the inhabitants of that land can get most of it as an independant country under the same conditions Egypt and Jordan would have had to meet to get that same land. In other words, Israel has agreed to return to the Palistinians land that Egypt and Jordan took from them by force and has not placed any additional demands or restrictions upon that offer. In any other situation this would have been considered more the generous; after all, in a war land changes hands, but in this situation, where emotions, egos, an vendetas all run wild, Israel's attempt at peace is scoffed at.
> Like I said, you've apparently never read an Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch article on the subject
Obviously you arn't hearing me. A free country cannot prosecute someone without evidence that shows they committed the crime. Claims, accusations, an he-said-she-said no matter how valid they may or may not
The goal was to get "true center" such that 50% of the population of the US would be to the left and 50% would be to the right. Taking a median of congress seems like a reasonable way to do that to me.
> It's not like the cigarette companies which were (are?) directly advertising to minors.
I'd go with one company (RJ Reynolds, makers of Camel) and "were".
Most of the other companies just got dragged into the mess. In my personal experience, most of the cigarette companies arn't run by bad people. The guys from RJ and Philip Morris are absolute jerk-offs though.
> The only two things that are viewed as non-negotiable from the Palestinian side are the right of return of refugees and control of East Jerusalem.
My point exactly. The right of return is non-negotiable from the Israeli point of view as well. As long as both sides stand around yelling about their demands, nothing is going to happen.
> We're talking 60 years versus *2000 years*.
Jewish majorities existed in parts of modern Israel since at least 1880. Under that logic, the US should return large portions of it's land to the American Indians (who were no doubtably wronged). I don't see you proposing that. China should be forced to un-invade Tibet. We can go on like this for a long time. If everyone focuses on keeping a victim mentality instead of getting a workable solution, this problem is never going to go away.
> They had already made huge concessions with Oslo
Again it depends on your point of view. The Israeli's see the Palistinians agreeing that areas of Jewish majority can be part of a Jewish state as a minor concession.
> Israel prides itself on being both a democracy and a Jewish state. However, these two concepts can only exist together with population control. The Right of Return is the antithesis of this.
At least try to look at things from the Israeli view point before you parot Arafat's tripe. Everyone here knows what the official Palistinian opinion of the situation is; continuing to repeat it over and over again with no reguard for reason, logic, or the point's of view held by others, reguardless of why you are doing it, is flat out trollish. Furthermore it undoes the hard work a lot of very good people are doing to try to bring these two sides to a workable solution. However, yes, you are correct: if the Palistinians could all vote in Israel and managed to breed like rabbits, they could take over the country. Now that we have acknoledged the problem, let's hear your brilliant idea of how to fix it while protecting the rights, ideals, and freedoms of all involved.
While we are on the topic of the "Right of Return", let's try to have a reasonable discussion here. The Palistinians claim their situation is different from and more exceptional then any other refugee situation, therefore, the argment goes, they are entitled to special treatment and rights that are not normally granted to refugees. Among those special treatments is the entitlement to a right of return. However, I see nothing particularly special about their case that warrents such special treatment. The UN policies that have worked in every other major refugee situation could have worked here had the politicians not gotten involved and tied the hands of those who could have been helping. While it's probably too late now to use them in total because those policies are designed to deal with a situation quickly before it festers, the ideas upon which they are based should still be perfectly valid, even in this case.
> True. And next, you'll show that two wrongs make a right?
No I'm going to claim that life sometimes deals people the short end of the stick; what happens to you is not what matters, it's how you react. Everyone is a victim in some way, but in almost every case, there will be someone who is more of a victim. You can't cry about it and ask the rest of the world to fix it for you; there are simply too many victims for them to all get the attention they deserve. The Jews who shrugged off getting kicked out of their homes, and loosing all of their property are doing pretty well now when compared to the Palistinians who have remained bitter about what happened to this day. Many of the Palistinians should take note, stop worrying about revenge, and try to get on with their lives.
> So, your attempt with this paragraph is to show that the vast majority of the world is anti-Semitic? If not, please explain.
Well since you bring it up, polls do show that the vast majority of Europeans and Mid
As I understand it, DragonFly is about offering an alternative to FreeBSD5. It plans to continue to develop the 4 series and add the same type of enhancements present in the 5 series but in a (arguably) "cleaner" and "better thoughtout" way.
Basically the developers liked the basic ideas behind FreeBSD but didn't like where the project was headed so they forked. Maybe it's artificial but I'm seeing a lot of similarities between this and the creation of OpenBSD (which forked from Net a good while back).
> Did I just hear a mention of "Barak's Generous Offer"?
*sigh* How gernerous it is depends on whose point of view you hold. It's more then conservative Israeli's wanted to give, and less then what Arafat wanted to get. It is, however, the offer Clinton and Bandar asked the Israeli's to make, so from their point of view it was probably just being co-operative. I didn't condem Arafat for refusing the offer, I condemned him for not making a counter offer. In this conflict, people on both sides have suffered and died; you won't get a lasting, mutually beneficial agreement by standing around yelling back and forth about "demands". You will get an agreement by realizing that both sides are going to have to make hard choices, and then actually negotiating what those choices will be. Arafat is unwilling to do that, to the detriment of the Palistinian people.
> The West Bank and Gaza Strip comprise 22% of historic Palestine
This is the fundamental problem with this situation; who "owns" the land depends on how far back you go. The whole argument is quite rediculous; taken to it's logical conclusion, we all end up crammed in a tiny country somewhere in Africa. To get a realistic agreement, you can't start with how things were at some arbitrary point in the past, you have to start with where you are now. Furthermore the people currently there have an equally legitimate claim to the land that goes something like this:
According to Mark Twain, the land was barren and desolate when he visited (mid 1800s). Over the next 20 years an Orthodox Jewish majority developed by buying the land from absentee landlords and developing it. Like all wars the Israeli War of Independance created a refugee situation; many Jews were driven from their historic homes in Arab nations and forced to settle in modern Israel. The Palistinians whose land was turned into a war zone by the unprovoked attack from the Arab nations should have been treated the same as any other group of refugees caused by a war; The UN High Commisioner on Human Rights should have been allowed to deal with the problem in the same way other refugee issues are dealt with.
> have you ever actually talked to anyone who lives in the West Bank or Gaza Strip?
Yes.
> had major, if not universal support in the UN Who cares who sponsored it? Everyone except Israel, the US, and a small handful of other countries *agreed*.
The UN isn't some happy place, where people sit around and try to solve all of the world's problems in a fair, unbiased, and impartial way. It is a real political body and the people and countries that sponsor and support resultions, do so to promote and adjenda; the fact that a large number of people have the same adjenda does not in and of itself make them correct, well intentioned, or unbaised. It is however important that when such resolutions are cited as impartial fact, that the well known adjendas of major supporters be made clear.
> Next, I'll ignore your ability to read the minds of what the people of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria all want.
I said nothing about the people of those nations, only their leadership (which is not duly chosen or in anyway representative of the population of those countries); I don't have to be a mind reader, there were and in some cases still are stated policies to refer to.
> the general assembly never condemned
As I stated, general assembly resolutions are meaningless; I was refering to Security Council resolutions, my reference to the comdemnation of the US death penalty mush have thrown you off.
While we are on the topic, I'll remind you that the sumit on Women's Rights managed to comdem Israel's record while omitting the records most Arab nations, China, and a host of Western nations. A council on torture managed to comdemn Israel (one of the only contries in the world that has banned all torture, including such things as using gaurd dogs, loud music, and uncomfortable possitions) but not the US, UK, France, Germany, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, the Palistinian Authority, or anyone else for that matter. In short, the UN has no credibility what so ever on this issue.
This is WAY off topic and probably a troll but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you, like most people, are just restating what you've been told and don't know the facts. If you'd like a liberally-minded view point on the the situation I'd suggest Alan Dershowitz's Book "The Case for Israel". It's a very enlightening well documented read.
General Assembly Resolutions arn't binding and are used mostly for political posturing. They are generally considered worthless. The people sponsoring these things are the same people who invaded Israel with the goal of KILLING everyone in the country. They are also the same people (Egypt, Jordan, and Syria) who originally invaded and took the land the Security Council had set aside for the Palistinians to have. They don't care about either side and only want the conflict to continue. While we're on that topic the General Assembly never condembed Egypt, Jordan, or Syria for invading and taking Palistinian land. It also never condemned China for it's abuses in Tibet. I has however managed to condemn the US for having a death penalty (although it overlooks the state torture allowed in Palestine). In short the organization is biased and it's oppinion is usesless to 90% of people.
Contrary to popular belief, Israel is not in violation of any UN Security Council Resolution. The Resolutions you refer to direct Israel to return "lands" in exchange for recognition, security, and peace. Notice that this says nothing about the 67 borders, giving up everything but the original size of the state, or any other mess people would have you believe; it says that Israel will return SOME land in exchange for diplomatic recognition, and reasonable (their call, not anyone else's) chance of peace and security. In fact this is what Israel has done. First by returning land to Egypt and then to Jordan. However, as part of the peace deal Egypt and Jorand GAVE the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to Israel (they didn't want it; after all, the Palistinian terrorists had just tried to kill the King of Jordan). Israel has offered to do the same with the Palistinians is these areas but Arafat and his gang refuse to do their end of the deal (to the detrement of the Palistinian people).
Anyone who has studied this situation will tell you that Arafat is to blame for the current problems in the region. If the Palestinians had a leader who was willing to actually participate in negotiations instead of making demands and then leaving when they are only 98% met, the situation would be over very quickly. Unfortunately Arafat isn't elected, he's just there and Palistinians who go against him have a habit of disappearing. Nothing is probably going to happen until he dies.
That means OpenBSD won't work with MP computers that have a broken MPBIOS or simply require MPACPI (like most, if not all, HyperThreading processors do).
If you'd read more of the archives linked from the article you would have seens that they are working on it at the Hack-a-thon.
Also as I'm sure you know, most of the work in implementing an SMP system is not in writing lock.c but in going through the entire OS code (which for Open looks only kinda-sorta like Net at this point) and using the lock and debugging race conditions. I think the OpenBSD SMP CVS logs will bear this out.
OpenBSD has both a kernel and a userland and this series of merges from the SMP branch (the final one happening this morning) included everything needed to have working SMP. To my knowledge the SMP changes didn't change any user-visible APIs or data structures, so I'm not even seeing why anything in userland would need to be changed.
As I understand it, the NetBSD SMP support, like OpenBSD's, is available only in a developement branch (that will become NetBSD 2.0). Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Also, SMP is a pervasive, system-wide thing, you can't borrow it from another OS, especially one so internally different as FreeBSD. (You couldn't even borrow SMP code from the fairly similar NetBSD).
You can view the CVS repository and decide for yourself.
Right now I think most of the kernel is under big lock. SMP is currenly on target for a stable release in OpenBSD 3.6 (Nov 1, 2004). I suspect that by 3.7 (May 1, 2005) big lock will have been pushed down into at least the major subsystems.
It may happen even before then, the Calgary hack-a-thon is comming up and SMP is a major focus. Mostly they are working on bug fixes but I wouldn't be surprised to see a bunch of SMP improvments come out of that.
Also, if you read the tech@ list archives you'll notice that they are asking people to test the bsd.mp kernel and report errors. They are also looking to borrow computers that have certain types of hardware problems that are causing software issues (so that SMP will be supported in them).
Slashdot Mirror
Because it appears that part of the RIAA's adjenda is to convince people that downloading music is a criminal offense. Therefore I am trying to halt the spread of misinformation.
But don't say, "I don't want to do business with them, but I'll steal their product." The two are inseparable.
I agree 100%.
Note: I'm clearly biased because we swapped our elections from IRV to Condorcet to fix many of the problems we were having.
Wow! That made me feel much better :)
Anyway,
Most of the above argument involves US law, which is no doubt different from Icelandic law.
It does not change the fact that:
A) These people broke the law
B> The RIAA has the right to sue them
According to my lawyer (this is in the States mind you), B does not need to follow A. i.e You can still be sued if you followed all the laws to the letter.
Also, my understanding, (which is unfortunatly limited at this juncture), is that Copyright infringment is not a crime per se (i.e. there isn't some federal law somewhere making it criminal), however, it is something that you can be sued over. So, while A is not nessessarily correct, it is now irrelevent because B, the central issue is now freestanding.
My $.02:
We should encourage the RIAA to sue as many people as possible, this lets all the laymen out there who don't care about Artists or copyrights to see the companies making up the RIAA for the thugs they truely are.
In the mean time, I'm refusing to buy any product that supports any constituant member. I don't even download their crappy music or listen to it on the radio because both of those actions still help the RIAA in the end.
Fuel Cells use an electro-chemical reaction (i.e. not combustion; if they used combustion they'd be called engines and would be much less power efficient). Actually it's the same type of reaction that occurs in your mitochondria (and for a PEM-type fuel cell it is the exact same reatcion).
Interestingly enough though, NOx and CO poisoning of the fuel cell is a major problem for many of the experimental designs (the Nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxides floating in the air inhibit the fuel cells from working properly, causing performance to rapidly degrade in many urban areas). Because of this, at least first generation fuel cell vehicles will have to have "scrubers" on them to get rid of the harmful junk (as a nice side benefit, smog ridden cities may free air cleanup). Furthermore, since efficiency is related to the concentration of Oxygen put into the fuel cell (and all but the most exotic designs choke on Nitrogen) most will have a filter to keep the Nitrogen from going into the input anyway.
He's using Diodes and Caps to change his power factor from unity (i.e. mostly resistive). Since most power companies only bill home users for "real" power. He won't be billed for the reactive power he's storing in the Caps.
No one ever claimed that swapping from petroleum to Hydrogen would be more efficient. Swapping to hydrogen does have one big advantage: cars won't spew pollution into the atmosphere wherever people go with them. The pollution is localized to where the hydrogen is produced. Because of this localization more efficient and less polluting methods can be used and the emmissions restrictions can be tighter.
Now, realistically, getting the Government to mandate better quality fuels (esp Diesel) and swapping to Hybrids would have 60%-90% of the advantages with much less cost, but it seems people would rather spend billions for that last 10%.
Unfortunately I don't, when you start working in Active Saftey (aka Crash Prevention/Mitigation) Research for an Automotive Company they give you a few thousand pages of research reports to read. That was over 4 years ago and I just can't recal what reports that stuff was in. Especially since all of the information was on file in the company library, you just had to ask for the reasearch and they did the finding.
As far as I can remember, lots of stuff is done by the DOT (lots of analysis of what causes crashes), even more is done by European and Japanese Governments (a ton of stuff on maximizing traffic flow and how to analyze it). There isn't too much proprietary fundamental research, so that shouldn't be a problem. Most of the reasearch focuses on what causes undesirable traffic affects (crashes, backups, grid lock, etc), theoretically preventing those things that are likely to cause a crash, prevents crashes but not nearly as much effort is spent comparing the various prevention techniques (tickes v education etc).
Before we go any further I want you to state a few things:
When traffic gets heavy people start doing things like driving in lanes meant for passing, entry, and exit. They don't maintain a safe (appx. 2s, depending on car) forward headway. When they pass they fail to pass with sufficient speed (~15mph faster then the vehicle you are passing) and they almost never use their turn signals. I could go on. The really pathetic thing is that many states have unsafe driving laws that target this sort of behavior but they are rarely used.
The reason most people get out of the habit of doing these safe practices is predicted by game theory. By following those guidelines you are making the road more safe for others but not markedly improving your chances of not being in an accident. Because it is unlikely that something bad will happen to you when you do not follow them, the average person will simply ignore the rules, because the damage they are doing to others is not factored in to the decision. The solution to the problem is to actually start punishing the people who make the road unsafe instead of trying to use traffic as a revenue source like many states do. Stressing the importance of these safe practices should be top priority, not making money off of doing things that only make the road less safe in corner cases.
I agree with you, it's a great, challenging game. It's also much easier to teach the basics to someone that say GURPS.
I do not blame the Palistinian PEOLE, they are repeatedly and without fail used as political pawns. It is not their fault. I do blame Arafat for showing up at Camp David, osstensibly to get a final agreement, and then walking away from the initial offer without making a counter offer or even trying to negotiate. I further blame him for ENCOURAGING the KILLING of innocent civilians as a "solution" to the Israeli refusal to capitulate unconditionally to his demands. I also blame him for siphoning millions of UN dollars that should have been going to help his people into his personal finances and those of his friends. Arafat is no Ghandi, and despite what you seem to think the Palistinians are worse for having him.
> Wait a minute... first you accuse me of parrotting tripe, and then accuse me of being trollish,
Yes, you quoted almost word for word Arafat's polictical posturing and pretend it is as your own opinion, ergo, parrot and trollish.
> then acknowlege what I said was *true*
No. I acknowledged that, like all good myths, yours was based on a kernel of truth: In theory if all the Palistinians currently living in what amounts to UN run concentration camps and all of their future children were allowed to vote in Israel and they then breed like rabbits they could overrun Israel and make it a Jewish state in name only.
> The right of return is standard among refugees;
No, the mandate of the UN High Commissioner of Refugees is to help refugees seek asylum and find safe refuge and to ensure their protection in the mean time. Furthermore most Palistinian refugees today do not meet the basic definition of a refugee. In fact because of the situation under which they were displaced, many would have been excluded from refugee status even at the time. The UNHCR has had policies for resolving situations quickly and effectivly since it was organized and has historically been one of the more successful UN endevors; unlike the UNRWA, an organization which many journalists have accused of supporting terrorist groups.
> Seing as it's *still going on*
The war that created the initial refugee problem has been over for over 50 years and the Six Day War has been over for more then 30 years. In fact, some parts of modern Israel were controlled, policed, and governed by the local Jewish majority over 120 years ago; these defense forces even came to the Aid of the Alies in both World Wars. All of those wars have long been settled and the disputes resolved. As part of the resolution of the Six Day War, Egypt gave Israel the Gaza Strip, and Jordan gave Israel the West Bank. By all logical and reasonable methods, that land is now part of Israel and has been for more then 30 years. Let me repeat that: THE WAR IS OVER, and the Arabs lost. Dispite what you may believe or may have been told, the side that looses a war is not entitled to have it's demands met.
Israel has adopted a policy that the inhabitants of that land can get most of it as an independant country under the same conditions Egypt and Jordan would have had to meet to get that same land. In other words, Israel has agreed to return to the Palistinians land that Egypt and Jordan took from them by force and has not placed any additional demands or restrictions upon that offer. In any other situation this would have been considered more the generous; after all, in a war land changes hands, but in this situation, where emotions, egos, an vendetas all run wild, Israel's attempt at peace is scoffed at.
> Like I said, you've apparently never read an Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch article on the subject
Obviously you arn't hearing me. A free country cannot prosecute someone without evidence that shows they committed the crime. Claims, accusations, an he-said-she-said no matter how valid they may or may not
The goal was to get "true center" such that 50% of the population of the US would be to the left and 50% would be to the right. Taking a median of congress seems like a reasonable way to do that to me.
I'd go with one company (RJ Reynolds, makers of Camel) and "were".
Most of the other companies just got dragged into the mess. In my personal experience, most of the cigarette companies arn't run by bad people. The guys from RJ and Philip Morris are absolute jerk-offs though.
My point exactly. The right of return is non-negotiable from the Israeli point of view as well. As long as both sides stand around yelling about their demands, nothing is going to happen.
> We're talking 60 years versus *2000 years*.
Jewish majorities existed in parts of modern Israel since at least 1880. Under that logic, the US should return large portions of it's land to the American Indians (who were no doubtably wronged). I don't see you proposing that. China should be forced to un-invade Tibet. We can go on like this for a long time. If everyone focuses on keeping a victim mentality instead of getting a workable solution, this problem is never going to go away.
> They had already made huge concessions with Oslo
Again it depends on your point of view. The Israeli's see the Palistinians agreeing that areas of Jewish majority can be part of a Jewish state as a minor concession.
> Israel prides itself on being both a democracy and a Jewish state. However, these two concepts can only exist together with population control. The Right of Return is the antithesis of this.
At least try to look at things from the Israeli view point before you parot Arafat's tripe. Everyone here knows what the official Palistinian opinion of the situation is; continuing to repeat it over and over again with no reguard for reason, logic, or the point's of view held by others, reguardless of why you are doing it, is flat out trollish. Furthermore it undoes the hard work a lot of very good people are doing to try to bring these two sides to a workable solution. However, yes, you are correct: if the Palistinians could all vote in Israel and managed to breed like rabbits, they could take over the country. Now that we have acknoledged the problem, let's hear your brilliant idea of how to fix it while protecting the rights, ideals, and freedoms of all involved.
While we are on the topic of the "Right of Return", let's try to have a reasonable discussion here. The Palistinians claim their situation is different from and more exceptional then any other refugee situation, therefore, the argment goes, they are entitled to special treatment and rights that are not normally granted to refugees. Among those special treatments is the entitlement to a right of return. However, I see nothing particularly special about their case that warrents such special treatment. The UN policies that have worked in every other major refugee situation could have worked here had the politicians not gotten involved and tied the hands of those who could have been helping. While it's probably too late now to use them in total because those policies are designed to deal with a situation quickly before it festers, the ideas upon which they are based should still be perfectly valid, even in this case.
> True. And next, you'll show that two wrongs make a right?
No I'm going to claim that life sometimes deals people the short end of the stick; what happens to you is not what matters, it's how you react. Everyone is a victim in some way, but in almost every case, there will be someone who is more of a victim. You can't cry about it and ask the rest of the world to fix it for you; there are simply too many victims for them to all get the attention they deserve. The Jews who shrugged off getting kicked out of their homes, and loosing all of their property are doing pretty well now when compared to the Palistinians who have remained bitter about what happened to this day. Many of the Palistinians should take note, stop worrying about revenge, and try to get on with their lives.
> So, your attempt with this paragraph is to show that the vast majority of the world is anti-Semitic? If not, please explain.
Well since you bring it up, polls do show that the vast majority of Europeans and Mid
Basically the developers liked the basic ideas behind FreeBSD but didn't like where the project was headed so they forked. Maybe it's artificial but I'm seeing a lot of similarities between this and the creation of OpenBSD (which forked from Net a good while back).
*sigh* How gernerous it is depends on whose point of view you hold. It's more then conservative Israeli's wanted to give, and less then what Arafat wanted to get. It is, however, the offer Clinton and Bandar asked the Israeli's to make, so from their point of view it was probably just being co-operative. I didn't condem Arafat for refusing the offer, I condemned him for not making a counter offer. In this conflict, people on both sides have suffered and died; you won't get a lasting, mutually beneficial agreement by standing around yelling back and forth about "demands". You will get an agreement by realizing that both sides are going to have to make hard choices, and then actually negotiating what those choices will be. Arafat is unwilling to do that, to the detriment of the Palistinian people.
> The West Bank and Gaza Strip comprise 22% of historic Palestine
This is the fundamental problem with this situation; who "owns" the land depends on how far back you go. The whole argument is quite rediculous; taken to it's logical conclusion, we all end up crammed in a tiny country somewhere in Africa. To get a realistic agreement, you can't start with how things were at some arbitrary point in the past, you have to start with where you are now. Furthermore the people currently there have an equally legitimate claim to the land that goes something like this:
According to Mark Twain, the land was barren and desolate when he visited (mid 1800s). Over the next 20 years an Orthodox Jewish majority developed by buying the land from absentee landlords and developing it. Like all wars the Israeli War of Independance created a refugee situation; many Jews were driven from their historic homes in Arab nations and forced to settle in modern Israel. The Palistinians whose land was turned into a war zone by the unprovoked attack from the Arab nations should have been treated the same as any other group of refugees caused by a war; The UN High Commisioner on Human Rights should have been allowed to deal with the problem in the same way other refugee issues are dealt with.
> have you ever actually talked to anyone who lives in the West Bank or Gaza Strip?
Yes.
> had major, if not universal support in the UN Who cares who sponsored it? Everyone except Israel, the US, and a small handful of other countries *agreed*.
The UN isn't some happy place, where people sit around and try to solve all of the world's problems in a fair, unbiased, and impartial way. It is a real political body and the people and countries that sponsor and support resultions, do so to promote and adjenda; the fact that a large number of people have the same adjenda does not in and of itself make them correct, well intentioned, or unbaised. It is however important that when such resolutions are cited as impartial fact, that the well known adjendas of major supporters be made clear.
> Next, I'll ignore your ability to read the minds of what the people of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria all want.
I said nothing about the people of those nations, only their leadership (which is not duly chosen or in anyway representative of the population of those countries); I don't have to be a mind reader, there were and in some cases still are stated policies to refer to.
> the general assembly never condemned
As I stated, general assembly resolutions are meaningless; I was refering to Security Council resolutions, my reference to the comdemnation of the US death penalty mush have thrown you off.
While we are on the topic, I'll remind you that the sumit on Women's Rights managed to comdem Israel's record while omitting the records most Arab nations, China, and a host of Western nations. A council on torture managed to comdemn Israel (one of the only contries in the world that has banned all torture, including such things as using gaurd dogs, loud music, and uncomfortable possitions) but not the US, UK, France, Germany, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, the Palistinian Authority, or anyone else for that matter. In short, the UN has no credibility what so ever on this issue.
White background is the default on Sun Machines
A good chuck on the basic SMP code was done in the SMP branch a while back. Saying it took only four months is misleading.
If you'd read more of the archives linked from the article you would have seens that they are working on it at the Hack-a-thon.
Also as I'm sure you know, most of the work in implementing an SMP system is not in writing lock.c but in going through the entire OS code (which for Open looks only kinda-sorta like Net at this point) and using the lock and debugging race conditions. I think the OpenBSD SMP CVS logs will bear this out.
OpenBSD has both a kernel and a userland and this series of merges from the SMP branch (the final one happening this morning) included everything needed to have working SMP. To my knowledge the SMP changes didn't change any user-visible APIs or data structures, so I'm not even seeing why anything in userland would need to be changed.
As I understand it, the NetBSD SMP support, like OpenBSD's, is available only in a developement branch (that will become NetBSD 2.0). Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Also, SMP is a pervasive, system-wide thing, you can't borrow it from another OS, especially one so internally different as FreeBSD. (You couldn't even borrow SMP code from the fairly similar NetBSD).
Right now I think most of the kernel is under big lock. SMP is currenly on target for a stable release in OpenBSD 3.6 (Nov 1, 2004). I suspect that by 3.7 (May 1, 2005) big lock will have been pushed down into at least the major subsystems.
It may happen even before then, the Calgary hack-a-thon is comming up and SMP is a major focus. Mostly they are working on bug fixes but I wouldn't be surprised to see a bunch of SMP improvments come out of that.
Also, if you read the tech@ list archives you'll notice that they are asking people to test the bsd.mp kernel and report errors. They are also looking to borrow computers that have certain types of hardware problems that are causing software issues (so that SMP will be supported in them).