This isn't terribly surprising. I have had similar experiences with ATI and Linux (Ibinti, Fedora, Open Suse, Mandrake (pre-mandriva), Etc. Sometimes they worked flawlessly, other times not at all. However, Nvidia has worked flawlessly EVERY time, regardless of Distro, for the over 6 years now that I have been using and abusing Linux in it's various flavors and forms.
Unfortunately, the situation is not improved with the Ubuntu 8.04 (Hardy Heron). This distro dumps the Open Source XGL driver that works fantastic in 7.10 for the new ATI driver. The new ATI driver is absolute dreck. Not only does it NOT work at all on older cards, but it works poorly on the new ones too.
Perhaps in a few years AMD will have helped ATI along enough to actually have a good driver, but until then it's Nvidia video for Linux users. It's just too bad that so many laptop manufacturers went with ATI video in their laptops. That basically removes a HUGE chunk of laptops as Ubuntu upgrade candidates.
The point of advertising is to get me to want something I don't need (because if I needed it, I could not wait around for an advertiser to "educate me about his valuable product/service"). That is, by definition, a waste of my time.
Man, if I had mod points, and I could mod you up with all of them at once, I would.
MOST INTELLIGENT AND INSIGHTFUL POST EVER, EVER!
Seriously. This is why I surf with Firefox using Adblock Plus, Flashblock, and No Script. I HATE HATE HATE ads! I don't care what you are selling, don't care how great it is, and I do NOT want your ad in my face. I know what I want, and can go find it myself, I do not need some marketing guru shoving crap in my face all day long. Heck, I even mute the T.V. during commercials! The only exceptions I make to this are the particularly clever and funny commercials that are entertaining in their own right. Of which there are vanishingly few.
Frankly I don't care that your website is "Ad supported". While I may enjoy your fine content, it's not my responsibility to create and support a good business model for you. That's YOUR job as the website operator. If you go away because your business model depended on me being assaulted by ads and I didn't see them so you made no money and went under, then fine. There are THOUSANDS of other people out there that are just as good as you and just as smart as you, with just as much opportunity as you that will replace you and your website in a heartbeat. To be blunt, neither you nor your website is really all that important to me. Certainly not so important that I would choose to inconvenience myself by being forced to look at annoying ads. Keep in mind that as far as I am concerned, 100% of ads are annoying. If there is an ad it is annoying SIMPLY BY EXISTING. There is no such thing as a "targeted ad" in my universe, unless the ad is targeted for deletion.
So there you have it. Find another way website owners, or go the way of the dodo. Either way, I won't be looking at your ads.
No, New Orleans was a case of corrupt black city officials not properly utilizing the monies granted to them via the federal government.
They had all the money they needed to properly shore up the levees against a Cat 5 hurricane. What did they do with it? Pocketed MOST of it, and used a token amount to build a FOUNTAIN. "White racism" had NOTHING to do with it.
Let's all stop trying to paint corruption by blacks against blacks as somehow the white man's fault. Particularly in NO, where people "of color" have had control of the majority of the upper government positions for the better portion of the last 30 years. The loss of black people's homes in New Orleans is due to the corruption of BLACK city and county officials (Jim "School Bus" Nagin being the primary culprit.)
However, you ARE correct that NO has had PILES of money thrown at it since the hurricane. Of course, depending on who is put into office down there, it may just end up back in some politician's pocket.
Where I work all employees with laptops are required to use cable locks on their laptops, particularly if they leave them at the office overnight.
The security staff is trained to look for unlocked laptops. If they find a laptop unsecured via cable lock they are trained to TAKE the laptop and put it into the company lockup. The employee is then forced to go sign for it and fill out a security questionnaire.
3 offenses in a year means you have to go to a security class, and any offenses over 3 means you can have your laptop replaced with a desktop, or you can face disciplinary action up to and including loss of job.
Also, all laptops are required to use PGP Enterprise full disk encryption, and NOBODY gets into the building without a security card.
They are pretty serious about security there. Good thing too, they deal with customer data from all over the world.
For those that didn't RTFA ike I did, AND scan down throught the comments section, Gerard Kunkel, the Comcast rep interviewed in the article, actually posted a reply to the article in the comments section of the website. Here are his comments:
Chris,
Your article on "Comcast Cameras to Start Watching You" portrayed some assumptions that require correction and clarification. I want to be clear that in no way are we exploring any camera devices that would monitor customer behavior.
To gather information for your article on Comcast's exploration of cameras you picked up on my conversation with another conference attendee. The other attendee and I were deep in a conversation discussing a variety of input devices offered by a variety of vendors that Comcast is reviewing.
The camera-based gesture recognition device is in no way designed to - or capable of - monitoring your living room. These technologies are designed to allow simple navigation on a television set just as the Wii remote uses a camera to manage its much heralded gesture-based interactivity.
We are constantly exploring new technologies that better serve our customers. The goal is simple - a better user experience that allows the consumer to get ever increasing value out of their Comcast products.
As with any new technology, we carefully consider the consumer benefits. In fact, we do an enormous amount of consumer testing in advance of making a product decision such as this. I'm confident that a new technology like gesture-based navigation will be fully explored with consumers to understand the product's feature benefits - and of course, the value to the consumer.
Let's also not forget that Majority rule != Mob rule.
Mob rule implies rule without laws. IE: The Anarchy of the Strongest.
Majority rule is implicit in it's requirement of laws. IE: The Majority is constrained by the checks and balances of lawful government.
That said, I really don't think that his attempts here are going to "Clean Up" anything. Mostly because he has some crappy ideas as "principles".
No money from lobbyists? Riiiight. How the heck do you think most politicians are able to finance their very expensive runs for Congress? McCain-Feingold has already crippled the money raising process for campaigns horribly. Lessig's idea would make it IMPOSSIBLE for ordinary citizens to actually RUN for public office.
I assume he intends to fix that by the "publicly funded elections" bit. Sounds good in theory, until you look at the countries, states and localities it's been tried in, and realize that "Publicly Funded" means nothing more than "Incumbent Lock-In". As the "Public Funds" very quickly become buried with byzantine legislation specifically designed to keep the great unwashed locked out of the process.
The problem with elections is NOT the private sector. The problem is TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT in our election processes.
The requirements are reasonably realistic as far as the car specs go. Sounds like an ordinary mid-sized sedan to me. Let's hope we get some good entrants!
We may also be looking at different setups here. For me, "Low End" means that while it doesn't have the latest and greatest, it IS fully up to date as far as socket types, FSB speeds, and RAM speeds are concerned. In other words, that there is some upgradability built into it so I can hold onto it longer and upgrade a few times before it's completely outmoded.
I recently spent some time at Newegg pricing out a new rig.
Motherboard ~ $150 (at least. Unless you want to get a motherboard that won't be upgradable because it's using a 1 generation old socket.) CPU ~ $200 - 300 (core 2 duo's run around $200, quads around $300) RAM ~ $250 (for 2 gigs of average quality RAM in the proper speed. A minimum for running VM's and gaming) Graphics card ~ $300 (for any Nvidia 8x00 card, although this may have dropped a bit with the release mentioned in TFA)
There's your $1000 right there. And that's assuming that I don't need an upgraded power supply to run the new, more power hungry components.
Of course, that will come down a bit as time goes on, but those components will also become closer and closer to being outmoded and several generations back. I have found that if you want to get a reasonably current machine you WILL spend roughly $1000 even if all you are doing is upgrading the components I noted above.
Either way, it's still moot. Even $500.00 is too much for me right now. The $150.00 for an upgraded AGP card is going to be a stretch as it is. Just not alot of free money in my budget right now.:(
I'm still using an AMD 64 3500+ on an Asus A8V Deluxe motherboard with an AGP Nvidia 5600LE. An upgrade JUST to a low-end PCI Express system would still cost me over $1000.00 bucks.
What with household expenses (new tankless water heater needed, finishing the basement, repairing the roof on the porch, Etc.) and all the other stuff that goes along with buying a house, plus having just spent money to start a new car lease (old beater was on it's last legs and I can't afford to buy the size vehicle I need with a family of four) and just the general life expenses of raising a family, a new machine is hardly affordable for me.
At this point I'm hoping to MAYBE be able to upgrade to a 7900 AGP card. (has to be Nvidia, I refuse to deal with ATI in Linux.) Maybe in another year I will be able to properly upgrade, but not now.
Of course, you couldn't know what my financial situation is. I'm just making the point that an over $1000.00 US expenditure is not nearly as affordable as you seem to think it is.
The issue here is that both the article and it's criticism start with an incorrect premise. That is that the TSA is actually "Domestic Spying".
For the original article, the reason people don't mind "Domestic surveillance" is because they see right through the slanted polls.
If I may geek-out for a moment, it's rather like the episode of Star Trek TNG where Data thought a small repair robot had developed sentience. Nobody believed him and they tested the robot by setting up a situation where if the robot didn't flee the area, it would be destroyed. Of course, the test was a fake-out. When the robot didn't flee when it ostensibly should have to save it's own life, everybody concluded that it wasn't sentient. What Data discovered was that the robot SAW RIGHT THROUGH the test, realized it was a fake-out, and kept working.
When you ask most people about the "Domestic Spying Program" most people know you are talking about the Terrorist Surveillance Act. Since they disagree with the premise that it is "domestic spying", they answer that they have no problems with it. Thus you get an article like the Time's article.
However, if you ask a more nebulous question such as "Should the Government be spying on it's own citizens?" You will inevitably get an opposite result. OF COURSE people don't want to be spied upon by their government. However, they DO NOT agree with the false premise that the TSA is "Domestic spying".
I'm not going to get into the reasons why the premise is wrong, I've no patience for the Bush Derangement Syndrome of the tinfoil hat wearers that comprise part of the Slashdot community. I just thought I'd take a moment to clarify the apparent dichotomy of the results here.
It makes you wonder what the next logical step after this one is, doesn't it?
Personally, I suspect that we will start seeing DNS cache and Route poisoning attempts become much more commonplace. Particularly after the whole "YouTube gets 'knocked offline' because of an improper route broadcast by a piss-ant totalitarian country" issue we had in recent weeks.
I would bet good money that there were criminals rubbing their hands together with glee over the idea of dumping MILLIONS of users to a malware server simultaneously. Or using that type of exploit as a blackmail tool.
Except that the Israelis BOUGHT the land from the Palestinians at the full market price back in the late 40's.
It wasn't until they decided to form their own state that the Palis said "Hey, wait a minute, that's OUR land!" and attacked them. The Israelis won the fight, and were able to annex more land, despite being sorely outnumbered and out gunned. Seems to me they won it fair and square. Every inch of land taken since then has been the same. Won through hard fought battle.
The Palis started this WAY back in the late 40's and early 50's, THEY are the ones who should put the weapons down first. Especially since the Palis are "fighting" by hiding among civilians (war crime) and attacking civilian populations that are not military targets or militarized (war crime).
The Israelis have shown time and again that they are willing to bargain peacefully. Yes, they have placed some conditions on the bargains, like not having their country reduced to nothing, and not having all their people slaughtered and/or driven into the sea, which most of the Pali militant groups would have (PALI words, NOT MINE). But they ARE willing to work out a mutually benefical arrangement that allows BOTH states to exist. If they weren't, and they REALLY wanted to kill all the Palis, THEY WOULD HAVE DONE IT ALREADY. But it's obvious they don't, they just want to live in peace, but the Palis want them all dead. You cannot negotiate with someone who refuses to acknowledge your right to exist!
Thusly, it seems to me you are either;
a) a member of a Palestinian terrorist group b) an anti-semitic terrorist apologist c) a useful idiot d) sorely misinformed.
Which is it? Because anyone who spouts crap like that has to be one of the above. There is no way anyone who truly understands the history of the area can honestly come to the conclusion you apparently have.
I'm sure I'll get modded down hard by the Slashdotters who fit the above choices, but it doesn't make my assessment any less correct or true. You are simply wrong. Educate yourself.
Why is this such a big story on Slashdot anyway? Big deal. Known News Dissembler does something stupid and now everybody can save their bad reporting for all time!
Just to back you up, I'll quote the excellent Robert Spencer on the very subject of the Crusades:
What about the Crusades?
The obvious response to this question is, "Well, what about them?" Violence committed in the name of other religions is logically unconnected to the question of whether Islam is violent. But, by mentioning the Crusades, the hope of the Islamic apologist is to draw attention away from Islamic violence and paint religions in general as morally equivalent.
In both the Western academia and media as well as in the Islamic world, the Crusades are viewed as wars of aggression fought by bloody-minded Christians against peaceful Muslims. While the Crusades were certainly bloody, they are more accurately understood as a belated Western response to centuries of jihad than as an unprovoked, unilateral attack. Muslim rule in the Holy Land began in the second half of the 7th century during the Arab wave of jihad with the conquests of Damascus and Jerusalem by the second "rightly-guided Caliph," Umar. After the initial bloody jihad, Christian and Jewish life there was tolerated within the strictures of the dhimma and the Muslim Arabs generally permitted Christians abroad to continue to make pilgrimage to their holy sites, a practice which proved lucrative for the Muslim state. In the 11th century, the relatively benign Arab administration of the Holy Land was replaced with that of Seljuk Turks, due to civil war in the Islamic Empire. Throughout the latter half of the 11th century, the Turks waged war against the Christian Byzantine Empire and pushed it back from its strongholds in Antioch and Anatolia (now Turkey). In 1071, Byzantine forces suffered a crushing defeat at the Battle of Manzikert in what is now Eastern Turkey. The Turks resumed the jihad in the Holy Land, abusing, robbing, enslaving, and killing Christians there and throughout Asia Minor. They threatened to cut off Christendom from its holiest site, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, rebuilt under Byzantine stewardship after it was destroyed by Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah in 1009.
It was in this context of a renewed jihad in the Middle East that the Roman Pope, Urban II, issued a call in 1095 for Western Christians to come to the aid of their Eastern cousins (and seems to have harbored the hope of claiming Jerusalem for the Papacy after the Great Schism with Eastern Christianity in 1054). This "armed pilgrimage," in which numerous civilians as well as soldiers took part, would eventually become known years later as the First Crusade. The idea of a "crusade" as we now understand that term, i.e., a Christian "holy war," developed years later with the rise of such organizations as the Knights Templar that made "crusading" a way of life. It worth noting that the most ardent Crusaders, the Franks, were exactly those who had faced jihad and razzias for centuries along the Franco-Spanish border and knew better than most the horrors to which Muslims subjected Christians. At the time of the First Crusade, the populations of Asia Minor, Syria, and Palestine, though ruled by Muslims, were still overwhelmingly Christian. The "Crusading" campaigns of the Western Christian armies were justified at the time as a war liberating the Eastern Christians, whose population, lands, and culture had been devastated by centuries of jihad and dhimmitude. Conquering territory for God in the mode of jihad was an alien idea to Christianity and it should not be surprising that it eventually died out in the West and never gained ascendancy in the East.
Following the very bloody capture of Jerusalem in 1099 by the Latin armies and the establishment of the Crusader States in Edessa, Antioch, and Jerusalem, the Muslim and Christian forces fought a see-saw series of wars, in which both parties were guilty of the usual gamut of wartime immorality. Over time, even with reinforcing Crusades waged from Europe, the Crusader States, strung out on precarious lines of communication, slowly succumbed to superior Muslim power. I
I was going to write a long and involved response to your troll, but I shall simply allow Robert Spencer to respond for me, as he is far more erudite than I:
What about the violent passages in the Bible?
First, violent Biblical passages are irrelevant to the question of whether Islam is violent.
Second, the violent passages in the Bible certainly do not amount to a standing order to commit violence against the rest of the world. Unlike the Quran, the Bible is a huge collection of documents written by different people at different times in different contexts, which allows for much greater interpretative freedom. The Quran, on the other hand, comes exclusively from one source: Muhammad. It is through the life of Muhammad that the Quran must be understood, as the Quran itself says. His wars and killings both reflect and inform the meaning of the Quran. Furthermore, the strict literalism of the Quran means that there is no room for interpretation when it comes to its violent injunctions. As it is through the example of Christ, the "Prince of Peace," that Christianity interprets its scriptures, so it is through the example of the warlord and despot Muhammad that Muslims understand the Quran.
Slashdot Mirror
Note to self:
Make sure to SPELL CHECK your posts using preview. "Ibinti" above was supposed to be "Ubuntu". Dang fumblefingeritis.
This isn't terribly surprising. I have had similar experiences with ATI and Linux (Ibinti, Fedora, Open Suse, Mandrake (pre-mandriva), Etc. Sometimes they worked flawlessly, other times not at all. However, Nvidia has worked flawlessly EVERY time, regardless of Distro, for the over 6 years now that I have been using and abusing Linux in it's various flavors and forms.
Unfortunately, the situation is not improved with the Ubuntu 8.04 (Hardy Heron). This distro dumps the Open Source XGL driver that works fantastic in 7.10 for the new ATI driver. The new ATI driver is absolute dreck. Not only does it NOT work at all on older cards, but it works poorly on the new ones too.
Perhaps in a few years AMD will have helped ATI along enough to actually have a good driver, but until then it's Nvidia video for Linux users. It's just too bad that so many laptop manufacturers went with ATI video in their laptops. That basically removes a HUGE chunk of laptops as Ubuntu upgrade candidates.
Man, if I had mod points, and I could mod you up with all of them at once, I would.
MOST INTELLIGENT AND INSIGHTFUL POST EVER, EVER!
Seriously. This is why I surf with Firefox using Adblock Plus, Flashblock, and No Script. I HATE HATE HATE ads! I don't care what you are selling, don't care how great it is, and I do NOT want your ad in my face. I know what I want, and can go find it myself, I do not need some marketing guru shoving crap in my face all day long. Heck, I even mute the T.V. during commercials! The only exceptions I make to this are the particularly clever and funny commercials that are entertaining in their own right. Of which there are vanishingly few.
Frankly I don't care that your website is "Ad supported". While I may enjoy your fine content, it's not my responsibility to create and support a good business model for you. That's YOUR job as the website operator. If you go away because your business model depended on me being assaulted by ads and I didn't see them so you made no money and went under, then fine. There are THOUSANDS of other people out there that are just as good as you and just as smart as you, with just as much opportunity as you that will replace you and your website in a heartbeat. To be blunt, neither you nor your website is really all that important to me. Certainly not so important that I would choose to inconvenience myself by being forced to look at annoying ads. Keep in mind that as far as I am concerned, 100% of ads are annoying. If there is an ad it is annoying SIMPLY BY EXISTING. There is no such thing as a "targeted ad" in my universe, unless the ad is targeted for deletion.
So there you have it. Find another way website owners, or go the way of the dodo. Either way, I won't be looking at your ads.
No, New Orleans was a case of corrupt black city officials not properly utilizing the monies granted to them via the federal government.
They had all the money they needed to properly shore up the levees against a Cat 5 hurricane. What did they do with it? Pocketed MOST of it, and used a token amount to build a FOUNTAIN. "White racism" had NOTHING to do with it.
Let's all stop trying to paint corruption by blacks against blacks as somehow the white man's fault. Particularly in NO, where people "of color" have had control of the majority of the upper government positions for the better portion of the last 30 years. The loss of black people's homes in New Orleans is due to the corruption of BLACK city and county officials (Jim "School Bus" Nagin being the primary culprit.)
However, you ARE correct that NO has had PILES of money thrown at it since the hurricane. Of course, depending on who is put into office down there, it may just end up back in some politician's pocket.
Where I work all employees with laptops are required to use cable locks on their laptops, particularly if they leave them at the office overnight.
The security staff is trained to look for unlocked laptops. If they find a laptop unsecured via cable lock they are trained to TAKE the laptop and put it into the company lockup. The employee is then forced to go sign for it and fill out a security questionnaire.
3 offenses in a year means you have to go to a security class, and any offenses over 3 means you can have your laptop replaced with a desktop, or you can face disciplinary action up to and including loss of job.
Also, all laptops are required to use PGP Enterprise full disk encryption, and NOBODY gets into the building without a security card.
They are pretty serious about security there. Good thing too, they deal with customer data from all over the world.
Already. Anyone got a cached link?
Hopefully that clarifies things a bit.
I'm still glad I have TW cable in my area.
Let's also not forget that Majority rule != Mob rule.
Mob rule implies rule without laws. IE: The Anarchy of the Strongest.
Majority rule is implicit in it's requirement of laws. IE: The Majority is constrained by the checks and balances of lawful government.
That said, I really don't think that his attempts here are going to "Clean Up" anything. Mostly because he has some crappy ideas as "principles".
No money from lobbyists? Riiiight. How the heck do you think most politicians are able to finance their very expensive runs for Congress? McCain-Feingold has already crippled the money raising process for campaigns horribly. Lessig's idea would make it IMPOSSIBLE for ordinary citizens to actually RUN for public office.
I assume he intends to fix that by the "publicly funded elections" bit. Sounds good in theory, until you look at the countries, states and localities it's been tried in, and realize that "Publicly Funded" means nothing more than "Incumbent Lock-In". As the "Public Funds" very quickly become buried with byzantine legislation specifically designed to keep the great unwashed locked out of the process.
The problem with elections is NOT the private sector. The problem is TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT in our election processes.
I'm thinking something along the lines of "cashingin" might work. Although this might be covered under the "greed" tag.
The requirements are reasonably realistic as far as the car specs go. Sounds like an ordinary mid-sized sedan to me. Let's hope we get some good entrants!
Your numbers are off.
:(
We may also be looking at different setups here. For me, "Low End" means that while it doesn't have the latest and greatest, it IS fully up to date as far as socket types, FSB speeds, and RAM speeds are concerned. In other words, that there is some upgradability built into it so I can hold onto it longer and upgrade a few times before it's completely outmoded.
I recently spent some time at Newegg pricing out a new rig.
Motherboard ~ $150 (at least. Unless you want to get a motherboard that won't be upgradable because it's using a 1 generation old socket.)
CPU ~ $200 - 300 (core 2 duo's run around $200, quads around $300)
RAM ~ $250 (for 2 gigs of average quality RAM in the proper speed. A minimum for running VM's and gaming)
Graphics card ~ $300 (for any Nvidia 8x00 card, although this may have dropped a bit with the release mentioned in TFA)
There's your $1000 right there. And that's assuming that I don't need an upgraded power supply to run the new, more power hungry components.
Of course, that will come down a bit as time goes on, but those components will also become closer and closer to being outmoded and several generations back. I have found that if you want to get a reasonably current machine you WILL spend roughly $1000 even if all you are doing is upgrading the components I noted above.
Either way, it's still moot. Even $500.00 is too much for me right now. The $150.00 for an upgraded AGP card is going to be a stretch as it is. Just not alot of free money in my budget right now.
I'm still using an AMD 64 3500+ on an Asus A8V Deluxe motherboard with an AGP Nvidia 5600LE. An upgrade JUST to a low-end PCI Express system would still cost me over $1000.00 bucks.
What with household expenses (new tankless water heater needed, finishing the basement, repairing the roof on the porch, Etc.) and all the other stuff that goes along with buying a house, plus having just spent money to start a new car lease (old beater was on it's last legs and I can't afford to buy the size vehicle I need with a family of four) and just the general life expenses of raising a family, a new machine is hardly affordable for me.
At this point I'm hoping to MAYBE be able to upgrade to a 7900 AGP card. (has to be Nvidia, I refuse to deal with ATI in Linux.) Maybe in another year I will be able to properly upgrade, but not now.
Of course, you couldn't know what my financial situation is. I'm just making the point that an over $1000.00 US expenditure is not nearly as affordable as you seem to think it is.
And I still can't afford them. :(
The issue here is that both the article and it's criticism start with an incorrect premise. That is that the TSA is actually "Domestic Spying".
For the original article, the reason people don't mind "Domestic surveillance" is because they see right through the slanted polls.
If I may geek-out for a moment, it's rather like the episode of Star Trek TNG where Data thought a small repair robot had developed sentience. Nobody believed him and they tested the robot by setting up a situation where if the robot didn't flee the area, it would be destroyed. Of course, the test was a fake-out. When the robot didn't flee when it ostensibly should have to save it's own life, everybody concluded that it wasn't sentient. What Data discovered was that the robot SAW RIGHT THROUGH the test, realized it was a fake-out, and kept working.
When you ask most people about the "Domestic Spying Program" most people know you are talking about the Terrorist Surveillance Act. Since they disagree with the premise that it is "domestic spying", they answer that they have no problems with it. Thus you get an article like the Time's article.
However, if you ask a more nebulous question such as "Should the Government be spying on it's own citizens?" You will inevitably get an opposite result. OF COURSE people don't want to be spied upon by their government. However, they DO NOT agree with the false premise that the TSA is "Domestic spying".
I'm not going to get into the reasons why the premise is wrong, I've no patience for the Bush Derangement Syndrome of the tinfoil hat wearers that comprise part of the Slashdot community. I just thought I'd take a moment to clarify the apparent dichotomy of the results here.
It makes you wonder what the next logical step after this one is, doesn't it?
Personally, I suspect that we will start seeing DNS cache and Route poisoning attempts become much more commonplace. Particularly after the whole "YouTube gets 'knocked offline' because of an improper route broadcast by a piss-ant totalitarian country" issue we had in recent weeks.
I would bet good money that there were criminals rubbing their hands together with glee over the idea of dumping MILLIONS of users to a malware server simultaneously. Or using that type of exploit as a blackmail tool.
What do you think the next logical step is?
You do know that you are replying to his signature, right?
That said, you are otherwise correct.
Thank you for narrowing down the choices. Apparently you have chosen C.
Except that the Israelis BOUGHT the land from the Palestinians at the full market price back in the late 40's.
It wasn't until they decided to form their own state that the Palis said "Hey, wait a minute, that's OUR land!" and attacked them. The Israelis won the fight, and were able to annex more land, despite being sorely outnumbered and out gunned. Seems to me they won it fair and square. Every inch of land taken since then has been the same. Won through hard fought battle.
The Palis started this WAY back in the late 40's and early 50's, THEY are the ones who should put the weapons down first. Especially since the Palis are "fighting" by hiding among civilians (war crime) and attacking civilian populations that are not military targets or militarized (war crime).
The Israelis have shown time and again that they are willing to bargain peacefully. Yes, they have placed some conditions on the bargains, like not having their country reduced to nothing, and not having all their people slaughtered and/or driven into the sea, which most of the Pali militant groups would have (PALI words, NOT MINE). But they ARE willing to work out a mutually benefical arrangement that allows BOTH states to exist. If they weren't, and they REALLY wanted to kill all the Palis, THEY WOULD HAVE DONE IT ALREADY. But it's obvious they don't, they just want to live in peace, but the Palis want them all dead. You cannot negotiate with someone who refuses to acknowledge your right to exist!
Thusly, it seems to me you are either;
a) a member of a Palestinian terrorist group
b) an anti-semitic terrorist apologist
c) a useful idiot
d) sorely misinformed.
Which is it? Because anyone who spouts crap like that has to be one of the above. There is no way anyone who truly understands the history of the area can honestly come to the conclusion you apparently have.
I'm sure I'll get modded down hard by the Slashdotters who fit the above choices, but it doesn't make my assessment any less correct or true. You are simply wrong. Educate yourself.
I KEEEEL YOU! :)
the BBC hasn't been a reputable news source to any honest observer for years now. Here's another sample of journalistic malfeasance by BBC news: http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=12
Of course, the general attitudes and biases of the News org tends to generally filter out to the rest of the organization as well.
Feel free to peruse some of the articles here; http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ or here; http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26019_Outrage-_BBC_Employs_Hamas_Terrorist&only or here; http://michellemalkin.com/category/bbc/
Meant to include this link in my original post: http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=4&x_outlet=12&x_article=1464
Or not.
Why is this such a big story on Slashdot anyway? Big deal. Known News Dissembler does something stupid and now everybody can save their bad reporting for all time!
Whoop-dee-doo.
Umm.. CD players can be had for as little as $10.00 USD. What's stopping you from getting one?
You can learn more at http://jihadwatch.org/islam101/ Feel free to educate yourself.