Does that mean that a Ternary digit is a 'Tart'? Do 8 Tarts make a 'Tight'?
No, I I think it's better called Trinary. Tertiary would be a more appropriate name if base-2 was instead called Secondary. If trinary is used, then you've got Trinary Digits, or trits.
However, the real question is when they get to base-4 computing, will they call it quits?
because someone who went to an ivy league school is dumb. granted his dad got him there but still. what school did you
graduate from?
I graduated from an ivy-league school - U. Penn. . After graduating, I've also taken some classes at Harvard . Ivy League status in itself means nothing, don't get the impression that an Ivy League education solely by it's prestige is a significant achievement.
I can affirm that there were a large number of fools/idiots at U.Penn (less at Harvard, but they're still present). For some of these, you'd be surprised they even graduated high school.
I can also say that there is little chance a school would flunk out a student who's family is of some prominence (eg, his father was a Yalie, Prescott Bush was a senator), or of economic influence.
Not to mention Bush Sr's and Junior's membership in the exclusive Skull & Bones club.
I'm wondering if they'll change their advertisement volume/tone-of-voice depending on the drivers habits, too. For example, when websites don't generate enough ad clickthru's, they start putting big fscking obnoxious ads on the page. If the OnStar people find out enough folks aren't suddenly stopping by radio shack to get the newest batteries on sale, I wonder if they'll make the voice louder and more obnoxious. akin to web ads.
But of course, OnStar is a service people pay for, so if they get really annoying, people will just stop buying it. Don't know if you already bought a car with it if you can cancel service.
My research group has measured spin-polarization in CrO2 and determined it to be 96%, the highest spin-polarizatized material yet known. This is the first experimental confirmation of of a half-metal. (half-metallic ferromagnet).
Measurement of the spin-polarization was done through Point-Contact Andreev Reflection (PCAR) measurements at the interface of a superconductor/ferromagnetic. Ie, at the interface between the CrO2 crystal and a sharp-tipped lead superconductor in the vicinity of 4K (maybe colder).
For more info, see my other post further down on this slashdot article.
I'm a second-year graduate physics student, and although I haven't really embarked on any research projects as of yet (still taking the required coursework), I plan to study magnetoelectronics (also known by the catchy buzzword spintronics). I'll be working with C.L. Chien's Artificially-Structured Materials Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University .
(The lab's webpage isn't that informative yet, but will be soon.)
There are several groups working on spintronics-related research around the globe.
You can check some of the research the spin-doctors are working on by looking at the Spintronics 2001 Conference webpage. Some incredible results involved researchers injecting spin-polarized current into an LED and producing Circularly Polarized Light!!! Other researchers are trying to produced spin-transistors, to switch/amplify spin-polarized currents. Many of the recent challenges involve producing spin-polarized currents, finding materials that can transport electron-spin, and injecting spin-polarized electrons into semiconductors.
The Chien group here at JHU has been the first to demonstrate experimentally the existence of a half-metal. Crystals of CrO2 have been shown to have spin-polarization of 96%. This was measured at the superconductor/ferromagnetic interface through Point-Contact Andreev Reflection (PCAR) techniques.
I'll explain some of the current concepts of spintronics, but pardon any errors as I haven't really begun my research yet.
The manipulation of electron spin is an extra degree of freedom that novel electronic devices can exploit. Spintronics has already, since 13 years after the discovery of GMR (Giant Magnetoresistance) in 1988, penetrated the technology industries (magnetic storage). It's rare for such new technology like this to be commercially available so soon after its discovery. Transistors were one such monumental achievement, the first Ge transistors were available within years of the transistor's invention.
GMR is an effect that occurs with a normal metal film that is sandwiched between two ferromagnetic layers. Depending on whether the spins of the ferromagnetic layer are parallel or anti-parallel, a significant change of resistance is measured across the structure.
A more useful device which extrapolates off this concept is a spin-valve This is the standard GMR trilayer, with an anti-ferromagnetic layer on the bottom. This layer pins the spin of the bottom Ferromagnetic layer. The top ferromagnetic layer can then float, and have it's spin affected by the external magnetic field. This in turn creates a magnetic-field-dependent resistance across the device. Sensitive measurements of the magnetic field, obtained by measuring resistance, can be obtained in this manner.This magnetic-field-dependent resistance is known as Magnetoresistance. This concept, in a fundamental sense, is how the newer GMR-based read-heads on high-density hard drives operate.
Another similar device is the Magnetic Tunnel Junction . This is similar to the GMR trilayer, but an insulator film is sandwiched between the ferromagnetic layers, instead of a normal metal. Current can then tunnel through the device, again dependent on whether the spins are parallel or anti-parallel in the ferromagnetic layers. The tunnel junction is the fundamental concept at the core of the MRAM's.
Another exciting area of research with spintronics that I haven't heard anybody on slashdot mention yet is quantum computing. Electrons are spin-1/2 fermions, and hence have two distinct eigenstates of the Spin operator (the eigenstates are usually called "spin-up" and "spin-down"). This makes them perfect candidates for representation of quantum bits (qubits) for potential quantum computation. Some groups are working on this idea, by studying interactions of quantum dots for instance.
Overall, this is a budding field that has already impacted the technology industry in it's scant 13 years of existence. Expect many more interesting and potentially groundbreaking discoveries to occur. But then again, I'm spin-biased.:-)
You can even set XP to use
the old GUI with a single click.
Kind of off-topic, but therein lies the rub on simplicity. An OS is an easy OS when you know it. Settings are easy to change when you know where to go poking around to change them.
When you know which series of menus to go through to change the XP look n' feel (is it really only a single click? I haven't used XP, or any windows for nearly 2 years now), that's easy. So too is it easy for someone to modprobe the latest tulip driver NIC driver in linux. Of course, not knowing how to do these things makes it more difficult for the newcomer.
(yeah yeah I know, here on/. we're all geeks and finding the right setting for plain-old win9x look is probably fairly obvious, but is that true for everybody?)
Sorry, i know it's off-topic, your post just piqued me in a certain way.
According to this article [physicsweb.org], buckyballs hold the record for highest-temperature superconductor.
Small correction.
The article says that C-60 is non-copper-oxide superconductor with the highest transition temperature.There are high-Tc superconductors with transition temperatures way higher than that. Strange quaternary alloys (YBCO, or Yttrium-Barium-Copper-Oxide, is probably the most common) where the ratios of components must be just right are some of the highest transition temperature SC's. The highest transition temperatures, IIRC, occur around 150K or so. This is good news because liquid nitrogen temperature is 77K, which is cheaper than milk in bulk quantities. Thus, for some superconducting applications, you don't need expensive 4K liquid Helium refridgerators, but can make use of a dewar filled with cheap liquid nitrogen.
Here is a link with various copper-oxide superconductors described.
Then sometime in '97, shortly after the OS/2 regime was destroyed, Linux took on this holy jihad. Now it was a battle,
it wasn't just good enough to create something kind of fun and geeky, the goal was to destroy all the infidels from
Microsoft.
Please don't assume all kernel hackers are linux zealots. I thought Linus said he cared more about making linux good than worrying about the "competition's" products.
I think the cool level-headed kernel hackers are still around. Just that at some point Linux became more useful and usable, and attracted a larger audience. Then the zealots came in and eventually launched their holy war against the competition (including capitalism). They just give a bad reputation to linux. But please keep in mind they do not represent the good peaceful pride-in-their-work kernel hackers.
Thanks. Walking around with the GPS, you can definitely see a difference of a few dozen feet, especially now since the US turned off the selective availability. However, errors can be reduced to cm's or less, through time averaging (My Garmin does it, but I don't know what the max time-average duration is). So, depending on your patience and accuracy, you can make road maps that can be quite accurate.
The GPS came in real handy on my trip, though, for helping me find where I was when lost (happened all the time). The Garmin II+ has a small display that shows a trajectory like this as you go (it only keeps a finite number of points, obviously, maybe a few hours worth before it starts swapping them out). I could often match the path I was driving with the road on the map, and find out precisely where I was (of course, the latitude/longitude would tell me that too, but the maps usually have only a few lat/long bars, and interpolating between them is a pain).
I did just this on my road trip last summer (Summer 2K, baby!). Here's my homepage for my online journal.
I had an IBM thinkpad laptop (dual-boot Windows 95/Mandrake 6.1, although once I had linux installed I never booted up that 'other' OS:-) ), connected to my GPS (Garmin II+). I ran a VERY simple bash script that just pinged the GPS every minute and grabbed the latitude/longitude/altitude. I stored these points in a data-file, and then rendered some pretty cool maps (Mercator and Perspective Satellite Projections) when I got back from the trip. I rendered the projections on IDL, with some superimposed (and conformally mapped) satellite pictures of Earth for the terrain.
Trip started and ended in NJ, but went through about 40 states in-between, coast-to-coast. Even drove through parts of Mexico and Canada. Put about 15,000 miles on my car in 8 weeks. It was pretty cool, I was totally connected, with laptop and GPS and CB, driving from point to point. Got kind of annoying to keep doing it all the time, though (especially for parts of the trip that friends went with me), but it was definitely worth it!
The online journal isn't caught up, and is kind of wordy at times, but let me know what y'alls think. When I get some free time (yeah right) I'll add some more pictures, shorten all the blah-blah text, and maybe also add a pictures-only tour. Let me know how you guys like the maps, though. I wanted to eventually render them in Python to only use open-source software, but never got around to fully learning Python. Had to settle on IDL instead.
It's just bizarre. Why the heck do it, if you don't take claim of it? What the hell did they gain... except, perhaps, to start WWIII?
IMHO, I think this was done in a rallying call by OBL to build up support for an Arab-led war against American/European colonialism. I think that the primary perpetrators, however, didn't expect the solidarity that nearly all countries showed towards the US.
OBL and other terrorists probably thought the USA would strike back swiftly and deadly against Afghanistan and other Arabian suspected countries. Taliban and other radical fundamentalist Muslim groups could then unite, using recent US attacks as the rallying cry for a Jihad. However, instead of retaliating immediately, the USA slowly built up an anti-terror coalition, diplomatically and systematically. As the coalition included all of the Americas and Europe, slowly the Arab nations joined as well, possibly for fear of being seen to support such terror. I think OBL didn't see this global coalition coming by any reckoning, and is now shitting bricks. Taliban's actions seem to imply this, as they themselves are calling this a US-led war against Islam, which it clearly isn't, especially as the USA has the support of other several Islamic countries.
So, I think that OBL or others would have claimed it if there hadn't been such worldwide sympathy and support for America. I think if they admitted to it while nearly all countries were officially condemning the attacks as atrocities, the terrorist group(s) would lose most of the public support they had hoped to gain.
I might just be cheesy here, but is anyone else reminded of "The Grinch who Stole Christmas" regarding the 9/11 attacks? Whereas the Grinch, being an inherent prick, basically struck at the small mountainous town to cause strife and discord, by stealing their 'Christmas'. Yet, though their physical Christmas was gone, the townspeople still banded together and sang, because their inner spirit couldn't be stolen. So too did these terrorists try to destroy something in America, either our safety, our sense of security, or try to destroy our status amongst other nations. However, the solidarity Americans showed after the attacks was incredible. Every block I walk down, there are flags and patriotic banners. Not people just calling blindly for revenge (well, some are) but there's definitely a feeling of unity here that I haven't really felt before (I'm 26, maybe it was like this in WWII or similar). Okay, just my 2 cents.
Second, I'd bet you that some people -- some idiots -- did smirk and clap when the plane was
shot down. Of course, the vast majority would never do anything that awful--just like in
Palestine, where the vast majority did not celebrate. Don't believe everything you see on CNN.
Okay, if we can't believe everything seen on CNN, what about
Also, don't forget the fact that some Palestinians kidnapped one of the cameramen that recorded the cheering, and the Palestinian Authority couldn't guarantee his safety if the footage was broadcast. Heard this on both The Jerusalem Post and also corroborated on NPR. Can't find a link to the stories, though.
Check out this Hammond B-3 (With Leslie 122). $4000, already, with 13 bids, and reserve hasn't even been met. Man, only 5 years or so ago, you could have bought a B-3 for half that.
Of course, nothin' compares to the original. In 25+ years after they stopped rolling these puppies off the assembly lines, they still haven't been able to clone the sound as good. That's why folks are buyin' them up. And also why people prefer to lug around a 400+ lb organ and Leslie, instead of a simulator, from show to show!
I call that "self-defence". Let's not forget that the jews are the aggressors who came and STOLE
Palestine from the palestinians.
Interesting, was that big circulation paper you mentioned in your post as well researched as the above statement? Can you provide a link to that paper, if possible? Do you really believe that? The Jews stole Palestine? What source do you get your news and history from?
Firstly, there was an already a significant Jewish population living in Palestine. During the early 1900's, more Jews (as well as Arabs) started immigrating to Palestine. They bought uncultivated undeveloped land at first, and then started to purchase cultivated land. However, at no point did they attempt to displace Arabs. Large amounts of land was owned by absentee landlords who lived in Cairo, Damascus, and Beirut. David Ben-Gurion, the 1920's Labor leader, said, "under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to
fellahs or worked by them." He advocated helping liberate them from their oppressors. "Only
if a fellah leaves his place of settlement," Ben-Gurion added, "should we offer to buy his land,
at an appropriate price."
Arabs started complaining about Jewish land acquisitions, and the British Peel Commission determined. Arab complaints were unfounded. It said, "much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or
swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased....there was at the time of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land." In his memoirs, King Abdullah of Transjordan said, "It is made quite clear to all, both by the map drawn up by the Simpson
Commission and by another compiled by the Peel Commission, that the Arabs
are as prodigal in selling their land as they are in useless wailing and weeping."
In fact, the prices the Jews paid for the land were exorbitant. in 1944, the typical arid or semiarid acre in Palestine was sold around $1000-$1100, while rich soil in Iowa was selling for $110 per acre. By 1947, Jewish holdings in Palestine amounted to 463,000 acres. 45,000 were acquired from the Mandatory Government, 30,000 were bought from various churches, and 387,500 were purchased from Arabs. Analyses of land purchases from 1880-1948 show 73% of Jewish plots were purchased from large landowners, not poor fellahin. Those who sold land included mayors of Gaza, Jerusalem, Jaffa, King Abdullah, even members of the Muslim Supreme Council.
The displaced Palestinians came from the fact that they deserted Israel during the 1948 war. After the partition plan, the Arabs invaded Israel and urged many Palestinians to temporarily leave and join them. Israel's Proclamation of Independence, issued May 14, 1948, invited Palestinians to remain in their homes and become equal citizens in the New Israeli state. It said, "In the midst of wanton aggression, we yet call upon the Arab inhabitants of the
State of Israel to preserve the ways of peace and play their part in the
development of the State, on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due
representation in all its bodies and institutions....We extend our hand in peace
and neighborliness to all the neighboring states and their peoples, and invite
them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all." However, most Palestinians left. Palestinian nationalist Aref el-Aref said this. "The Arabs thought they would win in less than the twinkling of an eye and that it would take no more than a day or two from the time the Arab armies crossed the border until all the colonies were conquered and the enemy would throw
down his arms and cast himself on their mercy." After the Jews successfully defended the Arab invaders, they closed the borders.
After the war, UN Resolution 194, on December 11, 1948, recognized that Israel could not be expected to repatriate a hostile population that might endanger its security. In regards to the Palestinian's possessions, the Israeli government released the Palestinians bank accounts, and also arranged payments and tribute for the lands that were abandoned.
So, please tell me how the Jews stole the land from the Palestinians. And how should the Jews have reacted instead?
Basically, the displaced Palestinians took a gamble and lost. You don't blame the casino when you bet your wedding ring and lose it. Similarly, they themselves and their Arab neighbors who attacked to blame for their situation. Yet, the majority of their anger is focused on the "Zionist enemy". If only we could all get along.
Well, yeah, that was 30 years ago. And yes, it was bad. And yet we have to move on.
Agreed.
Arrafat has moved
on, as was acknowledged by the fact that he got the Nobel prize. Can you seriously claim that Arrafat is
supporting terrorism at the moment?
Well, I'll probably get flamed for this, but he doesn't appear to be actively speaking up against terrorism. In the past few months, in the wake of some of the larger bombings, he has denounced the violence to Western media outlets. But, IMHO, I don't believe he is actively trying to quell Palestinian violence or hatred in his speeches to his fellow Palestinians. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
No, I just don't think the assassinated killings strategy is as cut and dry as you seem to make it to be. Ie, that it cannot be immediately declared morally wrong or morally justifiable.
During times of peace and times of war, the same strategy could be held in highly different regard. However, if you lived under constant and persistent terrorist threat (with several attacks making it through), you might not be so adamant in the views you've just expressed.
*If* they are indeed the terroriss they're claimed to be, well, yes, killing them might be a solution. Are
they really those terrorists? Or are they instead key palestinian authority figures, and targetted to
weaken Arrafat's power.
See, this is where the deep philosophical issue stems from. How is one to balance the issues of self-preservation verses accurate justice. It is a legitimate concern that these are key PA figures targetted to weaken Arafat, but it's also a legitimate concern of the Israelis to defend itself against violent terrorist attacks, of which there have already been many.
My impression is that Sharon is playing with fire here, weakening Arrafat (and calling him a terrorsit or a
"Bin Laden")
Arafat is (or, at least, was) a terrorist in the past. Remember when all Israeli athletes were killed in the 1972 Olympics? That was the PLO, of which Arafat was in charge. Many many attacks led by PLO against Israel (and also Jordan, ironically) in the past. Maybe in his older years Arafat is seeking peace, but he has had a violent past (as has Sharon as well).
bound to give more legitimacy to the actual terrorist and violent factions of the
Palestinian people, which in turn will justify Sharon's violent policy.
Now we're both starting to agree on something. I agree that the cycle of violence will only intensify, and that Sharon doesn't adequately consider the PR of his aggressive "playing with fire" policies. That's why I can only hope that someone like Shimon Peres can step in and take Sharon's place. (Peres is the one who has consistently met with and is trying to meet with Arafat and other Arab delegates. He was also responsible for last-minute cease-fire agreements from Palestine in exchange for Israeli tank withdrawl from various Palestinian towns).
The problem is that when the criticism is justified, they still jump on the persecution bandwagon
Not all of us jump on the 'bandwagon'. Some might, but not all. If you would, please, could you provide a quote somewhere of just one instance of a well-reasoned justified critique against a Jewish group, which itself was subsequently criticized, solely on antisemitic accusations.
The jews know that, and they therefore think they can get away with murder (which they do in Palestine anyways).
They're not the only ones getting away with murder. What do you call the Palestinian launching of mortars and firing of rifles at Israelis? The Palestinian police had a number of convicted Palestinian terrorists locked in jails. At the beginning of this recent intifada, dozens of the terrorists were freed from their jails.
Seriously. What's the point of mentioning this? Do we care about the (USian) legality of said actions?
No, we do not care, first of all because USian lawyers could "prove" anything, we do not care either
because we are not all USian, and we do not care because this is not a "legal" matter, but rather, a
political one.
There are rules of war, and it's a question of whether targetting terrorists before they target you is a bad thing or not. You seem to immediately dismiss these assassinations, either through semantic arguments, or through moral ones. While I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you specifically, I'm saying it's not a simple black-or-white issue.
If you were personally under a constant threat of terrorism, and had very good intelligence reports as to who known terrorists were, you might be thinking differently too.
Just a thought.
Excuse me one second, did those "assassinated" persons get a chance at a fair trial? Are we sure
those who were killed were indeed "terrorists"?
It's a question of acts of war and violence. Name one war in which opposing soldiers was given a fair trial before being shot. Okay, maybe when they're charging you with guns blazing you're entitled to shoot them first. What about attacking them pre-emptively, such as George Washington did during Christmas during American Revolution. Did they give trial to the British soldiers to make sure they were REALLY going to attack them first?
You have a point about ensuring that those killed were terrorists. But do you speak out just as vociferously when innocent Israeli citizens are killed in terrorist actions?
Did the Palestinians give the two Israeli army soldiers that were violently lynched after making a wrong turn into Palestinian terrotories a fair trial? A few weeks ago, some Palestinians were also lynched after being accused of helping Israelis. Did they get fair trial
BTW the choice of word is very poor. Assassination is a crime, by definition. Therefore Mr. Sharon IS
a criminal. QED.
Believe it or not, I agree with you here, but for different reasons. Sharon is a war hawk, and should be making more peace efforts than he's doing now. He's also being accused of war crimes from a few decades ago. But regarding the current situation, how actively is Israel entitled to defend itself and its citizens?
This does not prove anything. You pick an antisemitic quote, and there you go! Antisemitism is
therefore widespread. What a fallacy.
It's a quote that was spoken by a Palestinian official, over Palestinian television, Broadcast to thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of minds. It's not your average Joe Schmoe venting, or being a troll. It's a public representative of a government, who's supposed to represent the ideals of the peoples. I don't know what's worse, the fact that he spoke that, or the fact that he believes it. Have you ever gotten an anonymous phone call with someone at the other end saying, "I'm going to kill you, you damn kike!" and then hang up? I have. Luckily the US has a high set of morals, and is actively discouraging discrimination against any specific religion or ethnicity due to last week's attack. However, not only do some other countries not try to prevent it, but they actively encourage it.
I don't know why you're so adamant about refusing to recognize the existence of antisemitism. I'm not saying that criticizing a Jewish group's policies is anti-semitic, but I'm pointing out that that logic in itself doesn't mean anti-semitism doesn't exist.
And as for your fallacy, I didn't say antisemitism was widespread but that it was more prevalent than you'd perhaps like to think.
You can't say anything about jewish orgs, because then you're accused of antisemitism. In the mean time, Ariel Sharon is *assassinating* -- by his own admission! -- Palestinians.
There is DEFINITELY a difference between being antisemitic and opposing a Jewish group, and many Jews will agree. If you oppose a Jewish group strictly because of the fact they're Jews, however, then that's antisemitism. If you disagree with their policies for a justifiable reason, then it's certainly not antisemitism. However, you have to keep in mind that groups like this are, in a way, obligated to hold to a higher moral standard than others. Why? Because if even a semi-valid reason (and I'm not denying any reasons to be anti-Israeli here) exists for opposing a special group (like B'nai Brith), then antisemites can now justifiy their actions. Instead of appearing to hate someone because they're Jewish, they can hate under the umbrella of a semi-valid reason. If it's a more valid reason, then all the more so. In other words, not all opposition to certain Jewish groups is antisemitic, as you say. But that fact in itself doesn't mean that antisemitism doesn't exist.
Next, to your questioning of Sharon's assassinations. How does this differ from the Palestinian terrorist? The difference is two-fold. Firstly, Israel has an army and police units to (try to) prevent unruly crowds and attacks against random Palestinians. The Palestinian Authority has no such organizations aimed to preserve civilian order. And secondly, the terrorists aim at random targets, usually innocent civilians, while the Israeli assassinations are aimed at specific terrorist threats. It's a deep philisophical argument whether such assassinations are justifiable. If you're damn sure someone's out to kill you, are you entitled to pre-emptively take them out first? John Norton Moore, who directs the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia's law school said, "If one is lawfully engaged in armed hostility, it is not 'assassination' to target individuals who are combatants." and Air Force Col. Charles J. Duncan Jr., also a military lawyer, said, "Contrary to popular belief, neither international law nor U.S. domestic law prohibits the killing of those directing armed forces in war." "Nations have the right under international law to use force against terrorists."
Now regarding antisemitism, it is alive and well. Unfortunately Palestinians are being manipulated by their government to hate all Jews, and even to kill them. Notice in this following quote that it's not even Israelis they're being directed against, it's ALL Jews. I'm an American who's both Jewish and Buddhist. I don't know what I personally did to invoke the hatred of these guys, but when words like these are spoken, especially over radio/TV to massive quantities of people, you bet I'll take a stand against it.
On Oct. 14, 2000, Dr. Ahmad Abu Halabiya, Member of the PA appointed "Fatwa Council" and former acting Rector of the Islamic University in Gaza, said this on Palestinian Authority television.
"Have no mercy on the Jews, no matter where they are, in any country. Fight them, wherever you are. Wherever you meet them, kill them. Wherever you are, kill those Jews
and those Americans who are like them and those who stand by them they are all in one trench, against the Arabs and the Muslims because they established Israel here, in the beating heart of the Arab world, in Palestine."
This is just one example, and there are many many more quotes like this. I believe it's highly irresponsible for government and religious figureheads to manipulate public opinions like this. But, as per your questions of antisemitism, quotes like this show it to be more prevalent than you'd perhaps like to think.
The UN Racism conference was a joke. It's purpose was to educate about and try to eradicate hatred and racism, but instead it was fueled by those very same qualities. All Arab countries criticized Israel of being racist and signed the declaration. Name one Arab country that hasn't done the same thing. And why was Israel singled out amongst all other countries where oppression is occurring?
In regards to the other article you mention, why do many oppressed Muslims in the Middle East try to seek asylum in Israel? For instance, Iraqi Kurds, which are suffering and being killed by Hussein's government. They've come to Israel for protection, because they know they won't be discriminated against there (at least not as much as compared to other Arab countries).
Point taken. It's interesting to examine what would go on in someone's head regarding incidents like these. I think that if what you described is the case, though, then Osama Bin Laden has no logical justification for his actions. I, too, am against the "Westernization" of the entire world. I saw this happening to Japan when I was there a few years ago, through American consumerist capitalism and the throngs of American missionaries throughout the country. However, in no way, would I advocate violence or terrorism to prevent this "western contanimation". Examine the following two possible scnenarios of what might be occuring in his thoughts as he's preventing Western decay of his fundamentalist ideals. He can thus either act entirely within his set of beliefs to prevent it, or he could change his beliefs somewhat in order to prevent the Western incursion.
In the first possibility, he's prevent the onslaught of Western imperialism by adhering to his fundamentalist Islamic or SaudiArabian/Afghani cultural beliefs. However, if this culture advocates or defends the unprovoked murder of 1000's of innocent lives, then I completely DISAGREE with his culture, and I think what he stands for is an insult to humanity. In that case, I have no sympathy for the impending influence of Western thought and ideals.
On the other hand, he might go to extremes to prevent the contamination of his pure culture. If that's the case, then he's already guilty himself of ruining his pristine society, but tainting it not with Western imperialist capitalism, but with ultraconservative fundamentalism. In this case, he's just as guilty as the parties he's trying to check. If so, then he has absolutely no qualms to hold against the West, and has no justification for any of his actions.
In either case, I don't see any rational view of his violence, and in either case, IMHO, he's guilty of some crimes against humanity in one form or another.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I I think it's better called Trinary. Tertiary would be a more appropriate name if base-2 was instead called Secondary. If trinary is used, then you've got Trinary Digits, or trits.
However, the real question is when they get to base-4 computing, will they call it quits?
I graduated from an ivy-league school - U. Penn. . After graduating, I've also taken some classes at Harvard . Ivy League status in itself means nothing, don't get the impression that an Ivy League education solely by it's prestige is a significant achievement.
I can affirm that there were a large number of fools/idiots at U.Penn (less at Harvard, but they're still present). For some of these, you'd be surprised they even graduated high school.
I can also say that there is little chance a school would flunk out a student who's family is of some prominence (eg, his father was a Yalie, Prescott Bush was a senator), or of economic influence.
Not to mention Bush Sr's and Junior's membership in the exclusive Skull & Bones club.
I'm wondering if they'll change their advertisement volume/tone-of-voice depending on the drivers habits, too. For example, when websites don't generate enough ad clickthru's, they start putting big fscking obnoxious ads on the page. If the OnStar people find out enough folks aren't suddenly stopping by radio shack to get the newest batteries on sale, I wonder if they'll make the voice louder and more obnoxious. akin to web ads.
But of course, OnStar is a service people pay for, so if they get really annoying, people will just stop buying it. Don't know if you already bought a car with it if you can cancel service.
Measurement of the spin-polarization was done through Point-Contact Andreev Reflection (PCAR) measurements at the interface of a superconductor/ferromagnetic. Ie, at the interface between the CrO2 crystal and a sharp-tipped lead superconductor in the vicinity of 4K (maybe colder).
For more info, see my other post further down on this slashdot article.
There are several groups working on spintronics-related research around the globe. You can check some of the research the spin-doctors are working on by looking at the Spintronics 2001 Conference webpage. Some incredible results involved researchers injecting spin-polarized current into an LED and producing Circularly Polarized Light!!! Other researchers are trying to produced spin-transistors, to switch/amplify spin-polarized currents. Many of the recent challenges involve producing spin-polarized currents, finding materials that can transport electron-spin, and injecting spin-polarized electrons into semiconductors.
The Chien group here at JHU has been the first to demonstrate experimentally the existence of a half-metal. Crystals of CrO2 have been shown to have spin-polarization of 96%. This was measured at the superconductor/ferromagnetic interface through Point-Contact Andreev Reflection (PCAR) techniques.
I'll explain some of the current concepts of spintronics, but pardon any errors as I haven't really begun my research yet. The manipulation of electron spin is an extra degree of freedom that novel electronic devices can exploit. Spintronics has already, since 13 years after the discovery of GMR (Giant Magnetoresistance) in 1988, penetrated the technology industries (magnetic storage). It's rare for such new technology like this to be commercially available so soon after its discovery. Transistors were one such monumental achievement, the first Ge transistors were available within years of the transistor's invention.
GMR is an effect that occurs with a normal metal film that is sandwiched between two ferromagnetic layers. Depending on whether the spins of the ferromagnetic layer are parallel or anti-parallel, a significant change of resistance is measured across the structure. A more useful device which extrapolates off this concept is a spin-valve This is the standard GMR trilayer, with an anti-ferromagnetic layer on the bottom. This layer pins the spin of the bottom Ferromagnetic layer. The top ferromagnetic layer can then float, and have it's spin affected by the external magnetic field. This in turn creates a magnetic-field-dependent resistance across the device. Sensitive measurements of the magnetic field, obtained by measuring resistance, can be obtained in this manner .This magnetic-field-dependent resistance is known as Magnetoresistance. This concept, in a fundamental sense, is how the newer GMR-based read-heads on high-density hard drives operate.
Another similar device is the Magnetic Tunnel Junction . This is similar to the GMR trilayer, but an insulator film is sandwiched between the ferromagnetic layers, instead of a normal metal. Current can then tunnel through the device, again dependent on whether the spins are parallel or anti-parallel in the ferromagnetic layers. The tunnel junction is the fundamental concept at the core of the MRAM's.
Another exciting area of research with spintronics that I haven't heard anybody on slashdot mention yet is quantum computing. Electrons are spin-1/2 fermions, and hence have two distinct eigenstates of the Spin operator (the eigenstates are usually called "spin-up" and "spin-down"). This makes them perfect candidates for representation of quantum bits (qubits) for potential quantum computation. Some groups are working on this idea, by studying interactions of quantum dots for instance.
Overall, this is a budding field that has already impacted the technology industry in it's scant 13 years of existence. Expect many more interesting and potentially groundbreaking discoveries to occur. But then again, I'm spin-biased. :-)
Kind of off-topic, but therein lies the rub on simplicity. An OS is an easy OS when you know it. Settings are easy to change when you know where to go poking around to change them.
When you know which series of menus to go through to change the XP look n' feel (is it really only a single click? I haven't used XP, or any windows for nearly 2 years now), that's easy. So too is it easy for someone to modprobe the latest tulip driver NIC driver in linux. Of course, not knowing how to do these things makes it more difficult for the newcomer. (yeah yeah I know, here on /. we're all geeks and finding the right setting for plain-old win9x look is probably fairly obvious, but is that true for everybody?)
Sorry, i know it's off-topic, your post just piqued me in a certain way.
Small correction. The article says that C-60 is non-copper-oxide superconductor with the highest transition temperature.There are high-Tc superconductors with transition temperatures way higher than that. Strange quaternary alloys (YBCO, or Yttrium-Barium-Copper-Oxide, is probably the most common) where the ratios of components must be just right are some of the highest transition temperature SC's. The highest transition temperatures, IIRC, occur around 150K or so. This is good news because liquid nitrogen temperature is 77K, which is cheaper than milk in bulk quantities. Thus, for some superconducting applications, you don't need expensive 4K liquid Helium refridgerators, but can make use of a dewar filled with cheap liquid nitrogen.
Here is a link with various copper-oxide superconductors described.
Please don't assume all kernel hackers are linux zealots. I thought Linus said he cared more about making linux good than worrying about the "competition's" products.
I think the cool level-headed kernel hackers are still around. Just that at some point Linux became more useful and usable, and attracted a larger audience. Then the zealots came in and eventually launched their holy war against the competition (including capitalism). They just give a bad reputation to linux. But please keep in mind they do not represent the good peaceful pride-in-their-work kernel hackers.
Hmm, where I have heard this story before?
The GPS came in real handy on my trip, though, for helping me find where I was when lost (happened all the time). The Garmin II+ has a small display that shows a trajectory like this as you go (it only keeps a finite number of points, obviously, maybe a few hours worth before it starts swapping them out). I could often match the path I was driving with the road on the map, and find out precisely where I was (of course, the latitude/longitude would tell me that too, but the maps usually have only a few lat/long bars, and interpolating between them is a pain).
I had an IBM thinkpad laptop (dual-boot Windows 95/Mandrake 6.1, although once I had linux installed I never booted up that 'other' OS :-) ), connected to my GPS (Garmin II+). I ran a VERY simple bash script that just pinged the GPS every minute and grabbed the latitude/longitude/altitude. I stored these points in a data-file, and then rendered some pretty cool maps (Mercator and Perspective Satellite Projections) when I got back from the trip. I rendered the projections on IDL, with some superimposed (and conformally mapped) satellite pictures of Earth for the terrain.
Trip started and ended in NJ, but went through about 40 states in-between, coast-to-coast. Even drove through parts of Mexico and Canada. Put about 15,000 miles on my car in 8 weeks. It was pretty cool, I was totally connected, with laptop and GPS and CB, driving from point to point. Got kind of annoying to keep doing it all the time, though (especially for parts of the trip that friends went with me), but it was definitely worth it!
The online journal isn't caught up, and is kind of wordy at times, but let me know what y'alls think. When I get some free time (yeah right) I'll add some more pictures, shorten all the blah-blah text, and maybe also add a pictures-only tour. Let me know how you guys like the maps, though. I wanted to eventually render them in Python to only use open-source software, but never got around to fully learning Python. Had to settle on IDL instead.
IMHO, I think this was done in a rallying call by OBL to build up support for an Arab-led war against American/European colonialism. I think that the primary perpetrators, however, didn't expect the solidarity that nearly all countries showed towards the US.
OBL and other terrorists probably thought the USA would strike back swiftly and deadly against Afghanistan and other Arabian suspected countries. Taliban and other radical fundamentalist Muslim groups could then unite, using recent US attacks as the rallying cry for a Jihad. However, instead of retaliating immediately, the USA slowly built up an anti-terror coalition, diplomatically and systematically. As the coalition included all of the Americas and Europe, slowly the Arab nations joined as well, possibly for fear of being seen to support such terror. I think OBL didn't see this global coalition coming by any reckoning, and is now shitting bricks. Taliban's actions seem to imply this, as they themselves are calling this a US-led war against Islam, which it clearly isn't, especially as the USA has the support of other several Islamic countries.
So, I think that OBL or others would have claimed it if there hadn't been such worldwide sympathy and support for America. I think if they admitted to it while nearly all countries were officially condemning the attacks as atrocities, the terrorist group(s) would lose most of the public support they had hoped to gain.
I might just be cheesy here, but is anyone else reminded of "The Grinch who Stole Christmas" regarding the 9/11 attacks? Whereas the Grinch, being an inherent prick, basically struck at the small mountainous town to cause strife and discord, by stealing their 'Christmas'. Yet, though their physical Christmas was gone, the townspeople still banded together and sang, because their inner spirit couldn't be stolen. So too did these terrorists try to destroy something in America, either our safety, our sense of security, or try to destroy our status amongst other nations. However, the solidarity Americans showed after the attacks was incredible. Every block I walk down, there are flags and patriotic banners. Not people just calling blindly for revenge (well, some are) but there's definitely a feeling of unity here that I haven't really felt before (I'm 26, maybe it was like this in WWII or similar). Okay, just my 2 cents.
Okay, if we can't believe everything seen on CNN, what about
Also, don't forget the fact that some Palestinians kidnapped one of the cameramen that recorded the cheering, and the Palestinian Authority couldn't guarantee his safety if the footage was broadcast. Heard this on both The Jerusalem Post and also corroborated on NPR. Can't find a link to the stories, though.
Of course, nothin' compares to the original. In 25+ years after they stopped rolling these puppies off the assembly lines, they still haven't been able to clone the sound as good. That's why folks are buyin' them up. And also why people prefer to lug around a 400+ lb organ and Leslie, instead of a simulator, from show to show!
Interesting, was that big circulation paper you mentioned in your post as well researched as the above statement? Can you provide a link to that paper, if possible? Do you really believe that? The Jews stole Palestine? What source do you get your news and history from?
Firstly, there was an already a significant Jewish population living in Palestine. During the early 1900's, more Jews (as well as Arabs) started immigrating to Palestine. They bought uncultivated undeveloped land at first, and then started to purchase cultivated land. However, at no point did they attempt to displace Arabs. Large amounts of land was owned by absentee landlords who lived in Cairo, Damascus, and Beirut. David Ben-Gurion, the 1920's Labor leader, said, "under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to fellahs or worked by them." He advocated helping liberate them from their oppressors. "Only if a fellah leaves his place of settlement," Ben-Gurion added, "should we offer to buy his land, at an appropriate price."
Arabs started complaining about Jewish land acquisitions, and the British Peel Commission determined. Arab complaints were unfounded. It said, "much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased....there was at the time of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land." In his memoirs, King Abdullah of Transjordan said, "It is made quite clear to all, both by the map drawn up by the Simpson Commission and by another compiled by the Peel Commission, that the Arabs are as prodigal in selling their land as they are in useless wailing and weeping."
In fact, the prices the Jews paid for the land were exorbitant. in 1944, the typical arid or semiarid acre in Palestine was sold around $1000-$1100, while rich soil in Iowa was selling for $110 per acre. By 1947, Jewish holdings in Palestine amounted to 463,000 acres. 45,000 were acquired from the Mandatory Government, 30,000 were bought from various churches, and 387,500 were purchased from Arabs. Analyses of land purchases from 1880-1948 show 73% of Jewish plots were purchased from large landowners, not poor fellahin. Those who sold land included mayors of Gaza, Jerusalem, Jaffa, King Abdullah, even members of the Muslim Supreme Council.
The displaced Palestinians came from the fact that they deserted Israel during the 1948 war. After the partition plan, the Arabs invaded Israel and urged many Palestinians to temporarily leave and join them. Israel's Proclamation of Independence, issued May 14, 1948, invited Palestinians to remain in their homes and become equal citizens in the New Israeli state. It said, "In the midst of wanton aggression, we yet call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its bodies and institutions....We extend our hand in peace and neighborliness to all the neighboring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all." However, most Palestinians left. Palestinian nationalist Aref el-Aref said this. "The Arabs thought they would win in less than the twinkling of an eye and that it would take no more than a day or two from the time the Arab armies crossed the border until all the colonies were conquered and the enemy would throw down his arms and cast himself on their mercy." After the Jews successfully defended the Arab invaders, they closed the borders.
After the war, UN Resolution 194, on December 11, 1948, recognized that Israel could not be expected to repatriate a hostile population that might endanger its security. In regards to the Palestinian's possessions, the Israeli government released the Palestinians bank accounts, and also arranged payments and tribute for the lands that were abandoned.
So, please tell me how the Jews stole the land from the Palestinians. And how should the Jews have reacted instead? Basically, the displaced Palestinians took a gamble and lost. You don't blame the casino when you bet your wedding ring and lose it. Similarly, they themselves and their Arab neighbors who attacked to blame for their situation. Yet, the majority of their anger is focused on the "Zionist enemy". If only we could all get along.
Agreed.
Arrafat has moved on, as was acknowledged by the fact that he got the Nobel prize. Can you seriously claim that Arrafat is supporting terrorism at the moment?
Well, I'll probably get flamed for this, but he doesn't appear to be actively speaking up against terrorism. In the past few months, in the wake of some of the larger bombings, he has denounced the violence to Western media outlets. But, IMHO, I don't believe he is actively trying to quell Palestinian violence or hatred in his speeches to his fellow Palestinians. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
No, I just don't think the assassinated killings strategy is as cut and dry as you seem to make it to be. Ie, that it cannot be immediately declared morally wrong or morally justifiable.
During times of peace and times of war, the same strategy could be held in highly different regard. However, if you lived under constant and persistent terrorist threat (with several attacks making it through), you might not be so adamant in the views you've just expressed.
Okay, point noted. Thanks for clarifying.
See, this is where the deep philosophical issue stems from. How is one to balance the issues of self-preservation verses accurate justice. It is a legitimate concern that these are key PA figures targetted to weaken Arafat, but it's also a legitimate concern of the Israelis to defend itself against violent terrorist attacks, of which there have already been many.
My impression is that Sharon is playing with fire here, weakening Arrafat (and calling him a terrorsit or a "Bin Laden")
Arafat is (or, at least, was) a terrorist in the past. Remember when all Israeli athletes were killed in the 1972 Olympics? That was the PLO, of which Arafat was in charge. Many many attacks led by PLO against Israel (and also Jordan, ironically) in the past. Maybe in his older years Arafat is seeking peace, but he has had a violent past (as has Sharon as well).
bound to give more legitimacy to the actual terrorist and violent factions of the Palestinian people, which in turn will justify Sharon's violent policy.
Now we're both starting to agree on something. I agree that the cycle of violence will only intensify, and that Sharon doesn't adequately consider the PR of his aggressive "playing with fire" policies. That's why I can only hope that someone like Shimon Peres can step in and take Sharon's place. (Peres is the one who has consistently met with and is trying to meet with Arafat and other Arab delegates. He was also responsible for last-minute cease-fire agreements from Palestine in exchange for Israeli tank withdrawl from various Palestinian towns).
Not all of us jump on the 'bandwagon'. Some might, but not all. If you would, please, could you provide a quote somewhere of just one instance of a well-reasoned justified critique against a Jewish group, which itself was subsequently criticized, solely on antisemitic accusations.
The jews know that, and they therefore think they can get away with murder (which they do in Palestine anyways).
They're not the only ones getting away with murder. What do you call the Palestinian launching of mortars and firing of rifles at Israelis? The Palestinian police had a number of convicted Palestinian terrorists locked in jails. At the beginning of this recent intifada, dozens of the terrorists were freed from their jails.
There are rules of war, and it's a question of whether targetting terrorists before they target you is a bad thing or not. You seem to immediately dismiss these assassinations, either through semantic arguments, or through moral ones. While I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you specifically, I'm saying it's not a simple black-or-white issue.
If you were personally under a constant threat of terrorism, and had very good intelligence reports as to who known terrorists were, you might be thinking differently too. Just a thought.
It's a question of acts of war and violence. Name one war in which opposing soldiers was given a fair trial before being shot. Okay, maybe when they're charging you with guns blazing you're entitled to shoot them first. What about attacking them pre-emptively, such as George Washington did during Christmas during American Revolution. Did they give trial to the British soldiers to make sure they were REALLY going to attack them first?
You have a point about ensuring that those killed were terrorists. But do you speak out just as vociferously when innocent Israeli citizens are killed in terrorist actions? Did the Palestinians give the two Israeli army soldiers that were violently lynched after making a wrong turn into Palestinian terrotories a fair trial? A few weeks ago, some Palestinians were also lynched after being accused of helping Israelis. Did they get fair trial
BTW the choice of word is very poor. Assassination is a crime, by definition. Therefore Mr. Sharon IS a criminal. QED.
Believe it or not, I agree with you here, but for different reasons. Sharon is a war hawk, and should be making more peace efforts than he's doing now. He's also being accused of war crimes from a few decades ago. But regarding the current situation, how actively is Israel entitled to defend itself and its citizens?
It's a quote that was spoken by a Palestinian official, over Palestinian television, Broadcast to thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of minds. It's not your average Joe Schmoe venting, or being a troll. It's a public representative of a government, who's supposed to represent the ideals of the peoples. I don't know what's worse, the fact that he spoke that, or the fact that he believes it. Have you ever gotten an anonymous phone call with someone at the other end saying, "I'm going to kill you, you damn kike!" and then hang up? I have. Luckily the US has a high set of morals, and is actively discouraging discrimination against any specific religion or ethnicity due to last week's attack. However, not only do some other countries not try to prevent it, but they actively encourage it.
I don't know why you're so adamant about refusing to recognize the existence of antisemitism. I'm not saying that criticizing a Jewish group's policies is anti-semitic, but I'm pointing out that that logic in itself doesn't mean anti-semitism doesn't exist.
And as for your fallacy, I didn't say antisemitism was widespread but that it was more prevalent than you'd perhaps like to think.
There is DEFINITELY a difference between being antisemitic and opposing a Jewish group, and many Jews will agree. If you oppose a Jewish group strictly because of the fact they're Jews, however, then that's antisemitism. If you disagree with their policies for a justifiable reason, then it's certainly not antisemitism. However, you have to keep in mind that groups like this are, in a way, obligated to hold to a higher moral standard than others. Why? Because if even a semi-valid reason (and I'm not denying any reasons to be anti-Israeli here) exists for opposing a special group (like B'nai Brith), then antisemites can now justifiy their actions. Instead of appearing to hate someone because they're Jewish, they can hate under the umbrella of a semi-valid reason. If it's a more valid reason, then all the more so. In other words, not all opposition to certain Jewish groups is antisemitic, as you say. But that fact in itself doesn't mean that antisemitism doesn't exist.
Next, to your questioning of Sharon's assassinations. How does this differ from the Palestinian terrorist? The difference is two-fold. Firstly, Israel has an army and police units to (try to) prevent unruly crowds and attacks against random Palestinians. The Palestinian Authority has no such organizations aimed to preserve civilian order. And secondly, the terrorists aim at random targets, usually innocent civilians, while the Israeli assassinations are aimed at specific terrorist threats. It's a deep philisophical argument whether such assassinations are justifiable. If you're damn sure someone's out to kill you, are you entitled to pre-emptively take them out first? John Norton Moore, who directs the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia's law school said, "If one is lawfully engaged in armed hostility, it is not 'assassination' to target individuals who are combatants." and Air Force Col. Charles J. Duncan Jr., also a military lawyer, said, "Contrary to popular belief, neither international law nor U.S. domestic law prohibits the killing of those directing armed forces in war." "Nations have the right under international law to use force against terrorists."
Now regarding antisemitism, it is alive and well. Unfortunately Palestinians are being manipulated by their government to hate all Jews, and even to kill them. Notice in this following quote that it's not even Israelis they're being directed against, it's ALL Jews. I'm an American who's both Jewish and Buddhist. I don't know what I personally did to invoke the hatred of these guys, but when words like these are spoken, especially over radio/TV to massive quantities of people, you bet I'll take a stand against it.
On Oct. 14, 2000, Dr. Ahmad Abu Halabiya, Member of the PA appointed "Fatwa Council" and former acting Rector of the Islamic University in Gaza, said this on Palestinian Authority television.
"Have no mercy on the Jews, no matter where they are, in any country. Fight them, wherever you are. Wherever you meet them, kill them. Wherever you are, kill those Jews and those Americans who are like them and those who stand by them they are all in one trench, against the Arabs and the Muslims because they established Israel here, in the beating heart of the Arab world, in Palestine."
This is just one example, and there are many many more quotes like this. I believe it's highly irresponsible for government and religious figureheads to manipulate public opinions like this. But, as per your questions of antisemitism, quotes like this show it to be more prevalent than you'd perhaps like to think.
In regards to the other article you mention, why do many oppressed Muslims in the Middle East try to seek asylum in Israel? For instance, Iraqi Kurds, which are suffering and being killed by Hussein's government. They've come to Israel for protection, because they know they won't be discriminated against there (at least not as much as compared to other Arab countries).
In the first possibility, he's prevent the onslaught of Western imperialism by adhering to his fundamentalist Islamic or SaudiArabian/Afghani cultural beliefs. However, if this culture advocates or defends the unprovoked murder of 1000's of innocent lives, then I completely DISAGREE with his culture, and I think what he stands for is an insult to humanity. In that case, I have no sympathy for the impending influence of Western thought and ideals.
On the other hand, he might go to extremes to prevent the contamination of his pure culture. If that's the case, then he's already guilty himself of ruining his pristine society, but tainting it not with Western imperialist capitalism, but with ultraconservative fundamentalism. In this case, he's just as guilty as the parties he's trying to check. If so, then he has absolutely no qualms to hold against the West, and has no justification for any of his actions.
In either case, I don't see any rational view of his violence, and in either case, IMHO, he's guilty of some crimes against humanity in one form or another.