Also, even if the principle of free speach has any backing, Rackspace is not obliged to broadcast it for you.
If a company does something that I consider wrong, saying that they aren't legally obliged to do the right thing, doesn't rate as a defense of their behaviour to me.
Some of those advantages you list for the netbook are only true against an iPad, though. The story title says "tablet" but TFS summary says iPad. It's a bit of lazy editing there. So your comparisons against the iPad are bang on. Talk about tablets generally, and the picture is more complex.
Although this has changed maybe you could explain, until everyone complained, why Microsoft insisted on putting Google on page 2 or 3 of their search for other search engines downloader pages (or what it is called)? Of course it was still there, somewhere, Microsoft just made it a bastard to find. Now it is on page 1 but still, they did try to hide it.
I have no idea - I never saw that. It's certainly not the case right now as not only is Google the first result, but it's a link to my country-specific Google (the generic.com is just below it) and it provides direct links to all the different sections i.e. News, Videos, etc. in a cluster.
I'm afraid that I still don't see anything in your post that explains why the GP said my comments reminded him / her of the Mac Vs. PC ads. I just pointed out that while IE on Windows 7 comes with Google installed as one of the available search engines, the Google-funded Firefox omits Bing and that except for Usenet (where Google wins out) and images (where I personally find Bing's interface quite a lot nicer), both Search Engines return pretty much the same results. The Mac v. PC adverts were obnoxious in a number of ways so I want to know what similarity Raven64 thinks there is between my post and those ads.
I use Google for newsgroups, but Bing for everything else. I particularly prefer its image result handling. Again, your preferences may be different. But back when Bing came out and waves upon waves of people kept hating it as loudly as they could, I used to post a polite request for anyone to post a search query that returned relevant results in Google but not in Bing. Nobody, despite hundreds of posts saying how crap Bing was, ever actually took me up on it (or more likely they tried a couple of searches, found Bing gave them pretty much the same results as Google and then ignored my post). The only significant differences tend to be a few localised language-specific cases, I've found.
I'll say something about bias though. When I buy a laptop with Windows 7 on it, even after choosing IE, Google is still an option in the drop down list of search engines. When I install Firefox on something (the Google funded browser), Bing's not in there. I have to go to the Mozilla website and track down an extension to get Bing search available in Firefox and even then, updates to Firefox tend to reset things back to Google which is really irritating.
It's usually best if you're making a joke on/. that begins with anything other than "I for one welcome...", "In Soviet Russia..." or is itself entirely a quote from a Simpsons episode that was broadcast ten years ago, to give the poor/.'ers a helping clue such as beginning your post with "+++THIS POST IS INTENDED TO BE HUMOROUS+++".
"Radii" - plural of radius, as in the term used by NASA "solar radii" that they use in their published material on the probe. That's what the fuck "a radii" is.
Yeah..I think they were all making jokes and you responded with a bunch of serious data. You must be new here.
Whereas you are clearly an old-hand at Slashdot since you've progressed from not merely RTFA, to not even RTFC to which you're replying. Yeah - my analysis of why visiting the Sun at night isn't feasible due to limits on acelleration is entirely a serious matter.:)
I wouldn't say that YouTube has become "unusable" for me, but it's certainly become really fucking irritating. I spend half the time I'm watching something on YouTube irritatedly clicking to get rid of some add that's just popped over the bottom 20% of the video.
I don't see all the fuss. Why not just go at night?
If you bothered to read a bit more about the probe (yeah, it's Slashdot, who bothers to read?), you'd learn that the probe is going as close as 3 Solar Radii to the surface. The Sun's radius (it is correct to assume equatorial radius rather than mean radius for this purpose), is 6.955×10^5 km, meaning the probe will get as close as 2.087 x 10^6km at which point it states the solar radiation will have been sufficient to heat the probe to 2,550 degrees Fahrenheit.
Now, that radiation will not suddenly appear at a distance of 3 solar radii. The temperature is an accumulation of the radiation on the journey to that point as well as (and this is perhaps where you went wrong), that accumulated on the return journey up until the point that rate of heat absorption is exceeded by the rate of heat dissipation. What that means, is that although you propose "going at night" as a solution, the probe would in fact have to make it not only too a distance of 3 Solar Radii from the Sun during the hours of night, but also make the journey back again to a safe distance before morning. Even if they timed the mission during Winter (and this is irrelevant as the team are going for a May launch), you'd still face a limited window of around twelve hours. The rate of heat absorption from the Sun's energies will follow an inverse square law and I think it reasonable to consider significant heat build up therefore to kick in around 5 solar radii distance. Remember that heat dissipation in a vacuum is no trivial matter! So basically, in those twelve hours, you'd not only have to traverse a distance of 1.4*10^6km, but completely reverse your momentum to turn around and go back again. This is obviously unfeasible. Even if a spacecraft could be built that could take this sort of stress (strictly in the realms of sci-fi for now), you'd never carry sufficient fuel to generate this amount of energy.
True, you could launch your probe from the extreme North or South, where night lasts much longer, but polar launches are extremely extravagant users of fuel - it is pretty much a requirement to launch from the Equatorial band.
So in short, your idea is a nice fantasy, but impractical if you actually understand the Physics involved.
that might be convenient phrasing covering for a de facto bill of attainder
Indeed. It certainly looks that way. What makes the phrasing convenient is that it enables them to get away with this. I was just pointing out to all the people saying that a law can't name someone specificically, that if they read the (very short) article itself, they'd see that this sleight of hand has already been deployed to get around that. Although it isn't just a way of getting at Wikileaks. It's a way of getting at any such organization. It's problematic - there's no hard line between "journalism" and a leaks site. They're both delivering facts to the public, often the same facts. "Journalism" might be supposed to cover it with a little more commentary but how much or how little commentary pushes it from one category to another? I've seen papers say 'we're publishing here, unedited, the ____ documents" which is the same as what Wikileaks does. I've seen lots of commentary and analysis on things that wikileaks publishes, which is no more than journalism with sharing some of the content between journals. The phrasing on the bill specifically refers to websites which is a foolish distinction. Newspapers and news channels are now websites too, and I'd guesstimate ten years from now, they'll be largely exclusively online.
It doesn't name "Wikileaks". If anyone bothered to actually RTFA, you'd see the phrase: ""websites that serve as a conduit for the mass dissemination of secret documents."
I love how she's the press officer for a group that invited Assange to speak at one of their events [gawker.com] and then she hooked up with him and now crying rape/molestation.
Isn't that like going to a concert and sleeping with the lead singer and crying rape/molestation?
Er. No, it's not a bit like that. If it is, then I'm most definitely not accepting any invitations from you to speak at your conference.;)
A carrier battlegroup would make short work of any sort of Iranian naval blockade
I agree with your general summation of what the US military is good and bad at, as well as how far ahead of most other nations' militaries it is in terms of training and equipment. I think you don't understand how Iran could block the Strait of Hormuz however. For a start, we're not talking about Iranian ships sitting in the sea waiting for a US Carrier Group to sail up and shoot at them. Iran would mine the strait silly and launch missile attacks at anything that came close enough to Iran itself. If the US can't occupy and control the country, they certainly can't stop people bringing up missiles into range of commercial shipping. And mines are cheap and easy to deploy, hard to clear away, extremely hard to be certain you've cleared away, have progressed substantially from those spikey round balls you see in WWII photos and would take a lot longer for the US navy to clear up than for Iran to keep deploying. And oil tankers are cheap or quick to replace. I would guess that if Iran put four or five of them out of action, that alone would impact oil shipping significantly.
And carrier groups are an obsolescence, kept because there're so many jobs and money invested in the concept. They're not worthless, don't get me wrong, but they are very vulnerable and very costly. But they're eggshells armed with hammers. I refer you to the USS Cole bombing for a tragic illustration. 1,000lbs of explosives and there goes a naval destroyer. Bottle up a carrier group in the Strait of Hormuz and watch what a large and powerful nation such as Iran can do compared to what a single assailant in a small boat did to the USS Cole. You'll naturally point out that the US has changed its rules of engagement and would shoot a small boat approaching today. But naturally, Iran's military wont be fielding a lone person in a small boat. There will be missiles, mines, possibly divers and of course many more boats than just one. The USAF could bomb Iran for weeks at staggering cost and not remove its capability to destroy ships (especially commercial ships) in the Strait of Hormuz.
Anyway, the short answer is that if Iran tries to close the Strait of Hormuz, it has a very good chance of succeeding and the US government has already mortgaged its economy to the tune of $13trn, the US public's goodwill to the tune of however many bereaved families will never see their loved ones return from active duty now and they've certainly expended a lot of their political capital abroad with the Iraq invasion. The last thing the US government wants right now is to see oil prices go through the roof combined with having to take on a large, powerful and respected nation in war.
And if you think it's not antisemitic to propose that the Jewish state be abolished and its citizens put to death for their Jewishness, you've got bigger problems than just apologizing for racists with cheap, worn-out rhetorical sleights of hand.
"Rhetorical sleight of hand"? Is that what you use to dismiss a valid argument these days? Did anyone here propose that the Israeli people be put to death or are you making up other people's arguments for them so that you can more easily put them down? Note that one of us actually continues to draw a distinction between being Jewish and being a supporter of Israel whilst the other (you) keep trying to turn any criticism of Israel into an example of anti-jewish prejudice. That's the sleight of hand that is "cheap and worn out". The Israeli government and it's supporters do not get to talk on behalf of anyone other than themselves. I despise and have always despised people who pull the old "you're one of us or you're a traitor" routine on the basis of race, nationality or religion.
I also think it is obnoxious for a nation to call itself the nation of a particular religion or ethnicity, to determine admittance and citizenship on the basis of whether someone is of the right ethnicity or accepts a particular religion, is extremely bigotted. I repeat, being Jewish does not mean one condones the actions of the Israeli government and by the same principle, criticism of the Israeli government does not mean one has feelings one way or another about Jewish people generally. Repeated attempts by pro-Israeli types such as yourself here, to make Israeli and Jewish synonymous, are dangerous in that they are a major contributor to anti-semitism in the modern world.
If I say, we are going to Iran, raping their women, and burning down every mosque... and then the next day my colleague says "that's an allegory for causing problems for the *regime* of Iran..." how much credibility does that have?
No credibility at all. Now find me a citation where Ahmadinejad said: "we're going to go to Israel to rape their women and burn down every synagogue". Otherwise how much credibility does your made up analogy have?
They are also a "big kid" who beats up and oppresses women.
And the USA blows up families. I was asked why the US had a problem with Iran and answered. It has bugger all to do with how nice or not Iran is. If that were a problem for the US government, they wouldn't be propping up or tolerating worse regimes than Iran's. I try to avoid being forced into the camp of supporting one bully or another. Sometimes your enemy's enemy isn't very nice either.
Of course one reason for not raping someone is that you don't want to have sex with them.
I meant to comment on the above line, btw. This shows you really don't understand what I've been saying. I didn't say that a reason for not raping someone was because you didn't want to have sex with them. I said that a reason was that people don't want "sex" in the most abstract sense, but that people mean they want "mutual sex that both parties enjoy". You keep making arguments that don't seem to recognize a difference which is why you're having a problem following me. To most people, only the latter appeals. Unmutual sex, whether that is rape, or in some scenario where the other party simply was enjoying it due to lack of attraction, apathy or whatever, simply isn't what most people want when they say they want to have sex with someone. Your arguments don't recognize a difference, hence I assume you don't recognize a difference. Which is why I suggest you might need help.
All you've done is prove beyond doubt that you regard sex as being something one must either buy, trick or force out of a person. Your arguments all miss addressing my points because you take your view as an a priori. An assumption that the very existence of people who don't share that viewpoint invalidates.
You have a tragic view of the world, both in thinking the way you do about sex and in thinking most people share it. That you reinforce it to yourself by pretending others are victims of a "feminist fantasy", is awful.
Racism hasn't died out, either. If you think the root cause is the actions of the government, rather than finding a reason to justify a deep-seated hatred, you'd be sorely mistaken
You think it's not possible to despise the government of Israel for reasons other than anti-semitism? Wow. Sucks to be a Jewish person who dislikes the Israeli government. Seriously, the lowest trick the Israeli government and its supporters pull is to try to present it and being Jewish as synonymous. Saying race must align with a particular view, now that is racist.
That's interesting. Do you have a link to a source for this? Not doubting you - interested in reading more. It's possible I've become a bit out of touch.
Iran is not the crazy state that you hear about in the media. You can pretty much discount much of the mainstream media for actual assessments. For better analysis you want to read the financial news or paid risk analysis groups like Stratfor whose customers aren't after entertainment but actual assessments for their business and therefore have a critical incentive to deliver accurate information.
Doesn't mean we wont see military action however. Israel has a tactical advantage in being thought willing to make a unilateral strike against Iran, so whether or not they are, or whether they are merely bluffing, we cannot know. We can know that the US government considers it a real risk however, due to the frantic running around they've done trying to defuse the situation, sign up countries to support non-military options such as sanctions, trying to negotiate extra time in place of Israel's demands and, tellingly, media blitzes on how dastardly Iran is just in case they really do get sucked into a war by Israel.
It really does seem that only a balance of military power will reign in Israel's behaviour. Which is a terrible inditement of the Israeli government. The main concern is that Israel may attempt to prevent this happening.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, even if the principle of free speach has any backing, Rackspace is not obliged to broadcast it for you.
If a company does something that I consider wrong, saying that they aren't legally obliged to do the right thing, doesn't rate as a defense of their behaviour to me.
Some of those advantages you list for the netbook are only true against an iPad, though. The story title says "tablet" but TFS summary says iPad. It's a bit of lazy editing there. So your comparisons against the iPad are bang on. Talk about tablets generally, and the picture is more complex.
Although this has changed maybe you could explain, until everyone complained, why Microsoft insisted on putting Google on page 2 or 3 of their search for other search engines downloader pages (or what it is called)? Of course it was still there, somewhere, Microsoft just made it a bastard to find. Now it is on page 1 but still, they did try to hide it.
I have no idea - I never saw that. It's certainly not the case right now as not only is Google the first result, but it's a link to my country-specific Google (the generic .com is just below it) and it provides direct links to all the different sections i.e. News, Videos, etc. in a cluster.
I'm afraid that I still don't see anything in your post that explains why the GP said my comments reminded him / her of the Mac Vs. PC ads. I just pointed out that while IE on Windows 7 comes with Google installed as one of the available search engines, the Google-funded Firefox omits Bing and that except for Usenet (where Google wins out) and images (where I personally find Bing's interface quite a lot nicer), both Search Engines return pretty much the same results. The Mac v. PC adverts were obnoxious in a number of ways so I want to know what similarity Raven64 thinks there is between my post and those ads.
Yuck. I don't like being compared to those stupid Mac v. PC adverts. Are you saying that I'm saying... what? I'm not sure I understand the criticism.
I use Google for newsgroups, but Bing for everything else. I particularly prefer its image result handling. Again, your preferences may be different. But back when Bing came out and waves upon waves of people kept hating it as loudly as they could, I used to post a polite request for anyone to post a search query that returned relevant results in Google but not in Bing. Nobody, despite hundreds of posts saying how crap Bing was, ever actually took me up on it (or more likely they tried a couple of searches, found Bing gave them pretty much the same results as Google and then ignored my post). The only significant differences tend to be a few localised language-specific cases, I've found.
I'll say something about bias though. When I buy a laptop with Windows 7 on it, even after choosing IE, Google is still an option in the drop down list of search engines. When I install Firefox on something (the Google funded browser), Bing's not in there. I have to go to the Mozilla website and track down an extension to get Bing search available in Firefox and even then, updates to Firefox tend to reset things back to Google which is really irritating.
+++THIS POST IS INTENDED TO BE HUMOROUS+++
/. that begins with anything other than "I for one welcome...", "In Soviet Russia..." or is itself entirely a quote from a Simpsons episode that was broadcast ten years ago, to give the poor /.'ers a helping clue such as beginning your post with "+++THIS POST IS INTENDED TO BE HUMOROUS+++".
It's usually best if you're making a joke on
Ummm what the fuck is a radii?
"Radii" - plural of radius, as in the term used by NASA "solar radii" that they use in their published material on the probe. That's what the fuck "a radii" is.
Yeah..I think they were all making jokes and you responded with a bunch of serious data. You must be new here.
Whereas you are clearly an old-hand at Slashdot since you've progressed from not merely RTFA, to not even RTFC to which you're replying. Yeah - my analysis of why visiting the Sun at night isn't feasible due to limits on acelleration is entirely a serious matter. :)
Muppet.
I wouldn't say that YouTube has become "unusable" for me, but it's certainly become really fucking irritating. I spend half the time I'm watching something on YouTube irritatedly clicking to get rid of some add that's just popped over the bottom 20% of the video.
I don't see all the fuss. Why not just go at night?
If you bothered to read a bit more about the probe (yeah, it's Slashdot, who bothers to read?), you'd learn that the probe is going as close as 3 Solar Radii to the surface. The Sun's radius (it is correct to assume equatorial radius rather than mean radius for this purpose), is 6.955×10^5 km, meaning the probe will get as close as 2.087 x 10^6km at which point it states the solar radiation will have been sufficient to heat the probe to 2,550 degrees Fahrenheit.
Now, that radiation will not suddenly appear at a distance of 3 solar radii. The temperature is an accumulation of the radiation on the journey to that point as well as (and this is perhaps where you went wrong), that accumulated on the return journey up until the point that rate of heat absorption is exceeded by the rate of heat dissipation. What that means, is that although you propose "going at night" as a solution, the probe would in fact have to make it not only too a distance of 3 Solar Radii from the Sun during the hours of night, but also make the journey back again to a safe distance before morning. Even if they timed the mission during Winter (and this is irrelevant as the team are going for a May launch), you'd still face a limited window of around twelve hours. The rate of heat absorption from the Sun's energies will follow an inverse square law and I think it reasonable to consider significant heat build up therefore to kick in around 5 solar radii distance. Remember that heat dissipation in a vacuum is no trivial matter! So basically, in those twelve hours, you'd not only have to traverse a distance of 1.4*10^6km, but completely reverse your momentum to turn around and go back again. This is obviously unfeasible. Even if a spacecraft could be built that could take this sort of stress (strictly in the realms of sci-fi for now), you'd never carry sufficient fuel to generate this amount of energy. True, you could launch your probe from the extreme North or South, where night lasts much longer, but polar launches are extremely extravagant users of fuel - it is pretty much a requirement to launch from the Equatorial band.
So in short, your idea is a nice fantasy, but impractical if you actually understand the Physics involved.
the only impediment to attending Harvard is their academic performance.
You were really getting my hopes up there, until that last sentence.
that might be convenient phrasing covering for a de facto bill of attainder
Indeed. It certainly looks that way. What makes the phrasing convenient is that it enables them to get away with this. I was just pointing out to all the people saying that a law can't name someone specificically, that if they read the (very short) article itself, they'd see that this sleight of hand has already been deployed to get around that. Although it isn't just a way of getting at Wikileaks. It's a way of getting at any such organization. It's problematic - there's no hard line between "journalism" and a leaks site. They're both delivering facts to the public, often the same facts. "Journalism" might be supposed to cover it with a little more commentary but how much or how little commentary pushes it from one category to another? I've seen papers say 'we're publishing here, unedited, the ____ documents" which is the same as what Wikileaks does. I've seen lots of commentary and analysis on things that wikileaks publishes, which is no more than journalism with sharing some of the content between journals. The phrasing on the bill specifically refers to websites which is a foolish distinction. Newspapers and news channels are now websites too, and I'd guesstimate ten years from now, they'll be largely exclusively online.
Yes.
It doesn't name "Wikileaks". If anyone bothered to actually RTFA, you'd see the phrase: ""websites that serve as a conduit for the mass dissemination of secret documents."
I love how she's the press officer for a group that invited Assange to speak at one of their events [gawker.com] and then she hooked up with him and now crying rape/molestation. Isn't that like going to a concert and sleeping with the lead singer and crying rape/molestation?
Er. No, it's not a bit like that. If it is, then I'm most definitely not accepting any invitations from you to speak at your conference. ;)
I agree with your general summation of what the US military is good and bad at, as well as how far ahead of most other nations' militaries it is in terms of training and equipment. I think you don't understand how Iran could block the Strait of Hormuz however. For a start, we're not talking about Iranian ships sitting in the sea waiting for a US Carrier Group to sail up and shoot at them. Iran would mine the strait silly and launch missile attacks at anything that came close enough to Iran itself. If the US can't occupy and control the country, they certainly can't stop people bringing up missiles into range of commercial shipping. And mines are cheap and easy to deploy, hard to clear away, extremely hard to be certain you've cleared away, have progressed substantially from those spikey round balls you see in WWII photos and would take a lot longer for the US navy to clear up than for Iran to keep deploying. And oil tankers are cheap or quick to replace. I would guess that if Iran put four or five of them out of action, that alone would impact oil shipping significantly.
And carrier groups are an obsolescence, kept because there're so many jobs and money invested in the concept. They're not worthless, don't get me wrong, but they are very vulnerable and very costly. But they're eggshells armed with hammers. I refer you to the USS Cole bombing for a tragic illustration. 1,000lbs of explosives and there goes a naval destroyer. Bottle up a carrier group in the Strait of Hormuz and watch what a large and powerful nation such as Iran can do compared to what a single assailant in a small boat did to the USS Cole. You'll naturally point out that the US has changed its rules of engagement and would shoot a small boat approaching today. But naturally, Iran's military wont be fielding a lone person in a small boat. There will be missiles, mines, possibly divers and of course many more boats than just one. The USAF could bomb Iran for weeks at staggering cost and not remove its capability to destroy ships (especially commercial ships) in the Strait of Hormuz.
Anyway, the short answer is that if Iran tries to close the Strait of Hormuz, it has a very good chance of succeeding and the US government has already mortgaged its economy to the tune of $13trn, the US public's goodwill to the tune of however many bereaved families will never see their loved ones return from active duty now and they've certainly expended a lot of their political capital abroad with the Iraq invasion. The last thing the US government wants right now is to see oil prices go through the roof combined with having to take on a large, powerful and respected nation in war.
"Rhetorical sleight of hand"? Is that what you use to dismiss a valid argument these days? Did anyone here propose that the Israeli people be put to death or are you making up other people's arguments for them so that you can more easily put them down? Note that one of us actually continues to draw a distinction between being Jewish and being a supporter of Israel whilst the other (you) keep trying to turn any criticism of Israel into an example of anti-jewish prejudice. That's the sleight of hand that is "cheap and worn out". The Israeli government and it's supporters do not get to talk on behalf of anyone other than themselves. I despise and have always despised people who pull the old "you're one of us or you're a traitor" routine on the basis of race, nationality or religion.
I also think it is obnoxious for a nation to call itself the nation of a particular religion or ethnicity, to determine admittance and citizenship on the basis of whether someone is of the right ethnicity or accepts a particular religion, is extremely bigotted. I repeat, being Jewish does not mean one condones the actions of the Israeli government and by the same principle, criticism of the Israeli government does not mean one has feelings one way or another about Jewish people generally. Repeated attempts by pro-Israeli types such as yourself here, to make Israeli and Jewish synonymous, are dangerous in that they are a major contributor to anti-semitism in the modern world.
No credibility at all. Now find me a citation where Ahmadinejad said: "we're going to go to Israel to rape their women and burn down every synagogue". Otherwise how much credibility does your made up analogy have?
They are also a "big kid" who beats up and oppresses women.
And the USA blows up families. I was asked why the US had a problem with Iran and answered. It has bugger all to do with how nice or not Iran is. If that were a problem for the US government, they wouldn't be propping up or tolerating worse regimes than Iran's. I try to avoid being forced into the camp of supporting one bully or another. Sometimes your enemy's enemy isn't very nice either.
Of course one reason for not raping someone is that you don't want to have sex with them.
I meant to comment on the above line, btw. This shows you really don't understand what I've been saying. I didn't say that a reason for not raping someone was because you didn't want to have sex with them. I said that a reason was that people don't want "sex" in the most abstract sense, but that people mean they want "mutual sex that both parties enjoy". You keep making arguments that don't seem to recognize a difference which is why you're having a problem following me. To most people, only the latter appeals. Unmutual sex, whether that is rape, or in some scenario where the other party simply was enjoying it due to lack of attraction, apathy or whatever, simply isn't what most people want when they say they want to have sex with someone. Your arguments don't recognize a difference, hence I assume you don't recognize a difference. Which is why I suggest you might need help.
All you've done is prove beyond doubt that you regard sex as being something one must either buy, trick or force out of a person. Your arguments all miss addressing my points because you take your view as an a priori. An assumption that the very existence of people who don't share that viewpoint invalidates.
You have a tragic view of the world, both in thinking the way you do about sex and in thinking most people share it. That you reinforce it to yourself by pretending others are victims of a "feminist fantasy", is awful.
Racism hasn't died out, either. If you think the root cause is the actions of the government, rather than finding a reason to justify a deep-seated hatred, you'd be sorely mistaken
You think it's not possible to despise the government of Israel for reasons other than anti-semitism? Wow. Sucks to be a Jewish person who dislikes the Israeli government. Seriously, the lowest trick the Israeli government and its supporters pull is to try to present it and being Jewish as synonymous. Saying race must align with a particular view, now that is racist.
That's interesting. Do you have a link to a source for this? Not doubting you - interested in reading more. It's possible I've become a bit out of touch.
Not to mention expertise for building more and cheaper plants later on.
Iran is not the crazy state that you hear about in the media. You can pretty much discount much of the mainstream media for actual assessments. For better analysis you want to read the financial news or paid risk analysis groups like Stratfor whose customers aren't after entertainment but actual assessments for their business and therefore have a critical incentive to deliver accurate information.
Doesn't mean we wont see military action however. Israel has a tactical advantage in being thought willing to make a unilateral strike against Iran, so whether or not they are, or whether they are merely bluffing, we cannot know. We can know that the US government considers it a real risk however, due to the frantic running around they've done trying to defuse the situation, sign up countries to support non-military options such as sanctions, trying to negotiate extra time in place of Israel's demands and, tellingly, media blitzes on how dastardly Iran is just in case they really do get sucked into a war by Israel.
It really does seem that only a balance of military power will reign in Israel's behaviour. Which is a terrible inditement of the Israeli government. The main concern is that Israel may attempt to prevent this happening.